2.
3.
Judgment:
Defendant
guilty
of
homicide
but
w/
mitigating
circumstances
and
extenuating
circumstance
of
incomplete
self
defense.
Penalty
is
4
mos.
arresto
mayor
&
to
indemnify
each
group
of
heirs
4K
w/o
subsidiary
imprisonment
&
w/o
award
for
moral
damages.
Appellant
has
already
been
detained
14
yrs
so
his
immediate
release
is
ordered.
Gutierrez,
dissenting.
Defense
of
property
can
only
be
invoked
when
coupled
with
form
of
attack
on
person
defending
property.
In
the
case
at
bar,
this
was
not
so.
Appellant
should
then
be
sentenced
to
prision
mayor.
However,
since
he
has
served
more
than
that,
he
should
be
released.
People
vs
Boholst-
Caballero
Facts:
Cunigunda
Boholst
Caballero
seeks
reversal
of
the
judgment
of
the
CFI
of
Ormoc
City
finding
her
guilty
of
parricideshe
allegedly
killed
her
husband,
Francisco
Caballero,
using
a
hunting
knife.
The
couple
was
married
in
1956
and
had
a
daughter.
They
had
frequent
quarrels
due
to
the
husband's
gambling
and
drinking
and
there
were
times
when
he
maltreated
and
abused
his
wife.
After
more
than
a
year,
Francisco
abandoned
his
family.
In
1958,
Cunigunda
went
caroling
with
her
friends
and
when
she
was
on
her
way
home
she
met
her
husband
who
suddenly
held
her
by
the
collar
and
accused
her
of
going
out
for
prostitution.
Then
he
said
he
would
kill
her,
held
her
by
the
hair,
slapped
her
until
her
nose
bled
then
pushed
her
towards
the
ground.
She
fell
to
the
ground,
he
knelt
on
her
and
proceeded
to
choke
her.
Cunigunda,
having
earlier
felt
a
knife
tucked
in
Francisco's
belt
line
while
holding
unto
his
waist
so
she
wouldn't
fall
to
the
ground,
grabbed
the
hunting
knife
and
thrust
it
into
her
husband's
left
side,
near
the
belt
line
just
above
the
thigh.
He
died
2
days
after
the
incident
due
to
the
stab
wound.
Then
she
ran
home
and
threw
the
knife
away.
The
next
day,
she
surrendered
herself
to
the
police
along
with
the
torn
dress
that
she
People vs Toledo
Petitioners
inflicted
physical
injuries
to
the
victim
which
caused
the
latters
death.
At
the
time
of
the
crime,
Raymund
and
Rodel
were
minors
14
years
old
and
16
years
old
respectively.
The
lower
court
found
them
guilty
of
homicide.
Petitioners
elevated
the
case
to
the
CA
and
during
the
pendency
of
the
appeal,
RA
9344
took
effect.
Facts:
This
is
a
case
of
homicide
against
Toledo.
Morales
and
Holgado
agreed
to
a
bolo
duel
over
a
parcel
of
land.Toledo
allegedly
intervened
in
the
duel
that
dealt
a
mortal
blow
to
Morales.
Holgado
executed
a
written
testimony
that
during
the
duel
there
is
no
one
present
but
him
and
the
victim.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
the
statement
executed
by
Holgado
(a
statement
of
fact
against
penal
interest)
be
admitted
as
evidence.
Held:
Any
man
outside
of
a
court
and
unhampered
by
the
pressure
of
technical
procedure,
unreasoned
rules
of
evidence,
and
cumulative
authority,
would
say
that
if
a
man
deliberately
acknowledged
himself
to
be
the
perpetrator
of
a
crime
and
exonerated
the
person
charged
with
the
crime,
and
there
was
other
evidence
indicative
of
the
truthfulness
of
the
statement,
the
accused
man
should
not
be
permitted
to
go
to
prison
or
to
the
electric
chair
to
expiate
a
crime
he
never
committed.
The
purpose
of
all
evidence
is
to
get
at
the
truth.
The
reason
for
the
hearsay
rule
is
that
the
extrajudicial
and
Facts:
ISSUE
Whether
petitioners
should
be
exempted
from
criminal
liability.
HELD
Yes.
At
the
time
of
the
commission
of
the
crime,
petitioners
were
minors.
By
provisions
of
RA
9344,
they
are
exempted
from
liability
but
not
from
criminal
liability.
Their
exemption
however
differs.
In
the
case
of
Raymund,
the
case
is
dismissed
as
to
him
since
he
was
below
15
years
old.
He
is
to
be
released
and
custody
is
given
to
the
parents
by
virtue
of
RA
9344
Secs.
6
and
20
setting
the
minimum
age
of
criminal
responsibility
and
who
will
have
custody
respectively.
In
the
case
of
Rodel,
who
was
16
years
old
at
that
time,
It
is
necessary
to
determine
whether
he
acted
with
discernment
or
not.
Sec
6
provides
that
children
above
15
but
below
18
will
be
exempt
from
criminal
liability
unless
he
acted
with
discernment.
