CASE

ISSUE

DOCTRINE

People vs Moton
(PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS)

WON Moton is guilty for illegal

possession of firearm (considering
that there is a new law wherein the
barrio captain are not exempted
from securing a firearm license)

Not liable
*When a new law repeals the
existing law so that the act that was
penalized under the old law is no
longer punishable, the crime is
obliterated
*Retroact only when favorable to
the accused, otherwise is stated in
this case

Manzanaris vs People
(ARTICLE 3)

WON Manzanaris is liable for

infidelity in the custody of
documents

Not liable
*Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit
rea
*good intent, as per admin
reconstitution

Relucio vs CSC
(ARTICLE 3)

WON Relucio is liable for falsification No liable

of official documents (re PVAO's
*good faith
application of her father)

US vs Ah Chong
(ARTICLE 3)

Won liable in killing his room mate

Not liable
*ignorance or mistake of fact (not
mistake of person, blow or commit
so grave a wrong)

US vs Bautista
(ARTICLE 3)

WON liable for assault

Not liable
*resisted arrest as he did not know
that such persons arresting him are
vested with authority
*upon knowledge that they are of
authority, he immediately submitted
himself

People vs Bayambao
(ARTICLE 3)

WON liable for murder of the person Not liable

throwing stone who happened to *impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
be his bro-in-law
an injury

*ignorace or error in fact

People vs Oanis
(ARTICLE 3)

WON liable for killing of a man (who Liable

they mistaken for Balagtas)
*the defense of honest mistake of
fact cannot be used when there is
NEGLIGENCE OR FAULT on the part
of the accused

People vs Apego
(ARTICLE 3)

WON Genoveva is liable for murder

of her bro-in-law

Not liable for murder. ONLY

HOMICIDE
*not justified in going so far in the
exercise of her right

Cuenca vs People
(ARTICLE 3)

WON liable for illegal possession

(considering that he is a special
watchman and guard of the Bataan
Veterans Security Agency)

Not liable
*good faith
*not expected to ask for license
from his boss

People vs Landicho
(ARTICLE 3)

WON liable for illegal possession

Not liable
*just doing a good deed
*animus posendi shall be relaxed

People vs Mallari
(ARTICLE 3)

WON liable for illegal possession

Not liable
*applied for a license, but there is
unreasonable delay to the
application of such
*cannot suffer the consequences of
said delay

People vs Cagoco
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable

Liable
*The fist blow on the back part of
the head that caused the victim to
fall and hit his head on the
pavement
*liable for the consequences of the
acts

People vs Dalag
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable

Liable
*Relentless breathing that caused

the death of his wife

*liable for the consequences of the
acts
US vs Brobst
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable (Brobst struck Saldivar

with a powerful blow using his
closed fist on the left side over the
ribs, at the point where the handle
of Saldiviar's bolo lay against the
belt of which it was suspended)

Liable
*liable for natural result of act.. THO
UNEXPECTED

People vs Martin
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable for parricide (Martin

contends that it death of wife was
due to heart disease)

Liable still
*strangulation exelerated the death

People vs Piamonte
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable for death even the

cause of death is mucuous colitis

Liable still
*proximate cause is the stab wound
that he inflicted
*immediate cause is mucuous colitis
arising from weak condition
*liable for natural result!

People vs Itlanas
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable for death of bystander

killed by a STRAY bullet coming
from his firearm

Liable
*Art 4

People vs Opero
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable for death due to

asphyxiation by suffocation caused
by the stuffed pandesal into her
mouth

Liable (robbery with homicide)

People vs Sitchon
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable for death of toddler

Mark Anthony even he did no
intended to do such

Liable
*he who is the cause of the evil
cause is the cause of the evil
caused
*liable for the supervening death as
a consequence thereof

US vs Rodriguez
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable for death (even victim

was long before suffering from an
internal malady)

Liable
*produce inflammation of the spleen
and peritonitis
*death was hastened

People vs Quianzon
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable even if the victim died

because of removing the drainage
of the wound due to physical pain

Liable
*restlessness and nervouseness

People vs Reloj
(ARTICLE 4)

WON liable

Liable
*even due to the paralysis of
ileum contracted when the internal
organs of the victim were exposed
during the surgical operation in the
abdomen caused by the wound
inflicted by the accused
*neglect, unskillfull and improper
treatment (oks-non mortal/ not oksmortal)

US vs Marasigan
(ARTICLE 4)

***doctrine
VICTIM NOT OBLIGED TO SUBMIT TO
A SURGICAL OPERATION in order to
relieve, minimize or completely
absolve from natural and ordinary
consequences of felonious act.

