BINDOY

FACTS
In the afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance arose in a tuba
wineshop. Donato Bindoy offered some tuba to Faustino Paca's
wife Tibay. She refused because she already have one, but
Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept. Pacas
stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to take away from
Bindoy the bolo he carried. Emigdio Omamdam who came to
the wine shop to see what;s happening, instead got stabbed in
the chest by Bindoy. This happened when Bindoy succeeded in
disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the
latter's hand towards the left behind the accused and with
such violence that the point of the bolo reached Omamdam's
chest who was then behind Bindoy.

ISSUE(S
Whether or not Bindoy is criminally liable?

HELD:
Corroborated by Gaudencio Cenas of the testimony of the
accused, Pacas and Bindoy were actually for the possession of
the bolo. When Pacas let go of the bolo, Bindoy had pulled so
violently that it flew towards his left side, at the very moment
when Emigdio Omamdam came up and who was therefore hit
in the chest without Bindoy seeing him. Bindoy alleges that it
was caused accidentally and without malicious intent because
he was only defending his possession of the bolo which Pacas
was trying to wrench away from him and his conduct was
perfectly lawful. The Court therefore acquitted Bindoy based on
the facts stated.

"In many criminal cases, one of the most important aids in completing the proof of the commission of the crime by
the accused is the introduction of evidence disclosing the motives which tempted the mind of the guilty person to
indulge the criminal act."

BELBES

PEOPLE V. PATROLMAN DOMINGO BELBES

FACTS
Patrolman Domingo Belbes was assigned to maintain peace and
order at the prom night of Pili Barangay High School.
During the event, he responded to a report by two female
students that someone was making trouble at one of the
school’s temporary building. He and Patrolman Jose Pabon
found Fernando Bataller, drunk, with his two companions, and
it appeared that Fernando was breaking the bamboo walls of
the temporary building. Belbes, armed with an armalite, fired
at Bataller, who was hit at several different parts of his body,
and died. Whether or not there was a confrontation is
disputed (appellee says there was none, appellant (Belbes) says
there was)
ISSUE
WON the Trial Court was correct in holding the accused guilty
for murder
RULING
Appellant offers no material evidence to sufficiently support his
claim of self-defense on the face of mortal danger while police
duty. Where the accused admits to killing the victim in self
defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him. However, the
evidence reveals an incomplete justifying circumstance defined
in Article 11, paragraph number 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
For a person not to incur criminal liability when he acts in the
fulfillment of a duty, 2 requisites must concur: (1) that the
offender acted in the performance of a duty; (2) that the injury
or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such right or office. Although Belbes did act in
the performance of his duty (first requisite), the second
requisite is lacking, for the killing need not be a necessary
consequence of the performance of his duty

TOLING
FACTS
The twin Antonio and Jose Toling were riding a train; and
stabbed other passengers in such train; as a result 8 persons
had been dead and one person wounded. The twins are
charged with 8 counts of murder and one attempted murder.
ISSUE
WON the Toling twins guilty of 8 counts of murder and
one attempted murder.

RULING
The Court modified the decision of the lower court. Homicide
for the 4 other victims who jumped off the train and died
thereafter was dismissed by the Court. Proximal cause for their
deaths could not be established as there were no witnesses to
support that the 4 victims jumped off because of the stabbing
frenzy of the appellants.The Court ruled that "if a man creates
in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which
causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injures
himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is
responsible for the injuries which result.” However, since no
proximal cause was established, the appellants could not be
held liable. As the presumption was “a person intends the
ordinary consequences of his voluntary act” , Sec 5 (c) Rule 131,
Rules of Court.
QUIANSON
FACTS
Juan Quianzon was charged with and convicted of the crime of
homicide in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, and
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from six years and
one day of prision mayor, as minimum to fourteen years, seven
months and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
It is contended by the defense that even granting that it was
the accused who inflicted the wound which resulted in
Aribuabo's death, he should not be convicted of homicide but
only of serious physical injuries because said wound was not
necessarily fatal and the deceased would have survived it
had he not twice removed the drainage which Dr. Mendoza had
placed to control or isolate the infection
ISSUE
Whether or not the accused is criminally liable for the death of
the Arubuabo
MARASIGAN
FACTS

ISSUE
Whether or not the accused should be given a new trial on the
ground that if he should be
given another opportunity to present evidence that it was not
the middle finger that was disabled
but the third finger instead.
RULING
It is immaterial for the purposes of this case whether the finger,
the usefulness of which was destroyed, was the middle finger
or the third finger. All agree that one of the fingers of the left
hand was rendered useless by the act of the accused. It does
not matter which finger it was Nor do we attach any
importance to the contention that the original condition of the
finger could be restored by a surgical operation to relieve the
accused from the natural and ordinary results of his crime. It
was his voluntary act which disabled Mendoza and he must
abide by the consequences resulting therefrom without aid
from Mendoza. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with
costs against the appellant.

