Crim 4th Week

People vs. De la Cruz

61 Phil. 344 (1935)

Facts:
 Evening of February 18, 1934, the defendant Remedios de la Cruz, with Francisco Ramos and
hiswife, Vrigida Vistada; his sister Baltazara Ramos; and a woman named Consuelo or Natividad
Santoyo went to a wake in honor of one Sion.
 At about 9 pm, the defendant and her friends started home.
 They were followed about 5 minutes later by the deceased Francisco Rivera who was
accompanied by Enrique Bautista.
 Rivera and Bautista overtook defendant‘s party.
 When they reached a narrow part of the path, Rivera went ahead of Bautista. At that time, the
members of the defendant‘s party were walking in single file. Baltazara Ramos was in the lead
and the defendant was the hindmost. The defendant was about 2 brazas from the person
immediately ahead of her.
 Defendant‘s testimony: a man suddenly threw his arms behind, caught hold of her breasts and
kissed her, and seized her in her private parts; that she tried to free herself, but he held her and
tried to throw her down; that when she felt weak and could do nothing more against the
strength of the man, she got a knife from her pocket (she was engaged in selling fruits), opened
it and stabbed him in defense of her honor.
 That the man who attacked her did not say anything; that she asked him who he was but he did
not answer; that when she was assaulted she cried for help; that when she was with her
assailant during the struggle she could scarcely recognize his face.
 Francisco Ramos heard someone cry out ―Aruy, Dios mio.‖ He went back and found that
Francisco Rivera had been stabbed under the right breast. According to Ramos, it took him
2minutes to go back towards the house of mourning. He overtook her. She had a knife in her
hand. When they reached the house, the defendant struck the knife into a table and said that
she stabbed Rivera because he embraced her.
 The wounded man was taken to the hospital, where he died the next afternoon.
 It should be noted that the deceased had been making love to the defendant and also to
another girl.

Issue: Whether or not De la Cruz‘ killing of Rivera may be justified by defense of honor.

Held: Yes.
 She was justified in making use of the pocket-knife in repelling what she believed to be an attack
upon her honor since she had no other means of defending herself.
 Mistake of Facts: A person is not criminally responsible when, by reason of a mistake of facts, he
does an act for which he would be exempt if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but
would constitute murder if he had known the true state of facts at the time, provided that the
ignorance or mistake of act was not due to negligence or bad faith
 The appellant claims to have cried for help, but so far as the record shows her cries were not
heard by any of her companions. Whether she did in fact cry for help, as claimed by her, or
failed to do so because of the suddenness with which the deceased grabbed her and the fright
 which it naturally caused, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, we still think
she is exempt from criminal liability.

People v. Jaurigue et al, C.A. No. 384 (1946)

Facts. Victim Amado was courting Avelina. In one occasion, while Avelina’s cousing washed the latter’s
handkerchief, Amado stole it. Amado proposed her love to Avelina. Avelina refused. Amado grabbed
her, kissed her, and touched her chest. To this, Avelina slapped him, threw fist blows, and kicked him.
Avelina told her mother the next day. Her mother gave her a fan knife for protection.

Not long after, Amado intruded in Avelina’s house while she was asleep. He kissed her hand which woke
her up. She screamed for help, he hid under the bed. Her parents arrive in the room. He apologized.

Days after, Avelina and her family attended services in the Seventh Day Adventists chapel. Avelina’s
father got there first, Avelina followed and sat on one of the benches. Amado saw Avelina, sat beside
her and put his hand in her right thigh. Avelina tried to get her knife with right hand. Amado held her
right hand to stop her. Avelina quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado in the
neck.

Amado staggered. Avelina’s father saw Amado bleeding. Her father asked why she did it, she said she
could not endure it anymore. CFI found Avelina guilty of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of
having committed the act in a place of worship, inter alia. Avelina appealed.

