1. People v.

Narvaez

Fleischer and rubia building a fence binarily ng shotgun tulog si Narvaez blocking way to road
and rice mill

Crime charged: murder, murder, homicide

Mitigating circumstance invoked: self defense (yes) incomplete lack of reasonable necessity
shotgun killed / fencing
Passion and obfuscation (yes) nagdilim paningin( unlawful act yung fencing) immediate yung pag
galit
Voluntary surrender (yes) surrendered to police even his shotgun used

2. People v. ulep

Wapila baliw pinigilan ni leyden. Di napigilan humingi ng tulong sa pulis na humingi ng tulong
kay spo1 ulep and the group. Sinugod binarily sa katawan binarily pa sa ulo

Crime: murder, murder, homicide

Mitigating: fulfillment of duty (inc) not a natural consequence because binarily pa sa ulo if sa
body lang could have been justified
Voluntary surrender (yes) reported to the police right after.

3. Guillermo v. people

Vicente alon and Winnie alon drunk nab ago pumunta resto andun si cuillermo, arnel, joemar.
Nag away si Winnie at arnel sa paano magchainsaw ng wood. Pacified by Guillermo, was hit by
Winnie by a broken beer bottle in the head. In return stabbed Winnie causing him to die.

Crime: homicide homicide homicide

Mitigating: self defense (inc) reasonableness wala kasi beer bottle gamit ng lasing tapos stinab.
Wounds sa ulo non fatal pero victim chest at neck and died.

4. People v. salaberino

Husband William altecation with delia nagising dalawang anak Nakita sila nag aaway. Sinapak si
delia plus sinaksak sa may chest. Thereafter died. William said nakahubad sila may lalaki
nakapatong.

Crime: parricide parricide parricide

Mitigating: voluntary surrender(no) did not surrender, submissive attitude not considered
coluntary
 Passion and obfuscation: no unlawful act to produce passion kasi corroborated testimony of
children that there is no man

No intention to commit a grave so wrong: killed wife with a knife presumed intent to kill.

5. Miranda v. people

Pilo and damaso passed thru the after party to mirandas house threw stones.
Miranda went outside and hacked pilo pilo parried the second attack by his arm.
Damaso threw a stone at miranda and was able to get a bolo

Crime: frustrated 3x

Mitigating: self defense not considered but sufficient provocation is deemed considered when
there is no unlawful aggression could be considered as sufficient provocation. Miranda was
eating peacefully when stones were thrown at his hous enough to incite him.

6. Urbano v. people

Tomelden magkasama sila sa compound ni urbano. Several times they would have an altercation
because tomelden would always incite oppressive remarks against him. One altercation,
binugbog ni tomelden, he had one lucky punch and caused nosebleed.
After dizziness and continuous headache. Thereafter died to cardiac arrest secondary to cerebral
hemorrage.

Crime charged: homicide 3x

Mitigating: no intention to commit a grave so wrong( yes) one lucky punch notable disparity
between means employed. He was small tomelden was big

Sufficient provocation: inciteful remarks were continuous enough to incite him to act at the spur
of the agreement.

7. People v. benito

Benito was a clerk at csc. He followed the victim who was an acting chief of the division of csc.
When about to turn, he fired 8 shots then died.

Crime: murder2x

Mitigating: voluntary surrender (yes) although di nya inamin na sya ang assassin he surrendered
to the police even the gun used.
Grave vindication of grave offense: (no) hangout of thieves remark cannot be considered grave
offense general in character
 Sufficient provocation (no) beause the threat or provocative statement given by the victim was
done a day before such act was vengeance and not at the spur of the moment.

8. Bacabac v. people

Victim was with Melchor, Eduardo and Jonathan and edzel. They went to a dance hall. When
they went to the plaza the two groups had a misunderstanding. Jonathan was tied and edzel
was hugged he was also hit with a bamboo stick in the ear. Jesus stopped them but to no avail.

Nagsumbong sa mga tatay. Went back with armalite, bacabac fired in the air and jose fired
horizontally hitting Eduardo and the victim also jnathan and caused their death.

