CRIMINAL LAW I CASE DIGESTS - 3.0 Art. 11 PDF

FACTS/ISSUES/HELD DOCTRINE
ARTICLE 3. DEFINITION OF A FELONY Definitions.—
Acts and omissions

punishable by law are
felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed

not only be means of
deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the

act is performed with
deliberate intent and there
is fault when the wrongful
act results from
imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight, or lack
of skill.
a. DOLO VS. CULPA
People vs. Ah Chong Laws: Article 1 RPC, Art
FACTS: 3 RPC, Article 8 RPC
• August 14, 1908 About 10 pm: Ah Chong, a cook was suddenly
awakened by some trying to force open the door of the room. He sat up in Culpa:
bed and called out twice, "Who is there?" He heard no answer and was When the act or omission
convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by of the offender is not
someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. The defendant, fearing malicious. When the act
that the intruder was a robber or a thief, leaped to his feet and called out. performed is
"If you enter the room, I will kill you." At that moment he was struck just unintentional. Wrongful
above the knee by the edge of the chair (thought to be an unlawful act resulted from
aggression) which had been placed against the door. Seizing a common imprudence, negligence,
kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out lack of foresight or lack
wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate, of skill.
Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the spirit of mischief was
playing a trick on him The defendant at the time
• Seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers and acted in good faith,
ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds. without malice, or
• There had been several robberies not long prior to the date of the criminal intent, in the
incident, one of which took place in a house where he was employed as belief that he was doing
cook so he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection. no more than exercising
• trial court held it as simple homicide his legitimate right of
ISSUE: self-defense; that had the
WON defendant can be held criminally responsible who, by reason of a facts been as he believed
mistake as to the facts, does an act for which he would be exempt from them to be he would have
criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but which been wholly exempt from
would constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if the actor had criminal liability on
known the true state of the facts at the time when he committed the act. account of his act; and
RULING: that he can not be said to
D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 1
HELD: NO. Trial court should be reversed, and the defendant acquitted of have been guilty of
the crime negligence or recklessness
or even carelessness in
falling into his mistake as
to the facts, or in the
means adopted by him to
defend himself from the
imminent danger which
he believe threatened his
person and his property
and the property under his
charge.
Article 8 of the Penal

Code provides that:
The following are not
delinquent and are
therefore exempt from
criminal liability:
“4. He who acts in
defense of his person or
rights, provided there are
the following attendant
circumstances:
(1) Illegal Agression
(2) Reasonable
necessity of the
means employed
to prevent or
repel it.
(3) Lack of sufficient
provocation on
the part of the
person defending
himself.
Under these provisions,
we think that the
defendant would be
entitled to complete
exemption from criminal
liability.
People vs. Oanis Dolo:
FACTS: The crime committed by
• Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at appellants is not merely
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received from Major Guido a telegram of the criminal negligence, the
following tenor: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas killing being intentional
with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." Captain and not accidental. In
Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and asked that he be criminal negligence, the
given four men. injury caused to another
should be unintentional, it

• The same instruction was given to the chief of police Oanis who being simply the incident
was likewise called by the Provincial Inspector. of another act performed
• Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, without malice.
and an seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door where they
were, simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 "No unnecessary or
caliber revolvers. Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour unreasonable force shall
already wounded, and looking at the door where the shots came, she saw be used in making an
the defendants still firing at him. Shocked by the entire scene. Irene arrest, and the person
fainted; it turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the arrested shall not be
notorious criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen subject to any greater
named Serapio Tecson, Irene's paramour. restraint than is necessary
• According to Appellant Galanta, when he and chief of police for his detention."
Oanis arrived at the house, the latter asked Brigida where Irene's room
was. Brigida indicated the place, and upon further inquiry as to the A peace officer cannot
whereabouts of Anselmo Balagtas, she said that he too was sleeping in the claim exemption from
same room. criminal liability if he
ISSUE: WON they may, upon such fact, be held responsible for the death uses unnecessary force or
thus caused to Tecson. violence in making an
RULING: YES. appellants are hereby declared guilty of murder with the arrest
mitigating circumstance.
According to article 69 of
the Revised Penal Code,
the penalty lower by 1 or
2 degrees than that
prescribed by law shall, in
such case, be imposed.
“As they were instructed

not to kill Balagtas at
sight but to arrest him ,
and get him dead or alive
only if resistance or
agression is offered by
him.”
People vs. Pugay ART. 3(2) & 8(2) OF
FACTS: THE R.P.C.
The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond Article 3 (2)
reasonable doubt for the crime of murder of Bayani Miranda and “...Felonies are not only
sentencing them to a prison term ranging from 12 years (prison mayor) as committed not only by
mimimum to 20 years (prison temporal) as maximum and for samson to means of deceit (dolo) but
be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. also by means of fault
(culpa).”
Miranda, a retardate, and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to Article 8 (2)
run errands for Pugay and they used to sleep together. On the evening of A conspiracy exists when
May 19, 1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario Cavite. two or more persons come
Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several to an agreement
companions arrived (they were drunk), and they started making fun of concerning the
Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun of the Bayani, took a can of commission of a felony
gasoline and poured its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) and decide to commit it.
told Pugay not to do the deed. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a

human torch out of him. They were arrested the same night and barely a CONSPIRACY - is
few hours after the incident gave their written statements. determined when two or
ISSUE: more persons agree to
WON conspiracy is present in this case to ensure that murder can be commit a felony and
the crime? If not what are the criminal responsibilities of the decide to commit it.
accused? Conspiracy must be
RULING: proven with the same
There is NO CONSPIRACY. quantum of evidence as
Since there is no conspiracy that was proven, the respective criminal the felony itself, more
responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts specifically by proof
directed against Miranda is individual NOT collective and each of beyond reasonable doubt.
them is liable only for the act that was committed by him. It is not essential that
Judgment of the lower Court was affirmed with modifications. there be proof as to the
Judgment for guilty beyond reasonable doubt for murder was existence of a previous
lowered to the above judgments. agreement to commit a
crime. It is sufficient if, at
the time of commission of
the crime, the accused had
the same purpose and
were united in its
execution.
Since there was no
animosity between
Miranda and the accused,
add to that that the
meeting at the scene of
the incident was purely
coincidental, and the main
intent of the accused is to
make fun of miranda.
People vs. Garcia Article 365 of the RPC
FACTS: (Reckless imprudence
Garcia was convicted of murder on the decision of the Regional Trial resulting to homicide.
Court of Quezon City branch 87.
The appellant was unlawfully and feloniously driving a passenger jeep in Culpa:
a careless, reckless, negligent and imprudent manner. Causing as The court's evaluation of
consequence of his said carelessness, negligence and impudence hit and the evidence reveals that
bumped Sanilyn Trinidad. The jeepney stopped but as the brother of the appellant had no intention
deceased was running towards his sister, the vehicle suddenly accelerated to kill the victim. As such
with its front tire running over Sanily’s stomach. The appellant brought he cannot be held liable of
Sanily to the hospital, but after 4 days died. intentional felony. All
ISSUE: reasonable doubt intended
WON the appelant be charged with murder. to demonstrate
RULING: NO. Convicting apellant of the crime of murder is REVERSED negligence, and not
and SET ASIDE. Appellant Renato Garcia y Romano is found guilty criminal intent, must be
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime reckless imprudence resulting in resolved in favor of
homicide. appelant.
The unfortunate incident was more the result of reckless imprudence than
of malicious intent. Therefore the trial court erredd in convicting the
appelant of the crime of murder qualified bye evident premodition.

Manuel vs. People “Actus non facit
Facts: Eduardo Manuel was charged with bigamy for contracting a second
reum, nisi mens sit
marriage with Tina Gandalera-Manuel on or about the 22nd day of April, rea.”
1996, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, even without the dissolution of For one to be
his first marriage Rubylus Gana. They met in Dagupan, as Tina was a criminally liable for
student there. Afterwards, Manuel visited her in Baguio, and one thing led
to another, so they went to a motel where, despite Tina’s resistance, a felony by dolo,
Eduardo succeeded in having his way with her. Eduardo proposed there must be a
marriage on several occasions, assuring her that he was single. Eduardo confluence of both
even brought his parents to Baguio City to meet Tina’s parents, and was an evil act and an
assured by them that their son was still single. Tina finally agreed to
marry Eduardo sometime in the first week of March 1996. The couple was evil intent.
happy during the first three years of their married life. Through their joint
efforts, they were able to build their home in Baguio. However, starting Article 3, paragraph
1999, Manuel started making himself scarce and went to their house only
twice or thrice a year. Tina was jobless, and whenever she asked money
2 of the Revised
from Eduardo, he would slap her. Sometime in January 2001, Eduardo Penal Code
took all his clothes, left, and did not return. Worse, he stopped giving provides that there
financial support. Tina became curious and asked at the NSO regarding is deceit when the
Manuel where she learned that he was married at the time that they
exchanged their vows. act is performed
with deliberate
For his defense, Manuel avers that he met Tina at a night club where she intent. Indeed, a
was working as a GRO, and they fell in love, and that Tina knew of his felony cannot exist
marriage but that she agreed to marry him nonetheless. Their marital
relationship was in order until this one time when he noticed that she had without intent. Since
a “love-bite” on her neck. He then abandoned her. Eduardo further a felony by dolo is
testified that he declared he was “single” in his marriage contract with classified as an
Tina
because he believed in good faith that his first marriage was invalid. He
intentional felony, it
did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his is deemed voluntary.
first marriage before marrying Tina, as Rubylus, his first wife, was Although the words
imprisoned. Manuel visited Rubylus in jail after 3 months and never saw “with malice” do
her again and had not heard from her in 20 years.
not appear in
After trial, the court rendered judgment finding Eduardo guilty beyond Article 3 of the
reasonable doubt of bigamy. Eduardo then appealed to the CA wherein he Revised Penal Code,
insisted that conformably to Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, there such phrase is
must be malice for one to be criminally liable for a felony. He contends
that he married Tina out of the desire to have a fruitful marriage. included in the word
“voluntary.” Malice
Issue: W/N Manuel can invoke Art 3 of the RPC as his defense. is a mental state or
Held: No, he cannot. The petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice
condition prompting
or evil intent when he married the private complainant. The Court rules the doing of an overt
that the petitioner’s collective acts of fraud act without legal
and deceit before, during and after his marriage with the private excuse or
complainant were willful, deliberate and with malice and caused injury to
the latter. justification from
which another
As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid suffers injury. When
defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice
or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because
the act or omission
everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. defined by law as a
felony is proved to
have been done or
committed by the
accused, the law
presumes it to have
been intentional.
People vs. Delim Specific intent is not
Facts: Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers. They are the uncles
synonymous with
of Leon Delim and Ronald Delim. Modesto Manalo Bantas, the victim, motive; Motive
was an Igorot and a carpenter. He took the surname Delim after he was generally is referred
“adopted” by the father of Marlon, Manuel and Robert. On a January to as the reason
evening, around 6:30 PM,
Modesto, Rita and Randy were preparing to have their supper in their which prompts the
home. Joining them were Modesto and Rita’s two young grandchildren, accused to engage
aged 5 and 7 years old. They were about to eat their dinner when Marlon, in a criminal
Robert activity. Motive is
and Ronald suddenly barged into the house and closed the door. Each of
the three intruders was armed with a short handgun. Marlon poked his gun not an essential
at Modesto while Robert and Ronald simultaneously grabbed and hog-tied element of a crime
the victim. A piece of cloth was placed in the mouth of Modesto. Marlon, and hence the
Robert and Ronald herded Modesto out of the house on their way towards
the direction of Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan. Rita and Randy were warned by
prosecution need
the intruders not to leave the house. Leon and Manuel, who not prove the same.
were also armed with short handguns, stayed put by the door to the house As a general rule,
of Modesto and ordered Rita and Randy to stay where they were. Leon proof of motive for
and Manuel left the house of Modesto only at around 7:00 a.m. the
following day. As soon as Leon and Manuel had left, Randy rushed to the the commission of
house of his uncle, Darwin Niño, at Sitio Labayog, informed the latter of the offense charged
the incident the night before and does not show guilt
sought his help for the retrieval of Modesto. Randy was advised to report and absence of
the matter to the police authorities. However, Randy opted to
first look for his father. He and his other relatives scoured the vicinity to proof of such motive
locate Modesto to no avail. They proceeded to Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan, does not establish
around 200 meters away from Modesto’s house, to locate Modesto but the innocence of
failed to find him
there. On January 25, 1999, Randy and his relatives returned to the
accused of the crime
housing project in Paldit, Sison, Pangasinan to locate Modesto but again charged such as
failed to find him there. On January 26, 1999, Randy reported the incident murder.
to the police authorities. At around 3:00 in the afternoon of January 27,
1999, Randy, in the company of his relatives, Nida Pucal, Pepito Pucal,
Bernard Osias and Daniel Delim, returned to the housing project in Paldit, Where the specific intent
Sison, Pangasinan and this time of the malefactor is
they found Modesto under thick bushes in a grassy area. He was already determinative of the crime
dead. Randy charged such specific

and his relatives immediately rushed to the police station to report the intent must be alleged in
incident and to seek assistance. the information and
proved by the
prosecution.
Issue: W/N Marlon, Ronald and Leon can be held criminally liable for the
death of the victim even if prosecution failed to prove motive on the Specific intent is used to
part of the accused. describe a state of mind
which exists where
Held: The Court ruled that yes, they are criminally liable. circumstances indicate
that an
It is true that the prosecution failed to prove motive on the part of the offender actively desired
malefactors to abduct and kill Modesto. However, corpus delicti includes certain criminal
two things: first, the objective; second, the subjective element of crimes. consequences or
In the case at bar, the prosecution adduced the requisite quantum of proof objectively desired a
of corpus delicti. Modesto sustained five (5) gunshot wounds. He also specific result to follow
sustained seven (7) stab wounds, defensive in nature. The use by the his act or failure to act.
malefactors Specific intent involves a
of deadly weapons, more specifically handguns and knives, in the killing state of the mind. It is the
of the victim as well as the nature, number and location of the wounds particular purpose or
sustained by said victim are evidence of the intent by the malefactors to specific intention in doing
kill the victim with all the consequences flowing therefrom. the prohibited act.
Specific intent must be
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision of the trial court is alleged in the Information
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellants Marlon Delim, and proved by the state in
Ronald Delim and Leon Delim are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable a prosecution for a crime
doubt of the felony of Homicide. requiring specific intent.
Kidnapping and murder
are specific intent crimes.
Specific intent may be
proved by direct evidence
or by circumstantial
evidence. It may be
inferred from the
circumstances of the
actions of the
accused as established by
the evidence on record.
In homicide (by dolo) and

in murder cases, the
prosecution is burdened to
prove: (a) the death of the
party alleged to be dead;
(b) that the death was
produced by the criminal
act of some other than the
deceased and was not the
result of accident, natural
cause or suicide; and (c)
that defendant

committed the criminal
act or was in some way
criminally responsible for
the act which produced
the death. To prove the
felony of homicide or
murder, there must be
incontrovertible evidence,
direct or circumstantial,
that the victim was
deliberately killed (with
malice); in other words,
that there was intent to
kill. Such evidence may
consist inter alia in the
use of weapons by the
malefactors, the nature,
location and number of
wounds sustained by the
victim and the words
uttered by the male-
factors before, at the time
or immediately after the
killing of the victim. If
the victim dies because of
a deliberate act of the
malefactor, intent to kill is
conclusively presumed.
Ivler vs. San Pedro
Facts: Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason

Ivler (petitioner) was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig
City (MTC), with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent
Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of
respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses
Ponce’s vehicle.
Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases. On 2004,
petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on the first delict and was meted
out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner
moved to quash the Information for the second delict for placing him in
jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence.
The MTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two

cases.

The petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City (RTC), in a petition for certiorari while Ivler sought from the MTC
the suspension of proceedings in criminal case, including the arraignment
his arraignment as a prejudicial question.
Without acting on petitioner’s motion, the MTC proceeded with the

arraignment and, because of petitioner’s absence, cancelled his bail and
ordered his arrest.
Seven days later, the MTC issued a resolution denying petitioner’s motion
to suspend proceedings and postponing his arraignment until after his
arrest. Petitioner sought reconsideration but as of the filing of this petition,
the motion remained unresolved.
Issue:
Held: Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or

acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of
criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in
the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done,
would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or
careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only
taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the
substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the
injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense
(criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into
different crimes and prosecutions.
Calimutan vs. People Article 3 of the
Facts: On 04 February 1996, at around 10:00 a.m., the victim Cantre and
Revised Penal Code
witness Sañano, together with two other companions, had a drinking spree classifies felonies
at a videoke bar. From the videoke bar, the victim Cantre and witness according to the
Sañano proceeded to go home to their respective houses, but along the means by which they
way, they crossed paths with petitioner Calimutan and a certain Michael
Bulalacao. Victim Cantre was harboring a grudge against Bulalacao, are committed, in
suspecting the latter as the culprit responsible for throwing stones at the particular: (1)
Cantre’s house on a previous night. Thus, upon seeing Bulalacao, victim intentional felonies,
Cantre suddenly punched him. While Bulalacao ran away, petitioner and (2) culpable
Calimutan dashed towards
the backs of victim Cantre and witness Sañano. Petitioner Calimutan then felonies. These two
picked up a stone, which he threw at victim Cantre, hitting him at the left types of felonies are
side of his back. When hit by the stone, victim Cantre stopped for a distinguished from
moment and held his back. Witness Sañano put himself between the
victim Cantre and petitioner Calimutan, and attempted to pacify the two,
each other by the
even convincing petitioner Calimutan to put down another stone he was existence or absence
already holding. He also urged victim Cantre and of malicious intent
petitioner Calimutan to just go home. Witness Sañano accompanied of the offender—In
victim Cantre to the latter’s house, and on the way, victim Cantre
complained of the pain in the left side of his back hit by the stone. They intentional felonies,
the act or omission
arrived at the Cantre’s house at around 12:00 noon, and witness Sañano of the offender is
left victim Cantre to the care of the latter’s mother, Belen. Victim Cantre
immediately told his mother, Belen, of the stoning incident involving
malicious. In the
petitioner Calimutan. He again complained of backache and also of language of Art. 3,
stomachache, and the act is performed
was unable to eat. By nighttime, victim Cantre was alternately feeling cold with deliberate
and then warm. He was sweating profusely and his entire body felt numb.
At around 3:00 a.m. of the following day, Belen was wiping his son with a intent (with malice).
piece of The offender, in
cloth, when victim Cantre asked for some food. He was able to eat a little, performing the act
but he also later vomited whatever he ate. For the last time, he complained or in incurring the
of backache and stomachache, and shortly thereafter, he died. Autopsy
revealed that the cause of death was a traumatic injury to the abdomen. omission, has the
intention to cause
RTC rendered its decision wherein Calimutan was found to be guilty of an injury to another.
homicide. Calimutan appealed to the CA, but the CA sustained RTC’S
ruling.
In culpable felonies,
the act or omission
Issue: W/N petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of of the offender is not
homicide. malicious. The
Held: No. Court cannot sustain the conviction of petitioner Calimutan for injury caused by the
the intentional crime offender to another
of homicide, as rendered by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of person is
Appeals. Instead, this Court finds petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond “unintentional, it
reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. being simply the
incident of another
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides for the act performed
definition of reckless imprudence—Reckless imprudence consists in
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
without malice.”
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the (People vs. Sara, 55
part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into Phil. 939) As stated
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, in Art. 3, the
physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and
place. There are wrongful act results
several circumstances that demonstrate petitioner Calimutan’s lack of from imprudence,
intent to kill the negligence, lack of
victim Cantre, and conversely, that substantiate the view of this Court that foresight or lack of
the death of victim Cantre was a result of petitioner Calimutan’s reckless
imprudence. skill.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming

the Decision of the RTC
is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner Calimutan is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code,
Diego vs. Castillo The error must be

gross or patent,
Facts: This is an administrative complaint against Regional Trial Court malicious,
Judge Silverio Q. Castillo for allegedly knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment in a criminal case and/or rendering judgment in gross ignorance
deliberate or in
of the law. evident bad faith. It
is only in this latter
Accused Lucena Escoto contracted marriage with Jorge de Perio, Jr. The instance, when the
couple were both Filipinos. In the marriage contract, the accused used and
adopted the name Crescencia Escoto, with a civil judge acts
status of single. A divorce proceeding was then instituted between the two fraudulently or with
by the Family District Court of Harris County, Texas. Subsequently, on gross ignorance,
the same Crescencia Escoto contracted marriage another marriage and this that administrative
time, the accused used and adopted the name Lucena Escoto, again, with a
civil status of single. After trial of the criminal case for bigamy, sanctions are called
respondent Judge promulgated a decision acquitting the accused, the main for as an imperative
basis for the acquittal was good faith on the part of the accused. duty of this Court.
Complainant herein alleges that the decision rendered by the respondent
Judge is manifestly against the law and contrary to the evidence.
As a matter of
public policy then,
Issue: W/N the judge is guilty of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment the acts of a judge
defined and penalized under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code. in his official
Held: No. The error must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in capacity are not
evident bad faith. It is only in this latter instance, when the judge subject to
acts fraudulently or with gross ignorance, that administrative sanctions are disciplinary action,
called for as an imperative duty of this Court. As a matter of public policy even though such
then, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. Good faith and acts are erroneous.
absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are Good faith and
sufficient defenses in absence of malice,
which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge.
corrupt motives or
WHEREFORE, Regional Trial Court Judge Silverio Q. Castillo is hereby improper
FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos with a STERN WARNING considerations are
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more sufficient defenses in
severely.
which a judge
charged with
ignorance of the law
can find refuge.
b. MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
People v. Bayona The rule is that in
Facts: Defendant Bayona was within the fence surrounding the polling
acts mala in se there
place when Desiderio, a representative of the Department of Interior, took must be a criminal
possession of the revolver the defendant was carrying. He was arrested for intent, but in those
carrying arms within fifty meters from a polling place, a violation of the mala prohibita it is
Election Law. However, defendant argues that he was in a public road,
where he had a right to be, when he was arrested. He also contends that he sufficient if the
was called by a friend and merely approached him to find out what he prohibited act was
wanted and had no interest in the election; that there were many people in intentionally done.
the public road in front of the polling place, and the defendant could not
leave his revolver in his automobile, which he himself was driving,
"Care must be
without running the risk of losing it and thereby incurring in a violation of exercised in
the law. distinguishing the
difference between
Issue: W/N accused is guilty of violating the Election Law.
the intent to commit
Held: Yes. Just by being on the fence with his revolver, he committed it the crime and the
willfully. The act prohibited by the Election Law was complete. The intent to perpetrate
intention to intimidate the voters or to interfere otherwise with the election the act. * * *" (U. S.
is not made an essential element of the offense. Unless such an offender
actually makes use of his revolver, it would be extremely difficult, if not vs. Go Chico, 14
impossible, Phil., 128.)
to prove that he intended to intimidate the voters.
US v. Chico In mala in se, it is
Facts: Appellant Go Chico displayed in one of the
not necessary that
windows and one of the show cases of his store, No. 89 Calle Rosario, a the appellant should
number of medallions, in the form of a small button, upon the faces of have acted with
which were imprinted in miniature the picture of Emilio Aguinaldo, and criminal intent. In
the flag or banner or device used during the late insurrection in the
Philippine Islands to designate and identify those in armed insurrection many crimes, made
against the United States. Appellant was arranging his stock of goods for such by statutory
the purpose of displaying them to the public and in so doing placed in his enactment, the
showcase and in one of the windows of his store the medallions described. intention of the
The appellant was ignorant of the existence of section 1 of Act No. 1696
of the Philippine Commission, a law against the display of the medallions person who commits
in question and had consequently no corrupt intention. Appellant avers the crime is entirely
that before a conviction under the law cited can be had, a criminal intent immaterial. This is
upon the part of the accused must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
necessarily so. If it
Issue: W/N appellant is guilty of violating 1 of Act No. 1696 of the were not, the statute
Philippine Commission. as a deterrent
influence would be
Held: Yes. It is not necessary that the appellant should have acted with
criminal intent. In many crimes, made such by statutory enactment, the substantially
intention of the person who commits the crime is entirely immaterial. This worthless. It would
is necessarily so. If it were not, the statute as a deterrent influence would be impossible of
be substantially worthless. It would be impossible of execution. In many execution. In many
cases the act
complained of is itself that which produces the pernicious effect which the cases the act
statute seeks to avoid. In those cases the pernicious effect is produced with complained of is
precisely the same force and result whether the intention of the person itself that which
performing the act is good or bad. The case at bar is a perfect illustration
of this. The display of a flag or emblem used, particularly within a recent
produces the
period, by the enemies of the Government tends to incite resistance to pernicious effect
governmental functions and insurrection against governmental authority which the statute
seeks to avoid. In
those cases the
just as effectively if made in the best of good faith as if made with the pernicious effect is
most corrupt intent. The display itself, without the intervention of any
other factor, is the evil.
produced with
precisely the same
force and result
whether the
intention of the
person performing
the act is good or
bad.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan For when the acts
FACTS: Former President Estrada and co-accused were charged for
Plunder under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
punished are
Plunder), as amended by RA 7659. inherently immoral
or inherently wrong,
On the information, it was alleged that Estrada have received billions of they are
pesos through any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts, or
similar schemes or means thereby unjustly enriching himself or themselves mala in se.
at the expense and to the damage of the Filipino people and the Republic of
the Philippines.
Estrada questions the constitutionality of the Plunder Law since for him:
1. it suffers from the vice of vagueness
2. it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal

prosecutions
3. it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under

The Revised Penal Code.
Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan 8 separate

Informations against petitioner.
Estrada filed an Omnibus Motion on the grounds of lack of preliminary

investigation, reconsideration/reinvestigation of offenses and opportunity
to prove lack of probable cause but was denied.
Later on, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution in Crim. Case No. 26558
finding that a probable cause for the offense of plunder exists to justify the
issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused.
Estrada moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 26558 on the
ground that the facts alleged therein did NOT constitute an indictable
offense since the law on which it was based was unconstitutional for
vagueness and that the Amended Information for Plunder charged more
than one offense. Same was denied.
ISSUE: Whether Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum.