Issue. Is the AC of offending a place of worship applicable? -No

Ratio. While it is true that the crime occurred in a chapel, this does not necessarily denote the
attachment of said AC. As per law, for a proper appreciation of AC of having committed the crime in a
place of worship, there should be premeditation that the offender intended to do it in the place of
worship. As the facts show, Avelina did not plan to kill Amado nor to kill him in a chapel. Avelina had in
her case the fan knife just for protection whenever and wherever she might need it. It just so happened
that Amado provoked her in the chapel and that was where Avelina could not bear it anymore. With this
in mind, the present court ruled that the lower court erred in assigning the AC in its judgment against
Avelina.

PEOPLE v APOLINAR C.A., 38 O.G. 2870

The accused, while looking over his land and believing that the victim had stolen his palay, shouted
for the latter to stop, fired his gun in the air and then at the victim, causing the latter’s death.
Defense of property is not of such importance as the right to life and it can be invoked only as a
justifying circumstance when it is coupled with an attack on the person of the one entrusted with the
said property.

CONRADO CANO Y SAMPANG v. PEOPLE, GR No. 155258

Facts:
 In the morning of May 31, 1993... at about 7:00 o'clock... victim Orlando Cano arrived at the
Rush ID Booth of petitioner... in Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila
 The victim asked... an employee of petitioner, where the latter was
  The victim angrily said that petitioner was pakialamero. He also said, "Putang ina niya! Why did
he Xerox our permit." Since petitioner had not yet arrived,... the victim returned to his own Rush
ID booth located several meters away... at about 9:30 a.m., petitioner arrived at his Rush ID
booth. After giving supplies to Olivario, petitioner said he was going to the City Hall.
 He faced the mirror and started to comb his hair. The victim suddenly arrived and held
petitioner on the shoulders and turned him... around. The victim asked him, "Anong gusto mong
mangyari?" Accused did not answer
 The victim tried to stab petitioner with a balisong but the latter was able to run and lock himself
inside the dark room inside his booth.
 The victim followed him and tried to open the door of the dark room and shouted, "Lumabas ka
diyan! Putang ina mo, papatayin... kita!"
 The victim tried to force the door open by kicking it and stabbed the door with his balisong.
 The door of the dark room suddenly opened and petitioner emerged carrying a pair of scissors.
The victim and petitioner struck at each... other. During the scuffle, the scissors fell from
petitioner's hand. He then grabbed the knife of the victim who, in turn, picked up the scissors.
They again attacked each other.
 The victim fell and his wife rushed to his side. Petitioner fled from the scene. The victim's wife
asked for assistance from the people in the vicinity. The victim was then loaded on a jeep and
was rushed to a hospital, but he was dead on arrival.
 For self-defense to prosper, petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence the
following elements: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the... part of
the person defending himself.

Issues: whether or not petitioner killed his brother in self-defense.

Ruling:
 contrary to the findings of both the appellate and trial courts, there are facts extant on record
which clearly shows that it was an armed victim who initially attacked the petitioner with a
balisong
 Petitioner Conrado Cano y Sampang is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him and his
immediate release from custody is ordered

Principles:
 self-defense must rest firstly on proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. If no
unlawful aggression has been proved, no self-defense may be successfully... pleaded
 . . . the reasonableness of the means employed to repel an actual and positive aggression should
not be gauged by the standards that the mind of a judge, seated in a swivel chair in a
comfortable office, free from care and unperturbed in his security, may... coolly and
dispassionately set down. The judge must place himself in the position of the object of the
aggression or his defender and consider his feelings, his reactions to the events or
circumstances. It is easy for one to state that the object of the aggression or his... defender
could have taken such action, adopted such remedy, or resorted to other means. But the
defendant has no time for cool deliberation, no equanimity of mind to find the most reasonable
action, remedy or means to. He must act from impulse, without time for deliberation.
 The reasonableness of the means employed must be gauged by the defender's hopes and
sincere beliefs, not by the judge's.
People v. Boholst-Caballero (1974)

Facts: (According to Boholst)