Crime: murder conspiracy 3x

Mitigating: immediate vindication of a grave offense not considered because hitting in the ear
and not on the head not considered grave
Edzel was a nephew not a relative by affinity.

9. People v. Gonzales

2 families went on Loyola memorial park had an altercation in the road where they nearl
collided. Andres and his family followed Gonzales and then blocked the road. Went outside his
car and then proceeded to Gonzales when he saw Gonzales was to be angry, he went back to
the car but was blocked by dino. When he went back he saw his wife said binaril kami and his 2
children wounded.

Crime: murder, murder, homicide, murder

Mitigating: passion and obfuscation (no) because the shouting done to the son was not
rendered helpless the son shouted back to andres. Not enough for him to lose his reason

Incomplete self defense of a relative (no) act of shouting cannot be considered unlawful
aggression

No intention to commit a grave so wrong (no) he used a gun and fired, intent to kill is presumed.

10. Bongalon v. people

Jayson and Roldan went to a procession, when they were passing the house of the accused the
daughter threw stones at the two and called them sissy. Seeing the two the accused went
outside his house and slapped the face and the back of the children. Then went to their house
and ask their father for a fight. The father didn’t fight and reported to the police

Crime: child abuse2x slight physical injuries

 Mitigating: passion and obfuscation (yes) enough to incite him to anger because he believed the
2 threw stones at his daughters and burned the hair.

11. People v. pagal

Pagal and co accused were ee of gau gauan. They stole 1280 from gau gauan and right after
stabbed him with ice pick and also hit them with steel pipe until he died.
Crime: robbery with homicide 3x

Mitigating: sufficient provocation (no) because a predetermined and planned act cannot be
considered in sufficient provocation
Passion and obfuscation (no) far removed from act because the maltreatment stated was done
on a much earlier date than that of crime committed.

12. People v. ignas

Wilma with husband June. Commit adultery with nemesio. They slept at hotel and asked the
friend to tell June about the affair as she was leaving to Taiwan. 2 weeks later in the bagsakan
nemesio was shot and died. June was the suspect.

Crime: murder 3x

Mitigating: passion and obfuscation and grave vindication(no) lapse of time is there 2 weeks has
already passed for the accused to be in his normal equanimity.

Voluntary surrender (no) he didn’t actually surrender, when the police came he didn’t surrender
himself and even refuted the charge against him.

13. People v. amaguin

Oro brothers were surprisingly attacked when they are going to the plaza to get a ride. The
accused herein stabbed the 2, hit them with an Indian pana, stabbed them again several times
and as they were pleading for their life shot them until they died.

Crime: murder 3x

Mitigating: voluntary surrender (yes) although it took them a week to surrender still elements
were sufficed.

14. People v. nidera

2 people stated there was a killing. Nidera was the subject he was arrested and surrendered his
knife. What happened was while flores Jerson and edmar were walking in the national highway
 a stone was thrown at him after flores ran way and saw several people surrounding the accused
and then nidera killed the accused.

Crime: murder: 3x
Mitigating: voluntary surrender (no) because of the fact that he was actually arrested it’s the
police who sought him. His submissive attitude and surrender of knife couldn’t constitute
voluntary surrender or spontaintey.

15. Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan

Nizurtado was barangay chairman there was this institution that gave him 10k to produce a
project however such project was falsified and the other council members were made to sign.

Crime: malversation 3x
Mitigating: no intention to commit a grave so wrong voluntary surrender and restitution

16. Mariano v. people

Fernando was driving his owner type jeep after a party. Reynaldo Mariano on the other hand
went from a church in a Toyota red pick up. There has been an altercation between them. But
was pacified. Ferdinand proceeded to his mothers house and when he went outside he was hit
by the same Toyota pick up. Mariano defense was Fernando became out of balance and alighted
from his vehicle that’s why he was hit.

Crime: frustrated homicide, reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries 2x

Mitigating: voluntary surrender (no) in cases of art 365 it cannot be considered that the formula
in art 64 in computation of mitigating cannot be used because court has sound discretion to
impose penalty without regard to art 64. In people v. medroso court was not bound to apply
even there are mitigating circumstance present.