HELD: No. It is malum in se. The legislative declaration in RA No. 7659
that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when
the acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala
in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a special law,
especially since in the case of plunder that predicate crimes are mainly mala
in se.
Its abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject

criminal acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic
context in which the state finds itself to be struggling to develop and
provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. Reeling from decades of
corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the government and impoverished
the population, the Philippine Government must muster the political will
to dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, green and syndicated
criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of society and
the psyche of the populace. [With the government] terribly lacking the
money to provide even the most basic services to its people, any form of
misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates to an
actual threat to the very existence of government, and in turn, the very
survival of people it governs over.
ARTICLE 4. CRIMINAL LIABILITY Criminal liability.—
PARAGRAPH 1 Criminal liability shall be

incurred:
Requisites: 1. By any person
committing a felony
1. That an intentional felony has been committed. (delito) although the
wrongful act done be
***There is no Intentional Felony: different from
a. When the act or omission is not punishable by RPC; that which he intended.
b. When the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in Art.
11 of RPC. 2. By any person
performing an act which
***Act or omission should not be punished by a special law because the would be an offense
offender violating a special law may not have the intent to do any injury to against persons or
another. In such case, the wrongful act done could not be different, as the property, were
offender did not intend to do any other injury. it not for the inherent
impossibility of its
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural accomplishment or an
and logical consequence of the felony committed. account of the
employment of
***Proximate Cause inadequate or ineffectual
It is that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken means.
by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which
the result would not have occurred.
If the result can be traced back to the original act, then the doer of the
original act can be held criminally liable.
The relation of cause and effect must be shown:

a. Unlawful act is the efficient cause
b. Accelerating cause
c. Proximate cause
***The person is still criminally liable although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended:
a. Error In Personae- mistake in the identity of the victim
b. Aberratio ictus – mistake in the blow
c. Praeter intentionem – injurious result is greater than that intended
***When death is presumed to be the natural

consequence of physical injuries inflicted: (NER)
a. That the victim at the time the physical injuries were inflicted was in
normal health.
b. That the death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted.
c. That death ensued within a reasonable time.
***Felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting

injury when:
a-There is an active force between the felony
committed and the resulting injury, such active force is distinct from the
felony committed.
b-The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim, i.e. fault
or carelessness of the victim to increase the criminal liability of the
assailant.
***Efficient Intervening Cause

It is the cause which interrupted the natural flow of events leading to one’s
death. This may relieve the offender from liability.
NOT efficient intervening causes:

a. The weak or diseased physical condition victim;
b. The nervousness or temperament of the victim;
c. Causes which are inherent in the victim;
d. Neglect of the victim or third person; (ex. refusal of medical
attendance)
e. Erroneous or unskilled medical or surgical treatment (unless the wound
is slight or not mortal)
PARAGRAPH 2
Impossible Crime
Requisites: (OEIN)
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent;
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
a) inherent impossibility
i) legal impossibility- intended acts, even

if completed would not amount to a crime
ii) physical impossibility- extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his
control prevent the consummation of the intended
crime
4. That the act performed should NOT constitute a

violation of another provision of the RPC.
Felonies against persons are: (MHPI-DRAP)

1. Murder (Art. 248)
2. Homicide (Art 249)
3. Parricide (Art. 246)
4. Infanticide (Art 255)
5. Duel (Arts 260 and 261)
6. Rape (Art. 266-A)
7. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259)
8. Physical Injuries (Arts 262, 263, 264, 265 and 266)
Felonies against property are: (BRUCT-SCAM)
1. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and 303)
2. Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307)
3. Theft (Arts. 308, 310, and 311)
4. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313)
5. Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314)
6. Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317 and
318)
7. Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319)
8. Arson and other crimes involving destruction (Arts. 320,
321, 322, 323, 324, 325, and 326)
9. Malicious Mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and 321)
Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To suppress criminal

propensity or criminal tendencies.
a. Felony against persons or property should not be actually committed,

for otherwise, he would be liable for that felony; there would be no
impossible crime to speak of.
b. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. It is always
consummated and applies only to grave or less grave felonies.
c. Under Article 59, the penalty for impossible crimes is arresto mayor or
a fine ranging from 200-500 pesos.
People v. Iligan Under Article 4 of
Facts: At around 2:00 o’clock in the morning Esmeraldo Quiñones, Jr. and
the Revised Penal
his companions, Zaldy Asis and Felix Lukban, were walking home from Code, criminal
barangay Sto. Domingo, Vinzons, Camarines Norte after attending a liability shall be
barrio incurred “by any
fiesta dance. In front of the ricemill of a certain
Almadrones, they met the accused Fernando Iligan, his nephew, Edmundo person committing a
Asis, and Juan Macandog. Edmundo Asis pushed (“winahi”) them aside felony (delito)

thereby prompting Zaldy Asis to box him. Felix Lukban quickly told the although the
group
of the accused that they had no desire to fight. Fernando Iligan, upon
wrongful act done
seeing his nephew fall, drew from his back a bolo and hacked Zaldy Asis be different from
but missed. Terrified, the trio ran pursued by the three accused. They ran that which he
for about half an hour, passing by the house of Quiñones, Jr. They intended.” Based on
stopped running only upon seeing that they were no longer being chased.
After resting for a short while, Quiñones, Jr. invited the two to accompany the doctrine that “el
him to his house so that he could change to his working clothes and report que es causa de la
for work as a bus conductor. While the trio were walking towards the causa es causa del
house of Quiñones, Jr., the three accused suddenly emerged on the mal causado” (he
roadside and without a word, Fernando Iligan hacked Quiñones, Jr. with
his bolo hitting him on the forehead and who is the cause of
causing him to fall down. Horrified, Felix Lukban and Zaldy Asis fled to a the cause is the
distance of 200 meters, but returned walking after they heard shouts of cause of the evil
people. Zaldy Asis specifically heard someone shout “May nadale na.” On
the spot where Quiñones, Jr. was hacked, Zaldy Asis
caused), the
and Felix Lukban saw him already dead with his head busted. They helped essential requisites
the brother of Quiñones, Jr. in carrying him to their house. That same day, of Article 4 are: (a)
the body of Quiñones, Jr. was autopsied at the Funeraria Belmonte in that an intentional
Labo, Camarines Norte by the municipal health officer, Dr. Marcelito E.
Abas. The postmortem examination report felony has been
which is found at the back of the death certificate reveals that Quiñones, committed, and (b)
Jr. died of “shock and massive cerebral hemorrhages due to a vehicular that the wrong done
accident.” Accused now contends that he is not guilty of the crime to the aggrieved
charged, as the victim did not die because if the hacking, but because of a
vehicular accident. party be the direct,
natural and logical
Issue: W/N Iligan is guilty of the crime of murder. consequence of the
Held: Yes. Under these circumstances, we hold that while Iligan’s hacking
felony committed by
of Quiñones, Jr.’s head might not have been the direct cause, it was the offender.
the proximate cause of the latter’s death. Proximate legal cause is defined
as “that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous
chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event
in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable
result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and
intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an
injury to some person might probably result therefrom.” In other words,
the sequence of events from Iligan’s assault on
him to the time Quiñones, Jr. was run over by a vehicle is, considering the
very short span of time between them, one unbroken chain of events.
Having triggered such events, Iligan cannot escape liability.
People v. Mananquil One who inflicts
injury on another is
deemed guilty of
Facts: On March 6, 1965, at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening, appellant homicide if the
went to the NAWASA Building at Pasay City where her husband was
then working as a security guard. She had just
injury contributes
purchased ten (10) centavo-worth of gasoline from the Esso Gasoline mediately or
Station at Taft Avenue which she placed in a coffee bottle. She was angry immediately to the
of her husband, Elias Day y Pablo, because the latter had burned her death of such other.
clothing, was maintaining a mistress and had been taking all the food from
their house. Upon reaching the NAWASA Building, she knocked at the The fact that other
door. Immediately, after the door was opened, Elias Day shouted at the causes contribute to
appellant and castigated her saying, the death does not
“PUTA BUGUIAN LAKAW GALIGAON”. Appellant, tired of hearing relieve the actor of
the victim, then got the bottle of gasoline and poured the contents thereof
on the face of the victim. Then, she got a matchbox and set the polo shirt responsibility. He
of the victim a flame. She was taken to the police wherein she gave a would still be liable
written statement that she had burned the victim. On the other hand, the “even if the
victim was taken to the hospital wherein he died due to pneumonia.
Accused was tried in the CFI of Rizal wherein she was convicted of
deceased might have
parricide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The appeal before the court recovered if he had
is founded on the contention of the accused that she did not cause the taken proper care of
death of the victim, as the victim died of pneumonia and not from the himself, or
burn.
submitted to
Issue: W/N the burns sustained by the victim contributed to cause surgical operation,
pneumonia which was the cause of the victim’s death. or that unskilled or
improper treatment
Held: Yes. The evidence shows that pneumonia
was a mere complication of the burns sustained. While accepting aggravated the
pneumonia as the immediate cause of death, the court a quo held on to wound and
state that this could not have resulted had not the victim suffered from contributed to the
second degree burns. It concluded, and rightly so, that with pneumonia
having developed, the burns became as to the cause of death, merely
death, or that death
contributory. was immediately
caused by a surgical
Judgment by the lower court is affirmed (although a recommendation for operation rendered
executive clemency was offered by the court, the accused being 71 years
of age). necessary by the
condition of the
wound. The
principle on which
this rule is founded
is one of universal
application. It lies at
the foundation of
criminal
jurisprudence. It is
that every person is
held to contemplate
and be responsible
for the natural
consequences of his
own acts.
“Art. 4. Criminal
Liability.—Criminal
liability shall be
incurred:
By any person
committing a felony
(delito) although the
wrongful act done
be different from
that which he
intended.”
The essential
requisites are: (a)
that an intentional
felony has been
committed; and (b)
that the wrong done
to the aggrieved
party be the direct,
natural and logical
consequence of the
felony committed by
the offender.
Quinto vs. Andres Article 4 RPC (Criminal
FACTS: Liability)
November 13, 1995 7:30 am: Edison Garcia, 11 year-old and Grade 4
elementary school pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto saw Dante YES. petition is DENIED.
Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the mouth of a drainage culvert. There is no criminal nor
Andres and Pacheco invited Wilson to go fishing with them inside the civil liability. The petition
drainage culvert. Wilson agreed while Garcia seeing that it was dark has no merit.
inside, opted to remain seated in a grassy area about two meters from the
entrance of the drainage system Every person criminally
Only Pacheco had a flashlight. Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came liable for a felony is also
out of the drainage system and left without saying a word. Then, Andres civilly liable.
came out, went back inside, and emerged again carrying Wilson who was GR: When a criminal
already dead. He laid his body down in the grassy area. action is instituted, the
Garcia, shocked, fled from the scene. Andres went to the house of Melba civil action for the
Quinto, Wilson’s mother, and informed her that her son had died. They recovery of civil liability

rushed to the drainage culvert. Wilson was buried without any complaints arising from the offense
filed. charged shall be deemed
November 28, 1995: National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) took the instituted with the
sworn statements of Pacheco, Garcia and Quinto criminal action
Pacheco alleged that he had never been to the drainage system catching o While the prosecution
fish with Andres and Wilson must prove the guilt of the
Dr. Dominic Aguda of the NBI’s autopsy showed that the cause death is accused beyond
drowning with traumatic head injuries as contributory reasonable doubt for the
NBI filed a criminal complaint for homicide against Andres and Pacheco crime charged, it is
with the RTC. required to prove the
Dr. Dominic Aguda testified that Wilson could have fallen, and that the cause of action of the
occipital portion of his head could have hit a blunt object, That the 14x7- private complainant
centimeter hematoma at the back of Wilson’s head could have rendered against the accused for
the him unconscious so he drowned. The 4x3-centimeter abrasion on the damages and/or
right side of Wilson’s face could have also been caused by rubbing against restitution.
a concrete wall or pavement, or by contact with a rough surface. He also o Insofar as the civil
stated that the trachea region was full of mud, but that there was no sign of aspect of the case is
strangulation. concerned, the
RTC: granted demurer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of prosecution or the private
evidence complainant is burdened
CA: Affirmed RTC. to adduce preponderance
ISSUE: WON Acquittal in criminal case bars a civil action where the of evidence or superior
judgment of acquittal holds that the accused did not commit the criminal weight of evidence. –
acts imputed to them. failed
RULING: YES. The Petition is denied for lack of merit. -That the deceased fell or
slipped cannot be totally
foreclosed because even
Garcia testified that the
drainage culvert was dark,
and that he himself was so
afraid that he refused to
join respondents Andres
and Pacheco inside
- failed to adduce proof of
any ill-motive on the part
of either respondent to kill
the deceased before or
after the latter was invited
to join them in fishing
■ GR: The
extinction of the
penal action does
not carry with it
the extinction of
the civil action.
EX: civil action based on
delict shall be deemed
extinguished if there is a
finding in a final
judgment in the civil
action that the act or
omission from where the
civil liability may arise
does not exist
■ a person
committing a
felony is
criminally liable
for all the natural
and logical
consequences
resulting
therefrom
although the
wrongful act done
be different from
that which he
intended
o Natural - an
occurrence in the ordinary
course of human life or
events
o Logical - a rational
connection between the
act of the accused and the
resulting injury or damage
■ The felony
committed must
be the proximate
cause of the
resulting injury
o Proximate cause
-cause which in natural
and continuous sequence,
unbroken by an efficient
intervening cause,
produces the injury, and
without which the result
would not have occurred
- acting first and
producing the injury,
either immediately, or by
setting other events in
motion, all constituting a
natural and continuous
chain of events, each
having a close causal
connection with its
immediate predecessor.
- There must be a relation
of “cause and effect,”

-cause = felonious act of
the offender
-effect = resultant injuries
and/or death of the victim.
■ Not the proximate
cause of the
resulting injury
when:
1. there is an active
force that intervened
between the felony
committed and the
resulting injury, and the
active force is a distinct
act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious
act of the accused; or
2. the resulting injury is
due to the intentional act
of the victim
■ The offender is
criminally liable
for the death of
the victim if his
delictual act
caused,
accelerated or
contributed to the
death of the
victim.
■ the prosecution
was burdened to
prove the corpus
delicti which
consists of two
things:
1. first, the criminal act
- objective
2. second, defendant’s
agency in the commission
of the act - subjective
element of crimes
In homicide (by dolo)
and in murder cases, the
prosecution is burdened to
prove:
1. the death of the party
alleged to be dead
2. that the death was
produced by the criminal
act of some other than the
deceased and was not the
result of accident, natural
cause or suicide
3. that defendant
committed the criminal
act or was in some way
criminally responsible for
the act which produced
the death
People v. Quianzon The defense of the

FACTS:Charged with and convicted of the crime of homicide in the Court accused consisted simply
of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, and sentenced to an indeterminate in denying that he had
penalty of from six years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum to wounded the deceased
fourteen years, seven months and one day of... reclusion temporal, as and that he had confessed
maximum, Juan Quianzon appeals to this court for the review of the case. his guilt to the witnesses
On February 1, 1934, a novena for the suffrage of the soul of a deceased Bagabay, Dumlao and
person was being held in the house of Victorina Cacpal... municipality of Llaguno. But such denial
Paoay, Ilocos Norte,... It was the second or third time that Aribuabo cannot prevail against the
approached Quianzon with the same purpose whereupon the latter, greatly adverse testimony of
peeved, took hold of a firebrand and applied it to the neck of the man who these three veracious and
so pestered him. disinterested... witnesses,
all the more because
Aribuabo died as a result of this wound neither the accused nor
There is no conflict between the prosecution and the defense as regards any other witness for the
the foregoing facts defense has stated or
insinuated that another
Gregorio Dumlao, a barrio lieutenant, who, upon being informed of the person, not the accused,
incident, forthwith conducted an investigation, questioned Aribuabo and might be the author of the
the latter... told him that it was the accused who had wounded him. He wound which resulted in
likewise questioned the accused and the latter, in turn, stated that he had Aribuabo's death, and
wounded the deceased with a bamboo spit. Upon being brought before because it is admitted by
Julian Llaguno, chief of police of Paoay, for questioning, Quianzon the defense that it was
confessed... to Llaguno that he had applied a firebrand to Aribuabo's neck the... accused, whom
and had later wounded him with a bamboo spit. Before the chief of police Aribuabo had been
could put this confession of Quianzon in writing, the latter retracted, pestering with request for
denying that he had wounded Aribuabo, for which reason in the affidavit food, who attacked the
latter, burning his neck
Exhibit B the fact of having applied a firebrand to Aribuabo's neck
with a firebrand, after
appears admitted by Quianzon but not that of having wounded the
which Aribuabo appeared
deceased with a bamboo spit.
wounded in the abdomen,
in the extra judicial confession of the accused to the barrio lieutenant, without the accused and
Dumlao, and later to the chief of police Llaguno, in... the same afternoon the witnesses for the
of the crime, that he was the author of Aribuabo's wound and that he had defense explaining how
inflicted it by means of a bamboo spit. Inasmuch as this confession, and by whom the
although extrajudicial, is strongly corroborated and appears to have been aggression had... been
made by the accused freely and voluntarily,... it constitutes evidence made.
against him relative to his liability as author of the crime charged... it does
It is contended by the
not appear that the patient, in removing the drainage, had acted voluntarily
defense that even granting
that it was the accused

and with the knowledge that he was performing an act prejudicial to his who inflicted the wound
health. which resulted in
Aribuabo's death, he
ISSUE: WON Quianzon wounded Aribuabo. should not be convicted of
RULING: YES. Inasmuch as the mitigating circumstances of lack of homicide but only of
instruction and of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed serious physical injuries
should be taken into consideration in favor of the appellant, without any because said wound was
aggravating circumstances adverse to him, we modify the appealed not necessarily fatal and
judgment by... sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty with a the deceased would...
minimum of four years of prision correctional and a maximum of eight have survived it had he
years of prision mayor, affirming it in all other respects, with costs to said not twice removed the
appellant. drainage which Dr.
Mendoza had placed to
control or isolate the
infection. This contention
is without merit.,
According to the
physician who examined
and attended him, the
"wound of the deceased
was very serious and it
was difficult... to
determine whether he
could survive or not." It
was a wound in the
abdomen which
occasionally results in
traumatic peritonitis. The
infection was caused by
the fecal matter from the
large intestine which had
been perforated. The
possibility, admitted by
said physician, that... the
patient might" have
survived said wound had
he not removed the
drainage, does not mean
that that act of the patient
was the real cause of his
death. Even without said
act the fatal consequence
could have followed, and
the fact that the patient
had so acted in a
paroxysm of... pain does
not alter the juridical
consequences of the
punishable act of the
accused.

"One who inflicts an
injury on another is
deemed by the law to be
guilty of homicide if the
injury contributes
mediately or immediately
to the death of such other.
The fact that other causes
contribute to the death
does not relieve the actor
of responsibility
The Supreme Court of
Spain, in a decision of
April 3, 1879, said in a
case similar to the
present, the following:
"Inasmuch as a man is
responsible for the
consequences of his act
and... in this case the
physical condition and
temperament of the of
fended party nowise
lessen the evil, the
seriousness whereof is to
be judged, not by the
violence of the means
employed, but by the
result actually produced;
and as the wound which
the appellant inflicted
upon the... deceased was
the cause which
determined his death,
without his being able to
counteract its effects, it is
evident that the act in
question should be
qualified as homicide,
etc."
"While the courts may
have vacilated from time
to time it may be taken to
be the settled rule of the
common law that one who
inflicts an injury on
another will be held
responsible for his death,
although it may appear
that the deceased might
have recovered if he had...
taken proper care of
himself, or submitted to a
surgical operation, or that
unskilled or improper
treatment aggravated the
wound and contributed to
the death, or that death
was immediately caused
by a surgical operation
rendered necessary by the
condition of the wound.
The... principle on which
this rule is founded is one
of universal application,
and lies at the foundation
of all criminal
jurisprudence. It is, that
every person is to be held
to contemplate and to be
responsible for the natural
consequences of his own
acts.
If a person inflicts a...
wound with a deadly
weapon in such a manner
as to put life in jeopardy,
and death follows as a
consequence of this
felonious and wicked act,
it does not alter its nature
or diminish its criminality
to prove that other causes
co-operated in producing
the fatal result.
Amid the... conflicting
theories of medical men,
and the uncertainties
attendant upon the
treatment of bodily
ailments and injuries, it
would be easy in many
cases of homicide to raise
a doubt as to the
immediate cause of death,
and thereby to open a
wide door by which
persons guilty of the...

highest crime might
escape conviction and
punishment."
Urbano vs. IAC

Facts: A satisfactory definition
On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano was on his way to his of proximate cause is...
ricefield. He found the place where he stored palay flooded with water "that cause, which, in
coming from the irrigation canal. Urbano went to the elevated portion to natural and continuous
see what happened, and there he saw Marcelino Javier and Emilio Efre sequence, unbroken by
cutting grass. Javier admitted that he was the one who opened the canal. A any efficient intervening
quarrel ensued, and Urbano hit Javier on the right palm with his bolo, and cause, produces the
again on the leg with the back of the bolo. On October 27, 1980, Urbano injury, and without which
and Javier had an amicable settlement. Urbano paid P700 for the medical the result would not have
expenses of Javier. On November 14, 1980, Urbano was rushed to the occurred."And more
hospital where he had lockjaw and convulsions. The doctor found the comprehensively, "the
condition to be caused by tetanus toxin which infected the healing wound proximate legal cause is
in his palm. He died the following day. Urbano was charged with that acting first and
homicide and was found guilty both by the trial court and on appeal by the producing the injury,
Court of Appeals. Urbano filed a motion for new trial based on the either immediately or by
affidavit of the Barangay Captain who stated that he saw the deceased setting other events in
catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals on November 5. The motion motion, all constituting a
was denied; hence, this petition. natural and continuous
ISSUE: chain of events, each
Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the proximate cause having a close causal
of the latter’s death. connection with its
RULING: NO. The instant Petition is hereby Granted. The questioned immediate predecessor,
decision of then intermediate Court, now Court of Appeals, is reversed the final event in the
and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the crime homicide. chain immediately
effecting the injury as a
natural and probable
result of the cause which
first acted, under such
circumstances that the
person responsible for the
first event should, as an
ordinarily prudent and
intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to
expect at the moment of
his act or default that an
injury to some person
might probably result
therefrom."
If the wound of Javier

inflicted by the appellant
was already infected by
tetanus germs at the time,
it is more medically

probable that Javier
should have been infected
with only a mild cause of
tetanus because the
symptoms of tetanus
appeared on the 22nd day
after the hacking incident
or more than 14 days after
the infliction of the
wound. Therefore, the
onset time should have
been more than six days.
Javier, however, died on
the second day from the
onset time. The more
credible conclusion is that
at the time Javier's wound
was inflicted by the
appellant, the severe form
of tetanus that killed him
was not yet present.
Consequently, Javier's
wound could have been
infected with tetanus after
the hacking incident.
Considering the
circumstance surrounding
Javier's death, his wound
could have been infected
by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few
but not 20 to 22 days
before he died.
The rule is that the death

of the victim must be the
direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the
wounds inflicted upon
him by the accused. And
since we are dealing with
a criminal conviction, the
proof that the accused
caused the victim's death
must convince a rational
mind beyond reasonable
doubt. The medical
findings, however, lead us
to a distinct possibility
that the infection of the
wound by tetanus was an
efficient intervening cause
later or between the time
Javier was wounded to the
time of his death. The
infection was, therefore,
distinct and foreign to the
crime.
There is a likelihood that

the wound was but the
remote cause and its
subsequent infection, for
failure to take necessary
precautions, with tetanus
may have been the
proximate cause of
Javier's death with which
the petitioner had nothing
to do. "A prior and remote
cause cannot be made the
be of an action if such
remote cause did nothing
more than furnish the
condition or give rise to
the occasion by which the
injury was made possible,
if there intervened
between such prior or
remote cause and the
injury a distinct,
successive, unrelated, and
efficient cause of the
injury, even though such
injury would not have
happened but for such
condition or occasion. If
no danger existed in the
condition except because
of the independent cause,
such condition was not
the proximate cause. And
if an independent
negligent act or defective
condition sets into
operation the instances
which result in injury
because of the prior
defective condition, such
subsequent act or
condition is the proximate
cause."

