CRIM 1 REVIEWER
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
CASE FACTS ISSUE RATIO
Self-‐
defense P. v. Boholst-‐ Caballero
-‐ Boholst-‐Caballero was charged with Parricide for killing her husband with a knife
-‐ they were separated in fact for a year (husband left wife) -‐ one night while the wife was caroling with friends, the husband went up to her and accused her of prostituting. He even said “where are you? I will kill you”
-‐ the husband started strangling the wife until she was lying on the floor, she felt a knife on her husband’s waist so she got it and stabbed the husband. -‐ husband died after two days. WON Boholst-‐ Caballero is justified in killing the husband
-‐ Yes. there was a reasonable necessity to kill as self-‐defense. -‐ the location of the wound indicates that the stab was done in self-‐defense. (it couldn’t have been stabbed in that area if the wife was the aggressor)
-‐ the three requisites of self-‐defense were present
P. v.
Alconga -‐ the accused’s friend was playing blackjack with the deceased. The accused was standing at the back of the deceased as a spotter for his friend.
-‐ the deceased discovered their trick and got mad
-‐ a day or two after the incident, the deceased attacked the accused with a pingahan while saying “coroy this is your breakfast”. They accused got hold of a bolo and later on a revolver and they continued to fight
WON Alconga was justified for killing the deceased
-‐ -‐ No. there were two stages of the fight. The first one was the deceased
approached alconga with a pingahan and second was when deceased decided to runaway. The
accused struck during the second stage, should he have killed the deceased during the first, it would be justified for self-‐ defense
-‐ -‐ it is now self-‐defense if there is no
unlawful aggression towards the accused
-‐ the deceased obtained several wounds throughout the fight so he decided to run away. But the accused ran after him and using his bolo hit the cranium of the deceased. He claimed that it was self-‐ defense.
-‐ Alconga, accused, was convicted of Homicide
at that particular moment.
-‐ It could only be self-‐ defense when it is proven that the deceased was running away to get an upper hand like to get a bolo, this was not proven in this particular case
US v Mack The accused was sitting on a bench a few feet back from the street, in the town of Tacloban, in the Province of Leyte, in an open space some 3 or 4 feet, width, between the tienda or content of a woman named Olimpia and another building. The deceased, with another policemen, approached the place directed Olimpia to close her tienda, and, later, ordered the accused and another soldier who was standing nearby to go to their quarters. The accused did not obey this order, and it is probable that some words passed between the soldiers, the policemen, and the woman which angered the deceased, though the weight of the evidence clearly maintain the contention of the accused that he did and said nothing to provoke or offend the
WON Mack can invoke self-‐defense.
Yes. It affirmatively appears from the evidence of record that there was an unprovoked, illegal aggression on the part of the deceased, as held by the trial court, after a careful analysis of the testimony; and further that there was reasonable necessity for the use of the means employed by the accused to defend himself from this unlawful aggression. Mere physical superiority in no protection to an unarmed man, as against an assailant armed with a large bolo, and if it be true that the deceased was under the influence of liquor when he made that attack, his
intoxication probably rendered him the more dangerous unless he was so drunk as to be
deceased, except in so far as his failure to obey the order to go to his quarters may have had that effect. The deceased, who was standing some 10 or 12 feet from the accused, cursing and abusing him for his failure to obey the order, wrought himself into a passion dragged himself free from his companion, who was endeavoring to restrain him and take him away, and started toward the accused, at the same time drawing his bolo and
brandishing it in a threatening manner. Thereupon the accused got up, drew his revolver, and the deceased having then approached within a distance of from 3 to 6 feet, the accused fired three shots, one of which took effect in the left breast of the deceased, just above the nipple, and another in the back of his head.
physically helpless, which is not suggested in the evidence.
A murderous attack with a formidable-‐ looking bolo is a very different from an assault with a small chisel or a piece of bamboo, and the fact that this court has held that the taking of life was not reasonably necessary in defending oneself against assault in the latter cases does not sustain a ruling that taking the life of one's assailant in the former case may not become reasonably necessary in the defense of one's person, as we think it was in the case at bar. (from RM!! thanks RM!)
People v
Sumicad
-‐ accused Sumicad saw Cubol, who Sumicad apparently worked for, so Sumicad asked Cubol to pay him his salary
-‐ Cubol said that he didn’t owe him
anything, insulted him, then struck Sumicad with his fist
continuously until Sumicad was stuck in a corner with logs
WON Sumicad acted in self-‐ defense. YES.
