Villa-Abrille, Trisha Marie O.

CRIMINAL LAW BOOK 2

FACTS:
Antero Gamez was accused of killing his own father,
CASE OUTLINE Apolinario, who he had a less than ideal relationship for
maltreating him as a child and for meddling with his marital
affairs. He pleaded guilty and raised self-defense after a
quarrel ensued between them during a drinking spree wih
his brothers. He claimed that his father uttered the words, “It
Title Eight is better if one of us will perish.”, and hacked him with a bolo
twice on his head.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of parricide

Chapters One-Two RULING:

Yes. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2)
the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased
is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. Here, it
is an undisputed fact that Apolinario was the accused’s
father. Moreover, the accused failed to prove that there was
an unlawful aggression to justify self-defense when he
attacked his father. Despite having already disarmed
Apolinario, he ran after the latter for about 20 m and then
stabbed him with a fatal incision on his neck that almost
decapitated his head. When unlawful aggression ceases, the
defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the
original aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting in self-
defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor.
First Year – Sanchez Roman
2nd Semester
2018-2019

2People vs Bucsit, G.R. No. L - 17865

Zapanta, Arvin
1People vs Gamez, G.R. No. 202847
FACTS:

(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 1

The wife and her paramour have had illicit relations for some
time and they conspired to do away with the husband in
order that they may marry. The man prepared and poisoned
the husband, which the latter partakes of the poisoned
morisqueta and dies as a result. The conspirators attempt to
cover up the crime by means of the paramour, Placido
Licudine, returning from the fields and reporting the death of
the husband, Pastor Pagaduan. The father-in-law recovered
the body of the deceased and informed the municipal
officials of the occurrence. Dr. Querol, the president of a
sanitary division in the Province of La Union, viewed the
remains and reported that Pastor Pagaduan had been
poisoned.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cipriana Buscsit is guilty of Parricide
RULING:
Yes, it was found out by the trial court that the accused
committed the crime by means of poisoning the victim. Both
Cipriana and her lover admitted through their sworn
statement that they have mixed the poison with the
morisquieta (rice) of former’s husband. Furthermore, Placido
Lucidine was fould guilty of murder.
3People vs Genosa, G.R. No. 135981
Abayon, Alvan King P.
FACTS:
Marivic Genosa, who was constantly abused by her
husband, Ben, had a heated argument with the latter on
November 15, 1995. The quarrel became more violent until it
reached the point where Ben threatened the life of his wife
using a cutter. However, Marivic was able to strike out
and/or shot Ben which resulted to the latter’s death. She
claims that she should be acquitted because what she did
was a mere self-defense.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was right in invoking
self-defense in committing the crime of parricide
RULING:
No. Under the proven facts, she is not entitled to complete
exoneration by virtue of self-defense because there was no
unlawful aggression on her by her batterer-husband at the
time she killed him.
This case, however, welcomed the novel concept of battered
woman syndrome in our jurisprudence as a consideration in
cases involving women suffering from a diminished will
power after experiencing cumulative abuse and provocation
from their significant others. If we will look at the case, the
repeated battering Marivic experienced with her husband
constitutes a form of cumulative provocation which broke
down her psychological resistance and natural self-control.
She had a state of psychological paralysis which can only be
ended by an act of violence on her part.
4People vs Tibon, G.R. No.188320
Advincula, Don Victorio IV
FACTS:
Honorio Tibon (accused-appellant) and his common-law wife
Gina lived together as husband and wife. They had two
children, Keen Gist and Reguel Albert. Gina went to
Hongkong to work as a domestic helper, leaving their
children to Tibon’s custody. After some time, it was revealed
that Gina was apparently having an affair in Hong Kong,
Tibon then started drinking a lot and was seen hitting his two
children. The accused then murdered Keen Gist and Reguel
Albert by stabbing them several times on the chest with a
bladed weapon, thereby inflicting upon them stab wounds
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 2
which were the direct and immediate cause of their death
thereafter.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tibon is guilty of Parricide
RULING:
Yes. The court considered Parricide as the applicable law in
this case. Under Article 264 of the Revised Penal Code,
parricide is committed when: (i) a person is killed; (ii) the
deceased is killed by the accused; (iii) the deceased is the
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or
a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of the accused. In this case, all the
elements of the crime were present.
5People vs Castro, G.R. No. 172370
Amar, Angelene Aries P.
FACTS:
Florenda Castro was chrged for the crime of parricide and
murder for the death of her husband, Elpido and her father-
in-law Alfredo. Her co-appellant Christopher Talita was
charged with double-murder for the actual shooting of the
said victims. Florenda was spotted in the get-away car that
picked Talita up from the crime scene. Upon awaiting the
final trial before the Supreme Court however, the accused
died while under the custody of the Bureau of Corrections in
Muntinlupa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused were guilty of the crimes
of murder and parricide
RULING:
Yes, Florenda is guilty of parricide for the killing of her
husband Alfredo and for murder for the death of her father-
in-law Elpidio. However, because of her death, her criminal
as well as civil liabilities are extinguished pursuant to Article
89 of RPC.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or
a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of accused.
The elements of murder are: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
deceased is killed by accused; (3) the killing is attended by
any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) the killing is neither
parricide nor infanticide.
The records bear out that appellant Florenda conspired and
confederated with her co-appellant Christopher in carrying
out the brutal killing of Alfredo and Elpidio. While Christopher
acted as the gunman, Florenda sowed the seeds of violence
by masterminding the reprehensible deed. Undeniably, their
concerted actions showed community of purpose and design
that formed a chain of evidence that established conspiracy
to commit parricide and murder.
6People vs San Gaspar, G.R. No. 180496
Amistad, Ryan James N.
FACTS:
In the afternoon of April 25, 1999, appellant, without
informing his wife Imelda, left home to attend the funeral of a
relative. Upon his return home, appellant was furious
because he saw his wife sleeping beside her grownup
children. Appellant then kicked her and this started a heated
altercation between them. Appellant then went upstairs and
returned with a .12 gauge shotgun. He loaded it, aimed the
shotgun at his wife and shot her on the head which lead to
her death.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant is guilty of parricide
RULING:
Yes, appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime parricide. Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is
killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the
deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. All the
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 3
elements are attendant on the present case and the
prosecution was able to establish that Imelda was shot and
killed by appellant based on the eyewitnesses’ account.
While the appellant only offered his denial of the offense.
7People vs Paycana, G.R. No. 179035
Bandigan, Rizza Jane P.
