RAMONITO MANABAN VS.

COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the
THE PHILIPPINES victim. First, Bautista was shot at the back as evidenced by the point
of entry of the bullet. Second, when Bautista was shot, his gun was
G.R. No. 150723 July 11, 2006 still inside a locked holster and tucked in his right waist. Third, when
FACTS Bautista turned his back at Manaban, Manaban was already pointing
his service firearm at Bautista. These circumstances clearly belie
On October 11, 1996, at around 1:25 o’clock in the morning, Joselito Manaban’s claim of unlawful aggression on Bautista's part.
Bautista, a father and a member of the UP Police Force, took his
daughter, Frinzi, who complained of difficulty in breathing, to the Up DISPOSITION
Health Center. There, the doctors prescribed certain medicines to be WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Decision of the
purchased. Needing money therefore, Joselito Bautista, who had Court of Appeals dated 21 May 2001 and its Resolution dated 8
taken alcoholic drinks earlier, proceeded to the BPI Kalayaan Branch November 2001. We find petitioner Ramonito Manaban guilty
to withdraw some money from its Automated Teller Machine (ATM). beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide. Applying the
Upon arrival at the bank, Bautista proceeded to the ATM booth but Indeterminate Sentence Law and taking into account the mitigating
because he could not effectively withdraw money, he started kicking circumstance of voluntary surrender, Ramonito Manaban is hereby
and pounding on the machine. For said reason, the bank security sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from six years
guard, Ramonito Manaban, approached and asked him what the and one day of prision mayor as minimum to 12 years and one day
problem was. Bautista complained that his ATM was retrieved by of reclusion temporal as maximum. Ramonito Manaban is ordered
the machine and that no money came out of it. to pay the heirs of Joselito Bautista: P892,570.56 as indemnity for
loss of earning capacity; P69,500 as actual damages; and P50,000 as
After Manaban had checked the receipt, he informed Bautista that indemnity for death.
the Personal Identification Number (PIN) entered was wrong and
advised him to just return the next morning. This angered Bautista
all the more and resumed pounding on the machine. Manaban then
urged him to calm down and referred him to their customer service
over the phone. Still not mollified, Bautista continued raging and
striking the machine. When Manaban could no longer pacify him, he
fired a warning shot. That diverted the attention of Bautista. Instead
of venting his ire against the machine, he confronted Manaban.
After some exchange of words, a shot rang out fatally hitting
Bautista.

ISSUE

WoN there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.

HELD

When the accused invokes self-defense, he in effect admits killing

the victim and the burden is shifted to him to prove that he killed
the victim to save his life. The accused must establish by clear and
convincing evidence that all the requisites of self-defense are
present.

Under paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the three

requisites to prove self-defense as a justifying circumstance which
may exempt an accused from criminal liability are: (1) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the person
defending himself. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable requisite
of self- defense. Self-defense is founded on the necessity on the part
of the person being attacked to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression. Thus, without prior unlawful and unprovoked attack by
the victim, there can be no complete or incomplete self-defense.

Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault or at least a threat

to attack or inflict physical injury upon a person. A mere threatening
or intimidating attitude is not considered unlawful aggression, unless
the threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the
wrongful intent to cause injury. There must be an actual, sudden,
unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, which puts the
defendant’s life in real peril.
People vs. Alconga and Bracamonte part of the latter. Resisting the aggression, appellant managed to
have the upper hand in the fight, inflicting several wounds upon the
G.R. No. L-162, EN BANC, April 30, 1947 deceased, on account of which the latter fled in retreat. From that
FACTS moment there was no longer any danger to the life of appellant
who, being virtually unscathed, could have chosen to remain where
On the night of May 27, 1943, in the house of one Mauricio Jepes in he was. Resolving all doubts in his flavor, and considering that in the
the Municipality of San Dionisio, Province of Iloilo several persons first stage the deceased was the unlawful aggressor and defendant
were playing prohibited games. The deceased Silverio Barion was had not given sufficient provocation, and considering further that
the banker in the game of black jack, and Maria de Raposo, a when the deceased was about to deliver the third blow, appellant
witness for the prosecution, was one of those playing the game. was still in a crawling position and, on that account, could not have
effectively wielded his bolo and therefore had to use his "paltik"
Upon invitation of the said Maria de Raposo, the accused Dioscoro revolver — his only remaining weapon — ; we hold that said
Alconga joined her as a partner, each of them contributing the sum appellant was then acting in self- defense.
of P5 to a common fund. Maria de Raposo played the game while
the said accused posted himself behind the deceased, acting as a But when he pursued the deceased, he was no longer acting in self-
spotter of the cards of the latter and communicating by signs to his defense, there being then no more aggression to defend against, the
partner. The deceased appears to have suffered losses in the game same having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his
because of the team work between Maria de Raposo and the heels. During the second stage of the fight appellant inflicted many
accused Alconga. Upon discovering what the said accused had been additional wounds upon the deceased. That the deceased was not
doing, the deceased became indignant and expressed his anger at fatally wounded in the first encounter is amply shown by the fact
the former. An exchange of words followed, and the two would have that he was still able to run a distance of some 200 meters before
come to blows but for the intervention of the maintainer of the being overtaken by appellant. Under such circumstances, appellant's
games. In a fit of anger, the deceased left the house but not before plea of self-defense in the second stage of the fight cannot be
telling the accused. Alconga, "tomorrow morning I will give you a sustained. There can be no defense where there is no aggression.
breakfast", which expression would seem to signify an intent to
inflict bodily harm when uttered under such circumstances. Under the doctrine in United States vs. Vitug, supra, when the
deceased ran and fled without having inflicted so much as a scratch
The deceased and the accused Alconga did not meet thereafter until upon appellant, but after, upon the other hand, having been
the morning of May 29, 1943, when the latter was in the guardhouse wounded with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes, as
located in the barrio of Santol, performing his duties as "home aforesaid, the right of appellant to inflict injury upon him, ceased
guard”. While the said accused was seated on a bench in the absolutely — appellant "had no right to pursue, no right to kill or
guardhouse, the deceased came along and, addressing the former, injure" said deceased — for the reason that "a fleeing man is not
said, "Coroy, this is your breakfast," followed forthwith by a swing of dangerous to the one from whom he flees." If the law, as
his "pingahan". The accused avoided the blow by falling to the interpreted and applied by this Court in the Vitug case, enjoins the
ground under the bench with the intention to crawl out of the victorious contender from pursuing his opponent on the score of
guardhouse. A second blow was given but failed to hit the accused, self-defense, it is because this Court considered that the requisites
hitting the bench instead. The accused manage to go out of the of self-defense had ceased to exist, principal and indispensable
guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While the deceased was in among these being the unlawful aggression of the opponent
the act of delivering the third blow, the accused, while still in a
crawling position, fired at him with his revolver, causing him to DISPOSITION
stagger and to fall to the ground. Rising to his feet, the deceased As thus modified, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
drew forth his dagger and directed a blow at the accused who, So ordered.
however, was able to parry the same with his bolo. A hand-to-hand
fight ensued. Having sustained several wounds, the deceased ran
away but was followed by the accused. After running a distance of
about 200 meters, the deceased was overtaken, and another fight
took place, during which the mortal bolo blow — the one which
slashed the cranium — was delivered, causing the deceased to fall to
the ground, face downward, besides many other blows deliver right
and left. At this instant, the other accused, Adolfo Bracamonte,
arrived and, being the leader of the "home guards" of San Dionisio,
placed under his custody the accused Alconga with a view to turning
him over to the proper authorities.

ISSUE

WoN self-defence can be used as a defence by Alconga.

HELD

It will be observed that there were two stages in the fight between
appellant and the deceased. The initial stage commenced when the
deceased assaulted appellant without sufficient provocation on the
People vs. Genosa appellant and her intimate partner; (b) the final acute battering
episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in
419 SCRA 537 the battered persons mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from
FACTS her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in
order to save her life; and (c) at the time of the killing, the batterer
On November 15, 1995, Marivic Genosa, herein appellant, attacked must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual –
and wounded his husband which led to his death. According to the grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence
Genosa, there was no provocation on her part when she arrived perpetrated by the former against the latter. Under the existing facts
home that night and it all came from her husband. Frightened that of the case, however, not all of these were duly established.
her husband would hurt her, and that she would fail to deliver her
baby, she attacked her husband by shooting him with a gun while he DISPOSITION
was asleep. WHEREFORE, the conviction of Appellant Marivic Genosa for
The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to parricide is hereby AFFIRMED. However, there being two (2)
leave her husband at least five times, but that Ben would always mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance attending
follow her and they would reconcile. The appellant said that the her commission of the offense, her penalty is REDUCED to six (6)
reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum; to 14 years, 8
because he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
appellant, after being interviewed by specialist, has been shown to
be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a
plea of self-defense admitted the killing of her husband. She was
found guilty of the crime of parricide, with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while
asleep.

ISSUE

WoN appellant acted in self-defense.

HELD

In claiming self-defense, appellant raises the novel theory of the

battered woman syndrome. While new in Philippine jurisprudence,
the concept has been recognized in foreign jurisdictions as a form of
self-defense or, at the least, incomplete self-defense. By
appreciating evidence that a victim or defendant is afflicted with the
syndrome, foreign courts convey their "understanding of the
justifiably fearful state of mind of a person who has been cyclically
abused and controlled over a period of time.”

A battered woman has been defined as a woman "who is repeatedly

subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a
man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do
without concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or
women in any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore,
in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go
through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find
herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a
second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a
battered woman."

The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the "cycle of
violence" supposedly characterizing the relationship of Ben and
Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents. In
relating to the court a quo how the fatal incident that led to the
death of Ben started, Marivic perfectly described the tension-
building phase of the cycle. She was able to explain in adequate
detail the typical characteristics of this stage. However, that single
incident does not prove the existence of the syndrome. In other
words, she failed to prove that in at least another battering episode
in the past, she had gone through a similar pattern.

(a) each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to

have characterized at least two battering episodes between the
Nacnac vs. People Even if We were to disbelieve the claim that the victim pointed his
firearm at petitioner, there would still be a finding of unlawful
G.R. No. 191913 March 21, 2012 aggression on the part of the victim.
FACTS DISPOSITION
SPO2 Lolito I. Nacnac, a member of the Philippine National Police, WHEREFORE, petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED.
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent The CA Decision dated July 20, 2009 in CAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 30907 is
to kill, shoot one SPO1 Doddie Espejo with a gun resulting into the REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner SPO2 Lolito T. Nacnac is
latter’s death. A reverse trial ensued upon the claim of self-defense ACQUITTED of homicide on reasonable doubt.
by the accused. The victim, SPO1 Doddie Espejo had a history of
violent aggression and drunkenness. He once attacked a former
superior, P/Insp. Laurel Gayya, for no apparent reason. On the day
of his death, he visited a cock house for merriment. He was shot by
accused-appellant [petitioner].

On February 2003, the victim took the patrol tricycle from the
station grounds without finishing his duty but was stopped by the
accused. The victim told the accused that he needed it go to Laoag
to settle a previous disagreement with a security of a local bar but
the accused still refused because the accused was drunk. This was
not received well by the victim who drew his .45 caliber gun. The
accused then fired a warning shot but the victim, undaunted, still
drew his which made the accused shoot the victim on the head. RTC
found him guilty, so did the CA. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. WoN the accused is guilty of the crime charged.

HELD

1. No. ART. 11. Justifying circumstances.–– The following do not

incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that

the following circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or

repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself.

Ordinarily, as pointed out by the lower court, there is a difference

between the act of drawing one’s gun and the act of pointing one’s
gun at a target. The former cannot be said to be unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim. In People v. Borreros, We ruled that "for
unlawful aggression to be attendant, there must be a real danger to
life or personal safety. Unlawful aggression requires an actual,
sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude x x x. Here, the act of
the [deceased] of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be
categorized as unlawful aggression. Such act did not put in real peril
the life or personal safety of appellant."

The facts surrounding the instant case must, however, be

differentiated from current jurisprudence on unlawful aggression.
The victim here was a trained police officer. He was inebriated and
had disobeyed a lawful order in order to settle a score with someone
using a police vehicle. A warning shot fired by a fellow police officer,
his superior, was left unheeded as he reached for his own firearm
and pointed it at petitioner. Petitioner was, therefore, justified in
defending himself from an inebriated and disobedient colleague.
Senoja vs. People Third. The petitioner threw away his knife and failed to surrender it
to the policemen; neither did he inform the policemen that he killed
G.R. No. 160341. October 19, 2004 the victim in self-defense.
FACTS Fourth. The petitioner’s version of the events that transpired
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court immediately before he stabbed the victim does not inspire belief. He
of Appels affirming with modification the Decision of the RTC for claims that when he saw the victim emerged from the hut, the
homicide. victim walked towards the petitioner saying, "Kung hindi lang kita
inaanak," but hit and hacked the latter on the left buttock. As
Petitioner Exequiel Senoja, Fidel Senoja, Jose Calica, and Miguel gleaned from his statement, the victim was not disposed, much less
Lumasac were drinking gin in the hut of Crisanto Reguyal in determined to assault the petitioner.
Barangay Zarah, San Luis, Aurora. An angry Leon Lumasac suddenly
arrived at the said place, holding a bolo in his right hand and looking Fifth. According to the petitioner, the victim warned him three times
for his brother Miguel. Not finding him, the victim hacked the wall in before leaving the hut, "May mangyayari sa iyo, kung hindi ngayon,
anger. Petitioner and Jose tried to pacify Leon. But when petitioner bukas." The petitioner testified that shortly before the victim uttered
approached Leon, the latter tried to hack him so he embraced Leon these words, the latter even touched the blade of the bolo to see if
and Jose took Leon’s bolo. Subsequently, Leon walked out of it was sharp. The petitioner was, thus, aware of the peril to his life if
Crisanto’s hut followed by petitioner. Suddenly, about ten meters he followed the victim. The petitioner, nevertheless, followed the
from the hut, petitioner stabbed Leon at the back. When Leon victim instead of waiting until after the victim had already gone.
turned around, petitioner continued stabbing him until he fell to the Sixth. The petitioner presented his brother-in-law Ruben Dulay to
ground. Then, petitioner ran towards the barangay road and threw corroborate his testimony that the victim stabbed the petitioner and
away the "kolonial" knife he used in stabbing Leon. The latter died that this impelled the latter to stab the former. But the testimony of
on the spot. Dulay contradicted the testimony of the petitioner.
According to the accused, Leon suddenly arrived with a bolo. Senoja Seventh. The bare fact that the petitioner sustained a five-
tried to pacify the victim but the latter was angered and tried to centimeter wound at the left temporal region and an eight-
hack the accused. Senoja was able to pacify him but after a while, centimeter hack wound on the anterior portion of his right thigh
victim left but returned and demanded for his bolo. Jose Calica gave does not preclude the fact that he was the unlawful aggressor; nor
his own bolo. Not long after, Leon left but not without saying to the buttress his plea that he acted in self-defense. The petitioner failed
petitioner three times that, “May mangyayari sa iyo, kung hindi to inform the doctor that he sustained the wounds to defend
ngayon, bukas.” The accused followed the victim. The victim turned himself. If, as claimed by the petitioner, the victim stabbed him
around and told the petitioner, “Kung hindi lang kita inaanak,” and frontally, it is incredible that the victim was able to hack the anterior
suddenly hacked him at the left side of his head and right thigh. part of his right thigh.
Unable to evade the attack, the accused stabbed Leon in self-
defense. Eighth. The testimony of the petitioner that the victim stabbed him
outside the hut on the left side of his head and the anterior portion
ISSUE of his right thigh is belied by his testimony on direct examination
1. WoN the accused is guilty. that the victim stabbed him while still inside the hut of Reguya.

2. WoN the victim is still the unlawful aggressor in the second case. 2. No. It is the well-considered finding of this Court that while Leon
Lumasac had ceased being the aggressor after he left the hut to go
HELD home, accused Exequiel Senoja was now the unlawful aggressor in
this second phase of their confrontation. It bears mentioning that
1. Yes. The trial and the appellate courts gave no credence and appellant contradicted himself with respect to the reason why he
probative weight to the testimony of the petitioner. So do we. left the hut. First, it was to pacify Leon and the second reason was
that he was going home.
First. The findings of fact of the trial court and its conclusions based
on the said findings are accorded by this Court high respect, if not DISPOSITION
conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the CA. This is
because of the unique advantage of the trial court of having been IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED. The
able to observe, at close range, the demeanor and behavior of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
witnesses as they testify. This rule, however, is inapplicable if the
trial court ignored, overlooked, or misinterpreted cogent facts and
circumstances which, if considered, will alter or reverse the outcome
of the case. We have reviewed the records and found no justification
for a reversal of the findings of the trial court and its conclusions
based thereon.

