- Dungo v. People, G.R. No.

209464, 1 July 2015

FACTS
The prosecution presented twenty witnesses to establish a chain of events surrounding
Marlon Villanueva's death in 2006. Despite efforts to revive him, Villanueva was declared
dead due to hazing. An autopsy revealed subdural hemorrhage due to a head injury.
Evidence linked the incident to the APO Fraternity. Dungo and Sibal were identified as APO
members involved in the initiation leading to Villanueva's death. Alibi witnesses argued
Dungo was not present during the hazing.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners Dungo and Sibal were lawfully charged for their roles in the hazing
death of Marlon Villanueva.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling, stating that circumstantial evidence
from the prosecution proved petitioners' involvement in hazing Marlon Villanueva,
recognizing their presence as active participation in the rites, unless evidence showed their
efforts to prevent it.
- People v. Bokingco, G.R. No. 187536, 10 August 2011
FACTS
In February 2000, Michael Bokingco and Reynante Col were accused of murdering Noli Pasion
in Angeles City, Philippines. Bokingco pleaded guilty, but Col contested his innocence. The
trial court found both guilty, imposing death sentences. The Supreme Court later amended
the sentences to reclusion perpetua due to legislative changes.
ISSUE
Whether the qualifying circumstances were correctly applied in convicting Bokingco of
murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the Court of Appeals' decision, reducing Bokingco's murder
conviction to homicide due to lack of clear evidence, and acquitting Col due to insufficient
evidence for conspiracy.
- Fernan v. People, G.R. No. 145927, 24 August 2007
FACTS
The Sandiganbayan has filed 119 criminal charges against 36 former officials and employees
for the 1977 Cebu First Highway Engineering District scam, claiming multiple instances of
estafa through falsification of public documents.
ISSUE
Whether the presumption of innocence of the petitioners was disregarded by the SB.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the SB's decision, stating that the prosecution proved the
petitioners' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, stating that their actions and involvement in
the fraudulent scheme were intentional acts contributing to the common illegal purpose.
- Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. No. 220598, 19 July 2016
FACTS
Former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and others from the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office and Commission on Audit were charged with plunder in 2012. They
allegedly amassed a wealth of PHP365,997,915.00 from 2008 to 2010. GMA and Benigno
Aguas filed petitions for bail, but were denied. They then filed demurrers to evidence,
arguing abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE
Whether the demurrers to evidence filed by GMA and Aguas were improperly denied by the
Sandiganbayan.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan's resolutions, which denied demurrers
evidence, were improperly denied due to the prosecution's failure to establish a corpus
delicti of at least PHP50,000,000.00.
- Go-Tan v. Tan, G.R. No. 168852, 30 September 2008
FACTS
Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan, married Steven L. Tan in 1999, filed a petition for a Temporary
Protective Order (TPO) in 2005 due to alleged abuses. The Regional Trial Court granted the
TPO, but the respondents argued it did not apply to them. The RTC dismissed the petition,
interpreting it narrowly to exclude parents-in-law. A Verified Motion for Reconsideration was
denied.
ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents-spouses, as parents-in-law, may be included in the petition
for the issuance of a protective order, under R.A. No. 9262.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the RTC's resolutions, citing
Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262's supplemental application of the Revised Penal Code, which
allows for conspiracy-based coverage of violence.
- People v. Aguilos, G.R. No. 121828, 27 June 2003
FACTS
The appellant's gangmate and another group engaged in a heated argument, leading to a
fight. The appellant, seeing their gangmates aggravated, joined the fight and killed one. The
appellant argues that he should not be held liable, as he did not strike the fatal blow.
ISSUE
Whether or not, there is conspiracy
RULING
Conspiracy involves individuals working together towards a common unlawful goal, indicating
close personal association. Offenders can be liable as co-principals if they knowingly
contribute their efforts. They can be held criminally liable as principals by direct participation
if they mediate or accelerate a victim's death. Accomplices assent to the principal's plan.
