Criminal Law Case Digests

Article 12. Exempting Circumstances

Insanity/ Imbecility
People vs Taneo
March 31, 1933 (58 Phil 255)
Facts:
On January 16, 1932 Potenciano Taneo while sleeping, got up , left his room with a bolo and while meeting his wife
wounded her in the abdomen. Other people were also attacked such as his father and his guests. He claims that he
was sleeping as the crime was being committed.
Held:
the defendant upon the commission of the crime was in a dream state and it was considered as non-voluntary act. An
expert witness claimed that the defendant was not in his right mind upon the commission of the crime. It was held
that the defendant was not criminally liable but was ordered to be confined in an insane asylum

Minority
People vs Estepano
307 SCRA 701 1999
Facts:
Enrique Balinas stabbed and hacked to death by a bolo and cane cutter by Dominador, Rodrigo, Ruben , Rodney,
Dante and Rene all with the last name Estepano who were charged with the crime of murder. Rodrigo died during
trial, Dante was never apprehended and Dominador was acquitted while the other three, Ruben , Rodney , and Rene
were found guilty. Rene at the time that the crime was committed was 13 of age
Held:
Rene was only 13 at the time that the crime was committed while he is over the age of 9 and under the age of 15
which means that he could be exempted from criminal liability when it is proven that he did not act with
discernment. the prosecution did not prove that Rene acted with discernment thus is exempt from criminal liability.
Llave vs People
488 SCRA 376
April 26, 2006
G.R. No. 166040
Facts:
Neil Llave is a minor of 12 years old had carnal knowledge with his victim of seven years old where he dragged the
victim behind a group of hollow black to ensure that people would not discover his rape. While committing his rape
of the victim he was discovered and subsequently fled the scene and was eventually caught.
Held:
the accused is a minor over the age of nine and below the age of 15 and could be exempted from criminal liability if
it was seen that he acted without discernment. In this case, however it was seen that the act of hiding his victim in a
secluded area shows that he had discernment that what he was doing was wrong and thus criminally liable.

Article 48 Complex Crimes

People vs AlFeche
G.R. No. 124213
Facts:
Dante Alfeche and Willy and a John doe are condemned to suffer the death penalty due to
two counts of rape on the same victim Analiza Duroja. On the first instance of rape Wily and
two of his companions which the victim only recognized one of the two, Dante, attacked her
in the dwelling where the victim was working as a domestic helper. She was gagged and
held at knifepoint after which Dante boxed her on her side where she lost consciousness.
Upon waking the victim realized that her short pants were removed and that she was
bleeding in her genitals. She mentions that she was not menstruating and did not engage in
prior sexual intercourse. Dante also threated to kill her mother if she mentioned the
incident. On the second instance of rape, the three again attacked her in the dwelling of her
owner and Dante knelt her on her legs, undressed her and inserted his private parts until
completion. The victim noticed a semen in her organ which came from Dante who also drove
a nail into her left hand. Analiza reported the injury to the police and eventually had bouts
of attempted suicide due to the rape and the subsequent pregnancy. She gave birth to a boy.
She eventually identified the accused and filed for rape charges.
Held:
On the first instance of rape the accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt but on the
other instance of rape due to the compelling evidence was liable for the crime of rape thus
subject to the death penalty.
Batulon vs People:

G.R. NO. 139857 September 15, 2006

FACTS: Polomok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed Leonila Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager
from May 1980 up to December 22, 1982. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the
member of the cooperative.
During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities concerning the release of loans were discovered.
It was found that Batulanon falsified four commercial documents, all checks/cash vouchers representing granted
loans to different persons namely: Omadlao, Oracion, Arroyo and Dennis Batulanon, making it appear that said
names were granted a loan and received the amount of the checks/cash vouchers when in truth and in fact the said
persons never received a grant, never received the checks, and never signed the check vouchers issued in their
names. In furtherance, Batulanon released to herself the checks and received the loans and thereafter
misappropriated and converted it to her own use and benefit.
Thereafter, four Informations for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents were filed against
Batulanon. The prosecution presented Medallo, Gopio, Jr. and Jayoma as witnesses. Medallo, the posting clerk
whose job was to assist Batulanon in the preparation of cash vouchers testified that Batulanon forged the signatures
of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo. Gopio, Jr. stated that Oracion is Batulanon sister-in-law and Dennis Batulanon is
her son who was only 3 years old in 1982. He averred that membership in the cooperative is not open to minors.
On April 15, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting Batulanon of Estafa through Falsification of
Commercial Documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, hence this petition.
HELD: Yes. Although the offense charged in the Information is Estafa through Falsification of Commercial
Documents, Batulanon could be convicted of Falsification of Private Documents under the well-settled rule that it is

