Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7


ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner-accused Velasco is guilty of

483 SCRA 649
February 28, 2006 HELD: YES. Velasco is guilty of attempted murder.
In accordance with Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, Velasco’s
FACTS: acts, having commenced the criminal act by overt acts but failing
On April 19, 1998, at about 7:30 o’clock in the morning, private to perform all acts of execution as to produce the felony by
complainant Frederick Maramba was cleaning and washing his reason of some cause other than his own spontaneous desistance,
owner type jeep in front of his house at Lasip Grande, Dagupan constitute an attempted felony. Petitioner already commenced his
City when a motorized tricycle stopped near him. Accused Rodolfo attack with a manifest intent to kill by shooting private
Velasco dashed out of the tricycle, approached the complainant complainant seven times, but failed to perform all the acts of
and fired at him several times with a .45 caliber pistol. The execution by reason of causes independent of his will, that is,
accused missed with his first shot but the second one hit the poor aim and the swiftness of the latter. Private complainant
complainant in the upper arm, causing him to stumble on the sustained a wound on the left arm that is not sufficient to cause
ground. The complainant stood up and ran, while the accused his death. The settled rule is that where the wound inflicted on
continued firing at him but missed. the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only
attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all the acts
Accused-petitioner Rodolfo C. Velasco was convicted of Attempted of execution that would have brought about death.
Murder. According to the Information filed against him, the
complainant-accused Velasco, being then armed with a gun, with Petitioner’s asserted that he has no motive to harm, much less kill
treachery and with intent to kill, attack, assault and use personal the latter, he being a total strange. Motive is not an element of
violence upon Frederick Maramba by shooting him, hitting him on the crime, and as such does not have to be proved. Even in the
the left upper arm, the said accused having thus commenced a absence of a known motive, the time-honored rule is that motive
felony directly by overt acts but did not perform all the acts of is not essential to convict when there is no doubt as to the
execution which could have produced the crime of murder, by identity of the culprit. Motive assumes significance only where
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous there is no showing of who the perpetrator of the crime was. In
desistance, to the damage and prejudice of complainant the case at bar, since petitioner has been positively identified as
Maramba. the assailant, the lack of motive is no longer of consequence.

