ARTICLE 6 People v. Campuhan(G.R. No. 129433) Fa !"# On April 25, 1996 at around 4pm while Ma.

Corazon Pamintuan wasdownstairs bus preparin! drin"s #or her two dau!hters, she heard Cr sthel, one o# her dau!hters $r in!, %A o"o, A o"o& promptin! her to rush upstairs. 'hereupon, she saw Primo inside her $hildren(s room "neelin! in #ront o# her #our) ear old dau!hter, whose pa*amas were alread remo+ed, while his short pants were down to his "nees. Primo was apprehended and was $har!ed with statutor rape.'he trial $ourt #ound him !uilt and senten$ed him to the e,treme penalt o# death. -n $on+i$tin! the a$$used, the trial $ourt relied .uite hea+il on the testimon o# Corazon that she saw Primo with his short pants down to his "nees "neelin! be#ore Cr sthel whose pa*amas and pant were supposedl %alread remo+ed/ and that Primo was %#or$in! his penis into Cr sthel(s +a!ina.& I""ue# -s Primo !uilt o# Consummated rape0 $el%# 1ud!ment modi#ied into attempted rape. -n People +s. 2ela Pena, the 3C $lari#ied that the de$isions #indin! a $ase #or rape e+en i# the atta$"er(s penis merel tou$hed the e,ternal portions o# the #emale !enitalia were made in the $onte,t o# the presen$e or e,isten$e o# an ere$t penis $apable o# #ull penetration. 4here the a$$used #ailed to a$hie+e an ere$tion, had a limp o# #la$$id penis, or an o+ersized penis whi$h $ould not #it into the +i$tim(s +a!ina, the Court nonetheless held that rape was $onsummated on the basis o# the +i$tim(s testimon that the a$$used repeatedl tried, but in +ain, to insert his penis into her +a!ina and in all li"elihood rea$hed the labia o# her pudendum as the +i$tim #elt his or!an on the lips o# her +ul+a, or that the penis o# the a$$used tou$hed the middle part o# her +a!ina. 'hus, tou$hin! when applied to rape $ases does not simpl mean mere epidermal $onta$t, stro"in! or !razin! o# or!ans, a sli!ht brush or a s$rape o# the penis on the e,ternal la er o# the +i$tim5s +a!ina, or the mons pubis, as in this $ase. 'here must be su##i$ient and $on+in$in! proo# that the penis indeed tou$hed the labias or slid into the #emale or!an, and not merel stro"ed the e,ternal sur#a$e thereo#, #or an a$$used to be $on+i$ted o# $onsummated rape. As the labias , whi$h are re.uired to be %tou$hed& b the penis, are b their natural situs or lo$ation beneath the mons pubis or the +a!inal sur#a$e, to tou$h them with the penis is to attain some de!ree o# penetration beneath the sur#a$e, hen$e, the $on$lusion that tou$hin! the labia ma*ora or the labia minora o# thepudendum $onstitutes $onsummated rape. 1udi$ial depi$tion o# $onsummated rape has not been $on#ined to the o#t).uoted %tou$hin! o# the #emale or!an,& but has also pro!ressed into bein! des$ribed as %the introdu$tion o# the male or!an into the labia o# the pudendum,&or %the bombardment o# the drawbrid!e.& 6ut to the 3C5s mind, the $ase at bar merel $onstitutes a /shellin! o# the $astle o# or!asmi$ poten$ ,/ or a /stra#in! o# the $itadel o# passion./ 7nder Art.6, in relation to Art. 885, o# the 9e+ised Penal Code, rape is attempted when the o##ender $ommen$es the $ommission o# rape dire$tl b o+ert a$ts, and does not per#orm all the a$ts o# e,e$ution whi$h should produ$e the $rime o# rape b reason o# some $ause or a$$ident other than his own spontaneous desistan$e. All the elements o# attempted

rape ) and onl o# attempted rape )are present in the instant $ase: hen$e, the a$$used should be punished onl #or it.

PE&PLE &F T$E P$ILIPPINE' +s. (IEN)ENI*& 'AL)ILLA+ RE,NAL*& CANA'ARE'+ R&NAL*& CANA'ARE'+ an% 'I-PLICI& CANA'ARE'+ (IEN)ENI*& 'AL)ILLA G.R. No. .6163 Ap/0l 26+ 1991 -ELENCI&2$ERRERA+ J.: A$$used 6ien+enido 3al+illa alone appeals #rom the 2e$ision o# the 9e!ional 'rial Court, 6ran$h 2;, -loilo Cit , 3 dated 29 Au!ust 19;;, in Criminal Case <o. 2==92, #indin! him and his $o)a$$used 9e naldo, 9onaldo and 3impli$io, all surnamed Canasares, !uilt be ond reasonable doubt o# the $rime o# /9obber with 3erious Ph si$al -n*uries and 3erious -lle!al 2etention/ and senten$in! them to su##er the penalt o# reclusion perpetua. 'he -n#ormation #iled a!ainst them reads> 'he undersi!ned Cit ?is$al a$$uses 6-@<A@<-2O 3ABA-BBA, 9@C<AB2O CA<A3A9@3, 9O<AB2O CA<A3A9@3, and 3-MPB-C-O CA<A3A9@3, whose maternal surnames, dated and pla$es o# birth $annot be as$ertained o# the $rime o# 9O66@9C 4-'D 3@9-O73 PDC3-CAB -<179-@3 A<2 3@9-O73 -BB@EAB 2@'@<'-O< FArt, 294, para!raph 8, in $on*un$tion with Arti$le 26G o# the 9e+ised Penal CodeH, $ommitted as #ollows> 'hat on or about the 12th da o# April, 19;6, in the Cit o# -loilo, Philippines and within the *urisdi$tion o# this Court, said a$$used, $onspirin! and $on#ederatin! amon! themsel+es, wor"in! to!ether and helpin! one another, armed with !uns and hand!renade and with the use o# +iolen$e or intimidation emplo ed on the person o# 3e+erino Cho$o, Mar Cho$o, Mimie Cho$o and 9odita Dablero did then and there wil#ull , unlaw#ull and $riminall ta"e and $arr awa , with intent o# !ain, $ash in the amount o# P2=,===.==, two F2H Men5s wrist wat$hes, one F1H Bad 5s 3ei"o .uartz wrist wat$h and one F1H Bad 5s Citizen wrist wat$h and assorted *ewelries, all +alued at P5=,===.==: that on the o$$asion and b reason o# said robber , Mar Cho$o su##ered serious ph si$al in*uries under para!raph 2 o# Arti$le 268, 6ien+enido 3al+illa li"ewise su##ered serious ph si$al in*uries and 9e naldo Canasares also su##ered ph si$al in*uries: that the said a$$used also ille!all detained, at the $ompound o# the <ew -loilo Bumber Compan , -znart 3treet, -loilo Cit , 3e+erino Cho$o, ownerIproprietor o# said Bumber Compan , Mar Cho$o, Mimie Cho$o, who is a minor, bein! 15 ears o# a!e, and 9odita Dablero, who is a sales!irl at said Compan : that li"ewise on the o$$asion o# the robber , the a$$used also as"ed and were !i+en a ransom mone o# P5=,===.==: that the said $rime was attended b a!!ra+atin! $ir$umstan$es o# band, and

ille!al possession o# #irearms and e,plosi+es: that the amount o# P2=,===.==, the ransom mone o# P5=,===.==, two F2H Men5s wrist wat$hes, two F2H lad 5s wrist wat$hes, one F1H .8; $aliber re+ol+er and one F1H li+e !renade were re$o+ered #rom the a$$used: to the dama!e and pre*udi$e o# the <ew -loilo Bumber Compan in the amount o# P12=,===.==. 'he e+iden$e #or the prose$ution ma be re)stated as #ollows> On 12 April 19;6, a robber was sta!ed b the #our a$$used at the <ew -loilo Bumber Card at about noon time. 'he plan was hat$hed about two da s be#ore. 'he a$$used were armed with homemade !uns and a hand !renade. 4hen the entered the establishment, the met 9odita Dablero an emplo ee thereat who was on her wa out #or her meal brea" and announ$ed to her that it was a hold)up. 3he was made to !o ba$" to the o##i$e and there Appellant 3al+illa pointed his !un at the owner, 3e+erino Cho$o, and his two dau!hters, Mar and Mimie the latter bein! a minor 15 ears o# a!e, and told the #ormer that all the needed was mone . Dearin! this, 3e+erino told his dau!hter, Mar , to !et a paper ba! wherein he pla$ed P2=,===.== $ash FP5,===.==, a$$ordin! to the de#enseH and handed it to Appellant. 'herea#ter, 3e+erino pleaded with the #our a$$used to lea+e the premises as the alread had the mone but the paid no heed. -nstead, a$$used 3impli$io Canasares too" the wallet and wristwat$h o# 3e+erino a#ter whi$h the latter, his two dau!hters, and 9odita, were herded to the o##i$e and "ept there as hosta!es. At about 2>== o5$lo$" o# the same da , the hosta!es were allowed to eat. 'he #our a$$used also too" turns eatin! while the others stood !uard. 'hen, Appellant told 3e+erino to produ$e P1==,===.== so he and the other hosta!es $ould be released. 3e+erino answered that he $ould not do so be$ause it was a 3aturda and the ban"s were $losed. -n the meantime, poli$e and militar authorities had surrounded the premises o# the lumber ard. Ma*or Mel.uiades 6. 3e.uio 3tation Commander o# the -<P o# -loilo Cit , ne!otiated with the a$$used usin! a loud spea"er and appealed to them to surrender with the assuran$e that no harm would be#all them as he would a$$ompan them personall to the poli$e station. 'he a$$used re#used to surrender or to release the hosta!es. 'herea#ter, O-C Ma or, 9osa Caram, o# -loilo Cit arri+ed and *oined the ne!otiations. -n her dialo!ue with the a$$used, whi$h lasted #or about #our hours, Appellant demanded P1==,===.==, a $oaster, and some rain$oats. 3he o##ered them P5=,===.== instead, e,plainin! the di##i$ult o# raisin! more as it was a 3aturda . Bater, the a$$used a!reed to re$ei+e the same and to release 9odita to be a$$ompanied b Mar Cho$o in !oin! out o# the o##i$e. 4hen the were out o# the door, one o# the a$$used whose #a$e was $o+ered b a hand"er$hie#, !a+e a "e to Ma or Caram. 4ith this, Ma or Caram unlo$"ed the padlo$"ed door and handed to 9odita the P5=,===.==, whi$h the latter, in turn, !a+e to one o# the a$$used. 9odita was later set #ree but Mar was herded ba$" to the o##i$e.