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Intod v. Court of Appeals That the offense cannot be
FACTS: In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge produced because
Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador the commission of the
Mandaya's house and asked him to go with them to the house of offense is inherently
Bernardina Palangpangan. impossible of
Thereafter, Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a accomplishment is the
meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he wanted focus of this petition. To
Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and be impossible under this
that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would clause, the act intended
also be killed. by the offender must be by
its
At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Mandaya, nature one impossible of
Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at accomplishment. There
Palangpangan's house must be either (1) legal
At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location of impossibility, or (2)
Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and physical impossibility of
Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out; however, that Palangpangan was accomplishing the
in another City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his intended act in order to
family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one qualify the act as an
was hit by the gun fire. One witness testified that before the five men left impossible crime.
the premises, they shouted: “We will kill you (the witness) and especially Articles 4 (2) and 59 of
Bernardina Palangpangan and we will come back if (sic) you were not the RPC
injured.”
Art. 4 (2): “Criminal
After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder. liability shall be
incurred...by any person
Petitioner seeks from this Court a modification of the judgment by holding performing an act which
him liable only for an impossible crime. would be an offense
ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty of attempted murder. against persons property,
were it not for the
RULING: No. The inherent impossibility of its accomplishment makes it inherent impossibility of
an impossible crime. To uphold the contention of respondent that the its accomplishment or on
offense was Attempted Murder because the absence of Palangpangan was account of the
a supervening cause independent of the actor’s will, will render useless employment of
the provision in Article 4, which makes a inadequate or ineffectual
person criminally liable for an act “which would be an offense against means.”
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment x x x.” In that case, all circumstances which prevented The Revised Penal Code,
the consummation inspired by the Positivist
of the offense will be treated as an accident independent of the actor’s will School, recognizes in the
which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies. offender his
formidability,[7] and...
FALLO: The decision of respondent Court of now penalizes an act
Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder is hereby which were it not aimed
MODIFIED. WE hereby hold Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime. at something quite
impossible or carried out
with means which prove
inadequate, would
constitute a felony against
person or against
property.[8] The rationale
of Article 4(2) is to...
punish such criminal
tendencies.
Legal impossibility occurs
where the intended acts,
even if completed, would
not amount to a
crime.[13] Thus:
Legal impossibility would
apply to those
circumstances where (1)
the motive, desire and
expectation is to perform
an act in violation of the
law; (2) there is intention
to perform the physical
act; (3) there is a
performance of the
intended physical act; and
(4) the... consequence
resulting from the
intended act does not
amount to a crime.
The impossibility of
killing a person already
dead[15] falls in this
category.
On the other hand, factual
impossibility occurs when
extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or
beyond his control
prevent the consummation
of the intended crime.[16]
One example is the man
who puts his hand in the
coat... pocket of another
with the intention to steal
the latter's wallet and
finds the pocket empty.
The case at bar belongs to
this category. Petitioner
shoots the place where he

thought his victim would
be, although in reality, the
victim was not present in
said place and thus, the
petitioner failed to
accomplish his end.
In the Philippines, the
Revised Penal Code, in
Article 4(2), expressly
provided for impossible
crimes and made them
punishable. The phrase
“inherent impossibility”
that is found in Article
4(2) of the Revised Penal
Code makes no
distinction between
factual or physical
impossibility and legal
impossibility.
Having in mind the social

danger and degree of
criminality shown by
Petitioner, this Court
sentences him to suffer
the penalty of six (6)
months of arresto mayor,
together with the
accessory penalties...
provided by the law, and
to pay the costs.
In the United States,

where the offense sought
to be committed is
factually impossible of
accomplishment, the
offender cannot escape
criminal liability. He can
be convicted of an attempt
to commit the substantive
crime
where the elements of
attempt are satisfied. It
appears, therefore, that
the act is penalized, not as
an impossible crime, but

as an attempt to commit a
crime. On the other hand,
where the offense
is legally impossible of
accomplishment, the actor
cannot be held liable for
any crime–—neither for
an attempt nor for an
impossible crime. The
only reason for this is that
in American law, there is
no such thing as an
impossible crime.
People v. Domasian The act cannot be

Facts: In the morning of March 11, 1982, while Enrico was walking with a
considered an
classmate along Roque street in the poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was impossible crime
approached by a man who requested his assistance in getting his father's when there is no
signature on a medical inherent
certificate. Enrico agreed to help and rode with the man in a tricycle to
Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the man went into a building improbability of its
to get the certificate. Enrico became apprehensive and started to cry when, accomplishment or
instead of taking him to the hospital, the man flagged a minibus and the employment of
forced him inside, holding him firmly all the while. The man told him to inadequate or
stop crying or he would not be returned to his father. When they alighted
at Gumaca, they took another tricycle, this time bound for the municipal ineffective means.
building
from where they walked to the market. Here the man talked to a jeepney
driver and handed him an envelope addressed to Dr. Enrique Agra, the
boy's father. The two then boarded a tricycle headed for San Vicente, with
the man still firmly holding Enrico, who continued crying. This aroused
the suspicion of the driver, Alexander Grate, who
asked the man about his relationship with the boy. The man said he and
the boy were brothers, making Grate doubly suspicious because of the
physical differences between the two and the wide gap between their ages.
Grate immediately reported the matter to two barangay tanods when his
passengers alighted from the tricycle. Grate and the tanods went after the
two and saw the man dragging the boy. Noticing that they were
being pursued, the man told Enrico to run fast as their pursuers might
behead them. Somehow, the man managed to escape, leaving Enrico
behind. Enrico was on his way home in a passenger jeep when he met his
parents, who were riding in the hospital ambulance and already looking
for him. At about 1:45 in the afternoon of the same day, after Enrico's
return, Agra received an envelope containing a ransom note. The note
demanded P1 million for the release of Enrico and warned that otherwise
the boy would be killed. Agra thought the handwriting in the note was
familiar. After comparing it with some records in the hospital, he gave the
note to the police, which referred it to

the NBI for examination. The test showed that it had been written by Dr.
Samson Tan. On the other hand, Enrico was shown a folder of pictures in
the police station so he could identify the man
who had detained him, and he pointed to the picture of Pablito Domasian.
Domasian and Tan were subsequently charged with the crime of
kidnaping with serious illegal detention in the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon. After trial, RTC found both accused guilty as charged. In the
present appeal, Tan avers that there was no illegal detention, as the boy
was detained for only about three hours and was released even before his
parents received the ransom note, and that sending of the ransom note was
an impossible crime which he contends is not punishable.
Issue: W/N the crime committed is an impossible crime.
Held: No. Even before the ransom note was received, the crime of
kidnaping with serious illegal detention had already been
committed. The act cannot be considered an impossible crime because
there was no inherent improbability of its accomplishment or the
employment of inadequate or ineffective means. The delivery of the
ransom note after the
rescue of the victim did not extinguish the offense, which had already
been consummated when Domasian deprived Enrico of his liberty. The
sending of the ransom note would have had the effect only of increasing
the penalty to death
under the last paragraph of Article 267 although this too would not have
been possible under the new Constitution.
ARTICLE 6. STAGES OF FELONIES Consummated, frustrated,

and attempted felonies. —
Formal Crimes or Crimes of Effect
These are felonies which by a single act of the accused consummates the Consummated felonies as
offense as a matter of law (i.e. physical injuries, acts of lasciviousness, well as those which
attempted flight to an enemy country, coercion, slander, illegal exaction). are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable.
Material crimes
These are crimes which involve the three stages of execution A felony is
consummated when all
Stages of execution do NOT apply to crimes under special laws unless the elements necessary for
otherwise provided, crimes by omission, and formal crimes. its execution and
accomplishment are
present; and it is
Attempted felony elements: frustrated when the
1-The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt offender performs all the
acts acts of execution which
2-He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the would produce the felony
felony as a consequence but
3-The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance which, nevertheless, do
4-The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or not produce it by reason
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator.

***Overt acts
a. These are some physical activity or deed, indicating intention to commit There is an attempt when
a particular crime. the offender commences
b. More than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its the commission of a
complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated felony directly or overt
by external obstacles, nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator will acts, and does not perform
logically ripen into a concrete offense all the acts of execution
which should produce the
Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts when the following are felony by reason of some
present: cause or accident other
a. That there be external acts; than this own spontaneous
b. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be desistance.
committed
***Indeterminate Offense
It is one where the purpose of the offender in
performing an act is not certain. The accused may be convicted of a felony
defined by the acts performed by him up to the time of desistance.
***Desistance
-It is an absolutory cause which negates criminal liability because the law
encourages a person to desist from committing a crime.
-The spontaneous desistance of the offender
negates only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability.
If the desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a
felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony brought
about by his act
Kinds of desistance
i) Legal desistance-Desistance referred to in law which would obviate
criminal liability
unless the overt or preparatory act already committed in themselves
constitute a felony other than what the actor intended; made during
ATTEMPTED stage
ii) Factual desistance-Actual desistance of the
actor; the actor is still liable for the attempt; made AFTER attempted stage
Two Stages in the Development of a Crime (Attempted and Objective

Stage)
1. Internal acts:
a-Such as mere thoughts or ideas in the mind of
person.
b-Not punishable
2. External acts
a. Preparatory acts – ordinarily not punished except when considered by
law as independent crimes (e.g. Art. 304, Possession of picklocks and
similar tools).
b. Acts of Execution – punishable under the RPC

ATTEMPTED STAGE
-marks the commencement of the subjective phase
OBJECTIVE PHASE
-It is the result of the acts of the execution, that is, the accomplishment of
the crime.
-If the subjective and objective phases are present, there is a consummated
felony.
The spontaneous desistance of the accused is

exculpatory only:
a. if made during the attempted stage, and
b. provided that the acts already committed do not
constitute any offense.
Factors in determining stage of execution of felony: (MEN)

1. Manner of committing the felony
• Formal crimes-consummated in an instant; no attempt (bet the
thought and the act, there’s no chain of deeds than can be severed
in any link; e.g., selling of marijuana)
• Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by overt act
(flight to enemy country, corruption of minors)
• Felony by omission (no attempted stage because in this kind of
felony, offender does not execute acts; he omits to perform an act
he is required by the law to do)
• Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to commit them
are consummated by mere agreement (betting in sports contests,
corruption of public officer)
• Material crimes (there are three stages of execution; not
consummated in one single act; e.g., homicide, rape, etc)
2. Elements constituting the felony;
3. Nature of the offense
Frustrated felony elements:

1-The offender performs all the acts of execution
2-All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence
3-The felony is not produced
4-By reasons or causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
***What crimes do not admit of frustrated stage?

They are those which, by the definition of a frustrated felony, the offender
cannot possibly perform all the acts of execution to bring the desired
result without consummating the offense.
Examples:
a. Rape, since the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, no
matter how slight the penetration, the felony is consummated.

b. Indirect Bribery, because it is committed by accepting gifts offered to
the public officer by reason of his office. If he does not accept, he does not
commit the crime. If he accepts, it is consummated.
c. Direct Bribery.
d. Corruption of Public Officers, because the offense requires the
concurrence of the will of both parties, such as that when the offer is
accepted, the offense is consummated. But when the offer is rejected, the
offense is merely attempted.
e. Adultery, because the essence of the crime is
sexual congress.
f. Physical Injury, since it cannot be determined
whether the injury will be slight, less serious, or
serious unless and until consummated.
g. Theft, because the unlawful taking immediately consummates the
offense and the disposition of the thing is not an element thereof.
Consummated felony element:

1-all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present
A. SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PHASE OF A FELONY

U.S. v. Eduave A felony is frustrated
when the offender
Facts: The accused rushed upon the girl performs all the acts of
suddenly and struck her from behind, in part at least, with a sharp bolo, execution which should
producing a frightful gash in the lumbar region and slightly to the side, produce the felony as a
severing all of the muscles and tissues of that part. consequence, but which,
The motive of the crime was that the accused was incensed at the girl for nevertheless, do not
the reason that she had charged him criminally before the local officials produce it by reason of
with having raped her and with being the cause of her pregnancy. He was causes independent of the
her mother's querido and was living with her as such at the time the crime will of the perpetrator.
here charged was committed. Accused avers that, since the victim did not
die, it is homicide that was committed and not murder and that since death There is an attempt
did not result, it is attempted murder and not frustrated.
when the offender
Issue: W/N the crime committed is attempted murder. commences the
commission of the
Held: No, it is frustrated murder. The crime cannot be attempted murder. felony directly by
This is clear from
the fact that the defendant performed all of the acts which should have overt acts, and does
resulted in the consummated crime and voluntarily desisted from further not perform all the
acts. acts of execution
which constitute the
A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after
beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against felony by reason of
his will, by some outside cause from performing all some cause or
of the acts which should produce the crime. In other words, to be an accident other than
attempted crime the purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign
his own voluntary

force or agency which intervenes and compels him to stop prior to the desistance. In case
moment when he has
performed all of the acts which should produce the crime as a
of an attempt the
consequence, which acts it is his intention to perform. If he has performed offender never
all of the acts which should result in the consummation of the crime and passes the subjective
voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it can not be an attempt. phase of the offense.
The essential element which distinguishes attempted from frustrated He is interrupted
felony is that, in the latter, there is no intervention of a foreign or and compelled to
extraneous cause or agency between the desist by the
beginning of the commission of the crime and the moment when all of the intervention of
acts have been performed which should result in the consummated crime;
while in the former there is such intervention and the offender does not outside causes
arrive at the point of performing all of the acts which should produce the before the subjective
crime. He is stopped short of that point by some cause apart f rom his phase is passed.
voluntary desistance.
In case of frustrated
crimes the subjective
phase is completely
passed. Subjectively the
crime is complete.
Nothing interrupted the
offender while he was
passing through the
subjective phase. The
crime, however, is not
consummated by reason
of the intervention of
causes independent of the
will of the offender. He
did all that was necessary
to commit the crime. If
the crime did not result as
a consequence it was due
to something beyond his
control.
The subjective phase is

that portion of the acts
constituting the crime
included between the act
which begins the
commission of the crime
and the last act performed
by the offender which,
with the prior acts, should
result in the consummated
crime. From that time
forward the phase is
objective. It may also be

said to be that period
occupied by the acts of
the offender over which,
he has control—that
period between the point
where he begins and the
point where he voluntarily
desists. If between these
two points the offender is
stopped by any cause
outside of his own
voluntary desistance, the
subjective phase has not
been passed and it is
attempt. If
he is not so stopped but
continues until he
performs the last act, it is
frustrated.
B. RAPE
People v. Orita Correlating Art. 335 and
FACTS: Art. 6, there is no debate
March 20, 1983 Early Morning: Cristina S. Abayan, 19-year old freshman that the attempted and
student at the St. Joseph's College, arrived at her boarding house after her consummated stages
classmates brought her home from a party. She knocked at the door of her apply to the crime of rape.
boarding house when a frequent visitor of another boarder held her and
poked a knife to her neck. Despite pleading for her release, he ordered her Requisites of a frustrated
to go upstairs with him. Since the door which led to the 1st floor was felony are:
locked from the inside, they used the back door to the second floor. With (1) that the offender has
his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand poking a performed all the acts of
"balisong" to her neck, he dragged her up the stairs. When they reached execution which would
the second floor, he commanded her with the knife poked at her neck, to produce the felony
look for a room. They entered Abayan's room. He then pushed her hitting (2) that the felony is not
her head on the wall. With one hand holding the knife, he undressed produced due to causes
himself. He then ordered her to take off her clothes. Scared, she took off independent of the
her T-shirt, bra, pants and panty. He ordered her to lie down on the floor perpetrator's will.
and then mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert it in her
vagina. Still poked with a knife, she did as told but since she kept moving, Attempted crime the
only a portion of his penis entered her. He then laid down on his back and purpose of the offender
commanded her to mount him. Still only a small part of his penis was must be thwarted by a
inserted into her vagina. When he had both his hands flat on the floor. She foreign force or agency
dashed out to the next room and locked herself in. When he pursued her which intervenes and
and climbed the partition, she ran to another room then another then she compels him to stop prior
jumped out through a window. to the moment when he
has performed all of the
Still naked, she darted to the municipal building, 18 meters in front of the acts which should
boarding house and knocked on the door. When there was no answer, she produce the crime as a
ran around the building and knocked on the back door. When the consequence, which acts
policemen who were inside the building opened the door, they found her it is his intention to
naked sitting on the stairs crying. Pat. Donceras, took off his jacket and perform

wrapped it around her. Pat. Donceras and two other policemen rushed to
the boarding house where they heard and saw somebody running away If he has performed all of
but failed to apprehend him due to darkness. She was taken to Eastern the acts which should
Samar Provincial Hospital where she was physically examined. result in the
consummation of the
Her vulva had no abrasions or discharges. crime and voluntarily
desists from proceeding
RTC: frustrated rape further, it can not be an
attempt.
ISSUE: WON there is frustrated rape.
in the crime of rape, from
RULING: NO. RTC MODIFIED. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the the moment the offender
crime of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to has carnal knowledge of
indemnify the victim in the amount of P30,000. his victim he actually
attains his purpose and,
from that moment also all
the essential elements of
the offense have been
accomplished. Any
penetration of the female
organ by the male organ
is sufficient. Entry of the
labia or lips of the female
organ, without rupture of
the hymen or laceration of
the vagina is sufficient to
warrant conviction.
Necessarily, rape is
attempted if there is no
penetration of the female
organ
The fact is that in a

prosecution for rape, the
accused may be convicted
even on the sole basis of
the victim's testimony if
credible. Dr. Zamora did
not rule out penetration of
the genital organ of the
victim.
People v. Campuhan Touching when

Facts: Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-year old Crysthel
applied to rape
Pamintuan, went down from the second floor of their house to prepare cases does not
Milo chocolate drinks for her two (2) children. At simply mean mere
the ground floor she met Primo Campuhan who was then busy filling epidermal contact,
small plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the freezer located at
the second floor. As Corazon was stroking or grazing

busy preparing the drinks, she heard one of her daughters cry, “Ayo’ko, of organs, a slight
ayo’ko!” prompting Corazon to rush upstairs. She saw Primo Campuhan
inside her children’s room kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas or
brush or a scrape of
“jogging the penis on the
pants” and panty were already removed, while his short pants were down external layer of the
to his knees. victim’s vagina, or
According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis into Crysthel’s vagina.
She then cried for help. Seconds later, Primo was apprehended by those the mons pubis—
who answered Corazon’s call for there must be
help. They held the accused at the back of their compound until they were sufficient and
advised by their neighbors to call the barangay officials instead of convincing proof
detaining him for his misdeed. Physical examination of the victim yielded
negative results. that the penis indeed
No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted by the medico- touched the labias
legal officer on Crysthel’s body as her hymen was intact and its orifice or slid into the
was only 0.5 cm. in diameter.
female organ, and
Primo Campuhan had only himself for a witness in his defense. He not merely stroked
maintained his innocence and assailed the charge as a mere scheme of the external surface
Crysthel’s mother who allegedly harbored ill will against him for his thereof, for an
refusal to run an errand for her. He asserted that in truth Crysthel was in a
playing mood and wanted to ride on his back when she suddenly pulled accused to be
him down causing both of them to fall down on the floor. It was in this convicted of
fallen position that Corazon chanced upon them consummated rape.
and became hysterical. Corazon slapped him and accused him of raping As the labias, which
her child. He got mad but restrained himself from hitting back when he
realized she was a woman. Corazon called for help from her brothers to are required to be
stop him as he ran down from the second floor. Primo pleaded for a “touched” by the
chance to explain as he reasoned out that the accusation was not true. But penis, are by
Vicente kicked him instead. When Primo saw Vicente holding a piece of
lead pipe, Primo raised his hands and turned his back to avoid the blow.
their natural situs or
At this moment, the relatives and neighbors of Vicente prevailed upon location beneath the
him to mons pubis or the
take Primo to the barangay hall instead, and not to maul or possibly kill vaginal surface, to
him. Trial court found him guilty and sentenced him with the death
penalty Hence, this appeal. touch them with the
penis is to attain
Issue: W/N the rape was consummated. some degree of
penetration beneath
Held: No. A review of the records clearly discloses that the prosecution
utterly failed to discharge its onus of proving that Primo’s penis was able the surface, hence,
to penetrate Crysthel’s vagina the conclusion
however slight. In cases where penetration was not fully established, the that touching the
Court had anchored its conclusion that rape nevertheless was
consummated on the victim’s testimony that she felt pain, or the medico-
labia majora or the
legal finding of discoloration in the inner lips of the vagina, or the labia labia minora of the
minora was already gaping with redness, or the hymenal tags were no pudendum
longer visible. None constitutes
was shown in this case.
consummated rape.
Accused instead found guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE.
Baleros v. People
FACTS: Under Article 335 of the
Martina Lourdes Albano (Malou), a medical student of the University of Revised Penal Code, rape
Sto. Tomas, stayed at Room 307 with her maid Marvilou. is committed by a man
who has carnal
December 12 10:30 pm: Malou slept. Her maid Marvilou slept on a knowledge or intercourse
folding bed right in front of her bedroom door. with a woman under any
of the following
December 13, 1991 1:00 am: Chito left the fraternity party with Robert circumstances: (1) By
Chan and Alberto wearing a barong tagalog, with t-shirt inside, with short using force or
pants with stripes lent by Perla Duran and leather shoes. intimidation; (2) When
the woman is deprived of
December 13, 1991 1:30 am: Chito arrived at the Building wearing a reason or otherwise
white t-shirt with fraternity symbols and black shorts with the brand name unconscious; and (3)
“Adidas” from a party. He requested permission from S/G Ferolin to go When the woman is under
up to Room 306 leased by Ansbert Co but at that time only Joseph twelve years of age or is
Bernard Africa was there. Although Chito could not produce the required demented.
written authorization, he let him in because he will be a tenant in the
coming summer break. Joseph was awaken by Chito’s knock so he Under Article 6, in
glanced the alarm clock and let him. He saw him wearing dark-colored relation to the
shorts and white T-shirt. aforementioned article of
the same code, rape is
December 13, 1991 1:50 am: Renato Baleros, Jr. y David (Chito) attempted when the
forcefully covered the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of offender commences the
cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects. This awakened Malou. commission of rape
She struggled but could not move because she was tightly held and pinned directly by overt acts and
down on the bed. She kicked him and got her right hand free to squeeze does not perform all the
his sex organ causing him to let her go. She went for the bedroom door acts of execution which
and woke up Marvilou. She also intercommed S/G Ferolin saying: "may should produce the crime
pumasok sa kuarto ko pinagtangkaan ako". Malou proceed to Room 310 of rape by reason of some
where her classmates Christian Alcala, Bernard Baptista, Lutgardo Acosta cause or accident other
and Rommel Montes were staying and seeked help. She saw her bed in a than his own spontaneous
mess and noticed that her nightdress was stained with blue. Aside from desistance.
the window with grills which she had originally left opened, another
window inside her bedroom which leads to Room 306 was now open. whether or not the act of
the petitioner, i.e., the
December 13, 1991 3:30 pm: Christian and his roommates, Bernard and pressing of a chemical-
Lutgardo were asked by the CIS people to look for anything not belonging soaked cloth while on top
to them in their Unit when Rommel Montes went inside and found a grey of Malou, constitutes an
bag. overt act of rape.
Christian knew right away that it belonged to Chito. It contained white t- Overt or external act has
shirt with fraternity symbol, a Black Adidas short pants, a handkerchief , 3 been defined as some
white T-shirts, an underwear and socks. physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to
Chito pleaded NOT Guilty commit a particular crime,
more than a mere
13 witnesses including Malou and her classmates, Joseph Bernard Africa, planning or preparation,
Rommel Montes, Renato Alagadan and Christian Alcala which if carried out to its
complete termination
Malou: Chito was her classmate whom he rejected a week before following its natural
course, without being
Chito: He only slept and at about 6 to 6:30, Joseph told him that frustrated by external
something had happened and asked him to follow him to Room 310 obstacles nor by the
carrying his gray bag and since no one was there they went to Room 401 voluntary desistance of
where Renato Alagadan was. He left his grey bag at Room 306 the day the perpetrator, will
before. logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete
handkerchief and Malou’s night dress both contained chloroform, a offense
volatile poison which causes first degree burn exactly like what Malou
sustained on that part of her face where the chemical-soaked cloth had Chito was fully clothed
been pressed and that there was no
attempt on his part to
RTC: guilty of attempted rape undress Malou, let alone
touch her private part
CA: Affirmed
Verily, while the series of
ISSUE: WON Chito is guilty of attempted rape acts committed by the
petitioner do not
RULING: NO. REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ACQUITTING Renato D. determine attempted rape,
Baleros, Jr. of the charge for attempted rape. GUILTY of light coercion they constitute unjust
and is accordingly sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine vexation punishable as
of P200.00, with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs. light coercion under the
second paragraph of
Article 287 of the Revised
Penal Code.
As it were, unjust
vexation exists even
without the element of
restraint or compulsion
for the reason that this
term is broad enough to
include any human
conduct which, although
not productive of some
physical or material harm,
would unjustly annoy or
irritate an innocent person
That Malou, after the

incident in question, cried
while relating to her
classmates what she
perceived to be a sexual
attack and the fact that
she filed a case for
attempted rape proved
beyond cavil that she was
disturbed, if not distressed

