A.S.C.B.

Module 1
Parricide and infanticide (Art. 246)
Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be
guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusión perpetua to death.

(a) A person is killed

(b) The deceased was killed by the accused
(c) The deceased is the father/mother/child, spouse, or legitimate
ascendant/descendant of the accused

PENALTY: *Reclusión perpetua* to death

Father, mother or child may be legitimate or not.
Ascendants & descendants must be legitimate (e.g., adopted parents/children or in-
laws are NOT included)

People v. Jumawan (1982) - killing due to refusal to separate

The accused Francisco Jumawan and his sons were proven to have killed the victim
Rodolfo Magnaye; they did so because he refused to sign a document that would enable
his separation with Jumawan's daughter, Presentacion. Along with Presentacion, they
were convicted not of parricide, but murder, because their relationship with Jumawan
was not alleged in the Information. The aggravating circumstances of relationship and
abuse of superior strength were instead appreciated.

People v. Ayuman (2004) - father who abused his 5 year-old son to death
The accused Conrado Ayuman was proven to have "overly disciplined" the victim, his son
Sugar Ray, through physical violence (e.g., beatings with stick, punching in the face, etc.)
until one day the latter started vomiting blood after being punched and was pronounced
dead at the hospital. The evidence pointed to Ayuman's guilt, and he was convicted of
parricide with the punishment of reclusión perpetua.

People v. Tomotorgo (1985) - wife who threw baby in the grass

The accused Jaime Tomotorgo was found guilty of parricide. He killed his wife in a fit of
rage after the latter, who was running away with their children, threw their infant into the
grass, which enraged Tomotorgo. But upon seeing his wife's condition, he immediately
brought her to the hospital and surrendered himself to the police after. He was entitled to
mitigating circumstances, but his plea to be convicted only of serious physical injuries,
based on the premise that he did not intend to kill his wife, was rejected based on Art. 4
of the RPC, wherein the accused is guilty for all consequences of his acts/omissions,
whether intended or not.

Murder and homicide (Art. 248-249)

Art. 248. Murder. Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusión temporal in its
maximum period to death, if committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances (TIMOEC):
(a) *Treachery / Abuse of superior strength / Aid of armed men / Weaken defense /
Afford impunity*

(b) *In consideration* of a prize, reward or promise

(c) By *Means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,

derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin*.

(d) *Occasion of calamities* (e.g., earthquake, volcanic eruption, cyclone, epidemic, etc.)

(e) *Evident premeditation*

(f) *Cruelty / Outraging or scoffing at the corpse*

ELEMENTS:
(a) A person was killed.
(b) Accused killed the person.
(c) Attendant circumstances
(d) Killing was not parricide or homicide.

Murder = KILLING (w/ the circumstances) that is NOT parricide or homicide.

If more than one circumstance present in murder, the other will be considered
GENERIC AGGRAVATING.
A qualifying circumstance can absorb the others in this case (e.g., treachery
absorbs abuse of superior strength and aid of armed men, if the latter two are
present); CANNOT be treated as aggravating circumstances.
Circumstances must be alleged in the Information.

People v. Buensuceso (1984) - Bataan policemen killing the victim

The victim was initially hit in the knee by bullets fired by one of the accused policemen.
He was wounded, but the accused continued to open fire anyway, hitting the victim in
different parts and killing him. The crime is murder attended by treachery as the attack
was done without risk to the aggressors as the victim was already wounded, and abuse
of superior strength, although this is absorbed by treachery.

People v. Angeles (2019) - 4 friends tricycle incident

Appellant Angeles along with 3 other accused, launched a stab attack against the
Evangelista brothers one evening. This led to the death of Abelardo, a non-fatal wound
on Eric, and a fatal wound on Mark Ryan who survived. Appellant was thus convicted of
murder, attempted murder, and frustrated murder, respectively. Now on appeal, SC
affirmed the CA decision with
modification, having held that conspiracy, intent to kill, and the qualifying circumstances
of treachery and abuse of superior strength were present.

Article 249. Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the
attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the
next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be
punished by reclusión temporal.
ELEMENTS:
(a) A person was killed.
(b) Accused killed the person w/o justifying circumstance.
(c) Intention to kill, presumed
(d) Killing was not parricide or homicide or no attendant circumstances for murder.

