People vs.

Silvestre & Atienza

FACTS:

ADULTERY:

 Romana Silvestre is the wife of Domingo Joaquin by his second marriage

 Silvestre cohabited with codefendant Martin Atienza from March 1930 in Masocol, Paombong,
Bulacan
 On May 16, 1930, Domingo filed with the justice of the peace for Paombong, Bulacan a sworn
complaint for adultery
 After being arrested and released on bail, the two defendants begged the municipal president of
Paombong to speak to the complainant and urge him to withdraw the complaint
 The two accused bound themselves to discontinue cohabitation and promised not to live again
in Masocol (Atienza signed the promise)
 On May 20, 1930, Domingo Joaquin filed a motion for the dismissal of his complaint and the
justice of the peace dismissed the adultery case
 The accused left Masocol and wen to live in Santo Niño, in Paombong

ARSON:

 Silvestre met her son by her former marriage, Nicolas de la Cruz, in Santo Niño and followed him
home to Masocol.
 Martin Atienza, who continued to cohabit with Romana, followed her and lived in the home of
Nicolas.
 On the night of November 25, 1930, while Nicolas, his wife Antonia, and the appellants were
gathered after supper, Atienza told Nicolas and Antonia to take their furniture out of the house
because he was going to set fire to it.
 He said that that was the only way he could be revenged upon the people of Masocol who, he
said, had instigated the charge of adultery against him and Romana
 Martin was armed with a pistol so no one dared say anything to him
 Nicolas and Antonia went to ask for help but were too late
 The fire destroyed about 48 houses
 Witnesses saw Martin and Romana leaving the house on fire
 The Court of First Instance of Bulacan convicted Martin and Romana of arson
o Martin was convicted as principal by direct participation (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day
of cadena temporal)
o Romana was convicted as accomplice (6 years and 1 day of presidio mayor)

ERRORS:

 The court-appointed counsel for the accused-appellant prays for the affirmance of the CFI
decision with regard to Martin, but assigns errors with reference to Romana:
o The lower court erred in convicting Romana as acoomplice
o The court erred in not acquitting Romana upon ground of insufficient evidence, or at
least, of reasonable doubt
ISSUE: Whether or not Romana can be convicted as accomplice

HELD: DECISION AFFIRMED

NO. Art. 14 of the Penal Code, in connection with Art. 13 defines an accomplice to be one who does not
take a direct part in the commission of the act, who does not force or induce other to commit it, nor
cooperates in the commission of the act by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished, yet cooperates in the execution of the act by previous or simultaneous actions.

In the case of Silvestre: there is no evidence of moral or material cooperation and none of an agreement
to commit the crime in question. Her mere presence and silence while they are simultaneous acts, do
not constitute cooperation, for it does not appear that they encouraged or nerved Martin Atienza to
commit the crime of arson; and as for her failure to give the alarm, that being a subsequent act it does
not make her liable as an accomplice.

Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm,
without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation required by Art. 14 of
the Penal Code for complicity in the commission of the crime witnessed passively, or with regard to
which one has kept silent.
People vs. Talingdan

FACTS:

 Teresa Domogma was the supposed wife of the deceased Bernardo Bagabag
o No certificate or any other proof of their marriage could be presented by the
prosecution
o They lived with their children in Sobosob, Salapadan, Abra
o Their relationship had been strained and beset with troubles for Teresa had deserted her
family home a couple of times and each time Bernardo took time out to look for her
 On 2 different occasions, appellant Nemesis Talingdan has visited Teresa in their house while
Bernardo was out at work, and during those visits Teresa had made Corazon, their then 12-year
old daughter to go down the house and leave them
 Bernardo had gotten wind that an illicit relationship was going on between Talingdan and Teresa
 About a month before Bernardo was killed, Teresa had again left their house and did not come
back for a period of more than 3 weeks, and Bernardo came to know later that she and
Talingdan were seen together in the town of Tayum Abra during that time
 Just two days before Bernardo was killed (Thursday), Bernardo and Theresa had a violent
quarrel; Bernardo slapped Theresa several times, resulting in Theresa seeking the help of the
police
 Accused Talingdan, a policeman, came armed to the vicinity of Bernardo's house and called him
to come down; Bernardo ignored him; Talingdan instead left and warned Bernardo that someday
he would kill him
 On Saturday, June 24, 1967, Bernardo was gunned down in his house
 The defendants' and Corazon's accounts of what happened had variations