the allegation in the information that determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name given in the
preamble of the information.
As there is no complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Private Documents, it is important to ascertain
whether the offender is to be charged with Falsification of a Private Document or with Estafa. If the falsification of a
private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the
Estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime is Estafa. We find that the
Court of Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documents in
the cases of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo.

Continued crime
PEOPLE vs. DE LEON,
G.R. Nos. L-25375 and 25376
October 8, 1926
Facts: Early in the morning of December 21, 1925, Vicente de Leon y Flora entered the yard of Vicente Magat's
house on Domingo Santiago Street, Manila, and without violence or intimidation against persons nor force upon
things, took, with intent to gain, two game roosters which were in the yard, one with colored plumage valued at P8
belonging to Diego Magat, and the other with white plumage and black spots, valued at P10, belonging to Ignacio
Nicolas.
Vicente de Leon y Flora was prosecuted in the municipal court for two crimes of theft, on the theft of Magat's
rooster and the other that of Nicolas'. Upon being arraigned, the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the
municipal court in each to suffer the penalty of three years, six months and one day presidio correcional, to return
the stolen roosters to their respective owners and to pay the costs in both cases. The accused appealed from this
judgment to the Court of First Instance, and, upon being arraigned upon the same informations, pleaded not guilty in
both cases, which were tried jointly by agreement of the parties approved by the court.
Held: Under sound principles, the act of taking the two roosters, in response to the unity of thought in the criminal
purpose on one occasion, is not susceptible of being modified by the accidental circumstance that the article
unlawfully belonged to two distinct persons. There is no series of acts here for the accomplishment of different
purposes, but only one of which was consummated, and which determines the existence of only one crime. The act
of taking the roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an
independent existence of their own, because there are not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that
characterize two separate crimes.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the unity of the intention to take a thing belonging to another on one occasion
and in the same place, constitutes the commission of only one crime of theft; and fact that the things taken belong to
different persons does not produce a multiplicity of crimes, which must be punished separately.
Article 11
Fullfilment of Duty

People vs. Oanis

G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943
Facts: As a group taking the route to Rizal street, Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis and his co-accused Corporal
Alberto Galanta were under instructions to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if
overpowered, to get him dead or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a
man sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers,
without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be a peaceful and innocent
citizen, Serapio Tecson who upon autopsy, multiple gunshot wounds were found on his body which caused his
death. The defendants alleged and appealed that in the honest performance of their official duties, they acted in

innocent mistake of fact.

Ruling: New Rules of Court, Rule 109, Section 2 paragraph 2 provides, No unnecessary or unreasonable force
shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is
necessary for his detention. As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed by both was murder
with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the
accused would not be justified in killing him while the latter was sleeping. In apprehending even the most notorious
criminal, the law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive from justice is determined to
fight the officers of the law who are trying to capture him that killing him would be justified.

Lawful Order
People vs. Beronilla
96 Phil 366
Borjal served as mayor during the Japanese occupation. Beronilla, after being appointed as Military Mayor of La Paz, Abra, received a
copy of a memorandum issued by Lt. Col. Arnold authorizing all military mayors to appoint a hury of 12 bolomen to try persons
accused of treason, espionage or the aiding of the enemy. He also received a list of all puppet officials of the province of Abra (Borjal
included) with a memorandum instructing all Military Mayors to investigate said persons and gather against them complaints from
people of the municipality. Beronilla, upon the return of Borjal who left La Paz because of an attempt on his life, placed Borjal under
custody. Pursuant to his instructions, complaints were gathered, a 12-man jury was appointed, prosecutors and a clerk of the jury were
assigned. Trial lasted for 19 days and the jury found Borjal guilty on all counts (espionage, aiding the enemy, abuse of authority). Death
penalty was imposed. Beronilla forwarded the records of the case to the Headquarters of the 15th Infantry for review. The records were
returned by Lt. Col. Arnold adding that the matter was best handled by the La Paz Government and whatever disposition taken was
approved. Upon receipt of the letter, Beronilla then ordered the execution of Borjal. The execution was reported to Col. Arnold and
Beronilla received compliments based on the reply of his superior. Two years after, those who were involved were indicted in the CFI
of Abra for murder for allegedly conspiring and confederating in the execution of Borjal.
Held:
The accused acted as military subordinates only following superior orders, thus there is no criminal intent.

People vs. Luciano Barroga y Salgado

G.R. No. 31563 (1930)
Facts:
Luciano prepared falsified documents with full knowledge. The acts involved were in obedience to the instructions given to him by his
immediate chief Baldomero Fernandez
Held:
in order to be exempt from guilt, obedience must be in compliance with a lawful order
Article 13
Sufficent provocation
PEOPLE VS ESPINA
361 SCRA 701
FACTS: In the afternoon of September 30, 1992, the members of an association locally known as theripa-ripa
went to the house of Eufornia Pagas in Bohol for their scheduled contribution to fund intended for a wedding
celebration. Among present thereat were Romeo Bulicatin, Rogelio Espina and Samsung Abuloc who were having a

drinking spree and playing cards. Romeo Bulcatin asked Espina to buy 3 bottles of Kalafu wine which he acceded.
After they have emptied their wines, Bulcatin then asked Espina to buy another 3 bottles again which the he refused
to obey. Romeo Bulcatin then proceeded to where Espina was playing card and without warning, urinated on the
latter and clipped him under his arms. Espina went home to avoid in any altercation. At around 9:00 p.m. in the same
evening, while they were still having a drinking spree at the store of Eurofina Pagas, accused-appellant was outside
saying Borgs, get out because I have something to say. Three of them went down and at the juncture, when
Romeo Bulcatin was still at the stairway, Espina shot him at the back and was chased after receiving another 2 shots.

.HELD: Accused is Guilty of the crime of murder, The court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of
having acted in immediate vindication of grave offense. The accused was urinated by the victim in front of
the guests. The act of the victim, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated the accused, came within the purview
of a grave offense. Thus, this mitigating circumstance should be appreciated in favour of the accused

PEOPLE VS CRISOSTOMO
G.R. No. L-32243 April 15, 1988
FACTS:
Crisistomo killed Romeo Geronimo by shooting the victim with a revolver when he refused Crisostomos invitation
to a drink. He evaded authority for 10 days but voluntarily surrendered to the authorities due to the insistence of his
parents
Held:
the court agrees that the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender because the
offender was arrested at the time, he surrendered himself to a person of authority and he did it voluntarily thus
meeting all of the requisites.
People vs Javier
311 Scra 576
Facts: Eduardo is husband of victim Florentina. Married in 1854. 47 years of marriage. 10 children. On June 15
Consolacion heard her mother saying Your father is going to kill me. Her sister, Alma is weeping and told her that
their parents are quarrelling. They went to the house of their brother Manuel and when they came back they saw
their mother dead. And their father has a wounded stomach. He admitted hacking his wife and stabbed himself
afterwards. he hasnt slept for a month and his mind was completely blank when he killed his wife
Held:
For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the
following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness
should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
He failed to show medical evidence and since he remembered the vital circumstances surrounding the ghastly
incident, from the time of the killing up to the time he was brought to the hospital, it shows that he was in full
control of his mental faculties
Article 19
Profiting from the effects of the Crime
Mendoza Vs People
157 Scra 464
three hundred ten bags of American rice valued at P5,908.60 belonging to the Rice and Corn Administration The
cargo was intended for delivery to RCA warehouse No. 3 at Pureza Street, Manila under the accountability of Emilio

Rosella. However, instead of delivering it to its proper destination, Reponte and Escopin together with one named
Frank, diverted the cargo to the grocery store of Leonardo Mendoza a retailer of the RCA
Several bags of rice had already been unloaded thereat when police operatives arrived and arrested Reponte, Escopin
and Mendoza. Frank eluded arrest and has not been apprehended
Held:
being a retailer of the RCA he is of full knowledge how RCA rice are distributed and sold to the public. The court
cannot believe in his defense that he received that rice only for storing purposes while there is no direct proof that
Mendoza knew that the rice had been stolen, the totality of circumstantial evidence point to the fact that he knew
that the rice he was receiving from Frank was stolen. Circumstantial evidence may be the basis for conviction if
there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences may be derived are proven, and the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt
Leonardo Mendoza is hereby convicted as accessory to the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code

TAER, vs. CA
G.R. No. 85204 June 18, 1990
FACTS: Cirilo Saludes slept in the house of his compadre accused Jorge Taer. At about 2:00 o'clock dawn, accused
Emilio Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived at Taer's house with two (2) male carabaos owned by and which
Namocatcat wanted Taer to tend. The said carabaos were left at Taer's place. After searching in vain for the
carabaos at the vicinity, Dalde and Palaca reported the matter to the police. Reyes informed Dalde that he saw the
latter's lost carabao at Datag, Garcia-Hernandez. Forthwith Dalde and Palaca went on that day to Datag and there
they found their missing carabaos tied to a bamboo thicket near the house accused Taer. Upon query by Dalde and
Palaca why their carabaos were found at his place, accused Taer, replied that the carabaos reached his place tied
together without any person in company. According to accused Taer, what he told Dalde and Palaca was that the
carabaos were brought to his place by the accused Namocatcat who asked him to tell anybody looking for them that
they just strayed thereat. Taer was convicted for the crime of cattle rustling, it was also found that there was a
conspiracy between the Taer and Namocatcat.
Held:
Conspiracy must be established not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. The same degree of
proof necessary to establish the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of criminal conspiracy, which
is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without
cooperation or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy absent the intentional
participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. At most the facts
establish Taer's knowledge of the crime. And yet without having participated either as principal or as an accomplice,
for he did not participate in the taking of the carabaos, he took part subsequent to the commission of the act of taking
by profiting himself by its effects. Taer is thus only an accessory after the fact
DIZON-PAMINTUAN VS. PEOPLE
234 SCRA 63
FACTS:
Teodoro Encarnacion, Undersecretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways arrived at his residence
form the airport and immediately proceeded inside his house. Five unidentified masked-armed persons appeared
from the grassy portion of the lot and poked their guns at his driver and two helpers and were dragged inside the
house. The robbers ransacked the house and took away pieces of jewelry and other personal properties including
case. The matter was reported to the police. The WPD asked Teodoro to prepare a list of items of jewelry and other
valuables that were lost. He was later told that some of the lost items were in Chinatown area as tipped by an

informer. His wife was able to recognize the stolen jewelry displayed at the stall being tended by Norma DizonPamintuan. Norma was arrested, tried and convicted of violating the Anti-Fencing Law.
Held:
In this case the first, second and fourth elements of the crime of fencing was established specifically that the public
display of the items for sale shows the intent to gain on. Section 5 provides that mere possession of any good ,
article, item , object or anything of value has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of
fencing.
Tan vs People
313 Scra 220
Facts:
Manuelito Mendez was one of the employees of complainant Rosita Lim, proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries.
Mendez left the company and Lim thereafter noticed that materials valued about P48,000 were missing. Mendez was
arrested and he thereafter admitted to the crime. He asked for forgiveness and he pointed to Ramon C. Tan,
petitioner, as the one who bought the stolen items. Complainant Lim never filed charges against Mendez.
Held:
Before the enactment of PD 1612, the fence could only be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact of robbery or
theft. Presently, the accessory could be prosecuted under the RPC or as the principal under PD 1612.
The essential elements of fencing are: 1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who is not
a principal or an accomplice in the crime, with intent to gain, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals,
sells or disposes of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value
derived from the proceeds of the crime; and 3) the accused knows, or should have known that the article or object
was derived from the proceeds of the crime.
Lim reported no loss to the police, therefore it cannot be held for certain that the crime of theft was committed.
Thus, the first element of the crime of fencing is absent; that is, the commission of the crime of robbery or theft.
There was no evidence of corpus delicti as theft or robbery was not proved. What is more, there was no showing that
the accused knew or should have known that the stolen articles were the ones sold to him. Without the petitioner
knowing that he acquired stolen articles, he cannot be guilty of fencing.