PEOPLE VS GONZALEZ After being arrested and released on bail, the two defendants begged the municipal president
After being arrested and released on bail, the two defendants begged the municipal president of Paombong to
Huntoria’s testimony, of which the prosecution’s argument solely rests, needs to beexamined further. Huntoria’s
claims in his testimony did not exact
ly match with those fromhis cross-examination. He first claimed that he recognized the people involved. However,
inthe cross-
examination, he “only saw flashes.”
This implies that he may not have recognizedanyone at all.
As such, Huntoria’s testimony co
uld not place a definite act committed or contributed by theappellant in the killing of the deceased.On the criminal
liability of the appellant:-
There is nothing in the findings or the evidence that establishes the criminal liability of theappellant as a principal
for direct participation under Art. 17, para. 1 of the Revised PenalCode.-
Furthermore, there is nothing in the findings or evidence that inculpates him by inducement,under paragraph 2 of
the same article. Based on the definition of felonies in Art. 3 of the
Revised Penal Code, the prosecution’s evidence could not establish intent nor fault. Recall
that the elements of felonies include:
o Witnesses saw Martin and Romana leaving the house on fire
An act or omission
o Romana was convicted as accomplice (6 years and 1 day of presidio mayor)
Act or omission must be punishable
o The lower court erred in convicting Romana as acoomplice
Act is performed or omission incurred by deceit or fault-
The lone witness could not properly establish any acts or omissions done by the appellant.He stated that he does
not know who hacked or stabbed the victim, thus implying that hedoes not know what the appellant did. With this,
the essential elements of felonies may noteven be present.-
Furthermore, the fact that there were five stab wounds and six accused would imply thatone of them may not
have caused a grave wound (especially given the statement of thephysician). This may have been the appellant,
and given that there is no evidence that the
appellant caused any of the wounds, coupled with the prosecution’s failure to prove the
presence of conspiracy (that is, how many people actually took part in the killing), itweakens the arguments
against the appellant
People vs. Silvestre and Atienza (Crim1)
People of the Philippine Islands, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Romana Silvestre and Martin Atienza, defendants-
appellants.
En Banc
Villareal, December 14, 1931
Topic: Elements of criminal liability (Art 3.) -- Physical element -- Act/Omission
Facts:
Romana Silvestre is the wife of Domingo Joaquin by his second marriage
Romana cohabited with codefendant Martin Atienza from March 1930 in Masocol, Paombong, Bulacan
On May 16, 1930, Domingo filed with the justice of the peace for Paombong, Bulacan a sworn complaint for
adultery
speak to the complainant and urge him to withdraw the complaint
The two accused bound themselves to discontinue cohabitation and promised not to live again in Masocol
(Atienza signed the promise)
On May 20, 1930, Domingo Joaquin filed a motion for the dismissal of his complaint and the justice of the peace
dismissed the adultery case
The accused left Masocol and wen to live in Santo Niño, in Paombong
About November 20, 1930: Romana met her son by her former marriage, Nicolas de la Cruz, in Santo Niño and
followed him home to Masocol (under the pretext of asking him for some nipa leaves)
Martin Atienza, who continued to cohabit with Romana, followed her and lived in the home of Nicolas
On the night of November 25, 1930, while Nicolas, his wife Antonia, and the appellants were gathered after
supper, Martin told Nicolas and Antonia to take their furniture out of the house because he was going to set fire
to it
He said that that was the only way he could be revenged upon the people of Masocol who, he said, had instigated
the charge of adultery against him and Romana
Martin was armed with a pistol so no one dared say anything to him
Nicolas and Antonia went to ask for help but were too late
The fire destroyed about 48 houses
The Court of First Instance of Bulacan convicted Martin and Romana of arson
Martin was convicted as principal by direct participation (14 years, 8 months, and 1 day of cadena temporal)
The court-appointed counsel for the accused-appellant prays for the affirmance of the CFI decision with regard
to Martin, but assigns errors with reference to Romana:
The court erred in not acquitting Romana upon ground of insufficient evidence, or at least, of reasonable doubt
Issue:
Whether or not Romana can be convicted as accomplice
Holding:
No.
Ratio:
Art. 14 of the Penal Code, in connection with Art. 13 defines an accomplice to be one who does not take a direct
part in the commission of the act, who does not force or induce other to commit it, nor cooperates in the
commission of the act by another act without which it would not have been accomplished, yet cooperates in the
execution of the act by previous or simultaneous actions.
In the case of Romana: there is no evidence of moral or material cooperation and none of an agreement to commit
the crime in question. Her mere presence and silence while they are simultaneous acts, do not constitute
cooperation, for it does not appear that they encouraged or nerved Martin Atienza to commit the crime of arson;
and as for her failure to give the alarm, that being a subsequent act it does not make her liable as an accomplice.
Mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without
evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the cooperation required by Art. 14 of the Penal Code for
complicity in the commission of the crime witnessed passively, or with regard to which one has kept silent
Decision is affirmed with reference to Martin Atienza, reversed with reference to Romana Silvestre, who is
acquitted.
U.S. v. Apostol 14 Phil. 92 September 2, 1909 CJ Arellano (NULLUM CRIMEN,NULLA POENA SINE LEGE
–
NO CRIME IF NO LAW PUNISHING IT :Presumption of Intent)
Facts:
On December 16, 1907, there were five individuals, including Catalino Apostol, who went to the house of Pedro
Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul to inquire about their missing carabaos.
After Tabilisima, Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul said that they knew nothing about it, Catalino Apostol
told them to leave the house. However, they refused to do so. Thus, Catalino set fire to the hut and the same was
burnt down.
 Decision: Judgment of conviction is reversed and defendant ordered to be discharged from custody.