Ma or Caram, Ma*or 3e.uio and e+en +olunteer radio news$asters $ontinued to appeal to the a$$used to surrender pea$e#ull but the re#used. 7-timatums were !i+en but the a$$used did not bud!e. ?inall , the poli$e and militar authorities de$ided to laun$h an o##ensi+e and assault the pla$e. 'his resulted in in*uries to the !irls, Mimie and Mar Cho$o as well as to the a$$used 9onaldo and 9e naldo Canasares. Mar su##ered a /ma$erated ri!ht lower e,tremit *ust below the "nee/ so that her ri!ht le! had to be amputated. 'he medi$al $erti#i$ate des$ribed her $ondition as /in a state o# hemorrha!i$ sho$" when she was brou!ht in to the hospital and had to under!o se+eral ma*or operations durin! the $ourse o# her $on#inement #rom April 18, 19;6 to Ma 8=, 19;6./ ?or his part, Appellant 3al+illa $on#irmed that at about noon time o# 12 April 19;6 he and his $o)a$$used entered the lumber ard and demanded mone #rom the owner 3e+erino Cho$o De demanded P1==,===.== but was !i+en onl P5,===.==, whi$h he pla$ed on the $ounter o# the o##i$e o# the lumber ard. De admitted that he and his $o)a$$used "ept 3e+erino, his dau!hters, and 9odita inside the o##i$e. De maintained, howe+er, that he stopped his $o)a$$used #rom !ettin! the wallet and wristwat$h o# 3e+erino and, li"e the P5,===.== were all le#t on the $ounter, and were ne+er tou$hed b them. De $laimed #urther that the had ne+er #ired on the militar be$ause the intended to surrender. Appellant5s +ersion also was that durin! the !un#ire, 3e+erino5s dau!hter stood up and went outside: he wanted to stop her but he himsel# was hit b a bullet and $ould not pre+ent her. Appellant also admitted the appeals dire$ted to them to surrender but that the !a+e themsel+es up onl mu$h later. A#ter trial, the Court a quo meted out a *ud!ment o# $on+i$tion and senten$ed ea$h o# the a$$used /to su##er the penalt o# reclusion perpetua, with the a$$essor penalties pro+ided b law and to pa the $osts./ Appellant 3al+illa5s present appeal is predi$ated on the #ollowin! Assi!nments o# @rror> 1. 'he lower $ourt erred in holdin! that the $rime $har!ed was $onsummated and in not holdin! that the same was merel attempted. 2. 'he lower $ourt erred in not appre$iatin! the miti!atin! $ir$umstan$e o# +oluntar surrender./ 7pon the #a$ts and the e+iden$e, we a##irm. 'he de#ense $ontends that /'he $omplete $rime o# lar$en Fthe#tIrobber H as distin!uished #rom an attempt re.uires asportation or $arr in! awa , in addition to the ta"in!, -n other words, the $rime o# robber Ithe#t has three $onse$uti+e sta!es> 1H the !i+in! 2H the ta"in! and 8H the $arr in! awa or asportation And without asportation the $rime $ommitted is onl attempted/ FMemorandum #or Appellant 3al+illa, 9e$ords, p. 81GH. 'here is no .uestion that in robber , it is re.uired that there be a ta"in! o# personal propert belon!in! to another. 'his is

"nown as the element o# asportation the essen$e o# whi$h is the ta"in! o# a thin! out o# the possession o# the owner without his pri+it and $onsent and without the animus revertendi FA.uino, 9e+ised Penal Code, p. 9G, citing 5 C.1. 6=GH. -n #a$t, i# there is no a$tual ta"in!, there $an be no robber . 7nlaw#ul ta"in! o# personal propert o# another is an essential part o# the $rime o# robber . Appellant insists that while the /!i+in!/ has been pro+en, the /ta"in!/ has not. And this is be$ause neither he nor his three $o)a$$used tou$hed the P5,===.== !i+en b 3e+erino nor the latter5s wallet or wat$h durin! the entire in$ident: proo# o# whi$h is that none o# those items were re$o+ered #rom their persons. 'hose #a$tual alle!ations are $ontradi$ted b the e+iden$e. 9odita, the lumber ard emplo ee, testi#ied that upon demand b Appellant, 3e+erino put P2=,===.== inside a paper ba! and subse.uentl handed it to Appellant. -n turn, a$$used 3impli$io Canasares too" the wallet and wristwat$h o# 3e+erino. -n respe$t o# the P5=,===.== #rom Ma or Caram, 9odita de$lared that the Ma or handed the amount to her a#ter she Fthe Ma orH had opened the padlo$"ed door and that she therea#ter !a+e the amount to one o# the holduppers. 'he /ta"in!/ was, there#ore, su##i$ientl pro+ed F'3<, 1ul 1, 19;G, pp. 12)18, 15)16, 2G)81H. 'he mone demanded, and the wallet and wristwat$h were within the dominion and $ontrol o# the Appellant and his $o)a$$used and $ompleted the ta"in!. 'he 3tate established a /ta"in!/ su##i$ient to support a $on+i$tion o# robber e+en thou!h the perpetrators were interrupted b poli$e and so did not pick up the money offered by the victim, where the de#endant and an a$$ompli$e, armed with a "ni#e and a $lub respe$ti+el , had demanded the mone #rom the #emale $ler" o# a $on+enien$e store, and the $ler" had $omplied with their instru$tions and pla$ed mone #rom the re!ister in a paper ba! and then pla$ed the ba! on the $ounter in #ront o# the two men: these a$tions brou!ht the mone within the dominion and control of defendant and completed the taking. F1ohnson +s. 3tate, 482 3o 2d G5;H. /3e+eran$e o# the !oods #rom the possession o# the owner and absolute $ontrol o# the propert b the ta"er, even for an instant, $onstitutes asportation FAdams +s. Commonwealth, 154 34 8;1: 3tate +s. Murra , 2;= 34 2d ;=9: Mason +s. Commonwealth, 1=5 3@ 2d 149H J@mphasis suppliedK. -t is no de#ense either that Appellant and his $o)a$$used had no opportunit to dispose o# the personalities ta"en. 'hat #a$t does not a##e$t the nature o# the $rime, ?rom the moment the o##ender !ained possession o# the thin!, e+en i# the $ulprit had no opportunit to dispose o# the same, the unlaw#ul ta"in! is $omplete F9e es, 9e+ised Penal Code Annotated, 6oo" --, 19;1 ed., p. 594H. 'he $rime is $onsummated when the robber a$.uires possession o# the propert , e+en i# #or a short time, and it is not ne$essar that the propert be ta"en into

the hands o# the robber, or that he should ha+e a$tuall $arried the propert awa , out o# the ph si$al presen$e o# the law#ul possessor, or that he should ha+e made his es$ape with it/ FPeople +s. Luinn, 1G6 P 2d 4=4: 4oods +s. 3tate, 22= 34 2d 644: People +s. 6eal, 89 P 2d 5=4: People +s. Clar", 16= P 2d 558H. Contrar to Appellant5s submission, there#ore, a $on+i$tion #or $onsummated and not merel attempted 9obber is in order. -t is the $ontention o# Appellant that 9odita $ould not ha+e seen the ta"in! be$ause the pla$e was dar" sin$e the doors were $losed and there were no windows. -t will be re$alled, howe+er, that 9odita was one o# the hosta!es hersel# and $ould obser+e the un#oldin! o# e+ents. Der #ailure to mention the ta"in! in her sworn statement would not militate a!ainst her $redibilit , it bein! settled that an a##ida+it is almost alwa s in$omplete and ina$$urate and does not dis$lose the $omplete #a$ts #or want o# in.uiries or su!!estions FPeople +s. Anda a, E.9. <o. B)68;62, 81 1ul 19;G, 152 3C9A 5G=: People +s. 'an, et al., ;9 Phil. 88G J1951KH. 'he #a$t, too, that 9odita was an emplo ee o# 3e+erino would not lessen her $redibilit . 'he de#ense has not pro+en that she was a$tuated b an improper moti+e in testi# in! a!ainst the a$$used. -n the last anal sis, the basi$ $onsideration $enters around the $redibilit o# witnesses in respe$t o# whi$h the #indin!s o# the 'rial Court are entitled to !reat wei!ht as it was in a superior position to assess the same in the $ourse o# the trial F see People +s. Ornoza E.9. <o. B)562;8, 8= 1une 19;G, 151 3C9A 495: People +s. Al$antara, E.9. <o. B)8;=42, 8= 1une 19;G, 151 3C9A 826H. Anent the se$ond assi!nment o# error, the /surrender/ o# the Appellant and his $o)a$$used $annot be $onsidered in their #a+or to miti!ate their liabilit . 'o be miti!atin!, a surrender must ha+e the #ollowin! re.uisites> FaH that the o##ender had not been a$tuall arrested: FbH that the o##ender surrendered himsel# to a person in authorit or to his a!ent: and F$H that the surrender was +oluntar FPeople +s. Canamo, E.9. <o. B) 62=48, 18 Au!ust 19;5, 18; 3C9A 141H. 'he /surrender/ b the Appellant and his $o)a$$used hardl meets these re.uirements. 'he were, indeed, as"ed to surrender b the poli$e and militar authorities but the re#used until onl mu$h later when the $ould no lon!er do otherwise b #or$e o# $ir$umstan$es when the "new the were $ompletel surrounded and there was no $han$e o# es$ape. 'he surrender o# the a$$used was held not to be miti!atin! as when he !a+e up onl a#ter he was surrounded b the $onstabular and poli$e #or$es FPeople +s. 3i!a an et al., E.9. <os. B)1;528)26, 8= April 1966, 16 3C9A ;89: People +s. Mation! E.9. <o. B)884;;, 29 Mar$h 19;2, 118 3C9A 16GH. 'heir surrender was not spontaneous as it was moti+ated more b an intent to insure their sa#et . And while it is $laimed that the intended to surrender, the #a$t is that the did not despite se+eral opportunities to do so. 'here is no