Cruz v. People The basic element of rape
then and now is carnal
Facts: Norberto and Belinda Cruz employed AAA and BBB to help them knowledge of a female.
in selling their wares in Bangar, La Union which was then celebrating its Carnal knowledge is
fiesta. They reached Bangar and two tents were fixed in order that they defined simply as “the act
will have a place to sleep. of a man having sexual
Belinda and the driver proceeded to Manila in order to get more goods to bodily connections with a
be sold. At around 1:00 o’clock in the morning, AAA and BBB went to woman,” which explains
sleep. Less than an hour later, AAA was why the slightest
awakened when she felt that somebody was on top of her. Norberto was penetration of the
mashing her breast and touching her private part. AAA realized that she female genitalia
was divested of her clothing and that she consummates the rape. In
was totally naked. Norberto ordered her not to scream or she’ll be killed. other words, rape is
AAA tried to push Norberto away and pleaded to have pity consummated once the
on her but her pleas fell on deaf ears. She fought back and kicked penis capable of
Norberto twice. consummating the sexual
Norberto was not able to pursue his lustful desires. Norberto offered her act touches the external
money and told her not to tell the incident to her mother otherwise, she genitalia of the female.
will be killed. AAA went out of the tent to
seek help from Jess (the house boy) but she failed to wake him up. Thirty As the evolving case law
minutes later, when AAA returned to their tent, she saw Norberto on rape stands, therefore,
touching the private parts of BBB. AAA saw her rape in its frustrated stage
companion awake but her hands were shaking. When she finally entered is a
the tent, Norberto left and went outside. Later that day, AAA and BBB physical impossibility,
narrated to Jess the incident that took place that early morning. They went considering that the
to the police and reported the incident. The petitioner was charged in the requisites of a frustrated
RTC with attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness involving different felony under Article 6 of
victims. At arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. After the joint trial of the the Revised Penal Code
two criminal cases, the RTC are that: (1) the offender
rendered its judgment finding the has performed all the acts
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted rape and acts of of execution which
lasciviousness. Upon appeal to the CA, CA affirmed his conviction for would produce the felony;
attempted rape but acquitted him for acts of lasciviousness due to and (2) that the felony is
insufficient evidence. The case at bar was filed due to the alleged failure not produced due to
of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. causes independent of the
perpetrator’s will.
Issue: W/N accused is guilty of attempted rape. Obviously, the
offender attains his
Held: No. It is obvious that the fundamental difference between purpose from the moment
attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is the offender’s intent to lie he has carnal knowledge
with the female. In rape, intent to lie with the of his victim, because
female is indispensable, but this element is not required in acts of from that moment all the
lasciviousness. Attempted rape is committed, therefore, when the essential elements of the
“touching” of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to offense have been
penetrate. The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of accomplished, leaving
the penis capable nothing more to be done
of consummating the sexual act touching the external genitalia of the by him.
female. Without such showing, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is
committed. In attempted rape, the
concrete felony is rape,
but the offender does not
The information charged that the petitioner “remove[d] her panty and perform all the acts of
underwear and la[id] on top of said AAA embracing and touching her execution of having
vagina and breast.” With such allegation of the information being carnal knowledge. If the
competently and slightest penetration of
satisfactorily proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty only of acts the female genitalia
of lasciviousness, not attempted rape. His embracing her and touching her consummates rape, and
vagina and breasts did not directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The rape in its attempted stage
lack of evidence showing his erectile penis being in the position to requires the
penetrate her when he was on top of her deterred any inference about his commencement of the
intent to lie with her. commission of the felony
directly by overt acts
Accused is guilty of acts of lasciviousness. without the
offender performing all
the acts of execution that
should produce the
felony, the only means by
which the overt acts
performed by the accused
can be shown to have a
causal relation to rape as
the
intended crime is to make
a clear showing of his
intent to lie with the
female.
“The gauge in
determining whether the
crime of attempted rape
had been committed is the
commencement of the act
of sexual intercourse, i.e.,
penetration of the penis
into the vagina, before the
interruption.”
Based on Article
336 of the Revised
Penal Code, the
felony of acts of
lasciviousness is
consummated when
the following
essential elements
concur, namely: (a)
the offender
commits any act of

lasciviousness or
lewdness upon
another person of
either sex; and (b)
the act of
lasciviousness or
lewdness is
committed either (i)
by using force or
intimidation; or (ii)
when the offended
party is deprived of
reason or is
otherwise
unconscious; or (iii)
when the offended
party is under 12
years of age. In that
regard, lewd is
defined as obscene,
lustful, indecent,
lecherous; it
signifies that form of
immorality that has
relation to moral
impurity; or that
which is carried on
a wanton manner
THEFT
Valenzuela vs. People The crime is
FACTS: Petitioner and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale consummated. The
Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North following elements of
EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning theft as provided for in
his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, Article 308 of the Revised
who was wearing an identification card with the mark Receiving Penal Code, namely: (1)
Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling a pushcart with cases of detergent of the that there be taking of
well-known Tide brand. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open personal property; (2) that
parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned said property belongs to
inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more another; (3) that the
cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same taking be done with intent
area in the open parking space. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt to gain; (4) that the taking
of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but be done without the

Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the consent of the owner; and
incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the (5) that the taking be
stolen merchandise recovered. Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner accomplished without the
argued that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at the use of violence against or
time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely intimidation of persons or
dispose of the articles stolen. force upon things. There
ISSUE: Is the crime committed frustrated or consummated theft? was no need of an intent
RULING: Consummated Theft. The petition is denied, costs against to permanently deprive
Petitioner. the owner of his property
to constitute an unlawful
taking.
So long as the descriptive

circumstances that qualify
the taking are present,
including animo lucrandi
and apoderamiento, the
completion of the
operative act that is the
taking of personal
property of another
establishes, at least, that
the transgression went
beyond the attempted
stage. Insofar as we
consider the present
question, unlawful taking
is most material in this
respect. Unlawful taking,
which is the deprivation
of one’s personal
property, is the element
which produces the felony
in its consummated stage.
At the same time, without
unlawful taking as an act
of execution, the offense
could only be attempted
theft, if at all. With these
considerations, we can
only conclude that under
Penal Code, theft cannot
have a frustrated stage.
Theft can only be
attempted or
consummated.
ROBBERY

People v. Lamahang In order that a
Facts: Jose Tomambing, a police officer, caught the accused in the act of
simple act of
making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods entering by means
located on the last named street. At that time the owner of the store, Tan of force or violence
Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman. The accused had only another person's
succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the wall,
when the policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and placed dwelling may be
him under custody. considered as
The fact above stated was considered and declared attempted robbery,
unanimously by the provincial fiscal of Iloilo, the trial judge and the it must be shown
Solicitor-General, as constituting attempted robbery, hence, this appeal.
that the offender
Issue: W/N the crime committed constitutes attempted robbery. clearly intended to
take possession, for
Held: No. it is not sufficient, for the purpose of
imposing penal sanction, that an act objectively performed constitute a
the purpose of gain,
mere beginning of execution; it is necessary to establish its unavoidable of some personal
connection, like the logical and property belonging
natural relation of the cause and its effect, with the deed which, upon its to another.
consummation, will develop into one of the offenses defined and punished
by the Code; it is necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if
carried to its
complete termination following 'its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
Thus, in case of robbery, in order that the simple act of entering by means
of force or
violence another person's dwelling may be considered an attempt to
commit this offense, it must be shown that the offender clearly intended to
take possession, for the purpose of gain, of some personal property
belonging to another. In the instant case, there is nothing in the record
from which such purpose of the accused may reasonably be inferred.
Wherefore, the sentence appealed from is revoked and the accused is

hereby held guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling,
People v. Salvillam From the moment the
FACTS: offender gained
The accused Bienvenido Salvilla together with his co-accused armed with possession of the thing,
homemade guns and hand grenade robbed Rodita Habiero in the latter’s even if the culprit had no
office. In the office of Rodita; her two daughters Mary and Mimmie were opportunity to dispose of
also inside. One of the accused asks Mary to get the paper bag which the same, the unlawful
contained money. All accused held victims as hostage when the police taking is complete.
and military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. After the
negotiation fails to proceed, the police makes their move in assaulting the
robbers thus Mary and Mimmie are injured as well the accused also got an
injury.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of robbery was consummated.
RULING: YES. Wherefore, The judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed.

MURDER
Epifanio vs. People In case of an attempted
crime, the offender never
Facts: At around 9:00 o’clock in the evening, Crisaldo Alberto (Crisaldo) passes the subjective
and his cousin, Allan Perez (Allan), were walking to their respective phase in the commission
homes. Since the pavement going to Crisaldo’s house followed a narrow of the crime. The offender
pathway along the does not arrive at the
local shrubs called banganga, Allan walked ahead of Crisaldo at a distance point of performing all of
of about three (3) meters. the acts of execution
Suddenly, Crisaldo felt the piercing thrust of a bladed weapon on his back, which should produce the
which caused him to cry out in pain. He made a quick turnaround and saw crime.
his attacker, petitioner, also known as
“Iyo (Uncle) Kingkoy.” Petitioner stabbed Crisaldo again but only hit the A crime is frustrated
latter’s left arm. When Allan heard Crisaldo’s outcry, he rushed to when the offender has
Crisaldo’s side which caused petitioner to run away. Allan then brought performed all the acts of
Crisaldo to his father’s house where Crisaldo’s wounds were wrapped in a execution which
blanket. Crisaldo was then brought to the where he stayed for three weeks should result in the
to recuperate from his consummation of the
wounds. The accused denied the accusations. Accused was found guilty of crime. The offender has
frustrated murder in the RTC and CA; hence, this petition. passed the subjective
phase in the commission
Issue: W/N the guilt of the accused for the crime of frustrated murder is of the crime. Subjectively,
beyond reasonable doubt. the crime is complete.
Nothing interrupted the
Held: No. In the present case, the intent to kill is very evident and was offender while passing
established beyond reasonable doubt through the unwavering testimony of through the subjective
Crisaldo on the manner of phase. He did all that was
execution of the attack as well as the number of wounds he sustained. The necessary to consummate
treacherous manner in which petitioner perpetrated the crime is shown not the crime; however, the
only by the sudden and unexpected attack upon the unsuspecting victim crime is not
but also by the deliberate manner in which the assault was perpetrated. consummated by reason
However, the subjective phase of the of the intervention of
crime had not been completed. Moreover, no evidence in this case was causes independent of the
introduced to prove that will of the offender.
Crisaldo would have died from his wound without timely medical
attendance. In homicide cases, the
offender is said to have
WHEREFORE, the Decision is MODIFIED to the effect that petitioner is performed all the acts of
found GUILTY of ATTEMPTED MURDER execution if the wound
inflicted on the victim is
mortal and could cause
the death of the victim
barring medical
intervention or
attendance. If one inflicts
physical
injuries on another but the
latter survives, the crime
committed is either

consummated physical
injuries, if the offender
had no intention to kill the
victim; or frustrated or
attempted homicide or
frustrated murder or
attempted murder if the
offender intends to kill the
victim.
People v. Sy Pio 1. Sy Pio had to turn
FACTS: Sy Pio shot three people early in the morning of September 3, around to shoot
1949. Tan Siong Kiap, Ong Pian and Jose Sy. Tan Siong Kiap.
Sy Pio entered the store at 511 Misericordia Sta Cruz Manila and started 2. 2. There is
firing with a .45 caliber pistol. First to be shot was Jose Sy. Upon seeing sufficient proof.
Sy Pio fire at Jose Sy, Tan asked ―what is the problem? And thereupon, (Uncontradicted
Sy Pio turned around and fired at him as well. Tan was shot at his right testimony of the
shoulder and it passed through his back. He ran to a room behind the store victim,
to hide. He was still able to hear gunshots from Sy Pio‘s pistol, but admissions made
afterwards, Sy Pio ran away. to Lomotan,
testimony
Tan Siong Kiap was brought to the Chinese General Hospital where his ofphysician, etc.)
wound was treated. He stayed there from 3. 3. Assignment of
Septenber 3-12, 1949. He was released upon his request and against error must be
physician‘s advice and was requested to return for further treatment which dismissed.
he did 5 times in a period of 10 days. His wound was completely healed; Offended party
he spent P300 spent P300 for the
for hospital and doctor‘s fees. hospital fees.
The fact that he was able
Sy Pio was found by the Constabulary in Tarlac. Lomotan, a police from to escape which appellant
Manila Police Department went to Tarlac to get Sy Pio. He admitted to must have seen, must
Lomotan that he shot the victims and handed him the pistol used in the have produced in the
shooting. mind of the defendant-
According to Sy Pio‘s declaration, some months prior to the incident, he appellant that he was not
was employed in a restaurant owned by Ong Pian. Sy Pio‘s wife, Vicenta able to hit his victim at a
was also employed by Ong Pian‘s partner. When he tried to borrow vital part of the body. The
money from Ong Pian for his wife‘s sick father, Ong Pian only lent him defendant appellantknew
P1. his wife was able to borrow P20 from her employer. Afterwards, that he had not actually
defendant-appellant was dismissed from his work. Ong Pian presented a performed all acts of
list of Sy Pio‘s debts and thesewere deducted from his wife‘s monthly execution necessary to
salary. Sy Pio could not remember incurring such debts. As such, he kill his victim. Under
wasresentful of Ong Pian‘s conduct.In Tan Siong Kiap‘s case, a few thesecircumstances, it
months before Sept3, Sy Pio was able to realize the sum o cannot be said that the
f P70 and he put hismoney in a place in his room. The next day, Sy Pio subjective phase of the
found that his money was gone. Tan tolf Sy Pio that he hadprobably given acts of execution had been
the money to his wife. Thereafter, Sy Pio could hear that he had lost his completed
money gambling. ASo early inthe morning of Sept 3, while Ngo Cho, a
Chinaman who has a pistol was away, he got his pistol and went to
arestaurant in Ongpin where Ong Pian worked and shot him. Afterwards
he went to Sta Cruz and shot Jose Sy andTan.

Trial court erred in not finding that Tan received the shot accidentally
from the same bullet that had been fired at Jose Sy.
The evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction.
Lower court erred in sentencing him to pay an indemnity of P350.
Defendant-appellant should only be found guilty of less serious physical
injuries instead of frustrated murder.
ISSUE:
WON the defendant-appelant is guilty of attempted Murder.
RULING:
YES. Judgment is Modified, the defendant-appelant is found guilty of the
crime of attempted murder.
People v. Ravelo In a crime of murder or an

FACTS: The accused-appellants are members of the Civilian Home attempt of frustration
Defense Force (CHDF) stationed at a checkpointnear the airport of thereof, the offender must
Tandag. At approximately 6:30 PM of May 21, 1984, accused-appellants have the intent or the
allegedly kidnapped by means of force one Reynaldo Gaurano. They then actual design to kill which
detained Gaurano at the house of Pedro Ravelo, one of the accused. must be manifested by
Thereafter, they assaulted, attacked, and burned Gaurano, with the intent external acts. A verbal
of killing the latter. Reynaldo Gaurano died on May 22. At about 1AM of expression is not
May 22, the accused-appellants also kidnapped by means of force Joey sufficient to show an
Lugatiman. The latter wasalso brought to Ravelo's house where he was actual design toperpetrate
tortured. At 5AM, Lugatiman was transferred to the house of accused- the act. Intent must be
appellant Padilla. There he was tied to the wall with a nylon line and was shown not only by a
told he would be killed at 9AM. Shortly after,accused-appellants had to statement of the
attend to Gaurano; Lugatiman was thus left alone. He was able to aggressor, but also by the
escape.He reported what happened to him and to Gaurano to the police execution of allacts and
authorities. RTC convicted the accused-appellants ofmurder of Gaurano the use of means
and frustrated murder of Lugatiman.In this appeal, counsel for the accused necessary to deliver a
aver that the lower court erred in finding that accused-appellants are guilty fatal blow while the
offrustrated murder. Counsel further contends that there can be no victim is not placed in a
frustrated murder absent any proof of intent to kill,which is an essential position to defend
element of the offense of frustrated murder. The trial court merely relied himself.
on the statement of theaccused-appellants stating they would kill
Lugatiman to establish intent to kill.
ISSUE: Whether the statement by the accused stating that Lugatiman
would be killed is sufficient proof of intent toconvict a person of
frustrated murder.
RULING: NO. WHEREFORE, the appealed judgments in Criminal Cases
Nos. 1187 and 1194 are hereby, respectively, affirmed and modified as to
the crime proven.
The accused-appellants PEDRO RAVELO, BONIFACIO "PATYONG"
PADILLA, ROMEO ASPIRIN, NICOLAS GUADALUPE and HERMIE
PAHIT are hereby sentenced:
(1) To serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the increased
indemnity of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) in Criminal Case
No. 1187 solidarily; and
(2) To serve the penalty of arresto menor in Criminal Case No. 1194.
Velasco v. People
FACTS:

April 19, 1998 7:30 am: Frederick Maramba was cleaning and washing
his owner type jeep in front of his house when a motorized tricycle
stopped near him. Rodolfo C. Velasco dashed out of the tricycle,
approached the complainant and fired at him several times with a .45
caliber pistol. Velasco missed his first shot but the second one hit the
complainant at the upper arm, causing him to stumble on the ground. But,
Frederick stood up and ran, while Velasco fired 6 more but missed.
After being reported as wearing a vest or a “chaleco”, the police,

composed of SPO4 Romulo Villamil, PO3 Rolando Alvendo, and SPO1
Soliven pursued and caught Velasco who was on board a motorized
tricycle to the highway going to Barangay Banaoang in Calasiao town
with a firearm protruding from the waistline
Velasco’s Alibi: April 18, 1998, he spent the night at a friend’s house in
Lingayen, Pangasinan and between 6:00-7:00am, he left Lingayen riding
in the Volkswagen car of Berting Soriano then alighted at the corner of
Banaoang diversion road to ride a tricycle where he heard a jeep behind
him blowing its horn and when he looked back he saw three men on board
pointing their guns at him.
RTC: guilty of attempted murder appreciating treachery in the

commission of the crime sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
Four (4) years of prision correccional, as minimum to Eight (8) years and
One (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum and to pay P2,696 as actual
damages
CA: Affirmed RTC
Velasco filed a petition for certiorari
he had no motive to harm, much less kill, the victim for he was total
stranger and since the identity of the assailant is in doubt, motive becomes
important and his alibi gains weight and value and that the testimony of
Armando Maramba is not credible, he being a relative of the victim
ISSUE: WON Velasco is guilty of attempted murder

People v. Almazan For the charge of
Facts: Vicente Madriaga and a certain Allan played chess in front of the
frustrated murder to
former’s house. One of the spectators was Vicente’s son, Noli, who was flourish, the victim
carrying his 2-year old daughter and Angel. While the game was should sustain a
underway, Henry Almazan unexpectedly arrived and brandished a .38 fatal wound that
caliber revolver in front of the group. Almazan’s fighting cocks had just
been stolen and he suspected Angel, one of the spectators, to be the could have caused
culprit. his death were it not
Thus he said, “manos-manos na lang tayo” aimed his gun at Angel and for timely medical
pulled the trigger. It did not fire. He tried again, but again it failed. At this assistance.
juncture, Vicente Madriaga stood up and tried to calm down Henry, but

the latter refused to be pacified. Angel ran away and Henry aimed his gun
instead at Noli. Henry shot Noli at the left
side of his stomach sending him immediately to the ground. He then
turned on Noel and shot him on the left thigh. Noel managed to walk
lamely only to eventually fall to the ground. Thereafter, Vicente
Madriaga called on his neighbors who brought Noli and Noel to the
hospital. Noli however died before reaching the hospital, while Noel
survived his injuries. Almazan was charged and eventually found guilty of
murder and frustrated murder.
Issue: W/N Almazan is guilty of frustrated murder.
Held: No. For the charge of frustrated murder to flourish, the victim
should sustain a fatal wound that could have caused his death were it not
for timely medical assistance. This is not
the case before us. The court a quo anchored its ruling on the statement of
Dr. Ticman on cross-examination that the wound of Noel could catch
infection or lead to his death if not timely and properly treated. However,
in his direct
testimony, Dr. Ticman declared that the wound was a mere minor injury
for which Noel, after undergoing treatment, was immediately advised to
go home. He even referred to the wound as a slight physical injury that
would heal within a week and for which, the victim was in no danger of
dying.
HOMICIDE
People v. Listerio
Facts: Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were walking when they met a group
composed of men who blocked their path and attacked them with lead
pipes and bladed weapons. One stabbed Jeonito from behind. Jeonito‘s
brother, Marlon, was hit on the head. Jeonito sustained three (3) stab
wounds on the upper right portion of his back, another
on the lower right portion and the third on the middle portion of the left
side of his back causing him to fall down. Marlon Araque was hit on the
head by Samson dela Torre and Bonifacio Bancaya with lead pipes and
momentarily lost consciousness. When he regained his senses three (3)
minutes later, he saw that Jeonito was already dead. Their assailants then
fled after the incident. Marlon Araque who sustained injuries in the arm
and back, was thereafter brought to a hospital
for treatment.
Issue: W/N accused is guilty of attempted homicide.
Held: No. It is not the gravity of the wounds inflicted which determines
whether a felony is attempted or frustrated but whether or not the
subjective phase in the commission of an offense has been passed. In
relation to the foregoing, it bears stressing that intent to kill determines
whether the infliction of injuries should be
punished as attempted or frustrated murder, homicide, parricide or
consummated physical injuries. Homicidal intent must be evidenced by

acts which at the time of their execution are unmistakably calculated to
produce the death
of the victim by adequate means. It also can not be denied that the crime is
a frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering that after being
stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he lost
consciousness and fell, Marion’s attackers apparently thought he was
already dead and fled.
The Court finds the accused guilty of frustrated homicide.
People v. Kalalom
FACTS:
On November 10, 1932, the appellants namely, Felipe Kalalo, Marcelo
Kalalo, Juan Kalalo, and Gregorio Ramos, were tried in the Batangas
jointly with Alejandro Garcia, Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica in
criminal cases Nos. 6858, 6859 and 6860, the first two for murder, and the
last for frustrated murder.
Marcelo Kalalo or Calalo and Isabela Holgado or

Olgado, the latter being the sister of the deceased Arcadio Holgado and a
cousin of the other deceased Marcelino Panaligan, had a litigation over a
parcel of land situated in the barrio of Calumpang of the municipality of
San Luis,
Province of Batangas. On September 28, 1931, and again on December
8th of the same year, Marcelo Kalalo filed a complaint against the said
woman in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. By virtue of a motion
filed by his opponent Isabela Holgado, his first complaint was
dismissed on December 7, 1931, and his second complaint was likewise
dismissed on February 5, 1932. Marcelo Kalalo cultivated the land in
question during the agricultural years 1931 and 1932, but when harvest
time came Isabela Holgado reaped all that had been planted thereon.
On October 1, 1932, Isabela Holgado and her brother Arcadio Holgado,
one of the deceased, decided to order the aforesaid land plowed, and
employed several laborers for that purpose. These men, together with
Arcadio Holgado, went to the said land early that day, but Marcelo Kalalo,
who had been informed thereof, proceeded to the place
accompanied by his brothers Felipe and Juan Kalalo, his brother-in-law
Gregorio Ramos and by Alejandro Garcia, who were later followed by
Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica, mother and aunt, respectively, of
the first three.
The first five were all armed with bolos. Upon their arrival at the said
land, they ordered those who were plowing it by request of Isabela and
Arcadio Holgado, to stop, which they did in view of the threatening
attitude of those who gave them said order. Shortly after nine o'clock on
the morning of the same day, Isabela Holgado, Maria Gutierrez and
Hilarion Holgado arrived at the place with food for the laborers.

