Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
OANIS
74 Phil. 257
G.R. No. L-47722
July 27, 1943
Facts:
Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal
and escaped convict, Anselmo Balagtas, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.
They went to the suspected house then proceeded to the room where they saw the
supposedly Balagtas sleeping with his back towards the door. Oanis and Galanta
simultaneously or successively fired at him which resulted to the victim’s death. The
supposedly Balagtas turned out to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent man.
Issue:
Whether or not requisites necessary to justify or exempt the appellants are
attendant.
Held:
No. There is only a mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the incomplete justifying
circumstance defined in article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code. According to such legal
provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office. There are two requisites in order that the circumstance may
be taken as a justifying one: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
In the instance case, only the first requisite is present — appellants have acted in the
performance of a duty. The second requisite is wanting for the crime by them committed is not
the necessary consequence of a due performance of their duty
PEOPLE v. BONOAN
64 Phil 95
G. R. No. 45130
February 17, 1937
Facts:
Celestino Bonoan is charged with the crime of murder for stabbing Carlos Guison
with a knife, which caused his death three days afterwards. An arraignment was then
called, but the defense objected on the ground that the defendant was mentally
deranged and was at the time confined at the Psychopatic Hospital. After several
months of summons for doctors, production of the defendant’s complete record of
mental condition from the hospital and defendant’s admission to the hospital for
personal observation, assistant alienist Dr. Jose Fernandez finally reported to the court
that Bonoan may be discharged for being a “recovered case”. After trial, the lower court
found Bonoan guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The defense appealled, claiming the lower court made errors in finding Bonoan
suffered dementia only occasionally and intermittently, did not show any kind of
abnormality, that the defense did not establish the defendant’s insanity and finding
accused guilty.
Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty.
Held:
Yes. The Court finds the accused demented at the time he perpetrated the
crime, which consequently exempts him from criminal liability, and orders for his
confinement in San Lazaro Hospital or other hospital for the insane.
Comment:
Although the court did not rule that the case on hand falls under the mitigating circumstance
provided in Article 13, Paragraph 9 of the Revised Penal Code or not, it is clear that there was
lucid interval and that the defense was not able to prove insanity during the time the crime was
committed. The appellant, however, is given the benefit of the doubt that his exercise of will-
power was, in fact, diminished. He may have been conscious with his acts but given the fact
that he was hospitalized before, may have had a psychological impact on his behavior or acts.
US v. MANALINDE
G.R. L-No. 5292
August 28, 1909
Facts:
Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the 19th of January, 1909, while
Juan Igual, a Spaniard, was seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa's store in
Cotabato, Moro Province, he suddenly received a wound on the head delivered from
behind and inflicted with a kris. Ricardo Doroteo, a clerk in the said store, who was
standing behind the counter, upon hearing the noise and the cry of the wounded man,
ran to his assistance and found him lying on the ground. Meanwhile the aggressor, the
Moro Manalinde, approached a Chinaman named Choa, who was passing along the
street, and just as the latter was putting down his load in front of the door of a store
and was about to enter, attacked him with the same weapon, inflicting a severe wound
in the left shoulder, on account of which he fell to the ground. The Moro, who came
from the rancheria of Dupit and had entered the town carrying his weapon wrapped up
in banana leaves, in the meantime escaped by running away from the town. Both
wounded men, the Chinaman and the Spaniard, were taken to the hospital, where the
former died within an hour, the record not stating the result of the wound inflicted on
the Spaniard Juan Igual.
When Manalinde was arrested he pleaded guilty and confessed that he had
perpetrated the crime herein mentioned, stating that his wife had died about one
hundred days before and that he had come from his home in Catumaldu by order of the
Datto Rajamudah Mupuck, who had directed him to go juramentado in Cotabato in
order to kill somebody, because the said Mupuck had certain grievances to avenge
against a lieutenant and a sergeant, the said datto further stating that if he, Manalinde,
was successful in the matter, he would give him a pretty woman on his return, but that
in case he was captured he was to say that he performed the killing by order of
Maticayo, Datto Piang, Tambal and Inug. In order to carry out his intention to kill two
persons in the town of Cotabato he provided himself with a kris, which he concealed in
banana leaves, and, traveling for a day and a night from his home, upon reaching the
town, attacked from behind a Spaniard who was seated in front of a store and,
wounding him, immediately after attacked a Chinaman, who was close by, just as the
latter was placing a tin that he was carrying on the ground and he was about to enter a
store nearby, cutting him on the left shoulder and fleeing at once; he further stated that
he had no quarrel with the assaulted persons.
