PEOPLE VS.

LATUPAN

FACTS:

• On August 25, 1993, the Regional Trial Court, Cagayan, Branch 11, convicted Gerardo Latupan y
Sibal, alias Jerry of the complex crime of double murder and sentenced him to "life imprisonment"
and to indemnify the heirs of the two victims in the amount of fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos
each.
o also convicted him of inflicting physical injuries to Jaime Asuncion and sentenced him to "ten
days imprisonment" and to pay two hundred (P200.00) pesos as indemnity.
• The facts are as follows:
• Ceferino Dagulo was chopping firewood outside his house when he saw Gerardo Latupan y Sibal
walking in his direction, carrying a thin, bloodied knife. Accused Latupan entered the house of Ceferino
and started chasing Ceferinos wife, who was able to run to another house nearby. When he could not
reach Ceferino’s wife, the accused ran towards Ceferino.
• Emilio Asuncion found his wife’s body dead on the ground with several stab wounds. He saw his son
on top of his wife, when he picked his son up he saw that his son had a laceration on his face.
• Emilio Asuncion brought his three sons, Leo, Jaime, and Jose to Ceferino’s house
• Emilio Asuncion was able to borrow a jeep from the military camp, they drove to Nuestra Seora de
Piat Hospital. Inside the car was Ceferino, Emilio, Latupan, Leo, Jaime, and Jose.
• Jose pointed out that Latupan was the one who stabbed them. Once reaching the hospital, the doctors
advised them to bring Jose to another hospital due to the seriousness of his wounds. Unfortunately,
Jose was dead on arrival.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Latupan of the complex crime of
double murder and incorrectly assumed that the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation was included in the plea of guilty?

RULINGS:
the trial court, however, erred in convicting accused-appellant of the complex crime of double murder and
separate offenses of serious physical injuries. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "When a single
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period." The instant case does not fall under any of the two mentioned instances when a complex
crime is committed. 13 The killing of Lilia Asuncion and Jose Asuncion and the wounding of Jaime and Leo
Asuncion resulted not from a single act but from several and distinct acts of stabbing. "Where the death of
two persons does not result from a single act but from two different shots, two separate murders, and not a
complex crime, are committed." It was only for the two separate counts of murder and separate counts of
physical injuries.
PEOPLE VS LANUZA

FACTS:

• Rodel Bagaoisan Lanuza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide. The RTC,
taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and applying the
indeterminate sentence law, sentenced accused-appellant to imprisonment from four (4) years of
prision correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years of prision mayor, as maximum.
• The accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot by the
use of a 12 gauge shotgun, Joel G. Butay, performing all the acts of execution which would produce
the crime of homicide as a consequence, but which nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the accused and that is the timely medical attention extended to said Joel
G. Butay.
• Defense’ view: he only accidentally killed Butay when both of them were turning over the shotgun
from Butay to the accused, Lanuza.
• Prosecution’s view: Because the accused did not report for duty on his shift, Joel Butay had to cover
for him. While turning over said shotgun to the accused, Butay placed the shotgun , together with
one bullet, on top of the security guard’s table. Although he was turning over six bullets to the
accused, the private complainant asserted that the five others were inside a drawer on the security
guard’s table at their office upstairs.
• Butay asked Lanuza why he was not able to report to his duty and out of the blue, Lanuza got the
shotgun and shot at Butay.
• Butay crawled to his motorcycle and drove to it to the provincial hospital

ISSUES:

Whether or not the act of Lanuza qualifies as an exempting circumstance, thus his sentence should be
decreased?

RULINGS:

The Court sustains the verdict of guilt against accused-appellant. The elements of frustrated homicide are:
(1) the accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the
victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none
of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is
present.17 Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, of the means used
by the malefactors; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; the conduct of the
malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; the circumstances under
which the crime was committed; and the motive of the accused.18 These elements are extant in the case at
bar. The prosecution has satisfactorily proven that accused-appellant intended to kill private complainant
based on the method of attack, the weapon used, and the location of the gunshot wound.
TALAMPAS VS PEOPLE

FACTS:

• accused VIRGILIO TALAMPAS, with intent to kill, while conveniently armed with a short firearm and
without any justifiable cause, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and shoot one Ernesto Matic y Masinloc with the said firearm, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot
wound at the back of his body which directly caused his instantaneous death, to the damage and
prejudice of his surviving heirs.
• Prosecution witness, Jose Sevillo, was with Eduardo Matic (Eduardo) and Ernesto Matic (Ernesto) were
infront of his house, along the road repairing his tricycle when he noticed the appellant who was riding
on a bicycle passed by and stopped. The latter alighted at about three (3) meters away from him,
walked a few steps and brought out a short gun, a revolver, and poked the same to Eduardo and fired
it hitting Eduardo who took refuge behind Ernesto.
• The accused fired again three more times which caused a bullet to hit Ernesto Matic.
• Other witnesses testified including Ernesto’s eldest son and his wife. Both of them stated that they
needed support.
• Talampas interposed self-defense and accident. He insisted that his enemy had been Eduardo Matic,
not victim Ernesto Matic.

ISSUES:

Whether or not his insisting that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that the lower courts
both erred in rejecting his claim of self-defense and accidental death would stand?

RULING:

Firstly, the elements of the plea of self-defense are: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the accused in defending himself. Talampas could not relieve himself of
criminal liability by invoking accident as a defense. Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code,10 the legal
provision pertinent to accident, contemplates a situation where a person is in fact in the act of doing something
legal, exercising due care, diligence and prudence, but in the process produces harm or injury to someone or
to something not in the least in the mind of the actor. And, thirdly, the fact that the target of Talampas’ assault
was Eduardo, not Ernesto, did not excuse his hitting and killing of Ernesto. The fatal hitting of Ernesto was
the natural and direct consequence of Talampas’ felonious deadly assault against Eduardo. Nonetheless, the
Court finds the indeterminate sentence of 10 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 14 years
and eight months, as maximum, legally erroneous.