- Arias v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 81563 & 82512, 19 December 1989
FACTS
In 1975, the Mangahan Floodway Project in Metro Manila involved private land acquisition,
leading to government expenditure. Arias and Data were convicted for conspiracy and
negligence, with the Supreme Court scrutinizing the process.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners Arias and Data were involved in a conspiracy leading to the
overpricing of the land purchased for the Mangahan Floodway Project.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Arias and Data on reasonable doubt, stating the evidence was
insufficient for conviction and emphasizing the importance of personal involvement in
conspiratorial activities. The court disagreed with holding heads of offices responsible for
fraudulent acts.
- Chua v. People, G.R. No. 172193, September 13, 2017
FACTS
The victim's compadre informed appellant Chua about a broker's commission in a fishpond
sale. On the day of the robbery, Leonardo and Arnold assaulted the victims and stole their
property. Chua only knew about the commission and disappeared after the crime. Tugas and
Laguidao identified Chua as the seller of a Jeepney. Chua referred Leonardo and Arnold to
their employer, who stopped working without receiving salaries.
ISSUE
WoN circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of Chua BRD
RULING
Circumstantial evidence is crucial for conviction in criminal cases, requiring multiple
circumstances and established facts. In this case, appellant Chua was identified as the
mastermind behind a stolen Jeepney crime, with his influence and control evident.
Conspiracy can also be deduced from the offense's mode and manner.
- Manaban v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150723, 11 July 2006.
FACTS
On October 11, 1996, UP Police Force member Joselito Bautista attempted to withdraw
money from an ATM but was fatally shot by security guard Ramonito Manaban. Manaban was
found guilty, but damages were later reduced.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s conviction of Manaban for
homicide instead of recognizing self-defense.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Manaban failed to prove self-defense, particularly unlawful
aggression by Bautista, due to the circumstances. Bautista was shot in the back, his firearm
was locked, and Manaban held his firearm at him, denying his self-defense claim. The court
also modified Bautista's damages, recalculating his lost earning capacity and reducing actual
damages to P69,500 and death indemnity to P50,000.
- Senoja v. People, G.R. No. 160341, 19 October 2004.
FACTS
In 1997, Exequiel Senoja was involved in a violent altercation with Leon Lumasac, leading to
his death. Senoja was charged with homicide, claiming self-defense. The trial court found him
guilty and sentenced him to 12-17 years in prison.
ISSUE
Whether the CA erred in rejecting Exequiel Senoja’s claim of self-defense.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied Senoja's petition, stating that her self-defense claim was
unfounded and unprovoked. The court found no continuous aggression from Leon after
reconciling inside the hut and during the second confrontation outside, and Senoja's actions
were excessive.
- People v. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA 67
FACTS
In 1990, Jaime Ballesteros, intoxicated, encountered George Decena after a basketball game.
His daughter, Luzviminda, saw him approaching him with a weapon. Decena stabbed Jaime in
the chest, fleeing the scene. Jaime was declared dead, and George was convicted of murder.
He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court erred in disregarding his
self-defense claim.
ISSUE
Whether the crime committed was murder or homicide
RULING
The court rejected George's self-defense claim, deeming his stabbing of Jaime retaliatory. It
also acknowledged George's voluntary surrender, categorized him as guilty of homicide, and
found no evidence of deliberate age disparity.
- People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 128359, 6 December 2000, 347 SCRA 100
FACTS
Daniel Macapagal, a married man, entered a house with a gun and killed Roberto dela Cruz,
who was armed with a revolver. Macapagal was found dead from four gunshot wounds. Dela
Cruz was charged with "Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition with
Homicide" and sentenced to death.
ISSUE
Whether the elements of self-defense were satisfactorily established by Dela Cruz.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Dela Cruz failed to establish self-defense in a gunfight with
Macapagal, leading to unlawful aggression, excessive response, and lack of sufficient
provocation. The court imposed a modified penalty and reduced damages for loss of earning
capacity.
