Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Article 2 Article 4

People vs. Wong Cheng US vs. Valdez

- Of these two rules, it is the English Rule that - The victim, who was threatened or chased by
obtains in this jurisdiction the accused with a knife, jumped into the water
- To smoke opium within our territorial limits and caused of the strong current or because he
even though aboard a foreign merchant ship is do not know how to swim, he sank down and
certainly a breach of public order here drowned. The wrong done is considered the
established because it causes such drug to direct, natural and logical consequence of the
produce its pernicious effects within our felony committed
territory
People vs. Almonte
US vs. Look Chaw
- When a person dies in consequence of an
- Mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in internal hemorrhage brought on by moving
these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, about against the doctor’s orders, not because
in any of their ports, does NOT constitute a of carelessness or desire to increase the
crime triable by the courts of this country, on criminally liability of his assailant, but because
account of such vessel being considered as an of his nervous condition due to the wound
extension of its own nationality inflicted by the said assailant, the crime is
homicide and not merely slight physical injuries,
US vs Ah Sing simply because the doctor was of the opinion
- Accused brought 8 cans of opium in Saigon and that the wound might healed in seven days
brought them on board a foreign vessel which People vs. Toling
anchored in a Cebu port. Accused can be
charged and convicted of illegal importation of - If a man creates in another man’s mind an
opium immediate sense of danger which causes such
person to try to escape, and in doing he injures
Padilla vs. Dizon himself, the person who creates such a state of
- Judge Dizon was dismissed from the service for mind is responsible for the injuries which result
gross ignorance of the law for acquitting Lo Chi People vs. Ortega
Fai for Violation of CB Circular No. 960 on the
filmsy ground that Lo Chi Fai had no intention or - The essential requisites for the application of
mens rea to violate the law when malice or par. 1 Article 4 are that:
mens rea, is completely immaterial in a crime o The intended act is felonious
mala prohibita o The resulting act is likewise a felony
o The unintended albeit graver wrong
Article 3 was primarily caused by the actor’s
People vs. Oanis wrongful acts

Urbano vs. IAC


- Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the
case at bar. “Ignorance facti excusat” applies - The rule is that the death of the victim must be
only when the mistake is committed without the direct, natural, and logical consequence of
fault or carelessness. The fact that the the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused.
supposedly suspect was sleeping, Oanis and There is a likelihood that the wound was but
Galanta could have checked whether it is the real the remote cause and its subsequent infection,
Balagtas. for failure to take necessary precautions, with
tetanus may have been the proximate cause of
US vs. Ah Chong
Javier's death with which the petitioner had
- Since evil intent is in general an inseparable nothing to do.
element in every crime, any such mistake of fact
People vs. Abarca
as shows the act the act committed to have
proceeded from no sort of evil in the mind - The accused-appellant was not committing
necessarily relieves the actor from criminal murder when he discharged his rifle upon the
liability, provided always there is no fault or deceased. Inflicting death under exceptional
negligence on his part. circumstances is not murder. The court cannot
therefore hold the appellant liable for

