72. G.R. Nos.

103501-03 February 17, 1997 appealing the Sandiganbayan decision dated 12 October 19990 and the Resolution of 20
December 1991.
LUIS A. TABUENA, petitioner,
vs. Issue:
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, and THE PEOPLE OF THE Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime of malversation.
PHILIPPINES, [Link]:
RULING:
Then President Marcos instructed Luis Tabuena over the phone to pay directly to the Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are acquitted of the crime of malversation. Tabuena
president’s office and in cash what the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) owes acted in strict compliance with the MARCOS Memorandum. The order emanated from
the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC), pursuant to the 7 January the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself, the highest
1985 memorandum of then Minister Trade and Industry Roberto Ongpin. Tabuena official of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on
agreed. About a week later, Tabuena received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, then private its face, the memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an
secretary of Marcos, a Presidential Memorandum dated 8 January 1986 reiterating in obligation illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution constrains one
black and white such verbal instruction. In obedience to President Marcos’ verbal to act swiftly without question. Records show that the Sandiganbayan actively took part
instruction and memorandum, Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo G. Dabao and Adolfo in the questioning of a defense witness and of the accused themselves. The questions of
Peralta, caused the release of P55 Million of MIAA funds by means of three (3) the court were in the nature of cross examinations characteristic of confrontation, probing
withdrawals. On 10 January 1986, the first withdrawal was made for P25 Million, and insinuation. Tabuena and Peralta may not have raised the issue as an error, there is
following a letter of even date signed by Tabuena and Dabao requesting the PNB nevertheless no impediment for the court to consider such matter as additional basis for
extension office at the MIAA the depository branch of MIAA funds, to issue a manager’s a reversal since the settled doctrine is that an appeal throws the whole case open to
check for said amount payable to Tabuena. The check was encashed, however, at the review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court to correct such errors as may be
PNB Villamor Branch. Dabao and the cashier of the PNB Villamor branch counted the found in the judgment appealed from whether they are made the subject of assignments
money after which, Tabuena took delivery thereof. The P25 Million in cash was delivered of error or not.
on the same day to the office of Mrs. Gimenez. Mrs. Gimenez did not issue any receipt
for the money received. Similar circumstances surrounded the second 73. G.R. No. L-37673 People v. Taneo
withdrawal/encashment and delivery of another P25 Million, made on 16 January 1986.
The third and last withdrawal was made on 31 January 1986 for P5 Million. Peralta was FACTS:
Tabuena’s co-signatory to the letter- request for a manager’s check for this amount.
Peralta accompanied Tabuena to the PNB Villamor branch as Tabuena requested him to Potenciano Tadeo lived with his wife in his parent’s house. In January 1932, a fiesta was
do the counting of the P5 Million. After the counting, the money was loaded in the trunk being celebrated, and visitors were entertained in the house including Fred Tanner and
of Tabuena’s car. Peralta did not go with Tabuena to deliver the money to Mrs. Gimenez’ Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano Taneo, went to sleep and while sleeping,
office. It was only upon delivery of the P5 Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a receipt for he suddenly got up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to
all the amounts she received from Tabuena. The receipt was dated January 30,1986. stop him, he wounded her in the abdomen. Taneo attacked Tanner and Malinao and
Tabuena and Peralta were charged for malversation of funds, while Dabao remained at tried to attack his father after which he wounded himself. Potenciano’s wife who was then
large. One of the justices of the Sandiganbayan actively took part in the questioning of a seven months pregnant, died five days later as a result of her wound, and also the foetus
defense witness and of the accused themselves; the volume of the questions asked were which was asphyxiated in the mother’s womb.
more the combined questions of the counsels. On 12 October 1990, they were found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Tabuena and Peralta filed separate petitions for review, Taneo was charged with parricide. From this sentence, the defendant appealed.
It appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime the Facts:
defendant had a quarrel over a glass of “tuba” with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Celestino Bonoan is charged with the crime of murder for stabbing Carlos Guison with a
Abadilla. On the day of the commission of the crime, it was noted that the defendant was knife, which caused his death three days afterwards. An arraignment was then called,
sad and weak, and early in the afternoon he had severe stomachache. The defendant but the defense objected on the ground that the defendant was mentally deranged and
states that when he fell asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a was at the time confined at the Psychopatic Hospital. After several months of summons
bolo while Abadilla held his feet, by reason of which he got up; and as it seemed to him for doctors, production of the defendant’s complete record of mental condition from the
hospital and defendant’s admission to the hospital for personal observation, assistant
that his enemies were inviting him to come down, he armed himself with a bolo and left
alienist Dr. Jose Fernandez finally reported to the court that Bonoan may be discharged
the room. At the door, he met his wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded.
for being a “recovered case”. After trial, the lower court found Bonoan guilty and
Then he fancied seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation wounded himself. As sentenced him to life imprisonment.
his enemies seemed to multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way.
The defense now appeals, claiming the lower court made errors in finding Bonoan
ISSUE:
suffered dementia only occasionally and intermittently, did not show any kind of
Whether or not Taneo is criminally liable. abnormality, that the defense did not establish the defendant’s insanity and finding
accused guilty
RULING:
Issue:
No. The Court concluded that the defendant acted while in a dream. His acts were not W/N the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty.
voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability.
Held:
The Court took the special circumstances of the case, in which the victim was the Yes. The Court finds the accused demented at the time he perpetrated the crime, which
defendant’s own wife whom he dearly loved, and taking into consideration the fact that consequently exempts him from criminal liability, and orders for his confinement in San
the defendant tried to attack also his father, in whose house and under whose protection Lazaro Hospital or other hospital for the insane. This ruling was based on the
he lived, besides attacking Tanner and Malinao, his guests, whom he himself invited as uncontradicted evidence that accused was confined in the insane department of San
may be inferred from the evidence presented, the Court found not only a lack of motive Lazaro Hospital and diagnosed with dementia praecox long before the commission of the
for the defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of, but also motives for not offense and recurrence of ailments were not entirely lacking of scientific foundation
committing said acts. Persons with dementia praecox are disqualified from legal responsibility because they
have no control of their acts; dementia praecox symptoms similar to manic depression
Doctor Serafica, an expert witness in this case, is also of the same opinion. The doctor psychosis. Accused had an insomnia attack, a symptom leading to dementia praecox,
stated that considering the circumstances of the case, the defendant acted while in a four days prior to act according to Dr. Francisco. Accused was sent the Psychopatic
dream, under the influence of a hallucination and not in his right mind. hospital on the same day of crime and arrest, indicating the police’s doubt of his mental
normalcy. Defendant suffered from manic depressive psychosis according to Dr. Joson.
The Court found that the defendant is not criminally liable for the offense with which he is
charged, and it is ordered that he be confined in the Government insane asylum, whence
he shall not be released until the director thereof finds that his liberty would no longer The accused is exempt from criminal liability. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower
constitute a menace. court is hereby reversed, and the defendant-appellant acquitted

74. L-45130 – People v. Bonoan 75. G.R. No. 89420. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROSALINO
DUNGO, Accused-Appellant.
Facts: carrying an envelope where the fatal weapon was hidden. This is an evidence that the
accused consciously adopted a pattern to kill the victim. The suddenness of the attack
The accused ROSALINO DUNGO, armed with a knife, with deliberate intent to kill, by classified the killing as treacherous and therefore murder. After the accused ran away
means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully from the scene of the incident after he stabbed the victim several times, he was
and feloniously attack, assault and stab Mrs. Belen Macalino Sigua with a knife hitting apprehended and arrested in Metro Manila, an indication that he took flight in order to
her in the chest, stomach, throat and other parts of the body thereby inflicting upon her evade arrest. This to the mind of the Court is another indicia that he was conscious and
fatal wounds which directly caused the death of said Belen Macalino Sigua. knew the consequences of his acts in stabbing the victim"
The accused, in defense of himself, tried to show that he was insane at the time of the Generally, in criminal cases, every doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. However, in
commission of the offense. The accused presented the testimony of Andrea Dungo, the the defense of insanity, doubt as to the fact of insanity should be resolved in favor of
wife of the accused. According to her she noticed her husband to be in deep thought sanity. The burden of proving the affirmative allegation of insanity rests on the defense.
always; maltreating their children when he was not used to it before; demanding another
payment from his customers even if the latter had paid; chasing any child when their The State should guard against sane murderer escaping punishment through a general
children quarreled with other children. There were also times when her husband would plea of insanity.
inform her that his feet and head were on fire when in truth they were not.  The National
Center for Mental Health testified, they concluded that Rosalino Dungo was psychotic or 76. G.R. No. L-54135 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
insane long before, during and after the commission of the alleged crime and that his vs.
insanity was classified under organic mental disorder secondary to cerebro-vascular POLICARPIO RAFANAN, JR., defendant-appellant
accident or stroke. FACTS:
ISSUE: The accused Policarpio Rafanan and his family lived with his mother in the same house
Whether or not the accused was insane during the commission of the crime charged. at Barangay San Nicholas, Villasis, Pangasinan. Policarpio was then married and had
RULING: two children.