Before the men resumed their work, they were given their food and not
long after they had finished eating, Marcelino Panaligan, cousin of said
Isabela and Arcadio, likewise arrived. Having been informed of the cause
of the suspension of the work, Marcelino Panaligan ordered said Arcadio
and the other laborers to again hitch their
respective carabaos to continue the work already began. At this juncture,
the appellant Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio, while the appellants
Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos, in turn, approached
Marcelino Panaligan. At a remark from Fausta Abrenica, mother of the
Kalalos, about as follows, "what is detaining you?" they all
simultaneously struck with their bolos, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo
slashing Arcadio Holgado, while the appellants Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalalo
and Gregorio Ramos
slashed Marcelino Panaligan, inflicting upon them the wounds Arcadio
Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan died instantly f rom the wounds
received by them in the presence of Isabela
Holgado and Maria Gutierrez, not to mention the accused. The plowmen
hired by Arcadio and Isabela all ran away.
ISSUE: W/O accused-appellants are liable of the crimes of murder and

discharge of firearms?
RULING: In all other respects, the appealed sentences in the said three
cases are hereby affirmed without prejudice to crediting the appellants
therein with one-half of the time during which they have undergone
preventive imprisonment, in accordance with article 29 of the Revised
Penal Code. So ordered.
The first case is, for the alleged murder of Marcelino Panaligan, to
seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the
corresponding accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of the said
deceased Marcelino Panaligan in the sum of P1,000, with the costs.
The second case is, for the alleged murder of Arcadio Holgado, to
seventeen years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the
corresponding accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of the
aforesaid victim, the deceased Arcadio Holgado, in the sum of P1,000,
with the costs.
In the third case, that is, the court held that the crime committed was
simply that of discharge of firearm, not frustrated murder, the appellant
Marcelo Kalalo was sentenced to one year, eight months and twenty-one
days of prision correccional and to pay the proportionate part of the costs
of the proceedings. Felipe Kalalo and Juan Kalalo, as well as their co-
accused Fausta and Alipia Abrenica, Gregorio Ramos and Alejandro
Garcia, were acquitted of the charges therein.
ESTAFA
US v. Dominguez inasmuch as he
performed all the
acts of execution
Facts: Accused who was a salesman at the Philippine Education Co., Inc. which should
did then and there receive the sum of seven pesos and fifty centavos
(P7.50) from one Lamberto Garcia as payment for five copies of Sams'
produce the crime
'Practical Business Letters' bought from the store of the said company, as a consequence,
which amount should have been turned over and delivered by him but which, by reason
(accused) to the company's cashier or his authorized representative of causes
therein; that instead of delivering the said amount to the said cashier or his
representative therein, which he knew it was his obligation to do, the said independent of his
accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally will, did not
misappropriate and convert it to his own personal use to the damage and produce- it, no
prejudice of the said Philippine Education Co., Inc. in the appreciable damage
sum of seven pesos and fifty centavos (P7.50). He only returned the
amount upon discovery of his deceit. having been caused
to the offended
Issue: W/N the actions of the accused constitute a consummated offense party, such damage
of estafa.
being one of the
Held: No. The accused is guilty of frustrated offense of estafa of 37½ essential elements of
pesetas, inasmuch as he the crime,
performed all the acts of execution which should produce the crime as a due to the timely
consequence, but which, by reason of causes independent of his will, did
not produce- it, no appreciable damage having been caused to the discovery of the acts
offended party, such damage being one of the essential elements of the prosecuted
crime,
due to the timely discovery of the acts prosecuted.
BRIBERY
Pozar v. CA The procedure for
FACTS: Petitioner, an American citizen and a permanent resident of the processing petitioner's
Philippines,was charged in an Information, with the crime of Corruption application for probation
of a Public Official. As stated in the Information, petitioner "did then and in theProbation Office at
there willfully, unlawfully, andfeloniously give to the complainant, Mr. Angeles City was not
Danilo Ocampo, the City Probation Officer, thesum of one hundred precise, explicit and clear
(P100.00) pesos in a paper bill with serial No. BC530309, under cut. And since theaccused
circumstances that would make the said City Probation Officer, Mr. petitioner is a foreigner
Danilo Ocampo,liable for bribery. and quite unfamiliar with
” probation rules and
Manalo, Clerk at the Probation Office of Angeles City, declared that he procedures, there is
started workingat the Probation Office since May 2, 1978 and came to reason to conclude that
know appellant because thelatter had gone to said office in connection petitioner was befuddled,
with his application for probation. At aboutnoontime of December 17, if not confusedso that his
1979, appellant came to the office looking for ProbationOfficer Danilo act of providing and
Ocampo and since the latter was out at the time, appellant gave him advancing the expenses
aclosed envelope bearing the name of Ocampo for delivery to the for whatever
latter.Two days later, he gave the envelope to Ocampo who opened the documentationwas needed
same in hispresence. The envelope contained some official papers further to complete and
connected with appellant'sapplication for probation and attached thereto thus hasten his probation
was a hundred-peso bill. Ocampo then application,
remarked: “ wasunderstandably
This is something bad that the opening of the envelope was done on innocent and not criminal.
December 19, 1979.” There being no criminal

Ocampo kept the envelope and its contents, including the onehundred- intent to corrupt
peso bill, but within a week's time gave them to him with instructions to theProbation Officer, the
givethe same to appellant but the latter never came to the office and so he accused petitioner is
returned themto Ocampo. Although he later saw appellant about two entitled to acquittal of the
weeks after December 17, 1979, when thelatter came to the office to sign crime charged.
some papers, he never mentioned to appellant the onehundred-peso bill.
ANOTHER PROSEC WITNESS: the trial court erred in
Mrs. Primitiva Francisco, Assistant Probation Officer of the Angeles City finding the accused guilty
ProbationOffice, declared that she knows appellant because the latter was of the crime of
one of the applicantsfor probation in 1979 and she was the one assigned to Corruptionof Public
investigate appellant's case. As Assistant Probation Officer in the Official as consummated
Investigation of applications for probation and in thecase of appellant, she offense (which is affirmed
requested him to submit certain pertinent documents requiredby their by the
office, such as barangay, police and court clearances, residence respondentappellant
certificate,etc.Mrs. Francisco further declared that at the time she saw court) for it is clear from
appellant on December 21,1979, the latter was asking person to leave for the evidence of the
Baguio City but she told him to talk withProbation Officer, Mr. Ocampo, prosecution as recited in
anent the matter. She then prepared a draft of the Post-Sentence bothdecisions of the trial
Investigation report and thereafter had a conference with Ocampo who and appellate courts, that
toldhim not to delete the bribery incident from the report. It was first from the complainant Probation
Manalo and laterfrom Ocampo that she became aware of the bribery or Officer didnot accept the
more accurately corruption of apublic official committed by appellant. one hundred-peso bill
Hence, the crime would
DEFENSE’S VERSION: be attemptedcorruption of
The one hundred-peso bill the accused-appellant placed in the envelope a public official (to be the
delivered tothe Probation Officer was allegedly intended to take care of correct charge)
the expenses in the xeroxcopying or reproduction of documents that may .
be needed by the Probation Office.
However, petitioner was
BACK STORY: required by the Assistant
Accused was convicted of the crime of less Serious Physical Injuries, and Probation Officer,
the crime ofOral Defamation of the City Court of Angeles City, Branch 1, PrimitiveFrancisco, to
and the said accused wassentenced to an imprisonment of 15 days of submit in connection with
Arresto Menor and to pay a fine of P50.00and to pay the complaining his probation application
witness the amount of P500.00 as moral and exemptdamages. After he the Court
was sentenced, he, on November 28, 1979 filed an Application Information(complaint)
forProbation. After filing the application for Probation, the accused, Court decision, Custody
together with his lawyer Atty.Reynaldo Suarez, went to the Probation Status (recognizance or
Office purposely to inquire for the requirementsneed for his client's bail bond),
petition for probation. Unfortunately, Atty. Suarez and his client didnot clearancesfrom the Police,
reach the Probation Officer Mr. Danilo Ocampo. It was Mr. Manalo, a the Court, Barangay
clerk of theProbation Office, whom they reached, and they were requested Certificate, I.D. pictures
to come back to theoffice regarding their inquiry inasmuch as the (3 copies),
Probation Officer was not in the office.He was inquiring from Mrs. residencecertificate, and
Francisco the necessary documents regarding theapplication for probation told to report once a week
of his client and Mrs. Francisco suggested that he would comeover the on Mondays. when the
office in order to give him all the necessary information. latter was
ISSUE: Is petitioner guilty of the direct bribery? askingpermission to go to
RULING: NO. Accused was ACQUITTED. Baguio to submit to the
office a copy of his visa
and passport. Duringall
the time he was applying
for probation, he made
more or less 12 visits in
the officeas he was
directed to report every
Monday at 10:00 o'clock
in the morning. He
reported for 6 to 7
consecutive weeks and
there were times that he
went there unscheduled
forconference and
clarification of the various
requirements he needed.
ARSON
People v. Hernandez Frustrated/Consummated
FACTS: Miguel Dayrit, the offended party, was living with his children in Felony
his house situated in the barrio,of Duque, municipality of Mabalacat,
Province of Pampanga, At a little past midnight on that date, and after The appellant did in fact,
Miguel Dayrit had retired, he noticed that the thatched roof of his house set fire to the roof of the
was on fire. He got up to fetch some water with which to extinguish the house, and said house was
fire, when, looking out of the window, he saw the appellant beside the in fact partially burned.
house, carrying a stick. Miguel Dayrit shouted for help, and started to put With this, the crime of
out the fire, which he succeeded in doing, after a small part of the roof had arson was consummated,
burned. notwithstanding the fact
prior to the crime, the appellant and the offended party, Miguel Dayrit, that the fire was
had some disagreements because the offended party suspected that the afterwards extinguished,
appellant was stealing his paddy piled up behind his house. for, once the fire has been
The Trial Court convicted the appellant for frustrated arson. started, the consummation
ISSUE: WON the defendant be convicted of consummated Arson. of the crime of arson does
RULING: The judgment appealed is modified and thee defendant is found not depend upon the
guilty of arson (consummated) extent of the damage
caused
US v. Valdez The fact of having set fire
to some rags and jute
Facts: Accused are Severino Valdes and Hugo Labarro, charged with the sacks, soaked in kerosene
crime of arson. oil and placed near the
partition of the entresol of
When M. D. Lewin was absent from the house in an inhabited house,
which he was living with his family, at No. 328, San Rafael Street, San should not be qualified as
Miguel, Mrs. Auckback, who appears to have been a resident of the the crime of
neighborhood, called Mrs. Lewin and told her that smoke was coming consummated arson,
from the lower floor of the latter's house. She then ordered the servant inasmuch as no part of the
Paulino Banal to look for the fire, as he did, and he found, soaked with house had begun to burn,
kerosene oil and placed between a post of the house and a partition of the although fire would have
entresol, a piece of a jute sack and a rag which were burning. At that started in the said
moment the defendant Valdes was in the entresol, engaged in his work' of partition, had it not been
extinguished on time.

cleaning, while, the other defendant Hugo Labarro was cleaning the Under such
horses kept at the place. circumstances, the
presumed author of the
On the same morning of the occurrence, the police punishable act
arrested the defendants. Severino Valdes, after his arrest, admitted before performed all the steps
several policemen that he set the fire to the sack and the rag. And he had conducive to the burning
started the several other fires which had occurred in said house on of the said house, but,
previous days; that he had performed such acts through the inducement of notwithstanding these
the other prisoner, Hugo Labarro, for they acts, he did not
felt resentment against, or had had trouble with, their masters, and that, as accomplish the criminal
he and his coaccused were friends, he had acted as he did under the act which he had intended
promise on Labarro's part to give him a peso for each such fire that he to consummate by reason
should start. He also stated that it was the servant Paulino who had placed of causes independent of
the rag and piece of jute sack, and soaked it with kerosene. his will, and for this
reason, it
For lack of evidence and on his counsel's petition, the case was dismissed follows that the crime
with respect to the other defendant Hugo Labarro. committed was that of
frustrated arson.
A month before the commission of the crime, some policemen were
watching the building adjacent to the Lewin home and one of them saw
the defendant Valdes climbing up the wall of the
warehouse behind the dwelling house, in which warehouse there was
some straw that had previously been burned, and that, when the defendant
noticed the presence of the
policeman, he desisted from climbing the wall and entering the
warehouse.
Issue: W/N the crime committed is consummated arson.
Held: No. The crime is classified only as f rustrated arson, inasmuch as

the defendant performed all the acts conducive to the burning of said
house, but nevertheless, owing to causes independent of his will, the
criminal act which he intended was not. produced. The offense
committed cannot be classified as consummated arson by the burning of
said inhabited house, for the reason that no part of the building had yet
commenced to burn, although, as the piece of sack and the rag, soaked in
kerosene oil, had been placed near the partition of the entresol, the
partition might have started to burn, had the fire not been put out on time.
FALLO: Judgment modified, penalty increased

ARTICLE 8. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT Conspiracy and proposal
FELONY to commit felony. —
General Rule: Mere conspiracy or proposal to commit a felony is not Conspiracy and proposal
punishable since they are only preparatory acts. to commit felony are
Exception: In cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor punishable only in the
cases in which the law
General Rule: When conspiracy is established, all who participated specially provides a
therein, irrespective of the quantity or quality of his participation is liable penalty therefor.
equally, whether conspiracy is pre-planned or instantaneous.

Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators committed some other A conspiracy exists when
crime which is not part of the intended crime. two or more persons come
Exception to the Exception: When the act constitutes a “single to an agreement
indivisible offense.” concerning the
commission of a felony
Conspiracy and decide to commit it.
It exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There is proposal when
Agreement may be oral or written, express or implied. the person who has
decided to commit a
Requisites of Conspiracy: felony proposes its
1. That 2 or more persons came to an agreement; execution to some other
2. That the agreement pertains to the commission of a felony; and person or persons.
3. That the execution of the felony was decided upon.
There must be participation with a criminal resolution because simple

knowledge thereof by a person may only make him liable as an
accomplice (People vs. Comadre)
The law specially provides penalty for mere conspiracy in:

(Under RPC) TRICSM
1. Treason, (Art. 115)
2. Rebellion, (Art. 136)
3. Insurrection, (Art. 136)
4. Coup d’ etat, (Art. 136)
5. Sedition, (Art. 141)
6. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. (Art. 186)
(Under special laws)

1. Espionage,
2. Highway robbery,
3. Illegal association,
4. Selected acts committed under the Dangerous Drugs
Act,
5. Arson, and
6. Terrorism under the Human Security Act.
Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy

Conspiracy may be inferred if it is proven that two or more persons aimed
their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
doing a part so that their acts although apparently independent were in fact
connected and cooperative, thus indicating a closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of sentiment.
It is enough that at the time of the commission of the offense, the

offenders acted in concert, each doing his part to fulfill their common
design.

There is unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the offense.
In determining whether there is an implied conspiracy, it must be based

on:
1. Overt acts done before, during or after the commission of the crime; or
2. Words, remarks or language used before, during or after the
commission of the crime.
a. They must be distinct from each other, independent or separate.
b. They must be closely associated, closely related, closely linked, and
coordinated.
c. They must be for a common criminal design, joint criminal interest,
unity of criminal purpose, or concerted action, geared towards the
attainment of the felony.
Proposal to Commit a Felony

It is when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.
Requisites of Proposal:
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony
(Decision); and
2. That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons
(Proposal).
RPC specially provides penalty for mere proposal in(TRIC)

1. Treason,
2. Rebellion,
3. Insurrection, and
4. Coup d’ etat
It is not necessary that the person to whom the proposal is made agrees to
commit TRIC, what constitutes the felony is the making of the proposal.
There is no criminal proposal when:

1. The person who proposes is NOT determined to
commit the felony;
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal but a mere
suggestion;
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed.
People vs. Comadre The single act by
FACTS: Appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo appellant of detonating a
Lozano were charged with Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder... hand grenade may
At around 7:00PM of August 6, 1995, Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, quantitatively constitute a
Gerry Bullanday,... Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were having a cluster of several separate
drinking spree on the terrace of the house of Robert's father, Barangay and distinct offenses, yet
Councilman these component criminal
Jaime Agbanlog. offenses should be
considered only as a

As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed appellants single crime in law on
Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano walking. The which a single penalty is
three stopped in front of the house. While his companions looked on, imposed because the...
Antonio suddenly threw a hand grenade which fell on the roof of the offender was impelled by
terrace. a "single criminal
The hand grenade exploded ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Robert impulse" which shows his
Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo lesser degree of
Eugenio were hit by shrapnel and slumped unconscious on the floor. They perversity.
were all rushed to the Hospital. However, Robert died before reaching the
hospital
After trial, the court a quo gave credence to the prosecution's evidence and
convicted appellants of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple
Attempted Murder.
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in convicting the appellants?
RULING: Only Antonio is liable for the crime.
Li vs. People An implied conspiracy

must still be based on
Facts: Kingstone Li was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of facts established by
Makati with the crime of homicide for the death of Christopher Arugay positive and conclusive
(“Arugay”) from multiple stab wounds evidence. Even if
conspiracy per se is not
The events are narrated by dela Camara, Arugay’s girlfriend, and Tan, his criminal, as it rarely is in
sister’s boyfriend. Shortly before his death, Arugay was watching this jurisdiction, the
television at home with his sisters Cristy and Baby Jane, his girlfriend dela weight of factual
Camara and Baby Jane’s boyfriend, Tan. At around 1:15 in the early evidence necessary to
morning, dela Camara and Tan suddenly heard a noise outside. Peering prove conspiracy is the
through the window, they saw Li and a certain Eduardo “Eddie Boy” same as required to
Sangalang taking a bath completely naked. The two were facing the house establish criminal
of the Arugays. liability—proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Enraged, Arugay yelled, “Pare bastos kayo, ba’t kayo nakahubad?” Li Suppositions based on
shouted back, “Putang Ina!” and threw something at the Arugays’ house. mere presumptions and
Sangalang also yelled, “Putang Ina mo, lumabas ka, papatayin kital!” not on solid facts do not
constitute proof beyond
An incensed Arugay went out the house where he was met by Li, now reasonable doubt.
wearing briefs and carrying a baseball bat. Li struck Arugay on the head
with the bat, causing Arugay to fall. Li ran back to his house. Tan and dela A conviction premised on
Camara assisted Arugay and were trying to drag him back to his house a finding of conspiracy
when Li re-emerged, this time with a knife. Li then stabbed Arugay once. must be founded on facts,
not on mere inferences
Dela Camara was confronted by Li’s sister, Kristine, who proceeded to and presumption.
pull her hair and
slap her around. Kristine also wielded a bolo, with which she hacked dela It is not necessary to
Camara in the arm. Although preoccupied under the circumstances, dela prove a previous
Camara was able to see Sangalang stab Arugay at least once, so she agreement to commit a
claimed. crime if there is proof that
the malefactors have
acted in concert and in
pursuance of the common

Tan saw Arugay run towards the street after he was stabbed, with Li and objectives. Direct proof is
Sangalang chasing him. He saw nothing further of the incident, according not essential to show
to him. conspiracy since it is by
its nature often planned in
Li, on the other hand, presents a different version wherein he narrated that utmost secrecy and it can
prior to the brawl, he saw Arugay carrying a bayong with various liquors seldom be proved by
and Arugay then invited Li but Li refused, as he had work the next day. At direct evidence.
1 AM, Li was at home watching TV with his friend Ricky Amerol when Conspiracy may be
they heard objects being thrown at their house and when they peeped, they inferred from the
saw Arugay and dela Camara throwing stones and bottles at the direction acts of the accused
of Li’s house. The stones broke window jalousies and also struck Amerol. themselves when such
point to a joint purpose
Li opened the door but Arugay and dela Camara just kept throwing stones, and design. Complicity
and Arugay kicked the gate but prevented him from opening it. Arugay may be determined by
then ran back to his house armed with 2 kitchen knives. In response, Li concert of action at the
went inside his house and hot a baseball bat. Arugay then attacked him moment of consummating
with a knife, which he managed to avoid, and he struck Arugay with the the crime and the form
bat on the right shoulder. Arugay then ran back to his house, and re- and manner in which
emerged carrying a twofoot long bolo, running towards him. On Arugay’s assistance is rendered to
heels were Ronaldo Tan and Aubrey dela Camara. Eduardo Sangalang the person inflicting the
was also in his house at the time the incident started. Sangalang was the fatal wound.
boyfriend of Li’s half-sister, Cristy.
The general principle in
Arugay tried to hit Li with the bolo. Li raised his right hand to protect criminal law is that all
himself but Arugay was able to hit him on his right temple and right wrist. doubts should be resolved
Not content, Arugay hit Li on the right shoulder. Li passed out. Upon in favor of the accused.
regaining consciousness, Li tried to crawl back to his house but Ronald Consequently, when
Tan hit him at the back of his left ear with a baseball bat. Eventually, Li confronted with variant
managed to get back to the house and was brought to the Makati Medical though equally plausible
Center. versions of events, the
version that is in accord
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its Decision, finding Li guilty with the acquittal or the
as charged. Li appealed to the Court of Appeals but it affirmed with least liability of the
modification the RTC Decision. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration accused should be favored
which the Court of Appeals denied. Li filed the present Petition for
Review, seeking the reversal of his conviction for the crime of homicide
on the grounds that the lower courts erred in holding him guilty of
homicide by conspiracy, and in not ruling that the evidence against him
does not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue: W/N Li is guilty of homicide by conspiracy.
Held: No.
There were four participants in the brawl, namely Li, Sangalang, Arugay
and Tan. The first blow was struck by Li, who had armed himself with a
baseball bat and used the same to hit Arugay on the left upper arm. This
unprovoked assault by Li establishes at least some degree of criminal
culpability on his part. Arugay then armed himself with a bolo which he
used to inflict an incised wound on the head of Li. After Li had fallen,
Sangalang, himself armed with a knife, fatally
stabbed Arugay at least four times. Tan had picked up the baseball bat
dropped by the wounded Li and struck Li on the head with the bat. These
findings are consistent with
the physical evidence, reliance on which should be given greater primacy
over the unreliable eyewitness testimony of Tan and dela Camara.
Thus, Sangalang alone had stabbed Christopher Arugay.
Proving conspiracy is a dicey matter, especially difficult in cases such as

the present wherein the criminal acts arose spontaneously, as opposed to
instances wherein the participants would have the opportunity to
orchestrate a more deliberate plan. Spontaneity alone does not preclude
the establishment of conspiracy, which after all, can be consummated in a
moment’s notice—through a single word of assent to a proposal or an
unambiguous handshake. Yet it is more difficult to presume conspiracy in
extemporaneous outbursts of violence; hence, the demand that it be
established by positive evidence. A conviction premised on a finding of
conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and
presumption.
It appears that the fight involved two distinct

phases. The first phase commenced when Li, without sufficient
provocation, assaulted Arugay with the baseball bat. Li’s participation in
this phase, albeit as a solitary actor, was indubitably established.
Sangalang’s participation, much
less his physical presence during this phase, was not established at all. In
the second phase, Sangalang was the main actor. Li was incapacitated by
then. Clearly, the existence of conspiracy should be ruled out.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is

MODIFIED. Petitioner Kingstone Li is ACQUITTED of the charge of
Homicide for lack of evidence beyond reasonable
doubt. However, he is found GUILTY of the crime of SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES
Garcia vs. CA
FACTS: On May 11, 1995, within the canvassing period of 1995
senatiorial elections, Aquilino Pimintel, Jr., was informed that Arsenia
Garcia (Arsenia), along with her co-conspirators, willfully and unlawfully
decreased the number of votes of the candidate from 6,998 to 1921 votes.
Pimintel filed a complaint against Asenia and her co-conspirators. All the
accused was acquited due to lack of evidence except for Arsenia who was
found guilty of the crime defined under Republic Act 6646, Section 27 (b)
for decreasing the votes of Senator Pimentel in the total of 5,034 and in
relation to BP Blg. 881.
Petitioner appealed to CA which also affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Arsenia appealed to SC, contending that the judgment of CA is erroneous
and there was no motive on her part to reduce the votes of private
complainant.