Lx.
frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by “discharge of firearm,” but homicide or murder as
the Amparados. the case maybe. The qualifying circumstance of
premeditation may not be properly taken into
People vs. Ulep account when the person whom the defendant
proposed to kill was different from the one who
- Even if the victim is suffering from an internal became his victim.
ailment, liver or heart disease, or tuberculosis, if
the blow delivered by the accused (a) is the People vs. Cagoco
efficient cause of death; or (b) accelerated his
- Under the circumstances of this case the
death; or (c) is the proximate cause of death;
defendant is liable for the killing of the
then there is criminal liability.
deceased because his death was the direct
People vs. Bindoy consequence of defendant’s felonious act of
striking him on the head. If the defendant had
- Corroborated by Gaudencio Cenas of the not committed the assault in a treacherous
testimony of the accused, Pacas and Bindoy manner, he would nevertheless have been
were actually for the possession of the bolo. guilty of homicide, although he did not intend
When Pacas let go of the bolo, Bindoy had to kill the deceased, and since the defendant
pulled so violently that it flew towards his left did commit the crime with treachery, he is
side, at the very moment when Emigdio guilty of murder, because of the presence of the
Omamdam came up and who was therefore hit qualifying circumstances of treachery.
in the chest without Bindoy seeing him. Bindoy
alleges that it was caused accidentally and Intod, et. al. vs. CA
without malicious intent because he was only
- The case at bar belongs to this category.
defending his possession of the bolo which
Petitioner shoots the place where he thought
Pacas was trying to wrench away from him and
his victim would be, although in reality, the
his conduct was perfectly lawful. The Court
victim was not present in said place and thus,
therefore acquitted Bindoy based on the facts
the petitioner failed to accomplish his end. The
stated. The injury was accidental and the
factual situation in the case at bar presents a
defendant should be acquitted.
physical impossibility which render the
Belbis vs. People intended crime impossible of accomplishment.
And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised
- Moreover, the fact that there is a lapse of time Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an
from the incident and the death of the victim is impossible crime.
not controlling since what really needs to be
proven in a case when the victim dies is the People vs. Domasian
proximate cause of his death. It can be
- Even before the ransom note was received, the
concluded from the doctors’ testimonies that
crime of kidnapping with serious illegal
without the stab wounds, the victim could not
detention had already been committed. The act
have been afflicted with an infection which later
cannot be considered an impossible crime
on caused multiple organ failure that caused his
because there was no inherent improbability of
death. The offender is criminally liable for the
its accomplishment or the employment of
death of the victim if his delictual act caused,
inadequate or ineffective means. The sending of
accelerated or contributed to the death of the
the ransom note would have had the effect only
victim. The petitioners are found guilty of
of increasing the penalty to death under the last
homicide.
paragraph of Article 267 although this too
People vs. Gona would not have been possible under the new
Constitution.
- The mistake of the defendant in killing one man
instead of another did not relieve him from Jacinto vs. People
criminal responsibility and could not even be
- The time that petitioner took a possession of
considered a mitigating circumstance.
the check meant for Mega Foam, she had
People vs. Mabug-at performed all the acts to consummate that
crime of theft had it not been for the fact that
- Although the mere act of firing at a person is not a the check bounced making the crime impossible
proof per se if intent to kill, yet when the of accomplishment
surrounding circumstances of the act are such that
they leave no room for doubt that the intention was Article 6
to kill the person fired upon, the crime is not simply

Lx.
People vs. Pancho People vs. Erina

- Rape is attempted when the offender - The Supreme Court held that Erinia was entitled
commences the commission of rape directly by to the benefit of the doubt due to the lack of
overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of conclusive evidence of penetration. The verdict
execution which should produce the crime rape was modified from consummated rape to
by reason of some cause or accident other than frustrated rape.
his own spontaneous desistance. There is no
attempted rape in this case because the People vs. Orita
accused just dragged the victim and held her - In the crime of rape, from the moment the
feet, which are not indicative of an intent or offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he
attempt to rape the victim actually attains his purpose and, from that
People vs. Lamahang moment also all the essential elements of the
offense have been accomplished. Any
- The accused was caught in the act of making an penetration of the female organ by the male
opening with an iron bar on the wall of a store, organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of
and succeeded in breaking one board and in the female organ, without rupture of the
unfastening another from the wall. The crime hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
committed was not attempted robbery but only warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is
attempted trespass to dwelling, since based on attempted if there is no penetration of the
the facts established, his intention was to enter female organ
by means of force into the said store against the
will of its owner Article 8

