Crim Digests COMPILATION

(1)

A!ICLE "# E$%LI&' (LE )* +E$C' (LE

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG

(

(% $o* L,-./"01 2ctober -/1 -/""3

%** $o* L,-./"01 2ctober -/1 -/""3

FACTS:

FACTS: A44ellee is accused o5 ha6ing illegall7 smo8ed

A44ellee is accused o5 ha6ing illegall7 smo8ed

o4ium1 aboard the merchant 6essel Changsa o5 English

nationalit7 while said 6essel was anchored in Manila Ba7

two and a hal5 miles 5rom the shores o5 the cit7* !he

d

deemmuurrrreer r 99lleed d bb7 7 ssaaiid d aa4444eelllleee e aalllleeggeed d llaacc8 8 oo5 5

:urisdiction

:urisdiction on on the the 4art 4art o5 o5 the the lower lower court1 court1 which which so so heldheld

and dismissed the case*

ISSUE

ISSUE#

# ;;hheetthher er tthhe e ccoouurtrts s oo5 5 tthhe e PPhhiillii4444iinnes es hha6a6ee

:urisdiction

:urisdiction o6er o6er crime1 crime1 li8li8e e the the one one herein herein in6ol6ed1in6ol6ed1

co

commmmititteted d ababoaoard rd memerrchachant nt 6es6essesels ls ananchchorored ed in in ourour

:urisdiction waters*

HELD

HELD#

# !!hheerre e aarre e ttwwo o 55uunnddaammeennttaal l rruullees s oon n tthhiiss

4articular matter in connection with International Law< to

w

wiitt1 1 tthhe e ++rreenncch h rruullee1 1 aaccccoorrddiinng g tto o wwhhiicch h ccrriimmeess

committed aboard a 5oreign merchant 6essels should not

be 4rosecuted in the courts o5 the countr7 within whose

territorial :urisdiction the7 were committed1 unless their

c

coommmmiissssiioon n aa==eecctts s tthhe e 44eeaacce e aannd d sseeccuurriitt7 7 oo5 5 tthhee

territor7< and the English rule1 based on the territorial

(2)

(3)

-4rinci4le and 5ollowed in the (nited &tates1 according to

4rinci4le and 5ollowed in the (nited &tates1 according to

which1 crimes 4er4etrated under such circumstances are

in

in gegeneneraral l trtriaiablble e in in ththe e cocoururts ts o5 o5 ththe e cocoununtrtr7 7 wwitithihinn

territor7 the7 were committed* 25 this two rules1 it is the

la

last st onone e ththat at obobtatainins s in in ththis is :u:uririsdsdicictitionon1 1 bebecacaususe e atat

4resent the theories and :uris4rudence 4re6ailing in the

(

(nniitteed d &&ttaattees s oon n tthhiis s mmaatttteer r aarre e aauutthhoorriitt7 7 iin n tthhee

Phili44ines which is now a territor7 o5 the (nited &tates

>we were still a (& territor7 when this was decided in

-/""3*

;e ha6e seen that the mere 4ossession o5 o4ium

aboard a 5oreign 6essel in transit was held b7 this court

not triable b7 or courts1 because it being the 4rimar7

ob:ect o5 our 24ium Law to 4rotect the inhabitants o5 the

Phili44ines against the disastrous e=ects entailed b7 the

use o5 this drug1 its mere 4ossession in such a shi41

without being used in our territor71 does not being about

i

in n tthhe e ssaaiid d ttererrriittoor7 r7 tthhoosse e ee=e=ecctts s tthhaat t oouur r ssttaatututtee

contem4lates a6oiding* 'ence such a mere 4ossession is

not considered a

not considered a disturbance o5 disturbance o5 the 4ublic the 4ublic orderorder**

But to smo8e o4ium within our territorial limits1

e6en though aboard a 5oreign merchant shi41 is certainl7

a breach o5 the 4ublic order here established1 because it

causes such drug to 4roduce its 4ernicious e=ects within

our territor7* It seriousl7 contra6enes the 4ur4ose that

our Legislature has in mind in enacting the a5oresaid

"

(4)

r

re4e4rresessisi6e 6e ststatatutute* e* ememanandeded d to to ththe e lolowwer er cocoururt t 5o5orr

5urther

5urther 4roceedings in 4roceedings in accordance with lawaccordance with law**

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

US vs. Look Chaw, Dece!e" #$, #%##

+

+actacts# s# &e6e&e6eral ral 4er4ersonsons s >in>inclucluding ding the the intinternernal,al,rere6en6enueue

ag

agenent t o5 o5 CeCebubu3 3 wewent nt ababoaoarrd d ththe e ststeaeamsmshihi4 4 ErErrrololl l toto

ins4ect and search its cargo* !he steamshi4 Erroll is o5

English nationalit7 and it

English nationalit7 and it came 5rom 'ong?came 5rom 'ong?ong bound 5orong bound 5or

Me

Me@i@ico co 6i6ia a ththe e cacall ll 4o4ortrts s o5 o5 MaManinila la anand d CCebebu* u* !h!hesesee

4ersons who ins4ected and search the steamshi4 5ound

sac8s o5 o4ium*

!he

!he 9scal 9scal 9led 9led 5or 5or unlaw5ul unlaw5ul 4ossession 4ossession o5 o5 o4iumo4ium

against

against de5endant,a44ellant de5endant,a44ellant Loo8 ChawLoo8 Chaw**

!he

!he o4ium o4ium seized seized in in the the 6essel 6essel had had been been bought bought b7 b7 thethe

de5endant in 'ong?ong1 at P* 5or each round can and

P*

P* 5or each o5  5or each o5 the others1 5or the 4ur4ose o5 selling it1the others1 5or the 4ur4ose o5 selling it1

as contraband1 in Me@ico and Puerto de )era Cruz< that



(5)

the 6essel arri6ed at Cebu and on the same da7 he sold

o4ium*

!he

!he de5ense de5ense mo6ed mo6ed 5or 5or a a dismissal dismissal o5 o5 the the case1 case1 on on thethe

gr

grououndnds s ththat at ththe e cocoururt t hahad d no no :u:uririsdsdicictition on to to trtr7 7 ththee

same and the 5acts concerned therein did not constitute

a crime*

!he

!he lower lower court court ruled ruled that that it it did did not not lac8 lac8 :urisdiction1:urisdiction1

inasmuch as the crime had been committed within its

district1 on the whar5 o5 Cebu*

!he de5endan

!he de5endant a44ealed* t a44ealed* !he issue !he issue to be to be resol6ed in tresol6ed in thishis

case is case is I Issssuuee# # ;;hheetthheer r oor r nnoot t tthhe e PPhhiillii4444iinne e ccoouurrtts s hhaa66ee :urisdiction :urisdiction 'eld# F

'eld# Fes1 the es1 the Phili44ine courts Phili44ine courts ha6e :urisdiction*ha6e :urisdiction*

%# mere 4ossession o5 a thing o5 4rohibited use in these

Island

Islands1 aboard a s1 aboard a 5or5oreign 6essel in eign 6essel in transtransit1 in it1 in an7 o5 an7 o5 theirtheir

4orts1 does $2! constitute a crime triable b7 the courts

o

o5 5 tthhiis s ccoouunnttrr771 1 oon n aaccccoouunnt t oo5 5 ssuucch h 66eesssseel l bbeeiinngg

considered as an e@tension o5 its

considered as an e@tension o5 its own nationalit7own nationalit7

EG# when the article1 whose use is 4rohibited within the

Phili44ine Islands1 in the 4resent case a can o5 o4ium1 is

0

(6)

landed 5rom the 6essel u4on Phili44ine soil1 thus committing an o4en 6iolation o5 the laws o5 the land with res4ect to which1 as it is a 6iolation o5 the 4enal law in 5orce at the 4lace o5 the commission o5 the crime1 onl7 the court established in that said 4lace itsel5 had com4etent :urisdiction1 in the absence o5 an agreement under an international treat7*

Modi9ed b7 reducing the im4risonment and the 9ne im4osed to si@ months and P-1

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

U.S. v. Ah S&', )$ Ph&*. %+

(#%#+-C5* +rench 6s* English rule

+AC!&# !he de5endant is a sub:ect o5 China em4lo7ed as a 9reman on a steamshi4* !he steamshi4 is a 5oreign steamer which arri6ed the 4ort o5 Cebu on A4ril "1 -/-H1 a5ter a 6o7age direct 5rom the 4ort o5 &aigon* !he de5endant bought eight cans o5 o4ium in &aigon1 brought them on board the steamshi4 and had them in his 4ossession during the tri4 5rom &aigon to Cebu* ;hen the steamer anchored in the 4ort o5 Cebu1 the authorities on ma8ing the search 5ound the cans o5 o4ium hidden in the ashes below the boiler o5 the steamers engine* !he de5endant con5essed that he was