FACTS:
Sometime in 2002, Jesus Paycana Jr. came home from the
slaughter house, where he worked as a butcher, carrying his
tools of trade, a knife, a bolo and a sharpener. Lilybeth, who
was 7 months pregnant at that time, was preparing their kids
for school and was waiting for him to come home. For
reasons known to him alone, he stabbed his wife 14 times.
He was apprehended and charged with the complex crime of
parricide with unintentional abortion.
ISSUE: Whether or not he can be charged of the complex
crime of parricide with unintentional abortion in killing his 7-
month pregnant wife
RULING:
Yes, the charge was proper. The crime of parricide is
committed when: 1) a person is killed; 2) the deceased is
killed by the accused; and 3) the deceased is the father,
mother, or child, whether legitimate or a legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of
the accused. The key element in parricide is the relationship
of the offender with the victim. In this case, all of the
elements of parricide are present. Lilybeth died because of
the stab wounds inflicted by Jesus and he also admitted of
being married to the victim.
While the elements of unintentional abortion, as
distinguished from infanticide are: 1) that there is a pregnant
woman; 2) that violence is used upon such pregnant woman
without intending an abortion; 3) that the violence is
intentionally exerted; and (4) that as a result of the violence
the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been
expelled therefrom. In the crime of infanticide, it is necessary
that the child be born alive and be viable, that is, capable of
independent existence. However, even if the child who was
expelled prematurely and deliberately were alive at birth, the
offense is abortion due to the fact that a fetus with an
intrauterine life of 6 months is not viable. In the present case,
the unborn fetus was also killed when Jesus stabbed
Lilybeth several times.
Jesus Paycana, Jr. committed the grave felony of parricide
as well as the less grave felony of unintentional abortion and
a complex crime is committed when a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies. Thus, making him
criminally liable of the complex crime of parricide with
unintentional abortion.
8Peoplevs Abarca, G.R. No 74433
Campaner, Faith Angeli M.
FACTS:
On July 15, 1984, the accused found his wife, Jenny and
Kingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. When Jenny
and Koh noticed the accused, Jenny pushed her paramour
who got his revolver. The accused who was then peeping
above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran
away. The accused went to look for a firearm at Tacloban
City. He then proceeded to the "mahjong session" as it was
the "hangout" of Kingsley Koh. The accused found Koh
playing mahjong and fired at him three times with his rifle.
Kingsley Koh died instantaneously.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is liable under Art 247 of
the Revised Penal Code
RULING:
He is liable under Art 247. Article 247 prescribes the
following elements: (1) that a legally married person
surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person; and (2) that he kills any of
them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter.
These elements are present in this case. Though quite a
length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time
the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual
intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was
actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the
continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused-
appellant. It only requires that the death caused be the
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 4
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused
after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity.
9People vs Talisic, G.R. No. 97961
Casia, Lorraine Patricia S.
FACTS:
Danilo Jimmy Talisic testified that at dawn of May 8, 1988,
his mother, Janita Talisic, was stabbed to death with a chisel
by his father Jimmy Talisic, who afterwards displayed the
bloodied weapon before their altar. He related the killing to
their aunt and paternal grandfather. Dr. Regino Gaite
examined the body and said that the multiple wounds
resulted in hemorrhage and shock which ultimately caused
Janita’s death.
ISSUE: Whether the totality of the evidence presented
justifies the application of Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code
RULING:
No. The defense must show the concurrence of all three
elements:
1. That a legally married person (or a parent) surprises his
spouse (or his daughter, under 18 years of age and living
with him), in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person.
2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon
any or both of them any serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter.
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of
his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented
to the infidelity of the other spouse.
Jimmy Talisic failed to prove the essential requisite of having
caught his wife and her alleged paramour in flagrante
delicto. The Court held that it was difficult to believe his
account of subsequent events that upon catching sight of the
infidelity, he immediately drew his bolo and hacked but
missed the other man who had sufficient time to pull up his
pants and escape. His claim that he did not recognize the
man or even see his face is irreconcilable with his insistence
that the color of the latter’s short pants was yellow. His
declarations as to the location of the alleged paramour’s
short pants are also conflicting.
10People vs Puedan, G.R. Nos. 139576
Cuartero, Charmaine E.
FACTS:
In 1999, Rogelio Puedan was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Murder Qualified by Treachery after he
inflicted several stab wounds upon Florencio Ilar, which
caused the latter’s instantaneous death. He appealed the
decision by invoking the defense of Article 247, claiming that
he killed the victim after having caught him in the act of
having carnal knowledge with his wife, Leah Puedan.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused may invoke Article 247
as his defense in the charge of Murder Qualified with
Treachery
RULING:
NO. In order for Article 247 to be applied, the accused must
have proven that he actually surprised his wife and the victim
Florencio in flagrante delicto, and that he killed the man
during of immediately after. However, all the he was able to
establish was Florencio’s promiscuity, which is
inconsequential to the case.
Puedan’s version of the stabbing incident was diametrically
opposed to that of the prosecution’s witnesses. He claims
that we caught Florencio and his wife having carnal
knowledge, which was the reason why he stabbed the
victim. However, the victim’s body was found 15 meters
away from one of the witnesses’ house and 80 meters away
from that of the accused. When found, Florencio was fully
clothed in a shirt and pants, with all of the buttons intact. Had
he been actually caught by surprise while engaged in the
purported sexual act, he would not have had the opportunity
to get dressed, parry the forthcoming bolo thrusts, and then
grapple with Puedan.
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 5
Also, Puedan’s flight from the crime scene further eroded his
defense. While flight per se cannot prove the guilt of an
accused, it may be taken as a strong indication of such, in
light of other circumstances. He hid for about three years.
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. - Any legally married person who having surprised
his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and
their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.

Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the
other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
Elements:
1. That a legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and
living with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person;
2. That he or she kills any or both of them, or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical injury, in the act or
immediately thereafter; and
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or she has not consented
to the infidelity of others.

12People of the Philippines vs Charlie Flores, et al., G.R.

No. 228886
Estabillo, Stephanie E.

FACTS:
11US vs Versola, G.R. No. L-10759 That on December 25, 2002, the accused armed with bladed
Datukon, Kevin G. weapons, with intent to kill and qualified by abuse of superior
strength, conspired, confederated together and mutually
FACTS: helped one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
The accused and Sixta Layoc, his wife, were married twenty attacked and assaulted Larry Parcon and stabbed him
years ago, during the Spanish domination. There weren’t several times with the use of said bladed weapons, thereby
any provision of law which recognizes as legal a tribal inflicting upon him multiple fatal stabbed wounds on the
marriage of so-called non-Christians or members of different vital parts of his body which directly caused his
uncivilized tribes. While they knew that they had not been death.
married according to the requirements of the church, they
believed that they had been legally married, and, in that ISSUE: Whether or not all of the accused are liable for
belief, lived together for more than 20 years as man and murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
wife, having one child, Julian Verzola, as the result of such
cohabitation. They were living together at the time the event RULING:
occurred which led to this prosecution. The wife and the Yes, the accused are liable for murder qualified with abuse
paramour were caught in the act and the punishment was of superior strength. The following elements must be
inflicted by the husband on the instant. established: "(1) that a person was killed; (2) that the
accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing was attended by
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused may be charged under any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code of the [RPC]; and (4) that the killing is not parricide or
infanticide."
RULING: This Court thus finds no error in the affirmance by the
No, the accused may not be charged under Article 247 of the appellate court of the trial court's finding of guilt of the
Revised Penal Code. The only question raised on the trial or accused-appellants based on the sole testimony of the
here was the legality of the marriage between the accused prosecution witness who positively identified the perpetrators
and the woman whom he called his wife. It is admitted by the because no ill motive was also shown for the lone
court and by all the parties that, if there was a legal prosecution eyewitness to testify against accused-
marriage, the article is applicable. It is evident, however, that appellants. Further, the murder was qualified by abuse of
the provisions of this article are intended to apply only in superior strength because as established by the prosecution,
cases where the husband is lawful and married to the the accused-appellants, took advantage of their number,
offending wife. There is no authority in law for their extension purposely resorted to holding Larry by the armpit so that all
to include cases wherein the relations between the parties the knife-wielders would be free to stab him.
are other than those contemplated by the legislator.

(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 6


13People vs Aytalin, G.R. No. 134138
Estrosas, Hazel Diane B.
FACTS:
Accused Aytalin was convicted of murder for feloniously
attacking Eleazar Aquino by shooting the latter several times
with a gun, hitting him on the different parts of his body,
which caused his immediate death. Since accused Aytalin
opted not to present evidence in his defense, and the
witnesses identified him positively as perpetrator of the
crime, the RTC rendered him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime of murder.
ISSUE: Whether or not Accused Aytalin is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
RULING:
No, the accused should be convicted only of homicide, not
murder. Absence of any qualifying circumstance, the crime
should be merely homicide, not murder. In order to qualify
the killing as murder, evident premeditation or treachery
must be established as clearly as the killing itself. There is
evident premeditation if it shows the planning and the
preparation stages prior to the killing; or treachery if the
attack comes without warning, is sudden and unexpected,
and the victim not in a position to defend himself. In this
case, neither evident premeditation nor treachery attended
the killing; such evidence is wanting.
14People vs Manalad, G.R. No. 128593
Frias, Justine Faye P.
FACTS:
At about 3:00am, Orbino, a fish vendor, was on his way to
the fishport on board a pedicab. On the corner of Tilapia
Street, he saw Zenaida Manalad stab someone twice with a
10-inch bladed weapon. He was about 14 to 15 meters away
and the area was lighted by an electric lamppost. Thereafter,
Manalad and her four male companions scampered away.
Orbino got a good look at accused because she passed in
front of him.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery can be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance to warrant the conviction of the
accused of the crime of murder
RULING:
No, Orbino did not testify on the events that led to the
stabbing. It was not shown whether the attack was swift and
unexpected; or whether the victim did not expect the attack
or gave the slightest provocation. To appreciate treachery in
a continuous aggression, it must have been present at the
inception of the attack. Also, the fatal wounds at the back of
the deceased does not, by itself, compel a finding of
treachery. It is not enough that the means employed by the
malefactor gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself
or to retaliate as when the attack came from behind. To
sustain a finding of treachery, the means, method or form of
attack must have been deliberately adopted with a special
view to the accomplishment of the act without risk to the
assailant from any defense that the party assailed might
have made.
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 7

15People vs Pidoy, G.R. No. 146696
Gara, Hezekiah A.
FACTS:
Romeo Santia, Pablo Brillantes and Rodito Barrientos were
drinking tuba. At 5:00 p.m., Leonilo Pidoy arrived and joined
them. He was drunk. The three offered appellant a glass of
tuba but he refused. Instead, he argued with Santia about
their work. Their argument became heated and when
appellant approached Santia, they grappled, exchanged
blows and wrestled at the stairs. After about two minutes,
Rodito Brillantes was able to break up the fight. Pablo
Brillantes’ mother-in-law led appellant to the side of the rice
field while Santia remained and sat beside Pablo Brillantes
at the front yard of the house. After a short while, appellant
returned holding a combat bolo and repeatedly stabbed
Santia on the chest and other parts of the body. Santia died
as a result of his wounds.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pidoy is guilty of murder
RULING:
Yes. Pidoy is guilty of murder through the qualifying
circumstance of treachery. All the elements of murder in
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code are present. First,
Santia, the victim was killed. Second, it was proven that
Pidoy was the one who killed Santia. Third, the killing was
attended by a qualifying circumstance of treachery. At the
time of the attack, Santia was not in a position to defend
himself. In fact, Santia was sitting down and presumably
inebriated which indicates that he had let his guard down. In
addition, Pidoy used a combat bolo, locally known as
ginunting on killing Santia. Moreover, though the attack was
frontal, it does not erase the fact of treachery because the
essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack,
affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no
chance to resist or to escape. Lastly, Pidoy is in no way
related to Santia and so the killing does not fall under the
category of parricide or infanticide but of murder.
16People vs Alfon, G.R. No. 126028
Gaviola, Clariza B.
FACTS:
Expedito Aldon, the accused herein, was charged of murder
after killing Tomas Alferez by using a balisong. The
prosecution presented four witnesses: Vicente Eusebio,
Manuel Rayoso, Dr. Minerva Aguirre and Rodolfo Alferez.
The first two witnesses stated that they saw the victim while
from the opposite direction being followed by the accused
and shortly thereafter, when the victim and accused were six
meters away from them, the accused suddenly hold the
victim’s shoulder and stab the latter with a balisong at the
lower left side of his chest. Thereafter, accused ran away
towards the seashore. Dr Minerva as the Municipal Health
Officer who conducted the autopsy of the victim’s body,
testified on her post mortem findings that the victim
contained two stab wounds. Rodolfo Alferez, the victim’s
brother testified to prove the civil liability of the accused by
submitting the evidence of the funeral and burial expenses.
In the foregoing, accused denied all the allegations by
asserting that considering the circumstances of the stabbing
incident as narrated by the prosecution and the location of
the injuries, an attack from behind is hardly believable. He
avers that assuming that he was indeed following the victim
prior to the attack, it could have been easier and more
convenient for him to stab the victims back. However, as it
now appears, the injuries are all found on the front of the
victim. He thus argues that in the ordinary course of things,
the attack was more likely frontal, contradictory to the
testimonies of the prosecution.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused had killed the victim with
treachery
RULING:
Yes, the court convincingly established that the accused had
killed the victim with treachery. The elements of treachery
under the Revised Penal Code are the following: (1) that at
the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself, and (2) that the offender consciously
adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.
In the case at bar, it was established that accused came
from behind, went towards the right of the victim, and
suddenly stabbed the victim’s chest while holding the latter’s
left shoulder. Evidence shows that, first, at the time of attack,
the victim was not in a position to defend himself, as he was
unarmed and totally unsuspecting when appellant suddenly
held and stabbed him; and second, appellant consciously
and deliberately adopted the particular means of attack, as
he was seen surreptitiously following the victim with a
balisong tucked under his waist. Clearly therefore, treachery
attended the crime.
17Peoplevs Oandasan, G.R. No. 194605
Gumana, Neslin Angelique D.
FACTS:
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 8
Mariano Oandasan, was charged with murder and homicide
for the fatal shooting of Danilo Montegrico and Edgardo
Tamanu, and frustrated homicide for the near-fatal shooting
of Mario Paleg by the RTC. The accused raised the defense
of denial and alibi, but the charges were nevertheless upheld
by the CA.
ISSUE: Whether Oandasan is guilty of the crimes charged
RULING:
YES. There is no doubt that Prosecution witness Cutaran
positively identified the accused as the person who had shot
Montegrico. Denial and alibi do not prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the State's witnesses who
are categorical and consistent and bereft of ill motive
towards the accused. The Court further modified the charges
against Oandasan, stating that treachery also attended the
shooting of Tamanu and Paleg. The shooting of the victims
had occurred in quick succession. The three were drinking
together outside their bunkhouse prior to the shooting when
Oandasan suddenly appeared from the rear of the dump
truck, walked towards their table and shot Montegrico
without any warning. That first shot was quickly followed by
more shots. In that situation, none of the three victims was
aware of the imminent deadly assault by the accused, for
they were just enjoying their drinks outside their bunkhouse.
They were unarmed, and did not expect to be shot, when the
accused came and shot them. The two conditions in order
for treachery to be appreciated concurred, namely: (a) that
the means, methods and forms of execution employed gave
the person attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or
to retaliate; and (b) that such means, methods and forms of
execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the
accused without danger to his person. Therefore, Oandasan
is guilty of two counts of Murder and of Frustrated Murder.
18People vs Cañaveras, G.R. No. 193839
Jaraplasan, Bernadette
FACTS:
Javier Cañaveras was found guilty of murder with the
qualifying circumstances of treachery and taking advantage
of superior strength, following the death of Claro Sales.
Carlo was heard shouting that a certain “Judas” must come
out. The second time he shouted, three persons went
outside the house of Oriel where they were drinking liquor.
Unidentified persons were seen repeatedly punching Claro.
Just as he was about to escape, Javier went out of the
house and struck him on the head with a grande beer bottle.
Claro was able to take only five more steps and then
collapsed.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery was proven in the present
case
RULING:
No, treachery is not proven. Treachery is appreciated as a
qualifying circumstance when the following elements are
shown: a) the malefactor employed means, method, or
manner of execution affording the person attacked no
opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and b) the
means, method, or manner of execution was deliberately
or consciously adopted by the offender. Treachery
involves not only the swiftness, surprise, or suddenness of
an attack upon an unsuspecting victim, rendering the victim
defenseless. It should also be shown that the mode of attack
has knowingly been intended to accomplish the wicked
intent.
Thus, the second element is the subjective aspect of
treachery. It means that the accused must have made some
preparation to kill the deceased in a manner that would
insure the execution of the crime or render it impossible or
hard for the person attacked to resort to self-defense or
retaliation. The mode of attack, therefore, must have been
planned by the offender and must not have sprung from an
unexpected turn of events.
The rule is that treachery is not present when the killing is
not premeditated, or where the sudden attack is not
preconceived and deliberately adopted, but is just triggered
by a sudden infuriation on the part of the accused as a result
of a provocative act of the victim, or when the killing is done
at the spur of the moment.
In this case, the appellant and his companions had no time
to deliberately plan and adopt a particular means to kill
Claro. The first query of Claro was regarded innocent and
was not paid attention. It was when Claro asked for the
second time that was considered impertinent, and so he was
followed by the accused and his companions. Even the
choice of weapon, a beer bottle readily available and
grabbed within the range of the accused as he followed
outside, showed that the intent to harm came only
spontaneously. Hence, treachery cannot be appreciated in
the commission of the crime.
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 9

