Criminal Law Digest 1

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 46 | Comments: 0 | Views: 529
of 36
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Criminal Law 1 Case Digest

Comments

Content

LAW 109 : CRIMINAL LAW 1 DIGESTS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION 322 SCRA 160 (2000) Nature: Petition for review of a decision of the Manila RTC Fact : On !ne 1"# 1$$$ the %e&art'ent of !stice received fro' the %e&art'ent of (orei)n Affairs a re*!est for the e+tradition of &rivate res&ondent Mar, i'ene- to the ./S/ The 0rand !r1 2ndict'ent# the warrant for his arrest# and other s!&&ortin) doc!'ents for said e+tradition were attached alon) with the re*!est/ Char)es incl!de3 1/ Cons&irac1 to co''it offense or to defra!d the .S 2/ Atte'&t to evade or defeat ta+ 3/ (ra!d 41 wire# radio# or television 5/ (alse state'ent or entries 6/ 7lection contri4!tion in na'e of another The %e&art'ent of !stice# thro!)h a desi)nated &anel &roceeded with the technical eval!ation and assess'ent of the e+tradition treat1 which the1 fo!nd havin) 'atters needed to 4e addressed/ Res&ondent# then re*!ested for co&ies of all the doc!'ents incl!ded in the e+tradition re*!est and for hi' to 4e )iven a'&le ti'e to assess it/ The Secretar1 of !stice denied re*!est on the ff/ )ro!nds3 1/ 8e fo!nd it &re'at!re to sec!re hi' co&ies &rior to the co'&letion of the eval!ation/ At that &oint in ti'e# the %O is in the &rocess of eval!atin) whether the &roced!res and re*!ire'ents !nder the relevant law (P% 106$9 Phili&&ine 7+tradition :aw) and treat1 (RP;.S 7+tradition Treat1) have 4een co'&lied with 41 the Re*!estin) 0overn'ent/ 7val!ation 41 the %O of the doc!'ents is not a &reli'inar1 investi)ation li,e in cri'inal cases 'a,in) the constit!tionall1 )!aranteed ri)hts of the acc!sed in cri'inal &rosec!tion ina&&lica4le/ 2/ The ./S/ re*!ested for the &revention of !na!thori-ed disclos!re of the infor'ation in the doc!'ents/ 3/ (inall1# the co!ntr1 is 4o!nd to the <ienna convention on the law of treaties s!ch that ever1 treat1 in force is 4indin) !&on the &arties/ The res&ondent filed for &etition of 'anda'!s# certiorari# and &rohi4ition/ The RTC of =CR r!led in favor of the res&ondent/ Secretar1 of !stice was 'ade to iss!e a co&1 of the re*!ested &a&ers# as well as cond!ctin) f!rther &roceedin)s/ I ue : 1. WON !r"vate " re !#$%e$t e$t"t&e% t# t'e t(# )a "c %ue !r#ce r"*'t #+ $#t"ce a$% 'ear"$* >es/ Section 2(a) of P% 10"6 defines e+tradition as ?the re'oval of an acc!sed fro' the Phili&&ines with the o4@ect of &lacin) hi' at the dis&osal of forei)n a!thorities to ena4le the re*!estin) state or )overn'ent to hold hi' in

connection with an1 cri'inal investi)ation directed a)ainst hi' in connection with an1 cri'inal investi)ation directed a)ainst hi' or the e+ec!tion of a &enalt1 i'&osed on hi' !nder the &enal or cri'inal law of the re*!estin) state or )overn'ent/A Altho!)h the in*!isitorial &ower e+ercised 41 the %e&art'ent of !stice as an ad'inistrative a)enc1 d!e to the fail!re of the %(A to co'&l1 lac,s an1 @!dicial discretion# it &ri'aril1 sets the wheels for the e+tradition &rocess which 'a1 !lti'atel1 res!lt in the de&rivation of the li4ert1 of the &ros&ective e+tradite/ This de&rivation can 4e effected at two sta)es3 The &rovisional arrest of the &ros&ective e+tradite &endin) the s!4'ission of the re*!est and the te'&orar1 arrest of the &ros&ective e+tradite d!rin) the &endenc1 of the e+tradition &etition in co!rt/ Clearl1# there is an i'&endin) threat to a &ros&ective e+traditeeBs li4ert1 as earl1 as d!rin) the eval!ation sta)e/ Ceca!se of s!ch conse*!ences# the eval!ation &rocess is a,in to an ad'inistrative a)enc1 cond!ctin) an investi)ative &roceedin)# the conse*!ences of which are essentiall1 cri'inal since s!ch technical assess'ent sets off or co''ences the &roced!re for and !lti'atel1 the de&rivation of li4ert1 of a &ros&ective e+tradite/ 2n essence# therefore# the eval!ation &rocess &arta,es of the nat!re of a cri'inal investi)ation/ There are certain constit!tional ri)hts that are ordinaril1 availa4le onl1 in cri'inal &rosec!tion/ C!t the Co!rt has r!led in other cases that where the investi)ation of an ad'inistrative &roceedin) 'a1 res!lt in forfeit!re of life# li4ert1# or &ro&ert1# the ad'inistrative &roceedin)s are dee'ed cri'inal or &enal# and s!ch forfeit!re &arta,es the nat!re of a &enalt1/ 2n the case at 4ar# si'ilar to a &reli'inar1 investi)ation# the eval!ation sta)e of the e+tradition &roceedin)s which 'a1 res!lt in the filin) of an infor'ation a)ainst the res&ondent# can &ossi4l1 lead to his arrest# and to the de&rivation of his li4ert1/ Th!s# the e+traditee '!st 4e accorded d!e &rocess ri)hts of notice and hearin) accordin) to Art/ 3 sec 15(1) and (2)# as well as Art/ 3 sec D9the ri)ht of the &eo&le to infor'ation on 'atters of &!4lic concern and the corollar1 ri)ht to access to official records and doc!'ents The co!rt held that the eval!ation &rocess &arta,es of the nat!re of a cri'inal investi)ation# havin) conse*!ences which will res!lt in de&rivation of li4ert1 of the &ros&ective e+tradite/ A favora4le action in an e+tradition re*!est e+&oses a &erson to event!al e+tradition to a forei)n co!ntr1# th!s e+hi4itin) the &enal as&ect of the &rocess/ The eval!ation &rocess itself is li,e a &reli'inar1 investi)ation since 4oth &roced!res 'a1 have the sa'e res!lt E the arrest and i'&rison'ent of the res&ondent/ The 4asic ri)hts of notice and hearin) are a&&lica4le in cri'inal# civil and ad'inistrative &roceedin)s/ =on; o4servance of these ri)hts will invalidate the &roceedin)s/ 2ndivid!als are entitled to 4e notified of an1 &endin) case affectin) their interests# and !&on notice# 'a1 clai' the ri)ht to a&&ear therein and &resent their side/

R"*'t t# $#t"ce a$% 'ear"$*: D" !e$ a)&e "$ , ca e : a/ Fhen there is an !r)ent need for i''ediate action (&reventive s!s&ension in ad'inistrative char)es# &adloc,in) filth1 resta!rants# cancellation of &ass&ort)/ 4/ Fhere there is tentativeness of ad'inistrative action# and the res&ondent is not &revented fro' en@o1in) the ri)ht to notice and hearin) at a later ti'e (s!''ar1 distraint and lev1 of the &ro&ert1 of a delin*!ent ta+&a1er# re&lace'ent of an a&&ointee) c/ Twin ri)hts have 4een offered# 4!t the ri)ht to e+ercise the' had not 4een clai'ed/ -. WON t'" e$t"t&e.e$t c#$ t"tute a )reac' #+ t'e &e*a& c#.."t.e$t a$% #)&"*at"#$ #+ t'e /'"&"!!"$e G#ver$.e$t u$%er t'e R/0US Treat12 =o/ The ./S/ and the Phili&&ines share '!t!al concern a4o!t the s!&&ression and &!nish'ent of cri'e in their res&ective @!risdictions/ Coth states accord co''on d!e &rocess &rotection to their res&ective citi-ens/ The ad'inistrative investi)ation doesnBt fall !nder the three e+ce&tions to the d!e &rocess of notice and hearin) in the Section 3 R!les 112 of the R!les of Co!rt/ WON t'ere " a$1 c#$+&"ct )et(ee$ !r"vate re !#$%e$t3 )a "c %ue !r#ce r"*'t a$% t'e !r#v" "#$ #+ t'e R/0US E4tra%"t"#$ treat1 =o/ %octrine of incor&oration !nder international law# as a&&lied in 'ost co!ntries# decrees that r!les of international law are )iven e*!al standin) with# 4!t are not s!&erior to national le)islative acts/ Treat1 can re&eal stat!te and stat!te can re&eal treat1/ =o conflict/ <eil of secrec1 is lifted d!rin) trial/ Re*!est sho!ld i'&ose veil at an1 sta)e/

,.

Ju%*.e$t: Petition dis'issed for lac, of 'erit/ 5a!u$a$6 e!arate c#$curr"$* #!"$"#$: Fhile the eval!ation &rocess cond!cted 41 the %O is not e+actl1 a &reli'inar1 investi)ation of cri'inal cases# it is a,in to a &reli'inar1 investi)ation 4eca!se it involves the 4asic constit!tional ri)hts of the &erson so!)ht to 4e e+tradited/ A &erson ordered e+tradited is arrested# forci4l1 ta,en fro' his ho!se# se&arated fro' his fa'il1 and delivered to a forei)n state/ 8is ri)hts of a4ode# to &rivac1# li4ert1 and &!rs!it of ha&&iness are ta,en awa1 fro' hi'9a fate as harsh and cr!el as a conviction of a cri'inal offense/ (or this reason# he is entitled to have access to the evidence a)ainst hi' and the ri)ht to controvert the'/ /u$#6 %" e$t"$*: Case at 4ar does not involve )!ilt or innocence of an acc!sed 4!t the inter&retation of an e+tradition treat1 where at sta,e if o!r )overn'entBs international o4li)ation to s!rrender to a forei)n state a citi-en of its own so he can 4e tried for an alle)ed offense co''itted within that @!risdiction/ /a$*a$")a$6 %" e$t"$*: 2nstant &etition refers onl1 to the eval!ation sta)e/

/ESIGAN v. ANGELES 12$ SCRA 1D5 (1$"5) Nature: Petition to review the order of the Caloocan Cit1 RTC Fact : Ansel'o and Marcelo Pesi)an trans&orted in the evenin) of A&ril 2# 1$"2 twent1;si+ cara4aos and a calf fro' Ca'arines S!r with Catan)as as their destination/ The1 were &rovided with three certificates3 1) a health certificate fro' the &rovincial veterinarian# 2) &er'it to transferGtrans&ort fro' the &rovincial co''anderH and 3) three certificates of ins&ections/ 2n s&ite of the &a&ers# the cara4aos were confiscated 41 the &rovincial veterinarian and the townBs &olice station co''ander while &assin) thro!)h Ca'arines =orte/ The confiscation was 4ased on 7O =o/ 626;A which &rohi4its the trans&ortation of cara4aos and cara4eef fro' one &rovince to another/ I ue: FO= 7O =o/ 626;A# &rovidin) for the confiscation and forfeit!re 41 the )overn'ent of cara4aos trans&orted fro' one &rovince to another# dated Octo4er 26# 1$"0 is enforcea4le 4efore &!4lication in the Official 0a-ette on !ne 15# 1$"2 7e&%: =o/ The said order is not enforcea4le a)ainst the Pesi)ans on A&ril 2/ 1$"2 4eca!se it is a &enal re)!lation &!4lished 'ore than two 'onths later in the O0/ 2t 4eca'e effective onl1 fifteen da1s thereafter as &rovided in Article 2 of the Civil Code and Sec;11 of the Revised Ad'inistrative Code/ The word ?lawsA in article 2 incl!des circ!lars and re)!lations which &rescri4e &enalties/ P!4lication is necessar1 to a&&rise the &!4lic of the contents of the re)!lations and 'a,e the said &enalties 4indin) on the &ersons affected there41/ Co''onwealth Act =o/ 63" re*!ires that all Presidential e+ec!tive orders havin) )eneral a&&lica4ilit1 sho!ld 4e &!4lished in the Official 0a-ette/ 2t &rovides that ?ever1 order or doc!'ent which shall &rescri4e a &enalt1 shall 4e dee'ed to have )eneral a&&lica4ilit1 and le)al effect/ This a&&lies to a violation of 7O =o/ 626;A 4eca!se its confiscation and forfeit!re &rovision or sanction 'a,es it a &enal stat!te/ 2t res!lts that the1 have ca!se of action for the recover1 of the cara4aos/ The s!''ar1 confiscation was not in order/ The reci&ients of the cara4aos sho!ld ret!rn the' to the Pesi)ans/ 8owever# the1 cannot trans&ort the cara4aos to Catan)as 4eca!se the1 are now 4o!nd 41 the said e+ec!tive order/ =either can the1 recover da'a)es/ %octor Miranda and Ienerosa acted in )ood faith in orderin) the forfeit!re and dis&ersal of the cara4aos/ Ju%*.e$t: Order of dis'issal and confiscation and dis&ersal of the cara4aos# reversed and set aside/ Res&ondents to restore cara4aos# with the re*!isite doc!'ents# to &etitioners for their own dis&osal in Cas!d or Si&ocot# Ca'arines S!r/ =o costs/ I.!#rta$t !#"$t: P!4lication is necessar1 to a&&rise the &!4lic of the contents of the re)!lations and 'a,e the said &enalties 4indin) on the &ersons affected here41/ !stice and fairness dictate that the &!4lic '!st 4e infor'ed of that &rovision 41 'eans of the &!4lication on the 0a-ette/

TA8ADA v. TU9ERA 136 SCRA 2D (1$"6) Nature: Petition to review the decision of the 7+ec!tive Assistant to the President/ Fact : 2nvo,in) the &eo&leBs ri)ht to 4e infor'ed on 'atters of &!4lic concern# a ri)ht reco)ni-ed in Section 6# Article 2< of the 1$D3 constit!tion# &etitioners see, a writ of 'anda'!s to co'&el res&ondent &!4lic officials to &!4lish# andGor ca!se the &!4lication in the Official 0a-ette# of vario!s &residential decrees# letters of instr!ctions# )eneral orders# &rocla'ations# e+ec!tive orders# letter of i'&le'entation and ad'inistrative orders/ The res&ondents wo!ld have this case dis'issed on the )ro!nd that &etitioners have no le)al &ersonalit1 to 4rin) this &etition/ Petitioners 'aintain that since the s!4@ect of the &etition concerns a &!4lic ri)ht and its o4@ect is to co'&el &!4lic d!t1# the1 need not show an1 s&ecific interest/ Res&ondents f!rther contend that &!4lication in the O0 is not a sine *!a non re*!ire'ent for the effectivit1 of laws where the laws the'selves &rovide for their own effectivit1 dates/ I ue: FO= &!4lication in the Official 0a-atte is an indis&ensa4le re*!ire'ent for the effectivit1 of the P%s# :O2s# )eneral orders# 7Os# etc/ where the laws the'selves &rovide for their own effectivit1 dates/ 7e&%: >es/ 2t is the &eo&leBs ri)ht to 4e infor'ed on 'atters of &!4lic concern and corollaril1 access to official records# and to doc!'ents and &a&ers &ertainin) to official acts# transactions# or decisions# shall 4e afforded the citi-ens s!4@ect to s!ch li'itation as 'a1 4e &rovided 41 law (Sec/ 6 Art/ 2<# 1$D3 Constit!tion)/ :aws# to 4e valid and enforcea4le# '!st 4e &!4lished in the O0 or otherwise effectivel1 &ro'!l)ated/ The fact that a P% or :O2 states its date of effectivit1 does not &recl!de their &!4lication in the O0 as the1 constit!te i'&ortant le)islative acts/ The &!4lication of &residential iss!ances ?of &!4lic nat!reA or ?of )eneral a&&lica4ilit1A is a re*!ire'ent of d!e &rocess/ Cefore a &erson 'a1 4e 4o!nd 41 law# he '!st first 4e officiall1 infor'ed of its contents/ Ju%*.e$t: Res&ondents ordered to &!4lish in Official 0a-ette all !n&!4lished &residential iss!ances of )eneral a&&lication# and !nless so &!4lished shall have no 4indin) force and effect/ I.!#rta$t /#"$t: 2t ill!strates how decrees and iss!ances iss!ed 41 one 'an9Marcos9are in fact laws of )eneral a&&lication and &rovide for &enalties/ The constit!tion afforded Marcos 4oth e+ec!tive and le)islative &owers/ The )eneralit1 of law (Civil Code# Art/ 15) will never wor, witho!t constr!ctive notice/ The r!lin) of this case &rovides the &!4lication constit!tes the necessar1 constr!ctive notice and is th!s the c!re for i)norance as an e+c!se/ 2)norance will not even 'iti)ate the cri'e/

:OUIE 9. COLUM:IA 3D" ./S/ 35D (1$65) Nature: Certiorari to the S!&re'e Co!rt of So!th Carolina Fact : 2 =e)ro colle)e st!dents too, seats in a 4ooth in the resta!rant de&art'ent of 7c,erds and waited to 4e served/ As the1 were seated# the e'&lo1ee of the store &!t !& a no tres&assin) si)n/ The store 'ana)er called the &olice/ Fhen the &olice arrived# the 'ana)er as,ed the' to leave 4!t the1 did not/ The1 were convicted 41 So!th Carolina SC on the )ro!nds of resistin) arrest and cri'inal tres&ass/ Petitioners now contend that to constr!e the stat!te as s!ch is violative of the d!e &rocess cla!se since the state has &!nished the' for cond!ct which was not cri'inal at the ti'e the1 have co''itted it/ I ue: FO= &etitioners were denied d!e &rocess of law 4eca!se the stat!te failed to afford fair warnin) that the cond!ct for which the1 have 4een convicted had 4een 'ade a cri'e/ 7e&%: %ecision of the So!th Carolina SC was reversed/ The cri'e for which these &etitioners stand convicted was Jnot en!'erated in the stat!teJ at the ti'e of their cond!ct/ 2t follows that the1 have 4een de&rived of li4ert1 and &ro&ert1 witho!t d!e &rocess of law/ To 4e convicted of cri'inal tres&assin)# the law stat!te states3 ?entr1 !&on the lands of another after notice fro' the owner &rohi4itin) s!ch entr1/A The &etitioners sho!ld have first 4een warned &rior to enterin) the resta!rant that to do so wo!ld constit!te cri'inal tres&assin)/ =o &rior warnin) was 'ade/ The1 were onl1 as,ed to leave when the1 were inside/ The So!th Carolina SC constr!ed the stat!te to cover also the act of re'ainin) on the &re'ises of another after receivin) notice to leave/ A cri'inal stat!te '!st )ive fair warnin) of the cond!ct that it 'a,es a cri'e/ Since the stat!e was s&ecific# there was no reason to 4roaden its sco&e# for this is li,e an e+ &ost facto law/ 7+ &ost facto law has two instances3 1/ 2t 'a,es an action done 4efore the &assin) of the law# and which was innocent when done# cri'inal and &!nishes s!ch action/ 2/ 2t a))ravates a cri'e and 'a,es it )reater than it was when co''itted/ Fhen an !nforeseea4le state;co!rt constr!ction of a stat!te is a&&lied retroactivel1 and s!4@ects a &erson to cri'inal lia4ilit1# it de&rives that &erson of d!e &rocess in the sense of fair warnin)/ A&&l1in) those &rinci&les to this case# we a)ree with &etitioners that 16;3"6 of the So!th Carolina Code did not )ive the' fair warnin)# at the ti'e of their cond!ct in 7c,erdKs %r!) Store in 1$60# that the act for which the1 now stand convicted was

rendered cri'inal 41 the stat!te/ C1 its ter's# the stat!te &rohi4ited onl1 Jentr1 !&on the lands of anotherLafter notice fro' the ownerL&rohi4itin) s!ch entr1LJ There was nothin) in the stat!te to indicate that it also &rohi4ited the different act of re'ainin) on the &re'ises after 4ein) as,ed to leave/ Petitioners did not violate the stat!te as it was writtenH the1 received no notice 4efore enterin) either the dr!)store or the resta!rant de&art'ent/ 2ndeed# the1 ,new the1 wo!ld not receive an1 s!ch notice 4efore enterin) the store# for the1 were invited to &!rchase ever1thin) e+ce&t food there/ So far as the words of the stat!te were concerned# &etitioners were )iven not onl1 no Jfair warnin)#J 4!t no warnin) whatever# that their cond!ct in 7c,erdKs %r!) Store wo!ld violate the stat!te/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; U.S. v. SWEET 1 Phil/ 1" (1$01) Nature: A&&eal fro' an order of the Cit1 of Manila C(2 Fact : Sweet was e'&lo1ed 41 the .nited States 'ilitar1 who co''itted an offense a)ainst a POF/ 8is case is filed with the C(2# who is )iven ori)inal @!risdiction in all cri'inal cases for which a &enalt1 of 'ore than 6 'onths is i'&osed/ 8e is now contendin) that the co!rts are witho!t @!risdiction 4eca!se he was ?actin) in the line of d!t1/A I ue : 1. WON t'" ca e " ("t'"$ t'e ;ur" %"ct"#$ #+ t'e CFI. >es/ C1 Act =o/ 136 of the .S;Phil Co''ission# the C(2s are )iven ori)inal @!risdiction in all cri'inal cases in which a &enalt1 'ore than 6 'onths i'&rison'ent or a fine )reater than M100 'a1 4e i'&osed/ (!rther'ore# C(2s have @!risdiction to tr1 offenders char)ed with violation of the Penal Code within their territorial li'its# re)ardless of the 'ilitar1 character of the acc!sed/ The defendant and his acts are within the @!risdiction of the C(2 4eca!se he failed to &rove that he was indeed actin) in the line of d!t1/ -. WON a$ a au&t c#.."tte% )1 a #&%"er #r ."&"tar1 e.!&#1ee u!#$ a !r" #$er #+ (ar " $#t a$ #++e$ce u$%er t'e !e$a& c#%e2 >es/ Tho!)h assa!lt 41 'ilitar1 officer a)ainst a POF is not in the RPC# &h1sical assa!lt char)es 'a1 4e &ressed !nder the RPC/ A u."$* t'at "t " a$ #++e$ce u$%er t'e !e$a& c#%e6 WON t'e ."&"tar1 c'aracter u ta"$e% )1 t'e !er #$ c'ar*e% ("t' t'e #++e$ce at t'e t".e #+ "t c#.." "#$ e4e.!t '". +r#. t'e #r%"$ar1 ;ur" %"ct"#$ #+ t'e c"v"& tr")u$a& 2 =o/ The a&&lication of the )eneral &rinci&le that the @!risdiction of the civil tri4!nals is !naffected 41 the 'ilitar1 or other s&ecial character 4ro!)ht 4efore the' for trial (R/A/ =o/ D066)/ A&&ellant clai's that the act was service

connected/ 2f this were tr!e# it 'a1 4e !sed as a defense 4!t this cannot affect the ri)ht of the Civil Co!rt to ta,es @!risdiction of the case/A Ju%*.e$t: !d)'ent there41 affir'ed ?An offense char)ed a)ainst a 'ilitar1 officer in conse*!ence of an act done in o4edience to an order is clearl1 shown on the face# where s!ch offense is a)ainst the 'ilitar1 law# is not within the @!risdiction of the co!rts of the Civil 0overn'ent/A ––Per Cooper, J., concurring ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; SC7NEC5EN:URGER v. MORAN 63 Phil/ 25$ (1$53) Nature: Ori)inal action in the S!&re'e Co!rt/ Prohi4ition/ Fact : Schnec,en4!r)er# who is an honorar1 cons!l of .r!)!a1 at Manila was s!4se*!entl1 char)ed in C(2;Manila with the cri'e of falsification of a &rivate doc!'ent/ 8e o4@ected to this sa1in) that !nder the .S and Phili&&ine Constit!tion# the C(2 has no @!risdiction to tr1 hi'/ After his o4@ection was overr!led# he filed a &etition for a writ of &rohi4ition to &revent the C(2 fro' ta,in) co)ni-ance of the cri'inal action filed a)ainst hi'/ Aside fro' this# he contended that ori)inal @!risdiction over cases affectin) a'4assadors and cons!ls is conferred e+cl!sivel1 !&on the S!&re'e Co!rt of the Phili&&ines/ I ue : 1. WON t'e US Su!re.e C#urt 'a Or"*"$a& Jur" %"ct"#$ #ver ca e a++ect"$* a.)a a%#r 6 c#$ u& 6 et. a& a$% uc' ;ur" %"ct"#$ e4c&u%e c#urt #+ t'e /'"& . =o/ (irst of all# a cons!l is not entitled to the &rivile)e of di&lo'atic i''!nit1/ A cons!l is not e+e'&t fro' cri'inal &rosec!tion for violations of the laws of the co!ntr1 where he resides/ The ina!)!ration of the Phili&&ine Co''onwealth on =ov/ 16# 1$36 ca!sed the Phili&&ine Constit!tion to )o into f!ll force and effect/ This Constit!tion is the s!&re'e law of the land/ This Constit!tion &rovides that the ori)inal @!risdiction of this co!rt ?shall incl!de all cases affectin) a'4assadors# cons!ls et/al/A -. WON #r"*"$a& ;ur" %"ct"#$ #ver ca e a++ect"$* a.)a a%#r 6 c#$ u& 6 et. a&. " c#$+erre% e4c&u "ve&1 u!#$ t'e Su!re.e C#urt #+ t'e /'"&"!!"$e ?The S!&re'e Co!rt shall have ori)inal and a&&ellate @!risdiction as 'a1 4e &ossessed and e+ercised 41 the S!&re'e Co!rt of the Phili&&ines at the ti'e of the ado&tion of this Constit!tion/A Accordin) to Sec/ 1D/ of Act =o/ 136 and 41 virt!e of it# @!risdiction to iss!e writs of *!o warranto# certiorari# 'anda'!s# &rohi4ition and ha4eas cor&!s was also conferred on the C(2Bs/ As a res!lt# the ori)inal

@!risdiction &ossessed and e+ercised 41 the S!&re'e Co!rt of the Phili&&ines at the ti'e the Constit!tion was ado&ted was not e+cl!sive of# 4!t conc!rrent with# that of the C(2Bs/ The ori)inal @!risdiction conferred to S!&re'e Co!rt 41 the Constit!tion was not an e+cl!sive @!risdiction/ Ju%*.e$t: C(2 has @!risdiction to tr1 the &etitioner# and the &etition for a writ of &rohi4ition '!st 4e denied/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; RA<UI=A v. :RADFORD D6 Phil/ 60 (1$5") Nature: Ori)inal action in the S!&re'e Co!rt/ 8a4eas cor&!s/ Fact : C1 virt!e of the &rocla'ation iss!ed 41 0eneral of the Ar'1 MacArth!r# &etitioners were arrested 41 the 306 C2C and detained !nder sec!rit1 co''it'ent order =o 3"6/ The &etitioners Ra*!i-a# Tee 8an Nee# and 2nfante were char)ed with 7s&iona)e activit1 with the a&anese# active colla4oration with the ene'1 res&ectivel1/ Power for Co''ander of the .S Ar'1 to &roclai' 41 virt!e of 'ilitar1 necessit1 is not *!estioned/ 8e 4ased &rocla'ation on the reasons that the a&&rehended have violated d!e alle)iance to the .S and it is a 'ilitar1 necessit1/ Petitioners 'ove for writ of 8a4eas Cor&!s/ I ue : 1/ WON t'e (ar ter."$ate% ("t'"$ t'e .ea$"$* #+ t'at !art "$ t'e !r#c&a.at"#$2 O=ote3 The &ower of co''ander in chief of the .S Ar'1 to iss!e a &rocla'ation &rovidin) for 'ilitar1 'eas!res to 4e ta,en !&on the a&&rehension of (ili&ino citi-ens who vol!ntaril1 have )iven aid# co'fort and s!stenance to the ene'1# cannot 4e serio!sl1 *!estioned/P =o/ ?The war# in the le)al sense# contin!es !ntil# and ter'inated at the sa'e ti'e of# so'e for'al &rocla'ation of &eace 41 an a!thorit1 co'&etent to &roclai' it/ 2t is the &rovince of the &olitical de&art'ent# and not the @!dicial de&art'ent# to deter'ine if war has ended/ The fact that deliver1 of certain &ersons !nder c!stod1 of the .S Ar'1 has alread1 4e)!n does not 'ean that the war has# in the le)al sense# alread1 ter'inated# which clearl1 it has not/ %eliver1 within the &ower of 'ilitar1 a!thorities to 'a,e even 4efore was ter'inates/ -. WON t'" c#urt 'a ;ur" %"ct"#$ #r &e*a& !#(er t# a++#r% re&"e+ t# t'e !et"t"#$er "$ t'e a% a$% #rr1 !&"*'t t# ('"c' t'e1 'ave )ee$ a$% are )e"$* u);ecte%2 =o/ Civil Co!rts sho!ld not interfere/ A forei)n ar'1 &er'itted to 'arch thro!)h a friendl1 co!ntr1 or to 4e stationed in it# is e+e'&t fro' civil and cri'inal @!risdiction of the &lace/ 0rant of free &assa)e i'&lies a waiver of all @!risdiction over troo&s d!rin) &assa)e (let the' e+ercise

,.

their own disci&line)/ An1 atte'&t 41 o!r civil Co!rts to e+ercise @!risdiction over .S troo&s wo!ld 4e a violation of o!r co!ntr1Bs faith/ On the other hand# &etitioners 'a1 have reco!rse to &ro&er 'ilitar1 a!thorities/ LIANG v. /EO/LE 323 SCRA 662 (2000) Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Re)ional Trial Co!rt of Pasi) Cit1# Cr/ 160/ Fact : Petitioner is an econo'ist for A%C who was char)ed 41 the Metro&olitan Trial Co!rt of Mandal!1on) cit1 for alle)edl1 !tterin) defa'ator1 words a)ainst her fellow wor,er with two co!nts of )rave oral defa'ation/ MeTC @!d)e then received an office of &rotocol fro' the %e&art'ent of (orei)n Affairs# statin) that &etitioner is covered 41 i''!nit1 fro' le)al &rocess !nder section 56 of the a)ree'ent 4et A%C and the )overn'ent/ MeTC @!d)e# witho!t notice# dis'issed the two cri'inal cases/ Prosec!tion filed writ of 'anda'!s and certiorari and ordered the MeTC to enforce the warrant of arrest/ I ue : FO= the &etitioner is covered 41 i''!nit1 !nder the a)ree'ent and that no &reli'inar1 investi)ation was held 4efore the cri'inal cases were filed in co!rt/ Rat"#: 8e is not covered 41 i''!nit1 4eca!se the co''ission of a cri'e is &art of the &erfor'ance of official d!t1/ Co!rts cannot 4lindl1 adhere and ta,e on its face the co''!nication fro' the %(A that a certain &erson is covered 41 i''!nit1/ That a &erson is covered 41 i''!nit1 is &reli'inar1/ %!e &rocess is ri)ht of the acc!sed as '!ch as the &rosec!tion/ Slanderin) a &erson is not covered 41 the a)ree'ent 4eca!se o!r laws do not allow the co''ission of a cri'e s!ch as defa'ation in the na'e of official d!t1/ .nder <ienna convention on %i&lo'atic Relations# co''ission of a cri'e is not &art of official d!t1/ On the contention that there was no &reli'inar1 investi)ation cond!cted# s!ffice it to sa1 that &reli'inar1 investi)ation is not a 'atter of ri)ht in cases co)ni-a4le 41 the MeTC s!ch as the one at 4ar/ Cein) &!rel1 a stat!tor1 ri)ht# &reli'inar1 investi)ation 'a1 4e invo,ed onl1 when s&ecificall1 )ranted 41 law/ The r!le on cri'inal &roced!re is clear than no &reli'inar1 investi)ation is re*!ired in cases fallin) within the @!risdiction of the MeTC/ Cesides# the a4sence of &reli'inar1 investi)ation does not affect the co!rtBs @!risdiction nor does it i'&air the validit1 of the infor'ation or otherwise render it defective/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; U.S. v. A7 SING 36 Phil/ $D" (1$1D) Cf. French vs. English rule Fact : The defendant is a s!4@ect of China e'&lo1ed as a fire'an on a stea'shi&/ The stea'shi& is a forei)n stea'er

which arrived the &ort of Ce4! on A&ril 26# 1$1D# after a vo1a)e direct fro' the &ort of Sai)on/ The defendant 4o!)ht ei)ht cans of o&i!' in Sai)on# 4ro!)ht the' on 4oard the stea'shi& and had the' in his &ossession d!rin) the tri& fro' Sai)on to Ce4!/ Fhen the stea'er anchored in the &ort of Ce4!# the a!thorities on 'a,in) the search fo!nd the cans of o&i!' hidden in the ashes 4elow the 4oiler of the stea'erKs en)ine/ The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the o&i!' and that he had &!rchased it in Sai)on/ 8e did not confess# however# as to his &!r&ose in 4!1in) the o&i!'/ 8e did not sa1 that it was his intention to i'&ort the &rohi4ited dr!)/ I ue: FO= the cri'e of ille)al i'&ortation of o&i!' into the Phili&&ine 2slands has 4een &rovenQ 7e&%: >es/ 2t is the on!s of the )overn'ent to &rove that the vessel fro' which the dr!) dischar)ed ca'e into Phili&&ine waters fro' a forei)n co!ntr1 with the dr!) on 4oard/ 2n this case# it is to 4e noted that Sec/ 5 of Act =o/ 23"1 4e)ins# ?An1 &erson who shall !nlawf!ll1 i'&ort or 4rin) an1 &rohi4ited dr!) into the Phili&&ine 2slandsLA 2'&ort and 4rin) sho!ld 4e constr!ed as s1non1'o!s ter's/ The 'ere act of )oin) into a &ort# witho!t 4rea,in) 4!l,# is &ri'a facie evidence of i'&ortation/ The i'&ortation is not the 'a,in) entr1 of )oods at the c!sto'ho!se# 4!t 'erel1 the 4rin)in) the' into the &ort# and the i'&ortation is co'&lete 4efore the entr1 to the c!sto'ho!se/ Moreover# &ossession for &ersonal !se is !nli,el1# @!d)in) fro' the si-e of the a'o!nt 4ro!)ht/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; MI<UIA:AS v. COMMANDING GENERAL "0 Phil/ 26D (1$5") Nature: Ori)inal Action in the S!&re'e Co!rt/ 8a4eas cor&!s/ Fact : Mi*!ia4as is a (ili&ino citi-en and civilian e'&lo1ee of the .S ar'1 in the Phili&&ines who had 4een char)ed of dis&osin) in the Port of Manila Area of thin)s 4elon)in) to the .S ar'1 in violation of the $5th article of Far of the .S/ 8e was arrested and a 0eneral Co!rt;Martial was a&&ointed/ 8e was fo!nd )!ilt1/ As a r!le# the Phili&&ines 4ein) a soverei)n nation has @!risdiction over all offenses co''itted within its territor1 4!t it 'a1# 41 treat1 or 41 a)ree'ent# consent that the .S shall e+ercise @!risdiction over certain offenses co''itted within said &ortions of territor1/ I ue : 1. WON t'e #++e$ e 'a )ee$ c#.."tte% ("t'"$ a US )a e t'u *"v"$* t'e US ;ur" %"ct"#$ #ver t'e ca e. =o/ The Port of Manila Area where the offense was co''itted is not within a .S 4ase for it is not na'es in Anne+ A or C of Article RR<2 of the Militar1 Case A)ree'ent (MCA) and is 'erel1 &art of the te'&orar1 *!arters located within &resented li'its of the cit1 of Manila/ Moreover# e+tended installations and te'&orar1 *!arters are not

considered to have the sa'e @!risdictional ca&acit1 as &er'anent 4ases and are )overned 41 Article R222 &ara)ra&hs 2 and 5/ The offence at 4ar# therefore is in the 4e1ond the @!risdiction of 'ilitar1 co!rts/ -. WON t'e #++e$%er " a .e.)er #+ t'e US ar.e% +#rce =o/ .nder the MCA# a civilian e'&lo1ee is not considered as a 'e'4er of the .S ar'ed forces/ 7ven !nder the articles of war# the 'ere fact that a civilian e'&lo1ee is in the service of the .S Ar'1 does not 'a,e hi' a 'e'4er of the ar'ed forces/

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; GUMA:ON v. DIRECTOR OF /RISONS 3D SCRA 520 (1$D1) Nature: Ori)inal Petition in the S!&re'e Co!rt/ 8a4eas cor&!s/ Fact : 0!'a4on# after &leadin) )!ilt1# was sentenced on Ma1 6# 1$63 to recl!sion &er&et!a for the co'&le+ cri'e of re4ellion with '!lti&le '!rder# ro44er1# arson and ,idna&&in) (alon) with A)a&ito# Pal'ares and Pad!a)/ The decision for the first two &etitioners was rendered on March "# 1$65 and the third on %ec/ 6# 1$66/ The last &etitioner Ca)ol4a)ol was &enali-ed with recl!sion &er&et!a on an/ 12# 1$65/ 7ach of the &etitioners have 4een i'&risoned for 'ore than 13 1ears 41 virt!e of their convictions/ The1 now invo,e the doctrine laid down in Peo&le v/ 8ernandewhich ne)ated s!ch co'&le+ cri'e# a r!lin) which was not handed down !ntil after their convictions have 4eco'e final/ 2n Peo&le v/ 8ernande-# the SC r!led that the infor'ation a)ainst the acc!sed for re4ellion co'&le+ed with '!rder# arson and ro44er1 was not warranted !nder Art/ 135 of the RPC# there 4ein) no s!ch co'&le+ offense/ This r!lin) was not handed down !ntil after their convictions have 4eco'e final/ Since 8ernande- served 'ore than the 'a+i'!' &enalt1 that co!ld have 4een served a)ainst hi'# he is entitled to freedo'# and th!s# his contin!ed detention is ille)al/ I ue: FO= Art/ 22 of the RPC which )ives a &enal @!d)'ent a retroactive effect is a&&lica4le in this case (FO= @!dicial decisions favo!ra4le to the acc!sedGconvicted for the sa'e cri'e can 4e a&&lied retroactivel1) 7e&%: >es/ !dicial decisions favo!ra4le to the acc!sed '!st 4e a&&lied retroactivel1/ Petitioners relied on Art/ 22 of the RPC# which states the &enal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as the1 favo!r the acc!sed who is not a ha4it!al cri'inal/ The Civil Code also &rovides that @!dicial decisions a&&l1in) or inter&retin) the Constit!tion for's &art of o!r le)al s1ste'/ Petitioners even raised their constit!tional ri)ht to e*!al &rotection# )iven that 8ernande- et al/# has 4een convicted for the sa'e offense as the1 have# tho!)h their sentences were

li)hter/ 8a4eas cor&!s is the onl1 'eans of 4enefitin) the acc!sed 41 the retroactive character of a favora4le decision/

I$ Re: 5AY 9ILLEGAS 5AMI 36 SCRA 52$ (1$D0) Fact : Na1 <ille)as Na'i 2nc/ clai'in) to 4e a reco)ni-ed non; stoc,# non;&rofit cor&oration contests validit1 of RA S 6132 Sec/ " sa1in) it violates d!e &rocess ri)hts of association# freedo' of e+&ression and is an e+ &ost facto law I ue : 1. WON "t v"#&ate t'ree r"*'t 2 =o/ 2tBs set !& to &revent &rostit!tion of electoral &rocess and e*!al &rotection of laws/ -. WON "t " a$ e4 !# t +act# &a(2 =o/ 7+ &ost facto law defined3 a/ 'a,es cri'inal an act done 4efore law was &assed and &!nishes act innocent when done/ 4/ a))ravates a cri'e# 'a,es it )reater than it was c/ inflicts )reater &!nish'ent than the law &rescri4ed when co''itted d/ alters le)al r!les of evidence and a!thori-es conviction !&on less or different tests e/ ass!'in) to re)!late civil ri)hts and re'edies onl1 in effect i'&oses &enalt1 or de&rivation of ri)ht which when done was lawf!l

shootin)# (leischer and Co/ (the co'&an1 of (leischerKs fa'il1) was involved in a le)al 4attle with the defendant and other land settlers of Cota4ato over certain &ieces of &ro&ert1/ At the ti'e of the shootin)# the civil case was still &endin) for ann!l'ent (settlers wanted )rantin) of &ro&ert1 to (leisher and Co/ to 4e ann!lled)/ At ti'e of the shootin)# defendant had leased his &ro&ert1 fro' (leisher (tho!)h case &endin) and ownershi& !ncertain) to avoid tro!4le/ On !ne 26# defendant received letter ter'inatin) contract 4eca!se he alle)edl1 didnKt &a1 rent/ 8e was )iven 6 'onths to re'ove his ho!se fro' the land/ Shootin) was 4arel1 2 'onths after letter/ %efendant clai's he ,illed in defense of his &erson and &ro&ert1/ C(2 r!led that =arvae- was )!ilt1/ A))ravatin) circ!'stances of evident &re'editation offset 41 the 'iti)atin) circ!'stance of vol!ntar1 s!rrender/ (or 4oth '!rders# C(2 sentenced hi' to recl!sion &er&et!a# to inde'nif1 the heirs# and to &a1 for 'oral da'a)es/ I ue : 1. WON CFI erre% "$ c#$v"ct"$* %e+e$%a$t0a!!e&&a$t %e !"te t'e +act t'at 'e acte% "$ %e+e$ e #+ '" !er #$. =o/ The co!rts conc!rred that the fencin) and chisellin) of the walls of the ho!se of the defendant was indeed a for' of a))ression on the &art of the victi'/ 8owever# this a))ression was not done on the &erson of the victi' 4!t rather on his ri)hts to &ro&ert1/ On the first iss!e# the co!rts did not err/ 8owever# in consideration of the violation of &ro&ert1 ri)hts# the co!rts referred to Art/ 30 of the civil code reco)ni-in) the ri)ht of owners to close and fence their land/ Altho!)h is not in dis&!te# the victi' was not in the &osition to s!4scri4e to the article 4eca!se his ownershi& of the land 4ein) awarded 41 the )overn'ent was still &endin)# therefore &!ttin) ownershi& into *!estion/ 2t is acce&ted that the victi' was the ori)inal a))ressor/ -. WON t'e c#urt erre% "$ c#$v"ct"$* %e+e$%a$t0 a!!e&&a$t a&t'#u*' 'e acte% "$ %e+e$ce #+ '" r"*'t . >es/ 8owever# the ar)!'ent of the @!stif1in) circ!'stance of self;defense is a&&lica4le onl1 if the 3 re*!ire'ents are f!lfilled/ Art/ 11(1) RPC en!'erates these re*!isites3  .nlawf!l a))ression/ 2n the case at 4ar# there was !nlawf!l a))ression towards a&&ellantKs &ro&ert1 ri)hts/ (leisher had )iven =arvae- 6 'onths and he sho!ld have left hi' in &eace 4efore ti'e was !&# instead of chiselin) =arvae-Ks ho!se and &!ttin) !& fence/ Art/ 636 of the Civil Code also &rovides that &ossession 'a1 not 4e ac*!ired thro!)h force or inti'idationH while Art/ 63$ &rovides that ever1 &ossessor has the ri)ht to 4e res&ected in his &ossession  Reasona4le necessit1 of 'eans e'&lo1ed to &revent or re&el attac,/ 2n the case# ,illin) was dis&ro&ortionate to the attac,/  :ac, of s!fficient &rovocation on &art of &erson defendin) hi'self/ 8ere# there was no &rovocation at all since he was aslee& ,.

Since not all re*!isites &resent# defendant is credited with the s&ecial 'iti)atin) circ!'stance of inco'&lete defense# &!rs!ant to Art/ 13(6) RPC/ These 'iti)atin) circ!'stances are3 vol!ntar1 s!rrender and &assion and o4f!scation (read &/ 506 e+&lanation) Cri'e is ho'icide (2 co!nts) not '!rder 4eca!se treacher1 is not a&&lica4le on acco!nt of &rovocation 41 the deceased/ Also# assa!lt was not deli4eratel1 chosen with view to ,ill since sla1er acted instantaneo!sl1/ There was also no direct evidence of &lannin) or &re&aration to ,ill/ Art/ 25$ RPC3 Penalt1 for ho'icide is recl!sion te'&oral/ 8owever# d!e to 'iti)atin) circ!'stances and inco'&lete defense# it can 4e lowered three de)rees (Art/ 65) to arresto 'a1or/ WON 'e '#u&% )e &"a)&e +#r u) "%"ar1 ".!r" #$.e$t "$ce 'e " u$a)&e t# !a1 t'e c"v"& "$%e.$"t1 %ue t# t'e #++e$%e% !art1. =o/ 8e is not lia4le to 4e s!4sidiaril1 i'&risoned for non; &a1'ent of civil inde'nit1/ RA 6566 'ade the &rovisions of Art/ 3$ a&&lica4le to fines onl1 and not to re&aration of da'a)e ca!sed# inde'nification of conse*!ential da'a)es and costs of &roceedin)s/ Altho!)h it was enacted onl1 after its conviction# considerin) that RA 6566 is favora4le to the acc!sed who is not a ha4it!al delin*!ent# it 'a1 4e )iven retroactive effect &!rs!ant to Art/ 22 of the RPC/ Ju%*.e$t: %efendant )!ilt1 of ho'icide 4!t wG 'iti)atin) circ!'stances and e+ten!atin) circ!'stance of inco'&lete self defense/ Penalt1 is 5 'onths arresto 'a1or and to inde'nif1 each )ro!& of heirs 5#000 wGo s!4sidiar1 i'&rison'ent and wGo award for 'oral da'a)es/ A&&ellant has alread1 4een detained 15 1ears so his i''ediate release is ordered/ Gut"erre>6 %" e$t"$*. %efense of &ro&ert1 can onl1 4e invo,ed when co!&led with for' of attac, on &erson defendin) &ro&ert1/ 2n the case at 4ar# this was not so/ A&&ellant sho!ld then 4e sentenced to &rision 'a1or/ 8owever# since he has served 'ore than that# he sho!ld 4e released/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. RINGOR 320 SCRA 352 (1$$$) Nature: A!to'atic review of a decision of the Ca)!io Cit1 RTC Fact : The acc!sed (Rin)or) on the ni)ht of !ne 23# 1$$5 was seen enterin) Peo&leBs Resta!rant/ A witness (el1 Catanes saw the acc!sed a&&roach a ta4le where the victi' was sittin)# &!lled his hair# and &o,ed a ,nife at the latterBs throat/ After# leavin) the resta!rant# the acc!sed ret!rned with a )!n# entered the ,itchen of the resta!rant# stealthil1 a&&roached the victi'

7e&%: Petition denied/ Constit!tional act/ Constit!tional inhi4ition refers onl1 to cri'inal laws/ Penalt1 in law i'&osed to acts co''itted after a&&roval of law ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. NAR9AE= 121 SCRA 3"$ (1$"3) Nature: A&&eal fro' decision of the C(2 of So!th Cota4ato Fact : Ma'erto =arvae- has 4een convicted of '!rder (*!alified 41 treacher1) of %avid (leischer and (laviano R!4ia/ On A!)!st 22# 1$6"# =arvae- shot (leischer and R!4ia d!rin) the ti'e the two were constr!ctin) a fence that wo!ld &revent =arvae- fro' )ettin) into his ho!se and rice 'ill/ The defendant was ta,in) a na& when he heard so!nds of constr!ction and fo!nd fence 4ein) 'ade/ 8e addressed the )ro!& and as,ed the' to sto& destro1in) his ho!se and as,in) if the1 co!ld tal, thin)s over/ (leischer res&onded with J=o# )ada'it# &roceed# )o ahead/J %efendant lost his Je*!ili4ri!'#J and shot (leisher with his shot)!n/ 8e also shot R!4ia who was r!nnin) towards the @ee& where the deceasedKs )!n was &laced/ Prior to the

fro' 4ehind and shot hi' si+ ti'es s!ccessivel1/ The defendant was later a&&rehended and ca!)ht in his &ossession was an !nlicensed wea&on/ .&on verification in Ca'& Cra'e# it was fo!nd o!t that Rin)or is not a licensed firear' holder and that the )!n was not licensed/ Rin)or &!t !& self;defense 4!t he failed to &rove (loridaBs !nlawf!l a))ression/ 8e was fo!nd )!ilt1 of '!rder *!alified 41 treacher1 and was sentenced to death/ 8e was fo!nd )!ilt1 of a se&arate char)e of &ossession of an !nlicensed firear' with a sentence of 1D to 20 1ears/ I ue : 1. WON t'e a.e$%at#r1 &a( RA ?-9@ A('"c' t##B e++ect "$ 199C: cr".e #ccurre% "$ 199@D " a!!&"ca)&e =o/ At the ti'e of the co''ission of the cri'e the !se of an !nlicensed firear' was still not an a))ravatin) circ!'stance in '!rder to ho'icide/ To a&&l1 it to Rin)or wo!ld increase his &enalt1 fro' recl!sion &er&et!a to death/ 8ence# RA "2$5 cannot retroact as it is !nfavora4le to the acc!sed# lest it 4eco'es an e+ &ost facto law/ -. WON RTC erre% "$ c#$v"ct"$* a!!e&&a$t +#r ".!&e "&&e*a& !# e "#$ #+ +"rear. a$% e$te$ce% '". t# u++er a$ "$%eter."$ate e$te$ce #+ 1C t# -0 1ear . >es/ 2n cases where '!rder or ho'icide is co''itted with the !se of an !nlicensed firear'# there can 4e no se&arate conviction for the cri'e of ille)al &ossession of firear's !nder P% =o/ 1"66/ t is si'&l1 considered as an a))ravatin) circ!'stance# no lon)er as a se&arate offence/ Accordin) to the article 22 of RPC# retroactivit1 of the law '!st 4e a&&lied if it is favo!ra4le to the acc!sed/ WON tr"a& c#urt erre% "$ c#$v"ct"$* accu e% #+ .ur%er =o/ (or self;defence to &ros&er# !nlawf!l a))ression# &ro&ortionalit1 of 'ethods to fend said a))ression# and lac, of s!fficient &rovocation fro' defender '!st 4e &roven/ 2n this case# defendant failed to &rove !nlawf!l a))ression/ The state'ent that the victi' a&&roached hi' with a 4olo was inconsistent to the witnessB state'ent of the victi' 4ein) in a &rone &osition in the ta4le/ This does not constit!te the re*!isite *!ant!' of &roof for !nlawf!l a))ression/ Fith the first re*!ire'ent 'issin)# the last two re*!isites have no 4asis/ WON RTC erre% "$ e$te$c"$* t'e accu e% t# %eat' +#r .u%er ('"c' (a $#t !r#ve$ a$% t'at t'e a&&e*e% .ur%er c#.."tte% )1 t'e a!!e&&a$t6 t'e a!!r#!r"ate !e$a&t1 +#r t'e #++e$ e " rec&u "#$ !er!etua %ue t# t# t'e a) e$ce #+ a$ a**ravat"$* c"rcu. ta$ce. >es/ 2n the a4sence of 'iti)atin) or a))ravatin) circ!'stances to a cri'e of '!rder as descri4ed 41 art 25" of RPC# a lesser &enalt1 of recl!sion &er&et!a has to 4e i'&osed in accordin) to article 63(2) of RPC

/EO/LE v. LACSON Ma1 2"# 2002 Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA Fact : Soon after the anno!nce'ent on Ma1 1"# 1$$6 that the N!raton) Calelen) )an) had 4een slain in a shooto!t with the &olice# two witnesses s!rfaced &rovidin) the testi'on1 that the said sla1in) was a r!4;o!t/ On !ne 1# 1$$6# Chief S!&erintendent o4 A/ Ma1o# P=P %irector for 2nvesti)ation# filed '!rder char)es with the Office of the O'4!ds'an a)ainst ninet1;seven ($D) officers and &ersonnel of ACR2T(0/ The ne+t; of;,in of the slain NC0 'e'4ers also filed '!rder char)es a)ainst the sa'e officers and &ersonnel/ On =ove'4er 2# 1$$6# after two resol!tions# the O'4!ds'an filed 4efore the Sandi)an4a1an 11 infor'ations of '!rder a)ainst the defendant and 26 &olice'en as &rinci&als/ .&on 'otion of the res&ondent# the cri'inal cases were re'anded to the O'4!ds'an and in a re;investi)ation# the infor'ations were a'ended down)radin) the &rinci&al into an accessor1/ Fith the down)radin) of char)es# the case was later transferred fro' the Sandi)an4a1an to the RTC not d!e to @!risdictional *!estions over the s!s&ects 4!t d!e to the fail!re to indicate that the offenses char)ed therein were co''itted in relation to# or in dischar)e of# the official f!nctions of the res&ondent# as re*!ired 41 R/ A/ =o/ "25$/ Cefore the arrai)n'ent# the witnesses of the &rosec!tion recanted their state'ents while the seven (D) &rivate co'&lainants s!4'itted their affidavits of desistance/ All 26 s!s&ects filed individ!al 'otions to (1) 'a,e a @!dicial deter'ination of the e+istence of &ro4a4le ca!se for the iss!ance of warrants of arrestH (2) hold in a4e1ance the iss!ance of the warrants# and (3) dis'iss the cases sho!ld the trial co!rt find lac, of &ro4a4le ca!se/ The cases were dis'issed/ 2t was on March 2D# 2001 when P=P director Mendo-a indorsed to the %e&art'ent of !stice new affidavits of new witnesses which it 4e)an to investi)ate and to file with the RTC/ The res&ondent# invo,in) a'on) others# their ri)ht a)ainst do!4le @eo&ard1# then filed with the Co!rt of A&&eals a &etition statin) that Sec/ "# R!le 11D of the 2000 R!les on Cri'inal Proced!re 4ans the revival of the '!rder cases a)ainst hi'H a &etition the Co!rt of A&&eals denied/ On !ne 6# 2001# eleven (11) 2nfor'ations for '!rder involvin) the ,illin) of the sa'e 'e'4ers of the Kuratong Baleleng )an) were filed 4efore the Re)ional Trial Co!rt of T!e-on Cit1/ The new 2nfor'ations char)ed as &rinci&als thirt1;fo!r (35) &eo&le# incl!din) res&ondent :acson and his twent1;five (26) other co;acc!sed in Cri'inal Cases =os/ T;$$;"16D$ to T;$$;"16"$/ The defendant filed for deter'ination of &ro4a4le ca!se and an o!tri)ht dis'issal in the RTC/ The CA considered the ori)inal cases to 4e &rovisionall1 dis'issed and the new cases as 'ere revivals/ .nder Section " r!le 11D of RRCP of 2000# the cases were dis'issed/

I ue: FO= Section "# R!le 11D 4ars the filin) of the eleven (11) infor'ations a)ainst the res&ondent :acson involvin) the ,illin) of so'e 'e'4ers of the Kuratong Baleleng )an)/ 7e&%: Re'anded to the RTC to deter'ine if the1 co'&lied with r!le and case sho!ld 4e dis'issed/ There is no *!estion that the new r!le can 4e )iven retroactive effect )iven article 22 of the RPC/ There can 4e no r!lin)# however# d!e to the lac, of s!fficient fact!al 4ases to s!&&ort s!ch a r!lin)/ There is need of &roof to show the followin) facts3 (1) &rovisional dis'issal of the case had the e+&ress consent of the acc!sed (2) whether it was ordered 41 the co!rt after )ivin) notice to the offended &art1 (3) whether the two (2) 1ear &eriod to revive the case has alread1 ela&sed (5) whether there is @!stification for filin) of the cases 4e1ond the 2 1ear &eriod/ The res&ondent e+&ressed consent# however# the records do not reveal whether the notices to the offended &arties were )iven 4efore the cases were &rovisionall1 dis'issed/ Onl1 the ri)ht to do!4le eo&ard1 41 the defendant was tac,led 41 the liti)ants/ The records are also inconcl!sive with re)ards to the 2;1ear 4ar# if within or witho!t/ Ceca!se of this# 4oth &rosec!tion and defendant '!st 4e )iven a'&le ti'e to add!ce evidence on the &resence or a4sence of the add!ced evidence/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE6 et a&. v. LACSON A&ril 1# 2003 Fact : Cefore the co!rt is the &etitionerBs 'otion of reconsideration of the resol!tion dated Ma1 23# 2002# for the deter'ination of several fact!al iss!es relative to the a&&lication of Sec/ " R!le 11D of RRCP on the dis'issal of the cases T;$$; "16D$ and T;$$;"16"$ a)ainst the res&ondent/ The res&ondent was char)ed with the shootin) and ,illin) of eleven 'ale &ersons/ The co!rt confir'ed the e+&ress consent of the res&ondent in the &rovisional dis'issal of the afore'entioned cases when he filed for @!dicial deter'ination/ The co!rt also r!led the need to deter'ine whether the other facts for its a&&lication are attendant/ I ue : 1. WON t'e reEu" "te +#r t'e a!!&"ca)"&"t1 #+ Sec. ?6 Ru&e 11C #+ -000 Ru&e #$ Cr"."$a& /r#ce%ure (ere c#.!&"e% ("t' "$ t'e 5urat#$* :a&e&e$* ca e a/ Fas e+&ress consent )iven 41 the res&ondentQ 4/ Fas notice for the 'otion# the hearin) and the s!4se*!ent dis'issal )iven to the heirs of the victi'sQ

,.

@.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Section "# R!le 11D is not a&&lica4le to the case since the conditions for its a&&lica4ilit1# na'el13 1) &rosec!tion with the e+&ress consent of the acc!sed or 4oth of the' 'ove for &rovisional dis'issal# 2) offended &art1 notified# 3) co!rt )rants 'otion and dis'isses cases &rovisionall1# 5) &!4lic &rosec!tor served with co&1 of orders of &rovisional dis'issal# which is the defendants 4!rden to &rove# which in this case has not 4een done a/ The defendant never filed and denied !ne*!ivocall1 in his state'ents# thro!)h co!nsel at the Co!rt of A&&eals# that he filed for dis'issal nor did he a)ree to a &rovisional dis'issal thereof/ 4/ =o notice of 'otion for &rovisional dis'issal# hearin) and s!4se*!ent dis'issal was )iven to the heirs of the victi's/ -. WON t".e0)ar "$ Sec ? Ru&e 11C )e a!!&"e% !r# !ect"ve&1 #r retr#act"ve&1. '#u&%

I ue : 1. WON t'e F A #c"ate Ju t"ce "$'")"t t'e. e&ve +r#. %ec"%"$* "$ t'e M#t"#$ +#r Rec#$ "%erat"#$ *"ve$ t'e1 (ere #$&1 a!!#"$te% "$ t'e SC a+ter '" Fe). 196 -00- #ra& ar*u.e$t . The r!le sho!ld 4e a&&lied &ros&ectivel1/ The co!rt !&held the &etitionersB contention that while Sec/" sec!res the ri)hts of the acc!sed# it does not and sho!ld not &recl!de the e*!all1 i'&ortant ri)ht of the State to &!4lic @!stice/ 2f a &roced!ral r!le i'&airs a vested ri)ht# or wo!ld wor, in@!stice# the said r!le 'a1 not 4e )iven a retroactive a&&lication/ -. WON t'e a!!&"cat"#$ #+ t'e t".e0)ar u$%er Sect"#$ ? Ru&e 11C )e *"ve$ a retr#act"ve a!!&"cat"#$ ("t'#ut re ervat"#$ 6 #$&1 a$% #&e&1 #$ t'e )a " #+ "t )e"$* +av#ra)&e t# t'e accu e%. The Co!rt is not 'andated to a&&l1 r!les retroactivel1 si'&l1 4eca!se it is favora4le to the acc!sed/ The ti'e;4ar !nder the new r!le is intended to 4enefit 4oth the State and the acc!sed/ Fhen the r!le was a&&roved 41 the co!rt# it intended that the r!le 4e a&&lied &ros&ectivel1 and not retroactivel1# for to do so wo!ld 4e tanta'o!nt to the denial of the StateBs ri)ht to d!e &rocess/ A retroactive a&&lication wo!ld res!lt in a4s!rd# !n@!st and o&&ressive conse*!ences to the State and to the victi's of cri'es and their heirs/

DD2 a&&lied onl1 to s*!atters in !r4an areas and not to a)ric!lt!ral lands/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. /IMENTEL 2"" SCRA 652 (1$$") Fact : 1$"3/ T!@an char)ed with s!4versions !nder RA 1D00 with warrant of arrest iss!ed/ On !ne 6# 1$$0# T!@an was arrested and ca!)ht with /3" cali4er revolver/ On !ne 15# 1$$0# he was char)ed with ille)al &ossession of firear's and a''!nition in f!rtherance of s!4version (P% 1"66) T!@an filed 'otion to *!ash invo,in) &rotection vers!s do!4le @eo&ard1 (Art/ 222# Constit!tionH Misolas v/ Pan)aH and 7nrile v/ Sala-ar3 alle)ed &ossession a4sor4ed in s!4version/ 2t was )ranted 41 the trial co!rt and the co!rt of a&&eals/ I ue: FO= char)e !nder P% 1"66 4e *!ashed on )ro!nd of do!4le @eo&ard1 in view of the &revio!s char)e !nder RA 1D00/ Rat"#: =o/ 1/ Article 222 of the Constit!tion and R!le 11D Revised R!les of Co!rt state that for do!4le @eo&ard1 to occ!r# ac*!ittal# conviction or dis'issal in &revio!s cases '!st have occ!rred/ 2n this case# first case was not even arrai)ned 1et/ 2/ The1 are different offenses/ R/A/ 1D00 &!nishes s!4version while P% 1"66 &!nishes ille)al &ossession of firear's/ 8owever# since RA D636 totall1 re&ealed s!4version or RA 1D00# and since this is favora4le to the acc!sed# we can no lon)er char)e acc!sed with RA 1D00 even if the1 didnBt raise this iss!e/ P% 1"66 sho!ld 4e a'ended to 'ere ille)al &ossession of firear's witho!t f!rtherance of s!4version 7e&%: RTC and CA reversed and set aside/ RA 1D00 char)e dis'issed/ P% 1"66 chan)e a'ended/ Release T!@an/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /ASCUAL v. :OARD OF MEDICAL EGAMINERS6 2" SCRA 355 (1$6$) Fact : Petitioner is facin) an ad'inistrative case where char)es of i''oralit1 are filed a)ainst hi'/ The co!nsel for co'&lainants wished to &resent the &etitioner to 4e the first witness/ Petitioner o4@ected# rel1in) on the constit!tional ri)ht a)ainst self;incri'ination/ The Coard of 7+a'iners r!led that &etitioner sho!ld 4e called to testif1/ 2t said that &etitioner# once on the witness stand# can then o4@ect to *!estions incri'inatin) in nat!re/ I ue: FO= the ri)ht a)ainst self;incri'ination is availa4le not onl1 to cri'inal# 4!t also to ad'inistrative &roceedin)s/

Ti'e;4ar sho!ld not 4e a&&lied retroactivel1/ Tho!)h &roced!ral r!les 'a1 4e a&&lied retroactivel1# it sho!ld not 4e if to do so wo!ld wor, in@!stice or wo!ld involve intricate &ro4le's of d!e &rocess/ Stat!tes sho!ld 4e constr!ed in li)ht of the &!r&oses to 4e achieved and the evils to 4e re'edied/ This is 4eca!se to do so wo!ld 4e &re@!dicial to the State since# )iven that the !d)e dis'issed the case on March 2$#1$$$# and the =ew r!le too, effect on %ec 1#2000# it wo!ld onl1 in effect )ive the' 1 1ear and three 'onths to wor, instead of 2 1ears/ At that ti'e# the1 had no ,nowled)e of the said r!le and therefore the1 sho!ld not 4e &enali-ed for that/ ?2ndeed for @!stice to &revail# the scales '!st 4alanceH @!stice is not to 4e dis&ensed for the acc!sed alone/A The two;1ear &eriod fi+ed in the new r!le is for the 4enefit of 4oth the State and the acc!sed/ 2t sho!ld not 4e e'asc!lated and red!ced 41 an inordinate retroactive a&&lication of the ti'e;4ar therein &rovided 'erel1 to 4enefit the acc!sed/ To do so wo!ld ca!se an in@!stice of hardshi& to the state and adversel1 affect the ad'inistration of @!stice/ 7e&%: Motion )ranted ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. LACSON Octo4er D# 2003 Fact : Petitioner asserts that retroactive a&&lication of &enal laws sho!ld also cover &roced!res# and that these sho!ld 4e a&&lied onl1 to the sole 4enefit of the acc!sed/ Petitioner asserts that Sec " was 'eant to reach 4ac, in ti'e to &rovide relief to the acc!sed in line with the constit!tional )!arantee to the ri)ht to s&eed1 trial/

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; :ERNARDO v. /EO/LE 123 SCRA 366 (1$"3) Fact : Ce'ardo was a tenant of :edda Sta/ RosaBs Riceland in C!lacan fro' Oct/ BD2 to A!)/ UD5/ 8is son sta1ed with hi' in the ho!se 4!ilt on that land/ The tenanc1 ri)hts of the ho!se were left with the son when the father transferred 4!t witho!t Sta/ Rosa ,nowin)/ 7vent!all1# Sta/ Rosa too, &ossession of the whole rice field and filed a case of forci4le entr1 a)ainst the Cernardos/ The Cernardos lost in their cases 4efore the M!nici&al Co!rt Sta/ Rosa sent a letter of de'and to &etitioners tellin) the' to vacate their ho!se and land 4!t since the1 ref!sed# a cri'inal co'&laint was char)ed a)ainst the' for violation of P% DD2 on s*!attin)/ I ue: FO= the C(2 has @!risdiction to entertain cri'inal case for alle)ed violation of &residential decree no DD2 since the facts o4tainin) in the case do not constit!te an offence or violation of said law 7e&%: Petition for certiorari is )ranted/ =o &erson sho!ld 4e 4ro!)ht within the ter's of a &enal stat!te who is not clearl1 within the'# nor sho!ld an1 act 4e &rono!nced cri'inal which is not clearl1 'ade so 41 the stat!te/ Cased on its &rea'4le# P%

7e&%: >es/ Affir'ed/ Carrin) Coard fro' co'&ellin) Pasc!al to testif1/ >es# the ri)ht a)ainst self;incri'ination is availa4le even in ad'inistrative &roceedin)s/ 0iven the nat!re of the ad'inistrative &roceedin)s# which when fo!nd )!ilt1# shall res!lt in forfeit!re or loss of Pasc!alBs license to &ractice 'edicine# is *!asi;cri'inal in nat!re/ The acc!sed now has the ri)ht to re'ain silent# and his silence cannot 4e !sed as a &res!'&tion of his )!ilt/ The co!rt reiterated# ?The ri)ht Self;2ncri'ination cla!se ena4les the citi-en to create a -one of &rivac1 which the )overn'ent 'a1 not force to s!rrender to his detri'ent/A ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. LO/E= 313 SCRA 115 (1$$$) Fact : Prior to the incident# %avid# Candalo and :o&e- were seen 41 SeriVo (&o!ltr1 careta,er) havin) a drin,in) s&ree at aro!nd 6&'/ The1 sto&&ed 41 D&'/ SeriVo and 8elsi' left when %avid and Candalo were aslee& leavin) :o&e- who was still awa,e/ Chec,ed o!t 4ar,in) do) aro!nd 11 &'/ The1 went to %avid et al *!arters where the1 saw 7d)ar :o&e- carr1in) a 4lac, 4a) and wearin) 4loodied white &ants r!nnin) towards the direction of the )ate/ The1 saw hi' cli'4 over it/ Fhen the1 went to his slee&in) *!arters# the1 saw Conifacio %avid dead# with an in@!r1 at the nec,/ On their wa1 to ca&tainBs ho!se# the1 saw :o&e- arrested 41 ca&tain and =C2 a)ents/ I ue: FO= the a&&ellant )!ilt of '!rder was &roven 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t# d!e to the *!alif1in) circ!'stances of treacher1 and evident &re'editation/ 7e&%: >es/ Convicted 8o'icide (Prision 'a1or 'ini'!' " 1ears and one da1 E recl!sion te'&oral 'a+ 15 1rs an " 'onths 1 da1) W P$N f!neral fees W 60N inde'nit1/ %irect evidence not needed if all circ!'stantial evidence s!&&ort or are consistent with acc!sedBs )!ilt and inconsistent with his innocence (Peo&le v/ de 0!ia)/ This can s!r&ass direct evidence/ The re*!isites to warrant conviction 4ased on circ!'stantial evidence are3  There is 'ore than one circ!'stance  The facts fro' which the inferences are derived fro' are &roven  The co'4ination of all the circ!'stances is s!ch as to &rod!ce a conviction 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t/ Treacher1 (attac,ed has no chance to defend hi'self or retaliate deli4erate ado&tion of 'eans) and evident &re'editiation (ti'e when decided and clin)in) to deter'ination and la&se 4etween deter'ination and e+ec!tion) sho!ld 4e &roven 41 &rosec!tion/ Th!s# d!e to lac, of a))ravatin) circ!'stances# death is lowered/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

/EO/LE v. MULETA 30$ SCRA 15" (1$$$) Fact : The victi'Bs 4od1 was fo!nd na,ed in Malolos C!lacan tied to a &ost with the !se of a &air of &ants and 4oth her hand were with tied with a 4ra/ She had 3 sta4 wo!nds in her nec, and 2 at her 4ac,/ Accordin) to the investi)ation cond!cted 41 the =C2# the defendant is the victi'Bs !ncle/ 2t was alle)ed that the a&&ellant had left his wor, in Tondo a da1 4efore the victi'Bs 4od1 was fo!nd/ 8e ret!rned onl1 in the 'ornin) of the ne+t da1/ Accordin) to his co!nsel# he ad'itted havin) ra&ed and later ,illed the victi'/ Another witness testified that d!rin) the wa,e of the victi'# the a&&ellant !ttered incri'inatin) words/ The a&&ellant was fo!nd )!ilt1 of '!rder and sentenced to life i'&rison'ent and &a1'ent of da'a)es/ I ue : FO= the circ!'stantial evidence was eno!)h to esta4lish )!ilt of the a&&ellantQ S&ecificall13 1. a%." WON ")&e e4tra;u%"c"a& c#$+e "#$ " va&"% a$%

Circ!'stancial evidence sho!ld 4e3 a/ 'ore than 1 circ!'stance 4/ facts where 1o! derive inferences as &roven c/ co'4ine all circ!'stance to &rod!ce conviction/ M!letaBs co;wor,erBs affidavit is hearsa1 4eca!se the1 were not &resented and cross;e+a'ined (PP v/ (7R=A=%7I) Circ!'stantial evidence are onl1 si)nificant with the inad'issi4le confession ,. WON accu e% a&")" " a%." ")&e +#r %e+e$ e