(7)

the owner o5 the o4ium and that he had 4urchased it in &aigon* 'e did not con5ess1 howe6er1 as to his 4ur4ose in bu7ing the o4ium* 'e did not sa7 that it was his intention to im4ort the 4rohibited drug*

I&&(E# ;hether or not the crime o5 illegal im4ortation o5 o4ium into the Phili44ine Islands has been 4ro6enJ

(LI$%# Fes* It is the onus o5 the go6ernment to 4ro6e that the 6essel 5rom which the drug discharged came into Phili44ine waters 5rom a 5oreign countr7 with the drug on board* In this case1 it is to be noted that &ec* 0 o5 Act $o* ".- begins1 An7 4erson who shall unlaw5ull7 im4ort or bring an7 4rohibited drug into the Phili44ine IslandsK Im4ort and bring should be construed as s7non7mous terms* !he mere act o5 going into a 4ort1 without brea8ing bul81 is 4rima 5acie e6idence o5 im4ortation* !he im4ortation is not the ma8ing entr7 o5 goods at the customhouse1 but merel7 the bringing them into the 4ort1 and the im4ortation is com4lete be5ore the entr7 to the customhouse* Moreo6er1 4ossession 5or 4ersonal use is unli8el71 :udging 5rom the size o5 the amount brought*

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

A"&c*e )

(8)

PADILLA vs DI/ON

+AC!&

es4ondent 'on* Baltazar * Dizon4resided the criminal case against Lo Chi +ai1 who was caught b7 customs guard at MIA while attem4ting to smuggle 5oreign currenc7 and 5oreign e@change instruments > . 4cs amounting to (&10/*H3 out o5 the countr7*In his decision1 res4ondent :udge acquitted Lo Chi +ai1 sa7ing that Lo Chi +ai had no will5ul intention to 6iolate the law >sec 1 Central Ban8 Circular $o* /*3 'e also directed the release to Lo Chi +ai o5 at least the amount o5 (&1* under Central Ban8 Circular $o* /**

Commissioner o5 Customs1 Ale@ander Padilla1 then 9led a com4laint against Baltazar * Dizon 5or rendering erroneous decision due to gross incom4etence and gross ignorance o5 the law*

I&&(E# ;hether or not res4ondent Baltazar * Dizon is guilt7 o5 gross incom4etence or gross ignorance o5 the law* *

'ELD# Fes* es4ondent :udge has shown gross incom4etence or gross ignorance o5 the law in holding that to con6ict the accused 5or 6iolation o5 cebtral ban8 circular no* /1 the 4rosecution must establish that the

(9)

accused had the criminal intent to 6iolate the law* !he res4ondent :udge ought to 8now that 4roo5 o5 malice or deliberate intent is not essential in o=enses 4unished b7 s4ecial laws1 wNc are mala4rohibita* In requiring 4roo5 o5 malice1 the res4ondent :udge has b7 his gross ignorance allowed the accused to go scot 5ree* 'e ob6iousl7 contri6ed to 5a6or the acquittal o5 the accused1 thereb7 clearl7 negating his claim that he rendered the decision in good 5aith* 'is actuations in the case amount to gra6e misconduct 4re:udicial to the interest o5 sound and 5air administration o5 :ustice*

In in6o8ing the 4ro6isions o5 CB $o* // to :usti57 the release o5 (&1* to the accused1 the res4ondent :udge again dis4la7ed incom4etence and gross

ignorance o5 the law*

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

0&sake o1 Fac

Peo2*e vs Oa'&s

+acts# Pro6incial Ins4ector recei6ed a telegram that esca4ed con6ict Anselmo Balgtas and Irene must be a44rehended Dead or Ali6e* 'e then instructed Chie5 o5 Police 2anis who 8new a certain Irene to subdue the esca4ed con6ict and so 2anis and others went to the

(10)

said 4ersonOs house* 2anis and %alanta a44roached a certain BrigadaMallare outside the house1 who told them that Irene was slee4ing with her 4aramour in bedroom* 2anis and %alanta then went to IreneOs room and saw a man slee4ing with his bac8 towards the door and shot him* !hat man turned out to be &era4io!ecson1 IreneOs 4aramour*

2anis%alanta were charged with murder* In their de5ense1 the7 contended that the7 acted in innocent mista8e o5 5a6t in the honest 4er5ormance o5 their oQcial duties*

!he lower court held and so declared them guilt7 o5 the crime o5 homicide through rec8less im4rudence*

Issue# wNn accused incur no criminal liabilit7 b7 reason o5 mista8e o5 5act

uling# $2*

Citing the Ah Chong case# Ignorantia+actiE@cusat a44lies onl7 when mista8e is committed wNo 5ault or carelessness*

!he7 ha6e e@ceeded in the 5ul9llment o5 their dut7 b7 8illing the 4erson whom the7 belie6ed to be Balagtas without an7 resistance 5rom him and without ma8ing an7

(11)

4re6ious inquir7 as to his identit7* ;ith !ecson aslee41 accused had am4le time and o44ortunit7 to ascertain his identit7 without hazard to themsel6es1 considering 6ictim was unarmed* !hus his 4etition is denied1 and he is criminall7 liable 5or the murder >wN mc o5 incom4lete :c R3 o5 !ecson

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

UNITED STATES

6s

AH CHONG

+AC!&

Ah Chong wor8ed as a coo8 at the 2QcersO quarters $o* "H1 +ort Mc ?inle71 izal Pro6ince* In a datached house1 onl7 Ah Chong slee4s with and Pascual %ualberto1 a muchaho* It was not 5urnished with a 4ermanent loc8* 2 August -01 -/.1 around -Oo cloc8 in the e6ening1 Ah Chong was suddenl7 awa8en because someone had been tr7ing to o4en the room* 2ut o5 5ear1 'e shouted who is there but none re4lied* Instead1 the other 4erson 8e4t on 5orcing his entr7* Ah Chong belie6ed that it was a thie51 and shouted again i5 7ou enter1 I will 8ill 7ouS Again none re4lied* (4on entr71 and out o5 5ear Ah Chong inTicted a wound on the intruderOs stomach with a common 8itchen 8ni5e* A5terwards1 he realized1 that 4erson was his roomate %ualberto* 'e immediatel7

(12)

called his em4lo7ers and dressed PascualOs wound but he died on the 5ollowing da7*

Ah Chong was 4laced under arrest and was charged wN crime o5 assassination* 'e was tried and 5ound guilt7 b7 trial court o5 sim4le homicide*

Ah Chong admitted that he 8illed Pascual but insisted that he struc8 the 5atal blow wNout an7 intent to do wrong5ul act*1 in the e@ercise o5 his law5ul right o5 sel5 de5ense*

I&&(E# ;hether or not Ah Chong should be e@em4t 5rom criminal liabilit7 b7 reason o5 mista8e as to the 5acts*

'ELD# FE&* !he &u4reme Court held that

“A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the fatal blow alleged in the information in the rm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was a thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of his life and of his property and of the property committed to his charge; that in view of all the circumstances, as they must have presented themselves to the defendant at the time, he

(13)

--acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge.

3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

A4TICLE 5: P4O6I0ATE CAUSE

US V. VALDE/

+AC!&# At about noon1 on $o6ember "/1 -/-/1 while the interisland steamer )igan was anchored in the Pasig i6er1 a small boat was sent out to raise the anchor* !he crew o5 this boat consisted o5 the accused1 Cali@to )aldez 7 Uuiri1 and si@ others among whom was the deceased1 )enancio%argantel* !he accused was in charge o5 the men and stood at the stern o5 the boat1 acting as helmsman1 while )enancio%argantel was at the bow*

(14)

!he wor8 raising the anchor seems to ha6e 4roceeded too slowl7 to satis57 the accused1 and he accordingl7 began to insult the men* (4on this )enancio%argantel remonstrated1 sa7ing that it would be better1 and the7 would wor8 better1 i5 he would not insult them* !he accused too8 this as a dis4la7 o5 insubordination< and rising in rage he mo6ed towards )enancio1 with a big 8ni5e1 threatening to stab him* At the instant when the accused had attained to within a 5ew 5eet o5 )enancio1 the latter1 e6identl7 belie6ing himsel5 in great and immediate 4eril1 threw himsel5 into the water and disa44eared beneath its sur5ace to be seen no more*

As it was 5ull midda71 and there was nothing to obstruct the 6iew o5 4ersons u4on the scene1 the 5ailure o5 )enancio%argantel to rise to the sur5ace conclusi6el7 shows that1 owing to his 4ossible inabilit7 to swim or the strength o5 the current1 he was borne down into the water and was drowned*

I&&(E# ;2$ )aldez was criminall7 res4onsible*

(LI$%# FE&* %argantel1 belie6ing himsel5 to be in great and immediate 4eril1 threw himsel5 into the water1 im4elled b7 the instinct o5 sel5 4reser6ation1 )aldez who criminall7 assaulted him b7 threatening to stab him with a big 8ni5e1 is res4onsible 5or homicide*

(15)

As to the criminal res4onsibilit7 o5 the accused 5or the death thus occasioned the li8ewise can be no doubt< 5or it is ob6ious that the deceased1 in throwing himsel5 in the ri6er1 acted solel7 in obedience to the instinct o5 sel5, 4reser6ation and was in no sense legall7 res4onsible 5or his own death* As to him it was but the e@ercise o5 a choice between two e6ils1 and an7 reasonable 4erson under the same circumstances might ha6e done the same* As was once said b7 a British court1 V

I1 a a'

c"eaes &' a'ohe" a'7s &'8 a' &e8&ae

se'se o1 8a'8e" wh&ch ca9ses s9ch 2e"so' o "

o esca2e, a'8 &' so 8o&' he &';9"&es h&se*1, he

2e"so' who c"eaes s9ch a sae o1 &'8 &s

"es2o's&!e 1o" he &';9"&es wh&ch "es9.

V >eg* 6s* 'allida71 - L* !* e4* W$*&*X1 H-*

!he accused must1 there5ore1 be considered the res4onsible author o5 the death o5 )enancio%argantel1 and he was 4ro4erl7 con6icted o5 the o=ense o5 homicide*

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

P2 v. PU4IFICACIONAL0ONTE

&e4tember H1 -/- %** $o* 

(16)

+AC!&# Puri9cation li6ed maritall7 with the Chinaman +eli@ !e &ue who was a married man* A certain MguelaDawal1 with whom +eli@ had also li6ed maritall71 threatened to bring suit against him unless he re:oined her1 and so !e &ue and Puri9cation 6oluntaril7 agreed to se4arate* +rom that time on !e &ue li6ed in together with the said MiguelaDawal*

2n the morning o5 2ctober -1 -/1 the accused 6isited her 5ormer 4aramour1 5ound him with Miguela* ;hen !e &ue saw her1 he a44roached and told her to go awa7 at once because her new 4aramour might get :ealous and do her harm* !he accused insisted u4on remaining1 and on being 4ushed b7 !e &ue and Miguela1 5eeling that she was being un:ustl7 treated1 too8 hold o5 a small 4en8ni5e she carried and stabbed the man in the abdomen* 'orri9ed1 4erha4s1 at her deed1 she Ted to the street1 lea6ing the blade stic8ing in her 6ictims abdomen* !he in:ured man was at once ta8en to the 4ro6incial hos4ital where he was gi6en 9rst aid treatment1 and Doctor 2rtega 4er5ormed a slight o4eration u4on him*

+rom the testimon7 o5 Dr* 2rtega1 it ma7 be in5erred# !hat the deceased was stabbed on the le5t side o5 the abdominal region1 near the na6el< that the wound did not in6ol6e an7 internal organ< that u4on arri6ing at the

(17)

hos4ital1 he was submitted to a minor o4eration which consisted in cleaning1 medicating1 and suturing the wound< that u4on his arri6al1 the 4atient was in a ner6ous state< that during the o4eration the7 tied down the 4atient< that immediatel7 a5ter the o4eration Doctor 2rtega admonished him to 8ee4 quiet because an7 mo6ement he might ma8e would change his 4athological state 5or the worse and bring about dangerous com4lication< that in s4ite o5 this admonition the deceased mo6ed about1 sitting u4 in bed1 getting u4 and 4acing about the room< that because o5 this1 the internal 6essels1 alread7 congested because o5 the wound1 bled1 and the hemorrhage thus 4roduced caused his death*

!he de5ense contends1 with which the Attorne7,%eneral agrees1 that according to Doctor 2rtegas testimon7 the determining cause o5 !e &ues death was not he wound inTicted b7 the accused1 but his own carelessness in mo6ing about against the doctors orders1 which 4roduced the internal hemorrhage*

I&&(E# ;hether the wound inTicted b7 the accused would held him liable 5or the crime*

(LI$%# FE&*

(18)

!he court concluded that the internal 6eins were congested 5rom the beginning because o5 the 5orce o5 the blow which 4roduced the wound1 and that what reall7 im4elled the 4atient to 6iolate the doctors orders1 b7 sitting u4 in bed and 4acing about the room1 was not1 as the de5ense insinuates1 a desire to aggra6ate the criminal liabilit7 o5 the accused1 but sim4l7 his ner6ous condition1 which was noted 5rom the moment he entered the 4ro6incial hos4ital* It was not the warmth o5 the bed or his not being used to it that made the 4atient act as he did1 but the 4athological state created b7 the illness brought on b7 the wound 5rom which he was su=ering* !he court was con6inced that under normal conditions1 i5

the 4atient had not been ill1 he would not ha6e 6iolated the doctors orders1 8nowing1 as he did1 that the slightest mo6ement might occasion a com4lication or internal hemorrhage ca4able o5 causing death*

!he 4atients ner6ous condition when the com4lication or internal hemorrhage which caused death set in1 was an inherent 4h7siological condition 4roduced b7 the wound in the abdomen* It goes without sa7ing that i5 he had not been wounded he would not ha6e undergone that e@traordinar7 state and condition1 nor ha6e had to lea6e his bed during the critical stage o5 his illness*

(19)

Lastly, in United States vs. Zamora (3 !hil., "#$, %he court held that &'ne who erforms a criminal act should be held to liability for the act and for all of its conse)uences, although both were in*icted uon a erson other than the one whom the felon intended to in+ure.&

'owe6er1 the a44ellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstances o5 not ha6ing intended to commit so serious a crime as that committed1 and o5 ha6ing acted with 4assion and ob5uscation* !he 9rst is shown b7 the 5act that she made use o5 a small 4en8ni5e1 and the second1 b7 the 5act that be5ore the attac8 she had been 4ushed out o5 the room where the 6ictim was1 and that she considered such treatment as an o=ense or abuse* !he 4enalt7 must there5ore be reduced one degree or to

4rision ma7or*

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PP v. To*&'($< SC4A #+, =a'

#+,#%+>-Facs:

Antonio !oling and Yose !oling1 twins1 5rom $orthern &amar1 6isited their children in Manila on Yan 1 -/* * 2n their homeward tri41 the twins boarded Bicol E@4ress !rain* A5ter the train 4assed b7 Cabu7ao1 Laguna1 a murderous ram4age ha44ened allegedl7

(20)

caused b7 the twins1 armed with 4air o5 scissors and a 8ni5e* Most o5 the 4assengers scurried awa7 5or sa5et7 but the twins1 who had run amuc81 stabbed e6er7one whom the7 encountered inside the coach*

Constabular7 &ergeants )icente Z* a7el and )icente Aldea were among the 4assengers o5 the train who tried to sto4 the twins* C& Aldea was able to sto4 Antonio and wrested the scissors awa7*

;hen the7 arri6ed at Calamba station1 0 C& escorted the twins 5rom the train and turned them o6er to the custod7 o5 the Calamba Police*

&ome o5 the 6ictims were 5ound dead in the coach while otherd were 4ic8ed u4 along the railroad trac8s between Cabu7ao Calamba*

!oling brothers1 in their statement1 to4d the in6estigators that while in the train the7 were held u4 b7 " or more 4ersons*

+iled against !oling brothers in the M!C o5 Cabu7ao1 Laguna was an in5ormation 5or multi4le murder >/ 6ictims3 and multi4le 5rustrated murder>si@ 6ictims3 and tri4le homicide> as to the 4ersons who died 5rom the running train to a6oid being stabbed*

(21)

I&&(E# >-3 ;hether the accused were criminall7 liable 5or the deaths* FE&, . se4arate murders and - attem4ted murder

>"3 ;hether the accused is criminall7 res4onsible 5or the deaths o5 those who :um4ed 5rom the train* $2 (LI$%# >-3 witnesses con9rmed the admissions o5 the twins that the7 stabbed se6eral 4assengers* 2n the theor7 o5 sel5, de5ense is highl7incredible1 as none o5 the 4assengers noticed the alleged hold u4* Also1 de5ense 5ailed to 4ro6e that 4ersons1 other than the twins1 could ha6e inTicted the stab wounds*

>"3 $o one testi9ed that those 0 6ictims :um4ed 5rom the train* 'ad the necro4s7 re4orts been rein5orced b7 testimon7 showing that the 4ro@imate cause o5 their deaths was the 6iolent and murderous conduct o5 the twins1 then the latter would be criminall7 res4onsible 5or their deaths*

Absent o5 e7ewitness,testimon7 as to the :um4ing 5rom the train o5 5our 6ictims 4recludes the im4utations o5 criminal res4onsibilit7 to the a44ellants 5or the ghastl7 deaths o5 the said 6ictims*

(22)

Peo2*e vs O"ea

+AC!&#

[ 2ctober -1 -//" # 4m# Andre Mar Masang8a7 >courting aquel 2rtega31 Ariel Caranto1 omeo 2rtega1 oberto &an Andres1 &ear9n1 Bo7et and DiosdadoUuitlong were ha6ing a drin8ing s4ree with gin and 9nger 5oods*

[ 2ctober -1 -//" --# 4m# Ben:amin 2rtega1 Yr* and Manuel %arcia who were alread7 dran8 :oined them*

[ 2ctober -1 -//" midnight# Andre answering a call o5 nature went to the bac8 4ortion o5 the house and Ben:amin 5ollowed him* &uddenl71 the7 heard a shout 5rom Andre DonOt1 hel4 meS >'uwag1 tulungannin7oa8oS3

[ Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Ben:amin on to4 o5 Andre who was l7ing down being stabbed* Ariel got Ben:amin 2rtega1 &r*1 Ben:aminOs 5ather while Diosdado called omeo to 4aci57 his brother* omeo1 Ben:amin and Manuel li5ted Andre 5rom the canal and dro44ed him in the well* !he7 dro44ed stones to AndreOs bod7 to weigh the bod7 down* omeo warned Diosdado not to tell an7bod7 what he saw* 'e agreed so he was allowed to go home* But1 his conscience bothered him so he told

(23)

"-his mother1 re4orted it to the 4olice and accom4anied them to the crime scene*

[ $BI Medico Legal 2Qcer Dr* Ludi6ico Y* Lagat#

o cause o5 death is drowning with multi4le stab wounds1 contributor7

o - stab wounds

o stab wound on the u44er le5t shoulder1 near the u44er le5t arm4it and le5t chest wall, 5ront

o stab wound on the bac8 le5t side o5 the bod7 and the stab wound on the bac8 right 4ortion o5 the bod7 – bac8 [ Manuel %arcia alibi

o 'e was as8ed to go home b7 his wi5e to 5etched his mother,in,law who 4er5ormed a ritual called tawas on his sic8 daughter and sta7ed home a5ter

[ Ben:amin 2rtega1 Yr* stor7

o A5ter Masang8a7 le5t1 he le5t to urinate and he saw Andre 4ee8ing through the room o5 his sister aquel* !hen1 Andre a44roached him to as8 where his sister was* ;hen he answered he didnOt 8now1 Andre 4unched him so he bled and 5ell to the ground* Andre drew a 8ni5e and

(24)

stabbed him1 hitting him on the le5t arm1 thereb7 immobilizing him* Andre then gri44ed his nec8 with his le5t arm and threatened to 8ill him* (nable to mo6e1 2rtega shouted 5or hel4* Uuitlong came1 seized the 8ni5e and stabbed Andre - times with it* Andre then ran towards the direction o5 the well* !hen1 he tended his wound in the li4s and arm4it and sle4t*

[ !C# Ben:amin and Manuel through cons4irac7 and the ta8ing ad6antage o5 su4erior strength committed murder

I&&(E# ;N$ Ben:amin and Manuel should be liable 5or murder*

'ELD# $2* PA!LF %A$!ED* Ben:amin is guilt7 onl7 o5 homicide* Manuel deser6es acquittal

[ I5 2rtegaOs 6ersion o5 the assault was true1 he should ha6e immediatel7 re4orted the matter to the 4olice authorities* I5 2rtegaOs 6ersion o5 the assault was true1 he should ha6e immediatel7 re4orted the matter to the 4olice authorities* It is incredible that Diosdado would stab Andre - times successi6el71 com4letel7 ignoring

(25)

Ben:amin who was gra44ling with Masang8a7 and that Andre was cho8ing him while being stabbed*

[ Abuse o5 su4erior strength requires deliberate intent on the 4art o5 the accused to ta8e ad6antage o5 such su4eriorit7 – none shown

o Andre was a ,5ooter1 whereas 2rtega1 Yr* was onl7 O0

[ Article 01 4ar* -1 o5 the e6ised Penal Code states that criminal liabilit7 shall be incurred b7 an7 4erson committing a 5elon7 >delito3 although the wrong5ul act done be di=erent 5rom that which he intended*

o !he essential requisites

-* the intended act is 5elonious – assisting Ben:amin b7 carr7ing the bod7 to the well

"* the resulting act is li8ewise a 5elon7 , concealing the bod7 o5 the crime to 4re6ent its disco6er7

* the unintended albeit gra6er wrong was 4rimaril7 caused b7 the actorOs wrong5ul acts >4raeterintentionem3 – still ali6e and was drowned to death

[ a 4erson ma7 be con6icted o5 homicide although he had no original intent to 8ill

(26)

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

U"!a'o v. IAC

+acts#

2n 2ctober "1 -/.1 4etitioner +ilomeno(rbano was on his wa7 to his rice9eld* 'e 5ound the 4lace where he stored 4ala7 Tooded with water coming 5rom the irrigation canal* (rbano went to the ele6ated 4ortion to see what ha44ened1 and there he saw Marcelino Ya6ier and Emilio E5re cutting grass* Ya6ier admitted that he was the one who o4ened the canal* A quarrel ensued1 and (rbano hit Ya6ier on the right 4alm with his bolo1 and again on the leg with the bac8 o5 the bolo* 2n 2ctober "H1 -/.1 (rbano and Ya6ier had an amicable settlement* (rbano 4aid PH 5or the medical e@4enses o5 Ya6ier* 2n $o6ember -01 -/.1 (rbano was rushed to the hos4ital where he had loc8:aw and con6ulsions* !he doctor 5ound the condition to be caused b7 tetanus to@in which in5ected the healing wound in his 4alm* 'e died the 5ollowing da7* (rbano was charged with homicide and was 5ound guilt7 both b7 the trial court and on a44eal b7 the Court o5 A44eals* (rbano 9led a motion 5or new trial based on the aQda6it o5 the Baranga7 Ca4tain who

(27)

stated that he saw the deceased catching 9sh in the shallow irrigation canals on $o6ember * !he motion was denied< hence1 this 4etition*

Issue#

;hether the wound inTicted b7 (rbano to Ya6ier was the 4ro@imate cause o5 the latterOs death

'eld#

A satis5actor7 de9nition o5 4ro@imate cause is*** Vthat cause1 which1 in natural and continuous sequence1 unbro8en b7 an7 eQcient inter6ening cause1 4roduces the in:ur71 and without which the result would not ha6e occurred*VAnd more com4rehensi6el71 Vthe 4ro@imate legal cause is that acting 9rst and 4roducing the in:ur71 either immediatel7 or b7 setting other e6ents in motion1 all constituting a natural and continuous chain o5 e6ents1 each ha6ing a close causal connection with its immediate 4redecessor1 the 9nal e6ent in the chain immediatel7 e=ecting the in:ur7 as a natural and 4robable result o5 the cause which 9rst acted1 under such circumstances that the 4erson res4onsible 5or the 9rst e6ent should1 as an ordinaril7 4rudent and intelligent 4erson1 ha6e reasonable ground to e@4ect at

(28)

the moment o5 his act or de5ault that an in:ur7 to some 4erson might 4robabl7 result there5rom*V

I5 the wound o5 Ya6ier inTicted b7 the a44ellant was alread7 in5ected b7 tetanus germs at the time1 it is more medicall7 4robable that Ya6ier should ha6e been in5ected with onl7 a mild cause o5 tetanus because the s7m4toms o5 tetanus a44eared on the ""nd da7a5ter the hac8ing incident or more than -0 da7s a5ter the inTiction o5 the wound* !here5ore1 the onset time should ha6e been more than si@ da7s* Ya6ier1 howe6er1 died on the second da7 5rom theonset time* !he more credible conclusion is that at the time Ya6iers wound was inTicted b7 the a44ellant1 the se6ere 5orm o5 tetanus that 8illed him was not 7et 4resent* Consequentl71 Ya6iers wound could ha6e been in5ected with tetanus a5ter the hac8ing incident* Considering the circumstance surrounding Ya6iers death1 his wound could ha6e been in5ected b7 tetanus " or  or a 5ew but not " to "" da7s be5ore he died*

!he rule is that the death o5 the 6ictim must be the direct1 natural1 and logical consequence o5 the wounds inTicted u4on him b7 the accused* And since we are dealing with a criminal con6iction1 the 4roo5 that the accused caused the 6ictims death must con6ince a

(29)

ra

ratitionaonal l mimind nd bebe7o7ond nd rreaeasonsonabable le dodoubtubt* * !h!he e memedidicacall

9ndings1 howe6er1 lead us to a distinct 4ossibilit7 that

the in5ection o5 the wound b7 tetanus was an eQcient

inter6ening cause later or between the time Ya6ier was

wounded to the time o5 his death* !he in5ection was1

there5or

there5ore1 distinct and e1 distinct and 5oreign to the crime*5oreign to the crime*

!here

!here is is a a li8li8elihood elihood that that the the wound wound was was but but the the remoteremote

cause and its subsequent in5ection1 5or 5ailure to ta8e

necessar7 4recautions1 with tetanus ma7 ha6e been the

4

4rroo@@iimmaatte e ccaauusse e oo5 5 YYaa66iieerrs s ddeeaatth h wwiitth h wwhhiicch h tthhee

4etitioner had nothing to do* VA 4rior and remote cause

cannot be made the be o5 an action i5 such remote cause

did nothing more than 5urnish the condition or gi6e rise

to the occasion b7 which the in:ur7 was made 4ossible1 i5

there inter6ened between such 4rior or remote cause

an

and d ththe e inin:u:ur7 r7 a a didiststininctct1 1 susuccccesessisi6e6e1 1 ununrrelelatateded1 1 anandd

eQcient cause o5 the in:ur71 e6en though such in:ur7

w

wouould ld nnot ot haha6e 6e haha4444enened ed bubut t 5o5or r susuch ch cconondidittioion n oorr

occasion* I5 no danger e@isted in the condition e@ce4t

because o5 the inde4endent cause1 such condition was

n

noot t tthhe e 44rroo@@iimmaatte e ccaauussee* * AAnnd d ii5 5 aan n iinnddee44eennddeenntt

negligent act or de5ecti6e condition sets into o4eration

the instances which result in in:ur7 because o5 the 4rior

de5ecti6e condition1 such subsequent act or condition is

the 4ro@imate cause*V

".

(30)

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PE2PLE 6 ABACA% $o* H00

+AC!&

?hingsle7 Paul ?oh and the wi5e o5 accused +rancisco

A

Abbaarrccaa1 1 YYeennnn771 1 hhaad d iilllliicciit t rreellaattiioonnsshhii44* * !!hhe e iilllliicciitt

relationshi4 a44arentl7 began while the accused was in

Manila re6iewing 5or the -/. Bar e@aminations and his

wi5e was le5t behind in their residence in !acloban*

2ne da71 u4on reaching home 5rom his 5atherOs house1

the accused 5ound Yenn7 and ?hingsle7 ?oh in the act o5

se@ual intercourse* Yenn7 and ?oh noticed the accused1

t

thhe e wwii55e e 4u4usshhed ed ??ooh h wwhho o ggot ot hhiis s rree66ooll66eer r aand nd tthhee

a

accccususeed d wwhho o wwaas s tthhen en 44eee4e4iinng g ababoo66e e tthhe e bbuuiilltt,,iinn

cabinet in their room :um4ed and ran awa7*

!he

!he accused accused went went to to loo8 loo8 5or 5or a a 9rearm 9rearm at at !!acloban acloban Cit7Cit7

and got an M,- riTe 5rom C"C Arturo !albo1 %oing bac81

he

he 4r4rococeeeededed d to to ththe e VmVmahah:o:ong ng sesessssioionV nV anand d 9r9red ed atat

?ingsle7 ?oh three times with his riTe* Arnold and Lina

Am4arado who were occu47ing a room ad:acent to the

room where ?oh was 4la7ing mah:ong were also hit b7

t

thhe e sshhootts s 99rred ed bb7 7 tthhe e aacccucusseedd* * ?i?innggslslee7 7 ??ooh h ddiieded

instantaneousl7 o5 cardiores4irator7 arrest due to shoc8

and hemorrhage as a result o5 multi4le gunshot wounds

"/

(31)

on the head1 trun8 and abdomen* Arnold Am4arado was

hos4italized and o4erated on in the 8idne7 to remo6e a

bullet* 'is wi5e1 Lina Am4arado1 was also treated in the

hos4ital as she was hit b7 bullet 5ragments* !he court

5ound him guilt7 o5 the com4le@ crime o5 murder with

double

double 5rustrated 5rustrated murdermurder**

I&&(E I&&(E ;h ;hetetheher r or or nonot t AbAbararca ca shshouould ld be be guguililt7 t7 o5 o5 ththe e crcrimimee charged to him charged to him 'ELD 'ELD $o

$o* Article "0H o5 the * Article "0H o5 the PC must be a44lied in the PC must be a44lied in the instaninstantt

case*

A

A!!* * "0"0H* H* DeDeatath h or or 4h4h7s7sicical al inin:u:uriries es ininTiTictcted ed unundederr

e@ce4tional cir

e@ce4tional circumstances* \ An7 cumstances* \ An7 legall7 married 4ersonlegall7 married 4erson

w

whhoo1 1 hhaa66iinng g ssuurr44rriisseed d hhiis s ss44oouusse e iin n tthhe e aacct t oo5 5

committing se@ual intercourse with another 4erson1 shall

8

8iilll l aann7 7 oo5 5 tthheem m oor r bbootth h oo5 5 tthheem m iin n tthhe e aacct t oorr

immediatel7 therea5ter1 or shall inTict u4on them an7

s seeririoouus s 4h4h77ssiiccaal l iinn::uur7r71 1 sshhaalll l ssuu=e=er r tthhe e 44eenanalltt7 7 oo5 5 destierro* destierro*



(32)

I5 he shall inTict u4on them 4h7sical in:uries o5 an7 other

8ind1 he shall be

8ind1 he shall be e@e@em4t 5rom 4unishment*em4t 5rom 4unishment*

!hese

!hese rules rules shall shall be be a44licable1 a44licable1 under under the the samesame

c ciirrccuummssttaanncceess1 1 tto o 44aarreenntts s wwiitth h rreess44eecct t tto o tthheeiirr da dauughghtterers s uunndder er eeiigghthteeen en 77eaearrs s oo5 5 aagge1 e1 aand nd ththeeiirr se seduducecersrs1 1 whwhilile e ththe e dadaugughthterers s aarre e lli6i6ining g wwitith h ththeieirr 4arents* 4arents*

An7 4erson who shall 4romote or 5acilitate 4rostitution o5

his wi5e or daughter1 or shall otherwise ha6e consented

to the in9delit7 o5 the other s4ouse shall not be entitled

to the bene9ts o5 this article*

Article "0H 4rescribes the 5ollowing elements#

>-3 that a legall7 married 4erson sur4rises his s4ouse in

the act o5 committing se@ual intercourse with another

4erson< and

>"3 that he 8ills an7 o5 them or both o5 them in the act or

immediatel7 therea5ter*

!hese

!hese elements elements are are 4resent 4resent in in this this case* case* !hough !hough quite quite aa

length o5 time1 about one hour1 had 4assed between the

time the accused,a44ellant disco6ered his wi5e ha6ing

se@ual intercourse with the 6ictim and the time the latter

was actuall7 shot1 the shooting must be understood to

(33)

-be the continuation o5 the 4ursuit o5 the 6ictim b7 the accused,a44ellant* !he e6ised Penal Code1 in requiring that the accused Vshall 8ill an7 o5 them or both o5 them * * * immediatel7V a5ter sur4rising his s4ouse in the act o5 intercourse1 does not sa7 that he should commit the 8illing instantl7 therea5ter* It onl7 requires that the death caused be the 4ro@imate result o5 the outrage o6erwhelming the accused a5ter chancing u4on his s4ouse in the basest act o5 in9delit7* But the 8illing should ha6e been actuall7 moti6ated b7 the same blind im4ulse1 and must not ha6e been inTuenced b7 e@ternal 5actors* !he 8illing must be the direct b7,4roduct o5 the accuseds rage*

;hen it comes to the liabilit7 o5 the accused,a44ellant 5or the in:uries su=ered b7 Lina Am4arado and Arnold Am4arado1 we cannot there5ore hold the accused liable* !his does not mean1 howe6er1 that the accused, a44ellant is totall7 5ree 5rom an7 res4onsibilit7* %ranting the 5act that he was not 4er5orming an illegal act when he 9red shots at the 6ictim1 he cannot be said to be entirel7 without 5ault*

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

(34)

PEOPLE V ULEP

>%** $o* L,..Yune "1 -/..3 +AC!&# 2n Ma7 "-1 -/H1 at nine ocloc8 in the e6ening1 in &an $icolas1 Ilocos $orte1 one Asuncion Pablo (le4 died as a result o5 4h7sical in:uries inTicted u4on her on that 6er7 da7 b7 her husband1 accused Macario(le4* !he 5ollowing da71 the Chie5 o5 Police o5 &an $icolas1 Ilocos $orte recei6ed a re4ort o5 the said death o5 Asuncion Pablo who allegedl7 died o5 a heart attac8* !he Chie5 o5 Police and the ural 'ealth 2Qcer went to the house o5 the deceased and there the7 saw the bod7 on a bamboo bed surrounded b7 relati6es1 5riends1 and the husband o5 the deceased1 Macario* !he Chie5 o5 Police suggested

that an auto4s7 be conducted but the husband re5used to allow the same* 'owe6er1 the daughter o5 the

deceased b7 a 4re6ious marriage as8ed 5or a da7 or two to decide on her 4re5erence*

At the behest o5 the daughter1 the request 5or an auto4s7 was made shortl7 be5ore the burial*

!wo wee8s a5ter the burial1 two >"3 constabular7 sergeants in6estigated Macario(le4* A statement was 4re4ared and signed b7 the accuse* In this statement1 he admitted that he caused the death o5 his wi5e b7 elbowing her because his wi5e was then drun8 and was uttering indecent words* In another in6estigation1 (l4eOs

(35)

statement subscribed to be5ore +iscal Aba7a1 reiterated that the cause o5 death o5 his wi5e1 Asuncion Pablo1 was his elbowing her on her breast*

(le4 narrated that this elbowing and attac8 too8 4lace at their home at # in the a5ternoon* &he 6omitted and then went to bed1 !he accused then le5t 5or the 9elds and returned at around /# in the e6ening and 5ound his wi5e dead on her bed* 'e re4orted this death to their barrio ca4tain*

Des4ite these statements1 admitting his guilt1 (le4 retracted his statement in court b7 narrating that more than a 7ear be5ore that1 and while his wi5e went to ha6e their 4ala7 milled1 their bullcart loaded with sac8s o5 rice turned u4side down and 4inned his wi5e on her breast* ;ith the 4ain in her chest1 she was treated b7 a countr7 quac8 doctor or Varbular7o*V

I&&(E# ;2$ (le4 caused the death o5 his wi5e1 thus committing Parride

(LI$%# FE&* +rom all the obser6ations1 9ndings1 and an incisi6e stud7 o5 the necro4s7 re4ort1 the cause o5 death o5 the wi5e,6ictim in this case is cardiac arrest and 4rimar7 shoc8 caused b7 the strong 4ressure a44lied on the u44er 5ront chest bone* !his ha44ens when one

(36)

ste4s1 8neels or 4resses the bod7 o5 a 6ictim against a wall* !he man,size blows coming 5rom the elbow o5 the aggressor u4on a thin,5ramed woman can onl7 bring about 5atal results*

In the case o5 eg* 6* &lane1 et al*1 the deceased had recei6ed in:uries to the abdomen b7 8ic8 and blows1 but there were no mar8s o5 bruises 4resent1 or an7thing to show the cause o5 death* Death howe6er1 had 5ollowed twent7 minutes a5ter the maltreatment and was e6identl7 due to the shoc8* !he 4risoners were con6icted o5 murder*

;e ha6e 4re6iousl7 stated that#

E6en i5 the 6ictim is su=ering 5rom an internal ailment1 li6er or heart disease1 or tuberculosis1 i5 the blow deli6ered b7 the accused \

>a3is the eQcient cause o5 death< or >b3accelerated his death< or >c3is the 4ro@imate cause o5 death< then there is criminal liabilit7*

A4ro4os to all these is that time,res4ected doctrine# V'e who is the cause o5 the cause is the cause o5 the e6il caused*V !his is the rationale in Article 0 o5 the e6ised Penal Code which 4ro6ides that Vcriminal liabilit7 shall be incurred b7 a 4erson committing a 5elon7 >delito3

(37)

although the wrong5ul act done be di=erent 5rom that which he intended*V

E6en though a blow with the 9st or a 8ic8 does not cause an7 e@ternal wound1 it ma7 easil7 4roduce inTammation o5 the s4leen and 4eritonitis and cause death1 and e6en though the 6ictim ma7 ha6e been 4re6iousl7 a=ected b7 some internal malad71 7et i5 the blow with the 9st or 5oot accelerated death1 he who caused such acceleration is res4onsible 5or the death as the result o5 an in:ur7 will5ull7 and unlaw5ull7 inTicted*

Accused was 5ound guilt7*

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

PP v.

?&'8o (A99s <,

#%)#-2n Ma7 1 -/1 in a tuba winesho4 in barrio mar8et o5 Calunod1 Misamis 2ccidental1 Donato Bindo7 o=ered some tuba to !iba71 +austino Pacas wi5e* &he re5used and Bindo7 threatened to in:ure her i5 she did not acce4t* Pacas ste44ed in to de5end his wi5e and attem4ted to ta8e awa7 5rom Bindo7 the bolo he carried* !he disturbance attracted the attention o5 Emigdio 2mamdam* In the course o5 the struggle1 Bindo7 succeeded in disengaging himsel5 5rom Pacas1 wrenching the bolo 5rom the latters hand1 with such 6iolence that

(38)

the 4oint o5 the bolo reached 2mamdams chest1 who was then behind Bindo7* !he trial court held that Bindo7 was guilt7 o5 the crime o5 homicide* Bindo7 a44ealed1 alleging that the death o5 2mamdam was caused accidentall7 and without malicious intent*

I&&(E# ;2$ the crime o5 which Bindo7 was 5ound guilt7 o5 can be mitigated on the ground o5 accident*

'ELD# Fes* Decision is re6ersed* Bindo7 is acquitted according to Article .1 $o* . o5 the Penal Code >cant 9nd the 4ro6ision3

A!I2#

-* !here is no e6idence to show that Bindo7 deliberatel7 and intentionall7 8illed 2mamdam* [ $o e6idence that 2mamdam too8 4art in the 9ght between Bindo7 and Pacas*

[ $o e6idence that Bindo7 was aware o5 2mamdams 4resence*

[ $o e6idence that there was disagreement or ill 5eelings between Bindo72mamdam* 2n the contrar71 the7 were ne4hew  uncle1  were on good terms with each other*

"* !he witness 5or the de5ense corroborates the de5endant to the e=ect that Pacas and Bindo7 were actuall7 struggling 5or the 4ossession o5 the bolo1 and

(39)

that when the latter let go1 the 5ormer had 4ulled so 6iolentl7 that it Tew towards 2mamdam1 who was there5ore hit in the chest1 without Bindo7s seeing him1 because 2mamdam had 4assed behind him* !he testimon7 o5 this witness was not contradicted b7 an7 rebuttal e6idence adduced b7 the 9scal*

* I51 in the struggle1 the de5endant had attem4ted to wound his o44onent1 and instead o5 doing so1 had wounded 2mamdam1 he would be liable 5or his act1 since whoe6er will5ull7 commits a 5elon7 or a misdemeanor incurs criminal liabilit71 although the wrong5ul act done is di=erent 5rom that which he intended* !his is not the case here* Bindo7 did not tr7 to wound Pacas* 'e was onl7 tr7ing to de5end his 4ossession o5 the bolo1 which Pacas was tr7ing to wrench awa7 5rom him* 'is conduct was 4er5ectl7 law5ul*

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

auses that roduce a dierent result

PEOPLE V GONA

(0ANSACA-(G.4. No. )<@$$, >5 Ph&*. $@> 0a"ch #>,

#%@)-+AC!&# >Pantu8an1 Da6ao1 -/".3 During a 5amil7 reunion o5 the Mansacas1 a quarrel too8 4lace between Dunca and the de5endant %ona* Dunca and his son

(40)

e6entuall7 le5t the house and were 5ollowed b7 Ma4udul and one Award* %ona also le5t to 5ollow them1 but in the dar8ness o5 the e6ening and in his into@icated condition1 %ona mistoo8 Ma4udul 5or Dunca and inTicated on him a mortal wound with a bolo*

%ona was charged 5or homicide be5ore the C+I Da6ao* 'owe6er1 his attorne7 argues that he had no intention to 8ill the deceased and committed the crime b7 mista8e1 thus1 he should ha6e been 5ound guilt7 o5 homicide through negligence onl7 and not o5 the gra6er crime o5 intentional homicide*

I&&(E# ;2$ the mista8e o5 8illing another 4erson than the one intended relie6es %ona 5rom the gra6er crime o5 intentional homicide*

'ELD# $o* In this case o5 (nited &tates 6s* Mendieta >0 Phil*1 "0"31 the court said#

E6en admitting that the de5endant intended to in:ure 'ilario Lauigan instead o5 Pedro Acierto1 e6en that1 in 6iew o5 the mortal wound which inTicted u4on the latter1 in no wa7 could be considered as a relie5 5rom his criminal act* !hat he made a mista8e in 8illing one man instead o5 another1 when it is 4ro6ed that he acted maliciousl7 and will5ull71 cannot relie6e him 5rom criminal res4onsibilit7* $either do we belie6e that the 5act that he made a mista8e in 8illing the wrong man should be considered as a mitigating circumstances*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

PP v. 0a!93a

(41)

+acts#

!he accused and Yuana Buralo was sweethearts* Yuana had been :ealous o5 the accused on account o5 the latter ha6ing 5requentl7 6isited the house o5 one Carmen* !heir relations were such that the accused in6ited Yuana to ta8e a wal8 on the a5ternoon o5 August /1 -/"* Yuana re5used him1 later sending him a note o5 e@cuse* 2n the third da71 or the night o5 August --th1 the accused went to the threshold o5 Cirilo Ban7ans house where Yuana Buralo had gone to ta8e 4art in some de6otion* !here the accused1 re6ol6er in hand1 requested +rancisco Abellon to as8 Yuana to come downstairs and as Abellon re5used to do so1 the accused said# VI5 7ou do not want to go u4stairs1 I will get Yuana and i5 an7one tries to de5end her I will 8ill him*V

!he accused waited until Yuana and her niece Per5ecta Buralo came downstairs1 when the7 went in the direction o5 their house* !he accused1 who was seen b7 the two girls1 5ollowed them without sa7ing a word* It is onl7 a short distance 5rom the house where the de6otion too8 4lace to that o5 the o=ended 4art71 the houses being ad:acent* As the two girls were going u4stairs1 the accused1 while standing at the 5oot o5 the stairwa71 9red a shot 5rom his re6ol6er which wounded Per5ecta Buralo1 the bullet 4assing through a 4art o5 her nec81 ha6ing entered the 4osterior region thereo5 and coming out through the le5t e7e1 which was com4letel7 destro7ed* Due to 4ro4er medical attention1 Per5ecta Buralo did not die and is on e o5 the witnesses who testi9ed at the trial o5 this case*

(42)

!he de5ense1 without abandoning its allegation that the accused is not res4onsible 5or the crime1 contends that the crime 4ro6en is not 5rustrated murder but the discharge o5 a 9rearm1 with in:uries1 it not ha6ing been 4ro6en that it was the accuseds intention to 8ill*

!he relations e@isting between the accused and Yuana Buralo1 his disa44ointment at her not acce4ting his in6itation to ta8e a wal81 the 5act that the accused1 re6ol6er in hand1 went to loo8 5or Yuana Buralo at the house where the de6otion was being held1 later 5ollowing her to her house1 and es4eciall7 ha6ing aimed at her 4erson,,the head,,are 5acts which1 in our o4inion1 4ermit o5 no other conclusion than that1 in 9ring the shot1 it was the accuseds intention to 8ill*

Issue# ;hether or not the accused is guilt7 o5 5rustrated murder

'eld# Fes*

In the decision o5 this court in the case o5 (nited &tates 6s* Montenegro >- Phil*1 -31 it was held#

;e do not doubt that there ma7 be cases wherein the discharge o5 a 9rearm at another is not in itsel5 suQcient to sustain a 9nding o5 the intention to 8ill1 and there are man7 cases in the boo8s wherein the attendant circumstances conclusi6el7 establish that on discharging a 9rearm at another the actor was not in 5act animated b7 the intent to 8ill* But1 in see8ing to ascertain the intention with which a s4eci9c act is committed1 it is alwa7s 4ro4er and necessar7 to loo8 not merel7 to the act itsel5 but to all the attendant circumstances so 5ar as

(43)

0-the7 are de6elo4ed b7 the e6idence< and where1 as in the case at bar1 a re6ol6er is twice discharged 4oint, blan8 at the bod7 o5 another1 and the shots directed at the most 6ital 4arts o5 the bod71 it needs but little additional e6idence to establish the intent to 8ill be7ond a reasonable doubt*

!he 5act that a 4erson recei6ed the shot which was intended 5or another1 does not alter his criminal liabilit7* >Art* -1 4ar* 1 Penal Code*3

It was aggra6ated b7 the circumstance o5 treacher7*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

PP v. Caoco

+acts#

2n Yul7 "01 -/"1 Fu Lon and Fu Fee1 5ather and son1 sto44ed total on the sidewal8* ;hile the7 were tal8ing1 a man 4assed bac8 and 5orth behind Fu Lon once or twice1 and when Fu Fee was about to lea6e his 5ather1 the man that had been 4assing bac8 and 5orth >+rancisco Cagoco3 a44roached Fu Lon 5rom behind and suddenl7 and without warning struc8 Fu Lon with his 9st on the bac8 4art o5 the head* Cagoco immediatel7 ran awa7* Fu Fee and two other witnesses 4ursued him and then lost sight o5 him* !he blow caused Fu Lon to 5all on the ground* As a consequence o5 which he su=ered a lacerated wound on the scal4 and a 9ssured 5racture on the le5t occi4ital region which were necessaril7 mortal and caused his immediate death* !he ne@t da71 Fu Fee 4rom4tl7 re4orted the incident to the 4olice* Cagoco was later

(44)

a44rehended and identi9ed b7 Fu Fee as his 5ather]s assailant*

Issue#;hether or not the accused is guilt7 o5 murder* 'eld#Fes*

As to the contention that the deceased would ha6e 5allen on his 5ace i5 he had been struc8 on the bac8 o5 the head1 the e@4ert testimon7 shows that in such a case1 a 4erson instincti6el7 ma8es an e=ort to regain his balance* As a result1 the deceased ma7 ha6e 5allen downwards* +urther1 the sidewal8s almost in6ariabl7 slo4 towards the 4a6ement so that when the deceased straightened u41 he naturall7 tended to 5all bac8wards* !he accused struc8 the deceased on the bac8 o5 the head because it would ha6e been necessar7 5or him to go between the deceased and Fu Fee who were then con6ersing*

In order that a 4erson ma7 be criminall7 liable 5or 5elon7 di=erent 5rom that which he 4ro4osed to commit1 these two requisites should be 4resent#

-* that a 5elon7 was committed

"* !hat the wrong done to the aggrie6ed 4erson be the direct consequence o5 the crime committed b7 the o=ender*

In the case at bar1 there is nothing to indicate that Fu Lon]s death was due to some e@traneous case* It was clearl7 the direct consequence o5 the accused]s 5elonious act and the 5act that he did not intend to cause so great an in:ur7 does not relie6e him 5rom the consequence o5

(45)

his unlaw5ul act1 but is merel7 a mitigating circumstance* &ince the accused committed the 5elon7 with treacher71 he is guilt7 o5 murder*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

PP v. ?&'8o

+acts# &AME

I&&(E# ;2$ Bindo7 should be held liable 5or the death o5 2mamdam*

'ELD# $o* Decision is re6ersed* Bindo7 is acquitted according to Article .1 $o* . o5 the Penal Code >cant 9nd the 4ro6ision3

A!I2#

-*!here is no e6idence to show that Bindo7 deliberatel7 and intentionall7 8illed 2mamdam*

[ $o e6idence that 2mamdam too8 4art in the 9ght between Bindo7 and Pacas*

[ $o e6idence that Bindo7 was aware o5 2mamdams 4resence*

[ $o e6idence that there was disagreement or ill 5eelings between Bindo72mamdam* 2n the contrar71 the7 were ne4hew  uncle1  were on good terms with each other* "* !he witness 5or the de5ense corroborates the de5endant to the e=ect that Pacas and Bindo7 were actuall7 struggling 5or the 4ossession o5 the bolo1 and

(46)

that when the latter let go1 the 5ormer had 4ulled so 6iolentl7 that it Tew towards 2mamdam1 who was there5ore hit in the chest1 without Bindo7s seeing him1 because 2mamdam had 4assed behind him* !he testimon7 o5 this witness was not contradicted b7 an7 rebuttal e6idence adduced b7 the 9scal*

* I51 in the struggle1 the de5endant had attem4ted to wound his o44onent1 and instead o5 doing so1 had wounded 2mamdam1 he would be liable 5or his act1 since whoe6er will5ull7 commits a 5elon7 or a misdemeanor incurs criminal liabilit71 although the wrong5ul act done is di=erent 5rom that which he intended* !his is not the case here* Bindo7 did not tr7 to wound Pacas* 'e was onl7 tr7ing to de5end his 4ossession o5 the bolo1 which Pacas was tr7ing to wrench awa7 5rom him* 'is conduct was 4er5ectl7 law5ul*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

I2oss&!*e C"&e

INTOD, e. a*. V CA.

%** $o* ---/2ctober "-1 -//"

+acts# &ul4icio Intod and  other men went to &al6ador Manda7aOs house to as8 him to go with them to the house o5 BernardinaPalang4angan* !he grou4 had a meeting with AnicetoDumalagan who told Manda7a that he wanted Palang4angan to be 8illed because o5 a land dis4ute between them and that Manda7a should

(47)

accom4an7 the 0 men otherwise he would also be 8illed* At -# 4*m* o5 that same da71 Intod and com4anions1 all armed with 9rearms arri6ed at Palang4anganOs house* !herea5ter1 4etitioner 9red at the said room* It turned out the Palang4angan was in another cit7 and her home was then occu4ied b7 her son,in,law and his 5amil7* $o one was in the room when the accused 9red* $o one was hit b7 the gun9re* !he !C con6icted Intod o5 attem4ted murder* Petitioner Intod see8s a modi9cation o5 the :udgment on the ground that he is onl7 liable 5or an im4ossible crime ^Art* 0>"3_* Petitioner contends that1 Palang4angans absence 5rom her room on the night he and his com4anions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherentl7 im4ossible* 2n the other hand1 es4ondent Peo4le o5 the Phili44ines argues that the crime was not im4ossible instead the 5acts were suQcient to constitute an attem4t and to con6ict Intod 5or attem4ted murder* es4ondent li8ewise alleged that there was intent* +urther1 In its Comment to the Petition1 res4ondent 4ointed out that @@@* !he crime o5 murder was not consummated1 not because o5 the inherent im4ossibilit7 o5 its accom4lishment >Art 0 >"31 PC31 but due to a cause o5 accident other that 4etitionerOs and his co,accusedOs own s4ontaneous desistance >Art* 3 Palang4angan did not slee4 at her house at that time* 'ad it not been 5or this 5act1 the crime is 4ossible1 m not im4ossible*

Issue# Is 4etitioner is liable onl7 5or an im4ossible crimeJ 'eld#(nder Article 0>"3 o5 the PC1 the act 4er5ormed b7 theo=ender cannot 4roduce an o=ense against 4erson or 4ro4ert7 because# -3 the commission o5 the o=ense is inherentl7 im4ossible o5 accom4lishment< or "3 the

(48)

means em4lo7ed is either a3 inadequate or b3 ine=ectual*

!o be im4ossible under this clause1 the act intended b7 the o=ender must be b7 its nature one im4ossible o5 accom4lishment* !here must be either -3 legal im4ossibilit71 or "3 4h7sical im4ossibilit7 o5 accom4lishing the intended act in order to quali57 the act as an im4ossible crime*

Legal im4ossibilit7 occurs where the intended act1 e6en i5 com4lete would not amount to a crime* !hus# legal im4ossibilit7 would a44l7 to those circumstances where -3 the moti6e1 desire and e@4ectation is to 4er5orm an act in 6iolation o5 the law< "3 there is intention to 4er5orm the 4h7sical act< 3 there is a 4er5ormance o5 the intended 4h7sical act< and 03 the consequence resulting 5rom the intended act does not amount to a crime* !he im4ossibilit7 o5 8illing a 4erson alread7 dead 5alls in this categor7*

2n the other had1 5actual im4ossibilit7 occurs when e@traneous circumstances un8nown to the actor or be7ond his control 4re6ent the consummation o5 the intended crime* 2ne e@am4le is the man who 4uts his hand in the cot 4oc8et o5 another with the intention to steal the latterOs wallet and 9nds the 4oc8et em4t7*

!he case at bar belongs to this categor7* Petitioner shoots the 4lace where he thought his 6ictim would be1 although in realit71 the 6ictim was not 4resent in said

(49)

4lace and thus1 the 4etitioner 5ailed to accom4lish his end*

!he 5actual situation in the case at bar 4resents a 4h7sical im4ossibilit7 which render the intended crime im4ossible o5 accom4lishment* And under Article 01 4aragra4h " o5 the e6ised Penal Code1 such is suQcient to ma8e the act an im4ossible crime*

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

PP v. Doas&a' (0a"ch #,

#%%)-+AC!&#

[ March --1 -/." morning# ;hile Enrico was wal8ing with !irso +erreras1 his classmate1 along oque street in the 4oblacion o5 Lo4ez1 Uuezon1 he was a44roached b7 Pablito Domasian who requested his assistance in getting his 5athers signature on a medical certi9cate* Enrico agreed to hel4 and rode with the man in a tric7cle to Calanti4a7an1 where he waited outside while the man went into a building to get the certi9cate* Enrico became a44rehensi6e and started to cr7 when1 instead o5 ta8ing him to the hos4ital1 the man Tagged a minibus and 5orced him inside1 holding him 9rml7 all the while* !he man told him to sto4 cr7ing or he would not be returned to his 5ather* ;hen the7 alighted at %umaca1 the7 too8 another tric7cle1 this time bound 5or the munici4al building 5rom where the7 wal8ed to the mar8et* 'ere the man tal8ed to a :ee4ne7 dri6er and handed him an en6elo4e addressed to Dr* Enrique Agra1 the bo7s 5ather* !he two then boarded a tric7cle headed 5or &an )icente*

Crim Digests COMPILATION

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG

CASE DIGEST: PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG

(

(%** $o* L,-./"01 2ctober -/1 -/""3

FACTS:

FACTS: A44ellee is accused o5 ha6ing illegall7 smo8ed

ISSUE

ISSUE#

HELD

HELD#

"

"

US vs. Look Chaw, Dece!e" #$, #%##

US vs. Look Chaw, Dece!e" #$, #%##





0

0

U.S. v. Ah S&', )$ Ph&*. %+

A"&c*e )

PADILLA vs DI/ON

0&sake o1 Fac

Peo2*e vs Oa'&s

UNITED STATES

AH CHONG

3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

A4TICLE 5: P4O6I0ATE CAUSE

US V. VALDE/

I1 a a'

c"eaes &' a'ohe" a'7s &'8 a' &e8&ae

se'se o1 8a'8e" wh&ch ca9ses s9ch 2e"so' o "

o esca2e, a'8 &' so 8o&' he &';9"&es h&se*1, he

2e"so' who c"eaes s9ch a sae o1 &'8 &s

"es2o's&!*e 1o" he &';9"&es wh&ch "es9*.

P2 v. PU4IFICACIONAL0ONTE

PP v. To*&'($< SC4A #+, =a'

#+,#%+>-Facs:

Peo2*e vs O"ea

U"!a'o v. IAC

".

".

"/

"/





PEOPLE V ULEP

PP v.

?&'8o (A99s <,

PEOPLE V GONA

(0ANSACA-(G.4. No. )<@$$, >5 Ph&*. $@> 0a"ch #>,

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

PP v. 0a!93a

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

PP v. Caoco

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

PP v. ?&'8o

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

I2oss&!*e C"&e

INTOD, e. a*. V CA.

333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

3333333333333333

PP v. Doas&a' (0a"ch #,

(% $o* L,-./"01 2ctober -/1 -/""3

"es2o's&!e 1o" he &';9"&es wh&ch "es9.