ELEMENTS OF INTENT TO KILL:

(a) Means used by malefactors
(b) Nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim
(c) Conduct of the malefactors before, during and after the killing
(d) Circumstances of the crime + motives of the accused

People v. Pugay (1988) - burning of the mentally challenged person

The accused Pugay was guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence for pouring
gasoline on the victim and failing to exercise all necessary diligence to avoid and prevent
any acts with undesirable consequences that may be committed by his companions.
Credited with the lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, Samson is guilty of
homicide for setting the victim on fire though he may have intended only to burn the
victims clothes.

Abella v. People (2013) - scythe incident and "no intent to kill"

The accused Abella sought to downgrade his conviction from homicide to serious
physical injuries by claiming that he had no intent to kill the victim. However, this was
rejected: (a) his use of a scythe against the victim's next showed intent to kill, and (b)
even if he chased the victim's companion instead of further finishing off the victim, he
had already struck the fatal blow to the latter.

People v. Aseniero (2019) - Leyte love triangle; lack of treachery

The accused Aseniero was initially charged with murder qualified by treachery, but the
Court downgraded it to homicide due to the prosecution's failure to ascertain its
presence. There was no treachery because (a) the victim was forewarned of Aseniero's
attack; Aseniero pushed the victim first, warning him, and (b) the victim had the
opportunity to defend himself and retaliate, and would have escaped had he not
stumbled.

CICL XXX v. People (2019) - 17 year-old ganging up on victim w/ his friends;

discernment
The accused was convicted of frustrated homicide. However, the Court reversed it
because (a) the prosecution failed to show that he acted with discernment, based on
the lack of evidence; furthermore, (b) the wounds the victim sustained were not proven
to have been fatal without medical attention either, based on the medical records.
However, the accused's parents were possibly civilly liable for negligence if proven so in a
separate civil case.

Gemenez v. People (2019) - shotgun wound & picture at hospital; attempted vs.
frustrated
The accused Ronaldo Gemenez appealed his conviction of frustrated homicide. He fired
his shotgun at the victim Jerry Bechachino, which led to the latter’s injuries in the left
chest, left arm and right thumb and his hospitalization. The Court denied Gemenez’s
appeal on the aspect of credibility, but resolved to lower his conviction. Bechachino’s
wounds were not established by evidence to have been fatal based on the Medico-Legal
Certificate, which did not say so. The picture of him in the hospital with tubes attached
his body was also
insufficient to prove this. Therefore, Gemenez was guilty of attempted, not frustrated,
homicide.

Cruz v. People (2020) - stray bullet hit kid; reckless imprudence vs. homicide
The accused Cruz shot the victim Bernardo, but in doing so he also hits Torralba, while
Bernardo survives Torralba dies. While Cruz did not intend to kill Torralba, the latter's
death was still homicide, not just reckless imprudence, because the death is the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the felony he had committed, in accordance with Art.
4 of the Revised Penal Code and the doctrine of abberatio ictus.

Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional

circumstances (Art. 247)
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. -
Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing
sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act
or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall
suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from
punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect
to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters
are living with their parents.

Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall
otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to
the benefits of this article

ELEMENTS:
(a) Legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
under 18 years of age and living with him, in sexual intercourse with another
(b) He or she kills any or both, of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious
physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter.
(c) He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he
or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.

NOT applicable to common-law marriages.

Daughters: can be illegitimate, but must be single (otherwise, only the daughter's
husband has the benefit)
Suprise: "to come upon suddenly and unexpectedly."

People v. Abarca (1987) - death under exceptional circumstance w/ "frustrated murder"

Accused-appellant was sentenced to death by the trial court for the murder of his wife’s
paramour after finding discovering them in the act of sexual intercourse. Under Art. 247
death by extraordinary circumstances cannot be considered a felony but it grants a
privilege or benefit to the accused. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is
not murder. However, he was held liable for simple imprudence resulting to less
serious physical injuries for the injuries suffered by the couple.

People v. Marquez (1929) - husband who killed his wife even after she pleaded for
mercy
Defendant killed his wife after having allegedly caught her in the act of adultery upon
seeing a man jump from their house window. The wife pleaded, but the defendant paid
her no mind. This does not fall under death under exceptional circumstances;
defendant was convicted for parricide accordingly.