 The couple had a rough marriage. Soon after, Caballero left, and Boholst and her daughter was
left to the support of her parents.
 One night, after carolling, Boholst met Caballero who upon seeing her, manhandled her. There
were an exchange of words and later on, Caballero was already holding her by the hair and
slapping her face until her nose bled.
 Caballero pushed her to the grounds, and to stop herself from falling, she held on to his waist.
As she did so, she grasped the knife tucked by the left side of his body.
 She fell to the ground then Caballero knelt over her and chocked her saying that he will kill her.
Because she had no other recourse, she pulled out the knife of her husband and thrust it at him,
hitting the left side of his body near the belt line.
 When she was finally free, she ran home and on the way, she threw the knife.
 In the morning, she surrendered to the police and presented the torn and blood-stained dress
she wore that night. The police officer accompanied her to look for the weapon but when it can
no longer be found, she was advised to just give any knife and she did (now marked Exhibit C).

(According to the Prosecution’s witness, Caballero’s friend)

 On the night of the incident, Boholst was already waiting for Caballero, and when he
approached her, she suddenly stabbed Francisco her with the knife marked by the prosecution
as Exhibit C.
 His friends brought him to the hospital where he was later interviewed by the police officer
confirming that his wife stabbed him. But because he needs blood transfusion, he needs to be
transferred to another hospital. He died on the way.

Issue: Did Boholst act in legitimate defense of her person?

Held: Yes.

Ratio decidendi:

o The RTC held that Boholst’s evidence was not clear and convincing:
 Testimony improbable as brought out by her demonstration during the trial
 No wound or injury on her body treated by the physician
 That the knife used was a Moro knife and not exhibit C is incredible
 Contradictory statements
 Has motive: husband’s abandonment
o The court departs from the general rule that appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial
court on facts testified by the witnesses
o The trial court judge overlooked an important piece of evidence that could confirm the narration of
the appellant: location of the wound inflicted on the victim.
o As she was flat on her back and and her husband choking her, she had no other recourse but to pull
out the knife inserted at the left side of her husband’s belt and stabbed him hitting the left back
portion just below the waist, as also described by the attending physician as the left lumbar region.
o The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity from where the knife was drawn is a strong indication
of the truth of her testimony, for as she lay on the ground with her husband bent over her it was
quite natural for her right hand to get hold of the knife tucked in the left side of the man’s belt and
thrust it at that section of the body nearest to her hand at the moment.
o This particular location of the wound negates the credibility of the prosecution witness that is if it
was true, then the wound should have been directed towards the front of the body of the victim
rather than at his back.
o The Court finds the location of the wound as a valuable circumstance which confirms the plea of
self-defense.
o Appellant also lacks motive. She declared that she still loved her husband and for several months
prior to the incident, she appeared resigned to her fate.
o She also surrendered herself immediately the morning after.
o The court also believed that the knife must be a blade of six inches as stated by Boholst for it to
penetrate through the left lumbar region to the victim’s large intestine and cause the discharge of
fecal matter. >.<
o All the elements of self-defense are present:
 unlawful aggression as pointed out above
 reasonable necessity for means employed: woman strangled and chocked by a furious
aggressor, rendered almost unconcious by the strong pressure on her throat. What is vital is the
imminent peril to Boholst’s life. The knife afforded appellant the only reasonable means with
which she could free and save herself. Necessity knows no law.
 Lack of sufficient provocation: Boholst did not provoke Caballero. She gave a valid excuse that
she went carolling to earn money for their child.

Boholst acted in the legitimate defense of her person. Judgment of conviction set aside. Acquitted.