No. One who suffers from insanity at the time of the commission of the offense charged The accused called the complainant to help him close the door of the store and as the
cannot in a legal sense entertain a criminal intent and cannot be held criminally latter complied and went near him, he suddenly pulled the complainant inside the store
responsible for his acts. His unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or a mental and said, "Come, let us have sexual intercourse," to which Estelita replied, "I do not like,"
defect. In order that insanity may relieve a person from criminal responsibility, it is and struggled to free herself and cried. The accused held a bolo measuring 1-1/2 feet
necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that including the handle which he pointed to the throat of the complainant threatening her
is, that the accused be deprived of cognition; that he acts without the least discernment; with said bolo should she resist. Then, he forced her to lie down on a bamboo bed,
that there be complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will. removed her pants and after unfastening the zipper of his own pants, went on top of
complainant and succeeded having carnal knowledge of her inspite of her resistance and
It is difficult to distinguish sanity from insanity. There is no definite defined border struggle. After the sexual intercourse, the accused cautioned the complainant not to
between sanity and insanity. report the matter to her mother or anybody in the house, otherwise he would kill her.

"The Court is convinced that the accused at the time that he perpetrated the act was Because of fear, the complainant did not immediately report the matter and did not leave
same. The evidence shows that the accused, at the time he perpetrated the act was the house of the accused that same evening. In fact, she slept in the house of the
accused that evening. At the arraignment, accused entered a plea of not guilty. The case PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
then proceeded to trial and in due course of time, the trial court, as already noted, vs.
convicted the accused. FERNANDO MADARANG y MAGNO, accused-appellant.

The principal submission of appellant is that he was suffering from a metal aberration FACTS:
characterized as schizophrenia when he inflicted his violent intentions upon Estelita. At
the urging of his counsel, the trial court suspended the trial and ordered appellant Accused FERNANDO MADARANG y MAGNO was charged with parricide for killing his
confined at the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong for observation and wife LILIA MADARANG. The accused proceeded to adduce evidence on his claim of
treatment. The report then concluded, "In view of the foregoing examinations and insanity at the time he committed the offense.
observations, Policarpio Rafanan, Jr. y Gambawa is found suffering from a mental
The accused was found to be suffering from insanity or psychosis, classified as
disorder called schizophrenia”
schizophrenia. Dr. Tibayan explained that schizophrenia is a mental abnormality
ISSUE: characterized by impaired fundamental reasoning, delusions, hallucinations,
W/N the accused defense of insanity of the accused shall prosper. preoccupation with one's thoughts, poor self-care, insight and judgment, and impaired
cognitive, social and occupational functions. The patient may be incapable of
RULING: distinguishing right from wrong or know what he is doing. He may become destructive or
The Court reject the insanity defense of appellant Rafanan. have a propensity to attack any one if his hallucinations were violent. A schizophrenic,
however, may have lucid intervals during which he may be able to distinguish right
The law presumes every man to be sane. A person accused of a crime has the burden of from wrong.  Dr. Tibayan opined that the accused's mental illness may have begun even
proving his affirmative allegation of insanity. Appellant failed to present clear and prior to his admission to the NCMH and it was highly possible that he was already
convincing evidence regarding his state of mind immediately before and during the suffering from schizophrenia prior to his commission of the crime.
sexual assault on Estelita. It has been held that inquiry into the mental state of the
accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the very moment the act is ISSUE:
committed. Whether or not the accused be entitled in exempting circumstances.
Appellant rested his case on the testimonies of the two (2) physicians  which, however, RULING:
did not purport to characterize his mental condition during that critical period of time.
They did not specifically relate to circumstances occurring on or immediately before the The appellant was diagnosed to be suffering from schizophrenia when he was committed
day of the rape.  to the NCMH months after he killed his wife. None of the witnesses presented by the
appellant declared that he exhibited any of the myriad symptoms associated with
The Court ruled that schizophrenic reaction, although not exempting ‘because it does not schizophrenia immediately before or simultaneous with the stabbing incident. To be sure,
completely deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts, may be considered as the record is bereft of even a single account of abnormal or bizarre behavior on the part
a mitigating circumstance as an illness which diminishes the exercise of the offender’s of the appellant prior to that fateful day. Although Dr. Tibayan opined that there is a high
will-power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. possibility that the appellant was already suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the
77. G.R. No. 132319 May 12, 2000 stabbing, he also declared that schizophrenics have lucid intervals during which they
are capable of distinguishing right from wrong. Hence the importance of adducing proof
to show that the appellant was not in his lucid interval at the time he committed the
offense. Although the appellant was diagnosed with schizophrenia a few months after the ISSUE:
stabbing incident, the evidence of insanity after the fact of commission of the offense W/N the accused is criminally liable.
may be accorded weight only if there is also proof of abnormal behavior immediately
before or simultaneous to the commission of the crime. Evidence on the alleged insanity RULING:
must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its
execution. YES. At the outset, it bears noting that appellant did not present any evidence to
contravene the allegation that he killed his wife. Clear and undisputed are the RTC
The evidence adduced by the defense insufficient to establish his claim of insanity at the findings on the identity of the culprit and the commission of the complex crime of
time he killed his wife.  parricide with unintentional abortion. Appellant, however, interposes the defense of
insanity to absolve himself of criminal liability.
78. G.R. No. 138453 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MELECIO
ROBIÑOS y DOMINGO Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely deprived of reason or
discernment and freedom of will at the time of the commission of the crime. A defendant
FACTS:
in a criminal case who relies on the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of
Fifteen-year old Lorenzo Robiños heard his parents, appellant Melecio Robiños and the establishing the fact of insanity at the very moment when the crime was committed. Only
victim Lorenza Robiños, who were at the sala, quarrelling. He saw appellant, with a when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the
crime should the exempting circumstance of insanity be considered.
double-bladed knife, stab Lorenza on the right shoulder. Blood gushed from where
Lorenza was hit and she fell down on the floor. Upon witnessing appellant's attack on his
Clearly, the assault of appellant on his wife was not undertaken without his awareness of
mother, Lorenzo immediately left their house and ran to his grandmother's house where
the atrocity of his act.
he reported the incident. The police told appellant to come out of the house. When
appellant failed to come out, the police, with the help of barangay officials, detached the
Similarly, an evaluation of the testimonies of the defense witnesses hardly supports his
bamboo wall from the part of the house where blood was dripping. The removal of the
claim of insanity. The bulk of the defense evidence points to his allegedly unsound
wall exposed that section of the house where SPO1 Lugo saw appellant embracing [his] mental condition after the commission of the crime. Except for appellant's 19-year-old
wife. Appellant and Lorenza were lying on the floor. Appellant, who was lying on his side son Federico Robiños,20 all the other defense witnesses testified on the supposed
and holding a bloodstained double-bladed knife with his right hand, was embracing his manifestations of his insanity after he had already been detained in prison.
wife. He was uttering the words, 'I will kill myself, I will kill myself.' Lorenza, who was lying
on her back and facing upward, was no longer breathing. She appeared to be dead. When insanity is alleged as a ground for exemption from criminal responsibility, the
A Special Report which disclosed that the victim Lorenza Robiños was six (6) months evidence must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very
pregnant. She suffered 41 stab wounds on the different parts of her body. That suspect moment of its execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent to the commission
was under the influence of liquor/drunk [who] came home and argued/quarreled with his of the crime, the accused cannot be acquitted
wife. Suspect also stabbed his own body. Hence, appellant who invoked insanity should have proven that he had already been
Appellant does not refute the factual allegations of the prosecution that he indeed killed completely deprived of reason when he killed the victim. Verily, the evidence proffered by
his wife, but seeks exoneration from criminal liability by interposing the defense of the defense did not indicate that he had been completely deprived of intelligence or
insanity freedom of will when he stabbed his wife to death. Insanity is a defense in the nature of a
confession or avoidance and, as such, clear and convincing proof is required to establish
its existence. Indubitably, the defense failed to meet the quantum of proof required to The trial court found Anacito guilty of murder for the death of Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr.,
overthrow the presumption of sanity. and homicide for the death of Allan Dacles. 

79. G. R Nos. 147674-75, Mar 17, 2004 ]PEOPLE v. ANACITO OPURAN  ISSUE:

FACTS: W/N the accused is criminally liable.

Bambi Herrera saw appellant Anacito Opuran stab Allan on the chest with a knife while RULING:
the latter appeared to be trying to stand up from the bench. Although Allan had several
stab wounds on different parts of his body, he managed to stand up and run inside Yes, in the determination of the culpability of every criminal actor, voluntariness is an
Bambi's house, with Anacito chasing him. Bambi immediately locked the door from the essential element. Without it, the imputation of criminal responsibility and the imposition
inside to prevent Anacito from entering. But the latter tried to force the door open by of the corresponding penalty cannot be legally sanctioned. The human mind is an entity,
thrusting a knife at the door shutter. He also threw stones at the door. After a short while, and understanding it is not purely an intellectual process but is dependent to a large
Anacito left. Bambi went out to ask the aid of his neighbors so he could bring Allan to the degree upon emotional and psychological appreciation. A man's act is presumed
hospital. He saw Anacito's two brothers and asked for their assistance. But one of them voluntary.
merely said: "Never mind because he [referring to Anacito] is mentally imbalanced." An accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he is
Several persons, helped Bambi bring Allan to the hospital. Allan, however, died about not guilty because he is insane. The testimony or proof of an accused's insanity must,
fifteen minutes later however, relate to the time immediately preceding or coetaneous with the commission of
The same day, Tomas Bacsal, Jr. heard a commotion outside. He looked out from the the offense with which he is charged. It is, therefore, incumbent upon accused's counsel
balcony and saw people running. He learned that Anacito had stabbed somebody. After to prove that his client was not in his right mind or was under the influence of a sudden
about fifteen minutes, Anacito emerged from his hiding place and stabbed Demetrio Jr. attack of insanity immediately before or at the time he executed the act attributed to him.
with a knife about three to four times. Meanwhile, Demetrio Jr. died the following day. Insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties which is
The defense presented, as its first witness, the appellant himself, Anacito Opuran. He manifested in language and conduct. However, not every aberration of the mind or
declared that on the evening he was resting in their house in Canlapwas, mental deficiency constitutes insanity.
another barangay in Catbalogan, Samar. He never went out that night. While he was Anacito failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the defense of insanity. Tested
sleeping at about 8:30 p.m., eight policemen entered his house, pointed their guns at against the stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting, such deportment of Anacito,
him, and arrested him. He denied being present at the place and time of the stabbing his occasional silence, and his acts of laughing, talking to himself, staring sharply, and
incidents. stabbing his victims within a 15-minute interval are not sufficient proof that he was insane
In Medical Report found that Anacito had a psychiatric history of "inability to sleep and immediately before or at the time he committed the crimes. Such unusual behavior may
talking irrelevantly." Found that Anacito had a psychotic disorder characterized by flight be considered as mere abnormality of the mental faculties, which will not exclude
of ideas and auditory hallucinations.  imputability.