+oluntar surrender to spea" o# FPeople +s. 2imdiman 1=6 Phil. 891 J1959KH. All told, the assi!ned errors remain unsubstantiated and we #ind the !uilt o# the a$$used)appellant, 6ien+enido 3al+illa, established be ond reasonable doubt. Althou!h unassi!ned as an error, we deem it ne$essar to turn now to the nature o# the lin"ed o##enses in+ol+ed and the penalt imposed b the 'rial Court. Appellant and his $o)a$$used were $har!ed in the -n#ormation with /9obber with 3erious Ph si$al -n*uries and 3erious -lle!al 2etention F/Art. 295, par. 8, in $on*un$tion with Art. 26G, 9PC Hand senten$ed to reclusion perpetua. 4e a!ree with the 'rial Court that a $omple, $rime under Arti$le 4; o# the 9e+ised Penal Code has been $ommitted su$h that the penalt #or the more serious o##ense o# 3erious -lle!al 2etention FArt. 26G, 9e+ised Penal CodeH, or / reclusion perpetua to death,/ is to be imposed instead o# the penalt pres$ribed #or 9obber with 3erious Ph si$al -n*uries FArt. 294 F8H, whi$h is reclusion temporal. 7nder Arti$le 4;, a $omple, $rime arises /when an o##ense is a ne$essar means #or $ommittin! the other./ 'he term /ne$essar means/ does not $onnote indispensable means #or i# it did then the o##ense as a /ne$essar means/ to $ommit another would be an indispensable element o# the latter and would be an in!redient thereo#. 'he phrase /ne$essar means/ merel si!ni#ies that one $rime is $ommitted to #a$ilitate and insure the $ommission o# the other FA.uino, 9e+ised Penal Code, Aol. -, 19;G ed., p. 624, citing 2issent, Montema or, 1., Amado Dernandez, 99 Phil. 515H. -n this $ase, the $rime o# 3erious -lle!al 2etention was su$h a /ne$essar means/ as it was sele$ted b Appellant and his $o)a$$used to #a$ilitate and $arr out more e##e$ti+el their e+il desi!n to sta!e a robber . 'he #a$ts o# this $ase di##er #rom those in People +s. Astor, et al. FE.9. <os. B)G1G65)66, 29 April 19;G, 149 3C9A 825H where the a$$used were $on+i$ted o# 9obber but a$.uitted in the $ase #or 3erious -lle!al 2etention and where it was held that /the detention is absorbed in the $rime o# robber ./ ?or one, in Astor, there were two F2H separate -n#ormations #iled, one #or 9obber and another #or 3erious -lle!al 2etention. -n the present $ase, onl one -n#ormation was #iled $har!in! the $omple, o##ense. ?or another, in Astor, the robber had alread been $onsummated and the detention was merel to #orestall the $apture o# the robbers b the poli$e. <ot so in this $ase, where the detention was a+ailed o# as a means o# insurin! the $onsummation o# the robber . ?urther, in Astor, the detention was onl in$idental to the main $rime o# robber so that it was held therein> . . . were appellants themsel+es not trapped b the earl arri+al o# the poli$e at the s$ene o# the $rime, the would ha+e not an more detained the people inside sin$e the ha+e alread $ompleted their *ob. Ob+iousl , appellants were le#t with no $hoi$e but to resort to detention o# these people as se$urit , until arran!ements #or their sa#e passa!e were made. 'his is not the $rime o# ille!al detention punishable under

the penal laws but an a$t o# restraint in order to dela the pursuit o# the $riminals b pea$e o##i$ers FPeople +. 3ol, 9 Phil. 265: People +. 7da 55 Phil. 16G, $ited in the 9e+ised Penal Code, A.uino, Aol. 8, 19G6 ed., p. 188GH. 4here the +i$tims in a robber $ase were detained in the $ourse o# robber , the detention is absorbed b the $rime o# robber FP. +. 6a sa, 92 Phil. 1==;, id.H. -n the $ase at bar, the detention was onl in$idental to the main $rime o# robber , and althou!h in the $ourse thereo# women and $hildren were also held, that threats to "ill were made, the a$t should not be $onsidered as a separate o##ense. Appellants should onl be held !uilt o# robber . -n $ontra$t, the detention in the $ase at bar was not onl in$idental to the robber but was a ne$essar means to $ommit the same. A#ter the amount o# P2=,===.== was handed to Appellant, the latter and his $o)a$$used still re#used to lea+e. 'he +i$tims were then ta"en as hosta!es and the demand to produ$e an additional P1==,===.== was made as a prere.uisite #or their release. 'he detention was not be$ause the a$$used were trapped b the poli$e nor were the +i$tims held as se$urit a!ainst the latter. 'he detention was not merel a matter o# restraint to enable the male#a$tors to es$ape, but deliberate as a means o# e,tortion #or an additional amount. 'he poli$e and other authorities arri+ed onl mu$h later a#ter se+eral hours o# detention had alread passed. And, despite appeals to appellant and his $o)a$$used to surrender, the adamantl re#used until the amount o# P1==,===.== the demanded $ould be turned o+er to them. 'he e+en $onsidered P5=,===.==, the amount bein! handed to them, as inade.uate. 'he #ore!oin! #eatures also distin!uish this $ase #rom those o# 7.3. +. 3ol, 9 Phil. 265 J19=GK where the restraint was #or no other purpose than to pre+ent the +i$tims #rom reportin! the $rime to the authorities: #rom People +. Eamboa, 92 Phil. 1=;5 J1958K where the +i$tims were ta"en to a pla$e one "ilometer awa and shot in order to li.uidate the witnesses to the robber : #rom People +. 6a sa, 92 Phil. 1==; J1958K: People +. Manzanilla, 48 Phil. 16G J1922K, all o# whi$h $ases were $ited in Astor and where the +i$tims were onl in$identall detained so that the detention was deemed absorbed in robber . -n other words, unli"e in the abo+e $ases, the elements o# the o##ense o# 3erious -lle!al 2etention are present in this $ase. 'he +i$tims were ille!all depri+ed o# their libert . 'wo #emales FMar and MinnieH and a minor FMinnieH, a spe$i#ied $ir$umstan$e in Arti$le 26G F8H, were amon! those detained. 'he $ontinuin! detention was also #or the purpose o# e,tortin! ransom, another listed $ir$umstan$e in Arti$le 26G Flast para!.H not onl #rom the detained persons themsel+es but e+en #rom the authorities who arri+ed to res$ue them. -t #ollows then that as the detention in this $ase was not merel in$idental to the robber but a ne$essar means emplo ed to #a$ilitate it, the penalt imposed b the 'rial Court is proper. 4D@9@?O9@, the *ud!ment appealed #rom is hereb A??-9M@2. Proportionate $osts.

T$E 4NITE* 'TATE' +s. I'AAC *&-ING4E5 G.R. No. L216121 Fe7/ua/8 23+ 1921 )ILLA-&R+ J.: 'he #a$t whi$h !a+e rise to the present appeal is des$ribed in the in#ormation as #ollows> 'hat on or about 19th da o# 1anuar , 192=, in the $it o# Manila, Philippine -slands, the said a$$used who was a salesman at the Philippine @du$ation Co., -n$. did then and there re$ei+e the sum o# se+en pesos and #i#t $enta+os Fpesos G5=H #rom one Bamberto Ear$ia as pa ment #or #i+e $opies o# 3am5s /Pra$ti$al 6usiness Betters/ bou!ht #rom the store o# the said $ompan , whi$h amount should ha+e been turned o+er and deli+ered b him Fa$$usedH to the $ompan 5s $ashier or his authorized representati+e therein: that instead o# deli+erin! the said amount to the said $ashier or his representati+e therein, whi$h he "new it was his obli!ation to do, the said a$$used did then and there will#ull , unlaw#ull and $riminall misappropriate and $on+ert it to his own personal use to the dama!e and pre*udi$e o# the said Philippine @du$ation Co., -n$. in the sum o# se+en pesos and #i#t $enta+os Fpesos G.5=H e.ui+alent to 8G M pesetas. At the $lose o# the trial the $ourt #ound the a$$used !uilt o# the $rime o# estafa o# the sum o# pesos G.5= and senten$ed him to be imprisoned #or two months and one da o# arresto mayor, with the a$$essories pro+ided b law, and $osts. Appeal ha+in! been ta"en to this to this 3upreme Court, the $ounsel #or the a$$used assi!ns, as error $ommitted b the $ourt, its #indin! that the a$$used is !uilt o# the $rime $har!ed and its a$tion in imposin! upon him the penalt $orrespondin! to a prin$ipal in the $rime o# estafa. -t is pro+ed that the a$$used, as salesman o# the boo"store /Philippine @du$ation Co., -n$./ sold on the mornin! o# 1anuar 19, 192=, #i+e $opies o# 3ams5 /Pra$ti$al 6usiness Betters,/ o# the +alue o# se+en pesos and #i#t $enta+os Fpesos G.5=H, whi$h the a$$used should ha+e immediatel deli+ered to the $ashier but whi$h he did not deli+er, until a#ter it was dis$o+ered that he had sold the boo"s and re$ei+ed their +alue without deli+erin! it to the $ashier, as was his dut . 'he a$$used alle!es that he did not deli+er the mone immediatel a#ter the sale, be$ause the $ash bo s were +er bus as well as the $ashier, while he had to !o to the toilet #or some ne$essit , and upon $omin! out, the $ashier $au!ht him b the arm and as"ed him #or the mone , and then he deli+ered the sum o# pesos G.5= to him: and that it was not his intention to ma"e use o# said mone . 3u$h $laim, ne+ertheless, does not e,empt him #rom the $riminal responsibilit whi$h he had in$urred, #or the e+iden$e be#ore us shows $learl that he attempted to de#raud the /Philippine @du$ation Co., -n$./ 7pon bein! as"ed #or the mone , he #irst said that a woman, whom he did not "now, bou!ht boo"s, without ha+in! paid, #or the reason that she was, a$$ordin! to hersel#, in a hurr : and, latter, he went out o# the store to tal" to a #riend who was emplo ed in the Pa$i#i$ Mail 3teamship Co. to tell him that i#

