Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

People vs.

Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant and appellant Anastacio
Apolinar alias Atong was at that time the occupant of a parcel of land owned by
Joaquin Gonzales in Papallasen, La Paz, Umingan, Pangasinan.
Armed with a shotgun, Atong was looking over said land when he observed
that there was a man carrying a bundle on his shoulder.
Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the defendant called his attention but he
ignored him.
The defendant fired in the air and then at the person.
The man, identified as Domingo Petras, was able to get back to his house and
consequently narrated to Angel Natividad, the barrio chief, that he had been
wounded in the back by a shotgun.
He then showed the two wounds - one in each side of the spinal column which wounds were circular in form and a little bigger than a quarter of an inch,
according to the medical report of Dr. Mananquil.
Petras died of the wounds he sustained.
The defendant surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident
and gave a sworn statement (Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on
December 23, 1936.
Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by defense of property

Held: No; 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.

Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan

It was only upon delivery of the P5 Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a receipt for all the
amounts she received from Tabuena.
The disbursement of the P55 Million was, as described by Tabuena and Peralta themselves, "out
of the ordinary" and "not based on the normal procedure". Not only were there no vouchers
prepared to support the disbursement, the P55 Million was paid in cold cash. Also, no PNCC
receipt for the P55 Million was presented. Prosecution: There were no outstanding obligations in
favor of PNCC at the time of the disbursement of the P55 Million. "Respect for the Constitution
is more important than securing a conviction based on a violation of the rights of the accused." Justice Cruz
The Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of a defense witness and of the accused
themselves. Luis A. Tabuena - General Manager, MIAA
Adolfo M. Peralta - Acting Finance Services Manager, MIAA
Gerardo G. Dabao - Assistant General Manager, MIAA [at large] Malversation Facts:
Through their separate petitions for review, Tabuena and Peralta appealed a Sandiganbayan
decision and a Resolution denying reconsideration, convicting them of malversation under
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Tabuena and Peralta were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt Of having malversed the total amount of P55 Million of MIAA funds.
The money was delivered to the office of Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, Marcos' private secretary.

Good faith. Tabuena claimed that he was merely complying with the MARCOS Memorandum
and that he was of the belief that MIAA indeed had liabilities to PNCC. Peralta for his part
shared the same belief and so he heeded the request of Tabuena, his superior, for him (Peralta) to
help in the release of P5M. Sandiganbayan rejected Tabuenas claim of good faith and found him
guilty of malversation by negligence

Main Issue:
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan violated the accused's basic constitutional right to due

HELD: Yes, and the violation is the more compelling reason for the acquittal Sandiganbayan was
biased when the Justices cross-examined the witnesses, their cross- examinations supplementing
those of the prosecutor and far exceeding the latter's questions in length.
The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of due process was denied petitioners
when the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate.
A trial judge should not participate in the examination of witnesses as to create the impression
that he is allied with the prosecution.
We doubt not that the sole motive of the learned judge was to ascertain the truth of the
transaction, but it is never proper for a judge to discharge the duties of a prosecuting attorney.
However anxious a judge may be for the enforcement of the law, he should always remember
that he is as much judge in behalf of the defendant accused of crime, and whose liberty is in
jeopardy, as he is judge in behalf of the state, for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of