-‐ Cubol was known to be an ex convict and dangerous man -‐ Elements of self defense present: 1) Cubol was the aggressor
2) Lack of sufficient provocation on part of Sumicad
3) reasonable necessity for the means employed by him to prevent or
-‐ Sumicad struck Cubol with his Bolo 3 times, then surrendered to the Justice of Peace, but Cubol died
repel the aggression *striking Cubol with bolo two more times was justifiable because he did not back off when Sumicad first hit him *Cubol was a bigger and stronger man Defense of
Honor
People v Luague
In the morning of February 18, 1935, while the accused Natividad Luague was in her house situated in Lupuhan, barrio of Agpañgi, municipality of Calatrava,
Occidental Negros, with only her three children of tender age for company, her husband and co-‐ accused Wenceslao Alcansare having gone to grind corn in Juan Garing's house several kilometers away, Paulino Disuasido came and began to make love to her; that as Natividad could not dissuade him from his purpose, she started for the kitchen where Paulino followed her, notwithstanding her instance that she could by no means accede to his wishes, for Paulino, bent on satisfying them at all costs, drew and opened a knife and, threatening her with death, began to embrace her and to touch her breasts; that in preparing to lie with her, Paulino had to leave the knife on the floor and the accused,
WON the accused can invoke defense of honor/self-‐ defense Yes. Natividad Luague's act in mortally wounding Paulino Disuasido, unaided her husband and co-‐accused Wenceslao
Alcansare, and in the circumstances above set out, constitutes the exempting circumstance defined in article 11,
subsection 1, of the Revised Penal Code, because, as stated by a commentator of note, "aside from the right to life on which rest the legitimate defense of our person, we have the right to party acquired by us, and the right to honor which is not the least prized of man's patrimony." (1 Viada, 172, 173, 5th
edition.) "Will the attempt to rape a woman constitute an aggression sufficient to put her in a state of legitimate defense?" asks the same commentator. "We think so," he answer, "inasmuch as a woman's honor cannot but be
taking advantage of the situation, picked up the weapon and stabbed him in the abdomen; and that Paulino, feeling himself wounded, ran away jumping through the window and falling on some stones, while the accused set forth immediately for the poblacion to surrender herself to the
authorities and report the incident.
The theory the
prosecution, which we consider a trifle unsubstantial is as follows: The accused Wenceslao Alcansare, thinking that Paulino importuned his wife with unchaste advances, out of jealousy, decided to get rid of him. His chance to bring about his plan can when, in the morning of the crime, Paulino happened to pass in front of the house of the spouses with his friend Olimpio
Libosada. The accused wife invited Paulino to drop in, which the letter and his friend did. The spouses met them at the threshold. The accused wife asked Paulino whether he had a knife and as the latter answered in the affirmative, she asked him to lend it to lend it to her because she wanted to cut her nails, to which Paulino
esteemed as a right as precious, if not more, cannot her very existence; this offense, unlike ordinary slander by word or deed
susceptible of judicial redress, in an
outrage which impresses an indelible blot on the victim, for, as the Roman Law says: quum virginitas, vel castitas, corupta restitui non protest (because virginity or chastity, once defiled, cannot be restored). It is evident that a woman who, imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender, should be afforded exemption from criminal liability provided by this article and
subsection since such killing cannot be considered a crime from the moment it became the only means left for her to protect her honor from so great an outrage." (1 Viada, 301, 5th edition.) (FROM RM!! THANKS RM!)
willingly acceded, while the accused wife was cutting her nails, she asked Paulino where he came from and the latter answered, turning his head around, that he came from the house of one Inting, whereupon the accused wife slashed him in the abdomen. Paulino tried to return the blow but the accused husband picked up a stone and struck him in the forehead. Wounded in the abdomen and in the forehead, Paulino fled therefrom.
People v
Dela Cruz
-‐ Dela Cruz was walking in a dark path (going home from a wake) when Rivera suddenly grabbed her and started to molest her -‐ She tried to free herself, but the man was stronger than her so she got the knife from her pocket (she was a fruit vendor) and stabbed him with it
WON Dela Cruz’s act of stabbing with a knife is justifiable as an act in defense of her honor. YES.
-‐ Dela Cruz only stabbed him once even if she could have stabbed him more (desisted) -‐ story is not a fabrication: she is just an illiterate barrio girl
-‐ Rivera grabbed her from behind and it was dark and he refused to reveal his identity, and she was unable to free herself using only her strength, so using knife was justifiable
people v
Jaurigue -‐ deceased Amado sexually assaulted Avelina days before incident
-‐ one day inside the chapel, Amado sat beside Avelina then placed his hand on her thigh
-‐ a brief scuffle ensued,
WON Avelina was justified in killing Amado. NO
-‐ As long as there is actual danger of being raped, a woman is justified in killing her aggressor -‐ there was no possibility of being raped, considering there were a lot of people
where Amado got stabbed in the neck with a fan-‐knife Defense of
Property People v Apolinar -‐ Apolinar was watching over the land of Gonzales
-‐ one midnight, Apolinar thought he saw a thief (a man carrying a bundle) -‐ he shouted for attention but was ignored
-‐ he first shot in the air, then at the person (Petras)
WON Apolinar’s killing of Petras could be justified by defense of property. NO
-‐ The right to property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense of property can be invoked as a justifying
circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property
US v
Bumanglag -‐ Bumanglag found palay stolen from him in an enclosed field -‐ he waited near the field with his companions for the 'thief' to appear
-‐ deceased Ribis arrived and attempted to carry away the palay
-‐ Bumanglag and friends assaulted Ribis with sticks
WON there is defense of property. NO
-‐ Defense of property can be invoked only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property
-‐ Ribis did not attack anyone (bolo still in sheath)
Defense of
Relative US v Esmedia Ciriaco Abando, his wife, and their son, Santiago, lived in the jurisdiction of the municipality of Sibalom, in the barrio of Bongboñgan, Province of Antique. Gregorio Esmedia, father of these two accused, son-‐in-‐law of Ciriaco Abando and brother-‐in-‐law of Santiago Abando, lived in the same barrio. These tow families lived very near to each other and owned adjoining rice lands. Before this trouble
WON the two accused can invoke defense of relative
YES to Santiago, but NO to Ciriaco. Under the provisions of No. 5, article 8 of the Penal Code, the two accused are exempt from criminal responsibility for having caused the death of Santiago Abando, inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these wounds upon him in defense of their father who was fatally wounded at the time. They honestly believed, and had good
occurred there had been a dispute between these two families relative to the ownership of the rice land then occupied by Ciriaco Abando. About 2 o'clock on the afternoon of the 24th of June, 1909, Ciriaco Abando instructed his son, Santiago, to go to a certain place in his rice field to let out the water in order that they could plant rice the said field. In compliance with these instructions of his father, Santiago proceeded to the place designated, and while at work doing what he had been ordered by his father to do, Gregorio Esmedia appeared on the scene and started a quarrel with Santiago. Soon thereafter Gregorio drew a dagger and stabbed Santiago in the back. Santiago fell to the ground, but arose immediately and attacked Gregorio with his bolo, inflicting several wounds on the said Gregorio in consequence of which he fell to the ground. Before this trouble finally terminated the two accused and Ciriaco Abando appeared in that immediate vicinity. These two accused contend that they were working in their rice field nearby, and on
grounds upon which to found their belief, that Santiago would continue his attack upon their father. They are, however, guilty of having caused the death of the old man, Ciriaco Abando. When they attacked and killed him the other trouble had terminated and they were not in danger of bodily harm from him
seeing Ciriaco Abando and Santiago Abando attacking their father, Gregorio, they started to the place to render their father assistance, Ponciano starting first; that when Ponciano got near the place of the trouble he was met by Ciriaco and Santiago who attacked him with bolos and clubs and that he, Ponciano, in self-‐defense, knocked them both down, and after they had fallen the other accused, Mena Esmedia, arrived. Ponciano further contends that he did not use a bolo in this fight, but used a club only. Avoidance of a greater evil Ty
vs.People Vicky Ty issued checks that bounced to pay for hospital bills for her mother. She was charged with breaking the Bouncing Checks Law. She claims avoidance of a greater evil as a defense (greater evil-‐her mother’s eventual suicide because of the debasing treatment she was getting from the hospital).
WON
avoidance of a greater evil is applicable here. NO.
For this to apply: (1) actual evil must exist,
(2) the injury feared greater than the one done to avoid it, (3) there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
The evil is merely anticipated, therefore not
actually existent. The evil should also not be brought about by negligence. Here, Ty’s failure to pay the bills was the reason for the “evil”. There were also other ways to avoid the injury-‐ the security or collateral could have been in the form of
jewellery. She issued the bouncing checks with full volition. Fulfillment
of Duty People v. Delima Lorenzo Napilon escaped from jail. Policeman Felipe Delima pursued him and was attacked by the fugitive Napilon with a bamboo lance. The pursuit continued and the policeman shot Napilon, causing his death.
WON killing was justified. YES.
The killing was done in performance of a duty. Napilon’s assault on policeman Delima, and the fact that he was an escaped convict justified the means employed to subdue the former.
People vs
Belbes Belbes and Pabon were tasked to keep the peace in a school prom. According to Belbes, he came across the deceased Bataller when Bataller was drunk and unruly. Because of the commotion, a fight ensued between Belbes and Bataller. Belbes ended up shooting Bataller with his Armalite. WON the killing was justified due to the performance of duty. NO
The crime was only partially justified because only the first requisite, that of the performance of duty was present. The second requisite, that the act done was a necessary consequence, was not present because he did not have to kill Bataller.
Lawful order of superior
People vs
Beronilla Beronilla, acting upon the order of Lt. Arnold, assembled a jury of bolomen to try Borjal. Borjal was accused of aiding the Japanese during war time. He was not granted amnesty due to the preliminary finding that he was acting only due to personal motives.
WON
Beronilla was justified in having Borjal killed due to the lawful order of Lt. Arnold. YES
It was sufficiently shown that there was a standing order from Lt. Arnold for Beronilla to try those suspected of aiding the Japanese. There was no evidence to show that Beronilla received any message to believe that the order has been withdrawn.
