CASE DIGEST 2

Article 10

Ladonga vs. People, February 17, 2005

DIGEST
Facts: In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became Alfredo Oculam’s regular customers in
his pawnshop business. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a P9,075.55 loan from
him, guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, post dated to July 7, 1990
issued by Adronico; sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the
Ladonga spouses obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744, post
dated to July 26, 1990 issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a
third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136, post dated to July 22,
1990 issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason “CLOSED
ACCOUNT”; when the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a
criminal complaint against them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because
there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks
were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the
checks when they mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in
the issuance thereof. The RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner who was not the drawer or issuer of the three checks that bounced
but her co-accused husband under the latter’s account could be held liable for violations of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 as conspirator.

Held: The conviction must be set aside. Article 8 of the RPC provides that “a conspiracy exists when two
or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.”
To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, the accused must be shown to have performed
an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist
of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to
his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. In the present case, the
prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracy. Apparently, the only semblance of overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that she was
present when the first check was issued. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence
with the criminal design. Conspiracy must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive and
conclusive evidence. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the
crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge, acquiescence in or agreement to
cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the
commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose

Article 10

People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555

FACTS:
Accused Martin Simon was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 or
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He sold tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics Command (NARCOM)
poseur-buyer. The confiscated 4 tea bags, weighing a total of 3.8 grams, when subjected to laboratory
examination, were found positive for marijuana.

Simon denied the accusation against him, claiming that on the day of question, he was picked up by the
police at their house while watching TV. He was told that he was a pusher so he attempted to alight from
the jeep but he was handcuffed instead. When they finally reached the camp, he was ordered to sign some
papers and, when he refused, he was boxed in the stomach eight or nine times by Sgt. Pejoro. He was then
compelled to affix his signature and fingerprints on the documents presented to him. He denied
knowledge of the marked money or the 4 teabags of dried marijuana leaves, and insisted that the marked
money came from the pocket of Pejoro. Moreover, the reason why he vomited blood was because of the
blows he suffered at the hands of Pejoro.

Dr. Evelyn Gomez-Aguas, a resident physician of Romana Pangan District Hospital, declared that she
treated appellant for three days due to abdominal pain, but her examination revealed that the cause for this
ailment was appellant’s peptic ulcer. She did not see any sign of slight or serious external injury, abrasion
or contusion on his body.

Simon was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos
and to pay the costs.

Simon then seek the reversal of the judgement

ISSUE:

Was the conviction of Simon correct?

RULING:

To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and unmistakably
established. To sell means to give, whether for money or any other material consideration. It must,
therefore, be established beyond doubt that appellant actually sold and delivered two tea bags of
marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as the poseur-buyer, in exchange for two twenty-peso
bills.

After careful review, the Court held that there were 2 tea bags of marijuana that was sold and there were 2
other tea bags of marijuana confiscated. Thus, Simon should be charged of selling for the 2 tea bags of
marijuana only.

However, there is an overlapping error in the provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua by reason of
its dual imposition, that is, as the maximum of the penalty where the marijuana is less than 750 grams,
and also as the minimum of the penalty where the marijuana involved is 750 grams or more. The same
error has been committed with respect to the other prohibited and regulated drugs provided in said
Section 20. To harmonize such conflicting provisions in order to give effect to the whole law, the court
hereby hold that the penalty to be imposed where the quantity of the drugs involved is less than the
quantities stated in the first paragraph shall range from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, and
not reclusion perpetua. This is also concordant with the fundamental rule in criminal law that all doubts
should be construed in a manner favorable to the accused.

The court held that Republic Act No. 6425, as now amended by Republic Act No. 7659, has unqualifiedly
adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code in their technical terms, hence with their technical
signification and effects. In fact, for purposes of determining the maximum of said sentence, the court
have applied the provisions of the amended Section 20 of said law to arrive at prision correccional and
Article 64 of the Code to impose the same in the medium period. Such offense, although provided for in a
special law, is now in effect punished by and under the Revised Penal Code. Correlatively, to determine
the minimum, the court applied first part of the aforesaid Section 1 which directs that “in imposing a
prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in
view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of said Code, and
the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for
the offense.”

Thus, in the case at bar, appellant should be begrudged the benefit of a minimum sentence within the
range of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower to prision correccional which is the maximum range have
fixed through the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal Code. For, with fealty to the law,
the court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months of arresto mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day
of prision correccional.

NOVEMBER 28, 2017 PI

Article 11 – Justifying Circumstances

Unlawful Aggresion

People vs. Manaban, July 11, 2006

At around 1:00 AM of October 11, 1996, Joselito Bautista, who was a member of UP Police
Force took his daughter, Fritzi, who complained of difficulty in breathing, to the UP Health
Center. The doctors gave him prescriptions and so he went to BPI Kalayaan yo withdraw some
money from its ATM. When Bautista could not withdraw money, he started kicking and
pounding the machine which caught the attention of the Ramonito Manaban, the petitioner.
Bautista said that the machine captured his card and and that he did not get money he badly
needed. Manaban sais that the PIN he entered was incorrect and that is why his card was
captured. Angered by what Manaban said, Bautista then continued kicking and pounding the
machine. Failling to pacify the victim, petitioner fired a warning shot. Unable to pacify Bautista,
he fired another shot that hit Bautista, instantly killing him. Manaban sais that he feared
Bautista would pull his gun and might kill him so he fired at him.
The trial court found the petitioner Manaban guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide. This decision was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals with modification in respect
to the award of loss of earning capacity. Thus the case at bar.
Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable to the case at bar
Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and obfuscation are
present.

Decision

The 3 requisites to prove self-defense as a justifying circumstance which may exempt an

accused from criminal liability according to the RPC are: unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal the aggression and
laco of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused or the person defending himself.
Unlawful aggression is an actual assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury
upon a person. A mere threat or intimidation is not considered unlawful aggression unless the
threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly shown in the wrongful intent to cause injury.
There must be an actual sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger which puts the
defendants life in real peril. In this case, there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim. The allegation of Manaban that Bautista was about to draw his gun when he turned his
back at Manaban us mere allegation. Aggression presupposes that the person attacked must
face a real threat to his life and peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not
imaginary. Absent such actual or imminent peril yo one’s life or limb, there is nothing to repeal
and there is no justification for taking the life or inflicting injuries on another.
It is undisputed that Manaban called the police to report the shooting incident. When the
police arrived, Mananab surrendered his service firearm and voluntarily went with he police.
For investigation. Thus, Manaban is entitled to the benefit of mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.

Test of Real and Imminent Peril

 Senoja vs. People, October 19, 2004

Reasonable Necessity

 People vs. Razon, June 21, 2007

Sufficient Provocation

 People vs. Oriente, January 30, 2007

FACTS:

 March 18, 1925: El Oriente, Fabrica de Tabacos, Inc. in order to protect

itself against the loss that it might suffer by reason of the death of its
manager, A. Velhagen, who had more than 35 years of experience in the
manufacture of cigars in the Philippine Islands, and whose death would
be a serious loss  procured from the Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., of
Toronto, Canada, thru its local agent E.E. Elser, an insurance policy on
the life of A. Velhagen for $50,000
 designated itself as the sole beneficiary
 Upon the death of A. Velhagen in the year 1929, El Oriente received all
the proceeds of the life insurance policy, together with the interests and
the dividends accruing thereon, aggregating P104,957.88
 Collector of Internal Revenue assessed and levied the sum of P3,148.74
as income tax on the proceeds of the insurance policy which tax El
Oriente paid 
ISSUE: W/N proceeds of life insurance policies paid to corporate beneficiaries upon the death of
the insured are also exempted

HELD: YES. reversed and favoring El Oriente

 In reality, what the plaintiff received was in the nature of an indemnity
for the loss which it actually suffered because of the death of its
manager and not taxable income

 People vs. Boholst-Caballero, 61 SCRA 180

Facts: Cunigunda Boholst Caballero seeks reversal of the judgment of the CFI of Ormoc City
finding her guilty of
parricide—she allegedly killed her husband, Francisco Caballero, using a hunting knife. The
couple was married in
1956 and had a daughter. They had frequent quarrels due to the husband's gambling and
drinking and there were
times when he maltreated and abused his wife. After more than a year, Francisco abandoned
his family. In 1958,
Cunigunda went caroling with her friends and when she was on her way home she met her
husband who suddenly
held her by the collar and accused her of going out for prostitution. Then he said he would kill
her, held her by the
hair, slapped her until her nose bled then pushed her towards the ground. She fell to the
ground, he knelt on her and
proceeded to choke her. Cunigunda, having earlier felt a knife tucked in Francisco's belt line
while holding unto his
waist so she wouldn't fall to the ground, grabbed the hunting knife and thrust it into her
husband's left side, near the
belt line just above the thigh. He died 2 days after the incident due to the stab wound. Then she
ran home and threw
the knife away. The next day, she surrendered herself to the police along with the torn dress
that she wore the night
before.