19People vs Peran et. al., GR No. 95259
Macacua, Alvia Aisa B.
FACTS:
Bernardo Peran and Jose Namoc engaged in an altercation
regarding the ownership of a puppy. Bernardo together with
Junior Narido and Felix Piquero brought Jose to the creek.
Bernardo hit Jose on the forehead. Junior gave Jose a
second blow, again hitting him in the forehead, with a stone.
Felix Piquero, gave the last blow with his fist, hitting the
victim on his mouth while holding him on his head.
ISSUE: Whether the killing is qualified by treachery
RULING:
No, treachery is absent. Treachery cannot be presumed, it
must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as
conclusively as the killing itself. One continuous attack
cannot be broken up into two or more parts and made to
constitute separate, distinct, and independent attacks so that
treachery may be injected therein, and considered as
qualifying or aggravating circumstance.
Here, Bernardo Peran and Junior Narido held the victim
while Felix Piquero followed them on their way from Jose's
house in the direction of the creek. When they reached the
place, Bernardo Peran, hit the victim with a piece of wood
while facing the victim. There was no other description
offered by the witness on how the attack was carried out.
20US vs Baluyot, G.R. No. L-14476
Mangontawar, Nor-Hidaya
FACTS:
Conrado Lerma and Jose I. Baluyot were candidates for the
position of Provincial Governor. Lerma won. Baluyot was
later on persecuted for Estafa and was even suspended
from his work, and he attributed these unfortunate events to
the machinations of Lerma. Because of this, he decided to
go to Lerma’s office and asked for an interview and there he
shot Lerma three times which caused the death of the latter.
So Baluyot was charged for the crime of murder.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime of murder was committed
RULING:
Yes. The offense committed was properly qualified as
murder because the qualifying circumstance of alevosia was
present. The Court explained that even supposing
that alevosia had not been present in the beginning of the
assault, it would be necessary to find this element present
from the manner in which the crime was consummated and
that even though the beginning of an attack resulting in the
death of the deceased is free from treachery of any sort,
nevertheless it will be found present if, at the time the fatal
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 10
blow is struck, the deceased is helpless and unable to
defend himself.
In this case, Baluyot’s first blow hit Lerma in the right
shoulder and on the the latter’s act of fleeing, a second blow
hit again his right shoulder. This did not kill Lerma but when
he was able to hide inside the cabinet, Baluyot shot him for
the third time and this time, the bullet passed through the
panel of the door and struck Governor Lerma in the forward
part of the head near and above the right temple. This made
Lerma unconscious and eventually died.
21People vs Alban, G.R. No. L-15023
Narciso, Girly Mae A.
FACTS:
At around 8:00 on the night of July 16, 1956, two men, with
handkerchiefs over their faces below the eyes, came up the
house of Teofilo Boado. The couple, who had just gone to
sleep, were awakened. Marcela (wife) got up and lighted 2
kerosene lamps. With one of the lamps, Marcela went to the
dining room, where she met the two men. As they advanced
inward her husband, Marcela recognized appellant, although
with a mask (handkerchief) below the eyes, as one of the
two intruders. Appellant had a small gun, white in color. All of
a sudden Marcela heard shots. Turning back, she saw her
husband Teofilo fall upon the floor. Teofilo was brought to
the Hospital where not long after, he expired.
ISSUE: Whether Alban is guilty of murder
RULING:
Yes. The accused is guilty of the crime of murder, qualified
by treachery, as he shoot the victim Teofilo Boado, who was
unarmed, suddenly and without any warning, thereby
insuring the accomplishment of the crime, without risk to him
(appellant) arising from the defense which said victim might
have offered.
22People vs Hugo (2003), G.R. No. 134604
Clint Ace Norcos
FACTS:
On their way home, the Remegio (victim) and Joel (witness),
were met by Ernesto, Lorenzo, and Rudy (defendants).
Ernesto came face to face with victim, suddenly hacked him
twice with a bolo, and quickly ran away. Lorenzo hacked the
victim with a bolo on the back of his head, causing the latter
to fall to the ground, and delivered another blow. Afterwards,
Rudy hacked Remegio at the mouth and forehand. Lorenzo
and Rudy forthwith fled.
ISSUE: Whether the act of killing the victim was attended
with (1) treachery, (2) evident premeditation, and (3) abuse
of superior strength to qualify the killing to the crime of
murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING:
Treachery: Yes, the killing was attended by treachery
therefore Ernesto, who voluntarily surrendered, was guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. Lorenzo
and Rudy, on the other hands, were acquitted on the ground
of reasonable doubt. The assault was sudden, unexpected,
and unprovoked. There was no exchange of words between
the victim and Ernesto at any time before the actual attack.
The several blows were delivered continuously and the
victim was simply overwhelmed by the swiftness of the
attack, thus ensuring the execution of the offense without
risk to Ernesto. Clearly, the requisites of treachery were
present.
SAME; Evident Premeditation: No, the killing was not
attended by premeditation. While the crime was planned an
hour before the incident, the prosecution failed to show
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 11
manifest acts that Ernesto took thereafter to indicate that he
clung to his plan to kill victim. Moreover, there was no
sufficient time for him to meditate on the consequences of
his acts.

SAME; Abuse of Superior Strength: No, the killing was not

attended by abuse of superior strength. The records are
bereft of any information with respect to the physical
condition of both Ernesto and Remegio, and even assuming
arguendo that it existed, abuse of superior strength should
not be appreciated separately, for it is absorbed in treachery.

24People vs Astudillo et. al., G.R. No. 141518

Reyes, Desiree Mae E.