an one should as" him i# he Fthe emplo ee o# the Pa$i#i$ Mail 3teamship Co.H bou!ht boo"s that mornin! in the store o# the /Philippine @du$ation Compan / he should answer a##irmati+el . ?urthermore, he had also de$lared to the mana!er o# the boo"store that he used part o# the mone in pur$hasin! posta!e stamps. 'here $an be no doubt as to the in*ur whi$h the a$$used would ha+e $aused to the interests o# the $ompan in retainin! #or himsel# the pro$eeds o# the sale in .uestion. 6ut the .uestion o# law to be de$ided is whether the #a$t that the a$$used retained in his possession the pro$eeds o# the sale, deli+erin! them to the $ashier onl a#ter the de$eit had been dis$o+ered, $onstitutes a $onsummated o##ense or merel a #rustrated o##ense o# estafa. 3hould the #a$t that the a$$used attempted to !et $ertain bundles o# mer$handise at the station, b means o# the presentation o# the ta! sent to the $onsi!nee in a letter whi$h must ha+e been ta"en #rom the mail, it not ha+in! been pro+en b whom or how it $ame to the a$$used, who did not attain their ob*e$t, be$ause the bundles had been withdrawn two or three da s be#ore b the $onsi!nee, be $onsidered as an attempted or #rustrated o##ense0 'he supreme $ourt o# 3pain in its de$ision o# 1anuar 8, 1;G6, in de$idin! the appeal ta"en b the a$$used, who alle!ed that the a$t $onstituted onl an attempt and not a #rustrated estafa, de$lared that the appeal was not well ta"en, on the !round that the o##ense is #rustrated when the a$$used per#orms all the a$ts o# e,e$ution whi$h would ha+e produ$ed the $rime, and, ne+ertheless, do not produ$e it b reason o# $auses independent o# the will o# the a$tor, and that in said $ase the appellant, to!ether with his $oa$$used attempted to ta"e possession o# the two bundles whi$h the belie+ed were at the station, b !oin! there and presentin! the ta!, and the did not su$$eed be$ause these bundles had alread been ta"en, whi$h $onstitutes the #rustrated $rime. -n his $ommentaries on the Penal Code Aiada as"s the #ollowin! .uestions> /-s immediate return b the a$$used o# the thin! he intended to $on+ert, as soon as the in*ured part #ound out the #raud $ommitted, su##i$ient to di+est the a$t o# its $onsummated $hara$ter and to pla$e it within the limits o# a mere #rustrated o##ense0/ /'he reli!ious so$iet o# 3anta Clara deposited, in the ear 1;6;, with 2. Manuel <uNez an oil paintin! on $opper, but when the demanded it a #ew ears a#terwards, the latter deli+ered to them the same #rame but with merel a $op o# the ori!inal paintin!, whi$h, upon his order, a painter had made #or the sum o# 4= pesetas. 'he substitution ha+in! been a#terwards noted, the so$iet protested and <uNez returned the ori!inal, +alued at 125 pesetas, and in turn obtained the $op re#erred to. 6ut, in the meantime a $riminal a$tion ha+in! been instituted upon this #a$t and prose$uted to trial, the Madrid $ourt, holdin! that <uNez had de#rauded and in*ured the so$iet in the amount o# the di##eren$e in the +alue o# the paintin!s, senten$ed him, as prin$ipal in the $onsummated $rime o# estafa, de#ined in number 5 o# arti$le 54; o# the Code, to the penalt o# two months and one da o# arresto mayor, to!ether with the a$$essories, and $osts. An appeal ha+in! been ta"en #rom said

*ud!ment, on the !round that it +iolated amon! others, arti$le 8 o# the Code, the 3upreme Court, de$larin! that the appeal was well ta"en, held that the estafa $ommitted was mere #rustrated estafa. 5Considerin! that while the a$ts o# 2. Manuel <uNez appear to ha+e been a$tuated b the desire to $on+ert the paintin! to his own use and the $onse.uent in*ur o# its owner, and that to that end he per#ormed all the a$ts whi$h should produ$e the $rime as a $onse.uen$e, ne+ertheless, the in*ur and the appropriation were not realized, and there#ore the $rime was not $onsummated be$ause o# a $ause independent o# his will, whi$h was the dis$o+er o# the substitution o# the plate, a#ter whi$h the owner obtained what belon!ed to him without the ob*e$tion o# the depositar and without an dela *uridi$all appre$iable O there#ore, the trial $ourt in holdin! as $onsummated an o##ense that was #rustrated, +iolated, in #ailin! to appl it, arti$le 8 o# the Code.5 / F1 Aiada, 65.H 'he same author puts and sol+es the #ollowin! .uestion> /4here a person appointed Commissioner to ma"e $olle$tion o# debts due to the publi$ treasur #or real estate ta,es owin! b a minin! $ompan !oes to a store and a$ts o# the owner thereo# a $ertain sum in order that he mi!ht not #ile a $omplaint b +irtue o# whi$h the owner mi!ht ha+e to pa a bi! #ine be$ause the establishment was not re!istered in the $orrespondin! $lass, and the owner pa s him part o# the sum demanded, but he is in the a$t $au!ht b a!ents o# the authorit who were detailed #or the purpose, is he !uilt o# the $onsummated or simpl #rustrated $rime o# estafa0 'he $riminal bran$h o# the $ourt o# 3e+ille #ound him !uilt o# the #ormer and senten$ed him to the penalt o# two months and one da o# arresto mayor. 6ut, appeal ha+in! been ta"en #rom the *ud!ment on the !round that the #a$t $onstituted onl an attempt to $ommit estafa, the 3upreme Court, while not o# the same opinion, howe+er, held that the $rime $ommitted was merel #rustrated> 5Considerin! that while the a$ts e,e$uted b the appellant should be .uali#ied, not merel as an attempt, as $laimed b the appellant, inasmu$h as he did not limit himsel# to $ommen$in! the a$ts o# e,e$ution o# the $rime, but as a #rustrated $rime be$ause the a$$used per#ormed all the a$ts o# e,e$ution whi$h should produ$e the $rime as a result, su$h s the obtainin! o# the mone e,a$ted, in this manner apparentl realizin! his ob*e$t, but whi$h a$ts ne+ertheless did not produ$e the $rime b reason o# a $ause independent o# his will, whi$h $ause in this $ase was the appearan$e o# a!ents o# the authorit at the pla$e, as a $onse.uen$e o# the $omplaint #iled b 2a. Candelaria Polan$o to the treasur deput , a #a$t whi$h pre+ented the $onsummation o# the $rime prose$uted, whi$h would ha+e $onsisted in $ompletel di+estin! the owner o# his mone , a result pre+ented b the +i!ilan$e o# the authorities> Considerin! that in not so holdin! the trial $ourt erred on a point o# law, as $laimed, and +iolated the arti$les o# the Penal Code to whi$h the appeal re#ers, et$., et$.5 / FAiada, 3uppl. 1;;G)1;;9, p. ;.H Appl in! the do$trine, established b the supreme $ourt o# 3pain in the de$isions $ited, to the $ase at bar, we are o# the opinion, and so hold, that the appellant is !uilt o# the #rustrated o##ense o# estafa o# 8G M pesetas, inasmu$h as he per#ormed all the a$ts o# e,e$ution whi$h should produ$e the $rime as a $onse.uen$e, but whi$h, b reason o# $auses

independent o# his will, did not produ$e it, no appre$iable dama!e ha+in! been $aused to the o##ended part , su$h dama!e bein! one o# the essential elements o# the $rime, due to the timel dis$o+er o# the a$ts prose$uted. ?rom what has been said, it results that the *ud!ment appealed #rom should, as it is hereb , modi#ied, and the a$$used is senten$ed to pa a #ind o# 825 pesetas, with subsidiar imprisonment in $ase o# insol+en$ , and to pa the $osts o# the trial. 3o ordered.

GREG&R, 9A-E' P&5AR v".T$E $&N&RA(LE C&4RT &F APPEAL' G4ERRER&+ 9. ?a$ts> 'hat on or about the 1Gth da o# 2e$ember, 19G9, in the Cit o# An!eles, theabo+e)named a$$used, bein! then an appli$ant #or probation a#ter he was $on+i$ted o# an o##ense #eloniousl !i+e to the $omplainant, Mr. 2anilo O$ampo, the Cit ProbationO##i$er, the sum o# P1==.== in a paper bill under $ir$umstan$es that would ma"e thesaid Cit Probation O##i$er, liable #or briber . -ssue> 4hether or not the a$$used +iolates Art. 212 o# 9e+ised Penal Code. Deld> <o. 4e $an #airl dedu$e that the pro$edure #or pro$essin! petitioner5sappli$ation #or probation in the Probation O##i$e at An!eles Cit was not pre$ise, e,pli$itand $lear $ut and sin$e the a$$used petitioner is a #orei!ner and .uite un#amiliar withprobation rules and pro$edures, there is reason to $on$lude that petitioner wasbe#uddled, i# not $on#used so that his a$t o# pro+idin! and ad+an$in! the e,penses #or whate+er do$umentation was needed #urther to $omplete and thus hasten his probationappli$ation, was understandabl inno$ent and not $riminal.4D@9@?O9@, a$$used a$.uitted.

T$E PE&PLE &F T$E P$ILIPPINE I'LAN*' +s. ANT&NIN& $ERNAN*E5 G.R. No. L231661 *e em7e/ :+ 1929 A)ANCE;A+ C.J.: -n the *ud!ment appealed #rom the appellant was $on+i$ted o# arson and senten$ed to ei!ht ears and one da presidio mayor, with the a$$essaries o# law, and the $osts. On ?ebruar 8, 1929, Mi!uel 2a rit, the o##ended part , was li+in! with his $hildren in his house situated in the barrio o# 2u.ue, muni$ipalit o# Mabala$at, Pro+in$e o# Pampan!a. At a little past midni!ht on that date, and a#ter Mi!uel 2a rit had retired, he noti$ed that the that$hed roo# o# his house was on #ire. De !ot up to #et$h some water with whi$h to e,tin!uish the #ire, when, loo"in! out o# the window, he saw the appellant beside the house, $arr in! a sti$" F@,hibit AH. Mi!uel 2a rit shouted #or help, and started to put out the #ire, whi$h he su$$eeded in doin!, a#ter a small part o# the roo# had burned. -n answer to his $ries #or help, Artemio 'an!lao repaired to the pla$e and saw the de#endant runnin! awa .

2aniel Mallari also $ame, and on his wa to the house met the de#endant. 'he appellant "new that Mi!uel 2a rit and his $hildren li+ed and were in the house that ni!ht. 'he testimon o# the o##ended part , $orroborated b that o# Artemio 'an!lao and 2aniel Mallari, establishes be ond all doubt the #a$t that it was the appellant who set #ire to the house. 'he sti$" whi$h Mi!uel 2a rit saw in the appellant5s possession on that ni!ht was #ound leanin! a!ainst the house with the end burnt and a ra! soa"ed with petroleum dan!lin! #rom it. 2aniel Mallari re$o!nized it as the sti$" whi$h the appellant used in !ettin! !ua+a #ruits. -t should be noted, moreo+er, that prior to the $rime, the appellant and the o##ended part , Mi!uel 2a rit, had some disa!reements be$ause the o##ended part suspe$ted that the appellant was stealin! his padd piled up behind his house. 'he o##ended part $ommuni$ated his suspi$ions to the barrio lieutenant, who, to!ether with the $omplainant, went to the appellant5s house, but the latter armed with a bolo, barred their wa , sa in! that he would $ut them to pie$es, and that he re$o!nized no authorit . 'his $hara$teristi$ +iolen$e on the part o# the appellant was also shown when, in pursuan$e o# this in#ormation, he was arrested: #or he re#used to !i+e himsel# up. 'he trial $ourt held that the $rime $ommitted was onl #rustrated arson. 4e a!ree with the Attorne )Eeneral that the $rime was $onsummated. 'he appellant did in #a$t, set #ire to the roo# o# the house, and said house was in #a$t partiall burned. 4ith this, the $rime o# arson was $onsummated, notwithstandin! the #a$t that the #ire was a#terwards e,tin!uished, #or, on$e the #ire has been started, the $onsummation o# the $rime o# arson does not depend upon the e,tent o# the dama!e $ause. 'his $ourt has so held in the $ases o# 7nited 3tates vs. Eo ?oo 3u and Eo 1an$ho F25 Phil., 1;GH and 7nited 3tates vs. Po Chen!$o F28 Phil., 4;GH. 'he $rime o# arson ha+in! been $onsummated, as it appears #rom the #a$ts thorou!hl pro+ed, arti$le 549 o# the Penal Code is appli$able herein, with the $orrespondin! penalt o# cadena temporal to li#e imprisonment. And as the a!!ra+atin! $ir$umstan$e o# ni!httime must be ta"en into $onsideration, as ha+in! been doubtless sou!ht b the appellant in order to insure the $ommission o# the $rime, the penalt must be imposed in its ma,imum de!ree. -n +iew o# these $onsiderations, the *ud!ment appealed #rom is modi#ied, and in a$$ordan$e with arti$le 549 o# the Penal Code the appellant is #ound !uilt o# the $rime o# arson, $ommitted in a dwellin!, "nowin! that within it were the o##ended part and his $hildren: and, $onsiderin! one a!!ra+atin! $ir$umstan$e in the $ommission o# the $rime, the de#endant is senten$ed to li#e imprisonment, with the a$$essaries, and the $osts. 'he appellant is an old man, about ;5 ears o# a!e, and in +iew o# this, and o# the #a$t that the dama!e $aused was +er