Valenzuela vs. People Fernan, Jr. et. al. vs. People

- The accused argued that he should only be - Two (2) structures of multiple conspiracies,
convicted of frustrated theft for taking cartons namely:
of detergent from the supermarket since he o (1) the so-called “wheel” or “circle”
conspiracy, in which there is a single
was immediately apprehended by the security
guard. Thus, was not able to freely dispose of person or group (the “hub”) dealing
the said stolen articles. Theft cannot have a individually with two or more other
frustrated stage and the accused is guilty of persons or groups (the “spokes”)
consummated theft since he has obtained o (2) the “chain” conspiracy, usually
possession over the stolen item and the involving the distribution of narcotics or
presumed inability of the offender to freely other contraband, in which there is
dispose of the stolen property does not negate successive communication and
the fact that the owners have already been cooperation in much the same way as
deprived of their right to possession upon the with legitimate business operations
between manufacturer and wholesaler,
completion of the taking. Unlawful taking is
deemed complete from the moment the then wholesaler and retailer, and then
offender gains possession of the thing. The retailer and consumer
ability of the offender to freely dispose of the - The conspiracy in the instant cases resembles
property stolen is not a constitutive element of the “wheel” conspiracy. The 36 disparate
the crime of theft persons who constituted the massive
conspiracy to defraud the government were
Canceran vs. People controlled by a single hub, namely: Rolando
Mangubat (Chief Accountant), Delia Preagido
- In this case, although the evidence presented (Accountant III), Jose Sayson (Budget Examiner),
during the trial prove the crime of and Edgardo Cruz (Clerk II), who controlled the
consummated Theft, he could be convicted of
separate “spokes” of the conspiracy. Petitioners
Attempted Theft only. Regardless of the were among the many spokes of the wheel
overwhelming evidence to convict him for
consummated Theft, because the Information Article 10
did not charge him with consummated Theft,
the Court cannot do so as the same would Go-Tan vs. Tan
violate his right to be informed of the nature - The SC ruled that “while RA 9262 provides that
and cause of the allegations against him, as he the offender be related or connected to the
so protests. victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual

Lx.
or dating relationship, it does not preclude the - The right to property is not of such importance
application of the principle of conspiracy under as right to life, and defense of property can be
the RPC. Hence, legal principles developed from invoked as a justifying circumstance only when
the Penal Code may be applied in a it is coupled with an attack on the person of one
supplementary capacity to crimes punished entrusted with said property.
under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in
which the special law is silent on a particular
matter. People vs. Narvaez
- The express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects
the intent of the legislature for liberal - He courts concurred that the fencing and
construction as will best ensure the attainment chiseling of the walls of the house of the
of the object of the law according to its true defendant was indeed a form of aggression on
intent, meaning and spirit - the protection and the part of the victim. However, this aggression
safety of victims of violence against women and was not done on the person of the victim but
children. rather on his rights to property.
- The argument of the justifying circumstance of
Article 11 self-defense is applicable only if the 3
requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC
People vs. Abrazaldo
enumerates these requisites: Unlawful
- While the accused admitted the commission of aggression. In the case at bar, there was
the crime in order to preserve his own life, he unlawful aggression towards appellant's
maintained that the victim accidentally stabbed property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6
himself while they were grappling for the knife. months and he should have left him in peace
The justifying circumstance of self-defense before time was up, instead of chiseling
cannot be appreciated considering the accused- Narvaez's house and putting up fence. Art. 536
appellant’s flight from the crime scene, his of the Civil Code also provides that possession
failure to inform the authorities of the incident may not be acquired through force or
and his failure to surrender the knife to the intimidation; while Art.539 provides that every
authorities. The aforesaid circumstances are possessor has the right to be respected in his
inconsistent with having a clean conscience possession. Reasonable necessity of means
and, instead, indicate his culpability to the employed to prevent or repel attack. In the
crime charged case, killing was disproportionate to the attack.
Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person
Dela Cruz vs. People defending himself. Here, there was no
- Accused and the victim grappled for possession provocation at all since he was asleep
of the gun. Accused admitted that he wrested People vs. Marivic Genosa
the gun from the victim. From that point in time
until the victim shouted "guard, guard", then - Since self- defense since the existence of
took the fire extinguisher, there was no Battered woman syndrome, which the
unlawful aggression coming from the victim. appellant has been shown to be suffering in the
Accused had the opportunity to run away. relationship does not in itself establish the legal
Therefore, even assuming that the aggression right of the woman to kill her abusive partner.
with use of the gun initially came from the Evidence must still be considered in the context
victim, the fact remains that it ceased when the of self-defense.
gun was wrested away by the accused from the - In the present case, however, according to the
victim. It is settled that when unlawful testimony of the appellant there was a
aggression ceases, the defender no longer has sufficient time interval between the unlawful
any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, aggression of the husband and her fatal attack
otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is upon him. She had already been able to
committed A person making a defense has no withdraw from his violent behavior and escape
more right to attack an aggressor when the to their children's bedroom. During that time,
unlawful aggression has ceased he apparently ceased his attack and went to
- When an unlawful aggression that has begun no bed. The reality or even the imminence of the
longer exists, the one who resorts to self- danger he posed had ended altogether. He was
defense has no right to kill or even wound the no longer in a position that presented an actual
former aggressor. threat on her life or safety. Without continuous
aggression there can be no self-defense. And
People vs. Apolinar