According to the trial court, the testimonies of the injured party provided sufficient evidence to prove the
responsibility of the accused.
Therefore, Catalino was proven to have committed the acts within the provisions of
The judge decided in good faith under the belief that he was acting judiciously and correctly. It was a result of
erroneous exercise of judicial function and not an intention to deprive any person of his property feloniously. He
acted that debts might be paid t those who they are legally and justly due and not to enrich himself or another by
criminal misappropriation. It was a mistake not a crime.

article 549 of the Penal Code. He sentenced to sixteen years and one day of
cadena temporal.
And he ordered to indemnify the value of the burnt hut worth 1 pesos

Catalino then appealed to this Court with the following defense: 1.

There was absence of proof of intent. 2.

The fact that the burnt house was situated in an uninhabited place, it is improper to apply Art 549 instead Art 554
of the Penal Code should be applied.
Issue: MAIN ISSUE RELATED TO THE TOPIC. 1.

Whether or not proof of intent is needed?

2.

Whether or not due to the burnt hut being situated in an uninhabited place, it is not proper to apply article 549,
but article 554 in connection to 533 of the Penal Code?
Held:
1.

No.
As provided in Art 1 Penal Code, Criminal intent as well as the will to commit a crime are always presumed to
exist on the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear. In
the case, there was no need to prove the intent of Catalino for committing the act. As intent is largely a mental
process, there is always a presumption of intent arising from overt acts. 2.

No.
Based on the testimony of Tabilisima, they lived in the house that was situated in an uninhabited place,
surrounded by fields and far from the nearest house. They accused and his companions arrived around 8 pm and
questioned them about the missing carabaos stolen from them. They knew nothing about it thus Catalino set the
hut on fire. Their cries for help could not be heard from another house. The said house was not worth more than
P1 because it was small and they themselves constructed it.

Art 553 cannot be applied because it punishes the setting fire to an edifice intended for human habitation, in an
uninhabited place, at a time when it is unoccupied. Given the circumstance, It is article 549 that is applicable to
the case wherein punishes with the very severe penalties of cadena temporal to cadena perpetua "those who
shall set fire to any edifice, farmhouse, hut, shed, or vessel in port, with knowledge that one or more persons
were within the same
,”
US vs CATOLICO
Facts: The justice of peace of Cagayan had before him 16 separate civil cases initiated by Juan Canillas for
damages resulting from breach of contract. All cases were decided in favour of Canillas and all defendants
appealed the decision and deposited Php 16 and a bond of Php 50 as required by law. It appears that the sureties
of the bond were insolvent and new bonds were not presented on the extension given. Canillas appealed. The
justice of peace dismissed the appeals and ordered the sm of money attached and delivered to Canillas in
satisfaction of the judgment. The judge was prosecuted for malversation of funds.

Issue: Whether or not the defendant is guilty of felony.