- People v. Jaurigue, G.R. No. 384, 21 February 1946, 76 Phil. 174
FACTS
In 1942, Avelina Jaurigue stabbed Amado Capiña, causing his death. Avelina admitted, was
acquitted, and convicted of homicide. She appealed, highlighting tensions and impact of their
relationship.
ISSUE
Did Avelina act in legitimate defense of her honor?
RULING
The court ruled Avelina's actions excessive due to the lack of imminent danger of rape, a lack
of intent to commit grave, and her voluntary surrender. The court dismissed the claim of a
premeditated intention to commit murder in the chapel.
- People v. Narvaez, L-33466-67, 20 April 1983, 121 SCRA 389
FACTS
The case involves Mamerto Narvaez's conviction for murder in 1970 for killing Davis Q.
Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia in South Cotabato, Philippines. Narvaez was involved in a land
dispute with Fleischer & Co., Inc., and appealed the conviction.
ISSUE
Was there unlawful aggression by the deceased that warranted Narvaez’s response in
shooting them?
RULING
The Philippine Supreme Court re-evaluated a case involving a deceased man, determining
unlawful aggression towards his property, defense of property, and disproportionate force
used. The court reduced Narvaez's sentence and adjusted civil liabilities.
- Sabang v. People, G.R. No. 168818, 9 March 2007, 518 SCRA 35
FACTS
In 1997, Nilo Sabang, Nicanor Butad, and his son Randy were involved in a drinking spree.
Butad was fatally shot four times with his own revolver, despite having no gun. Sabang was
convicted of homicide, despite his defense of his son.
ISSUE
Whether Nilo Sabang acted in defense of his son and thereby qualified for the justifying
circumstance under Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld a homicide conviction due to insufficient defense, lack of unlawful
aggression, reasonable necessity, and no provocation. Prosecution witnesses were deemed
credible, and civil indemnity was awarded at P50,000. Damages included loss of earning
capacity, burial expenses, and reduced moral damages.
- People v. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006, 499 SCRA 64
FACTS
In 1989, Ernesto Javier and Lincoln Miran were killed by security officers Rolando Dagani and
Otello Santiano in a struggle at a canteen. The case was tried at the Regional Trial Court, the
Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC and CA erred in rejecting the self-defense claim of the accused-appellants.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld lower courts' conclusions on self-defense, performance of official
duty, conspiracy, and murder convictions. They found Javier's restraint and off-balance
unaggressive, the defendants failed to prove their duty, and the conviction was modified to
homicide.
- Palaganas v. People, G.R. No. 165483, 12 September 2006, 501 SCRA 533
FACTS
In 1998, brothers Servillano, Michael, and Melton Ferrer were involved in a violent incident at
Tidbits Videoke bar. Jaime Palaganas, along with Ferdinand and Virgilio Bautista, resented the
incident and shot the brothers. Rujjeric Z. Palaganas was found guilty of Homicide and
Frustrated Homicide, while Ferdinand was acquitted. Rujjeric filed a Petition for Review with
the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the elements of self-defense were present to absolve Rujjeric of criminal liability.
RULING
The court ruled that Rujjeric's self-defense claim was invalid due to the lack of unlawful
aggression from the Ferrer brothers and the non-fatal injuries inflicted on Michael Ferrer.
- People v. Olarbe, G.R. No. 227421, July 23, 2018
FACTS
Romeo Arca, seemingly drunk, entered Rodolfo Olarbe's home in Laguna, armed with a rifle
and bolo. Olarbe shot Arca in the head and used the bolo to hack him, resulting in his death.
Olarbe was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years and reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC and CA erred in rejecting Rodolfo Olarbe’s pleas of self-defense and defense
of a stranger.
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Romeo Arca of unlawful aggression, stating that his actions
were justified due to the imminent danger he faced. Olarbe's defense was justified by the
gunshot wounds and lack of sufficient provocation, and his surrender to authorities
demonstrates his consciousness of acted within justifiable bounds.