Issue: WON Cunigunda, in stabbing her husband, acted in legitimate self-defense

Held: Yes, she did. Acquitted

Ratio:
1. Burden if proof of self-defense rests on the accused. In this case, the location and nature
of the stab wound
confirms that the said victim, the husband, was the aggressor.
With her husband kneeling over her and choking her, accused had no other choice but to pull
the knife tucked in his
belt line and thrust it into his side.
The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity where the knife was drawn from is a strong
indication of the truth of the
testimony of the accused. Based on the re-enactment of the incident, it was natural for her to
use her right hand to
lunge the knife into husband's left side.

2. Three requisites of legitimate self-defense are present

Unlawful aggression. The husband resorting to pushing her to the ground then choking her just
because she was
out caroling at night constitutes unlawful aggression, There was imminent danger of injury.
Reasonable necessity of means employed. While being choked, Cunigunda had no other
recourse but to take hold
of the knife and plunge it into husband's side in order to protect herself. Reasonable necessity
does not depend upon
the harm done but on the imminent danger of such injury.
Lack of sufficient provocation. provocation is sufficient when proportionate to the aggression.
In this case, there
was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused (Cunigunda) to warrant the attack of
her husband. All that
she did to provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband was to be
out caroling at night.

 People vs. Alconga, 78 Phil. 366

 US vs. Mack, 8 Phil. 701
 People vs. Sumicad, 56 Phil. 643
  People vs. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537
FACTS: Marivic and Ben Genosa, who knew each other since elementary and were 3rd cousins,
were married in
November 19, 1983 in Ormoc City. Their marriage, save for the first year where, according to
Marivic, she lived
happily with Ben, had been tumultuous and unhappy because of the many and frequent
quarrels of the couple which
usually resulted in the cruel treatment of Marivic by Ben. This went on for about 10 or 11 years,
occurring around
thrice a week when everytime the latter got drunk.
On the evening of November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas, his co-worker, after having
collected their salary,
went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO where they stayed for 3 hours and drank 2 bottles of
beer, each. They then
went to the Genosa residence but Marivic was not there because, as she explained, she was out
with her cousin
looking for Ben, knowing that it was a payday and that he was probably out to gamble again.
Upon arriving later at
the Genosa residence and finding Ben drunk ―because of his staggering walking,‖ Marivic
asked Ecel to sleep in the
house because she was scared that Ben might again beat her, but Ecel declined for fear of a
repetition of an incident
a year ago.
Ben was in his usual unruly behavior, nagging and yelling at Marivic, even cutting the antenna
wire with a bolo to
keep her from watching TV. There were basically 2 incidents of ―attack‖ made by Ben: 1) he
whirled Marivic, causing
her to fall on the bedside, and two hours later when 2) he dragged her out of the room towards
the drawer, holding
her neck. He tried opening the drawer, failed, so reached for a blade instead in his wallet. At
this point, she was
aware that he was going to kill her so she smashed his arm, causing the wallet and blade to fall.
She also
subsequently smashed him with a metal pipe before running to the children‘s room, where she
felt overwhelming self-
pity and felt nauseous.
Marivic admitted killing her husband, however, by shooting him later on. She had ―distorted‖
the drawer where the
gun was and shot him. The RTC charged Genosa with parricide, giving her the death penalty.

ISSUES: 1) WON Marivic acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus (invoking
BWS)
2) WON there was treachery in the killing of Ben Genosa
HELD: 1) No, but with 2 mitigating circumstances
2) None

RATIO: 1) Crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at the
time of the offense—
she must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believed that
killing him would save her
life. Here, there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her
fatal attack upon him.
The reality or even imminent danger he posed ended altogether the moment he apparently
ceased his attack and
went to bed, notwithstanding the Court‘s recognition of this special case that requiring the
battered person to await an
obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life ―would amount to sentencing her to
‗murder by installment‘‖ and
that threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger.
Aggression, if not
continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such aggression, there can be no
self-defense—
complete or incomplete—on the part of the victim.
 Mitigating circumstance 1: Par. 9 and 10 of Art. 13 of the RPC
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 11

Defense of Honor

People vs. Luague, 62 Phil. 504

Defense of Honor
People vs. Dela Cruz, 61 Phil. 344

Facts:
 Evening of February 18, 1934, the defendant Remedios de la Cruz, with Francisco Ramos
and his wife,
Vrigida Vistada; his sister Baltazara Ramos; and a woman named Consuelo or Natividad
Santoyo went to a
wake in honor of one Sion.
 At about 9 pm, the defendant and her friends started home.
 They were followed about 5 minutes later by the deceased Francisco Rivera who was
accompanied by
Enrique Bautista.
 Rivera and Bautista overtook defendant‘s party.
 When they reached a narrow part of the path, Rivera went ahead of Bautista. At that
time, the members of
the defendant‘s party were walking in single file. Baltazara Ramos was in the lead and the
defendant was
the hindmost. The defendant was about 2 brazas from the person immediately ahead of
her.
 Defendant‘s testimony: a man suddenly threw his arms behind, caught hold of her breasts
and kissed her,
and seized her in her private parts; that she tried to free herself, but he held her and tried
to throw her down;
that when she felt weak and could do nothing more against the strength of the man, she
got a knife from her
pocket (she was engaged in selling fruits), opened it and stabbed him in defense of her
honor. That the man
who attacked her did not say anything; that she asked him who he was but he did not
answer; that when she
was assaulted she cried for help; that when she was with her assailant during the struggle
she could
scarcely recognize his face.
 Francisco Ramos heard someone cry out ―Aruy, Dios mio.‖ He went back and found that
Francisco Rivera
had been stabbed under the right breast. According to Ramos, it took him 2 minutes to go
back towards the
 house of mourning. He overtook her. She had a knife in her hand. When they reached the
house, the
defendant struck the knife into a table and said that she stabbed Rivera because he
embraced her.
 The wounded man was taken to the hospital, where he died the next afternoon.
 It should be noted that the deceased had been making love to the defendant and also to
another girl.

Issue: Whether or not De la Cruz‘ killing of Rivera may be justified by defense of honor.

Held: Yes.
 She was justified in making use of the pocket-knife in repelling what she believed to be an
attack upon her
honor since she had no other means of defending herself.
 Mistake of Facts: A person is not criminally responsible when, by reason of a mistake of
facts, he does an
act for which he would be exempt if the facts were as he supposed them to be, but would
constitute murder
if he had known the true state of facts at the time, provided that the ignorance or mistake
of afct was not due
to negligence or bad faith.

*** The finding of the trial court that Rivera and defendant were engaged, that she was madly
in love with him and
was extremely jealous of Felicisima Sincaban is not sustained by the evidence of record.
The appellant stabbed the deceased only once, although she retained possession of the
knife, and
undoubtedly could have inflicted other wounds if she had desired. In other words, she desisted
as soon as he
released her.

People vs. 76 Phil. 174

Defense of Property

 People vs. Apolinar, 38 O.G. 2870

People vs. Apolinar

Facts:

 Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant and appellant Anastacio Apolinar alias
Atong was at that
 time the occupant of a parcel of land owned by Joaquin Gonzales in Papallasen, La Paz,
Umingan,

Pangasinan.

 Armed with a shotgun, Atong was looking over said land when he observed that there
was a man carrying a

bundle on his shoulder.

 Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the defendant called his attention but he ignored
him.

 The defendant fired in the air and then at the person.

 The man, identified as Domingo Petras, was able to get back to his house and
consequently narrated to

Angel Natividad, the barrio chief, that he had been wounded in the back by a shotgun.

 He then showed the two wounds - one in each side of the spinal column - which wounds
were circular in

form and a little bigger than a quarter of an inch, according to the medical report of Dr.
Mananquil.

 Petras died of the wounds he sustained.

 The defendant surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident and gave a
sworn statement

(Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on December 23, 1936.

Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by defense of property

Held: No; the right to property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of
property can be invoked as a

justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted
with said property.
 -Adapt

 US vs. Bumanglag, 14 Phil. 644

Facts: On the night of January 2, 1909, Rafael Bumanglag noticed that 40 bundles of palay
which were kept in his

granary were missing. He searched for the missing palay the following morning and found them
in an enclosed field

which was planted with sugar cane, at a distance of about 100 meters from his granary. For the
purpose of

ascertaining who had done it, he left the palay there, and that night, accompanied by Gregorio
Bundoc, Antonio

Ribao, and Saturnino Tumamao, he waited near the said field for the person who might return
to get the palay.

Guillermo Ribis appeared and attempted to carry the palay away him, but at that instant
Bumanglag, Bundoc, and

Ribao assaulted the presumed thief with sticks and cutting and stabbing weapons; as a result of
the struggle which

ensued, Ribis fell down and died instantly.

Issue: WON there is defense of property.

Held: NO.

Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an
attack on the person

of one entrusted with said property. (People v. Apolinar)

The bolo worn by the deceased was in its sheath and hanging from his waist. It can not be
concluded that the

deceased even intended to assault his murderers with his bolo either before he was attacked by
them or during the
fight. Without unlawful aggression and the other requisites which would exempt the accused
from criminal

responsibility, the appellant and his two companions assaulted Ribis with sticks and cutting and
stabbing arms,

inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds, and therefore, the said accused is guilty of the
crime of homicide as

co-principal by direct participation, fully convicted, together with his codefendants who are
already serving their

sentence.

 People vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389

People vs. Narvaez

Facts: In the afternoon of August 22, 1968, GRACIANO JUAN, JESUS VERANO, CESAR VERANO,
CESAR

IBANEZ, GEORGE FLEISCHER and FLAVIANO RUBIA were fencing the land of George Fleischer,
situated in

MAITUM, SOUTH COTABATO. At the place of fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant
MAMERTO

NARVAEZ. At that time appellant was sleeping and was awakened by the sound of the chiseling
of the walls of his

house. He then arose and saw the fencing. If the fencing continued appellant would be
prevented from entering his

house and rice mill bodega. So he addressed the group, through Rubia to stop and talk things
over. To which

Fleischer answered no and continued the fencing. At this instance, appellant lost his equilibrium
and got his gun and

shot Fleischer, hitting him. Rubia ran towards the jeep, and knowing that there is a gun on the
jeep, appellant fired at

Rubia likewise hitting him. Both Fleischer and Rubia died

Issue: WON the aggression was unlawful

Held: YES, it was unlawful. The angry order of Fleischer to continue the fencing would have
resulted in the further

chiselling of the wall of appellant‘s house as well as the closure of the access to and from his
house and rice mill is an

aggression against appellant‘s property rights. However, when the appellant fired his shotgun
from his window, killing

his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the attack. The third element is also
present. There was no

provocation on the part of the appellant, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by
the noise produced

by the victims and laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and talk things over
with him was no

provocation at all. Appellant‘s act in killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the
elements for justification

are present.

The crime committed is HOMICIDE on two counts mitigated by the privileged extenuating
circumstance of

incomplete self defense as well as by two generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary

surrender and obfuscation.

He was sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment and considering that appellant has been
under detention for

14 years since his voluntary surrender, his immediate release was ordered.

Article 12 – Exempting Circumstances

Insanity

 People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87

FACTS

The accused was charged with the murder of Carlos Guison. Bonoan stabbed the latter
when he refused to

pay the P50 debt he owed the former, and this was evidenced by the testimony of a police
officer who witnessed the

event. Bonoan‘s arraignment and subsequent trial were delayed a few times because the
accused was mentally

deranged and at the time confined in the Psychopatic Hospital. The accused had also been
confined in the insane

deparment of the San Lasaro Hospital (suffering from dementia praecox) in 1922 and in 1926.

ISSUE

WON there is sufficient evidence to acquit the defendant on the ground of insanity in
accordance with par. 1

of article 12 of the RPC

HELD

Yes

Ratio

1. Dementia precox is covered by the term insanity

When a person is suffering from a form of psychosis, a type of dementia praecox,

homicidal attack

is common because of delusions that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his property is
being taken. During

the period of excitement, such person has no control whatever of his acts.
 The unlawful act of the accused may be due to his mental disease or a mental
defect, producing an

―irresistible impulse,‖ as when the accused has been deprived or has lost the power of his will
which would enable

him to prevent himself from doing the act.

Here, an irresistible homicidal impulse was considered to embrace the term

―insanity.‖

2. It has been proven that defendant suffered from dementia four days before the
commission of the

crime, which, according to experts, is a symptom of dementia praecox which might

have revived itself

even after years of being dormant or stable

In order to ascertain a person‘s mental condition at the time of the act, it is

permissible to

receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both
before and

after that time. Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific acts of
derangement

essential to establish insanity as a defense. Mind can be known only by outward

acts.

 Thereby, we read the thoughts, the motives and emotions of a person and come
to

determine whether his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. To
prove

insanity, therefore, circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice.

A person who has been adjudged inane, or has been committed to a hospital or any asylum for
the insane, is

presumed to be insane.

 People vs. Puno, 105 SCRA 151

Facts:
 Ernesto Puno, 28, is a jeepney driver. At about 2pm of 8 Sept 1970, he entered a bedroom
in the house of
Francisca Col (Aling Kikay), 72, who is a widow. The house is in Little Baguio, Barrio
Tinajeros, Malabon,
Rizal. Aling Kikay was in bed.
 He said ―Mangkukulam ka, mambabarang, mayroon kang bubuyog‖ then slapped her
and struck her several
times on the head with a hammer until she was dead.
 There were two witnesses: Hilaria de la Cruz, 23, and Lina Pajes, 27. According to them,
his eyes were red,
and his look was baleful and menacing. He threatened the two and told them not to go to
the police. He then
went to his parents‘ house in Barrio Tugatong, then to his second cousin‘s (Teotino Puno‘s)
house in Barrio
San Jose, Calumpit, Bulacan. (It was flooded there then; records don‘t show how he got
there).
 Lina went to the police anyway and told Corporal Daniel B. Cruz what happened. He found
her body, took
the statements of the witnesses down at the police station. Autopsy showed that Aling
Kikay had lacerated
wounds on her right eyebrow and contusions on the head caused by a hard instrument.
COD: intracranial,
traumatic hemorrhage.
 Puno‘s father surrendered him to the police. He was brought to National Mental Hospital
in Mandaluyong on
10 Sept 1970. He was charged with murder in the municipal court and was indicted in the
Circuit Criminal
Court at Pasig on 21 Oct 1970. Court cited as aggravating circumstances evident
premeditation, abuse of
superiority and disregard of sex.
 Puno testified that he didn‘t remember killing Aling Kikay. He believes that there are
mangkukulam,
mambabarang and mabubuyog and that one harmed by a mambabarang might have a
headache or a
swelling nose and ears and can be cured only by an herbolaryo. It is also necessary to kill
the mangkukulam
 and mambabarang.
 Zenaida Gabriel, his wife, 30, testified that on the night before the murder, his eyes were
reddish and that he
complained of a headache. The following day, while he was feeding pigs, he said that a
bumblebee was
coming towards him and he warded it off with his hands, but Zenaida didn‘t see any bee.
Puno then went
upstairs and got the cord of the religious habit of his mother, then asked for another rope
when Zenaida told
him not to use it. Puno tied their dog to a tree and repeatedly boxed it. Aida Gabriel, who
saw this happen,
also said that his eyes were bloodshot and he had a ferocious expression about him.
 According to Teotimo, when Puno came to his house on 8 Sept, he was cuddling a puppy
that he called
―Diablo‖ and when asked to eat, didn‘t eat but fed the puppy instead. Puno introduced
him to the puppy and
sang an English song, and refused to change his clothes (which were wet because of the
flood). Later, he
tried on Teotimo‘s father‘s clothes and when told that Teo‘s father had been dead for a
couple of years, he
just stared at Teotimo. While lying down, he started singing again, then made a moaning
sound until he fell
asleep. In the morning, he was awakened by the sound of people in the flood, and Ernesto
thought they
were his fellow cursillistas.
 Defense brought 3 psychiatrists, who all testified that Puno acted with discernment:
o Dr. Araceli Maravilla from the Psychiatry Section of Dr. Jose R. Reyes Memorial
Hospital: Puno
was an outpatient who could very well live with society although he was afflicted
with
―schizophrenic reaction‖, Puno knew what he was doing and that he had psychosis.
o Dr. Reynaldo Robles of National Mental Hospital: symptoms were ―not socially
incapacitating‖ and
that he could adjust to the environment. Agrees with Maravilla.
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 23

o Dr. Vicente: not suffering from any delusion and was not mentally deficient. He
wouldn‘t have
reached third year HS if he were.
o The report of the three doctors submitted on 14 Dec 1970 said that he is ―presently
free from any
social incapacitating psychotic symptoms. The … amnesia of several isolated accounts
… do not fit
the active pattern of a schizophrenic process. [Schizophrenics] may retain some
residual symptoms
impairing their judgment but not necessarily their discernment of right from wrong
of the offense
committed.‖
 Trial Court said he knew what he was doing at the time and that he would be punished
for it, which was why
he threatened the witnesses. If he were truly insane at the time, he would‘ve killed the
two witnesses as well.
Puno was convicted of murder and sentenced him to death.

Issue: Was Puno insane at the time of the commission, given that he had been suffering chronic
schizophrenia before
the crime was committed?

Held and Ratio: No. Death Penalty set aside to Reclusion Perpetua.
 Insanity, to be pleaded, must be characterized by ―total deprivation of freedom of the
will. Mere abnormality
of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.‖ (People vs. Ambal) Puno was not
legally insane when
he killed Aling Kikay, and he was not completely deprived of reason and freedom of will, as
shown by the
facts and findings of the psychiatrists.
 Murder is correct because there was abuse of superiority (as in, ang nasabi na lang ni Aling
Kikay ay ―Diyos
ko.‖ ) There wasn‘t any premeditation proven, nor disregard of sex, therefore, penalty
should only be in
medium terms.

Makasiar, J, dissenting:
 Appellant had been ailing with a psychotic disorder medically known as chronic
schizophrenia even before
he committed the crime. The said ailment is characterized by inability to distinguish
between fantasy and
 reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions.
 Articles cited by Makasiar shows that ‗social recovery‘ is not the same as being ‗cured‘:
―By this it is meant
that the patient is able to return to his previous social environment and to previous or
equivalent occupation,
but with minor symptoms and signs…‖
 What happened was a relapse. ―For chronic schizophrenia, the patient does not recover
fully in two months‘
time. His condition may simply be ―in remission‖ which term means ―social recovery.‖
His records never
showed that he was cured, only that he was ―improving‖ and ―treatment not
completed.‖
 According to Dr. Vicente, his power of control over his will to commit a crime is affected in
such a way that
―one who has the impulse to kill will kill‖ when he is affected by such an ailment. Vicente
also said that he
could‘ve been suffering from an onset of the schizo reaction at the time. It was also barely
a month and 15
days since his last attack, so the interval was not sufficient time for his full recovery.
 He was convinced that a mangkukulam was inflicting harm on him, so he killed her in self-
defense. ―The
victim was a mere consequence of his mental delusion. He killed the ―mangkukulam‖ as
personified by the
victim; he did not kill Aling Kikay herself.‖

 People vs. Belonio, 429 SCRA 579

People vs. Belonio

Facts: RTC found Randy Belonio y Landas guilty of the murder of Ramy Tamayo and sentenced
him to death. On
January 6, 2000, Jennifer Carampatana‘s grandmother was buried and there was a wake in their
house in the
evening. Her first cousin, the late Ramy Tamayo, arrived in their house with his wife around
10:00 P.M.
Jennifer invited Ramy to talk outside of their house. Before they could sit on a nearby bench,
Ramy decided to buy
cigarettes from a store only a few meters away. The store was furnished with a small opening
for the store-keeper to
attend to the customers and Ramy was occupying that space in front of the opening to pay
when the accused Randy
Belonio arrived. Randy tried to force his way in front of the opening and as a consequence, he
bumped on Ramy.
Jennifer saw that Randy gave Ramy a long and hard look.
Jennifer and Ramy sat and talked on the bench. The accused came over and sat on the other
end of the bench.
Then the accused asked Ramy for the latter‘s cigarette lighter and conversed with him.
The accused left but after a few minutes he returned, Jennifer, who was facing the direction of
the approaching
accused, saw him and noticed that he was wearing long sleeves. Ramy Tamayo could not see
the accused as he
was facing sideways to Jennifer. Without saying a word and without warning, the accused
delivered a stabbing blow
with a dagger which was concealed in his hand. Ramy was hit on the right chest, Jennifer stood
up and ran towards
her house shouting for help. There at the gate of the fence of her house, she heard another
thudding sound of a
stabbing blow. When Jennifer entered her house, she announced that Ramy was stabbed.
The accused ran away towards the back of the barangay hall but was later arrested from one
(1) of the houses near
the barangay hall where he took refuge.
Randy Belonio raised the defense of insanity, an exempting circumstance, and relied on the
expert assessment of his
witness, Dr. Antonio Gauzon, who certified thus: ―This is an individual who is suffering from
(Schizophrenia), Chronic
Undifferentiated and probably triggered by (s)ubstance abuse of Shabu and Marijuana.‖
RTC found appellant guilty of Murder and that he had full control of his mental faculties.
Issue: Whether or not appellant‘s defense of insanity as an exempting circumstance is tenable.
Held: Judgment of the lower court AFFIRMED. Appellant is found GUILTY of murder.
Ratio:
Whoever invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. In the case at
bar, the defense utterly
failed to discharge its burden of proving that appellant was insane. The evidence adduced by
the defense is sorely
insufficient to establish his claim that he was insane at the time he killed Tamayo.
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 26

In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act. Proof
of the existence of some abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability, if it
can be shown that the
offender was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligence. Belonio, after giving the
victim a hard and resentful
look, sat near the latter, lighted his cigarette and conversed with him. Afterwards, he left and
came back armed with a
dagger with which he stabbed Tamayo. Immediately thereafter, he escaped and went into
hiding. These acts tend
to establish that Belonio was well aware of what he had just committed, and was capable of
distinguishing
right from wrong. Otherwise, he would not have attempted to escape and go into hiding.
The only other evidence of insanity that appellant pointed to is the medical certificate prepared
by Dr. Antonio
Gauzon stating that Belonio was suffering from schizophrenia. Dr. Gauzon testified that based
on his interview with
Belonio on October 25, 2000 (around nine months after the stabbing incident) the latter was
suffering from
schizophrenia. However, the evidence of insanity after the fact of commission of the offense
may be accorded weight
only if there is also proof of alleged abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous to
the commission of
the crime. Dr. Guazon‘s report was silent as regards the incidents occurring prior to or during
the circumstance for
which Belonio stands trial.
The story narrated by the doctor was a mere life and family history of Belonio. There was no
showing that he was
actually suffering from schizophrenia during his juvenile years. To demonstrate that he had
been suffering from this
condition, the doctor pointed to the fact that he has already killed three (3) persons, including
the present incident.
However, such conclusion is non sequitur and, at best, a circuitous argument. Further, the
veracity of these findings
is belied by the fact that the accused did not raise this defense during his prosecutions for the
other killings. No other
circumstances evincing its existence were presented during trial.

Somnabulism

 People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255

Facts: Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his parent's house in Dolores, Ormoc. On
January 16, 1932, a fiesta
was being celebrated in the said barrio and guests were entertained in the house, among
them were Fred Tanner
and Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano went to sleep and while sleeping, he
suddenly got up, left the
room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, wounded her in the
abdomen. He also attacked
Fred and Luis and tried to attack his father, after which, he wounded himself. Potenciano's
wife, who was 7 months
pregnant at that time, died five days later as a result of the wound.
The trial court found Potenciano guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.
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 Collantes and Abadilla, who invited him to come down and fight. When
he was about to go down,
he was stopped by his wife and his mother. On the day of the commission of the crime, it
was noted that the
defendant was sad and weak, had a severe stomachache that's why he went to bed in the
early afternoon. The
defendant stated that when he fell asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him
with a bolo while Abadila
held his feet. That's why he got up and it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him
to come down; he armed
himself with a bolo and left the room. At the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to
him that she was wounded.
Then, he fancied seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation wounded himself. As his
enemies seemed to
multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way.

Issue: WON defendant acted while in a dream.

Ratio: Yes. The defendant acted while in a dream & his acts, therefore, weren‘t voluntary in
the sense of entailing
criminal liability.
The apparent lack of motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that
there are none, but that
simply they are not known to us. Although an extreme moral perversion may lead a man to
commit a crime without a
real motive but just for the sake of committing it. In the case at hand, the court found not
only lack of motives for the
defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of (read: he loved his wife dearly, he
tried to attack his father in
 whose house the lived and the guests whom he invited), but also motives for not
committing the acts.
Dr. Serafica, an expert witness in the case, stated that considering the circumstances of the
case, the defendant
acted while in a dream, under the influence of a hallucination and not in his right mind.
The wife's wound may have been inflicted accidentally. The defendant did not dream that
he was assaulting his wife,
but that he was defending himself from his enemies.
Judgment: defendant not criminally liable for the offense. It was also ordered that he be
confined in the government
insane asylum and will not be released until the director thereof finds that his liberty would
no longer constitute a
menace

Minority

 RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act)

 People vs. Sarcia, September 10, 2009
 Llave vs. People, April 26, 2006

Negligence and Minority

 Jarco vs. CA, 321 SCRA 390

 Guevarra vs. Almodovar, 169 SCRA 476

Irresistible Force/Uncontrollable Fear

 People vs. Delos Reyes, G.R. L – 44112, October 22, 1992

 People vs. Dansal, 275 SCRA 549

Article 13 – Mitigating Circumstances

Lack of Intention to Commit so Grave a Wrong

 People vs. Ural, 56 SCRA 138

Facts: Ural was convicted of murder by the Zamboanga CFI sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua, and orderinh im to
indemnify the heirs of Felix Napola, in the sum of P12K and to pay the costs. The judgment of
conviction was based
on the testimony of Brigido Alberto, former detention prisoner who witnessed what happened.
Ural, a policeman,
boxed the deceased, Felix Napola, a detention prisoner, inside the jail. As a consequence of the
fistic blows, the
deceased collapsed on the floor. The accused stepped on the prostate body and left. After a
while he returned with a
bottle poured its contents on the recumbent body of the deceased, ignited it with a match and
left the cell again. As a
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 34

consequence, the victim later on died of the burns. The crime committed by appellant Ural was
murder by means of
fire (incendio) (Art 248(3), RPC)

Held: The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position (Art
14(1), RPC) but it failed
to appreciated the mitigating circumstance of "no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed." (Art.13(3),
RPC). The intention, as an internal act, is judged not only by the proportion of the means
employed by him to the evil
produced by his act, but also by the fact that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of
the body. Thus, it may
be deduced from the proven facts that the accused had no intent to kill the victim, his design
being only to maltreat
him, such that when he realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act, he allowed the
victim to secure
medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance of
abuse of his official
position. The trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the
medium period of the penalty
for murder (Arts 64(4) and 248, RPC)

 People vs. Flores, 252 SCRA 31

Sufficient Provocation

 People vs. Leonor, 305 SCRA 285

 People vs. Espina, July 16, 2001

Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense

 US vs. Ampar, 37 Phil. 201

Facts: During a fiesta, an old man 70 years of age asked the deceased, Patobo, for some roast
pig. In the presence
of many guests, the deceased insulted the old man, saying: "There is no more. Come here and I
will make roast pig
of you." A little later, while the deceased was squatting down, the old man came up behind him
and struck him on the
head with an ax.

Held: While it may be mere trifle to an average person, it evidently was a serious matter to an
old man, to be made
the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. The accused was given the benefit of the
mitigating
circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. In this case, the age of the accused and the place
were considered in
determining the gravity of the offense.

 People vs. Pajares, 210 SCRA 237

Passion or Obfuscation

 People vs. Adlawan, January 30, 2002

 US vs. Hicks, 14 Phil. 217

Facts: For about 5 years, the accused and the deceased lived illicitly in the manner of husband
and wife. Afterwards,
the deceased separated from the accused and lived with another man. The accused enraged by
such conduct, killed
the deceased.

Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted with obfuscation because of jealousy, the
mitigating circumstance
cannot be considered in his favor because the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for
the loss of self-control
are such which originate from legitimate feelings, and not those which arise from vicious,
unworthy and immoral
passions.
 US vs. Dela Cruz, 22 Phil. 429

Facts: The accused, in the heat of passion, killed his common-law wife upon discovering her in
flagrante in carnal
communication with a common acquaintance.

Held: In this a case, the accused was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation. The facts in
this case must be distinguished from the case of U.S. vs. Hicks where it was found that the
accused, deliberately and
after due reflection resolved to kill the woman who had left him for another man. With a clean
and well-prepared
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 35

weapon, he enetered the house, disguising his intention and calming her by his apparent
repose and tranquility,
doubtless in order to successfully accomplish his criminal design. In this case, the cause of the
alleged passion and
obfuscation of the accused was his vexation, disappointment and anger engendered by the
refusal of the woman to
continue to live in illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect right to do. In the present
case, however, the
impulse was caused by the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him, and his discovery of
her in flagrante in the
arms of another.

Judgment: Modified by a finding that the commission of the crime was marked with the
extenuating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation, penalty is reduced from 14 yrs 8 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal
to 12 yrs and 1 day of
reclusion temporal.

Illness

 People vs. Javier, 311 SCRA 576

o If Sir Barry asks where they lived, say Tubod, Sto. Tomas, La Union. :P

o On June 15, 1996, between 2AM and 3AM, Consolacion Javier Panit (Javier‘s daughter
who lived near
them) heard her mother shouting, ―Your father is going to kill me.‖ After hearing her
mom scream for help,
Consolacion rushed out of her house and met her sister, Alma (Javier‘s daughter who lived
with them), who
told her that their parents were quarrelling. So the sisters went to their brother‘s house
(which was also
conveniently near the parents‘ house), and together the three of them went to their
parents‘ house. Upon
entering, Manuel, the brother, found his mother, dead, and his father, wounded in the
abdomen.
o The mom was found dead in the bedroom, drenched in her own blood.
o Manuel told his sisters that their mother was dead, and that their father had confessed to
him that he had
killed his wife and then stabbed himself.
 o SPO1 Rotelio Pacho testified that he had received a call for assistance from the barangay
captain because
Javier had allegedly killed his wife. Pacho also testified that Manuel had told him that his
father had
confessed to killing his wife. Manuel then surrendered to him the supposed murder
weapon, a bolo covered
with blood, which had been found in the bedroom.

o Medical findings: Florentina Javier suffered from multiple injuries and her neck was
almost cut off from her
body.

o Eduardo Javier admitted to killing his wife in their bedroom with the use of a sharp bolo.
He also said that
he‘d killed his wife because he had been unable to sleep for almost a month. He claimed
that when the
killing took place, his mind went totally blank, and he didn‘t know what he was doing. He
claimed insanity, at
the time of the incident.
o The RTC rejected the defense of insanity and found him guilty of parricide. RTC gave him
the death
penalty.

o In the SC appeal, Javier said the RTC erred in imposing the death penalty, considering the
presence of 2
mitigating circumstances: illness, and passion and obfuscation. He says he should be given
a lower penalty,
because at the time of the incident, he had been suffering from loss of sleep over a
prolonged period of time,
and this caused him to commit the crime. In addition to this, he had a suspicion that his
wife was having an
illicit relationship with another man. This, aggravated by his illness, goaded him to kill his
wife.

OSG said that Javier cannot claim the mitigating circumstance of illness, in the absence of
medical findings to
support his claim. No sufficient evidence, either, for the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation

Held: SC held:

o The RTC had rejected the defense of insanity for failure of the defense to prove that Javier
was indeed
 insane at the time of the incident. No medical records, no psychiatrists were ever
presented to validate the
insanity claim. The defense never alleged the mitigating circumstances during the trial,
either.
o The mitigating circumstance of illness has the following requisites:
o illness must DIMINISH the exercise of willpower of the offender
o illness should NOT DEPRIVE the offender of CONSCIOUSNESS of his acts
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 36

o Mitigating circumstance attempt is FAIL, because:

o no medical finding was presented regarding Javier‘s mental condition at the time of
killing
o no clear and convincing evidence was shown that Javier was suffering an illness which
diminished
his willpower
o Plus:
o Javier was aware of the acts he committed. The fact that he remembers things from
the
time of the killing up to the time he was brought to the hospital shows he was in full
control
of his mental faculties. This means that if he was suffering from an illness, it was not
the
kind of illness that diminished the exercise of his willpower.
 he remembered killing his wife in the bedroom with a bolo, where he mangled
her neck
twice
 he remembered being brought to the hospital

o Mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation doesn‘t apply either, because the
following elements
were not proven to exist in the instant case.
o Elements:
 there should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition
of mind
 said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time

No aggravating or mitigating circumstance. Decision modified: reclusion perpetua.

Analogous Circumstances

 Canta vs. People, 353 SCRA 250

FACTS:
1. Narciso Gabriel acquired a cow upon its birth on March 10, 1984
2. Narciso left it with his sister in law Erlinda Montes, then he left it with Generoso Cabonce,
then with Maria
Tura, and then with Gardemo Agapay.
3. Agapay took the cow up a mountain for grazing and it was gone when he came back for it
 4. Hoof prints led him to Valejos house and he was told that Canta had taken it.
5. Narciso instructed Maria Tura to get the cow. She met Canta who said that he gave it to his
father, the
barangay captain. They went to father‘s house and Tura recognized cow. Canta said he will
consult with his
father on what to do and call her about it later.
6. Canta didn‘t call so Narciso reported it to police
7. In the investigation Canta admitted he took cow, but he contended that it was his cow. He
lost it Dec 3 1985.
He produced 2 certificates of ownership dated March 17, 1986 and Feb 27, 1988.
8. Narciso presented certificate of ownership dated Mar 9 1986 signed by municipal treasurer.
I contained a
description of the cow including identifying marks (cowlicks on the head, back and legs;
coloring). 4 previous
caretakers certify that this is the cow they took care of.

9. Canta said that he got the baby cow as payment for taking care of Pat. Villanueva‘s cow. It
was born on Dec
5, 1984 and was lost Dec 2 1985. He reported loss to Padre Burgos.
10. His uncle said he saw the cow under the care of Agapay. Canta went to the Agapay‘s
grazing place with the
mommy cow to see if the baby cow would drink its milk, it did so Canta assumed the baby
cow was his.
11. He brought it to his father and Maria tried to get it but Canta‘s father refused and asked
Narciso to come by
so they can discuss. Narciso never came by. Canta took cow to Padre Burgos.
ISSUES:
1. Canta‘s Certificate of Ownership
a. It was not filed by the municipal treasurer, but by Canta‘s friend Franklin Telen who
was a janitor at
the municipal treasurer‘s office. Telen issued certificate on March 24, 1986 but he
antedated it Feb
27, 1985 at the request of Canta who assured Telen that he owned the cow. No
registration
recorded in municipal records.
b. Trial Court said: Obviously Canta took the cow using strategy and stealth considering
Agapay was
separated by a hill and couldn‘t see him. Canta tries to justify taking the cow with a
certificate of
ownership but Telen said he antedated the certificate.
c. It is clear Canta falsified and manipulated the certificate of title. He only got it after
the incident
happened on March 14, 1986. His claim has no leg to stand on. CA agrees.
2. Petitioner Canta claims good faith and honest belief in his right to the cow
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 37

a. Brought mother cow and calf suckled its milk

b. Compared marks on the cow to the recorded marks on his certificate. Match.
c. He turned over cow to barangay captain, and later to police when the dispute began
d. Filed complaint against Nicolas for cattle rustling.
3. Cattle Rustling requisites
a. Large cattle is taken
b. It belongs to another
i. No question cattle belongs so Narciso Gabriel
c. Taking without consent of owner
i. Canta tok cow from Agapay even if he knew Agapay was holding it for Narciso.
d. Taking done by any means method or scheme
i. He falsified certificate of ownership, a scheme
e. Taking is with or without intent to gain
i. Canta concocted a ploy to obtain ownership so he had an obvious intent to gain
f. Taking without violence or intimidation
i. No violence
g. Fact that Canta went to barangay captain does not prove good faith. He already
committed a crime,
also the barangay captain was his father.
h. Calves suckle on strange cows. It don‘t have to be the mom.
4. Petitioner says that even if his certificate of ownership is ―not in order‖ it does not mean
he did not believe in
good faith that the cow was his. Merely mistake of fact.
a. His certificate was FRADULENT. Negates good faith.
b. If he had been responsible he could have verified ownership of cow first. He was
negligent
c. He was NOT justified to take cow, tried to take law into own hands

Article 14 – Aggravating Circumstances

Insult to Public Authorities

 People vs. Rodil, 109 SCRA 308

FACTS:
April 24, 1971 around 1:00 pm
1. Floro Rodil was found guilty of the crime of murder by the Circuit Criminal Court for the
death of Lt. Masana
of the Philippine Constabulary.
2. Masana together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Coast Guard Ricardo Ligsa and policeman
Felix Mojica was
 having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the Indang Market.
3. While they were eating, their attention was called by Rodil who was outside blowing his
whistle.
4. Masana, in civilian clothing, accompanied by Fidel went outside and asked Rodil, after
identifying himself as
a PC officer, whether the gun that was tucked under his shirt had a license.
5. Instead of answering, Rodil attempted to draw his gun but Fidel grabbed the gun and gave
it to Masana.
6. The three went inside the restaurant and Masana wrote a receipt for the gun on a coupon
bond paper and
he asked Rodil to sign it. Rodil refused to do so.
7. Masana refused to return the gun to Rodil and as Masana was about to stand up Rodil
pulled out his double
bladed dagger and stabbed Masana several times on the chest and stomach causing his
death after several
hours.
8. While the stabbing incident was taking place, the three companions of Lt. Masana who
were all seated at a
separate table about one and one-half (1 1/2) meters away from the table, stood up to
assist him.
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 38

9. But Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang, Cavite, who happened to be taking his lunch
in the same
restaurant, was quicker than any of them in going near the combatants and embraced
and/or grabbed the
accused from behind, and thereafter wrested the dagger from the accused-appellant.
10. Immediately thereafter, the Chief of Police brought the accused to the municipal building
of Indang,
CaviteVersion of the defense
11. Rodil is claiming self-defense.
RODIL’s VERSION
12. Rodil together with his wife was eating inside the restaurant. While they were waiting for
their food, Masana
approached and inquired whether he was a member of the Anti-smuggling Unit. Rodil
answered in the
affirmative and Masana invited him to join him in his table, where he sat drinking, alone.
13. Rodil accepted the invitation. During their conversation, Masana asked for identification of
Rodil and the
latter showed his ID. Masana told Rodil that his ID was fake and Rodil insisted that it was
genuine. Masana
was demanding that Rodil surrender his ID to him but Rodil refused. When Rodil refused,
Masana pulled
out his gun and hit the accused on the head with its handle 2 times and as a result blood
gushed out from
his head and face. Rodil pulled out his dagger and stabbed Masana and then ran out of the
restaurant. Rodil
went to the direction of the Municipal building where he intended to surrender. While on
his way, he met the
Chief of Police and he was accompanied to the municipal building and was given first aid
treatment.

ISSUE:
1. WON self-defense can be availed by Rodil
2. WON the crime committed was murder or homicide merely or murder or homicide
complexed with assault upon an
agent of authority.
3. WON the AC disregard of rank should be appreciated

RULING:
1. NO. Self-defense must be proven by clear, sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence
Accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution.
Having admitted the wounding or killing of the victim, the accused must be held liable for the
crime unless he
establishes to the satisfaction of the court the fact of legitimate self-defense. Court cannot
perceive how the refusal of
the accused to give his ID could have provoked or enraged the deceased to the extent of
initiating the aggression by
drawing his pistol and hitting the accused with its butt. It is the accused who had every reason
to be resentful of the
deceased and to be enraged after the deceased refused to heed his plea that his gun be
returned.
2. Crime committed was only homicide (No complex crime but there is a general aggravating
circumstance)
- No treachery – assailant and victim was face to face. Attack wasn‘t treacherous because
the victim was able
to ward off the attack with his hand. In fact, the force of warding off the attack was so
strong that the
accused bumped his head on a table nearby, causing a wound on his head (one Rodil later
claimed he got
from the Masana hitting him with a gun). But prosecution failed to show that the accused
made any
preparation to kill his victim so as to insure the commission of the crime and making it
impossible or hard for
the victim to defend himself or retaliate.
o Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person
employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and
specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
- Assault upon person of authority – the Information does not allege the fact that the
accused then knew that,
before or at the time of the assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority.
o Such knowledge must be expressly and specifically averred in the Information;
otherwise, in
the absence of such allegation, the required knowledge would only be appreciated as
a
generic aggravating circumstance.
o It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person attacked was a
person in
authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties, because the accused must have
the intention to
offend, injure, or assault the offended party as a person in authority or agent of a
person in
authority.
 3. YES. Whenever there is a difference in social condition between the offender and the
offended party, this
aggravating circumstance is present.
- Masana identified himself as a PC officer and the accused is merely a member of the Anti-
Smuggling Unit
and therefore inferior to both in rank and social status.
- Rank – refers to a high social position or standing
- Cases wherein the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank was appreciated
a. People vs. Benito – clerk murdered assistant chief of the personnel transaction division
b. People vs. Torres – murder of Col. Salgado and injuries to Gen. Castaneda
c. People vs. Valeriano – murder of district judge

Dwelling

 People vs. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511

FACTS: 13-yr old Margarita Paleng filed complaint against Amado Daniel alias ―Amado Ato‖ for
the crime of rape.
On Sept 20, 1965, Margarita, a native of Mt Province, arrived in Baguio City from Tublay in a
Dangwa bus. She was
then en route to her boarding house in Guisad as she was a high school student at the Baguio
Eastern High School.
While she was waiting inside the bus, the accused Daniel came and started molesting her by
inquiring her name and
getting hold of her bag. She did not allow the latter and instead called the attention of the bus
driver and the
conductor but was merely shrugged by them. It seemed that they were also afraid of the
accused. Despite the rain,
she left the bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some 100meters away. The accused followed
her and rode and sat
beside her. When Margarita alighted in Guisad, she was again followed by the accused.
Reaching her boarding
house, she opened the door and was about to close it when the accused dashed in and closed
the door behind him.
He pulled a dagger 8 inches long and threatened her saying, ―If you will talk, I will kill you.‖
Because of her fear,
Margarita fell silent. She was then forced to lie down w/ the accused placing a handkerchief in
her mouth and holding
a dagger to her neck. Her attempts to flee was to no avail as she was only 4 ft 8 inches tall & 95
lbs while Daniel was
5 ft 7 inches tall and weighed 126 lbs. The accused was successful in having carnal knowledge of
Margarita.
Thereafter she lost consciousness. When she recovered, Daniel had already gone.
For his defense, Daniel asserts that he and Margarita have known each other since 1963 and
this was in fact the 2nd
time he had carnal knowledge of her. Also, he alleges that he promised to marry Margarita and
was actually
surprised the she filed the complaint against him. Medico-Legal report indicated that Margarita
was a virgin before the
incident complained of.
HELD: The crime committed by Daniel is rape w/ the use of a deadly weapon w/ the aggravating
circumstance of
having been committed in the dwelling of the offended party. Although Margarita was merely
renting a bedspace in a
boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a ―dwelling‖ as the term is
used in Art 14 (3) RPC.
It is not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be he
a lessee, a boarder,
or a bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of w/c the law seeks to protect and uphold.
The correct penalty is death pursuant to Aft 335 RPC. However, for lack of the necessary
number of votes, the
penalty next lower in degree is to be applied. Daniel is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and
ordered to indemnify Margarita Paleng by way or moral damages of PhP12K.

Nighttime

 People vs. Bermas, 309 SCRA 741

FACTS: Lower court ruling: Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla were found guilty of Multiple
Murder and Multiple
Frustrated Murder, “with evident premeditation, conspiring, confederating and helping one
another, with treachery,
taking advantage of nighttime, with the use of high powered firearms, and with intent to kill.”

Rustom Bermas worked in a mining firm and was a councilman for Brgy. Liguan while Galma
Arcilla was a member of
the PC Company, with the position of Asst. Detachment Commander, and was in possession of
an Armalite M-16.

On April 20, 1985, at around 8:30 in the evening, at the sea of Albay, Arturo, Abion, Antonio
Abion, Renato Abion,
Teodoro Cas, Jesus Lotera, Catalino Bellen, and Expedito Bonaobra (barangay captain) were
aboard a fishing boat
named ―Sagrada Familia‖, owned by the Abion family, for the purpose of catching fish.
The accused Rustom Bermas and a masked companion, which the courts held to be Galma
Arcilla, approached the
party through a small paddled boat. They circled the fishing boat Sagrada four times which gave
survivors/witnesses
Bonaobra and Renato Abion opportunity to recognize Bermas as the one paddling the boat.
Bonaobra asked Arturo
to remove the shade of the gas lamp so they could recognize Bermas‘ companion but they still
could not due to the
mask he was wearing. Bonaobra asked Bermas if they were fishing. The accused said yes, and
that they were
looking for somebody. He then asked Bonaobra who owned the fishing boat and Bonaobra told
him it was Jose
Abion. The two accused pretended to paddle away. When they were about 7 meters away,
Bermas‘ companion fired
his Armalite m16 rifle at Bonaobra and his companions. They heard 2 volleys fired at them.
They lay down but could
not avoid the attack. After 5 minutes, Renato, upon instruction from his father Arturo, crawled
to turn off remaining
pressure gas lamp and loosen the anchor. He then lost consciousness. The boat was carried
away by the currents of
the sea and into the shore, where they were found by Jose, Rudy, and Santiago Abion the
following morning. Arturo
Abion and Catalino Bellen were already dead. Renato Abion, Jesus Lotera, and Bonaobra were
seriously wounded,
such that had they not received medical attention, they would have died from said wounds.
Antonio Abion was also
injured though not as grave. Teodoro Cas was missing, and his body was found 3 days later in a
neighboring town in
Albay. Santiago found 2 slugs inside the fishing boat, which he surrendered to the police.

Prior to the night in question, the following events happened:

October 13, 1984 – at a public dance at Namanday, Albay, Arcilla was involved in a fistfight with
Leopoldo Abion. He
boxed Leopoldo in the chest leaving him writhing in pain on the ground. Thereafter, the Abion
brothers arrived to get
even with Arcilla and Daniel Abion was able to hit appellant on the face with a piece of wood.
Rustom Bermas, the
usual confederate and companion of accused, arrived to seek revenge for Arcilla, but Daniel
had already left.

October 14, 1985 – Galma Arcilla, with a group of armed men forced open a window in
Santiago‘s house looking for
the latter. Santiago‘s pregnant wife was so scared, she miscarried.

April 4, 1985 – Rustom Bermas pounded on a table and said to Santiago, ―I will bring home the
Baraka‖. Baraka is
the appellation (title/label) of the Abion family. This was considered a death threat to the
family.

On appeal: Defendants‘ defense was alibi, insisting that they were at a different place at the
time of the crime in
question. Arcilla further contends that lower court erred in ruling it was he who was the
masked companion since
none of the witnesses identified him as the masked man who fired at the victims. There was
also that question of the
firearm, and that the one used to commit the felony was not the same one he was issued with,
and that the firearm he
owned was not in his possession that night. Bermas claims he had no motive to kill and that
conspiracy was not
proven.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

Alibi is the weakest of all defences because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove.
Defendant‘s defense of alibi
easily crumbles in the weight of evidence presented against them.

Although the witnesses were unable to identify the masked man, it is of no moment because
there were enough
circumstantial evidence on which the ruling could be based on. The facts established are
enough to warrant a finding
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant a
conviction. Physical
evidence speaks more eloquently than all the witnesses put together.

The firearm used in the felony was found to be exactly the one issued to Galma Arcilla. That he
allegedly left his gun
in the custody of another person was dubious because the military requirement is to leave
firearms at the
headquarters where it would be safer. He also failed to satisfactorily explain where and how
the missing ammunitions
were used.
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 41

In sum, court held that Arcilla had been lying in order to exculpate himself.

With regard to Bermas‘ contention that he had no ill motive since the quarrel was between
Arcilla and the Ambions,
court held that proof of ill motive becomes irrelevant in the face of positive identification.
Bermas was positively
identified by Bonaobra and Renato Ambion.

Conspiracy is proven by the specific acts done with such closeness and coordination with the
one who executed the
criminal act. In this case, Bermas‘ act of paddling to and from the boat, as well as his silence
while the victims were
being gunned down by his companion, was enough to warrant a conspiracy. He must be equally
liable as co-
principal. It was also a well-known fact that he was a close companion of his co-accused and
they were frequently
seen together, as testified by other witnesses.

Treachery was appreciated in this case because it satisfied the requirements that a) malefactor
employed means of
execution to ensure his safety from retaliatory acts of the victim b) said means were deliberate.
Essence of treachery
is in the swift and unexpected attack on unsuspecting and unarmed victims.

Nighttime was not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case. The mere fact that
the offense happened
at night was not enough to sustain a finding of nocturnity. It only becomes an aggravating
circumstance when the
following requisites are present: 1. It was specially SOUGHT by the offender 2. It was TAKEN
ADVANTAGE by him,
or 3. It FACILITATES commission of the crime by insuring immunity from capture.
In this case, nothing suggests that it was consciously resorted to.

Disguise, however, was appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because of appellant‘s use

of a mask.

DECI: Lower court decision AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Guilty of 3 crimes of murder, 3
crimes of frustrated
murder, and 1 crime of attempted murder. Civil indemnity increased to 50,000. Penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua.
Evident Premeditation

 US vs. Manalinde, 14 Phil. 77

FACTS
 Juan Igual, a Spaniard, was seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa‘s store in Cotabato,
Moro Province,
when he received a head wound from the behind. It was delivered with a kris. This
happened between 2-
3PM.
 The aggressor, the Moro Macalinde, ran away. A Chinese named Choa was putting down his
load along the
street when he was also attacked with a kris by Macalinde. The wound was on the left
shoulder and caused
his death, while there was no more news about Igual‘s wounding.
 Macalinde was arrested and pleaded guilty, whereupon he was charged with murder. He
said that his wife
had just died a hundred days before and he had come from his hometown Catumaldu. Datto
Rajamudah
Mupuck instructed him to go juramentado in Cotabato and to kill somebody, because the
former had
grievances against two military men. If Macalinde was successful, Datto Mupuck promised
him a pretty
woman in return. But if captured, he was told to pass the blame on Datto Piang.
 Macalinde admitted to agreeing to this proposition, arming himself with a kris and
wrapping it in banana
leaves. When he arrived in Cotabato he wounded two people, a Spaniard and a Chinese.

ISSUE
 Was the crime of murder appreciated properly?
Macalinde said that he just went juramentado because of the order of said datto, and that if he
had done it on his own
he would have killed more people instead of just two victims. It is inexcusable because killing
anyone without any
motive or reason is against the law of the nations.

It is plain from Macalinde‘s actions that he had deliberately and carefully considered how best
to carry out his
mission, that he knows the consequences of his actions, and that he provided himself with the
means to do what he
was told. Macalinde showed firm intent in carrying out his duty and it is immaterial whether he
did by order of Datto
Mupukc or not.
Two aggravating circumstances are appreciated: (1) promise of reward and (2) evident
premeditation.
Judgment affirmed

 People vs. Discalsota, April 11, 2002

Treachery

People vs. Sanggalang, 58 SCRA 737

Facts:
 June 9, 1968, 6 a.m.: Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut in Silang, Cavite to gather tuba
from a nearby
coconut tree. His wife Flora Sarno was left inside the hut. While on top of the tree,
Cortez was struck
by a valley of shots. He later on fell to the ground at the base of the coconut tree. Flora
went outside
& was supposed to help his husband but the five persons each armed w/a long firearm
fired at her
too. She went back to the hut for cover but she was able to recognize the 5 as Conrado
Gonzales,
Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel, Eleuterio Cuyom & Laureano Sangalang. The latter was
known to
Flora & her bro Ricardo since childhood. The five left after about 5mins & when she
returned to her
husband, he was already dead. 
 Ricardo Sarno, Flora‘s bro who lived nearby, heard the gunshots too. He went out &
saw Sangalang
shooting Cortez w/a Garand carbine. He was supposed to help Cortez but he was fired
upon by the
men too.
 Sarno & Flora executed sworn statements & based on these, a complaint against the 5
offenders
was filed. Only Sangalang was arrested. CFI convicted him of murder & was sentenced
to RP.
 Defense: Sangalang claims that during that time, he was in Sampaloc, Manila to
borrow money from
a certain Gatdula for the tuition fees of his children. He likewise impugns the credibility
of Mrs. Cortez
& Ricardo.

Issues & Ratio:

1. WON Sangalang’s alibi is admissible
  NO. Discrepancies in the testimonies of Sarno & Mrs. Cortez are not glaring and
instead these
strengthen their credibility & show that they did not rehearse their testimonies.
 Cortez & Sarno clearly & consistently testified that Sangalang was among those who
shot Ricardo.
Their unwavering identification negates Sangalang‘s alibi.
 Although motive for killing was not proven, it was not shown either that Cortez &
Sarno were impelled
by malicious desires to falsely incriminate Sangalang.

2. WON the qualifying AC of treachery (alevosia) should be appreciated.

 YES. When the crime happened, victim was on top of a coconut tree. He was unarmed
&
defenseless. The assault was unexpected. He didn‘t give any immediate provocation.
Deliberate &
surprise attack insured victim‘s killing w/o any risk to the offenders arising from any
defense w/c the
victim could have made. Thus, offense is murder.
 Treachery absorbs the AC of band.
 Evident premeditation, though alleged, was not proven.

Treachery
People vs. Carantao, June 10, 2003

Treachery
People vs. Sitchon, February 27, 2002

Treachery
People vs. Ancheta, December 21, 2001

Ignominy

People vs. Alfanta, 320 SCRA 357

acts: At around midnight, while Nita Fernandez was asleep in the residence of a friend in Fort
Bonifacio. Rolando
Alfanta, whom Nita had not seen before, suddenly entered the house where she was sleeping
(in the sala), pulled her
and boxed her jaw and put his hand on her mouth, and told her that if she will not obey him, he
will kill her.
She was forced to climb a fence. Because of fear, as he was holding a bolo, she followed.
Alfanta instructed her to go
to the vacant house and she was told to undress, she did because of fear.
Thereafter, he molested her. She was instructed to lie down and he then inserted his genitals to
her vagina. After
that, she was told to lie face down, she complied. Thereafter, he inserted his penis to her anus.
After inserting his
penis, he instructed her to turn around face up, he inserted his fingers to her private part. Then
after all these
acts, he told her to lie beside him as he was going to take a rest.
Noticing that Alfanta was already sleeping, she suddenly took the bolo and hacked him several
times. She went to
the police station to report the incident. The policemen brought Alfanta to the hospital and he
survived.

ISSUE: WON ignominy and nighttime be appreciated as aggravating circumstances of the crime
of rape [YES]

RULING:
 D2013 | Criminal Law 1 | Prof. I. M. Gutierrez III | 44

As to ignominy, the accused did not only use the missionary position, i.e.. male superior, female
inferior; but
also the same position as dogs do (entry from behind). The means employed added ignominy to
the natural
effects of the act as it added disgrace to the injury caused by the crime.

The silence and darkness of the night has been taken advantage by the accused in facilitating
the commission of the
crime by insuring the offender's immunity from capture and by ensuring his impunity from his
illegal acts.

RTC decision affirmed but modified penalty by lowering it from death to reclusion perpetua.

Ignominy

People vs. Dizon, October 26, 2001

On July 7, 1997, around 9:30 p.m., private complainant Arlie Rosalin, 21 years old, was walking
along the vicinity
of Roosevelt Avenue Q.C.. Unknowingly by her, Accused Appellant was behind her and suddenly
seized her, pointing
a fan knife to the side of her neck, and announced a holdup. After appellant stripped her of her
valuables, he instructed
her to walk with him past Roosevelt and Muñoz to a dark and empty basketball court in Project
7 Q.C.
Appellant kissed private complainant on the lips, neck, and breasts, which he also mashed.
He likewise bit her
nipple at least three times, as well as the right side of her back and vagina. He then forced her
to bend forward over
the hood of a taxi and, in this position, forcefully penetrated her vagina with his organ. After
satisfying himself in this
fashion, appellant ordered private complainant to hold and massage his penis, He then forced
her to put his foul-
smelling penis into her mouth, forcing her to admire his bolitas,. After that he pushed private
complainant to the ground,
he went down on her and proceeded to ravish her all over again. After all these, appellant still
refused to let go of
private complainant. Instead, he made her sit astride over him, and to make sure she would not
be able to escape,
held her tightly by the hair with both hands. Thereafter a struggle ensued and the victim was
able to escape.
 Three days later, the victim, accompanied by the police returned to the vicinity of Muñoz
market and there they
found the accused-appellant who is actually working as a tricycle dispatcher. And there she was
able to identify the
offender by his tattoos and face. The policemen captured him.

After trial, Appellant is sentenced with the Supreme Penalty of Death, for robbery with rape
and attended by two
aggravating circumstances of cruelty and uninhabited place.
Upon review, appellant conteded that the lower court erred in appreciating the aggravating
circumstances of cruelty
and uninhabited place against the accused.
ISSUE
Whether or not the acts of the appellant constituted Cruelty.

HELD
The court held that the element of cruelty undoubtedly 'attended the commission of the
crime in this case. As
recounted by private complainant, appellant not only raped her, but subjected her to various
dehumanizing indignities,
such as making her fondle and put his foul-smelling penis in her mouth, forcing her to admire
his bolitas, and
demanding that she assume embarrassing and indelicate positions. Furthermore, he viciously
slammed her head
against the hood of the taxi, banged her head against the wall, and slapped her hard in the face
whenever she failed
to answer any of his questions. All these wrongs were no longer necessary insofar as appellant's
purpose of
raping private complainant was concerned. By subjecting her to these unwarranted physical
and moral abuses on
top of raping her, appellant deliberately and inhumanly augmented her pain and sufferings,
thus, committing cruelty.
In the case at bar, two (2) aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the robbery
with rape, thus the
trial court correctly imposed on the appellant the supreme penalty of death.

Article 15 – Alternative Circumstances

Intoxication

People vs. Camano, 115 SCRA 688

FACTS: On February 17, 1970, in the barrio of Nato, Municipality of Sagnay, Province
of Camarines Sur, between four and five in the afternoon, after the accused had been
drinking liquor, he stabbed twice the victim Godofredo Pascua with a bolo, called in the
vernacular of Bicol “palas” which is a sharp bladed and pointed instrument about 2 feet
long including the black handle, tapering to the end, about and one-half inches in width,
while the latter was walking alone along the barrio street almost in front of the store of
one Socorro Buates. Godofredo Pascua sustained two mortal wounds for which he died
instantaneously. After hacking and stabbing to death Godofredo Pascua, the accused
proceeded to the seashore and on finding Mariano Buenaflore leaning at the gate of the
fence of his house, in a kneeling position, with both arms on top of the fence, and his
head stooping down hacked the latter with the same bolo.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not there is not evident premeditation;
2) Whether or not treachery is not present;
3) Whether or not superior strength is absorbed in treachery;
4) Whether or not alternative circumstance of intoxication was erroneously appreciated
as an aggravating circumstance;
5) Whether or not death is cruel and unusual penalty.
RULING:
1) As there is no direct evidence of the planning or preparation in the killing of Pascua
and Buenaflor and of the marked persistence to accomplish that plan, the trial court’s
conclusion cannot be sustained;
2) The contention is without merit;
3) The contention is correct. The rule is already settled the abuse of superiority is
absorbed in treachery;
4) There is merit in the contention. The alternative circumstance of intoxication should
be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
5) Death penalty is not cruel, unjust or excessive.
The trial court, therefore, did not err in finding the accused Filomeno Camano guilty of
Murder in each of the two cases. The offense being attended by the mitigating
circumstance of intoxication, without any aggravating circumstance to offset it, the
imposable penalty is the minimum of that provided by law or 17 years, 4 months and 1
day to 20 years of reclusion temporal. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
appellant should be, as he is hereby, sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
ranging from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4 months
and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, in each case.