OLBINAR VS. C.A AND JIMENEZ G.R. NO. 76235 January 21, 1991

FACTS: In the Municipal Circuit Court of Babak-Samal, Davao Province, Procerfina Olbinar was indicted,
arraigned and tried for the felony of serious physical injuries committed with the use of a bolo against
the person of Fernando Jimenez on or about June 8, 1980 in Barangay Caliclic Babak, Davao del Norte
for trying to defend his husband Emiliano Olbinar while mauling with Romeo Cahilog and the
respondent was trying break up the fight. Petitioner appeals in the C.A, that the decision guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the felony charged rendered in the court on June 29, 1982 be reversed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Olbinar could be credited to Justifying Circumstances.

RULING: Yes. Procerfina had acted in justifiable defense of her husband in the situation in which she had
found herself, she was justified in believing that her husband was the victim of an unlawful aggression
by two (2) men, who had gotten the better of him and had already succeeded in bloodying his face and
dropping him to the ground; she had no way of knowing if her husband had given provocation for the
attack; she herself had not given any such provocation; and the means employed by her were not in the
premises unreasonable considering that without any weapon, she was no match for either of the
assailants, much less both of them.
PEOPLE v. ANCHETA
November 29, 1938 G.R. No. L-45344 66 Phil 638

FACTS:
At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, all the fifteen persons originally included as accused
in this case, were members of a constabulary detachment in the municipal district of Balabac,
Province of Palawan. The appellant Ancheta, with the rank of third lieutenant, was their commander.
The
appellant Del Rosario was a sergeant, while the appellant Gaspi was a private. Ancheta became engaged
who belonged to one of the most prominent families in that municipal district. Bibiana had two brothers
named Cirilo and Rufo. About six months, prior to the occurence of the events which gave rise to this
case,
the engagement of Ancheta to Bibiana was broken. Whether because of this rupture or some other
reason,
the relations between Ancheta and the Sanson brothers appeared to be quite strained. The Sanson
family
was running a store located on the ground floor of their house facing the main street. On that fateful
Sunday morning, January 13, 1935, Bibiana, her two brothers, and the deceased Salazar were gathered
in
the store. After the mass and while passing in front of the store, Ancheta was assaulted and beaten by
the
Sanson brother and and received multiple bruises and cuts about the face. In the course of the scuffle
Ancheta fell down, and while Cirilo grappled with him, Rufo continued to box him. Ancheta carried a
pistol
on his waist, and while he was thus being attacked by the Sanson brothers, the deceased Salazar took
the
pistol and kept it. The evidence is irreconcilably in conflict as to what transpired afterwards. It is likewise
in
conflict as to what motivated the assault perpetrated on Ancheta by the Sanson brothers.
This case grew out of an affray which took place in a small and isolated community, the municipal
district of
Balabac, Province of Palawan. Appellants, with twelve others, all members of the constabular, were
charge
in the Court of First Instance of Palawan with having murdered Guillermo Salazar who was at the time
the
justice of the peace of the said municipal district.
Upon motion of the prosecution, one of the accused, Isaac de Guzman, was excluded from the
information and used as a state witness. After due trial, the court found the appellants Isidoro del
Rosario
and Benito Gaspi guilty of the crime charged, as principals, and the appellant Vicente P. Ancheta, as
accomplice, and sentenced each of the first two to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and the last
the
penalty of not less than six years and one day of prision mayor and not more than twelve years and one
day of reclusion temporal. The three appellants were further sentenced to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Guillermo Salazar in the sum of P1,000, pro rata, to suffer the other accessory penalties
prescribed by law, and to pay the costs. The eleven remaining accused were acquitted.
The trial court held that there was no proof of conspiracy despite the information alleged that the
fifteen accused conspired to kill Salazar, According to the findings of the court, Salazar was shot and
killed
by Gaspi while the former was being assaulted by Del Rosario; and although there was no expressed
finding of conspiracy between these two appellants, they were both found guilty of the alleged crime, as
principals. The appellant Ancheta was found guilty, as accomplice, for having failed to restrain his
coappellants from the commission of the alleged criminal act. The Solicitor-General maintains that the
appellant Ancheta, like his two co-appellants, is guilty of murder, as principal.
The Solicitor-General takes the view that the appellants were engaged in the commission of an
unlawful act when Salazar was shot and killed by Gaspi.