Second. The victim sustained six hack wounds and one lacerated
wound. Considering the number, nature and location of the wounds
sustained by the victim, the petitioner’s plea of self-defense is
incredible.
People vs Razon Without scrutinizing Razon's assertion that he was held up, and
assuming the same to be true, there was, indeed unlawful
G.R. NO. 158053 June 21, 2007 aggression when Gonzalo poked a knife on Razon's neck. But, when
FACTS Razon, in a Herculean feat, was able to grab the knife from Gonzalo
and freed his right hand from the hold of Gonzalo's two companions,
This Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal the aggression no longer existed. In fact, Gonzalo's two companions,
of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Resolution which denied petitioner's went out of the taxicab and Gonzalo himself went out also towards
motion for reconsideration. He was found guilty of homicide. the canal of the road. At this point, Razon could have started his
taxicab and left the place because he was left alone in the taxicab.
PO1 Chopchopen was walking towards Upper Pinget Baguio City But he did not. He went after Gonzalo and his two companions and
when a taxicab driven by Edwin Razon stopped beside him. Razon started swinging the knife he grabbed from Gonzalo. He even had
told Chopchopen that he was held up by three men at Dreamland time to go back to the taxicab and get his own knife and then went
Subdivision. Chopchopen then asked Razon to go with him to the back to the three men. He then was holding two knives. There was
place of the incident to check if the persons who held him up were no proof that Gonzalo's companions were able to throw stones at
still there. Razon was hesitant but went with Chopchopen. While him or the taxicab to indicate perhaps, that his three passengers
walking, Chopchopen noticed a person lying on the ground and who intended to hold him up continued their unlawful aggression.
partially hidden by a big stone. He saw that the person's shirt was When Gonzalo and his two companions went out of the taxicab, and
soaked in blood and that he was hardly breathing. Lying beside the Razon followed them outside, Razon became the aggressor. The
man was a wooden cane. Chopchopen and Razon brought the wounds sustained by Gonzalo would clearly show that he was
person to the hospital. On the way, Chopchopen asked Razon if he attacked by Razon. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In
was the one who stabbed the victim. Razon denied. The victim, who retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party
was later identified as Benedict Kent Gonzalo (Gonzalo), was already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense
pronounced dead on arrival. He was 23 years old and a polio victim. the aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured by
the accused. Even assuming that some danger did in fact exist, the
Upon questioning, Razon told SPO2 Bumangil that he was held up by
imminence of that danger had already ceased the moment
three men, which included Gonzalo whom he stabbed in self-
petitioner was able to disarm the victim by wresting the knife from
defense. Razon brought out a fan knife and told Bumangil that it was
the latter.
the knife he used to stab Gonzalo. A later search of the cab however
yielded a colonial knife with bloodstains which was found under a The defense employed by petitioner also cannot be said to be
newspaper near the steering wheel. reasonable. The means employed by a person claiming self-defense
must be commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack
Razon claimed that three men boarded his cab from the Philippine
sought to be averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent or
Rabbit bus station along Magsaysay Avenue who asked to be
repel an unlawful aggression. The nature or quality of the weapon;
brought to Dreamland Subdivision in Pinget for the sum of ₱90.00.
the physical condition, the character, the size and other
Upon reaching their destination, Gonzalo, who was seated behind
circumstances of the aggressor as well as those of the person who
the driver's seat, declared a hold-up and poked a Batangas knife at
invokes self-defense; and the place and the occasion of the assault
the right side of Razon's neck. The two other passengers were
also define the reasonableness of the means used in self-defense. In
shocked but Gonzalo told them to get their knives, stab Razon, and
this case, the deceased was a polio victim, which explains the
grab his right hand. Razon was able to grab the knife and release his
presence of the wooden cane at the scene of the crime. Petitioner
right hand from Gonzalo's two companions. Gonzalo and his
also admitted that when he went after Gonzalo, he had in his
companions then went out of the cab to get stones. Razon ran after
possession two knives, the Batangas knife he wrested from the hold-
them. Gonzalo was swinging his cane and it hit Razon on his right
uppers and the colonial knife which he took from his cab.
leg. Razon then went to get his knife and confronted the three by
swinging his knife from left to right. Gonzalo's companions ran away DISPOSITION
and Razon left with the victim suffering from 3 stab wounds.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60,
The RTC found him guilty of homicide. He appealed to the CA but Baguio City, in Criminal Case No. 12245-R, entitled "People of the
failed to file the required brief despite a notice to show cause. Thus, Philippines v. Edwin Razon y Lucea" is AFFIRMED with
the CA dismissed the appeal. Razon filed a Motion for MODIFICATION to the effect that petitioner is ordered to pay the
Reconsideration stating that he could not understand English and heirs of Benedict Kent Gonzalo, Jr. the amount of ₱50,000.00 as civil
that his lawyer was negligent. The CA, however, found that the indemnity and ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages in addition to
appellant was negligent as well. ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱10,000.00 as attorney's fees.
ISSUE

1. WoN petitioner acted in self-defense.

HELD

1. No. It is settled that when an accused admits killing the victim but
invokes self-defense to escape criminal liability, the accused
assumes the burden to establish his plea by credible, clear and
convincing evidence; otherwise, conviction would follow from his
admission that he killed the victim.
People vs Luague and Alcansare that she knew where to go in a difficulty. Were it true that the
accused husband, prompted by jealousy, designed to do away with
G.R. No. L-43588 November 7, 1935 Paulino, it would have been because he observed that his wife
FACTS somehow returned Paulino's attentions, for otherwise he would not
have indulge in tragic cogitations. Under the theory of the
The spouses Wenceslao Alcansare and Natividad Luague having prosecution, whether the accused husband doubted his wife's
been charged with homicide in the CFI appealed to this court. fidelity or was sure of it, in connection with Paulino's attentions, the
natural thing in either case would be for him, unaided by his wife, to
While the accused Luague was in her house with only her three avenge the affront or punish the offender. The witness Alvarez,
children of tender age for company, her husband and co-accused himself testified that he was informed the day before by the wife of
Alcansare having gone to grind corn in Juan Garing's house, Paulino the accused husband that the latter would get even with Paulino at
Disuasido came and began to make love to her; that as Natividad the first opportunity. Rather than foil it, as an agent of the law, if for
could not dissuade him, she started for the kitchen where Paulino no other reason, he went his way unconcerned, as if nothing serious
followed her, for Paulino, bent on satisfying his lust, drew and was impending.
opened a knife and, threatening her with death, began to embrace
her and to touch her breasts; that in preparing to lie with her, Angel Emia, the other government witness who testified at the trial
Paulino had to leave the knife on the floor and the accused, taking that he saw the crime attributed to the two accused by the
advantage of the situation, picked up the weapon and stabbed him prosecution, made a previous statement wherein he disclaimed
in the abdomen; and that Paulino ran away jumping through the knowledge of who had stabbed Paulino. Required to explain the
window and falling on some stones, while the accused set forth contradiction, he bungled in his attempt. The trial judge erred in
immediately for the poblacion to surrender herself to the authorities giving him credit. Olimpio Libosada, another government witness,
and report the incident. likewise affirmed that he had seen all that bad transpired, claiming
that he then accompanied Paulino, It seem strange, however, that in
The theory the prosecution, which we consider a trifle unsubstantial the two statements made by Paulino before his death he did not
is as follows: The accused Wenceslao Alcansare decided to get rid of state that he was accompanied by Libosada or by any other person
him. His chance to bring about his plan presented itself when, in the in the morning of the crime. It likewise happens that the conduct of
morning of the crime, Paulino happened to pass in front of the this witness, according to his own testimony, appears to be
house of the spouses with his friend Olimpio Libosada. The accused inconsistent because he did nothing to defend and help Paulino, his
wife invited Paulino to drop in, which the latter and his friend did. friend and companion, in that most critical moment, and did not
The accused wife asked Paulino whether he had a knife and when report the crime to the authorities, disappearing from the scene all
the latter said yes, she asked him to lend it to her because she of a sudden with a very frivolous excuse that "he was afraid to be
wanted to cut her nails, to which Paulino willingly acceded. While implicated".
the accused wife was cutting her nails, she asked Paulino where he
came from and the latter answered, turning his head around, that he DISPOSITION
came from the house of one Inting, whereupon the accused wife
slashed him in the abdomen. Paulino tried to return the blow but In resume, we are of the opinion that we should, as we do hereby
the accused husband picked up a stone and struck him in the hold that the accused Natividad Luague in wounding Paulino
forehead. Wounded in the abdomen and in the forehead, Paulino Disuasido to death, acted in legitimate self-defense, and that the
fled. other accused Wenceslao Alcansare had no participation in said act;
wherefore, reversing the appealed judgment, we hereby acquit both
The government presented three witnesses to establish this theory. accused, and order their immediate release, if in confinement, with
Pablo Alvarez, barrio lieutenant of Cabuñgahan, testified that on his costs de oficio.
way to "communal" the day before the crime, he met the accused
wife who told him that she had wanted to see him and ask his help
because her husband, who was jealous of Paulino, was maltreating
her and he was furthermore resolved to assault Paulino at sight. The
next, Alvarez went to the house of the accused to inquire about
tobacco seeds when he noticed Paulino and Olimpio arriving even
before leaving the place.

ISSUE

1. WoN the accused acted in self-defense.

HELD

1. Yes. With regard to the testimony of Alvarez. The accused were

from the barrio of Agpañgi and not from Cabuñgahan where the
witness was the barrio lieutenant. Had the accused wife gone to
complain against the alleged conduct of her husband, she would
have sought the lieutenant of Agpañgi, her barrio. The accused wife,
by reporting the incident directly to the municipal authorities
without seeking the intervention of any barrio lieutenant, showed
People vs. Remedios de la Cruz she had desired. In other words, she desisted as soon as he released
her.
G.R. No. L-41674 March 30, 1935
We cannot believe the testimony of Enrique Bautista, because
FACTS Francisco Ramos, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, testified
This is an appeal from the CFI of Nueva Ecija, finding the defendant that it was a dark night, and Bautista himself said that he could
guilty of homicide. scarcely see anyone in the darkness; that he did not see any of the
companions of the defendant.
Francisco Ramos and his wife, Brigida Vistada; his sister, Baltazara
Ramos; and a woman named Consuelo or Natividad Santoyo called We are convinced from a study of the record that the deceased did
at the house of the defendant and asked her to go with them to a in fact grab hold of the defendant on the night in question, and
wake in honor of one Sion, who had died in the house of Maria whether he intended to rape her or not, taking into consideration
Inguit. About nine o'clock the defendant and her friends started that it was a dark night and that the deceased grabbed her from
home. They were followed about five minutes later by the deceased behind without warning and without making himself known and
Francisco Rivera, who had been playing cards in the house where refused to say who he was, and in the struggle that followed
the wake was held. Rivera and Bautista overtook defendant's party. touched her private parts, and the fact that she was unable to free
When they reached a narrow part of the path, Rivera went ahead of herself by means of her strength alone, we are of the opinion that
Bautista. At that time the members of the defendant's party were she was justified in making use of the pocket-knife in repelling what
walking in single file. Baltazara Ramos was in the lead and the she believed to be an attack upon her honor, since she had no other
defendant was the hindmost. She was about two brazas from the means of defending herself.
person immediately ahead of her. Francisco Ramos, the only one of The appellant claims to have cried for help, but so far as the record
defendant's companions that was called to testify, heard someone shows her cries were not heard by any of her companions. Whether
cry out "Aruy, Dios mio". He went back and found that Francisco she did in fact cry for help, as claimed by her, or failed to do so
Rivera had been stabbed under the right breast. The wounded man because of the suddenness with which the deceased grabbed her
was taken to the hospital, where he died the next afternoon. and the fright which it naturally caused, taking into consideration
Francisco Ramos testified that it took him about two minutes to go the circumstances of the case, we still think she is exempt from
back to the place where Francisco Rivera was. He found and that criminal liability.
Enrique Bautista was with the wounded man, and the defendant had DISPOSITION
started back towards the house of mourning. He overtook her. She
had a knife in her hand. When they reached the house of Maria For the foregoing reasons, the decision appealed from is reversed,
Inguit, Remedios de la Cruz stuck the knife into a table and said that and the appellant is acquitted, with the costs de oficio.
she stabbed Francisco Rivera because he embraced her.

The defendant on the other hand testified that after they had passed
a fork in the trail and reached a narrow part 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; that 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. She further testified that the man who
attacked her did not say anything; that when she was face to face
with her assailant during the struggle, she could scarcely recognize
his face in the darkness and could not be sure that it was Francisco
Rivera. She further testified that she was engaged in selling fruit, and
that the fan-knife in question was in a pocket of the overcoat she
was wearing that day

ISSUE

1. WoN defendant is not criminally liable.

HELD

1. Yes. It appears from the evidence that the deceased had been
making love to the defendant, and also to another girl named
Felicisima Sincaban; but the finding of the trial judge that Francisco
Rivera and the defendant were engaged, that she was madly in love
with him and was extremely jealous of Felicisima Sincaban is not
sustained by the evidence of record. The appellant stabbed the
deceased only once, although she retained possession of the knife,
and undoubtedly could have inflicted other wounds o n him if
People vs Jaurigue HELD

C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946 1. No. In the instant case, if defendant and appellant had killed
Amado Capina, when the latter climbed up her house late at night
FACTS on September 15, 1942, and surreptitiously entered her bedroom,
Nicolas Jaurigue and Avelina Jaurigue were prosecuted in the Court undoubtedly for the purpose of raping her, as indicated by his
of First Instance of Tayabas, for the crime of murder, of which previous acts and conduct, instead of merely shouting for help, she
Nicolas Jaurigue was acquitted, but defendant Avelina Jaurigue was could have been perfectly justified in killing him, as shown by the
found guilty of homicide. Avelina Jaurigue appealed to the Court of authorities cited above.
Appeals. When the deceased sat by the side of defendant and appellant on
On Sept., 13, 1942, while Avelina was feeding a dog under her the same bench, near the door of the barrio chapel and placed his
house, Amado approached her and spoke to her of his love, which hand on the upper portion of her right thigh, without her consent,
she flatly refused, and he suddenly kissed her and touched her the said chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there were
breasts. Avelina, slapped Amado, punched and kicked him. She kept already several people, about ten of them, inside the chapel,
the matter to herself, until the following morning when she including her own father and the barrio lieutenant and other
informed her mother about it. Since then, she armed herself with a dignitaries of the organization; and under the circumstances, there
long fan knife, whenever she went out for self-protection. was and there could be no possibility of her being raped. And when
she gave Amado Capina a thrust at the base of the left side of his
On Sept. 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed up the house of neck, inflicting upon him a mortal wound 4 1/2 inches deep, causing
defendant and appellant, and surreptitiously entered the room his death a few moments later, the means employed by her in the
where she was sleeping. He felt her forehead, evidently with the defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and under the facts
intention of abusing her. She immediately screamed for help, which and circumstances of the case, she cannot be legally declared
awakened her parents and brought them to her side. Amado came completely exempt from criminal liability.
out from where he had hidden under a bed in Avelina's room and
kissed the hand of Nicolas Jaurigue, asking for forgiveness; and when But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and
Avelina's mother made an attempt to beat Amado, her husband voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to the barrio lieutenant
prevented her from doing so. Nicolas Jaurigue sent for the barrio in said chapel, admitting having stabbed the deceased, immediately
lieutenant, Casimiro Lozada, and for Amado's parents, the following after the incident, and agreed to go to her house shortly thereafter
morning. Amado's parents came to the house of Nicolas Jaurigue and to remain there subject to the order of the said barrio
and apologized for the misconduct of their son. lieutenant, an agent of the authorities; and the further fact that she
had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
In the morning of September 20, 1942, Avelina received information committed against her a few moments before, and upon such
that Amado had been falsely boasting in the neighborhood of having provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation, or temporary
taken liberties with her person and that she had even asked him to loss of reason and self-control, should be considered as mitigating
elope with her and that if he should not marry her, she would take circumstances in her favor.
poison. On the same day, Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel and
sat on the bench next to the last one nearest the door. Amado The claim of the prosecution, sustained by the learned trial court,
Capina was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon observing that the offense was committed by the defendant and appellant,
the presence of Avelina Jaurigue, Amado Capina went to the bench with the aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a
on which Avelina was sitting and sat by her right side and placed his place dedicated to religious worship, cannot be legally sustained; as
hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Avelina Jaurigue then there is no evidence to show that the defendant and appellant had
pulled out with her right hand the fan knife marked Exhibit B, which murder in her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal night.
she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of punishing Avelina is not a criminal by nature. She happened to kill under the
Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she greatest provocation.
quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado DISPOSITION
once at the base of the left side of the neck which was necessarily
mortal. In the mind of the court, there is not the least doubt that, in
stabbing to death the deceased Amado Capina, in the manner and
Fearing that Amado's relatives might retaliate, barrio lieutenant form and under the circumstances above indicated, the defendant
Lozada advised Nicolas Jaurigue and herein defendant and appellant and appellant committed the crime of homicide, with no aggravating
to go home immediately, to close their doors and windows and not circumstance whatsoever, but with at least three mitigating
to admit anybody into the house, unless accompanied by him. That circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in her favor;
father and daughter went home and locked themselves up, and, in accordance with the provisions of article 69 of the Revised
following instructions of the barrio lieutenant, and waited for the Penal Code, she is entitled to a reduction by one or two degrees in
arrival of the municipal authorities; and when three policemen the penalty to be imposed upon her. And considering the
arrived in their house, at about 10 o'clock that night, and questioned circumstances of the instant case, the defendant and appellant
them about the incident, defendant and appellant immediately should be accorded the most liberal consideration possible under
surrendered the knife. the law.
ISSUE

1. WoN the killing of the victim is justified..

Oriente vs People Fearing that Cariño will shoot them if they would go after him,
Oriente told the Tanods that they will just attend to him the
G.R. No. 155094 January 30, 2007 following day. Oriente further testified that he had no intention of
FACTS killing Cariño and that his purpose was only to disarm him.