Issue:
Whether or not the act was committed with evident premeditation
Held:
It is unquestionable that the accused deliberately considered and carefully and
thoughtfully meditated over the nature and the consequences of the acts which, under
orders received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end provided
himself with a weapon. The person having been deprived of his life by deeds executed
with deliberate intent, the crime is considered a premeditated one as the firm and
persistent intention of the accused from the moment he received the order until the
crime was committed.
PEOPLE V. DELIM
the brothers.
assistance.
ISSUE:
kidnapping – Murder
HELD/ RATIO:
or murder.
barging into the house of Modesto was to kill him and that
Facts:
stedby him talking and laughing by himself. He thinks that thebreakdown was caused by skipping meals
whenever hetook the boy with him to the farm.Upon the suggestion of one of the accused in this
case,Eddie, wife Perlita and their three children went with saidaccused to Cebu. Upon arriving in Cebu
they went to thehouse of another accused Carmen and diagnosed the boy
exorcise. Warning that in conducting exorcism, the badspirit might transfer to Eddie it was best to do
the healingprayer without him. Eddie, wife and children were lockedinside a room in the house.The
exorcism conducted by Carmen was witnessed by
shout asking for help from his mother. They ran to thedirection of the house of Carmen and saw that
Randy wasbeing immersed in water head first by the 4 accused.They also saw him being tied on a bench
while Carmenpoured water into the mouth of the boy. Each time the boystruggled to raise his head,
accused Alexander banged
boy. They also took turns in pounding the boy’s chest with
their clenched fist. Then Carmen asked one of theaccused to get a knife and after which the knife was
slowlyplunged into the left side of the boy’s body. Then the boy
was carried into the house. Around 5 o’clock in the afternoon Randy was already
dead. After Eddie and his family returned to Negros Occidental,Eddie sought the assistance from the
Bombo Radyostation in Bacolod City. As the incident took place in Cebu,NBI in Cebu conducted the
investigation and autopsyreport of the exhumed body.The family filed a case in court against Carmen
et.al ofmurder. The trial court found them guilty of murderarguing that killing a person with treachery is
murder. Itcited a court decision stating that even if there is no intentto kill, in inflicting physical injuries
with treachery, theaccused in that case was convicted of murder.Intent is presumed from the
commission of an unlawfulact. In the case at bar, there is enough evidence that theaccused
confederated with each other in inflicting physicalharm to the victim (illegal act). These acts
wereintentional and thus they should be liable for all the directand natural consequences of their
unlawful act.
Issue:
NO.
Ruling:
There was no criminal intent on the part of theaccused to kill the boy
. It was shown that the accusedare members of a cult and the bizarre ritual wasconsented to by
the parents of the boy. Their liabilityarises from their reckless imprudence because they oughtto know
their actions would not bring about the cure. Theyare guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide andnot murder.
The RPC states that reckless imprudenceconsists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing orfailing to do
an act from which material damageresults by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
onthe person performing such an act. Intentionalfelonies such as murder or homicide, what takes
theplace of the element of is the failure of the offender totake precautions due to lack if skill.
The accused lack medical skills in treating thevictim of his ailment, resulted in the latters death.
. The acts of the accusedtherefore considered by the court as treachery are in factefforts by the accused
to restrain the boy so that they cancure him. Thus, the decision of the RTC is affirmed andmodified
declaring the accused guilty of recklessimprudence resulting in homicide.
PEOPLE
vs.
(may 2 or more persons kill the same victim) FACTS: The deceased victim Miranda, a 25-year old
retardate, and the accused Pugay were friends. During a town fiesta, Gabion, the witness, was sitting in
the ferris wheel and reading a comic book. He then saw Pugay and Samson with several companions
making fun of Miranda. Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel
and poured its contents on the body of the Miranda. The victim died due to the incident. Gabion, Pugay,
Samson and 5 others were brought to the municipal building for interrogation. Pugay and Samson gave
statements to the police. Pugay admitted in his statement that he poured a can of gasoline on the
deceased believing that the contents thereof was water and Samson set the deceased on fire. Samson
alleged in his statement that he saw Pugay pour gasoline on Miranda but did not see the person who set
him on fire. Pugay and Samson were found guilty on the crime of murder but crediting in favor of the
accused Pugay the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a conspiracy? HELD: None, there is nothing in the records showing that there
was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention between the two accused-appellants
immediately before the commission of the crime. There was no animosity between the deceased and
the accused Pugay or Samson. Their meeting at the scene of the incident was accidental. It is also clear
that the accused Pugay and his group merely wanted to make fun of the deceased. Hence, the
respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed against the
deceased is individual and not collective, and each of them is liable only for the act committed by him
(U.S. vs. Magcomot, et. al. 13, Phil. 386; U.S. vs. Abiog, et. al. 37 Phil. 1371). ISSUE: What is the criminal
responsibility of Pugay? HELD: Homicide through reckless imprudence. Having taken the can from under
the engine of the ferris wheel and holding it before pouring its contents on the body of the deceased,
this accused knew that the can contained gasoline. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence
necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his
companions who at the time were making fun of the deceased. A man must use common sense and
exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from
instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might
foresee and for acts which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon. Otherwise
his own person, rights and property, all those of his fellow-beings, would ever be exposed to all manner
of danger and injury.