sli!ht, the Attorne )Eeneral re$ommends that, in pursuan$e o# the se$ond para!raph o# arti$le 2 o# the Penal Code, these #a$ts be e,plained to the @,e$uti+e, #or the e,er$ise o# his $lemen$ to su$h an e,tent as he ma deem proper. 'he su!!estion is a$$epted, and it is hereb ordered that the $ler" #orward a $op o# this de$ision, on$e it be$omes #inal, to the Eo+ernor) Eeneral #or $onsideration. 3o ordered. PE&PLE &F T$E P$ILIPPINE' +s. E*GAR G4TIERRE5 8 C&RTE5G.R. No. 111699 9ul8 :+ 1996 )IT4G+ J.:p 'he a$$used, @d!ar Eutierrez Cortez, appeals #rom the 2;th ?ebruar 1991 *ud!ment o# the 9e!ional 'rial Court F3pe$ial Criminal CourtH o# Paloo"an Cit , 6ran$h 181, $on+i$tin! him o# arson under Presidential 2e$ree <o. 1618, amendin! the 9e+ised Penal Code, and imposin! on him the penalt o# reclusion perpetua FCriminal Case <o. C)841G8J;9KH, in an in#ormation, dated 16 2e$ember 19;9, that reads> 'hat on or about the 14th da o# 2e$ember 19;9 in Paloo"an Cit , Metro Manila and within the *urisdi$tion o# this Donorable Court, the abo+e)named a$$used, moti+ated b a desire #or re+en!e, with deliberate intent to $ause dama!e, did then and there wil#ull , unlaw#ull and #eloniousl set #ire to the house o# one 1O3@?A A99OCO ABA<O, thereb $ausin! dama!e to the #ront wooden)made wallin! lo$ated at the !round#loor thereo# in the amount o# P5==.==, to the dama!e and pre*udi$e o# the latter in the amount o# P5==.==. Contrar to law. 1 'he a$$used pleaded /not !uilt / to the $har!e. 'he e+iden$e #or the prose$ution, brie#l , is to the #ollowin! e##e$t> -n the e+enin! o# 14 2e$ember 19;9, at around ei!ht o5$lo$", while ?elipe @nri.uez, a barangay tanod, was in #ront o# his house in Ma"abalo 3treet, Paloo"an Cit , he noti$ed a $ommotion at a distan$e. 9epairin! to the pla$e, he saw appellant, bloodied, bein! embra$ed b his mother Corazon Eutierrez. Dis nei!hbor Paul Polin!a, a poli$eman o# Aalenzuela, was, b the time @nri.uez arri+ed at the s$ene, alread attendin! to appellant. @nri.uez was told b some people around him that there had been a /#i!ht/ between appellant and a son o# one Mario Alano. Bater that e+enin!, at about 11>8=, while @nri.uez and appellant5s brother @ri$ and sister 6olet, were $on+ersin! at the $orner o# 9a*ah 3oliman and Ma"abalo 3treets about the in$ident, appellant passed b $arr in! a ba! $ontainin! what seemed to be /!asoline/ F/parang gasolina/ 2H. @nri.uez #ollowed appellant. A #ew meters awa , he saw appellant throw the ba! at the house o# Mario Alano and then lit it. 'he plea o# appellant5s mother, who s$reamed /@!a , @!a ,

huwag,/ 3 was i!nored b the son. @nri.uez elled 5/Man! Mario, Man! Mario, nagliliyab ang bahay ninyoQ/ 4 ?orthwith, @nri.uez saw Mario Alano pourin! water on the ablaze portion o# the house. <ei!hbors rushed in to help put the #ire under $ontrol. Mario Alano, testi# in!, said that he was at home in 1=4 9a*ah 3oliman 3treet, Paloo"an Cit , wat$hin! the tele+ision pro!ram /'ell the People,/ : when he heard appellant, whose +oi$e he was #amiliar with, shoutin! that he FappellantH would blow)up the house. Mario then heard a sound resemblin! that o# a pie$e o# wet $loth F/basahan/ 6H bein! hurled at the wall o# the house. -nstantl , the wall was a#lame. 'he #ollowin! mornin!, at appro,imatel ;>8=, Pat. Celerino 6ertes, the des" o##i$er o# the Paloo"an Cit 5s 6th A+enue poli$e deta$hment, re$ei+ed a $all on the /arson/ in$ident in Ma"abalo 3treet. Poli$e o##i$er <elson Ombao, to!ether with P#$. 6ri$$io ?ernando and Pat. 6ertes, were dispat$hed to the pla$e. 'he !roup was met b Mario Alano who pointed to appellant as bein! the author o# the arson. 'he poli$e o##i$ers in+ited appellant to the poli$e head.uarters. De was a$$ompanied b his mother and an un$le. PI3!t. 9e es later $ondu$ted an o$ular inspe$tion. De too" some #ra!ments #rom the burnt portion o# the house and re#erred them to the PC Crime Baborator #or e,amination. 'he house, made o# li!ht wooden materials and !al+anized iron, was owned b Mario Alano5s sister, 1ose#a Arro o, an o+erseas wor"er. A$$ordin! to 1oselito Arro o, 1ose#a5s son, it was his eldest sister, Carolina, who lod!ed the $omplaint with the poli$e. Carolina in#ormed the witness that a $arpenter pla$ed the $ost #or the repair o# the house at P5==.==. 'he de#ense interposed alibi. 2emo$rito 9eal, an opti$ian and a member o# the Bupon! 'a!apama apa, residin! at 6aran!a 86, testi#ied that while he was on his wa home at around 11>15 p.m. on 14 2e$ember 19;9, he saw appellant with a banda!ed head, $ontusions on his #a$e and a shut e e. Appellant re.uested 9eal to allow him FappellantH to spend the ni!ht at the 9eal residen$e so as not to alarm appellant5s ailin! mother $onsiderin! his ph si$al $ondition at the time. 9eal a!reed. Appellant thus sta ed o+erni!ht with the 9eals. Attemptin! to narrate the e+ents that too" pla$e durin! the e+enin! o# 14 2e$ember 19;9, appellant said that, between ;>== to 9>==, while he was on his wa home, he li!hted a /#i+e)star/ #ire$ra$"er near the pla$e where his brother and two #riends were ha+in! a drin"in! spree. Apparentl an!ered, appellant5s brother stood up, raised his arm and too" aim at appellant. Appellant tried to mo+e awa . -n the pro$ess, he hit the table o# the !roup o# oun! Alano. 'he table was toppled and bottles o# li.uor and the #in!er #ood #ell to the !round. Alano and $ompan started hittin! appellant on the head and #a$e until his mother su$$eeded in #reein! him awa #rom the !roup. Paul Polin!a, a poli$eman, brou!ht appellant to the 1ose 9e es Dospital #or treatment. ?rom the hospital, he

boarded a tri$ $le and ali!hted at 6a ani 3treet. De re.uested 9eal to allow him to pass the ni!ht in 9eal5s house. 'he #ollowin! mornin!, at around G>15, he le#t the house to loo" #or his brother. -nstead, he met Mario Alano who as"ed him to admit ha+in! been responsible #or settin! the latter5s house on #ire. Bater, at the poli$e station, he wanted to relate what had happened but the poli$e too" onl the statement o# Mario Alano. De was detained until noon when he was es$orted to the o##i$e o# ?is$al Aillalon be#ore whom he admitted ha+in! $ommitted the o##ense. -n its 2;th ?ebruar 1991 de$ision, the trial $ourt 6 #ound the a$$used !uilt be ond reasonable doubt o# the o##ense $har!ed: it $on$luded> 4D@9@?O9@, the Court renders *ud!ment CO<A-C'-<E the herein a$$used @2EA9 E7'-@99@R CO9'@R #or the $rime o# Arson punishable under the 9e+ised Penal Code, as amended b Presidential 2e$ree 1618 and senten$es him to su##er the ma,imum penalt o# RECLU !"# $ER$E%UA: to pa the owner o# the house 1ose#a Arro o the sum o# ?i+e Dundred FP5==.==H Pesos as a$tual dama!es and to pa the $osts. 3O O92@9@2. . -n this appeal, appellant $ontends that the corpus delicti o# the $rime o# arson has not been established. 9 Proo# o# the corpus delicti, indeed, is indispensable in the prose$ution o# arson 11 as in all "inds o# $riminal o##enses as well. Corpus delicti means the substan$e o# the $rime: it is the #a$t that a $rime has a$tuall been $ommitted. 11 -n arson, the $orpus delicti rule rule is !enerall satis#ied b proo# o# the bare o$$urren$e o# the #ire and o# its ha+in! been intentionall $aused. 12 @+en the un$orroborated testimon o# a sin!le e ewitness, i# $redible, ma be enou!h to pro+e the corpus delicti and to warrant $on+i$tion. 13 -n this $ase, the $har!e a!ainst appellant was ampl supported in e+iden$e b the e ewitness a$$ounts o# ?elipe @nri.uez and Mario Alano. Also o##ered in e+iden$e were $opies o# the poli$e /blotters/ o# two baran!a s 14 re#le$tin! the report that appellant had thrown a ba! o# !asoline at the house o# Mario Alano, then lit it and, a#ter settin! a portion o# the house on #ire, #led. As re!ards appellant5s identit , @nri.uez testi#ied that he and appellant5s brother and sister were near a Meral$o post when appellant went past them 1: @nri.uez #ollowed appellant and saw how the latter threw the substan$e he was $arr in! at Alano5s house. 'he $onditions o# +isibilit were #a+orable. 16 -ndeed, e+en the re$o!nition b Mario Alano o# appellant5s +oi$e $ould ha+e su##i$ed 16 to pin down $ulpabilit . 'he e+iden$e a!ainst appellant is simpl too o+erwhelmin! #or it to be easil o+er$ome b an in+o$ation o# alibi. 6esides, the essential re.uirements o# distan$e and the impossibilit o#