This is petition for review of the CA decision which affirmed the The RTC found Oriente guilty of Homicide with two mitigating
ruling of the RTC, charging the petitioner with the crime of murder. circumstances of lack of intent to commit a crime and sufficient
provocation. However, before the judgment became final and
Arnel Tanael was on his way to the house of Romulo Cariño y Vallo. executory, the RTC issued an order motu propio setting the
He passed in front of the house of Manuel Oriente and saw the judgment aside and found Orient guilty of the same crime with 2
latter and his companions having a drinking spree at the terrace of mitigating circumstances but was sentenced to suffer 4 years to 8
the petitioner’s house. He arrived at Romulo’s house where the years instead of the initial 6 months to 4 years. The RTC found that
latter was drinking beer alone. Thereafter, Romulo went out of the the testimonies of the defense witnesses, including the petitioner,
house to buy cigarette. While watching television in the house of are incredible; that the victim suffered extensive head injuries; that
Romulo, Arnel Tanael heard two gunshots. Hence, he rushed outside the defense failed to show any imminent threat or danger to the life
the house to check on what the gunshots were all about. of the accused. The petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed
the decision of the RTC with a modification of a prison term of 6
Peeping through potted plants, he saw Romulo Cariño, Manuel years – 12 years. According to the CA, the extensive nature of the
Oriente, the latter’s daughter Marilou Lopez and the latter’s injuries as stated in the post-mortem findings negates the
husband, Paul Lopez and one Rogelio Gascon arguing along the alley contention of the petitioner that he had no intention of killing the
beside the concrete fence in front of Manuel Oriente’s house where victim because his purpose was only to disarm him; and the
there was a lighted fluorescent light. He heard Paul Lopez telling provocation, if any, done by the victim was not immediate to the act
Romulo Cariño, "Ikaw Cariño, and liit-liit mo, and yabang mo!" Then of petitioner’s beating the victim, since a certain Paul Lopez had
Arnel Tanael saw Marilou coming out from their house with a lead already previously assaulted the victim, and, moreover, there was a
pipe and handed it over to Paul. Paul then hit Romulo with a lead sufficient interval of time between the provocation of the offended
pipe at his right arm. Accused-appellant got the lead pipe from Paul party and the commission of the crime by the petitioner.
and hit Romulo on his left eyebrow. Romulo reeled and fell down.
Upon seeing Romulo fall down, Arnel got confused, hence, he went ISSUE
back inside the house and switched off the light and turned the
television off. He went outside again and saw Romulo moaning. At 1. WoN the requisites for a valid self-defense were sufficiently met.
this point, Paul Lopez was already poking a gun at Romulo, then HELD
pulled the trigger twice but the gun did not fire. Arnel then shouted,
"Putang ina ninyo, bakit niyo ginagawa iyan sa bayaw ko, bakit ninyo 1. No. The testimonies of the defense witnesses, including the
ginaganito siya, ano ba ang kasalanan niya sa inyo." Oriente and his accused, that Cariño threatened the persons gathered in front of
company did not say anything. Arnel carried Romulo and brought Oriente’s house with a gun is quite difficult to believe in view of the
the latter inside the house. He called up Mario at the Panabuilt admissions of the same defense witnesses, including the accused,
Transport office to get a cab. When the cab arrived, Romulo Cariño that Cariño was able to get up from the ground after being hit and
was brought by Arnel to the East Avenue Medical Center where ran away with gun in hand. A person who was already threatening to
Romulo, two hours after, passed away. kill with a gun and who was then hit with a piece of wood in a
serious manner, can be reasonably expected to make use thereof.
The defense gave the following version: Here, the defense makes a rather unusual claim that Cariño simply
Manuel Oriente was fetched by Tanod members in their area to ran away and did not use the gun he was holding while running.
attend a wake. While he was on his way out of the house, he saw Moreover, considering the extensive injuries suffered by Cariño –
spouses Paul and Malou and his granddaughter inside the car going several contusions on the face and head fractures – it is doubtful
out of the garage. The three went to visit Malou’s in-laws. At the that a person in that condition, aggravated by what the defense
gate of his house, while having a conversation with the Tanod claimed to be Cariño’s state of stupor (drunk and "pasuray-suray"),
members who fetched him, they heard two gunshots coming from could still run, much less hold a handgun while running.
downhill. They noticed that the person who fired the shots was
walking towards them. They waited for him to pass by. This person Their version is that Cariño, after he was hit with the lead pipe, fell
was Romulo Cariño. When the latter reached a store, which is a on the ground still holding a gun. Thereafter, he just stood up and
fence away from Oriente’s house, the latter asked Romulo what was ran away. It is surprising, however, why these Tanod members
his problem. Suddenly, Cariño extended his arms and poked his gun including accused-appellant did not wrestle for the gun when they
to Oriente and his companions. Romulo told them not to get near had all the opportunities to do so when Cariño fell down, if there
him or he will shoot and kill all of them. Surprised by the victim’s was indeed a threat to their life and limb. And letting an armed man
response and for fear of being shot, Oriente stepped back towards go would not be the normal reaction of persons in charge of peace
his yard and was able to take hold of a piece of wood and hit and order in the community, especially if the armed man had
Romulo. Oriente mentioned that he does not know if he hit Cariño’s previously threatened to shoot them. The only logical conclusion is
hands, eyebrow and other parts of his body with that single blow that Cariño was not a threat to them and to their community, for as
but he saw Romulo Cariño lose his balance, fall and hit his head on accused-appellant testified, "they will just deal with him the
the ground. The victim was still holding the gun. After five seconds, following day."
Romulo Cariño stood up and ran towards the direction of his house.
[C]onsidering the extensive injuries suffered by the victim – several
contusions on the face and head fractures – it is doubtful that a
person in that condition, aggravated by what the defense claimed to
be Cariño’s state of stupor (drunk and "pasuray-suray"), could still PEOPLE VS. APOLINAR
run, much less hold a handgun while running.
No. 1744 July 19, 1938
The brute force employed by the petitioner contradicts the claim
that he had no intention to kill the victim. The mitigating FACTS
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts Anastacio Apolinar alias Atong was at that time the occupant of a
employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and parcel of land owned by Joaquin Gonzales in Umingan, Pangasinan.
did actually produce the death of the victim. Armed with a shotgun, Atong was looking over said land when he
observed that there was a man carrying a bundle on his shoulder.
On the second circumstance, the RTC pointed to the fact that the Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the defendant called his
incident was preceded by an intense argument between the victim attention but he ignored him. Thereafter, the defendant fired in the
and the accused so as to qualify the situation as a mitigating air and then at the person, who however managed to flee, The
circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the person, who would later be identified as Domingo Petras, was able
offended party which immediately preceded the act. The fact that a to get back to his house and consequently narrated to Angel
heated or intense argument preceded the incident is not by itself Natividad, the barrio chief, that he had been wounded in the back by
the sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party as a shotgun for getting palay from the part of the land tilled by the
contemplated by law. Moreover, petitioner failed to establish by appellant Atong He then showed the two wounds.
competent evidence that the victim had a gun and used it to
threaten petitioner. The defendant surrendered to the authorities immediately after the
incident and gave his sworn statement. The defendant said nothing
With respect to the other aggravating circumstances of treachery, regarding any aggression (earlier) committed or attempted by said
evident premeditation, and grave abuse of superior strength, the man toward the barrio chief Bonifacio Mendones, which aggression
Court likewise agrees with the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the is now the basis of his defense before the Court of First Instance of
CA, that none of these circumstances are present for lack of Pangasinan when this issue was raised. Said defense, therefore, is
evidence. untenable. Moreover, according to the defendant and his witnesses,
the aggression against Mendones was carried out by said Petras with
DISPOSITON a bolo. In the present case, no bolo has been presented before the
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Court.
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with ISSUE
MODIFICATION. The petitioner is found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of Homicide and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of an 1. WoN defendant should be acquitted.
indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one HELD
(1) day, as maximum. The petitioner is further ordered to pay the
1. No. Evidence shows that upon getting seriously wounded, he was
heirs of the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as death indemnity
carrying the sack of palay on his arms coming from the land tilled by
and P41,500.00 as actual damages.
the defendant. However, this is not sufficient for the defendant to
be justified in shooting the deceased. The right to property is not of
such importance as right to life, and defense of property can be
invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an
attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.

DISPOSITION

Although legitimate defense cannot be appreciated in favor of the

defendant in the case at bar, the extenuating circumstances of
obfuscation can nonetheless be considered in his favor and that of
voluntary surrender to the authorities. The presence of these two
circumstances without any aggravating circumstance reduces the
sentence to the next lower penalty for the sentenced crime, i.e.
prision mayor, pursuant to the provisions of par 5 of Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code. Considering the facts of the case, we decide
that judgment must be modified. We believe that it must be
modified by imposing on the defendant and appellant an
Indeterminate Penalty with a minimum of 2 years of prision
correccional and a maximum of 8 years and one day of prision
mayor. With this modification, we affirm all other respects of the
appealed decision with costs against appellant.
US vs. Bumanglag People vs. Narvaez

G.R. No. L-5318 December 23, 1909 G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 April 20, 1983

FACTS FACTS

Rafael Bumanglag noticed that 40 bundles of palay kept in his Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted by the CFI of murder,
granary were missing. Upon searching for the missing palay, he qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of evident
found them in an enclosure filed with sugar cane. To ascertain who premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
had done it, he left the palay there and waited near the field with surrender, of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22,
Ribao and Bundoc to see if the person who stole the palay will 1968, Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during the time the two
return to get it. Guillermo Ribis then made his appearance and were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting
attempted to carry the palay away with him but Bumanglag and his into his house and rice mill. The defendant was taking a nap when
companions assaulted him with sticks and stabbing weapons, and as he heard sounds of construction and found fence being made. He
a result, Ribis fell down and died instantly. The three of them were addressed the group and asked them to stop destroying his house
charged with homicide. The accused Bundoc pleaded not guilty and asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer responded with
while the three of them declared that during the fight, they only “no, gademit, proceed, go ahead.” Defendant lost his “equilibrium”
beat the deceased with sticks because he unsheathed his bolo. and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia who was
running towards the jeep where the deceased’s gun was placed.
ISSUE
Prior to the shooting, Fleischer and Co. was involved in a legal battle
1. WoN Bumanglag should be acquitted. with the defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain
HELD pieces of property. At the time of the shooting, the civil case was still
pending for annulment because the settlers wanted the granting of
1. No. According to the declaration of the health officer Felipe Barba, property to Fleisher and Co. to be annulled. At the time of the
which declaration was confirmed by the municipal president of shooting, defendant had leased his property from Fleisher to avoid
Laoag, the bolo worn by the deceased was in its sheath and hanging trouble even though the case was pending and the ownership is still
from his waist; therefore, it cannot be concluded that the deceased uncertain. On June 25, defendant received a letter terminating the
even intended to assault his murderers with his bolo. It is therefore contract because he allegedly did not pay rent. He was given 6
indisputable that, without any prior illegal aggression and the other months to remove his house from the land. The shooting happened
requisites which would fully or partially exempt the accused from barely 2 months after receipt of the letter. Defendant claims that he
criminal responsibility, the appellant is guilty of the crime charged. killed in defense of his person and property.

A mitigating circumstance should be taken into account where the ISSUES

defendant acted with loss of reason and self-control on seeing that
Guillermo Ribis was taking material possession of the palay to the 1. WoN the CFI erred in convicting the defendant despite the fact
damage and prejudice of those who, by their labor endeavor to that he acted in defense of his person.
provide themselves with the necessary elements for their HELD
subsistence and that of their families.
1. Yes. However, the requisites of self-defense are incomplete. The
A special circumstance established by article 11 of the Penal Code aggression referred to by appellant is the angry utterance by
should be also considered in favor of the accused, in view of the deceased Fleischer of the following words: "Hindi, sigue, gademit,
erroneous and quite general belief that it is legal to punish, even to avante", in answer to his request addressed to his compadre, the
excess the thief who, in defiance of law and justice, while refusing to deceased Rubia, when he said, "Pare, hinto mona ninyo at pag-
work, devotes himself to depriving his neighbors of the fruits of their usapan natin kung ano ang mabuti." The actuation of deceased
arduous labors Fleischer in angrily ordering the continuance of the fencing would
DISPOSITION have resulted in the further chiselling of the walls of appellant's
house as well as the closure of the access to and from his house and
By virtue of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion that, rice mill-which were not only imminent but were actually in
the judgment appealed from being reversed with respect to progress. There is no question, therefore, that there was aggression
Gregorio Bundoc only, the latter should be, and is hereby, sentenced on the part of the victims. However, this was indeed aggression, not
to the penalty of six years and one day of prisión mayor, to the on the person of appellant, but on his property rights.
accessories of article 61 of the code, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased jointly or severally with his codefendants, in the sum of The question is, was the aggression unlawful or lawful? Did the
P1,000, and to pay one-third the costs of both instances. victims have a right to fence off the contested property, to destroy
appellant's house and to shut off his ingress and egress to his
residence and the highway? No, the ownership of the land was still
pending. Moreover, Fleischer had given Narvaez 6 months to vacate
the land and he should have left hip in peace before the time was
up. There was an actual physical invasion of appellant's property
which he had the right to resist, pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil
Code.
The reasonableness of the means employed, however, was
disproportionate to the attack. Nevertheless, the third element of
defense of property is present wherein there was a lack of sufficient People vs. Chua Hiong
provocation on the part of the appellant since he was asleep at first. GR No. 10418-R. October 20, 1954
His please to stop and talk things over with the victims was no
provocation at all. FACTS

In light of these, the crime committed is homicide on two counts. Federico Chua Hiong is the uncle of Cesareo Gacheco. Gacheco and
The qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be appreciated in his family were defeated in a civil case in the CFI of Manila, which, if
this case because of the presence of provocation on the part of the not overturned by the SC, would lead to Gacheco and co. losing 2/3
deceased. of the inheritance left by Paulino Gacheco. Hiong sided with the
party that defeated Gacheco.
The aggravating (qualifying) circumstance of evident premeditation
is also not sufficiently established. The only evidence presented to This created tension and Gacheco wrote the Chief Finance Agent of
prove this was the testimony of Ibañez who claimed that the the Department of Finance charging Hiong with tax evasion and
accused and his wife talked to him and asked him to help them, and using a fake citizenship. He then wrote a letter to Vice President
that if their house was fenced, a head will be broken. This is not Fernando Lopez accusing Hiong of illegal transactions with the
sufficient to warrant as evident premeditation since there must be government.
direct evidence of the planning or preparation to kill the victim, it is
not enough that premeditation be suspected or surmised, but the A letter was written by a certain Benito Soplico to Hiong. The SC says
criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts Soplico was undoubtedly, if not Gacheco himself, acting under
evincing the determination to commit the crime. Moreover, the Gacheco’s inducement. It is said that the members of the Go family
obvious bias of witness Ibañez, as a laborer of the deceased Davis association, of which Gacheco belonged, told Soplico that they will
Fleischer, neutralizes his credibility. make every vengeance against Hiong, such as paying some persons
to kill him, or reporting him to every Philippine Government
Evident premeditation is further negated by appellant pleading with Authority that he is a communist. The letter warned Hiong to be
the victims to stop the fencing and destroying his house and to talk careful as the Go family were all his enemies now. Hiong then
things over just before the shooting. But the trial court has properly received threats on the phone and was denounced as a communist
appreciated the presence of the mitigating circumstance of through anonymous letters.
voluntary surrender, it appearing that appellant surrendered to the
authorities soon after the shooting. Likewise, it is found that passion Gacheco then caused to be published articles entitled “Doubtful
and obfuscation attended the commission of the crime. To find his Citizenship” in the Manila Chronicle. It is said that while the
castle crumbling at the hands of the deceased and his dispassionate Commissioner of Immigration had certain evidence supporting the
plea going unheeded should be credited as a mitigating Filipino citizenship of Hiong, the Commissioner’s decision was based
circumstance. on questionable evidence which are as follows:

DISPOSITION 1. Chua Hiong and his family, as shown, by the Master List of aliens
registered in 1941 with the Bureau of Immigration, were registered
Wherefore, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only under Reg. Nos. 199461 to 199466.
two (2) homicides, mitigated by the privileged extenuating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense as well as by two (2) 2. The proceedings of the Board of Special Inquiry at the Port of
generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and Manila, under Chinee Board Report No. 1451, show that Chua Hiong
obfuscation, without any aggravating circumstance, appellant is was admitted to the country as a legitimate minor son of Chua Pe.
hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four (4) months of
3. A certified Chinese marriage certificate shows that his marriage
arresto mayor, to indemnify each group of heirs of davis fleischer
was performed by the Chinese Consul at the Chinese YMCA.
and of flaviano rubia in the sum of four thousand (p 4,000.00) pesos,
without subsidiary imprisonment and without any award for moral 4. Affidavits sworn to by residents of Aparri, Cagayan show that the
damages and attorney's fees. mother of Hiong never left Aparri, much less the Philippines, and
therefore could not give birth to Hiong who was born in China.

Hiong, in response, published “Seriously Speaking” in the Manila

Chronicle. He was then found guilty of libel by the RTC.

ISSUE

1. WoN Hiong’s libelous publication was a proper act of self-defense.

HELD

1. Yes. In libel, once the aspersion is cast, its sting clings and the one
thus defamed may avail himself of all necessary means to shake it
off. He may hit back with another libel which, if adequate, will be
justified. The “Seriously Speaking” column was intended to
counteract the impression left in the mind of the public by the
article “Doubtful Citizenship”. Hiong was living as a Filipino, his
livelihood depended mainly upon enterprises only Filipinos can
engage in. It is perfectly conceivable that any attempt to assail his People vs. Pelayo
Filipino citizenship should meet the keenest defense from him. G.R. No. 05152-CR September 20, 1066
DISPOSITION FACTS
For all the foregoing, we find that the libel in question is justified and This is an appeal from a judgment convicting the accused of the
appellant is, therefore, acquitted with costs de oficio. crime of light oral defamation. The offended party was then
Governor, now Senator, Alejandro Almemdras. The appellant was
then city councilor of Davao City.