RELOJ

FACTS:
Pablo Reloj stabbed Justiniano Isagan, Sr. with an ice pick
wrapped in a piece of paper outside a cockpit inAklan.
Afterward, Justiniano was brought to a hospital wherein he was
operated upon successfully. However, fivedays later, he
developed a paralytic ileum, which takes place sometimes in
consequence of the exposure of theinternal organs during the
operation, which caused his death. The lower court convicted
Pablo Reloj of the crime ofmurder and sentenced him to life
imprisonment.
Pablo Reloj states that the lower court erred in convicting him
because Justiniano’s death was caused not by
his stabbing but by the paralytic ileum.
ISSUE:
W/N Reloj is guilty of murder.
RULING:
YES. 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 that other causes cooperated in
producing the fatal result. Although the immediate cause of
death of Justiniano was a paralysis of the ileum that
supervened five days after the stabbing incident, when he
appeared to be on theway to full recovery, the fact is that the
surgery would not have been necessarily performed on
Justiniano were it not for the wound that Reloj inflicted upon
him.
GARCIA
FACTS
The Fozes were having a drinking spree at their apartment
when Chy asked them to quiet down to which Garcia
commented that Chy was being arrogant and that one day he
would lay a hand on him. Two days later, the group decided to
drink at a store owned by Chy’s sister, Esquibel. Chy was about
to come out of his house and upon being summoned, Garcia
suddenly punched him. Chy continued to parry the blows and
when he found an opportunity to escape, he ran home and
phoned his wife to call the police regarding the mauling. He
also complained of difficulty in breathing. He was found later
unconscious on the kitchen floor, salivating.
Cause of death is heart attack to which Garcia appeals that the
injuries he caused were not as violent in nature as to have
caused the death of Chy. Garcia pleaded not guilty to the crime
of homicide. The autopsy doctor confirms that the boxing and
the striking of the bottle beer on the victim could not have
caused any direct physical effect to cause the heart attack if the
victim’s heart is healthy. What could have caused said heart
attack is the victims emotions concerning the violence inflicted
upon him.
ISSUE:
Whether the circumstance of having no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated

RULING:
The circumstance that the petitioner did not intend so grave an
evil as the death of the victim does not exempt him from
criminal liability. Since he deliberately committed an act
prohibited by law, said condition simply mitigates his guilt in
accordance with Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal Code.
Nevertheless, said circumstance must be appreciated in favour
of the petitioner. The fact that the physical injuries he inflicted
on the victim could not have naturally and logically caused the
actual death of the victim, if the latter’s heart is in good
condition.
Considering this mitigating circumstance, imposable penalty
should be in the minimum period, that is, reclusion temporal in
its minimum period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the trial court properly imposed upon petitioner an
indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of
reclusion temporal as maximum.
MONLEON
FACTS
Cosme Monleon in his inebriated state upon reaching home
asked his wife whether his carabao was already fed by their son
Marciano. The wife answered in the affirmative.
But, to check the veracity of said statement, he went to see for
himself the carabao. He discovered that the carabao had not
been adequately fed and got furious. He was aboutto hit
Marciano, when Concordia, his wife, intervened. Monleon then
choked her, bashed her head against the post and kicked her
abdomen. Concordia died the following day.
ISSUE:
WON Monleon is criminally liable of the crime of parricide
although he had no intention to kill his wife.
HELD:
Yes. Accused herein is criminally liable of the crime of parricide
although he had no intention herein to kill his own wife. Article
4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is
incurred by any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended to
do. The maltreatment inflicted by the accused on his wife was
the proximate cause of her death. The accused is guilty of
parricide sentencing him to reclusion perpetua.
ACBANGIN
FACTS
On April 26, 1991, a complaint for kidnapping a minor was filed
against accused appellant Jocelyn Acbangin, accused Niu, Helen
Doe and Juana Doe with the Municipal Trial Court, Bacoor,
Cavite.
The court convicted Acbangin of the crime of Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention and acquitted Niu.
ISSUE

Whether or not Sweet’s testimony may be disregarded on the

count of her age

HELD:
Sweet’s testimony, stating that it was Jocelyn who brought her
to Niu’s house, should not be disregarded. Section 20, Rule 134
of the Revised Rules of Court provides that, “All persons who
can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception
to others may be witnesses.” A witness’ young age will not
deter him or her from being a competent and credible witness.
To be a competent child witness, the following criteria must be
met: (a) capacity of observation; (b) capacity of recollection and
(c) capacity of communication. All these were met by Sweet.
Besides, the trial court’s assessment of Sweet’s credibility
should be upheld and respected since its assessment was not
tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of any material fact.