3rd3 Ali4i/ Altho!)h the co!rt considers the ali4i a wea, defence# &rosec!tion '!st convict the acc!sed 4ased on the stren)th of its own case not on the wea,ness of defence/ 7e&%: Reversed/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. TEM:LOR 161 SCRA 623 (1$"") Nature: A&&eal fro' the @!d)'ent of the Co!rt of (irst 2nstance of A)!san del =orte and C!t!an Cit1/ Fact : On 30 %ece'4er 1$"0# D330 PM# <icente Te'4lor alias ?RonaldA (acc!sed;a&&ellant) went to !li!s Ca)a'&an)Bs ho!se in A)!san del =orte# to 4!1 ci)arettes/ Ca)a'&an)# while o&enin) a &ac, of ci)arettes# was shotX The acc!sed (and another &erson# Anecito 7llevera) de'anded <ictorina Ca)a'&an) ( !li!sB wife) that she 4rin)s o!t her h!s4andBs firear's/ The acc!sed fired two 'ore shots at the fallen victi'/ <ictorina )ave a s!itcase to Te'4lor# who then too, the /3" cali4er which was inside# and fled/ 2n A!)!st 1$"1# Te'4lor# an =PA# s!rrendered (it was act!all1 a 'ass s!rrender of =PABs) after hidin) in the 'o!ntains/ 2n 26 =ove'4er 1$"1# he was arrested 41 C!enavista &olice at the &!4lic 'ar,et and then detained at '!nici&al @ail/ Re)ardin) the '!rder of Ca)a'&an)# Te'4lorBs ali4i was that da1 !ntil the ne+t# he was with his father for drin,in) and &!l!tan/ On " !ne 1$"2# the acc!sed was convicted and sentenced to s!ffer reclusion perpertua# and to inde'nif1 the heirs of the victi' P12#000/ 8e a&&ealed/ YYY 2n this a&&eal# the a&&ellant alle)es that the co!rt a *!o erred3 (1) in findin) that he was &ositivel1 identified 41 the &rosec!tion witness as the ,iller# and (2) in re@ectin) his defense of ali4i/ I ue: FO= the acc!sed is )!ilt1 of '!rder/

1st assi)n'ent of error3 the co!rt erred in )ivin) wei)ht and credence to the evidence for the &rosec!tion and in the &rocess disre)ardin) the defence and ali4i of the acc!sed; a&&ellant/ This a&&eal is 'eritorio!s/ The e+tra;@!dicial confession is inad'issi4le and the evidence ins!fficient/ The a&&ellant ad'its to the confession# with the a4sence of co!nsel/ The a&&ellant was also s!&erficiall1 infor'ed of his constit!tional ri)hts which is in violation of the re*!ire'ent of ?effectiveA co''!nication/ Most of the state'ents were terse and &erf!nctor1 state'ents/ 2t sho!ld confor' with Article 222 sec 12 of Constit!tion a/ Ri)ht to 4e infor'ed of constit!tional ri)hts E acc!sed sho!ld !nderstand ri)hts/ State'ents were tense and &erf!nctor1 witho!t considerin) if acc!sed !nderstood/ %oesnBt &rove vol!ntariness 4/ Ri)ht to co!nsel E A)ent TolentinoBs sworn state'ent shows that confession 4e)an on Se&te'4er 1$# 1$$3 when law1er onl1 arrived the followin) da1/ Confession 4e)an witho!t assistance of co!nsel/ :aw1erBs fail!re to a&&ear did not )ive co!rt chance to confir' her co'&etence# inde&endence and validit1 of confession c/ 2nvalid waiver E lan)!a)e was va)!e and ins!fficient/ and since he wasnBt assisted 41 law1er# waiver is invalid -. WON !r# ecut"#$3 ev"%e$ce u++"c"e$t t# c#$v"ct Mu&eta 2nd3 S!fficienc1 of evidence /the circ!'stantial evidence were controverted 41 the defence and even 'ore i'&ortant# were not f!ll1 esta4lished/ The evidence on the a&&ellant leavin) wor, and ret!rnin) the in the 'ornin) the discover1 of the victi'Bs 4od1 is 'ere hearsa1/ 8is h1steria d!rin) the wa,e co!ld 'ean an1thin)/ 2t is at 4est a'4i)!o!s/

7e&%: >es# the acc!sed is )!ilt1 of '!rder/ !d)'ent a&&ealed fro' is A((2RM7% in all res&ects and civil inde'nit1 increased

to P30N/ 2t was &roven that he had 'otive in ,illin) Ca)a'&an)3 he had ,nowled)e that Ca)a'&an) &ossessed a firear'H this was 'otive eno!)h to ,ill hi'# as &art of =PABs ?a)aw ar'asA ca'&ai)n or ,illin)s &er&etrated 41 =PA for the &!r&ose of ac*!irin) 'ore firear's/ Moreover# &roof of 'otive is not essential when the c!l&rit has 4een &ositivel1 identified/ Also# his fli)ht i'&lies )!ilt/ The &rosec!tion witness# <ictorina Ca)a'&an)# 'a1 have 'inor inconsistencies in her testi'on1 4!t this does not di'inish her credi4ilit1 E that is &art of 4ein) h!'an / Fhat is i'&ortant is that she had &ositivel1 identified the acc!sed as the assailant and that her testi'on1 is corro4orated 41 other witnesses/ (!rther'ore# the acc!sedBs ali4i was !nacce&ta4le 4eca!se it was self;servin) and !ncorro4orated/ 2t cannot overr!le &ositive identification# it was 'erel1 16;20 'in!tes awa1 fro' cri'e scene and Perol was at wor,/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. 7ASSAN 16D SCRA 261 (1$"") Fact : .s'an 8assan# 16 1rs/ Old of Sa'al Tri4e in Ia'4o Cit1 was convicted of '!rder of Pichel/ Pichel was sta44ed to death at fr!it &aradise while sittin) at his red honda 'otorc1cle# waitin) for friend ose Sa'son who was 4!1in) fr!its/ I ue: FO= conviction is valid

and Ro4ert are 4rothers and :eon and Ronald are their ne&hews/ Aro!nd 6330 &'# an!ar1 23# 1$$$# Modesto and fa'il1 were &re&arin) to eat dinner when Marlon# Ro4ert and Ronald arrived/ Marlon &o,ed )!n# other two )ra44ed# ho) tied and )a))ed Modesto/ The1 herded hi' o!t of the hose and went to the direction of Paldit/ :eon and Man!al )!arded Rita and Rand1 !ntil D a' and told the' to sta1 &!t/ The1 searched for hi' for 3 da1s and re&orted to &olice three da1s after the incident/ Rand1 with relatives fo!nd Modesto in the ho!sin) &ro@ect in Paldit !nder 4!shes/ 8e was dead d!e to )!n shot wo!nd on head/ I ue : 1. WON ca e " .ur%er #r B"%$a!!"$*2 M!rder3 when &ri'ar1 &!r&ose is to ,ill# de&rivation is incidental and doesnBt constit!te ,idna&&in) (.S v/ Ancheta)/ S&ecific intent3 active desire to do certain cri'inal acts or &artic!lar &!r&ose (e+a'&le# '!rder and ,idna&&in) 9,ill and de&rive victi' of li4ert1) 'otive3 reason which &ro'&ts acc!sed to en)a)e in &artic!lar cri'inal activit1 (e+/ Nidna& for ranso';rasno') essential for ,idna&&in)/ 2nfor'ation3 descri4ed '!rder and ,idna&&in) not s&ecified/ -. WON !r# ecut"#$ 'a% u++"c"e$t ev"%e$ce2 >es/ Prosec!tion &roved intent to ,ill with their ,nives and hand)!ns# 6 )!n shot wo!nds and 5 sta4 wo!nds (defensive)/ (!rther'ore# the &ieces of circ!'stancial evidence were convincin)3 Rita and Rand1 testified events/ Rita clai'ed she heard 3 )!nshots and accordin)l1# deco'&osin) 4od1 was fo!nd with )!nshot wo!nds and sta4s/ WON t'ere (a c#$ !"rac12 >es/ Cons&irac1 is when two or 'ore &ersons a)ree and decide to co''it a felon1/ This is &roven 41 acts of cri'inal/ Cefore d!rin) and after cri'e co''itted and that acc!sed had sa'e &!r&ose and !nited in e+ec!tionH act of one act of all/ Fharton cri'inal law9act!al &resence not necessar1 if thereBs direct connection 4et actor and cri'e WON ("t$e te t".#$"e (ere va&"%2 >es/ 2nconsistencies 'ean and even stren)then/ 2t was not rehearsed WON a&")" (arra$te%2 =o/ Positive identification over ali4i/ .na4le to &rove that the1 were in another &lace and i'&ossi4le to )o to cri'e scene WON t'ere (a treac'er1 a$% #t'er a*'*ravt"$* c"rcu. ta$ce 2 =o/ Treacher1 and ta,in) advanta)e of s!&erior stren)th was not &roven as there was no witness or evidence/ The !nlicensed firear' and dwellin) was f!rther not incl!ded in infor'ation/

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ESTRADA v. SANDIGAN:AYAN 36$ SCRA 3$5 (2001) Fact : I ue : 1. WON /&u$%er La( " va*ue u$c#$ t"tut"#$a& +#r )e"$*

=o/ As lon) as the law affords so'e co'&rehensi4le )!ide or r!le that wo!ld infor' those who are s!4@ect to it what cond!ct wo!ld render the' lia4le to its &enalties# its validit1 will 4e s!stained/ The a'ended infor'ation itself closel1 trac,s the lan)!a)e of law# indicatin) with reasona4le certaint1 the vario!s ele'ents of the offense which the &etitioner is alle)ed to have co''itted/ Fe discern nothin) in the fore)oin) that is va)!e or a'4i)!o!s that will conf!se &etitioner in his defense/ Petitioner however 4ewails the fail!re of the law to &rovide for the stat!tor1 definition of the ter's ?co'4inationA and ?seriesA in the ,e1 &hrase ?a co'4ination or series of overt or cri'inal acts/ These o'issions# accordin) to the &etitioner# render the Pl!nder :aw !nconstit!tional for 4ein) i'&er'issi4l1 va)!e and over4road and den1 hi' the ri)ht to 4e infor'ed of the nat!re and ca!se of the acc!sation a)ainst hi'# hence violative of his f!nda'ental ri)ht to d!e &rocess/ A stat!te is not rendered !ncertain and void 'erel1 4eca!se )eneral ter's are !sed herein# or 4eca!se of the e'&lo1'ent of ter's witho!t definin) the'/ A stat!te or act 'a1 4e said to 4e va)!e when it lac,s co'&rehensi4le standards that 'en of co''on intelli)ence 'ost necessaril1 )!ess at its 'eanin) and differ in its a&&lication/ 2n s!ch instance# the stat!te is re&!)nant to the Constit!tion in two (2) res&ects E it violates d!e &rocess for fail!re to accord &ersons# es&eciall1 the &arties tar)eted 41 it# fair notice of what cond!ct to avoidH and# it leaves law enforcers !n4ridled discretion in carr1in) o!t its &rovisions and 4eco'es an ar4itrar1 fle+in) of the 0overn'ent '!scle/ A facial challen)e is allowed to 4e 'ade to va)!e stat!te and to one which is over4road 4eca!se of &ossi4le ?chillin) effectA !&on &rotected s&eech/ The &ossi4le har' to societ1 in &er'ittin) so'e !n&rotected s&eech to )o !n&!nished is o!twei)hed 41 the &ossi4ilit1 that the &rotected s&eech of other 'a1 4e deterred and &erceived )rievances left to fester 4eca!se of &ossi4le inhi4itor1 effects of overl1 4road stat!tes/ C!t in cri'inal law# the law cannot ta,e chances as in the area of free s&eech/

7e&%: =o/ Conviction reversed/ Ac*!itted/ The Medico :e)al fo!nd two sta4 wo!nds fro' front 4!t the Sa'son clai'ed that Pichel was sta44ed once fro' 4ehind/ Proced!re followed was also i'&ro&er/ The acc!sed was &resented to the witness alone and in confrontation# not &olice line !&/ 8e was also denied ri)ht to co!nsel# &artic!larl1 when identification too, &lace9this *!alifies for !nco!nselled confession/ The witness was also *!estioned 2 da1s after incident and sworn 5 da1s after/ The fr!it vendor as well as the co'&anion of the acc!sed was not investi)ated/ 2n fact# the1 did not &!rs!e other s!s&ect/ Also# the ,nife was not tested/ (!rther nota4le are the facts that the a)e of the acc!sed was o4served witho!t 'edical 4asis# that the acc!sed did not r!n awa1 and that he had no 'otive# which# in Peo&le vs/ <er-o was considered i'&ortant when there is do!4t in the identit1 of c!l&rit and reiterated in Peo&le vs/ Pervelo which stated that identification is ten!o!s/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. DELIM6 an!ar1 2$# 2003 Fact : Marlon# :eon and Ronald %eli' were convicted for '!rder of Modesto %eli'# resident of Cila# Sison# Pan)asinan/ Modesto is the ado&ted child of MarlonBs %ad/ Marlon# Man!el

,.

@.

F.

H.

7e&%: Conviction affir'ed with 'odification

,. -. WON t'e /&u$%er La( reEu"re &e ev"%e$ce +#r !r#v"%"$* t'e !re%"cate cr".e #+ !&u$%er a$% t'ere+#re v"#&ate t'e r"*'t #+ t'e accu e% t# %ue !r#ce =o/ Sec/ 5 (R!le of 7vidence) states that3 (or &!r&osed of esta4lishin) the cri'e of &l!nder# it shall not 4e necessar1 to &rove each and ever1 cri'inal act done 41 the acc!sed in f!rtherance of the sche'e or cons&irac1 to a'ass# acc!'!late or ac*!ire ill;)otten wealth# it 4ein) s!fficient to esta4lish 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t a &attern of overt or cri'inal acts indicative of the overall !nlawf!l sche'e or cons&irac1/ 2n a cri'inal &rosec!tion for &l!nder# as in all other cri'es# the acc!sed alwa1s has in his favor the &res!'&tion of innocence )!aranteed 41 the Cill of Ri)hts# and !nless the State s!cceeds in de'onstratin) 41 &roof 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t that c!l&a4ilit1 lies# the acc!sed is entitled to an ac*!ittal/ The ?reasona4le do!4tA standard has ac*!ired s!ch e+alted stat!re in the real' of constit!tional law as it )ives life to the %!e Process Cla!se which &rotects the acc!sed a)ainst conviction e+ce&t !&on &roof of reasona4le do!4t of ever1 fact necessar1 to constit!te the cri'e with which he is char)ed/ =ot ever1thin) alle)ed in the infor'ation needs to 4e &roved 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t/ Fhat is re*!ired to 4e &roved 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t is ever1 ele'ent of the cri'e char)ed9the ele'ent of the offense/ Relative to &etitionerBs contentions on the &!r&orted defect of Sec/ 5 is his s!4'ission that ?&atternA is a ?ver1 i'&ortant ele'ent of the cri'e of &l!nderHA and that Sec/ 5 is ?two; &ron)ed# (as) it contains a r!le of evidence and a s!4stantive ele'ent of the cri'e# ? s!ch that witho!t it the acc!sed cannot 4e convicted of &l!nder E Fe do not s!4scri4e to &etitionerBs stand/ Pri'aril1# all the essential ele'ents of &l!nder can 4e c!lled and !nderstood fro' its definition in Sec/ 2# in relation to sec/ 1 &ar/ (d)/ Sec/ 5 &!r&orts to do no 'ore than &rescri4e a r!le of &roced!re for the &rosec!tion of a cri'inal case for &l!nder/ Cein) a &!rel1 &roced!ral 'eas!re# Sec/ 5 does not define or esta4lish an1 s!4stantive ri)ht in favor of the acc!sed 4!t onl1 o&erated in f!rtherance of a re'ed1/ Fhat is cr!cial for the &rosec!tion is to &resent s!fficient evidence to en)ender that 'oral certit!de e+acted 41 the f!nda'ental law to &rove the )!ilt of the acc!sed 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t/

WON /&u$%er a %e+"$e% "$ RA C0?0 " a .a&u. !r#'")"tu.6 a$% "+ #6 ('et'er "t " ("t'"$ t'e !#(er #+ C#$*re t# # c&a "+1 "t. =o/ 2t is 'al!' in se which re*!ires &roof of cri'inal intent/ Precisel1 4eca!se the constit!tive cri'es are 'ala in se the ele'ent of 'ens rea '!st 4e &roven in a &rosec!tion for &l!nder/ 2t is noteworth1 that the a'ended infor'ation alle)es that the cri'e of &l!nder was co''itted ?willf!ll1# !nlawf!ll1 and cri'inall1/A 2t th!s alle)es )!ilt1 ,nowled)e on the &art of &etitioner/ 2n s!&&ort of his contention 2n s!&&ort of his contention that the stat!te eli'inates the re*!ire'ent of mens rea and that is the reason he clai's the stat!te is void# &etitioner cites the followin) re'ar,s of Senator TaVada 'ade d!rin) the deli4eration on S/C/ =o/D33 Senator TaVada was onl1 sa1in) that where the char)e is cons&irac1 to co''it &l!nder# the &rosec!tion need not &rove each and ever1 cri'inal act done to f!rther the sche'e or cons&irac1# it 4ein) eno!)h if it &roves 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t a &attern of overt or cri'inal acts indicative of the overall !nlawf!l sche'e or cons&irac1/ As far as the acts constit!tin) the &attern are concerned# however# the ele'ents of the cri'e '!st 4e &roved and the re*!isite mens rea '!st 4e shown/ The a&&lication of 'iti)atin) and e+ten!atin) circ!'stances in the Revised Penal Code to &rosec!tions !nder the Anti; Pl!nder :aw indicates *!ite clearl1 that mens rea is an ele'ent of &l!nder since the de)ree of res&onsi4ilit1 of the offender is deter'ined 41 his cri'inal intent/ (inall1# an1 do!4t as to whether the cri'e of &l!nder is a malum in se '!st 4e dee'ed to have 4een resolved in the affir'ative 41 the decision of Con)ress in 1$$3 to incl!de it a'on) the heino!s cri'es &!nisha4le 41 reclusion perpetua to death/ The evil of a cri'e 'a1 ta,e vario!s for's/ There are cri'es that are# 41 their ver1 nat!re# des&ica4le# either 4eca!se life was callo!sl1 ta,en or the victi' is treated li,e an ani'al and !tterl1 deh!'ani-ed as to co'&letel1 disr!&t the nor'al co!rse of his or her )rowth as a h!'an 4ein)/ There are cri'es however in which the a4o'ination lies in the si)nificance and i'&lications of the s!4@ect cri'inal acts in the sche'e of the lar)er socio;&olitical and econo'ic conte+t in which the state finds itself to 4e str!))lin) to develo& and &rovide for its &oor and !nder&rivile)ed 'asses/ The le)islative declaration in R/A/ =o/D66$ that &l!nder is a heino!s offense i'&lies that it is a malum in se. (or when the acts &!nished are inherentl1 i''oral or inherentl1

wron)# the1 are mala in se and it does not 'atter that s!ch acts are &!nished in a s&ecial law# es&eciall1 since in the case of &l!nder the &redicate cri'es are 'ainl1 mala in se. 7e&%: PR7M2S7S CO=S2%7R7%# this Co!rt holds that RA D0"0 otherwise ,nown as the Pl!nder :aw# as a'ended 41 RA D66$# is CO=ST2T.T2O=A:/ Conse*!entl1# the &etition to declare the law !nconstit!tional is %2SM2SS7% for lac, of 'erit ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; U.S. v. A7 C7ONG 16 Phil/ 5"" (1$10) Fact : Ah Chon) was a coo, in (t/ McNinle1/ 8e was afraid of 4ad ele'ents/ One evenin)# 4efore )oin) to 4ed# he loc,ed hi'self in his roo' 41 &lacin) a chair a)ainst the door/ After havin) )one to 4ed# he was awa,ened 41 so'eone tr1in) to o&en the door/ 8e called o!t twice# ?Fho is there#A 4!t received no answer/ (earin) that the intr!der was a ro44er# he lea&ed fro' his 4ed and called o!t a)ain# ?2f 1o! enter the roo' 2 will ,ill 1o!/A C!t at that &recise 'o'ent# he was str!c, 41 the chair that had 4een &laced a)ainst the door# and 4elievin) that he was 4ein) attac,ed he sei-ed a ,itchen ,nife and str!c, and fatall1 wo!nded the intr!der who t!rned o!t to 4e his roo''ate/ 7e&%: Ah Chon) '!st 4e ac*!itted 4eca!se of 'ista,e of fact/ Rat"#: 8ad the facts 4een as Ah Chon) 4elieved the' to 4e# he wo!ld have 4een @!stified in ,illin) the intr!der !nder Article 11# &ara)ra&h 1# of the Revised Penal Code# which re*!ires# to @!stif1 the act# that there 4e3  !nlawf!l a))ression on the &art of the &erson ,illed#  reasona4le necessit1 of the 'eans e'&lo1ed to &revent or re&el it# and  lac, of s!fficient &rovocation on the &art of the &erson defendin) hi'self 2f the intr!der was reall1 a ro44er# forcin) his wa1 into the roo' of Ah Chon)# there wo!ld have 4een !nlawf!l a))ression on the &art of the intr!der/ There wo!ld have 4een a necessit1 on the &art of Ah Chon) to defend hi'self andGor his ho'e/ The ,nife wo!ld have 4een a reasona4le 'eans to &revent or re&el s!ch a))ression/ And Ah Chon) )ave no &rovocation at all/ .nder Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code# there is nothin) !nlawf!l in the intention as well as in the act of the &erson 'a,in) the defense/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. OANIS D5 Phil/ 26D (1$53) Fact : Chief of Police Oanis and his co;acc!sed Cor&oral 0alanta were !nder instr!ctions to arrest one Cala)tas# a notorio!s cri'inal and esca&ed convict# and if over&owered# to

)et hi dead or alive/ Proceedin) to the s!s&ected ho!se# the1 went into a roo' and on seein) a 'an slee&in) with his 4ac, toward the door# si'!ltaneo!sl1 fired at hi' with their revolvers# witho!t first 'a,in) an1 reasona4le in*!ir1 as to his identit1/ The victi' t!rned o!t to 4e an innocent 'an# Tecson# and not the wanted cri'inal// 7e&%: Coth acc!sed are )!ilt1 of '!rder Rat"#: 7ven if it were tr!e that the victi' was the notorio!s cri'inal# the acc!sed wo!ld not 4e @!stified in ,illin) hi' while the latter was slee&in)/ 2n a&&rehendin) even the 'ost notorio!s cri'inal# the law does not &er'it the ca&tor to ,ill hi'/ 2t is onl1 when the f!)itive fro' @!stice is deter'ined to fi)ht the officers of law who are tr1in) to ca&t!re hi' that ,illin) hi' wo!ld 4e @!stified/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. CARMEN 366 SCRA 26D (2001) Fact : The trial co!rt rendered a decision and the acc!sed; a&&ellants were all fo!nd )!ilt1 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t of the cri'e of M!rder after havin) &erfor'ed a c!ltic healin) &ra1; over which res!lted to the death of Rand1 :!nta1ao/ The1 were sentenced to s!ffer the &enalt1 of R7C:.S2O= P7RP7T.A/ I ue: FO= acc!sed;a&&ellants can 4e held lia4le for rec,less i'&r!dence res!ltin) in ho'icide# considerin) that the infor'ation char)es the' with '!rder/ 7e&%: >es/ Conviction 'odified to rec,less i'&r!dence res!ltin) in ho'icide/ Nillin) a &erson with treacher1 is '!rder even if there is no intent to ,ill/ Fhen death occ!rs# it is &res!'ed to 4e the nat!ral conse*!ence of &h1sical in@!ries inflicted/ 2n '!rder *!alified 41 treacher1# it is re*!ired onl1 that there is treacher1 in the attac,# and this is tr!e even if the offender has no intent to ,ill the &erson assa!lted One who co''its an intentional felon1 is res&onsi4le for all the conse*!ences which 'a1 nat!rall1 and lo)icall1 res!lt therefro'# whether foreseen or intended or not/ 2ntent is &res!'ed fro' the co''ission of an !nlawf!l act/ The &res!'&tion of cri'inal intent 'a1 arise fro' the &roof of the cri'inal act 8ence# the1 are lia4le for all the direct and nat!ral conse*!ences of their !nlawf!l act# even if the !lti'ate res!lt had not 4een intended The stran)e &roced!re res!lted in the death of the 4o1/ Th!s# acc!sed;a&&ellants had no cri'inal intent to ,ill the 4o1/ Their lia4ilit1 arises fro' their rec,less i'&r!dence 4eca!se the1 o!)ht that to ,now their actions wo!ld not 4rin) a4o!t the c!re/

The1 are# therefore# )!ilt1 of rec,less i'&r!dence res!ltin) in ho'icide and not of '!rder/ Art/ 366 of the Revised Penal Code# as a'ended# states that rec,less i'&r!dence consists in vol!ntaril1# 4!t witho!t 'alice# doin) or failin) to do an act fro' which 'aterial da'a)e res!lts 41 reason of ine+c!sa4le lac, of &reca!tion on the &art of the &erson &erfor'in) s!ch act/ Co'&ared to intentional felonies# s!ch as ho'icide or '!rder# what ta,es the &lace of the ele'ent of 'alice or intention to co''it a wron) or evil is the fail!re of the offender to ta,e &reca!tions d!e to lac, of s,ill ta,in) into acco!nt his e'&lo1'ent# or occ!&ation# de)ree of intelli)ence# &h1sical condition# and other circ!'stances re)ardin) &ersons# ti'e# and &lace/ The ele'ents of rec,less i'&r!dence are a&&arent in the acts done 41 acc!sed;a&&ellants which# 4eca!se of their lac, of 'edical s,ill in treatin) the victi' of his alle)ed ail'ent# res!lted in the latterKs death The acc!sed had no intention to ca!se an evil 4!t rather to re'ed1 the victi'Ks ail'ent/ Trial co!rtKs reliance on the r!le that cri'inal intent is &res!'ed fro' the co''ission of an !nlawf!l act is !ntena4le 4eca!se s!ch &res!'&tion onl1 holds in the a4sence of &roof to the contrar1/ Conse*!entl1# treacher1 cannot 4e a&&reciated for in the a4sence of intent to ,ill# there is no treacher1 or the deli4erate e'&lo1'ent of 'eans# 'ethods# and 'anner of e+ec!tion to ens!re the safet1 of the acc!sed fro' the defensive or retaliator1 attac,s co'in) fro' the victi' On the other hand# there is no 'erit in acc!sed;a&&ellantsK contention that the testi'on1 of &rosec!tion e1ewitness 8one1 (e A4ella is not credi4le Second/ >es/ R!le 120 (Section 5 and 6) of the Revised R!les of Cri'inal Proced!re &rovides/ Ru&e: F87R7(OR7# the decision of the Re)ional Trial Co!rt# Cranch 15# Ce4! Cit1# is A((2RM7% with the MO%2(2CAT2O= that acc!sed;a&&ellants are here41 declared )!ilt1 of rec,less i'&r!dence res!ltin) in ho'icide and are each sentenced to s!ffer an indeter'inate &rison ter' of fo!r (5) 'onths of arresto mayor# as 'ini'!'# to fo!r (5) 1ears and two (2) 'onths of prision correccional# as 'a+i'!'/ 2n addition# acc!sed; a&&ellants are OR%7R7% @ointl1 and severall1 to &a1 the heirs of Rand1 :!nta1ao inde'nit1 in the a'o!nt of P60#000/00# 'oral da'a)es in the a'o!nt of P60#000/00# and e+e'&lar1 da'a)es in the a'o!nt of P30#000/00/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. :UAN

22 SCRA 13"3 (1$6") Nature: A&&eal fro' an order of the C!lacan C(2 Fact : Char)es 'oved to *!ash on the )ro!nd that he had alread1 4een ac*!itted of the sa'e offense 41 the !stice of the Peace Co!rt I ue: FO= second case &laced the a&&ellant twice in @eo&ard1 for the sa'e offense# and is 4arred 41 the &revio!s ac*!ittal/ 7e&%: >es/ Order a&&ealed fro' is reversed and the C(2 of C!lacan is directed to *!ash and dis'iss the char)e in its Cri'inal Case =o/ 6253# no costs/ Once convicted or ac*!itted of a s&ecific act of rec,less i'&r!dence# the acc!sed 'a1 not 4e &rosec!ted a)ain for that sa'e act/ The essence of the of the *!asi;offense of cri'inal ne)li)ence !nder Article 366 of the RPC lies in the e+ec!tion of an i'&r!dent or ne)li)ent act that# if intentionall1 done# wo!ld 4e &!nisha4le as a felon1/ The law &enali-es the ne)li)ent or careless act# not the res!lt thereof/ The )ravit1 of the conse*!ence is onl1 ta,en into acco!nt to deter'ine the &enalt1H it does not *!alif1 the s!4stance of the offense/ As the carelessness of the act is sin)le# whether the in@!rio!s res!lt sho!ld affect one &erson or several &ersons# the offense re'ains one and the sa'e/ 2t cannot 4e s&lit into different cri'es and &rosec!tions/ The e+oneration of a&&ellant 41 the M!nici&al Co!rt of the char)ed of sli)ht &h1sical in@!ries thro!)h rec,less i'&r!dence# &revents his 4ein) &rosec!ted for serio!s &h1sical in@!ries thro!)h rec,less i'&r!dence in the Co!rt of (irst 2nstance of the &rovince where 4oth char)es are derived fro' the conse*!ence of one and the sa'e vehic!lar accident/ The second acc!sation &laces the a&&ellant in the second @eo&ard1 for the sa'e offense/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /ADILLA v. DI=ON 16" SCRA 12D (1$"") Nature: Ad'inistrative Co'&laint in the S!&re'e Co!rt/ Fact : Pasa1 RTC !d)e Calta-ar %i-on ac*!itted :o chi (ai who was arrested for violatin) CC circ!lar no/ $60 sec/ 6 no oneBs allowed to ta,e o!t forei)n e+chan)e in an1 for' !nless a!thori-ed 41 Central Can, or international a)ree'ents/ To!ristsGnon;residents can onl1 4rin) o!t a'o!nt e*!al to a'o!nt the1 4ro!)ht in/ if 1o! 4rin) in a'o!nt )reater than M3N# 1o! need to declare/ P!nisha4le 41 recl!sion te'&oral or )reater than or e*!al to P60N/ :o Chi (ai ca!)ht 3"0 &ieces of difference c!rrencies totalin) to M366#35$/6D and was a4le to show onl1 two Central Can, declarations/ Ac*!ittal 4ased on3 (1) no intent# (2) 'one1 4elon)ed to' hi' and associates co'in) fro' a4road not local

I ue: FO= res&ondent @!d)e is )!ilt1 of )ross inco'&etent or )ross i)norance of the law in renderin) the decision in *!estion/ 7e&%: Accordin)l1# the Co!rt finds the res&ondent )!ilt1 of )ross inco'&etence# )ross i)norance of the law and )rave and serio!s 'iscond!ct affectin) his inte)rit1 and efficienc1# and consistent with the res&onsi4ilit1 of this Co!rt for the @!st and &ro&er ad'inistration of @!stice and for the attain'ent of the o4@ective of 'aintainin) the &eo&leBs faith in the @!diciar1# it is here41 ordered that the Res&ondent !d)e 4e dis'issed fro' service/ All leave and retire'ent 4enefits and &rivile)es to which he 'a1 4e entitled are here41 forfeited with &re@!dice to his 4ein) reinstated in an1 4ranch of )overn'ent service# incl!din) )overn'ent;owned andGor controlled a)encies or cor&orations/ The res&ondent @!d)e has shown )ross inco'&etence or )ross i)norance of the law in holdin) that to convict the acc!sed for violation of Central Can, Circ!lar =o/ $60# the &rosec!tion '!st esta4lish that the acc!sed had cri'inal intent to violate the law/ The res&ondent o!)ht to ,now that &roof of 'alice or deli4erate intent ('ens rea) is not essential in offenses &!nished 41 s&ecial laws# which are 'ala &rohi4ita/ A @!d)e can not 4e held to acco!nt or answer# cri'inall1# civill1 or ad'inistrativel1# for an erroneo!s decision rendered 41 hi' in )ood faith/ C!t these circ!'stances which 'a,e the stor1 concocted 41 the acc!sed so &al&a4l1 !n4elieva4le as to render the findin)s of the res&ondent @!d)e o4vio!sl1 contrived to favor the ac*!ittal of the acc!sed# there41 clearl1 ne)atin) his clai' that he rendered the decision ?in )ood faith/A ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /ADILLA v. COURT OF A//EALS 26$ SCRA 502 (1$$D) Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Co!rt of A&&eals/ Fact : Padilla fi)!red in a hit and r!n accident in Oct 26# 1$$2/ 8e was later on a&&rehended with the hel& &f a civilian witness/ .&on arrest followin) hi)h &owered firear's were fo!nd in his &ossession3 1/ /36D cali4er revolver with 6 live a''!nition 2/ M;16 Ca41 Ar'alite 'a)a-ine with a''o 3/ /3"0 &ietro 4eretta with " a''o 5/ 6 live do!4le action a''o of /3" cali4er revolver Padilla clai'ed &a&ers of )!ns were at ho'e/ 8is arrest for hit and r!n incident 'odified to incl!de )ro!nds of 2lle)al Possession of firear's/ 8e had no &a&ers/ On %ec/ 3# 1$$5# Padilla was fo!nd )!ilt1 of 2lle)al Possession of (irear's !nder P% 1"66 41 the RTC of An)eles Cit1/ 8e was convicted and sentenced to an indeter'inate &enalt1 fro' 1D 1ears/ 5 'onths# 1 da1 of recl!sion te'&oral as 'ini'!' to 21 1ears of recl!sion &er&et!a as 'a+i'!'/ The Co!rt of A&&eals confir'ed

decision and cancelled 4ail4ond/ RTC of An)eles Cit1 was directed to iss!e order of arrest/ Motion for reconsideration was denied 41 Co!rt of A&&eals/ Padilla filed lots of other &etitions and all of a s!dden# the Solicitor 0eneral 'ade a co'&lete t!rnaro!nd and filed ?Manifestation in :ie! of Co''entA &ra1in) for ac*!ittal (na4a1aran si)!ro)/ I ue : 1. WARRANTLESS ARREST: WON '" (a "&&e*a& a$% c#$ eEue$t&16 t'e +"rear. a$% a..u$"t"#$ taBe$ "$ t'e c#ur e t'ere#+ are "$a%." ")&e "$ ev"%e$ce u$%er t'e e4c&u "#$ar1 ru&e =o/ Anent the first defense# &etitioner *!estions the le)alit1 of his arrest/ There is no dis&!te that no warrant was iss!ed for the arrest of &etitioner# 4!t that per se did not 'a,e his a&&rehension at the A4acan Crid)e ille)al/ Farrantless arrests are sanctioned in Sec/ 6# R!le 113 of the Revised R!les on Cri'inal Proced!re9a &eace officer or a &rivate &erson 'a1# witho!t a warrant# arrest a &erson (a) when in his &resence the &erson to 4e arrested has co''itted# is act!all1 co''ittin)# or is atte'&tin) to co''it an offense/ Fhen ca!)ht in fla)rante delicto with &ossession of an !nlicensed firear' and a''o# &etitionerBs warrantless arrest was &ro&er since he was act!all1 co''ittin) another offence in the &resence of all those officers/ There was no s!&ervenin) event or a considera4le la&se of ti'e 4etween the hit and r!n and the act!al a&&rehension/ Ceca!se arrest was le)al# the &ieces of evidence are ad'issi4le/ I$ ta$ce ('e$ (arra$t&e earc' a$% e">ure #+ !r#!ert1 " va&"%:  Sei-!re of evidence in ?&lain view#A ele'ents of which are (a) &rior valid intr!sion 4ased on valid warrantless arrest in which &olice are le)all1 &resent in &!rs!it of official d!ties# (4) evidence inadvertedl1 discovered 41 &olice who had the ri)ht to 4e there# (c) evidence i''ediatel1 a&&arent# and (d) &lain view @!stified 'ere sei-!re of evidence witho!t f!rther search (Peo&le v/ 7varisto3 o4@ects whose &ossession are &rohi4ited 41 law inadvertedl1 fo!nd in &lain view are s!4@ect to sei-!re even witho!t a warrant)  Search of 'ovin) vehicle  Farrantless search incidental to lawf!l arrest reco)ni-ed !nder section 12# R!le 126 of R!les of Co!rt and 41 &revailin) @!ris&r!dence where the test of incidental search (not e+cl!ded 41 e+cl!sionar1 r!le) is that ite' to 4e searched '!st 4e within arresteeBs c!stod1 or area of i''ediate control and search conte'&oraneo!s with arrest/ Petitioner wo!ld nonetheless insist on the ille)alit1 of his arrest 41 ar)!in) that the &olice'en who act!all1 arrested hi' were not at the scene of the hit and r!n/ The co!rt 4e)s to disa)ree/ 2t is a realit1 that c!r4in) lawlessness )ains 'ore s!ccess when law enforcers f!nction in colla4oration