ISSUE:

WON Teresa Domogma is an accessory to Bernardo's murder

 It is contended that there is no evidence proving that she actually joined in the conspuracy to kill
her husband because there is no showing of actual cooperation on her part with co-appellants in
their culpable acts that led to his death
 It is claimed that what is apparent is "mere cognizance, acquiescence or approval thereof on her
part, which it is argued is less than what is required for her conviction as a conspirator

HELD: Male appellants sentenced to death. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is Teresa Domogma,
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 5 years of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years
of prision mayor as maximum.

YES. She is an accessory to Bernardo's murder.

Note: The court believed Corazon's testimony.

It is true that proof of her direct participation in the conspiracy is not beyond reasonable doubt; she
cannot have the same liability as her co-appellants. She had no hand in the actual shooting. It is also
not clear if she helped directly in the planning and preparation thereof. But the court is convinced that
she knew it was going to be done and did not object.
There is in the record morally convincing proof that she is at the very least an accessory to the offense
committed.

She did not only order her daughter not to reveal what she knew to anyone, she also claimed to have
no suspects in mind when the peace officers came into their house later to investigate

Whereas before the actual shooting she was more or less passive in her attitude regarding the
conspiracy, after Bernardo was killed, she became active in her cooperation with her co-appellants

Hence, the sharp contrast between her passive attitude before the shooting and her subsequent acts
thereafter is deemed as "concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in the crime"
People v Delim | Jan. 28, 2003

The act of one is the act of all

Decision of RTC Br. 46 (Urdaneta City) finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing
them to death for the murder of Modesto Bantas.

Appellants and the victim Modesto are related as the latter is an adopted son of their faither.

One day, Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim charged into the house and poked a gun at Modesto; and
herded him outside. While Leon and Manuel Delim both armed made sure Randy and Rita (who were w/
Modesto) stayed put.

2 Days later, Modesto’s lifeless body was found and herein appellants pleaded not guilty and used denial
and alibi as their evidence against the crime charged.

ISSUE: Is conspiracy and treachery present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime?

HELD: GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE FELONY OF HOMICIDE

THERE IS CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy: When two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it; must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient that, at the time of commission of the crime, the
accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution.

Here, the accused acts were synchronized and executed with precision (preconceived plan) to kill
Modesto.

NO TREACHERY

Treachery: When the offender commits any of the crime against person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof—which tend to directly and especially insure its execution without,
however, risk to himself arising from the defense the offended party may take.

Prosecution needs to prove:

a. Employment of means of execution which gives the person NO OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND

HIMSELF
b. The means of execution is deliberately and consciously adopted

Here, there was no evidence as to how Modesto was exactly assaulted and killed. This supports the fact
that treachery cannot be proven since it cannot be presumed that Modesto was defenseless during the
time he was being attacked.

Number or the fact that there were three appellants does not constitute proof that they took advantage
of their numerical superiority when Modesto was shot and stabbed.
US vs Ah Chong

FACTS:

 The defendant Ah Chong was a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort McKinley, Rizal Province
 Pascual Gualberto, deceased, works at the same place as a house boy or muchacho

"Officers' quarters, No. 27" was a detached house some 40 meters from the nearest building

No one slept in the house except the two servants who jointly occupied a small room toward the rear of
the building, the door of which opened upon a narrow porch running along the side of the building

This porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length and height

The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock; the occupants, as a measure of
security, had attached a small hook or catch on the inside of the door, and were in the habit of
reinforcing this somewhat insecure means of fastening the door by placing against it a chair

SCENE:

 On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00 pm, the defendant was suddenly awakened by
some trying to force open the door of the room
 He called out twice, "Who is there?"
 He heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open
by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room
 The defendant warned the intruder "If you enter the room, I will kill you."
 Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly
at the intruder (when he entered the room) who turned out to be his roommate Pascual
- Pascual ran out upon the porch heavily wounded
- Recognizing Pascual, the defendant called to his employers who slept in the next house and ran
back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds
- Pascual died from the effects of the wound the following day

The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to the incident, and had an
understanding that when either returned at night, he should knock that the door and acquaint his
companion with his identity

The defendant alleges that he kept the knife under his pillow as personal protection because of
repeated robberies in Fort McKinley

Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that Pascual
was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite the
defendant's warnings

Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with extenuating (mitigating)
circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by
law

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant can be held criminally responsible

HELD: RTC's decision is reversed. The defendant is acquitted.

NO. By reason of a mistake as to the facts, the defendant did an act for which he would be exempt from
criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be (i.e. if Pascual was actually a thief, he will
not be criminally liable/responsible because it would be self-defense), but would constitute the crime of
homicide or assassination if the actor had known the true state of the facts (i.e. if he knew that it was
actually Pascual, he would be guilty of homicide/assassination)

The defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith

"The act itself foes not make man guilty unless his intention were so"

The essence of the offense is the wrongful intent, without which it cannot exist

"The guilt of the accused must depend on the circumstances as they appear to him."

If one has reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts which will justify a killing, if without fault or
carelessness he does believe them, he is legally guiltless of the homicide

The defendant was doing no more than exercise his legitimate right of self-defense

He cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his
mistake as to the facts.
People vs Oanis | July 27, 1943

FACTS:

Chief of Police Antonio Oanis and Corporal Alberto Galanta were instructed by the Constabulary
Provincial Inspector to arrest the escaped convict, Anselmo Balagtas, with bailarina named Irene, and if
overpowered, to get him dead or alive.

Upon arrival at the place where Irene could be found, Oanis approached and asked Brigada Mallare
where Irene's room was. Brigada indicated the room and said that Irene was sleeping with her paramour.

Oanis and Galanta then went to the room and upon seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the
door, they simultaneously fired at him.

Shocked by the entire scene, Irene fainted.

It turned out later that the man shot and killed was not Balagtas but an innocent man named Serapio
Tecson, Irene's paramour.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Oanis and Galanta can be held responsible for Tecson's death.

HELD:

Mistake must be without fault or carelessness on part of the accused. No unnecessary or unreasonable
force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater
restraint than is necessary for his detention. A peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal
liability if he uses unnecessary or unreasonable force in making an arrest.

Here, there were no circumstances which would press immediate action on Oanis and Galanta as they
had ample time to ascertain his identity of the victim while he was asleep and unarmed. Had the victim
been determined to fight that killing him would be justified.

Hence, they have exceeded the fulfillment of their duty by unjustly killing the person the person they
believed to be Balagtas without any resistance from him and without making previous inquiry as to his
identity.
People vs. Gervero | July 11, 2018

Mistake of Fact.—The mistake of fact applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or
carelessness. The maxim is ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake is committed
without fault or carelessness.

PARTIES:

 Victims Hernando, Jose and Bausug were members of the Civilian Volunteer Organization (CVO).
 Accused were members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) and were
carrying firearms.

Accused approached the victims and asked money from Hernando; the latter gave them P20.

Banes: “Is that the only amount you can give when you just received money from your wife?

Castigador took the money: “You just watch out.”

Later that evening, a burst of gunfire were heard from where the victims were walking. And a shout was
heard; “This is Hernando, a CVO!” and someone replied “Shoot now!”

Accused interposed the defense of “mistake of fact” claiming they thought the victims were members of
the NPA; furthermore, they were given oral instructions by Senior Inspector Baldevinos to conduct a
tactical patrol and combat operations against the NPA. And were told to use the password “Simoy” to
which the response would be “Amoy.”

HELD:

NO MISTAKE OPF FACT IN THIS CASE.