Velasco alleged that he must not be convicted of attempted

murder but only attempted homicide as there was no treachery 4) NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR vs
since private complainant was still able to observe or focus his PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
eyes on him for a period of 10 seconds until he drew his .45 559 SCRA 461, 473
caliber pistol and fired at Maramba. After the first shot, the victim July 23, 2008
was able to run away. NACHURA, J.:
FACTS: produced by a pointed instrument, one side of which was sharp
like a balisong or a kitchen knife.
Spouses Ernesto and Margarita Zuiga had three daughters,
Marianne, Mary Ann married with petitioner-accused Nover Bryan Petitioner was thus charged with Homicide on the basis of the
Salvador and the victim Arlene. Mary Ann was married to the evidences: 1) the non-employment of force in entering the scene
petitioner herein. They all live together at 550 Coloong of the crime; 2) no missing personal belongings; 3) the absence
I, Valenzuela City. Their residence had three bedrooms one for of bloodstains in other parts of the house except Arlenes room; 4)
the Zuiga spouses; the other for Marianne and Arlene; and the petitioners ownership of a balisong, the same weapon used in
last for Mary Ann and the petitioner. stabbing the victim; 5) the presence of type O human blood on
petitioners T-shirt and briefs; 6) the positive result of the DNA
On September 20, 1997, the Zuiga spouses, together with analysis using the bloodstains found in petitioners shirt and briefs;
Marianne, went to Bulacan to attend the wake of Ernesto’s and 7) petitioners unusual behavior after the discovery of the
mother; while Mary Ann with her new born child, and Arlene, victims lifeless body.
stayed at their Valenzuela home. Petitioner Salvador, at that time,
asked permission to attend a birthday party. At about 9:00 in the Petitioner questions the sufficiency of each and every
evening, Salvador, accompanied by Eduardo Palomares, returned circumstance enumerated above and denied such accusations.
home to get some karaoke tapes to be used at the birthday
party. They thereafter went back to the party and stayed there ISSUE:
until 12 midnight before heading back home. Whether or not petitioner-accused Salvador is guilty of
At 4:30 in the morning, the following day, the Zuiga spouses and
Marianne arrived home. Marianne proceeded to the room which HELD:
she was sharing with Arlene. There she saw Arlene, who suffered
stab wounds, already dead. After seeing Arlene’s body, the Zuiga YES. Salvador is guilty of homicide.
spouses rushed to the room of Mary Ann and the petitioner. While
Mary Ann proceeded to Arlene’s room, petitioner stayed at Direct evidence of the crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a
the sala and cried. He was later seen embracing Mary Ann and trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules
telling her that he was innocent. of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to
support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that
The police found no forcible entry into the house; no valuables evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the
were missing; and no bloodstains in other parts of the house facts in issue may be established by inference. At times, resort to
except Arlene’s room. They likewise discovered, on top of the circumstantial evidence is imperative since to insist on direct
kitchen table, petitioners underwear (briefs), gray t-shirt and testimony would, in many cases, result in setting felonies free and
short pants. They further found hair strands on Arlenes deny proper protection to the community.
bed. These pieces of evidence were brought to the laboratory for
examination. It was found that Arlene suffered 21 stab wounds
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, provides that
circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following 7) EDUARDO L. BAXINELA, vs.
requisites are complied with: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
485 SCRA 331
(1) There is more than one circumstance; March 24, 2006
(2) The facts from which the inferences are derived AZCUNA, J.:
are proven; and
(3) The combination of all the FACTS:
circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. On the late night of October 18, 1996, petitioner-accused SPO2
Eduardo Baxinela was in Superstar Disco Pub was already drinking
All the circumstances must be consistent with one another with INSP. Regimen and SPO4 Legarda. After witnessing an
that the accused is guilty. Thus, conviction based on altercation between SGT Ruperto Lajo and another customer, on
circumstantial evidence can be upheld, provided that the Lajo’s way out, Baxinela decided to confront him. Baxinela
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to approached Lajo from behind and held the latter on the left
one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to shoulder with one hand while holding on to his .45 caliber service
the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. Thus, in the firearm with the other and accosted Lajo why he had in his
present case, all circumstantial evidences were proved against the possession a firearm Lajo respond "I am a MIG, Pare". Then,
accused and such can conclude the guilt of the accused Salvador. when Lajo was about to get his wallet on his back pocket for his
ID, SPO2 Eduardo Baxinela anticipated that the victim was
Ill motive was shown by petitioners previous act of peeping drawing his firearm on his waist prompting said policeman to
through the bathroom and Arlene’s room on two occasions while shoot the victim. Baxinela then got a gun from Lajo’s waist and
she was taking a bath and while she was inside the room with handed it over to Regimen. Afterwards Baxinela held both of
Marianne. Lajo’s arms, who was still standing, and pushed him against the
wall and repeated his question. Lajo answered "Why did you
More importantly, intent to kill was duly established by the shoot me? I am also a military." At this point Lajo got out his
witnesses when they testified relative to the peeping wallet and gave it to Baxinela. Baxinela opened the wallet and
incident. Although there was no evidence or allegation of sexual looked at an ID. Afterwards Baxinela and Regimen just left and
advances, such incident manifested petitioners evil motive. It is a did nothing to aid Lajo. Lajo was pronounced dead due to
rule in criminal law that motive, being a state of mind, is cardiopulmonary arrest and severe bleeding caused by the
established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or gunshot wound.
statements of the accused before or immediately after the
commission of the offense, deeds or words that may express it or On defense, Baxinela alleged that he, together with Regimen,
from which his motive or reason for committing it may be proceeded to the Superstar Disco Pub in response to the
inferred. Motive and intent may be considered one and the same, information given by Romy Manuba that there was an armed
in some instances, as in the present case. drunken man creating trouble inside the pub. He introduced
himself as a policeman and asked the man why he had a gun with
him. The man did not respond and, instead, suddenly drew out The first requisite is an indispensable requirement of self-defense.
his gun. Baxinela then drew his sidearm and was able to fire first, It is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no self-
hitting the man on his upper left arm, critically wounding him. defense, whether complete or incomplete. On this requisite alone,
When the man fell down, Baxinela took his gun and wallet and Baxinela’s defense fails. Unlawful aggression contemplates an
handed them over to Regimen. Regimen then stated that he actual, sudden and unexpected attack on the life and limb of a
enlisted the services of the pub’s security guard to bring the person or an imminent danger thereof, and not merely a
wounded man to the hospital. Thereafter, Baxinela and Regimen threatening or intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at
went to the Kalibo Police Station to report the incident and turned least imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack
over the wallet. Next, they proceeded to Camp Pastor Martelino would not be sufficient. As the evidence shows, there was no
and also reported the incident to Col. Bianson. imminent threat that necessitated shooting Lajo at that moment.
Just before Baxinela shot Lajo, the former was safely behind the
The Court now proceeds to determine if, following the victim and holding his arm. It was Lajo who was at a
prosecution’s version of what happened, Baxinela can claim the disadvantage. In fact, it was Baxinela who was the aggressor
justifying circumstances of self-defense and fulfillment of a duty when he grabbed Lajo’s shoulder and started questioning him.
or lawful exercise of a right or office. And when Lajo was shot, it appears that he was just turning