MANLAPAZ
FACTS
Therese was a 13 year old girl who was mentally retarded. On
January 1, 1973, her mother Teresita Endencio was cleaning
Therese’s room when the former found two white pills in which
the latter described as pills “were for not having a baby”. Mrs.
Endecia the found out that Therese got it from their neighbor,
the defendant Winston Manlapaz. Her mother also found out
that the defendant had sex with her daughter twice. The
defendant was convicted and was penalized with reclusion
perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether or not executive punishment can be recommended
due to the severity of the punishment.
RULING
Yes. Before R.A. 4111 took effect the punishment for rape is
reclusion temporal. Since taking effect however, the penalty
has been raised to reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court
believes that the defendant has already served a term of
imprisonment consistent with the ends of retributive justice, it
recommends an executive clemency may be extended to
Manlapaz at the discretion of the Chief Executive and Prime
Minister.

CANJA
FACTS
Defendant Teopista Canja has been maltreated by her husband
Pedto Jongque. Apart from beating her, he squandered their
money and kept a woman. Per her signed confession, on the
night of 25 May 1948 when the victim came home, he hit the
defendant on the stomach without any reason. After dinner
and going out he hit her again and Teopista felt utmost
resentment against him. That night she took she got a hammer
and a chisel and struck his head and face until he was dead. She
woke up her eldest daughter Exuperia to help her carry the
body to the creek. As her defense, Teopista stated that she
woke up when a man was strangulating her and to defend
herself grabbed a piece of wood and struck the assailant twice
and later on learned that it was her husband. Court of First
Instance found her guilty on the basis of her daughter’s
testimony against her, her signed confession and the autopsy
report showing that the injuries suffered by the victim can’t be
from two blows.
ISSUE
 Whether or not Canja is exempt from criminal liability due to
self defense.
RULING
Judgment affirmed. Victim’s cruelty is not mitigating
circumstance. Self-defense version was rejected due to her
voluntary and signed confession, her daughter’s testimony and
the autopsy report

OLAES
FACTS
Between 4:00 and 4:30 a.m. of November 9, 1954, Bus No. 64
of the Laguna Transportation Company, driven by Limosnero,
left the town plaza of Biñan, Laguna, bound for Manila. Among
the passengers were Inobio, Argame and Loyola. When the bus
reached Bo. Almanza, Las Piñas, a man later identified by
passenger Inobio as Cosme Isip, holding a rifle or carbine,
suddenly appeared on the right side of the road and signalled
the bus to stop. Limosnero, taking him for a prospective
passenger, applied his brakes and slowed down, but before the
vehicle could come to a complete stop, seven other men, also
carrying guns emerged from the left side of the road. Probably
convinced that the eight men were net passengers but were
bent on holding up the bus and robbing the passengers,
Limosnero started the engine and sped away from the place
despite the shouts of the men on both sides of the road for him
to stop. Those men immediately commenced firing at the bus
which was riddled with bullets
ISSUE
Whether or not Olaes is of robbery with homicide and
frustrated homicide; and 2) whether or not the trial court erred
in imposing the penalties therefor.
Ruling:
The Court fully agreed with the trial court that Olaes is guilty.
However, he may not be convicted of consummated robbery
with homicide as the trial court did. Inasmuch as no overt acts
pointing to robbery or even an attempt thereof have been
established, the killing of one passenger and the wounding of
two others should be considered as plain murder, frustrated
murder, and physical injuries respectively. The SC disagreed
with the lower court as to the reason given by it in imposing the
penalty in its medium degree, that the accused was sentenced
only to life imprisonment.
MENDOZA
FACTS

Romarico Mendoza (petitioner) is a company boss/employer

convicted for violating a special law known as the Social
Security Condonation Law of 2009 for non-remittance of the
Social Security Service (SSS) contributions to his employees. The
offense is criminal in nature. Nevertheless, Mendoza admitted
his fault, as he said, he acted in good faith. But still, the Court
has to render judgment and apply the proper penalty how
harsh it may be dura lex sed lex). The Court sentenced
Mendoza to an indeterminate prison term. Considering the
circumstances, the court the Court transmitted the case to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, and
RECOMMENDS the grant of executive clemency to the
petitioner

ISSUE
Without violating the separation of powers, can the Supreme
Court recommend to the President, the grant of executive
clemency to a convict?