ISSUE: Whether or not Vicente Ancheta is liable as either accomplice or principal to the crime of Murder

RULING: No. Vicente Ancheta must be acquitted. It is undisputed that the evidence fails to show that
there
was even an attempt on the part of any of the soldiers to shoot anyone of the Sanson brothers. What
the
evidence for the prosecution tends to show is that upon seeing the Sanson brothers, Ancheta wanted to
shoot them, but was prevented by Del Rosario and Baquiao. Granting this to be true, it reveals that Del
Rosario and Baquiao who, as sergeant and corporal, respectively, were in charge of the expedition sent
out
to arrest the Sanson brothers and Salazar, preserved their self-control, and did not run amuck, as some
of
the witnesses for the prosecution would have us believe. That Gaspi shot Salazar in defense of Del
Rosario's life is, we believe, established by a preponderance of evidence. Gaspi, is, therefore, except
from
criminal liability. (Revised Penal Code, article 11, clause 3.) It follows that Ancheta and Del Rosario must
also be acquitted.
Upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence in this case, we are inclined to believe that, in convicting the
appellants, the trial court was unduly influenced, unconsciously no doubt, by the local atmosphere
which
seems to have been strongly unfavorable to the appellants. This is indicated by the facts that the
appellants
and their codefendants in the court below were even prosecuted and convicted for the crime of
sedition,
which action the Solicitor-General, upon a more calm and careful review of the evidence, later admitted
to
have been unwarranted, when he asked for a reversal of the judgment of conviction for the said crime
of
sedition. While it may appear to the mind of the average person that there was an altogether excessive
show of force on the part of the members of the constabulary involved in this case when they effected
the
arrest of the Sanson brothers and Salazar, we must bear in mind that we are dealing here with men who
were trained to take no chances in an emergency and to uphold their authority by force of arms. And
while
we may not approved of their conduct in this particular instance, we must not allow such consideration
to
affect our judgment as to their guilt or innocence of the particular crime now imputed to them. The
judgment
appealed from must be reversed, and the appellants acquitted.

PEOPLE v. NORMA HERNANDEZ (1959)

FACTS:

 Vivencio Lascano, 19 y/o, started courting appellant, Maria Norma Hernandez and after months
of courtship, appellant finally accepted Vivencio. On the same date, she asked him to bring his
parents over her home so that they could talk about their marriage.
 When Vivencio and his parents went to her house, they brought chickens and goats and they
agreed to buy a wedding dress, 2 vestidas, shoes, P20 for the sponsors and to repair the uncle’s
roof.
 While the celebration was going on, appellant was nowhere to be found. Vivencio and his
parents waited but she never showed up thus causing them great shame and humiliation.
 Norma Hernandez averred that Vivencio was really courting her but that she wasn’t really in
love with him. Her parents tried to persuade her to accept the proposal and that she only
accepted it out of obedience to her parents and the uncle’s insistence.
 Before Vivencio’s parents came to their home, she already counselled them not to bring the
chickens and that they should not regret whatever may happen later.
 Appellant said she felt torture because she wasn’t honestly in love with Vivencio and so she
decided to leave home as last recourse to prevent the marriage.
 Appellant’s parents also corroborated her testimony.
 RTC convicted her of serious slander by deed because she purposely and deliberately fled to
prevent celebration of marriage. Thus, she appealed.

ISSUE: WON Norma Hernadez should be convicted on the ground of serious slander by deed

HELD:

Court reversed the RTC judgment and acquitted the appellant.