Anacito failed to establish with the required proof his defense of insanity or his claim of It must be stressed that an inquiry into the mental state of an accused should relate to
the mitigating circumstance of diminished willpower. the period immediately before or at the precise moment of the commission of the act
which is the subject of the inquiry. [56] His mental condition after that crucial period or
during the trial is inconsequential for purposes of determining his criminal liability
80. G.R. No. 216021, SOLOMON VERDADERO Y GALERA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF It is true that there is no direct evidence to show Verdadero's mental state at the exact
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. moment the crime was committed. This, however, is not fatal to the finding that he was
insane. His insanity may still be shown by circumstances immediately before and after
Verdadero stabbed Romeo on the left side of the latter's upper back with the use of a the incident.
Rambo knife. He again struck Romeo's upper back, just below the right shoulder.
Maynard tried to help his father but Verdadero attempted to attack him as well. He He was officially diagnosed to have suffered a relapse of schizophrenia. Generally,
defended himself using a small stool, which he used to hit Verdadero in the chest. evidence of insanity after the commission of the crime is immaterial. It, however, may be
appreciated and given weight if there is also proof of abnormal behavior before or
Meanwhile, the responding police officers arrested Verdadero, while Maynard and simultaneous to the crime.
Ronnie brought Romeo to a clinic. Romeo, however, died upon arrival.
Indeed, the grant of absolution on the basis of insanity should be done with utmost care
The evidence for the defense did not refute the material allegations but revolved around and circumspection as the State must keep its guard against murderers seeking to
Verdadero's alleged insanity. escape punishment through a general plea of insanity. The circumstances in the case at
bench, however, do not indicate that the defense of insanity was merely used as a
Since 1999, Verdadero had been an outpatient of CVMCs Psychiatric Department as he
convenient tool to evade culpability.
claimed to hear strange voices and had difficulty in sleeping. He was diagnosed with
schizophrenia and was given medications to address his mental illness. Verdadero would The Court notes that at the very first opportunity, Verdadero already raised the defense
irregularly consult with his doctors as he had a lifelong chronic disease. of insanity and remained steadfast in asserting that he was deprived of intelligence at the
time of the commission of the offense. He no longer offered any denial or alibi and,
The RTC rendered a decision finding Verdadero guilty for the crime of homicide. 
instead, consistently harped on his mental incapacity. 
The CA upheld Verdadero's conviction of homicide. The appellate court agreed that the
The Court grants the petition and ACQUITS accused-appellant Solomon
defense was able to establish that Verdadero had a history of schizophrenic attacks, but
Verdadero y Galera of Homicide by reason of insanity. 
was unable to prove that he was not lucid at the time of the commission of the offense. 
81. PEOPLE vs. GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981,
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Whether the court of appeals gravely erred in affirming the petitioner's conviction despite
the fact that his insanity at the time of the incident was established by clear and This case stemmed from the killing of Ben Genosa, by his wife Marivic Genosa, appellant
convincing evidence. herein. During their first year of marriage, Marivic and Ben lived happily but apparently
thereafter, Ben changed and the couple would always quarrel and sometimes their
RULING:
quarrels became violent. Appellant testified that every time her husband came home
In raising the defense of insanity, Verdadero admits to the commission of the crime drunk, he would provoke her and sometimes beat her. Whenever beaten by her
because such defense is in the nature of a confession or avoidance. As such, he is duty husband, she consulted medical doctors who testified during the trial. On the night of the
bound to establish with certainty that he was completely deprived, not merely diminished, killing, appellant and the victim were quarreled and the victim beat the appellant.
of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime.  However, appellant was able to run to another room. Appellant admitted having killed the
victim with the use of a gun. The information for parricide against appellant, however,
alleged that the cause of death of the victim was by beating through the use of a lead
pipe. Appellant invoked self defense and defense of her unborn child. After trial, the circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the existing facts of the
Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of present case, however, not all of these elements were duly established.
parricide with an aggravating circumstance of treachery and imposed the penalty of
death. The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the “cycle of violence” supposedly
characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute
ISSUE: battering incidents but appellant failed to prove that in at least another battering episode
in the past, she had gone through a similar pattern. Neither did appellant proffer sufficient
Whether or not appellant herein can validly invoke the “battered woman syndrome” as
evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle.
constituting self defense.
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a relationship does not in itself establish
RULING:
the legal right of the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still be considered
The Court ruled in the negative as appellant failed to prove that she is afflicted with the in the context of self-defense. Settled in our jurisprudence, is the rule that the one who
“battered woman syndrome”. resorts to self-defense must face a real threat on one’s life; and the peril sought to be
avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely imaginary. Thus, the Revised Penal
A battered woman has been defined as a woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any Code provides that the following requisites of self-defense must concur: (1) Unlawful
forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
something he wants her to do without concern for her rights. Battered women include (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
wives or women in any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to
be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle at Unlawful aggression is the most essential element of self-defense. It presupposes actual,
least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a man once. If it sudden and unexpected attack -- or an imminent danger thereof -- on the life or safety of
occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered a person. In the present case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself,
woman.” there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal
attack upon him. She had already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and
More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle escape to their children’s bedroom. During that time, he apparently ceased his attack
of violence,” which has three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute and went to bed. The reality or even the imminence of the danger he posed had ended
battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. altogether. He was no longer in a position that presented an actual threat on her life or
The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the safety.
battered woman syndrome. First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be The first circumstance arose from the cyclical nature and the severity of the battery
proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and inflicted by the batterer-spouse upon appellant. That is, the repeated beatings over a
her intimate partner. Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the period of time resulted in her psychological paralysis, which was analogous to an illness
batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent diminishing the exercise of her will power without depriving her of consciousness of her
harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save acts.
her life. Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable -- not
necessarily immediate and actual -- grave harm to the accused, based on the history of 82. G.R. No. 46539           September 27, 1939
violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether, these THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the
VALENTIN DOQUEÑA, defendant-appellant. facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the
very attitude, the very comportment and behaviour of said minor, not only before and
FACTS: during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial
The accused-appellant, who is a minor, was prosecuted for homicide in the Court of First 83. G. R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008 Ortega v. People
Instance of Pangasinan, for having killed Juan Ragojos by stabbing him in the breast
with a knife. Facts:
At the time of commission of rape, the accused was 13 years old while the victim was 6.
On the date of the crime, the appellant was exactly thirteen years, nine months and five The case was pending when the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344)
days old. was enacted amending among others the age of criminal irresponsibility being raised
from 9 to 15 years old. At the time of the promulgation of judgment, the accused already
The court, after trying the case, held that the accused acted with discernment in
reached the age of majority.
committing the act imputed to him and, proceeding in accordance with the provisions of
article 80 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 99, Issue:
ordered him to be sent to the Training School for Boys to remain therein until he reaches Whether or not the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) should be
the age of majority. From this order the accused interposed an appeal alleging that the applied, in the resolution of the case.
court erred in holding that he had acted with discernment and in not having dismissal the
case. Held:
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) should be applied.  By virtue of
ISSUE: R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised from 9 to 15 years old,
this law is evidently favorable to the accused. Petitioner was only 13 years old at the time
Whether the court of first instance gravely erred in the decision of petitioner's conviction
of the commission of the alleged rape. This was duly proven by the certificate of live
despite the fact that his minority at the time of the incident was established by clear and
birth, by petitioner's own testimony, and by the testimony of his mother.  Furthermore,
convincing evidence.
petitioner’s age was never assailed in any of the proceedings before the RTC and the
RULING: CA. Indubitably, petitioner, at the time of the commission of the crime, was below 15
years of age. Under R.A. No. 9344, he is exempted from criminal liability.
Yes, it is error to determine discernment by the means resorted to by the attorney for the
defense, as discussed by him in his brief. He claims that to determine whether or not a 84. G.R. No. 186227 People v. Mantalaba
minor acted with discernment, we must take into consideration not only the facts and
FACTS:
circumstances which gave rise to the act committed by the minor, but also his state of
mind at the time the crime was committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for Task Forcer Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City
the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning received a report that Mantalaba who was 17 yrs old was selling shabu. After a buy-bust
he could have had at that moment. operation, two informations was filed against Mantalaba which was later on consolidated.
Mantalaba pleaded not guilty.
The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a
minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is
his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such
RTC found Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was penalized of reclusion vs.
perpetua to death and fine of 500k for selling shabu and  (2) for illegally possessing CECILIO TAÑEDO, defendant-appellant.
shabu, Mantalaba was penalized, in application of the ISL, 6 yrs and 1 day as minimum
and 8 yrs as maximum of prision mayor and fine of 300k. CA affirmed in toto the decision FACTS:
of the RTC. Thus, the present appeal.
The accused was a landowner. On the morning of the 26th of January, 1909, he, with
According to appellant the lower court gravely erred in convicting him and that there was Bernardino Tagampa, Casimiro Pascual, Valeriano Paulillo, and Juan Arellano, went to
no evidence of actual sale between him and the poser-buyer during the buy-bust work on a malecon or dam on his land. The defendant took with him a shotgun and a few
operation. He also claims that the chain of custody of the seized shabu was not shells, with the intention to hunt wild chickens after he had set his laborers at work. 
established.
The accused went into the forest with his gun. According to the testimony of the
ISSUE: defendant, he proceeded to hunt. So when he arrived at that place he saw a wild
W/N the accused is criminally liable. chickens and he shot him. And after he shot that chicken he heard a human cry. He
picked up the chicken and went near the place where he heard the noise, and after he
RULING: saw that he had wounded a man he went back toward the malecon, where my
The petition is without merit. As to his minority, Mantalaba was minor during the buy-bust companions were working, running back, and when he arrived there he left his shotgun
operation but was of legal age during the promulgation of the decision. It must be noted behind or by a tree not far from where my companions were working.
that RA 9344 took effect after the promulgation of the RTC's decision against Mantalaba. The defendant within a few minutes after the accident went out of the woods, carrying
The RTC did not suspend the sentence in accordance with PD 603 (Child and Youth the dead chicken with him. The accused went to the place where the body of the
Welfare Code) and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law that were applicable at the deceased lay and removed it to a place in the cogon grass where it would not be easily
time of the promulgation of the judgment. However, as ruled in People vs Sarcia, observed. The accused dispose of the body finally and buried it in an old well, covering it
suspension of sentence can still be applied but NOT when the offender upon the with straw and earth and burning straw on top of the well for the purpose of concealing
promulgation of judgment is 21 yrs old. or older. Mantalaba is now 21 yrs old, therefore it. 
his suspension of sentence is already moot and academic.
The defendant prior to the trial denied all knowledge of the death of the deceased or the
But as to the penalty, CA must have appreciated Mantalaba's minority as privileged whereabouts of the body. On the trial, however, he confessed his participation in the
mitigating circumstance in fixing the penalty. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the death of the deceased.
proper penalty should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion
temporal, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. The defendant was found guilty of homicide by the Court of First Instance of the Province
Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum of Tarlac 
penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision mayor and
ISSUE:
the maximum penalty shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion temporal, there
being no other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. W/N the accused is criminally liable.

85. G.R. No. L-5418             February 12, 1910 RULING:

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
So far as can be ascertained from the evidence the prior relations between the accused detention cell addressed to his mother-in-law, to his father-in-law, and lastly, the victim’s
and the deceased had been normal. The deceased was a tenant on land belonging to a sister, speak so eloquently of someone who accepts the fault for the early demise of the
relative of the accused. There was no enmity and no unpleasant relations between them. victim. Asking forgiveness from the close relatives of the victim is a clear admission of
No attempt was made to show any. There appears to have been no motive whatever for authorship of the fatal act.
the commission of the crime. The Government has not attempted to show any. The only
possible reason that the accused could have for killing the deceased would be found in The accused raised as an issue his lack of intent to do the fatal harm to his wife.
the fact of a sudden quarrel between them during the hunt. That idea is wholly negative
by the fact that the chicken and the man were shot at the same time, there having been ISSUE:
only one shot fired. Whether or not the fatal injury sustained by the victim was accidental.
The American doctrine is substantially the same. It is uniformly held that if life is taken by RULING:
misfortune or accident while in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care
and without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. The petition lacks merit.

In this case there is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part of the accused. Direct evidence of the commission of the offense is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial
Neither is there any question that he was engaged in the commission of a lawful act court may draw its conclusions and finding of guilt. Conviction can be had on the basis of
when the accident occurred. Neither is there any evidence of the intention of the accused circumstantial evidence provided that: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the
to cause the death of the deceased. The only thing in the case at all suspicious upon the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the
part of the defendant are his concealment and denial. circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. While no
general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which will
We are of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment of suffice in a given case, all the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other,
conviction. consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational
86. G.R. No. 172695              June 29, 2007 hypothesis except that of guilt. The circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, chain which leads to only one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the
vs.
exclusion of all others, is the guilty person. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
ISAIAS CASTILLO y COMPLETO, Appellant.
mean the degree of proof excluding the possibility of error and producing absolute
certainty. Only moral certainty or "that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
FACTS:
unprejudiced mind" is required. All the essential requisites for circumstantial evidence to
sustain a conviction, are present. As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, the
There is no dispute that the victim, Consorcia Antiporta Castillo, died violently in the
evening of November 5, 1993. The cause of her death was massive hemorrhage due to following pieces of circumstantial evidence indubitably established that appellant was the
"laceration of the jugular vein of her neck". According to Dr. Solita P. Plastina, Municipal perpetrator of the crime.
Health Officer of Calamba, Laguna, who conducted the autopsy on the victim’s body, the "Accident" is an affirmative defense which the accused is burdened to prove, with clear
fatal weapon could have been a "pointed instrument like a nail". There is no dispute
and convincing evidence. The defense miserably failed to discharge its burden of proof. 
likewise that the accused shot with a dart from a rubber sling, his wife hitting her at the
neck and causing her instantaneous death. The letters written by the accused from his
By no stretch of imagination could playing with or using a deadly sling and arrow be The appellant forthwith pulled out a handgun from under his T-shirt and shot Emmanuel
considered as performing a "lawful act." Thus, on this ground alone, appellant’s defense on the forehead. They brought Emmanuel to the Tuburan District Hospital, but the victim
of accident must be struck down because he was performing an unlawful act during the died shortly thereafter.
incident.
The appellant asserts that he was merely performing a lawful act of defending himself
87. G.R. No. 124058 : December 10, 2003 when he grabbed the victims hand which held the gun. The gun accidentally fired and the
bullet hit the victims forehead. The accident was not the appellants fault. The appellant
asserts that when he wrestled with the victim for the possession of the gun, he was
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JESUS G. RETUBADO alias
merely defending himself. He contends that he had no intention of killing the victim, as he
JESSIE, Appellant.
merely wanted to talk to his son. If he had wanted to kill the victim, he could have easily
done so when he met the latter for the first time that fateful nightThe Court finds accused
FACTS: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder
Tthe appellant Jesus G. Retubado convicted for the crime of murder from the decision of
the RTC 29, Toledo City. ISSUE:

Before November 5, 1993, someone played a joke on Edwin Retubado, the appellants W/N the lower court erred in not finding the death of the deceased as caused by mere
younger brother who was mentally ill. Someone inserted a lighted firecracker in a accident without fault or intention of causing it while the accused was performing a lawful
cigarette pack and gave it to Edwin. He brought the cigarette home and placed it on the act with due care or, in the alternative, it erred in not convicting him just merely of
dining table as he was having dinner with his father. Momentarily, the firecracker homicide instead of murder.
exploded. The suspect was Emmanuel Caon, Jr., The Caons and the appellant were
neighbors. The matter was brought to the attention of the barangay captain who HELD:
conducted an investigation. It turned out that Emmanuel Caon, Jr. was not the culprit. The defense of a state of necessity is a justifying circumstance under Article 12,
The barangay captain considered the matter closed. The appellant, however, was bent paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. It is an affirmative defense that must be proved
on confronting Emmanuel Caon, Jr. by the accused with clear and convincing evidence. By admitting causing the injuries and
killing the victim, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on
The appellant, who was conversing with Marcial Lucio saw him. Noy, why is [it] your son the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution because if such evidence is weak but
did something to my brother? Emmanuel ignored the appellant. The appellant was the accused fails to prove his defense, the evidence of the prosecution can no longer be
incensed and ran after Emmanuel. He overtook Emmanuel, grabbed and pushed the
disbelieved. Whether the accused acted under a state of necessity is a question of fact,
pedicab which nearly fell into a canal. Emmanuel again ignored the appellant and
which is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The legal aphorism is that
pedaled on until he reached his house. His wife, Norberta Caon was in the balcony of
their house, above the porch waiting for him to arrive. Emmanuel, Jr., meanwhile, was the findings of facts by the trial court, its calibration of the testimony of the witnesses of
already asleep. Undeterred, the appellant continued following Emmanuel. Shortly after the parties and of the probative weight thereof as well as its conclusions based on its
Emmanuel had entered his house, the appellant arrived and tarried at the porch. own findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect,
Emmanuel suddenly opened the door and demanded to know why he was being unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misapplied cogent facts and
followed. The appellant told Emmanuel that he just wanted to talk to Emmanuel, Jr., but circumstances of substance which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case.
Emmanuel told the appellant that his son was already asleep. Norberta went down from We have meticulously reviewed the records and find no basis to deviate from the findings
the balcony and placed her hand on her husbands shoulder to pacify him. of the trial court that the appellant was the provocateur, the unlawful aggressor and the
author of a deliberate and malicious act of shooting the victim at close range on the According to the petitioners testimony he had his .45 caliber pistol placed in his holster
forehead. attached to his belt on his waist; then as he was holding the doorknob with his right hand
to open the door, the victim, who was two meters away from him, suddenly approached
We agree with the contention of the Solicitor General that there is no treachery in the him and grabbed his gun, he and Balboa grappled and in two or three seconds the gun
present case to qualify the crime to murder. To appreciate treachery, two (2) conditions was drawn from its holster as both of them held the gun; more grappling followed and
must be present, namely, (a) the employment of the means of execution that give the five seconds after the gun was taken from its holster it fired, the victim was to his right
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (b) the means of side when the attempt to grab his gun began and was still to his right when the gun was
execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. The prosecution failed to adduce an drawn from its holster until it fired, as they were still grappling or wrestling; his gun was
iota of evidence to support the confluence of the abovementioned conditions. Thus, the already loaded in its chamber and cocked when he left his house, and it was locked
appellant is guilty only of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. when it fired, after the gun fired, they were separated from each other and Balboa fell;

The appealed judgment is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The appellant Jesus G. ISSUE:
Retubado alias Jessie is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of homicide 
W/N that the petitioner is entitled to the exempting circumstances through accident.
88. G.R. NO. 150647 : September 29, 2004]
HELD:
ROWENO POMOY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Petitioner is entitled to the exempting circumstances through accident.
FACTS:
The elements of accident are as follows: 1) the accused was at the time performing a
"On January 4, 1990, about 7:30 in the morning, some policemen arrived at the lawful act with due care; 2) the resulting injury was caused by mere accident; and 3) on
Concepcion College to arrest Balboa, allegedly in connection with a robbery. Balboa was the part of the accused, there was no fault or no intent to cause the injury. From the
taken to the Headquarters. "Later that day, about a little past 2 o’clock in the afternoon, facts, it is clear that all these elements were present. At the time of the incident,
petitioner, who is a police sergeant, went near the door of the jail where Balboa was petitioner was a member -- specifically, one of the investigators -- of the Philippine
detained and directed the latter to come out, purportedly for tactical interrogation at the National Police (PNP) stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company. Thus, it
investigation room. The investigation room is at the main building of the compound was in the lawful performance of his duties as investigating officer that, under the
where the jail is located. At that time, petitioner had a gun, a .45 caliber pistol, tucked in a instructions of his superior, he fetched the victim from the latter’s cell for a routine
holster which was hanging by the side of his belt. The gun was fully embedded in its interrogation.
holster, with only the handle of the gun protruding from the holster.
Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer that petitioner tried
"When petitioner and Balboa reached the main building and were near the investigation to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried to remove it from
room, two (2) gunshots were heard. When the source of the shots was verified, petitioner his holster. As an enforcer of the law, petitioner was duty-bound to prevent the snatching
was seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol, facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood, of his service weapon by anyone, especially by a detained person in his custody. Such
about two (2) feet away. When the Commanding Officer of the Headquarters arrived, he weapon was likely to be used to facilitate escape and to kill or maim persons in the
disarmed petitioner and directed that Balboa be brought to the hospital. It was vicinity, including petitioner himself.
unnecessary to bring Balboa to the hospital for he was dead.
Petitioner cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised all the necessary precautions
to prevent his service weapon from causing accidental harm to others. As he so
assiduously maintained, he had kept his service gun locked when he left his house; he ISSUE:
kept it inside its holster at all times, especially within the premises of his working area. W/N the defendants-appellants are exempt from criminal liability.

At no instance during his testimony did the accused admit to any intent to cause injury to RULING:
the deceased, much less kill him.
Yes. The Penal Code exempts from liability any person who performs the act by reason
The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victim’s death was limited only to acts of irresistible force (par. 9, art. 8). Baculi acted, doubtless, under such circumstances
committed in the course of the lawful performance of his duties as an enforcer of the law. when he executed the acts which are charged against him.
The removal of the gun from its holster, the release of the safety lock, and the firing of
the two successive shots -- all of which led to the death of the victim -- were sufficiently As regards the other defendant, Apolonio Caballeros, there is no proof that he took any
demonstrated to have been consequences of circumstances beyond the control of part in any way in the execution of the crime with which he has been charged; there is
petitioner. At the very least, these factual circumstances create serious doubt on the conclusive proof to the contrary, since Baculi, as well as one of the witnesses for the
latter’s culpability. prosecution, Teodoro Sabate, expressly declare that he, Caballeros, did not take any
part in the burial of the aforesaid corpses, nor was he even in the place of the occurrence
89. G.R. No. 1352            March 29, 1905 when the burial took place

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appelle, It appears besides, from the statements of another witness for the prosecution, Meliton
vs. Covarrubias, that the confession of Apolonio Caballeros was made through the promise
APOLONIO CABALLEROS, ET AL., defendants-appellants. made to him and to the other defendants that nothing would be done to them.
Confessions which do not appear to have been made freely and voluntarily, without
FACTS: force, intimidation, or promise of pardon, can not be accepted as proof on a trial.

The defendants have been sentenced by the Court of First Instance of Cebu as 90. [G.R. No. L-54414. July 9, 1984.]
accessories after the fact in the crime of assassination or murder perpetrated on the
persons of the American school-teachers because, without having taken part in the said PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUSTAQUIO LORENO y
crime as principals or as accomplices, they took part in the burial of the corpses of the MALAGA and JIMMY MARANTAL y LONDETE, Accused-Appellants.
victims in order to conceal the crime.
FACTS:
The evidence does not justify, in our opinion, this sentence. As regards Roberto Baculi,
although he confessed to having assisted in the burial of the corpses, it appears that he That on or about the 7th of January, 1978, in the Barangay of Magsaysay, Municipality of
did so because he was compelled to do so by the murderers of the four teachers. . And Libmanan, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
not only does the defendant affirm this, but he is corroborated by the only eyewitness to Honorable Court, the above-named accused, together with John Doe, Jose Doe, Richard
the crime, Teodoro Sabate, who, by the way, is a witness for the prosecution. According Doe, Peter Doe, Charlie Doe, and Ricky Doe, who are still at large, armed with firearms,
to Sabate the leaders of the band; that the latter called to him and striking him with the conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, with intent to
butts of their guns they forced him to bury the corpses. gain and rob upon the person of Elias Monge by tying his two hands and the hands of
the members of his family
That on the occasion thereof, the abovenamed accused, with lewd design, and by means A perusal of the appellants statement of the robbery-rape incident as summarized in their
of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously joint brief, showed that they admitted their participation in the commission of the crimes
commit sexual intercourse with Monica Monge, a virgin of 16 years old, and with Cristina of robbery and rape against Elias Monge and his family on January 7, 1978. Further
Monge, all against their will." established were facts inconsistent with appellant s claim of having acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force and/or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
The Court find the guilt of the accused Eustaquio Loreno and accused Jimmy Marantal equal or greater injury.
has been established by proof beyond reasonable.
All these demonstrated the voluntary participation and the conspiracy of the appellants.
Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy Marantal claimed that they acted under the The foregoing acts, though separately performed from those of their unidentified
compulsion of an irresistible force and/or under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of companions, clearly showed their community of interest and concert of criminal design
equal or greater injury. They admitted that they were in the house of Elias Monge on the with their unidentified companions which constituted conspiracy without the need of
night of January 7, 1978, 4 but they were only forced by a man wearing black sweater direct proof of the conspiracy itself. 
and his five companions who claimed to be members of the New People’s Army (NPA),
operating in the locality, with the threat that if they did not obey, appellants and their
91. [G.R. No. 127755. April 14, 1999]
families would be killed.

ISSUE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO y

PASCUAL, accused-appellant.
W/N the accused shall exempt from criminal liability through their claims that they acted
under the compulsion of an irresistible force and/or under the impulse of uncontrollable FACTS:
fear of equal or greater injury.
On 13 May 1996 between 6:00 and 6:30 in the evening, Alonzo stopped his tricycle by
RULING:
the side of Nita's Drugstore, when three women flagged him.  Parked at a distance of
The accused are not exempt from criminal liability. about one and a-half (1 1/2) meters in front of him was a tricycle driven by accused
Joselito del Rosario. At that point, Alonzo saw two (2) men and a woman grappling for
The Court, however, finds the contention untenable. possession of a bag. After taking hold of the bag one of the two men armed with a gun
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under started chasing a man who was trying to help the woman, while the other snatcher
the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal kicked the woman sending her to the ground. Soon after, the armed man returned and
liability because he does not act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce while the woman was still on the ground he shot her on the head. The bag taken by the
him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, man was brought to the tricycle of accused del Rosario where someone inside received
force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature the bag. The armed man then sat behind the driver while his companion entered the
as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is sidecar. When the tricycle sped away Alonzo gave chase and was able to get the plate
not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a number of the tricycle. He also recognized the driver, after which he went to the nearest
character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal police headquarters and reported the incident.
combat. Accused Joselito del Rosario gave his own version of the incident: At around 5:30 in the
afternoon he was hired for P120.00  by a certain "Boy" Santos,  his co-accused. Their
5 6
original agreement was that he would drive him to a cockpit at the Bias Edward But the trial court ruled that his fear was merely speculative, fanciful and remote, hence,
Coliseum. could not be considered uncontrollable; and that a gun pointed at him did not constitute
irresistible force because it fell short of the test required by law and jurisprudence.
The latter then accosted the victim Virginia Bernas and grappled with her for the
possession of her bag. Jun Marquez alighted from the tricycle to help "Dodong" We disagree. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one
Bisaya.  Accused del Rosario tried to leave and seek help but "Boy Santos" who stayed who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt
inside the tricycle prevented him from leaving and threatened in fact to shoot him. from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. Actus me invito factus non
est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is not my act. The force contemplated
After the shooting, "Dodong" Bisaya boarded the sidecar of the tricycle while "Jun" must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only
Marquez rode behind del Rosario and ordered him to start the engine and drive towards without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present,
Dicarma. imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension
Upon arriving at Dicarma, the three (3) men alighted and warned del Rosario not to of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough.
inform the police authorities about the incident otherwise he and his family would be The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused
harmed.  Del Rosario then went home.  Because of the threat, however, he did not report
1 for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
the matter to the owner of the tricycle nor to the barangay captain and the police. As a rule, it is natural for people to be seized by fear when threatened with weapons,
The court a quo found accused Joselito del Rosario guilty as charged and sentenced him even those less powerful than a gun, such as knives and clubs. People will normally,
to death. He now contends in this automatic review that the court a quo erred in not usually and probably do what an armed man asks them to do, nothing more, nothing
finding the presence of threat and irresistible force employed upon him by his co- less. In the instant case, del Rosario was threatened with a gun. He could not therefore
accused Virgilio "Boy" Santos, Ernesto "Jun" Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya. be expected to flee nor risk his life to help a stranger. A person under the same
circumstances would be more concerned with his personal welfare and security rather
ISSUE: than the safety of a person whom he only saw for the first time that day.
w/n that the court a quo erred in not finding the presence of threat and irresistible force There is no doubt that the fear entertained by del Rosario because of the gun directly
employed upon him by his co-accused Virgilio "Boy" Santos, Ernesto "Jun" Marquez and pointed at him was real and imminent. Such fear rendered him immobile and subject to
"Dodong" Bisaya the will of Boy Santos, making him for the moment an automaton without a will of his
own. In other words, in effect, he could not be any more than a mere instrument acting
RUILING:
involuntarily and against his will. He is therefore exempt from criminal liability since by
The conviction of del Rosario must be set aside. His claim for exemption from criminal reason of fear of bodily harm he was compelled against his will to transport his co-
liability under Art. 12, par. 5, Revised Penal Code as he acted under the compulsion of accused away from the crime scene.
an irresistible force must be sustained. He was then unarmed and unable to protect
himself when he was prevented at gunpoint by his co-accused from leaving the crime 92. G.R. No. 45186           September 30, 1936
scene during the perpetration of the robbery and killing, and was only forced to help them
escape after the commission of the crime.  THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOSEFINA BANDIAN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS: or any other reason than that she was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme
debility, she could not be blamed because it all happened by mere accident, with no fault
One morning, Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor, Josefina Bandian, got to a thicket or intention on her part. The law exempts from liability any person who so acts and
apparently to respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later, Bandian emerged from the behaves under such circumstances (Art. 12(4), RPC). Thus, having the fourth and
thicket with her clothes stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and seventh exempting circumstances in her favor, she is acquitted of the crime that she had
visibly showing signs of not being able to support herself. Rushing to her aid, he brought been accused of.
her to her house and placed her on the bed. He called on Adriano Comcom to help them
Comcom saw he body of a newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket where the
93. G.R. No. 34917           September 7, 1931
appellant had gone a few moments before. She claimed it was hers. Dr. Emilio
Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her own house and three her child
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
into the thicket to kill it. The trial court gave credit to this opinion. vs.
ISSUE LUA CHU and UY SE TIENG, defendants-appellants.

WON Bandian is guilty of infanticide FACTS;

RULING:
The defendants Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng appeal from the judgment of the Court of First
No. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be committed Instance of Cebu convicting them of the illegal importation of opium.
willfully or consciously, or at least it must be the result of a voluntary, conscious and free
The Kolambugan steamship arrived at Cebu on the morning of December 14, 1929.
act or omission. The evidence does not show that the appellant, in causing her child’s
While he was examining the manifests, Samson detailed one of his men to watch the
death in one way or another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did so willfully,
ship. After conferring with Natividad, the latter instructed him to do everything possible to
consciously or imprudently. She had no cause to kill or abandon it, to expose it to death,
have the cargo unloaded, and to require Uy Se Tieng to pay over the P6,000. On the
because her affair with a former lover, which was not unknown to her second lover, Kirol,
morning of November 16, 1929, Natividad told Samson that Uy Se Tieng already had the
took place three years before the incident; her married life with Kirol—she considers him
papers ready to withdraw the cases marked "U.L.H." from the customhouse. Samson
her husband as he considers him his wife—began a year ago; as he so testified at the
then told Natividad it would be better for Uy Se Tieng to go to his house to have a talk
trial, he knew of the pregnancy and that it was his and that they’ve been eagerly awaiting
with him. Uy Se Tieng went to Samson's house that night and was told that he must pay
the birth of the child. The appellant, thus, had no cause to be ashamed of her pregnancy
over the P6,000 before taking the opium out of the customhouse. Uy Se Tieng showed
to Kirol.
Samson the bill of lading and on leaving said: "I will tell the owner, and we see whether
we can take the money to you tomorrow." The following day Samson informed Colonel
Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or
Francisco of the Constabulary, of all that had taken place, and the said colonel instructed
she was unable, due to her debility or dizziness, which cause may be considered lawful
the provincial commander, Captain Buenconsejo, to discuss the capture of the opium
or insuperable
owners with Samson. Buenconsejo and Samson agreed to meet at the latter's house that
to constitute the seventh exempting circumstance, to take hernchild from the thicket
same night. That afternoon Samson went to the office of the provincial fiscal, reported
where she had given it birth, so as not to leave it abandoned and exposed to the danger
the case to the fiscal.
of losing its life. If by going into the thicket to pee, she caused a wrong as that of giving
birth to her child in that same place and later abandoning it, not because of imprudence
On the evening of December 17, 1929, as agreed, Captain Buenconsejo, Lieutenant introduction of the prohibited drug into the port of Cebu, bears him out. A public official
Fernando; and the stenographer went to Samson's house and concealed themselves who induces a person to commit a crime for purposes of gain, does not take the steps
behind a curtain made of strips of wood which hung from the window overlooking the necessary to seize the instruments of the crime and to arrest the offender, before having
entrance to the house on the ground floor. As soon as the accused Uy Se Tieng arrived, obtained the profit he had in mind. It is true that Juan Samson smoothed the way for the
Samson asked him if he had brought the money. He replied that he had not, saying that introduction of the prohibited drug, but that was after the accused had already planned its
the owner of the opium, who was Lua Chu, was afraid of him. Samson then hold him to importation and ordered said drug, leaving only its introduction into the country through
tell Lua Chu not to be afraid, and that he might come to Samson's house. After pointing the Cebu customhouse to be managed, and he did not do so to help them carry their
out to Uy Se Tieng a back door entrance into the garden, he asked him where the opium plan to a successful issue, but rather to assure the seizure of the imported drug and the
was, and Uy Se Tieng answered that it was in the cases numbered 11 to 18, and that arrest of the smugglers.
there were 3,252 tins. Samson then asked Lua Chu when he was going to get the opium,
and the latter answered that Uy Se Tieng would take charge of that. On being asked if he As we have seen, Juan Samson neither induced nor instigated the herein defendants-
had brought the P6,000, Lua Chu answered, no, but promised to deliver it when the appellants to import the opium in question, as the latter contend, but pretended to have
opium was in Uy Se Tieng's warehouse. On being asked by Samson how he had come an understanding with the collector of customs, Joaquin Natividad — who had promised
to bring in the opium, Lua Chu answered: "I was in a cockpit one Sunday when the them that he would remove all the difficulties in the way of their enterprise so far as the
collector called me aside and said there was good business, because opium brought a customhouse was concerned — not to gain the P2,000 intended for him out of the
good price, and he needed money." All this conversation was overheard by Captain transaction, but in order the better to assure the seizure of the prohibited drug and the
Buenconsejo. arrest of the surreptitious importers. There is certainly nothing immoral in this or against
the public good which should prevent the Government from prosecuting and punishing
Captain Buenconsejo, who had been hiding, appeared and arrested the two Chinamen. the culprits, for this is not a case where an innocent person is induced to commit a crime
After having taken Uy Se Tieng and Uy Ay to the Constabulary headquarters, and merely to prosecute him, but it simply a trap set to catch a criminal.
notified the fiscal, Captain Buenconsejo and Samson went to Lua Chu's home to search
it and arrest him. In the pocket of a coat hanging on a wall, which Lua Chu said belonged 94. G.R. No. 125299 January 22, 1999
to him, they found five letters written in Chinese characters relating to the opium.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
The defense attempted to show that after Juan Samson had obtained a loan of P200 vs.
from Uy Se Tieng, he induced him to order the opium from Hongkong and make a good FLORENCIO DORIA y BOLADO and VIOLETA GADDAO y CATAMA @
deal of money by bringing in a shipment of that drug; that Samson told Uy Se Tieng, "NENETH," accused-appellants.
furthermore, that there would be no danger, because he and the collector of customs
would protect him; FACTS:
ISSUE: Members of the PNP Narcotics Command received information that one “ Jun” [Doria]
w/n the accused is criminally liable. was engaged in illegal drug activities, so they decided to entrap and arrest him in a buy-
RULING: bust operation. He was arrested. They frisked him but did not find the marked bills on
him, and upon inquiry, he revealed that he left it at the house of his
The defendants' principal defense is that they were induced by Juan Samson to import associate “ Neneth ” [Gaddao], so he led the police team to her house.
the opium in question. Juan Samson denies this, and his conduct in connection with the
The team found the door open and a woman inside the house. “ Jun” identified her
as “Neneth, ” and she was asked by SPO1 Badua about the marked money as PO3
Manlangit looked over her house [he was still outside the house]. Standing by the door, Requisites
PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. One of the box’ s flaps was A. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for
open, and inside it was something wrapped in plastic, and it appeared similar to the an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area
marijuana earlier sold to him by “ Jun. ” His suspicion aroused, so he entered the house B. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent
and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and saw 10 bricks of what appeared C. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be
to be dried marijuana leaves. SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure
from “ Neneth ” and they arrested her. The bricks were examined and they were found to
be dried marijuana leaves. An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.  The difficulty
arises when the object is inside a closed container.  Where the object seized was inside
Florencio Doria and Violeta Gaddao were charged with violation of RA 6425 [Dangerous a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized
Drugs Act of 1972], Section 4 [Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and without a warrant.  If the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from
Transportation of Prohibited Drugs] in relation to Section 21 [Attempt and Conspiracy]. its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain
RTC convicted them. view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may
ISSUE: be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.