- People v. Ricohermoso, L-30527-28, 29 March 1974, 56 SCRA 431
FACTS
In 1965, Geminiano de Leon, his wife Fabiana, son Marianito, and Rizal Rosales were involved
in a dispute over rice harvest. The incident escalated, leading to charges of murder and
lesiones leves.
ISSUE
Whether Juan Padernal conspired in the murder of Geminiano de Leon
RULING
The court ruled that Juan conspired with Ricohermoso and Padernal to commit the murder of
Geminiano, demonstrating coordination and unity. Treachery was present, and the court
rejected Juan's justification of avoidance of greater evil. Convictions for murder and injuries
were validated.
- People v. Norma Hernandez, CA-G.R. No. 22553-R, 14 April 1959,55 OG 8465
FACTS
Vivencio Lascano courted Maria Norma Hernandez, who invited him and his parents to their
home for a wedding celebration. Despite her parents' insistence, she never showed up,
causing shame and humiliation. Appellant felt tortured and fled to prevent the marriage,
leading to her conviction.
ISSUE
W/N Hernandez shouldbe judged guilty of thecrime of slander bydeed.
RULING
The court acquitted the appellant of slander due to lack of malice, mature consideration, and
good relations between the complainant and appellant. The appellant had the right to
reconsider her marriage commitment.

- People v. Delima, L-18660, 22 December 1922, 46 Phil. 738

FACTS
Lorenzo Napilon, a prisoner escaping, was found armed by policeman Felipe Delima. Delima
attempted to demand his surrender but was shot and killed by Delima. Delima was charged
with homicide and sentenced to reclusion temporal. Delima appealed, arguing the killing was
performed in his peace officer's line of duty.
ISSUE
Whether the killing of Lorenzo Napilon by Felipe Delima constitutes homicide or an act
performed in the lawful fulfillment of duty.
RULING
The Supreme Court of the Philippines acquitted Felipe Delima of homicide charges, stating
that Napilon's aggressive actions and the necessity for Delima to impose his authority
justified the use of lethal force, thereby confirming his actions as necessary and legally
permissible.
- People v. Lagata, L-1940-42, 24 March 1949, 83 Phil. 150
FACTS
On October 3, 1946, six prisoners, including Tipace and Abria, were tasked to work outside
the provincial jail. One managed to escape, but Lagata fired shots, wounding Abria and killing
Tipace. Lagata was found guilty.
ISSUE
Whether Lagata was guilty of murder for the death of Ceferino Tipace.
RULING
The Supreme Court convicted Lagata of homicide, serious physical injuries, and negligence in
a prison escape case. The conviction was modified due to incomplete justifying
circumstances, misinterpreted prisoners' movements, and negligence leading to Labong's
escape.
- Mamangun v. People, G.R. No. 149152, 2 February 2007
FACTS
In 1992, Gener Contreras was fatally shot by police officer Rufino Mamangun in Meycauayan,
Bulacan. Mamangun, who was unarmed and pleading "Hindi ako," was convicted of homicide.
Contreras claimed she attacked Mamangun with a steel pipe. Mamangun appealed to the
Supreme Court, arguing the shooting was justified by self-defense and duty fulfillment.
ISSUE
Whether the shooting of Contreras by Mamangun was justified under paragraph 5, Article 11
of the Revised Penal Code as in the performance of duty.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld Sandiganbayan's decision, stating Mamangun's actions were not
necessary for duty, self-defense was not applicable, prosecution's testimony was credible,
and voluntary surrender was acknowledged, resulting in a mitigated penalty.
- People v. Dagani, G.R. No. 153875, 16 August 2006, 499 SCRA 64
FACTS
In 1989, Ernesto Javier and Lincoln Miran were killed by security officers Rolando Dagani and
Otello Santiano in a struggle at a canteen. The case was tried at the Regional Trial Court, the
Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC and CA erred in rejecting the self-defense claim of the accused-appellants.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld lower courts' conclusions on self-defense, performance of official
duty, conspiracy, and murder convictions. They found Javier's restraint and off-balance
unaggressive, the defendants failed to prove their duty, and the conviction was modified to
homicide.
- People v. Beronilla, L-4445, 28 February 1955, 96 Phil. 566
FACTS
Arsenio Borjal, the elected mayor of La Paz, Abra, was executed in 1945. Manuel Beronilla,
who was appointed Military Mayor, was indicted for murder. Beronilla, Paculdo, Velasco, and
Adriatico were convicted, with the jury and gravedigger acquitted.
ISSUE
Whether the accused received and disregarded a directive from Colonel Volckmann declaring
the illegality of Borjal’s execution.
RULING
The Supreme Court found no evidence of Beronilla's direct knowledge, acting within military
orders, or malice, and ruled in favor of the accused, citing ambiguity about their liberation
date.
- Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 103501-03, 17 February 1997, 268 SCRA 332
FACTS
Luis A. Tabuena and Adolfo M. Peralta were convicted of malversation of P55 million from
MIAA funds, with the Sandiganbayan convicted and sentencing them to imprisonment and
penalties. Their appeals to the Supreme Court were based on procedural errors.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting the petitioners for a crime not charged in the
amended informations
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Tabuena and Peralta, citing their criminal intent and prejudicial
participation in witness examination, as grounds for their acquittal.
- People v. Taneo, L-37673, 31 March 1933, 58 Phil. 255
FACTS
Potenciano Taneo, a man from Dolores, Leyte, was convicted of murder after he attacked his
wife and attempted to kill his father. His wife, who was pregnant, died five days later. Taneo
was convicted due to his altercation with Enrique Collantes and Valentin Abadilla, and his
hallucinations. The case highlights the dangers of irrational behavior.
ISSUE
Whether Potenciano Taneo acted voluntarily, thus should be held criminally liable for
parricide.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Taneo's actions were voluntary due to hallucinations, not
consciously committed, and the evidence did not definitively prove his involvement in his
wife's injury.
- People v. Bonoan, L-45130, 17 February 1937, 64 Phil. 87
FACTS
In 1934, Celestino Bonoan attacked and stabbed Carlos Guison in Manila, leading to his
death. He was arrested, diagnosed with mental instability, and subsequently convicted of
murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Bonoan appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in its findings on Bonoan’s mental state before, during, and
immediately after the crime
RULING
The Supreme Court acquitted Bonoan on grounds of insanity, citing his past mental illness,
severe psychotic behavior, and erratic behavior during the crime. The court applied
Philippine and American precedents and ordered his confinement.
- People v. Formigones, L-3246, 29 November 1950.
FACTS
Abelardo Formigones stabbed his wife Julia Agricola in 1946, causing severe lung damage
and death. He confessed, citing jealousy and suspicion of Julia's infidelity. Initially guilty, he
later pleaded not guilty and claimed imbecility, supported by jail guard testimony.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Abelardo Formigones is exempt from criminal liability due to imbecility under
Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING:
The Supreme Court upheld Abelardo Formigones's parricide conviction, recognizing
mitigating circumstances. The court found Abelardo was feeble-minded but not entirely
deprived of reason or discernment. The court recognized feeble-mindedness and jealousy-
induced passion, reducing the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The decision
clarified criminal liability standards, emphasizing the importance of mitigating circumstances
and executive clemency in cases involving remorse or mental limitations.
- People v. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, 31 July 1991, 199 SCRA 860
FACTS
In 1987, Rosalino Dungo attacked and stabbed Mrs. Belen Macalino Sigua at the Department
of Agrarian Reform office in Apalit, Pampanga, resulting in her death. Dungo had previously
expressed grievances about bureaucratic hurdles imposed by Mrs. Sigua. Subsequent trial
proceedings revealed extensive witness testimonies and medical examinations concerning
Dungo's mental state. Dungo was found guilty, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and
imposing financial indemnities.
ISSUE
Whether Rosalino Dungo was insane at the time of committing the crime.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Dungo's mental condition, despite expert opinions, was not a
complete deprivation of cognition and free will, and upheld the trial court's judgment of
sanity and criminal intent.
- People v. Rafanan, L-54135, 21 November 1991, 204 SCRA 65
FACTS
Policarpio Rafanan, Jr. was convicted of raping Estelita Ronaya, a 14-year-old housekeeper, in
1976. The incident occurred in their store, and Estelita was forced into the house. Rafanan
was arrested and pleaded not guilty, defending himself with psychiatric evidence of
schizophrenia.
ISSUE
Was the conviction based solely on the testimony of the complainant and her mother
appropriate?
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision, adjusting moral damages to P30,000.00,
stating minor inconsistencies, rejection of insanity defense, and failure to prove Rafanan's
mental condition absolved him.
- People v. Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, 12 May 2000, 332 SCRA 99
FACTS
In 1993, Fernando Madarang y Magno murdered his wife, Lilia Madarang, due to jealousy.
Despite refusing to plead, he was transferred to the National Center for Mental Health for
psychiatric evaluation. After two years, he was declared fit for trial and returned to jail in
1996. During the trial, Dr. Wilson S. Tibayan outlined his schizophrenia, which could lead to
violent tendencies. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of parricide, but Fernando
appealed, claiming his mental incapacity absolved him of criminal liability.
ISSUE
Whether Fernando Madarang was legally insane at the time of the commission of the crime
and thus exempt from criminal liability.
RULING
Fernando Madarang was convicted of parricide due to lack of evidence of schizophrenia
symptoms, witness statements, and lucid intervals, leading to his reclusion perpetua
sentence.
- People v. Robios, G.R. No. 138453, 29 May 2002, 382 SCRA 581
FACTS
Melecio Robiños y Domingo fatally stabbed his pregnant wife, Lorenza Robiños, in 1995. The
incident was witnessed by their 15-year-old son, Lorenzo. Robiños was found in the house,
threatening self-harm. He was charged with parricide and unintentional abortion, and
convicted by the Regional Trial Court. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection.
ISSUE
Did the RTC err in disregarding Robiños’ defense of insanity?
RULING
The Supreme Court partially merited an appeal against the insanity defense, reducing the
penalty from death to reclusion perpetua due to the absence of aggravating circumstances.
The court ruled that Robiños' actions and comments indicated awareness and deliberate
conduct, and witness testimonies failed to support his insanity during the crime. The court
also pointed out the misapplication of penalties by the RTC, and the appropriate penalty was
reclusion perpetua due to the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion.
- People v. Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, 17 March 2004, 425 SCRA 654
FACTS
Bambi Herrera and Demetrio Patrimonio Jr. were involved in two incidents involving Anacito
Opuran, a mentally unstable man. Bambi was studying when Jason Masbang entered his
house, and Allan Dacles was stabbed by Anacito. Allan managed to escape, and Bambi
locked the door to prevent Anacito from entering. Allan died shortly after. Demetrio Jr. was
stabbed by Anacito, who collapsed and died the next day. Anacito claimed an alibi, but
psychiatric evaluations revealed a history of psychotic disorder and schizophrenia.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court was correct in finding Anacito Opuran guilty of murder and homicide
RULING
The court upheld Anacito's conviction for murder and homicide in the cases of Demetrio
Patrimonio Jr. and Allan Dacles, stating that the defense of insanity was not accepted due to
lack of evidence. The prosecution provided sufficient evidence proving Anacito was sane
during the crimes, and the mitigating circumstance under Article 13 of the Revised Penal
Code was not applied. Treachery was correctly appreciated in the case.
- Verdadero v. People, G.R. No. 216021, 2 March 2016
FACTS
In 2009, Solomon Verdadero stole an irrigation pump's fan belt and stabbed his father,
Romeo, multiple times. Verdadero was arrested and charged with murder, later reduced to
homicide. He pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed insanity. Verdadero appealed, but the Court of
Appeals affirmed his conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Verdadero’s conviction despite evidence of
his insanity at the time of the incident.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that insanity as an exempting circumstance, established at the
crime's time or immediately preceding it, was sufficient to avoid culpability, based on clear
and convincing evidence.