ISSUE: WON there’s conspiracy on the felony committed.
RULING: NO. Only Arsenia is liable. Public policy dictates that
extraordinary diligence should be exercised by the members of the board
of canvassers in canvassing the results of the elections. Any error on their
part would result in the disenfranchisement of the voters. The Certificate
of Canvass for senatorial candidates and its supporting statements of votes
prepared by the municipal board of canvassers are sensitive election
documents whose entries must be thoroughly scrutinized.
People vs. Tabuso “Conspiracy exists when

Facts: This is an appeal interposed by accused Arquillos Tabuso from the two or more persons come
Decision of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, finding him to an agreement on the
guilty of murder. commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.”
At 8:40 o’clock in the evening, Renato Datingginoo passed by the group (People v.
of Arnold Mendoza, accused Arquillos Tabuso and some other Manuzon, 277 SCRA
companions in an alley, on his way to Sevilla Street, Tondo, Manila, to 550) In a number of cases,
buy food. He (Renato) heard Tabuso utter “nandiyan na si this Court ruled that
Dagul”. Referred to as Dagul was the deceased Roberto Bugarin. “similar to the physical
act constituting the crime
When he (Renato Datingginoo) was near the store, he heard two (2) itself, the elements of
gunshots coming from the direction of the said alley. He went back to the conspiracy must be
alley and met one Banong who uttered, “Utol, wala iyon, binanatan lang si proven beyond reasonable
Dagul” Banong is Arnold Mendoza’s brother. He heard another gunshot. doubt.”
Thereafter, he saw Arnold Mendoza, Banong, Arquillos Tabuso and
another person hurriedly coming out from the alley, and “The mere presence of a
proceeding to their house. Then, Renato went to the place where the person at the scene of the
incident happened, near his house, and he saw Roberto Bugarin lying crime does not make him
prostrate on the ground, stiffening (naninigas, a co-conspirator.” (People
nakatumba, nangingisay) Thereafter, he brought him to the Mary v. Ortiz, 266 SCRA 641,
Johnston Hospital. At around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, he learned that 643) “Assumed
Bugarin died. intimacy between two
persons of itself does not
Rosalina Datingginoo testified that she and her uncle Amado Bugarin, give that much
heard two gunshots, at significance to the
8:40 o’clock in the evening, while they were in the house of Rebecca Ty, existence of criminal
her sister. Her uncle closed the door so as not to get involved in the case. conspiracy.” (People v.
Somebody knocked at the door and when her uncle opened it, it turned out Gomez, 270 SCRA 432)
that the person “Conspiracy certainly
knocking was Rolando Bugarin. She saw Arnold Mendoza shoot Bugarin transcends
twice and the latter lay on the floor of her aunt’s house. Mendoza, Tabuso companionship.” (supra)
and their two companions hurriedly escaped from the scene of the crime. “Settled is the rule that to
establish conspiracy,
Issue: W/N appellant must be convicted by way of alleged conspiracy evidence of actual
with Arnold Mendoza cooperation rather than
and some others. mere cognizance or
approval of an illegal act
Held: No, he should not be convicted. The Court is not convinced that is required.
Tabuso acted as a lookout when he uttered “Nandiyan na si Dagul.” Mere

utterance of Tabuso of “nandiyan na si Dagul” did not evince
commonality in criminal intent.
The mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make
him a co-conspirator.
What is more, when the accused testified on his behalf, he was consistent
in his assertion that he did not know anything about the killing. According
to him, he was invited by the WPD officers to the UN Detachment Office
and was put in jail when they failed to locate Mendoza who is his relative.
Mendoza and appellant Tabuso are cousins. However, sole relationship
does not
necessarily make them conspirators, absent proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment of conviction is

REVERSED; and on the ground of reasonable doubt,
People vs. Pugay THIS CASE IS WITH

FACTS: The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond REGARD TO ART. 3(2)
reasonable doubt for the crime of murder of Bayani Miranda and & 8(2) OF THE R.P.C.
sentencing them to a prison term ranging from 12 years (prison mayor) as
mimimum to 20 years (prison temporal) as maximum and for samson to "A Conspiracy exists
be sentenced to reclusion perpetua. when two or more people
come to an agreement
Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands concerning the
for Pugay and they used to sleep together. On the evening of May 19, commission of a felony
1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario Cavite. and decide to commit it."
Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several
companions arrived (they were drunk), and they started making fun of "A man must use
Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun of the Bayani, took a can of common sense, and
gasoline and poured its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) exercise due reflection in
told Pugay not to do the deed. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a all his acts; it is his duty
human torch out of him. They were arrested the same night and barely a to be cautious, careful and
few hours after the incident gave their written statements. prudent, if not from
ISSUE: WON conspiracy is present in this case to ensure that murder can instinct, then through fear
be the crime? If not what are the criminal responsibilities of the accused? of incurring punishment."
RULING: NO. JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. JUDGEMENT FOR GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR MURDER WAS LOWERED
TO THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS. CONSPIRACY- is
HELD: There is no conspiracy. determined when two or
more persons agree to
**Conspiracy may be implied from concerted action of the assailants in commit a felony and
confronting the victim. decide to commit it.
Conspiracy must be
Criminal Responsibilities: proven with the same
PUGAY: Having failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid every quantum of evidence as
undesirable consequence arising from any act committed by his the felony itself, more
companions who at the same time were making fun of the deceased. - specifically by proof

GUILTY OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not essential that
SAMSON:Since there are NO sufficient evidence that appears in the there be proof as to the
record establishing qualifying circumstances (treachery, conspiracy). And existence of a previous
granted the mitigating circumstance that he never INTENDED to commit agreement to commit a
so grave a wrong. - GUILTY OF HOMICIDE crime. It is sufficient if, at
the time of commission of
the crime, the accused had
the same purpose and
were united in its
executed.
Since there was no
animosity between
miranda and the accused,
and add to the that that the
meeting at the scene of
the incident was purely
coincidental, and the main
intent of the accused is to
make fun of miranda.
Since there is no
conspiracy that was
proven, the respective
criminal responsibility of
Pugay and Samson arising
from different acts
directed against miranda
is individual NOT
collective and each of
them is liable only for the
act that was committed by
him.
ARTICLE 9. GRAVE FELONIES, LESS GRAVE FELONIES AND Grave felonies, less grave
LIGHT FELONIES felonies and light felonies.
—
Grave felonies
Felonies to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties Grave felonies are those
which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of to which the law
the Code. attaches the capital
punishment or penalties
These are: which in any of their
1. Reclusion perpetua, periods are afflictive, in
2. Reclusion temporal, accordance
3. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification, with Art. 25 of this Code.
4. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification,
5. Prision mayor, Less grave felonies are
6. Fines more than Php 6000. those which the law
Less grave felonies punishes with penalties
which in their maximum

Felonies which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in
period are correctional, in accordance with Art. 25 of the Code. accordance with the
above-mentioned Art..
These are:
1. Prision correccional, Light felonies are those
2. Arresto mayor, infractions of law for the
3. Suspension, commission of which a
4. Destierro (banishment or only a prohibition from residing within the penalty of arrest menor or
radius of 25 kilometers from the actual residence of the accused for a a fine not exceeding 200
specified length of time. It is not imprisonment) pesos or both; is provided.
5. Fines equal to or more than Php 200 but less than Php 6000
Light felonies
Those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of
arrestomenor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.
Importance of Classification
1. To determine whether these felonies can be complexed or not.
2. To determine the prescription of the crime and the prescription of the
penalty.
ARTICLE 10. OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS Offenses not subject to the
OF THIS CODE provisions of this Code.
—
General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws.
Exceptions: Offenses which are or in
1. Where the special law provides otherwise. the future may be
2. When the provisions of the RPC are impossible of application, either by punishable under special
express provision or by laws are not subject to the
necessary implication. provisions of this Code.
This Code shall be
Thus, when the special law adopts the penalties supplementary to such
imposed in the RPC, such as reclusion perpetua or laws, unless the latter
reclusión temporal, the provisions of the RPC on should specially provide
imposition of penalties based on stage of execution, degree of the contrary.
participation, and attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances
may be applied by necessary implication.
Ladonga vs. People Lex specialis derogant
generali. In fact, the
Facts: Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga seeks a review of the Decision of clause can be considered
the Court of Appeals as a superfluity, and could
affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting her have been eliminated
of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as The Bouncing Checks altogether. The second
Law. clause contains the soul of
the article. The main idea
In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became his regular and purpose of the article
customers in his pawnshop business in Tagbilaran City, Bohol; sometime is embodied in the
in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses provision that the “code
obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed by United Coconut shall be supplementary”
Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, post dated to dated July 7, to special laws, unless the

1990 issued by Adronico; sometime in the last week of April 1990 and latter should specifically
during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an provide the contrary.
additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744,
post dated to dated July 26, 1990 [[Conspiracy]]
issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses Conspiracy must be
obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by UCPB established, not by
Check No. 106136, post dated to July 22, 1990 issued by Adronico; the conjectures, but by
three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason “CLOSED positive and conclusive
ACCOUNT;” when the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, evidence. Conspiracy
despite repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint against them. transcends mere
companionship and mere
While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because presence at the
there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the Ladonga scene of the crime does
spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the not in itself amount to
obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks conspiracy. Even
when they mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and knowledge, acquiescence
had no participation in the issuance thereof. in or agreement to
cooperate, is not enough
The RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty to constitute one as a
beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Adronico applied for party to a conspiracy,
probation which was granted. On the other hand, petitioner brought the absent any active
case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC erred in finding her participation in the
criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of commission of the crime
conspiracy is inapplicable to B.P. Blg. 22 which is a special law; with a view to the
moreover, she is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in furtherance of
the issuance thereof. the common design and
purpose.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner. It noted that
Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code itself provides that its provisions
shall be supplementary to special laws unless the latter provide the
contrary. The Court of Appeals stressed that since B.P. Blg. 22 does not
prohibit the applicability in a suppletory character of the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), the principle of conspiracy may be applied to
cases
involving violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Lastly, it ruled that the fact that
petitioner did not make and issue or sign the checks did not exculpate her
from criminal liability as it is not indispensable that a co-conspirator takes
a direct part in every act and knows the part which everyone performed.
The Court of Appeals underscored that in conspiracy the act of one
conspirator could be held to be the act of the other.
Issue: W/N Ladonga can be held liable for violations of BP 22 as

conspirator.
Held: No.
The Court submits that B.P. Blg. 22 does not provide any prohibition
regarding the applicability in a suppletory character of the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code to it.
Article 10 of the RPC reads as follows:

ART. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code.—
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws
are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
should specially provide the contrary.
The article is composed of two clauses. The first provides that offenses
which in the future are made punishable under special laws are not subject
to the provisions of the RPC, while the second makes the RPC
supplementary to such laws. While it seems that the two clauses are
contradictory, a sensible interpretation will show that they can perfectly be
reconciled.
However, to be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the

accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the complicity. In the present case, the prosecution failed to
prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the
alleged conspiracy. Apparently, the only semblance of overt act that may
be attributed to petitioner is that she was present when the first check was
issued. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence
with the criminal design.
FALLO: Decision of the lower courts REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Petitioner
Evangeline Ladonga is ACQUITTED of the charges against her under
B.P. Blg. 22 for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
People vs. Simon

FACTS: The respondent was sentenced with the punishment
of reclusion perpetua for violating the Dangerous Drug Act (RA No. 6425).
He allegedly sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command
during a buy-bust operation which was sold for P40.00. The said buy-bust
operation was executed on or about October 22, 1988.
In this case, the respondent was praying for a lesser punishment under the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).
ISSUE: WON Whether or not the respondent can avail of the lesser
punishment pursuant to Art. 22 of the RPC.
RULING: Yes, the respondent can avail of the lesser punishment
prescribed by Art 22 of the RPC.
Republic Act No. 7659 already took effect on December 31, 1993 after its
publication on December 16, 1993 while the respondent was still serving
his sentence.
Hence, the respondent was given an indeterminate penalty of arresto
mayor or prision correctional instead of serving its full sentence
of reclusion perpetua.
ARTICLE 11. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Justifying circumstances.

—

Five circumstances affecting criminal liability:
The following do not
1. Justifying circumstances; Art. 11, RPC (6); R.A. 9262→VAWC incur any criminal
(Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from liability:
Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability 1. Anyone who acts in
notwithstanding the absence of defense of his person or
any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense) rights, provided that the
following circumstances
2. Exempting circumstances; Art. 12, RPC (7) concur:
3. Mitigating circumstances; Art. 13, RPC (10) First. Unlawful
4. Aggravating circumstances; Art. 14, RPC (21) aggression.
5. Alternative circumstances; Art. 15, RPC (3) Second. Reasonable
necessity of the means
employed to prevent or
Other circumstances found elsewhere in the RPC: repel it.
1. Absolutory cause – the effect is to absolve the offender from criminal Third. Lack of sufficient
liability, although not from civil liability. provocation on the part of
2. Extenuating circumstances - the effect is to mitigate the criminal the person defending
liability of the offender and has the same effect as mitigating himself.
circumstances (i.e. Concealment of dishonor in the crime of infanticide
insofar as the mother 2. Any one who acts in
and maternal grandparents are concerned, the penalty is lowered by two defense of the person or
degrees; the crime of adultery committed by a married woman abandoned rights of his spouse,
by her husband) ascendants, descendants,
or
Important Terms Defined: legitimate, natural or
a-Imputability adopted brothers or
It the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or sisters, or his relatives by
owner. It implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously affinity in the same
done and may therefore be put down to the doer as his very own. degrees
and those consanguinity
-Responsibility within the fourth civil
It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil degree, provided that the
consequences of the crime. first and second
requisites prescribed in
c-Guilt the next preceding
It is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot be made to answer for circumstance are present,
the consequences of a crime unless he is guilty. and the further requisite,
in case the revocation was
ARTICLE 11 given by the person
Justifying Circumstances attacked, that the one
making defense had no
Those where the act of a person is said to be in part
accordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to have therein.
transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. 3. Anyone who acts in
There is no civil liability, except in par. 4 of Art. 11 where the civil defense of the person or
liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act. rights of a stranger,
provided that the first and
An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of proof is on the accused who second requisites
must prove it by clear and convincing evidence. mentioned in the first
circumstance of this Art.
are present and that the
There is both NO crime and NO criminal. person defending be not
Basis: Lack of criminal intent. induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil
motive.
4. Any person who, in
order to avoid an evil or
injury, does not act which
causes damage to
another, provided that the
following requisites are
present;
First. That the evil sought
to be avoided actually
exists;
Second. That the injury
feared be greater than that
done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no
other practical and less
harmful means of
preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in
the fulfillment of a duty
or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in
obedience to an order
issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose.
I. SELF -DEFENSE
Rights included in self-defense:

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the
one assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is
protected by law.
Thus, it includes:
1.The right to honor. Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful

aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity. It is a serious
personal attack; a physical assault, coupled with a willful disgrace; and it
may, therefore, be frequently regarded as placing in real danger a person’s
dignity, rights and safety (Rugas vs. People).
2. The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack

upon the property although it is not coupled with an attack upon the
person of the owner of the premises. All the elements for justification
must however be present (People vs. Narvaez).

Subjects of Self-Defense: (PRPH)
a. Defense of Person
b. Defense of Rights
c. Defense of Property
d. Defense of Honor
What is important is not the duality of the attack but whether the means
employed is reasonable to prevent the attack.
Self-defense is lawful because:

1-Impulse of self-preservation;
2-State cannot provide protection for each of its
constituents.
Stand ground when in the right

The law does not require a person to retreat when his assailant is rapidly
advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
Reason: He runs the risk of being attacked in the back by the aggressor.
Requisites of Self-Defense: (URL)
1. Unlawful aggression (condition sine qua non);
Kinds of aggression:
a-Lawful
i. In the exercise of a right
ii. In the fulfillment of a duty
b-Unlawful
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (if

by a peace officer, reasonable
necessity of the means employed to overcome
opponent); and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
a. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION Unlawful aggression
a. Equivalent to an actual
physical assault; or
b. Threatened assault of
an immediate and
imminent kind which is
offensive and positively
strong, showing the
wrongful intent to cause
injury.
c. Must come from the
person attacked by the
accused.
No unlawful aggression
when there was an

agreement to fight.
The challenge to fight
must be accepted.
But aggression which is
ahead of a stipulated time
and place is unlawful.
d. Not merely oral threats

or threatening stance or
posture.
Mere belief of an
impending attack is not
sufficient.
e. In relation to “mistake
of fact,” the belief of the
accused may be
considered in determining
the
existence of unlawful
aggression.E.g. there is
self-
defense even if the
aggressor used a toy gun,
provided that the accused
believed it to be a real
gun.
People vs. Manaban When the accused invokes

self-defense, he in effect
Facts: This case is a review of the decision of the CA, when it affirmed admits killing the victim
the decision of the RTC of QC where it convicted Manaban of the crime and the burden is shifted
of homicide. to him to prove that he
killed the victim to save
“On October 11, 1996, at around 1:25 o’clock in the morning, Joselito his life. The accused must
Bautista, a father and a member of the UP Police Force, took his daughter, establish by clear and
Frinzi, who complained of difficulty in convincing evidence that
breathing, to the UP Health Center. There, the doctors prescribed certain all the requisites
medicines to be purchased. Needing money therefore, Joselito Bautista, of self-defense are
who had taken alcoholic drinks earlier, proceeded to the BPI Kalayaan present.
Branch to withdraw some money from its Automated Teller Machine
(ATM). Under paragraph 1,
Upon arrival at the bank, Bautista proceeded to the ATM booth but Penal Code, the three
because he could not effectively withdraw money, he started requisites to prove self-
kicking and pounding on the machine. For said reason, the bank security defense as a justifying
guard, Ramonito Manaban, approached and asked him circumstance which may
what the problem was. Bautista complained that his ATM was retrieved exempt an accused from
by the machine and that no money came out of it. After Manaban had criminal liability are: (1)
checked the receipt, he informed Bautista that the

Personal Identification Number (PIN) entered was wrong and advised him unlawful aggression on
to just return the next morning. This angered Bautista all the more and the part of the
resumed pounding on the machine. victim; (2) reasonable
Manaban then urged him to calm down and referred him to their customer employed to prevent or
service over the phone. Still not mollified, Bautista continued raging and repel the aggression; and
striking the machine. When Manaban could no longer pacify him, he fired (3) lack of sufficient
a warning shot. That diverted the attention of Bautista. Instead of venting provocation on the part of
his ire against the machine, he confronted Manaban. After some exchange the accused or the person
of words, Bautista allegedly kept on moving toward defending himself.
Manaban, who again warned Bautista not to come near him or he would
be forced to shoot him. Bautista suddenly turned his back and was Unlawful aggression is an
allegedly about to draw his gun. Fearing that he would be shot first, indispensable requisite of
Manaban pulled the self-defense. Self-defense
trigger and shot Bautista, hitting Bautista at the back. There was no exit is founded on the
point for the bullet, which hit the right lung and lacerated parts of the necessity on the part of
liver, the person being attacked
stomach and the pancreas, and so after being rushed at the East Ave. Med to prevent or repel the
Center, Bautista died from the gunshot wound. unlawful aggression.
Thus, without prior
Manaban now contends that the Respondent Court gravely erred in unlawful and unprovoked
ignoring petitioner’s claim of self-defense. attack by the victim, there
can be no complete or
Issue: W/N Self-defense can be appreciated in the case. incomplete self-defense.
Held: No. In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the Unlawful aggression is an
victim. actual physical
assault or at least a threat
First, Bautista was shot at the back as evidenced by the point of entry of to attack or inflict
the bullet. physical injury upon a
Second, when Bautista was shot, his gun was still inside a locked holster person. A mere
and tucked in his right waist. threatening or
Third, when Bautista turned his back at Manaban, Manaban was already intimidating attitude is
pointing his service firearm at Bautista. not considered unlawful
These circumstances clearly belie Manaban’s claim of unlawful aggression, unless the
aggression on Bautista’s part. threat is offensive and
menacing, manifestly
The allegation of Manaban that Bautista was about to draw his gun when showing the wrongful
he turned his back at Manaban is mere speculation. Besides, Manaban was intent to cause injury.
already aiming his loaded firearm at Bautista when the latter turned his There must be an actual,
back. Furthermore, if Manaban really feared that Bautista was about to sudden, unexpected attack
draw his gun to shoot him, Manaban could or imminent danger
have easily disabled Bautista by shooting his arm or leg considering that thereof, which puts the
Manaban’s firearm was already aimed at Bautista. defendant’s life in real
peril.
FALLO: Decision of the lower courts AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION (Applied the indeterminate sentence law and mitigating Aggression presupposes
circumstance of voluntary surrender) that the person attacked
must face a real threat to
his life and the peril
sought to be avoided is
imminent and actual, not
imaginary. Absent such
actual or imminent peril
to one’s life or limb, there
is nothing to repel and
there is no justification
for taking the life or
inflicting injuries on
another.
People vs. Alconga
Facts: On May 27, deceased Silverio Barion, the banker of the card game,
was
playing black jack against Maria De Raposo. De Raposo and Alconga
were partners
in the game, they had one money. Alconga was seated behind Barion and
he gave
signs to De Raposo. Barion, who was suffering losses in the game, found
this out and
he expressed his anger at Alconga. The two almost fought outright this
was stopped.
The two met again on May 29. when Alconga was doing his job as a home
guard.
While the said accused was seated on a bench in the guardhouse, Barion
came
along and said “Coroy, this is your breakfast” followed by a swing of his
“pingahan”, a
bamboo stick. Alconga avoided the blow by falling to the ground under
the bench with
the intention to crawl out of the guardhouse. A second blow was given by
Barion but
failed to hit the accused, hitting the bench instead. Alconga managed to go
out of the
guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While Barion was about to
deliver the 3rd
blow, Alconga fired at him with his revolver, causing him to stagger and
hit the
ground. The deceased stood up, drew forth his dagger and directed a blow
to the
accused who was able to parry the attack using his bolo. A hand to
handfight ensued.
The deceased, looking already beaten and having sustained several
wounds ran
away. He was followed by the accused and was overtaken after 200
meters.
A second fight took place and the deceased received a mortal bolo blow,
the one
which slasehde the cranium. The deceased fell face downward besides
many other
blows delivered. Alconga surrendered.