around to face Baxinela and, quite possibly, reaching for his
ISSUE: wallet. None of these acts could conceivably be deemed as
unlawful aggression on the part of Lajo.
Whether or not petitioner-accused Baxinela can claim the
justifying circumstances of self defense or in the alternative the Next, we consider the alternative defense of fulfillment of a duty.
lawful performance of official duty under Article 11, paragraphs 1 In order to avail of this justifying circumstance it must be shown
and 5, respectively, of the Revised Penal Code. that: 1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the
HELD: offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or
No. Baxinela cannot claim the justifying circumstances of self- office. While the first condition is present, the second is clearly
defense or the lawful performance of official duty under the lacking. Baxinela’s duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo
Revised Penal Code, Article 11. had a gun tucked behind his waist in a public place. This was
what Baxinela was doing when he confronted Lajo at the
The requisites for self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression on the entrance, but perhaps through anxiety, edginess or the desire to
part of the victim; 2) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of take no chances, Baxinela exceeded his duty by firing upon Lajo
the accused; and 3) employment of reasonable means to prevent who was not at all resisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be
and repel and aggression. By invoking self-defense, Baxinela, in considered due performance of a duty if at that time Lajo posed
effect, admits killing Lajo, thus shifting upon him the burden of no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to the civilians in the
the evidence on these elements. pub.
In the present case, the Court finds that there was negligence on back. Witness Saano put himself between the victim Cantre and
the part of Baxinela. Lajo, when he was shot, was simply turning petitioner Calimutan, and attempted to pacify the two, even
around to see who was accosting him. Moreover, he identified convincing petitioner Calimutan to put down another stone he was
himself saying "I am MIG." These circumstances alone would not already holding. He also urged victim Cantre and
lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe that Baxinela’s petitioner Calimutanto just go home. Witness Saano accompanied
life was in peril. Thus, his act of shooting Lajo, to the mind of this victim Cantre to the latters house, and on the way,
Court, constitutes clear negligence. But even if the Court assumes victim Cantre complained of the pain in the left side of his back hit
that Lajo’s actions were aggressive enough to appear that he was by the stone.They arrived at the Cantre’s house at
going for his gun, there were a number of procedures that could around 12:00 noon, and witness Saano left victim Cantre to the
have been followed in order to avoid a confrontation and take care of the latters mother, Belen.
control of the situation. The events inside the disco pub that
unnecessarily cost the life of Lajo did not have to happen had Calimutan opposed to such testimony alleging that
Baxinela not been negligent in performing his duty as a police Cantre refused to calm down at that time and pulled out from his
officer. waist an eight-inch Batangas knife and uttering that he was
looking for trouble, either to kill or be killed. At that point,
8) ROLLIE CALIMUTAN, vs petitioner Calimutan was about ten meters away from the
PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, ET AL., victim Cantre and was too frightened to move any closer for fear
482 SCRA 44 that the enraged man would turn on him. When he saw that the
February 9, 2006 victim Cantre was about to stab Bulalacao,
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: petitioner Calimutan picked up a stone, which he described as
approximately one-inch in diameter, and threw it at the
FACTS: victim Cantre. He was able to hit the victim Cantre on his right
On 04 February 1996, at around 10:00 a.m., the victim buttock.
Philip Cantre and witness Saano, together with two other
companions, had a drinking spree at a videoke bar in A day after, Victim Cantre died. According to his
Crossing Capsay,Panique, Aroroy, Masbate. On their way home, exhumation and autopsy report conducted by Dr. Ronaldo
they crossed paths with petitioner-accused Rollie Calimutan and a Mendez, it was due to internal hemorrhage and there was
certain Michael Bulalacao. Victim Cantre was harboring a grudge massive accumulation of blood in his abdominal cavity due to his
against Bulalacao, suspecting the latter as the culprit responsible lacerated spleen which can be caused by any blunt instrument,
for throwing stones at the Cantres house on a previous such as a stone. Before such autopsy, victim Cantre was also
night. Thus, upon seeing Bulalacao, victim Cantre suddenly examined by Dr. Conchita S. Ulanday, the Municipal Health Officer
punched him. While Bulalacao ran away, of Aroroy, Masbate and the Post-Mortem Examination Report
petitioner Calimutan dashed towards the backs of stated that the cause of death of victim Cantre was cardio-
victim Cantre and witness Saano. Petitioner Calimutan then picked respiratory arrest due to suspected food poisoning which cannot
up a stone, as big as a man’s fist, which he threw at be given much weight because there was no showing that further
victim Cantre, hitting him at the left side of his back. When hit by laboratory tests were indeed conducted to confirm such suspicion.
the stone, victim Cantre stopped for a moment and held his
Petitioner Calimutan was totally unaware of what had reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, under
happened to the victim Cantre after the stoning incident and knew Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
that Cantre died the following the day because of food
poisoning. Petitioner Calimutan maintained that he had no Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code classifies felonies according to
personal grudge against the victim Cantre previous to the stoning the means by which they are committed, in particular: (1)
incident. intentional felonies which was done with deliberate intent to
cause injury, and (2) culpable felonies which is unintentional, it
ISSUES: being simply the incident of another act performed without malice
1. Whether or not petitioner-accused Calimutan can be held or as stated in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, the wrongful act
criminally liable. results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
2. Whether or not Calimutan is guilty of an intentional crime skill.
of Homicide.
In the case at present, petitioner Calimutan cannot be attributed
HELD: to any malicious intent to injure, much less to kill, the
1. YES. Calimutan can be held criminally liable. victim Cantre; and in the absence of such intent, this Court cannot
sustain the conviction of petitioner Calimutan for the intentional
In accordance with Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code stating crime of homicide, as rendered by the RTC and affirmed by the
“Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a Court of Appeals. Instead, this Court finds
felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from petitioner Calimutan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
that which he intended,” thus, the accused is criminally liable for culpable felony of reckless imprudence resulting in
all the direct and natural consequences of the unlawful act even if homicide under Article 365 of the Revised Penal.
the ultimate result had not been intended.
Granting that petitioner Calimutan was impelled by a lawful
Based on the foregoing discussion, the prosecution was objective when he threw the stone at the victim Cantre, his act
able to establish that the proximate cause of the death of the was committed with inexcusable lack of precaution. He failed to
victim Cantre was the stone thrown at him by consider that a stone the size of a mans fist could inflict
petitioner Calimutan. Proximate cause has been defined as that substantial injury on someone. He also miscalculated his own
cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by strength, perhaps unaware, or even completely disbelieving, that
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without he could throw a stone with such force as to seriously injure, or
which the result would not have occurred. Other than being worse, kill someone, at a quite lengthy distance of ten meters.
stoned by petitioner Calimutan, there was no other instance when
the victim Cantre may have been hit by another blunt instrument
which could have caused the laceration of his spleen. 12) SULPICIO INTOD, vs.
2. NO. Calimutan is not guilty of intentional crime of October 21, 1992
homicide but is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of CAMPOS, JR., J.:
FACTS: HELD: YES. Intod is guilty of an impossible crime.