W/N RTC correctly found that the box of marijuana was in plain view, making its In his direct examination, PO3 Manlangit said that he was sure that the contents of the
warrantless seizure valid. box were marijuana because he himself checked and marked the said contents. On
cross-examination, however, he admitted that he merely presumed the contents to be
RULING marijuana because it had the same plastic wrapping as the "buy-bust marijuana."  Each
of the ten  bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and
NO. Gaddao ’s warrantless arrest was illegal because she was arrested solely on the placed inside plastic bags-- white, pink or blue in color. PO3 Manlangit himself admitted
basis of the alleged identification made by Doria. Doria did not point to her as his on cross-examination that the contents of the box could be items other than marijuana. 
associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. He did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao
This identification does not necessarily mean that Gaddao conspired with Doria in about its contents. It was not immediately apparent to PO3 Manlangit that the content of
pushing drugs. If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest the box was marijuana; hence, it was not in plain view and its seizure without the
had knowledge of facts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of the criminal requisite search warrant was in violation of the law and the Constitution.  It was fruit of
offense, the arrest is legally objectionable. the poisonous tree and should have been excluded and never considered by the trial
 Since the warrantless arrest of Gaddao was illegal, the search of her person and home court.
and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal The fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao ’s house
as an incident to her arrest. Gaddao does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.
“ Plain view ” issue Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the
position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may
be introduced in evidence. 
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material is the submission of ISSUE:
proof that the sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller and the
presentation of the drug as evidence in court. Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his
relationship to Manolita.
Prosecution established the fact that in consideration of the P1,600.00 he received, Doria
sold and delivered 970 grams of marijuana to PO3 Manlangit, the poseur-buyer RULING:

Prosecution failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with accused-appellant Doria in the No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to
sale of said drug. the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the State
condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the
95. G.R. No. 181409               February 11, 2010
offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to hold
the offender civilly liable.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG,
represented by MEDIATRIX CARUNGCONG, as Administratrix, Petitioner, However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned therein.
vs. The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows that it applies
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and WILLIAM SATO, Respondents exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not
apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another
FACTS: crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.
Mediatrix Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix of petitioner Sato, the accused, could not avail of the beneficial application of ART 332 considering
intestate estate of her deceased mother Manolita Gonzales vda. De Carungcong, filed a that the crime he committed falls under the nature of a complex crime which is the crime
complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law, William Sato, a Japanese estafa through falsification of public document and does not anymore concern private
national. It was alleged that the said accused feloniously induced Manolita Gonzales, the relations of family members. He then can be held criminally liable.
owner of the estate and herein deceased, to sign and thumb mark a special power of
attorney (in the pretense of presenting a document pertaining to taxes) which authorized
96. C.A. No. 384             February 21, 1946
the sale, assignment, transfer and disposition of the latter’s properties. In relation to this,
the accused moved for the dismissal of the case.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
As a defense against his arrant prosecution, the accused here applies Art 332 of the vs.
Revised Penal Code. He cites that he falls under the enumeration of those relatives who NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE, defendants.
shall be exempt from criminal prosecution. Being a relative by affinity, he cannot be held AVELINA JAURIGUE, appellant.
liable for the crime of estafa as stated in the law. He further counters that the same law
makes no distinction that the relationship may not be invoked in case of death of spouse FACTS:
at the time the crime was allegedly committed. Thus, the death of his spouse Zenaida
Carungcong Sato though dissolved the marriage with the accused, did not on the other Nicolas Jaurigue and Avelina Jaurigue were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of
Tayabas, for the crime of murder, of which Nicolas Jaurigue was acquitted, but
hand dissolve the mother in-law and son-law relationship between Sato and his wife’s
defendant Avelina Jaurigue was found guilty of homicide. Both the defendant and
mother, Manolita. He then cannot be removed from the protective mantle of Art 332. appellant Avelina Jaurigue and the deceased Amado Capina lived in the barrio of Sta.
Isabel, City of San Pablo, Province of Laguna; that for sometime prior to the stabbing of Yes. The high conception of womanhood that our people possess, however humble they
the deceased by defendant and appellant, in the evening of September 20, 1942, the may be, is universal. It has been entertained and has existed in all civilized communities.
former had been courting the latter in vain, and that on one occasion, about one month
before that fatal night, Amado Capina snatched a handkerchief belonging to her, bearing A beautiful woman is said to be a jewel; a good woman, a treasure; and that a virtuous
her nickname "Aveling," while it was being washed by her cousin, Josefa Tapay. woman represents the only true nobility. And they are the future wives and mothers of
the land. Such are the reasons why, in the defense of their honor, when brutally
Amado approached her and spoke to her of his love, which she flatly refused, and he attacked, women are permitted to make use of all reasonable means available within
thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her and touched her breasts, on account of their reach, under the circumstances. Criminologists and courts of justice have
which Avelina, resolute and quick-tempered girl, slapped Amado, gave him fist blows and entertained and upheld this view
kicked him. 
The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an unlawful aggression sufficient to put her in a
On September 15, 1942, about midnight, Amado climbed up the house of defendant and state of legitimate defense, inasmuch as a woman's honor cannot but be esteemed as a
appellant, and surreptitiously entered the room where she was sleeping. He felt her right as precious, if not more, than her very existence; and it is evident that a woman
forehead, evidently with the intention of abusing her. She immediately screamed for help, who, thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender, should be afforded exemption from
which awakened her parents and brought them to her side. Amado came out from where criminal liability, since such killing cannot be considered a crime from the moment it
he had hidden under a bed in Avelina's room and kissed the hand of Nicolas Jaurigue, became the only means left for her to protect her honor from so great an outrage.
her father, asking for forgiveness; and when Avelina's mother made an attempt to beat
Amado, her husband prevented her from doing so, stating that Amado probably did not According to the facts established by the evidence and found by the learned trial court in
realize what he was doing. this case, when the deceased sat by the side of defendant and appellant on the same
bench, near the door of the barrio chapel and placed his hand on the upper portion of her
Defendant and appellant Avelina Jaurigue entered the chapel mado Capina went to the right thigh, without her consent, the said chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there
bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat by her right side, and, without saying a word, were already several people, about ten of them, inside the chapel, including her own
Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand on the upper part of her right father and the barrio lieutenant and other dignitaries of the organization; and under the
thigh. On observing this highly improper and offensive conduct of Amado Capina, circumstances, there was and there could be no possibility of her being raped. And when
Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out with her right she gave Amado Capina a thrust at the base of the left side of his neck, inflicting upon
hand the fan knife which she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of punishing him a mortal wound 4 1/2 inches deep, causing his death a few moments later, the
Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she quickly grabbed the means employed by her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and under
knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck, the facts and circumstances of the case, she cannot be legally declared completely
inflicting upon him a wound which was necessarily mortal. Amado Capina died from the exempt from criminal liability.
wound a few minutes later.
But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily and unconditionally
ISSUE: surrendered to the barrio lieutenant in said chapel, admitting having stabbed the
deceased, immediately after the incident, and agreed to go to her house shortly
W/N the accused is entitled for mitigating circumstances. thereafter and to remain there subject to the order of the said barrio lieutenant, an agent
of the authorities and the further fact that she had acted in the immediate vindication of a
RULING: grave offense committed against her a few moments before, and upon such provocation
as to produce passion and obfuscation, or temporary loss of reason and self-control,
should be considered as mitigating circumstances in her favor.
97. G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 April 20, 1983 Yes. However, the argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable
only if the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC enumerates these requisites:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there was unlawful aggression towards
MAMERTO NARVAEZ, defendant-appellant appellant's property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months and he should have left
him in peace before time was up, instead of chiseling Narvaez's house and putting up
FACTS: fence. Art. 536 of the Civil Code also provides that possession may not be acquired
through force or intimidation; while Art. 539 provides that every possessor has the right
Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of David to be respected in his possession
Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia
during 1. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack. In the
the time the two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into case, killing was disproportionate to the attack.
his house and rice mill. The defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of 2. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. Here,
construction and found fence being made. He addressed the group and asked them to there was no provocation at all since he was asleep
stop destroying his house and asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer responded Since not all requisites present, defendant is credited with the special mitigating
with "No, gadamit, proceed, go ahead." Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to Art. 13(6) RPC. These mitigating
Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia who was running towards the jeep where circumstances are: voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation (read p. 405
the deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of explanation) Crime is homicide (2 counts) not murder because treachery is not
Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle with the defendant and other land applicable on account of provocation by the deceased. Also, assault was not deliberately
settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the time of the shooting, the civil chosen with view to kill since slayer acted instantaneously. There was also no direct
case was still pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of property to Fleisher and evidence of planning or preparation to kill. Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is
Co. to be annulled). At time of the shooting, defendant had leased his property from reclusion temporal. However, due to mitigating circumstances and incomplete defense, it
Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25, can be lowered three degrees (Art. 64) to arrestomayor.
defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. He
was given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months
98. G.R. No. 132547               September 20, 2000
after letter. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property. CFI ruled
that Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation offset by
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For both murders, CFI sentenced him vs.
to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs, and to pay for moral damages. SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP, accused-appellant.