In the office of Atty. Clapano, appellant told the latter, within the
hearing of Franscisco Banez, Rafael,Mascarinas and Prisco
Parmisano, that while making one of his rounds to investigate the
existence of gambling in this community, a Chinese operator named
Lim Peng told him that the Gov. Almendras used to receive from the
Chinese P500.00 protection money. And that he demanded an
increase to P1000.00 a month that Gov. Almendras raided the
Chinese’s place for failure to give said amount. The next day, the
appellant delivered a privilege speech during the regular session of
the City Council of Davao City wherein, although without directly
mentioning the governor as receiving "tongs", the reference to the
latter after a series of interpellations and answers during the speech,
became obvious.

Appellant did not deny the remarks but offered as defenses the
following:

1. That he uttered those words and phrases in confidence to Clapano

and that they are covered by the rule of privileged communication;

2. That since the crime as charged which is for serious slander is

different form, and not included in, the as proved which is intriguing
against honor, the conviction is illegal;

3. That he uttered those words and phrases in self-defense to what

then Gov. Almendras in the latter's speech had stated of him in
another place a few says before;

4 The award for nominal damages should have been set off by what
he was also entitled to as a result of the slander made to him by
Gov. Almendras on a previous occasion.

ISSUES

1. WoN the remarks were uttered in confidence and are covered by

the rule of privileged communication.

2. WoN the crime is for intriguing against honor and not light moral
defamation.

3. WoN the remarks were uttered in self-defense.

HELD

1. No. In the first place, his contention of confidence is inconsistent

with his other contention of self-defense. If the communication was
for the purpose of self-defense, it should not have been made in
confidence as be alleged; it should have received some amount of
publicity. In the second place, the records also show that on the
following day, he delivered a speech at the session of the City
Council, wherein although he did not mention names, he made it
obvious that he was referring to the complainant as receiving money
from gambling operators. In the third place there were others who
heard the remarks when he was talking to Clapano. He could not
have given the communication, therefore, in confidence.

It is not covered by privileged communication. We cannot accept as

true that he was actuated by a sense of duty, moral, legal, or social Tan vs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co., Julito Sto. Domingo, Igmidio Rico,
to communicate the matter to Clapano. He, himself was a member and Rural Transit Co.
of the City Council. If he was carried by that sense of duty as he
G.R. No. L-4160 July 29, 1952
claims, it was not necessary for him to give his information to
Clapano who was not his superior nor the party to whom the FACTS
information should be given. He could have made the revelation
himself either in open session or by taking the necessary steps to Anita Tan is the owner of a house in Manila. On May 3, 1949, the
have the matter investigated. Standard Oil Company ordered the delivery to the Rural Transit
Company of 1,925 gallons of gasoline using a gasoline tank-truck
2. No. The facts do not constitute intriguing against honor because trailer. The truck was driven by Julito Sto. Domingo, who was helped
the information given by appellant to Clapano, within the hearing of Igmidio Rico. While the gasoline was being discharged to the
others, allegedly came from a definite source, to wit: Lim Peng. underground tank, it caught fire, whereupon Julito Sto. Domingo
Where the source of the information can be pin-pointed and drove the truck across the Rizal Avenue Extension and upon
definitely determined, as what appellant had asserted by stating reaching the middle of the street he abandoned the truck with
that it was from a certain Lim Peng, and he, appellant, àdopting as continued moving to the opposite side of the first street causing the
his own the information he has obtained, passes the same to buildings on that side to be burned and destroyed.
another for the purpose of causing dishonor to complainant's
reputation, the act is not intriguing against honor, but clearly one of Julito Sto. Domingo and Imigidio Rico were charged with arson
slander. But where the source or the author of the derogatory through reckless imprudence in the CFI where both were acquitted
information cannot be determined and the defendant borrows the afterwards, the court holding that their negligence was not proven
same and, without subscribing to the truth thereof, passes it to and the fire was due to an unfortunate accident. Anita Tan then
others, the defendant's act is one of intriguing against honor. brought the action against the Standard Vacuum Oil Company and
the Rural Transit Company, including the two employees, seeking to
3. No. His act of telling Clapano, within the hearing of others, that recover the damages she has suffered for the destruction of her
Almendras was receiving P500.00 monthly from operators of house.
"panchong" and that he was demanding an increase to P1,000.00, is
entirely independent of, and apart from, the alleged imputation Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss alleging in substance
made to him by complainant. For self-defense to exist in instances that (a) plaintiff's action is barred by prior judgment and (b)
such as this, the defendant should not go beyond explaining what plaintiff's complaint states no cause of action.
was previously said of him for the purpose of repairing or minimizing
ISSUES
if not entirely removing the effect of the damage caused to him. The
principle does not license him to utter blow-for-blow scurrilous 1. WoN defendants are exempt from criminal liability.
language in return for what he received.
2. WoN defendants Sto. Domingo and Rico are exempt from civil
The defense will lie only where the defendant makes a defense of liability pursuant to the principle of res judicata.
the imputation previously made against him by another without, in
turn, making slanderous remarks against the latter unless the HELD
remarks are necessary for his explanation or defense. In the case at
1. Yes. The damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about mainly
bar, if it is true that on a previous occasion the complainant had
because of the desire of driver Julito Sto. Domingo to avoid greater
imputed to the defendant that he, the latter, was receiving money
evil or harm, which would have been the case had he not brought
from gambling operators, the defendant was not licensed to make
the tank-truck trailer to the middle of the street, for then the fire
the same imputation or accusation because to do that is not an act
would have caused the explosion of the gasoline deposit of the
of defense or one constitutive of an element thereof, but an
company which would have resulted in a conflagration of much
aggression itself
greater proportion and consequences to the houses nearby or
DISPOSITION surrounding it. It cannot be denied that this company is one of those
for whose benefit a greater harm has been prevented, and as such it
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed, comes within the purview of said penal provision.
but the sentence imposed upon appellant is hereby modified in the
sense that he should pay a fine of P100.00 with subsidiary 2. No. Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the
imprisonment not to exceed 15 days in case of insolvency; to pay extinction of the civil unless the extinction proceeds from the
nominal damage to the offended party in the sum of P200.00 and declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil
the costs of this action. might arise did not exist. The court is right to extinguish the civil
liability of the accused given the circumstances. However, the
principles of res judicata cannot apply to the for the simple reason
that they were not included as co-accused in the criminal case.

DISPOSITION
Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby modified as follows:
it is affirmed with regard to defendants Julito Sto. Domingo and
Igmidio Rico; but it is reserved with regard to defendants Standard
Vacuum Oil Company and Rural Transit Company, with costs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO Z. People vs. Beronilla
OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, defendants-appellants
96 Phil. 566 G.R. No. L-4445 February 28, 1955
G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943
FACTS
FACTS
This is an appeal by accused Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo,
Charged with the crime of murder of Serapio Tecson, Antonio Z. Filipino Velasco, and Jacinto Adriatico from the judgment of the CfFI
Oanis and Alberto Galanta, chief of police of Cabanatuan and (Criminal Case No. 70) convicting them of murder for the execution
corporal of the Philippine Constabulary, respectively, were found of Arsenio Borjal, the elected mayor of La Paz, Abra, who was found
guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence. to be aiding the enemy.

Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Borjal moved to Bangued because of death threats. He was
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received from Major Guido a telegram of succeeded by Military Mayor Manuel Beronilla, who was appointed
the following tenor: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo by Lt. Col. Arbold, regimental commander of the 15th Infantry of the
Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or Phil. Army, operating as guerilla unit in Abra. Simultaneously upon
alive." Captain Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and his appointment, Beronilla received a memorandum which
asked that he be given four men. The same instruction was given to authorized him to appoint a jury of 12 bolo men to try persons
the chief of police Oanis who was likewise called by the Provincial accused of treason, espionage and aiding or abetting the enemy.
Inspector. Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to
Upon the return of Borjal and his family to Abra, to escape bombing
arrest a notorious criminal and escaped convict, Anselmo Balagtas,
in Bangued, he was placed under custody and tried and sentenced
and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. They went to the
to death by the jury based on various complaints made by the
suspected house then proceeded to the room where they saw the
residents. Beronilla reported this to Col. Arnold who replied, saying
supposedly Balagtas sleeping with his back towards the door. Oanis
“…I can only compliment you for your impartial but independent
and Galanta simultaneously or successively fired at him which
way of handling the whole case.”
resulted to the victim’s death. The supposedly Balagtas turned out
to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent man. Two years thereafter, Beronilla, along with the executioner, digger
and jury, were indicted for the murder of Borjal. Soon after,
ISSUES
President Manuel Roxas issued Executive Proclamation 8, which
1. WoN Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake granted amnesty to persons who committed acts in furtherance of
of fact in the honest performance of their official duties. the resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war efforts
of the enemy.
2. WoN Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability in the
performance of their duty. The rest of defendants applied and were granted amnesty, but
Beronilla and others were convicted on the grounds that the crime
HELD was made on purely personal motives and that the crime was
committed after the expiration of time limit for amnesty
1. No. Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. proclamation.
“Ignorance facti excusat” applies only when the mistake is
committed without fault or carelessness. The fact that the ISSUE
supposedly suspect was sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have
checked whether it is the real Balagtas. 1. WoN the defendant-appellants’ actions are covered by justifying
circumstances for obedience to lawful order of superior.
2. No. Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable. A person incurs no
criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the HELD
lawful exercise of a right or office. There are 2 requisites to justify
1. Yes. The accused acted upon orders of their superior officers,
this: (1) the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the
which as military subordinates, they could not question and obeyed
lawful exercise of a right or office, (2) that the injury or offense
in good faith without the being aware of its illegality.
committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance
of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. In this The records are ample to sustain the claim of the defense that the
case, only the first requisite is present. arrest, prosecution and trial of Borjal were done pursuant to express
orders of the 15th Infantry HQ. The state however contends that
DISPOSITION
there was a radiogram from Col. Volckmann to Lt. Col. Arnold,
For all the foregoing, the judgment is modified and appellants are specifically noting the illegality of Borjal’s conviction and sentence,
hereby declared guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance which the prosecution claims that Beronilla was informed about this
above mentioned, and accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate but still pursued with the execution. A witness, a relative of Borjal,
penalty of from five (5) years of prision correctional to fifteen (15) asserts that he was present when Beronilla received the message
years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to and was able to read it over Beronilla’s shoulder. But basing on his
pay the heirs of the deceased Serapio Tecson jointly and severally an affidavit, it can be imported that witness was not with Beronilla the
indemnity of P2,000, with costs. message alleged to have arrived.

Moreover, Beronilla would not have informed Lt. Col. Arnorld about
the execution if he did it after the receipt of the message since this
would be in violation of superior orders. And more importantly,
Arnold complimented him in his reply. The Court concludes that Lt.
Col. Arnold failed to transmit the Volckmann message to Beronilla.
The charge of criminal conspiracy to do away with Borjal must be
rejected because the accused had no need to conspire against a man People vs. Barroga
who was, to their knowledge, duly sentenced to death.
54 Phil. 247
Intent then could not be established. The maxim here is actus non
facit reum, nisi mens rea (Crime is not committed if the mind of the G.R. No. L-31563 January 16, 1930
person performing the act complained of to be innocent).
FACTS
Additionally, the lower court should not have denied their claim to
Convicted of the crime of falsification of a private document and
the benefits of the Guerilla Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 in spite of
ordered to indemnify the Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas
contradictory dates of liberation of La Paz, Abra. Even if the dates
in the sum of P10,857.11, the defendant appeals from the judgment.
were contradictory, the court should have found for the Beronila, et
al because if there are “any reasonable doubt as to whether a given The defendant freely admits that he prepared the falsified
case falls within the (amnesty) proclamation should be resolved in documents with full knowledge of their falsity; but he alleges that he
favor of the accused.” did so from data furnished by his immediate chief, the now
deceased Baldomero Fernandez, and only in obedience to
DISPOSITION
instructions from him.
For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is reversed and
As regards the data, it has been sufficiently proven that they were
the appellants are acquitted, with costs de oficio.
not supplied by the aforementioned Baldomero Fernandez, but by
the head of the pressmen, Hermenegildo de la Cruz, and the
defendant later collated them with the books of the daily pressings.

ISSUE

1. WoN the defendant is exempt from criminal liability for following

a superior order.

HELD

1. No. With respect to the alleged instructions given by said

Baldomero Fernandez, even supposing that he did in fact give them,
and that the defendant committed the crime charged by virtue
thereof, inasmuch as such instructions were not lawful, they do not
legally shield the appellant, nor relieve him from criminal liability. In
order to exempt from guilt, obedience must be due, or as Viada
lucidly states, it must be a compliance with "a lawful order not
opposed to a higher positive duty of a subaltern, and that the person
commanding, act within the scope of his authority. As a general rule,
an inferior should obey his superior but, as an illustrious
commentator has said, "between a general law which enjoins
obedience to a superior giving just orders, etc., and a prohibitive law
which plaintiff forbids what that superior commands, the choice is
not doubtful."

We reiterate the statement that it has not been proved that the
defendant committed the acts charged in the information in
obedience to the instructions of a third party. But even granting, for
the sake of argument, that such was the case, we repeat that such
obedience was not legally due, and therefore does not exempt from
criminal liability.

DISPOSITION

There being no merit in the assignments of error, the judgment

appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellant.
People vs. Ambal lucid interval. In order that a person could be regarded as an
imbecile within the meaning of article 12 of the Revised Penal Code,
G.R. No. L-52688 October 17, 1980 he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and
freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime. The law
FACTS
presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of
This is an appeal from the decision of CFI convicting Honorato Ambal proof to the contrary. When there is no proof that the defendant
of parricide. was not of sound mind at the time he performed the criminal act
charged to him, or that he performed it at the time of madness or of
The barangay captain found Felicula Vicente-Ambal, mortally mental derangement, or that he was generally considered to be
wounded, under some plants near the house of her husband, insane — his habitual condition being, on the contrary, healthy —
Honorato Ambal. She had seven incised wounds and was brought to the legal presumption is that he acted in his ordinary state of mind
the hospital but died 40 minutes after arrival. Honorato, after and the burden is upon the defendant to overcome this
entrusting his child to a neighbor, went to the captain’s house and presumption.
confessed to the crime. A long bolo was confiscated.
There is a vast difference between an insane person and one who
The killing was the climax of a 15-year-old marriage marred with has worked himself up into such a frenzy of anger that he fails to use
quarrels and exacerbated by the wife not staying in the conjugal reason or good judgment in what he does. Persons who get into a
abode and chose to spend the night in Mambajao población. The quarrel or fight seldom, if ever, act naturally during the fight. An
immediate. provocation for the assault was a quarrel induced by extremely angry man, often, if not always, acts like a madman. The
Felicula's failure to buy medicine for Ambal who was afflicted with fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is insane. The
influenza. Felicula told her husband that it would be better if he popular meaning of the word I "crazy" is not synonymous with the
were dead, which infuriated Honorato. legal terms "insane".

The accused’s counsel put up the defense of insanity. The trial court Tests of responsibility for criminal acts when asserting insanity:
ordered Doctor Balbas to examine the accused for 1 month and
reported that Honorato was a "passive-aggressive, emotionally 1. Delusion Test
unstable, explosive or inadequate personality." 12 days after the
2. Test of Cognition - capacity to distinguish between right and
killing, the doctor noted that Honorato did not show any mental
wrong, and its consequences. Complete deprivation of intelligence
defect and was normal. Asked directly whether Ambal suffered from
in committing a crime.
a mental disease or defect, Doctor Balbas replied: "Before the
commission of the crime, he was normal. After the commission of 3. Test of Volition - Irresistible impulse. Total deprivation of the
the crime, normal, but during the commission of the crime, that is freedom of the will.
what Amwe call "Psychosis" due to short frustration tolerance.
DISPOSITION
Another doctor, Doctor Cresogono Llacuna found that Ambal
suffered from a psychoneurosis, a disturbance of the functional WHEREFORE, the trial court's decision is affirmed. Costs against the
nervous system which is not insanity. Ambal was normal but appellant.
nervous.

ISSUE

1. WoN the accused’s plea of insanity can be sustained.

HELD

1.No. Insanity has been defined as "a manifestation in language or

conduct of disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less
permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality,
functional or organic, and characterized by perversion, inhibition, or
disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties, or
by impaired or disordered volition."

Honorato said that at the time of the killing he did not know what he
was doing because he was allegedly not in full possession of his
normal mental faculties. He pretended not to know that he was
charged with the capital offense of having killed his wife. During his
confinement in jail he mopped the floor and cooked food for his
fellow prisoners. Sometimes, he worked in the town plaza or was
sent unescorted to buy food in the market. He remembered that a
week before the incident he got wet while plowing. He fell asleep
without changing his clothes. At midnight, when he woke up, he had
chills. That was the commencement, his last illness. The trial court
concluded from Ambal's behavior immediately after the incident
that he was not insane and that he acted like a normal human being.
We agree with the court's conclusion.

Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal liability

an imbecile or an insane person unless the latter has acted during a
People vs. Ernesto Puno fairly clean in person and without undue display of emotion. He talks
to co-patients but becomes evasive when talking with the doctor
G.R. No. L-33211 June 29, 1981 and other personnel of the ward. He knows he is accused of murder
but refuses to elaborate on it.”
FACTS
The trial court found Puno guilty of murder. Puno’s counsel
Ernesto Puno entered the bedroom of 72-year-old Francisca Col
contended that the trial court erred in not sustaining the defense of
(Aling Kikay) who was sitting on her bed. Puno accused her of being
insanity and in appreciating evident premeditation, abuse of
a “mangkukulam”and repeatedly slapped and struck her several
superiority and disregard of sex as aggravating circumstances.
times on the head with a hammer until she was dead. This was
witnessed by Hilaria de la Cruz, who was in the bedroom with the ISSUE
old woman, and Lina Pajes, a tenant of the adjoining room. They
testified that Puno's eyes were reddish. His look was baleful and 1. WoN there is evident premeditation, disregard of sex, and abuse
menacing. Puno was a neighbor of Aling Kikay. of superiority.

After the killing, Puno went to the room of Lina, where Hilaria had 2. WoN Puno acted with discernment.
taken refuge, and, according to Hilaria, he made the following
confession and threat: "Huwag kayong magkakamaling tumawag ng HELD
pulis at sabihin ninyo na umalis kayo ng bahay at hindi ninyo alam
1. There is abuse of superiority as Puno was armed with a hammer,
kung sino ang pumatay sa matanda." Or, according to Lina, Puno
took advantage of his superior natural strength over that of the
said: "Pinatay ko na iyong matanda. Huwag kayong tumawag ng
unarmed septuagenarian female victim who was unable to offer any
pulis. Pag tumawag kayo ng pulis, kayo ang paghihigantihan ko. "
resistance and who could do nothing but exclaim " Diyos ko."
Disregarding Puno's threat, Lina, after noting that he had left,
However, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated because the
notified the Malabon police of the killing. Corporal Daniel B. Cruz
evidence does not show (a) the time when the offender determined
answered the call. He found Aling Kikay sprawled on her bed already
to commit the crime, (b) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit
dead.
had clung to his determination and (c) a sufficient interval of time
After the killing, Puno fled to his parents’ house then went to the between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow
house of his second cousin, Teotimo. How he was able to go to that him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. There is no
place, which was then flooded, is not shown in the record. disregard of sex for there is no evidence that the accused
deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim or
Puno was indicted for murder in the Circuit Criminal Court. Alleged showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood.
in the information as aggravating circumstances were evident
premeditation, abuse of superiority and disregard of sex. 2. Yes. The trial court correctly concluded that Puno was sane or
knew that the killing of Francisca Col was wrong and that he would
Puno, who testified about five months after the killing, pretended be punished for it, as shown by the threats which he made to Hilaria
that he did not remember having killed Aling Kikay. He believes that de la Cruz and Lina Pajes. The trial court also concluded that if Puno
there are witches who shrinks people and make ears and nose swell, was a homicidal maniac who had gone berserk, he would have killed
and feet shrink. Hence, it is necessary to kill a witch. Zenaida, wife of also Hilaria and Lina. The fact that he singled out Aling Kikay signified
Puno, testified that on the night before the murder, Puno's eyes that he really disposed of her because he thought that she was a
were reddish. He complained of a headache. The following day while witch.
he was feeding the pigs, he told Zenaida that a bumble bee was
coming towards him and he warded it off with his hands. Zenaida DISPOSITION
did not see any bee. Puno then went upstairs and took the cord of
WHEREFORE, the death penalty is set aside. The accused is
the religious habit of his mother. He wanted to use that cord in tying
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity imposed by the trial
his dog. He asked for another rope when Zenaida admonished him
court is affirmed.
not to use that cord. Puno tied the dog to a tree by looping the rope
through its mouth and over its head. He repeatedly boxed the dog.
This was also witnessed by Zenaida’s sister. Teotimo testified that
Ernesto came to his house soaking wet and was cuddling a puppy
that he called “Diablo.” Ernesto began singing an English song while
he was lying down and emitted a moaning sound until he fell asleep.

The defense presented three psychiatrists. However, instead of

proving that Puno was insane when he killed Aling Kikay, the medical
experts testified that Puno acted with discernment. Dr. Maravilla, to
whom Puno was referred for treatment 10 times before, testified
that Puno. was an out-patient who could very well live with society,
although he was afflicted with "schizophrenic reaction"; that Puno
knew what he was doing and that he had psychosis, a slight
destruction of the ego. Puno admitted to Doctor Maravilia that one
cause of his restlessness, sleeplessness and irritability was his
financial problem. The Dr. believed that Puno was already cured. Dr.
Vicente testified that Puno acted with discernment and also
concluded that Puno was not suffering from any delusion and that
he was not mentally deficient; otherwise, he would not have
reached third year high school. The 3 doctors reported that: “He is
People vs Rosalino Dungo 1. WoN the plea of insanity can be sustained.

G.R. No. 89420 July 31, 1991 HELD

FACTS 1. No. The trial court was convinced that the accused was sane
during the perpetration of the criminal act. The act of concealing a
This is an automatic review of the RTC’s Decision convicting Dungo fatal weapon indicates a conscious adoption of a pattern to kill the
of murder. victim. He was apprehended and arrested in Metro Manila which
indicates that he embarked on a flight in order to evade arrest. It is
The prosecution, through several witnesses, has established that the
an exercise in futility to inquire into the killing itself as this is already
accused, went to the place where Mrs. Sigua was holding office at
admitted by the defendant. The only pivotal issue before us is
the Department of Agrarian Reform, Apalit, Pampanga. After a brief
whether or not the accused was insane during the commission of
talk, the accused drew a knife from the envelope he was carrying
the crime changed.
and stabbed Mrs. Sigua 14 times, 5 of which were fatal.
Accomplishing the morbid act, he went down the staircase and out It is difficult to distinguish sanity from insanity. There is no definite
of the DAR's office with blood stained clothes, carrying along a defined border between sanity and insanity. Under foreign
bloodied bladed weapon. jurisdiction, there are three major criteria in determining the
existence of insanity, namely: delusion test, irresistible impulse test,
Rodolfo Sigua, the husband of the deceased, testified that,
and the right and wrong test. Insane delusion is manifested by a
sometime in the latter part of February, 1987, the accused Rosalino
false belief for which there is no reasonable basis and which would
Dungo inquired from him concerning the actuations of his wife in
be incredible under the given circumstances to the same person if
requiring so many documents from the accused. Rodolfo Sigua
he is of compos mentis. Under the delusion test, an insane person
explained to the accused the procedure in the Department of
believes in a state of things, the existence of which no rational
Agrarian Reform but the latter just said "never mind, I could do it my
person would believe. A person acts under an irresistible impulse
own way."
when, by reason of duress or mental disease, he has lost the power
The accused, in defense of himself, tried to show that he was insane to choose between right and wrong, to avoid the act in question, his
at the time of the commission of the offense. According to his wife, free agency being at the time destroyed. Under the right and wrong
the accused worked in Lebanon for 6 months. He went home and test, a person is insane when he suffers from such perverted
left again for Saudi Arabia as a welder but he was not able to finish condition of the mental and moral faculties as to render him
his 2-year contract due to sickness. Upon his arrival, he underwent incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong.
medical treatment and was subjected to a monthly check-up. Two
So far, under our jurisdiction, there has been no case that lays down
weeks prior to the crime, the wife noticed the accused to be in deep
a definite test or criterion for insanity. However, we can apply as
thought always, maltreating their children; demanding payment
test or criterion the definition of insanity under Section 1039 of the
from customers even though the latter already paid, and chasing any
Revised Administrative Code, which states that insanity is "a
child who quarrels with his children. On the day of the crime, upon
manifestation in language or conduct, of disease or defect of the
coming home, she asked her husband why he did such act, but he
brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered
replied, “that is the only cure for my ailment. I have a cancer in my
condition of the mentality, functional or organic, and characterized
heart." Her husband further said that if he would not be able to kill
by perversion, inhibition, or by disordered function of the sensory or
the victim in a number of days, he would die, and that he chose to
of the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition."
live longer even in jail. Turning to the barangay official, her husband
Evidence of insanity must have reference to the mental condition of
exclaimed, "here is my wallet, you surrender me.” Puno was
the person whose sanity is in issue, at the very time of doing the act
arrested upon being surrendered by his father. He waived the
which is the subject of inquiry. However, it is permissible to receive
second stage of preliminary investigation.
evidence of his mental condition for a reasonable period both
Dra. Sylvia Santiago and Dr. Nicanor Echavez of the National Center before and after the time of the act in question. Direct testimony is
for Mental Health testified that the accused was confined in the not required nor the specific acts of derangement essential to
mental hospital previously. Based on the reports of their staff, they establish insanity as a defense.
concluded that the accused was psychotic or insane long before,
As stated by Dr. Echavez, the fact that accused shouted “Napatay ko
during and after the commission of the alleged crime and that his
si Mrs. Sigua!” shows that awareness existed and that he knew the
insanity was classified under organic mental disorder secondary to
nature of the crime.
cerebro-vascular accident or stroke. The accused claimed that he
was not aware of the stabbing incident nor of the death of Mrs. DISPOSITION
Belen Sigua. He only came to know that he was accused of the death
of Mrs. Sigua when he was already in jail. Lastly, the State should guard against sane murderer escaping
punishment through a general plea of insanity. (People v. Bonoan,
Rebuttal witnesses were presented by the prosecution. Dr. Vicente supra) PREMISES CONSIDERED, the questioned decision is hereby
Balatbat testified that the accused was his patient. He treated the AFFIRMED without costs.
accused for ailments secondary to a stroke. While Dr. Ricardo Lim
testified that the accused suffered from conclusive disease of the
brain resulting in the left side weakness. Both attending physicians
concluded that Rosalino Dungo was somehow rehabilitated after a
series of medical treatment in their clinic. Dr. Leonardo Bascara
further testified that the accused is functioning at a low level of
intelligence.

ISSUE
People vs. Potenciano Taneo People vs. Ruben, Rodney, and Rene Estepano

G.R. No. L-37673 March 31, 1933 G.R. No. 126283 May 28, 1999

FACTS FACTS

Tadeo lives with his wife. One day, a fiesta was being celebrated in Enrique Balinas was stabbed and hacked to death for which
the barrio and visitors were entertained among them were Fred Dominador, Rodrigo, Ruben, Rodney, Dante and Rene, all surnamed
Tanner and Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano Taneo, Estepano, were charged with murder. Rodrigo died during the trial
went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room and before judgement could be rendered. Dante was never
bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, he apprehended hence, as against him, the case was archived. After
wounded her in the abdomen. Potenciano Taneo attacked Fred trial, Dominador was acquitted on reasonable doubt. Only Ruben,
Tanner and Luis Malinao and tried to attack his father after which he Rodney and Rene were found guilty.
wounded himself. Potenciano's wife who was then seven months
pregnant, died five days later. He was sentenced to reclusion The case for the prosecution is woven mainly on the testimony of
perpetua. Florencio Tayco. He narrated that he was on his way home with
Lopito Gaudia and Enrique Balinas. Enroute, they met Dominador
The day before the crime, the defendant had a quarrel over a glass Estepano at the BM Trucking compound. According to him, Lopito
of "tuba" with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla, who invited started to talk to Dominador while he and Enrique stood nearby.
him to come down to fight, and when he was about to go down, he Suddenly, Rodrigo appeared and without any provocation stabbed
was stopped by his wife and his mother. On the day of the Enrique in the stomach with a "guinunting." Ruben who was armed
commission of the crime, it was noted that the defendant was sad with a cane cutter and Rodney, Dante and Rene, each armed with a
and weak, and early in the afternoon he had a severe stomachache bolo followed suit in hacking Enrique. While this was happening,
which made it necessary for him to go to bed. It was then when he Dominador told his companions, "You better kill him!" Lopito Gaudia
fell asleep. The defendant states that when he fell asleep, he stated that while he was talking to Dominador he saw two (2)
dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while persons, both naked from the waist up, pass by. One of them to be
Abadilla held his feet, by reason of which he got up; and as it Rodrigo Estepano. Soon after, he heard a couple of "splashing
seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down, he sounds and a ring," which made him turn around. As he did, he saw
armed himself with a bolo and left the room. At the door, he met his Rodrigo withdrawing his bolo from the neck of Enrique. He asked
wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded. Then he Dominador why Rodrigo hacked Enrique and Dominador replied that
fancied seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation wounded it was "the result of intense hatred."
himself. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him, he attacked
everybody that came his way. Dominador Estepano gave his own version of the incident. He was
about to eat supper when he heard Enrique Balinas call out for his
ISSUE son Rodrigo to come down. He peeped through the window and saw
Rodrigo hacking Enrique. When Enrique fell to the ground Rodrigo
1. WoN defendant should be convicted of the crime of parricide. hastily fled. There was no other person in the vicinity. He then went
down his house where the victim was and saw the latter's firearm.
HELD
Accused Ruben, Rene and Rodney invoked alibi. Ruben claimed that
1. No. The evidence shows that the defendant not only did not have
he was at the provincial hospital in Bacolod City attending to his wife
any trouble with his wife, but that he loved her dearly. Neither did
who earlier underwent a caesarian operation. Rene and Rodney,
he have any dispute with Tanner and Malinao, or have any motive
sons of Rodrigo, claimed that they were at home sleeping when the
for assaulting them. Our conclusion is that the defendant acted
killing occurred. Rene, who was only thirteen (13) years of age then,
while in a dream and his acts, with which he is charged, were not
testified that he came to know about the incident that same night
voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability. Under the
when his mother awakened him to inform him about it. Rodney, on
special circumstances of the case, in which the victim was the
the other hand, was awakened by shouts that his father killed
defendant's own wife whom he dearly loved, and taking into
Enrique Balinas.
consideration the fact that the defendant tried to attack also his
father, in whose house and under whose protection he lived, ISSUE
besides attacking Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he himself
invited as may be inferred from the evidence presented, we find not 1. WoN the trial court erred in accepting the testimonies of
only a lack of motives for the defendant to voluntarily commit the Florencio and Lopito.
acts complained of, but also motives for not committing said acts.
Doctor Serafica, an expert witness in this case, is also of the same 2. WoN the trial court erred in finding the existence of conspiracy
opinion. The doctor stated that considering the circumstances of the between Ruben, Rene, and Rodney.
case, the defendant acted while in a dream, under the influence of a
3. WoN the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of murder.
hallucination and not in his right mind.
HELD
DISPOSITION
1. No. The clear and convincing testimony of Florencio Tayco
In view of all these considerations, and reserving the judgment
positively points to accused-appellants as the killers of Enrique
appealed from, the courts finds that the defendant is not criminally
Balinas. Florencio testified that he was only two arms-length away
liable for the offense with which he is charged, and it is ordered that
from the victim as well as from the assailants. Thus, it was unlikely
he be confined in the Government insane asylum, whence he shall
that he could not have recognized the latter considering that he was
not be released until the director thereof finds that his liberty would
a resident of the place and thus familiar more or less with the faces
no longer constitute a menace, with costs de oficio.
of its townsfolk. As there was no indication that Florencio was
moved by any improper motive, the presumption is that he was not some other lawful cause. The Director of Prisons is DIRECTED to
so moved and his testimony must be given full faith and credence. It implement this Decision and to report to this Court immediately the
is undisputed that both Florencio Tayco and Lopito Gaudia were action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
present at the crime scene when the incident happened. However,
as clearly shown by their testimonies, it was only Florencio who saw Niel Llave vs. People
the entire incident. What Lopito witnessed was only that which
G.R. No. 166040 April 26, 2006
transpired when he turned around upon hearing some noise.
Naturally, their impressions on the incident would vary. FACTS
Ruben Estepano failed to produce evidence that he and his wife was This is a petition for review of the CA’s decision in affirming with
actually in the hospital. The alleged asleep defendants’ testimonies
modification the decision of the RTC in convicting Neil Llave, then
are not sufficient to outweigh their positive identification. It is not
only 12 years old, of rape.
enough for appellants to prove that they were somewhere else
when the crime was committed. They must likewise demonstrate Debbielyn Santos, then 7 years old, was asked by her mother,
that they were so far away that they could not have been present at
Marilou, to bring home a container with the unsold quail eggs. She
the place of the commission of the offense or its immediate vicinity
did as she was told and as she neared a vacant house, Llave
at the time of its commission.
suddenly pulled her behind a pile of hollow blocks which was in
2. No. The factual findings of the trial court, through the credible front of the vacant house which had a little light from a lamp post.
testimony of prosecution witness Florencio Tayco, clearly Petitioner ordered her to lie down on the cement. Petrified, she
established their identities as the assailants as well as the complied. He removed her shorts and underwear then removed his
participation of each of them, not to mention the weapons used for own. He got on top of her. She felt his penis being inserted into her
the attack. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner vagina. He kissed her. She felt pain and cried. Teofisto heard her
in which the offense was committed, and the concerted acts of the cries and saw petitioner on top of the girl. Teofisto shouted at
accused to obtain a common criminal design objective signify
petitioner and the latter fled. Domingo Santos testified that at the
conspiracy. In the case at bar, the overt acts of accused-appellants in
commission of the crime, he was inside their house. His daughter,
taking turns in hacking Enrique Balinas clearly and adequately
Kimberly Rose, suddenly told him that Debbielyn had been raped
established conspiracy.
near the vacant house by petitioner. He rushed to the place and
3. The trial court was correct in finding accused-appellants Ruben found her daughter crying.
Estepano and Rodney Estepano guilty of murder as the killing was
attended by treachery. The evidence shows that they suddenly and Dr. Castillo interviewed the victim who told her “Masakit ang pepe
unexpectedly attacked the victim while the latter was waiting for ko…ni-rape ako.” The doctor also conducted a genital examination,
Lopito Gaudia. There was treachery because the following requisites the results of which were consistent with the victim’s claim that she
concurred: (a) the culprits employed means, methods or forms of was sexually abused. There was no injury on the hymen and
execution which tended directly and specially to insure their safety perineum but found scanty yellowish discharge between the labia
from any defensive or retaliatory act on the part of the offended minora. Petitioner claimed that while there were abrasions in the
party, which meant that no opportunity was given the latter to do perineal area, it could have been caused while the offender was on
so; and, (b) that such means, method or manner of execution was top of the victim.
deliberately or consciously chosen. With respect to accused-
appellant Rene Estepano, the records show that he was only Petitioner declared that he was a high school freshman with great
thirteen (13) years of age at the time of the commission of the academic standing and that he also finished a computer course and
offense. Under Art. 12, par. (3), of The Revised Penal Code, a person received a Certificate of Completion form the Philippine Air Force
over nine (9) years of age and under fifteen (15) is exempt from Management Information Center. He denied having raped the
criminal liability unless it is shown that he acted with discernment.
victim. He declared that he was outside of their house to buy rice in
The minor referred to here is presumed to have acted without
the carinderia and he saw the victim on his way back. He was asked
discernment and the prosecution failed to disprove it. The
prosecution did not endeavor to establish Rene's mental capacity to by his father what he had done and his mother told him to pass by
fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Moreover, its Cadena de Amor Street in going to his aunt’s house due to threat
cross-examination of Rene did not in any way attempt to show his from the victim’s father that the latter will kill her son. Later,
discernment. He was merely asked about what he knew of the Domingo and Barangay Tanod Jorge Dominguez arrived at his aunt’s
incident. house and brought him to the barangay hall. He did not know of any
reason why Debbielyn and her parents would charge him with rape.
DISPOSITION
While confined at the Pasay City Youth Home during trial, he had a
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED. Accused-
crush on "Issa," a young female inmate. Using a piece of broken
appellants RUBEN ESTEPANO and RODNEY ESTEPANO are found
glass (bubog) about half-an-inch long, he inscribed her name on his
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and are accordingly
right thigh, left leg and left arm. The Court found the CICL (Child in
sentenced each to reclusion perpetua. They are ordered to jointly
and severally indemnify the heirs of their victim Enrique Balinas y Conflict with the Law) guilty. The petitioner appealed on the grounds
Gran the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for death, P50,000.00 that the court erred in: (a) disregarding the material inconsistencies
as moral damages, P9,500.00 as actual damages and P367,920.00 for of the testimony; (b) giving credence to the testimony of Teofisto
loss of earning capacity. who has reason to fabricate a story due to his personal vendetta
against the petitioner’s family for demolishing the former’s house;
Accused-appellant RENE ESTEPANO is ACQUITTED in the absence of and (c) upholding the theory of the prosecution of rape being
proof that he acted with discernment; consequently, his immediate contrary to the physical evidence. The CA affirmed the lower court’s
RELEASE from confinement is ORDERED unless he is detained for
decision but with modification that the penalty be reduced from 6 well as his act of going into hiding clearly conveys the idea that he
years and 1 day to 8 years, to 2 years and 4 months of prison to 8 was fully aware of the moral depravity of his act and that he knew
years and 1 day with payment of moral damages. Hence, this he committed something wrong. Otherwise, if he was indeed
petition. innocent or if he was not least aware of the moral consequences of
his acts, he would have immediately confronted private complainant
ISSUES and her parents. The fact that petitioner was a recipient of several
1. WoN the evidence was sufficient to convict petitioner. academic awards and was an honor student further reinforces the
finding that he was possessed of intelligence well beyond his years
2. WoN petitioner, who was a minor above 9 but below 15 years of and thus was able to distinguish, better than other minors of his age
age, acted with discernment. could, which conduct is right and which is morally reprehensible.