He,
however,
should
be
subjected
to
an
intervention
program.
Sec
38
provides
for
the
automatic
suspension
of
sentence.
People
vs
Rafanan
Facts:
The
14
year
old
wictim
was
hired
by
the
mother
of
the
appellant
as
a
house
helper.
One
evening,
she
was
forced
by
the
appellant
to
have
sexual
intercourse
using
a
bolo
on
her
neck
as
a
threat
if
she
does
not
cooperate.
After
the
abuse,
he
also
threatened
to
kill
her
if
she
reports
what
happened
to
anyone.
After
a
few
days,
the
victim
finally
told
her
mother
about
what
happened
leading
to
the
arrest
and
conviction
of
the
appellant
of
the
crime
of
rape.
The
appellant
did
not
seriously
dispute
the
commission
of
the
crime.
But
the
principal
submission
of
appellant
was
that
he
was
suffering
from
a
mental
aberration
characterized
as
schizophrenia
when
he
inflicted
his
violent
intentions
upon
the
victim.
The
trial
court
suspended
the
trial
and
ordered
that
the
appellant
be
confined
at
the
National
Mental
Hospital
in
Mandaluyong
for
observation
and
treatment.
In
the
meantime,
the
case
was
archived.
Appellant
was
admitted
into
the
hospital
on
December
29,
1976
and
stayed
there
until
June
26,
1978.
The
appellant
was
diagnosed
to
be
indeed
suffering
from
schizophrenia
by
his
attending
physician
but
was
deemed
fit
to
stand
trial
upon
almost
1
years
of
treatment.
Issue:
W/N
the
appellant
should
be
exempted
from
liability
for
the
crime
on
the
grounds
of
insanity
Ruling:
The
court
rejected
the
insanity
defense
of
appellant
and
affirmed
the
lower
courts
decision
convicting
the
appellant
of
the
crime
of
rape.
For
the
defense
of
insanity
to
be
sustained
it
is
critical
that
there
is
complete
loss
of
intelligence
at
the
time
of
the
commission
of
the
crime.
The
fact
that
appellant
threatened
the
victim
with
death
should
she
reveal
she
had
been
sexually
assaulted
by
him,
indicates,
to
the
mind
of
the
Court,
that
the
appellant
was
aware
of
the
reprehensible
moral
quality
of
his
assault.
The
law
presumes
every
man
to
be
sane.
A
person
accused
of
a
crime
has
the
burden
of
proving
his
affirmative
allegation
of
insanity.
In
this
case
the
appellant
failed
to
present
clear
and
convincing
evidence
regarding
his
state
of
mind
immediately
before
and
during
the
sexual
assault
on
the
victim.
Schizophrenia
formerly
called
dementia
praecox,
is
a
chronic
mental
disorder
characterized
by
inability
to
distinguish
between
fantasy
and
reality,
and
often
accompanied
by
hallucinations
and
delusions.
In
People
vs
Formigones,
the
Court
elaborated
on
the
required
standards
of
legal
insanity
and
established
two
distinguishable
test:
a)
b)
People
vs
Agliday
Facts:
Reckless
imprudence
consists
of
voluntarily
doing
or
failing
to
do,
without
malice,
an
act
from
which
material
damage
results
by
reason
of
an
inexcusable
lack
of
precaution
on
the
part
of
the
person
performing
or
failing
to
perform
such
act.
Once
malice
is
proven,
recklessness
disappears.
On
Feb.
25,
1999
in
the
evening
Agliday
shot
his
son
Richard
Agliday
with
an
unlicensed
shotgun,
causing
his
death.
Prosecution
witness
Conchita
Agliday,
wife
of
appellant
testified
that
while
she
was
washing
the
dishes
in
the
kitchen
when
her
husband
shot
her
son;
shortly
after
appellant
ran
away
while
she
brought
her
son
first
to
the
Sto.
Nio
Hospital,
then
to
the
San
Carlos
Hospital,
then
finally
to
the
Region
I
General
Hospital
where
he
died.
Before
shooting,
she
and
appellant
quarreled
over
her
being
a
laundry
woman.
Richard
was
only
19
years
old
and
in
4th
year
college.
Another
witness
Rey
Agliday,
brother
of
Richard
said
that
he
was
in
the
house
resting
on
a
wooden
bed
when
he
saw
appellant
shoot
his
brother.
He
said
that
while
his
parents
were
quarrelling
he
did
not
interfere,
but
his
brother
did
that
is
why
he
was
shot
by
appellant.
Appellant
claims,
on
the
other
hand
that
he
was
in
the
house
cleaning
a
homemade
gun
to
be
used
for
evening
patrol
(he
was
a
barangay
tanod)
when
the
gun
accidentally
went
off,
fatally
hitting
his
son
(in
the
gluteus
maximus!!!)
after
which
he
went
to
his
son
and
embraced
him.
Afterwards
he
surrendered.
The
ruling
of
trial
court
gave
credence
to
prosecution
witnesses;
disbelieved
that
appellants
shooting
was
an
accident.
Issue:
1) WON
witnesses
are
credible
2) WON
appellants
shooting
was
an
accident
which
may
be
used
as
an
exempting
circumstance
Ruling:
1. Conchita
and
Rey
Agliday
are
credible
witnesses.
Appellant
claims
court
should
have
believed
him
since
he
does
not
have
any
reason
to
kill
his
son
who
has
a
bright
future,
and
that
his
witnesses
(Jose
Matabang
and
SPO1
Opina)
are
more
credible.
Court
disagrees.
3.
Decision:
There
being
neither
aggravating
nor
extenuating
circumstances,
judgment
appealed
from
is
REVERSED
and
the
accused
is
hereby
sentenced
to
cadena
perpetua.
People
vs
Cresencio
Tabugoca
Nature:
Automatic
review
of
a
March
15,
1996
joint
decision
Ilagan,
Isabela
decision
which
found
Tabugoca
in
two
criminal
cases
guilty
of
2
counts
of
rape
committed
against
his
own
daughters
sentenced
him
to
reclusion
perpetue
for
the
first
&
death
for
the
second.
Facts:
Jacqueline
&
her
3
younger
sisters
Janet,
Jinky
&
jewel
lived
under
the
sole
care
of
their
father
after
their
mother
died.
At
around
10pm,
Jacqueline
(12yrs
3mos
at
the
time)
Tabugoca
woke
up
Jacqueline
to
scratch
his
back.
Tabugoca
removed
her
shorts
and
underwear
and
made
her
lie
beside
him,
then
inserted
his
penis
in
her
vagina.
Tabugoca
told
her
not
to
tell
anyone
if
she
did
not
want
to
be
harmed.
Jinky
(12yrs
9mos
at
the
time)
was
cleaning
some
articles
in
their
house
when
Tabugoca
aproached
her
and
took
off
his
clothes.
Tabugoca
ordered
her
to
lie
down
and
removed
her
shorts
and
underwear
then
inserted
his
penis
into
her
vagina.
Jinky
cried
out
&
complained
to
Tabugoca
that
she
was
in
pain.
Tabugoca
explained
that
it
is
ordinary
to
feel
pain
because
it
was
her
first
time
to
do
it.
After
a
while,
he
did
not
continue,
and
told
Jinky
that
they
would
continue
the
following
day.
Tabugoca
made
another
attempt
to
molest
Jinky.
Jinky
resisted,
causing
Tabugoca
to
just
lie
down
&
leave
her
alone.
Later
on
Jacqueline
and
Jinky
were
watching
TV
in
their
grandmothers
(Perlita
Alejandro).
Jinky
told
their
lola
about
the
sexual
abuses
of
their
father.
This
prompted
Jacqueline
to
reveal
her
similar
experience
2
yrs
past.
Their
grandmother
brought
them
to
the
Municipal
Health
Officer
of
Naguilian
for
physical
examination.
The
findings
suggested
that
in
Jacquelines
case,
she
was
forcibly
abused
&
the
incident,
the
first
1
happened
long
ago,
based
on
the
healed
scars
of
the
hymen,
&
in
Jinkys
case
that
full
penetration
was
unsuccessful
although
attempts
were
done
based
on
the
swollen
vulva
of
the
victim.
Tabugoca
tried
to
claim
exemption
from
criminal
liability
on
both
Jacqueline
and
Jinkys
rape
on
the
ground
of
insanity
brought
about
by
intoxication
Tabugoca
claimed
that
he
started
drinking
after
his
wife
died,
resorting
to
drink
when
he
remembered
his
wife
and
that
before
her
death,
he
did
not
drink.
He
also
claims
that
his
children
filed
the
complaints
in
revenge
for
his
castigating
or
whipping
them
whenever
they
committed
mistakes.
ALEXANDER
P.
RUGAS
vs
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Facts:
At
around
9:00
oclock
in
the
evening
of
September
16,
1997,
Herberto
(or
Gerberto)
Rafol
was
conversing
with
Perla
Perez
in
the
street
fronting
the
house
of
Anda
Romano
in
barangay
Taclobo,
San
Fernando,
Romblon,
when
the
accused
Alexander
P.
Rugas,
suddenly
stabbed
him
at
his
left
thigh.
He
faced
him
to
know
who
stabbed
him
but
the
accused
stabbed
him
on
his
stomach.
He
ran
and
shouted
for
help.
Somebody
helped
him
in
boarding
him
to
a
tricycle
and
he
was
brought
to
the
hospital
where
he
was
treated.
His
medical
certificate
showed
that
he
had
a
stab
wound
which
was
fatal
on
the
right
upper
quadrant
of
the
abdomen.
Rafol
could
have
died
of
severe
hemorrhage
if
no
surgical
operation
was
done.
He
also
had
a
second
stab
wound
at
the
uppermost
part
of
the
left
lateral
thigh
but
it
was
not
fatal.
He
spent
a
total
of
P25,390.00
as
a
result
of
these
injuries
he
sustained.
Ruling: