Garcia, Aron L
BSC 2-4 (2024-2025)
SOLOMON VERDADERO Y GALERA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 216021, March 2, 2016
FACTS:
In March 2009 Maynard Plata (Maynard) and his father Romeo were at the Baggao
Police Station. Together with Ronnie Elaydo (Ronnie), they went there to report that
Verdadero had stolen the fan belt of their irrigation pump. After the confrontation in the
station they went to the drugstore to buy something. Maynard saw Verdadero stabbing
Romeo, after he was alerted by the shouts of Ronnie. Verdadero stabbed Romeo on the
left side of the latter's upper back with the use of a Rambo knife. But Verdadero was
diagnosed with schizophrenia on july 21 2003 and was given medications to address his
mental illness. Verdadero would irregularly consult with his doctors as he had a lifelong
chronic disease. Then, in 2009, he was again confined for the fourth (4 th) time at CVMC
due to a relapse.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused is still liable despite the evidence of insanity at the time of incident?
RULING:
Verdadero on the ground of insanity, the Court does not totally free him from the
responsibilities and consequences of his acts. the Court grants the petition and
ACQUITS accused-appellant Solomon Verdadero y Galera of Homicide by reason of
insanity. He is ordered confined at the National Center for Mental Health for treatment
and shall be released only upon order of the Regional Trial Court acting on a
recommendation from his attending physicians from the institution.
Garcia, Aron L
BSC 2-4 (2024-2025)
US v. Tañedo,
G.R. No. L-5418, February 12, 1910
FACTS:
That on or about the 26th day of January of this year, the said accused, with the intention
of killing Feliciano Sanchez, invited him to hunt wild chickens, and, upon reaching the
forest, with premeditation shot him in the breast with a shotgun which destroyed the heart
and killed the said Sanchez, and afterwards, in order to hide the crime, buried the body of
the deceased in a well.
On the morning of the 26th of January, 1909 Cecilio Tañedo. took a shotgun with him
and a few shells with the intention to hunt some wild chicken. On the other side of the
stream he met the deceased, who, with his mother and uncle,The accused asked the uncle
of the deceased where he could find a good place in which to hunt wild chickens.
According to the uncle of the deceased, the accused invited each other to hunt wild
chickens and that the accused accepted the invitation. The accused, however, testified
that he did not invite the deceased to go hunting with him, At any rate the accused went
into the forest with his gun. However when he shot the wild chicken the accused
accidentally hit the deceased and tried to conceal the body in the cogon grass.
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE ACCIDENTAL KILLING IS RECOGNIZE AS
HOMICIDE?
RULING:
No, Evidence of misadventure gives rise to an important issue in a prosecution for
homicide, which must be submitted to the jury. And since a plea of misadventure is a
denial of criminal intent (or its equivalent) which constitutes an essential element in
criminal homicide, to warrant a conviction it must be negative by the prosecution beyond
a reasonable doubt.The deceased was a tenant on land belonging to a relative of the
accused. There was no enmity and no unpleasant relations between them. In this case
there is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part of the accused. Neither is
there any question that he was engaged in the commission of a lawful act when the
accident occurred. There is no evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the death
of the deceased. Neither the man and the chicken were shot at the same time.
Garcia, Aron L
BSC 2-4 (2024-2025)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
vs.
EUSTAQUIO LORENO y MALAGA and JIMMY MARANTAL y
LONDETE,
People v. Loreno, G.R. No. L-54414, July 9, 1984
FACTS:
In the evening of January 7, 1978, Barangay Captain Elias Monge was at his house
together with his daughter, Monica Monge,14 years old, and Cristina Monge, 22 years
old, and there house helper Francisco Fable preparing to attend the dance to be held in
the barrio proper that evening. located at barrio Magsaysay, Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
Then suddenly EUSTAQUIO LORENO and JIMMY MARANTAL together with an
unidentified man wearing a dark sweater approach them. One of them called Elias
Monge, saying that there was a letter from the chief hepe.
When the man in a dark sweater was inside. On reading the letter, Elias Monge and
Monica read the following: "Kami mga NPA(new people army)" they begin to tie all the
victims on the floor with rattan and rope from baby hammock, Loreno and his
accomplices begin to take belongings of Elias worth P10,619.50. During the robbery,
Loreno and the man in the dark sweater forcibly committed sexual assault on Elias
Monge’s daughters, Monica and Cristina Monge. Monica, then 14, was raped while being
held at gunpoint. Cristina, who was 22, was similarly assaulted despite her resistance.
however the accused defense that they were acting under the impulse of uncontrollable
fear of equal or greater injury. By the man wearing a dark sweater.
ISSUE;
WHETHER THE ACT OF ACCUSED WAS COMPELLED TO COMPULSION TO
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE ?
RULING:
NO, Loreno and Marantal’s actions, such as taking belongings worth P10,619.50. And
trying to sexually assault Cristina also Marantal’s participation as a lookout and his
violent behavior towards Francisco Fabie did not indicate he was forced under immediate
threat were found groundless by the court because their actions are voluntarily
demonstrated. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one
who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt
from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. The force must be
irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against
his will.
Garcia, Aron L
BSC 2-4 (2024-2025)
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROMULO PALENCIA, JOSE PALIZA alias "Joseling" PATERNO
NOGA, and NESTOR NOLLODA,
PP v. Palencia, G.R. No. L-38957 April 30, 1976
FACTS:
february 19, 1972, at around 2:00 PM, Alfredo Corigal was fatally stabbed in Sitio
Quemagbongog, Barrio of Tumpa, Camalig, Albay, Philippines. The victim suffered
multiple gaping wounds inflicted by sharp instruments, consistent with attacks involving
bolos. The post-mortem findings revealed extensive injuries including several deep cuts
across different parts of the body, leading to his death from severe hemorrhage.
During the trial, the prosecution presented confessions from all four accused (Palencia,
Nolloda, Jose Paliza, and Paterno Noga) admitting their involvement in the crime.
However, the defendants claimed that their confessions were made under duress and
asserted an alibi defense, rendering their voluntary association with each other no more
than coincidental.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE CONFESSION OBTAIN IS UNDER DURESS?
RULING:
Court was not persuaded that Jose Paliza and Paterno Noga acted under duress to
warrant their exemption from criminal responsibility. because Paliza and Noga had every
opportunity to run away if they had wanted to or to resist any possible aggression on their
persons by appellant Palencia, considering that the said two appellants were also armed.
It is more likely that, out of a sense of companionship or camaraderie, they joined in the
attack after Palencia and Nolloda had hacked the victim several times. Therefore
appellants Jose Paliza and Paterno Noga shall be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty from Six (6) years and Six (6) months of prision mayor, as minimum, to Fourteen
(14) years Eight (8) months and One (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, together
with the accessory penalties provided by law. The civil liability of Twelve Thousand
Pesos (P12,000.00) shall he apportioned as follows: Appellants Romulo Palencia and
Nestor Nolloda, as principal, shall be liable primarily for Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.000) while appellants Jose Paliza and Paterno Noga shall be liable for Two
Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00). The subsidiary liability of all of them shall be enforced in
accordance with the provisions of Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code.
Garcia, Aron L
BSC 2-4 (2024-2025)
THE UNITED STATES,
vs.
ISIDRO VICENTILLO,
G.R. No. L-6082 March 18, 1911
FACTS:
the defendant in this case was found guilty in the court below of the crime of "illegal and
arbitrary detention" of the complaining witness for a period of three days, and sentenced
to pay a fine of 625 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to
pay the costs of the trial. The judgment of conviction of the court below must therefore
be reversed, unless the evidence discloses that having made the arrest, the defendant
arbitrarily and without legal authority, as it is alleged, cause the complaining witness to
be detained for a period of three days without having him brought before the proper
judicial authority for the investigation and trial of the charge on which he was arrested.
However This journey required a lengthy boat trip, and although the prisoner was brought
before a justice of the peace as soon as practicable, the process took three days.
Complications arose during this period, including the loss of the written complaint that
was supposed to accompany the prisoner.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT INSUPERABLE CAUSE IS PRESENT IN THIS CASE?
RULING:
The delay in bringing the complaining witness to trial was due to unavoidable
circumstances, such as the absence of local judicial officers and the logistical challenges
of transporting the prisoner to the nearest justice of the peace. The defense maintained
that his actions were consistent with his duties to maintain law and order in the
community. The court ultimately reversed Vicentillo's conviction, acquitting him of the
charges.