23People
vs Fieldad, GR No. 196005
Ramos, Rovi Kennth T. Ramos
FACTS:
At around 7 am, JO2 Gamboa summoned inmate Badua. He
gave the keys and instructed him to open the all the cells for
the routine headcount. Chan, an inmate went to Gamboa to
inquire about the time of his hearing. While both are
conversing, JO2 Niturada ran and answer the telephone in
the administration building. After the phone call, Niturada
saw Chan place an arm on the shoulder JO2 Gamboa and
shoot him with a short firearm. Meanwhile Fieldad grappled
with JO1 Bacolor for the possession of the armalite. Cornista
struck the Bacolor at the back of his head and Fieldad armed
with Gamboa’s gun shot Bacolor twice. They opened the
maingate and boarded a parked Tamaraw jeep. Along the
way they transferred, to a Mazda pick-up truck and it turned
turtle and the accused ran to the cane field where police
authorities surrounded and apprehended them.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was treachery
RULING:
Yes, there is treachery. The elements of treachery are the
following:
1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in
the position to defend himself.
2. The accused consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, method or form
of attack employed by him.
FACTS:
The brothers Astudillos, went to house of Damian. Clarence
asked the victim, Aquino, to go with him. Aquino acceded
and walked towards a store, where they were joined by the
other brothers. Crisanto and Silvestre had an argument. 2
witnesses saw Clarence stab Silvestre with a bolo while
Crisanto and Hilario held him by the wrists. Clarence
stabbed him several times at the back and chest of the
victim until the latter fell to the ground. They then rode on an
unregistered motorized tricycle which they used in escaping.
ISSUE: Whether or not Clarence, Cristano and Hilario
Astudillo are guilty of murder with generic aggravating
circumstance of use of motor vehicle
RULING:
Yes. They are guilty of murder qualified by treachery but no
generic aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle.
There is treachery since appellants deliberately restrained
the victim so that one of them can stab without giving Aquino
a chance to defend himself or to retaliate. With the generic
aggravating circumstance, the trial court erred in
appreciating it because the prosecution failed to show that
the tricycle was deliberately used to facilitate the commission
of the crime or that the crime could not have been committed
without it. The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating where
the use was merely incidental and was not purposely sought
to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the
escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.

In the case at bar, despite being armed the jail officers were
not afforded any chance of defending themselves. Without
warning, Feildad and his cohorts disabled the defenses of
the jail officers. Chan held the shoulder of Gamboa as he
shot the later. Meanwhile, Fieldada teamed up with Cornista
to divest JO1 Bacolor his armalite and to knock him down.
Then Fieldad took Gamboa’s gun and shot JO1 Bacolor.

(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 12


25Simangan vs People GR No. 157984
Reyes, Robea Anne Q.
FACTS:
At 8:00 p.m. on February 10, 1980, the petitioner along with
male persons arrived at the store of the spouses Flores.
Ernesto and Sofronia entertained the men. Momentarily, the
petitioner asked Ernesto to go with them to serve as a guide.
Ernesto then agreed to accompany the visitors. The next
morning, Sofronia was informed that Ernesto was dead; lying
on the ground, face down, with his hands tied behind his
back. The Municipal Health Officer, performed an autopsy of
the cadaver and concluded that the victim died because of
shock due to massive internal and external hemorrhage from
multiple stab wounds.
ISSUE: Whether or not cruelty should be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance
RULING:
No. In sum, it was proper to convict petitioner of homicide.
However, the appellate court erred in appreciating against
the petitioner the aggravating circumstances of cruelty and
nighttime. In the first place, such circumstances were not
alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Moreover,
the crime is not aggravated by cruelty simply because the
victim sustained ten stab wounds, three of which were fatal.
For cruelty to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance, there must be proof that, in inflicting several
stab wounds on the victim, the perpetrator intended to
exacerbate the pain and suffering of the victim. The number
of wounds inflicted on the victim is not proof of cruelty.
26People vs Buensuceso, 132 SCRA 143
Sambrano, Jan Loureene P.
FACTS:
A heated argument took place between Patrolman Aguilar
and Tayag arising from the latter’s refusal to give his fan
knife to the former. Thereafter, Tayag hurriedly left the office.
He was followed by Pat. Aguilar, Mallari, and de la Cruz who
walked fast, with Aguilar and Mallari holding guns. After
having gone out of the building, Pat. Aguilar fired his gun
upward. Hearing the shot, Tayag turned about, then
retreated backwards until he reached the fence of the plaza.
When Tayag was near the wooden fence about a knee high,
Pat. Aguilar aimed his gun at Tayag and fired, hitting him
above the right knee. Then there were several successive
gun shots, more or less nine in number. After the
commotion, Tayag was seen lying prostrate near the back of
a jeep parked at the corner of Rizal and San Juan Streets.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused are liable for Murder
RULING:
Yes. The Court said that the crime is Murder qualified by
treachery. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code Murder is
committed when (i) a person was killed, (ii) the accused
killed him, (iii) the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mention in Article 248, in this case,
treachery, and, (iv) the killing is not parricide or infanticide. In
this case, all the elements of Murder are present. Treachery
was present because notwithstanding that the victim was
already hit and wounded and possibly immobilized, he was
still subjected to successive shots. Certainly, the means
employed by the accused tended directly and specially to
insure the execution of the crime.
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 13
 28People vs Basay, 219 SCRA 404
Tan, Daniel Carlos

27Peoplevs Pugay, 167 SCRA 439
Suyo, Alexandra Cates Erika B.
FACTS:
A town fiesta fair was held in which the two accused
Fernando Pugay and Benjamin Samson were present,
uproariously happy and drunk. When the victim Bayani
Miranda, a retardate, passed by they started to make fun of
him and made him dance. Wanting to do more, accused
Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the
engine of the ferris wheel and poured its contents on the
body of the former. Samson set Miranda on fire, making a
human torch out of him. The victim eventually died from his
wounds.
ISSUE: Were the accused liable for homicide under Article
249 of the Revised Penal Code
RULING:
Since there is nothing in records showing that there was a
conspiracy between the two accused, each of them is liable
only for the act committed by him.
FACTS:
Teodoro Basay and Jaime Ramirez were charged with
Multiple Murder with Arson for killing spouses Zosimo and
Beatrice Toting and their daughter, Bombie, and for burning
the Toting’s house down to conceal the evidence. The fire
also consumed another daughter, Manolita. After trial
proceedings, the trial court acquitted Basay due to lack of
evidence against him, but convicted Ramirez by taking into
account his extra-judicial “confession”.
ISSUE: Was Ramirez’s extra-judicial confession
inadmissible in evidence
RULING: Yes, the extra-judicial confession was
inadmissible. The Court noted that the confession was
written in English, a language Ramirez did not understand,
and there was no evidence that the questions of the police in
the investigation were translated for Ramirez. Furthermore,
he did not sign a waiver of his right to remain silent and to
counsel. He was not even told of his choice to retain counsel
and how he could be provided for counsel if he couldn’t
afford one. Finally, he was not assisted by counsel at the
investigation.

For Pugay, he must have known that he was pouring

gasoline on Miranda by the virtue of the pungent smell that
gasoline emits. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence
necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising
from the act. As such, the accused is only guilty of homicide
through reckless imprudence defined in Article 365 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.

For Samson, treachery may not apply in this case for there is
no evidence that he had some reason to kill the deceased
before the incident. Giving him the benefit of doubt, it can be
conceded that he merely intended to set the deceased's
clothes on fire. As no sufficient evidence establishes any
qualifying circumstances, the accused Samson is only guilty
of the crime of homicide defined and penalized in Article 249
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The court credited
in his favor the ordinary mitigating circumstance of no
intention to commit so grave a wrong.

(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 14


29People vs Corpuz, G.R. No. L-36234
Villa-Abrille, Trisha Marie O.
FACTS:
Romeo Corpuz and other prisoners at the New Bilibid
Prisons in Muntinglupa, Rizal, were charged with murder and
frustrated murder for the killing of two prisoners and the
physical injuries inflicted on three others as a consequence
of a stabbing incident between the two rival groups. One of
the death victims suffered three stab wound while the other
sustained two. All the accused pleaded not guilty and later
repudiated their extrajudicial confessions for having allegedly
been extracted under duress.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of
death in a tumultuous affray?
RULING:
No, Corpuz is not liable under Article 251 of the RPC.
There is death in a tumultuous affray when, while several
persons, not composing groups organized for the
common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a
confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of
the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be
ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the
person or persons who inflicted serious physical
injuries can be identified. In this case, the quarrel was
between two well-known groups of prisoners. There was no
confusion. However, Corpuz, and the others are guilty of
murder and of less serious physical injuries, and of slight
physical injuries based on their admissions.
30Dado vs People, G.R. No. 131421
Zapanta, Arvin
FACTS:
The team was formed to intercept cattle rustlers. The team
was composed of petitioner SPO4 Geromino Dado and
CAFGU members Francisco Eraso, Alfredo Balinas, and
Rufo Alga, waited behind a large dike at Sitio Paitan, Sultan
Kudarat. At around 11:00 of the same evening, the team saw
somebody approaching at a distance of 50 meters. Petitioner
alleged that he was facing eastward while his companions,
CAFGU members, Francisco Eraso, Alfredo Balinas, and
Rufo Alga, were facing southwards. When he heard rapid
gun bursts, he thought they were being fired upon by their
enemies, thus, he immediately fired a single shot eastward.
It was only when accused Eraso embraced and asked
forgiveness from Alfredo Balinas, that he realized somebody
was shot.
ISSUE: Whether or not Geronimo Dado was guilty of illegal
discharge of firearms
RULING:
Yes, the elements of this crime are: (1) that the offender
discharges a firearm against or at another person; and (2)
that the offender has no intention to kill that person. Though
the information charged the petitioner with murder, he could
be validly convicted of illegal discharge of firearm, an offense
that is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful killing of
a person. Under Rule 120, Section 4, of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure, when there is a variance between
the offense charged in the complaint or information and that
proved, and the offense as charged is included in or
necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall
be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the
offense charged, or the offense charged which is included in
the offense proved.
However, he is not guilty of murder nor conspiracy to commit
the same. The doubt entertained by NBI Ballistician Elmer D.
Piedad, as to whether the 2 other metallic fragments
(marked as exhibit "SB-2" and "SB-3") are indeed parts of
the lead core of the "SB-1", which is part of a copper jacket
of a caliber 5.56 mm. jacketed bullet, must be resolved in
favor of petitioner; that is, said metallic fragments cannot be
presumed to be particles of a .45 caliber bullet fired from the
.45 caliber pistol of petitioner. Under equipoise rule, where
the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is
doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party
having the burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds
application if, as in the present case. The inculpatory facts
and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused
and the other consistent with his guilt, for then the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty, and does not
source to produce a conviction.
31Escalante vs People, G.R. No. 192727
Alvan King P. Abayon
FACTS:
Raul Escalante, then the Municipal Mayor of Almagro,
Samar, was the guest of honor during the fiesta celebration
in Barangay Biasong that was held on April 3, 1995.
Escalante delivered a speech stating that he had never won
at Barangay Biason in any election, which led the supporters
of the rival party to shout invectives at him. He then stopped,
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 15
went to the table of his political rivals and fired a shot
upwards.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused violated the election gun
ban upon possession of a firearm with live ammunition
outside of his residence within the period imposed by the
COMELEC
(In relation to the provision assigned: WON the accused is
guilty of committing the crime of discharge of firearms stated
in Article 254 of the Revised Penal Code)
RULING:
Yes. The claim of the accused that the firearm alleged to be
possessed by him during the incident was in fact in the
possession of PO3 Unajan and that it was only when he
wrestled the firearm away from the latter that he was able to
possess it, is untenable. The court found the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses as to the petitioners possession of
a firearm during the said incident to be categorical and
straightforward and should thus be accorded full weight and
credit.
(No. The crime of discharge of fireams requires for the
offender to discharge a firearm against or at another person.
The phrase “shall shoot at another” means that it should be
aimed towards a particular person. The crime is not
committed if it is not directed to the person of the victim such
as his house. This crime may not be committed through
imprudence because the law requires that the discharge
must be directed at another.)
32Dungo & Sibal, Jr. vs People, 761 SCRA 375
Abutazil,Sittie Alyssa B.
FACTS:
Marlon Villanueva was a neophyte of the Alpha Phi Omega fraternity.
On January 14, 2006 at Villa Novaliches, Calamba City, Laguna,
Dandy Dungo and Gregorio Sibal Jr. together with other Alpha Phi
Omega fraternity members and officers held an initiation rite.During
said rite, Villanueva was subjected to physical harm leading to his
death. Dungo and Sibal were charged with violation of RA 8049 or
the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995. The RTC found Dungo and Sibal guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC explained that despite the fact
that there was no evidence that Dungo and Sibal participated in
inflicting physical harm to Villanueva, their aid in inducing Villanueva
to attend the initiation rite and bringing him to the location was
indispensable. Dungo and Sibal appealed but the CA upheld the
ruling of the RTC. - Hence, they appealed to the Supreme Court.
Dungo and Sibal argued that the information charged them as “they
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault and use
personal violence upon [Villanueva].” Yet, both the RTC and CA
found them guilty of violating RA 8049 because “they induced the
victim to be present during the initiation rites.” Since inducement is
not included in the crime of hazing by actual participation, they cannot
be convicted of a crime noit stated or necessarily included in the
information. They contend that this is a violation of their constitutional
right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against
them.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dungo and Sibal can be convicted of the
crime of hazing under RA 8049
RULING: YES
The SC ruled that Dungo and Sibal can be convicted of violation of
RA 8049 despite the lack of evidence in their direct participation. The
crime of hazing RA 8049 is a mala prohibita. The act of hazing itself
is not inherently immoral, but the law deems the same to be against
public policy and must be prohibited. Accordingly, the existence of
criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also, the defense
of good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution. The argument of
Dungo and Sibal that they were not properly informed of the
accusation against them was also not accepted by the court.
According to the Rules of Court , the information need not use the
exact language of the statute in alleging the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense. The test is whether it
enables a person of common understanding to know the charge
against him, and the court to render judgment properly. The court
said that the act of inducing the victim to attend the initiation rite is
necessarily part of a “planned initiation rite.” Not only did they induce
the victim, they also brought him to the location. They fulfilled their
role in the planned hazing rite which led to the death of the victim.
Furthermore, RA8049 provides that the presence of any person
during the hazing is a prima facie evidence of participation as
principal unless he prevented the commission of the punishable act.
33People vs Fortich, 281 SCRA 600
Advincula, Don Victorio IV
FACTS:
On the evening of March 31, 1983, after attending mass,
sisters Marilou and Maritess Nobleza, together with their
friends Rolly Imperio and Luis Tumang, proceeded to Alta
Tierra Hotel in Carmen Hill using an Isuzu pick-up owned by
latter's mother. After a while the group decided to go home.
Suddenly, two men (Fortich and Gaid) armed with handguns
emerged from the rear end of the vehicle and fired a single
shot which hit the left side of the pick-up. They introduced
themselves as members of the New People's Army (NPA)
and ordered the sisters to get inside the vehicle while
Imperio and Tumang were instructed to strip. Gaid thumped
Imperio on the head with a .38 caliber revolver causing him
to fall down, while Tumang was hit several times by Fortich
in various parts of the body and momentarily lost
consciousness.
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 16
ISSUE: Whether or not Tumang suffered less serious
physical injuries as defined in Article 265 of the RPC
RULING:
Yes. As regards the injuries suffered by Tumang, the Court
subscribe to the finding of the lower court that,
notwithstanding the non-presentation of Dr. Aldanese of the
Medical City General Hospital at the trial, Tumang’s credible
testimony bolstered by documentary evidence, such as
progress payments and professional fees for neurological
management and craniatomy excision of depressed fracture,
proved that the Tumang suffered less serious physical
injuries, as defined in Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code.
34People
vs Sales, G.R. NO. 177218
Amar, Angelene Aries P.
FACTS:
Brothers Noemar and Junior were beaten with a stick by
their father, the appellant, which broke so he brought his
children out of their house. He tied both kids to a coconut
tree where the appellant continued t beat them with a thick
piece of wood. After being beaten, they were brought back to
the house where Noemar collapsed and lost consciousness
and thereafter died. He was found guilty of parricide and
slight physical injuries.
ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of the crimes charged
RULING:
Yes. The accused is guilty of the crimes charged. In the
case at bench, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the
crime of parricide. The first element, that is, a person was
killed was present. There is likewise no doubt as to the
existence of the second element that the appellant killed the
deceased. It is sufficiently established by the positive
testimonies of Maria and Junior. As to the third element,
appellant himself admitted that the deceased is his child. As
to the charge of slight physical injuries, the victim
himself, Junior testified that he, together with his brother
Noemar, were beaten by their father, herein appellant, while
they were tied to a coconut tree. He recalled to have been
hit on his right eye and right leg and to have been examined
by a physician thereafter. Maria, wife of the accused,
corroborated her son’s testimony.
35Rosaldes vs People, G.R. No. 173988
Amistad, Ryan James N.
FACTS:
On February 13, 1996, a seven year old student hurriedly
entered his classroom and accidentally bumped the knee of
his teacher, Felina Rosaldes, which awoken her. The
teacher then asked the boy to apologize to her but did not do
so and instead took his seat, petitioner then pinched him on
his thigh, pick him up by his ears and thereafter slumped him
to the ground, thereby causing the student to lose his
consciousness. During lunch break, the student was
accompanied by his two classmates, brought him home and
told his mother about the incident. The boy, accompanied by
his mother, went to a doctor who confirmed that the boy has
suffered injuries on different parts of his body.
ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of the petitioner constitute
child abuse penalized under Section 10(a) of Republic Act
No. 7610, and not under the Revised Penal Code
RULING:
The acts of the petitioner constitute child abuse penalized
under RA 7610. Although the petitioner could duly discipline
her pupil, her infliction of the physical injuries on him was
unnecessary, violent and excessive. Child abuse, as defined
by Section 3 of RA 7610, refers to the maltreatment, whether
habitual or not, of the child which includes any act by deeds
or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic
(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 17
worth and dignity of a child as a human being. Petitioners
form of punishment degraded and demeaned the intrinsic
worth and dignity of the boy as a human being.

36Bongalon vs People, G.R. No. 169533

Bandigan, Rizza Jane P.

FACTS:
Jayson Dela Cruz and his older brother, both minors, joined
the evening procession for the Santo Niño. When the
procession passed in front of the George Bongalon’s house,
his minor daughter threw stones at Jayson and called him
“sissy”. George confronted Jayson and his brother and
called them names like “strangers” and “animals” and he
struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson
on the face. Jayson was brought to the hospital and was
issued a medical certificate attesting that he suffered
multiple contusions.

ISSUE: Whether or not George Bongalon is liable child

abuse in violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act 7610

RULING:
No, his acts do not constitute child abuse. The records did
not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of
hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the “intrinsic
worth and dignity” of Jayson as a human being, or that he
had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The
records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been
done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of
his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the
personal safety of his own minor daughters. With the loss of
his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child
as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child
abuse.

(CRIMINAL LAW 2 Case Digests – 1SR) 18