Lx.
absence of aggression does not warrant People vs. Alcabao
complete or incomplete self-defense.
- The accused acted with discernment. The
Ty vs. People perverted character the accused is a factual
circumstance which manifests that the minor
- For this exempting circumstance to be invoked acted with discernment
successfully, the following requisites must
concur: Llave vs. People
o (1) existence of an uncontrollable fear;
o (2) the fear must be real and imminent; - The accused acted with discernment. The
and factual circumstance which bolstered that he
acted with discernment is when the accused
o (3) the fear of an injury is greater than
or at least equal to that committed. stated that he an outstanding student. This
- In the instant case, the evil sought to be allegation proves that he acted with
avoided is merely expected or anticipated. If the discernment with full knowledge and
intelligence. He was possessed of intelligence
evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated or may happen in the future, this well beyond his years, thus, was able to
defense is not applicable. It must appear that distinguish which conduct is right or wrong.
the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear is Hence, the accused is not exempt from criminal
of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary liability.
man would have succumbed to it. It should be Jose vs. People
based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear
for one’s life or limb. A mere threat of a future - The prosecution failed to prove beyond
injury is not enough. It should not be reasonable doubt that the petitioner, who was
speculative, fanciful, or remote. A person thirteen (13) years of age when the crime
invoking uncontrollable fear must show charged was committed, acted with
therefore that the compulsion was such that it discernment relative to the sale of shabu to the
reduced him to a mere instrument acting not poseur-buyer. Aside from bringing out and
only without will but against his will as well. It handing over the plastic bag to accused Zarraga,
must be of such character as to leave no the petitioner merely sat inside the car and had
opportunity to the accused for escape. no other participation whatsoever in the
- The fear harbored by Ty was not real and transaction between the accused Zarraga and
imminent. Ty claims that she was compelled to the poseur-buyer. There is no evidence that the
issue the checks, a condition the hospital petitioner knew what was inside the plastic and
allegedly demanded of her before her mother soft white paper before and at the time he
could be discharged, for fear that her mother’s handed over the same to his cousin. Indeed, the
health might deteriorate further due to the poseur-buyer did not bother to ask the
inhumane treatment of the hospital or worse, petitioner his age because he knew that
her mother might commit suicide. This is pushers used young boys in their transactions
speculative fear; it is not the uncontrollable fear for illegal drugs.
contemplated by law.
US vs. Maralit
Article 12
- The trial court taking into consideration all of
People vs. Domingo the facts and circumstances presented by the
record, together with the appearance of the
- Insanity exempts the accused only when the accused as he stood and testified in court, drew
finding of mental disorder refers to appellant’s the conclusion that he was of sufficient
state of mind immediately before or at the very intelligence and was sufficiently endowed with
moment of the commission of the crime. This judgment to know that the act which he
was not the case in the issue at bar, what was committed was wrong and that it was likely to
presented was proof of appellant’s mental produce death. In pursuance of that conclusion
disorder that existed five years after the the court made the finding that the accused in
incident, but not at the time the crimes were committing the act complained of acted with
committed. The RTC also considered it crucial discernment.
that appellant had the presence of mind to
respond to Raquel Indon’s pleas that her People vs. Cortezano
daughters be spared by saying, “Ngayon pa,
- the facts show beyond cavil that Joel and
nagawa ko na.”
Bernardo acted with discernment when they

Lx.
raped the victim, thus: (a) they wetted the liability is not extinguished pursuant to the
victim's vagina before they raped her; (b) one of second paragraph of Section 6, Republic Act No.
them acted as a lookout while the other was 9344, Boniao should be held jointly liable with
raping the victim; (c) they threatened to kill the petitioner, Bacus, and Handoc for the payment
victim if she divulged to her parents what they of the stolen items.
did to her; (d) they ordered Leah Lou and Lionel
to look at their sister naked after they had Sierra vs. People
raped her. - The defense has the burden of showing by
- A minor who is over nine years old and under evidence that the petitioner was 15 years old or
fifteen years old at the time of the commission less when he committed the rape charged.
of the crimes is exempt from criminal liability Section 7 of RA 9344 provides that the age of a
only when the said minor acted without child may be determined from the child's birth
discernment. It is the burden of the prosecution certificate, baptismal certificate or any other
to prove that a minor acted with discernment pertinent documents. In the absence of these
when he committed the crime charged. The documents, age may be based on information
discernment that constitutes an exception to from the child himself/herself, testimonies of
the exemption from criminal liability of a minor other persons, the physical appearance of the
under fifteen years of age but over nine, who child and other relevant evidence. In case of
commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
capacity to understand the difference between resolved in his/her favor.
right and wrong, and such capacity may be
known and should be determined by taking into Madali vs. People
consideration all the facts and circumstances
- Pursuant to Sec. 64 of RA 9344, exempts from
afforded by the records in each case, the very
criminal liability a minor fifteen (15) years or
appearance, the very attitude, the very
below at the time of the commission of the
comportment and behavior of said minor, not
offense, Raymund was exempted from criminal
only before and during the commission of the
liability. He was released to the custody of his
act, but also after and even during the trial.
parents in pursuant to Sec. 20 of RA 9344.
People vs. Capistrano Pursuant to Sec. 6 of RA 9344, if a child is above
15 and below 18 years old, the finding of
- The accused was more than nine (9) but less discernment is necessary to determine if he
than fifteen (15) years of age at the time that he would be exempted from criminal liability.
committed the crime charged. However, the Rodel was sentenced to six months and one day
court which had the opportunity to see and of prision correccional to eight years and one
hear the accused at the trial found that he day of prision mayor, but the imposition of said
acted with discernment. It should be noted, penalty was suspended pursuant to Sec 38 of
furthermore, that he appeared as the leader or RA 9344.
commander of the raiding party. Although his
minority does not exempt him from criminal Ortega vs. People
responsibility for the reason that he acted with
- By virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal
discernment, yet it may be considered as a
irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15
special mitigating circumstance lowering the
years old. What is controlling with respect to
penalty by two (2) degrees.
the exemption from criminal liability of the
- Discernment means the capacity of the child at
children in conflict with law (CICL) is not the
the time of the commission of the offense to
CICL's age at the time of the promulgation of
understand the differences between right and
judgment but the CICL's age at the time of the
wrong and the consequences of the wrongful
commission of the offense. Accordingly, the
act.
criminal cases filed against the petitioner are
Estioca vs. People hereby dismissed. Petitioner is hereby referred
to the local social welfare and development
- Although the crime was committed on July 28, officer of the locality for the appropriate
2001 and Republic Act No. 9344 took effect only intervention program.
on May 20, 2006, the said law should be given
retroactive effect in favor of Boniao who was Remiendo vs. People
not shown to be a habitual criminal. He was
- Pursuant to Sec. 6 of RA 9344, if a child is above
released to the custody of his parents or
15 and below 18 years old, the finding of
guardian pursuant to Sections 6 and 20 of
discernment is necessary to determine if he
Republic Act No. 9344. However, Boniao’s civil
Lx.
would be exempted from criminal liability. indeterminate sentence should be reduced to
Culled from the records of this case, it is only six years of prision correccional to enable
manifested that Robert acted with discernment, him to apply for probation under PD 968. A.M.
being able to distinguish between right and No. 02-1-18-SC - the restrictions on the personal
wrong and knowing fully well the consequences liberty of the child shall be limited to the
of his acts. Pursuant to Sec. 38 and 40 of RA minimum Sec. 38 of RA 9344 which allows the
9344, the suspension of sentence can no longer suspension of the sentence is available only
be availed since by the time his sentence was until the child offender turns 21 years of age.
imposed by the trial court, he was already 22 Since he is over 23 years of age at the time of
years old. his conviction in the RTC, suspension was no
- His act of waiting for the AAA’s parents to leave longer feasible. RA 9344 reveals that
the house before defiling the latter and imprisonment of children in conflict with the
threatening to kick her if she should shout law is by no means prohibited. Restrictions on
prove that Robert can differentiate what is right the imposition of imprisonment: (a) the
and wrong. He was born on January 21, 1982. detention or imprisonment is a disposition of
The Joint Judgment was promulgated on last resort, and (b) the detention or
October 27, 2004. Thus, at the time of the imprisonment shall be for the shortest
imposition of his sentence, he was already 22 appropriate period of time Imprisonment was
years old and could no longer be considered a imposed on the petitioner as a last recourse
child for the purposes of the application of R.A. after holding him to be disqualified from
No. 9344. probation and from the suspension of his
- Discernment is the mental capacity to sentence, and the term of his imprisonment
understand the difference between right and was for the shortest duration permitted by the
wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove law.
that the accused acted with discernment by
evidence of physical appearance, attitude or People vs. Deliola
deportment not only before and during the - The accused-appellant acted with discernment
commission of the act, but also after and during when he raped the victim is demonstrated by
the trial. The surrounding circumstances must the following surrounding circumstances: (1)
demonstrate that the minor knew what he was the victim was a helpless minor; (2) accused-
doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance appellant secured the consummation of the
includes the gruesome nature of the crime and offense with a weapon; (3) he satisfied his lust
the minor’s cunning and shrewdness by penetrating the victim from behind; and (4)
People vs. Hermie Jacinto he threatened the victim not to report what
happened. Taking all these facts into
- Sec. 68 of RA 9344 allows the retroactive consideration, accused-appellant clearly knew
application of the Act to those who have been that what he did was wrong.
convicted and are serving sentence at the time - Although it is acknowledged that accused-
of the effectivity of this said Act, and who were appellant was qualified for suspension of
below the age of 18 years at the time of the sentence when he committed the crime,
commission of the offense. He is therefore Section 40 of R.A. 9344[55] provides that the
sentenced to be confined in an agricultural same extends only until the child in conflict with
camp, instead of serving time in prison. the law reaches the maximum age of twenty-
one (21) years old. Nevertheless, in extending
Rosal Jubilla vs. People the application of RA No. 9344 to give meaning
- Article 249 of the RPC prescribes the penalty of to the legislative intent of the said law, the
reclusion temporal for homicide. His minority promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict
was a privileged mitigating circumstance that with the law should extend even to one who
lowered the penalty to prision mayor. In has exceeded the age lirr it of twenty-one (21)
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of years, so long as he/she committed the crime
the indeterminate sentence should be within when he/she was still a child. The offender shall
the penalty next lower than the imposable be entitled to the right to restoration,
penalty, which, herein, was prision correccional. rehabilitation and reintegration in order that
So the CA imposed the indeterminate penalty of he/she may be given the chance to live a
imprisonment of six months and one day of normal life and become a productive member
prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years of the community. Thus, accused-appellant is
and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. ordered to serve his sentence, in lieu of
Petitioner insists that the maximum of his confinement in a regular penal institution, in an

Lx.
agricultural camp and other training facilities, in the deceased. The only thing in the case at all
accordance with Section 51[59] of R.A. 9344. suspicious upon the part of the defendant are
his concealment and denial )here accidental
People vs. Bandian
killing is relied upon as a defense, the accused is
- Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be not required to prove such a defense by a
punishable, must be committed willfully or preponderance of the evidence, because there
consciously, or at least it must be the result of a is a denial of intentional killing, and the burden
voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. is upon the State to show that it was intentional
The evidence does not show that the appellant, evidence of misadventure gives rise to an
in causing her child’s death in one way or important issue in a prosecution for homicide,
another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did which must be submitted to the jury. And since
so willfully, consciously or imprudently. She had a plea of misadventure is a denial of criminal
no cause to kill or abandon it, to expose it to intent which constitutes an essential element in
death, because her affair with a former lover, criminal homicide, to warrant a conviction it
which was not unknown to her second lover, must be negative by the prosecution beyond a
Kirol, took place three years before the reasonable doubt. Thus the judgment is
incident; her married life with Kirol—she reversed
considers him her husband as he considers him
People vs. Fallorina
his wife—began a year ago; as he so testified at
the trial, he knew of the pregnancy and that it - The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) cites
was his and that they’ve been eagerly awaiting that the basis for exemption from a criminal
the birth of the child. The appellant, thus, had liability under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the
no cause to be ashamed of her pregnancy to Revised Penal Code (RPC), is the complete
Kirol. absence of intent and negligence on the part of
- Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth, the accused. For the accused to be guilty for a
or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was felony, it must be committed either with
unable, due to her debility or dizziness, which criminal intent or with fault or negligence.
cause may be considered lawful or insuperable - Thusly, the elements of exempting
to constitute the seventh exempting circumstances are:
circumstance, to take her child from the thicket o (1) a person is performing a lawful act;
where she had given it birth, so as not to leave o (2) with due care;
it abandoned and exposed to the danger of o (3) he causes an injury to another by
losing its life. If by going into the thicket to pee, mere accident; and
she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her o (4) without any fault or intention of
child in that same place and later abandoning it, causing it.
not because of imprudence or any other reason - In the case at bar, the Court a quo erred in
than that she was overcome by strong dizziness inequitably appreciating exculpatory and
and extreme debility, she could not be blamed inculpatory facts and circumstances which
because it all happened by mere accident, with should have been considered in favor of the
no fault or intention on her part. The law accused. The court also failed to appreciate the
exempts from liability any person who so acts mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
and behaves under such circumstances (Art. in favor of the accused since it was only after
12(4), RPC). Thus, having the fourth and three days that the appellant gave himself up
seventh exempting circumstances in her favor, and surrendered his service firearm. And lastly,
she is acquitted of the crime that she had been the court considered the aggravating
accused of. circumstance of taking advantage of his position
by the accused.
US vs. Tanedo
People vs. Ayaya
- If life is taken by misfortune or accident while in
the performance of a lawful act executed with - In thrusting her umbrella in the opening of the
due care and without intention of doing harm, door in question, she did so to free her son
there is no criminal liability &n this case there from the imminent danger of having his head
is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon crushed or being strangled; and if she thus
the part of the accused +either is there any caused her husband’s injury, it was by a mere
question that he was engaged in the accident, without any fault or intention to cause
commission of a lawful act when the accident it. This being so, we believe that she incurred no
occurred +either is there any evidence of the criminal liability in accordance with article 8,
intention of the accused to cause the death of No. 8, of the Penal Code, because, it being a licit
Lx.
act to free her son from the grave danger chased the victims and shot them
threatening him, and the fact of having touched several times clearly show that he had
the left eye of her husband, who was behind the intent to kill them. His defense must
the door, with the end of her umbrella, does necessarily fail.
not make her criminally liable. - Moreover, if it were true that someone
attacked appellant, thus causing him to
People vs. Genita accidentally pull the trigger of his rifle, then his
- It must be stressed that in raising this defense, natural reaction should have been to defend
appellant has the burden of the evidence and it himself. Instead, he rushed towards the camp.
was incumbent upon him to establish that he Furthermore, he did not present any evidence
was exempt from criminal liability.[9] He must to support his allegation that the CAFGU was
show with clear and convincing proofs that: placed on alert. And not a single witness
o 1) he was performing a lawful act with corroborated his version of accidental shooting,
due care, an indication that it is fabricated.
o 2) the injury caused was by a mere
accident, and
o 3) he had no fault or intention of Amployo vs. People
causing the injury.
- Considering appellants evidence, it is clear that - Clearly then, petitioner cannot take refuge in
the requisites of accident as an exempting his version of the story as he has conveniently
circumstance were not proven. left out details which indubitably prove the
o First, appellants manner of carrying his presence of lewd design. It would have been
M-14 rifle negates his claim of due care easy to entertain the possibility that what
in the performance of an act. Knowing happened was merely an accident if it only
that his rifle was automatic, he should happened once. Such is not the case, however,
have seen to it that its safety lock was as the very same petitioner did the very same
act to the very same victim in the past.
intact. Worse, he admitted that his
finger was constantly on the trigger. Moreover, the incident could never be labeled
With the safety lock released and his as accidental as petitioner's hand did not just
slip from Kristine Joy's shoulder to her breast as
finger on the trigger, how can we
conclude that he acted with due care? there were times when he would touch her
We cannot accept his version that he breast from under her shirt. Finally, the theory
was just following his trainers that what happened was accidental is belied by
instruction to release the safety lock petitioner having threatened Kristine Joy to
while in a critical area. For one, he keep silent and not tell on him.
never presented his trainer to People vs. Latosa
corroborate his statement; and for
another, he was not in a critical area. - Since appellant argues that the exempting
o Second, the number of wounds circumstance of accident should be appreciated
sustained by the victims shows that the by the Court in her favor, it is therefore
shooting was not merely accidental. incumbent upon her to prove with clear and
Both victims sustained more than one convincing evidence that the following essential
wound. While it could have been requisites of the exempting circumstance are
possible that the first wound sustained present: [i] she was performing a lawful act; [2]
by both victims was by accident, with due care; [3] she caused the injury to her
however, the subsequent wounds husband by mere accident; and [4] without fault
sustained by them in different parts of or intention of causing it. The Court however,
their bodies could not have been found it incredulous that the pointing of the
similarly inflicted. gun towards her husband’s head and pulling the
o And third, appellant manifested an trigger be considered as performing a lawful act
unmistakable intent to kill the victims with due care.
when he reloaded his rifle after his first
People vs. Moreno
unsuccessful attempt to kill them. Jesus
had already sought refuge by jumping - The threat is not pf such serious character and
into the truck when another bullet hit imminence as to create in the mind of the
his right leg. Reynaldo was already defendant an uncontrollable fear that an equal
running away when he was shot on his or greater evil or injury would be inflicted upon
nape and right hand. That appellant

Lx.
him if he did not comply with the alleged order the witnesses to assess their credibility by the
to kill the deceased various indicia available but not reflected on the
record. The Court finds it hard to believe that a
People vs. Fieldad person who accidentally discovers kidnap
- The defense of uncontrollable fear is likewise victims would be held at gunpoint by the
untenable. A person invoking uncontrollable kidnappers to guard said victims; or that a
fear must show that the compulsion was such mastermind of a kidnapping syndicate, instead
that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting of conducting his fighting cock selling activities
not only without will but against his will as well. in the regular meeting place, would invite a
It is necessary that the compulsion be of such a recent affiliate to the place where he is holding
character as to leave no opportunity to escape prisoners; or that Delos Reyes did not find it
or self-defense in equal combat. unusual to see a woman with her hands tied.
- In this case, appellants had ample opportunity
to escape. In the first place, Leal was already
armed when Fieldad voluntarily followed him to
the place where the Tamaraw jeep was parked.
The vehicle stopped three times: to board
Delim; to board Chan; and when they stopped
to transfer vehicles. The circumstances under
which appellants participated in the
commission of the carnapping would not justify
in any way their claim that they acted under an
uncontrollable fear of being killed by their
fellow carnapper. Rather, the circumstances
establish the fact that appellants, in their flight
from jail, consciously concurred with the other
malefactors to take the Tamaraw jeep without
the consent of its owner.

People vs. Licayan

- Accused-appellant Delos Reyes did not refute


the testimony of private complainant Co that he
(Delos Reyes) was one of the abductors. Instead
he admitted going to the house of Pedro
Mabansag, Tata Placio and Jojo (two of the co-
accused who were not apprehended) poked a
gun at him and threatened him that they would
kill him if he reports the matter to the police.
He admitted that he saw 2 persons inside the
house near the kitchen. After he left the safe
house, Delos Reyes admitted that he no longer
felt being threatened but still he did not report
what he witnessed to the police authorities. The
Court affirmed the findings of the RTC, adding
that the testimony of Delos Reyes was self-
serving and could not stand on its own to prove
the elements of the exempting circumstances
relied upon. The Court held that a person
invoking the exempting circumstance of
compulsion due to irresistible force admits in
effect the commission of a punishable act, and
must therefore prove the exempting
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence.
The appellate court did not err when it relied on
the doctrine that the matter of assigning values
to declarations on the witness stand is best and
most competently performed by the trial judge,
who had the unmatched opportunity to observe
Lx.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai