 PEOPLE vs OANIS
 No. 47722. July 27, 1943
 PONENTE: MORAN
 TOPIC: Mistake of fact
 FACTS:
 In the afternoon of December 24, 1938, Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary
Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received from Major Guido a
telegram of the following tenor: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo
Balagtas with bailarina named Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive.
 Oanis was the chief inspector. He was called to perform the order along with other
men, namely: corporal Alberto Galanta, and privates Nicomedes Oralo, Venancio
Serna and D. Fernandez
 Provincial Inspector divided the party into two groups with defendants Oanis and
Galanta, and private Fernandez taking the route to Rizal street leading to the house
where Irene was supposedly living
 Oanis asked a certain Brigida Mallare where Irene was. Mallare told him that Irene
was in her bedroom with her paramour
 Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and on seeing a man
sleeping with his back towards the door where they were, simultaneously or
successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers
 it turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the notorious criminal
Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene's
paramour
 Testimony of Irene: Oanis went to the room thus indicated and upon opening the
curtain covering the door, he said: "If you are Balagtas, stand up." Tecson, the
supposed Balagtas, and Irene woke up and as the former was about to sit up in bed,
Oanis fired at him. Wounded, Tecson leaned towards the door, and Oanis receded
and shouted: "That is Balagtas." Galanta then fired at Tecson
 The true fact, therefore, of the case is that, while Tecson was sleeping in his room
with his back towards the door, Oanis and Galanta, on sight, fired at him
simultaneously or successively, believing him to be Anselmo Balagtas but without
having made previously any reasonable inquiry as to his identity
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether Oanis and Gallanta are guilty of murdering Tecson
 RULING:
 Theory of non-liability: The maxim is ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only
when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness
 In the instant case, appellants, unlike the accused in the instances cited, found no
circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action. The person
in the room being then asleep, appellants had ample time and opportunity to
ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves and could even effect a bloodless
arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim was
unarmed. according to Irene Requinea
 even if the victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at
sight but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression
is offered by him
 "No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the
person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his
detention."
 The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the killing
being intentional and not accidental. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to
another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice
 a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially, inconsistent with the idea of
reckless imprudence and where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the
identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence to
support a plea of mitigated liability
 As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder with the
qualifying circumstance of alevosia
 Mitigating circumstance in the incomplete justifying circumstance:
o According to such legal provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when
he acts in the fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office. There are two requisites in order that the circumstance may be
taken as a justifying one:
 that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right
 that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
1
 In the instant case, only the first requisite is present— appellants have acted in the
performance of a duty. The second requisite is wanting for the crime by them
committed is not the necessary consequence of a due performance of their duty.
Their duty was to arrest Balagtas, or to get him dead or alive if resistance is offered
by him and they are overpowered
 US vs DIVINO
 No. 4490. December .4, 1908
 PONENTE: ARELLANO
 TOPIC: Culpa
 FACTS:
 That one day in the month of July, 1903, in the municipality of Davao, district of
Davao, Moro Province, the accused, in his house, tied a girl named Alfonsa by the
hands and legs, laid her on the floor, stuffed a piece of cloth into her mouth, and
fastened her body to the boards of the said floor; he then wrapped her feet around
with pieces of cloth, saturating said cloth with petroleum, and thereafter set the
cloth on fire by means of a match; the cloth burned for about five minutes or more,
seriously burning the girl's feet, and causing lesiones in said members from the result
of which the said girl became disabled in the said principal members
 One day, at midnight, without the knowledge of Feliciano, she left in company of a
girl named Irinea for the purpose of making a complaint; that they then went to the
office of Mr. Wood
 Feliciano’s testimony:
 Captain Tomas sent the girl to me for treatment because she was suffering from
ulcers
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether Feliciano is guilty of imprudence
 RULING:
 Undoubtedly, the wounds became worse on account of their efforts to cure them
 PEOPLE vs NANQUIL
 No. 17933. March 23, 1922
 PONENTE: ROMUALDEZ
 TOPIC: Culpa
 FACTS:
 A cart and a carabao belonging to Juan Rosas had disappeared. To recover them and
find the wrongdoer he requested the help of the Constabulary
 sergeant and two soldiers were then commissioned to make investigation. During
their investigation these Constabulary men called Severino Ramiscal, and one of
them, surnamed Masiglat, examined him, and not having obtained from him any
clear information, he turned him over to his companion, Atanasio Nanquil
 The soldier, Atanasio Nanquil, was examining Severino Ramiscal on a road, the other
soldier,
 Masiglat, being about 20 brazas from them, when all of a sudden Masiglat heard a
blow and saw Severino Ramiscal fall to the ground, —he had been struck by the
soldier, Atanasio Nanquil, with his gun, as a consequence of which, Severino Ramiscal
died after a few moments
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether Nanquil should be charged with homicide through reckless imprudence
 RULING:
 Anent the first error, it should be noted that the appellant admits being the author
of the homicide. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to establish by sufficient
evidence his allegation of self-defense, with all the elements constituting it
 it is of no importance to determine in this case whether or not the soldier Masiglat,
who is not accused in these proceedings, also maltreated the deceased. The fact is
that the accused did, as is admitted by him, to the extent of having caused the death
of the unfortunate Severino Ramiscal
 the defense contends that the most that can be said to have been proven by the
evidence of record is the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence. We find
that the accused did not intend to commit so grave an evil as that which resulted, for
such an intention is incompatible with the purpose he had then in view,
 But whether he had that intention or not, the fact is that he willfully maltreated the
deceased, and such an act of willfully causing an evil is, as the Attorney-General very
properly observes, incompatible with reckless imprudence
 Nightime aspect to make the investigation of the team more effective
 The defendant's allegation of self-defense cannot be held proven. It was not
sufficiently shown that the deceased was the aggressor, which, on the other hand, is
highly improbable under the circumstances then attending his situation. Ramiscal
did not have any weapon he can use to defend himself
 PEOPLE vs BAYONA
 No. 42288. February 16, 1935
 PONENTE: VICKERS
 TOPIC: Mala prohibita
2
 FACTS:
 the defendant was within the fence surrounding the polling place when Desiderio
took possession of the revolver the defendant was carrying the defendant went
inside of the fence, he is nevertheless not guilty of a violation of the Election Law,
because he was called by a friend and merely approached him to find out what he
wanted and had no interest in the election; that there were many people in the
public road in front of the polling place, and the defendant could not leave his
revolver in his automobile, which he himself was driving, without running the risk of
losing it and thereby incurring in a violation of the law
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not Bayona is guilty of violating the Election Code
 RULING:
 The law which the defendant violated is a statutory provision, and the intent with
which he violated it is immaterial It may be conceded that the defendant did not
intend to intimidate any elector or to violate the law in any other way, but when he
got out of his automobile and carried his revolver inside of the fence surrounding the
polling place. He committed the act complained of, and he committed it willfully. The
act prohibited by the Election Law was complete. The intention to intimidate the
voters or to interfere otherwise with the election is not made an essential element
of the offense. Unless such an offender actually makes use of his revolver, it would
be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove that he intended to intimidate the
voters
 As to the contention that the defendant could not leave his revolver in his
automobile without the risk of losing it because he was alone, it is sufficient to say
that under the circumstances it was not necessary for the defendant to leave his
automobile merely because somebody standing near the polling place had called
him, nor does the record show that it was necessary for the defendant to carry arms
on that occasion
 The rule is that in acts mala in se there must be a criminal intent, but in those mala
prohibita it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done. "Care must be
exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent to commit the crime
and the intent to perpetrate the act
 US vs SIY CONG BIENG
 No. 8646. March 31, 1915
 PONENTE: CARSON
 TOPIC: Mala prohibita
 FACTS:
 Benito Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong, the defendants in this action, were convicted in
the court below of a violation of section 7 of Act. No. 1655 of the Philippine
Commission, known as the Pure Food and Drugs Act
 Co Kong, while in charge of appellant's tienda (store) and acting as his agent and
employee, sold, in the ordinary course of business, coffee which had been
adulterated by the admixture of permits and other extraneous substances
 Benito Siy Cong Bieng is the owner of tienda No.326, Calle Santo Cristo, and that Co
Kong is his agent duly installed therein and performing the services of his
employment
 the defendant Co Kong in the ordinary course of the business sold a certain food
product designated by the name of coffee; that said coffee was adulterated and
falsely branded, as alleged in the complaint; 'that the defendant Benito Siy Cong
Bieng really had no knowledge that his agent Co Kong would sell said coffee or any
special brand of coffee
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether Siy Cong Bien is guilty of violating the Pure Food and Drugs Act
 RULING:
 It is a mistaken notion that positive, willful intent, as distinguished from a mere
intent, to violate the criminal law, is an essential ingredient in every criminal offense,
and that where there is the absence of such intent there is no offense; this is
especially so as to statutory offenses. When the statute plainly forbids an act to be
done, and it is done by some person, the law implies conclusively the guilty intent,
although the offender was honestly mistaken as to the meaning of the law he
violates. When the language is plain and positive, and the offense is not made to
depend upon the positive, willful intent and purpose, nothing is left to interpretation
 The statutory definition of the offense embraces no word implying that the
forbidden act shall be done knowingly or willfully, and if it did, the design and
purpose of the Act would in many instances be thwarted and practically defeated
 We conclude therefore that under the Act proof of the fact of the sale of adulterated
drugs and food products as prohibited by the Act is sufficient to sustain a conviction
without proof of guilty knowledge of the fact of adulteration, or criminal intent in
the making of the sale other than that necessarily implied by the statute in the doing
of the prohibited act
 It is notorious that the adulteration of food products has grown to proportions so
enormous as to menace the health and safety of the people. Ingenuity keeps pace
with greed, and the careless and heedless consumers are exposed to increasing
perils. To redress such evils is a plain duty but a difficult task. Experience has taught
the lesson that repressive measures which depend for their efficiency upon proof of
the dealer's knowledge and of his intent to deceive and defraud are of little use and
rarely accomplish their purpose. Such an emergency may justify legislation which
throws upon the seller the entire responsibility of the purity and soundness 01 what
he sells and compels him to know and to be certain
3
 He may conduct the business himself, or by clerks or agents, but if he chooses the
latter the duty is imposed upon him to see to it that those selected by him to sell the
article to the public obey the law in the matter of selling; otherwise, he, as the
principal and the responsible proprietor of the business, is liable for the penalty
imposed by the statute
 PEOPLE vs TANEO
 No. 37673. March 31, 1933
 PONENTE: Avanceño
 TOPIC: Non-liability for felony due to accident (Neither dolo nor Culpa)
 FACTS:
 There was a fiesta in Taneo’s barrio. He went to sleep and when he woke up he
started attacking his wife with a bolo. He also attacked Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao.
Taneo tried to attack his father after which he wounded himself.
 Taneo’s wife, who was 7 months pregnant during that time, died after five days in
the hospital. The fetus died due to asphyxiation.
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether Taneo is guilty of parricide
 RULING:
 It appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime the
defendant had a quarrel over a glass of "tuba" with Enrique Collantes and Valentin
Abadilla, who invited him to come down and fight
 in the afternoon he had a severe stomachache which made it necessary for him to
go to bed. It was then when he fell asleep. The defendant states that when he fell
asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadilla
held his feet, by reason of which he got up
 The evidence shows that the defendant not only did not have any trouble with his
wife, but that he loved her dearly. Neither did he have any dispute with Tanner and
Malinao, or had any motive for assaulting them
 Our conclusion is that the defendant acted while in a dream and his acts, with which
he is charged, were not voluntary in the -sense of entailing criminal liability
 But under the special circumstances of the case, in which the victim was the
defendant's own wife whom he dearly loved, and taking into consideration the fact
that the defendant tried to attack also his father, in whose house and under whose
protection he lived, besides attacking Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he
himself invited as may be inferred from the evidence presented, we find not only a
lack of motives for the defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of, but
also motives f or not committing said acts
 PEOPLE vs CATANGAY
 No. 9206. November 25, 1914
 PONENTE: Araullo
 TOPIC: Non-liability for felony due to accident (Neither dolo nor Culpa)
 FACTS:
 The undersigned charges Joaquin Catangay with the crime of homicide through
reckless negligence
 On or about December 4, 1912, in the pueblo of Candelaria, Province of Tayabas,
Philippine Islands, the said Joaquin Catangay did, without any preeaution whatever,
fire from his shotgun a charge that lodged in the left parietal region of Mauricio
Ramos, thereby instantly killing him
 Mauricio Ramos, taking his shotgun with him, went to hunt deer in the barrio of
Quinatijan, municipality of Candelaria, Tayabas, first passing by the house of
Santiago Abandia, whom he took along with him and in his company also passed by
the house of the defendant, Joaquin Catangay, whom they both invited to bring his
shotgun and go with them for a hunt
 the first two men saw a deer and alighted from their respective horses, for they were
all mounted
 that a few moments afterwards, two shots were heard in quick succession and then
the light the deceased carried went out; that Santiago Abandia, upon noticing that
the said light was extinguished, approached the deceased
 It has also been proved that there had been no previous trouble between the
defendant and the deceased, but that on the contrary they had always been on
intimate terms of friendship
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not Catangay is guilty of homicide
 RULING:
 when the defendant became aware of the presence of the deer he saw the deceased
squatting down, almost kneeling on the ground and aiming at the animal; that he
had been in this posture f or some little time without shooting, and as the def endant
could see only half of the deer's body and the animal was about to run away, the
defendant tried to approach or get beside the deceased, in order to aim and shoot
thence; that he did in fact go toward the deceased, holding the shotgun in both
hands with the barrel pointing upwards, though in the direction of the deer, and with
the safety catch closed; and that, at the moment he pushed up the safety catch to
open it, he stumbled against an embankment, slipped and fell, and the gun he was
holding in his hands was discharged
4

 Under the circumstances in which the defendant found himself, it was not necessary
for him to employ extraordinary caution, because the danger in which the deceased,
who was at one side though some distance ahead of him, might then have been was
not great; it was enough that he should have taken the precaution that he did, and
which was that which the circumstances required in attempting to approach the
deceased, to point upwards the gun he was carrying and to take advantage of the
occasion when the deceased was squatting and almost kneeling in this position the
latter could not be in danger of being hit if the gun was fired, while, on the other
hand, he would have been free from all danger, had the defendant succeeded in
getting beside him, as he intended to do, in order to shoot thence, as being a point
from which he could see the whole of the deer
 Neither can it be held that there was negligence or lack of care in the fact that the
defendant tried to open the safety catch of the gun while he was going toward the
deceased and when he was but a short distance from him, for, in view of the nature
of the act which he was about to perform, it was natural that he should have the gun
prepared to fire at the game, at once, or as soon as he should have succeeded in
placing himself beside his companion
 the death of the deceased can only be attributed to an unforeseen and unfortunate
accident, for which the defendant cannot be held criminally liable
 QUINTO vs ANDRES
 G.R. No. 155791. March 16, 2005
 PONENTE: CALLEJO
 TOPIC: Proximate Cause
 FACTS:
 At around 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1995, eleven-year-old Edison Garcia, a Grade
4 elementary school pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was also about
eleven years old, were at Barangay San Rafael, Tarlac
 They saw respondents Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the mouth of a
drainage culvert. Andres and Pacheco invited Wilson to go fishing with them inside
the drainage culvert.1 Wilson assented. When Garcia saw that it was dark inside, he
opted to remain seated in a grassy area about two meters from the entrance of the
drainage system
 He, along with respondent Andres and Wilson, entered the drainage system which
was covered by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter wide, with water
about a foot deep.3 After a while, respondent Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came
out of the drainage system and left4 without saying a word. Respondent Andres also
came out, went back inside, and emerged again, this time, carrying Wilson who was
already dead
 Andres went to the house of petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson’s mother, and
informed her that her son had died
 Autopsy of Wilson
 hematoma at the back of the victim’s head and the abrasion on the latter’s left
forearm
 could have been caused by a strong force coming from a blunt instrument or object
 The injuries in the larynx and trachea also indicated that the victim died of drowning,
as some muddy particles were found on the lumina of the larynx
o could be caused when a person is put under water by pressure or by force
 hematoma on the scalp was caused by a strong pressure or a strong force applied to
the scalp coming from a blunt instrument
 Dr. Aguda also declared that the 14x7-centimeter hematoma at the back of Wilson’s
head could have rendered the latter unconscious, and, if he was thrown in a body of
water, the boy could have died by drowning
 He also stated that the trachea region was full of mud, but that there was no sign of
strangulation
 Trial Court
 absence of preponderant evidence to prove their liability for Wilson’s death
 Petitioner vs Trial Court
 the trial court indulged in mere possibilities, surmises and speculations when it held
that Wilson died because
 he could have fallen, his head hitting the stones in the drainage system since the
culvert was slippery
 he might have been bitten by a snake which he thought was the prick of a fish fin,
causing his head to hit hard on the top of the culvert
 he could have lost consciousness due to some ailment, such as epilepsy
 The petitioner posits that the trial court ignored the testimony of the Medico-Legal
Expert, Dr. Aguda; the nature, location and number of the injuries sustained by the
victim which caused his death; as well as the locus criminis (place of the crime)
 The behavior of the respondents after the commission of the crime betrayed their
guilt, considering that respondent Pacheco left the scene, leaving respondent Andres
to bring out Wilson’s cadaver, while respondent Andres returned inside the drainage
system only when he saw Garcia seated in the grassy area waiting for his friend
Wilson to come out
5
 ISSUE/S: continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor
 Whether or not the civil liability is extinguished with the criminal liability
 Whether or not there is a cause of action for the civil liability  Not the proximate cause when
 there is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the
 RULING: resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from
the felonious act
 When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability  of the accused the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action  There must be a relation of “cause and effect
unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action  the cause being the felonious act of the offender
 the effect being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim
 Criminal Case  Civil Case
 PURPOSE:  PURPOSE:  Not altered or changed through
 punish the offender in order to  restitution, reparation or  Preexisting conditions, such as the pathological condition of the victim
deter him and others from indemnification of the private
committing the same or similar offended party for the damage or  predisposition of the offended party
offense injury he sustained by reason of
 to isolate him from society the delictual or felonious act of  physical condition of the offended party
 to reform and rehabilitate him the accused
 to maintain social order  concomitant or concurrent conditions, such as the negligence or fault of the doctors
 PROOF: beyond reasonable doubt  PROOF: cause of action
 conditions supervening the felonious act such as tetanus, pulmonary infection or
gangrene
 the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a
final judgment in the civil action that the act or omission from where the civil liability  The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused,
may arise does not exist accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim

 Person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical
consequences resulting therefrom although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended
 “Natural” refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events
 “logical” means that there is a rational connection between the act of the accused
and the resulting injury or damage
 Homicide by dolo:
 Party must prove:
 the death of the party alleged to be dead
 that the death was produced by the criminal act of some other than the deceased
and was not the result of accident, natural cause or suicide
 that defendant committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally
 responsible for the act which produced the death

 The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury
 Proximate cause
o cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would
not have occurred.
 The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
 To prove the felony of homicide or murder, there must be incontrovertible evidence,
direct or circumstantial, that the victim was deliberately killed (with malice); in other
words, that there was intent to kill.
o Such evidence may consist inter alia in the use of weapons by the
malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the
victim and the words uttered by the malefactors before, at the time or
immediately after the killing of the victim

6
 In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof of any ill-motive on the part of o ineffectual
either respondent to kill the deceased before or after the latter was invited to join
them in fishing  Legal impossibility
 the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
 there is intention to perform the physical act
 there is a performance of the intended physical act
 the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime
 INTOD vs CA
 G.R. No. 103119. October 21, 1992
 PONENTE: CAMPOS, JR.  Factual Impossibility
 TOPIC: Impossible crime  when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent
the consummation of the intended crime
 FACTS:
 This is not true in the Philippines. In our jurisdiction, impossible crimes are
 Suplicio Intod’s petition for review of the decision of the CA finding him guilty of recognized. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a
attempted murder defense, but an act penalized by itself. Furthermore, the phrase “inherent
impossibility” that is found in Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes no
 In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod with friends went to Salvador distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. Ubi lex
Mandaya’s house in Misamis Occidental non distinguit nec nos distinguiere debemos

 They asked Mandaya to go to Bernardina Palangpangan’s house  VALENZUELA vs PEOPLE

 G.R. No. 160188. June 21, 2007
 They talked to one Antenio Dumalagan. Dumalagan wanted Palangpangan killed  PONENTE: TINGA
because of a land dispute  TOPIC: Felonies without frustrated stage

 He warned Mandaya that if he didn’t come, he would be killed, too  FACTS:

 Intod and co, went to Palangpangan’s house and shot at Palangpangan’s bedroom
 It turns out that Palangpangan wasn’t at home and was in another city
 RTC and CA found Intod guilty of attempted murder
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not Intod is guilty of attempted murder
 Valenzuela argues that he should be committed for frustrated theft only and not
consummated theft
 Aristotel Valenzuela (petitioner) and Jovy Calderon (Calderon) with the crime of theft
 On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside
the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North
EDSA

 RULING:  On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside
the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North
 Intod is guilty of an impossible crime EDSA Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was
waiting
 Under this article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense
against persons or property because:  more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in
 the commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment the open parking space

 the means employed is either  All theseacts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the
o inadequate open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise,

7
 petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to
alert his fellow security guards of the incident
 at the trial, petitioner and Calderon both claimed having been innocent bystanders
within the vicinity of the Super Sale Club on the afternoon of 19 May 1994 when they
were hailed by Lago and his fellow security guards after a commotion and brought
to the Baler PNP Station
 Calderon claimed that he was just going to withdraw money, but the line was too
long so he went to the supermarket to buy snacks. He heard the gunshot and went
outside to check what was happening, when Lago apprehended him
 Valenzuela claimed that he and his cousin was going to take a tricycle to Pagasa when
they heard the gunshots, which caused him to start running. Lago then apprehended
him
 At the station, petitioner denied having stolen the cartons of detergent, but he was
detained overnight, and eventually brought to the prosecutor’s office where he was
charged with theft.14 During petitioner’s cross-examination, he admitted that he
had been employed as a “bundler” of GMS Marketing, “assigned at the supermarket”
though not at SM
 Before the Court of Appeals, petitioner argued that he should only be convicted of
frustrated theft since at the time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a
position to freely dispose of the articles
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether there was frustrated or consummated theft
 RULING
 Consummated, Frustrated, and Attempted Felonies
 A felony is consummated “when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.”
 It is frustrated “when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.”
 It is attempted “when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance
 Subjective and Objective phase
 “subjective phase,” or that portion of the acts constituting the crime included
between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act
performed by the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the consummated
crime
 Objective phase is period occupied by the acts over which the offender has control
over
 The critical distinction instead is whether the felony itself was actually produced by
the acts of execution. The determination of whether the felony was “produced” after
all the acts of execution had been performed hinges on the particular statutory
definition of the felony
 The long-standing Latin maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens
 sit rea” supplies an important characteristic of a crime, that “ordinarily, evil intent
must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime,” and accordingly, there can
be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting
 crimes mala in se,36 mens rea has been defined before as “a guilty mind, a guilty or
wrongful purpose or criminal intent,”37 and “essential for criminal liability.”
 For a crime to exist in our legal law, it is not enough that mens rea be shown; there
must also be an actus reus
 It is from the actus reus and the mens rea, as they find expression in the criminal
statute, that the felony is produced
 Theft
 Art. 308. Who are liable for theft.—Theft is committed by any person who, with
intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent.
 Theft is likewise committed by:
 Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner;
 Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall
remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him;
 Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden,
or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish
upon the same or shall gather cereals, or other forest or arm products
 On the face of the definition, there is only one operative act of execution by the actor
involved in theft—the taking of personal property of another
8
 there must further be present the descriptive circumstances that the taking was with
intent to gain; without force upon things or violence against or intimidation of
persons; and it was without the consent of the owner of the property
 This requirement of animo lucrandi, or intent to gain, was maintained in both the
Spanish and Filipino penal laws, even as it has since been abandoned in Great Britain
 So long as the “descriptive” circumstances that qualify the taking are present,
including animo lucrandi and apoderamiento, the completion of the operative act
that is the taking of personal property of another establishes, at least, that the
transgression went beyond the attempted stage
 As applied to the present case, the moment petitioner obtained physical possession
of the cases of detergent and loaded them in the pushcart, such seizure motivated
by intent to gain, completed without need to inflict violence or intimidation against
persons nor force upon things, and accomplished without the consent of the SM
Super Sales Club, petitioner forfeited the extenuating benefit a conviction for only
attempted theft would have afforded him
 If anything, Sobrevilla is consistent with Adiao and the Spanish Supreme Court cases
cited in the latter, in that the fact that the offender was able to succeed in obtaining
physical possession of the stolen item, no matter how momentary, was able to
consummate the theft
 Diño case
 The accused therein, a driver employed by the United States Army, had driven his
truck
 into the port area of the South Harbor, to unload a truckload of materials to waiting
U.S. Army personnel
 accused drove away his truck from the Port, but as he was approaching a checkpoint
of the Military Police, he was stopped by an M.P. who inspected the truck and found
therein three boxes of army ri-fles
 The accused later contended that he had been stopped by four men who had loaded
the boxes with the agreement that they were to meet him and retrieve the rifles
after he had passed the checkpoint
 CA found him guilty of frustrated theft
 the appellate court pointed out that the evident intent of the accused was to let the
boxes of rifles “pass through the checkpoint, perhaps in the belief that as the truck
had already unloaded its cargo inside the depot, it would be allowed to pass through
the check point without further investigation or checking
 The act was frustrated because for it to be consummated, it should have passed
through the checkpoint for it to be in the hands of the looters
 Diño thus laid down the theory that the ability of the actor to freely dispose of the
items stolen at the time of apprehension is determinative as to whether the theft is
consummated or frustrated
 Flores case
 The accused therein, a checker employed by the Luzon Stevedoring Company, issued
a delivery receipt for one empty sea van to the truck driver who had loaded the
purportedly empty sea van onto his truck at the terminal of the stevedoring company
 However, the guards insisted on inspecting the van, and discovered that the “empty”
sea van had actually contained other merchandise as well
 Before the Court of Appeals, accused argued in the alternative that he was guilty only
of attempted theft, but the appellate court pointed out that there was no intervening
act of spontaneous desistance on the part of the accused that “literally frustrated
the theft
 Synthesis of the Diño and Flores rulings is in order. The determinative characteristic
as to whether the crime of theft was produced is the ability of the actor “to freely
dispose of the articles stolen, even if it were only momentary
 The qualifier “siquiera sea mas o menos momentaneamente” proves another
important consideration, as it implies that if the actor was in a capacity to freely
dispose of the stolen items before apprehension, then the theft could be deemed
consummated. Such circumstance was not present in either Diño or Flores, as the
stolen items in both cases were retrieved from the actor before they could be
physically extracted from the guarded compounds from which the items were filched
 the character of the item stolen could lead to a different conclusion as to whether
there could have been “free disposition,” as in the case where the chattel involved
was of “much less bulk and more common x x x, [such] as money x x x
 We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the taking by the petitioner was
completed in this case. With intent to gain, he acquired physical possession of the
stolen cases of detergent for a considerable period of time that he was able to drop
these off at a spot in the parking lot, and long enough to load these onto a taxicab
 Indeed, we have, after all, held that unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is deemed
complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he
has no opportunity to dispose of the same
 Insofar as we consider the present question, “unlawful taking” is most material in
this respect. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is
the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage
9
 Moreover, as is evident in this case, the adoption of the rule— that the inability of
the offender to freely dispose of the stolen property frustrates the theft—would
introduce a convenient defense for the accused which does not reflect any legislated
intent,95 since the Court would have carved a viable means for offenders to seek a
mitigated penalty under applied circumstances that do not admit of easy
classification
 Again, there is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the
“free disposition of the items stolen” is in any way determinative of whether the
crime of theft has been produced
 Diño itself did not rely on Philippine laws or jurisprudence to bolster its conclusion,
and the later Flores was ultimately content in relying on Diño alone for legal support.
These cases do not enjoy the weight of stare decisis, and even if they did, their
erroneous appreciation of
 our law on theft leaves them susceptible to reversal
 PEOPLE vs GERONIMO
 No. L-35700. October 15, 1973
 PONENTE: ESGUERRA
 TOPIC: Conspiracy
 FACTS:
 Romeo Geronimo and Jose Geronimo are brothers while Enrico Geronimo is their
uncle for being a first cousin of their father. The deceased, Fermin Magbanua, is a
first cousin of Romeo and Jose and also a nephew of Enrico
 Enrico Geronimo, Romeo Geronimo and Jose Geronimo, and the deceased, Fermin
Magbanua, arrived from the market place of Sigma, Capiz, already drunk and
stopped at the store of one Fesertas Bacalangco to buy ten liters of tuba
 On the way home, Magbanua was hit on the face by a sling shot wielded by one
Eleodoro Carlos. Fermin fell to the ground and Romeo Geronimo ran to where he
had fallen and held him, while Jose Geronimo went around and hit Fermin on the
head with a stone, rendering him unconscious. While Fermin was held unconscious
by Romeo, Enrico Geronimo took Fermin’s bolo from his waist and hacked the latter
on the right ankle joint and Jose also boloed his left ankle joint, almost severing it
 Magbanua died as a result from his wounds Witnesses’ testimony differed on who
hacked the right and left ankle
 Enrico who pleaded guilty maintains that it was he alone and nobody else who was
responsible for the wounds inflicted on the deceased
 According to Enrico, after Magbanua invited him for a drink, Magbanua asked him to
start a fight with Pedro Bacalangco. When he refused, Magbanua hit him. Enrico hits
Magbanua with a stone and attacks him with his bolo.
 According to Romeo and Jose, Romeo embraced him to pacify him while Jose tried
to help Fermin by bringing the latter to the hospital; that he at once reported the
incident to the municipal building and surrendered to the authorities
 Consolacion Banjao and Enrico de la Cruz: Their testimonies corroborated those of
Romeo and Jose
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether Jose, Romeo, and Enrico conspired to kill Fermin
 RULING:
 Conspiracy
 when the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one
part and another performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the
attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent were
in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association,
concerted action and concurrence of sentiments
 When conspiracy has been proven, all conspirators are liable as co-principals for the
wrongful act and its consequences
 Although the defendants are relatives and had acted with some degree of
simultaneity in attacking their victim, nevertheless, this fact alone does not prove
conspiracy
 Credibility of witnesses
 No reason to lie in court
 For, in the absence of proof that there has been misappreciation of evidence, - and
there is no such proof in this case—the conclusion of the trial judge, who had the
opportunity of observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while
testifying, deserves the respect of the reviewing tribunal
 Romeo’s participation
 Romeo’s holding or embracing of the victim, Fermin Magbanua, when appellant Jose
Geronimo hit the latter with a stone on the head; the hacking of the deceased on the
right posterior ankle joint by Romeo’s uncle, Enrico Geronimo, and the hacking also
of Fermin’s left posterior ankle joint by Jose Geronimo while Romeo was holding or
embracing the victim, indicate that Romeo was very much involved in the fight
10

 While this act was undoubtedly one of help and cooperation, it is not indispensable
for the commission of the offense as the hacking could have been committed just
the same without his holding the victim. Romeo’s cooperation not being essential to
the commission of the crime but merely to facilitate the same, he thereby
cooperated in the commission thereof and hence his liability is that of an accomplice
 Murder vs Homicide
 Appellants contend that if at all they are liable, they should not be convicted of
murder because no circumstance was proven to qualify the offense as such. What
actually took place, according to them, was an instantaneous and sudden outburst
of temper that led to the killing
 Treachery attended the killing where the nature and location of the wounds indicate
that the victim was attacked from behind.12 For murder results from the presence
of qualificative circumstances based upon the manner in which the crime was
committed and not upon the state of mind of the accused
 Mitigating circumstance
 appellant Romeo Geronimo alone, with the alternative mitigating circumstance of
lack of instruction
 Appellants maintain that if at all they are liable, both of them should be credited with
the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed
 All these are at the back part of the body, which shows that the intention, according
to the defense, was not to kill or else the blows should have been aimed against the
vital parts of the body
 only for appellant Jose Geronimo who alone inflicted injury without intent to cause
the death of the victim when appellant Romeo Geronimo was holding him
 Regarding the alternative circumstance of lack of education, while the evidence
shows that appellant Romeo is unschooled, this circumstance alone is not sufficient.
Illiteracy alone will not constitute such circumstance
o lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full significance of one’s
act
 Appellant’s acts were committed with treachery which qualifies the offense as
murder punishable, under Article 248 of the RevisedPenal Code
 As appellant Jose Geronimo lacked the intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed, this mitigating circumstance may be appreciated in his favor.
Accordingly, the penalty should be imposedupon him in its minimum period, or
reclusion temporal, maximum. Applying the indeterminate sentence law, a penalty
ranging from prision mayor, maximum, to reclusion temporal, medium, shall be
imposed
 As regards appellant Romeo Geronimo who is liable as an accomplice, a penalty one
degree lower than that prescribed for a principal should be imposed. Accordingly, an
indeterminate penalty ranging from the maximum of prision correccional, as
minimum, to the medium of prision mayor, as maximum, should be imposed on him
 PEOPLE vs CANTUBA
 G.R. No. 79811. March 19, 1990
 PONENTE: PARAS
 TOPIC: Conspiracy
 FACTS:
 That on or about December 23, 1981 in the municipality of Masbate,
 province of Masbate, Philippines, the said accused, confederating with each
 other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with evident
 premeditation and with night-time as a means to better facilitate the
 commission of the crime, attack, assault and use personal violence upon one ATTY.
ADOLFO CELERA, by then and there shooting him at several parts
 of his body, thereby inflicting upon the latter, mortal wounds which are the
 direct and immediate cause of his death
 Patrolman Rodolfo Torrecampo, then under
 suspension but working as the bodyguard of Mayor Moises Espinosa, went to
Milagros to fetch to fetch one Romeo ‘Totong’ Labuyo,
 the ‘encargado’ of Mayor Espinosa’s ranch. They then went to Masbate to fetch Pio
Cantuba, the mayor’s ‘sidekick’ in his cockpit
 all three went to the provincial jail to secure the
 release of Ricardo Baco, a detention prisoner
 “Atty. Adolfo Celera was a practicing lawyer and had run for public
 office (Id., p. 450). He had been the lawyer for the complainant in a rape
 case brought against Mayor Espinosa, formerly Governor of Masbate
 After the trial of the damage suit began,
 Atty. Celera confided to his wife that Mayor Espinosa had warned him that
 should he lose the suit a ‘miracle’ would happen Atty. Jolly Fernandez (later
Assemblyman), who collaborated with Atty.
 Celera in the rape case against Mayor Espinosa, was ‘bombed’ as he left the
 Court
11
 On the evening of December 23, 1981, Atty. Celera, together with
 Margie Rotor and Ave Refil, attended the Christmas party of the Bureau of
 Land Transportation
 Atty. Celera and
 Margie Rotor went inside the Pub and ordered a bottle of White Castle and
 before they had consumed its contents Atty. Celera told her that he will go
 home already
 Margie Rotor accompanied Atty. Celera to the gate of the pub where they
 stood facing the street waiting for a tricycle, with Margie Rotor standing at
 the right side of Atty. Celera
 As Cantuba slowly approached them, Margie Rotor saw that Cantuba
 was holding a gun
 Then she heard a gunfire and Atty. Celera staggered. Then Ricardo Baco rushed from
behind and stabbed Atty. Celera twice on the left chest
 Margie Rotor saw a ‘tricycle’ speeding towards the fallen victim
o Witness saw that this person was Pedro Lalaguna
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether the witnesses’ testimonies are enough to convict them
 RULING:
 It is the contention of accused-appellant that even if he (Cantuba) did approach the
victim with a gun in his hand, it was never established that the fatal shot came from
his gun
 Second, even assuming that he (Cantuba) never fired his gun, he would still be
principally liable as a coconspirator in the killing of Atty. Celera under the principle
that the act of a conspirator is the act of all co-conspirators. The degree of actual
participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in a conspiracy
 Conflicting testimonies
 Margie Rotor and Pat. Torrecampo, as to who really fired upon Atty. Celera, the Court
is convinced that the testimony of Margie Rotor is more credible
o Rotor was in closer proximity
 When contradictory statements refer only to minor details, this does not destroy
their credibility. Their inconsistency in minor details is proof that they were not
rehearsed
 It is a well settled rule that when the main thrust of the appeal is that of the
credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution is assailed, and appellant failed to
demonstrate why this court should depart from the cardinal principle that the
findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility should not be disturbed on
appeal due to its superior advantage in observing the conduct and demeanor of the
witnesses while testifying unless some fact or circumstance may have been
overlooked that may affect the result of the case
 Pedrito Lalaguna that the lower court erred in convicting him despite the fact that
the only evidence against him consisted solely of having been seen driving a
motorbike away from the scene of the crime
 Both prosecution witnesses Margie Rotor and Romulo Tama testify to one motorbike
or ‘tricycle’ that was speeding at precisely the same time, i.e., immediately after Atty.
Celera had fallen to the ground as a result of the gunshot and stab wounds
 a participant in the ambush because he was bent on running over the fallen Atty.
Celera. The only element missing in her testimony is the identity of the rider because
of the glare of the vehicle’s lights
 Romulo Tama who recognized the rider to be Pedrito Lalaguna, whom he had known
even before the incident. Their testimonies as to the motorbike aspect of the
incident corroborate each other. They both distinctly remember the noticeable
speed of the vehicle and that it happened after Atty. Celera had fallen to the ground
 Pat. Torrecampo did not mention him (Pedrito Lalaguna) as among his companions
when the former directed the killing. This court finds this fact not exculpatory. It does
not in any way contradict the testimonies of Margie Rotor and Romulo Tama that
appellant Lalaguna was at the scene of the crime and tried to run down the victim.
 The trial court correctly convicted appellant Lalaguna as a coconspirator as the
circumstances of his participation indubitably showed unity of purpose and unity in
the execution of the unlawful acts as can be gleaned from the fact that, Lalaguna
knew of the plot to assassinate Atty. Celera as he too had been ordered to scout for
a man who could do the job
 He also knew exactly the place where the killing was to take place and also the date
and approximate time of the assault. At the very least, therefore, he had to know
about the Torrecampo plot and decided to join its execution. From the legal
viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the
accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution
 In the case at bar, both appellants claimed that on the night and time of the incident
they were not at the vicinity of the Sunrise Disco Pub where the alleged crime was
committed, as they were then in the house of Asst. Provincial Treasurer Manlapaz
playing ‘pusoy’. But considering the admitted fact that the distance between the
house of Asst. Provincial Treasurer Manlapaz where the accused claimed to be, is
only 300 meters away from the Sunrise Disco Pub, where the crime was perpetrated,
there is no physical impossibility for both accused to be at the scene of the crime
12
 women and children were killed and no less than 16 of the Moros down below were
 PEOPLE vs LAWAS also killed
 No. L-7618-20. June 30, 1955
 PONENTE:
 The finding of the trial court that the accused are guilty of robbery as above-indicated
 TOPIC: Complex Crimes
is fully supported by the evidence. There is no evidence, however, of the existence
of any conspiracy among the accused in the commission of tha acts of robbery and
 FACTS:
each one must respond for his own individual act.
 Crispin Lawas, Agustin Osorio, Clemente Osorio, Felipe Si-it, Generoso Osorio and
Agapito Gumisad have appealed from a judgment finding each of them guilty of the
crime of robbery. In G. R. No. 7619, Crispin Lawas, Agustin Osorio and Clemente  The three witnesses for the prosecution claim that the Moros were fired at when
Osorio have appealed from a judgment finding them guilty of multiple murder Datu Lomangcolob refused to be tied at the hands, while the defense claims that
they were fired at because they attempted to grab the arms of the home guards
 The evidence shows that on July 3, 1042 various Moros (Maranaos) from Barrio Baris,
Municipality of Kolambugan, province of Lanao, raided the barrio of Malingao, killing
11 Christian residents including men and women, wounding two of them, and,  Lawas first asked them to sign blank papers, and that they, the Maranaos, refused;
thereafter, robbing them of their belongings but they were beaten with rifles and boxed, so Datu Lomangcolob enjoined him and
his companions to sign the blank papers as demanded by the investigators;
 The report was made to appellant Crispin Lawas, head of the home guards in
Balimbing and to Sgt. Benaojan, also head of home guards in Salong. Upon learning
of the incident, Lawas and Benaojan and some home guards proceeded to the barrio  Lawas first asked them to sign blank papers, and that they, the Maranaos, refused;
of Malingao to check up the report but they were beaten with rifles and boxed, so Datu Lomangcolob enjoined him and
his companions to sign the blank papers as demanded by the investigators;
 There they found the asad bodies of the Christian Filipinos killed by the Maranaos
and learned that the Maranaos who had committed the act came from the barrio of
 Lawas wanted their hands tied, and when Datu refused, Lawas shot him. Lawas then
Baris. So they proceeded to the barrio of Baris in the afternoon of July 10. Upon
ordered for everyone to be shot
reaching Baris, they divided themselves into two groups, one headed by Sgt.
 That he was with the women and children in the upper floor of the house of Restituto
Benaojan and the other by Crispin Lawas
Requino before the investigation began; that he saw some of the accused as they
brought down the male Maranaos for the purpose of investigation; that the firing
 That headed by Sgt. Benaojan gathered the Maranaos around the place of ex-Mayor
was caused by the refusal of the Maranaos to accede to have their hands tied as
Gunti, while that headed by Crispin Lawas, those that live around the house of Datu
ordered by Crispin Lawas: that in the course of the shooting, Agapito Gumisad, Felipe
Lomangcolob
Si-it, Clemente Osorio, Tito Requino and Patricio Pinos shot at the women and
children and stabbed them with boloes; and that Gumisad was trying to stab him and
 When the home guards were in the barrio of Baris, they or some of them took away what he did was to jump down and run away
three carabaos, two horses, and many personal belongings, especially of Datu
Lomangcolob. This is the basis of the charge of robbery.
 he next morning, Crispin Lawas and Agustin Osorio began investigating the principal  Lawas testimony:
Moros  that as said investigation proceeded, the Moros suddenly rushed at the home guards
to grab their guns and so a commotion arose; that he and Agustin Osorio did not
know what had happened and upon hearing gun fire he stood astounded; that
 In the course of the investigation, and for reasons which are disputed, the home because of the presence of the women and children, he ordered his guards to cease
guards then on duty and present at the investigation fired at the Moros and most of fire
them were killed

 afterwards he went to the middle of the place where the gathering was and found
 some of the home guards and others who could not be identified, went up the house out that many Moros were dead
of Restituto Requino and fired at the woman and children who were on the second
floor of the house. Some of the women and children were stabbed. No less than 35
 Osorio testimony:

13
 he immediately noticed a commotion among the Moros and the soldiers because of
the fact that the former were grabbing the firearms of the latter; that in the course
of the struggle the guns of the soldiers were exploded;
 that because of the noise Lawas could not give any order so he and Lawas laid
themselves down flat on the ground and after one minute in this position, Lawas
ordered that the guards cease firing and the firing stopped; that he could not tell
where the firing started because at the time when it began Lawas was dictating to
him and he was writing down what Lawas dictated; and that after the firing had
ceased, ha looked around and found many teoros. dead, while the soldiers (home
guards) had run away
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not Lawas and Osorio are guilty
 RULING:
 Impossible for their testimony to happen without hitting fellow soldiers
 The most reasonable inference is that upon hearing that their hands were to be tied
and as the leader was going to have his hands tied and he refused or resisted, the
Maranaos must have angrily protested, showing an attitude of hostility or resistance;
and this attitude must have been interpretted by Lawas and the soldiers as a
determination to resist and even to fight
 But there is no evidence that they went beyond showing their refusal or hostility, or
an apparent act on their part such as would induce a reasonable belief that the
Maranaos were about to begin an aggression against their captors. Their peaceful
conduct at the time of their arrest and before the investigation showed that they
were submissive and obedient
 But with respect to the killing of the women and children in the upper story of the
house of Restituto Requino, the killing is plainly attended by the circumstance of
abuse of superior strength
 their defenseless condition should be considered as included in the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength, not as an independent circumstance of
treachery. We find, therefore, that only one aggravating circumstance attended the
commission of the crime, or the killing of the women and children, and that is tha
abuse of superior strength, which aggravating circumstance raises the offense to that
of murder
 Then the evidence positively shows that the killing was the result of a single impulse,
which was induced by the order of the leader to fire, and continued with the
intention to comply therewith, as the firing stopped as soon as the leader gave the
order to that effect. There was no intent on the part of the appellants either to fire
at each and every one of the victims as separately and distinctly from each other. It
has been held that if the act or acts complained of resulted from a single criminal
impulse, it constitutes a single offense
 it may be stated as a general proposition that, where the inducement offered by the
accused is of such a nature and made in such a way that it become the determining
cause of the crime, and such inducement was offered with the intention of producing
that result, then the accused is guilty by inducement of the crime committed by the
person so induced. The inducement to the crime must be intentional on the part of
the inducer and must be made directly for the purpose in view
 The verb 'induce' is sufficiently broad, generally speaking, to cover cases where there
exists on the part of the inducer the most positive resolution and the most persistent
effort to secure the commission of the crime, together with the presentation to the
person induced of the very strongest kind of temptation, as well as words or acts
which are merely the result of indiscretion or lack of reflection and which carry with
them, inherently, almost nothing of inducement or temptation. A chance word
spoken without reflection, a wrong appreciation of a situation, an ironical phrase, a
thoughtless act, may give birth to a thought of, or even a resolution to, crime in the
mind of one for some independent reason predisposed thereto without the one who
spoke the word or performed the act having any expectation, that his suggestion
would be followed or any real intention that it produces a result. In such case, while
the expression was imprudent and the results of it grave in the extreme, he would
not be guilty of the crime committed. Therefore, in applying the principles laid down
to concrete cases it is necessary to remember only that the inducement must be
made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and that
such inducement must be the determining cause of the crime
 PEOPLE vs ELARCOSA
 G.R. No. 186539. June 29, 2010
 PONENTE: VELASCO
 TOPIC: Complex crimes (compound)
 FACTS:
 Dela Cruz family heard their names being called by unknown persons
 Elarcosa and his companion who were members of the CAFGU asked the family to
make them supper
 Elarcosa and his companion then shot at Jorge and Jose. They proceeded to take
P40,000 and a certificate for a large cattle (to be used for Jose’s upcoming wedding)
 Segundina cried over her son’s body. She was also killed
 Rosemarie was able to hide and go to her cousin’s house
 In his defense, accused-appellant Orias contends that on the night the incident took
place, he was at the dance hall sponsored by his unit as he was assigned by his
14
 Detachment Commander to entertain the visitors and that he stayed there from 6:00
p.m. until the wee hours of the morning
 Further, accused-appellant Orias failed to present any evidence to establish any
improper motive that may have impelled Rosemarie to falsely testify against him.
The CA also held that in the face of the positive identification of the accused by their
very victim as the perpetrators of the crime charged, the defense of alibi must fail
 The CA, however, held that accused-appellant Orias can only be convicted of three
(3) counts of murder, and not of robbery with multiple homicide, since the
prosecution was not able to prove that robbery was indeed committed.[16] In
addition, the CA found that the killing was attended by treachery; hence, the crime
committed was not multiple homicide, but multiple murder
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether Osario is guilty of the crime
 RULING:
 Credibility of witness
 In this regard, it should be noted that questions concerning the credibility of a
witness are best addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, since it is the
latter which is in the best position to observe the demeanor and bodily movements
of a witness
 As a matter of fact, Rosemarie positively and consistently identified accused-
appellant Orias and Elarcosa in the police station during the police line-up, as well as
in the courtroom during trial, as the persons who shot her brother and her father
 Moreover, accused-appellant Orias did not present any evidence which would show
that Rosemarie was driven by any improper motive in testifying against him
 Alibi
 Also, considering that the dance hall is in the same barangay where the crime was
committed, it was not physically impossible for accused-appellant Orias to be
present at the locus criminis at the time the same was committed
 it has been held, time and again, that alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and
crumbles in the light of positive identification by truthful witnesses
 Orias appears to have been corroborated by a CAFGU member by the name of Robert
Arellano and by a vendor present during the dance, said defense is unworthy of belief
not only because of its inherent weakness and the fact that accused-appellant Orias
was positively identified by Rosemarie, but also because it has been held that alibi
becomes more unworthy of merit where it is established mainly by the accused
himself, his relatives, friends, and comrades-in-arms, and not by credible persons
 Robbery with homicide
 Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the principle that in order to sustain a
conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery
itself be proved as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. Where
the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery, the killing of the victim would
be classified either as a simple homicide or murder
 Considering that robbery was not conclusively proved in the instant case, accused-
appellant Orias could not be convicted of robbery with homicide
 Treachery
 Treachery was unmistakably present in the instant case. Settled is the rule that
qualifying circumstances cannot be presumed, but must be established by clear and
convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself
 As a rule, there can be no treachery when an altercation ensued between the
appellant and the victim
 The settled rule is that treachery can exist even if the attack is frontal, as long as the
attack is sudden and unexpected giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or to
defend himself. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack, without the
slightest provocation from an unarmed victim, made it impossible for the victim to
defend himself or to retaliate
 Considerably, even if the shooting was frontal in the case at bar, treachery should
still be appreciated, since the victims were not in any position to defend themselves
as the attack was so sudden and unexpected
 The acts of accused-appellant Orias and Elarcosa evince the existence of conspiracy
 It arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
felony and forthwith decide to pursue it. Once this is established, each and every one
of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by any
one of them
 In the absence of direct proof, the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced
from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense or inferred from acts
that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest
 In the instant case, conspiracy is manifested by the fact that the acts of accused-
appellant Orias and Elarcosa were coordinated. They were synchronized in their
approach to shoot Jose and Jorge, and they were motivated by a single criminal
impulse, that is, to kill the victims
 Accused-appellant Orias should be convicted of three (3) counts of murder and not
of the complex crime of murder
15
 In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they
constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law, as well as in the conscience of the
offender. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex
crime
 Complex crime has two (2) kinds. The first is known as compound crime, or when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. The second is known
as complex crime
 proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other
 It is clear from the evidence on record that the three (3) crimes of murder did not
result from a single act but from several individual and distinct acts. Deeply rooted
is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts
constitute separate and distinct crimes
 Considering our holding above, we rule that accused-appellant Orias is guilty, not of
a complex crime of multiple murder, but of three (3) counts of murder for the death
of the three (3) victims
 PEOPLE vs BARBAS
 PONENTE:
 TOPIC: Complex crimes (complex proper)
 FACTS:
 In these two cases the defendant was charged in the Court of First Instance of
Oceidental Negros with the crime of malversation of public funds through the
falsification of public documents
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether the defendant is guilty of estafa through falsification of documents
 RULING:
 Because the defendant accounted to the municipal treasurer of Sagay for the cedulas
received, the lower court found that the defendant was not guilty of malversation
but of estafa through the falsification of public documents
 Because the defendant accounted to the municipal treasurer of Sagay for the cedulas
received, the lower court found that the defendant was not guilty of malversation
but of estafa through the falsification of public documents
 The evidence shows that the defendant altered the duplicates of the cedulas in
question as alleged in the informations. These duplicates are public documents, and
the alterations made by the defendant constituted the falsification of public
documents
 The falsification was therefore the means which the defendant availed himself of in
committing the crime of malversation. As the acts of the defendant constitute a
complex crime, the penalty applicable thereto is that corresponding to the more
serious offense, or the falsification of a public document
 PEOPLE vs CID
 PONENTE:
 TOPIC: Complex crimes (complex proper)
 FACTS:
 In four separate cases, Antonio P. Cid was charged with, prosecuted for and
convicted of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents,
and sentenced later by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte
 Petitioner wanted the charges to be melded into one instead of four
 the above-named accused, being municipal treasurer of said municipality and deputy
provincial treasurer of Ilocos Norte, duly appointed and qualified as such, and being
a bonded official besides, voluntarily, unlawfully and criminally, and taking
advantage of his position, malversed and misappropriated the sum of P741.24
belonging to the public funds, by falsifying a public document that he caused to pass
for a payroll to make it seem like teachers actually received their salaries
 appropriating for his personal use and benefit said sum of P741.24
 ISSUE/S:
 Whether the Cid is guilty of only one offense
 RULING:
 It may therefore be said that the malversations as well as the falsifications imputed
to the accused in the four cases under consideration were not the result of only one
purpose or of only one resolution to embezzle and falsify, but of four or as many
abstractions or misappropriations had of the funds entrusted to his care, and of as
many falsifications also committed to conceal each of said acts
 For these reasons, the accusedappellant is guilty of four malversations and of four
falsifications because the latter were not a necessary means for the commission of
the former, but were committed only to conceal them
 This is so because when the appellant voluntarily pleaded guilty upon arraignment
in connection with the four informations filed against him, he, in fact, admitted all
the material facts alleged in each of them
 REGIS vs PEOPLE
 PONENTE:
 TOPIC: Continuing crimes
16
 FACTS:
 On April 30, 1931 Genaro P. Nemenzo, as municipal president of Pinamungahan,
Cebu, Rafael Regis, as municipal treasurer, and Filomeno P. Nemenzo, as witness,
signed an official payroll in the amount of P473.70, it being made to appear therein
that certain persons worked as laborers in the street project between Sibago and
Sambagon-Poblacion. On May 2, 1931 the same Genaro P. Nemenzo, as municipal
president, Rafael Regis, as municipal treasurer and Melquiades Fuentes, as witness,
again signed another official payroll in the amount of P271.60 under similar
circumstances, namely, that it was made to appear therein that certain persons
worked as laborers in the said street project. In this way the two amounts of P473.70
and P271.60 were appropriated and taken from the municipal funds. As a matter of
fact, no such work was done in said street project and the persons mentioned in both
payrolls had not performed any labor

 one against Rafael Regis, Genaro P. Nemenzo and Filomeno P. Nemenzo, for
malversation of the sum of P473.70 through falsification of a public document; and
another against Rafael Regis, Genaro P. Nemenzo and Melquiades Fuentes, also for
malversation of the amount of P271.60 through falsification of a public document