- People v. Genosa, 341 SCRA 493, 419 SCRA 537 RA 9262
FACTS
People vs. Marivic Genosa is a case involving the tragic death of Ben Genosa, Marivic's
husband, on November 15, 1995. The couple had a tumultuous relationship, with frequent
arguments and violent encounters. After an altercation, Marivic shot Ben in the head, leading
to his death. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for review, where Marivic argued
the "battered woman syndrome" as self-defense.
ISSUE
Whether the “battered woman syndrome” (BWS) can be recognized as a form of self-defense
under Philippine law.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Marivic Genosa did not meet all the conditions for self-defense
due to the battered woman syndrome. However, the court acknowledged mitigating
circumstances, such as psychological paralysis and passion, due to the severe provocation
and the acute battering incident, which led to a diminished state of mind.
- People v. Doqueña, G.R. No. 46539, 27 September 1939, 68 Phil. 580
FACTS
On November 19, 1938, 13-year-old Valentin Doquena intervened in a volleyball altercation
at Sual, Pangasinan, causing Ragojos to punch him in the mouth. Doquena stabbed Ragojos
in the chest, leading to Ragojos's death. The trial court found Doquena acted with
discernment, but his defense argued the court erred.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in determining that Doquena acted with discernment
RULING
The trial court deemed Doquena acted with discernment, based on her academic
performance and intelligence. The Supreme Court affirmed the court's decision, stating
discernment should be evaluated based on mental capacity.
- Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 151085, 20 August 2008
FACTS
Joemar Ortega, 14, was charged with two counts of rape against an 8-year-old girl in 1998.
He used force, violence, and intimidation to commit carnal knowledge of AAA. Ortega
pleaded not guilty and faced a full trial. The prosecution and defense presented different
narratives, with AAA testifying of three rapes and medical examinations showing abrasions.
The RTC found Ortega guilty, sentencing him to reclusion temporal and imposing PHP
100,000 as indemnification.
ISSUE
Did the CA err in disregarding the medical findings of Dr. Lucifree Katalbas, which showed no
indication of molestation?
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of R.A. No. 9344, which exempts children 15
and below from criminal liability. The court clarified that rape can be committed under
coercion, and AAA's testimony was credible. The court also found it implausible that AAA's
parents would falsify traumatic allegations for monetary gain. Although the petitioner was
found guilty, the court dismissed criminal cases, imposed civil liabilities on Ortega, and
awarded indemnity and moral damages to AAA.
- People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, 20 July 2011.
FACTS
The Task Force RACER in Butuan City arrested Allen Mantalaba for selling shabu. After a
transaction with police, he was charged with violating Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. Despite
not pleading guilty, the Regional Trial Court found Mantalaba guilty, imposing reclusion
perpetua and prision mayor.
ISSUE
Whether the actual sale of dangerous drugs established beyond reasonable doubt?
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the CA's decision, modifying penalties based on the successful
sale of dangerous drugs and maintaining custody chain. It dismissed Mantalaba's argument
about procedural lapses and adapted penalties based on RA 9344 and age.
- Dorado v. People, G.R. No. 216671, 3 October 2016
FACTS
In 2004, Jerwin Dorado, along with co-accused Julius Ramos, Jeffrey Confessor, Jayson
Cabiaso, and two unidentified individuals, were charged with frustrated murder and a
violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610. After pledging not guilty, the trial proceeded. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Dorado guilty but acquitted him and the co-accused on RA
7610. Dorado appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling, but his motion for
reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Dorado’s conviction for the crime of
frustrated murder.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dorado, citing his minority and criminal responsibility.
The court applied R.A. No. 9344 retroactively, requiring discernment proof. Dorado was
exempt from criminal but not civil liability. The crime was reclassified as frustrated homicide,
and Dorado was ordered to pay civil indemnity and moral damages.