RATIO:

 Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander hasn’t been proven. There is no malice in the
act of the appellant changing her mind. She was merely exercising her right not to give her
consent the marriage after mature consideration.
 Furthermore, there were no strained relations existing between the complainant & appellant
before the incident. There always existed good relations between them for they were
neighbours so it cannot be sustained that appellant was motivated by spite or ill-will in
deliberately frustrating the marriage.
 Appellant has the privilege to reconsider her previous commitment to marry and it would be
utterly inconsistent to convict her for slander by deed simply because she desisted in continuing
with the marriage. If she would be liable then that would be tantamount to compelling her to
go into a marriage without her free consent.
 Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless marriage. (Art. 11
par.4, RPC)
People vs Delima

Facts: Lorenzo Napilon escaped from the jail. Some days afterwards, policeman Felipe Delima found him
in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance, and
demanded his surrender. Napilon answered with a stroke of his lance. Delima dodged, it, and to impose
his authority fired his revolver, but the bullet did not hit him. Napilon ran away, without parting with his
weapon. Delima went after him and fired again his revolver, this time hitting and killing him. Delima was
tried and convicted for homicide and sentenced to reclusion temporal and the accessory penalties.

Issue: Whether the killing was done in the performance of duty

Held: The killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was under the obligation to
surrender, and had no right, after evading service of his sentence, to commit assault and disobedience
with a weapon in the hand, which compelled the policeman to resort to such an extreme means, which,
although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the circumstances.

PEOPLE VS. LAGATA (1949)

FACTS:

 The accused, Ignacio Lagata, a provincial guard of Catbalogan, Samar, was in charge of 6
prisoners (Jesus, Tipace, Eusebio, Mariano, Labong & Abria) assigned to work in the capitol plaza
of Samar.
 Lagata ordered the prisoners to go to the nursery to pick up gabi. Not long afterwards, they
were called to assemble. Epifanio Labong was missing so Lagata ordered the 5 remaining
prisoners to go look for him.
 Eusebio Abria said that while they were gathering gabi, he heard 3 shots. He was wounded by
the 2nd one. They were already assembled by the 1st shot and that he did not see Tipace being
shot. He said he ran away because he was afraid that he might be shot again and that his
companions were also probably scared and that is why they ran.
 Another prisoner, Mariano Ibañez stated that Epifanio Labong did not answer their call so
Ignacio Lagata ordered to go look for him in the mountain. He said that Abria went to the
camote plantation and found footprints and called on Lagata to inform him about the footprints.
When Abria told Lagata of the flattened grass and that he was unable to look for Labong, Ignacio
Lagata fired at him and he was hit on his left arm. Abria told Lagata he was wounded and in
turn, Lagata told them to assemble. Once they were assembled, Lagata cocked his gun and shot
Ceferino Tipace. Mariano said that when he saw Tipace was shot, he ran away because he also
could have been shot.
 Eustaquio Galet, another detainee, received good treatment from Lagata though his testimony
corroborated those of the other prisoners.
 Pedro Mayuga, chief of Samar Provincial Hospital & Gilberto Rosales, Sanitary Division president,
verified the gunshot wound and that the death of Tipace resulted therein.
 Ignacio Lagata, however, said that he fired his gun because the prisoners were running far from
him when he already ordered them to stop. He said that he would be the one in jail if a prisoner
escaped under his custody. Furthermore, he would be discharged from duty like the others. He
was hopeless already. Moreover, the picking up of gabi was not part of the prisoner’s work.
Issue: WON Appellant was entitled to the benefit of mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying
circumstance

HELD:

Court ruled that Lagata should be sentenced for homicide and serious physical injuries.
Appellant was entitled to the benefit of mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance.
(Art.11 par.5, RPC)

RATIO:

 It was clear that Lagata had absolutely no reason to fire at Tipace. The record does not show
that Tipace was bent on committing any act of aggression or that he attempted to escape.
 According to Lagata himself, Tipace was running towards and around him. How could anyone
intending to escape run towards and around the very guard one was supposed to escape from?
 Even if Lagata sincerely believed that he acted in the performance of his duties, the
circumstances show that there was no necessity for him to fire directly against the prisoners as
to wound them seriously and even kill one of them.
 While custodians should take care for prisoners not to escape, only ABSOLUTE NECESSITY would
authorize them to fire against them.