 ISSUE/S:
 RULING:
 The falsifications committed on April 30, 1931 and on May 2 of the same year were
not necessary means for the commission of the malversations on the same dates;
each falsification and each malversation constitute independent offenses which
must be punished separately. The falsifications and the malversations committed on
the aforesaid dates did not constitute a singlefalsification and a single malversation,
according to the decision of this court in various previous cases in which it was held
that the falsifications and malversations committed on different dates constitute
different offenses

 It does not appear that when the malversation and the falsification were committed
on April 30, it was already the intention of the appellant to commit also the
falsification and the malversation of May 2, 1931, the same being necessary to justify
the finding that, although they were committed on different dates, a single intention
determined the commission of both. The acts being independent from each other
and executed by different voluntary actions, each constitutes an independent
offense

17
PEOPLE vs. SABIO
TOPIC: Unlawful aggression
FACTS:
 Teodoro Sabio was squatting with a friend, Irving Jurilla, in the plaza of Central
Manapla, Manapla, Negros Occidental. Romeo Bacobo and two others — Ruben
Miñosa and Leonardo Garcia — approached them
 Romeo Bacobo then asked Sabio where he spent the holy week. He gave Sabio a
"foot-kick greeting", touching Sabio's foot with his own left foot. Sabio thereupon
stood up and dealt Romeo Bacobo a fist blow, inflicting upon him a lacerated wound,
¾ inch long, at the upper lid of the left eye. It took from 11 to 12 days to heal and
prevented Romeo Bacobo from working
 prosecuted for less serious physical injuries
 In the Court of First Instance, however, to which he appealed, he was found guilty
but with
 the mitigating circumstance of provocation
ISSUE/S:
 Whether a fist blow delivered in retaliation to a "foot-kick greeting" is an act of self-
defense and/or justifying circumstance
RULING:
 CRIMINAL LAW; REQUISITE FOR SELF-DEFENSE; WHEN UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IS
PRESENT. — A primordial requisite for self-defense is unlawful aggression (Art. 11,
Revised Penal Code). And for unlawful aggression to be present, there must be real
danger to life or personal safety (People vs. Beatriz Yuman, 61 Phil. 786.) For this
reason, a mere push or a shove, not followed by other acts, has been held insufficient
to constitute unlawful aggression (People vs. Yuman, supra). A playful kick — the
lower court rejected defendant's claim that it was a "vicious kick" - at the foot by
way of greeting between friends may be a practical joke and may even hurt; but it is
not a serious or real attack on a person's safety. Appellant's submission that it
amounts to unlawful aggression cannot therefore be sustained. As rightly found by
the Court of First Instance, such kick was only a mere slight provocation.
 ID.; SLAP ON FACE CONSTITUTES UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION; REASON. — A slap on the
face is an unlawful aggression. Since the face represents a person and his dignity,
slapping it is a serious personal attack. It is a physical assault coupled with a willful
disregard, nay, a defiance, of an individual's personality. It may therefore be
frequently regarded as placing in real danger a person's dignity, rights and safety. A
friendly kick delivered on a person's foot obviously falls short of such personal
aggression
PEOPLE vs. CAJURAO
TOPIC: Unlawful aggression
FACTS:
 People of South Cotabato were in a festive mood because of a carnival.
 Pordios was surprised when Santiago Betita suddenly arrived at her stall. When he
took the "lamp" that illuminated her wares, she got angry and confronted him.
Pordios asked him why he took the lamp, but Betita ignored her and held on to the
lamp in a defensive stance
 Suddenly, the appellant sped towards Betita and stabbed him on the right nipple.
Betita fell to the ground. The appellant then threw his knife away and fled
 Betita arrived and approached the appellant, pointing at the latter. The appellant
stood up. Betita then slapped the appellant on the face. The appellant was about to
retaliate but Betita fled towards the stall of Pordios, about three meters away from
the concrete bench. He took hold of the "Tanduay lamp" and was about to throw it
at the appellant but the latter, armed with a knife, ran towards Betita and stabbed
him on the chest
ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not the stabbing can be considered as a justifying circumstance
RULING:
 Like alibi, self-defense is a weak defense because it is easy to fabricate
 When the accused interposes self-defense, he thereby admits having killed the
victim.
 The burden of proof is shifted on him to prove with clear and convincing evidence
the confluence of the essential requisites of a complete self-defense, namely:
o unlawful aggression on the part of the victim
o reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
o (C) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself
 The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness
of the evidence of the prosecution; because even if the prosecution's evidence is
weak, the same can no longer be disbelieved
 The appellant failed to discharge his burden
18
  The natural reaction of one who witnesses the commission of a crime is to report the
same immediately to the police authorities so that the culprit could be arrested and
forthwith prosecuted; and if convicted, to be meted the appropriate penalty
therefor.
 In this case, Pordios and Tecson gave their respective statements to the public
investigator on November 30, 1993, barely a day after the stabbing. In contrast, the
appellant and Evangelista did not report the stabbing to the police authorities and
even failed to give any statement thereon
 The 􀁃ight of the appellant, his throwing away the knife used to stab the victim, his
failure to report the stabbing and to surrender himself to the police authorities and
to thereafter claim that he killed Betita in self-defense, all these belie his claim that
he killed the victim in self-defense
 There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless there is clear and
convincing proof of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The unlawful
aggression, a constitutive element of self-defense, must be real or at least
imminent and not merely imaginary. A belief that a person is about to be attacked
is not su􀁈cient. Even an intimidating or threatening attitude is by no means enough
 Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized
or at the very least is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or merely a
threatening stance or posture. The settled rule in jurisprudence is that when
unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has the right to kill or even
wound the former aggressor. Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance
 Pordios did not testify that before the stabbing, Betita was about to throw the bottle
at the appellant
 the appellant's evidence shows, however, that Betita anticipated that the appellant
would retaliate and forthwith ran away to the stall of Pacita and took hold of the
knife. From that moment, the inceptive unlawful aggression on the part of Betita had
ceased to exist
No treachery
Treachery requires the concurrence of the following conditions
(1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would insure
the offender's safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party,
who has, thus, no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation
(2) deliberate or conscious choice of such means, methods or manner of execution
 there is no evidence that the appellant deliberately and consciously adopted a
method of attack that insured the death of the victim
 it could not be said that the attack was without risk to the appellant, because Betita
was holding a lighted wick lamp which he could have used as a weapon to fend off
the appellant's assault. To be considered treacherous, a sudden attack by the
assailant, whether frontally or from behind, must be proven to have been a mode of
attack deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a
chance to either flight or retreat
PEOPLE vs. HERNANDEZ
FACTS:
 The duly appointed provincial sheriff of Camarines Norte, had informed the said
defendant of the existence of a writ of execution issued by the court against him in
connection with civil case No. 775 entitled 'The Collector of Internal Revenue vs.
Gabriel Hernandez', and after showing him the writ in question and on the occasion
that said complaint, then acting in the performance of his duties, proceeded to
attach the personal property belonging to him, the said defendant, taking advantage
of his public position as provincial governor of Camarines Norte and abusing the
same, by means of force and threat, resisted, refused and tenaciously opposed
compliance with the aforesaid order of the court to be enforced by said complainant,
and in order to accomplish such resistance the said defendant ordered the chief of
police of Daet to detain and lock up the complainant
 Contrary to law, and with the concurrence of the 􀁃rst aggravating circumstance
speci􀁃ed in article 14 of the Penal Code, that is, the taking advantage by the offender
of his public position
 The appellant then proposed that the sheriff attach the stripping machine out􀁃t
which he had on his hacienda, a motor-propelled sail boat and a banca belonging to
him, all of which had cost him more than one thousand 􀁃fty pesos but which he
appraised at only six hundred forty pesos on that occasion, which sum was double
the amount of the judgment in question
 in his house but those speci􀁃ed in Exhibit 1, adding that he would be willing to
surrender other property in case the proceeds of the sale thereof were insu􀁃cient to
satisfy the judgment
 Unable to control her temper under the impression that her piano and chairs were
to be seized by the provincial sheriff, the said wife of the appellant made more or
less insulting remarks to the sheriff
 Sheriff forces door open to get chair
19
  Chief of police comes and arrests Sheriff with the belief that he was forcibly taking
the property of the appellant

ISSUE/S:

RULING:
 Under other circumstances, the appellant's act in trying to prevent the sheriff from
carrying away his piano and chairs, in the manner above stated, would constitute a
slight offense of resistance to an agent of a person in authority, but under the
circumstances which led to the commission thereof, it cannot be considered as such

 The provincial sheriff really acted arbitrarily and with malice, and even more than
that, with unnecessary severity and abuse

 The truth is that the sheriff saw an opportunity to get even with the appellant who
defeated him in the preceding elections and to avenge the affront which the latter
offered him in tenaciously opposing his appointment as provincial sheriff

 When an obligation may be complied with or a right enforced in one way or another
without detriment to the person charged with such compliance or enforcement,
there is no need of so doing to the annoyance and humiliation of the persons
concerned. As much as possible, one should 􀁃nd some means of harmonizing
compliance with such duty and enforcement of such right with the right and
obligations of others

 it should not be construed to mean that, having discretion in choosing the property
to be attached, he should necessarily levy upon such property as is valued by the
execution debtor, particularly when the latter places other property at his disposal,
as was done herein, the value of which is greatly in excess of the amount of the
judgment under execution

20
PEOPLE vs. RICOHERMOSO
FACTS:
 Geminiano de Leon, together with his thirty-three-year old common-law wife
Fabiana Rosales, his twenty-four-year old son Marianito de Leon and one Rizal
Rosales, encountered Pio Ricohermoso in Barrio Tagbacan Silañgan, Catanauan,
Quezon
 Geminiano owned a parcel of land in that barrio which Ricohermoso cultivated as
kaingin.
 Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about his share of the palay harvest
 Ricohermoso answered that Geminiano could go to his house anytime and he would
give the latter palay
 Geminiano returned to Barrio Tagbacan Silañgan, he stopped at Ricohermoso's
place. It was about two o'clock in the afternoon. I Geminiano sat on a sack beside
Fabiana Rosales in front of the house while Marianito stood about three meters
behind his father. A .22 caliber rifle was slung on Marianito's right shoulder.
Ricohermoso stood near the door of his house while Severo Padernal was stationed
near the eaves of the house
 Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about the palay. The latter, no longer conciliatory
anevidently hostile, answered in a defiant tone: "Whatever happens, I will not give
you palay." Geminiano remonstrated: "Why did you tell us to pass by your house, if
you were not willing to give the palay?"
 At that juncture, as if by pre-arrangement, Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and
approached Geminiano from the left, while Severo Padernal (Ricohermoso's father-
in-law) got an axe and approached Geminiano from the right. The latter looked up
to the sexagenarian Severo Padernal, with both hands raised and pleaded: "Mamay
(Grandpa), why will you do this to us. We will not fight you." While Geminiano was
still looking up to Severo Padernal on his right, Ricohermoso walked to Geminiano's
left, and, when about one meter from him, stabbed him on the neck with his bolo
 while Severo Padernal and Ricohermoso were assaulting Geminiano de Leon,
another episode was taking place. Juan Padernal (Ricohermoso's brother-in-law and
the son of Severo) suddenly embraced Marianito de Leon from behind, with his right
arm locked around Marianito's neck and his left hand pressing Marianito's left
forearm
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Padernal conspired with Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal conspired to kill
Geminiano
RULING:
Justifying
Appellant Juan Padernal invokes the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil
or injury (par. 4, Art. 11, Revised Penal Code) in explaining his act of preventing Marianito
de Leon from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. His reliance on that justifying
circumstance is erroneous. The act of Juan Padernal in preventing Marianito de Leon from
shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, who were the aggressors, was designed to insure
the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any risk to his assailants
Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable Marianito. Padernal's
malicious intention was to forestall any interference in the felonious assault made by his father
and brother-in-law on Geminiano
Conspiracy
Juan Padernal contends that he was not a co-principal because he did not take any direct part
in the killing of Geminiano, that he did not force or induce Ricohermoso to stab Geminiano and
that he allegedly did not cooperate in its commission
Padernal embraced Marianito to prevent him for saving his father
Assailanats could have consummated the killing if it weren’t for Padernal who stopped
Marianito from intervening
Treachery
Accused fired at the victim when he was already pleading not to be killed
PEOPLE vs. BERONILLA
FACTS:
Beronilla was convicted for murer of Arsenio Borjal in Abra
Borjal was the mayor of La Paz Abra until 1943 when unkown people tried to kill him
Beronilla was elected as Military mayor in 1948
Simultaneously with his appointment as Military Mayor, Beronilla received copy of a
memorandum issued By Lt. Col. Arnold to all Military Mayors in Northern Luzon, authorizing
them "to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons accused of treason, espionage, or the
aiding and abetting (of) the enemy"
received from the Headquarters of the 15th Infantry a list of all puppet government of􀁃cials of
the province of Abra (which included ArsenioBorjal, puppet mayor of La Paz), with a
memorandum instructing all Military Mayors to investigate said persons and gather against
them complaints from people of themunicipality for collaboration with the enemy
21

