Crim Law Case Digest (Justifying - Exempting) Own
Crim Law Case Digest (Justifying - Exempting) Own
Crim Law Case Digest (Justifying - Exempting) Own
FACTS
ISSUE
RULING
WON Natividad is
exempted
from
criminal liability.
In a narrow part of a trail that was dark, after going to a wake, a man
suddenly threw his arms around her from behind, caught hold of her
breasts and kissed her, and seized her in her private parts; she
tried to free herself, but he held her and tried to throw her
down; that when she felt weak and could do nothing more
against the strength of the man, she got a knife from her
pocket, opened it, and stabbed him in defense of her honor.
Man did not say anything, she asked but he did not answer.
She cried for help but no one answered. She scarcely
recognized the face because of darkness. She desisted as
soon as he released her. (Illiterate barrio girl, unable to write her
name, 18 years old)
Avelina Jaurigue cannot endure anymore what the deceased Amado
Capina was doing to her. (Courting her and stalking) One morning,
inside a chapel, the deceased Amado noticed Avelina and went to
the bench where Avelina was sitting, he placed his hand on the
upper right thigh of the defendant and Avelina pulled with
her right hand the fan knife she always brought with her.
Amado seized her right hand but she quickly grabbed the
knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado in the left side
of his neck, 4 and a half inches deep, which was necessarily
mortal. He died a few minutes later.
WON Remedios de la
Cruz is exempted
from criminal liability.
Yes, Whether she did in fact cried for help, as claimed by her, or
failed to do so because of the suddenness with which the deceased
grabbed her and the fright that which it naturally caused, taking into
consideration the circumstances of the case, she is exempt from
criminal liability in the defense of her honor. ACQUITTED.
Mistake of fact
No, she is not exempted from criminal liability because the said
chapel was lighted with electric lights, her father is inside and there
were important people accompanying her. Under the circumstances,
there was and there could be no possibility of her being raped.
The means employed by her in defense on her honor is
evidently excessive. She committed the crime of HOMICIDE.
Arresto Mayor minimm, Prision correctional maximum.
No reasonable means employed.
Consider the location and other circumstances.
No, based on the codefendants, during the fight with the deceased
Ribis, they only beat the latter with sticks, because he unsheathed
the bolo he carried but according to the health officer and municipal
president of Laoag, the bolo worn by the deceased was in its
sheath and hanging from his waist; therefore it cant be
concluded that the deceased even intended to assault his
murderers, it is not reasonable to believe that, before falling
to the ground in a dying condition he succeeded in sheathing
his bolo.
Yes, Under Art. 8, par. 5 of the RPC any person who, in defending his
father against an unlawful attack, while he still honestly believes to
be in great danger, causes death of the attacking party, is exempt
from criminal liability. The 2 accused are exempt for criminal liability
for causing death of Santiago Abando but not for Ciriaco Abando
RECLUSION TEMPORAL.
Ty vs. People
September 27,
2004
439 SCRA 220
Tys mother and sister was confined but not at the same time. Ty
signed the the Acknowledgement of Responsibility receipt for the
admission of the patients. It amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty executed
a promissory note and post dated checks but dishonored because of
insufficiency of funds. Demand letters were sent but the obligation
remained unpaid. The defense of Ty was that she issued the checks
because of an uncontrollable fear or greater injury. She was
allegedly forced to issue the checks because the hospital would not
release her mother unless the bills were paid at debasing treatment.
People vs.
Beronilla, et al.
February 28, 1955
96 SCRA 566
Urge to kill the mambabarang because he will die if he doesnt kill the
mambabarang. He would like to go to jail rather die.
Able to social with other people.
PARRICIDE.
People vs.
Valledor
Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his parent's house in WON defendant acted while
Dolores, Ormoc. On January 16, 1932, a fiesta was being in a dream.
celebrated in the said barrio and guests were entertained in the
house, among them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. Early that
afternoon, Potenciano went to sleep and while sleeping, he
suddenly got up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon
meeting his wife who tried to stop him, wounded her in the
abdomen. He also attacked Fred and Luis and tried to
attack his father, after which, he wounded himself.
Potenciano's wife, who was 7 months pregnant at that
Juan Ragojos and Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of their
school in Sual, Pangasinan. Valentin Doquena, the accused, intercepted the ball,
and threw it a Ragojos, who was hit in the stomach. Miffed, Ragojos chased
Doquena, and upon catching him, slapped Doquena on the nape, and punched
him in the face. After doing this, Ragojos went back to Rarang to resume playing
volleyball. Insulted, Doquena looked for something to throw at Ragojos,
finding none, he got his cousin's (Romualdo Cocal) knife, and
confronted Ragojos. Ragojo's denied Doquena's request for a fight and
resumed playing. Doquena stabbed the unaware Ragojos in the chest,
thereby killing the latter. The court held that in committing the act, the
accused acted with discernment and was conscious of the nature and
consequences of his acts, therefore his defense that he was a minor
was untenable (given that the Doquena was a 7th grade pupil, one of
the brightest in his class, and was an officer in the CAT program), and
thus convicted him of the crime of homicide. The court ordered him to be sent to
the Training School for Boys until he reaches the age of majority. Thus, the
appeal by the accused, stating that to determine whether or not there was
discernment on the part of the minor, the following must be taken into
consideration:
WON
Valentin
Doquena Yes, the accused acted with discernment. Accused
mistakes the discernment for premeditation, or at
acted with discernment.
a) The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed.
b) The state of mind at the time the crime was committed
c) The time he had at his disposal
d) The degree of reasoning of the minor
Narvaez
Worcester vs.
Ocampo
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. Since the act is accordance with law, therefore no criminal liability.
2. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is no self-defense.
3. Mere push is not self-defense.
4. If you accepted a challenge against a duel, once you agreed to a fight both of them are at fault. Both are
aggressors.
5. Unlawful aggression stops, when the attacker fleds.
6. Check the place, weapon used, consider the details. All the facts matter.
7. Sufficient provocation, must be enough to stir one into a defense.
8. BWS 2 INCIDENTS OR MORE.
IMPRINTED DANGER IN THE MIND OF THE WIFE.
9. No crime committed therefore civil liability is except is state of necessity of the person benefited.