ISSUE: FACTS:

W/N the court erred in convicting defendant-appellant although he acted in defence of his December 22, 1995 Buenaventura Wapili was having a high fever and was heard talking
rights. insensibly to himself in his room. His brother-in-law, Dario Leydan, convinced him to
come out of his room and talk to him, but Wapili told Leydan that he could not really
RULING: understand himself. He became wild and violent. uddenly, Wapili bolted out of his room
naked and chased Leydan. Thereafter, Leydan with the aid of two (2) of his neighbors belies the pretension of the accused that he acted in self-defense. It indicates his
attempted to tie Wapili with a rope but was unsuccessful as Wapili was much bigger in determined effort to kill the victim. It is established that accused (sic) was already in the
built and stronger than anyone of them. Wapili, who appeared to have completely gone ground that would no longer imperil the accused's life. The most logical option open to
crazy, kept on running without any particular direction. the accused was to inflict on the victim such injury that would prevent the victim from
further harming him. The court is not persuaded by the accused's version because if it is
Leydan went to the house of policewoman Norma Plando, a neighbor, and asked for true that the victim attacked him and his life was endangered - yet his two (2)
assistance. As Wapili passed by the house of Plando, he banged Plando's vehicle companions SPO1 Espadera and SPO2 Pillo did not do anything to help him but just
parked outside. Using a hand-held radio, Plando then contacted SPO1 Ernesto Ulep, witness the incident - which is unbelievable and unnatural behavior of police officers.
SPO1 Edilberto Espadera and SPO2 Crispin Pillo, all members of the PNP assigned to
secure the premises of the nearby Roman Catholic Church of Kidapawan. However, while accused-appellant is to be commended for promptly responding to the
call of duty when he stopped the victim from his potentially violent conduct and
SPO1 Ulep together with SPO1 Espadera and SPO2 Pillo arrived at the scene on board aggressive behavior, he cannot be exonerated from overdoing his duty during the
an Anfra police service jeep. The three (3) police officers, all armed with M-16 rifles, second stage of the incident - when he fatally shot the victim in the head, perhaps in his
alighted from the jeep when they saw the naked Wapili approaching them. The kind of desire to take no chances, even after the latter slumped to the ground due to multiple
weapon Wapili was armed with is disputed. The police claimed that he was armed with a gunshot wounds sustained while charging at the police officers. Sound discretion and
bolo and a rattan stool, while Wapili's relatives and neighbors said he had no bolo, but restraint dictated that accused-appellant, a veteran policeman, should have ceased
11 

only a rattan stool. firing at the victim the moment he saw the latter fall to the ground. The victim at that point
no longer posed a threat and was already incapable of mounting an aggression against
the police officers. Shooting him in the head was obviously unnecessary. As succinctly
SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot in the air and told Wapili to put down his weapons or
observed by the trial court 
they would shoot him. But Wapili retorted "pusila!" ("fire!") and continued advancing
towards the police officers. When Wapili was only about two (2) to three (3) meters away
from them, SPO1 Ulep shot the victim with his M-16 rifle, hitting him in various parts of The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. There can be no self-
his body. As the victim slumped to the ground, SPO1 Ulep came closer and pumped defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful
another bullet into his head and literally blew his brains out. aggression against the person defending himself.

The accused argued that he acted in self-defense. This Court disagrees with the conclusion of the court a quo that the killing of Wapili by
accused-appellant was attended by treachery, thus qualifying the offense to murder. We
discern nothing from the evidence that the assault was so sudden and unexpected and
ISSUE:
that accused-appellant deliberately adopted a mode of attack intended to insure the
killing of Wapili, without the victim having the opportunity to defend himself.
W/N the accused is acted in self defense.
Incomplete justification is a special or privileged mitigating circumstance, which, not only
RULING: cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances but also reduces the penalty by one or
two degrees than that prescribed by law.
No. The means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the alleged aggression is
not reasonable because the victim, Buenaventura Wapili, was already on the ground, We likewise credit in favor of accused-appellant the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
therefore, there was no necessity for the accused to pump another shot on the back surrender. The police blotter of Kidapawan Municipal Police Station shows that
portion of the victim's head. Clearly the gravity of the wounds sustained by the victim
immediately after killing Wapili, accused-appellant reported to the police headquarters The petitioner gave a different version of the events.
and voluntarily surrendered himself.
Noel Guillermo testified that at 5:30 in the afternoon of July 21, 1996, he was in Cuartero
99. G.R. No. 153287             June 30, 2008 at the restaurant of Melecio Heyres, husband of Gertrudes Heyres, together with Arnel
Socias and Joemar Palma drinking beer, consuming only about half a bottle, when
NOEL GUILLERMO y BASILIANO, petitioner, Winnie Alon, Eddie Roque, Vicente Alon, and Wilfredo Cabison arrived and ordered beer
vs. from Babylou Felipe. Winnie Alon came to him and requested to join them in their table
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. which he affirmatively answered. Winnie Alon then had an altercation with Arnel Socias
regarding "labtik". Winnie Alon challenged Arnel Socias to a contest on clean or straight
FACTS: cutting of wood. Arnel declined the challenge claiming that he is only an assistant to his
brother-in-law. Winnie Alon got angry and told him that he has long been in the chain
saw business but "you’re stupid" ("gago ka!"). Arnel responded: "If the wood is crooked
For the death of one Winnie Alon (Winnie), the prosecution charged Arnaldo
and you would deviate from line, you’re stupid."
Socias,5 Joemar Palma, and the petitioner with the crime of homicide. That at or about
5:40 o’clock in the afternoon, on or about July 21, 1996, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with knives and with Winnie Alon suddenly stood up and said to Arnel: "Don’t ever call me stupid," pointing his
intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and finger to Arnel. He told them to settle the matter peacefully as they are friend [sic], but
stab one WINNIE ALON y BILLANES, hitting the latter and inflicting multiple stab wounds Winnie Alon was so furious and grabbed Arnel Socias by the collar. Arnel tried to release
on the different parts of his body, which injuries caused his death shortly thereafter. the hold of Winnie from his collar. While he was pacifying the two telling them to settle
the matter peacefully, Winnie Alon turned to him and said: "you also," then struck him
with a beer bottle. He was hit at the right top of his head thrice. He stood up and boxed
Eddie Roque alleged that at around 5:40 o’clock in the afternoon of July 21, 1996, he,
Winnie who again picked up a bottle break it against the wall, and struck him with the
together with Winnie Alon, Vicente Alon and Wilfredo Cabison, were inside the restaurant
broken bottle. He stepped back, pulled his knife, and stabbed him three (3) times but
of Mrs. Heyres at Cuartero Public Market to leave their tools of the chain saw [sic] and to
cannot remember what part of his body was hit by his successive stabs.
eat and drink. Noel Guillermo, Arnel Socias, and Joemer Palma were ahead of them to
[sic] the restaurant and were drinking beer. They invited them and they joined them.
Before each of them could fully consume a bottle served upon each of them, Winnie Alon The RTC, in its decision convicted the petitioner of the crime of homicide, but acquitted
and Arnel Socias argued about the cutting of wood by means of a chain saw. The Arnaldo and Joemar.
argument was so heated that each of the protagonists stood up and Arnel Socias took 2
bottles which were thrown to Vicente Alon who was hit on the forehead. 17 ISSUE:

Noel Guillermo hugged or embraced Winnie Alon and stabbed him three times (3) on W/N the RTC and the CA erred in failing to recognize the existence of all the elements of
[sic] the neck with a Batangueño knife. Arnel Socias went around, then behind, and self-defense.
stabbed Winnie Alon once, on the left side of his body, just below his left armpit, with a
pointed object, but he could not determine what weapon was used. Joemar Palma also RULING:
helped in stabbing Winnie Alon once, hitting him at the right side of his body. 18
The resolve to deny the petition for lack of merit.
Winnie Alon resisted trying to struggle but could not move because he was ganged up by
the three The petitioner justifies the stabbing as an act of self-defense.
As the lower courts did, we do not recognize that the petitioner fully acted in self- self-defense. Consequently, the penalty for homicide may be lowered by one or two
defense. degrees, at the discretion of the court.

As a rule, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. However, when the accused admits the killing and, by way of
justification, pleads self-defense, the burden of evidence shifts; he must then show by
clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense.

As a justifying circumstance, self-defense may be complete or incomplete. It is complete

when all the three essential requisites are present; it is incomplete when the mandatory
element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, plus any one of the two essential
requisites

The Court finds it beyond dispute that the victim Winnie started the fight that ended in his
death; he struck the petitioner on the head when the latter intervened to pacify the
quarrel between Winnie and Arnaldo. In short, the victim was the unlawful aggressor
while the petitioner was in the lawful act of pacifying the quarreling parties; thus, the
latter has in his favor the element of unlawful aggression by the victim.

We consider it also established that the petitioner did not provoke the fight that ensued;
he was a third party to the quarrel between the original protagonists – Winnie and
Arnaldo – and did not at all initiate any provocation to ignite the quarrel. Thus, the
petitioner also has the element of lack of sufficient provocation in his favor.

The petitioner claims self-defense on the position that Winnie, after hitting him on the
head three times with an empty bottle, grabbed another bottle, broke it against the wall,
and thrust it towards him. It was at this point that the petitioner used his knife to inflict
Winnie’s fatal wounds. Clearly, the petitioner wants to impress upon us that his response
to Winnie’s attack was reasonable; he used a knife to repel an attacker armed with a
broken beer bottle.

In sum, the Court rule that there was no rational equivalence between the means of the
attack and the means of defense sufficient to characterize the latter as reasonable.

Since the petitioner’s plea of self-defense lacks only the element of "reasonable means,"
the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete