CRIM : OTAZA notes

Definitions unconstitutional and gave no jurisdiction in this

case.
Criminal Law- is a branch of law which defines 2. The lower court erred in not dismissing the
crimes, treats of their nature and provides for complaint after the presentation of the
their punishment. evidence in the case, if not before, for the
reason that said Act No. 2886 is
Crime- is an act committed or omitted in unconstitutional and the proceedings had in
violation of a public law forbidding or the case under the provisions of the Act
commanding it. constitute a prosecution of appellant without
due process of law.
Sources of the Criminal Law 3. The court a quo erred in not finding that it
A. The Revised Penal Code and it lacked jurisdiction over the person of the
Amendments; accused and over the subject- matter of the
B. Special Penal Laws passed by the complaint
Philippine Commission, Philippine LEGAL ISUUE: whether or not Act No. 2886,
Assembly, Philippine legislature, under which the complaint in the present case
National Assembly, the Congress was filed, is valid and constitutional.
of the Philippines and the HELD: For practical reasons, the procedure in
batasang Pambansa criminal matters is not incorporated in the
C. Penal Presidential decrees during Constitutions of the States, but is left in the
Martial Law. hand of the legislatures, so that it falls within
the realm of public statutory law.
Powers and Authority of the State to Punish As has been said by Chief Justice Marshall:
Crimes A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of
The State has the authority, under its police all the Subdivisions of which its great powers
power, to define and punish crimes and to lay will admit, and of all the means by which they
down the rules of criminal procedure. States, may be carried into execution, would partake
as a part of their police power, have a large of a prolixity of a legal code, and could
measure of discretion in creating and defining scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It
criminal offenses. (People vs. Santiago, 43 Phil. would probably never be understood by the
120, 124) public. (M'Culloch vs. Maryland [1819], 4
Wheat., 316, 407; 4 L. ed., 579.)
The right of prosecution and punishment for a That is why, in pursuance of the Constitution of
crime is one of the attributes that by a natural the United States, each States, each State has
law belongs to the sovereign power the authority, under its police power, to define
instinctively charged by the common will of and punish crimes and to lay down the rules of
the members of society to look after, guard criminal procedure.
and defend the interests of the community, the The states, as a part of their police power,
individual and social rights and the liberties of have a large measure of discretion in creating
every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise and defining criminal offenses. . . .
of his rights. (U.S. vs. Pablo, 35 Phil. 94, 100) A Statute relating to criminal procedure is void
as a denial of the equal protection of the laws
People Vs Santiago if it prescribes a different procedure in the case
of persons in like situation. Subject to this
FACTS: Having caused the death of Porfirio limitation, however, the legislature has large
Parondo, a boy 7 years old, by striking him with measure of discretion in prescribing the modes
automobile that he was driving, the herein of criminal procedure.
appellant was prosecuted for the crime of This power of the States of the North American
homicide by reckless negligence and was Union was also granted to its territories such as
sentenced to suffer one year and one day the Philippines:
of prision correccional, and to pay the costs of The plenary legislative power which Congress
the trial. possesses over the territories and possessions of
Not agreeable with that sentence he now the United States may be exercised by that
comes to this court alleging that the court body itself, or, as is much more often the case,
below committed four errors, to wit: it may be delegated to a local agency, such
1. The trial court erred in not taking judicial as a legislature, the organization of which
notice of the fact that the appellant was being proceeds upon much the same lines as in the
prosecuted in conformity with Act No. 2886 of several States or in Congress, which is often
the Philippine Legislature and that the Act is taken as a model, and whose powers are
limited by the Organic Act; but within the
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

scope of such act is has complete authority to chief who immediately filed a complaint in the
legislate, . . . and in general, to legislate upon court of justice of the peace against Rodrigo,
all subjects within the police power of the Malicsi, and Dato for illegal gambling in
territory. (38 Cyc., 205-207.) violation of municipal ordinance No. 5.
The powers of the territorial legislatures are LEGAL ISUUE: Whether or not the police has
derived from Congress. By act of Congress authority to Conduct ?
their power extends "to all rightful subjects of HELD: The right of prosecution and punishment
legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution for a crime is one of the attributes that by a
and laws of the United States;" and this natural law belongs to the sovereign power
includes the power to define and punish instinctively charged by the common will of
crimes. (16 C. J., 62.) the members of society to look after, guard
And in the exercise of such powers the military and defend the interests of the community, the
government of the army of occupation, individual and social rights and the liberties of
functioning as a territorial legislature, thought it every citizen and the guaranty of the exercise
convenient to establish new rules of procedure of his rights.
in criminal matters, by the issuance of General The power to punish evildoers has never been
Orders No. 58, the preamble of which reads: attacked or challenged, as the necessity for its
In the interests of justice, and to safeguard the existence has been recognized even by the
civil liberties of the inhabitants of these most backward peoples. At times the criticism
Islands, the criminal code of procedure now in has been made that certain penalties are
force therein is hereby amended in certain of cruel, barbarous, and atrocious; at other, that
its important provisions, as indicated in the they are light and inadequate to the nature
following enumerated sections. (Emphasis and gravity of the offense, but the imposition
ours.) of punishment is admitted to be just by the
Its main purpose is, therefore, limited to criminal whole human race, and even barbarians and
procedure and its intention is to give to its savages themselves, who are ignorant of all
provisions the effect of law in criminal matters. civilization, are no [Link]
For that reason it provides in section 1 that:
The following provisions shall have the force Limitations
and effect of law in criminal matters in the
Philippine Islands from and after the 15th day 1987 Constitution Article III
of May, 1900, but existing laws on the same
subjects shall remain valid except in so far as Due Process Sec 1
hereinafter modified or repealed expressly or No person shall be deprive of life, liberty and
by necessary implication. property without due process of the law, nor
From what has been said it clearly follows that shall any person be denied the equal
the provisions of this General Order do not the protection of the law.
nature of constitutional law either by reason of
its character or by reason of the authority that Equal Protection Clause Sec 14
enacted it into law. ) No person shall be held to answer for a
It cannot be said that it has acquired this criminal offense without due process of
character because this order was made its [Link]
own by the Congress of the United States for, (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
as a mater of fact, this body never adopted it shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
as a law of its own creation either before the proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard
promulgation of Act No. 2886, herein by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
discussed, or, to our knowledge, to this date. nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public
US Vs. Pablo trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and
FACTS: : In compliance to an order from his to have compulsory process to secure the
chief, Andres Pablo, a policeman of the attendance of witnesses and the production of
municipality of Balanga, went to the barrio of evidence in his behalf. However, after
Tuyo to raid a jueteng game; but before the arraignment, trial may proceed
said officer arrived there the players left and notwithstanding the absence of the
ran away. He was able to recover on his arrival accused: Provided, that he has been duly
a low table, a tambiolo (receptacle) and 37 notified and his failure to appear is
bolas (balls). Said officer also saw the men unjustifiable.
Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo left but C. Non imposition of cruel and Unusual
only Francisco Dato was arrested. This Punishment or Excessive Fines Sec 18
information was contained in his report to his
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

(1) No person shall be detained solely by an accused under custody escapes, he

reason of his political beliefs and shall be deemed to have waived his
[Link] right to be present on all subsequent
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall trial dates until custody over him is
exist except as a punishment for a crime regained. Upon motion, the accused
whereof the party shall have been duly may be allowed to defend himself in
[Link] person when it sufficiently appears to
the court that he can properly protect
Bill Of attainder Sec 19 his right without the assistance of
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor counsel.
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment (d) To testify as a witness in his own
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be behalf but subject to cross-examination
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons on matters covered by direct
involving heinous crimes, the Congress examination. His silence shall not in any
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty manner prejudice him.
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion (e) To be exempt from being compelled
[Link] to be a witness against himself.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, (f) To confront and cross-examine the
or degrading punishment against any prisoner witnesses against him at the trial. Either
or detainee or the use of substandard or party may utilize as part of its evidence
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman the testimony of a witness who is
conditions shall be dealt with by [Link] deceased, out of or can not with due
diligence be found in the Philippines,
unavailable or otherwise unable to
Ex Post Facto Law Sec 20 to 22 testify, given in another case or
proceeding, judicial or administrative,
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for involving the same parties and subject
debt or non-payment of a poll [Link] matter, the adverse party having the
Section 21. No person shall be twice put in opportunity to cross-examine him.
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If (g) To have compulsory process issued
an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, to secure the attendance of witnesses
conviction or acquittal under either shall and production of other evidence in his
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the behalf.
same [Link] (h) To have speedy, impartial and
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of public trial.
attainder shall be enacted. (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure Rule 115 the manner prescribed by law. (1a)

Rights of Accused
Section [Link] of accused at the trial. — In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be Civil Code Art 2
entitled to the following rights:
(a) To be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Cases
(b) To be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. Pesigan Vs Angeles
(c) To be present and defend in person 1984
and by counsel at every stage of the FACTS: Anselmo L. Pesigan and Marcelo L.
proceedings, from arraignment to Pesigan, carabao dealers, transported in an
promulgation of the judgment. The Isuzu ten-wheeler truck in the evening of April
accused may, however, waive his 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from
presence at the trial pursuant to the Sipocot, Camarines Sur with Padre Garcia,
stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his Batangas, as the destination.
presence is specifically ordered by the They were provided with (1) a health
court for purposes of identification. The certificate from the provincial veterinarian of
absence of the accused without Camarines Sur, issued under the Revised
justifiable cause at the trial of which he Administrative Code and Presidential Decree
had notice shall be considered a waiver No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974;
of his right to be present thereat. When (2) a permit to transport large cattle issued
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

under the authority of the provincial a penal regulation published more than two
commander; and (3) three certificates of months later in the Official Gazette dated June
inspection, one from the Constabulary 14, 1982. It became effective only fifteen days
command attesting that the carabaos were thereafter as provided in article 2 of the Civil
not included in the list of lost, stolen and Code and section 11 of the Revised
questionable animals; one from the LIvestock Administrative Code.
inspector, Bureau of Animal Industry of The word "laws" in article 2 (article 1 of the old
Libmanan, Camarines Sur and one from the Civil Code) includes circulars and regulations
mayor of Sipocot. which prescribe penalties. Publication is
In spite of the permit to transport and the said necessary to apprise the public of the contents
four certificates, the carabaos, while passing at of the regulations and make the said penalties
Basud, Camarines Norte, were confiscated by binding on the persons affected thereby.
Lieutenant Arnulfo V. Zenarosa, the town's (People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640; Lim Hoa
police station commander, and by Doctor Ting vs. Central Bank of the Phils., 104 Phil. 573;
Bella S. Miranda, provincial veterinarian. The Balbuna vs. Secretary of Education, 110 Phil.
confiscation was basis on the aforementioned 150.)
Executive Order No. 626-A which provides "that The Spanish Supreme Court ruled that "bajo la
henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age, denominacion generica de leyes, se
sex, physical condition or purpose and no comprenden tambien los reglamentos, Reales
carabeef shall be transported from one decretos, Instrucciones, Circulares y Reales
province to another. The carabaos or ordenes dictadas de conformidad con las
carabeef transported in violation of this mismas por el Gobierno en uso de su potestad
Executive Order as amended shall be subject (1 Manresa, Codigo Civil, 7th Ed., p. 146.)
to confiscation and forfeiture by the Thus, in the Que Po Lay case, a person,
government to be distributed ... to deserving convicted by the trial court of having violated
farmers through dispersal as the Director of Central Bank Circular No. 20 and sentenced to
Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of six months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of
carabaos" (78 OG 3144). P1,000, was acquitted by this Court because
Doctor Miranda distributed the carabaos the circular was published in the Official
among twenty-five farmers of Basud, and to a Gazette three months after his conviction. He
farmer from the Vinzons municipal nursery was not bound by the circular.
(Annex 1). That ruling applies to a violation of Executive
The Pesigans filed against Zenarosa and Order No. 626-A because itsconfiscation and
Doctor Miranda an action for replevin for the forfeiture provision or sanction makes it a penal
recovery of the carabaos allegedly valued at [Link] and fairness dictate that the
P70,000 and damages of P92,000. The replevin public must be informed of that provision by
order could not be executed by the sheriff. In means of publication in the Gazette before
his order of April 25, 1983 Judge Domingo violators of the executive order can be bound
Medina Angeles, who heard the case at Daet thereby.
and who was later transferred to Caloocan The cases of Police Commission vs. Bello, L-
City, dismissed the case for lack of cause of 29960, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 230
action. and Philippine Blooming Mills vs. Social Security
The Pesigans appealed to this Court under Rule System, 124 Phil. 499, cited by the respondents,
45 of the Rules of Court and section 25 of the do not involve the enforcement of any penal
Interim Rules and pursuant to Republic Act No. regulation.
5440, a 1968 law which superseded Rule 42 of Commonwealth Act No. 638 requires that all
the Rules of Court. Presidential executive orders having general
applicability should be published in the Official
LEGAL ISSUE: At issue in this case is the Gazette. It provides that "every order or
enforceability, before publication in the document which shag prescribe a penalty
Official Gazette of June 14, 1982, of shall be deemed to have general applicability
Presidential Executive Order No. 626-A and legal effect."
datedOctober 25, 1980, providing for Indeed, the practice has always been to
the confiscation and forfeiture by the publish executive orders in the Gazette.
government of carabaos transported from one Section 551 of the Revised Administrative Code
province to another. provides that even bureau "regulations and
orders shall become effective only when
HELD: We hold that the said executive order approved by the Department Head and
should not be enforced against the Pesigans published in the Official Gazette or otherwise
on April 2, 1982 because, as already noted, it is
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

publicly promulgated". (See Commissioner of

Civil Service vs. Cruz, 122 Phil. 1015.) Thus Co moved to quash on the ground that
In the instant case, the livestock inspector and the anti subversion law is a bill of attainder.
the provincial veterinarian of Camarines Norte
and the head of the Public Affairs Office of the Legal Issue: Whether or not the Anti-Subversion
Ministry of Agriculture were unaware of Act is a Bill of Attainder.
Executive Order No. 626-A. The Pesigans could
not have been expected to be cognizant of Held
such an executive order. A Bill of attainder is a legislative act which
It results that they have a cause of action for inflicts punishment without Trial.
the recovery of the carabaos. The summary
confiscation was not in order. The recipients of Sec 11 Art III of the Constitution States That “
the carabaos should return them to the No Bill Of attainder or ex post Facto law shall
Pesigans. However, they cannot transport the be enacted” it s essence is the substitution of a
carabaos to Batangas because they are now legislative for the judicial determination of guilt.
bound by the said executive order. Neither The constitutional ban against bill of attainder
can they recover damages. Doctor Miranda serves to implement the principle of separation
and Zenarosa acted in good faith in ordering of power by confining legislative usurpation of
the forfeiture and dispersal of the carabaos. Judicial Function.
WHEREFORE, the trial court's order of dismissal
and the confiscation and dispersal of the In the Case at bar, the Anti- Subversion act
carabaos are reversed and set aside. was condemned by the court quo as a bill as a
Respondents Miranda and Zenarosa are attainder because It “fasrs and feathers” the
ordered to restore the carabaos, with the communist party of the Philippines as a
requisite documents, to the petitioners, who as “continuing menace of the freedom and
owners are entitled to possess the same, with security of the country, its existence is clear,
the right to dispose of them in Basud or present and grave danger of the security of
Sipocot, Camarines Sur. No costs. the Philippines” By means of the act the Trial
Court said congress usurped the power of the
judge and assumed judicial Ministry by
TANADA vs TUVERA Pronouncing guilty of the CPP without any
forms of safeguard of judicial Trial.
FACTS: Lorenzo Tanada together with some
lawyers, Due process was invoked by In Re: Kay Villegas
petitioners in demanding disclosure of a
number of presidential degrees which they FACTS: Kay Villegas filed a declaratory relief
claimed had not been published as required claiming to be a duly recognize non-stock and
by the law. Petitioners maintain that since the non-profit corporation created under the laws
subject of the petition concerns public right of the land and praying the for determination
and its object is to compel the performance of of the validity of Sec 8 of RA 6132 in Paragraph
a public duty, they need not show specific 7 of its petition, petitioner avers that it has
interest for their petition to be given due printed material design to propagate its
process. ideology and program of the government.
Petitioner in paragraph 7 impugns, because it
Ruling: you already know the ruling. quoted only Sec 8 on the ground that it
violated the Due process clause, right to
association and Freedom of expression and it is
People Vs Ferrer an ex post facto law.
1972
Legal Issue: Whether RA no 6132 is an Ex post
FACTS: On March 5, 1970 a criminal Complaint Facto Law.
for violation of the Anti-Subversion act was filed
against respondent Feliciano Co. On March 10 Held: HELL NO!
Judge Jose De Guzman conducted a
preliminary investigation finding Prima Facie An Ex post Facto law is
case against Co, Directed the government 1. An Ex Post Facto law are acts done
prosecution to file an information that the before the passage of the law which
accused, feloniously become an officer and a was innocent when done and punishes
ranking leader if a communist Party of the such action.
Philippines.
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

2. Aggravates crime, or makes it greater Ex post Facto laws, unless they are favorable to
than it was committed. the defendant are prohibited. Every law that
3. Changes punishment and inflicts a makes an action done before the passage of
greater punishment than the law the law and which was innocent at the time it
annexed to the crime when committee. is done, Criminal and punishment is an Ex post
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence and Factor law.
authorize conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law In the Present case Act No 2655 made an act
required at the time of the commission which had been done before the law was
of the offense adopted, a criminal act and to make said act
5. Assuming to regulate Civil rights and applicable to the act complied of would be to
remedies only give an ex post facto operation.
6. Deprives person accused of a crime of
some unlawful protection to which he US vs. Sweet
has become entitled, such as
protection of the former conviction. The case is therefore open to the application
From the aforesaid definition as well as the of the general principle that the jurisdiction of
clarification of the ex-post facto law the the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or
constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal other special character of the person brought
law which are given retroactive effect. before them for trial, a principle firmly
established in the law of England and America
While it is true that Sec 18 penalize a violation and which must, we think, prevail under any
of RA 6132 including Sec 8 the penalty thereof system of jurisprudence unless controlled by
it imposed only for acts committed after the express legislation to the contrary. (United
approval of the and not those perpetrated States vs. Clark, 31 Fed. Rep., 710.) The
prior thereto there is nothing in the law that appellant's claim that the acts alleged to
remotely insinuate that Sec 8 and 18 or any constitute the offense were performed by him
provision thereof shall apply to acts carried in the execution of the orders of his military
prior its approval. superiors may, if true, be available by way of
defense upon the merits in the trial in the court
US vs Diaz Conde below, but can not under this principle affect
the right of that court to take jurisdiction of the
FACTS: On the 6th day of may 1921. A case.
complaint was presented in the CFI charging Whether under a similar state of facts to that
defendants ( Apolinar De Conde) With which appears in this case a court of one of
violation of the Usury law. Upon said complaint the United States would have jurisdiction to try
they where each arrested and arraigned and the offender against the State laws (see In
pleaded not guilty. The cause was finaly re Fair, 100 Fed. Rep., 149), it is not necessary to
brought n for trial on September 1, 1921. At the consider. The present is not a case where the
Trial and after consideration of the evidence courts of one government are attempting to
adduced. The judge found that the exercise jurisdiction over the military agents or
defendants where guilty of the crime charged employees of another and distinct
by complainant and sentenced each of them government, because the court asserting
to pay a fine of 120. Appellant now contends jurisdiction here derives its existence and
1. That the said time the contract was made powers from the same Government under the
there was no usury law enforce authority of which the acts alleged to
2. that the said law could have no retroactive constitute the offense are claimed to have
effect. been performed.
It may be proper to add that there is no actual
Legal Issue: Whether or not Usuary law have conflict between the two jurisdictions in the
Retroactive effect. present case nor any claim of jurisdiction on
the part of the military tribunals. On the
Held: Law imposing a new penalty or disability contrary it appears from the findings of the
or giving a new right of action, must not be court below that the complaint was entered
constructed as having retroactive effect. Laws by order of the commanding general of the
are construed prospectively and not Division of the Philippines, a fact not important,
retroactively. If the contract is legal upon its perhaps, as regards the technical question of
inception it cannot be rendered illegal by any jurisdiction, but which relieves the case from
subsequent legislation. any practical embarrassment which might
result from a claim on the part of the military
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

tribunals to exclusive cognizance of the Constitution of the Philippines the court below
offense. had no jurisdiction to try him.

Raquiza Vs, Bradford HELD: It is well settled that a consul is not

entitled to the privileges and immunities of an
Correctional Institution for Women, petitioners, ambassador or minister, but is subject to the
Lily Raquiza, Haydee Tee Han Kee and Emma laws and regulations of the country to which
Link Infante, pray that the officers therein he is accredited. (Ex parte Baiz, 135 U. S., 403;
named, to wit, Lt. Col. L.J. Bradford and Capt. 34 Law. ed., 222.) A consul is not exempt from
Inez L. Twindle of the CIC, U.S. Army, "or criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of
whoever acts in her place or stead," be the country where he resides.
directed to appear before this Court and
produce the bodies of petitioners, and to show The conclusion we have reached upon this
cause why petitioners should not forthwith be branch of the case finds support in the
set at liberty. pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of
We are not unmindful of the fact that the the United States. The Constitution of the
detention of the petitioners may have United States provides that the Supreme Court
subjected them to hardships, but this situation shall have "original jurisdiction" in all cases
is one of those born of all wars where hardships affecting ambassadors, other public ministers,
of all description are visited upon even the and consuls. In construing this constitutional
most innocent people. At any rate, we do not provision, the Supreme Court of the United
think that the petitioners are totally without States held that the "original jurisdiction thus
remedy. We think they may have recourse to conferred upon the Supreme Court by the
the proper military authorities by making due Constitution was not exclusive jurisdiction, and
representation to them. that such grant of original jurisdiction did not
These military authorities, we can safely prevent Congress from conferring original
presume, will not deny to the petitioners any jurisdiction in cases affecting consuls on the
remedy which may be available under the subordinate courts of the Union. (U.
military laws and under the prevailing S. vs. Ravara, supra; Bors vs. Preston, 111 U. S.,
circumstances. The United States army forces 252; 28 Law. ed., 419.)
which have come to the Philippines for the
express purpose of liberating the Filipinos and US vs BULL
to restore them the blessings of liberty under a
democratic government, just as fast as the
military situation would permit, would not be —
we can justly assume — the very ones to take FACTS: H. N. Bull was then and there master of
from them any of those liberties without legal a steam sailing vessel known as the
reason or justification. But the present state of steamship Standard, which vessel was then
the world is such that military exigencies or and there engaged in carrying and
military necessity may, under certain transporting cattle, carabaos, and other
circumstances, still require some limitation on animals from a foreign port and city of Manila,
the restoration or enjoyment of those liberties. Philippine Islands; that the said accused H. N.
The present case is, in our opinion, one such Bull, while master of said vessel, as aforesaid,
situation. on or about the 2d day of December, 1908,
Whether the doctrine here laid down would be did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
applicable to cases arising in time of peace, wrongly carry, transport, and bring into the port
we do not decide. and city of Manila, aboard said vessel, from
the port of Ampieng, Formosa, six hundred and
Schneckenburger Vs Moran seventy-seven (677) head of cattle and
carabaos, without providing suitable means for
securing said animals while in transit, so as to
The petitioner was duly accredited honorary avoid cruelty and unnecessary suffering to the
consul of Uruguay at Manila, Philippine Islands said animals, in this, to wit, that the said H. N.
on June 11, 1934. He was subsequently Bull, master, as aforesaid, did then and there
charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila fail to provide stalls for said animals so in transit
with the crime of falsification of a private and suitable means for trying and securing said
document. He objected to the jurisdiction of animals in a proper manner, and did then and
the court on the ground that both under the there cause some of said animals to be tied by
Constitution of the United States and the means of rings passed through their noses, and
allow and permit others to be transported
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

loose in the hold and on the deck of said from local jurisdiction while within such waters
vessel without being tied or secured in stalls, was not established until within comparatively
and all without bedding; that by reason of the recent times.
aforesaid neglect and failure of the accused Such vessels are therefore permitted during
to provide suitable means for securing said times of peace to come and go freely. Local
animals while so in transit, the noses of some of official exercise but little control over their
said animals were cruelly torn, and many of actions, and offenses committed by their crew
said animals were tossed about upon the are justiciable by their own officers acting
decks and hold of said vessel, and cruelly under the laws to which they primarily owe
wounded, bruised, and killed. allegiance. This limitation upon the general
All contrary to the provisions of Acts No. principle of territorial sovereignty is based
55 and No. 275 of the Philippine entirely upon comity and convenience, and
Commission. finds its justification in the fact that experience
shows that such vessels are generally careful to
respect local laws and regulation which are
HELD: No court of the Philippine Islands had essential to the health, order, and well-being of
jurisdiction over an offenses or crime the port. But comity and convenience does
committed on the high seas or within the not require the extension of the same degree
territorial waters of any other country, but of exemption to merchant vessels. There are
when she came within 3 miles of a line drawn two well-defined theories as to extent of the
from the headlines which embrace the immunities ordinarily granted to them,
entrance to Manila Bay, she was within According to the French theory and practice,
territorial waters, and a new set of principles matters happening on board a merchant ship
became applicable. (Wheaton, Int. Law (Dana which do not concern the tranquillity of the
ed.), p. 255, note 105; Bonfils, Le Droit Int., sec port or persons foreign to the crew, are
490 et seq.; Latour, La Mer Ter., ch. 1.) The ship justiciable only by the court of the country to
and her crew were then subject to the which the vessel belongs. The French courts
jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign subject therefore claim exclusive jurisdiction over
through the proper political agency. This crimes committed on board French merchant
offense was committed within territorial waters. vessels in foreign ports by one member of the
From the line which determines these waters crew against another. Writers who consider
the Standard must have traveled at least 25 exterritoriality as a fact instead of a theory
miles before she came to anchor. During that have sought to restrict local jurisdiction, but
part of her voyage the violation of the statue Hall, who is doubtless the leading English
continued, and as far as the jurisdiction of the authority, says that —
court is concerned, it is immaterial that the It is admitted by the most
same conditions may have existed while the thoroughgoing asserters of the
vessel was on the high seas. The offense, territoriality of merchant vessels that so
assuming that it originated at the port of soon as the latter enter the ports of a
departure in Formosa, was a continuing one, foreign state they become subject to
and every element necessary to constitute it the local jurisdiction on all points in
existed during the voyage across the territorial which the interests of the country are
waters. The completed forbidden act was touched. (Hall, Int. Law, p. 263.)
done within American waters, and the court The United States has adhered consistently to
therefore had jurisdiction over the subject- the view that when a merchant vessel enters a
matter of the offense and the person of the foreign port it is subject to the jurisdiction of the
offender. local authorities, unless the local sovereignty
The offense then was thus committed within has by act of acquiescence or through treaty
the territorial jurisdiction of the court, but the arrangements consented to waive a portion of
objection to the jurisdiction raises the further such jurisdiction. Chief Justice Marshall, in the
question whether that jurisdiction is restricted case of the Exchange, said that —
by the fact of the nationality of the ship. Every. When merchant vessels enter for the
Every state has complete control and purpose of trade, in would be obviously
jurisdiction over its territorial waters. According in convinient and dangerous to society
to strict legal right, even public vessels may not and would subject the laws to continual
enter the ports of a friendly power without infraction and the government to
permission, but it is now conceded that in the degradation if such individual
absence of a prohibition such ports are merchants did not owe temporary and
considered as open to the public ship of all local allegiance, and were not
friendly powers. The exemption of such vessels
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

amendable to the jurisdiction of the willfully includes the allegation that it was
country. committed knowingly.
The Supreme Court of the United States has The Act, which is in the English language,
recently said that the merchant vessels of one impose upon the master of a vessel the duty to
country visiting the ports of another for the "provide suitable means for securing such
purpose of trade, subject themselves to the animals while in transit, so as to avoid all cruelty
laws which govern the ports they visit, so long and unnecessary suffering to the animals." The
as they remain; and this as well in war as in allegation of the complaint as it reads in
peace, unless otherwise provided by treaty. (U. English is that the defendant willfully, unlawfully,
S. vs. Diekelman, 92 U. S., 520-525.) and wrongfully carried the cattle "without
providing suitable means for securing said
The treaty does not therefore deprive the local animals while in transit, so as to avoid cruelty
courts of jurisdiction over offenses committed and unnecessary suffering to the said animals
on board a merchant vessel by one member in this . . . that by reason of the aforesaid
of the crew against another which amount to neglect and failure of the accused to provide
a disturbance of the order or tranquillity of the suitable means for securing said animals were
country, and a fair and reasonable cruelty torn, and many of said animals were
construction of the language requires un to tossed about upon the decks and hold of said
hold that any violation of criminal laws disturbs vessels, and cruelty wounded, bruised, and
the order or traquillity of the country. The killed."
offense with which the appellant is charged The appellant contends that the language of
had nothing to so with any difference between the Spanish text of the information does not
the captain and the crew. It was a violation by charge him with failure to provide "sufficient"
the master of the criminal law of the country and "adequate" means. The words used are
into whose port he came. We thus find that "medios suficientes" and "medios adecuados."
neither by reason of the nationality of the In view of the fact that the original complaint
vessel, the place of the commission of the was prepared in English, and that the word
offense, or the prohibitions of any treaty or "suitable" is translatable by the words
general principle of public law, are the court of "adecuado," "suficiente," and "conveniente,"
the Philippine Islands deprived of jurisdiction according to the context and circumstances,
over the offense charged in the information in we determine this point against the appellant,
this case. particularly in view of the fact that the
It is further contended that the complaint is objection was not made in the court below,
defective because it does not allege that the and that the evidence clearly shows a failure
animals were disembarked at the port of to provide "suitable means for the protection of
Manila, an allegation which it is claimed is the animals."
essential to the jurisdiction of the court sitting at 2. The appellant's arguments against the
that port. To hold with the appellant upon this constitutionality of Act No. 55 and the
issue would be to construe the language of the amendment thereto seems to rest upon a
complaint very strictly against the fundamentally erroneous conception of the
Government. The disembarkation of the constitutional law of these Islands. The statute
animals is not necessary in order to constitute penalizes acts and ommissions incidental to
the completed offense, and a reasonable the transportation of live stock between
construction of the language of the statute foreign ports and ports of the Philippine Islands,
confers jurisdiction upon the court sitting at the and had a similar statute regulating
port into which the animals are bought. They commerce with its ports been enacted by the
are then within the territorial jurisdiction of the legislature of one of the States of the Union, it
court, and the mere fact of their would doubtless have been in violation of
disembarkation is immaterial so far as Article I, section 3, of the Constitution of the
jurisdiction is concerned. This might be different United States. (Stubbs vs. People (Colo.), 11 L.
if the disembarkation of the animals R. A., N. S., 1071.)
constituted a constitutional element in the
offense, but it does not. People Vs Look Chow
It is also contended that the information is
insufficient because it fails to allege that the Facts: between 11 and 12 o'clock a. m. on the present ,
defendant knowingly and willfully failed to several persons, among them Messrs. Jacks and Milliron,
provide suitable means for securing said chief of the department of the port of Cebu and internal-
revenue agent of Cebu, respectively, went abroad the
animals while in transit, so as to avoid cruelty steamship Erroll to inspect and search its cargo, and
and unnecessary suffering. The allegation of found, first in a cabin near the saloon, one sack and
the complaint that the act was committed afterwards in the hold, another sack . The sack
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
contained 49 cans of opium, and the other the larger case the foreign vessel was in transit — in the present
sack, also contained several cans of the same substance. case the foreign vessel was not in transit; in the Look
The hold, in which the sack mentioned in was found, was Chaw case the opium was landed from the vessel upon
under the defendant's control, who moreover, freely and Philippine soil — in the present case of United
of his own will and accord admitted that this sack, as well States vs. Jose ([1916], 34 Phil., 840), the main point, and
as the other and found in the cabin, belonged to him. the one on which resolution turned, was that in a
The said defendant also stated, freely and voluntarily, prosecution based on the illegal importation of opium or
that he had bought these sacks of opium, in Hongkong other prohibited drug, the Government must prove, or
with the intention of selling them as contraband in offer evidence sufficient to raise a presumption, that the
Mexico or Vera Cruz, and that, as his hold had already vessel from which the drug is discharged came into
been searched several times for opium, he ordered two Philippine waters from a foreign country with the drug on
other Chinamen to keep the sack. board. In the Jose case, the defendants were acquitted
because it was not proved that the opium was imported
Issue: whether Philippine Courts have jurisdiction in the from a foreign country; in the present case there is no
case at bar. question but what the opium came from Saigon to Cebu.
However, in the opinion in the Jose case, we find the
Held: following which may be obiter dicta, but which at least is
interesting as showing the view of the writer of the
It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English opinion:
nationality, that it came from Hongkong, and that it was The importation was complete, to say the least,
bound for Mexico, via the call ports of Manila and Cebu. when the ship carrying it anchored in Subic Bay.
The fiscal, at the conclusion of his argument, asked that It was not necessary that the opium discharged
the maximum penalty of the law be imposed upon the or that it be taken from the ship. It was sufficient
defendant, in view of the considerable amount of opium that the opium was brought into the waters of
seized. The court ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction, the Philippine Islands on a boat destined for a
inasmuch as the crime had been committed within its Philippine port and which subsequently
district, on the wharf of Cebu. anchored in a port of the Philippine Islands with
intent to discharge its cargo.
The appeal having been heard, together with the Resolving whatever doubt was existing as to the authority
allegations made therein by the parties, it is found: That, of the views just quoted, we return to an examination of
although the mere possession of a thing of prohibited use the applicable provisions of the law. It is to be noted that
in these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any section 4 of Act No. 2381 begins, "Any person who shall
of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a unlawfully import or bring any prohibited drug into the
crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of Philippine Islands." "Import" and "bring" are synonymous
such vessel being considered as an extension of its own terms. The Federal Courts of the United States have held
nationality, the same rule does not apply when the that the mere act of going into a port, without breaking
article, whose use is prohibited within the Philippine bulk, is prima facie evidence of importation. (The Mary [U.
Islands, in the present case a can of opium, is landed S.], 16 Fed. Cas., 932, 933.) And again, the importation is
from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an not the making entry of goods at the custom house, but
open violation of the laws of the land, with respect to merely the bringing them into port; and the importation is
which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the complete before entry of the Custom House. (U.
place of the commission of the crime, only the court S. vs. Lyman [U. S.], 26, Fed. Cas., 1024, 1028; Perots vs. U.
established in that said place itself had competent S., 19 Fed. Cas., 258.) As applied to the Opium Law, we
jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an expressly hold that any person unlawfully imports or brings
international treaty. any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands, when the
prohibited drug is found under this person's control on a
vessel which has come direct from a foreign country and
US vs. Ah Sing is within the jurisdictional limits of the Philippine Islands. In
defendant guilty of a violation of section 4 of Act No. such case, a person is guilty of illegal importation of the
2381 (the Opium Law), drug unless contrary circumstances exist or the defense
The defendant is a subject of China employed as a proves otherwise. Applied to the facts herein, it would be
fireman on the steamship Shun Chang. The Shun Chang is absurb to think that the accused was merely carrying
a foreign steamer which arrived at the port of Cebu on opium back and forth between Saigon and Cebu for the
April 25, 1917, after a voyage direct from the port of mere pleasure.
Saigon. The defendant bought eight cans of opium in
Saigon, brought them on board the steamship Shun People vs Lo-lo & Saraw
Chang, and had them in his possession during the trip
from Saigon to Cebu. When the steamer anchored in the Facts: On or about June 30, 1920, two boats left matuta,
port of Cebu on April 25, 1917, the authorities on making a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch possession. In
a search found the eight cans of opium above one of the boats was one individual, a Dutch subject,
mentioned hidden in the ashes below the boiler of the and in the other boat eleven men, women, and children,
steamer's engine. The defendant confessed that he was likewise subjects of Holland. After a number of days of
the owner of this opium, and that he had purchased it in navigation, at about 7 o'clock in the evening, the second
Saigon. He did not confess, however, as to his purpose in boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in
buying the opium. He did not say that it was his intention the Dutch East Indies. There the boat was surrounded by
to import the prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands. six vintas manned by twenty-four Moros all armed. The
No other evidence direct or indirect, to show that the Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat,
intention of the accused was to import illegally this opium too for themselves all of the cargo, attacked some of the
into the Philippine Islands, was introduced. men, and brutally violated two of the women by
methods too horrible to the described. All of the persons
HELD:In the Look Chaw case, the charge case the illegal on the Dutch boat, with the exception of the two young
possession and sale of opium — in the present case the women, were again placed on it and holes were made
charge as illegal importation of opium; in the Look Chaw in it, the idea that it would submerge, although as a
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
matter of fact, these people, after eleven days of Law; to wit, the French rule, according to which
hardship and privation, were succoured violating them, crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant
the Moros finally arrived at Maruro, a Dutch possession. vessels should not be prosecuted in the courts of
Two of the Moro marauder were Lol-lo, who also raped
the country within whose territorial jurisdiction they
one of the women, and Saraw. At Maruro the two
women were able to escape.
were committed, unless their commission affects
Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South the peace and security of the territory; and the
Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands. There they were English rule, based on the territorial principle and
arrested and were charged in the Court of First Instance followed in the United States, according to which,
of Sulu with the crime of piracy. A demurrer was crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are
interposed by counsel de officio for the Moros, based on in general triable in the courts of the country within
the grounds that the offense charged was not within the territory they were committed. Of this two rules, it is
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, nor of any court the last one that obtains in this jurisdiction, because
of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not
at present the theories and jurisprudence prevailing
constitute a public offense, under the laws in force in the
Philippine Islands. The proven facts are not disputed. All of
in the United States on this matter are authority in
the elements of the crime of piracy are present. Piracy is the Philippines which is now a territory of the United
robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without States.
lawful authority and done animo furandi, and in the spirit
and intention of universal hostility. In the cases of The Schooner Exchange vs.
M'Faddon and Others (7 Cranch [U. S.], 116), Chief
Held: It is evident that the provisions of the Penal Code Justice Marshall said:
now in force in the Philippines relating to piracy are not . . . When merchant vessels enter for the
inconsistent with the corresponding provisions in force in
purposes of trade, it would be obviously
the United States.
Under the construction above indicated, article 153 of
inconvenient and dangerous to society,
the Penal Code would read as follows: and would subject the laws to continual
The crime of piracy committed against citizens of infraction, and the government to
the United States and citizens of the Philippine degradation, if such individuals or
Islands, or the subjects of another nation not at merchants did not owe temporary and local
war with the United States, shall be punished with allegiance, and were not amenable to the
a penalty ranging from cadena temporal to jurisdiction of the country. . . .
cadena perpetua. In United States vs. Bull (15 Phil., 7), this court held:
If the crime be committed against nonbelligerent
. . . No court of the Philippine Islands had
subjects of another nation at war with the United
States, it shall be punished with the penalty of
jurisdiction over an offense or crime
presidio mayor. committed on the high seas or within the
We hold those provisions of the Penal code dealing with territorial waters of any other country, but
the crime of piracy, notably articles 153 and 154, to be when she came within three miles of a line
still in force in the Philippines. drawn from the headlands, which embrace
The crime falls under the first paragraph of article 153 of the entrance to Manila Bay, she was within
the Penal Code in relation to article 154. There are territorial waters, and a new set of principles
present at least two of the circumstances named in the became applicable. (Wheaton,
last cited article as authorizing either cadena perpetua or
International Law [Dana ed.], p. 255, note
death. The crime of piracy was accompanied by The
vote upon the sentence is unanimous with regard to the
105; Bonfils, Le Droit Int., secs. 490 et seq.;
propriety of the imposition of the death penalty upon the Latour, La Mer Ter., ch. 1.) The ship and her
defendant and appellant Lo-lo (the accused who raped crew were then subject to the jurisdiction of
on of the women), but is not unanimous with regard to the territorial sovereign subject to such
the court, Mr. Justice Romualdez, registers his limitations as have been conceded by that
nonconformity. In accordance with provisions of Act No. sovereignty through the proper political
2726, it results, therefore, that the judgment of the trial agency. . . .
court as to the defendant and appellant Saraw is It is true that in certain cases the comity of nations is
affirmed, and is reversed as to the defendant and
observed, as in Mali and Wildenhus vs. Keeper of
appellant Lol-lo,
the Common Jail (120 U.., 1), wherein it was said
People vs Wong Cheng that:
. . . The principle which governs the whole
appellee is accused of having illegally smoked matter is this: Disorder which disturb only the
opium, aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of peace of the ship or those on board are to
English nationality while said vessel was anchored in be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty
Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores of of the home of the ship, but those which
the city. disturb the public peace may be
suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders
ISSUE : whether the courts of the Philippines have punished by the proper authorities of the
jurisdiction over crime, like the one herein involved, local jurisdiction. It may not be easy at all
times to determine which of the two
committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in
jurisdictions a particular act of disorder
our jurisdiction waters. belongs. Much will undoubtedly depend on
the attending circumstances of the
HELD: There are two fundamental rules on this particular case, but all must concede that
particular matter in connection with International felonious homicide is a subject for the local
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

jurisdiction, and that if the proper authorities a breach of the public order here established,
are proceeding with the case in the regular because it causes such drug to produce its
way the consul has no right to interfere to pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously
prevent it. contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has in
Hence in United States vs. Look Chaw (18 Phil., 573), mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute.
this court held that: Moreover, as the Attorney-General aptly observes:
Although the mere possession of an article . . . The idea of a person smoking opium securely on
of prohibited use in the Philippine Islands, board a foreign vessel at anchor in the port of
aboard a foreign vessel in transit in any local Manila in open defiance of the local authorities,
port, does not, as a general rule, constitute who are impotent to lay hands on him, is simply
a crime triable by the courts of the Islands, subversive of public order. It requires no unusual
such vessels being considered as an stretch of the imagination to conceive that a
extension of its own nationality, the same foreign ship may come into the port of Manila and
rule does not apply when the article, the use allow or solicit Chinese residents to smoke opium on
of which is prohibited in the Islands, is board
landed from the vessels upon Philippine soil;
in such a case an open violation of the laws Miquiebas vs Commanding General
of the land is committed with respect to
which, as it is a violation of the penal law in Facts:
force at the place of the commission of the
crime, no court other than that established Gumabon Vs Director of prison
in the said place has jurisdiction of the INRE: Kay Villegas
offense, in the absence of an agreement
under an international treaty. post facto laws, the constitutional inhibition refers only to
As to whether the United States has ever consented criminal laws which are given retroactive effect.4
by treaty or otherwise to renouncing such While it is true that Sec. 18 penalizes a violation of any
provision of R.A. No. 6132 including Sec. 8(a) thereof, the
jurisdiction or a part thereof, we find nothing to this
penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the
effect so far as England is concerned, to which approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior
nation the ship where the crime in question was thereto. There is nothing in the law that remotely
committed belongs. Besides, in his work "Treaties, insinuates that Secs. 8(a) and 18, or any other provision
Conventions, etc.," volume 1, page 625, Malloy says thereof, shall apply to acts carried out prior to its
the following: approval. On the contrary, See. 23 directs that the entire
There shall be between the territories of the law shall be effective upon its approval. It was approved
United States of America, and all the on August 24, 1970.
territories of His Britanic Majesty in Europe, a
reciprocal liberty of commerce. The People Vs. Narvaez
inhabitants of the two countries,
respectively, shall have liberty freely and At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, 1968,
Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibanez together
securely to come with their ships and
with the two deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano
cargoes to all such places, ports and rivers, Rubia, were fencing the land of George Fleischer, father
in the territories aforesaid, to which other of deceased Davis Fleischer. The place was in the
foreigners are permitted to come, to enter boundary of the highway and the hacienda owned by
into the same, and to remain and reside in George Fleischer. This is located in the municipality of
any parts of the said territories, respectively; Maitum, South Cotabato. At the place of the fencing is
also to hire and occupy houses and the house and rice drier of appellant Mamerto Narvaez
warehouses for the purposes of their (pp. 179-182, t.s.n., Pieza II). At that time, appellant was
commerce; and, generally, the merchants taking his rest, but when he heard that the walls of his
house were being chiselled, he arose and there he saw
and traders of each nation respectively shall
the fencing going on. If the fencing would go on,
enjoy the most complete protection and appellant would be prevented from getting into his house
security for their commerce, but subject and the bodega of his ricemill. So he addressed the
always to the laws and statutes of the two group, saying 'Pare, if possible you stop destroying my
countries, respectively. (Art. 1, Commerce house and if possible we will talk it over what is good,'
and Navigation Convention.) addressing the deceased Rubia, who is appellant's
We have seen that the mere possession of opium compadre. The deceased Fleischer, however, answered:
aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' Appellant apparently
court not triable by or courts, because it being the lost his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot Fleischer,
hitting him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards the
primary object of our Opium Law to protect the
jeep, and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, appellant
inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous fired at Rubia, likewise hitting him
effects entailed by the use of this drug, its mere
possession in such a ship, without being used in our HELD:
territory, does not being about in the said territory People vs Ringor
those effects that our statute contemplates People Vs Pimentel
avoiding. Hence such a mere possession is not People vs Lacson2002
considered a disturbance of the public order. People Vs. Lacson 2003
But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even People Vs Lacson 2003
though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly Sierra Vs. People
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
Art. 4. Criminal liability — Criminal liability
Bernardo Vs People shall be incurred:
People Vs Pimentel 1. By any person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act done
David Vs GMA
be different from that which he
Pascual Vs intended.
2. By any person performing an act
II. Felonies which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the
Pp vs Gonzales inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or
FACTS: At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of
ineffectual means.
February 21, 1981, Bartolome Paja, the barangay captain
(Emphasis supplied.)
of Barangay Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo, was awakened from his
Thus, one of the means by which criminal liability is
sleep by the spouses Augusto and Fausta Gonzales.
incurred is through the commission of a felony. Article 3 of
Augusto informed Paja that his wife had just killed their
the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, provides
landlord, Lloyd Peñacerrada, and thus would like to
how felonies are committed.
surrender to the authorities. Seeing Augusto still holding
Art. 3. Definition — Acts and omissions
the knife allegedly used in the killing and Fausta with her
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
dress smeared with blood, Paja immediately ordered a
Felonies are committed not only by
nephew of his to take the spouses to the police
means of deceit (dolo) but also by
authorities at the Municipal Hall in Poblacion, Ajuy. As
means of fault (culpa).
instructed, Paja's nephew brought the Gonzales spouses,
There is deceit when the act is
who "backrode" on his motorcycle, to the municipal
performed with deliberate intent; and
building. 7 Upon reaching the Ajuy Police sub-station, the
there is fault when the wrongful act
couple informed the police on duty of the incident. That
results from imprudence, negligence,
same night, Patrolman Salvador Centeno of the Ajuy
lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Police Force and the Gonzales spouses went back to
(Emphasis supplied.)
Barangay Tipacla. Reaching Barangay Tipacla the group
Thus, the elements of felonies in general are: (1) there
went to Paja's residence where Fausta was made to stay,
must be an act or omission; (2) the act or omission must
while Paja, Patrolman Centeno, and Augusto proceeded
be punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and (3)
to the latter's residence at Sitio Nabitasan where the
the act is performed or the omission incurred by means of
killing incident allegedly occurred. 8 There they saw the
deceit or fault.
lifeless body of Lloyd Peñacerrada, clad only in an
Here, while the prosecution accuses, and the two lower
underwear, sprawled face down inside the
courts both found, that the appellant has committed a
bedroom. 9 The group stayed for about an hour during
felony in the killing of Lloyd Peñacerrada, forsooth there is
which time Patrolman Centeno inspected the scene and
paucity of proof as to what act was performed by the
started to make a rough sketch thereof and the
appellant. It has been said that "act," as used in Article 3
immediate surroundings. 10 The next day, February 22,
of the Revised Penal Code, must be understood as "any
1981, at around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, Patrolman
bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the
Centeno, accompanied by a photographer, went back
external world." 40 In this instance, there must therefore be
to the scene of the killing to conduct further
shown an "act" committed by the appellant which would
investigations. Fausta Gonzales, on the other hand, was
have inflicted any harm to the body of the victim that
brought back that same day by Barangay Captain Paja
produced his death.
to the police substation in Ajuy. When Patrolman
Yet, even Huntoria, as earlier emphasized, admitted quite
Centeno and his companion arrived at Sitio Nabitasan,
two members of the 321st P.C. Company stationed in candidly that he did not see who "stabbed" or who
Sara, Iloilo, who had likewise been informed of the "hacked" the victim. Thus this principal witness did not say,
incident, were already there conducting their own because he could not whether the appellant "hacked or
investigation. Patrolman Centeno continued with his "stabbed" victim. In fact, Huntoria does not know what
sketch; photographs of the scene were likewise taken. specific act was performed by the appellant. This lack of
The body of the victim was then brought to the Municipal specificity then makes the case fall short of the test laid
Hall of Ajuy for autopsy.
down by Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code previously
discussed. Furthermore, the fact that the victim sustained
only five fatal wounds out of the total of sixteen inflicted,
HELD: From his very testimony, Huntoria failed to impute as adverted to above, while there are six accused
a definite and specific act committed, or contributed, by
charged as principals, it follows to reason that one of the
the appellant in the killing of Lloyd Peñacerrada.
It also bears stressing that there is nothing in the findings six accused could not have caused or dealt a fatal
of the trial court and of the Court of Appeals which wound. And this one could as well be the appellant,
would categorize the criminal liability of the appellant as granted ex gratia argumenti that he took part in the
a principal by direct participation under Article 17, hacking and stabbing alleged by Huntoria. And why not
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Likewise, there is him? Is he not after all the oldest (already sexagenarian
nothing in the evidence for the prosecution that
at that time) and practically the father of the five
inculpates him by inducement, under paragraph 2 of the
same Article 17, or by indispensable cooperation under accused? And pursuing this argument to the limits of its
paragraph 3 thereof. What then was the direct part in the logic, it is possible, nay even probable, that only four, or
killing did the appellant perform to support the ultimate three, or two of the accused could have inflicted all the
punishment imposed by the Court of Appeals on him? five fatal wounds to the exclusion of two, three, or four of
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides how criminal them. And stretching the logic further, it is possible, nay
liability is incurred. probable, that all the fatal wounds, including even all the
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
non-fatal wounds, could have been dealt by Fausta in house where the fire started, and Romana Silvestre
rage against the assault on her womanhood and honor. leaving [Link]
For all the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion
People vs. Sylvestre and Atienza and so hold, that: (1) Mere passive presence at the scene
of another's crime, mere silence and failure to give the
FACTS: Romana Silvestre, wife of Domingo Joaquin by her alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do
second marriage, cohabited with her codefendant not constitute the cooperation required by article 14 of
Martin Atienza from the month of March, 1930, in the the Penal Code for complicity in the commission of the
barrio of Masocol, municipality of Paombong, Province of crime witnessed passively, or with regard to which one
Bulacan. On May 16, 1930, the complaining husband, has kept silent; and (2) he who desiring to burn the houses
Domingo Joaquin, filed with the justice of the peace for in a barrio, without knowing whether there are people in
that municipality, a sworn complaint for adultery, them or not, sets fire to one known to be vacant at the
supported by affidavits of Gerardo Cabigao and Castor time, which results in destroying the rest, commits the
de la Cruz (Exhibit B). On the same date, May 16, 1930, crime of arson, defined and penalized in article 550,
the said accused were arrested on a warrant issued by paragraph 2, Penal Code.
said justice of the peace. On the 20th of the month, they By virtue wherefore, the judgment appealed from is
were released on bail, each giving a personal bond of modified as follows: It is affirmed with reference to the
P6,000. Pending the preliminary investigation of the case, accused-appellant Martin Atienza, and reversed with
the two defendants begged the municipal president of reference to the accused-appellant Romana Silvestre.
Paombong, Francisco Suerte Felipe, to speak to the
complaint, Domingo Joaquin, urging him to withdraw the
complaint, the two accused binding themselves to US vs Apostol
discontinue cohabitation, and promising not to live again
in the barrio of Masocol; Martin Atienza voluntarily signed
FACTS: five individuals, among them being the accused
the promise (Exhibit A). The municipal president
transmitted the defendants' petition to the complaining herein, went to the house where Pedro Tabilisima,
husband, lending it his support. Domingo Joaquin Celestino Vergara, and Tranquilino Manipul were living,
acceded to it, and on May 20, 1930, filed a motion for and there inquired after some carabaos that had
the dismissal of his complaint. In consideration of this disappeared, and because these above-mentioned
petition, the justice of the peace of Paombong dismissed inmates answered that they knew nothing about the
the adultery case commenced against the accused,
matter, ordered them to leave the house, but as the
and cancelled the bonds given by them, with the costs
against the complainant. three men named above refused to do so, the accused,
The accused then left the barrio of Masocol and went to Catalino Apostol, set fire to the hut and the same was
live in that of Santo Niño, in the same municipality of burnt down.
Paombong.
About November 20, 1930, the accused Romana Silvestre
met her son by her former marriage, Nicolas de la Cruz, in Criminal intent as well as the will to commit a crime are
the barrio of Santo Niño, and under pretext of asking him always presumed to exist on the part of the person who
for some nipa leaves, followed him home to the village of
executes an act which the law punishes, unless the
Masocol, and remained there. The accused, Martin
Atienza, who had continued to cohabit with said contrary shall appear. (Art. 1, Penal Code.)
Romana Silvestre, followed her and lived in the home of
Nicolas de la Cruz. On the night of November 25, 1930,
while Nicolas de la Cruz and his wife, Antonia de la Cruz, US vs Catholico
were gathered together with the appellants herein after
supper, Martin Atienza told said couple to take their FACTS: Hon. Charles A. Low presiding, convicting the
furniture out of the house because he was going to set defendant of the crime of malversation of public funds
fire to it. Upon being asked by Nicolas and Antonia why and sentencing him to two months' imprisonment, to
he wanted to set fire to the house, he answered that that perpetual disqualification to hold public office or public
was the only way he could be revenged upon the employment of any kind, and to the payment of the
people of Masocol who, he said, had instigated the costs.
charge of adultery against him and his codefendant, HELD: To constitute a crime, the act must, except in
Romana Silvestre. As Martin Atienza was at that time certain crimes made such by statute, be accompanied
armed with a pistol, no one dared say anything to him, by a criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference
not even Romana Silvestre, who was about a meter to duty or to consequences, as, in law, is equivalent to
away from her codefendant. Alarmed at what Martin criminal intent. The maxim is, actus non facit reum, nisi
Atienza had said, the couple left the house at once to mens rea — a crime is not committed if the mind of the
communicate with the barrio lieutenant, Buenaventura person performing the act complained of be innocent.
Ania, as to what they had just heard Martin Atienza say; In the case at bar the appellant was engaged in
but they had hardly gone a hundred arms' length when exercising the functions of a court of justice of the peace.
they heard cries of "Fire! Fire!" Turning back they saw their He had jurisdictions of the actions before him. He had a
home in flames, and ran back to it; but seeing that the right and it was his duty to require the payment by each
fire had assumed considerable proportions, Antonia took appellant of P16, as well as the giving of a proper
refuge in the schoolhouse with her 1 year old babe in her undertaking with solvent sureties. While, in dismissing the
arms, while Nicolas went to the home of his parents-in- appeals and delivering the P256 to the plaintiff in the said
law, took up the furniture he had deposited there, and cases, he may have exceeded his authority as such court
carried it to the schoolhouse. The fire destroyed about and passed beyond the limits of his jurisdiction and
forty-eight houses. Tomas Santiago coming from the power, a question we do not now discuss or decide, it
barrio artesian well, and Tomas Gonzalez, teacher at the was, so far as appears from the record, at most a pure
barrio school of Masocol, and Felipe Clemente, an old mistake of judgment, an error of the mind operating upon
man 61 years of age, coming from their homes, to the a state of facts. Giving the act complained of the
house on fire, saw Martin Atienza going away from the signification most detrimental to the appellant, it,
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
nevertheless, was simply the result of the erroneous considering the immediacy of their obtention thereof
exercise of the judicial function, and not an intention to from the complainant personally. Ransom, in municipal
deprive any person of his property feloniously. His act had criminal law, is the money, price or consideration paid or
back of it the purpose to do justice to litigants and not to demanded for redemption of a captured person or
embezzle property. He acted that honest debts might be persons, a payment that releases from captivity. 17 It can
paid to those to whom they were legally and justly due, hardly be assumed that when complainant readily gave
and not to enrich himself or another the cash and checks demanded from her at gun point,
by criminalmisappropriation. It was an error committed by what she gave under the circumstances of this case can
a court, not an act done by a criminal-minded man. It be equated with or was in the concept of ransom in the
was a mistake, not a crime. law of kidnapping. These were merely amounts
It is true that a presumption of criminal intention may arise involuntarily surrendered by the victim upon the occasion
from proof of the commission of a criminal act; and the of a robbery or of which she was summarily divested by
general rule is that, if it is proved that the accused appellants. Accordingly, while we hold that the crime
committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed committed is robbery as defined in Article 293 of the
that the act was done with criminal intention, and that it Code, we, however, reject the theory of the trial court
is for the accused to rebut this presumption. But it must be that the same constitutes the highway robbery
borne in mind that the act from which such presumption contemplated in and punished by Presidential Decree
springs must be a criminal act. In the case before us the No. 532.
act was not criminal The lower court, in support of its theory, offers this
ratiocination:
People Vs Puno People vs Delim
Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento owns a bakeshop in
Araneta Avenue, Quezon City called Nika Cakes and
Pastries. She has a driver of her own just as her husband FACTS: Accused-appellants Marlon, Ronald and
does (Ibid., pp. 4-6). Leon, together with Manuel alias Bong and Robert, all
At around 5:00 in the afternoon of January 13, 1988, the surnamed Delim, were indicted for murder under an
accused Isabelo Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs. Information dated May 4, 1999 which reads:
Sarmiento's husband (who was then away in Davao That on or about January 23, 1999, in the evening at Brgy.
purportedly on account of local election there) arrived at Bila, Sison, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this
the bakeshop. He told Mrs. Socorro that her own driver Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed
Fred had to go to Pampanga on an emergency with short firearms barged-in and entered the house of
(something bad befell a child), so Isabelo will temporary Modesto Delim and once inside with intent to
(sic) take his place (Id., pp. 8-9). kill, treachery, evident premedidation (sic), conspiring
Mrs. Socorro's time to go home to Valle Verde in Pasig with one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
came and so she got into the Mercedes Benz of her and feloniously grab, hold, hogtie, gag with a piece of
husband with Isabelo on (sic) the wheel. After the car cloth, brought out and abduct Modesto Delim, accused
turned right in (sic) a corner of Araneta Avenue, it Leon Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the house
stopped. A young man, accused Enrique Amurao, guarded and prevented the wife and son of Modesto
boarded the car beside the driver (Id., pp. 9-10). Delim from helping the latter, thereafter with abuse of
Once inside, Enrique clambered on top of the back side superior strength stabbed and killed said Modesto Delim,
of the front seat and went onto where Ma. Socorro was to the damage and prejudice of his heirs.
seated at the rear. He poke (sic) a gun at her (Id., p. 10).
Isabelo, who earlier told her that Enrique is his nephew HELD: It bears stressing that in determining what
announced, "ma'm, you know, I want to get money from crime is charged in an information, the material
you." She said she has money inside her bag and they inculpatory facts recited therein describing the crime
may get it just so they will let her go. The bag contained charged in relation to the penal law violated are
P7,000.00 and was taken (Id., pp. 11-14). controlling. Where the specific intent of the malefactor is
Further on, the two told her they wanted P100,000.00 determinative of the crime charged such specific intent
more. Ma. Socorro agreed to give them that but would must be alleged in the information and proved by the
they drop her at her gas station in Kamagong St., Makati prosecution. A decade ago, this Court held in People v.
where the money is? The car went about the Sta. Mesa Isabelo Puno, et al.,[14] that for kidnapping to exist, there
area. Meanwhile, Ma. Socorro clutched her Rosary and must be indubitable proof that the actual specific intent
prayed. Enrique's gun was menacingly storing (sic) at her of the malefactor is to deprive the offended party of his
soft bread (sic) brown, perfumed neck. He said he is an liberty and not where such restraint of his freedom of
NPA and threatened her (Id., p.15). action is merely an incident in the commission of another
The car sped off north towards the North superhighway. offense primarily intended by the malefactor. This Court
There Isabelo, Beloy as he is called, asked Ma. Socorro to further held:
issue a check for P100,000.00. Ma. Socorro complied. She x x x. Hence, as early as United States vs. Ancheta, and
drafted 3 checks in denominations of two for P30 consistently reiterated thereafter, it has been held that
thousand and one for P40 thousand. Enrique ordered her the detention and/or forcible taking away of the victims
to swallow a pill but she refused (Id., pp. 17-23). by the accused, even for an appreciable period of time
Beloy turned the car around towards Metro Manila. Later, but for the primary and ultimate purpose of killing them,
he changed his mind and turned the car again towards holds the offenders liable for taking their lives or such
Pampanga. Ma. Socorro, according to her, jumped out other offenses they committed in relation thereto, but the
of the car then, crossed to the other side of the incidental deprivation of the victims liberty does not
superhighway and, after some vehicles ignored her, she constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention.[15]
was finally able to flag down a fish vendors van. Her dress If the primary and ultimate purpose of the accused
had blood because, according to Ma. Socorro, she fell is to kill the victim, the incidental deprivation of the
down on the ground and was injured when she jumped victims liberty does not constitute the felony of
out of the car. Her dress was torn too. kidnapping but is merely a preparatory act to the killing,
and hence, is merged into, or absorbed by, the killing of
HELD: Neither can we consider the amounts given to the victim.[16] The crime committed would either be
appellants as equivalent to or in the nature of ransom, homicide or murder.
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
What is primordial then is the specific intent of the and asked to buy a half-pack of Hope cigarettes. While
malefactors as disclosed in the information or criminal Cagampang was opening a pack of cigarettes, there
complaint that is determinative of what crime the was a sudden burst of gunfire and Cagampang instantly
accused is charged with--that of murder or kidnapping. fell on the floor, wounded and bleeding on the head. His
Philippine and American penal laws have a wife Victorina, upon seeing that her husband had been
common thread on the concept of specific intent as an shot, shouted her husband's name "Jul" Two persons, one
essential element of specific intent crimes. Specific intent of whom she later Identified as the accused, barged into
is used to describe a state of mind which exists where the interior of the store through the main door and
circumstances indicate that an offender actively desired demanded that she brings out her husband's firearm.
certain criminal consequences or objectively desired a "Igawas mo ang iyang armas!" ("You let out his firearm!")
specific result to follow his act or failure to act.[17]Specific they shouted. The accused fired two more shots at the
intent involves a state of the mind. It is the particular fallen victim. Terrified, Victorina hurried to get the
purpose or specific intention in doing the prohibited "maleta" (suitcase) where her husband's firearm was
act. Specific intent must be alleged in the Information hidden. She gave the suitcase to the accused who, after
and proved by the state in a prosecution for a crime inspecting its contents, took her husband's .38 caliber
requiring specific intent.[18] Kidnapping and murder are revolver, and fled.
specific intent crimes. In 1981, some months after the incident, Victorina was
Specific intent may be proved by direct evidence or summoned to the Buenavista police station by the Station
by circumstantial evidence. It may be inferred from the Commander Milan, where she saw and Identified the
circumstances of the actions of the accused as accused as the man who killed her husband.
established by the evidence on record.[19] The accused's defense was an alibi. He alleged that from
Specific intent is not synonymous with motive. Motive 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of December 30, 1980, he
generally is referred to as the reason which prompts the and his father had been in the house of Silverio Perol in
accused to engage in a particular criminal Barangay Camagong, Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, where
activity. Motive is not an essential element of a crime and they spent the night drinking over a slaughtered dog as
hence the prosecution need not prove the same. As a "pulutan," until 8:00 o'clock in the morning of the following
general rule, proof of motive for the commission of the day, December 31, 1980.
offense charged does not show guilt and absence of
proof of such motive does not establish the innocence of
accused for the crime charged such as murder.[20] The
HELD: Appellant's alleged lack of motive for killing
Cagampang was rejected by the trial court which
history of crimes shows that murders are generally
opined that the defendant's knowledge that
committed from motives comparatively trivial.[21] Crime is
Cagampang possessed a firearm was motive enough to
rarely rational. In murder, the specific intent is to kill the
kill him as killings perpetrated by members of the New
victim. In kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive the
People's Army for the sole purpose of acquiring more
victim of his/her liberty. If there is no motive for the crime,
arms and ammunition for their group are prevalent not
the accused cannot be convicted for kidnapping.[22] In
only in Agusan del Norte but elsewhere in the country. It is
kidnapping for ransom, the motive is ransom. Where
known as the NPA's "agaw armas" campaign. Moreover,
accused kills the victim to avenge the death of a loved
proof of motive is not essential when the culprit has been
one, the motive is revenge.
positively Identified (People vs. Tan, Jr., 145 SCRA 615).
In this case, it is evident on the face of the
The records further show that the accused and his
Information that the specific intent of the malefactors in
companion fled after killing Cagampang and taking his
barging into the house of Modesto was to kill him and
firearm. They hid in the mountains of Agusan del Norte.
that he was seized precisely to kill him with the attendant
Their flight was an implied admission of guilt.
modifying circumstances. The act of the malefactors of
abducting Modesto was merely incidental to their
primary purpose of killing him. Moreover, there is no People vs Hassan
specific allegation in the information that the primary
intent of the malefactors was to deprive Modesto of his FACTS: Usman Hassan was accused of murder for
freedom or liberty and that killing him was merely
stabbing to death Ramon Pichel, Jr. y Uro, 24,
incidental to kidnapping.[23] Irrefragably then, the crime
charged in the Information is Murder under Article 248 of
single, and a resident of Zamboanga City. 3 At the
the Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under time of his death on July 23,1981, the deceased
Article 268 thereof. was employed as manager of the sand and gravel
The threshold issue that now comes to fore is business of his father. On the other hand, Hassan
whether or not the prosecution mustered the requisite was an illiterate, 15-year-old pushcart cargador.
quantum of evidence to prove that Marlon, Ronald and
Leon are guilty of murder. HELD: And now as a penultimate observation, we
In criminal prosecutions, the prosecution is burdened could not help but note the total absence of
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond cavil of
motive ascribed to Usman for stabbing Ramon, a
doubt. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its
own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence
complete stranger to him. While, as a general rule,
of the accused. The proof against the accused must motive is not essential in order to arrive at a
survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not conviction, because, after all, motive is a state of
be permitted to sway judgment.[24] mind, 35 procedurally, however, for purposes of
complying with the requirement that a judgment of
People vs Temblor guilty must stem from proof beyond reasonable
doubt, the lack of motive on the part of the
accused plays a pivotal role towards his acquittal.
FACTS: 7:30 in the evening of December 30, 1980, while This is especially true where there is doubt as to the
Cagampang, his wife and their two children, were
conversing in the store adjacent to their house in
Identity of the culprit 36 as when 'the Identification is
Barangay Talo-ao, Buenavista, Province of Agusan del extremely tenuous," 37 as in this case.
Norte, the accused Vicente Temblor alias Ronald, arrived
 CRIM : OTAZA notes

We can not end this travail without adverting to the stainless knife on the left side of the boys body and with
cavalier manner in which the trial court disregarded the use of a plastic gallon container, the top portion of
the claimed young age of Usman Hassan. which was cut out, Eutiquia Carmen [caught] the blood
dripping from the left side of the boys body. Honey Fe
Considering that the age of the accused could
heard the moaning coming from the tortured boy. Much
exempt him from punishment or cause the later she saw Nonoy or Alexander Sibonga, Reynario
suspension of his sentence under Articles 12 and 80, Nuez, Delia Sibonga, Celedonia Fabie, and Eutiquia
respectively of the Revised Penal Code, if found Carmen carry the boy into the house.[4]
guilty, more meticulousness and care should have Eddie Luntayao, father of the victim, testified that he
been demanded of medical or scientific sources, has five children, the eldest of whom, Randy, was 13
and less reliance on the observation of the judge as years old at the time of the incident. On November 20,
had happened in this case. The preliminary findings 1996, Randy had a nervous breakdown which Eddie
of the dentist that the accused could be anywhere thought was due to Randy having to skip meals
whenever he took the boy with him to the
between fourteen to twenty one years, despite the
farm. According to Eddie, his son started talking to himself
difficulty of arriving at an accurate determination and laughing. On January 26, 1997, upon the suggestion
due to Hassan's mouth condition, would have of accused-appellant Reynario Nuez, Eddie and his wife
placed the trial judge on notice that there is the Perlita and their three children (Randy, Jesrel, 7, and
probability that the accused might be exempted Lesyl, 1) went with accused-appellant Nuez to
from criminal liability due to his young age. All the Cebu. They arrived in Cebu at around 1 oclock in the
foregoing indicates that the accused had not been afternoon of the same day and spent the night in Nuezs
granted the concern and compassion with which house in Tangke, Talisay.
the poor, marginalized, and disadvantaged so The following day, they went to the house of
accused-appellant Carmen in Quiot, Pardo,[5] where all
critically deserve. It is when judicial and police
of the accused-appellants were present. Eddie talked to
processes and procedures are thoughtlessly and accused-appellant Carmen regarding his sons
haphazardly observed that cries of the law and condition. He was told that the boy was possessed by a
justice being denied the poor are heard. In any bad spirit, which accused-appellant Carmen said she
event, all this would not be of any moment now, could exorcise. She warned, however, that as the spirit
considering the acquittal of the accused herein might transfer to Eddie, it was best to conduct the
ordered. healing prayer without him. Accused-appellants then led
Randy out of the house, while Eddie and his wife and two
daughters were locked inside a room in the house.[6]
People Vs Carmen
After a while, Eddie heard his son twice shout Ma,
tabang! (Mother, help!). Eddie tried to go out of the room
FACTS: At around 2 oclock in the afternoon of to find out what was happening to his son, but the door
January 27, 1997, Honey Fe Abella, 10, and her friend was locked. After about an hour, the Luntayaos were
Frances Claire Rivera, 7, were playing takyan in front of transferred to the prayer room which was located near
the house of one Bebing Lastimoso in Quiot, Pardo, Cebu the main door of the house.[7]
City, when suddenly they heard a child shout, Tabang A few hours later, at around 5 oclock in the
ma! (Help mother!). The cry came from the direction of afternoon, accused-appellants carried Randy into the
the house of accused-appellant Carmen, who is also prayer room and placed him on the altar. Eddie was
known in their neighborhood as Mother Perpetuala. The shocked by what he saw. Randys face was bluish and
two children ran towards Mother Perpetualas contused, while his tongue was sticking out of his
house.[3] What Honey Fe saw on which she testified in mouth. It was clear to Eddie that his son was already
court, is summarized in the decision of the trial court, to dead. He wanted to see his sons body, but he was
wit: stopped from doing so by accused-appellant Eutiquia
While there[,] she saw a boy, whose name . . . she [later] Carmen who told him not to go near his son because the
came to know as one Randy Luntayao, . . . being latter would be resurrected at 7 oclock that evening.[8]
immersed head first in a drum of water. Accused After 7 oclock that evening, accused-appellant
Alexander Sibonga was holding the waist of the body Carmen asked a member of her group to call the funeral
while accused Reynario Nuez held the hands of the boy parlor and bring a coffin as the child was already dead. It
at the back. Accused Eutiquia Carmen, Delia Sibonga, was arranged that the body would be transferred to the
and Celedonia Fabie were pushing down the boys head house of accused-appellant Nuez. Thus, that night, the
into the water. She heard the boy shouting Ma, help for Luntayao family, accompanied by accused-appellant
two times. Later, she saw accused Reynario or Rey Nuez Nuez, took Randys body to Nunezs house in Tangke,
tie the boy on the bench with a green rope as big as her Talisay. The following day, January 28, 1997, accused-
little finger. . . . After that Eutiquia Carmen poured [water appellant Nuez told Eddie to go with him to the Talisay
from] a plastic container (galon) . . . into the mouth of the Municipal Health Office to report Randys death and told
boy. Each time the boy struggled to raise his head, him to keep quiet or they might not be able to get the
accused Alexander Sibonga banged the boys head necessary papers for his sons burial. Nuez took care of
against the bench [to] which the boy was tied [Link] securing the death certificate which Eddie signed.[9]
even heard the banging sound everytime the boys head At around 3 oclock in the afternoon of January 28,
hit the bench. For about five times she heard 1997, accused-appellant Carmen went to Tangke, Talisay
it. According to this witness after forcing the boy to drink to ensure that the body was buried. Eddie and his wife
water, Eutiquia Carmen and accused Celedonia Fabie told her that they preferred to bring their sons body with
alias Isabel Fabie took turns in pounding the boys chest them to Sikatuna, Isabela, Negros Occidental but they
with their clenched fists. All the time Rey Nuez held down were told by accused-appellant Carmen that this was
the boys feet to the bench. She also witnessed . . . not possible as she and the other accused-appellants
Celedonia Fabie dropped her weight, buttocks first, on might be arrested. That same afternoon, Randy Luntayao
the body of the boy. Later on, Eutiquia Carmen ordered was buried in Tangke, Talisay.[10]
Delia or Deding Sibonga to get a knife from the After Eddie and his family had returned home to
kitchen. Eutiquia Carmen then slowly plunged the Negros Occidental, Eddie sought assistance from the
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
Bombo Radyo station in Bacolod City which referred him liable for all the direct and natural consequences of their
to the regional office of the National Bureau of unlawful act, even if the ultimate result had not been
Investigation (NBI) in the city. On February 3, 1997, Eddie intended.[28]
filed a complaint for murder against accused-appellant Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellants allege that
Nuez and the other members of his group.[11] He also the trial court erred in convicting them of murder.[29]
asked for the exhumation and autopsy of the remains of First. It would appear that accused-appellants are
his son.[12] As the incident took place in Cebu, his members of a cult and that the bizarre ritual performed
complaint was referred to the NBI office in Cebu City. over the victim was consented to by the victims
Modesto Cajita, head of NBI, Region VII (Cebu), took parents. With the permission of the victims parents,
over the investigation of the case. He testified that he accused-appellant Carmen, together with the other
met with Eddie Luntayao and supervised the exhumation accused-appellants, proceeded to subject the boy to a
and autopsy of the body of Randy Luntayao. [13] Cajita treatment calculated to drive the bad spirit from the boys
testified that he also met with accused-appellant body. Unfortunately, the strange procedure resulted in
Carmen and after admitting that she and the other the death of the boy. Thus, accused-appellants had no
accused-appellants conducted a pray-over healing criminal intent to kill the boy. Their liability arises from their
session on the victim on January 27, 1997, accused- reckless imprudence because they ought that to know
appellant Carmen refused to give any further their actions would not bring about the cure. They are,
statement. Cajita noticed a wooden bench in the therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in
kitchen of Carmens house, which, with Carmens homicide and not of murder.
permission, he took with him to the NBI office for Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
examination. Cajita admitted he did not know the results states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but
of the examination.[14] without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
Dr. Ronaldo B. Mendez, the NBI medico-legal officer material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
who conducted the autopsy on Randy Luntayao, precaution on the part of the person performing such
testified that he, the victims father, and some NBI agents, act. Compared to intentional felonies, such as homicide
exhumed the victims body on February 20, 1997 at or murder, what takes the place of the element of malice
Tangke Catholic Cemetery in the Tangke, Talisay, or intention to commit a wrong or evil is the failure of the
Cebu. He conducted the autopsy on the same day and offender to take precautions due to lack of skill taking
later submitted the following report (Exhs. E and F):[15] into account his employment, or occupation, degree of
In finding accused-appellants guilty of murder, the intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances
trial court stated: regarding persons, time, and place.
Killing a person with treachery is murder even if there is no The elements of reckless imprudence are apparent
intent to kill. When death occurs, it is presumed to be the in the acts done by accused-appellants which, because
natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted. Since of their lack of medical skill in treating the victim of his
the defendant did commit the crime with treachery, he is alleged ailment, resulted in the latters death. As already
guilty of murder, because of the voluntary presence of stated, accused-appellants, none of whom is a medical
the qualifying circumstance of treachery (P v. Cagoco, practitioner, belong to a religious group, known as the
58 Phil. 530). All the accused in the case at bar had Missionaries of Our Lady of Fatima, which is engaged in
contributed different acts in mercilessly inflicting injuries to faith healing.
the victim. For having immersed the head of the victim In United States v. Divino,[30] the accused, who was
into the barrel of water, all the herein accused should be not a licensed physician, in an attempt to cure the victim
held responsible for all the consequences even if the of ulcers in her feet, wrapped a piece of clothing which
result be different from that which was intended (Art. 4, had been soaked in petroleum around the victims feet
par. 1, RPC). It is pointed out that in P. v. Cagoco, 58 Phil. and then lighted the clothing, thereby causing injuries to
524, even if there was no intent to kill[,] in inflicting the victim. The Court held the accused liable for reckless
physical injuries with treachery, the accused in that case imprudence resulting in physical injuries. It was noted that
was convicted of murder. In murder qualified by the accused had no intention to cause an evil but rather
treachery, it is required only that there is treachery in the to remedy the victims ailment.
attack, and this is true even if the offender has no intent In another case, People v. Vda. de Golez,[31] the
to kill the person assaulted. Under the guise of a ritual or Court ruled that the proper charge to file against a non-
treatment, the accused should not have intentionally medical practitioner, who had treated the victim despite
immersed upside down the head of Randy Luntayao into the fact that she did not possess the necessary technical
a barrel of water; banged his head against the bench; knowledge or skill to do so and caused the latters death,
pounded his chest with fists, or plunged a kitchen knife to was homicide through reckless imprudence.
his side so that blood would come out for these acts The trial courts reliance on the rule that criminal
would surely cause death to the victim. . . . intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for act is untenable because such presumption only holds in
all the consequences which may naturally and logically the absence of proof to the contrary.[32]The facts of the
result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or case indubitably show the absence of intent to kill on the
not. Ordinarily, when a person commits a felony with part of the accused-appellants. Indeed, the trial courts
malice, he intends the consequences of his felonious findings can be sustained only if the circumstances of the
act. In view of paragraph 1 of Art. 4, a person committing case are ignored and the Court limits itself to the time
a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of when accused-appellants undertook their unauthorized
his felonious acts are not intended by him. . . . treatment of the victim. Obviously, such an evaluation of
.... the case cannot be allowed.
Intent is presumed from the commission of an unlawful Consequently, treachery cannot be appreciated for
act. The presumption of criminal intent may arise from the in the absence of intent to kill, there is no treachery or the
proof of the criminal act and it is for the accused to rebut deliberate employment of means, methods, and manner
this presumption. In the case at bar, there is enough of execution to ensure the safety of the accused from the
evidence that the accused confederated with one defensive or retaliatory attacks coming from the
another in inflicting physical harm to the victim (an illegal victim.[33] Viewed in this light, the acts which the trial court
act). These acts were intentional, and the wrong done saw as manifestations of treachery in fact relate to efforts
resulted in the death of their victim. Hence, they are
 CRIM : OTAZA notes
by accused-appellants to restrain Randy Luntayao so was maintaining a mistress and had been taking all the
that they can effect the cure on him. food from their house. Upon reaching the NAWASA
Accused-appellants contend that the failure of the Building, she knocked at the door. Immediately, after the
prosecution to present the testimony of Frances Claire door was opened, Elias Day shouted at the appellant
Rivera as well as the knife used in stabbing Randy and castigated her saying, "PUTA BUGUIAN LAKAW
Luntayao puts in doubt the prosecutions evidence. We GALIGAON" (t.s.n., p. 14, Id). The appellant tired of
do not think so. The presentation of the knife in evidence hearing the victim, then got the bottle of gasoline and
is not indispensable.[34] poured the contents thereof on the face of the victim
Finally, accused-appellants make much of the fact (t.s.n., p. 14, Id). Then, she got a matchbox and set the
that although the case was tried under Judge Renato C. polo shirt of the victim a flame.
Dacudao, the decision was rendered by Judge Galicano
Arriesgado who took over the case after the prosecution HELD: It concluded, and rightly so, that with pneumonia
and the defense had rested their cases.[35] However, the having developed, the burns became as to the cause of
fact that the judge who wrote the decision did not hear death, merely contributory. We agree.
the testimonies of the witnesses does not make him less Appellant's case falls squarely under Art, 4, Par. 1 of the
competent to render a decision, since his ruling is based Revised Penal Code which provides:
on the records of the case and the transcript of Art. 4. Criminal Liability. — Criminal
stenographic notes of the testimonies of the witnesses.[36] liability shall be incurred.
Second. The question now is whether accused- 1. By any person committing a felony
appellants can be held liable for reckless imprudence (delito) although the wrongful act done
resulting in homicide, considering that the information be different from that which he
charges them with murder. We hold that they can. intended.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, the essential requisites of which are: (a) that an
Branch 14, Cebu City, is AFFIRMED with the intentional felony has been committed; and (b) that the
MODIFICATION that accused-appellants are hereby wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural
declared guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in and logical consequence of the felony committed by the
homicide. offender. 11
The reason for the rule as spelled out in the earlier cases
People Vs Brobst of PP vs. Moldes, 61 Phil. 1, 3 & 4; and PP vs. Quianzon, 62
Phil. 162, citing 13 RCL 748, 751 is as follows —
FACTS: The defendant, James L. Brobst, and another One who inflicts injury on another is deemed guilty of
American named Mann, were engaged in work on a homicide if the injury contributes immediately or
mine located in the municipality of Masbate, where they immediately to the death of such other. The fact that
gave employment to a number of native laborers. Mann other causes contribute to the death does not relieve the
discharged one of these laborers named Simeon actor of responsibility. He would still be liable "even if the
Saldivar, warned him not to come back on the premises, deceased might litem recovered if he had taken proper
and told the defendant not to employ him again, care of himself, or submitted to surgical operation, or that
because he was a thief and a disturbing element with the unskilled or improper treatment aggravated the wound
other laborers. A few days afterwards, some time after 6 and contributed to the death, or that death was men."
o’clock on the morning of the 10th of July, 1907, Saldivar, caused by a surgical operation rendered necessary by
in company with three or four others, went to the mine to the condition of the wound. The principle on which this
look for work. The defendant, who at the time was rule is founded is one of universal application. It lies at the
dressing himself inside his tent, which was erected on the foundation of criminal jurisprudence. It is that every
mining property, when he caught sight of Saldivar, person is held to contemplate and be responsible for the
ordered him off the place, ex-claiming in bad Spanish, natural consequences of his own acts. If a person inflicts
"Sigue, Vamus!" (Begone). Saldivar made no move to a wound with a deadly weapon in a manner as to put life
leave, and although the order was repeated, merely in jeopardy, and death follows as a consequence of this
smiled or grinned at the defendant, where-upon the felonious and wicked act, it does not alter its nature or
latter became enraged, took three steps toward Saldivar, diminish its criminality to prove that other causes
and struck him a powerful blow with his closed fist on the cooperated in producing the fatal result. Neglect of the
left side, just over the lower ribs, at the point where the wound or its unskilled and improper treatment which are
handle of Saldivar’s bolo lay against the belt from which themselves consequences of the criminal act, must in law
it was suspended. On being struck, Saldivar threw up his be deemed to litem been among those which are in
hands, staggered (dio vueltas — spun around helplessly) contemplation of the guilty party and for which he must
and without saying a word, went away in the direction of be responsible The rule has its foundation on a wise and
his sister’s house, which stood about 200 yards (100 practical policy. A different doctrine would tend to give
brazas) away, and about 100 feet up the side of a hill. He immunity to crime and to take away from human life a
died as he reached the door of the house and was salutary and essential safeguard. Amidst the conflicting
buried some two or three days later. theories of medical men and the uncertainties attendant
upon the treatment of bodily ailments and injuries it
HELD: would be easy in many cases of homicide to raise a
doubt as to the immediate cause of death, and thereby
open a wide door by which persons guilty of the highest
Mananquil Vs. People
crime might escape conviction and punishment.

FACTS: On March 6, 1965, at about 11:00 o'clock in the

evening, appellant went to the NAWASA Building at
Pasay City where her husband was then working as a
security guard. She had just purchased ten (10) centavo
worth of gasoline from the Esso Gasoline Station at Taft
Avenue which she placed in a coffee bottle (t.s.n., p. 13,
January 13, 1969). She was angry of her husband, Elias
Day y Pablo, because the latter had burned her clothing,