People vs Ancasan
(ARTICLE 4)

Won liable for the intervening

disease

Liable
*such disease is associated with the
wound inflicted, then liable for
death

Urbano vs IAC (javier)

(ARTICLE 4)

Won liable

Not liable
*Efficient intervening cause
*tetanus effect

People vs Reyes

****

(ARTICLE 4)

Doctrine: Death presumed to be

natural consequence and result of
injuries when Physical injuries are
expected to result to death and
when death ensues within a
reasonable time

People vs Moldes
(ARTICLE 4)

****
Liable if 1) there is mortal wound +
2) erroneous and unskillful medical
or surgical treatment

Intod vs People
(ARTICLE 4)

Won liable

Liable
*impossible crime
*tho there be a factual impossible
due to the nature of the act

Jacinto vs People
(ARTICLE 4)

Won liable

Liable
*Cheque due to the extraneous
circumstances of the check being
unfunded, a fact unknown to Jacinto
*impossible crime

People vs Gutierrez
(ARTICLE 5)

Won dura lex sed lex be applied

No
*take into consideration the
circumstances

People vs Orifon
(ARTICLE 5)

Won dura lex sed lex be applied

No
*raped by his father

People vs Canja
(ARTICLE 5)

Won liable

Liable
Appellant must be declared to have
feloniously extinguished the life of
her husband. He may have been
unworthy. He may have been a
rascal and a bully; but that is no

excuse for murdering him. His

badness is not even a mitigating
circumstance.

Valenzuela vs People
(ARTICLE 6)

Won lible for theft

Yes
(1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property
belongs to another; (3) that the
taking be done with intent to gain;
(4) that the taking be done without
the consent of the owner; and (5)
that the taking be accomplished
without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force
upon things.
Theft is produced when there is
DEPRIVATION of personal property
by one with INTENT TO GAIN. Thus,
it is immaterial that the offender is
able or unable to freely dispose the
property stolen since he has already
committed all the acts of execution
and the deprivation from the owner
has already ensued from such acts.
Therefore, theft cannot have a
frustrated stage, and can only be
attempted or consummated.

People vs Salvilla
(ARTICLE 6)
April 12, 1986, at about noon time

WON the crime of robbery was

consummated

Yes, robbery shall be deemed

consummated if the unlawful
taking is complete.

Petitioner, together with Reynaldo,

Ronaldo and Simplicio (all surnamed
Canasares), staged a robbery at the
New Iloilo Lumber Yard. They were
armed with homemade guns and a
hand grenade
On their way inside the
establishment, they met Rodita
Habiero, an employee there
who was on her way out for her
meal break, and informed her
that it was a hold-up.
They went inside the office and the
petitioner pointed his gun at
Severino Choco, the owner, and his
two daughters, Maryand Mimmie.
They informed Severino that all
they needed was money.
Severino asked Mary to get a paper
bag wherein he placed P20,000
cash (P5000 acc to the defense)
and handed it to the petitioner.
Simplicio Canasares took the wallet
and wristwatch of Severino after
which the latter, his 2 daughters
and Rodita werekept inside the
office.
According to the appellant, he
stopped Severino from getting the
wallet and watches.

not necessary that the property be

taken into the hands of the robber
or that he should have actually
carried the property away, out of
the physical presence of the lawful
possessor, or that he should have
made his escape with

The police and military

authorities had surrounded the
lumber yard. Major Melquiades
Sequio, Station Commander of the
INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with the
accused and appealed to them to
surrender.The accused refused to
surrender and release the hostages.
The police and military authorities
decided to assault the place when
the accused still wouldnt budge
after more ultimatums. This
resulted to injuries to the girls, as
ell as to the accused Ronaldo and
Reynaldo Canasares. Marysright leg
had to be amputated due to her
injuries.
The appellant maintained that
the money, wallet and watches
were all left on the counter and
were never touched by them.
He also claimed that they never
fired on the military because
they intended to surrender.
IN SHORT, nag nakaw sila. However,
they contended that there it is not a
consummated crime as the police
intercepted by making them huli.
So,since no disposal daw ng goods,
no robbery rin daw.

