Pp vs Ulep

SPO1 Ernesto Ulep with two other police officer responded to an incident wherein certain man
named Buenaventura Wapili was reported to have acting violently. Wapili was armed with a bolo
and a bamboo stick based on the testimony of the policemen, but based on the testimony of the
residents he was only armed with a bolo. While wapili was approaching them Ulep fired a
warning shot but Wapili retorted pusila or fire. Ulep shot wapili several times which made the
former fal to the ground. Ulep approached wapili and shoots his head.
Wapili rose that he has acted in the fulfillment of his duty and under self-defense.
Issue: WON the actions on Ulep was justified based on the justifying circumstances; fulfillment
of a duty and self-defense
WON there is treachery

Held: When Ulep shot the victim in the head is no longer justified since the imminent danger and
the unlawful aggression ceases when Wapili has already fallen to the ground. But the
circumstances were considered as incomplete justification by the court w/c is capable of
lowering the penalty by 1 or 2 degrees.
In this case since Ulep only responde to the crime the act of shooting the victim to the head is
incidental to his fulfillment of duty. And since Ulep made a warning shot treachery is non
existent.

Pp vs Ural
Ural, a police officer on duty boxed a detainee named Felix Napola. As a consequence of a fistic
blow napola collapsed, the ural stepped on his prostate. Ural poured alcohol in the body of
napola and set hin on fire. Napola thereafter died after several days. It was witnessed by a
former detainee alberto.
Napola was convicted by the trial court with a crime of murder by incindiero and aggravated
under sec 1 of art 14 since he took advantage of his public position. He cannot commit such
crime if he has not used his public position. He wont have a access to the detainee.
Issue WON the ruling of the trial court is correct.
Held: yes, the trial court is correct but it failed to consider the mitigating circumstance which is
No intention to commit so grave wrong. Since his intent oly is to maltreat the victim and not to
kill him.

People vs. Amit

Marcelo Amit was charged in the court with a crime of rape with homicide
Based on his testimony he raped the victim but the victim resisted, in response he boxed the
victim and choke her while sexually assaulting her which causes her death.
The appellant raised that his plea of guilty, voluntary surrender, and lack of intention to commit
so grave wrong as the one actually committed should be considered by the court.

Issue: WON plea of guilty, voluntary surrender, and lack of intention to commit so grave wrong
as the one actually committed should be considered by the court.

Held: only the voluntary surrender and plea of guilty was considered.
The lack of intention to commit so grave wrong
because of its nature, must necessarily be judged in the light of the acts committed by him and the
circumstances under which they were committed. Should they show a great disproportion between
the means employed to accomplish the criminal act on the one hand and its consequences
on the other

the acts of the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the result that they actually
produced. The lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed cannot be
appreciated in favor of an accused who employed brute force

People vs Regato
Regato with his other 2 companion committed robbery in the house of Felicisima Flores. They
first asked if they could buy cigarette, when Felicisima opened the door they pointed a gun to
her which made her move backward and move to the kitchen where he jumped and run.
The accused then maltreated Victor Flores and asked him where the money is. When Victor
shouted Robbers he was shot by Ramirez and died the next day due to severe hemorrhage
secondary to gunshot wound.

Issue: WON there is craft

WON nighttime may be used in this case as aggravating circumstance
WON praeter intentionem may be used to mitigate the penalty

Held: craft involved trickery or intellectual cunning. In the case of people vs napili gaining
entrance by pretending to buy cigarettes or drinking water constitute craft
The crime committee 9:00, the culrit had sought the hiding mantle of the night in order to
facilitate its commission.
Intention is a mental process and is an internal state of mind. The intention must be judged by
the action, conduct and external acts of the accused. What men do is the best index of their
intention. In the case at bar, the aforesaid mitigating instance cannot be appreciated consider
that the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the result that they
actually made the death of the victim.

People vs Pagal

Pedro Pagal with Jose Torcelino confederating together feloniously robbed Gau Guan a huge
amount of money and incidental to the robbery, the killed the victim who is also their employer.
Contrary to law, and with the generic aggravating circumstances of (1) nightime purposely
sought to better accomplish their criminal design; (2) evident premeditation; (3) in disregard of
the respect due the offended party; and (4) with abuse of confidence, the accused being then
employees of the offended party.
The accused enter a plea of guilty provided that they be allowed afterwards to prove the
mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to
produce passion and obfuscation.
Issue: WON sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately
preceding the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion
and obfuscation is exisent.
WON in disregard of the respect due the offended party shall be considered

Held: the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which as
in the case at bar is planned and calmly meditated before its execution.
Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and immediately
proceeding the act
The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be taken into account
only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some
insult or disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex.

Romera vs People

Petitioner and his family were having dinner in their house at around seven oclock in the
evening. Thereafter, they went to bed. While lying in bed, they heard Roy call petitioner and his
wife, asking if they had beer and a fighter for sale. He did not answerRoy because he knew
that Roy was already drunk. Roy asked for petitioner but when the latters wife told him that
petitioner was already asleep, he told her to wake her husband up. Petitioner went down the
house and asked who was at the door. Just as he opened the door for Roy, Roy thrust his bolo
at him. He successfully parried the bolo and askedRoy what it was all about. Roy answered he
would kill petitioner. Petitioner tried to prevent Roy from entering, so he pushed the door
shut. As Roy was hacking at the wall, petitioners wife held the door to allow petitioner to exit in
another door to face Roy. He hurled a stone at Roy, who dodged it. Roy rushed to him and
hacked him, but he parried the blow. Petitioner grappled for the bolo and stabbed Roy in the
stomach. Wounded,Roy begged petitioner for forgiveness. According to petitioner, he ceased
harming Royfor fear he might kill him.

Issue: WON there is self defense

ART. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are
present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period
that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
Held: Petitioner contends that the victim provoked him to a fit of anger when the latter woke him
up and thrust a bolo at him without warning as petitioner opened the door. Moreover, by hacking
and destroying the bamboo wall of his house, and endangering the lives of his children,
the victim also obfuscated his thinking and reasoning processes, says the petitioner.

People vs Torpio

People vs Parana

Primo Parana and one Limay got into a fight, the deceased admonished them. In the morning
while the deceased is waiting for the chauffeur parana tried to stab him from the back. The
chauffeur saw it and shouted to warn the deceased, he was able to dodge the stab and run until
he fell on his back into a ditch they wrestled until they were separated by Montelibano. The
victim later died after 6 days.

Issue: WON there is treachery

WON immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against him a few hours before shoul
be considered

Held: yes even considering at the moment the deceased turned around and saw the appellant
in the attitude of stabbing him, this court also finds therein the elements of treachery inasmuch
as the aggression, under the circumstances, was so sudden that the deceased, who carried a
revolver in his belt, had no chance to defend himself with it.
Considering the incident at the moment the appellant mounted astride of the deceased, who
defend himself only with his feet and hands without having been able to use the revolver carried
by him in his belt, when said appellant, in such situation, inflicted the wound which caused the
death of the deceased, he likewise acted with treachery on the ground that, under the
circumstances, he was not running, as in fact he did not run, any risk arising from the defense
which the deceased might make.
And so, whether the beginning and the end of the aggression be considered singly, or the
development thereof be considered as a whole, it is evident that the aggravating circumstance
of treachery was present.
The mitigating circumstance that he had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
committed against him a few hours before, when he was slapped by the deceased in the
presence of many persons, must likewise be taken into consideration. Although this offense,
which engenders perturbation of mind, was not so immediate, this court is of the opinion that the
influence thereof, by reason of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was inflicted,
lasted until the moment the crime was committed. Lastly, the other mitigating circumstance that
the appellant had voluntarily surrendered himself to the agents of the authorities must be
considered

People vs Torpio
Anthony Rapas and Dennis Torpio went on a drinking spree, when Torpio stopped drinking he
was forced by Rapas to drink, when Torpio refused he was boxed by Rapas and tried to stab
him with a knife but petitioner was able to dodge. Torpio went home to get a knife his father tried
to stop him but failed. Torpio was able to kill Rapas and surrender in the morning.

Issue WON there is treachery

WON immediate vindication of a grave offense was attendant

Held there is no treachery the act of Torpio was a vindication from the act of Rapas, thus the act
was immediate and there is no time for torpio to reflect on what he is about to do.

Yes, although the unlawful aggression had ceased when the appellant stabbed Anthony, it was
nonetheless a grave offense for which the appellant may be given the benefit of a mitigating
circumstance.

People Vs Capalac
Mario Capalac with his brother and other two companions killed Magaso as a vindication to the
stabbing of their brother. Magaso already raised his hands as a sign of surrender when he was
pistol whipped and stabbed. The petitioner is lso a member of the police force.

Issue WON there is treachery

WON there is Ignominy
WON the immediate vindication of a grave offense

Held: yes, Magaso's situation was hopeless. Any defense he could have put up would be futile
and unavailing. His hands were raised in surrender. That notwithstanding, he was pistolwhipped. When lying prostrate on the ground, he was stabbed.

No, What was done by the brothers of Capala, cannot be categorized as falling within the norm
of means being employed or circumstances being brought about to add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act. It is well to stress that they were prompted by their desire to avenge their
brother, They went after Magaso, the victim. They assaulted him, relying on the weapons they
carried with them. Jesus stabbed him and appellant Mario pistol-whipped him. They did what
they felt they had to do to redress a grievance. It cannot be said, therefore, that they deliberately
employed means to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.

Yes, Certainly it seems probable that the reason why, the lower court failed to do so was the fact
that appellant was a member of the police force. That is not conclusive. What is decisive is the
fact that the brothers Capalac, responsive to what is a traditional norm of conduct, reacted in a
manner which for them was necessary under the circumstances. That was a fulfillment of what
family honor and affection require. The aggressor who did them wrong should not go
unpunished. This is not to justify what was done. It offers though an explanation. At the same
time, the rule of law, which frowns on an individual taking matters into his own hands, requires
that every circumstance in favor of an accused should not be ignored. That is to render justice
according to law. This mitigating circumstance calls for application.