Issue: Whether or not self-defense can be used as a defense by Alconga
Held: No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide

The deceased ran and fled w/o having to inflicted so much a scratch to
Alconga, but
after, upon the other hand, having been wounded with one revolver shot
and several
bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict injury upon him has ceased
absolutely/
Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure. He could have
only attacked if
there was reason to believe that he is still not safe. In the case at bar, it is
apparent
that it is Alconga who is the superior fighter and his safety was already
secured after
the first fight ended. There was no more reason for him to further chase
Barion. The
second fight will be treated differently and independently. Under the first
fight, self-
defense would have been valid, but that is not the case in the second fight.
In the
second fight, there was illegal aggression on the part of Alconga and as a
result, he is
found guilty of Homicide with no valid Justifying Circumstance
People vs. Genosa When the accused admits
killing the
Facts: This case is an automatic review for the SC, for review of the RTC victim, it is incumbent
which sentenced the appellant guilty of Parricide and sentenced to death. upon her to prove any
claimed justifying
Marivic Genosa, the accused, and Ben Genosa were married. They resided circumstance by clear and
in Isabel, Leyte, in a rented house, wherein they lived with their 3 convincing evidence.
children. Well-settled is the
rule that in criminal
One day, going home after work on November 15, 1995, she got worried cases, self-defense (and
that her husband who was not home yet might have gone gambling since it similarly, defense of a
was a payday. With her cousin, appellant went to look for Ben at the stranger or third person)
marketplace and taverns at Isabel, Leyte but did not find him there. They shifts the burden of proof
found Ben drunk upon their return at the Genosas’ house. The cousin went from the prosecution to
home despite appellant’s request for her to sleep in their house. the defense.
Marivic said she did not provoke her husband when she got home that The one who resorts to
night it was her husband who began the provocation. Marivic said she was self-defense must face a
frightened that her husband would hurt her real threat on one’s life;
and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. Then, Ben and the peril sought to be
purportedly nagged appellant for following him, even challenging her to a avoided must be imminent
fight. She allegedly ignored him and instead attended to their children and actual, not merely
who were doing their homework. Apparently disappointed with her imaginary.
reaction, Ben
switched off the light and, with the use of a chopping knife, cut the Unlawful aggression is
television antenna or wire to keep her from watching television. the most essential element

of self-defense. It
According to appellant, Ben was about to attack her so she ran to the presupposes actual,
bedroom, but he got hold of her hands and whirled her around. She fell on sudden and unexpected
the side of the bed and screamed for help. Ben left. At this point, appellant attack—or an imminent
packed his clothes because she wanted him to leave. Seeing his packed danger thereof—on the
clothes upon his return home, Ben allegedly flew into a rage, dragged life or safety of a person.
appellant outside of
the bedroom towards a drawer holding her by the neck, and told her ‘You Aggression, if not
might as well be killed so nobody would nag me.’ continuous, does not
warrant self-defense. In
Appellant testified that she was aware that there was a gun inside the the absence of such
drawer but since Ben did not have the key to it, he got a three-inch long aggression, there can be
blade cutter from his wallet. She however ‘smashed’ the arm of Ben with no self-defense—complete
a pipe, causing him to drop the or incomplete—on the
blade and his wallet. Appellant then ‘smashed’ Ben at his nape with the part of the victim.
pipe as he was about to pick up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter ran
inside the bedroom. As regards to BWS:
First, each of the phases
“Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of her husband by of the cycle of violence
shooting him. She supposedly ‘distorted’ the drawer where the gun was must be proven to have
and shot Ben. He did not die on the spot, though, but in the bedroom. characterized at least two
battering episodes
In the course of the investigation, it was found out that the accused is a between the appellant and
battered wife who was subjected to domestic violence and other forms of her intimate partner.
abuse throughout the course of her marriage to the victim. The appellant is
now before the Court, invoking the “battered woman syndrome” plea. Second, the final acute
battering episode
Issue: W/N the appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her preceding the killing of
unborn child. the batterer must
have produced in the
Held: According to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was a sufficient battered person’s mind an
time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and actual fear of an imminent
her fatal attack upon him. She had already been able to withdraw from his harm from her batterer
violent behavior and escape to their children’s bedroom. During that time, and an honest belief that
he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even the she needed to use force in
imminence of the danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer order to save her life.
in a position that presented an actual threat on her life or safety.
Third, at the time of the
The principle that aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self- killing, the batterer must
defense. In the absence have posed probable—not
of such aggression, there can be no self-defense—complete or necessarily immediate
incomplete—on the part of the victim. Thus, Marivic’s killing of Ben was and actual—grave harm
not completely justified under the circumstances. to the accused, based on
the history of violence
(However, the Court appreciated mitigating circumstance of diminution of perpetrated by the former
her freedom of action, intelligence or intent, and the extenuating against the latter. Taken
circumstance of having acted upon an impulse altogether, these
so powerful as to have naturally produced passion and obfuscation) circumstances could
satisfy the requisites of
As to the issue of BWS: The Court failed to find ample evidence that self-defense.
would confirm the presence of the essential characteristics of BWS, as
well as it being a novel concept in our jurisprudence, it cannot be applied
without any law relating to it
FALLO: Conviction for PARRICIDE is AFFIRMED; 2 mitigating

circumstances and no aggravating circumstance appreciated. Penalty is
REDUCED.
Nacnac vs. People

Facts: On the fateful night of February 20, 2003 SPO2 Nacnac the
accused-appellant, the victim and together with
other police officers were on duty. SPO2 Nacnac had a heated argument
with SPO1 Espejo which led to a violent
scenario, Espejo drew his .45 Caliber gun and Nacnac, fired warning shots
in the air. Undaunted the victim still drew his gun. The accused-appelant
then shot the victim on the head. Instantaneously killing SPO1 Espejo.
SPO2 Nacnac was found guilty of homicide.
Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstances of the petitioner’s acts

constitutes a valid
self-defense.
Held: Yes. The refusal of the victim to follow a lawful order from
petitioner, his superior, considering also the
negative words uttered by the victim in response to SPO2 Nacnac, his
drunken situation, his profession as being a police officer and the warning
shot fired by the petitioner justifies the acts done as mere defending
himself from an
inebriated and disobedient colleague.
The lone wound inflicted on the victim supports that petitioner feared for
his life and only shot the victim to defend himself. It was a reasonable
means chosen by the petitioner in defending himself in view of the
proximity
of the armed victim, his drunken state, disobedience on lawful order and
failure to stand down despite a warning
shot.
b. TEST OF REAL AND IMMINENT PERIL Actual

The danger must be
present, that is, actually in
existence.
Imminent
The danger is on the point
of happening. It is not
required that the attack
already begins, for it may
be too late.

Standard of imminence of
peril:
We rule that the test
should be---does the
person invoking the
defense believe, in due
exercise of
his reason, his life or
limb is in danger? After
all, the rule of law
founded on justice and
reason: Actus no facit
remin, nisi mens sit rea.
Hence, the guilt of the
accused must depend
upon the circumstances as
they reasonably appear to
him.
Senoja vs. People The affirmative defense of

self-defense may be
Facts: Leon Lumasac, the victim, who was armed with a bolo, arrived in complete or incomplete. It
the hut of Crisanto Reguyal, who was drinking gin with the accused along is complete when all the
with some other men, looking for his brother Miguel Lumasac, whom he three essential requisites
was angry at because he accused him of drying up the ricefield he was are present; it is
plowing. The victim hacked the wall of the house in anger. The petitioner, incomplete if only
Exequiel Senoja, who was armed with a knife, tried to pacify the victim. unlawful aggression on
The victim attempted to hack the petitioner; nevertheless, the latter the part of the victim and
embraced and managed to pacify the victim. Jose Calica then took the any of the two essential
bolo of the victim and requisites were present. In
threw it away. For his part, Fidel Senoja took the fine, unlawful aggression
petitioner’s knife. As it was, the victim was already pacified. He and the on the part of the victim is
petitioner were already reconciled. Fidel even gave back the knife to the a condition sine qua non
petitioner. to self-defense, complete
or incomplete. Whether or
However, the victim demanded that Calica return his bolo as he wanted to not the accused acted in
go home already. Because he had thrown away the victim’s bolo, Calica self-defense is a question
was, thus, impelled to give his own. The victim then warned the petitioner of fact. Like alibi, the
three times, “May mangyayari sa iyo, kung hindi ngayon, bukas,” and left affirmative defense of
the hut. When the victim had already gone about ten meters from the hut, self-defense is inherently
the petitioner followed the victim. The victim turned around and told the weak because, as
petitioner, “Kung hindi lang kita inaanak.” The victim then hacked the experience has
petitioner, hitting the latter on the left side of his head and thigh. Believing demonstrated, it is easy to
that the victim would attack him anew, the petitioner stabbed the victim fabricate and difficult to
frontally several times, which he claims were in self-defense. He also disprove.
stabbed the victim on the left buttock. The petitioner could not recall how
many times he stabbed the victim and what It is a settled rule that to
parts of the latter’s body had been hit. It is gleaned from the Necropsy constitute aggression, the
Reports that the victim suffered 6 hack wounds and 1 lacerated wound. person attacked must be

confronted by a real
Issue: W/N Self-defense can be appreciated in the case at bar. threat on his life and
limb; and the peril sought
Held: No. Self-defense cannot be appreciated in the case at bar because to be avoided is imminent
when the accused attacked the victim, the imminent peril that the accused and actual, not merely
is claiming did not exist anymore. When Leon left the hut to go home, his imaginary. Absent such
aggression had already ceased. an actual or imminent
peril to one’s life or limb,
FALLO: Petition DENIED; assailed decision AFFIRMED. there is nothing to repel;
there is no necessity to
take the life or inflict
injuries on another.
Standard of imminence
of peril:
We rule that the test
should be---does the
person invoking the
defense believe, in due
exercise of his reason,
his life or limb is in
danger? After all, the
rule of law founded on
justice and reason: Actus
no facit remin, nisi mens
sit rea. Hence, the guilt
of the accused must
depend upon the
circumstances as they
reasonably appear to
him.
Unlawful aggression
presupposes an actual,
sudden, unexpected attack
or imminent danger
thereof, not merely a
threatening or
intimidating attitude.
Hence, when an
inceptual/unlawful
aggression ceases to exist,
the one making a defense
has no right to kill or
injure the former
aggressor. After the
danger has passed, one is
not justified in following
up his adversary to take
his life. The conflict for
blood should be avoided if
possible. An assault on
his person, he cannot
punish when the danger
or peril is over. When the
danger is over, the right
of self-defense ceases. His
right is defense, not
retribution.
c. REASONABLE NECESSITY Reasonable necessity of

the means employed
1-It involves two

elements, necessity for
the course of action and
employed, which should
be reasonable.
2-In determining
reasonable means, some
factors are to be
considered such as:
(PINES)
a. Presence of imminent
danger;
b. Emergency to which
the person defending
himself has been exposed
to;
c. Nature and quality of
the weapon used by the
accused compared to the
weapon of the aggression;
d. Impelled by the instinct
of self-preservation;
e. Size and/or physical
character of the aggressor
compared to the accused
and other circumstances
that can be considered
showing disparity
between
aggressor and accused.
(This element should be
interpreted liberally in
favor of the law-abiding
citizen.)

Perfect equality between
the weapons used by the
one defending himself
and that of the aggressor
is not required, neither
is the material
commensurability
between the means of
attack and defense.
Rational equivalence is
enough.
Reason: Because the
person assaulted does not
have sufficient tranquility
of mind to think and to
calculate.
Retreat of aggressor →
aggression ceases;
EXCEPT:
when retreat is made to
take a more
advantageous position to
insure the success of the
attack begun, unlawful
aggression continues.
RETALIA SELF-
TION DEFEN
Inceptual SE
unlawful Unlawf
aggression ul
had already aggressi
ceased when on was
the accused still
attacked existing
him. when
the
aggress
or was
injured
by the
person
making
the
defense.

There
must be
no
apprecia
ble time
interval
between
the
unlawfu
l
aggressi
on and
the
killing.
Battered Woman
Syndrome
It is a scientifically
defined pattern of
psychological and
behavioral symptoms
found in women living in
battering relationships as
a result of cumulative
abuse.
“Cycle of violence” has

three phases: (TAT)
1. The Tension building
phase;
2. The Acute battering
incident;
3. The Tranquil, loving
(or at least non-violent)
phase (People v. Genosa)
Four characteristics of
the syndrome:
1. The woman believes
that the violence was her
fault;
2. She has an inability to
place the responsibility
for the violence
elsewhere;
3. She fears for her life
and/or her children’s life;
and
4. She has an irrational
belief that the abuser is

omnipresent and
omniscient.
Only a certified
psychologist or
psychiatrist can prove the
existence of the Battery
Woman Syndrome in a
woman.
Battery
It is any act of inflicting
physical harm upon the
woman or her child
resulting to physical and
psychological or
emotional distress.
People vs. Razon

Facts: PO1 Francisco Chopchopen (Chopchopen) was walking... at around
midnight... when a taxicab driven by Edwin Razon y Lucea (Razon)
stopped beside him. Razon told Chopchopen that he was held up by
three men at Dreamland Subdivision.
Chopchopen then asked Razon to go with him to the place of the incident
to check if the persons who held him up were still there.
Chopchopen noticed a person lying on the ground... soaked in blood and
that he was hardly breathing.
The victim,... who was... later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo
(Gonzalo), was pronounced dead on arrival.
Upon questioning, Razon told Bumangil that he was held up by three men,
which included Gonzalo whom he stabbed in self-defense.
He claimed... that... three men boarded his cab
Upon reaching their destination and while Razon was turning the cab
around, Gonzalo, who was seated behind the driver's seat, declared a hold-
up and poked a Batangas knife (veinte nueve) at the right side of the base
of Razon's neck.
Razon however was able to grab the knife and release his right hand from
Gonzalo's two companions. Gonzalo's companions then went out of the
cab and picked up stones.
Gonzalo followed and Razon ran after them. Gonzalo was swinging his
cane and it hit Razon on his right leg. Razon then thought of his knife
inside the cab and he went to get it and confronted the... three by swinging
his knife from left to right. Gonzalo's companions ran away and Razon
went back to his cab and left.
Issue: WON petitioner acted in self-defense.
Held: It is settled that when an accused admits killing the victim but
invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused assumes the
burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and convincing evidence

Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when uncorroborated by
independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by
itself.
Petitioner unequivocally admitted that after the three men went out of his
taxicab, he ran after them and later went back to his cab to get his colonial
knife; then he went down the canal to swing his knife at the victim,
wounding and killing him in the process. Such can no... longer be deemed
as self-defense.
It is settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful
aggression on the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist; and when
unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or
wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not... self-defense
is committed.
Even assuming that some danger did in fact exist, the imminence of that
danger had already ceased the moment petitioner was able to disarm the
victim by wresting the knife from the latter.
With petitioner's failure to prove self-defense, the inescapable conclusion
is that he is guilty of homicide as correctly found by the RTC.
Eslabon v. People The reasonableness of the

means adopted is not one
Facts: Noli Eslabon, the accused, is the first cousin of Francisco Gabutin. of mathematical
Dominica and Francisco Gabutin attended a dance with Francisco as calculation or “material
barangay captain and Dominica was in charge of collecting the tickets at commensurability
the gate. The dance ended and Dominica headed home. Along the way, between the means of
Dominica passed by the rolling store of Elias Harder and told him that attack and defense” but
they were going home as it was late. As she walked hurriedly, Dominica the imminent danger
heard someone running after her and as she turned around, she saw Elias against the subject of the
Harder who then slapped her. Dominica asked Elias why he had done so attack as perceived by the
and the latter answered that he resented her remarks that he should go defender and the instinct
home. Dominica replied that her remarks were a courtesy to him but more than reason that
before she could finish her statement, Harder ran after Francisco and as moves the defender to
Harder approached Francisco, the latter asked Harder what had happened repel the attack. It has
regarding Dominica but the latter answered, ‘What is it to you?’, and at further been stressed in
the same time, Harder struck Francisco with a scythe hitting the latter in such cases that to the
the body. imminent threat of the
moment, one could not be
At this point, Francisco shouted for help but Harder pulled Francisco with hoped to exercise such
a scythe which got stuck in Francisco’s right armpit. To protect himself, calm judgment as may be
Francisco embraced Harder and expected of another not
then Francisco fell to the ground with Harder on top of him and laboring under any
continuing to slash him. urgency and who has
sufficient time to appraise
At this juncture, appellant Noli Eslabon, came to Francisco’s rescue and the urgency of the
stabbed Harder at the left arm which was holding the scythe. The stab was situation.
made sideways, and Eslabon’s knife penetrated the whole left arm of
Harder and reached his chest. Despite the stab wound, Harder did not
release his hold on Francisco so Eslabon struck Harder with his hand. At
this point, another person arrived and pulled Francisco from the clutches
of Harder. The two, Francisco and Harder, were taken to the hospital for

treatment; and Francisco was treated only for one day in the hospital and
was released but Harder died in said
hospital.” The Intermediate Appellate Court found accused guilty of
Murder. The accused now avers that the means he employed were of
reasonable necessity.
Issue: W/N the means employed by the accused, which was stabbing the
victim twice in defense of his cousin, was of reasonable necessity.
Held: Yes. The gauge of rational necessity of the

means employed to repel the aggression as against one’s self or in defense
of a relative is to be found in the situation as it appears to the person
repelling the aggression.
Petitioner’s acts justified the knife thrust(s) that he delivered at the

deceased in order to stop the latter’s attack against Francisco who had
already suffered a substantially serious wound with the
scythe imbedded in his right armpit which the deceased did not let go.
Since there is evidence that the deceased aggressor was bigger than
Francisco, he could have inflicted with a little more effort a much more
serious, if not fatal, wound on Francisco. The stab wounds inflicted by
petitioner on the deceased were all directed at the left forearm of the
deceased, sustaining petitioner’s statement that he did not intend to
seriously injure Harder but merely wanted to release the latter’s hold on
Francisco because the scythe was stuck under the latter’s armpit.
FALLO: Judgment of lower court SET ASIDE; accused is ACQUITTED.
People v. Luague
Facts: Natividad Laugue was in her home while her husband, coaccused
Wenceslao Alcansare having gone to grind corn in a house several
kilometers away. Victim Paulino followed her up to their kitchen forcing
her to make love. Paulino drew and opened a knife and threatened her
with death , began to embrace her and touch her breast; that in preparing
to lie with her, Paulino had to leave the knife on the floor, taking
advantage of the situation, Natividad picked up the weapon and stabbed
him in the abdomen. Paulino, wounded, ran away, jumped through the
window and fell on some stones. The accused set forth immediately to the
población to surrender herself.
Version of the prosecution: The accused invited Paulino inside their home
and asked him if he has a knife so she could trim her nails, the victim said
yes and gave the knife. The accused used the knife to stab the victim and
the coaccused, Wenceslao, threw a stone on the head of the victim.
Issue: WON Laugue can invoke self-defense.
Held: The evidence of the case leans toward the story of the defendant-
appellee. The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an aggression sufficient
to put her in a state of legitimate defense inasmuch as a woman’s honor

cannot be but be esteemed as a right as precious, if more, than her very
existence; and it is evident that a woman who, thus imperiled wounds,
may kill the offender, should be afforded exemption from criminal
liability since such killing cannot be considered a crime from the moment
it became only means left for her to protect her honor from such great
outrage.
People v. Dela Cruz A woman in defense of
her honor is justified in
Facts: This is an appeal from a decision of the CFI of Nueva Ecija, finding inflicting wounds on her
the accused guilty of HOMICIDE. assailant and is exempt
from criminal liability.
Facts: On the evening of February 18, 1934, the defendant was asked to
go to a wake in
honor of one Sion, who had died in the house of Maria Inguit. About nine
o'clock the defendant and" her friends started home. They were followed
about five minutes later by the deceased Francisco Rivera, who had been
playing cards in the house where the wake was held. He 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. After they
had passed a fork in the trail and reached a narrow part, a man suddenly
threw his arms around the defendant from behind, caught hold of her
breasts and kissed her, and seized her in her private parts. She tried to free
herself, but he held her and tried to throw her down. She felt weak and
could do nothing more against the strength of the man, so she got a knife
from her pocket, opened it, and stabbed him
in defense of her honor. She further testified that the man who attacked
her did not say anything. She asked him who he was but he did not
answer. When assaulted she cried for help, saying "Madre mía; Dios mío";
Francisco Ramos then heard someone cry out "Aruy, Dios mío". He went
back and found that
Francisco Rivera had been stabbed under the right breast. The wounded
man was taken to the hospital, where he died the next afternoon.
Issue: W/N defendant is justified in stabbing the victim.
Held: Yes. The appellant stabbed the deceased only once, although she
retained possession of the knife, and undoubtedly could have inflicted
other wounds on him if she had desired. In other words she desisted as
soon as he released her.
From a study of the record that the deceased did in f act grab hold of the
defendant on the
night in question, and whether he intended to rape her or not, taking into
consideration that it was a dark night and that the deceased grabbed her
from behind without warning and without making himself known and
refused to say who he was, and in the struggle that followed touched her

private parts, and the fact that she was unable to free herself by means of
her strength alone, the Court is of the opinion that 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.
FALLO: Decision is reversed; appellant is ACQUITTED.
People v. Jaurigue
Facts: Defendant/Respondent Avelina Jaurigue found guilty of homicide

(for killing Amado Capiña) by Court of First Instance.
Defendant appealed to the CA contending that the lower court erred in not
holding appellant hadacted in defense of honor therefore she's completely
absolved by criminal liability
ISSUE: WON respondent should be completely absolved of criminal

liability considering her act done in defense of her honor. (Art 11 of RPC)
HELD: According to the facts established by the evidence and found by

the learned trial court, when Amado Capiña (deceased) sat beside the
defendant near the chapel door placing his hand on the upper portion of
her right thigh, without her consent, the said chapel was lighted and there
were already several people. Under these circumstances, there was and
there could be no possibility for her to be raped. And so when she struck
Capiña with a knife on his neck resulting death, the means she employed
to defend her honor was excessive.
Jaurigue cannot be legally declared completely exempt from criminal
liability. With the modification of the judgment appealed from, defendant
is sentenced to indeterminate penalty ranging from 2 months and 1 day
arresto mayor minimum to 2 years 4 months and 1 day maximum with
necessary penalties of P2,000.
d. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION Lack of Sufficient

Provocation
Sufficient provocation
should not come from the
person defending
himself/accused, and it
must immediately precede
the aggression.
Defense of property
should be coupled with
danger to the person
defending oneself; if there
is no danger to the person
or the person’s life or

limb, defense of property
cannot be invoked.
People v. Oriente Provocation is defined to

be any unjust or improper
Facts: This is an appeal for review of the decision of the RTC of QC, conduct or act of the
affirmed by the CA, finding Manuel Oriente (petitioner) guilty of the offended party, capable of
crime of Homicide. exciting, inciting, or
irritating anyone. In order
Around 10:00 o’clock in the evening, Manuel to be mitigating,
Oriente and his companions were having a drinking spree at the terrace of provocation must be
Oriente’s house. Romulo, the victim, then went out of his house to buy sufficient and should
cigarettes. The victim, Manuel Oriente, the immediately precede
latter’s daughter Marilou Lopez and the latter’s husband, Paul Lopez and the act.
one Rogelio Gascon were heard arguing along the alley beside the
concrete fence in front of Manuel Oriente’s house where there was a Provocation is sufficient if
lighted fluorescent light. Paul Lopez told Romulo Cariño, “Ikaw Cariño, it is adequate to excite a
and liit-liit mo, and yabang mo!” Then Marilou was seen coming out from person to commit the
their house with a lead pipe and handed it over to Paul. Paul then hit wrong, which must
Romulo with a lead pipe at his right arm. Accused appellant got the lead accordingly be
pipe from Paul and hit Romulo on his left eyebrow. Romulo reeled proportionate in gravity.
and fell down. Paul Lopez was poking a gun at Romulo, then he pulled the That the provocation must
trigger twice but the gun did not fire. Arnel Tanael then shouted, “Putang immediately precede the
ina ninyo, bakit niyo ginagawa iyan sa bayaw ko, bakit ninyo ginaganito act
siya, ano ba ang kasalanan niya sa inyo.” means that there should
not be any interval of time
Oriente and his company did not say anything. Arnel carried Romulo and between the provocation
brought the latter inside the house. He called up Mario at the Panabuilt by the offended party and
Transport office to get a cab. When the cab arrived, Romulo Cariño was the commission of the
brought by Arnel to the East Avenue Medical Center where Romulo, two crime by the person
hours after, passed away. Upon post-mortem examination on the victim’s provoked.
cadaver declared that the cause of death of Romulo Cariño was traumatic
head injury. He opined that even with immediate and adequate medical
attendance, the victim would not have survived due to the extensive nature
of hemorrhage suffered by Romulo.
For his defense, Oriente avers that Cariño fired two shots while he was
walking near appellant and his group, and that he extended his arms and
poked a gun to Oriente and his companions. He told them not to get near
him or he will shoot and kill all of them. Surprised by the victim’s
response and for fear of being shot, [petitioner] Oriente stepped back
towards his yard and was able to take hold of a piece of wood and hit
Romulo, and that he had no intention of killing Cariño and that his
purpose was only to disarm him. Oriente now avers that his acts were
done in self-defense.
Issue: W/N There existed a sufficient provocation on the part of the

victim.

Held: No. The defense failed to establish the existence of the gun being
pointed at petitioner to constitute unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim.
Provocation is sufficient if it is adequate to excite a person to commit the

wrong, which must accordingly be proportionate in gravity. That the
provocation must immediately precede the act means that there should not
be any interval of time between the provocation by the offended party and
the commission of the crime by the person provoked.
The fact that a heated or intense argument preceded the incident is not by
itself the sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party as
contemplated by law. Moreover, petitioner failed to establish by
competent evidence that the victim had a gun and used it to threaten
petitioner.
FALLO: Petition DENIED. Assailed Decision AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION.
e. DEFENSE OF PROPERTY A-Defense of Relatives

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and
3. In case the provocation
was given by the person
attacked, the one making
the defense had no part
therein.
Relatives that can be

defended:
(SADBroSiRAC4)
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or
adopted Brothers and
Sisters, or relatives by
Affinity in the same
degrees. Death of the
spouse terminates the
relationship by affinity.
5. Relatives by
Consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree.

The fact that the relative
defended gave
provocation is immaterial.
Rule: There is no
distinction in the Revised
Penal Code whether the
descendant should be
legitimate or illegitimate;
when the law does not
distinguish the courts
cannot distinguish.
Justification: It is found
not only upon a
humanitarian sentiment,
but also upon the impulse
of blood which impels
men to rush, on the
occasion of great perils, to
the rescue of those close
to them by ties of blood.
B-Defense of Stranger
Stranger
They are any person not
included in the
enumeration of relatives
under par. 2 of Art. 11.
Damage to another
includes injury to persons
and
damage to property.
A person defending his

common-law spouse or
adopted child will fall
under this paragraph.
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2.Reasonable necessity of
the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and
3.The person defending
was not induced by
revenge, resentment or
other evil motive.