On February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Petitioner shoots the place where he thought his victim would be,
Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house in although in reality, the victim was not present in said place and
Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and asked him to go thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end. Under Article 4,
with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make
Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting the act an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the
with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he wanted intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime,
Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between there be a motive, desire or expectation is to perform an act in
them and that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, violation of the law; intention to perform the physical act; and
otherwise, he would also be killed. performance of the intended physical act.

At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Petitioner, To uphold the contention of respondent that the offense was
Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, Attempted Murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a
arrived at Palangpangan's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, supervening cause independent of the actor's will, will render
Misamis Occidental. At the instance of his companions, Mandaya useless the provision in Article 4, which makes a person criminally
pointed the location of Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, liable for an act "which would be an offense against persons or
Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City and accomplishment . . ." In that case all circumstances which
her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an
one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one accident independent of the actor's will which is an element of
was hit by the gun fire. attempted and frustrated felonies.

Petitioner and his companions were positively identified by Petitioner is thus guilty of an impossible crime as defined and
witnesses. One witness testified that before the five men left the penalized in Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal
premises, they shouted: "We will kill you (the witness) and Code, respectively. Having in mind the social danger and degree
especially Bernardina Palangpangan and we will come back if (sic) of criminality shown by Petitioner, this Court sentences him to
you were not injured". suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor,.

Intod was convicted of attempted murder. Petitioner seeks from

this Court a modification of the judgment by holding him liable
only for an impossible crime Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal
Code contending that Palangpangan's absence from her room on
the night he and his companions riddled it with bullets made the
crime inherently impossible.

ISSUE: Whether or not Intod is guilty of an impossible crime.