Anda di halaman 1dari 6

1

INTENT
Magsumbol vs People
G.R. No. 207175
November 26, 2014
Facts:
Around 11:00 oclock in the afternoon of February 1, 2002, Caringal, the overseer of a one-hectare
unregistered parcel of land located in Candelaria, Quezon and co-owned by Menandro, saw the four
accused, along with seven others, cutting down the coconut trees on the said property. On February 3,
2002, Menandro and Caringal reported the incident to the police. Thereafter, the two, accompanied by
SPO1 Manalo, went to the coconut plantation and discovered that about thirty-three (33) coconut trees had
been cut down.
On the other hand, according to Atanacio, he authorized his brothers-in-law, Magsino and
Magsumbol, to cut down the coconut trees within the boundary of his property, which was adjacent to the
land co-owned by Menandro. In addition, Brgy. Captain Arguelles also said that Magsumbol, Magsino,
Ramirez, and Inanoria came to his office seeking permission to cut down the coconut trees planted on the
land of Atanacio.
Petitioner Magsumbol and his co-accused, was convicted of the crime of theft.
Issue:
Whether or not malice and intent to gain, as elements of the crime of theft, are present in the case
at hand.
Ruling:
No. Malice and intent are not present in the case at hand.
In view of the conflicting claims and considering the meager evidence on hand, the Court cannot
determine with certainty the owner of the 33 felled coconut trees. The uncertainty of the exact location of
the coconut trees negates the presence of the criminal intent to gain.
At any rate, granting arguendo that the said coconut trees were within Menandros land, no malice
or criminal intent could be rightfully attributed to Magsumbol and his co-accused. The RTC and the CA
overlooked one important point in the present case, to wit: Magsumbol and his co-accused went to
Barangay Kinatihan I, Candelaria, Quezon, to cut down the coconut trees belonging to Atanacio upon the
latters instruction.
The criminal mind is indeed wanting in the situation where Magsumbol and his co-accused even
sought prior permission from Brgy. Captain Arguelles to cut down the coconut trees which was done openly
and during broad daylight effectively negated malice and criminal intent on their part. It defies reason that
the accused would still approach the barangay captain if their real intention was to steal the coconut trees
of Menandro.

ACTS MALA IN SE VS. ACTS MALA PROHIBITA


People vs. Collado, et.al.,
GR No. 185719
June 17, 2013
Facts:
On October 9, 2004, PO2 Noble received information from a civilian asset that spouses Marcelino
and Myra were engaged in selling shabu and that drug users, including out-of-school youth, were using
their residence. After conducting a surveillance and confirming the said activities, a buy-bust operation
team was formed and the team proceeded to couples residence. A sale transacted between PO2 Noble
and Marcelino. While PO2 Noble was inspecting the small plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance handed to him by Marcelino, he noticed smoke coming from a table inside the house of the
couple around which were seven persons. When PO2 Noble gave the pre-arranged signal, the backup
team rushed to the scene. Simultaneously, PO2 Noble introduced himself as a policeman and arrested
Marcelino.
Meanwhile, SPO2 Cruz and another police officer went inside the house of Marcelino and Myra,
where they found Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang and Latario gathered around a
table littered with various drug paraphernalia such as an improvised water pipe, strips of aluminum foil with
traces of white substance, disposable lighters, and plastic sachets. A strip of aluminum foil used for
smoking marijuana was recovered from Ranada. The buy-bust team arrested all these persons.
The Court of Appeals found Ranada guilty as principal while Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache,
Sumulong and Madarang were adjudged as accessories only for the crime of illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and
Madarang as accessories.
Ruling:
Yes. The CA erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang as
accessories.
"[I]llegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous
drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of malum
prohibitum, that is, the act is made wrong or evil because there is a law prohibiting it. x x x
Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of mala prohibita, the degree of
participation of the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the
same extent. There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. In short, the degree of
participation of the offenders does not affect their liability, and the penalty on all of them are the same
whether they are principals or merely accomplices or accessories.

PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE


Villareal vs. People
GR No. 151258
February 1, 2012
Facts:
Seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law signified their
intention to join the Aquila Fraternity, among them was the deceased Lenny Villa. The night before the
commencement of the rites, they were briefed on what to expect. They were told that there would be
physical beatings, that the whole event would last for three days, and that they could quit anytime. On their
first night, they were subjected to traditional initiation rites, including the Indian Run, Bicol Express, Rounds,
and the Auxies Privilege Round. The beatings were predominantly directed at the neophytes arms and
legs. In the morning of their second day of initiation, they were made to present comic plays and to play
rough basketball. Late in the afternoon, they were once again subjected to traditional initiation rituals. When
the rituals were officially reopened on the insistence of the accused Dizon and Villareal, the neophytes were
subjected to another traditional ritual paddling by the fraternity. After the last session of beatings, Lenny
Villa could not walk. Later that night, he was feeling cold and his condition worsened. He was brought to the
hospital but was declared on arrival.
Issue:
Whether the accuseds initial acts of inflicting physical pain on the neophytes were attended by
animus iniuriandi amounting to a felonious act punishable under the Revised Penal Code, thereby making it
subject to Article 4(1) thereof.
Ruling:
No. The accuseds initial acts of inflicting physical pain on the neophytes were not attended
by animus iniuriandi amounting to a felonious act punishable under the Revised Penal Code, thereby not
making it subject to Article 4(1) thereof.
According to the trial court, although hazing was not (at the time) punishable as a crime, the
intentional infliction of physical injuries on Villa was nonetheless a felonious act under Articles 263 to 266 of
the Revised Penal Code. Thus, in ruling against the accused, the court a quo found that pursuant to Article
4(1) of the Revised Penal Code, the accused fraternity members were guilty of homicide, as it was the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the physical injuries they had intentionally inflicted.
However, according to the Supreme Court, the collective acts of the group caused the death of the
victim. Since malicious intent was not proven, the Court reversed the trial courts finding of liability for
murder under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code and instead ruled that the accused should be held
criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 thereof.

ABBERATIO ICTUS
People vs. Umawid
G.R. No. 208719
June 9, 2014
Facts:
At around 4 oclock in the afternoon of November 26, 2002, Vicente Ringor was staying with his
two (2)-year old granddaughter, Maureen Joy Ringor, at the terrace of their house. Suddenly, Umawid
appeared and started attacking Vicente with a panabas with neither reason nor provocation. While Vicente
was able to evade Umawids blows, the latter nevertheless hit Maureen on her abdomen and back, causing
her instantaneous death. Upon seeing Maureen bloodied, Umawid walked away.
Issues:
Whether or not Maureens death is a case of aberratio ictus.
Ruling:
Yes. As a final point, the Supreme Court observes that Maureens death is a case of aberratio
ictus, given that the fatal blow therefor was only delivered by mistake as it was actually Vicente who was
Umawids intended target. In this regard, Umawids single deed actually resulted in the: (a) Attempted
Murder of Vicente; and (b) Consummated Murder of Maureen. This may be classified as species of
complex crime defined under Article 48 of the RPC, particularly, a delito compuesto, or a compound crime
where a single act produces two (2) or more grave or less grave felonies

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND PLEA OF GUILTY


People vs. Zeta
G.R. Nos. 140901-02
May 9, 2002
Facts:
At around 4:00 in the morning of October 28, 1995, Jan Ryan S. Zeta was listening to the radio
inside his room at the second floor of their residence. He heard his father, Jose Zeta Jr., and his uncle,
accused-appellant Angelo Zeta, exchanging invectives against each other. Suddenly, Jan Ryan heard three
gunshots. He rushed downstairs and saw his father bloodied and lying on his side on the ground. Accusedappellant then boarded the company car assigned to Jose. Before driving away, accused-appellant shot
Jose once more on the left side of his abdomen. Jose later died in the hospital. Meanwhile, after the
incident, the accused-appellant then proceeded to Police Precinct No. 8 in Quezon City and surrendered
himself to the police.
The trial court rendered judgment against accused-appellant finding him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder as charged.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in not appreciating in accused-appellant's favor the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Ruling:
Yes. The trial court gravely erred in not appreciating in accused-appellant's favor the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
The requisites of voluntary surrender are: (a) the offender had not been actually arrested; (b) the
offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter's agent; and (c) the surrender was
voluntary. For surrender to be voluntary, it must be spontaneous and show the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either: (1) because he acknowledges his guilt; or (2)
because he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture.
Immediately after the incident, accused-appellant went to his policeman-friend Tony Tolentino
bringing with him his gun. Tony Tolentino in turn accompanied him to Police Precinct No. 8 in Quezon City

6
where charges of illegal possession of firearms were initially filed against him. The fact that accusedappellant surrendered in Quezon City and not in Marikina City where the crime was committed does not
deviate from the fact that he surrendered voluntarily and spontaneously.
By giving himself up, accused-appellant saved the State the time and trouble of searching for him
until arrested. Thus, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be credited in his favor.