Andal vs.

Sandiganbayan
CRIMINAL LAW
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

FACTS:
- Andal appealed to the Court upon being charged for the crime of Homicide. He alleges that
Sandiganbayan erred in rejecting his self-defense plea, since the unlawful agression was initiated by
the deceased (victim) He also contends that the cause of death of the deceased was through
accidental gunshots as he was trying to disarm the deceased.
- The antecedent of the crime was that Andal called out the deceased, Pfc Maximo Macaraig, for
failure to report to police headquarters for briefing but the latter just disrespected and told Andal that
he did not need to report as he already had Andal’s orders.
- At 11:00 PM, the deceased furiously approached Andal, asking why Andal embarrassed him in
front of so many people. Andal denied the deceased accusation and told him to put it all behind. But
the deceased refused to stop and challenged Andal to a gunfight that lead to both of them grappling
for the possession of the gun.
- The court finds Andal’s petition having no merit because the witnesses testified that the deceased
was more or less 2 meters from Andal when the gunshots were heard and that Andal was seen
holding the gun stretched downward and that he and the deceased were not grappling for the
possession of the gun when the gunshots were fired.

ISSUE
Whether or not Andal can use self-defense as a defense against his criminal liability of homicide.

HELD

- No, as it is essential that the attack upon defendant be simultaneous with the killing, or preceded
the latter without an appreciable interval of time. Also, before the decased and Andal grappled for
the possession of the gun and before the gunshots were fired, the deceased first attacked Andal.
The said initial unlawful aggression staged by deceased had ceased after he was disarmed by
accused. Lastly, the primordial requisite of self-defense is unlawful aggression. And for unlawful
aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. In the instant case,
there was no imminent and real danger to the life or limb of the petitioner when he shot the
deceased, since the latter had already been disarmed.
SYCIP JR. v. CA
BY MAROON 5 PARTNERS AND ASSOCIATES JUNE 1, 2012 BP22
Facts:

-Francisco Sycip agreed to buy, on installment, from Francel Realty Corporation

(FRC), a townhouse unit.

-Upon execution of the contract to sell, Sycip, as required issued to FRC 48

postdated checks, each on the amount of P9,304 covering 48 monthly instalments.

-After moving in his unit, Sycip complained to FRC regarding defects in the unit
and incomplete features of the townhouse project. FRC ignored the complaint.

-Sycip served on FRC 2 notarial notices to the effect that he was suspending his
instalment payments on the unit pending compliance with the project plans and
specifications, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB).

-Notwithstanding the notarial notices, FRC continued to present for encashment

Sycip’s postdated checks in its possession. Sycip sent “stop payment orders” to the
bank.

-The bank (Citibank) advised Sycip to close his checking account to avoid paying
bank charges evry time he made a “stop payment” order.

-Due to the closure of petitioner’s checking account, the drawee bank dishonoured
six postdated checks. FRC filed a complaint against petitioner for violations of BP
Blg 22 involving said dishonoured checks.

-RTC and CA found petitioner guilty of violating Sec 1 of BP Blg 22 in each of the
six cases.

Issue: w/n the CA erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of
the Bouncing Checks Law.
[Or yung related sa topic] w/n petitioner has a valid defense to the charges against
him

Held: Petitioner’s exercise of a right of the buyer under Article 23 of PD 957 is a

valid defense to the charges against him. Petition is granted. Petitioner is
ACQUITTED of the charges against him under BP Blg. 22.

RD:

-We find that although the first element of the offense exists, the other elements
have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Under the provisions of BP Blg 22, an offense is committed when the following
elements are present: (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply
for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at
the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the
subsequent dishonour of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds
or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

We find from the records no showing that at the time said checks were issued,
petitioner had knowledge that his deposit or credit in the bank would be
insufficient to cover them when presented for encashment.

-We are of the view that petitioner had a valid cause to order his bank to stop
payment. The third element of “subsequent dishonour of the check…without valid
cause” appear to us not established by the prosecution.

-Following Article 11 (5) of the RPC, petitoner’s exercise of a right of the buyer
under Art 23 of PD 957 is a valid defense to charges against him.
Sec 23 of PD 957: The buyer of a townhouse unit has the right to suspend his
amortization payments, should the subdivision or condominium developer fail to
develop or complete the project in accordance with duly approved plans and
specifications.

People of the Philippines vs Gerardo Sazon, alias INSIK

GR. No. 89684 September 18, 1990

Facts:

Ernesto Romualdez was confronted by Sazon for circulating a rumor that Sazon and his companions
were engaged in stealing, upon confrontation however, Romualdez boxed Sazon and threatened to kill
him. 2 days later, Sazon and his cousin followed Romualdez after seeing the latter pass by. Sazon again
confronted Romualdez, and Romualdez allegedly provoked Sazon to just shoot. To which Sazon shot
Romualdez dead.

Issue: WON Sazon was justified in killing Romualdez because there was provocation

Held: No. The alleged provocation of Romualdez was insufficient to justify Sazon's actions.
Furthermore, there was evident premeditation when Sazon and his cousin followed the victim in
an attempt to overpower him
PEOPLE vs. MANANSALA Case Digest
PEOPLE vs. MANANSALA

273 SCRA 502 (1997)

Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of RTC-Manila finding Dante Manansala guilty of rape
against his 14-year old daughter, Jennifer Manansala. On direct examination, she said that she was
raped by her father on 8 occasions from the period Nov 1, 1991

up to Nov 13, 1991 in a taho factory where he was living.

Held: Reversed on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Ratio: Incestuous rape is admittedly one of the heinous crimes. However, the constitutional
presumption of innocence is sedulously observed. For this purpose, the Court has formulated a set
of principles: (1) An accusation for rape is easy to make, difficult to prove and even more difficult to
disprove; (2) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime, where only 2 persons are usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; (3) The evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.

The declarations made by the principal witness for the defense, private complainant Jennifer
Manansala, is contradictory to her mother's testimony(Teresita who was presented as a witness for
the prosecution) in that the latter said Jennifer was with her father in Tarlac from Nov 1 to 13.
Jennnifer was undulating and wavering on her statements when upon cross-examination she said
that she was raped in Manila by her father on Nov 1, but was again raped several times in Tarlac
from Nov 2 to 13. She explained that the reason why she claimed that she had been raped in Manila
was because she was afraid that her complaints will be dismissed for improper venue. Later she
testified that she was raped in Nov 1 and 2 in Manila, and then raped in Tarlac on Nov 3 to 8.

The prosecution's evidence is not only shot through with inconsistencies and contradictions, it is also
improbable. If complainant had been raped on Nov 1, 1991, why did she go with her father to Tarlac
on Nov 2 and stayed there with him until Nov 14? She was supposed to have gone through a
harrowing experience at the hands of her father but the following day and for 13 more days after that
she stayed with him. It is true that the medico-legal examination conducted on Nov 17 showed that
shw was no longer a virgin and that she had recent sexual intercourse. But the fact that she had
voluntarily gone with her father to Tarlac suggests that the crime was not rape, but quite possibly
qualified seduction, considering the age of complainant (14 at that time of the crime). This is
expecially true because she said that she had been given money by her father everytime they had
an intercourse.
The fact that she could describe the lurid details of the sexual act shows that it was not an ordeal
that she went through but a consensual act. One subjected to sexual torture can hardly be expected
to see what was being done to her. What is clear from complainant's testimony is that although
accused had had sexual intercourse with her, it was not done by force or intimidation.