Paddayuman vs People
(ARTICLE 6)
If the wound is inflicted with INTENT
TO KILL BUT NOT MORTAL,
attempted
Serrano vs People
(ARTICLE 6)

1) WOUNDS; 2) NO MEDICAL
TESTIMONY OF THE GRAVITY
OF SUCH WOUNDS
= ATTEMPTED

People vs Kalalo
(ARTICLE 6)

1) NO WOUNDS + 2) OVERT ACTS =

ATTEMPTED

US vs Eduave
(ARTICLE 6)

Belief that the he killed the victim is

immaterial
What controls is the gravity of the
wound inflicted

People vs Erina
(ARTICLE 8)
Julian Eria charged of raping 3 yrs
& 11 mo. old child. Doubt on
whether actual penetration
occurred. Physical exam showed
slight inflammation of exterior parts
of organ indicating effort to enter
vagina. Mom found childs organ
covered with sticky substance

WON crime is consummated?

No. Frustrated only

1. Impossible for mans organ to
enter labia of a 3 years and 8
months old child (Kennedy v. State)
2. No conclusive evidence of
penetration so give accused benefit
of the doubt. Frustrated.

People vs Ruiz
(ARTICLE 8)

WON there is conspiracy?

Yes.
Circumstances shown the intent
1) boarding together
2) proceed to Talisay where Vito was
3) alighting vehicle upon arrival at
Talisay; respective positions
4) firing simultaneously
5) get away together
6) bringing of the co-accused to the
hospital
7) pattern of feigning total
ignorance re incident

People vs Medios
(ARTICLE 8)

WON there is conspiracy?

*Medios and Cabural had with them

bolo
*they hacked Artemio, Manoloto
and Jose
*Medios and Cabural uttered, Here
are the 2 persons we are waiting
for
*did the hacking simultaneously

Yes. There is collective criminal

responsibility
The accused waiting in ambush, one
at each side of the road, suddenly
attacked one victim and then the
other, upon the signal, Here are
the two persons we are waiting for.
As Palpal-latoc declared, while
Cabural was stabbing him (Palpallatoc), appellant was hacking
Deguerto. And while the attack was
ongoing, accused even
shouted,We will kill you.
There was singleness of purpose
existing between the two accused,
which undeniably indicate the
existence of conspiracy.

People vs Abut

WON there is conspiracy?

Yes.

(ARTICLE 8)
Altho Richie alone pursued the
victime from situs crinimis, he was
nevertheless found guilty as a
principal, since conspiracy was
established.

After introducing himself to the

victim, appellant Winchester pulled
the hand of the victim and boxed
him. Ritchie broke two bottles of
beer and hit the victim with the
broken bottles. The appellants and
Ritchie ganged up and assaulted
the victim. Not content, they
stabbed the victim repeatedly.
People vs Balitar
(ARTICLE 8)
Primo argues that while Rolly Baltar
was boxing the victim and later on
when Francisco Baltar, Jr. shot
Mariano Celino, Jr., he was not doing
anything.
He further states that the only act
he did was to fire a warning shot at
several persons who were rushing
towards them in order to protect
himself. (AND NOT DIRECTLY TO
THE PEOPLE, so he's not liable
talaga)

WON Primo is a conspirator?

YES.
His presence not only gave moral
support to the two other accused,
but likewise reinforced the
aggression by serving as a
deterrent so that the people
nearby would not even think of
helping the victim.
Accused-appellants contention that
he merely fired a warning shot
towards the crowd in order to
protect himself is hardly believable
because if it were true that he
merely wanted to protect himself,
then he could have simply moved
away from where the victim was.
However, instead of doing so, he
remained where he was and
succeeded in driving back the
people who attempted to aid the

victim, thus defending assailants

position and insuring the
commission of the felony.
*****It must be remembered that in
conspiracy, evidence need not
establish the actual agreement
among the conspirators showing a
preconceived plan or motive for the
commission of the crime.
****Proof of concerted action
before, during and after the crime,
which demonstrates their unity of
design and objective, is sufficient
People vs Cantuba
(ARTICLE 8)

WON there is conspiracy?

Yes.
Implied Conspiracy ito.

Rodolfo wanted to kill Atty. Celera.

So he shared this plan with Pio,
Ricardo and Pedrito

They knew of the place, date,

approx time of killing

Pedrito was assigned to look for a

man who could do the killing
However, at the time of execution,
Pio suddenly approached Atty.
Celera and shot the latter.
Ricardo then rushed and stabbed
Atty. Celera twice on left chest
They alighted, riding a tricycle
People vs Paras

WON there is conspiracy?

Yes. Conspiracy is present when the

(ARTICLE 8)

People vs Portugueza
People vs Caayao

accused are members of one family

and the attack was done SUDDENLY
AND SIMULTANEOUSLY

Won there is conspiracy kahit

magkamaanak, like in the case of
Paras (above)?

No.

WON mere act of accompanying

makes one a conspirator?

No.

(ARTICLE 8)

People vs Varroga
(ARTICLE 8)
People vs Agda

Rolly did not take part. He ran away

as soon as the stabbing started.
What is needed to prove
conspiracy?

(ARTICLE 8)

(ARTICLE 8)
Maximo's participation in the killing
was his presence at the locus
criminis and his shouting of patayin
patayin iren amen

Clear and convincing evidence!

In the case at bar, no agreement, no
direct participation in stabbing.

Romy and Noel left the drinking

spree. Romy was standing nearby
when Noel stabbed Antonio.

People vs Rafael

It must be proven. It must be real

and not presumptive. Altho to SOME
degree there is simultaneous acts
done, that fact alone does not
constitute conspiracy.

Altho no formal agreement is

needed to establish conspiracy, still
clear and convincing evidence is
needed.
Won Maximo is a conspirator or
mere accomplice?

ACCOMPLICE.
-no direct participation
-not an indispensable act

People vs Agripa
Wife tried to kill Jose as he was not able to bring home money (or his salary)
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Defense of one's life of person
-For survival -Take a life of another in exchange of another
People vs Luague
Paulino came to the house of the Luague's to rape Natividad
Natividad used the knife Paulino left on the floor
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Defense of honor
-Because virginity or chastity, once defiled, cannot be restored
People vs Tilos
Bro fishermen have in possession fishing net, but not yet fully paid, chief of police received info from municipal
president to seize the fishing net and deposit it to the mun bldg
Brothers protected the said nets
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Defense of Property
-Police has no judicial authority to determine the issue
Cano vs People
-Conrado and Orlando (+) -Rush ID in Manila -Conrado photocopied license of Orlando and used such
-Orlando got mad and went to Conrado to kill the latter -Conrado was able to defend himself, however Orlando
died as per Conrado's retaliation
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Actual and real danger to life and limb
-Conrado did not take advantage of the situation -Does not have to think cooly of the situation or wait after
each blow to determine the effects thereof
-Act of having a deadly weapon with him = intent to assault
Masipequina vs CA

-Leopoldo Potane showed sign of violent insanity -Father and brother

ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Imminent danger to one's life and limb
-reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel
requested Norberto M. and Jovencio Alampayan to apprehend Leopoldo -Leopoldo rushed to them with a bolo
-Patrolmen defended themselves in the expense of Leopoldo's life
and prevent the attack DEPENDS upon imminent danger of injury (not actually done to the accused)
-that danger had to be repealed the best way he can
-not motivated by any evil motive
People vs Amante
-Valentin and son Domingo, both drunk, had an heated argument -Domingo felt embarrased, killed his father
with a gun
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Mere imaginary, speculative or fanciful danger does not constitute unlawful agression
-No unlawful aggression; aggression must be real
US vs Guysayco
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Mere imaginary, speculative or fanciful danger does not constitute unlawful aggression
People vs Dala
-Francisco had with him a kitchen knife -Francisco cursed his wife -Meanwhile, there came Absalon and Julio,
both in high spirits
-Pinagtripan siya ng dalawa -So, he sheated the kitchen knife he was holding and stabbed Absalon on the right
side of chest
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Unlawful agression is the condition precedent (indispensable!)
-not merely a threatening attitude and intimidating attack
Rugas vs People
-Defendant voluntarily and practically joined a fight
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE

A person who voluntarily joins a fight cannot claim self-defense because there is no unlawful
aggression
-exposed himself to consequences -everything, then, became an incident of the fight
US vs Sta. Ana
-Antonio Santos caught by Arm Dorotea Ramos and tried to take advantage of the later.
-Thus, Ramos retaliated with the bolo -Ramos charged with lesiones menos graves
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Defense of one's honor
-married woman -once a woman certainly takes his life and liberty in his own hands,losing the latter, his loss
thereby is no greater than he deserves
US vs Merced
-Pantaeleon Arabe caught wife Apolinia Patron with Catalino Merced in adultery
-Catalino retaliated upon the attack of Pantaleon at the expense of the latter's life
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Paramour caught in adultery with wife cannot invoke self-defense. Deceased husband had the right
to defend his honor
-Article 432 of RPC -lawful right
People vs Mangantilao
-Florencio came home and saw that his wife and his children are being attacked so thereby he retaliated to the
point of killing the unknown assailant
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Defense of one's home, wife and children
US vs Salazar
-Defendant was cleaning fish on board -Deceased pursued him and attacked with knife
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Absence of provocation may entitle a claim to self- defense
-had a reason to believer that he was placed in alternative of killing or being killed
People vs Nemeria
-Ricardo Nemeria caught up with the group of Henry Montelibano -Certain Alberto Cadayuna shouted that the
group and began to advance

ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE

Assuming that the victim gives provocation, the accused's response by repeatedly hacking the
victim to death can by no account be considered justified
menacingly at them -So, Ricardo retaliated and thereby killed Alberto
*modified from murder to homicide
US vs Domen
-Victoriano Gadlit & Urbano Dome quarelled about a carabao wc gotten to the corn of Victoriano -Victoriano
struck Domen
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Stand ground when in right
-element of impracticability made it impossible to determine during the heat WON to increase the risk to which
he was exposed to stand or step aside
People vs Genosa
-5 beating up -beaten up (while being 8 months preggers) -retailated and killed husband Ben
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Battered Woman Syndrome -2 stages only -No unlawful aggression -Mitigated: Par 9 & 10 -ISLAW
People vs Agapinay
Virgilio Paino allegedly said injurious words and threats againt Agapinay brother. Thus, the latter's deadly
retaliation
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
There must be unlawful agression! -also, SD does not justify the unnecessary killing of aggressor retreating
from fray
People vs Eduarte
-Roberto Trinidad & Fredeswindo was fighting -when Roberto was about to give his final blow (after all the
clubbing done), Florentino Eduarte intercepted and shot Roberto in defense of Fredeswindo
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
Requisites be proved with CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence
-too self-serving and corroborated
People vs Yncierto
-Olimpio & Fidel fistfighting -Aniceto ran with a hunting knife -Narciso tried to stop Aniceto, but latter resisted

ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE

-Not justified, imagine 13 cm deep! Aww man!
-Also, remember the factors! Strength and weight! :)
-Narciso then held and pressed Aniceto against stump of a coconut tree -Father of Aniceto, Teodolfo killed
Narciso
-remember: stab on back and breast (13 cm deep)
Olbinar vs CA
-Romeo Cahilog & Fernando Jimenez was physically assaulting Emiliano Olbinar -His wife, Procerfina, having no
knowledge of what transpired prior, quickly acted to rescue his wife and retailed for her husband with bolo.
-thereby, killing Romeo & Fernando
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending his/her relative
-compelling urgency -no time to think -no way of thinking if his husband provoked the fight or not, as long as no
suff provocation on her part, okay tayo :) -using bolo is justified, as she is of no match to one or both of the
assailants
US vs Rivera -Cayetano challenged Domingo to a fight -Father of Domingo rescued the latter & a certain
Canuto
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF SON
They did no more than manifest necessities of the occasion demanded
Solely to save a son & a friend from IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH AT THE HANDS of his much
stronger and better-armed adversary
People vs Padilla
-Bro in law Severino was trying to abuse the wife of Dario -Dario, then, struck Severino with a bolo (left forearm
and left thumb, 60 days to cure rendered the left hand useless)
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF WIFE
NO provocation on the part of the husband or wife
Obliged to employ rational means
People vs Ammalun -Wife shouting for help -A certain Moro Djumalin was on the top of Moro
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF WIFE
Ammalum's wife -Latter drew bolo and hacked him at the base of his neck -Until Djumalin was hacked until
latter died

US vs Paz
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF HUSBAND
-Perversity and malicious intent to do injury of the aggressor, and not of the parties attacked
US vs Esmedia -Santiago and Gregorio was fighting -Sons of Gregorio arrived -These sons immediately rescued
their father and killed Santiago -However, the father of Santiago, who was just standing, was also killed
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF FATER AND RIGHT TO ACT ON MERE APPEARANCE
-Liable for the death of the 80 year old father, as they were not in danger of bodily harm from the old man
People vs Cabungcal -Rocking of boat
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF WIFE AND SON
Eslabon vs People
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF FIRST COUSIN
-Cousin already suffered substantial wounds -who feared for the life of Francisco
People vs Punzalan
-the nagwawalang pulis sa bar
ART 11, PAR 3 DEFENSE OF A STANGER
Not to be induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive
-Police man who was wearing plain clothes (skilled) -Nothing was done by the victims to invite the ire of the
policeman
-No revenge, resentment or other evil motive
US vs Subingsubing
-Old man being assaulted by a young man
ART 11, PAR 3 DEFENSE OF A STANGER
People vs Valdez
ART 11, PAR 3
Had to deal with a
-His own wife and his (friend's) wife
DEFENSE OF A STANGER
desperate or possibly insan person who had to be rendered harmless

People vs Ayaya
ART 11, PAR 4 STATE OF NECESSITY
Thrusting an umbrella, wc hit the husband's eyes, to prevent her son's head from being crushed by
the door
People vs Oanis
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
NO NEGLIGENCE DAPAT
-ascertain first identity by inquiring before firing (regardless of the person's criminality haha?)
Frias vs People -neighbors for help -As police, Gervacio brought with him his gun -Saw Bartolome, also armed
with a gun, left the place of Manuel
-Refused to surrender, so fire a shot
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
-necessary consequences of duty -2 warning shots -not required that police be exposed to peril
Masipequina vs CA
-Leopoldo Potane showed sign of violent insanity -Father and brother requested Norberto M. and Jovencio
Alampayan to apprehend Leopoldo -Leopoldo rushed to them with a bolo
-Patrolmen defended themselves in the expense of Leopoldo's life
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
-ordered by their substation commander to apprehend Leopoldo
People vs Delima
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
-even extreme means, in the right to bring back the escapee
Valcorza vs People
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
-escapee too -demoralizing police officer -great detriment to public interest
People vs Lagata
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
Absolute necessity can authorize a prison guard to fire against escapees

People vs Dela Cruz

ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
No murder, please -Don't use as an excuse (especially when victim was not committing any offense)
People vs Wilson -falsification of cable/telegraphic dispatch -estafa of mercantile document to defraud the
employer and BPI
-falsify of a mercantile document to prejudice San Carlos Milling (where they work)
ART 11, PAR 6 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR OFFICER
Order to falsify documents is illegal
-Should be acting within limitations prescribed by law
People vs Barroga -with full knowledge of their falsity -falsification of documents
ART 11, PAR 6 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR OFFICER
Obedience must be due
An inferior must obey his superior but between general law which enjoins obedience to a superior giving just
orders and a prohibitive law which plainly forbids what that superior commands, THE CHOICE IS DOUBTFUL
People vs Margen
ART 11, PAR 6 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR OFFICER
Order to torture is illegal
-Goes to show only a common grievance against the deceased
People vs Bernadez
ART 11, PAR 6 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR OFFICER
Order by a military officer addressed to a subordinate to immediately execute death penalty ILLEGAL

ARTICLE 13
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
*PRESUPPOSES EXISTENCE OF BOTH CRIMES AND CRIMINAL
*as distinguished from EXEMPTING: recognizes felonious act but no criminal offender (as no voluntariness)
*privilege exempting- DEGREE; No offset
*ordinary- PERIOD; Can be offset
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in
the respective cases are not attendant.

De Luna vs CA
-Unlawful aggression is an indispensible requisite to claim incomplete self-defense
People vs Buenafe
-Unlawful aggression + (requirement 2 or requirement 3) = incomplete self-defense
-Subordinate
People vs Pasca (incomplete self-defense)
-Genaros terrible force was not reasonable necessity for the means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression
People vs Lucero (incomplete self-defense)
-Ciriaco threw a stone at Epifanio, causing the latter to swerve as to prevent being hit by the coming vehicle. The said
swerving caused Epifanio to be thrown to the ground
-Of course, Epifanio was infuriated and thus, struck Ciriaco with a bolo
-Not reasonable ulit (tho there was unlawful aggression + lack of sufficient provocation)
People vs Toring (incomplete defense of a relative)
-motivated by RRO
Pepito vs CA
-Ceasing of Unlawful Aggression = no incomplete defense of relative
-No justification for attacking the victim, as the latter stopped about 8 meters from door of Pepito and turned towards his
mother-in-laws house before Sinonor went after him
People vs Gonzales
-CURSING & SHOUTING NOT CONSTITUTED UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
People vs Jaurigue (incomplete defense of honor)
-Chapel, stabbed with a fan knife as the man put his hand on the legs of the accused
-Means employed WERE EVIDENTLY EXCESSIVE

People vs Narvaez (incomplete defense of property)

-unlawful aggression: as to destroying and causing damage or closing his accessibility to the highway
-no provocation: 1) he was asleep at first, just got awakened by the noise of the victims and their laborers; 2) pleaded pare, if
possible you stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over what is good
People vs Apolinar (attack against ones property attack against person)
-believing that the man stole his palay, he shot this man
-primacy of rights (life over property)

2. A child above fifteen but below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense who acted with
discernment, in which case he shall be subjected to appropriate diversion programs under Sec 23 to 31 of this Act.

DIMUNITION OF INTELLIGENCE
Privileged Mitigating ONE DEGREE
No discernment
Diversion measures
o CONDITIONS OF DIVERSION PROGRAM
A) Not more than 6 years imprisonment
Who: LEO, Punong Barangay (with assistance of local social welfare and devt officer or other LCPC
member)
What to do: conduct Mediation, Family Conferencing and Conciliation, (where appropriate) Adopt
indigenous modes of conflict resoln in accord with best INTEREST of the child with a view to
accomplishing the objectives of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE and formulation of a diversion program
CHILD & HIS/HER FAMILY SHALL BE PRESENT
B) VICTIMLESS CRIMES, not more than years imprisonment
Local social welfare & devt officer shall meet with CHILD &/ PARENTS/GUARDIANS FOR the
development of the appropriate DIVERSION OR REHAB PROGRAM (in coordination with BCPC)
C) EXCEEDS 6 years
Only by court resolution
o WHERE MAY BE CONDUCTED
Katarungang Pambarangay

 ALL STAGES: police investigation, inquest, PI, at all levels & phases of proceeding including JUDICIAL
LEVEL
o CONFERENCE, MEDIATION, CONCILIATION
Contract of diversion may be entered during this stage

o CONTRACT OF DIVERSION
Voluntary admits the commission of act
However, such admission shall not be used against the children in judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
Effective upon approval
o DUTIES OF CHILD UNDER DIVERSION CONTRACT
o DUTY OF PUNONG BRGY WHEN NO DIVERSION
o DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
o NOT BE SUBJECTED TO DIVERSION MEASURES
o PUBLIC PROSEC = CONDUCT PI
Over 70 years bawal na mahatulan ng reclusion perpetua

3. The offender had no intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed

4.