Rule: Motive is relevant
only in this kind of
defense.
Justification: The
ordinary person would not
stand idly by and see his
companion killed without
attempting to save his life.
People v. Apolinar
Facts: Midnight, the defendant/appellant Anastacio Apolinar alias atong
was at that time the occupant of the parcel of land owned by Joaquin
Gonzales in Pangasinan. Armed with a shotgun, Atong was lookungf over
said land when he observed that there was a man carrying a bundle in his
shoulder. Believing that he was a theif of palay, the defendant called his
attention but he ignored him. The defendant fired in the air and then at the
perso. The man, identified as Domingo Petras, was able to get back to his
house and consequently narrated to Angel Natividad, the barrio chief, that
he had been wounded in the back by a shotgun. He trhen showed the
wounds – one in each side of the spinal column - which wounds were
circular in form and a little bigger than a quarter of an inch, according to
the medical report of Dr. Maninquil. Petras died of the wounds he
sustained. The defendant surrendered to the authorities immediately after
the incident and gave a sworn statement.
Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified defense of property.
Held: No. The right to property is not of such importance as right to life,
and defense of property can be invoked as justifying circumstance only
when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said
property.
People v. Bumanglag JUSTICE MORELAND

DISSENTING
Facts: On the night of January 2, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag noted that 40 OPINION:
bundles of palay which were kept in his granary, situated in the place
called "Payas," were missing. He searched for the missing palay the Bumanglag, was upon his
following morning and found them in an enclosed field which was planted own land and was,
with sugar cane, at a distance of about 100 meters from his granary. For therefore, defending his
the purpose of ascertaining who had done it, he left the palay there, and habitation against a
that night, accompanied by Gregorio Bundoc, Antonio Ribao, and violent and wrongful
Saturnino Tumamao, he waited near the said field for the person who invasion when the assault
might return to get the palay. Guillermo Ribis appeared and attempted to upon him was made in the
carry the palay away with him, but at that instant, Bumanglag, Bundoc, manner proved.
and Ribao assaulted the presumed thief with sticks and cutting and
stabbing weapons; as a result of the struggle which ensued, Ribis fell "A person may repel force
down and died instantly. The trial judge then charged them the crime of by force in defense of his
homicide. Hence, this appeal. .habitation or property, as
well as in defense of his
person, against one who

Issue: W/N the crime committed by the accused is justified by way of manifestly intends and
defense of property. (JUSTICE MORELAND’S DISSENTING endeavors by violence or
OPINION DISCUSSES THIS) surprise to commit a
known felony upon either,
Held: Yes. The defendant acted with loss of reason and self-control on and, if need be, may kill
seeing that Guillermo Ribis was his adversary."
taking material possession of the palay seized and hidden by him on the
previous night, thus committing one of the numerous unlawful acts In the case of State vs.
perpetrated at that place, to the damage and prejudice of those who, by Cushing (14 Wash., 530),
their labor endeavor the court lays down the
to provide themselves with the necessary elements for their subsistence proposition that a
and that of their families. defendant while on his
own premises outside of
FALLO: Judgment REVERSED with respect to Gregorio Bundoc only (as his dwelling house, was
he was the only one who appealed). where he had a right to
be, and if the deceased
advanced upon him in
a threatening manner and
the defendant at the time
had reasonable grounds to
believe, and in good faith
did believe, that the
deceased intended to take
his life or do him great
bodily harm, the
defendant was not obliged
to retreat nor
to consider whether he
could safely retreat, but
was entitled to stand his
ground and meet any
attack made upon him in
such a way and with such
force as, under all the
circumstances, he at the
moment honestly believed
and had reasonable
grounds to believe was
necessary to save his own
life or protect himself
from great bodily harm.
It is also admitted that the

defendant, Bumanglag,
was defending his
property from one who by
surprise and violence was
endeavoring to commit a
felony against it. Under
such circumstances, if
necessary to prevent the
felony, he could lawfully
kill the person attempting
it.
In my opinion, therefore,
the judgment of the court
below should be reversed
and the appellant
acquitted.
People v. Narvaez
FACTS: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by
treachery) of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968,
Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during
the time the two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez
from getting into his house and rice mill. The defendant was taking a nap
when he heard sounds of construction and
found fence being made. He addressed the group and asked them to stop
destroying his house and asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer
responded with "No, gadamit, proceed, go
ahead." Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his
shotgun. He also shot Rubia who was running towards the jeep where the
deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the
shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was
involved in a legal battle with the defendant and other land settlers of
Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the time
of the shooting, the civil case was still pending for annulment (settlers
wanted granting of property to Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). At time of
the shooting, defendant had leased his
property from Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to
avoid trouble. On June 25, defendant received letter terminating contract
because he allegedly didn't pay rent.
He was given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was
barely 2 months after letter. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his
person and property. CFI ruled that
Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation
offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For both
murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs,
and to pay for moral damages.
Issue:
1. Whether or not CFI erred in convicting defendant-appellant despite the
fact that he acted in defense of his person.
2. WON the court erred in convicting defendant-appellant although he

acted in defence of his rights.

Held:
1. No. The courts concurred that the fencing and chiselling of the walls of
the house of the defendant was indeed a form of aggression on the part of
the victim. However, this
aggression was not done on the person of the victim but rather on his
rights to property. On the first issue, the courts did not err. However, in
consideration of the violation of property rights, the courts referred to Art.
30 of the civil code recognizing the right of owners to close and fence
their land.
Although is not in dispute, the victim was not in the position to subscribe
to the article because his ownership of the land being awarded by the
government was still pending, therefore putting ownership into question.
It is accepted that the victim was the original aggressor.
2. Yes. However, the argument of the justifying circumstance of self-

defense is applicable only if the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1)
RPC enumerates these requisites:
• Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there was unlawful

aggression towards appellant's property rights. Fleisher had given
Narvaez 6 months and he should have left him in peace before
time was up, instead of chiseling Narvaez's house and putting up
fence. Art. 536 of the Civil Code also provides that possession
may not be acquired through force or intimidation; while Art. 539
provides that every possessor has the right to be respected in his
possession
• Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel
attack. In the case, killing was disproportionate to the attack.
• Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending
himself. Here, there was no provocation at all since he was asleep
Since not all requisites present, defendant is credited with the special
mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to Art. 13(6)
RPC. These mitigating circumstances are: voluntary surrender and passion
and obfuscation (read p. 405 explanation) Crime is homicide (2 counts)
not murder because treachery is not applicable on account of provocation
by the deceased. Also, assault was not deliberately chosen with view to
kill since slayer acted instantaneously. There was also no direct evidence
of planning or preparation to kill. Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is
reclusion temporal. However, due to mitigating circumstances and
incomplete defense, it can be lowered three degrees (Art. 64) to
arrestomayor.
f. SELF-DEFENSE IN LIBEL
People v. Chua Hiong
Facts: Federico Chua Hiong is the uncle of Cesareo Gacheco. Gacheco

and his family were defeated in a civil case in the CFI of Manila, which, if
not overturned by the SC, would lead to Gacheco and Co. losing 2/3s of

the inheritance left by a Paulino Gacheco. Hiong sided with the party that
defeated Gacheco. This created tension and Gacheco wrote the Chief
Finance Agent of the Department of Finance charging Hiong with tax
evasion and using a fake citizenship. He then wrote a letter to Vice
President Fernando Lopez accusing Hiong of illegal transactions with the
government.
A letter was written by a certain Benito Solipco to Hiong. (The SC says

Solipco was undoubtedly if not Gacheco himself, acting under Gacheco’s
inducement.) It said that the members of the Go Family Association, of
which Gocheco belonged, told Solipco that they will make every
vengeance against Hiong, such as paying some persons to kill him, or
reporting him to every Philippine Government Authority that he is a
communist and other kinds of vengeance. The letter warned Hiong to be
careful as the Go Family were all his enemies now and that they will make
every vengeance against him at all cost. The letter was contained in an
envelope along with a rope which contained a note saying “this serves for
your personal use.” Hiong received threats on the phone and was
denounced as a communist through anonymous letters. Gocheco then
caused to be published articles entitled “Doubtful Citizenship” in the Feb
11, 1952 issue of the Manila Chronicle. It said that while the
Commissioner of Immigration had certain pieces of evidence supporting
the Filipino citizenship of Hiong, the Commisisoner’s decision was based
on questionable proof. It then proceeded to enumerate the evidence such
as:
1. Mr. Frederico M. Chua Hiong and his family, as shown, by the Master
List of alien registered in 1941 with the Bureau of Immigration, were
registered under reg no.s. 199-461 to 199466.
2. The proceedings of the Board of Special Inquiry at the Port of Manila,
under Chinese Board Report No. 1451, show that Mr. Chua Hiong was
admitted into the country as legitimate minor son of Chua Pe on
September 23, 1913.
3. A certified Chinese Marriage Certificate secured from the local Civil
Registrar shows that his marriage was performed by the Chinese Consul at
the Chinese YMCA in 1926.
4. Affidavits sworn to by residents of Aparri, Cagayan, the place where
the alleged mother (of Hiong) lives, and submitted by the Chief of Police
at the instance of the investigator in this case, show that the alleged
mother has never left Aparri, much less the Philippines, and therefore
could not give birth to Hiong who was born in China.
In response, Hiong caused Seriously Speaking to be published in the

Manila Chronicle. It said: “This investigation was only one of a series of
other investigations conducted by different agencies of our government at
the instigation of Mr. Gocheco, who appears to be obsessed with a
persecution mania in order to besmirch my name and reputation and
harass me and my family. To my eternal shame and misfortune, Mr.
Cesario T. Gocheco is my nephew. As such, he is cognizant of all of the
facts of my life for he has known me for the past 25 years….Why then
this sudden concern over my citizenship? Why this mad desire to bring
harm to me and my family? The reason is not hard to find – personal
revenge is the moving passion in this drama of intrigues and persecution
to which I and my family have been subjected.… It is easy to imagine the
gloom, despondency and despair, that must have seized the Gocheco
family when the above decision was handed down as that would divest
them of everything that they now have and thus face stark poverty… It is
obvious that the name “Benito Sulipco” is fictitious, as it is the most
natural thing that my enemies should cowardly hide behind the cloak of
anonymity, but, one need not stretch the imagination too far to be able to
guess the “mastermind behind these threats... For what could be better or
more convenient to my enemies than my untimely death, or for that
matter, my deportation from this country had they been able to prove their
charges filed with the different government agencies. What better or more
convenient weapon can my enemies avail of then a this systematic and
malicious persecution in order to coerce or cajole me into submitting to
their demands that I should desist from proceeding with the civil case I
have instituted against the Gocheco family which shall ultimately reduce
them to the poverty of the
proverbial church-mouse?” Because of the article above, Hiong was found
guilty of libel by the RTC. Hence, this appeal.
Issue: W/N Chua Hiong’s publication was a proper act of self-defense.
Held: Yes. Self-defense applies to the crime of libel. Self-defense is a

man’s inborn right. In a physical assault, retaliation becomes unlawful
after the attack has ceased, because there would be no further harm to
repel. But that is not the case when it is aimed at a person’s good name.
Once the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus defamed may
avail himself of all necessary means to shake it off. He may hit back with
another libel which, if adequate, will be justified. Granting that the
“Seriously Speaking” column of the Manila Chronicle caused by Hiong
was libelous, is it unnecessarily libelous? It was intended to counteract the
impression left in the mind of the public by the article “Doubtful
Citizenship” which Gocheco caused to be published in the Manila
Chronicle on Feb. 11, 1952. Hiong was living as a Filipino, his livelihood
depended mainly upon enterprises only Filipinos can engage in. It is
perfectly conceivable that any attempt to assail his Filipino citizenship
should meet the keenest defense from him. To flout in public the
genuineness of one’s citizenship is slanderous, nobody would dare deny,
the more so Hiong’s case for obvious reasons. The Doubtful Citizenship
column makes it appear that his citizenship was acquired through
questionable means and that an investigation is currently being conducted
with respect to the legality of his citizenship. Gocheco’s purpose was to
malign Hiong. Because he lost in the civil case, Gocheco decided to air his
grievances through the press. Hiong’s Seriously Speaking Column is not
necessarily libelous because Hiong is entitled to show Gocheco’s motive
behind Doubtful Citizenship and to dispel the bad impression about him of
those who had read it.

People v. Pelayo
Facts: accused-appelant a member of the city council Pantaleon Pelayo
was accused of the crime of light oral defamation when he told Atty.
Clapano that a Chinese operator of gambling told him that complainant
Gov. Almendras used to receive money from the Chinese. He contended
that he uttered those words in self-defense to what Gov. Almendras had
stated of him in another place in a few says before.
Issue: WON Pelayo’s remark can be justified.
HELD No. Where the defender goes beyond more explaining his side and/
or repairing, minimizing, or removing the effect of the damage by hitting
back with equally scurrilous remark against the one who made the
imputation, his retaliation becomes entirely independent act of his own of
which he may stand to answer the consequences.
II. STATE OF NECESSITY Avoidance of greater

evil or injury
State of Necessity
Article 11, par. 4 –
offender deliberately
caused damage.
Article 12, par. 4 –
offender accidentally
caused damage.
Requisites: (EIN)
1. That the evil sought to
be avoided actually exists;
2. That the injury feared
be greater than that done
to avoid it; and
3. There be no other
practical and less harmful
means of preventing it.
It is only in this par. (4)

that the person
defending himself incurs
civil liability, since
generally in this article
there is no civil liability
on the part of the accused.
Such liability is borne by
the person benefited.
Greater evil must not be

brought about by the
negligence or imprudence

or violation of law by the
actor.
The damage caused by the

accused in the state of
necessity contemplated
here is deliberate, while
that in Par. 4 of Art. 12 is
accidentally caused.
Tan v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Where the damage caused

to the plaintiff's house
Facts: Anita Tan is the owner of a house of strong materials located in the was brought about mainly
City of Manila, Philippines. On May 3, 1949, the Standard Vacuum Oil because of the driver's
Company ordered the delivery to desire to avoid a greater
the Rural Transit Company at its garage 1,925 gallons of gasoline using a evil or harm, and
gasoline tank-truck trailer. where the defendant
company is one of those
The truck was driven by Julito Sto. Domingo, who was helped by Igmidio for whose benefit a
Rico. While the gasoline was being discharged to the underground tank, it greater harm has been
caught fire, whereupon Julito Sto. Domingo drove the truck across the prevented, the case comes
Rizal Avenue within the purview of
Extension and upon reaching the middle of the street he abandoned the article 101, Rule 2, of the
truck which continued moving to the opposite side of the street causing revised Penal Code. The
the buildings on that side to be burned and destroyed. The house of Anita acquittal of the driver
Tan was among those destroyed and for its repair she spent P12,000. cannot, therefore, be
deemed a bar to a civil
As an aftermath of the fire, Julito Sto. Domingo and Igmidio Rico were action against this
charged with arson through reckless imprudence in the Court of First company because its civil
Instance of Manila where, after trial, both were acquitted, the court liability is completely
holding that their negligence was not proven and the fire was due to an divorced from the
unfortunate accident. criminal liability of the
accused.
Anita Tan then brought this action against the Standard Vacuum Oil
Company and the Rural Transit Company, including the two employees,
seeking to recover the damages she has suffered for the destruction of her
house.
Issue: W/N Standard Vacuum Oil Co. shall be acquitted, relying upon the
acquittal of its employees.
Held: No. The principle of res judicata cannot apply to them for the
simple reason that they were not included as co-accused in the criminal
case.
Not having been included in the criminal case they cannot enjoy the
benefit resulting from the acquittal of the accused. This benefit can only
be claimed by the accused if a subsequent action is later taken against
them under the Revised Penal Code.

The damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about mainly because of
the desire of driver Julito Sto. Domingo to avoid greater evil or harm,
which would have been the case had he not brought the tank-truck trailer
to the middle of the street, for then the fire would have caused the
explosion of the gasoline deposit of the company which would have
resulted in a conflagration of much greater proportion and consequences
to the houses nearby or surrounding it.
It cannot be denied that this company is one of those for whose benefit a
greater harm has been prevented, and as such it comes within the purview
of said penal provision. The acquittal of
the accused cannot, therefore, be deemed a bar to a civil action against this
company because its civil liability is completely divorced from the
criminal liability of the accused. The rule regarding reservation of the
right to file a separate civil action does not apply to it.
FALLO: Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby modified

as follows: it is affirmed with regard to defendants Julito
Sto. Domingo and Igmidio Rico; but it is reversed with
regard to defendants Standard Vacuum Oil Company and
Rural Transit Company, with costs
FULFILLMENT OF DUTY AND EXERCISE OF RIGHT Requisites:

1. That the accused acted
in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or
office; and
2. That the injury caused
or the offense committed
be the necessary
consequence of the due
performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of
such right or office.
Examples:
People vs. Delima (46
Phil 738, 1922) –The
deceased who escaped
from prison while serving
sentence was under the
obligation to surrender,
and had no right, after
evading the service of his
sentence to commit
assault and disobedience
with a weapon on his
hand, which compelled

the policeman to resort to
such extreme means,
which although it proved
to be fatal, was justified
by the circumstances.
The shooting by prisoner

guards of escaping
prisoners is always
justified.
A security guard who shot

a thief who refused to
surrender is not justified.
The executor of death

convicts at the Bilibid
Prison cannot be liable for
murder for the executions
performed by him
because he was merely
acting in lawful exercise
of his office.
People v. Oanis
FACTS:
Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received from Major Guido a telegram of the
following tenor: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas
with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." Captain
Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and asked that he be
given four men.
The same instruction was given to the chief of police Oanis who was
likewise called by the Provincial Inspector.
Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and an
seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door where they were,
simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber
revolvers. Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour already
wounded, and looking at the door where the shots came, she saw the
defendants still firing at him. Shocked by the entire scene. Irene fainted; it
turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the notorious
criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named
Serapio Tecson, Irene's paramour.
According to Appellant Galanta, when he and chief of police Oanis
arrived at the house, the latter asked Brigida where Irene's room was.
Brigida indicated the place, and upon further inquiry as to the
whereabouts of Anselmo Balagtas, she said that he too was sleeping in the
same room.
ISSUE: WON Oanis invoke justifying circumstance as the act be
fulfillment of duty
RULING: NO. appellants are hereby declared guilty of murder.

2 requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying
one:
1. offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right-present
2. injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the
due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right
or office.-not present
Civil Code Art. 429 DOCTRINE OF SELF-

HELP
The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any
person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may For this purpose, he may
use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an use such force as may be
actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his reasonably necessary to
property. (n) repel or prevent an actual
or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or
usurpation of his property.
The actual invasion of

property may consist of a
mere disturbance of
possession or of a real
dispossession. If it is a
mere disturbance of
possession, force may be
used against it at any time
as long as it continues,
even beyond the
prescriptive period of
forcible entry. If the
invasion consists of a real
dispossession, force to
regain possession can be
used only immediately
after the dispossession.
LAWFUL ORDER Requisites:

1. That an order has been
issued by a superior;
2. That such order must
be for some lawful
purpose; and
3. That the means used by
the subordinate to carry
out said order is lawful.
Par. 6 presupposes that

what was obeyed by the

accused was a lawful
order; but if the accused
complied with an
unlawful order under a
mistake of fact, he should
not incur criminal
liability.
Subordinate is not liable

for carrying out an illegal
order if he is not aware of
its illegality and he is not
negligent.
People v. Beronilla
Facts: Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino Velasco and Jacinto

Adriatico file an appeal from the judgement of the Abra CFI, which
convicted them of murder for the execution of Arsenio Borjal, the elected
mayor of La, Paz, Abra (at the outbreak of war), which was found to be
aiding the enemy.
Borjal moved to Bangued because of death threats was succeeded by
Military Mayor Manuel Beronilla, who was appointed by Lt. Col. Arbold,
regimental commander of the 15th Infantry of the Phil. Army, operating as
guerilla unit in Abra. Simultaneously upon his appointment, Beronilla
received a memorandum which authorized him to appoint a jury of 12
bolo men to try persons accused of treason, espionage and aiding or
abetting the enemy.
Upon the return of Borjal and his family to Abra, to escape bombing in
Bangued, he was placed under custody and tried and sentenced to death by
the jury based on various complaints made by the residents. Beronilla
reported this to Col. Arnold who replied, saying “…I can only compliment
you for your impartial but independent way of handling the whole case.”
Two years thereafter, Beronilla, along with the executioner, digger and
jury, were indicted for the murder of Borjal. Soon after, President Manuel
Roxas issued Executive Proclamation 8, which granted amnesty to
persons who committed acts in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy
against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy.
The rest of defendants applied and were granted amnesty, but Beronilla
and others were convicted on the grounds that the crime was made on
purely personal motives and that the crime was committed after the
expiration of time limit for amnesty proclamation.
Issue: WON the defendant-appellants’ actions are covered by justifying

circumstances for obedience to lawful order of superior.
Held: Yes. The accused acted upon orders of their superior officers,
which as military subordinates, they could not question and obeyed in
good faith without the being aware of its illegality.

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the claim of the defense that arrest,
prosecution and trial of Borjal was done in pursuant to express orders of
superiors. Additionally, it could not be established that Beronilla received
the radiogram from Colonel Volckmann, overall area commander, which
called attention to the illegality of Borjal’s conviction and sentence. Had
Beronilla known the violation, he would not have dared to report it to
Arnold. The conduct of the accused also does not show malice on their
part because of the conduct of the trial, defense through counsel given to
Borjal, suspension of trial based on doubts of illegality and death sentence
review sent to the superior officers.
Criminal intent then could not be established. The maxim here is actus
non facit reum, nisi mens rea (Crime is not committed if the mind of the
person performing the act complained of to be innocent).
Additionally, the lower court should not have denied their claim to the
benefits of the Guerilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 inspite of
contradictory dates of liberation of La Paz, Abra. Even if the dates were
contradictory, the court should have found for the Beronila, et al because
if there are “any reasonable doubt as to whether a given case falls within
the (amnesty) proclamation should be resolved in favor of the accused.”
Judgement reversed, appellants acquitted.
People v. Barroga In order that obedience

may be considered as an
Facts: This is an appeal for the judgment rendered by the CFI, finding the exempting circumstance,
accused guilty of the crime crime of falsification of a private document. obedience must be due, or
as Viada lucidly states, it
The defendant freely admits that he prepared the falsified documents with must be in compliance
full knowledge of their falsity; but he alleges that he did so from data with "a lawful order not
furnished by his immediate chief, and only in opposed to a higher
obedience to instructions from him. positive duty of a
subaltern, and that the
As regards the data, we find it to be sufficiently proven that they were not person commanding, act
supplied by the aforementioned chief, but by the head of the pressmen, within the scope of his
and the defendant later collated authority. As a general
them with the books of the daily pressings. rule, an inferior should
obey his superior, but, as
Issue: W/N appellant has not incurred criminal liability by virtue of an illustrious
obedience to his superior. commentator has said,
'between a general law
Held: No. Since such instructions were not lawful, they do not legally which enjoins obedience
shield the appellant, nor relieve him from criminal liability. to a superior giving just
orders, etc., and a
In order to exempt from guilt, obedience must be due, or as Viada lucidly prohibitive law which
states, it must be a compliance with "a lawful order not opposed to a plainly forbids what that
higher positive duty of a subaltern, and that superior commands, the
the person commanding, act within the scope of his authority. choice is not doubtful.' "
Such obedience was not legally due, and therefore does not exempt from
criminal liability.

FALLO: Judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED..

CRIMINAL LAW I CASE DIGESTS - 3.0 Art. 11 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CRIMINAL LAW I CASE DIGESTS - 3.0 Art. 11 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW I CASE DIGESTS - 3.0 Art. 11 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FACTS/ISSUES/HELD DOCTRINE

ARTICLE 3. DEFINITION OF A FELONY Definitions.—

Acts and omissions

Felonies are committed

There is deceit when the

Article 8 of the Penal

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 2

“As they were instructed

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 3

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 4

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 6

In homicide (by dolo) and

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 7

Facts: Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason

The MTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 8

Without acting on petitioner’s motion, the MTC proceeded with the

Held: Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming

Diego vs. Castillo The error must be

1. it suffers from the vice of vagueness

2. it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal

3. it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under

Office of the Ombudsman filed before the Sandiganbayan 8 separate

Estrada filed an Omnibus Motion on the grounds of lack of preliminary

ISSUE: Whether Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum.

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 13

Its abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject

PARAGRAPH 1 Criminal liability shall be

The relation of cause and effect must be shown:

***When death is presumed to be the natural

***Felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting

***Efficient Intervening Cause

NOT efficient intervening causes:

i) legal impossibility- intended acts, even

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 15

4. That the act performed should NOT constitute a

Felonies against persons are: (MHPI-DRAP)

Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To suppress criminal

a. Felony against persons or property should not be actually committed,

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 16

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 19

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 21

People v. Quianzon The defense of the

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 23

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 24

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 26

Urbano vs. IAC

If the wound of Javier

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 27

The rule is that the death

There is a likelihood that

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 29

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 31

Having in mind the social

In the United States,

D&G || CRIMINAL LAW I CASES || 32