PEOPLE VS LAMAHANG
Lamahang was caught by a policeman the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a
store of cheap goods. The accused had only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening
another from the wall, when the policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and placed him
under custody. The lower court found him guilty of attempted robbery. Issue: Is he guilty of attempted
robbery? Held: NO. He is guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling
The attempt to commit an offense which the Penal Code punishes is that which has a logical relation to
a particular, concrete offense; that, which is the beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts
of the perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and consummation. The attempt to commit an
indeterminate offense, inasmuch as its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous, is not a juridical
fact from the standpoint of the Penal Code.
There is no doubt that in the case at bar it was the intention of the accused to enter Tan Yu's store by
means of violence, passing through the opening which he had started to make on the wall, in order to
commit an offense which, due to the timely arrival of the police, did not develop beyond the first steps
of its execution.
But it is not sufficient, for the purpose of imposing penal sanction, that an act objectively performed
constitute a mere beginning of execution; it is necessary to establish its unavoidable connection, like the
logical and natural relation of the cause and its effect, with the deed which, upon its consummation, will
develop into one of the offenses defined and punished by the Code; it is necessary to prove that said
beginning of execution, if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
-
Thus, in case of robbery, in order that the simple act of entering by means of force or violence another
person's dwelling may be considered an attempt to commit this offense, it must be shown that the
offender clearly intended to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of some personal property
belonging to another. In the instant case, there is nothing in the record from which such purpose of the
accused may reasonably be inferred.
in offenses not consummated, as the material damage is wanting, the nature of the action intended (
accion fin
) cannot exactly be ascertained, but the same must be inferred from the nature of the acts executed (
accion medio
).
Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is, in favor as well as against the culprit, and which show
an innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and cannot furnish grounds by themselves for
attempted nor frustrated crimes
57
an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.
Third
, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not necessarily immediate and
actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against
the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the
existing facts of the present case, however, not all of these elements were duly established.
This case involved the "battered woman syndrome," which is alleged to be equivalent to self-defense.
RTC found appellant guilty of parricide aggravated by treachery. Appellant has admitted the fact of
killing her husband and the acts of hitting his nape with a metal pipe and of shooting him at the back of
his head, which of said acts actually caused the victim's death.
ISSUE:
Whether the appellant should be examined by qualified psychologists or psychiatrists in order to
determine her state of mind at the time of the killing.
HELD:
REMANDED
to the trial court for the reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the "battered
woman syndrome" plea.
RATIO:
In seeking to be "examined and evaluated by psychologists and psychiatrists to bring into evidence the
abuse inflicted upon her; [and] to determine whether such abuse will support the 'battered woman
syndrome'," she asks the Court to "re-evaluate the traditional elements" used in determining self-
defense and to consider the "battered woman syndrome" as a viable plea within the concept of self-
defense. Allegedly, there are four characteristics of the syndrome: (1) the woman believes that the
violence was her fault; (2) she has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere; (3)
she fears for her life and/or her children's lives; and (4) she has an irrational belief that the abuser is
omnipresent and omniscient. Living in constant danger of harm or death, she knows that future beatings
are almost certain to occur and will escalate over time. Her intimate knowledge of the violent nature of
her batterer makes her alert to when a particular attack is forthcoming, and when it will seriously
threaten her survival. Trapped in a cycle of violence and constant fear, it is not unlikely that she would
succumb to her helplessness and fail to perceive possible solutions to the problem other than to injure
or kill her batterer. She is seized by fear of an existing or impending lethal aggression and thus would
have no opportunity beforehand to deliberate on her acts and to choose a less fatal means of
eliminating her sufferings. Appellant further alleges that the syndrome is already a recognized form of
self-defense in the United States and in Europe. In the US particularly, it is classified as a post-traumatic
stress disorder, rather than a form of mental illness. It has been held admissible in order to assess a
defendant's perception of the danger posed by the abuser. In view of the foregoing, Appellant Genosa
pleads that she be allowed to present evidence to prove that her relationship with her spouse-victim
had afflicted her with the syndrome. Allegedly, an expert can explain how her experiences as a battered
woman had affected her perception of danger and her honest belief in its imminence, and why she had
resorted to force against her batterer. Moreover, proof of insanity could have exempted appellant from
criminal liability. If the accused had not performed the act voluntarily, then he could not have been
criminally liable. In the instant case, it is equally important to determine whether Appellant Genosa had
acted freely, intelligently and voluntarily when she killed her spouse. The Court, however, cannot
properly evaluate her battered-woman-syndrome defense, absent expert testimony on her mental and
emotional state at the time of the killing and the possible psychological cause and effect of her fatal act.
Facts: Flores was charged with qualified rape. AAA was the name of the 13 year-old victim (under RA
9262 VAW-C, the names of women and child victims are withheld.) That the crime of rape was
committed with the qualifying circumstances of victim being under 18 years of age, the accused is her
stepfather, being the common-law spouse of her mother (BBB in this case), and that the rape was c
ommitted in full view of the victim’s mother.
daughter AAA to sleep with them. Both AAA and BBB obeyed Flores for fear of his wrath.
At around ten o’
clock in the evening, BBB was awakened by the pinch of her daughter, BBB was then shocked to see that
Flores was already on top of her daughter, who was shouting
She felt angry but could not do anything because Flores not only had a bladed weapon poked at her
neck, but he also threatened to kill her if she shouted. BBB endured this horrifying episode for the next
thirty minutes. Sweetheart defense of Flores was stricken down by court.
Issue: Death penalty properly meted? Considering the age of the victim at time of rape incident was not
sufficiently established?
Held: Yes. But… Age not properly proven. In the case at bar, not only did the prosecution fail to present
AAA’s birth certificate, but BBB, the victim’s mother herself
, gave contradictory statements on the true age of her daughter. At one time she said that AAA was 13
years old, and yet
declared that it was 1982. STILL, Flores cannot escape the penalty of death. Flores forgot the important
fact that
aside from AAA’s minority, the qualifying circumstance that the rape was committed in full view of
AAA’s mother
was also alleged in the Information. BUT (again!) despite this, the 2006 law abolishing the death penalty
in effect re PEOPLE VS JAURIGUE
Facts: Defendant Avelina Jarigue(girl) and appellant Amado Capino lived in the same barrio. Prior to the
incident at hand, Capino had been courting Jarigue to no avail. A month prior to the incident, Capino
stole a hanky
I was being washed. On another night, Jarigue was feeding a dog under her house, when Capino
approached her and spoke to her of his love, which she flatly refused, and he thereupon suddenly
embraced and kissed her and touched her boobs. She thereafter kept a long fan knife to protect herself.
A few days later, Capino climbed up the house of Jarigue and entered the room where she was sleeping.
He felt her forehead with the intention of raping her. She immediately screamed for help, which
awakened her parents and brought them to her side. Capino then came out from where he was hiding,
under the bed, and
beg for forgiveness. Several days later on the fateful night, her family went to the local church where it
was quite bright. When Jarigue was left alone in the bench while her father tended to some business,
Capino sat beside Jarigue and placed his hand on top of her thigh. On observing this highly improper
conduct, Jaurigue stabbed Capino in the neck, fatally causing a single wound from which he died.
Jaurigue surrendered without question. Issue: WON defendant acted in the legitimate defense of her
honor and should be completely absolved from all criminal liability. Side issue: WON there were
mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Held: She is not absolved from criminal liability. If the
defendant had killed Capino when he climbed up her house to rape her, she could have been perfectly
justified in killing him. However, when the deceased sat beside defendant on the same bench in a well lit
chapel with several people inside, including her own father and the barrio lieutenant where there is no
possibility of being raped. She cannot be legally declared completely exempt from criminal liability for
fatally wounding the deceased since the means employer by her in the defense of her honor was
evidently excessive. On the side: The fact that she voluntarily surrendered to the lieutenant in the
chapel and admitted to stabbing the deceased , and the fact that she had acted in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense committed against her a few moments before, and upon such provocation
as to produce passion or temporary loss of reason, should be considered as mitigating circumstances in
her favor. The aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a place dedicated to religious
worship cannot be legally sustained as there is no evidence to show that defendant had murder in her
heart when she entered the chapel. She should therefore be charged with homicide without aggravating
circumstances and with mitigating circumstances.
treachery) of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia when the two were
constructing a fence (that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill). Narvaez,
who was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction, awoke and asked them to stop destroying
his house and asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer responded with "
." Narvaez lost his "equilibrium," and shot Fleisher first, then Rubia, who was running towards the jeep
to get his gun. Both died. Narvaez voluntarily surrendered and claimed he killed in defense of his person
and of his rights. The CFI convicted him of murder qualified by treachery with the aggravating
circumstance of evident premediation and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Prior to
the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle with the
Narvaez over certain pieces of property. At the time of the shooting, the civil case was still pending for
annulment (settlers wanted granting of property to Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). Narvaez had leased
his property from Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25,
Narvaez received a letter terminating the contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. He was given 6
months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months after letter.
ISSUE:
W/N CFI erred in convicting Narvaez despite the fact that he was acting in defense of his person and of
his rights.
HELD/RATIO
Narvaez ordered released immediately coz his penalty was reduced and he had already served it as he
was imprisoned for 14 years.
- NO
house was indeed a form of aggression against him, this aggression was not done against his person but
rather on his rights to property. However, in consideration of the violation of property rights, the courts
referred to Art. 30 of the civil code, which recognizes the right of owners to
subscribe to the article because his ownership of the land being awarded by the government was still
pending, therefore putting ownership into question. It is accepted that Narvaez
The argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if the 3 requirements are
fulfilled, according to Art. 11(1) RPC: 1.
Unlawful aggression
. 2.
clear. The pending case regarding ownership was decided only over a year after the incident, and even
then, Fleischer had given Narvaez until the end of the year to leave the land. Lack of sufficient
provocation was clear because Narvaez was asleep in his house, then asked Fleischer to stop so they
could talk. Firing a shotgun from a window, however, was a disproportionate means of resistance. Since
not all requisites present, defendant is credited w/ the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete
defense, pursuant to A13(6) RPC. These mitigating circumstances are: voluntary surrender & passion &
obfuscationduced his sentence to reclusion perpetua.
© Llave vs People
her and inserted his penis inside the victim’s vagina. The
took off.
MINOR ISSUE:
VALLEDOR
attacked him with a knife, but Roger was able to evade the
also courted Elsa but she rejected him. Elsa even spat on
70
river and uttering that his family will be killed. The brgy.
Disorder.
not fatal.
the will.
of its execution.
the victims.
crime.
the accused did not perform all the acts of execution that
73
(given that the Doquena was a 7th grade pupil, one of the
committed
and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the
commission of the act, but also after and even during the
trial.
ran inside a room just as Hicks drew his revolver and shot
Sola, who was close by in the sala of the house, on the left
and obfuscation?
Held: None!
kill the woman who had left him for another man, and in
Escano left the gang after his mom told him to stop
hanging out with Tac-An upon learning that the latter had
been carrying a gun around with him. From that point on,
door, Tac-An shot him on the head. The trial court found
110
Held: Nope!
provides as follows:
authority.
persons in authority.
as mitigating circumstances.
Facts: On or about the 15th day of November 1995, at Barangay Bilwang, Municipality of Isabel,
province of Leyte, accused Marivic Genosa, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hit and wound BEN GENOSA, her
legitimate husband, with the use of a hard deadly weapon, which the accused had provided herself for
the purpose, inflicting several wounds which caused his death.
The lower court found the accused, Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of parricide and sentenced the accused with the penalty of DEATH.
On appeal, the appellant alleged that despite the evidence on record of repeated and severe beatings
she had suffered at the hands of her husband, the lower court failed to appreciate her self-defense
theory. She claimed that under the surrounding circumstances, her act of killing her husband was
equivalent to self-defense.
Issue: Whether or not the “battered woman syndrome” as a viable plea within the concept of self-
defense is applicable in this case.
Held: No. The court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the battered
woman syndrome. We now sum up our main points. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence
must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her
intimate partner. Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must
have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm, from her batterer and
an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life. Third, at the time of the killing,
the batterer must have posed probable—not necessarily immediate and actual—grave harm to the
accused, based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether,
these circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the existing facts of the present
case, however, not all of these elements were duly established.