RULING
 The Court the discretion to recommend to the President
actions it deems appropriate but are beyond its power when it
considers the penalty imposed as excessive. It is clearly stated
in the Revised Penal Code which provides; “Whenever a court
has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress
and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper
decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to
believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be
deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the
sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this
Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the
injury caused by the offense.”

LAMAHANG
FACTS
The defendant Aurelio Lamahang is on appeal from a decision
finding him guilty of attempted robbery. At early dawn on
March 2, 1935, police man Jose Tomambing, who was
patrolling his beat on Delgado and C.R. Fuente Streets of the
City of Iloilo, caught the accused in the act of making an
opening with an iron bar on the wall of the store of cheap
goods located on the last named street. At the time the owner
of the store, Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another
Chinaman. The accused had only succeeded in breaking one
board and in unfastening another from the wall, when the
policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and placed
him under custody.
ISSUE
Whether or not the accused was erroneously declared guilty of
attempted robbery.
RULING
Yes, he was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery.
The accused is then held guilty of attempted trespass to
dwelling, committed by means of force, with the aforesaid
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and sentenced to
three months and one day of arresto mayor.

SY PIO
FACTS
Sy Pio entered a store in Sta Cruz, Manila one morning and
started firing a .45 caliber pistol. The first one shot was Jose Sy.
Then the accused turned around and shot Tan Siong Kiap on his
right shoulder when the latter asked Sy Pio, "What is the
idea?"Thereafter, Kiap ran to a room behind the store to hide.
He heard several gunshots before the accused ran away.Sy Pio
was found guilty of frustrated murder against the person of
Kiap by the CFI of Manila. The CA affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether or not the crime committed against Kiap is frustrated
murder.
RULING
Sy Pio is only guilty of attempted murder because he did not
perform all the acts of execution(i.e the subjective phase).
When he hit Kiap, he knew that the latter was able to escape.
This fact must have produced in his mindthat he was not able
to hithis victim at a vital part of the body.Still, with this
knowledge, he did not pursue Kiap and instead chose to run
away.

ADIAO
FACTS
Adiao abstracted a leather belt from the baggage of a Japanese
and secreted the belt in his desk in the Custom House where it
was found by other customs employees. Adiao was charged
with the crime of theft. He was found guilty of frustrated theft
by the Municipal Court and appellate court.
ISSUE
Whether or not all elements of the crime is present so it is a
completed crime.
RULING
Yes. Adiao performed all of the acts of execution necessary for
the accomplishment crime of theft. The fact that Adiao was
under observation during the entire transaction and that he
was unable to get the merchandise out of the Custom House is
not decisive. All the elements of the completed crime of the
theft are present.

ESPIRITU
FACTS
In the Supply Depot of Quezon City, the accused from the pile
nine (9) pieces of hospital linen and took them to their truck,
where they were found by a corporal of the Military Police (MP)
when they tried to pass through the checkpoint.
ISSUE
Whether or not the crime was considered theft in its
consummated stage.
RULING:
The court that it was consummated theft. The crime is
consummated the moment the offender gets ahold of the thing
taken and/or is in a position to dispose of it freely.
DINO
FACTS
On June 20, 1946, Roberto Diño was hired as a driver of the US
army at a stationin Quezon City. At above 11:30 in the morning,
he brought a truck load of articlesto manila harbor; the article
came from the US army. At the check point a guard approached
the truck and found three boxes, containing ten caliber 30 army
rifles.The guard brought Diño to the lieutenant of the US army
for questioning, Diño pointed to the gang but later denied.
Later Diño confessed that there were four persons who placed
the boxes on board and he was instructed to bring them out of
the area. While they were to meet after the truck passed the
checkpoint.
ISSUE
Whether or not Diño can be convicted of the crime of
consummated theft?
RULING
It was held that the crime committed was frustrated theft,
because of the timely discovery of the boxes on the truck
before it could pass out of the check point. in order for the
crime of theft to be consummated the article should have
passed the checkpoint, so that the thief could have full control
and could dispense of the property