Mistake of fact applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness

Here, there was no reason for the accused not to recognize the victims:

- Transversing in an open area illuminated by moonlight and a light bulb

- Victims were conversing and laughing loudly
- It is not their first time seeing the victims as the accused had met them a few hours before the
shooting
- Were all residents of the same town and as members of CAFGU would know the residents as to
distinguish them from intruders who could be alleged members of NPA
Padilla vs. Dizon | February 23, 1988

PARTIES:

 Herein private respondent is a Judge. Respondent judge Baltazar Dizon acquitted the tourist and
accused, Lo Chi Fai, on the ground that the latter had no willful intention to violate the law. He
also directed his release for the amount of at least US 3K under Central Bank Circular No. 960 in
spite of the fact that forfeiture proceedings had already been instituted by the Bureau of
Customs over the currency listed in the information.
 Petitioner in this case is the Commissioner of Customs who filed a complaint against Dizon for
acquitting Lo Chi Fai.

FACTS:

Lo Chi Fai was caught by the Customs guard at the Manila International Airport for attempting to
smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments out of the country. He had in his possession
US 355,349 in assorted foreign currencies and foreign exchange instruments (380 pcs) without specific
authority from CB as required by law.

 An information was filed against him for violation of Sec. 6, CBC No. 960 with a penal provided
under Sec. 1 of PD NO. 1883. The law provides that the purpose of establishing the amount of
foreign currency brought in or out of the Philippines, a tourist upon arrival is required to declare
any foreign exchange he is bringing in at the time of his arrival, if the same exceeds the amount
ofUS$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign currencies. Sec. 1 PD 1883 provides thatsuch
persons shall be guilty of the crime of blackmarketing of foreign exchange and shall suffer the
penalty of Reclusion Temporal min. 12 yrs 1 day and max 20 yrs with a fine no less than P50,000.

At trial, Lo Chi Fai tried to establish that he was a businessman from HongKong and had come to the Ph
about 9-10 times to invest in business in the country with his business associates. That they declared the
money the brought in and such information was kept by him.

Lo Chi Fai was urged by his business associates to come to money to bring the money out of the
Philippines due to the revolution taking place in Manila.

Hence, the complaint filed by the Petitioner Commission of Customs Padilla against herein Priv.
Respondent Dizon for acquitting Lo Chi Fai.

ISSUE:

WON respondent Judge Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law in
holding that the accused, Lo Chi Fai, for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960, the prosecution must
establish that the accused had the criminal intent to violate the law.

HELD: DISMISSED FROM SERVICE, all retirement benefits & privileges to which he may be entitled are
forfeited w/o prejudice to his being reinstated in any branch of government service.

YES. Proof of malice or deliberate intent is not essential in offenses punished by special law which are
mala prohibita.
Here, respondent judge ignored the fact that Lo Chi Fai had in his possession assorted foreign currency
and foreign exchange instruments (380 pcs); that such amounts did not correspond to the currency
declarations of Lo Chi Fai at trial and such were personal checks belonging to other people which cannot
be utilized by the accused. This belies the claim that these were part of the funds his associated brought
and kept in the Philippines for purpose of investing the same in their business ventures.

Hence, respondent Judge Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law
in holding that the accused, Lo Chi Fai, for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960, in requiring proof of
malice.
Magno vs CA

FACTS:

Oriel Magno, lacking fund in acquiring complete set of equipment to make his car repair shop
operational, approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of Mancor Industries.

VP Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation, advising its Vice President, Joey
Gomez, that Mancor was willing to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS Finance could
accommodate Magno and and provide him credit facilities.

The arrangement went on requiring Magno to pay 30% of the total amount of the equipment as
warranty deposit but Magno couldn't afford to pay so he requested VP Gomez to look for third party
who could lend him that amount.

Without Magno's knowledge, Corazon was the one who provided that amount.

As payment to the equipment, Magno issued six checks, two of them were cleared and the rest had no
sufficient fund.

Because of the unsuccessful venture, Magno failed to pay LS Finance which then pulled out the
equipment.

Magno was charged of violation of BP Blg. 2 (The Bouncing Checks Law) and found guilty.

ISSUE: Whether or not Magno should be punished for the issuance of the checks in question.

HELD:

NO. To charge Magno for the refund of a warranty deposit which he did not withdraw as it was not his
own account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust debt since he did
not receive the amount in question. All the while, said amount was in the safekeeping of the financing
company which is managed by the officials and employees of LS Finance.