 Arsenio Borjal returned to La Paz with his family in order to escape the bombing of
Bangued. Beronilla, pursuant to his instructions, placed Borjal under custody and
asked the residents of La Paz to file complaints against him. Beronilla organized a
jury composed of 12 men
 The jury found Borjal guilty and sentenced him to death
 Borjal was executed
 2 years after Beronilla was charged with conspiring to kill Borjal
 the late President Manuel A. Roxas issued Executive Proclamation No. 8, granting
amnesty to all persons who committed acts penalized under the Revised Penal Code
in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy against persons aiding in the war
efforts of the enemy
 Labugen was granted amnesty
 The Court below rendered judgment, acquitting the members of the jury and the
grave digger Antonio Palope on the ground that they did not participate in the killing
of Arsenio Borja
 Convicted beronilla and co
 The Court a quo found that while the crime committed by them fell within the
provisions of
 the Amnesty Proclamation, they were not entitled to the bene􀁃ts thereof because
the crime was committed after the expiration of the time limit 􀁃xed by the amnesty
proclamation;: i.e., that the deceased Arsenio Borjal was executed after the
liberation of La Paz, Abra
ISSUE/S:
 Whether Beronilla’s acts were lawful because he was following an order issued for a
lawful purpose
RULING:
 The records are ample to sustain the claim of the defense that the arrest, prosecution
and trial of the late Arsenio Borjal were done pursuant to express orders of the 15th
Infantry Headquarters
 The state, however, predicates its case principally on the existence of the radiogram
Exhibit H from Colonel Volckmann, overall area commander, to Lt. Col. Arnold,
speci􀁃cally calling attention to the illegality of Borjal's conviction and sentence, and
which the prosecution claims was known to the accused Beronilla
 No satisfactory proof that Beronilla did actually receive the radiogram Exhibit H or
any copy thereof
 Had he executed Borjal in violation of superior orders, he would not have dared to
report it to Arnold's headquarters on the very same day, April 18th, 1945, as he Did
 And what is even more important, if Borjal was executed contrary to instructions,
how could Lt. Colonel Arnold on April 22, 1945, write in reply "I can only compliment
you for your impartial but independent way of handling the whole case" instead of
berating Beronilla and ordering his court martial for disobedience?
 the concurrence of personal hatred and collaboration with the enemy as motives for
a liquidation does not operate to exclude the case from the bene􀁃ts of the Amnesty
claimed by appellants, since then "it may not be held that the manslaughter
stemmed from purely personal motives
 "any reasonabledoubt as to whether a given case falls within the (amnesty)
proclamation shall be resolved in favor of the accused" (inconsistency when it comes
to liberation)
US vs. TAÑEDO
FACTS:
 the said accused, with the intention of killing Feliciano Sanchez, invited him to hunt
wild chickens, and, upon reaching the forest, with premeditation shot him in the
breast with a shotgun which destroyed the heart and killed the said Sanchez, and
afterwards, in order to hide the crime, buried the body of the deceased in a well. The
motive is unknown
 Tañedo asked the deceased’s uncle where he could hunt wild chickens. The uncle
was sick with fever, so the deceased answered the question
 They agreed to hunt chickens together (accused said he never invited the deceased)
 Shot a chicken, but heard a human cry
 Accused disposed of the body in a cogon
ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not the killing was made by accident
RULING:
 No motive or ill-relations between the accused and the deceased
 Chicken and man were shot at the same time (no sudden quarrel)
22
  In this case there is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part of the
accused. Neither is there any question that he was engaged in the commission of a
lawful act when the accident occurred. Neither is there any evidence of the intention
of the accused to cause the death of the deceased
 burden is upon the State to show that it was intentional, and if, from a consideration
of all the evidence, both that for the State and the prisoner, there is a reasonable
doubt as to whether or not the killing was accidental or intentional, the jury should
acquit
PEOPLE vs. NOCUM
FACTS:
 A fight broke out between two people and the defendant tried to stop them by
shouting
 They didn’t listen, so he made a warning shot twice in the air
 They still did not listen, so he made another warning shot
 The bullet hit Eugenio Francisco, an innocent by-stander
 Corpus delecti was not demonstrated by evidence
 That is proof of the corpus delicti, i. e., proof of violent death, whether or not
feloniously caused
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Eugenio Francisco died by accident
RULING:
 The mishap should be classed as homicide through reckless imprudence, the slaying
having been unintentional
 It is apparent the defendant wilfully discharged his gun—for which he exhibited no
license, by the way—without taking the precautions demanded by the circumstance
that the district was populated, and the likelihood that his bullet would glance over
the hard pavement of the Manila thoroughfare
PEOPLE vs. ROGADO
FACTS:
Rogado and co. were charged of killing Salvador Areza
Areza was farmer in Laguna. One day he left his house carrying with him a bolo to gather
firewood. He failed to come home. The wife, along with armed men, searched for him
They found the decapitated body of Areza. His hands were tied together
Rogado et al chanced upon Areza and asked where they were
Areza answered. Rogado et al wanted Areza to lead the way. Areza refused saying that he lots
of things to do. Rogado et al killed him
Pedro Merin (one of the Rogado squad members) went to the police and made a sworn
statement
Domingo Golfeo and Cresencio Arsenal, while admitting their participation in the killing
of the deceased, claimed in exculpation that they acted under the pressure of an irresistible
force in that they merely obeyed the order of their Commander, Rogado alias Commander
Sulit, who would have killed them if they disobeyed his order
killing was done in furtherance of the huk rebellion
ISSUE/S:
Whether the accused should be exempted from criminal responsibility
RULING:
 defense of Golfeo is clearly untenable not only because of the well-settled rule that
obedience to an order of a superior will only justify an act which otherwise would -
be criminal when the order is for a lawful purpose, but also because the
circumstances under which Golfeo participated in the torture and liquidation of
Areza cannot in any way justify his claim that he acted under an uncontrollable fear
of being punished by his superiors if he disobeyed their order
 Golfeo had gun to protect himself Killing was done in a secluded place he and his
companion Arsenal could have escaped with Areza to avoid the ire of their superiors
 Did the deed on his own free will
 Cresencio Arsenal. It appears that he was one of those ordered by Rogado to kill
Areza and in obedience to such order he had a direct participation in the killing. It
was he and Golfeo who brought Areza to a secluded place and once there he helped
Golfeo in killing him with the same bolo which was taken from the victim himself.
Thus, it appears that after Golfeo had given the first blow on the back of the neck of
Areza as the lay face down on the ground, Arsenal took the bolo himself and gave
the fatal blow which completely severed the head of Areza from his body
Huk movement
 that there is no complex crime of rebellion with murder because the latter offense
is absorbed by the former
 On the other hand, the pretense that the killing of Areza by appellants was done in
furtherance of the huk rebellion is preposterous considering the fact that Areza was
23
 a mere farmer who had no connection whatsoever with any lawenforcement agency
of the government

Why did they kill?

 Areza’s refusal irked Rogado. Wanted to teach him a lesson

 An attempt was made by appellants to show that Areza was killed because he
threatened to inform the Army of their presence in the neighborhood where he met
them

24
PEOPLE vs PAGAL
(DISRESPECT OF RANK SEX AGE)
FACTS:
the said accused, conspiring and confederating together by means of violence, take away from
the person of one Gau Guan, cash amounting to P1,281.00
taking advantage of their superior strength, treacherously attack, assault and use personal
violence upon the said Gau Guan, by then and there stabbing him with an icepick and clubbing
him with an iron pipe on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds
which were the direct and immediate cause of his death
the accused informed said court of their intention to enter a plea of guilty provided that they
be allowed afterwards to
prove the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation
Court ruled:
WHEREFORE, both accused are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of
the crime of robbery with homicide and there being proven the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime, evident premeditation and disregard of
respect due the offended party offset only by the mitigating circumstance of their plea of
guilty, sentences each one of them to DEATH, to jointly and severally
ISSUE/S &RULING:
Whether or not the Court erred in sentencing the accused to death? - YES
The appellant Pedro Pagal contends that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime
of robbery with homicide claiming that the record is bereft of any proof or evidence that he
and his co-appellant Jose Torcelino conspired to commit the crime of robbery with homicide
His denial of conspiracy with his co-appellant Jose Torcelino cannot be given credence in view
of the clear and convincing confession of his guilt in his statement 7 signed by him before the
police investigators several hours after the commission of the crime. Besides, when he pleaded
guilty to the charge, he is deemed to have admitted all the material facts alleged in the
information
Provocation, Passion & Obfuscation
Firstly, since the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose
from the same incident, that is, the alleged maltreatment and/or ill treatment of the appellants
by the deceased, these two mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as two distinct and
separate
circumstances but should be treated as one
Secondly, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which
— as in the case at bar — is planned and calmly meditated before its execution
the maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to have committed against them occurred
much earlier than the date of the commission of the crime. Provocation in order to be a
mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act
Aggravating Circumstance
the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, evident premeditation, and disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his rank and age
the trial court correctly considered the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity because the
same was purposely and deliberately sought by the appellants to facilitate the
commission of the crime, nevertheless, We disagree with its conclusion that evident
premeditation and disregard of the respect due the offended party were present in the
commission of the crime
Evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery. However, in the crime of
robbery with homicide, if there is evident premeditation to kill besides stealing, it is
considered as an aggravating circumstance. In other words, evident premeditation will
only be aggravating in a complex crime of robbery with homicide if it is proved that the
plan is not only to rob, but also to kill
a perusal of the written statements of the appellants before the police investigators show that
then original plan was only to rob, and that, they killed the deceased only when the latter
refused to open the "kaha de yero", and fought with them
The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be considered only in
crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or
disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex. It is not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance
in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and
not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident ofthe robbery, the latter being the main
purpose and object of the criminal
Robbery with homicide is punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Since the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime is offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the lesser
penalty, which is reclusion perpetua, should be imposed upon the appellants
25
US vs. LICARTE
(DWELLING)
FACTS:
the offended party, Benita Soyso, sent her small son to the house of the accused for the
purpose of obtaining a bolo which her husband had loaned to the husband of the accused. On
arrival of the messenger at the house, he found that neither the accused nor her husband was
there, and on asking Filomena, daughter of the accused, for the bolo, Filomena replied by
saying that she knew nothing about it. The offended party, on hearing this reply (her house
and that of the accused being opposite and very near each other), began abusing Filomena,
calling her vile names
The accused and her husband being in a neighbor's house nearby, heard these insulting words,
and thereupon the accused left the house where she was and appeared in front of that of
Benita Soyso and demanded of the latter an explanation of the insult to her daughter Filomena.
A quarrel ensued between Benita and the accused, in which abusive language was exchanged
becoming very angry and very much excited and having in her hand at that time a short working
bolo, entered the house of Benita and began striking her with the bolo. As a result of the
wounds inflicted, Benita was incapacitated and required medical attendance for a period of
fifteen days.
The court below, in fixing the penalty imposed, took into consideration the aggravating
circumstance of morada, inasmuch as the crime was committed in the house of the offended
party
ISSUE/S & RULING:
Whether or not the trial court erred in considering the AC of dwelling – YES
Article 10 of the Penal Code reads:
"The following are aggravating circumstances:
xxx xxx xxx
"No. 20. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be committed in the dwelling of
the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation."
the offended party, by calling Filomena vile names, started the trouble. This vile language was
not directed at the accused, but to her daughter. This was, however, a sufficient provocation
to cause the accused to demand an explanation why her daughter was so grossly insulted. So,
under these facts, it was error to hold that the aggravating circumstance of morada existed
The accused was a woman about 􀁃fty years of age. She heard her single daughter grossly
insulted. She appeared in front of the house of Benita and demanded an explanation. The
explanation was not forthcoming, and a quarrel immediately ensued between these two
women. The accused was laboring under great excitement and passion when she entered the
house of Benita and inflicted the wounds. These facts should be considered as a circumstance
mitigating the offense. (Art. 9, No. 7, Penal Code.) There being no aggravating circumstances
present, and one mitigating circumstance, the penalty should have been imposed in its
minimum degree
The judgment appealed from is hereby modified by imposing upon the appellant a penalty of
one month and one day of arresto mayor, instead of four months and one day of arresto
mayor. As thus modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs against the appellant
PEOPLE vs. JAURIGE
(PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP)
FACTS:
Avelina Jaurigue and the deceased Amado
Capiña lived in the barrio of Sta. Isabel, city of San Pablo, Province of Laguna; that for sometime
prior to the stabbing of the deceased by defendant and appellant, in the evening of September
20, 1942, the former had been courting the latter in vain, and that on one occasion, about one
month before that fatal night, Amado Capiña snatched a handkerchief belonging to her,
bearing her nickname "Aveling
Avelina was feeding a dog under her house, Amado approached her and spoke to her of his
love, which she 􀁃atly refused, and he thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and
touched her breast, on account of which Avelina, a resolute and quick- tempered girl, slapped
Amado, gave him 􀁃st blows and kicked him. She kept the matter to herself, until the following
morning when she informed her mother about it. Since then, she armed herself with a long fan
knife, whenever she went out, evidently for self-protection
Amado climbed up the house of defendant and appellant, and surreptitiously entered the
room where she was sleeping. He felt her forehead, evidently with the intention of abusing
her. She immediately screamed for help, which awakened her parents and brought them to
her side
Nicolas Jaurigue went to the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists of which he was the
treasurer, in their barrio, just across the provincial road from his house, to attend religious
services, and sat on the front bench facing the altar with the other officials of the organization
and the barrio lieutenant, Casimiro Lozada. Inside the chapel it was quite bright as there were
electric lights
Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father, also for the purpose
of attending religious services, and sat on the bench next to the last one nearest the door.
Amado Capiña was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon observing the presence of
Avelina Jaurigue, Amado Capiña went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat by her
right side, and, without saying a word, Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand
on the upper part of her right thigh. On observing this highly improper and offensive conduct
of Amado Capiña, Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out
with her right hand the fan knife marked Exhibit B, which she had in a pocket of her dress, with
26
the intention of punishing Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she
quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left
side of the neck, in􀁃icting upon him a wound about 41/2 inches deep, which was necessarily
mortal
ISSUE/S & RULING:
Whether or not AC of religious place of worship can be considered – NO
there is no evidence to show that the defendant and appellant had murder in her heart when
she entered the chapel that fatal night. Avelina is not a criminal by nature. She happened to
kill under the greatest provocation. She is a God-fearing young woman, typical of our country
girls, who still possess the consolation of religious hope in a world where so many others have
hopelessly lost the faith of their elders and now drifting away they know not where
there is not the least doubt that, in stabbing to death the deceased Amado Capiña, in the
manner and form and under the circumstances above indicated, the defendant and appellant
committed the crime of homicide, with no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at
least three mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in her favor; and,
in accordance with the provisions of article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, she is entitled to a
reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon her. And considering the
circumstances of the instant case, the defendant and appellant should be accorded the most
liberal consideration possible under the law
the learned trial court in this case, when the deceased sat by the side of defendant and
appellant on the same bench, near the door of the barrio chapel and placed his hand on the
upper portion of her right thigh, without her consent, the said chapel was lighted with electric
lights, and there were already several people, about ten of them, inside the chapel, including
her own father and the barrio lieutenant and other dignitaries of the organization; and under
the circumstances, there was and there could be no possibilityof her being raped.
And when she gave Amado Capiña a thrust at the base of the left side of his neck, inflicting
upon him a mortal wound 41/2 inches deep, causing his death a few moments later, the means
employed by her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive
But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily and unconditionally
surrendered to the barrio lieutenant in said chapel, admitting having stabbed the deceased,
immediately after the incident, and agreed to go to her house shortly thereafter and to remain
there subject to the order of the said barrio lieutenant, an agent of the authorities (United
States vs. Fortaleza, 12 Phil., 472); and the further fact that she had acted in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense committed against her a few moments before, and upon such
provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation, or temporary loss of reason and self-
control, should be considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor
The law prescribes the penalty of reclusion temporal for the crime of homicide; and if it should
be reduced by two degrees, the penalty to be imposed in the instant case is that of prision
correccional; and pursuant to the provisions of section 1 of Act No. 4103 of the Philippine
Legislature, known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, herein defendant and appellant should
be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from arresto mayor in its medium degree,
to prision correccional in its medium degree. Consequently, with the modi􀁃cation of the
judgment appealed from, defendant
and appellant Avelina Jaurigue is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from
two months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two years, four months, and one
day of prision correccional, as maximum, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Amado Capiña, in the sum of P2,000, and to suffer the
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, not to exceed 1/3 of the principal penalty, in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs. Defendant and appellant should also be given the bene􀁃t of
1/2 of her preventive imprisonment, and the knife marked Exhibit B ordered confiscated
PEOPLE vs. CANADO
(AID OF ARMED MEN)
FACTS:
Gaudencio Candado y Sarte, Reynaldo Sadie y Malana and Manuel Maglalang y Malda were
charged with Murder under an Amended Information, alleging that on September 1, 1970, the
said accused conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another without
justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill and with treachery aforethought and evident
premeditation hacked and stabbed to death Mario San Juan
the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal rendered a decision convicting said accused as charged
and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of DEATH
the deceased sustained eighteen (18) stab wounds on the different parts of the body which
could have been caused by a sharp-single-bladed instrument like a "balisong" or similar
instrument and twelve (12) hacking wounds, mostly found on the head, which could have been
caused by either a single-bladed sharp instrument like a small bolo or a bayonet. He explained
that there were at least two (2) kinds of instruments which were used to inflict the wounds on
the deceased and that there were at least two (2) assailant
eighteen (18) stab wounds sustained by the deceased, eight (8) were perforating wounds
which practically caused the death of the deceased through hemorrhage and that either of the
eight was fatal enough to cause the death of the victim. He also opined that it is possible that
some of the wounds were sustained by the deceased while he was standing, and some were
sustained when he was already in prone position
before the fatal incident in question, her brother left their house at Protacio Street,
accompanied by two companions, one of whom she identified as Alberto Fernandez
AlbertoFernandez told the police that two of the eight persons in the group who killed the
victim were Gaudencio Candado and Reynaldo Sadie
could not find the bolos and knives that were used in the commission of the crime
Fernandez and co were walking towards the bakery. They found the both of the accused
inside, who seemed drunk
27

Suddenly, they heard someone say “ayun” and both of the accused starting hacking San Juan.
They tried to look for a police officer, but could not find any because it was raining
Defense of the accused:
San Pedro testified that on September 1, 1970, at about 6:00 o'clock p.m. while buying bread
in a bakery at Aurora Street, Pasay City, he noticed a group of eight (8) men, four (4) of whom
were drinking wine. He knew some of them only by their aliases as "Nardong Bungal", "Ding
Oxo" and "Bombay". As he was waiting for his change, he heard a man with two companions
standing in the middle of the street, challenging the group of "Nardong Bungal" to a fight. He
saw one of the three stab "Nardong Bungal" and all of a sudden the four companions of
"Nardong Bungal" chased the three with their bolos and later saw the four overtake and hack
and stab the three men. Sometime later, when he was on his way home, he saw many people
staring at a man lying on the street bathed with blood
Gaudencio Candado, one of the accused and a rig driver by occupation, totally denied his
involvement in the crime. He stated that on September 1, 1970, he drove his calesa from past
4:00 o'clock in the afternoon until 9:00 o'clock in the evening plying the Libertad corner Taft
Avenue-Bangkal, Makati route; that he knew Alberto Fernandez for they formerly belonged to
the same gang and it was Fernandez who put the tatoo marks on his (Candado's) body; that
Alberto Fernandez testified against him because he implicated Fernandez before the CIS as the
one who stabbed his friend
Reynaldo Sadie also denied any participation in the crime. He declared that on September 1,
1970, at around 8:00 o'clock in the morning, he was in Baclaran; at 1:00 o'clock p.m. he was in
the Municipal Court at Las Piñas as a witness in the killing of one Amor and at 7:00 p.m., he
was in the Pasay City market making sausages with his brother and a companion named Danny.
After finishing his work, he went home to Pinagbarilan, Pasay City. He knew Alberto Fernandez
alias "Boy Hapon" because on August 25, 1970, Fernandez saw him at Pinagbarilan and accused
him (Sadie) of spreading the news that they were enemies, which he denied
Jose Paredes, patrolman, of Makati, testified that on September 1, 1970 at about 10:00 o'clock
in the evening, he was on board a Marikina Valley bus bound for Baclaran. While still in the
bus, a group of men who were all armed with pistols and knives, boarded the bus in front of
the Magallanes establishment in Highway 54. When two of the group saw his cap identifying
him as a Makati policeman, they pointed their guns at him and one pointed a knife at his back.
The group then divested the passengers of their money and watches. His wrist watch and
service pistol were taken from him by the holduppers. He claimed that he was not able to use
his gun because he was outnumbered and his pistol was not loaded. He recognized Alberto
Fernandez was one of the robbers because Fernandez was the one talking to the driver and
the last one to alight from the bus. When he learned that the Quezon City Police arrested a
holdupper and given information by the Pasay City Police, he went to the Pasay City Jail where
he identified Alberto Fernandez as one of the holduppers who held up the Marikina Valley bus.
He knew also that "Boy Hapon" is the alias of Alberto Fernandez Magalang pointed at
Fernandez pointed to him as one of those responsible for the killing of Mario San Juan because
Fernandez got mad at him when he refused to join the group of Fernandez in robbing tourists
and Fernandez suspected him as the one who reported the matter to the police; that another
reason why Fernandez was mad at him was his resignation as member and leader of the Sigue-
Sigue gang
ISSUE/S & RULING:
We find from the circumstances the attendance of treachery in the commission of the crime.
The attack was deliberate as shown by the fact that the accused had previously armed
themselves with bolos and knives. It was sudden and unexpected and without warning and
without giving an opportunity to the victim to defend himself or repel the initial assault. It is
evident from the record that the deceased was hacked and stabbed while his back was turned
toward the accused, as he was then in the act of running away. Appellants made sure that the
victim could not defend himself by surrounding him and inflicting the wounds upon him by
turns. We have held in various cases that a sudden and unexpected attack under circumstances
which render the victim unable to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of
the attack constitutes alevosia. The circumstance of treachery qualifies the killing as murder.
We are convinced that the foregoing circumstances clearly show that the appellants, who used
bladed weapons and attacked the deceased unexpectedly, had conspired to commit the crime
they were convicted of, thus rendering of no consequence the fact that not all the wounds
inflicted by them one after the other were fatal. In conspiracy, the act of any of the
conspirators becomes the act of all the others and responsibility for the act will be borne by
them equally regardless of the degree of their respective participation in the execution of the
act. Also, once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as
co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active participation in
the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because
in contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all
Appellants also contended that the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should
not be appreciated in this case. There is an apparent oversight committed by the appellants
on this point. The trial court did not find the attendance of this circumstance in its decision.
Considering that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed
in the qualifying circumstance of treachery, It would be pointless to discuss whether or not
under the circumstances of the case such aggravating circumstance also exists. The generic
aggravating circumstance of "aid of armed men" should not be applied in this case, considering
that appellants, as well as those who cooperated with them in the commission of the crime in
question, acted under the same plan and for the same purpose
There being no other modifying circumstance attendant, as the Solicitor General correctly
observed, the lower court should have imposed the prescribed penalty in its medium period,
i.e., reclusion perpetua
28
PEOPLE vs. SARMIENTO
(EVIDENT PREMEDITATION)
FACTS:
Pedro Sarmiento, together with one Jose Vajilidad, was accused by the Provincial Fiscal of
Antique of the crime of murder under an information charging that the crime was committed
with the qualifying circumstance of treachery and the generic aggravating circumstance of
known premeditation
Sarmiento, admitted the killing but pleaded self-defense. The lower court rejected this plea
and found the defendant Sarmiento guilty, convicting him however, only of the crime of
homicide. The trial court was of the opinion that the qualifying and aggravating circumstances
were not fully proven. On the other hand, not having found from the evidence suficient
grounds to convict Jose Vajilidad, the lower court acquitted the latter of the charge
the appellate court, while agreeing with the lower court's finding that the elements of self-
defense were not satisfactorily established, advanced the opinion that the accused herein
should have been found guilty of the crime of murder on the ground that the killing was
committed with the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation
that appellant's theory of self-defense cannot stand. In the 􀁃rst place, the deceased
Baldestamon was not, contrary to appellant's claim, holding a bolo when shot. This is shown
by the fact that although the hilt of his bolo was hit by a bullet and damaged (Ext. H- 1), not
one of the deceased's hands was wounded, clearly indicating that he was not wielding the bolo
when he was shot. Secondly, it appears from the sketch of the scene of the incident showing
the spot where the empty cartridges were found and the place where blood stains were
located, that the deceased was shot by appellant from a distance of about 24 meters from
where appellant was, which also indicates that appellant could not have acted in self-defense
in repelling an alleged aggression by the deceased who was decidedly at a distance
ISSUE/S & RULING:
Whether or not qualifying circumstances exist – NO
Evidence of the treacherous nature of the killing was introduced through the uncorroborated
testimony of a sole witness and this testimony was taken by the court below with caution as
the witness is a brother of the widow of the deceased. In discrediting this testimony, the trial
court reasoned that if the witness had been too afraid to shout a word of warning to the
deceased, when the defendant allegedly aimed his shotgun, the most natural reaction for the
witness was to have immediately reported the killing to the police authorities, instead of
waiting until the following day to do so
the sole fact that the deceased was shot from the left side, does not in itself and alone,
sufficiently and positively prove the treacherous nature of the killing. Under the law, there is
treachery when the offender commits the act by "employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution thereof, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might take (lack of evidence)
the appellate court in taking into consideration the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation, laid emphasis on the evidence in the record that two days immediately
preceding the fatal shooting the appellant threatened
to shoot the deceased and expressed intention to 􀁃nish him; that on the eve of the killing the
appellant uttered the following words to the deceased in the presence of witnesses: "This night
I was not able to shoot you, but tomorrow I will
Note that although threatening remarks were made by the appellant on deceased, the same
were made on different occasions. There was no showing that in between, appellant made
plans or sought the deceased to accomplish the killing. In fact, the killing of the deceased
happened when appellant was plowing the field disputed by the deceased and appellant, and
the deceased unexpectedly appeared thereat. In the circumstances, it seems clear that
appellant's act of shooting the deceased was not premeditated
The rule is settled that the qualifying circumstance of premeditation is satisfactorily
established only if it is proved that the defendant had deliberately planned to commit the
crime, and had persistently and continuously followed it, notwithstanding that he had ample
time and sufficient time to allow his conscience to overcome the determination of his will, if
he had so desired, after meditation and reflection. In other words, it contemplates cold and
deep meditation, and tenacious persistence in the accomplishment of the criminal act
While it is true, that defendant herein, could have really intended to kill the deceased upon
making these statements, it has been held that mere threats to kill, without evidence of
sufficient time for meditation and reflection do not justify a finding of evident premeditation
PEOPLE vs. CABATO
(DISGUISE)
FACTS:
Offended party Victor Guinit, 69 years old, widower, testified that he knows accused Sabangan
Cabato personally; that witness pointed to accused in open court, that on January 25, 1971,
his wife was his only companion in their house; that at around 7:30 p.m., three persons came
to their house while they were taking supper; that his wife brought food to their dog; that they
have two lamps in the house, one lamp near the bed, and another lamp brought by his wife;
that the two persons [who] hugged him covered his mouth; that the robber hit his mouth with
a stone causing his tooth to fell out (sic); that one of the robbers grappled with his wife, and
the mask covering the face fell out (sic) and his wife recognized accused Sabangan Cabato; that
his wife shouted "Sabangan, do not kill us, we will give you the money
the deceased and accused Cabato went to the kitchen; that they told the bandits that we do
not have paper bills and that they do not have P3,000.00; that one of the bandits struck him
with a pistol while the other boxed him; that one of the bandits struck the back of his head
with a stone and his teeth fell out that the accused and his companions left the house; that he
noticed that his wife was already dead; that he gave the stones to the police
29
ISSUE/S & RULING:
Whether or not AC exists
Superior strength – NO
Dwelling – YES
Disguise - YES
The Court now addresses itself to the aggravating circumstances alleged by the
plaintiffappellee to have attended the commission of the crime. The prosecution argues that
since "the attack was by a robust man of 29 years with a huge stone against an ageing
defenseless woman" [Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, p. 15], abuse of superior strength should
aggravate the crime
The records of the case are bereft of any information with respect to the physical conditions
of both the accused and the victims. Thus, abuse of superior strength cannot be considered.
This aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is
considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, assessing a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the
aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. To
take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion
to the means of the defense available to the person attacked – failed to prove
the Court considers dwelling as an aggravating circumstance since it has been proven that,
indeed robbery with homicide was committed inside the house of the offended parties.
Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation because this class of robbery
can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's
house
the Court considers disguise as another aggravating circumstance. The accused, together with
two others, wore masks to cover their faces. There could have been no other purpose for this
but to conceal their identities particularly for Cabato who was very much known to the
offended parties. The fact that the mask subsequently fell down thus paving the way for
Cabato's identification will not render this aggravating circumstance inapplicable. In a recent
case, the Court held "that Darwin Veloso and his five (5) companions wore masks [which
eventually fell down] to conceal their identities during the commission of the crime constitutes
disguise
PEOPLE vs. MAGDUEÑO
(TREACHERY)
FACTS:
As soon as the late Fiscal Fernando M. Dilig had placed himself at the driver's seat inside his
jeep parked near his house at the corner Roxas and D. Mendoza Streets, Puerto Princesa City,
all of a sudden, two successive gunshots `burst into the air, as the gunman coming from his left
side aimed and poured said shots into his body, inflicting two fatal wounds (Exhibit N) that
instantaneously caused his death.
witnesses positively identified the assailant as accused Hermogenes Magdueño
Magdueño also executed an extra-judicial confession wherein he admitted that he killed Fiscal
Dilig for a price or reward and implicated Leonardo Senas and Mauricio de Leon to the
commission of the crime
ISSUE/S & RULING:
Whether or not AC of treachery was present - YES
Appellant was a stranger to the town – witnesses still identified him
Treachery in the commission of the crime is clearly established by the record. The appellant
fired two successive shots at the defenseless Fiscal Dilig while the latter was still seated in his
jeep, hitting him at the neck and lumbar region
The manner of the execution was such that the appellant deliberately and consciously adopted
means and ways of committing the crime and insured its execution without risk to himself
arising from any defense Fiscal Dilig might make. The two conditions necessary for treachery
to exist are present
The fact that the appellant called out, "Fiscal" before shooting the victim does not negate the
presence of treachery in the commission of the crime. Since the appellant was a hired killer,
he wanted to insure that he was shooting the correct person
The lower court quoted Section 20, Article IV of the Bill of Rights and took pains to explain why
there was compliance with its mandate. The court commented on the imbalance present
during custodial interrogations, the strange and unfamiliar surroundings where seasoned and
well-trained investigators do their work, and then rejected the appellant's allegations that it
was extracted through violence and torture
The records show that the CLAO lawyer, Atty. Clarito Demaala, entered his appearance as
counsel for the accused during the interrogation and was present from the start of the
investigation until it was finished. The evidence showing that the appellant was a contract or
hired killer especially contacted in Manila to do a job in Puerto Princesa is strengthened by
testimony
However, the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to public authority
does not seem to be borne by the records. For this aggravating circumstance to be considered
it must not only be shown that the crime was committed in the presence of the public authority
but also that the crime was not committed against the public authority himself
PEOPLE vs. TAPALES
(IGNOMINY)
FACTS:
30
Diana Ang, 20 years old, married but estranged from
her husband, Valentin Katigdas, was in the company of her boyfriend of six
months, Eugenio Calaykay, 32 years old, single, at the Jai Alai Bamboo Room, Taft
Avenue, Manila.
When they were at the middle of Jones Bridge, the driver stopped and said "Pare, just a while,
the right door of the taxi is open." He opened and closed the right front door four times. At
this juncture, two men alighted from a taxicab immediately behind. One armed with a knife,
identi􀁃ed by Diana as Pedro Corañes, approached the taxi from the left and the other, armed
with a gun, identi􀁃ed by Diana as Jessie Tapales, approached the taxicab from the right. As
they entered the taxicab they said "This is a holdup, we only need money
While Diana and Eugenio were being robbed, the taxicab driver continued driving down to the
foot of Jones bridge where he made a "U" turn, proceeded up the bridge, made a right turn on
Bonifacio Drive, went straight ahead until they reached the Fire Department at Intramuros. At
this point, Eugenio shouted, "hold-up, hold-up". Instantly, Eugenio was stabbed by Corañes
and shot by Tapales. A commotion ensued inside the taxicab prompting the driver to tell
Eugenio, "pare, tumalon ka na lamang." Diana then grappled with Corañes for the possession
of the knife while Eugenio, already wounded, squeezed himself out of the right window.
Eugenio fell in the middle of Del Pan bridge. With Diana still inside the taxicab, Tapales ordered
the driver to proceed to Quezon City Tapales was abusing Diana, Corañez was also kissing her,
his right hand around Diana's shoulders an left hand poking a knife at her left side. Scared and
trembling, Diana pleaded that she be spared as she was pregnant but said pleas were in vain
Tapales then placed his jacket on the grass where Diana was made to lie down. There and then
Corañez and Tapales took turns in raping her
Jessie Tapales declared that he was invited by Pedro Corañez to commit Robbery and admitted
the commission of that crime as well as Homicide and Rape. 6 For his part, Pedro Corañez,
while admitting the commission of Robbery with Homicide, denied having raped Diana Ang
contending that it was she who suggested that they look for a vacant lot.
ISSUE/S & RULING:
Whether or not AC of robbery with homicide AND rape exists – YES
"It is the uniform jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that where the crime charged is robbery
with homicide and rape, the legal de􀁃nition of the crime is robbery with homicide punishable
under paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Penal Code; and the rape committed on the occasion of
that crime is considered an aggravating circumstance. Instead of ignominy, therefore, it is the
rape itself that aggravates
The defense argues, however, that the foregoing doctrine should be reexamined and
abandoned considering that there is no law that makes Rape an aggravating circumstance nor
one that classiffies it as a generic aggravating circumstance
there can be no question, and this appellant admits in his Brief, that Rape committed on the
occasion of Robbery with Homicide increases the moral evil of the crime. Moreover, it is
incorrect to state that there is no law which considers Rape as an aggravating circumstance
simply
because it is not speci􀁃cally enumerated in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code as an
aggravating circumstance. As enunciated in the case of People vs. Racaza, 82 Phil. 623, (1949),
". . . Rapes, wanton robbery for personal gain, and other forms of cruelties are condemned
and their perpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstances of ignominy and of
deliberately augmenting unnecessary wrongs to the main criminal objective, under
paragraphs 17 and 21 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code . . ."
Said paragraphs read thus: LexLib
"Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:
"xxx xxx xxx
"17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
"xxx xxx xxx
"21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for itscommission."
This Court's consistent ruling, therefore, which holds that when Rape and Homicide co-exist in
the commission of Robbery, it is paragraph 1 of Article 294 which applies, the Rape to be
considered as an aggravating circumstance
Alternatively, appellants contend that even if the ruling that Rape is an aggravating
circumstance in Robbery with Homicide be upheld, the crime of Rape herein should be
considered, by time and distance, as a separate and distinct offense from that of Robbery with
Homicide because while the Robbery was committed at Jones Bridge, the Homicide in
Intramuros, both in Manila, the Rape was committed in Quezon city
While there may have been an appreciable interval of time between the robbery and the
killing, on the one hand, and the rape, on the other, there can be no question but that there
was a direct relation, an intimate connection between them such that it can be stated, without
fear of contradiction, that it was by reason or on occasion of the robbery that Homicide and
Rape were committed
The crime was committed between the hours of 11:45 P.M., and 1:00 A.M. As early as 6:00
P.M. of October 27, 1971, both accused had already planned the robbery. It is evidentthat they
purposely sought nighttime and took advantage of it to facilitate the commission of the offense
and to avoid discovery. 12 In fact, when the victim Eugenio Calaykay shouted "hold-up, hold-
up," no one responded to his call because of the lateness of the night. When he forced himself
out of the taxi and fell on Del Pan Bridge, no one saw or noticed it. Again, because of the wee
hours of the morning, appellants were able to cruise around leisurely from Manila to Quezon
31
City looking for a vacant lot. In the meantime, both appellants, taking advantage of the
darkness of night inside the taxi-cab, were able, with impunity, to take liberties with the person
of Diana Ang

PEOPLE vs. BATERNA

(LACK OF INSTRUCTION; INTOXICATION)

FACTS:
The undersigned accuses Severo Baterna of the crime of homicide inasmuch as on or about
May 18, 1925, in the municipality of Tuburan, Province of Cebu, the abovementioned accused
voluntarily, illegally, and criminally, without justification, did attack Eugenio Desapulo with a
penknife which he carried, inflicting wounds upon his body which caused the instant death of
the said Eugenio Desapulo

the accused guilty of the crime charged and taking into consideration the mitigating
circumstances of non-habitual drunkenness, his lack of instruction provided for in article 11 of
the Penal Code, and passion and obfuscation, imposed the penalty next lower in degree to that
prescribed by law in accordance with article 81, paragraph 5, of the Penal Code, as amended
by Act No. 2298

ISSUE/S & RULING:

Whether or not there was AC - NO

The Attorney-General recommends the modiFcation of the judgment appealed from to the
effect that the penalty provided for in article 404 of the Penal Code be imposed upon the
accused in its minimum degree for the reason that the circumstance of non-habitual
intoxication which attended the commission of the crime implies a disturbance of the
accused's reasoning powers, and his lack of instruction cannot have any influence over him,
nor can it be considered that he acted under the impulse of passion and obfuscation. Lack of
instruction, and passion and obfuscation, as mitigating circumstances, cannot be considered
independently of that of non-habitual intoxication; wherefore the judgment must be modiFed,
imposing upon the accused the penalty in its minimum degree, or twelve years and one day
reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law. And with this modiFcation, the judgment
appealed from must be, as it is hereby, affirmed with the costs against the appellant

32