an a$$used bein! at the s$ene o# the $rime at the $ru$ial time must be attendant so as to !i+e this de#ense an serious $onsideration. Appellant assails the $redibilit o# @nri.uez b an assertion that his testimon is /ill)moti+ated./ 1. 'he Court itsel# has re+iewed @nri.uez5s testimon , and it is satis#ied that his statements dis$lose #ran"ness, $ohesi+eness, and an absen$e o# an serious dissemblan$e or in$onsisten$ . 19 Moreo+er, the trial $ourt5s assessment on the $redibilit o# the witnesses, whi$h has had the opportunit o# obser+in! how the ha+e $omported themsel+es at the witness stand, $annot *ust be i!nored. 'he in#ormation $har!es appellant with /5+iolation o# P.2. 1618/ without spe$i# in! the parti$ular pro+ision brea$hed. 'he in#ormation ha+in! #ailed to alle!e whether or not the burnt house is inhabited, 21 and not ha+in! been established that the house is situated in a populated or $on!ested area, 21 appellant should be deemed to ha+e onl been $har!ed with plain arson under 3e$tion 1 o# the de$ree. Paloo"an Cit mi!ht be a densel populated part o# the metropolis but its entire territor $annot be said to be $on!ested. Althou!h the whole 2)store wood and !al+anized iron house has not been $ompletel !utted b the #ire, the $rime $ommitted is still $onsummated arson. 22 -t is enou!h that a portion thereo# is shown to ha+e been destro ed. 23 7nder 3e$tion 1 o# the de$ree, the o##ense o# simple arson $ommitted is punishable b prision mayor. 'he Court #eels that the trial $ourt should not ha+e appre$iated the /spe$ial/ a!!ra+atin! $ir$umstan$e, under 3e$tion 4F8H o# the de$ree, o# the o##ender ha+in! been /moti+ated b spite or hatred towards the owner or o$$upant o# the propert burned./ 'he prose$ution does not dispute the maulin! o# appellant b a son o# Mario Alano *ust a #ew hours be#ore the in$ident. -t would appear to us to be more o# impulse, heat o# an!er or risen temper, rather than real spite or hatred, that has impelled appellant to !i+e +ent to his wounded e!o. 'he prose$ution tried to establish the a$tual amount o# dama!e $aused to the house throu!h the testimon o# 1oselito Arro o, the owner5s son, who apparentl was onl told b his sister that, a$$ordin! to a $arpenter, the repair o# the house would $ost some P5==.==. 'he e+iden$e, bein! $learl hearsa , 24 ma not be a basis #or an award. 'here bein! neither a!!ra+atin! nor miti!atin! $ir$umstan$es to $onsider, the pres$ribed penalt is the medium period o# prision mayor or #rom ; ears and 1 da to 1= ears. Appl in! the -ndeterminate 3enten$e Baw, the prison term that ma be imposed on appellant is an where within the ran!e o# prision correccional #rom 6 months and 1 da to 6 ears, as minimum. up to an where within the medium period o# prision mayor #rom ; ears and 1 da to 1= ears, as ma,imum. 4D@9@?O9@, the .uestioned de$ision #indin! appellant @d!ar Eutierrez Cortez !uilt be ond reasonable doubt o# the $rime o# arson is A??-9M@2: howe+er, the senten$e imposed on him b the $ourt a quo is MO2-?-@2 in that

appellant should now instead su##er the indeterminate penalt o# imprisonment #rom a minimum o# 2 ears, 4 months and 1 da o# prision correccional to a ma,imum o# ; ears and 1 da o# prision mayor. 'he award made b the trial $ourt o# P5== b wa o# a$tual dama!e in #a+or o# Mario andIor 1ose#a Arro o is deleted. Costs a!ainst appellant. ARTICLE 11 P@OPB@ O? 'D@ PD-B-PP-<@3, vs. 9OB-'O CA6-CAB S B-'O @3'@6A< JE.9. <o. 14;519. Ma 29, 2==8 P7<O, &.> Appellant 9olito Cabi$al was $har!ed with the $rime o# Murder be#ore 6ran$h 2G o# the 9e!ional 'rial Court o# 6a ombon!, <ue+a Aiz$a a in an in#ormation whi$h reads> T'hat on or about 5>8= in the a#ternoon o# 2e$ember 8, 1996, at 6aran!a Pieza, Muni$ipalit o# Ailla+erde, Pro+in$e o# <ue+a Aiz$a a, Philippines, and within the *urisdi$tion o# this Donorable Court, the abo+e)named a$$used, who was then armed with a pie$e o# wood, with intent to "ill, with e+ident premeditation, ta"in! ad+anta!e o# superior stren!th, and b means o# trea$her , did then and there will#ull , unlaw#ull and #eloniousl , hit and stri"e the head o# 9e naldo ?ernando 9amos, thereb in#li$tin! upon him mortal wounds and in*uries on his head whi$h $aused his instantaneous death, to the dama!e and pre*udi$e o# his heirs. CO<'9A9C 'O BA4.U1J1K 2urin! arrai!nment, appellant Cabi$al entered a plea o# not !uilt and underwent trial. 'he e+iden$e shows that at about 5>8= in the a#ternoon o# 2e$ember 8, 1996, 1oniper Pontino, ridin! on a $arabao and headin! south, was on his wa home #rom the ri$e #ields in Puro" <amnama, 6aran!a Pieza, Ailla+erde, <ue+a Aiz$a a. De saw the +i$tim, 9e naldo ?ernando, !oin! north and bein! $losel #ollowed b appellant Cabi$al. Cabi$al held a pie$e o# wood and was wal"in! #aster than ?ernando. 4hen Pontino was around #i+e F5H meters awa #rom the two, he saw Cabi$al stri"e ?ernando at the nape with a wood. ?ernando slumped to the !round, snored, and blood $ame out #rom his nose and mouth. Pontino !ot a#raid and rushed home.2J2K De en$ountered his #ather, 9odol#o, drin"in! with a !roup o# people. De told them about the in$ident.8J8K 9odol#o, in turn, reported the matter to 2anilo 2uro, the baran!a $aptain o# Pieza, Ailla+erde, <ue+a Aiz$a a. 2uro, to!ether with Pa!awad 9enato Martin, went to the s$ene o# the $rime and #ound ?ernando l in! in a prone position on the road outside the #en$e o# the house owned b Cabi$al, and $len$hin! a saplin! or seedlin! in his ri!ht hand. 4J4K 2uro li#ted ?ernando and pla$ed him in the +ehi$le that would brin!

1 2 8 4

him to the hospital. 4hen he li#ted ?ernando, he said he did not smell an al$ohol on the +i$tim. -nstead, the +i$tim had a #ish)li"e smell FTmalan!siUH. 5J5K 'he testimon o# 2uro that he did not smell an al$ohol on the +i$tim was $orroborated b 2r. @lpidio Luines who per#ormed an autops on ?ernando. Luines stated that he did not smell an al$oholi$ breath, althou!h he admitted that he did not ta"e an !astri$ $ontent #rom ?ernando so as to a$tuall determine the presen$e o# al$ohol in the bod . 6J6K De also de$lared that onl one in*ur was in#li$ted on ?ernando. 'he in*ur was lo$ated at the ba$" o# his head and $ould ha+e been $aused b an hard ob*e$t, possibl a pie$e o# wood.GJGK @speranza, the widow o# ?ernando, de$lared that she was wor"in! in Mala sia when her husband was "illed. As a result o# his death, she su##ered endless sleepless ni!hts and was not able to eat or thin" properl .;J;K 3he demanded P52,5==.== as a$tual dama!es.9J9K 3he also $laimed that her husband earned a li+in! #rom the bu and sell o# pi!s, $ows and $arabaos, and #armin!. De alle!edl earned an annual in$ome o# P124,29=.==.1=J1=K 'he de#ense presented appellant Cabi$al and his wi#e, Ali$e Cabi$al, as witnesses. 'he *usti#ied the "illin! as an a$t o# sel#)de#ense. Ali$e Cabi$al narrated that in the a#ternoon o# 2e$ember 8, 1996, appellant was wor"in! in the nearb house o# 1oel Calimlim. 3he was at their house $oo"in! and wat$hin! o+er their "id when she heard ?ernando, who was drun", shoutin! T+ul+a o# our motherU at the same time mentionin! the name o# her husband. 3he did not mind him until she heard him at their door, loo"in! #or Cabi$al and alle!edl holdin! a stone in his ba$". 3he shouted #or the appellant and be$"oned with her hand #or him to $ome to their house. Appellant $ame and told ?ernando to !o home be$ause he was drun". -nstead, ?ernando told him, T+ul+a o# our mother - am alwa s helpin! ou but ou are not helpin! me.U 4ith his husband $alm, Ali$e went inside their house to $ontinue $oo"in!. 4hen she went out a!ain, she saw the bloodied bod o# ?ernando.11J11K Appellant testi#ied that ?ernando was drun" and passed b the pla$e where he was wor"in!. ?ernando shouted at him, T+ul+a o# our mother ou ha+e a #ault a!ainst me.U De did not mind ?ernando until his wi#e $alled #or him to $ome home. 4hen he arri+ed at their house, ?ernando $ontinued insultin! him. De pla$ed a hand on ?ernando(s shoulder but the latter suddenl #a$ed him and stru$" him with his ri!ht hand whi$h was holdin! a stone. De bent and e+aded the blow. 4hile bent, he was able to pi$" up a wood with whi$h he stru$" ?ernando. ?ernando #ell to the !round. A#ter +eri# in! that ?ernando was still ali+e, appellant le#t him and loo"ed #or a +ehi$le to brin!

him to the hospital. 4hen he returned, howe+er, he saw that there was alread a +ehi$le that would brin! ?ernando to the hospital. De no lon!er approa$hed them and merel wat$hed #rom a distan$e.12J12K -n the mornin! o# 2e$ember 4, 1996, he surrendered to 6aran!a Captain 2uro.18J18K 'he trial $ourt $on+i$ted appellant o# murder. 'hus> T4D@9@?O9@, #indin! 9olito Cabi$al @steban E7-B'C be ond reasonable doubt o# the $rime o# Murder, he is hereb senten$ed to su##er the penalt o# reclusion perpetua, or 2= ears and one da to 4= ears: to pa the sums o# P5=,===.== as $i+il indemnit : P2=,===.== as moral dama!es: P44,===.== as a$tual dama!es, and to pa the $osts o# the suit. 3O O92@9@2.U14J14K Appellant interposed this appeal, raisin! the #ollowin! assi!nment o# errors> -. 'D@ '9-AB CO79' E9AA@BC @99@2 -< E-A-<E ?A-'D A<2 C9@2@<C@ 'O 'D@ '@3'-MO<C O? 1O<@?@9 FsicH PO<'-<O -<3'@A2 O? 'DA' FsicH 3@B?) 2@?@<3@ -<'@9PO3@2 6C 'D@ APP@BBA<'. --. A337M-<E 'DA' ACC73@2)APP@BBA<' -3 <O' @<'-'B@2 'O 'D@ 173'-?C-<E C-9C7M3'A<C@ O? 3@B?)2@?@<3@, 'D@ '9-AB CO79' @99@2 -< <O' CO<3-2@9-<E -< ?AAO9 O? 'D@ ACC73@2) APP@BBA<' 'D@ M-'-EA'-<E C-9C7M3'A<C@ O? 37??-C-@<' P9OAOCA'-O< O< 'D@ PA9' O? 'D@ O??@<2@2 PA9'C 4D-CD -MM@2-A'@BC P9@C@2@2 'D@ AC'. ---. 'D@ '9-AB CO79' AB3O @99@2 -< APP9@C-A'-<E 'D@ AEE9AAA'-<E C-9C7M3'A<C@ O? '9@ACD@9C. -A. A337M-<E ?O9 'D@ 3AP@ O? A9E7M@<' 'DA' ACC73@2)APP@BBA<' -3 E7-B'C ?O9 'D@ 2@A'D O? 9@C<AB2O ?@9<A<2O A<2 '9@ACD@9C 4A3 P9@3@<', D@ 3DO7B2 <O4 O<BC 6@ D@B2 B-A6B@ ?O9 'D@ C9-M@ O? DOM-C-2@ CO<3-2@9-<E 'DA' '9@ACD@9C 4A3 <O' ABB@E@2 -< 'D@ -<?O9MA'-O< A3 L7AB-?C-<E AEE9AAA'-<E C-9C7M3'A<C@.15J15K

5 6 G ; 9 1= 11

12 18 14 15

Murder, as de#ined in Arti$le 24; o# the 9e+ised Penal Code, is $ommitted b TFaHn person who, not #allin! within the pro+isions o# Arti$le 246 Fparri$ideH shall "ill another, , , , with an o# the #ollowin! attendant $ir$umstan$es> 1. 4ith trea$her , ta"in! ad+anta!e o# superior stren!th, with the aid o# armed men, or emplo in! means to wea"en the de#ense or o# means or persons to insure or a##ord impunit : ,,, ,,, , , ,.U

A> <o sir, he usuall did FsicH that whene+er he passed FsicH b our house and shoutin! FsicH those words, sir. ,,, ,,, ,,,

L> -n other words, ou simpl too" #or !ranted this untoward a$t o# 9e naldo ?ernando, is that $orre$t0 A> ,,, Ces sir, - "new that he was drun".19J19K ,,, ,,,

'he *usti# in! $ir$umstan$e o# sel#)de#ense is pro+ided #or in Arti$le 11 o# the 9e+ised Penal Code, vi'> TArti$le 11. &ustifying circumstances( V 'he #ollowin! do not in$ur an $riminal liabilit > 1. An one who a$ts in de#ense o# his person or ri!hts, pro+ided that the #ollowin! $ir$umstan$es $on$ur> )irst( 7nlaw#ul a!!ression: econd( 9easonable ne$essit o# the means emplo ed to pre+ent or repel it: %hird( Ba$" o# su##i$ient pro+o$ation on the part o# the person de#endin! himsel#. ,,, ,,, , , ,.U

L> And at that moment when 9e naldo ?ernando #a$ed ou, the appearan$e o# his #a$e FsicH did not appear an!r at that time0 A> De loo"ed an!r , sir.

L> Are ou tellin! the Court that when 9e naldo ?ernando saw ou at that distan$e o# about 2 meters, did he alread #lare up or be$ome +er an!r FsicH0 A> 4hen we saw ea$h other e e to e e, - $ould obser+e that his #a$e was an!r , sir. L> A$tuall , he loo"ed +er , +er an!r at that time, is that $orre$t0 A> - $ould not state that he was +er an!r but - $ould obser+e that he was an!r , sir. L> And our obser+ation that he was an!r was not based on the appearan$e o# his #a$e at that time but was !au!ed merel b our internal #eelin!, is that $orre$t0 A> 6e$ause - obser+ed that his ph si$al appearan$e was an!r , - $almed m sel# and went near him, sir. L> -n #ine, when ou approa$hed 9e naldo ?ernando, ou were not a$tuall sure whether he was +er an!r at ou, is that $orre$t0 A> Ces, sir.

Appellant *usti#ies the "illin! o# ?ernando as ne$essar to sa+e himsel#. De $laims that while he was wor"in! in the house o# Calimlim, ?ernando passed b and shouted insultin! words at him. 'herea#ter, ?ernando pro$eeded to his house, $ontinued to insult him and then tried to stri"e him with his ri!ht hand whi$h was holdin! a stone. De #ound a pie$e o# wood, pi$"ed it up and used it to stri"e ?ernando in the nape in sel#)de#ense. -n sel#)de#ense, the a$$used admits the "illin! o# the +i$tim. 'he burden to *usti# the "illin! shi#ts to him. 16J16K 'he rule is that where the $laim o# sel#)de#ense is not $orroborated b independent and $ompetent e+iden$e, and is e,tremel doubt#ul, it $annot prosper.1GJ1GK 4e $annot sustain appellant(s $laim o# unlaw#ul a!!ression. 'here is unlaw#ul a!!ression when the peril to one(s li#e, limb or ri!ht is either a$tual or imminent. 1;J1;K -n this $ase, it is $lear #rom the testimon o# appellant that the dan!er to his li#e was not a$tual or imminent when he #a$ed ?ernando, vi'> TL> As a matter o# #a$t, are ou in e##e$t tellin! the Court that ou did not ha+e an rea$tion whatsoe+er when 9e naldo ?ernando shouted those words to Fsic* ou durin! that time, is that $orre$t0

L> 6e$ause a$$ordin! to ou, it did not appear in his #a$e, is that $orre$t0 A> Ces, sir.

L> And so sin$e his #a$e did not appear to be an!r at ou durin! that time, ou immediatel approa$hed 9e naldo ?ernando and pla$ed one o# our hands on his shoulder, is that $orre$t0 ,,, ,,, ,,,

16 1G 1;

19

A>

Ces, sir.U2=J2=K

Assumin! arguendo that there was unlaw#ul a!!ression, the a!!ression alread $eased at the time appellant stru$" him with a stone. -n his testimon , appellant admits that when he stru$" ?ernando at the ba$", the latter was no lon!er in possession o# the stone. 'hus> TL> Am - $orre$t in sa in! that when ou were a$tuall in the pro$ess o# pi$"in! FupH the pie$e o# wood that 9e naldo ?ernando had a$tuall hit ou with a pie$e o# stone or - re#orm the .uestion, our Donor. 4hen ou were a$tuall in the pro$ess o# rea$hin! out #or the pie$e o# wood, did 9e naldo ?ernando hit ou with a pie$e o# stone or was it durin! the moment when ou ha+e alread pi$"ed up the pie$e o# wood that 9e naldo ?ernando hit ou with a pie$e o# stone0 A> 6e#ore - pi$"ed up the pie$e o# wood, he tried to hit me but - e+aded the blow, sir. L> <ow, in hittin! ou with a pie$e o# stone, did 9e naldo ?ernando a$tuall throw the pie$e o# stone at ou0 A> De did not throw the stoneF.H FDHe was holdin! it and swun! it towards m bod #rom the ba$" to the #ront, sir. L> At the moment when a$$ordin! to ou, ou subse.uentl stru$" 9e naldo ?ernando with a pie$e o# wood, was 9e naldo ?ernando still holdin! the pie$e o# stone or was there no more stone in his hand0 A> <o more, sir.

to mention the stone in @,hibit T1U while she had a lot to sa about it in her subse.uent dire$t testimon and $ross) e,amination, was intended to buttress the sel#)ser+in! $laim o# 9olito that the +i$tim atta$"ed him with a stone.U22J22K Moreo+er, the $laim o# appellant that ?ernando stru$" him #irst with a stone $annot be !i+en $reden$e o+er the testimon o# e ewitness Pontino that he saw the appellant stri"e ?ernando #rom the ba$" without an a!!ression on the part o# the latter F?ernandoH. 'here is no showin! that Pontino had an ill)moti+e to testi# a!ainst the appellant. 'he $laim o# sel#)de#ense is also not $orroborated b an other witness e,$ept the wi#e o# appellant. As was noted b the 3oli$itor Eeneral, no other impartial or disinterested persons were presented to $orroborate the testimon o# appellant althou!h there were other people wor"in! at the nei!hborin! house o# Calimlim. -t will #urther be noted that when the poli$emen went to the house o# appellant on the ni!ht o# the a$$ident, he merel sta ed in the "it$hen. -t was onl his wi#e and sister)in)law who #a$ed 2uro. 'hus, the trial $ourt $orre$tl stressed that su$h a$t was not $onsonant with his inno$en$e. TAlthou!h he in+o"ed sa#et #or not tal"in! to the poli$e, this is not a !ood reason #or him to hide #rom them i# it was reall true that he a$ted in sel#)de#ense. 'hat he surrendered on the #ollowin! da to the 6aran!a Captain was too late as b then he would ha+e been able to thin" o# a !ood stor to tell the authorities albeit it was not true. ?or sel#)de#ense to be worth o# $reden$e, admission o# the same should be spontaneous.U28J28K IN )IE< <$ERE&F, we modi# the appealed de$ision o# the 9e!ional 'rial Court and #ind the a$$used)appellant Cabi$al E7-B'C be ond reasonable doubt o# the $rime o# M792@9, punishable under Arti$le 24; o# the 9e+ised Penal Code. 'he miti!atin! $ir$umstan$e o# +oluntar surrender is $redited in his #a+or, thus he is senten$ed to a penalt o# reclusion perpetua. De is #urther ordered to pa the heirs o# ?ernando $i+il indemnit o# P5=,===.==, moral dama!es o# P5=,===.==, a$tual dama!es o# P2G,=4=.== and P1,15=,===.== #or loss o# earnin! $apa$it . People v". Apol0na/ ?a$ts> Midni!ht o# 2e$ember 22, 1986, the de#endant andappellant Anasta$io Apolinar alias Aton! was at thattime the o$$upant o# a par$el o# land owned b 1oa.uinEonzales in Papallasen, Ba Paz, 7min!an, Pan!asinan.Armed with a shot!un, Aton! was loo"in! o+er said landwhen he obser+ed that there was a man $arr in! abundle on his shoulder.6elie+in! that he was a thie# Fo# pala H, the de#endant$alled his attention but he i!nored him.'he de#endant #ired in the air and then at the person.'he man, identi#ied as 2omin!o Petras, was able to !etba$" to his house and $onse.uentl narrated to An!el<ati+idad, the barrio $hie#, that he had been woundedin the ba$" b a shot!un.De then

L> -n #ine, at the +er moment when ou stru$" 9e naldo ?ernando with a pie$e o# wood, 9e naldo ?ernando was not at all holdin! an pie$e o# stone, is that $orre$t0 A> Ces, sir.

CO79'> L> 4here did the stone !o, i# ou noti$ed0

A> 4hen he tried to hit me and - e+aded his blow, he hit m shoulder that is wh the stone was thrown awa to the !round. F4itness pointin! to his ri!ht shoulder.HU 21J21K As was also ratio$inated b the trial $ourt> T-n her testimon , Ali$e FCabi$alH initiall did not mention the stone until de#ense $ounsel $unnin!l inter$alated the stone b a .uestion F3ee '3<, 1anuar 26, 1999, p.GH. A s$rutin o# @,h. T1U re+eals no stone mentioned. 'his is si!ni#i$ant be$ause the de#ense o# the a$$used was that he "illed the +i$tim who atta$"ed him with a stone. 4ithout the stone, the plea o# sel#)de#ense would $ollapse. And the inabilit o# Ali$e

2= 21

22 28

showed the two wounds ) one in ea$h side o# the spinal $olumn ) whi$h wounds were $ir$ular in #ormand a little bi!!er than a .uarter o# an in$h, a$$ordin! tothe medi$al report o# 2r. Manan.uil.Petras died o# the wounds he sustained.'he de#endant surrendered to the authoritiesimmediatel a#ter the in$ident and !a+e a swornstatement F@,hibit ?H be#ore the 1usti$e o# Pea$e o# 7min!an on 2e$ember 28, 1986. -ssue> 4O< the "illin! o# Petras was *usti#ied b de#enseo# propert Deld><o: the ri!ht to propert is not o# su$himportan$e as ri!ht to li#e, and de#ense o# propert $anbe in+o"ed as a *usti# in! $ir$umstan$e onl when it is$oupled with an atta$" on the person o# one entrustedwith said propert . PE&PLE )'. C$4A $&NG

based on +arious $omplaints made b the residents. 6eronilla reported this to Col. Arnold who replied, sa in! TX- $an onl $ompliment ou #or our impartial but independent wa o# handlin! the whole $ase.U 'wo ears therea#ter, 6eronilla, alon! with the e,e$utioner, di!!er and *ur , were indi$ted #or the murder o# 6or*al. 3oon a#ter, President Manuel 9o,as issued @,e$uti+e Pro$lamation ;, whi$h !ranted amnest to persons who $ommitted a$ts in #urtheran$e o# the resistan$e to the enem a!ainst persons aidin! in the war e##orts o# the enem . 'he rest o# de#endants applied and were !ranted amnest , but 6eronilla and others were $on+i$ted on the !rounds that the $rime was made on purel personal moti+es and that the $rime was $ommitted a#ter the e,piration o# time limit #or amnest pro$lamation. I""ue# 4I< the de#endant)appellants( a$tions are $o+ered b *usti# in! $ir$umstan$es #or obedien$e to law#ul order o# superior

Bibel in answer to another libel is not *usti#ied FPeli$ena +. Eonzales, 6 Phil. 5=H but i# published in sel#)de#ense in !ood #aith, without mali$e, and is not unne$essaril de#amator o# his assailant, it pri+ile!ed. FPeople +. 6a*a, 4= OE 2=6H 3el#) de#ense in libel is allowed as when the utteran$e is not e,$essi+e but ade.uate to repel the stin! o# the aspersion $ast upon him b another person. FPeople +. Chua Don!, CA, 51 OE 1982H P@OPB@ A3. 6@9O<-BBA B V 4445 W ?ebruar 2;, 1955 W 1. 16B 9e es Fa !"# Manuel 6eronilla, Poli$arpio Pa$uldo, ?ilipino Aelas$o and 1a$into Adriati$o #ile an appeal #rom the *ud!ement o# the Abra C?-, whi$h $on+i$ted them o# murder #or the e,e$ution o# Arsenio 6or*al, the ele$ted ma or o# Ba, Paz, Abra Fat the outbrea" o# warH, whi$h was #ound to be aidin! the enem . 6or*al mo+ed to 6an!ued be$ause o# death threats was su$$eeded b Militar Ma or Manuel 6eronilla, who was appointed b Bt. Col. Arbold, re!imental $ommander o# the 15th -n#antr o# the Phil. Arm , operatin! as !uerilla unit in Abra. 3imultaneousl upon his appointment, 6eronilla re$ei+ed a memorandum whi$h authorized him to appoint a *ur o# 12 bolo men to tr persons a$$used o# treason, espiona!e and aidin! or abettin! the enem . 7pon the return o# 6or*al and his #amil to Abra, to es$ape bombin! in 6an!ued, he was pla$ed under $ustod and tried and senten$ed to death b the *ur

$el%#,e". 'he a$$used a$ted upon orders o# their superior o##i$ers, whi$h as militar subordinates, the $ould not .uestion and obe ed in !ood #aith without the bein! aware o# its ille!alit . 'he e+iden$e is su##i$ient to sustain the $laim o# the de#ense that arrest, prose$ution and trial o# 6or*al was done in pursuant to e,press orders o# superiors. Additionall , it $ould not be established that 6eronilla re$ei+ed the radio!ram #rom Colonel Aol$"mann, o+erall area $ommander, whi$h $alled attention to the ille!alit o# 6or*al(s $on+i$tion and senten$e. Dad 6eronilla "nown the +iolation, he would not ha+e dared to report it to Arnold. 'he $ondu$t o# the a$$used also does not show mali$e on their part be$ause o# the $ondu$t o# the trial, de#ense throu!h $ounsel !i+en to 6or*al, suspension o# trial based on doubts o# ille!alit and death senten$e re+iew sent to the superior o##i$ers. Criminal intent then $ould not be established. 'he ma,im here is actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea FCrime is not $ommitted i# the mind o# the person per#ormin! the a$t $omplained o# to be inno$entH.

Additionall , the lower $ourt should not ha+e denied their $laim to the bene#its o# the Euerilla Amnest Pro$lamation <o. ; inspite o# $ontradi$tor dates o# liberation o# Ba Paz, Abra. @+en i# the dates were $ontradi$tor , the $ourt should ha+e #ound #or the 6eronila, et al be$ause i# there are Tan reasonable doubt as to whether a !i+en $ase #alls within the Famnest H pro$lamation should be resol+ed in #a+or o# the a$$used.U T$E PE&PLE &F T$E P$ILIPPINE I'LAN*' +s. L4CIAN& (ARR&GA , 'ALGA*& E.9. <o. B)81568 1anuar 16, 198= R&-4AL*E5+ J.# Con+i$ted o# the $rime o# #alsi#i$ation o# a pri+ate do$ument, the de#endant appeals #rom the *ud!ment senten$in! him to one ear, ei!ht months and twent )one da s o# prision correccional, to indemni# the Compa0ia Eeneral de 'aba$os de ?ilipinas in the sum o# P1=,;5G.11, with subsidiar imprisonment, the a$$essaries o# law, and the $osts. 'he errors attributed b the appellant to the trial $ourt are> 1. -n $onsiderin! the e+iden$e o# the prose$ution more worth o# $redit than that o# the de#ense. 2. -n #indin! the de#endant)appellant !uilt o# the $rime o# #alsi#i$ation o# pri+ate do$uments, and in imposin! upon him the penalt o# one ear, ei!ht months, and twent )one da s o# prision correccional, to indemni# the Compa0ia Eeneral de 'aba$os de ?ilipinas in the sum o# P1=,;5G.11, and to su##er the $orrespondin! subsidiar imprisonment in $ase o# insol+en$ , and to pa the $osts o# the trial, notwithstandin! the insu##i$ien$ o# the e+iden$e addu$ed b the prose$ution. 'he de#endant #reel admits that he prepared the #alsi#ied do$uments with #ull "nowled!e o# their #alsit : but he alle!es that he did so #rom data #urnished b his immediate $hie#, the now de$eased 6aldomero ?ernandez, and onl in obedien$e to instru$tions #rom him. As re!ards the data, we #ind it to be su##i$ientl pro+en that the were not supplied b the a#orementioned 6aldomero ?ernandez, but b the head o# the pressmen, Dermene!ildo de la Cruz, and

the de#endant later $ollated them with the boo"s o# the dail pressin!s. 4ith respe$t to the alle!ed instru$tions !i+e b said 6aldomero ?ernandez, e+en supposin! that he did in #a$t !i+e them, and that the de#endant $ommitted the $rime $har!ed b +irtue thereo#, inasmu$h as su$h instru$tions were not law#ul, the do not le!all shield the appellant, nor relie+e him #rom $riminal liabilit . -n order to e,empt #rom !uilt, obedien$e must be due, or as Aiada lu$idl states, it must be a $omplian$e with Ta law#ul order not opposed to a hi!her positi+e dut o# a subaltern, and that the person $ommandin!, a$t within the s$ope o# his authorit . As a !eneral rule, an in#erior should obe his superior but, as an illustrious $ommentator has said, Tbetween a !eneral law whi$h en*oins obedien$e to a superior !i+in! *ust orders, et$., and a prohibiti+e law whi$h plainti## #orbids what that superior $ommands, the $hoi$e is not doubt#ul.U F1 Penal Code, Aiada, 5th edition, p. 52;.H 4e reiterate the statement that it has not been pro+ed that the de#endant $ommitted the a$ts $har!ed in the in#ormation in obedien$e to the instru$tions o# a third part . 6ut e+en !rantin!, #or the sa"e o# ar!ument, that su$h was the $ase, we repeat that su$h obedien$e was not le!all due, and there#ore does not e,empt #rom $riminal liabilit . F7. 3. +s Cuison, 2= Phil. 488.H 'here bein! no merit in the assi!nments o# error, the *ud!ment appealed #rom is a##irmed with $osts a!ainst the appellant. 3o ordered.