3. WoN petitioner was denied due process of law by depriving him 3. No. The record shows that petitioner was lawfully arrested
the right to a preliminary investigation. without a warrant. Petitioner’s failure to file a motion for a
preliminary investigation within five days from finding out that an
4. WoN petitioner is liable to pay moral damages. Information had been filed against him effectively operates as a
HELD waiver of his right to such preliminary investigation.

4. No. There is no factual basis for the award of exemplary damages.

1. Yes. Petitioner points out that she claimed to have felt pain in her
vagina when petitioner inserted his penis to the point that she cried; Under Article 2231, of the New Civil Code, exemplary damages may
be awarded if the crime was committed with one or more
this, however, is negated by Dr. Castillo’s report stating that there
was no evidence of injury on the victim’s external genitalia. aggravating circumstances. In this case, no aggravating circumstance
was alleged in the Information and proved by the People; hence, the
Petitioner maintains that as against the victim’s testimony and that
of Dr. Castillo’s report, the latter should prevail. According to award must be deleted.
petitioner, mere touching of the female organ will not suffice as DISPOSITION
factual basis of conviction for consummated rape. Moreover, the
victim’s testimony lacks credibility in view of her admission that, IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of
while she was being allegedly ravished by him, there were passersby merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26962
along the street. Besides, petitioner avers, an abrasion may be is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary
caused by an invasion of the body through the protective covering of damages is DELETED.
the skin. Petitioner insists that the prosecution failed to prove the
cause of the abrasion. Petitioner also claims that the victim was
tutored or coached by her parents, who were in turn prodded by
Teofisto, on her testimony before the trial court. Dr. Castillo testified
that when she interviewed Debbielyn, the latter admitted to her that
she did not understand the meaning of the word "rape" and its
Filipino translation, "hinalay," and that the genital examination of
the girl was at the insistence of the latter’s parents.

While it is true that Dr. Castillo did not find any abrasion or
laceration in the private complainant’s genitalia, such fact does not
negate the latter’s testimony the petitioner had carnal knowledge of
her. The absence of abrasions and lacerations does not disprove
sexual abuses, especially when the victim is a young girl as in this
case. According to Dr. Castillo, the hymen is elastic and is capable of
stretching and reverting to its original form.

The absence of external injuries does not negate rape; neither is it

necessary that lacerations be found on the hymen of a victim. Rape
is consummated if there is some degree of penetration within the
vaginal surface. Moreover, it is incredible that the victim and her
parents would charge petitioner with rape solely on Teofisto’s
prodding.

2. Yes. Discernment, as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal

Code is defined as follows: "the discernment that constitutes an
exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under
fifteen (15) years of age but over nine (9), who commits an act
prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the
difference between right and wrong." It also means the capacity to
fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. Petitioner’s
actuations during and after the rape incident, as well as his behavior
during the trial showed that he acted with discernment. His flight as
Jarco Marketing Corporation, Kong, Tiope, and Panelo vs CA, Private respondents asserted that the child should be entitled to the
Conrado and Criselda Aguilar conclusive presumption that a child below nine (9) years is incapable
of contributory negligence. And even if the child, at six (6) years old,
G.R. No. 129792 December 21, 1999 was already capable of contributory negligence, still it was physically
FACTS impossible for her to have propped herself on the counter due to
her small frame and the counter was much higher and heavier than
Petitioners seek the reversal of the CA’s decision and the resolution she was. Also, the testimony of one of the store's former employees,
denying their motion for reconsideration. The assailed decision set Gerardo Gonzales, who accompanied the child when she was
aside the judgment of the RTC. Petitioner Jarco Marketing brought to the emergency room of the Makati Medical Center belied
Corporation is the owner of Syvel's Department Store, Makati City. petitioners' theory that child climbed the counter. Gonzales claimed
Petitioners Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope and Elisa Panelo are the that when the child was asked by the doctor what she did, the child
store's branch manager, operations manager, and supervisor, replied, "[N]othing, I did not come near the counter and the counter
respectively. Private respondents are spouses and the parents of 6- just fell on me." Moreover, negligence could not be imputed to the
year-old Zhieneth Aguilar. mom for it was reasonable for her to have let go of the child at the
precise moment that she was signing the credit card slip. Finally,
Criselda and Zhieneth were at the 2 nd floor of Syvel’s Department private respondents vigorously maintained that the proximate cause
Store. Criselda was signing her credit card slip at the payment and of the child's death, was petitioners' negligence in failing to institute
verification counter when she heard a loud thud. She looked behind measures to have the counter permanently nailed.
her and saw her daughter on the floor pinned by the bulk of the
store's gift-wrapping counter. Criselda was quick to ask the The Court of Appeals, however, decided in favor of private
assistance of the people around in lifting the counter and retrieving respondents and reversed the appealed judgment. It found that
her child who was then brought to the hospital. She died 14 days petitioners were negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous
later. counter. The counter was shaped like an inverted "L" with a top
wider than the base. It was top heavy and the weight of the upper
Private respondents filed a complaint and demanded portion was neither evenly distributed nor supported by its narrow
reimbursement for hospitalization and payment for damages against base. Two former employees of petitioners had already previously
petitioners. Petitioners denied any liability and claimed that the brought to the attention of the management the danger the counter
child was negligent in exercising care and diligence over her could cause. But the latter ignored their concern. The Court of
daughter by allowing her to freely roam around in a store filled with Appeals declared that ZHIENETH, who was below seven (7) years old
glassware and appliances. The child too, was guilty of contributory at the time of the incident, was absolutely incapable of negligence
negligence since she her act of climbing triggered the structure’s or other tort. It reasoned that since a child under nine (9) years
collapse. Petitioners also emphasized that the counter was made of could not be held liable even for an intentional wrong, then the six-
sturdy wood with a strong support; it never fell nor collapsed for the year old ZHIENETH could not be made to account for a mere
past 15 years. The corporation maintained that it observed the mischief or reckless act. It also absolved Criselda of any negligence
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision
of its employees. The other petitioners likewise raised due care and ISSUE
diligence in the performance of their duties.
1. WoN the death of the child was accidental or attributable to
The trial court dismissed the complaint and counterclaim after negligence.
finding the evidence in favor of petitioners. It ruled that the
proximate cause of the fall of the counter on the victim was her act 2. WoN, in case of a finding of negligence, the same was attributable
of clinging to it. None of private respondents' witnesses testified on to respondents for maintaining a defective counter.
how the counter fell. The trial court also held that the mom's HELD
negligence contributed to the child's accident. n absolving
petitioners from any liability, the trial court reasoned that the 1. The tragedy was no accident and the victim’s death could only be
counter was situated at the end or corner of the 2nd floor as a attributed to negligence. An accident pertains to an unforeseen
precautionary measure hence, it could not be considered as an event in which no fault or negligence attaches to the defendant. It is
attractive nuisance - one who maintains on his premises dangerous "a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event happening
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract without any human agency. Negligence is the omission to do
children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations
children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would
technically a trespasser in the premises. not do. The test in determining the existence of negligence is:

Private respondents appealed the decision, attributing as errors of Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
the trial court its findings that: (1) the proximate cause of the fall of reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person
the counter was the child's misbehavior; (2) the mom was negligent; would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of
(3) petitioners were not negligent in the maintenance of the negligence.
counter; and (4) petitioners were not liable for the death of the
child. As regard the testimony of Gonzales: it is axiomatic that matters
relating to declarations of pain or suffering and statements made to
a physician are generally considered declarations and admissions. All
that is required for their admissibility as part of the res gestae is that
they be made or uttered under the influence of a startling event
before the declarant had the time to think and concoct a falsehood
as witnessed by the person who testified in court. Under the John Philip Guevarra vs. Honorable Ignacio Almodovar
circumstances thus described, it is unthinkable for ZHIENETH, a child
of such tender age and in extreme pain, to have lied to a doctor G.R. No. 75256 January 26, 1989
whom she trusted with her life.
FACTS
Without doubt, petitioner Panelo and another store supervisor were
This is a special civil action for certiorari against the Honorable
personally informed of the danger posed by the unstable counter.
Judge, raising questions of law. People of the Philippines are likewise
Yet, neither initiated any concrete action to remedy the situation
impleaded as party respondents.
nor ensure the safety of the store's employees and patrons as a
reasonable and ordinary prudent man would have done. Thus, as Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, then 11 years old, was playing with
confronted by the situation petitioners miserably failed to discharge his best friend Teodoro Almine, Jr. and three other children in their
the due diligence required of a good father of a family. On the issue backyard. They were target-shooting a bottle cap (tansan) placed
of the credibility of Gonzales and Guevarra testifying that the around fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters away with an air rifle
counter was shaky, petitioners failed to establish that the former's borrowed from a neighbor. In the course of their game, Teodoro was
testimonies were biased and tainted with partiality. hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his unfortunate
death. After conduct a preliminary investigation, the examining
2. Anent the negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we apply the Fiscal exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the
conclusive presumption that favors children below nine (9) years old unfortunate occurrence appeared to be an accident. The victim's
in that they are incapable of contributory negligence. Anent the parents appealed to the Ministry of Justice, which ordered the Fiscal
to file a case against petitioner for Homicide through reckless
negligence imputed to ZHIENETH, we apply the conclusive
Imprudence. Petitioner moved to quash the information on the
presumption that favors children below nine (9) years old in that
following grounds:
they are incapable of contributory negligence.
1. The facts charged do not constitute offense;
CRISELDA too, should be absolved from any contributory negligence.
Initially, ZHIENETH held on to CRISELDA's waist, later to the latter's 2. The Information contains averments which if true would
hand. CRISELDA momentarily released the child's hand from her constitute a legal excuse or justification;
clutch when she signed her credit card slip. At this precise moment,
3. The Court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged nd the
it was reasonable and usual for CRISELDA to let go of her child.
person of the defendant.
Further, at the time ZHIENETH was pinned down by the counter, she
was just a foot away from her mother; and the gift-wrapping The motion was denied with respect to the first and third grounds
counter was just four meters away from CRISELDA. The time and relied upon. However, the resolution of the second ground was
distance were both significant. ZHIENETH was near her mother and deferred until evidence shall have been presented during trial.
did not loiter as petitioners would want to impress upon us. Hence, this petition.

DISPOSITION ISSUES

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition is 1. WoN an 11-year old boy could be charged with homicide through
DENIED and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals of 17 reckless imprudence.
June 1996 in C.A. G.R. No. CV 37937 is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. WoN the court has jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the
fact that it did not pass through the Barangay Lupon.

HELD

1. Yes. The surfacing of a corollary controversy with respect to the

first issue raised is evident, that is, whether the term "discernment",
as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is
synonymous with "intent." It is the position of the petitioner that
"discernment" connotes 'intent'. If petitioner's argument is correct,
then no minor between the ages of 9 and 15 may be convicted of a
quasi-offense under Article 265 of the RPC.

The Sol. Gen. opposed and claimed that the terms "intent" and
"discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. While both are
products of the mental processes within a person, the former refers
to the desired of one's act while the latter relates to the moral
significance that person ascribes to the said act. Hence a person may
not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences
of his negligent act which may cause injury to the same person in
negligently handling an air rifle.
In further outlining the distinction between the words "intent" and
"discernment," it is worthy to note the basic reason behind the
enactment of the exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12
of the RPC; the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action,
or intent, or on the absence of

negligence on the part of the accused. “The second element of dolus

is intelligence; without this power, necessary to determine the People vs. Sarcia
morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no
crime can exist, and because ... the infant (has) no intelligence, the G.R. No. 169641 September 10, 2009
law exempts (him) from criminal liability.” lt is for this reason,
therefore, why minors nine years of age and below are not capable FACTS
of performing a criminal act. On the other hand, minors above nine This is an automatic review of the decision of the CA which affirmed
years of appeal but below fifteen are not absolutely exempt. with modifications the decision of the RTC in finding 24-year-old
However, they are presumed to be without criminal capacity, but Richard Sarcia guilty of rape. The accused, Richard Sarcia y Olivera, is
which presumption may be rebutted if it could be proven that they ordered to suffer the penalty of death, and to pay the victim, [AAA],
were "capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of the act, the amount of (1) ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity; (2) ₱50,000.00 as
that is, that (they) acted with discernment. " moral damages, and (3) ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa, three (3) 5-year-old AAA, together with her cousin and 2 other playmates,
elements are indispensable, namely, intelligence, freedom of action, was playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo near a mango tree.
and negligence. Obviously, intent is wanting in such felonies. Suddenly, appellant appeared and invited AAA to go with him to the
However, intelligence remains as an essential element, hence, it is backyard of Crisologo’s house to which AAA agreed. Unknown to
necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age be appellant, AAA’s cousin followed them. Upon reaching the place,
possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which appellant removed AAA’s shorts and underwear. He also removed
results in a quasi-offense. For him to be criminally liable, he must his trousers and brief. Thereafter, he ordered AAA to lie down on
discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. her back. Then, he lay on top of her and inserted his penis into AAA’s
Indeed, a minor over nine years of age but below fifteen may be private organ. Appellant made an up-and-down movement
held liable for a quasi-offense under Article 365 of the RPC. ("Nagdapadapa tabi"). AAA felt severe pain inside her private part
Petitioner may not validly contend that since the information now in and said "aray." Horrified, the cousin rushed to AAA’s house and told
question alleged "discernment", it in effect alleged "intent." The her mother and aunt what she had seen. AAA’s mother told they
former may never embrace the Idea of the latter; the former were still very young to be talking about such matters.
expresses the thought of passivity while the latter signifies activity.
Meanwhile, after satisfying his lust, appellant stood up and ordered
2. Yes. Petitioner submits that, considering his entitlement to a two- AAA to put on her clothes. Appellant then left. Perplexed, the cousin
degree privileged mitigating circumstance due to his minority, P.D. immediately returned to the backyard and found AAA crying. The
1508 applies to his case because the penalty imposable is reduced to cousin asked AAA what the appellant had done to her but she did
not higher than arresto menor from an original arresto mayor not answer. AAA did not tell her mother what happened for fear of
maximum to prision correccional medium as prescribed in Article being slapped by her. Later, when her mother washed her body, she
365 of the RPC. This is not correct. The jurisdiction of a court over a felt a grating sensation in her private part. Thereafter, AAA called
criminal case is determined by the penalty imposable under the law her cousin. The cousin came to their house and told the mother
for the offense and not the penalty ultimately imposed. The law says again that appellant had earlier made an up-and-down movement
'punishable,' not 'punished.' One should therefore consider the on top of AAA. The mother, however did not say anything. At that
penalty provided for by law or ordinance as distinguished from the time, the father was working in Manila.
penalty actually imposed in particular cases after considering the
attendant circumstances affecting criminal liability. We therefore Dr. Manatloa testified that resigned rural health officer of
rule that, in construing Section 2(3) of P.D. 1508, the penalty which Guinobatan, Albay Dr. Reantaso conducted a physical examination
the law defining the offense attaches to the latter should be on AAA and that Dr. Manatloa can interpret the findings of said
considered. doctor. It was found that there were no scars in the introital vulva
but there is a complete perforation of the hymen.
DISPOSITION
Sarcia denied the rape. While he knows the vicitm’s parents because
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is hereby the latter borrows money from his father, he does not know the
DISMISSED for lack of merit and the Temporary Restraining Order child herself. He claims that Salvacion Bobier, grandmother of Mae
effective 17 September 1986 is LIFTED. Let this case be REMANDED Christine Camu, whose death was imputed to him and for which a
to the lower court for trial on the merits. No cost. case for Murder was filed against him with the docile cooperation of
AAA’s parents who are related to Salvacion, concocted and
instigated AAA’s rape charge against him to make the case for
Murder against him stronger and life for him miserable. He was
incarcerated and 2 months later while in detention, the rape
supposedly committed by him was filed against him. He was to learn
about it from his sister who visited him in jail. He naturally got angry
when he heard of this rape charge because he did not do such thing
and recalled telling his sister they can go to a doctor and have the
child examine to prove he did not rape her. Subsequently, from his
sister again he was to learn that the rape case was ordered
dismissed. Richard is convinced it is not the lending of money by his AAA was barely 9 years of age when she testified. It has been
father to the AAA’s family as the motive for the latter to file the rape stressed often enough that the testimony of rape victims who are
case against him but the instigation of Salvacion Bobier. Manuel A. young and immature deserve full credence. It is improbable for a girl
Casimiro testified on the records of Criminal Case No. 7078 filed in of complainant’s age to fabricate a charge so humiliating to herself
MTC Guinobatan, Albay against Richard Sarcia for Rape in relation to and her family had she not been truly subjected to the painful
RA 7610 relative to the alleged withdrawal of said rape case but the experience of sexual abuse. At any rate, a girl of tender years,
accused through counsel failed to formally offer the marked exhibits innocent and guileless, cannot be expected to brazenly impute a
relative to said case. crime so serious as rape to any man if it were not true.

ISSUES 2. Yes. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by

Republic Act No. 7659, was the governing law at the time the
1. WoN the court erred in convicting the accused despite accused-appellant committed the rape in question. Under the said
inconsistencies in the testimony. law, the penalty of death shall be imposed when the victim of rape is
a child below seven years of age. In this case, as the age of AAA, who
2. WoN the penalty imposed to the accused is improper.
was five (5) years old at the time the rape was committed, was
3. WoN RA No. 9344 can be applied to the accused with regard to alleged in the information and proven during trial by the
automatic suspension of sentence. presentation of her birth certificate, which showed her date of birth
as January 16, 1991, the death penalty should be imposed.
HELD
However, this Court finds ground for modifying the penalty imposed
1. No. The accused pointed out the inconsistencies between AAA’s by the CA. We cannot agree with the CAs conclusion that the
and her cousin’s testimonies as follows: (1) the cousin testified that accused-appellant cannot be deemed a minor at the time of the
she played with AAA at the time of the incident, while AAA testified commission of the offense to entitle him to the privileged mitigating
that she was doing nothing before accused-appellant invited her to circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68(2)[33] of the Revised
the back of the house of a certain Saling; (2) the cousin testified that Penal Code. When accused appellant testified on March 14, 2002, he
when she saw accused-appellant doing the push-and-pull motion admitted that he was 24 years old, which means that in 1996, he
while on top of AAA, the latter shouted in a loud voice contrary to was 18 years of age. As found by the trial court, the rape incident
AAA’s testimony that when accused-appellant was inside her and could have taken place in any month and date in the year 1996.
started the up-and-down motion, she said "aray"; (3) when the Since the prosecution was not able to prove the exact date and time
cousin returned to AAA after telling the latter’s mother what when the rape was committed, it is not certain that the crime of
accused had done to AAA, she found AAA crying. AAA however rape was committed on or after he reached 18 years of age in 1996.
testified that, after putting on her clothes, she invited the cousin to In assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of
their house; and (4) the cousin testified that other children were minority, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused, it
playing at the time of the incident, but AAA testified that there were being more beneficial to the latter. In fact, in several cases, this
only four of them who were playing at that time. As it is oft- Court has appreciated this circumstance on the basis of a lone
repeated, inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, which declaration of the accused regarding his age.
refer only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the
veracity and weight of their testimonies where there is consistency Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a
in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed
the accused. Accused-appellant capitalizes on AAA’s inability to by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. However,
recall the exact date when the incident in 1996 was committed. for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the
Failure to recall the exact date of the crime, however, is not an privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death
indication of false testimony, for even discrepancies regarding exact is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper imposable
dates of rapes are inconsequential and immaterial. The alleged penalty for the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.
inconsistencies in this case are too inconsequential to overturn the
3. No. The promulgation of the sentence of conviction of accused-
findings of the court a quo. The rape victim’s delay or hesitation in
appellant by the RTC cannot be suspended as he was about 25 years
reporting the crime does not destroy the truth of the charge nor is it
of age at that time.
an indication of deceit. It is common for a rape victim to prefer
silence for fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides for the automatic suspension of
public stigma of having been sexually abused. sentence of a child in conflict with the law, even if he/she is already
18 years of age or more at the time he/she is found guilty of the
Accused also contends that he could not be liable for rape because
offense charged.
there is no proof that he employed force, threats or intimidation in
having carnal knowledge of AAA. Where the girl is below 12 years However, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of
old, as in this case, the only subject of inquiry is whether "carnal sentence until the said child reaches the maximum age of 21.
knowledge" took place. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is
unnecessary, since none of these is an element of statutory rape. Thus, the application of Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of
There is a conclusive presumption of absence of free consent when sentence is now moot and academic.
the rape victim is below the age of twelve.
However, accused-appellant shall be entitled to appropriate
Accused harps on the medical report, particularly the conclusion disposition under Sec. 51 of R.A. No. 9344 which provides for
quoted as follows: "negative for introital bulvar laceration nor scars, confinement of convicted children.
which means, in layman language, that there was no showing of any
scar or wound." The Court has consistently ruled that the presence Sec. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. – Once the child who is
of lacerations in the victim’s sexual organ is not necessary to prove under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of
the crime of rape and its absence does not negate the fact of rape. the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall
determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict
with the law under suspended sentence, without need of
application: Provided, however, that suspension of sentence shall
still be applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18) of age or
more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.

Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various

circumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate People vs. Allen Mantalaba
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court on Juvenile
in Conflict with the Law. G.R. No. 186227 July 20, 2011

Sec. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. – If the FACTS
court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed Defendant is found guilty of by the RTC of violating Secs. 5 and 11,
upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if Article II of RA No. 9165. The decision was affirmed by the CA.
the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with
the condition of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the The Task Force Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response in Butuan
child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for received a report that 17-year-old Allen Mantalabas was selling
execution of judgment. shabu. Thus, a buy-bust team was organized, composed of PO1
Randy Pajo, PO1 Eric Simon and two (2) poseur-buyers who were
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years provided with two (2) pieces of ₱100 marked bills to be used in the
of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine purchase. The two poseur-buyers approached Allen who was sitting
whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order at a corner and said to be in the act of selling shabu. PO1 Pajo saw
execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a the poseur-buyers and appellant talking to each other. Afterwards,
certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age the appellant handed a sachet of shabu to one of the poseur-buyers
of twenty-one (21) years. and the latter gave the marked money to the appellant. The poseur-
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps buyers went back to the police officers and told them that the
and Other Training Facilities. – A child in conflict with the law may, transaction has been completed. Police officers Pajo and Simon
after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve rushed to the place and handcuffed the appellant. The accused was
his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal found in possession of 1 big sachet of shabu and 1 small sachet of
institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that shabu. Appellant pleaded not guilty but was nevertheless convicted
may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the of selling and illegally possessing shabu. Hence, the present appeal.
BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD. ISSUES
DISPOSITION 1. WoN the lower court gravely erred in convicting him of the crime
WHEREFORE, the decision of the CA dated July 14, 2005 in CA-G.R. charged despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
CR-H.C. No. 00717 is hereby AFFIRMED with the following reasonable doubt.
MODIFICATIONS: (1) the penalty of death imposed on accused 2. WoN the chain of custody of the seized shabu was not
appellant is reduced to reclusion perpetua;53 and (2) accused- established.
appellant is ordered to pay the victim the amount of ₱75,000.00 and
₱30,000.00 as moral damages and exemplary damages, respectively. 3. WoN appellant is entitled to a suspension of his sentence under
The award of civil indemnity in the amount of ₱75,000.00 is Sections 38 and 68 of RA 9344 which provide for its retroactive
maintained. However, the case shall be REMANDED to the court a application since he was a minor at the time of the commission of
quo for appropriate disposition in accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. the crime.
9344.
HELD

1. No. Appellant insists that the prosecution did not present any
evidence that an actual sale took place. However, based on the
testimony of PO1 Randy Pajo, there is no doubt that the buy-bust
operation was successfully conducted. What determines if there
was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is
proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. It was well established that the elements have been
satisfactorily met. The seller and the poseur-buyer were properly
identified. The subject dangerous drug, as well as the marked money
used, were also satisfactorily presented. The testimony was also
clear as to the manner in which the buy-bust operation was
conducted. A forensic chemical officer also confirmed the presence
of methamphetamine hydrochloride in the evidence.
In the first place, coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable Nevertheless, the appellant shall be entitled to appropriate
requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust disposition under Section 51 of RA No. 9344, which provides for the
operation. While it is true that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 confinement of convicted children. A violation of Section 5 of RA
requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of 9165 merits the penalty of life imprisonment to death; however, in
Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug- Section 98, it is provided that, where the offender is a minor, the
related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA's penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided
participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. in the same law shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this
After all, a buybust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned means that the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the
by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court. Prior surveillance is technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised
not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation, Penal Code. We are not unaware of cases in the past wherein it was
especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to held that, in imposing the penalty for offenses under special laws,
the scene by their informant. Incidentally, the defenses of denial and the rules on mitigating or aggravating circumstances under the
frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for Revised
it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense
ploy in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Penal Code cannot and should not be applied. A review of such
doctrines as applied in said cases, however, reveals that the reason
2. No. As ruled by this Court, what is crucial in the chain of custody is therefor was because the special laws involved provided their own
the marking of the confiscated item which, in the present case, was specific penalties for the offenses punished thereunder, and which
complied with, thus: Crucial in proving chain of custody is the penalties were not taken from or with reference to those in the
marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after Revised Penal Code.
they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the
starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital that the seized The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can now be
contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of appreciated in fixing the penalty that should be imposed. The RTC,
the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of as affirmed by the CA, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua
the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the without considering the minority of the appellant. Thus, applying the
corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are rules stated above, the proper penalty should be one degree lower
seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged
criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated.
contamination of evidence. Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW),
the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower
3. The appellant was seventeen (17) years old when the buy-bust in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be
operation took place or when the said offense was committed, but taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no
was no longer a minor at the time of the promulgation of the RTC's other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. The
Decision. ISLAW is applicable in the present case because the penalty which
has been originally an indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to
It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, while death), where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a divisible penalty
the RTC promulgated its decision on this case on September 14, (reclusion temporal) by virtue of the presence of the privileged
2005, when said appellant was no longer a minor. The RTC did not mitigating circumstance of minority.
suspend the sentence in accordance with Article 192 of P.D. 603,
The Child and Youth Welfare Code and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1- DISPOSITION
18-SC, the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, the laws that
were applicable at the time of the promulgation of judgment, WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 31, 2008 of the Court of
because the imposable penalty for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00240-MIN, affirming the
is life imprisonment to death. Omnibus Judgment dated September 14, 2005 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 1, Butuan City in Criminal Case No. 10250 and Criminal
Section 38 of RA 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still Case No. 10251, finding appellant Allen Udtojan Mantalaba, guilty
be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II
eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the of RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
pronouncement of his/her guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits penalty that should be imposed on appellant's conviction of
the said suspension of sentence until the child reaches the violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, is six (6) years and one (1) day of
maximum age of 21. Hence, the appellant, who is now beyond the prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
age of twenty-one (21) years can no longer avail of the provisions of months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his suspension of sentence,
because such is already moot and academic. It is highly noted that
this would not have happened if the CA, when this case was under
its jurisdiction, suspended the sentence of the appellant. The
records show that the appellant filed his notice of appeal at the age
of 19 (2005), hence, when RA 9344 became effective in 2006,
appellant was 20 years old, and the case having been elevated to the
CA, the latter should have suspended the sentence of the appellant
because he was already entitled to the provisions of Section 38 of
the same law, which now allows the suspension of sentence of
minors regardless of the penalty imposed as opposed to the
provisions of Article 192 of P.D. 603.
US vs. Caballeros, et al.

G.R. No. 1352 March 29, 1905

FACTS US vs. Liberato Exaltacion

The defendants were found by the CFI to be accessories after the G.R. No. 1481 February 17, 1904
fact in the crime of assassination or murder perpetrated on the
persons of the American school-teachers Louis A. Thomas, Clyde O. FACTS
France, John E. Wells, and Ernest Eger, because, without having
The provincial fiscal of Bulacan charged Exaltacion and Tanchinco ith
taken part in the said crime as principals or as accomplices, they
the crime of rebellion against the Government of the US by swearing
took part in the burial of the corpses of the victims in order to
allegiance to the Katipunan Society, an enemy of the government.
conceal the crime.
In the course of the trial Don Pablo Tecson, the provincial governor
ISSUE
of Bulacan, testified under oath that the two defendants were
1. WoN Roberto Baculi and Apolonio Caballeros should also be arrested in the month of March, 1903, the police some days before
convicted. having captured a number of documents in the encampment of one
Contreras, as so-called general of bandits, situated at a place called
HELD Langca, of the town of Meycauayan, among which documents
appeared the papers now on pages 2 and 3 of the record, signed by
1. No. As regards Roberto Baculi, although he confessed to having the said Exaltacion and Tanchinco, who recognized the said
assisted in the burial of the corpses, it appears that he did so documents when they were exhibited to them; that the said
because he was compelled to do so by the murderers of the four defendants stated to the witness that they had signed the said
teachers. And not only does the defendant affirm this, but he is documents under compulsion; that the purpose of the Katipunan
corroborated by the only eyewitness to the crime, Teodoro Sabate, Society was to obtain the independence of the Philippines; that this
who, by the way, is a witness for the prosecution. This witness says statement was made in the house of the parish priest of
he was present when the Americans were killed; that Roberto Baculi Meycauayan in the presence of Exequiel Casas and Fernando Nieto.
was not a member of the group who killed the Americans, but the The latter, upon their examination as witnesses, testified to the
he was in a banana plantation on his property gathering some same facts, stating that the defendants told Governor Tecson that
bananas; that when he heard the shots he began to run; that he they had signed the said documents under fear of death at the
was, however, seen by Damaso and Isidoro, the leaders of the band; hands of the thieves by whom they had been captured.
that the latter called to him and striking him with the butts of their
guns they forced him to bury the corpses. The Penal Code exempts The defendant Tanchinco cited Lazaro Yusay to testify to the fact
from liability any person who performs the act by reason of that he was captured at a place called Kaibiga in the township of
irresistible force. Novaliches, and that on the day following his release, having been
unable to pay the $300 which was demanded of him, he reported to
As regards the other defendant, Apolonio Caballeros, there is no the president, Tomas Testa. The defendant Liberato Exaltacion
proof that he took any part in any way in the execution of the crime under oath testified that he was captured near Meycauayan by five
with which he has been charged; there is conclusive proof to the persons, unknown, dressed as policemen and armed with guns or
contrary, since Baculi, as well as one of the witnesses for the revolvers; that these men bound him and took him into the forest
prosecution, Teodoro Sabate, expressly declare that he, Caballeros, and there compelled him by threats of death to sign the documents
did not take any part in the burial of the aforesaid corpses, nor was now on page 2 of the record; that thereupon they allowed him to go
he even in the place of the occurrence when the burial took place. upon promise to return.
The confession of his supposed liability and guilt, made before an
official of the division of information of the Constabulary, Enrique ISSUE
Calderon, as the latter states when testifying as a witness, cannot be
considered as legal proof, because the same witness says that 1. WoN defendants are not criminally liable.
Roberto Baculi was the only one of the defendants who made a
HELD
confession to him voluntarily. It appears besides, from the
statements of another witness for the prosecution, Meliton 1. Yes. The facts, established by the evidence, that the defendants
Covarrubias, that the confession of Apolonio Caballeros was made were kidnapped by brigands who belonged to the Contreras band,
through the promise made to him and to the other defendants that and that they signed the said documents under compulsion and
nothing would be done to them. Confessions which do not appear to while in captivity, relieve them from all criminal liability from the
have been made freely and voluntarily, without force, intimidation, crime of rebellion of which they are charged. The conduct of the
or promise of pardon, cannot be accepted as proof on a trial. defendants in presenting themselves first to the local president of
Meycauayan and subsequently to Lieut. Bonifacio Morales, of the
The fact of the defendants not reporting to the authorities the
Bulacan Government Volunteers, as soon as they were released by
perpetration of the crime is not punished by the Penal Code and
the bandits is corroborative of their testimony, and is the best
therefore that cannot render the defendants criminally liable
demonstration of their innocence. This conclusion is not overcome
according to law.
by the trifling discrepancy between the testimony of the witness
DISPOSITION Yusay and that of the defendant Tanchinco nor the fact the
Exaltacion was unable to determine the date when he was captured
By virtue, then, of the above considerations, and with a reversal of or that on which he appeared before President Testa.
the judgment appealed from, we acquit the defendants, appellants,
with the costs de oficio in both instances. DISPOSITION
The guilt of the defendants of the crime defined and punished by Act Roweno Pomoy: He was about to open and enter the investigation
No. 292 not having been established at the trial beyond a reasonable room when all of a sudden, he saw Tomas Balboa approach him and
doubt, we are of the opinion that the judgment below must be take hold or grab the handle of his gun. Tomas Balboa was not able
reversed and the defendants acquitted with the costs de oficio. to take actual hold of the gun because of his efforts in preventing
him. They were grappling for the gun when it fired, they were
Pomoy vs. People separated from each other and Balboa fell; he is taller than Balboa
though the latter was bigger in build; he cannot say nor determine
G.R. No. 150647 September 29, 2004
who of them was stronger; after Balboa fell. During the incident, his
FACTS gun was fully loaded and cocked; Sgt. Alag did not approach, but just
viewed them and probably reported the incident to their
This is a petition for review seeking to set aside the Decision of the commanding officer; he was not able to talk to Sgt. Alag as he
CA affirming the judgment of the RTC in finding Roweno Pomoy (Pomoy) was not in his right sense; when his commanding officer
guilty of homicide. came some five to ten minutes later and took away his gun he did
not tell him anything.
The prosecution’s version of the facts is as follows:
The CA anchored its Decision on the following factual findings: 1) the
On January 4, 1990, some policemen arrived at the Concepcion victim was not successful in his attempts to grab the gun, since
College to arrest master teacher Tomas Balboa, allegedly for a petitioner had been in control of the weapon when the shots were
robbery which took place in the municipality Along the way, his wife, fired; 2) the gun had been locked prior to the alleged grabbing
Jessica, saw him and asked the reason why he is being arrested, to incident and immediately before it went off; it was petitioner who
which Balboa replied that he doesn’t know. Balboa, along with released the safety lock before he deliberately fired the fatal shots;
another suspect, Edgar Samudio, was detained and 3) the location of the wounds found on the body of the
Later that day, Pomoy, who is a police sergeant, went to where deceased did not support the assertion of petitioner that there had
Balboa was detained and directed the latter to come out and go to been a grappling for the gun.
the investigation room in the main building of the compound for To the appellate court, all the foregoing facts discredited the claim
tactical interrogation. The jail guard on duty, Nicostrado Estepar, of petitioner that the death of Balboa resulted from an accident.
opened the jail door and walked towards the investigation room. At Citing People v. Reyes, the CA maintained that "a revolver is not
that time, petitioner had a gun, a .45 caliber pistol, tucked in a prone to accidental firing if it were simply handed over to the
holster. deceased as appellant claims because of the nature of its
When petitioner and Balboa reached the main building and were mechanism, unless it was already first cocked and pressure was
near the investigation room, two (2) gunshots were heard. Petitioner exerted on the trigger in the process of allegedly handing it over. If it
was seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol, facing Balboa, who was were uncocked, then considerable pressure had to be applied on the
lying in a pool of blood. When the Commanding Officer of the trigger to fire the revolver. Either way, the shooting of the deceased
Headquarters arrived, he disarmed petitioner and directed that must have been intentional because pressure on the trigger was
Balboa be brought to the hospital. Dr. Palma happened to be at the necessary to make the gun fire." Moreover, the petitioner’s theory
crime scene as he was visiting his brother in the Philippine of accident would have been easier to believe had the victim been
Constabulary and told them that it was unnecessary to bring Balboa shot only once. The fact that [petitioner] shot the victim two (2)
to the hospital for he was dead. times and was hit on two different and distant parts of the body,
inflicted from two different locations or angles, means that there
Dr. Jaboneta performed an autopsy. As to the possible position of was an intent to cause the victim’s death. Furthermore, the CA
the assailant, Dr. Jaboneta opined that the nozzle of the gun was debunked the alternative plea of self-defense. It held that petitioner
probably in front of the victim and was more to the left side, and the had miserably failed to prove the attendance of unlawful aggression,
gun must have been a little bit higher than the entrance wound. Dr. an indispensable element of this justifying circumstance.
Jaboneta estimated that when it was inflicted, the assailant must
have pointed the gun’s nozzle to the right-side front of the victim. ISSUES

The version of the defense is as follows: 1. WoN the shooting of Tomas Balboa was the result of an accident.

Erna Basa: She was working in her office when she heard some noise 2. WoN petitioner was able to prove self-defense.
and exchange of words which were not clear, but it seemed there HELD
was growing trouble; she opened the door to verify and saw
Roweno Pomoy and Tomas Balboa grappling for the possession of 1. Yes. Article 12 (4) provides that “Any person who, while
the gun. The grappling happened so fast and the gun of Pomoy was performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
suddenly pulled out from its holster and then there was explosion; accident without fault or intent of causing it.” In determining
she was not certain who pulled the gun. whether an "accident" attended the incident, courts must take into
account the dual standards of lack of intent to kill and absence of
Eden Legaspi: She was inside the investigation room when she heard fault or negligence. It therefore begs the question: was petitioner in
a commotion outside and she remained seated on the bench; when control of the .45 caliber pistol at the very moment the shots were
the commotion started, they were seated on the bench and after fired?
the commotion that woman soldier (referring to Erna Basa) stood up
and opened the door and she saw two persons grappling for the The foregoing account demonstrates that petitioner did not have
possession of a gun and immediately two successive shots rang out; control of the gun during the scuffle. The deceased persistently
she did not leave the place where she was seated but she just stood attempted to wrest the weapon from him, while he resolutely tried
up; after the shots, one of the two men fall down to thwart those attempts. That the hands of both petitioner and the
victim were all over the weapon was categorically asserted by the
eyewitness. In the course of grappling for the gun, both hands of shots in the instant case did not occur out of any conscious or
petitioner were fully engaged -- his right hand was trying to maintain premeditated effort to overpower, maim or kill the victim for the
possession of the weapon, while his left was warding off the victim. purpose of self-defense against any aggression; rather, they
It would be difficult to imagine how, under such circumstances, appeared to be the spontaneous and accidental result of both
petitioner would coolly and effectively be able to release the safety parties’ attempts to possess the firearm. Since the death of the
lock of the gun and deliberately aim and fire it at the victim. victim was the result of an accidental firing of the service gun, self-
defense is unnecessary.
The appellate court’s reliance on People v. Reyes41 was misplaced.
In that case, the Court disbelieved the accused who described how DISPOSITION
his gun had exploded while he was simply handing it over to the
victim. Here, no similar claim is being made; petitioner has WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision
consistently maintained that the gun accidentally fired in the course REVERSED. Petitioner is ACQUITTED.
of his struggle with the victim. More significantly, the present case
involves a semi-automatic pistol, the mechanism of which is very
different from that of a revolver, the gun used in Reyes. Unlike a
revolver, a semi-automatic pistol, as sufficiently described by
petitioner, is prone to accidental firing when possession thereof
becomes the object of a struggle.

On the basis of the findings of Dr. Jaboneta showing that the

wounds of the deceased were all frontal, the appellate court
rejected petitioner’s claim that a grappling for the weapon ever
occurred. Ordinarily, the location of gunshot wounds is indicative of
the positions of the parties at the precise moment when the gun
was fired. Their positions would in turn be relevant to a
determination of the existence of variables such as treachery,
aggression and so on. In the factual context of the present case,
however, the location of the wounds becomes inconsequential.
Where, as in this case, both the victim and the accused were
grappling for possession of a gun, the direction of its nozzle may
continuously change in the process, such that the trajectory of the
bullet when the weapon fires becomes unpredictable and erratic. In
this case, the eyewitness account of that aspect of the tragic scuffle
shows that the parties’ positions were unsteady, and that the nozzle
of the gun was neither definitely aimed nor pointed at any particular
target.

The elements of accident are as follows: 1) the accused was at the

time performing a lawful act with due care; 2) the resulting injury
was caused by mere accident; and 3) on the part of the accused,
there was no fault or no intent to cause the injury. From the facts, it
is clear that all these elements were present. It was in the lawful
performance of his duty as a law enforcer that petitioner tried to
defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried
to remove it from his holster. Petitioner cannot be faulted for
negligence. He exercised all the necessary precautions to prevent his
service weapon from causing accidental harm to others. At no
instance during his testimony did the accused admit to any intent to
cause injury to the deceased, much less kill him. Furthermore,
Nicostrato Estepar, the guard in charge of the detention of Balboa,
did not testify to any behavior on the part of petitioner that would
indicate the intent to harm the victim.

To both the trial and the appellate courts, the conduct of petitioner
immediately after the incident was indicative of remorse. Allegedly,
his guilt was evident from the fact that he was "dumbfounded,"
according to the CA; was "mum, pale and trembling," according to
the trial court. These behavioral reactions supposedly point to his
guilt. Not necessarily so. His reaction was to be expected of one in a
state of shock at events that had transpired so swiftly and ended so
regrettably.

2. Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting circumstance of

accident, in which there is no intent to kill. On the other hand, self-
defense necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to kill in
order to defend oneself from imminent danger. Apparently, the fatal
PEOPLE vs. DORIA (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
G.R. No. 125299 January 22, 1999
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
FACTS personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
Accused-appellants Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were
charged with violation of Section 4, in relation to Section 21 of the (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
Members of PNP Narcotics Command (Narcom), received
being transferred from one confinement to another.
information from two civilian informants (CI) that one “Jun” who
was later identified to be Florencio Doria was engaged in illegal drug x x x.”
activities and decided to entrap and arrest “Jun” in a buy-bust
operation. Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested
without a warrant if he “has committed, is actually committing, or is
During the buy-bust operation ”Jun” took out from his bag an object attempting to commit an offense.” Appellant Doria was caught in the
wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3 Manlangit. PO3 Manlangit act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in
forthwith arrested “Jun” as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are
They frisked “Jun” but did not find the marked bills on him. Upon not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a
inquiry, “Jun” revealed that he left the money at the house of his warrant.
associate named “Neneth” (Violeta Gaddao) “Jun” led the police
team to “Neneth’s” house. The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search of her
person and residence, and the seizure of the box of marijuana and
The team found the door of “Neneth’s” house open and a woman marked bills are different matters.
inside. “Jun” identified the woman as his associate. SPO1 Badua
asked “Neneth” about the P1,600.00 as PO3 Manlangit looked over Our Constitution proscribes search and seizure without a judicial
“Neneth’s” house. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a warrant and any evidence obtained without such warrant is
carton box under the dining table. He saw that one of the box’s flaps inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The rule is,
was open and inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. The however, not absolute. Search and seizure may be made without a
plastic wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in
earlier “sold” to him by “Jun.” His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit the following instances:(1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2)
entered “Neneth’s” house and took hold of the box. He peeked search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs
inside the box and found that it contained 10 bricks of what laws; (4) seizure of evidence in plain view; (5) when the accused
appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The prosecution story was denied by accused-appellants. The prosecution admits that appellant Gaddao was arrested without
a warrant of arrest and the search and seizure of the box of
Gaddao testified that inside her house were her co-accused Doria marijuana and the marked bills were likewise made without a search
and three (3) other persons. They asked her about a box on top of warrant. It is claimed, however, that the warrants were not
the table. This was the first time she saw the box. The box was necessary because the arrest was made in “hot pursuit” and the
closed and tied with a piece of green straw. The men opened the search was an incident to her lawful arrest.
box and showed her its contents. She said she did not know anything
about the box and its contents. To be lawful, the warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao must fall
under any of the three (3) instances enumerated in Section 5 of Rule
She denied the charge against her and Doria and the allegation that 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as aforequoted.
marked bills were found in her person.
Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the
The RTC convicted the accused-appellants. buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a)
of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the
ISSUES
finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant
1. WoN the buy-bust operation in the apprehension of accused- Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in “hot
appellant Doria is made validly. pursuit.” In fact, she was going about her daily chores when the
policemen pounced on her.
2. WoN the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao, the
search of her person and house, and the admissibility of the pieces Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the
of evidence obtained therefrom are valid. second instance of Rule 113. “Personal knowledge” of facts in
arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be
HELD based upon “probable cause” which means an “actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion.” The grounds of suspicion are
1. The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful. reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting
Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e.,
wit: supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
“Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause,
coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the
arrest.
Accused-appellant Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of the box was
alleged identification made by her co-accused. PO3 Manlangit, marijuana. The marijuana was not in plain view and its seizure
however, declared in his direct examination that appellant Doria without the requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and
named his co-accused in response to his (PO3 Manlangit’s) query as the Constitution. It was fruit of the poisonous tree and should have
to where the marked money was. Appellant Doria did not point to been excluded and never considered by the trial court.
appellant Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the
person with whom he left the marked bills. This identification does The fact that the box containing about six (6) kilos of marijuana was
not necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao found in the house of accused-appellant Gaddao does not justify a
conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs. Appellant Doria finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.
may have left the money in her house, with or without her
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is
knowledge, with or without any conspiracy. Save for accused-
material is the submission of proof that the sale took place between
appellant Doria’s word, the Narcom agents had no reasonable
the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof and the presentation of the
grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing. If there is
drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court. The prosecution
no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had,
has clearly established the fact that in consideration of P1,600.00
in his own right, knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested
which he received, accused-appellant Doria sold and delivered nine
to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally
hundred seventy (970) grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the
objectionable.
poseur-buyer. The prosecution, however, has failed to prove that
2. Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was accused-appellant Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria
illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and the in the sale of said drug.
subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be
DISPOSITION
deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. This brings us to the
question of whether the trial court correctly found that the box of IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
marijuana was in plain view, making its warrantless seizure valid. 156, Pasig City acting as a
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the Special Court in Criminal Case No. 3307-D is reversed and modified
position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a as follows:
search warrant and may be introduced in evidence.
1. Accused-appellant Florencio Doria y Bolado is sentenced to suffer
The “plain view” doctrine applies when the following requisites the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of five hundred
concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he
can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain 2. Accused-appellant Violeta Gaddao y Catama is acquitted.
view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that
the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or Additional Notes
otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must PO3 Manalangit handed the marked money to accused Doria as
lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from advance payment for 1 kilo of marijuana. Doria was apprehended
which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful when he later returned and handed the brick of marijuana to PO3
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence Manalangit.
incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand
and its discovery inadvertent. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he merely
presumed the contents to be marijuana because it had the same
It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust marijuana." A close scrutiny of the
exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a records reveals that the plastic wrapper was not colorless and
closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed transparent as to clearly manifest its contents to a viewer. Each of
package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot the ten (10) bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped
be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its in old newspaper and placed inside plastic bags — white, pink or
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, blue in color.133 PO3 Manlangit himself admitted on
or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in crossexamination that the contents of the box could be items other
plain view and may be seized. In other words, if the package is such than marijuana. He did not know exactly what the box contained
that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents.
contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain
view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items Objective Test - Here, the court considers the nature of the police
that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. The inquiry is
otherwise subject to seizure. focused on the inducements used by government agents, on police
conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the
PO3 Manlangit and the police team were at appellant Gaddao’s crime. For the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police
house because they were led there by appellant Doria. The Narcom conduct. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law
agents testified that they had no information on appellant Gaddao enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding
until appellant Doria named her and led them to her. Standing by person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the
the door of appellant Gaddao’s house, PO3 Manlangit had a view of offense; for purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding
the interior of said house. Two and a half meters away was the person would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that
dining table and underneath it was a carton box. The box was is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully. Official
partially open and revealed something wrapped in plastic. conduct that merely offers such an opportunity is permissible, but
He did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask overbearing conduct, such as badgering, cajoling or importuning, or
appellant Gaddao about its contents. It was not immediately
appeals to sentiments such as pity, sympathy, friendship or pleas of
desperate illness, are not.