with &rivate citi-ens/ (!rther'ore# in accordance with settled @!ris&r!dence# an1 o4@ection# defect or irre)!larit1 attendin) an arrest '!st 4e 'ade 4efore the acc!sed enters his &lea/ -. LICENSE TO CARRY: WON t'e !et"t"#$er " aut'#r">e%6 u$%er a M" "#$ Or%er a$% Me.#ra$%u. Rece"!t6 t# carr1 t'e u);ect +"rear. =o/ 2n cri'es involvin) ille)al &ossession of firear'# two re*!isites '!st 4e esta4lished# vi /3 (1) the e+istence of the s!4@ect firear' and# (2) the fact that the acc!sed who owned or &ossessed the firear' does not have the corres&ondin) license or &er'it to &ossess/ The first ele'ent is 4e1ond dis&!te as the s!4@ect firear's and a''!nitions were sei-ed fro' &etitionerKs &ossession via a valid warrantless search# identified and offered in evidence d!rin) trial/ As to the second ele'ent# the sa'e was convincin)l1 &roven 41 the &rosec!tion/ 2ndeed# &etitionerKs &!r&orted Mission Order and Me'orand!' Recei&t are inferior in the face of the 'ore for'ida4le evidence for the &rosec!tion as o!r 'etic!lo!s review of the records reveals that the Mission Order and Me'orand!' Recei&t were 'ere aftertho!)hts contrived and iss!ed !nder s!s&icio!s circ!'stances/ On this score# we lift fro' res&ondent co!rtKs incisive o4servation/ (!rther'ore# the Me'orand!' Recei&t is also !ns!&&orted 41 a certification as re*!ired 41 the March 6# 1$"" Me'orand!' of the Secretar1 of %efense/ Petitioner is not in the Plantilla of =on;.nifor' &ersonnel or in list of Civilian A)ents of 7'&lo1ees of the P=P# which wo!ld @!stif1 iss!ance of 'ission order (as stated in P% 1"66)/ :astl1# the M;16 and an1 short firear's hi)her than 0/3" cali4er cannot 4e licensed to a civilian/ ,. /ENALTY: WON !e$a&t1 +#r ".!&e "&&e*a& !# e "#$ c#$ t"tute e4ce "ve a$% crue& !u$" '.e$t !r# cr")e% )1 t'e 19?C C#$ t"tut"#$ Anent his third defense# &etitioner fa!lts res&ondent co!rt Jin a&&l1in) P/%/ 1"66 in a de'ocratic a'4ience ( sic) and a non;s!4versive conte+tJ and adds that res&ondent co!rt sho!ld have a&&lied instead the &revio!s laws on ille)al &ossession of firear's since the reason for the &enalt1 i'&osed !nder P/%/ 1"66 no lon)er e+ists/ 8e stresses that the &enalt1 of 1D 1ears and 5 'onths to 21 1ears for si'&le ille)al &ossession of firear' is cr!el and e+cessive in contravention of the Constit!tion/ The contentions do not 'erit serio!s consideration/ The trial co!rt and the res&ondent co!rt are 4o!nd to a&&l1 the )overnin) law at the ti'e of a&&ellantKs co''ission of the offense for it is a r!le that laws are re&ealed onl1 41 s!4se*!ent ones/ 2ndeed# it is the d!t1 of @!dicial officers to res&ect and a&&l1 the law as it stands/ And !ntil its re&eal# res&ondent co!rt can not 4e fa!lted for a&&l1in) P/%/ 1"66

which a4ro)ated the &revio!s stat!tes adverted to 41 &etitioner/ 7*!all1 lac,in) in 'erit is a&&ellantKs alle)ation that the &enalt1 for si'&le ille)al &ossession is !nconstit!tional/ The &enalt1 for si'&le &ossession of firear'# it sho!ld 4e stressed# ran)es fro' reclusion temporal 'a+i'!' to reclusion perpetua contrar1 to a&&ellantKs erroneo!s aver'ent/ The severit1 of a &enalt1 does not ipso facto 'a,e the sa'e cr!el and e+cessive/ Moreover# ever1 law has in its favor the &res!'&tion of constit!tionalit1/ The 4!rden of &rovin) the invalidit1 of the stat!te in *!estion lies with the a&&ellant which 4!rden# we note# was not convincin)l1 dischar)ed/ To @!stif1 n!llification of the law# there '!st 4e a clear and !ne*!ivocal 4reach of the Constit!tion# not a do!4tf!l and ar)!'entative i'&lication# as in this case/ 2n fact# the constit!tionalit1 of P/%/ 1"66 has 4een !&held twice 41 this Co!rt/ !st recentl1# the Co!rt declared that Jthe &ertinent laws on ille)al &ossession of firear's Oare notP contrar1 to an1 &rovision of the Constit!tion///J A&&ellantKs )rievances on the wisdo' of the &rescri4ed &enalt1 sho!ld not 4e addressed to !s/ Co!rts are not concerned with the wisdo'# efficac1 or 'oralit1 of laws/ That *!estion falls e+cl!sivel1 within the &rovince of Con)ress which enacts the' and the Chief 7+ec!tive who a&&roves or vetoes the'/ The onl1 f!nction of the co!rts# we reiterate# is to inter&ret and a&&l1 the laws 7e&%: F87R7(OR7# &re'ises considered# the decision of the Co!rt of A&&eals s!stainin) &etitionerKs conviction 41 the lower co!rt of the cri'e of si'&le ille)al &ossession of firear's and a''!nitions is A((2RM7% 7RC7PT that &etitionerKs indeter'inate &enalt1 is MO%2(27% to Jten (10) 1ears and one (1) da1# as 'ini'!'# to ei)hteen (1") 1ears# ei)ht (") 'onths and one (1) da1# as 'a+i'!'/ /e#!&e v. S".#$ D#ctr"$e: Altho!)h P% 1"66 is a s&ecial law# the &enalties therein were ta,en fro' the RPC# hence the r!les in said code for )rad!atin) 41 de)rees of deter'inin) the &ro&er &eriod sho!ld 4e a&&lied/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. SIMON 35 SCRA 666 (1$$5) Nature: A&&eal fro' a @!d)'ent of 0!a)!a# Pa'&an)a RTC Fact : Oct/ 22# 1$""# Pa'&an)a/ Martin Si'on was convicted of violatin) RA 6526 Art/ 22 Sec/ 5 (%an)ero!s %r!)s Act of 1$D2) thro!)h a =ARCOM &oser;4!1er/ 2t was a&&ealed for reversal alle)in) it was a fra'e;!& (testi'onies and evidence &roved otherwise) and evidence was inad'issi4le (held# 4eca!se there was no co!nsel)/

I

ue: FO= correct &enalt1 a&&liedQ

7e&%: =o/ Conviction 'odified/ There was overla&&in) error in the law th!s the S!&re'e Co!rt had to har'oni-e conflictin) &rovisions 41 &rovidin) for de)rees of )rad!ation/ R!le3 de)rees a&&lied de&endin) on *!antit1 then a&&l1 'iti)atin) or a))ravatin) circ!'stance/ :east &enalt1 sho!ld 4e &rision correccional so as not to de&reciate serio!sness of cri'e/ !stified in a&&l1in) RPC &rovisions 4eca!se law ado&ted &enalties !nder RPC in their technical ter's th!s si)nifications and effects will also a&&l1/ 2t r!les in &eo&le v/ Tsan) 8in Fai that when s&ecial law )rants discretion to S!&re'e Co!rt to a&&l1 &enalties# Code wonBt 4e held/ Otherwise# S!&re'e Co!rt sho!ld 4e )!ided 41 r!les in RPC that 4ein) the e+&ert in cri'inal law ad'inistration/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. SA:ALONES 2$5 SCRA D61 (1$$") Nature: A&&eal fro' a decision of the Ce4! Cit1 RTC T'e Ca e: Ceron)a# Sa4alones# ca4anero and Ale)ar4e were convicted of 2 co!nts of '!rder and 3 co!nts of fr!strated '!rder of 0lenn tie'&o# Alfred nardo# re1 4olo# reo)elio &resores and nelson tie'&o/ A shootin) incident on !ne 1# 1$"6 in Man!ela Co'&# Talisa1 Ce4! led to these deaths/ I ue : 1. WON !r# ecut"#$ ("t$e cre%")&e e a$% ev"%e$ce are

=o/ .nder Art/ 25" of the RPC# the i'&osa4le &enalt1 is reclusion temporal# in its 'a+i'!' &eriod to death/ There 4ein) no a))ravatin) or 'iti)atin) circ!'stance# aside fro' the *!alif1in) circ!'stance of treacher1# the a&&ellate co!rt correctl1 i'&osed recl!sion &er&et!a for '!rder/ The Co!rt of A&&eals however erred in co'&!tin) the &enalt1 for each of the three co!nts of fr!strated '!rder/ .nder Art/ 60 of the RPC# the &enalt1 for a fr!strated felon1 is the ne+t lower in de)ree than that &rescri4ed 41 law for the cons!''ated felon1 + + +/A Ceca!se there are no a))ravatin) or 'iti)atin) circ!'stance as the CA itself held# the &enalt1 &rescri4ed 41 law sho!ld 4e i'&osed in its 'edi!' &eriod/ 7e&%: Conviction 'odified ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; U.S. 9. :AUTISTA 6 Phil/ 6"1 (1$06) Nature: A&&eal fro' the @!d)'ent of the Manila C(2 Fact : 2n 1$03 a @!nta was or)ani-ed and a cons&irac1 entered into 41 a n!'4er of (ili&inos in 8on),on)# for the &!r&ose of overthrowin) the )overn'ent of the .nited States in the Phili&&ine 2slands 41 force of ar's and esta4lishin) a new )overn'ent/ (rancisco Ca!tista (1)# a close friend of the chief of 'ilitar1 forces (of the cons&irators) too, &art of several 'eetin)s/ To'as P!-on (2) held several conferences whereat &lans are 'ade for the co'in) ins!rrectionH he was a&&ointed Cri)adier; 0eneral of the Si)nal Cor&s of the revol!tionar1 forces/ Aniceto de 0!-'an (3) acce&ted so'e 4onds fro' one of the cons&irators/ The lower co!rt convicted the three 'en of cons&irac1/ Ca!tista was sentenced to 5 1ears i'&rison'ent and a P3#000 fineH P!-on and %e 0!-'an to 3 1ears i'&rison'ent and P1#000/ I ue: FO= the acc!sed are )!ilt1 of cons&irac1/

>es/ RTC findin)s were 4indin) to co!rt with a&&reciated testi'onies of two witnesses/ There was &ositive identification 41 s!rvivors who saw the' when the1 &eered d!rin) l!lls in )!nfire/ The &lace was well;lit# whether fro' &ost of carBs headli)hts/ The e+tra@!dicial confession has no 4earin) 4eca!se the conviction was 4ased on &ositive identification/ 2t is 4indin)# tho!)h# to the co;acc!sed 4eca!se it is !sed as circ!'stancial evidence corro4orated 41 one witness/ The inconsistencies are 'inor and inconse*!ential which stren)then credi4ilit1 of testi'on1/ (!rther'ore# in a4erratio ict!s ('ista,e in 4low)# 'ista,e does not di'inish c!l&a4ilit1H sa'e )ravit1 a&&lies# 'ore &ro&er to !se error in &ersonae -. WON a&")"3 acce!ta)&e2 =o/ 2t was still *!ite near the cri'e scene/ 2t is overr!led 41 &ositive identification/ (!rther'ore# fli)ht indicates )!ilt ,. WON c#rrect !e$a&t1 ".!# e%2

7e&%: !d)'ent for Ca!tista and P!-on CO=(2RM7%/ !d)'ent for de 0!-'an R7<7RS7%/ >es# Ca!tista and P!-on are )!ilt1 of cons&irac1/ Ca!tista was f!ll1 aware of the &!r&oses of the 'eetin)s he &artici&ated in# and even )ave an ass!rance to the chief of 'ilitar1 forces that he is 'a,in) the necessar1 &re&arations/ P!-on vol!ntaril1 acce&ted his a&&oint'ent and in doin) so ass!'ed all the o4li)ations i'&lied 41 s!ch acce&tance/ This 'a1 4e considered as an evidence of the cri'inal connection of the acc!sed with the cons&irac1/ 8owever# de 0!-'an is not )!ilt1 of cons&irac1/ 8e 'i)ht have 4een hel&in) the cons&irators 41 acce&tin) 4onds in the 4!ndles# 4!t he has not 4een aware of the contents nor does he

was# in an1 occasion# ass!'ed an1 o4li)ation with res&ect to those 4onds/ N#te: see RPC Art/ 1363 Cri'es a)ainst &!4lic order3 cons&irac1 and &ro&osal to co''it co!& dB etat# re4ellion or ins!rrection/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. 9ENGCO 12D SCRA 252 (1$"5) Nature:/ A&&eal fro' the @!d)'ent of the Manila C(2 Fact : Constantino :eneses# :eon %avid# and three others (who did not file for an a&&ealH incl!des 7dwin <en)co) were fo!nd 0.2:T> of M.R%7R of Charlie CeladeVa# who died 25 A!)!st 1$6D/ Coth were sentenced of recl!sion &er&et!a/ I ue: FO= cons&irac1 for '!rder was &resent a'on) the acc!sed/ 7e&%: >es/ A((2RM7% with 'odification/ The acc!sed are (still) 0.2:T> of M.R%7R and are char)ed of recl!son &er&et!a/ the1 have to &a1 the heirs of the deceased in the s!' of P30#000 as 'odified fro' the P12#000 as decided 41 the lower co!rt/ There was cons&irac1 4etween :eneses# %avid# and the three others/ This cons&irac1 a'on) the' is discerna4le fro' the wa1 the1 assa!lted CeladeVa# as well as their cond!ct so'eti'e 4efore and i''ediatel1 after the sta44in) (e)/ <en)co chased CeladeVa and threw 4ottles at hi' three or fo!r ni)hts &rior to CeladeVaBs deathH %avid left Manila for Cavite where he hid hi'self !ntil he was arrested) shows that the1 had a)reed to ,ill hi'/ Cons&irac1 'a1 4e inferred tho!)h no act!al 'eetin) a'on) the' is &roven/ The fact that the1 were acco'&lishin) the sa'e !nlawf!l act# each doin) a &art so that their acts# altho!)h a&&arentl1 inde&endent# were &roven to 4e connected and coo&erative# indicates a closeness of &ersonal association and conc!rrence of senti'ent/ Also# acc!sed :eon %avid# even if he did not assa!lt the victi' at the scene of the cri'e (as testified 41 a credi4le witness) 'a1 4e )!ilt1 as well since his hidin) ri)ht after the cri'e !ntil his arrest is a circ!'stance hi)hl1 indicative of his )!ilt/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. 9ALDE= 16$ SCRA 163 (1$"") Nature: A!to'atic Review of the decision of RTC San (ernando# :a .nion/ (eliciano# /3 Fact : On D !ne 1$DD# 7leno Ma*!ilin) was shot while at the 1ard of their ho!se/ 7s'enia# the victi'Bs 'other# and %ionisio# the victi'Bs 4rother# saw %anilo <alde- and Si'&licio Orodio

r!nnin) down the hill awa1 fro' the 4a'4oo )roves/ The lower co!rt decided that the acc!sed are )!ilt1 of '!rder# i'&osin) !&on each the' the ca&ital &enalt1 of death# da'a)es and costs/ I ue: FO= there was a cons&irac1 4etween the acc!sed in ,illin) Ma*!ilin)/ 7e&%: >es/ !d)'ent A((2RM7%/ C!t !nder the 1$"D Constit!tion# in view of the a4olition of ca&ital &!nish'ent# the a&&lica4le &enalt1 is recl!sion &er&et!a/ The evidence of the &rosec!tion is 'ore than ade*!ate to s!stain the findin) of cons&irac1 4etween the two acc!sed/ 2t does not 'atter that the &rosec!tion has failed to show who was 4etween the two who act!all1 &!lled the tri))er that conse*!entl1 ,illed the child/ The1 are lia4le as co;cons&irators since an1 act of a co; cons&irator 4eco'e the act of the other re)ardless of the &recise de)ree of &artici&ation in the act/ Also# there was &resence of treacher1# 4eca!se of the circ!'stances that the cri'e was done at ni)ht ti'e and that the acc!sed hid the'selves a'on) the 4a'4oo/ 7vident &re'editation is also an a))ravatin) circ!'stance (the acc!sed had &lanned to ,ill the victi's so'e da1s 4efore)/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE 9. ESCO:ER 16D SCRA 651 (1$"") Fact : 7sco4er# P!n-alan and 3 others were acc!sed of co''ittin) ro44er1 with ho'icide in Calintawa,# TC on %ec/ 3# "2/ Mr/ <icenta Ch!aBs office was ro44ed of P6N and his children were sta44ed to death/ 7sco4er was co'&an1 )!ard and alle)ed 'aster'ind/ A4!1en was for'er )!ard relieved d!e to a4sence and fo!nd slee&in) on d!t1/ I ue : 1. WON RTC c#$+#r.e% ("t' Art. 96 Sec 9 #+ t'e C#$ t"tut"#$ =o/ Art $/ Sec $ states that decision sho!ld have facts# not &resent in decision/ 0enerali-ations and concl!sions witho!t detailed facts as 4asis/ A&&ellate co!rt canBt chec, if findin)s were s!fficient and lo)ical/ !stice and fairness over s&eed/ Peo&le v/ Cana1o3 decision sho!ld show evidence# facts 4ased on evidence and s!&&ortin) @!ris&r!dence and a!thorit1 -. WON E c#)er " *u"&t1 =o/ O&enin) of )ate is nor'al when so'eone ,noc,s es&eciall1 if 1o! ,now hi'/ 8e 'i)ht have lac,ed 4etter @!d)'ent or la+it1 in &erfor'ance of d!ties tho!)h/ The firin) of the )!n as a rit!al to avoid s!s&icion is too ris,1 a rit!al/ 2t can ,ill/ 6;10 'in!tes too short a ti'e to &lan a cons&irac1/ A4!1en even as,ed P!n-alan to ,ill 7sco4ar/ Then A4!1en &ointed the )!n at 7sco4ar and as,ed P!n-alan to tie hi'H he also tries to shoot hi'/ Offerin) the ,.

infor'ation that he was not hit was also @!st to ass!re e'&lo1er who see'ed concerned/ Mrs Ch!aBs state'ent 'a1 have 4een conf!sed ca!se it was ta,en last/ Perha&s she for)ot details d!e to a)itation/ WON /u$>a&a$ " *u"&t1 >es/ 7+tra@!dicial confession is inad'issi4le 4eca!se it was not &ro&erl1 &erfor'ed and was witho!t co!nsel/ Cons&irac1 was &roven/ 8e was fetched and he fled with s!s&ects/ 8e sho!ldBve )one to the &olice if innocent/ Peo&le vs/ Ro)el3 8o'icide thro!)h ro44er1# all &rinci&als in ro44er1 are lia4le for ho'icide !nless the1 tried &reventin) it/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. NATIONAL 25" SCRA 122 (1$$6) Fact : =acional# Milla'ino# M!sa# :!cer# Mira4ete and Militante 'e'4er of =PA char)ed with '!rder and T!irino and oel :a)aron in %ara)an Al4a1 on (e4/ 21# 1$"6/ All e+ce&t Mira4ete were )iven conditional &ardon as &olitical &risoners/ :a)arons were s!s&ected )overn'ent infor'ers/ I ue: FO= Mira4ete is cri'inall1 lia4le

7e&%: >es/ Conviction affir'ed/ 8e was identified 41 witnesses/ Rinco&an identified hi' as CPP;=PA 'e'4er &resent d!rin) &!lon);&!lon)/ There was evident &re'editation as the &!lon) &!lon) decided to li*!idate two and assi)ned roles/ 2n Peo&le v/ Talla# cons&irac1 is said to e+ist once a)reed !&on e+&ressl1 or i'&liedl1 to co''it felon19this was esta4lished 41 'eetin) 4efore cri'e co''itted/ 2n Peo&le v Ti'&le# it is said the cons&irators are lia4le for acts of others/ This is reiterated in Peo&le v/ A&awan# which states that all cons&irators are lia4le# and that act of one is act of all re)ardless of de)ree of &artici&ation/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. ELIJORDE 306 SCRA 1"" (1$$$) Fact : 7li@orde and P!n-alan char)ed with '!rder of 7ric 8ierro/ Altercation 4e)an when 8ierro told Meneses not to to!ch hi' ca!se his clothes will )et dirt1/ (ist fi)ht occ!rred/ 8ierro hid/ After 30 'in!tes he went o!t to )o ho'e 4!t was attac,ed a)ain and sta44ed to death/ I ue: FO= P!n-alan is lia4le as cons&iratorQ

7e&%: =o/ P!n-alan ac*!itted/ 7li@orde )!ilt1/ 2n Peo&le v/ :!); aw# cons&irac1 sho!ld 4e &roven thro!)h clear and convincin) evidence/ 2n Peo&le v/ %e Ro+as# it is esta4lished that it '!st 4e

&roven that he &erfor'ed overt act to &!rs!e co'&letel1/ <is4al testified that onl1 7li@orde chased 8ierro/ P!n-alanBs onl1 &artici&ation was ,ic,in) which does not &rove that he 'i)ht have ,nown 7li@ordeBs evil desi)n or intent to ,ill/ 2n Peo&le v/ A)a&ina1# there was no &roof that the acc!sed ,new a4o!t the deadl1 wea&on and that it was to 4e !sed to sta4 victi'/ 2n the case at 4ar# P!n-alan desisted fro' acts of a))ression and did nothin) to assist 7li@orde in co''ittin) '!rder ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. :OTONA 305 SCRA D12 (1$$$) Fact : Silverano# 4rother Sofronio and son =icolas Cotona were char)ed with Cienvinido Oliver in Cataan# %el Car'en S!ri)ao del =orte on !ne 2D# ""/ Cienvinido was &la1in) cards in SilveranoBs ho!se/ 8is son !lieto arrived to fetch hi' as &er his 'otherBs instr!ctions/ On their wa1 ho'e# 5 'en e'er)ed alon) hi)hwa1# h!))in) his father/ Reco)ni-in) fo!r as the acc!sed# he hid and saw the' &!sh his father to the )ro!nd/ 8e saw Silveriano &ossessed with a s'all# shar& &ointed 4olo/ Then he saw fo!r wash their hands in a &!'& well/ 8e saw his 4loodied father on the road at a4o!t 5a'/ Arsenia# wife of Cienvinido said that her 4rother Silveriano and Sofronio had a )r!d)e a)ainst her h!s4and d!e to inherited land/ Silveriano al'ost sta44ed Cienvinido 4efore 4!t did not ,ill hi'/ I ue: FO= acc!sed was )!ilt1 of '!rder

6/ Ali4i was wea, since the1 were still near the cri'e scene/ =o sense in 0!ltian wa,in) !& other &eo&le to re&ort that he co''itted a cri'e/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; LECARO= 9. SANDIGAN:AYAN 306 SCRA 56$ (1$$")H Fact : (rancisco# Ma1or of Santa Cr!-# Marind!*!e# and son :enlie# NC chair and SC 'e'4er# :ecaro- were char)ed with 13 co!nts of estafa thro!)h falsification of &!4lic doc!'ents/ Alle)ed that (rancisco did not reco)ni-e a&&oint'ent of Red as new NC chair in Matala4a and SC 'e'4er/ Alle)ed that :eslie contin!ed to receive salar1 even after his ter' has e+&ired/ Convicted 41 Sandi)an4a1an I ue: FO= :ecaro- is cri'inall1 lia4leQ



 

Cons&irac1 not &roven3 sho!ld 4e esta4lished se&aratel1 for cri'e and '!st 'eet sa'e de)ree of &roof Stron) eno!)h to show co''!nit1 of cri'inal desi)n Clood relation is not e*!ivalent to cons&irac1

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE 9. LAMA7ANG 61 Phil/ D03 (1$36)H Fact : A!relio :a'ahan) was ca!)ht o&enin) with an iron 4ar a wall of a store of chea& )oods in (!entes St/ 2loilo/ 8e 4ro,e one 4oard and was !nfastenin) another when a &atrollin) &olice ca!)ht hi'/ Owners of the store were slee&in) inside store as it was earl1 dawn/ Convicted of atte'&t of ro44er1 I ue: FO= cri'e is atte'&ted ro44er1Q

7e&%: Conviction affir'ed/ 1/ Circ!'stancial evidence will do in the a4sence of direct evidence  &eo&le v/ 4ionat3 convicted &erson who was identified as the one who ho) tied and too, awa1 victi' even if no e1ewitness/  Chain of events all lead to conviction with 'otive3 inherited land that the1 were &lowin)  (o!r were &eo&le last seen with victi' and he was ne+t seen dead in the sa'e s&ot where he was attac,ed/  RTC fo!nd !lieto credi4le/ Peo&le v/ So4erano3 S!&re'e Co!rt res&ects RTCBs fact!al concl!sion 2/ Peo&le v/ Cionat3 Cons&irac13 act!al &lannin) not a &recedent as lon) as the1 have the sa'e &!r&ose and !nited in e+ec!tion  Co''on o4@ective3 ,ill Cienvinido  Peo&le v/ S!'al&on)3 Act of one is act of all re)ardless of de)ree of &artici&ation th!s e*!all1 lia4le/ 3/ Treacher13 ens!re e+ec!tion witho!t ris, to hi'self arisin) fro' offended &art1Bs defense (RPC)/ Proven 41 s!dden and !ne+&ected attac, 5/ 7vident &re'editation sho!ld 4e directl1 esta4lished 4eca!se cons&irac1 was onl1 i'&lied and not &roven

7e&%: =o/ Ac*!itted 1/ SC ter'3 6 1ears/ 2f sectoralG)ro!& re& ter' is coter'in!s with sectoral ter' 2/ NC ter'3 till last S!nda1# =ove'4er 1$"6 or !ntil new officers have *!alified 3/ :enlie can hold over/  :aw doesnBt sa1 he can or is &revented fro' doin) so/ Th!s he can sta1 !ntil s!ccession *!alifies  %!ld!lao v/ ra'os3 law a4hors vac!!' in &!4lic offices  (ole1 v/ 'cna43 hold over3 avoid hiat!s in &erfor'ance of )overn'ent f!nction  Carnes v/ 8ol4roo,3 holdover to &revent &!4lic convenience fro' s!fferin) d!e to vacanc1 5/ Red not *!alified/ Oath ad'inistered 41 Catasan) Pa'4ansa 'e'4er whoBs not a!thori-ed to do so is invalid 6/ lac, of cri'inal intent  a&&oint'ent not reco)ni-ed since there were no a!thenticated co&ies of a&&oint'ent &a&ers  (rancisco so!)ht advice of M2:0 Secretar1 Pi'entel re)ardin) RedBs &a&ers3 Provincial Me'o Circ!lar "6;023 =o a!thentication fro' President canBt ass!'e &ositionH Me'o;Circ/ "6;1D3 SC# S&l!n)# S&lala3 8old office# 4e co'&ensated !ntil re&laced 41 &resident or M2:0  7+ec!tive Silence on hold over for 30 1ears not e*!al to &rohi4ition  (rancisco3 well res&ected/ Perha&s he @!st 'ade erroneo!s inter&retation/ Ma4!tol v Pasc!al and Ca4!n)cal v/ Cordova3 'isre&resentation is not e*!al to 4ad faith# th!s not lia4le  (alsification3 no doc!'ent state'ent fro' offended to narrate facts and facts were not &roven wron) or false/

7e&%: =o/ Atte'&ted tres&ass to dwellin)/ Atte'&t sho!ld have lo)ical relation to a &artic!lar and concrete offense which wo!ld lead directl1 to cons!''ation/ =ecessar1 to esta4lish !navoida4le connection and lo)ical and nat!ral relation of ca!se and effect/ 2'&ortant to show clear intent to co''it cri'e/ 2= case at 4ar# we can onl1 infer that his intent was to enter 41 force# other inferences are not @!stified 41 facts/ 0roi-ard3 infer onl1 fro' nat!re of acts e+ec!ted/ Acts s!sce&ti4le of do!4le inter&retation canBt f!rnish )ro!nd for the'selves/ Mind sho!ld not directl1 infer intent/ S&ain S!&re'e Co!rt3 necessar1 that o4@ectives esta4lished or acts the'selves o4vio!sl1 disclose cri'inal o4@ective/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE 9. DIO 131 SCRA 161 (1$"5) Fact : %io and To4ias are char)ed with ro44er1 with ho'icide for atte'&tin) to steal Sei,o wrist watch of Civil 7n)ineer Cris&!lo Ale)a at the Pasa1 Cit1 &!4lic 'ar,et on noonti'e of !l1 25# 1$D1/ Ale)a resisted th!s was sta44ed and he died/ I ue : 1. WON #++e$ e " r#))er1 =o/ The1 were not a4le to carr1 o!t ro44er1/ 2t was not cons!''ated d!e to Ale)oBs resistance/ Th!s its onl1 atte'&ted ro44er1 -. WON Deat' /e$a&t1 '#u&% )e ".!# e% =o/ =o a))ravatin) circ!'stance th!s &!nish with nor'al &enalt1/ Miti)ate d!e to atte'&t/

7e&%: Modified E Atte'&ted ro44er1 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. TRINIDAD 16$ SCRA 61 (1$"$) Fact : Trinidad acc!sed of two co!nts of '!rder and one co!nt fr!strated '!rder/ Acc!sed in 'e'4er of 2=P in =asi&it/ Cri'e occ!rred in C!t!an 4etween 7l Rio and A)fa while the1 were in a fierra 4o!nf for %avao/ Trinidad shot and ,illed Soriano and :aron while he shot and in@!red Tan I ue: FO= conviction is &ro&erQ

6/ Peo&le v/ <illa'or cons!''ation even when &enetration do!4ted3 &ainBs felt# discoloration of inner li&s of va)ina or red la4ia 'inora or h1'enal ta)s not visi4le/ =ow seen in case# Medico le)al officer# tho!)h &enetration not needed to &rove contact# no 'edical 4asis to hold that there was se+!al contact/ 81'en intact/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. LO/E= 312 SCRA 6"5 (1$$$) Fact : (ederico :o&e- was acc!sed of ,illin) Ro)elio Saldera and Rodolfo Pada&at and fr!strated '!rder of Mario Seldera/ The1 wor, in a far'land in =ancala4aasan# .'in)an# Pan)asinan/ On their wa1 ho'e on =ov/ 16# 1$$1 at aro!nd $ &' the1 were et 41 :o&e- and another )!1/ There were in trail 4eside Canila river/ :o&e- had a shot )!n and shot 3/ Thin,in) the1 were dead# he left/ Mario s!rvived and identified :o&eI ue: FO= conviction correctQ

/EO/LE 9. LI=ADA an!ar1 25# 2003 Fact : (reedie :i-ada was acc!sed of ra&in) his ste& da!)hter Analia Orilloso in fo!r instances in their ho!se in Tondo# Manila# so'eti'e in A!)!st 1$$"# on or a4o!t =ov/ 6# 1$$"# on or a4o!t Oct/ 22# 1$$" and on or a4o!t Se&te'4er 16# 1$$"/ Ph1sical e+a'ination showed no e+tra)enital &h1sical in@!ries/ 81'en intact/ I ue: FO= =ov/ 6# 1$$" is cons!''ated ra&eQ 7e&%: =o/ Atte'&ted ra&e onl1 1/ =o &roof of introd!ction of &enis into &!dend!' of childBs va)ina 2/ =ot act of lascivio!sness# :ewd is o4secene# l!stf!l# indecent# lechero!s 3/ RPC Art/ 6 atte'&ted is 4ased on 5 ele'ents (re1es) 5/ =ot &re&arator1 (devise 'eans or 'eas!re to acco'&lish desired end)/ Atte'&t sho!ld 4e e*!ivocal/ =o need to co'&lete all acts @!st need to start act with ca!sal relation to intended cri'e/ 6/ Acts '!st 4e directl1 related to cons!''ation of act and ascertaina4le fro' facts (Peo&le v/ :a'ahan)) 6/ Acc!sed had intended to have carnal ,nowled)e of co'&lainant/ Acts not &re&arator1# he co''enced e+ec!tion 4!t failed to finish d!e to &resence of third &art1# not s&ontaneo!s desistance/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. CAM/U7AN s!&ra ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; U.S. v. ADIAO 3" Phil/ D65 (1$66) Fact : To'as Adiao# c!sto's ins&ector# )ot a leather 4a) costin) P0/"0 fro' 4a))a)e of T/ M!ra,a'i and ,e&t it in his des, where it was fo!nd 41 other e'&lo1ees I ue: FO= act is cons!''ated theftQ 7e&%: >es/ A))ravatin) Circ!'stance# &!4lic &ossession 1/ 8e &erfor'ed all acts of e+ec!tion as re*!ired 41 RPC Art/ 3/ 8e didnBt need to ta,e it o!t of the 4!ildin) 2/ S&anish S!&re'e Co!rt3 ta,in) first ca!)ht 41 &olice still cons!''ated no &roof of contrar1H &ic,&oc,et )ot 'one1 4!t ret!rned it later on# still cons!''atedH too, 'one1 even if its on to& of safe# still cons!''ated/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. 7ERNANDE= 5$ Phil/ $"0 (1$26)

7e&%: Affir'ed/ M!rder and atte'&ted '!rder/ Trinidad ali4i is wea, and overridden 41 Tan and Co''endadorBs &ositive identification/ Tho!)h so'e discre&ancies in testi'onies are fo!nd# these are trivial/ %istance 4etween Trinidad and two deceased i''aterial/ 2'&ortant is that he shot the'/ Tan has no seen ill 'otive to falsifia4l1 testif1 a)ainst Trinidad/ 2t is atte'&ted and not fr!strated '!rder 4eca!se he failed to e+ec!te all acts d!e to 'ovin) vehicle and this shielded TanBs 4od1 and his wo!nd was not fatal th!s not s!fficient to ca!se death (Peo&le v/ Pilones) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. CAM/U7AN March 30# 2000 Fact : Pri'o Ca'&!han was acc!sed of ra&in) fo!r 1ear old Cr1sthel Pa'int!an/ Ca'&!han was ca!)ht 41 childBs 'other on A&ril 26# 1$$6 at aro!nd 5&' in their ho!se/ Ca'&!han# hel&er of Cora-onBs 4rother was alle)edl1 ,neelin) in front of the child with 4oth their &ants downa dn child was cr1in) ?a1o,o# a1o,oA while Pri'o forced his &enis into childBs va)ina I ue: FO= cri'e is ra&eQ

7e&%: =o/ Modified to atte'&ted ra&e 1/ Cons!''ated ra&e3 &erfect &enetration not essential/ Sli)ht &enetration is e*!ivalent to ra&e/ Mere to!chin) of e+ternal )enitalia considered when its an essential &art of &enetration not @!st to!chin) in ordinar1 sense (Peo&le v/ Orita)/ :a4ia 'a@ora '!st 4e entered for ra&e to 4e cons!''ated (Peo&le v/ 7sco4er) 2/ Atte'&ted E no &enetration or didnBt reach la4iaG'ere )ra-in) of s!rface 3/ (ailed to &rove that &enetration occ!rred/ MotherBs testi'on1 *!estiona4le with re)ards to her &osition relative to Pri'o and child/ The1 failed to esta4lish how she co!ld have seen act!al contact in her &osition 5/ ManBs instinct is to r!n when ca!)ht/ Pri'o co!ld not have sta1ed or to satisf1 his l!st even if // seein) Cora-on 6/ Child denied &enetration occ!rred

7e&%: Modified es&eciall1 da'a)es 1/ Mario is a credi4le witness and 'e'or1 of 'assacre is dee&l1 etched in his 'e'or1 th!s he re'e'4ered even 'in!te details/ =at!ral reaction is to re'e'4er assailants and 'anner how cri'eBs co''itted (Peo&le v 0o'e-)/ Shot )!n wo!nds were verified/ PA0ASA states that there was 60Z ill!'ination of 'oon at that ti'e/ 62Z ill!'ination in Peo&le v/ P!e4las was fo!nd to 4e s!fficient in s!stainin) identification of acc!sed/ Mario was also well;ad@!sted to li)htin) since heBs 4een wal,in) for so'e ti'e when the1 were attac,ed (Peo&le v/ <acal)/ 8e was identified not 41 na'e 4!t 41 ,nowled)e of who acc!sed was who fre*!ented his &lace 4efore/ 2/ Ali4i is wea,/ 8is alle)ed location was near eno!)h to cri'e scene th!s not i'&ossi4le to reach it/ 2nconsistent witnesses/ Overridden 41 &ositive identification of a witness who doesnBt &osses ill 'otive to falsel1 testif1 a)ainst acc!sed/ 3/ %efective infor'ation not assailed 4efore acc!sed waived ri)ht to do so/ 7ach shot sho!ld 4e considered as one act th!s lia4le for three se&arate cri'es# Co'&le+ cri'e (RPC; 5") onl1 when one act res!lts to different felonies/ There was treacher1 th!s Mario sho!ld have 4een for '!rder# 4!t atte'&ted not fr!strated ca!se wo!nds were not fatal as attested to 41 doctor 5/ %a'a)es3 P60N civilian inde'nit1 fi+ed as &roven 41 death/ Moral da'a)es3 P60N/ Te'&erate da'a)es3 'a1 4e witho!t &roof/ Mario3 no &roof of 'oral da'a)aes/ 7+e'&lar1 da'a)es3 onl1 when thereBs a))ravatin) circ!'stances/ Act!al da'a)es re&resents !nearned inco'e ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Fact : %o'in)o 8ernande-# D0 1ears old char)ed of ra&in) his $ 1ear old ste& )randda!)hter# Conrada ocson with threat to ,ill if she doesnBt )ive in to his wish/ A))ravatin)3 (1) related# (2) )rave a4!se of confidence since the1 lived in sa'e ho!se/ I ue: FO= act is cons!''ated ra&e 7e&%: >es# &l!s there is an a))ravatin) circ!'stance/ 1/ Peo&le v/ Rivers3 r!&t!re of h1'en not necessar1 as lon) as there is &roof that thereBs so'e de)ree of entrance of 'ale or)an within la4ia of L 2/ Ph1sical e+a' findin)s3 h1'en intact# la4ia and va)inal o&enin) infla'ed# a4!ndance of se'en# she felt intense &ain ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. ERI8A 60 Phil/ $$" (1$2D) Fact : !lian 7riVa char)ed of ra&in) 3 1ears and 11 'onths old child/ %o!4t on whether act!al &enetration occ!rred/ Ph1sical e+a' showed sli)ht infla''ation of e+terior &arts of or)an indicatin) effort to enter va)ina/ Mo' fo!nd childBs or)an covered with stic,1 s!4stance I ue: FO= cri'e is cons!''atedQ 7e&%: =o/ (r!strated onl1 1/ Possi4le for 'anBs or)an to enter la4ia of a 3 1ears and " 'onths old child (Nenned1 v/ State) 2/ =o concl!sive evidence of &enetration so )ive acc!sed 4enefit of the do!4t/ (r!strated/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Fact : .r4ano had a dis&!te with avier d!e to latterBs o&enin) of irri)ation s1ste' which flooded far'erBs &ala1 stora)e/ .r4ano hac,ed avier with a 4olo 4!t the1 had a'ica4le settle'ent later on/ 22 da1s after incident# avier died d!e to tetan!s/ I ue: FO= .r4ano is cri'inall1 lia4leQ 7e&%: =o/ Civil lia4ilities onl1/ %eath was not directl1 d!e to the hac,in)/ Pro+i'ate ca!se is that ca!se# which# in nat!ral and contin!o!s se*!ence# !n4ro,en 41 an1 efficient intervenin) ca!se# &rod!ces in@!r1 and witho!t which the res!lt wo!ld not have occ!rred/ The r!le is that the death of the victi' '!st 4e the direct# nat!ral# and lo)ical conse*!ence of the wo!nd inflicted !&on hi' 41 the acc!sed to 4e &roven 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t (4eca!se this is a cri'inal conviction)/ 2nfection of wo!nd was efficient intervenin) ca!se 4etween wo!ndin) and hac,in) which was distinct and forei)n to the cri'e/ The &etitioner at the ver1 least is )!ilt1 of sli)ht &h1sical in@!r1/ C!t 4eca!se .r4ano and avier !sed the facilities of 4aran)a1 'ediators to effect a co'&ro'ise a)ree'ent# the cri'inal lia4ilit1 is wi&ed o!t 41 virt!e of P% =o/ 160"# Sec/ 2(3) which allows settle'ent of 'inor offenses/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; INTOD 9. CA 216 SCRA 62 (1$$2) Fact : 2ntod and co'&an1 were tas,ed to ,ill Palan);&an)an d!e to land dis&!te/ The1 fired at her roo'/ 8owever# she was in another cit1 then th!s the1 hit no one/ I ue: FO= he is lia4le for atte'&ted '!rderQ

(act!al i'&ossi4ilit1 of the co''ission of the cri'e is not a defense/ 2f the cri'e co!ld have 4een co''itted had the circ!'stances 4een as the defendant 4elieved the' to 4e# it is no defense that in realit1# the cri'e was i'&ossi4le of co''ission/ :e)al i'&ossi4ilit1 on the other hand is a defense which can 4e invo,ed to avoid cri'inal lia4ilit1 for an atte'&t/ The fact!al sit!ation in the case at 4ar &resents a &h1sical i'&ossi4ilit1 which rendered the intended cri'e i'&ossi4le of acco'&lish'ent/ And !nder Article 5# &ara)ra&h 2 of the Revised Penal Code# s!ch is s!fficient to 'a,e the act an i'&ossi4le cri'e/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. SIMON s!&ra ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. SALEY 2$1 SCRA D16 (1$$")H ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /ADILLA v. COURT OF A//EALS s!&ra ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. A:AGON 11 SCRA 266 (1$"") Nature: A&&eal fro' the @!d)'ent of the C(2 of Mas4ate Fact : On A&ril 1D# 1$"1# while Celis :!&an)o and his co'&anions were cele4ratin) the 4irthda1 of 2sa4elo Rada-a r/# A4ner On)onion and Mateo A4a)on arrived/ On)onion# with a 6;inched do!4le;4laded ,nife sta44ed :!&an)o 3 or 5 ti'es/ A4a)on also sta44ed :!&an)o several ti'es with a D;inch ,nife/ Fhile :!&an)o was carried o!t# On)onion# who was waitin) o!tside# drew his firear' and fired two shots at :!&an)o and his co'&anions to scare the' off/ Fhen the1 ran awa1# On)onion# A4a)on and their co'&anions a&&roached and too, t!rns in sta44in) the 4od1 of Celis :!&an)o with 4olos and ,nives/ I ue 6 7e&% a$% Rat"#: 1. WON O$*#$"#$ a$% A)a*#$ are *u"&t1 #+ .ur%er Ye . 8avin) ad'itted the ,illin)# On)onion '!st clearl1 esta4lish that he acted in self;defense/ 8owever# the n!'4er and nat!re of the sta4 wo!nds inflicted 41 'ore than one &erson 4elie his theor1/ Accordin) to testi'onies# the attac, 41 the assailants was !n&rovo,ed/ 2t was also indicated that the sta44in) was intentional/ 2t is also ne)ated 41 the &h1sical evidence and other circ!'stances# s!ch as his fail!re to &resent the ,nife !&on s!rrender# his fail!re to

/EO/LE v. 9ELASCO D3 SCRA 6D5 (1$D6) Fact : Acc!sed Ricardo <elasco char)ed of ra&in five 1ear old 7stelita :o&e- on =ov/ 2# 1$6D# 6330 &' at =orth Ce'eter1# Manila/ Ph1sical e+a' showed3 fresh laceration of h1'en# va)inal o&enin) &ainf!l and sensitive to to!ch# '!st have has se+!al interco!rse recentl1 4efore e+a'ination I ue: FO= conviction is valid 7e&%: >es/ Conviction affir'ed Rat"#: <alid and stron) testi'on1 of 'edico;le)al officer whoBs an e+&ert/ Proof eno!)h that 'ale or)an entered within la4ia of &!dend!' as re*!ired in Peo&le v/ Pastores ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. SA:ALONES u!ra ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; UR:ANO v. IAC 16D SCRA 1 (1$"")

7e&%: =o/ Onl1 i'&ossi4le cri'e/ 2n the Phili&&ines# Article 5(2) &rovides and &!nishes an i'&ossi4le cri'e9an act which# were it not ai'ed at so'ethin) *!ite i'&ossi4le or carried o!t with 'eans which &rove inade*!ate wo!ld constit!te a felon1 a)ainst &erson or fa'il1/ 2ts &!r&ose is to &!nish cri'inal tendencies/ There '!st either 4e (1) le)al res&onsi4ilit1# or (2) &h1sical i'&ossi4ilit1 of acco'&lishin) the intended act in order to *!alif1 the act as an i'&ossi4le cri'e/ :e)al i'&ossi4ilit1 occ!rs where the intended acts even if co'&leted# wo!ld not a'o!nt to a cri'e/ Th!s3 :e)al i'&ossi4ilit1 wo!ld a&&l1 to those circ!'stances where3 (1) The 'otive# desire and e+&ectation is to &erfor' an act in violation of the lawH (2) There is no intention to &erfor' the &h1sical actH (3) There is a &erfor'ance of the intended &h1sical actH and (5) The conse*!ence res!ltin) fro' the intended act does not a'o!nt to a cri'e/ (act!al i'&ossi4ilit1 occ!rs when e+traneo!s circ!'stances !n,nown to actor or 4e1ond control &revent cons!''ation of intended cri'e/

tell the &olice a!thorities that he ,illed the deceased in self; defense# and the a4sence of an1 in@!r1 on the 4od1 of On)onion/ =ot one of the ele'ents of self;defense is &resent/ A&&ellant On)onionKs theor1 of self;defense is therefore !ntena4le/ Minor inconsistencies in the testi'on1 of &rosec!tion witnesses do not affect their credi4ilit1/ A&&ellant A4a)onKs defense was li,ewise !ntena4le# since it can 4e &roved that it was not &h1sicall1 i'&ossi4le for hi' to 4e at the scene of the cri'e -. WON c#$ !"rac1 ca$ )e e ta)&" 'e% Ye . A&&ellants f!ll1 conc!rred in their actions/ The1 ca'e to the victi' one after the other and attac,ed hi' with !ndiverted &!r&ose/ The1 also left to)ether/ That the assailants acted in concerted efforts with co''!nit1 of cri'inal &!r&ose to ens!re the death of the victi' is indicative of cons&irac1 4etween the'/ 7ven if cons&irac1 had not 4een esta4lished# the lia4ilit1 of the two a&&ellants wo!ld not chan)e for each inflicted on his own '!lti&le sta44in) 4lows on the victi' res!ltin) in 'ortal in@!ries/ The1 acted as &rinci&als 41 direct &artici&ation/ Treacher1 was li,ewise &roven 41 evidence since the attac, was i''ediate# s!dden and !ne+&ected/ Ju%*.e$t: !d)'ent a&&ealed fro' is affir'ed# 4!t the &enalties are 'odified ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. NAR9AE= s!&ra ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. :O7OLST0CA:ALLERO 61 SCRA 1"0 (1$D5) Fact : C!ni)!nda Coholst Ca4allero see,s reversal of the @!d)'ent of the C(2 of Or'oc Cit1 findin) her )!ilt1 of &arricide 9she alle)edl1 ,illed her h!s4and# (rancisco Ca4allero# !sin) a h!ntin) ,nife/ The co!&le was 'arried in 1$66 and had a da!)hter/ The1 had fre*!ent *!arrels d!e to the h!s4andKs )a'4lin) and drin,in) and there were ti'es when he 'altreated and a4!sed his wife/ After 'ore than a 1ear# (rancisco a4andoned his fa'il1/ 2n 1$6"# C!ni)!nda went carolin) with her friends and when she was on her wa1 ho'e she 'et her h!s4and who s!ddenl1 held her 41 the collar and acc!sed her of )oin) o!t for &rostit!tion/ Then he said he wo!ld ,ill her# held her 41 the hair# sla&&ed her !ntil her nose 4led then &!shed her towards the )ro!nd/ She fell to the )ro!nd# he ,nelt on her and &roceeded to cho,e her/ C!ni)!nda# havin) earlier felt a ,nife t!c,ed in (ranciscoKs 4elt line while holdin) !nto his waist so she wo!ldnKt fall to the )ro!nd# )ra44ed the h!ntin) ,nife and thr!st it into her h!s4andKs left side# near the 4elt line @!st a4ove

the thi)h/ 8e died 2 da1s after the incident d!e to the sta4 wo!nd/ Then she ran ho'e and threw the ,nife awa1/ The ne+t da1# she s!rrendered herself to the &olice alon) with the torn dress that she wore the ni)ht 4efore/ I ue: FO= C!ni)!nda# in sta44in) her h!s4and# acted in le)iti'ate self;defense 7e&%: >es# she did/ Ac*!itted Rat"#: 1/ C!rden if &roof of self;defense rests on the acc!sed/ 2n this case# the location and nat!re of the sta4 wo!nd confir's that the said victi'# the h!s4and# was the a))ressor/ Fith her h!s4and ,neelin) over her and cho,in) her# acc!sed had no other choice 4!t to &!ll the ,nife t!c,ed in his 4elt line and thr!st it into his side/ The fact that the 4low landed in the vicinit1 where the ,nife was drawn fro' is a stron) indication of the tr!th of the testi'on1 of the acc!sed/ Cased on the re;enact'ent of the incident# it was nat!ral for her to !se her ri)ht hand to l!n)e the ,nife into h!s4andKs left side/ 2/ Three re*!isites of le)iti'ate self;defense are &resent U$&a(+u& a**re "#$. The h!s4and resortin) to &!shin) her to the )ro!nd then cho,in) her @!st 4eca!se she was o!t carolin) at ni)ht constit!tes !nlawf!l a))ression# There was i''inent dan)er of in@!r1/ Rea #$a)&e $ece "t1 #+ .ea$ e.!&#1e%. Fhile 4ein) cho,ed# C!ni)!nda had no other reco!rse 4!t to ta,e hold of the ,nife and &l!n)e it into h!s4andKs side in order to &rotect herself/ Reasona4le necessit1 does not de&end !&on the har' done 4!t on the i''inent dan)er of s!ch in@!r1/ LacB #+ u++"c"e$t !r#v#cat"#$. &rovocation is s!fficient when &ro&ortionate to the a))ression/ 2n this case# there was no s!fficient &rovocation on the &art of the acc!sed (C!ni)!nda) to warrant the attac, of her h!s4and/ All that she did to &rovo,e an i'a)inar1 co''ission of a wron) in the 'ind of her h!s4and was to 4e o!t carolin) at ni)ht/ 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 /EO/LE v. RICO7ERMOSO 66 SCRA 531 (1$D5) Nature: A&&eal fro' a @!d)e'ent of the Circ!it Cri'inal Co!rt of :!cena Cit1 Fact : On the 'ornin) of an!ar1 30# 1$66# 0e'iniano 'et Pio and as,ed hi' if he co!ld have his share of the &ala1 that Pio harvested fro' tillin) 0e'inianoKs land/ Pio told hi' to dro& 41 his ho!se an1ti'e to )et it so 0e'iniano said he will dro& 41 in the afternoon with his son Marianito/ That afternoon# 0e'iniano

sat o!tside PioKs ho!se to wait for the &ro'ised &ala1/ Pio was standin) 41 the door of his ho!se with Severo also standin) 41/ Marianito was standin) a few feet 4ehind his father with a )!n sl!n) in his sho!lder/ 8ostile# Pio told 0e'iniano that he was not )oin) to )ive hi' &ala1 th!s 0e'iniano re'onstrated/ Pio then !nsheathed his 4olo and a&&roached 0e'iniano fro' the left/ Severo too, an a+e and a&&roached fro' the ri)ht/ At this# 0e'iniano held !& his hands and told Severo not to fi)ht/ Pio then sta44ed 0e'inianoKs nec, with the 4olo/ Fith 0e'iniano faced down on the )ro!nd# Severo hac,ed his 4ac, with the a+e/ Fhile this was )oin) on# !an s!ddenl1 e'4raced Marianito fro' 4ehind/ The1 )ra&&led and rolled downhill where Marianito &assed o!t/ Fhen he ca'e to# he saw his 'ortall1 wo!nded father and carried hi' a short distance/ 0e'iniano died at a&&ro+i'atel1 2&'/ Pio is a f!)itive fro' @!stice in this case/ Severo and !an were convicted of '!rder and sentenced to recl!sion &er&et!a/ The two were also convicted of lesions leves (for Marianito)/ Other three were ac*!itted/ Severo and !an a&&ealed for the '!rder conviction/ The1 contend that 0e'iniano !nsheathed his 4olo first so Pio 'et hi' and str!c,/ As 0e'iniano t!rned to flee# Pio str!c, a)ain on the left side and th!s 0e'iniano fell to the )ro!nd and died d!e to the 4leedin)/ Marianito was e'4raced 41 !an 4eca!se he alle)edl1 reached for his )!n and tried to shoot Pio/ Fith this ar)!'ent# the1 shift the res&onsi4ilit1 of the ,illin) to Pio (who was not there and not triedEa f!)itive) and that Pio was onl1 actin) in self;defense/ !an contends he was @!st &rotectin) Pio and Severo when he &revented Mariano fro' firin) his )!n/ A few da1s after filin) this a&&eal however# Severo withdrew and in effect acce&ted &rosec!tionKs version/ So# this a&&eal concerns !an onl1/ I ue: FO= !an cons&ired with Pio and Severe in the ,illin) of 0e'iniano and is he deservin) of recl!sion &er&et!aQ 7e&%: >es# @!d)'ent affir'ed/ Considerin) the trioKs orchestrated 4ehavior and !anKs close relationshi& to Pio and Severo# concl!sion is that he acted in cons&irac1 with the'# &lannin) the whole thin)# fro' the ti'e after Pio 'et 0e'iniano in the 'ornin) to the event in the afternoon/ 8e cannot invo,e Article 11# &ar 5 (@!stif1in) circ!'stances) in e+&lainin) his act of &reventin) Marianito fro' shootin) Pio and Severo as evidence shows he did this to ens!re that the ,illin) of 0e'iniano ha&&ened witho!t an1 ris, to Pio and Severo/ 8is 'alicio!s intention was not to avoid an1 evil fro' Marianito 4!t to forestall an1 interference in the assa!lt done 41 Pio and Severo/ 7ven tho!)h he did not ta,e direct &art in the ,illin)# his cons&irac1 with the others 'ade hi' a &rinci&al too/ Moreover# treacher1 was involved/ !an wea,ened the victi'Ks defense 41 disa4lin) Marianito and ens!red the ,illin) witho!t an1 ris, to the'selves/ Th!s# the act of one is the act of all# and !an is also )!ilt1 of '!rder/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

/EO/LE v. DELIMA 56 Phil/ D3" (1$22) Fact : :oren-o =a&oleon esca&ed fro' @ail/ Poiice'an (eli&e %eli'a fo!nd hi' in the ho!se of or)e Ale)ria# ar'ed with a &ointed &iece of 4a'4oo in the sha&e of a lance/ %eli'a ordered his s!rrender 4!t =a&oleon answered with a stro,e of his lance/ The &olice'an dod)ed it# fired his revolver 4!t didnKt hit =a&oleon/ The cri'inal tried to ran awa1# not throwin) his wea&onH the &olice'an shot hi' dead/ %eli'a was tried and convicted for ho'icideH he a&&ealed/ 7e&%: The SC r!led that %eli'a '!st 4e ac*!itted/ The co!rt held that the ,illin) was done in &erfor'ance of a d!t1/ =a&oleon was !nder the o4li)ation to s!rrender and his diso4edience with a wea&on co'&elled %eli'a to ,ill hi'/ The action was @!stified 41 the circ!'stances/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. OANIS s!&ra ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. :ERONILLA $6 Phil/ 666 (1$66) Nature3 A&&eal fro' the decision of the C(2 of A4ra# convictin) the acc!sed of '!rder/ Fact : Arsenio Cor@al was 'a1or of :a Pa- A4ra at the o!t4rea, of war and contin!ed to serve as 'a1or d!rin) the a&anese occ!&ation/ %ec 1$# 1$55 acc!sed;a&&ellant Man!el Ceronilla was a&&ointed Militar1 Ma1or of :a Pa- 41 :t/ Col Arnold/ Si'!ltaneo!sl1# he received a 'e'orand!' iss!ed 41 Arnold a!thori-in) the' to a&&oint a @!r1 of 12 4olo'en to tr1 &ersons acc!sed of treason# es&iona)e or aidin) the ene'1/ 8e also received a list of all &!&&et )overn'ent officials of A4ra# with a 'e'orand!' instr!ctin) all Militar1 Ma1ors to investi)ate said &ersons and )ather a)ainst the' co'&laints/ Ceronilla# &!rs!ant to his instr!ctions &laced Cor@al !nder c!stod1 and as,ed residents of :a Pa- to file case a)ainst hi'/ 8e also a&&ointed a 12;'an @!r1 co'&osed of :a4!)!en as chair'an and others# &l!s Alverne and Cal'aceda were &rosec!torsH Pac!ldo as cler, of the @!r1# and 2nover'o as co!nsel for the acc!sed# later Att1/ Carreras vol!ntaril1 a&&eared as co!nsel for Cor@al/ The @!r1 fo!nd Cor@al )!ilt1 on all co!nts and i'&osed death &enalt1/ Ma1or Ceronilla forwarded the records of the case to 8ead*!arters of 2nfantr1 for review/ Records were ret!rned on A&ril 1"# 1$56 with a&&roval of Arnold/ On the sa'e da1# Ceronilla ordered the e+ec!tion of Cor@al/ 2''ediatel1 after the e+ec!tion# Ceronilla re&orted the e+ec!tion to Arnold# the latter co'&le'entin) Ceronilla/ Two 1ears later# Ma1or Ceronillo and others involved in the Cor@al case were indicted 41 C(2 of A4ra for '!rder# for

alle)edl1 cons&irin) and confederatin) in the e+ec!tion of Cor@al/ Pres/ Ro+as iss!ed 7/P/ no/ "# )rantin) a'nest1 to all &ersons who co''itted acts &enali-ed# !nder RPC in f!rtherance of resistance to the ene'1 a)ainst &ersons aidin) in the war efforts of the ene'1/ All the acc!sed (e+ce&t :a4!)!en who filed and )ranted a'nest1 41 the A(P)# filed their a&&lication to Second 0!erilla A'nest1 Co''ission# which denied their a&&lication on the )ro!nd that the1 were ins&ired 41 &!rel1 &ersonal 'otives# th!s re'andin) case to C(2 for trial on 'erits/ On !l1 10# 1$60 Ceronillo# Pac!ldo# <elasco and Adriatico were convicted as cons&irator and co;&rinci&als of cri'e '!rder/ The1 a&&ealed/ I ue: FO= acc!sed a&&ellants are )!ilt1 of '!rderH and FO= the1 sho!ld 4e )ranted a'nest1/ 7e&%: The records are a'&le to show that Ceronilla acted &!rs!ant to the orders of the 2nfantr1 8ead*!arters/ Altho!)h it was alle)ed 41 the state that there was a radio)ra' fro' certain Col/ <ol,'ann to :t/ Col/ Arnold# on the ille)alit1 of Cor@alKs e+ec!tion# there are no s!fficient evidence to show that it was ,nown to Ceronilla/ (!rther'ore# the 'essa)es of Col/ Arnold a&&rovin) the decisions of Ceronilla &rove otherwise/ The testi'on1 of Rafael Cal'aceda# relative of Cor@al was also !nrelia4le/ The state clai's that the a&&ellants held )r!d)es a)ainst late Cor@al# 4!t co!rt said that the cond!ct of the a&&ellants does not dis&ose that the1 were i'&elled 41 'alice/ 2n fact# &rior to the e+ec!tion# Ceronilla sent the decision for review/ The lower co!rt also fo!nd that Cor@al was reall1 )!ilt1 of treasona4le acts/ The co!rt held that the acc!sed;a&&ellants @!st acted !&on the orders of s!&eriors and cri'inal intent was not esta4lished/ 7ven ass!'in) the acc!sed;a&&ellant are )!ilt1 of '!rder# the1 sho!ld not 4e denied of the a'nest1 on the )ro!nd that the sla1in) too, &lace after act!al li4eration of the area fro' ene'1 control/ The co!rt held that an1 reasona4le do!4t as to whether a )iven case falls within the a'nest1 &rocla'ation shall 4e resolved in favor of the acc!sed/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; NASSIF v. /EO/LE D3 Phil/ 6D (1$56) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; TA:UENA v. SANDIGAN:AYAN 121 SCRA 3"$ (1$"3) Fact :  2n a Presidential Me'orand!' (the Marcos Me'orand!') dated an/ 6# 1$"6# President Marcos alle)edl1 co''anded &etitioner Ta4!ena# in his ca&acit1 as 0eneral Mana)er of the Manila 2nternational Air&ort A!thorit1 (M2AA)# ?to &a1 i''ediatel1 the Phili&&ine











=ational Constr!ction Cor&oration# thr! this Office (Office of the President)# the s!' P66M in cash as &artial &a1'ent of M2AABs acco!nt with said co'&an1 'entioned in a Me'orand!' of (Trade and 2nd!str1) Minister Ro4ert On)&in to this Office dated an/ D#1$"6LA Ta4!ena withdrew the s!' of 66M on three se&arate occasions (26M# 26M# 6M E with Adolfo Peralta) and delivered the' to 0i'ene-# MarcosBs &rivate secretar1/ 2t is witho!t dis&!te that Ta4!ena did not follow the nor'al &roced!res in withdrawal and deliver1 of the 'one1 (no dis4!rse'ent sli&s and &aid in cold cash)/ Ta4!ena was onl1 iss!ed a recei&t after the third deliver1 and it did not 'ention an1thin) a4o!t the &!r&ose of the recei&t or the 'one1 4ein) !sed to &a1 P=CC# 4!t 'erel1 ac,nowled)ed that 0i'ene- had received the s!' of 66M fro' Ta4!ena on three occasions/ (!rther'ore# there was no recei&t fro' the P=CC reco)ni-in) &a1'ent of de4t/ Prosec!tion3 there were no standin) o4li)ations in favor of the P=CC at the ti'e of dis4!rse'ent of 66M/ P=CC said the'selves that the1 didnBt receive the P66M/ Ta4!ena clai'ed that he was onl1 co'&l1in) with the direct order of Marcos (&l!s the Marcos 'e'orand!' which contained sa'e order) to i''ediatel1 forward to the office of the President# 66M in cash# as &artial &a1'ent of M2AAKs o4li)ations to P=CC and that he 4elieved that M2AA indeed had those lia4ilities to P=CC/ 2n short# that Ta4!ena acted in )ood faith/ Sandi)an4a1an re@ected Ta4!enaKs clai' of )ood faith and fo!nd hi' )!ilt1 of 'alversation 41 ne)li)ence# hence this case/

I ue: FO= Ta4!ena# in followin) the orders of his s!&erior# was )!ilt1 of 'alversation (or if 4eca!se of the @!stif1in) circ!'stance of followin) the orders of his s!&erior# in )ood faith# he wo!ld not 4e cri'inall1 lia4le# 4!t 'erel1 civill1 lia4le)Q 7e&%: Ta4!ena is 'erel1 civill1 lia4le/ The ver1 fact that he was 'erel1 followin) the orders of his s!&erior is a @!stif1in) circ!'stance/ Rat"#: 1/ On the &oint raised 41 Ta4!ena that he cannot 4e char)ed with intentional 'alversation and 4e convicted 41 'alversation 41 ne)li)ence# the Co!rt r!led that the dolo and c!l&a of the offense is onl1 a 'odalit1 in the &er&etration of the felon1/ The sa'e felon1 is still there and conviction thereof is &ro&er/ 2/ On the defense of )ood faith3 it is a valid defense a)ainst 'alversation 4eca!se it wo!ld ne)ate cri'inal intent/ To constit!te a cri'e# the act '!st# e+ce&t in certain cri'es///4e acco'&anied 41 cri'inal intent or s!ch ne)li)ence or indifference to d!t1 or to conse*!ences as is e*!ivalent to cri'inal intent The 'a+i' act!s non facit re!'# nisi 'ens sit rea E a cri'e is not co''ited if the 'ind

3/

5/

6/

6/

D/

"/

$/

of the &erson &erfor'in) the act co'&lained of is innocent ('alversation cases3 .S v/ Catolico# .S v/ 7lvina)/ The Co!rt# 4ased on the evidence &resented# fo!nd that Ta4!ena had no other choice 4!t to act!all1 follow the order stated in the Marcos Me'orand!'# 4eca!se# as &resident of the Phili&&ines# ind!4ita4l1 the head of )overn'ental a)encies s!ch as the M2AA and P=CC# Marcos is !ndenia4l1 the s!&erior of Ta4!ena/ Ta4!ena entitled to the @!stif1in) circ!'stance of Jan1 &erson who acts in o4edience to an order iss!ed 41 a s!&erior for so'e lawf!l &!r&oseA 4eca!se he is onl1 actin) in )ood faith# faithf!ll1 and efficientl1 carr1in) o!t orders fro' the hi)hest official in the land/ Moreover# there was nothin) in the Marcos Me'orand!' that 'a1 invite s!s&icion ; there was no *!estion a4o!t the lawf!lness of the order contained in s!ch a 'e'orand!'/ Ta4!ena had reason to 4elieve that the 66M was indeed &art of a d!e and de'anda4le de4t# a &ortion of a 4i))er lia4ilit1 to P=CC (e+istence of s!ch de4ts deter'ined fro' testi'onies)/ So even if the order was ille)al and Ta4!ena was not aware of the ille)alit1# he wo!ld not 4e lia4le 4eca!se there wo!ld onl1 4e a 'ista,e of fact co''itted in )ood faith/ Ta4!ena followed the 'e'orand!' to the letter# &a1in) i''ediatel1 the P=CC# thro!)h this office (office of the &resident) the s!' of 66M/ Ta4!ena had reasona4le )ro!nd to 4elieve that the President was entitled to receive the 'one1 4eca!se as Chief 7+ec!tive# Marcos e+ercised s!&ervision and control over )overn'ental a)encies ()ood faith in the &a1'ent of &!4lic f!nds relieves a &!4lic officer fro' the cri'e of 'alversation)/ Fhile even Ta4!ena ad'itted that &roced!res were i)nored and that the dis4!rse'ent was !n!s!al# he is fo!nd to 4e e+c!sed fro' s!ch 4eca!se the Marcos Me'orand!' en@oined his 2MM7%2AT7 COMP:2A=C7/ On the other hand# while this allows for the ne)ation of cri'inal intent# as Ta4!ena acted in )ood faith# he wo!ld still 4e civill1 lia4le (4!t heKs not cri'inall1 lia4le an1'ore# esca&in) the harsher &enalties) (see &a)e 362)/ There is no showin) that Ta4!ena had an1thin) to do with the creation of the Marcos Me'orand!' ; that even if the real &!r&ose 4ehind the 'e'orand!' was to )et 66M fro' &!4lic f!nds# it is clear that he did and wo!ld not &rofit fro' s!ch and that he did not have an1thin) to do with the creation of the 'e'orand!'/ Ta4!ena case is a case concernin) o4edience in )ood faith of a d!l1 e+ec!ted order/ The orderG'e'orand!' ca'e fro' the Office of the President and 4ears the si)nat!re of the &resident hi'self# in effect allowin) for the &res!'&tion that s!ch order was re)!larl1 iss!ed and &atentl1 le)al/ (!rther'ore# the wordin) of the 'e'orand!' e+&ressed a certain !r)enc1 to its e+ec!tion9O4edienta est le)is essential (act swiftl1 witho!t *!estion)/ Ma"$ Rat"#: (!rther'ore# the Co!rt itself raises the contention that the case involves a violation of the acc!sedKs ri)ht to d!e &rocess in the sense that it was o4vio!s that the Sandi)an4a1an was over-ealo!s in its

atte'&t to convict &arties involved E as seen in the vol!'e of *!estions as,ed# and the 'anner the sa'e were &osed (cross e+a'inations characteristic of confrontation# &ro4in) and insin!ation)/ To *!ote !stice Cr!-# ?Res&ect for the Constit!tion is 'ore i'&ortant that sec!rin) a conviction 4ased on a violation of the ri)hts of the acc!sed/A Sandi)an4a1an was o4vio!sl1 4iased# den1in) Ta4!ena and &arties involves the re*!ire'ent of the cold ne!tralit1 of an i'&artial @!d)e/ As a conse*!ence of s!ch violation of d!e &rocess# the order of Sandi)an4a1an was fo!nd void/ =ote that this defense was not raised 41 Ta4!ena/ 9#t"$*:  (o!r conc!rred (=arvasa# <it!)# Na&!nan# Mendo-a)  Si+ dissented (Padilla# %avide# Ro'ero# P!no# Melo# Pan)ani4an)  !stice 8er'osisi'a too, no &art as he was a si)nator1 to the SC decision  Re)alaso# Cellosillo and Torres# r# Pro hac vice ('eanin) the1 @oin the 'a@orit1 o&inion 4!t the1 reserve their ri)ht to chan)e their vote sho!ld a si'ilar case with the sa'e facts arise/) I.!&"cat"#$ #+ pro hac vice: Ta4!ena v/ Sandi)an4a1an is not &recedent for the &ro&osition that an1 &!4lic official who 4lindl1 follows orders of their s!&erior/ Th!s# this case is not a!thoritative on Art/ 11(6)/ Dec" "#$: Ta4!ena and Peralta ac*!itted/ Dav"%e6 %" e$t"$*: %avide disa)rees with 'a@orit1 that all the re*!isites of the si+th @!stif1in) circ!'stance in art 11 of the RPC were &resent The si+th circ!'stance of the said article i'&lies 3 thin)s3 a) that the order was iss!ed 41 a s!&eriorH 4) s!ch order '!st 4e for so'e lawf!l &!r&ose andH c) 'eans !sed 41 s!4ordinate to carr1 o!t said order '!st 4e lawf!l/ Accordin) to %avide# facts show that the de4t was onl1 35/6M so order of Marcos had e+cess of 20/6M ; said order then had no fact!al or le)al 4asis and !nlawf!l/ R#.er#6 %" e$t"$*: 8e also 4elieves that not all re*!isites were &resent to warrant a @!stif1in) circ!'stance as Ta4!ena# 41 his own ad'ission# did not follow standard o&eratin) &roced!res (no vo!chers# no a&&roval 41 Co''ission on A!dit# non;iss!ance of a recei&t in 1st 2 deliveries# non;iss!ance of recei&t 41 P=CC# deliver1 to office of 0i'ene- Onot office in Malacanan)P# a stran)er to contract 4etween P=CC and M2AA)/ The entire &rocess# done with haste and with a total disre)ard of a&&ro&riate a!ditin) re*!ire'ents was not 4ased on nor'al &roced!re/ Ta4!enaKs ran, does not e+c!se hi' fro' i)norin) s!ch/ /u$#6 %" e$t"$*: 8e concentrates on the case involvin) a 'ista,e in fact# citin) the Ah C8on) case a'on) others# and disc!ssin) article 3 in so'e detail ;sa1in) that 'ista,e in fact

sho!ld not e+c!se the acc!sed fro' inc!rrin) lia4ilit1/ 2t was also clear fro' the facts that it too, one 'onth for Ta4!ena to co'&l1 with order (startin) fro' the ti'e Marcos called hi' !& 41 &hone ; to which the 'e'orand!' containin) the sa'e orders followed a wee, later)# which is 'ore than eno!)h ti'e to co'&l1 with &roced!re/ 8e also adds that if there was not eno!)h ti'e# Ta4!ena sho!ld have as,ed for 'ore ti'e or at least co''!nicated s!ch &ro4le's to the &resident/ Moreover# to ac*!it the &etitioners i'&l1 that &eo&le 4elieve that the &resident is alwa1s ri)ht# that he or she can do no wron) ; that the &resident is a4ove and 4e1ond the law/ /a$*a$")a$6 %" e$t"$*: 8e is of the sa'e view as Ro'ero# %avide and P!no 4!t also raises so'e &oints3 the defense of o4edience to a s!&eriorKs order is alread1 o4solete# as deter'ined 41 the Tri4!nal in =!re'4er)# in its @!d)'ent a)ainst =a-i war cri'inals who &!t !& the defense that the1 were 'erel1 followin) orders/ The tri4!nal said that the tr!e test did not lie with the e+istence of an order 4!t whether a 'oral choice was in fact# &ossi4le/ To allow this defense to hold in the Ta4!ena case sets a dan)ero!s &recedent in the co!ntr1 4eca!se it wo!ld de&rive the Co!rts the 'oral a!thorit1 to convict an1 s!4ordinate 4eca!se he or she was J'erel1 followin) the orders of the his or her s!&erior (allowin) the sa'e doctrine to 4e invo,ed in si'ilar cri'inal cases 4efore the SC and even in the inferior co!rts who have no choice 4!t to follow the doctrines set 41 the SC)/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; I$ Re: M3NAG7TEN " 7n)/ Re&/ D1" Fact : On an/ 20# 1"53# the &risoner# %aniel MK=a)hten shot 7dward %r!''ond with a &istol/ The 'ortal wo!nd ca!sed 41 the shot event!all1 led to the latterKs death/ Fitnesses were called to &rove that MK=a)hten was not in a so!nd state of 'ind !&on co''ittin) the act# that he was havin) 'or4id del!sions/ A &erson !nder a 'or4id del!sion 'i)ht have a 'oral &erce&tion of ri)ht and wron)# 4!t in the case of MK=a)hten# it was a del!sion which carried hi' awa1 4e1ond the &ower of his control and left hi' no s!ch &erce&tion/ I ue: FO= at the ti'e the act co''itted# &risoner had !se of his !nderstandin) so as to ,now that he was doin) a wron) act 7e&%: =o/ !rors were of o&inion that the &risoner was not sensi4le at the ti'e he co''itted the act# or that he was violatin) the law The followin) *!estions were &ro&o!nded3 1/ Fhat is the law res&ectin) alle)ed cri'es co''itted 41 &ersons afflicted with insane del!sionQ As# for instance# where at the ti'e of the co''ission of the alle)ed cri'e# the acc!sed ,new he was actin) contrar1 to law# 4!t did the act co'&lained of with a view# !nder the infl!ence of insane

2/

3/ 5/ 6/

del!sion# of redressin) or reven)in) so'e s!&&osed )rievance or in@!r1 or of &rod!cin) so'e s!&&osed &!4lic 4enefitQ Fhat are the &ro&er *!estions to 4e s!4'itted to the @!r1 when a &erson alle)ed to 4e afflicted with insane del!sion is char)ed with the co''ission of a cri'e and insanit1 is set !& as a defenseQ 2n what ter's o!)ht the *!estion 4e left to the @!r1# as to the &risonerKs state of 'ind at the ti'e when the act was co''ittedQ 2f a &erson !nder an insane del!sion as to e+istin) facts co''its an offense in conse*!ence thereof# is he there41 e+c!sedQ Can a 'edical 'an (Q) conversant with the disease of insanit1 who never saw the &risoner &revio!sl1 to the trial# 4!t who was &resent d!rin) the whole trial and the e+a'ination of all the witnesses# 4e as,ed his o&inion at the state of the &risonerKs 'ind at the ti'e of the alle)ed cri'eQ

A$ (er )1 Mr6 Ju t"ce Mau&e: 1/ There is no law that 'a,es &ersons in the state descri4ed in the *!estion not res&onsi4le for their cri'inal acts/ To render a &erson irres&onsi4le for cri'e on acco!nt of !nso!ndness of 'ind# the !nso!ndness sho!ld# accordin) to the law# as it has lon) 4een !nderstood and held# 4e s!ch as rendered hi' inca&a4le fro' ,nowin) ri)ht fro' wron)/ 2/ The *!estions to 4e s!4'itted to the @!r1 are those *!estions of fact which are raised on record/ The1 are s!&&osed to assist the @!r1 in co'in) to a ri)ht concl!sion/ Fhat those *!estions are# and the 'anner of s!4'ittin) the'# is a 'atter of discretion for the @!d)e# a discretion to 4e )!ided 41 a consideration of all the circ!'stances attendin) the in*!ir1/ 3/ There are no ter's which the @!d)e is 41 law re*!ired to !se/ 5/ Answer to first *!estion is a&&lica4le to 5th *!estion 6/ These circ!'stances# of his never havin) seen the &erson 4efore# and of his havin) 'erel1 4een &resent at the trial# not 4ein) necessaril1 s!fficient to e+cl!de the lawf!lness of a *!estion which is otherwise lawf!lH tho!)h 2 will not sa1 that an in*!ir1 'i)ht not 4e in s!ch a state# as that these circ!'stances sho!ld have s!ch an effect/ L#r% C'"e+ Ju t"ce T"$%a&: 1/ 8e is &!nisha4le accordin) to the nat!re of the cri'e co''itted# if he ,new at the ti'e of co''ittin) s!ch cri'e that he was actin) contrar1 to law 2/ [ 3/ 3 7ver1 'an is to 4e &res!'ed sane# and to &ossess a s!fficient de)ree of reason to 4e res&onsi4le for his cri'es# !ntil the contrar1 4e &roved to their satisfaction/ To esta4lish a defense of the )ro!nd of insanit1# it '!st 4e clearl1 &roved that# at the ti'e of the co''ittin) of the act# the &art1 acc!sed was la4orin) !nder

s!ch a defect of reason fro' disease of the 'ind# as not to ,now the nat!re and *!alit1 of the act he was doin)H or if he did ,now it# that he did not ,now he was doin) what was wron)/ 5/ The *!estion '!st de&end on the nat!re of the del!sion/ On the ass!'&tion that he la4ors !nder s!ch &artial del!sion onl1 and is not in other res&ects insane# we thin, he '!st 4e considered in the sa'e sit!ation as to res&onsi4ilit1 as if the facts with res&ect to which the del!sion e+ists were real/ 6/ Fe thin, the 'edical 'an# !nder the circ!'stances s!&&osed# cannot in strictness 4e as,ed his o&inion in the ter's a4ove stated# 4eca!se each of those *!estions involves the deter'ination of the tr!th of the facts de&osed to# which it is for the @!r1 to decided# and the *!estions are not 'ere *!estions !&on a 'atter of science# in which case s!ch evidence is ad'issi4le/ C!t where the facts are ad'itted or not dis&!ted# and the *!estion 4eco'es s!4stantiall1 one of science onl1# it 'a1 4e convenient to allow the *!estion to 4e &!t in that )eneral for'# tho!)h the sa'e cannot 4e insisted on as a 'atter of ri)ht/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. ESTRADA 333 SCRA 6$$ (2000) Nature: A!to'atic review of the death &enalt1 Fact : %ece'4er 2D# 1$$5# at the St/ ohnKs Cathedral# %a)!&an Cit1# while the sacra'ent of confir'ation was 4ein) &erfor'ed 41 the Cisho&# a 'an fro' the crowd wal,ed towards the center of the altar and sat on the Cisho&Ks chair/ Crisanto Santillan# who was an assistant saw this/ 8e re*!ested the acc!sed to vacate# 4!t the latter ref!sed/ The1 called on the )!ard/ %es&ite re&eated re*!est# he did not 'ove/ As the )!ard was atte'&tin) to stri,e the victi' with his ni)htstic, to 'a,e hi' leave acc!sed;a&&ellant drew a ,nife and sta44ed Mararac/ 8e re&eated it a lot/ After# he )ot !& and sho!ted via the 'icH =o one can 4eat 'e hereX SPO1 (rancisco saw a 'an# with red stains on his shirt and a ,nife in one hand sittin) on a chair/ 8e advised hi' to dro& the ,nife/ Acc!sed;a&&ellant o4e1ed# Mararac# the sec!rit1 )!ard# was 4ro!)ht to the hos&ital where he e+&ired a few 'in!tes !&on arrival/ Acc!sed;a&&ellant# filed a J%e'!rrer to 7videnceJ where he clai's that3 &rosec!tion failed to &rove '!rderH that there was !nlawf!l a))ression 41 the victi'H and that acc!sed;a&&ellant was of !nso!nd 'ind/ 2ns&ector <alde- ( ail warden) re*!ested the co!rt to allow acc!sed;a&&ellant# to 4e treated at the Ca)!io 0eneral 8os&ital to deter'ine whether he sho!ld re'ain in @ail or 4e transferred to so'e other instit!tion/ Fhile 'otion for reconsideration was &endin)# co!nsel for acc!sed;a&&ellant filed a JMotion to Confine Acc!sed for Ph1sical# Mental and Ps1chiatric 7+a'ination/J A&&ellantKs co!nsel infor'ed the co!rt that acc!sed;a&&ellant had 4een e+hi4itin) a4nor'al 4ehavior for the &ast wee,s/ There were 2 letters of the warden

re*!estin) the sa'e/ The trial co!rt denied reconsideration of the order den1in) the J%e'!rrer to 7vidence/J %r/ Maria Soledad 0awidan# a resident &h1sician in the %e&art'ent of Ps1chiatr1 at the Ca)!io 0eneral 8os&ital# testified to the acc!sed 4ein) confined and dia)nosed with JSchi-o&hrenic Ps1chosis# Paranoid T1&e9schi-o&hrenia# &aranoid# chronic# &aranoid t1&e/J The trial co!rt rendered a decision on !ne 23# 1$$D/ 2t !&held the &rosec!tion evidence and fo!nd acc!sed;a&&ellant )!ilt1 of the cri'e char)ed and there41 sentenced hi' to death# I ue: FO= he was indeed insane

7e&%: Fhen a &erson co''its a felonio!s act the act is &res!'ed to have 4een done vol!ntaril1/ 2n the a4sence of evidence to the contrar1# the law &res!'es that ever1 &erson is of so!nd 'ind and that all acts are vol!ntar1/ An insane &erson is e+e'&t fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1 !nless he has acted d!rin) a l!cid interval/ 2n the e1es of the law# insanit1 e+ists when there is a co'&lete de&rivation of intelli)ence in co''ittin) the act/ Mere a4nor'alit1 of the 'ental fac!lties will not e+cl!de i'&!ta4ilit1/ Since the &res!'&tion is alwa1s in favor of sanit1# he who invo,es insanit1 as an e+e'&tin) circ!'stance '!st &rove it 41 clear and &ositive evidence/ There are certain circ!'stances that sho!ld have &laced the trial co!rt on notice that a&&ellant 'a1 not have 4een in f!ll &ossession of his 'ental fac!lties e/)/ when he attac,ed Mararac# then went !& the 'icro&hone/ Acc!sed;a&&ellantKs histor1 of 'ental illness was 4ro!)ht to the co!rts/ T# te t ('et'er t'e accu e% (#u&% 'ave a +a"r tr"a& there are two distinct 'atters to 4e deter'ined (1) whether defendant is coherent to &rovide his co!nsel with infor'ation necessar1 (2) whether he is a4le to co'&rehend the si)nificance of the trial and his relation to it/ To &!t a le)all1 inco'&etent &erson on trial or to convict and sentence hi' is a violation of the constit!tional ri)hts to a fair trial/ The deter'ination of whether a sanit1 investi)ation or hearin) sho!ld 4e ordered rests )enerall1 in the discretion of the trial co!rt/ 2n the case at 4ar# when acc!sed; a&&ellant 'oved for s!s&ension of the arrai)n'ent on the )ro!nd of acc!sedKs 'ental condition# the trial co!rt denied the 'otion after findin) that the *!estions &ro&o!nded on a&&ellant were intelli)entl1 answered 41 hi'/ The fact that acc!sed; a&&ellant was a4le to answer the *!estions as,ed 41 the trial co!rt is not concl!sive evidence that he was co'&etent eno!)h to stand trial and assist in his defense/ The trial co!rt too, it solel1 !&on itself to deter'ine the sanit1 of acc!sed;a&&ellant/ The trial @!d)e is not a &s1chiatrist or &s1cholo)ist or so'e other e+&ert e*!i&&ed with the s&eciali-ed ,nowled)e/ 2f the 'edical histor1 was not eno!)h to create a reasona4le do!4t in the @!d)eKs 'ind of acc!sed;a&&ellantKs co'&etenc1 to stand trial# s!4se*!ent events sho!ld have done so/ One 'onth after the &rosec!tion rested its case# there were letters re*!estin) that acc!sed 4e confined in hos&ital# as well as the co!nselKs filin) of 'otion/ And des&ite all the overwhel'in) indications of

acc!sed;a&&ellantKs state of 'ind# the @!d)e &ersisted in his &ersonal assess'ent and never even considered s!4@ectin) acc!sed;a&&ellant to a 'edical e+a'ination/ To to& it all# the @!d)e fo!nd a&&ellant )!ilt1 and sentenced hi' to deathX Ju%*.e$t: At this late ho!r# a 'edical findin) alone 'a1 'a,e it i'&ossi4le for !s to eval!ate a&&ellantKs 'ental condition at the ti'e of the cri'eKs co''ission for hi' to avail of the e+e'&tin) circ!'stance of insanit1/ =onetheless# !nder the &resent circ!'stances# acc!sed;a&&ellantKs co'&etence to stand trial '!st 4e &ro&erl1 ascertained to ena4le hi' to &artici&ate in his trial 'eanin)f!ll1/ Re'anded to the co!rt a *!o for the cond!ct of a &ro&er 'ental e+a'ination on acc!sed; a&&ellant# a deter'ination of his co'&etenc1 to stand trial# and for f!rther &roceedin)s/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. 9ILLA JR. 331 SCRA 152 (2000) Nature: A&&eal to decision of RTC that convicted hi' of 5 '!rders/ Fact : %ionito (ernande- was c!ttin) )rass when his nei)h4or Rodolfo <illa# r/# a 'e'4er of the CA(0. ca'e o!t with his M; 1 0arand rifle and shot %ionito ,illin) hi' instantl1 (discovered later that %ionito acc!sed hi' of stealin) chic,ens)/ Ronald and Sheila# children of %ionito# r!shed o!t and were also shot/ Sheila was onl1 shot in the thi)h and t!''1/ Sa'!el 7clevia# atte'&ted to wrestle the rifle 4!t was also )!nned down/ <illa r/ s!rrendered and was char)ed with '!lti&le '!rder/ 8e &leaded not )!ilt1 and invo,ed self defense (sa1s that %ionito was char)in) at hi' with a 4olo)/ 8is new law1er (he chan)ed law1ers in the 'iddle) 'oved for a &s1chiatric e+a'ination and it was )ranted/ 8e was confined in the Mental 8os&ital for eval!ation (for insanit1) for a 'onth which res!lted in the findin) of 2nsanit1 or Ps1chosis classified as Schi-o&hrenia/ 8e was fo!nd to 4e inco'&etent to stand trial/ After 6 'onths# the doctors fo!nd hi' fit to stand trial/ After his release# he &leaded insanit1 as a defense# which was disre)arded/ The onl1 iss!e to 4e resolved is whether acc!sed;a&&ellant was insane d!rin) the co''ission of the cri'es as wo!ld e+e'&t hi' fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1/ 7e&%: Co!rt was not convinced that he was insane d!rin) the co''ission of the cri'e since the eval!ation did not sa1 so in !ne*!ivocal ter's/ %r/ Ialsos was !ns!re when she testified/ 2n order that insanit1 can 4e considered as an e+e'&tin) circ!'stance# it '!st 4e shown to e+ist @!st 4efore or d!rin) the co''ission of the offense/ 2t '!st 4e shown 4e1ond do!4t that there was co'&lete de&rivation of reason or discern'ent and freedo' of the will at the ti'e of the co''ission of the cri'e# which the acc!sed failed to &rove/  2nsanit1 is evidenced 41 a deran)ed and &erverted condition of the 'ental fac!lties which is 'anifested in







lan)!a)e and cond!ct/ An insane &erson has no f!ll and clear !nderstandin) of the nat!re and conse*!ences of his acts/ Fe are convinced that acc!sed;a&&ellant was sane at the ti'e he &er&etrated the ,illin)s/ The followin) circ!'stances clearl1 &oint to saneness/ (a) 2''ediatel1 s!rrenderin) to the PoliceH (4) 8e showed re'orse d!rin) his confine'entH (c) 0ave a sworn state'ent 4efore the Prosec!torKs Office after the cri'es narratin) the incident (ad'it that he was of so!nd 'ind)/ These are hardl1 the acts of a &erson with a sic, 'ind/ The law &res!'es ever1 'an to 4e of so!nd 'ind/ Th!s# a &erson acc!sed of a cri'e who &leads the e+e'&tin) circ!'stance of insanit1 has the 4!rden of &rovin) it/ The defense 4an,s heavil1 on the findin)s of the &s1chiatrists/ %octors did not sa1 that he was totall1 insane to warrant concl!sion that he was insane eno!)h to ,ill all those &eo&le/ Fe a)ree with the trial co!rt that the res!lts of the e+a'inations cond!cted 41 the &s1chiatrists on acc!sed;a&&ellant a&&ear to 4e 4ased on inco'&lete or ins!fficient facts/ Records show that the &s1chiatrists relied 'ainl1 on the data s!&&lied 41 acc!sed;a&&ellant and his &olice escort/ 2t co!ld 4e that he was insane while 4ein) eval!ated and was contacted d!rin) his detention &rior trial# 'a14e d!e to )!ilt or reali-ations/ To 4e a defense it has to 4e there when cri'e was co''issioned/ There sho!ld 4e no a))ravatin) circ!'stance @!st 4eca!se he was fro' CA(0. and had an M;1 0rand Rifle/

Avelina testified that she saw the acc!sed e'er)e fro' the ho!se holdin) a 4olo/ She ran for safet1H %!rin) the &eriod he sta1ed in her ho!se# she did not notice an1thin) &ec!liar in his 4ehavior that wo!ld s!))est he was s!fferin) fro' an1 'ental illness/ %r/ Filson Ti4a1an declared that Madaran) was co''itted to the =ational Center or Medical 8elath (=CM8) on !l1 1$$5 !&on the order of the co!rt to deter'ine the fitness of the acc!sed to stand trial/ The =CM8 cond!cted three 'edical and &s1chiatric eval!ations of the acc!sed d!rin) his sta1 there/ 8e was dia)nosed to 4e s!fferin) fro' schi-o&hrenia/ 8e also testified that it was hi)hl1 &ossi4le that the acc!sed was s!fferin) fro' schi-o&hrenia &rior to his co''ission of the cri'e/ Schi-o&hrenia is a t1&e of &s1chosis# which is characteri-ed 41 i'&aired f!nda'ental reasonin) del!sions# hall!cinations# etc/ The &atient 'a1 4e inca&a4le of distin)!ishin) ri)ht fro' wron) or ,now what he is doin)/ 8e 'a1 4eco'e destr!ctive or have a &ro&ensit1 to attac, if his hall!cinations are violent/ 8owever# a schi-o&hrenic 'a1 have l!cid intervals d!rin) which he 'a1 4e a4le to distin)!ish ri)ht fro' wron)/ Ma1 1$$6 ; Madaran)Ks third &s1chiatric eval!ation showed that his 'ental condition had considera4l1 i'&roved/ 8e was dischar)ed fro' the hos&ital and reco''itted to @ail to stand trial/ 8e was convicted 41 the trial co!rt as his evidence failed to ref!te the &res!'&tion of sanit1 at the ti'e he co''itted the offense/ 8e contends that at the ti'e he sta44ed his wife he was co'&letel1 de&rived of intelli)ence# 'a,in) his cri'inal act invol!ntar1/ 8is !nsta4le state of 'ind co!ld alle)edl1 4e ded!ced fro' the followin)3  8e had no recollection of the sta44in)/ 8ence# he was co'&letel1 !naware of his acts and '!st have co''itted the acts with the least discern'ent/  8is 4ehavior at the ti'e of the sta44in) &roved he was then afflicted with schi-o&hrenia/ 8e did not see' to reco)ni-e an14od1 and this is &ec!liar to &ersons who are insane 4eca!se a sane &erson who @!st co''itted a cri'e wo!ld have a&&eared re'orsef!l and re&entant after reali-in) that what he did was wron)/  8e relies on %r/ Ti4a1anKs o&inion that there was a hi)h &ossi4ilit1 that he was alread1 s!fferin) fro' schi-o&hrenia &rior to his co''ission of the cri'e#  8e also clai's that the fact that he and his wife never en)a)ed in a fi)ht &rior to the da1 he ,illed her '!st 4e considered/ The chan)e in his 4ehavior# when he !ncharacteristicall1 *!arreled with his wife and t!rned violent on her# confir's that he was insane when he co''itted the cri'e/ 8e !r)es that he had no 'otive to ,ill his &re)nant s&o!se/ ealo!s1 is not a s!fficient reason/

Co!rt affir's decision with a 'odification in &enalties/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. MADARANG 332 SCRA $$ (2000) Nature: A&&eal fro' a decision of the RTC C!r)os# Pan)asinan Fact : (erdinand Madaran) 1 Ma)no was char)ed with &arricide for the ,illin) of his wife :ilia Madaran) and was sentenced to recl!sion &er&et!a/ 8e clai's that he was s!fferin) fro' a 'ental illness at the ti'e he co''itted the felon1# and as s!ch# sho!ld not 4e held lia4le/ The1 have D children and she was &re)nant with her ei)hth child/ 8e wor,ed a4road as a sea'an for 16 1ears/ Afterwards# he set !& a hardware store here in the Phils/ The 4!siness failed and he lost his entire fort!ne d!e to coc,fi)htin)/ The1 were forced to sta1 in the ho!se of Avelina Mirador# :iliaKs 'other 4eca!se he co!ld no lon)er s!&&ort his fa'il1/ Se&t 3# 1$$3 ; he and :ilia had a s*!a44le/ 8e was @ealo!s of another 'an and he was acc!sin) her of infidelit1/ 2n the heat of the fi)ht and in the &resence of their children# he sta44ed her# res!ltin) in her !nti'el1 death/

An act done 41 a &erson in a state of insanit1 cannot 4e &!nished as an offense# This is rooted on the 'oral ass!'&tion of cri'inal law/ Man is endowed with free will and reason/ The consent of the will is that which renders h!'an actions la!da4le or c!l&a4le/ 8ence# when there is a defect of the !nderstandin)# there can 4e no free act of the will/ 9ar"#u te t u e% t# %eter."$e "$ a$"t1: 1/ MK=a!)hten R!le3 Jto esta4lish a defense on the )ro!nd of insanit1# it '!st 4e clearl1 &roved that# at the ti'e of co''ittin) the act# the &art1 acc!sed was la4orin) !nder s!ch a defect of reason fro' disease of the 'ind# as not to ,now the nat!re and *!alit1 of the act he was doin)# or# if he did ,now it# that he did not ,now he was doin) what was wron)/J The criti*!es however3 Criticis's3  a'4i)!o!s ; 'eanin) of the words Jwron)J and J,nowJ  4ased on an o4solete conce&t of insanit1 as onl1 affectin) intellect!al fac!lties and not the whole &ersonalit1 incl!din) the &atientKs will and e'otions/ Reason is onl1 one of the ele'ents of a &ersonalit1/ 2/ 2rresisti4le 2'&!lse test3 Jass!'in) defendantKs ,nowled)e of the nat!re and *!alit1 of his act and ,nowled)e that the act is wron)# if# 41 reason of disease of the 'ind# defendant has 4een de&rived of or lost the &ower of his will which wo!ld ena4le hi' to &revent hi'self fro' doin) the act# then he cannot 4e fo!nd )!ilt1/J The criti*!es however3   2t is too restrictive as it covers onl1 i'&!lsive acts The Jirresisti4leJ re*!ire'ent is also restrictive as it re*!ires a4sol!te i'&air'ent of the freedo' of the will which cases are ver1 rare/ 2t will not serve the &!r&ose of cri'inal law to deter cri'inals as the will to resist co''ission of the cri'e will not 4e enco!ra)ed/ 2t is diffic!lt to &rove whether the act was the res!lt of an insane# irresisti4le i'&!lse/

a&&reciate the cri'inalit1 of his act or to confor' his cond!ct to re*!ire'ents of the law/ The criti*!es however3   .se of a'4i)!o!s words li,e Js!4stantial ca&acit1J and Ja&&reciateJ 7+cl!des &s1cho&aths or &ersons whose a4nor'alities are 'anifested onl1 41 re&eated cri'inal cond!ct





Avelina testified that d!rin) his sta1 in her ho!se# she did not notice an1 a4nor'al or irre)!lar 4ehavior on the &art of the acc!sed that co!ld have s!))ested that he was insane/ Since he had alread1 ad'itted to co''ittin) the cri'e 4!t &leaded not )!ilt1 on the )ro!nd of insanit1# he is tried on the iss!e of insanit1 alone and if he is fo!nd to 4e sane# a @!d)'ent of conviction is rendered witho!t an1 trial on the iss!e of )!ilt/

6/

A&&reciation test (!sed in .S federal co!rts)3 relies on the co)nitive testH shifts the 4!rden of &roof to the defense# li'ited the sco&e of e+&ert testi'on1# eli'inated the defense of di'inished ca&acit1 and &rovided for co''it'ent of acc!sed fo!nd to 4e insane/

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. :A8E= 301 SCRA 25" (1$$$) Nature: A&&eal fro' decision of RTC of .rdaneta# Pan)asinan Fact :  Filfredo CaVe- was fo!nd 41 the RTC to 4e )!ilt1 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t of &arricide for the ,illin) of his father# Cernardo# and sentenced hi' to s!ffer the &enalt1 of death/  Acc!sed was livin) in his &arentsK ho!se/ One da1# his sisters# 7lvira CaVe-;C!sta'ante and 7'elinda CaVe-; Antiado ca'e to the ho!se 4eca!se their father co'&lained that the acc!sed 'ade tro!4le whenever dr!n,/  The1 were disc!ssin) the &lan for &!ttin) !& the acc!sed in another ho!se or slee&in) *!arters/ Afterwards# the acc!sed# who loo,ed dr!n, 4eca!se he was red in the face# ran into the ,itchen# )ot two ,nives# went into his fatherKs roo' and sta44ed hi'/ 7lvira tried to ta,e awa1 the ,nives 4!t he l!n)ed at her and sta44ed her/ 7'elinda also tried to sto& hi'/ 8e chased her while 7lvira loc,ed herself in their fatherKs roo'/ After the acc!sed had left# she r!shed their father to the hos&ital 4!t he was alread1 dead/  The acc!sed entered a &lea of insanit1/  7lvira testified that the acc!sed had 4een sta1in) in their fatherKs ho!se for 5 1ears after the acc!sed se&arated fro' his wifeH that he was confined at the Cic!tan Reha4ilitation Center for addiction to )asoline and was dischar)edH that he was also treated at the Ca)!io 0eneral 8os&ital for addiction to )asoline# andH that he had not shown an1 indication that he was cra-1/ %r/ 0erona 222 of the =CM8 (=ational Center for Mental 8ealth) testified that acc!sed was ad'itted to the =CM8 20 da1s after the cri'eH that the acc!sed was s!fferin) fro' schi-o&hrenia# descri4ed as a 'ental disorder characteri-ed 41 tho!)ht dist!r4ances# hall!cination# s!s&icio!sness# and deterioration in areas of wor,# social relations and self;careH that schi-o&hrenia can 4e ca!sed 41 !se of s!4stances (inhalin) )asoline and alcoholis')H that he co!ld not sa1 whether the acc!sed was insane at the ti'e he co''itted the cri'e/  Marina 0a4el;Cane-# 'other of the acc!sed# testified that he had 4een confined for 'ore than a 1ear at the Cic!tan Reha4 CenterH that he was also treated at the

Sta$%ar% a!!&"e% "$ /'"&"!!"$e c#urt : There '!st 4e a co'&lete de&rivation of intelli)ence at the ti'e of co''ittin) the act/ The acc!sed is de&rived of reasonH he acted witho!t the least discern'ent 4eca!se there is a co'&lete a4sence of the &ower to discern or that there is a total de&rivation of the will/ Mere a4nor'alit1 of the 'ental fac!lties will not e+cl!de i'&!ta4ilit1/ I ue: FO= the acc!sed# invo,in) insanit1# can clai' e+e'&tion fro' lia4ilit1 for the cri'e he co''itted 7e&%: =o/ %ecision of the trial co!rt convictin) the a&&ellant of the cri'e of &arricide is A((2RM7% in toto/ Rat"#  =one of the witnesses &resented 41 the acc!sed declared that he e+hi4ited an1 of the 'an1 s1'&to's associated with schi-o&hrenia i''ediatel1 4efore or si'!ltaneo!s with the sta44in) incident/  Altho!)h %r/ Ti4a1an o&ined that it was hi)hl1 &ro4a4le that the acc!sed was alread1 insane 4efore the co''ission of the cri'e# he also said that schi-o&hrenics have l!cid intervals d!rin) which the1 are ca&a4le of distin)!ishin) ri)ht fro' wron)/  8is clai' that he had no recollection of the sta44in) incident a'o!nts onl1 to a 'ere )eneral denial that can 4e 'ade with facilit1/  The fact that Avelina and her ne&hew were fri)htened at the si)ht of hi' holdin) a 4olo does not# in an1 wa1# &rove that he was insane at that ti'e/  8is non;re&entant attit!de after he sta44ed his wife cannot 4e an indication of his insanit1 4eca!se even cri'inals of so!nd 'ental condition can 4e non;re'orsef!l/  The fact that he and his wife never *!arreled did not &rove his insanit1/  2t cannot 4e said that @ealo!s1 is not a s!fficient reason to ,ill a &re)nant s&o!se/  The acc!sed attri4!tes his loss of insanit1 on his 4ad fort!ne/ This is &!rel1 s&ec!lative and !ns!&&orted 41 record/



 3/

%!rha' J&rod!ctJ test3 Jan acc!sed is not cri'inall1 res&onsi4le if his !nlawf!l act was the &rod!ct of 'ental disease or defect/J The criti*!es however3   0ave too '!ch &rotection to the acc!sed Mere testi'on1 of a &s1chiatrist that the acc!sedKs act was the res!lt of a 'ental disease wo!ld leave the co!rt with no choice 4!t to acce&t it as fact

5/

A:2 Js!4stantial ca&acit1J test3 a &erson is not res&onsi4le for his cri'inal act if# as a res!lt of the 'ental disease or defect# he lac,s s!4stantial ca&acit1 to



Ca)!io 0eneral 8os&italH that after ,illin) his father# he was confined at the Mandal!1on) Mental 8os&ital for treat'entH that his wife left hi' and he 4la'ed his in;laws for his 'arital tro!4lesH that he resorted to )asoline to for)et his &ro4le's# andH that he was not a dr!n,ard/ The trial co!rt fo!nd hi' )!ilt1 of &arricide with the a))ravatin) circ!'stance of dwellin) and ha4it!al into+ication and sentenced hi' to s!ffer the &enalt1 of death ,.

circ!'stance of into+ication# it has not 4een shown that it is ha4it!al or intentional as re*!ired 41 Art 16 of the RPC/ 7ven ass!'in) that the acc!sed was dr!n, at the ti'e he co''itted the cri'e# it was not shown that he is a ha4it!al and e+cessive drin,er or that he intentionall1 )ot dr!n,/ =either can into+ication 4e 'iti)atin) 4eca!se there is no showin) that he acc!sed was so dr!n, that his will &ower was i'&aired or that he co!ld not co'&rehend the wron)f!lness of his acts/ WON RTC *rave&1 erre% "$ ".!# "$* t'e %eat' !e$a&t1 u!#$ t'e accu e% "$ tea% #+ rec&u "#$ !er!etua #$ t'e a u.!t"#$ t'at 'e (a a$e at t'e t".e #+ t'e B"&&"$*.  =o/ .nder RA D66$# the &enalt1 for &arricide is recl!sion &er&et!a to death/ Since in this case there was neither a))ravatin) nor 'iti)atin) circ!'stances# the lesser &enalt1 of recl!sion &er&et!a sho!ld 4e i'&osed/

sho!ld 4e e+e'&ted fro' the cri'inal lia4ilit1/ The trial co!rt however convicted 4oth as &rinci&als of the cri'e co''itted and sentenced the' (see a4ove Jnat!reJ)/ I ue : 1. WON E%("$ (a "$ a$e at t'e t".e #+ t'e cr".e  =o# he wasnKt/ The re&ort of the =ational Center for Mental 8ealth and the testi'on1 of %r/ Perfecto %/ Ch!a Chen) 222 do not &rove insanit1 of acc!sed; a&&ellant 7dwin Caneta/ The 4!rden of &roof lies on the defense# 4!t the1 were not a4le to &rove the insanit1 of 7dwin/ The defense of insanit1 re*!ires that the acc!sed s!ffered fro' a co'&lete de&rivation of reason in co''ittin) the act/ There '!st 4e no conscio!sness of res&onsi4ilit1 for his acts# or that there 4e co'&lete a4sence of the &ower to discern/ The defense of insanit1 or i'4ecilit1 '!st 4e clearl1 &roved/ The law &res!'es ever1 'an to 4e sane/ -. WON t'e te t".#$1 #+ ("t$e Eva$*e&"$e6 ('# "%e$t"+"e% A$t#$"# A)e a #$e #+ t'e a a"&a$t ca&&e% IT#$1 G"&I6 '#u&% )e *"ve$ cre%e$ce  >es/ 8e was &ositivel1 identified 41 e1ewitness 7van)eline Mico/ The &ositive identification of a 'alefactor 'a1 not 4e disre)arded @!st 4eca!se his na'e was not ,nown to the witness/ (or the e1ewitness acco!nt is &re'ised on the fact that the witness saw the acc!sed co''it the cri'e# and not 4eca!se the witness ,new his na'e/ The trial co!rt# which had the o&&ort!nit1 to o4serve the de'eanor of 7van)eline was convinced of her tr!stworthiness/ JThe ti'e;tested doctrine is that a trial co!rtKs assess'ent of the credi4ilit1 of a witness is entitled to )reat wei)ht even concl!sive and 4indin) on the Co!rt# if not tainted with ar4itrariness or oversi)ht of so'e fact or circ!'stance of wei)ht and infl!ence/J

I ue : 1. WON 'e (a "$ a$e at t".e #+ c#.." "#$ #+ cr".e a$% t'u e4e.!t +r#. cr"."$a& &"a)"&"t1 u$%er Art. 1-6 R/C  =o/ Acc!sed '!st &rove that he was co'&letel1 de&rived of reason when he ,illed his father in order to 4e considered e+e'&t fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1  2n Peo&le vs/ (or'i)ones3 Jit is necessar1 that there 4e a co'&lete de&rivation of intelli)ence in co''ittin) the actH that the acc!sed 4e de&rived of reasonH that there 4e no res&onsi4ilit1 for his own actsH that he acts witho!t the least discern'entH that there 4e a co'&lete a4sence of &ower to discern///insanit1 at the ti'e of the co''ission of the act sho!ld a4sol!tel1 de&rive a &erson of intelli)ence or freedo' of will# 4eca!se 'ere a4nor'alit1 of his 'ental fac!lties does not e+cl!de i'&!ta4ilit1/J  Peo&le vs/ Rafanan# r3 J(or'i)ones esta4lished 2 distin)!isha4le tests3 (a) the test of co)nition///and (4) the test of volition//C!t o!r caselaw shows co''on reliance on the test of co)nition# rather than on a test relatin) to Kfreedo' of the will/KJ  C!rden to &rove his insanit1 at the ti'e of the co''ission of the act rests on the defense/ C!t he was not a4le to &rove 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t his insanit1 at the ti'e i''ediatel1 &recedin) the ,illin) or at the ver1 'o'ent of the ,illin)/ 7vidence 'erel1 consisted of the testi'on1 of his 'other re)ardin) his treat'ents/ The testi'on1 of %r/ 0erona 222 is inconcl!sive as to whether the acc!sed was insane at the ti'e i''ediatel1 &recedin) the ,illin) or at the ver1 'o'ent of the ,illin)/ 8e co!ld not have testified to this effect# considerin) that he treated the acc!sed after the acc!sed was confine at the =CM8/ -. WON t'ere e4" t t'e a**ravat"$* c"rcu. ta$ce #+ "$t#4"cat"#$ a$% %(e&&"$* "$ t'e c#.." "#$ #+ cr".e  =o/ %wellin) cannot 4e considered a))ravatin) 4eca!se acc!sed and his father were livin) in the sa'e ho!se where the cri'e was co''itted/ The rationale for considerin) dwellin) as an a))ravatin) circ!'stance is the violation 41 the offender of the sanctit1 of the ho'e of the victi' 41 tres&assin) therein to co''it the cri'e/ The reason is entirel1 a4sent in this case/ Re)ardin) the a))ravatin)

Ju%*.e$t: the decision of the RTC is A((2RM7% with the MO%2(2CAT2O= that the acc!sed;a&&ellant is sentenced to s!ffer the &enalt1 of recl!sion &er&et!a ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. CA8ETA 30$ SCRA 1$$ (1$$$) Nature: A&&eal of the decision of the Re)ional Trial Co!rt# Manila# Cranch 5$# convictin) 7dwin CaVeta and Antonio A4es of the s&ecial co'&le+ cri'e of ro44er1 with ho'icide and sentencin) each of the' to recl!sion &er&et!a# &a1 the heirs of the deceased the a'o!nt of P30N# as 'oral and e+e'&lar1 da'a)es# and P1D/2N# as act!al da'a)es and to ret!rn to M!Vo- S!r&resa 0rande P60N/ This is a consolidation of two se&arate cri'inal cases filed a)ainst 7dwin and Antonio for the cri'e co''itted a)ainst Teodorico M!VoFact : Oct/ 21# 1$"1 ; Teodorico went to wor, as the deliver1 'an of a door;to;door service of cash 'one1 of the fir' M!noS!r&resa 0rande/ 8e had with hi' P60N to 4e delivered to clients# 4!t he was held !& 41 two 'en# later identified as 7dwin and Antonio/ 7dwin sta44ed hi' while Antonio )ra44ed the 4a) with the cash inside/ The two ran in o&&osite directions/ 7dwin was ca!)ht 41 the 'o4 while Antonio esca&ed# 4!t he was &ositivel1 identified 41 two witnesses/ Coth &lead not )!ilt1 to the char)es a)ainst the'/ 2n the trial# 7dwin averred that he 4e e+a'ined 41 e+&erts of the =ational Center for Mental 8ealth to deter'ine whether he was 'entall1 fit to !nder)o the ri)ors of trial/ The trial co!rt )ranted the 'otion and ordered the s!s&ension of trial &endin) s!4'ission 41 the %irector# =ational Center for Mental 8ealth# of his re&ort# which said that he was 'entall1 fit/ The defense was that 7dwin was s!fferin) fro' dr!) &s1chosis# therefore he

Dec" "#$: !d)'ent affir'ed# with the MO%2(2CAT2O= that the inde'nit1 is raised to P60#000/00# in line with c!rrent r!lin)s/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. DIA= 320 SCRA 16" (1$$$) Nature: A!to'atic review of an A&ril 11# 1$$D Ce4! Cit1 RTC decision which fo!nd %ia- )!ilt1 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t of '!rder in relation to se+!al a4!se (sodo'1) of a child attended 41 treacher1# sentenced hi' to death/ Ordered hi' to &a1 the heirs of the victi'3 P60N (death inde'nit1)H 260N ('oral da'a)es)H 100N (e+e'&lar1 da'a)es)H 50N (f!neral e+&enses) Fact : 1$$6/ At aro!nd "&'# (rancis Cart (!lache (11)# his 4rother (el4art (10)# and %ia- (30)# a friend (rancis Cart ,new

fro' the hanta,an# a )a'in) &lace near their store# went to Pier 3 to defecate/  (rancis Cart invited his 4rother to )o to Pier 5 4!t (el4art ref!sed/ Fhen he did not ret!rn 41 the afternoon of the followin) da1# his &arents )ot worried and started to loo, for hi'/ A da1 after# the &olice received a re&ort that a 4od1 of a 1o!n) 4o1 10;11 1rs old had 4een fo!nd at the C!lacao 4rid)e Jsic,enin) state of n!dit1 [ &h1sical a4!seJ face was covered with a 4i) stone in an a&&arent atte'&t to hide the 4od1/ The a!to&s1 showed3 o ca!se of death3 intercranial he'orrha)e o other findin)s3 cont!sions# a4rasions and lacerations all over the 4od1H head fract!reH '!lti&le lacerations in his rect!' (doctorKs o&inion3 ca!sed 41 a 4l!nt instr!'ent li,e a f!ll1 erect &enis)  %ec/ $# 1$$63 a 'an (later identified as %ia-) went to (rancis CartKs f!neral and ca!sed a co''otion# recitin) &oe's# and sin)in) the the'e fro' The :ion Nin) (e'&hasi-in) the word Js!rrenderJ (rancis CartBs father Cartolo'e went to the &olice to re&ort the incidentH the &olice went to the (!lache residence to o4serve the 'an# and later invited hi' to head *!arters for f!rther o4servation and *!estionin)H the 'an went with the' vol!ntaril1  After 4ein) a&&rised of his constit!tional ri)hts in Ce4!ano in the &resence of &olice'en# Att1/ A4ellanosa and 'edia'en# %ia- narrated in f!ll detail how he &er&etrated the cri'e (%eclared inad'issi4le 41 RTC ; Att1/ A4ellanosa# who assisted %ia- d!rin) c!stodial investi)ation was not %ia-K inde&endent co!nsel)  Reenact'ent of the cri'e was also done in the &resence of 'edia'en# &!4lished in S!n Star %ail1# !na!thenticated co&1 &resented in co!rt was declared inad'issi4le 4!t co!rt too, @!dicial notice @!st the sa'e  %ia- tried to esta4lish the defense of insanit1 4!t %r/ Filson Ti4a1an (%ia-K witness# )ovKt &h1sician connected with the =ational Center for Mental 8ealth) testified that %ia- was dia)nosed with Pedo&hilia# not insanit1  Pedo&hilia E a se+!al disorder wherein the s!4@ect has stron)# rec!rrent and !ncontrolla4le fantasies which he tries to f!lfill# es&eciall1# when there are no &eo&le aro!nd o Person can still distin)!ish ri)ht fro' wron) o Nillin) not necessar1 altho!)h in@!ries 'a1 4e inflicted on the victi' in an effort to re&el an1 resistance o %ia- did what he did in reven)e 4eca!se as a child# he was also a victi' of se+!al a4!se I ue 6 7e&%6 Rat"# 1. WON t'e cr".e c#.."tte% (a .ur%er  >es/ The cri'e co''itted was still '!rder even witho!t the *!alif1in) circ!'stance of evident &re'editation 4eca!se there was treacher1 and a4!se of s!&erior stren)th# either of which wo!ld *!alif1 the cri'e as '!rder Treacher1 or alevosia







Fhen a cri'e a)ainst &ersons is co''itted e'&lo1in) 'eans# 'ethods# or for's in the e+ec!tion thereof which tend directl1 and s&eciall1 to ins!re its e+ec!tion# witho!t ris, to hi'self arisin) fro' the defense which the offended &art1 'i)ht 'a,e (Art/ 15/6# RPC) The ,illin) of children who 41 reason of their tender 1ears cannot 4e e+&ected to &!t !& a defense is considered to 4e attended 41 treacher1 even if 'anner of attac, is not &recisel1 shown/ (Peo&le v/ 0on-ales citin) Peo&le v/ <alerio# r/) Therefore# the ,illin) of (rancis Cart '!st 4e dee'ed i&so facto *!alified 41 treacher1 4eca!se of his inherent defenselessness/ (Peo&le v# Cacalto)





es&eciall1 when there are no &eo&le aro!nd/ C!t the &erson can still distin)!ish ri)ht fro' wron)/ A defendant in a cri'inal case who inter&oses the defense of 'ental inca&acit1 has the 4!rden of esta4lishin) that fact# i/e/ he was insane at the ver1 'o'ent when the cri'e was co''itted/ 8e '!st &rove it 41 clear and &ositive evidence/ (Peo&le v/ Cascos) 2n the case at 4ar# the defense of insanit1 as an e+e'&tin) circ!'stance was not esta4lished and did not overco'e the le)al &res!'&tion that a &ersonKs acts are of his own free will and intelli)ence/

Therefore# %ia- was sane at the ti'e of co''ission of the cri'e Ju%*.e$t: Modified RTC M!rder in relation to se+!al a4!se (sodo'1) of a child attended 41 treacher1 Se$te$ce %eath Da.a*e death inde'nit13 60N 'oral da'a)es3 260N e+e'&lar1 dBs3 100N f!neral e+&enses3 50N Cr".e SU/REME COURT M!rder

A4!se of S!&erior Stren)th  Clatant ine*!alit1 of stren)th 4etween %ia- and the 4o1  C!t cannot 4e a&&reciated even as )eneric a))ravatin) circ!'stance 4ein) necessaril1 a4sor4ed in treacher1 Therefore# the cri'e co''itted is '!rder/ -. WON t'e %eat' !e$a&t1 '#u&% )e ".!# e%  JO%ia-P sho!ld not 4e 'eted the s!&re'e &enalt1 of death/J  The 2nfor'ation char)ed %ia- onl1 with '!rder *!alified 41 treacher1# a4!se of s!&erior stren)th and evident &re'editationH failed to 'ention the co''ission of se+!al a4!se or sodo'1# the 2nfor'ation desi)nated the cri'e as J'!rder in relation to RA D610J 4!t the act!al recital of facts in the co'&laint or infor'ation failed to 'ention the se+!al a4!se or sodo'1  As a r!le# what controls is not the desi)nation of the offense 4!t its act!al descri&tion in the co'&laint or infor'ation/ The real nat!re of the cri'inal char)e cannot 4e deter'ined fro' the ca&tion or &rea'4le of the infor'ation of fro' the 'ere reference to a &artic!lar &rovision of law alle)ed to have 4een violated 4eca!se the1 are concl!sions of law/ Therefore# even if there is &ositive &roof of se+!al a4!se# %ia- cannot 4e convicted therefor 4eca!se s!ch was not alle)ed in the act!al recital of facts in the 2nfor'ation/ ,. WON D"a> (a a$e at t'e t".e #+ c#.." "#$ #+ act  %ia- failed to overco'e the le)al &res!'&tion of sanit1/  Fhen %ia- was confined at the =ational Center for Mental 8ealth# he was dia)nosed with &edo&hilia# not insanit1/  Pedo&hilia is not insanit1H Pedo&hilia is a se+!al disorder wherein the s!4@ect has stron)# rec!rrent and !ncontrolla4le fantasies which he tries to f!lfill#

Recl!sion &er&et!a death inde'nit13 60N 'oral da'a)esY3100N e+e'&lar1 da'a)es3 26N f!neral e+&enses3 50N Yto co'&ensate for the da'a)es to their feelin)s# not to enrich the'

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. MEDINA 2"6 SCRA 55 (1$$") Nature: A&&eal fro' a decision of RTC Catan)as Cit1 convictin) Al4erto Medina of the cri'e of '!rder of Andres %alisa1 Fact : !ne ; Octo4er 1$"2# Medina was confined in the =ational Mental 8os&ital for schi-o&hrenifor' disorder# where he was s!4se*!entl1 released/ Relatives sa1 that his condition did not see' to i'&rove/ 8e was referred to %r/ Adi)!e for f!rther e+a'inations/ Ma1 20# 1$$1# 11 &'# a &art1 was attended 41 4oth %alisa1 and Medina# as well as :arr1 Andal# where the 4oth %alisa1 and Medina danced the chacha to)ether/ Afterwards# %alisa1 invited Andal to )o ho'e# with %alisa1 wal,in) in front of :arr1/ The1 were wa1laid 41 Medina who sta44ed %alisa1/ %alisa1 fell down and the two )ra&&led on the )ro!nd/ %alisa1 was a4le to r!n awa1 4!t he was chased and once 'ore sta44ed re&eatedl1 41 Medina/ Andal was so st!nned that he was not a4le to hel& %alisa1# who was 4ro!)ht %OA to the hos&ital/

The trial co!rt convicted Medina of '!rder and said that his defense of insanit1 is not 'eritorio!s since %r/ Adi)!e was not *!alified as an e+&ert witness# that his sisterKs testi'on1 did not constit!te s!fficient &roof of insanit1# and that he was act!all1 'entall1 a)ile d!rin) trial/ I ue : 1. WON Me%"$a (a "$ a$e t'ere+#re e4e.!t +r#. cr"."$a& &"a)"&"t1  =o# he wasnKt# and the decision was not 4ased on the *!alifications of %r/ Adi)!e as a doctor 4!t as a witness/ Fhat 'attered was the fail!re of %r/ Adi)!eKs testi'on1 to esta4lish the le)al insanit1 of Medina as shown in the res!lts of the tests she cond!cted which 'erel1 sa1s that Medina has a 'ild de&ression and e'otional dist!r4ances/ The testi'on1 also did not esta4lish the co'&lete de&rivation of reason on MedinaBs &art/  Art/ 12# &ar/ 1 RPC re*!ires co'&lete de&rivation of rationalit1 in co''ittin) the act# i/e/ that the acc!sed 4e de&rived of reason# that there 4e no conscio!sness of res&onsi4ilit1 for his acts# or that there is a co'&lete a4sence of &ower to discern/ The doctorKs re&ort did not s!&&ort the clai' that Medinao co!ld not distin)!ish ri)ht fro' wron)/  Also# the defense of insanit1 '!st 4e clearl1 &roved/ The &res!'&tion of law# &er Art/ "00# CC# alwa1s lies in favor of sanit1# and in the a4sence of &roof to the contrar1# ever1 &erson is &res!'ed to 4e of so!nd 'ind/  Care '!st 4e ta,en to distin)!ish 4etween insanit1 or lac, of reason and fail!re to !se reason or )ood @!d)'ent d!e to e+tre'e an)er or &assion/  Moral insanit1 or 'ere 'ental de&ravit1 E res!lts not fro' the disease of the 'ind 4!t fro' a &erverted condition of the 'oral s1ste'H &erson is sane and is not e+e'&ted fro' the cri'inal lia4ilit1  Phili&&ine case law relies on the test of co)nition which re*!ires a co'&lete de&rivation of intelli)ence and not onl1 the will in co''ittin) the cri'inal act/ -. WON t'ere (a treac'er1 "$ t'e act c#.."tte% a a!!rec"ate% )1 t'e tr"a& c#urt.  >es# there was/ Medina waited on the road and wa1laid the victi'# an attac, which was s!dden and !ne+&ected# and the 'eans e'&lo1ed ens!red that its e+ec!tion is witho!t ris, to the assailant arisin) fro' an1 defense that the victi' 'i)ht 'a,e/ ,. WON t'ere (a ev"%e$t !re.e%"tat"#$  =o# there wasnKt/ The trial co!rt erred in a&&reciatin) evident &re'editation/ Onl1 a few 'in!tes &assed since the ti'e the1 left the ho!se to the ti'e that the act was co''itted# th!s there is no s!fficient a'o!nt of ti'e to

conte'&late and reflect !&on the conse*!ences of the act# therefore no evident &re'editation/ @. WON t'e tr"a& c#urt erre% "$ $#t a!!rec"at"$* Me%"$aJ v#&u$tar1 urre$%er  >es# it sho!ld have 4een credited in favor of Medina/ Medina s!rrendered an ho!r after the incident to Col/ (altado then to the Catan)as Police Station/ 7vidence is s!fficient to esta4lish vol!ntar1 s!rrender3 1/ offender was not act!all1 arrested 2/ he s!rrendered to a &erson in a!thorit1 or to an a)ent of a &erson in a!thorit1 3/ his s!rrender was vol!ntar1 Dec" "#$: <ol!ntar1 s!rrender di'inished &enalt1 to &rision 'a1or in its 'a+i'!' &eriod as 'ini'!'# and recl!sion te'&oral in its 'a+i'!' &eriod as 'a+i'!'/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. TA:UGOCA 2"6 SCRA 312 (1$$") Nature: A!to'atic review of a March 16# 1$$6 @oint decision 2la)an# 2sa4ela decision which fo!nd Ta4!)oca in two cri'inal cases )!ilt1 of Two (2) co!nts of ra&e co''itted a)ainst his own da!)hters sentenced hi' to recl!sion &er&et!e for the first and death for the second/ Fact : ac*!eline and her 3 1o!n)er sisters anet# in,1 and @ewel lived !nder the sole care of their father after their 'other died A!)!st 2"# 1$$1/ March 2"# 1$$2# aro!nd 10&'# ac*!eline (121rs 3'os at the ti'e# 4/ %ece'4er 2D# 1$D$)  Ta4!)oca wo,e !& ac*!eline to scratch his 4ac,/  Ta4!)oca re'oved her shorts and !nderwear and 'ade her lie 4eside hi'# then inserted his &enis in her va)ina/  Ta4!)oca told her not to tell an1one if she did not want to 4e har'ed/ %ece'4er $# 1$$5# earl1 'ornin) ; in,1 (121rs $'os at the ti'e# 4/ March 6# 1$"2)  in,1 was cleanin) so'e articles in their ho!se when Ta4!)oca a&roached her and too, off his clothes/  Ta4!)oca ordered her to lie down and re'oved her shorts and !nderwear then inserted his &enis into her va)ina/  in,1 cried o!t and co'&lained to Ta4!)oca that she was in &ain/  Ta4!)oca e+&lained that it is ordinar1 to feel &ain 4eca!se it was her first ti'e to do it/  After a while# he did not contin!e# and told in,1 that the1 wo!ld contin!e the followin) da1/

%ece'4er 10# 1$$5# dawn ; in,1  Ta4!)oca 'ade another atte'&t to 'olest in,1/  in,1 resisted# ca!sin) Ta4!)oca to @!st lie down and leave her alone/ %ece'4er 10# 1$$5# later on  ac*!eline and in,1 were watchin) T< in their )rand'otherKs (Perlita Ale@andro)/  in,1 told their lola a4o!t the se+!al a4!ses of their father/ This &ro'&ted ac*!eline to reveal her si'ilar e+&erience two 1ears &ast/ %ece'4er 12# 1$$5  Their )rand'other 4ro!)ht the' to the M!nici&al 8ealth Officer of =a)!ilian for &h1sical e+a'ination/  %r/ Mar1ann M/ (ontanaresK findin)s s!))ested that in ac*!elineKs case# she was forci4l1 a4!sed and the incident# the first one ha&&ened lon) a)o# 4ased on the healed scars of the h1'en# and in in,1Ks case that f!ll &enetration was !ns!ccessf!l altho!)h atte'&ts were done 4ased on the swollen v!lva of the victi'/ Ta4!)oca tried to clai' e+e'&tion fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1 on the )ro!nd of insanit1 4ro!)ht a4o!t 41 into+ication  ac*!eline3 Ta4!)oca alle)edl1 onl1 ca'e to ,now of what ha&&ened to ac*!eline when the &olice arrested hi' on %ece'4er 10# 1$$5/ ac*!eline alle)edl1 infor'ed hi' on the date of his arrest that he was dr!n, on March 2"# 1$$2# Ta4!)oca s!r'ised that he was 4ased on ac*!elineKs s!&&osed state'ent/ ac*!eline testified that Ta4!)oca did s'ell of li*!or and 'a1 have had had a few drin,s then  in,13 Ta4!)oca said that he had also 4een drin,in) then and co!ld not recall what had ha&&ened after he had finished drin,in)/ in,1 testified that Ta4!)oca had 4een dr!n, on the ni)ht of %ece'4er $# 1$$5/ Ta4!)oca clai'ed that he started drin,in) after his wife died# resortin) to drin, when he re'e'4ered his wife and that 4efore her death# he did not drin,/ 8e also clai's that his children filed the co'&laints in reven)e for his Jcasti)atin) or whi&&in)J the' whenever the1 co''itted 'ista,es/ I ue 6 7e&%6 Rat"# 1. WON Ta)u*#ca " *u"&t1 #+ ra!e  >es/ Ta4!)ocaKs )!ilt has 4een &roven 41 the &rosec!tion 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t/  Ta4!)oca neither denied the char)es a)ainst hi' nor raised an1 a4sol!tor1 ca!se in his defense/  The cate)orical and !ntraversed testi'onies of ac*!eline and in,1 as to how Ta4!)oca co''itted the 4estial o!tra)e# and their identification of the acc!sed as their defiler re'ain !ncontroverted and f!ll1 esta4lish the char)es/















 

ac*!elineKs fail!re to i''ediatel1 re&ort the cri'e does not necessaril1 cast do!4t on the credi4ilit1 of her char)e/ Fe cannot e+&ect 1o!n) ac*!eline to disre)ard the threat on her life and i''ediatel1 cr1 ra&e in the face of her fatherKs threats and his constant &resence in her ho'e/ 2t is hi)hl1 inconceiva4le that ac*!eline wo!ld invent a char)e that wo!ld onl1 4rin) sha'e and h!'iliation !&on the' and their fa'il1 and 4e the o4@ect of )ossi& a'on) their class'ates and friends in order to )et even with their father or to e'&athi-e with her sister# es&eciall1 )iven o!r c!lt!re/ 2t is a+io'atic in cri'inal law that in order to s!stain a conviction for ra&e# f!ll &enetration is not re*!ired/ 2 for's of inti'idation !nder Art/ 336 RPC (Matri'onio)3 (1) threats# (2) over&owerin) 'oral infl!ence/ Ta4!)oca e+ercised over&owerin) 'oral infl!ence over the victi's# 4ein) their father/ This is s!fficient to inti'idate and force the' to s!4'it to his desires (or ra&e to e+ist# it is not necessar1 that the inti'idation e'&lo1ed 4e so )reat or of s!ch character as co!ld not 4e resisted/ Fhat is necessar1 is that the inti'idation 4e s!fficient to cons!''ate the &!r&ose the acc!sed had in 'ind/ 2n the case at 4ar# with the &revio!s 4eatin)s in,1 had )otten fro' Ta4!)oca# resistance co!ld not have 4een e+&ected fro' her/ Ta4!)ocaKs contention of consens!al se+ is ridic!lo!sX =o showin) that in,1 is a se+!al &ervert or a wo'an of loose 'orals/ Consent o4tained 41 fear of &ersonal violence is not consentX Therefore# Ta4!)oca is )!ilt1 of two (2) co!nts of ra&e/





The ri)ht and &ower of a co!rt to tr1 the acc!sed for the cri'e of ra&e attaches !&on the fifin) of the co'&laint# and a char)e in the alle)ations thereof as to the 'anner of co''ittin) the cri'e sho!ld not o&erate to divest the co!rt of @!risdiction alread1 ac*!ired/ (Peo&le v/ Can)alao# et/al/) Therefore# the RTC had @!risdiction/

Ju%*.e$t: Affir'ed with 'odification/ 2n accordance with Art/ "3 of the RPC as a'ended 41 Sec/ 26 of RA D66$ (rei'&osin) the death &enalt1)# !&on finalit1 of this decision# the records will 4e forwarded i''ediatel1 to the Office of the President for the &ossi4le e+ercise of the &ardonin) &ower/ RTC Cri'e Sentence %a'a)es two (2) co!nts of ra&e co''itted a)ainst his own da!)hters Recl!sion &er&et!a ( ac*!eline) %eath ( in,1) =one SU/REME COURT sa'e sa'e ac*!eline3 e+e'&lar1 [ 'oral da'a)es3 26N\ in,13 e+e'&lar1 da'a)es3 26N

,. WON t'e %eat' !e$a&t1 '#u&% )e ".!# e%  >es/ The onl1 &ossi4le 4asis of the &enalt1 !nder the r!les of )rad!atin) &enalties !nder the RPC is the &resence of a &rivile)ed 'iti)atin) circ!'stance/ There was none shown to e+ist/  Therefore# the death &enalt1 sho!ld 4e i'&osed/ @. WON %ru$Be$$e "$ t'" ca e " a va&"% %e+e$ e  =o/ Ta4!)ocaKs fee4le e+c!se of havin) 4een !nder the infl!ence of li*!or in order to disclai' ,nowled)e of his actions is !n4elieva4le/  8e did not co'&l1 with the evidentiar1 re*!ire'ents where41 he co!ld clai' into+ication as a 'iti)atin) circ!'stance/  The attendance of into+ication is affir'ed as an a))ravatin) circ!'stance on the additional findin) that it was ha4it!al/  Therefore# dr!n,enness was not a valid defense/ 2t was an a))ravatin) circ!'stanceX F. WON Ta)u*#ca (a a$e ('e$ 'e c#.."tte% t'e cr".e  >es/ Ta4!)oca failed to overthrow the &res!'&tion of sanit1/ The law &res!'es ever1 'an to 4e sane/ The &erson acc!sed of a cri'e who &leads the e+e'&tin) circ!'stance of insanit1 has necessaril1 the conse*!ent 4!rden of &rovin) it/ (Peo&le v/ Catan1a))  2n order for insanit1 to 4e ta,en as an e+e'&tin) circ!'stance# there '!st 4e co'&lete de&reciation of intelli)ence in the co''ission of the act or that the acc!sed acted witho!t the least discern'ent/ Mere a4nor'alit1 of his 'ental fac!lties does not &recl!de i'&!ta4ilit1/ (Peo&le v/ So)  The defense did not &resent an1 e+&ert witness# &s1chiatric eval!ation re&ort# &s1cholo)ical findin)s or evidence re)ardin) Ta4!)ocaKs 'ental condition at the ti'e of co''ission of the offenses/  8is charade of a'nesia is a des&erate &lo1 for e+c!l&ation/ 2n an1 case# a'nesia is not# in and of itself# a defense to a cri'inal char)e !nless it is shown 41 co'&etent &roof that the acc!sed did not ,now of the nat!re and *!alit1 of his action and that it was wron)/  (ail!re to re'e'4er is in itself no &roof of the 'ental condition of the acc!sed when the cri'e was co''itted/ (Tho'as v/ State)  Therefore# Ta4!)oca was sane at the ti'e of co''ission of the cri'es/

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. /UNO 106 SCRA 161 (1$"1) Nature: A!to'atic review fro' the decision of circ!it cri'inal co!rt of Pasi)# Ri-al/ Fact :  " Se&te'4er 1$D0 ; aro!nd 2&' 7rnesto P!no entered the 4edroo' of D2 1ear old (rancisca Col also ,nown as Alin) Ni,a1# in :ittle Ca)io# 4arrio Tina@eros# Mala4on# Ri-al/ Alin) Ni,a1 was on the 4ed# when P!no entered and ins!lted her 41 sa1in) JMan),!,!la' ,a# 'a'4a4aran)# 'a1roon ,an) 4!4!1o)/J Then# he re&eatedl1 sla&&ed her and str!c, her on the head several ti'es with a ha''er !ntil she was dead/ The assa!lt was witnessed 41 8ilaria dela Cr!- who was &resent in the roo' d!rin) the attac,# and 41 :ina Pa@es# a tenant in the ne+t roo'/ After ,illin) the old lad1 P!no went into the ne+t roo'# where the )irls had ta,en ref!)e and 'ade the followin) confession and threat J8!a) ,a1on) 'a),a,a'alin) t!'awa) n) &!lis at sa4ihin n!n1o na !'alis ,a1o n) 4aha1 at hindi nin1o ala' ,!n) sino an) &!'ata1 sa 'atanda/J Or accordin) to :ina J&inata1 ,o na an) i1on) 'atanda/ 8!a) ,a1on) t!'awa) n) &!lis/ Pa) t!'awa) ,a1o n) &!lis# ,a1o an) &ahihi)antihan ,o/J After P!no left# :ina called the &olice/ P!no fled to his &arentsK ho!se then later on to his second co!sin# Teoti'oBs ho!se/  10 Se&te'4er 1$D0 ; P!noKs father s!rrendered hi' to the &olice/ 8e was 4ro!)ht to the =ational Mental 8os&ital in Mandal!1on)# Ri-al/ 8e was char)ed with '!rder in the '!nici&al co!rt/

-. WON t'e RTC 'a% ;ur" %"ct"#$  >es/ Ta4!)ocaKs &osition that the the RTCKs @!risdiction to &!nish hi' is li'ited onl1 to the in,1Ks cri'inal co'&laint of fr!strated ra&e and cannot cover cons!''ated ra&e is a 'eritless ar)!'ent/  Fhen it is said that the filin) of the co'&laint 41 the offended &art1 in cases of ra&e is @!risdictional# what is 'eant is that it is the co'&laint that starts the &rosec!tor1 &roceedin)# 4!t it is not the co'&laint which confers @!risdiction on the co!rt to tr1 the case/  The co!rtKs @!risdiction is vested in it 41 the !diciar1 :aw/ (Peo&le v/ :eo&arte)  Since the &enalt1 for ra&e in the co'&laint filed 41 ac*!eline is &ro&erl1 within the @!risdiction of the RTC# the lower co!rt involved in this case 'a1 hear and tr1 the offense char)ed in the infor'ation and 'a1 i'&ose the &!nish'ent for it/













P!noKs wife# his sister in law and his 2nd co!sin all testified in co!rt descri4in) his a&&earance O4loodshot e1esP and his 4ehavior i''ediatel1 4efore and after the' '!rder# O4o+in) the do)# havin) an i'a)inar1 4!'4le 4ee fl1in) aro!nd hi'# sin)in)# etc//P The defense &resented 3 doctors to &rove insanit1 4!t the doctors instead &roved that P!no had acted with discern'ent when he ,illed Alin) Ni,a1/ %r/ Araceli Maravilla of %r/ ose Re1es Me'orial hos&ital said P!no was an o!t&atient who co!ld ver1 well live with societ1 even if he was afflicted with schi-o&hrenic reaction/ %r/ Re1naldo Ro4les stated that P!no had schi-o&hrenic reaction 4!t that this condition was Jnot sociall1 inca&acitatin)J %r/ Carlso <icente of the =ational Mental 8os&ital testified that P!no acted with discern'ent and co!ld distin)!ish ri)ht fro' wron)/ 21 Octo4er 1$D0 ; P!no was indicted for the '!rder in the Circ!it Cri'inal Co!rt at Pasi)# Ri-al/ Alle)ed in the infor'ation as a))ravatin) circ!'stances were evident &re'editation# a4!se of s!&eriorit1 and disre)ard for se+/ P!no was sentenced to death and ordered to &a1 P22N to the heirs of the victi' ue: FO= P!no was insane when he ,illed Alin) Ni,a1/

circ!'stances of vol!ntar1 s!rrender and the offenderKs 'ental illness ('ild schi-o&hrenic reaction) which di'inished hi' of his will &ower 4!t did not de&rive hi' of conscio!sness of his acts/ Ju%*.e$t: Medi!' &enalt1 for '!rder i'&osed/ %eath &enalt1 is set aside/ Acc!sed is sentenced to R7C:.S2O= P7RP7T.A MaBa "ar6 %" e$t"$*: The a&&ellant sho!ld not 4e held lia4le for the cri'e of '!rder/ 8e was 'entall1 ill when he co''itted the alle)ed ,illin) of (rancisca Col (Alin) Ni,a1)/ 8is 'edical records &ro&erl1 eval!ated and confir'ed !ndenia4l1 esta4lish the fact that he had 4een ailin) with a &s1chotic disorder 'edicall1 ,nown as chronic schi-o&hrenia of the &aranoid t1&e/ 8is record for treat'ent stated hi' to 4e J!ni'&rovedJ !&on dischar)e and his o!t &atient record 'erel1 stated hi' as Ji'&rovedJ not JrecoveredJ or J!ni'&rovedJ/ A&&ellant was treated 1" ti'es in the =ational Mental 8os&ital and ose Re1es Me'orial 8os&ital in a s&an of " 1ears# characteristic of the chronic nat!re of his 'ental illness/ This was confir'ed 41 %r/ Carlos <icente/ A &erson with Chronic Schi-o&hrenia does not ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. :ONOAN 65 Phil/ "D (1$3D) Nature: A&&eal fro' a @!d)'ent of the C(2 of Manila Fact :  12 %ece'4er 1$35 ; Celestino Conoan 'et Carlos 0!ison on Avenida Ri-al near a 4ar4ersho& close to To'Ks %i+ie Nitchen/ (rancisco Ceech# who was at the ti'e in the 4ar4ersho&# heard Conoan sa1 in Ta)alo)# J2 will ,ill 1o!/J Ceech t!rned aro!nd and saw Conoan withdrawin) his ri)ht hand# which held a ,nife# fro' the side of 0!ison who said# J2 will &a1 1o!#J 4!t Conoan si'&l1 re&lied sa1in) that he wo!ld ,ill hi' and then sta44ed 0!ison 3 ti'es on the left side/ The incident was witnessed 41 &olice'an %a'aso Arnoco/ Conoan was arrested on the da1 itself/ Conoan ad'itted to sta44in) 0!ison/ 0!ison was ta,en to P08 where he died 2 da1s later/  6 an!ar1 1$36 ; Prosec!tin) attorne1 of Manila filed an infor'ation char)in) Celestino Conoan with the cri'e of '!rder/  16 an!ar1 1$36 ; ConoanKs defense co!nsel o4@ected to the arrai)n'ent on the )ro!nd that the defendant was 'entall1 deran)ed and was at the ti'e confined in the &s1cho&athic hos&ital/ The co!rt iss!ed and order re*!irin) the %irector of the hos&ital to re&ort on ConoanKs 'ental condition/ A re&ort was rendered 41 %r/ Tori4io oson/  23 March 1$36 ; the case was called for arrai)n'ent a)ain# the defense o4@ected and a)ain the co!rt filed another order re*!irin) the doctor who e+a'ined Conoan to a&&ear in co!rt to re&ort on ConoanKs 'ental condition/









I



7e&%: =o/ Record fro' P!noKs sta1 at the =ational Mental 8os&ital stated that he had 4een an o!t &atient for schi-o&hrenia in 1$62# recovered# had a rela&se in 1$65# i'&roved and in 1$66 his sic,ness re'ained .=2MPRO<7%/ Treat'ent contin!ed in San :a-aro Co'&o!nd !& to 1$D0 where he was relieved of s1'&to's and did not co'e 4ac, for 'edication/ 2t cited that he was *!iet and as !s!al 'ana)ea4le/ The re&ort stated that he Jis &resentl1 free fro' an1 social inca&acitatin) &s1chotic s1'&to'sJ# 4!t &ersons s!fferin) fro' schi-o&hrenia 'a1 retain so'e of the resid!al s1'&to's 4!t it wo!ldnKt affect their discern'ent of ri)ht and wron)/ The co!rt sa1s3 Jin the li)ht of the strict r!le @!st stated and the circ!'stance s!rro!ndin) the ,illin)# we are led to the concl!sion that P!no was not le)all1 insane when he ,illed# the victi'KK The co!rt cited that had he 4een a ho'icidal 'aniac he wo!ld have ,illed :ina and 8ilaria too/ The evidence sho!ld &rove clearl1 that he was insane at the ti'e of the co''ission of the cri'e/ 2nsanit1 e+ists when there is a co'&lete de&rivation of intelli)ence in co''ittin) the act# that is# the acc!sed is de&rived of reason# he acts witho!t the least discern'ent 4eca!se there is a co'&lete a4sence of the &ower to discern# or total de&rivation of freedo' of wilt/ Mere a4nor'alit1 of the 'ental fac!lties will not e+cl!de i'&!ta4ilit1/ Two a))ravatin) circ!'stances# dwellin) and disre)ard of the res&ect d!e to the a)e of the victi' are off set 41 the 'iti)atin)

26 March 1$36 ; %r/ Tori4io a&&eared 4efore the co!rt for the in*!ir1/ The co!rt iss!ed another order as,in) to s!''on other doctors fro' the hos&ital and to &!t Conoan !nder another doctor# %r/ ose (ernande-# for closer o4servation/ %r/ (ernande- filed his re&ort on 11 !ne 1$36/ 2" !ne 1$36 the case was called a)ain# %r (ernande- showed !& in co!rt and re&orted that Conoan was still not in a condition to defend hi'self/ 21 an!ar1 1$36 ; %r/ (ernande- re&orted to the co!rt that Conoan co!ld 4e dischar)ed fro' the hos&ital and a&&ear for trial as he was Jconsidered a recovered case/J 2D (e4r!ar1 1$36 ; Conoan was arrai)ned and &leaded Jnot )!ilt1J and the trial was held/ To &rove 'otive and 'ental nor'alc1 of Conoan the &rosec!tion called on %a'aso Arnoco who testified that the reason for ConoanKs attac, was that 0!ison owed hi' P66 and wo!ld not &a1 hi' 4ac,/ Conoan had 4o!)ht the ,nife with which he sta44ed 0!ison for 60 centavos and had 4een waitin) 2 da1s to ,ill hi'/ 8e ac*!ired this infor'ation when he arrested and *!estioned Conoan/ Conoan was char)ed with the '!rder of Carlos 0!ison# and sentenced hi' to life i'&rison'ent and to &a1 P1N to inde'nif1 the heirs of 0!ison/ The defendant a&&ealed the case and his co!nsel cited that the lower co!rt had erred in findin) that Conoan had de'entia inter'ittentl1 and not i''ediatel1 &rior to the co''ission of the offense# in findin) that the acc!sed did not show an1 a4nor'alit1 either in 4ehavior# action# lan)!a)e# a&&earance# or action that he was 'entall1 deran)ed# in findin) that the 4!rden of &roof la1 in the defendant to &rove that he was 'entall1 deran)ed at the ti'e of the cri'e# and in not ac*!ittin) Conoan/

I ue: FO= Conoan was insane at the ti'e of the co''ission of the cri'e/ 7e&%: >es/ There are 3 different theories !sed (1) 2nsanit1 as a defense in a confession and avoidance and as s!ch '!st 4e &roved 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t/ Proof of insanit1 at the ti'e of co''ittin) the cri'inal act sho!ld 4e clear and satisfactor1 in order to ac*!it the acc!sed on the )ro!nd of insanit1/ (Phili&&ines !ses this) (2) That an affir'ative verdict of insanit1 is to 4e )overned 41 &re&onderance of evidence# and in this view# insanit1 is not to 4e esta4lished 4e1ond a reasona4le do!4t/ (3) Prosec!tion '!st &rove sanit1 4e1ond a reasona4le do!4t/ Fhen a defendant in a cri'inal case inter&oses the defense of 'ental inca&acit1# the 4!rden of esta4lishin) the fact rests !&on the defendant/ To &rove insanit1 the evidence '!st 4e clear and convincin)/ The co!rts need to distin)!ish insanit1 in law fro'

&assion or eccentricit1# 'ental wea,ness or 'ere de&ression res!ltin) fro' &h1sical ail'ent/ 2n the se&arate re&orts )iven 41 %r/ Tori4io oson and %r/ (ernande- the1 4oth dia)nosed Conoan to 4e !nsta4le# statin) that Jhe will alwa1s have tro!4les and diffic!lties with this world of realities/J Conoan was dia)nosed with de'entia &raeco+ which is a 'ental disease that dis*!alifies a &erson fro' le)al res&onsi4ilit1 for his actions/ 2n these &eo&le ho'icidal attac,s are co''on 4eca!se of the del!sions that the1 are 4ein) interfered with or that their &ro&ert1 is 4ein) ta,en/ The co!rt was of the o&inion that Conoan was de'ented at the ti'e he &er&etrated the serio!s offense char)e with and that conse*!entl1 he is e+e'&t fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1/ Ju%*.e$t: !d)'ent of the lower co!rt R7<7RS7%/ %efendant a&&ellant ACT.2TT7% 4!t to 4e ,e&t in confine'ent in the San :a-aro 8os&ital or an1 other hos&ital for the insane/ I.!er"a&6 %" e$t"$*: JThe dissentin) o&inions# in esta4lishin) the concl!sion that the acc!sed was then in the &ossession of his 'ental fac!lties or# at least# at a l!cid interval# are 4ased on the fact ad'itted 41 the &arties and s!&&orted 41 e+&ert testi'on1# that the acc!sed 4efore the co''ission of a cri'e# had 4een c!red of de'entia &raeco+ and later of 'anic de&ressive &s1chosis/J The inference of the 'a@orit1 that the acc!sed was insane is not s!fficientl1 s!&&orted 41 evidence/ =o attention was )iven to the decision of the @!d)e who ori)inall1 tried the case# which sho!ld have 4een done 4eca!se he was a4le to o4serve Conoan# the witnesses# the evidence and the testi'onies/ This co!rt )enerall1 )ives i'&ortance to the concl!sions drawn 41 the @!d)e who tried the case in first instance !nless there is a clear contradiction in the evidence and the decision# which is not the case here/ D"a>6 %" e$t"$*: The a&&ellant co''itted the cri'e when he was sane or at least d!rin) a l!cid interval/ 8e had 'otive to ,ill 0!ison O66&h&P# as clearl1 stated 41 the arrestin) &olice officer/ The law &res!'es that ever1one is sane# and insanit1 is an e+ce&tion# to 4e esta4lished 41 clear &roof and it is not !s!all1 &er'anent/ There is no evidence or record that can &rove that Conoan was insane at the ti'e he co''itted the cri'e# or that he was contin!in) to s!ffer fro' insanit1 fro' the date of the co''ission of the cri'e/ Fhere it is shown that the defendant e+&eriences l!cid intervals# the cri'e is ass!'ed to have 4een co''itted d!rin) one of the'# !nless &roven otherwise/ C#$ce!c"#$6 %" e$t"$*: There is no evidence or record to &rove that Conoan was insane at the ti'e he co''itted the cri'e# and there were no records to show that he had s!ffered a rela&se of the condition he had so!)ht treat'ent for at the San :a-aro hos&ital 1ears 4efore the cri'e was co''itted/ Conoan had 4een sane for $ 1ears Oor at least Jsociall1 ad@!sta4leJP/ The attac, of inso'nia 4efore the event is not clear &roof that he was insane or s!fferin) a 4o!t with insanit1 at the ti'e of the cri'e# it 'erel1 &resents a &ossi4ilit1# and the innocence to the acc!sed cannot 4e 4ased on a 'ere &ossi4ilit1/ The acc!sed

when *!estioned 41 the &olice i''ediatel1 after the cri'e did not e+hi4it insane 4ehavior/ 2t cannot 4e said that Conoan sta44ed 0!ison 4eca!se of a hall!cination 4eca!se 0!ison act!all1 owed hi' 'one1 and this was confir'ed 41 the fact of his sa1in) J2 a' )oin) to &a1 1o!J 4efore he was sta44ed/ This shows the 'otive for a))ression Oven)eanceP ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. DUNGO 1$$ SCRA "60 (1$$1) Nature: A!to'atic review of the decision of the RTC of Pa'&an)a convictin) the acc!sed of '!rder/ Fact : On March 16# 1$"D 4etween 2300 and 3300&'# the acc!sed went to Mrs/ Si)!aKs office at the %e&art'ent of A)rarian Refor'# A&alit# Pa'&an)a/ After a 4rief tal,# the acc!sed drew a ,nife fro' the envelo&e he was carr1in) and sta44ed Mrs/ Si)!a several ti'es/ After which he de&arted fro' the office with 4lood stained clothes# carr1in) a 4loodied 4laded wea&on/ The a!to&s1 re&ort revealed that the victi' s!stained 15 wo!nds# 6 of which were fatal/ Rodolfo Si)!a# h!s4and of the deceased# testified that so'eti'e in (e4r!ar1 1$"D# the acc!sed Rosalino %!n)o in*!ired fro' hi' wh1 his wife was re*!irin) so 'an1 doc!'ents fro' hi'/ Rodolfo e+&lained to hi' the &roced!re at the %AR/ The acc!sed# in defense of hi'self# tried to show that he was insane at the ti'e of the co''ission of the offense3  Two wee,s &rior to March 16# 1$"D# RosalinoKs wife noticed that he a&&ears to 4e in dee& tho!)ht alwa1s# 'altreatin) their children when he was not !sed to it 4efore/ There were also ti'es that her h!s4and wo!ld infor' her that his feet and head were on fire when in tr!th the1 were not/  On that fatef!l da1# Rosalino co'&lained of sto'achache 4!t the1 didnKt 4other to 4!1 'edicine as the &ain went awa1 i''ediatel1/ Thereafter# he went 4ac, to the store/ C!t when Andrea followed hi' to the store# he was no lon)er there/ Forried# she loo,ed for hi'/ On her wa1 ho'e# she heard &eo&le sa1in) that a sta44in) occ!rred/ She saw her h!s4and in her &arents;in;lawKs ho!se with &eo&le 'illin) aro!nd/ She as,ed her h!s4and wh1 he did the act# to which Rosalino answered# JThatKs the onl1 c!re for '1 ail'ent/ 2 have cancer of the heart/ 2f 2 donKt ,ill the deceased in a n!'4er of da1s# 2 wo!ld die/A That sa'e da1# the acc!sed went to Manila/ %r/ Santia)o and %r/ 7chave- of the =ational Center for Mental 8ealth testified that the acc!sed was confined in the 'ental hos&ital# as &er order of the trial co!rt dated A!)/ 1D# 1$"D/ Cased on the re&orts of their staff# the1 concl!ded that Rosalino was &s1chotic or insane lon) 4efore# d!rin) and after the

co''ission of the alle)ed cri'e and classified his insanit1 as an or)anic 'ental disorder secondar1 to cere4ro;vasc!lar accident or stro,e/ C!t %r/ Calat4at who treated the acc!sed for ail'ents secondar1 to stro,e# and %r/ :i' who testified that the acc!sed s!ffered dor' occl!sive disease# concl!ded that Rosalino was so'ehow reha4ilitated after a series of 'edical treat'ent in their clinic/ I ue: FO= the acc!sed was insane d!rin) the co''ission of the cri'e char)ed/ 7e&%: =o/ (or insanit1 to relieve the &erson of cri'inal lia4ilit1# it is necessar1 that there 4e a co'&lete de&rivation of intelli)ence in co''ittin) the act# that he acts witho!t the least discern'ent and that there 4e co'&lete a4sence or de&rivation of the freedo' of the will/ .nder Phili&&ine @!risdiction# thereKs no definite test or criterion for insanit1/ 8owever# the definition of insanit1 !nder Sec 103$Y of the Revised Ad'inistrative Code can 4e a&&lied/ 2n essence# it states that insanit1 is evinced 41 a deran)ed and &erverted condition of the 'ental fac!lties# which is 'anifested in lan)!a)e or cond!ct/ An insane &erson has no f!ll and clear !nderstandin) of the nat!re and conse*!ence of his act/ 7vidence of insanit1 '!st refer to the 'ental condition at the ver1 ti'e of doin) the act/ 8owever# it is also &er'issi4le to receive evidence of his 'ental condition for a reasona4le &eriod 4efore and after the ti'e of the act in *!estion/ The va)aries of the 'ind can onl1 4e ,nown 41 o!tward acts/ 2t is not !s!al for an insane &erson to confront a s&ecified &erson who 'a1 have wron)ed hi'/ C!t in the case at hand# the acc!sed was a4le to Mrs/ Si)!a/ (ro' this# it can 4e inferred that the acc!sed was aware of his acts/ This also esta4lished that the acc!sed has l!cid intervals/ Moreover# %r/ 7chave- testified to the effect that the a&&ellant co!ld have 4een aware of the nat!re of his act at the ti'e he co''itted it when he sho!ted (d!rin) la4orator1 e+a'ination) that he ,illed Mrs/ Si)!a/ This state'ent 'a,es it hi)hl1 do!4tf!l that the acc!sed was insane when he co''itted the act/ The fact that the acc!sed was carr1in) an envelo&e where he hid the fatal wea&on# that he ran awa1 fro' the scene of the incident after he sta44ed the victi' several ti'es# that he fled to Manila to evade arrest# indicate that he was conscio!s and ,new the conse*!ences of his acts in sta44in) the victi'/ (This was ta,en fro' the trial co!rtKs decision)/ Ju%*.e$t: *!estioned decision A((2RM7%/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. TANEO

6" Phil/ 266 (1$33) Fact : Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his &arentKs ho!se in %olores# Or'oc/ On an!ar1 16# 1$32# a fiesta was 4ein) cele4rated in the said 4arrio and )!ests were entertained in the ho!se# a'on) the' were (red Tanner and :!is Malinao/ 7arl1 that afternoon# Potenciano went to slee& and while slee&in)# he s!ddenl1 )ot !&# left the roo' 4olo in hand and# !&on 'eetin) his wife who tried to sto& hi'# wo!nded her in the a4do'en/ 8e also attac,ed (red and :!is and tried to attac, his father# after which# he wo!nded hi'self/ PotencianoKs wife# who was D 'onths &re)nant at that ti'e# died five da1s later as a res!lt of the wo!nd/ The trial co!rt fo!nd Potenciano )!ilt1 of &arricide and was sentenced to recl!sion &er&et!a/ 2t a&&ears fro' the evidence that the da1 4efore the co''ission of the cri'e# the defendant had a *!arrel over a )lass of Jt!4aJ with Collantes and A4adilla# who invited hi' to co'e down and fi)ht/ Fhen he was a4o!t to )o down# he was sto&&ed 41 his wife and his 'other/ On the da1 of the co''ission of the cri'e# it was noted that the defendant was sad and wea,# had a severe sto'achache thatKs wh1 he went to 4ed in the earl1 afternoon/ The defendant stated that when he fell aslee&# he drea'ed that Collantes was tr1in) to sta4 hi' with a 4olo while A4adila held his feet/ ThatKs wh1 he )ot !& and it see'ed to hi' that his ene'ies were invitin) hi' to co'e downH he ar'ed hi'self with a 4olo and left the roo'/ At the door# he 'et his wife who see'ed to sa1 to hi' that she was wo!nded/ Then# he fancied seein) his wife reall1 wo!nded and in des&eration wo!nded hi'self/ As his ene'ies see'ed to '!lti&l1 aro!nd hi'# he attac,ed ever14od1 that ca'e his wa1/ I ue: FO= defendant acted while in a drea'/

The wifeKs wo!nd 'a1 have 4een inflicted accidentall1/ The defendant did not drea' that he was assa!ltin) his wife# 4!t that he was defendin) hi'self fro' his ene'ies/ !d)'ent3 defendant not cri'inall1 lia4le for the offense/ 2t was also ordered that he 4e confined in the )overn'ent insane as1l!' and will not 4e released !ntil the director thereof finds that his li4ert1 wo!ld no lon)er constit!te a 'enace ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. FORMIGONES "D Phil/ 66" (1$60) Nature: A&&eal fro' the decision of the C(2 of Ca'arines S!r findin) A4elardo (or'i)ones )!ilt1 of &arricide and sentencin) hi' to recl!sion &er&et!a# to inde'nif1 the heirs of the deceased in the a'o!nt of P2N# and to &a1 costs/ Fact : 2n the 'onth of =ove'4er 1$56# A4elardo was livin) on his far' in Ca'arines S!r with his wife# !lia A)ricola and their 6 children/ (ro' there the1 transferred in the ho!se of his half; 4rother# Iacarias (or'i)ones in the sa'e '!nici&alit1 to find e'&lo1'ent as harvesters of &ala1/ After a 'onth# !lia was sittin) at the head of the stairs of the ho!se when A4elardo# witho!t &revio!s *!arrel or &rovocation whatsoever# too, his 4olo fro' the wall of the ho!se and sta44ed his wife !lia# in the 4ac,# the 4lade &enetratin) the ri)ht l!n) and ca!sin) a severe he'orrha)e res!ltin) in her death/ A4elardo then too, his dead wife and laid her on the floor of the livin) roo' and then la1 down 4eside her/ 2n this &osition# he was fo!nd 41 the &eo&le who ca'e in res&onse to the sho!ts 'ade 41 his eldest da!)hter# 2rene (or'i)ones/ The 'otive was ad'ittedl1 that of @ealo!s1 4eca!se accordin) to his state'ent# he !sed to have *!arrels with his wife for reason that he often saw her in the co'&an1 of his 4rother# IacariasH that he s!s&ected the two were 'aintainin) illicit relations 4eca!se he noticed that his wife had 4eco'e indifferent to hi'/ %!rin) the &reli'inar1 investi)ation# the acc!sed &leaded )!ilt1/ At the case in the C(2# he also &leaded )!ilt1 4!t did not testif1/ 8is co!nsel &resented the testi'on1 of two )!ards of the &rovincial @ail where A4elardo was confined to the effect that his cond!ct was rather stran)e and that he 4ehaved li,e an insane &erson# at ti'es he wo!ld re'ain silent# wal, aro!nd star, na,ed# ref!se to ta,e a 4ath and wash his clothes etc/// The a&&eal is 4ased 'erel1 on the theor1 that the a&&ellant is an 2MC7C2:7 and therefore e+e'&t fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1 !nder article 12 of the RPC/ I ue: FO= A4elardo is an i'4ecile at the ti'e of the co''ission of the cri'e# th!s e+e'&ted fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1 7e&%: =o/ 8e is not an i'4ecile/ Accordin) %r/ (rancisco 0o'es# altho!)h he was fee4le'inded# he is not an i'4ecile as he co!ld still distin)!ish 4etween ri)ht and wron) and even feel

re'orse/ 2n order that a &erson co!ld 4e re)arded as an i'4ecile within the 'eanin) of article 12 of the RPC so as to 4e e+e'&t fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1# he '!st 4e de&rived co'&letel1 of reason or discern'ent and freedo' of will at the ti'e of co''ittin) the cri'e/ (=ote that definition is sa'e as insanit1) As to the stran)e 4ehavior of the acc!sed d!rin) his confine'ent# ass!'in) it was not fei)ned to sti'!late insanit1# it 'a1 4e attri4!ted either to his 4ein) fee4le'inded or eccentric# or to a 'or4id 'ental condition &rod!ced 41 re'orse at havin) ,illed his wife/ A 'an who co!ld feel the &an)s of @ealo!s1 and ta,e violent 'eas!res to the e+tent of ,illin) his wife who he s!s&ected of 4ein) !nfaithf!l to hi'# in the 4elief that in doin) so# he was vindicatin) his honor# co!ld hardl1 4e re)arded as an i'4ecile/ Fhether or not the s!s&icions were @!stified# is of little or no i'&ortance/ The fact is that he 4elieved her faithless/ (!rther'ore# in his written state'ent# he readil1 ad'itted that he ,illed his wife# and at the trial he 'ade no effort to den1 of re&!diate said written state'ents# th!s savin) the )overn'ent all the tro!4le and e+&ense of catchin) hi' and sec!rin) his conviction/ There are however 2 'iti)atin) circ!'stances &resent3 &assion or o4f!scation (havin) ,illed his wife in a @ealo!s ra)e) and fee4le'indedness/ Ju%*.e$t: 2n concl!sion# the a&&ellant is fo!nd )!ilt1 of &arricide and the @!d)'ent of the lower co!rt is here41 affir'ed with the 'odification that he a&&ellant will 4e credited with half of an1 &reventive i'&rison'ent he has !nder)one (4eca!se of the two 'iti)atin) circ!'stances) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. ESTE/ANO 30D SCRA D0D (1$$$) Nature: A&&eal fro' a decision of the RTC of 8i'a'a1lan# =e)ros Occidental which fo!nd the defendants )!ilt1 of the cri'e of M.R%7R Fact : 7nri*!e Calinas was sta44ed and hac,ed to death for which %o'inador# Rodri)o# R!4en# Rodne1# %ante and Rene# all s!rna'ed 7ste&ano were char)ed with '!rder/ Rodri)o died d!rin) the trial and 4efore @!d)'ent co!ld 4e rendered/ %ante was never a&&rehended hence# as a)ainst hi'# the case was never archived/ After trial# %o'inador was ac*!itted on reasona4le do!4t/ Onl1 R!4en# Rodne1 and Rene were fo!nd )!ilt1/ Accordin)l1# the three were sentenced to recl!sion &er&et!a and ordered to inde'nif1 the heirs of 7nri*!e Calinas in the a'o!nt of P100N for 'oral da'a)es and P$/6N for act!al da'a)es witho!t s!4sidiar1 i'&rison'ent in case of insolvenc1/ A t# t'e cr".e: The case was woven 'ainl1 on the testi'on1 of (lorencio Ta1co# that on A&ril 16# 1$$1 at aro!nd 10 &'# he was on his wa1 ho'e in Caran)a1 2< 8i'a'a1lan with :o&ito

Rat"#: >es/ The defendant acted while in a drea' and his acts# therefore# were not vol!ntar1 in the sense of entailin) cri'inal lia4ilit1/ The a&&arent lac, of 'otive for co''ittin) a cri'inal act does not necessaril1 'ean that there are none# 4!t that si'&l1 the1 are not ,nown to !s/ Altho!)h an e+tre'e 'oral &erversion 'a1 lead a 'an to co''it a cri'e witho!t a real 'otive 4!t @!st for the sa,e of co''ittin) it/ 2n the case at hand# the co!rt fo!nd not onl1 lac, of 'otives for the defendant to vol!ntaril1 co''it the acts co'&lained of (read3 he loved his wife dearl1# he tried to attac, his father in whose ho!se the lived and the )!ests who' he invited)# 4!t also 'otives for not co''ittin) the acts/ %r/ Serafica# an e+&ert witness in the case# stated that considerin) the circ!'stances of the case# the defendant acted while in a drea'# !nder the infl!ence of a hall!cination and not in his ri)ht 'ind/

0a!dia and 7nri*!e Calinas/ 7n ro!te# the1 'et %o'inador at the CM Tr!c,in) co'&o!nd/ :o&ito than tal,ed to %o'inador while he and 7ste&ano stood near41/ S!ddenl1# Rodri)o a&&eared witho!t an1 &rovocation sta44ed 7nri*!e in the sto'ach with a )!in!ntin) (fi)htin) 4olo)/ R!4en ar'ed with a cane c!tter and Rodne1# %ante and Rene# each ar'ed with a 4olo followed s!it in hac,in) 7nri*!e/ Fhile this was ha&&enin)# %o'inador told his co'&anions ?>o! 4etter ,ill hi'XJ :o&ito confir'ed the testi'on1 of (lorencio/ D#."$a%#rJ ver "#$: That on A&ril 16 1$$1 at 10&'# he was at ho'e with his wife and son Ro4erto/ The1 were a4o!t to eat s!&&er when he heard 7nri*!e Calinas call o!t for his son Rodri)o to co'e down/ 8e &ee&ed thro!)h the window and saw Rodri)o hac,in) 7nri*!e (XXQQ)/ Fhen 7nri*!e fell to the )ro!nd# Rodri)o fled/ Ro4ert 8a!tea and :!- C!e&as# 4oth residents of Caran)a1 2< corro4orated the testi'on1 of %o'inador/ Acc!sed R!4en# Rene and Rodne1 invo,ed ali4i/ R!4en clai'ed that he was at the &rovincial hos&ital attendin) to his wife who earlier !nderwent a caesarian o&eration/ Rene and Rodne1# sons of Rodri)o# clai'ed that the1 were at ho'e slee&in) when the ,illin) occ!rred/ Rene# who was onl1 13 then# testified that he ca'e to ,now a4o!t the incident that sa'e ni)ht when his 'other awa,ened hi'/ Rodne1 on the other hand# was awa,ened 41 sho!ts that his father ,illed 7nri*!e Calinas/ I ue 1. WON t'e &#(er c#urt erre% "$ *"v"$* cre%e$ce t# t'e te t".#$1 #+ !r# ecut"#$ ("t$e F&#re$c"# Ta1c# (indin)s of the trial co!rt is 4indin) and concl!sive on the a&&ellate co!rt !nless so'e facts or circ!'stances of wei)ht and s!4stance have 4een overloo,ed# 'isa&&rehended or 'isinter&reted# which is not tr!e in the &resent case/ (lorencioKs testi'on1 is clear and convincin)# as he was onl1 2 ar's len)th awa1 fro' the victi' as well as fro' the assailants/ Ali4i of a&&ellants were not s!&&orted 41 an1 &ieces of evidence and th!s were not s!fficient to o!twei)h their &ositive identification 41 one of the &rosec!tion witnesses/ -. c#$ !"rac1 'a% taBe$ !&ace Cons&irac1 'a1 4e ded!ced fro' the 'ode and 'anner in which the offense was co''itted and concerted acts of the acc!sed to o4tain a co''on cri'inal o4@ective si)nifies cons&irac1/ ,. t'e a!!e&&a$t ('# (a 1,D WON are *u"&t1 #+ .ur%er A!art"cu&ar&1 Re$e6 WON

Fith res&ect to acc!sed;a&&ellant Rene 7ste&ano# the records show that he was onl1 13 1ears of a)e at the ti'e of the co''ission of the offense/ .nder Art/ 12/ &ar/ 3 of the RPC# a &erson over $ 1ears of a)e and !nder 16 is e+e'&t fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1 !nless it is shown that he acted with %2SC7R=M7=T/ Scr!tin1 of records show that &rosec!tion failed to &rove that Rene acted with discern'ent# what was onl1 esta4lished was his &resence and his s!&&osed &artici&ation in the ,illin)/ Y %a'a)es of P100N were also 'odified and red!ced to P60#000# considerin) that the &!r&ose of s!ch award is not to enrich the heirs 4!t to co'&ensate the' for the in@!ries to their feelin)s/ Fherefore# the decision a&&ealed fro' is 'odified and acc!sed;a&&ellants R!4en and Rodne1 are fo!nd )!ilt1 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t# Rene 7ste&ano is ACT.2TT7%/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. DO<UENA 6" Phil/ 6"0 (1$3$) Nature: A&&eal fro' an order of the Co!rt of (irst 2nstance of Pan)asinan (convictin) <alentin %o*!ena# 13 1ears# $ 'onths# and 6 da1s old# of ho'icideH havin) acted with discern'ent in co''ittin) the said act/) Fact : Cetween 1;2 &' of =ov/ 1$# 1$3"# !an Ra)o@os and 7&ifanio Raran) were &la1in) volle14all in the 1ard of their school in S!al# Pan)asinan/ <alentin %o*!ena# the acc!sed# interce&ted the 4all# and threw it a Ra)o@os# who was hit in the sto'ach/ Miffed# Ra)o@os chased %o*!ena# and !&on catchin) hi'# sla&&ed %o*!ena on the na&e# and &!nched hi' in the face/ After doin) this# Ra)o@os went 4ac, to Raran) to res!'e &la1in) volle14all/ 2ns!lted# %o*!ena loo,ed for so'ethin) to throw at Ra)o@os# findin) none# he )ot his co!sinKs (Ro'!aldo Cocal) ,nife# and confronted Ra)o@os/ Ra)o@oKs denied %o*!enaKs re*!est for a fi)ht and res!'ed &la1in)/ %o*!ena sta44ed the !naware Ra)o@os in the chest# there41 ,illin) the latter/ The co!rt held that in co''ittin) the act# the acc!sed acted with discern'ent and was conscio!s of the nat!re and conse*!ences of his acts# therefore his defense that he was a 'inor was !ntena4le ()iven that the %o*!ena was a Dth )rade &!&il# one of the 4ri)htest in his class# and was an officer in the CAT &ro)ra')# and th!s convicted hi' of the cri'e of ho'icide/ The co!rt ordered hi' to 4e sent to the Trainin) School for Co1s !ntil he reaches the a)e of 'a@orit1/ Th!s# the a&&eal 41 the acc!sed# statin) that to deter'ine whether or not there was discern'ent on the &art of the 'inor# the followin) '!st 4e ta,en into consideration3 a) The facts and circ!'stances which )ave rise to the act co''itted/ 4) The state of 'ind at the ti'e the cri'e was co''itted c) The ti'e he had at his dis&osal

d) 'inor I

The de)ree of reasonin) of the ue: FO= the acc!sed acted with discern'ent

7e&%: %ecision affir'ed/ >es# the acc!sed acted with discern'ent/ Acc!sed 'ista,es the discern'ent for &re'editation# or at least for lac, of intention# as a 'iti)atin) circ!'stance/ 8owever# the %2SC7R=M7=T that constit!tes an e+ce&tion to the e+e'&tion fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1 of a 'inor !nder 16 1ears 4!t over nine# who co''its an act &rohi4ited 41 law# is his M7=TA: CAPAC2T> to !nderstand the difference 4etween ri)ht and wron)# and s!ch ca&acit1 'a1 4e ,nown and sho!ld 4e deter'ined 41 ta,in) into consideration all the facts and circ!'stances afforded 41 the records in each case# the ver1 a&&earance# the ver1 attit!de# the ver1 co'&ort'ent and 4ehavior of said 'inor# not onl1 4efore and d!rin) the co''ission of the act# 4!t also after and even d!rin) the trial/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. AGLIDAY 36D SCRA 2D3 (2001) Nature: An a&&eal fro' decision of RTC findin) acc!sed Ricardo A)lida1 )!ilt1 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t of &arricideH sentenced hi' to recl!sion &er&et!a Fact : Rec,less i'&r!dence consists of vol!ntaril1 doin) or failin) to do# witho!t 'alice# an act fro' which 'aterial da'a)e res!lts 41 reason of an ine+c!sa4le lac, of &reca!tion on the &art of the &erson &erfor'in) or failin) to &erfor' s!ch act/ Once 'alice is &roven# rec,lessness disa&&ears/ On (e4/ 26# 1$$$ in the evenin) A)lida1 shot his son Richard A)lida1 with an !nlicensed shot)!n# ca!sin) his death/ Prosec!tion witness Conchita A)lida1# wife of a&&ellant testified that while she was washin) the dishes in the ,itchen when her h!s4and shot her sonH shortl1 after a&&ellant ran awa1 while she 4ro!)ht her son first to the Sto/ =iVo 8os&ital# then to the San Carlos 8os&ital# then finall1 to the Re)ion 2 0eneral 8os&ital where he died/ Cefore shootin)# she and a&&ellant *!arreled over her 4ein) a la!ndr1 wo'an/ Richard was onl1 1$ 1ears old and in 5th 1ear colle)e/ Another witness Re1 A)lida1# 4rother of Richard said that he was in the ho!se restin) on a wooden 4ed when he saw a&&ellant shoot his 4rother/ 8e said that while his &arents were *!arrellin) he did not interfere# 4!t his 4rother did that is wh1 he was shot 41 a&&ellant/ A&&ellant clai's# on the other hand that he was in the ho!se cleanin) a ho'e'ade )!n to 4e !sed for evenin) &atrol (he was a 4aran)a1 tanod) when the )!n accidentall1 went off# fatall1 hittin) his son (in the )l!te!s 'a+i'!sXXX) after which he went to his son and e'4raced hi'/ Afterwards he s!rrendered/ The r!lin) of trial co!rt )ave credence to &rosec!tion witnessesH dis4elieved that a&&ellantKs shootin) was an accident/ I ue6 7e&% a$% Rat"#:

1. ("t$e e are cre%")&e

WON Ju%*.e$t: A&&eal denied ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; US v. TANEDO 16 Phil/ 1$6 (1$10) Nature: A&&eal fro' a @!d)'ent of the C(2 of Tarlac Fact : On an!ar1 26# 1$0$# Cecilio Tanedo# a landowner# went with so'e wor,ers to wor, on the da' on his land# carr1in) with hi' his shot)!n and a few shells/ .&on reachin) the da'# the acc!sed went on his wa1 to h!nt for wild chic,ens# 'eetin) the victi'# (eliciano Sanche-# the latterKs Mother and .ncle/ The acc!sed went into the forest !&on the reco''endation of the deceased to contin!e his search for the el!sive wild chic,ens/ .&on seein) one# Tanedo shot one# 4!t si'!ltaneo!sl1# he heard a h!'an cr1 o!t in &ain/ After seein) that Sanche- was wo!nded# Tanedo ran 4ac, to his wor,ers and as,ed one# Cernardino Ta)a'&a# to hel& hi' hide the 4od1# which the1 did 41 &!ttin) it a'idst the tall co)on )rass# and later 4!r1in) in an old well/ Onl1 one shot was heard that 'ornin) and a chic,en was ,illed 41 a )!nshot wo!nd/ Chic,en feathers were fo!nd at the scene of the cri'e/ There was no en'it1 4etween the acc!sed and the deceased/ Prior to the trial# the acc!sed denied all ,nowled)e of the cri'e# 4!t later confessed d!rin) the trial/ The lower co!rt fo!nd the acc!sed )!ilt1 of ho'icide# havin) invited the deceased into the forest and intentionall1 shootin) hi' in the chest/ Acc!sed was sentenced to 15 1ears# " 'onths and one da1 of recl!sion te'&oral# accessories# inde'nifications and costs/ The acc!sed a&&ealed/ I ue: FO= the acc!sed is )!ilt1 Conchita and Re1 A)lida1 are credi4le witnesses/ A&&ellant clai's co!rt sho!ld have 4elieved hi' since he does not have an1 reason to ,ill his son who has a 4ri)ht f!t!re# and that his witnesses ( ose Mata4an) and SPO1 O&ina) are 'ore credi4le/ Co!rt disa)rees/ Fhen the iss!e is one of credi4ilit1# an a&&ellate co!rt will nor'all1 not dist!r4 the findin)s of the trial co!rt/ Mata4an)Ks testi'on1 was 4asicall1 what a&&ellant told hi' ; 4iased and li'itedH while O&inaKs clai' that Conchita told hi' that shootin) was accidental is not acc!rate# since she was still in a state of shoc,

The co!rt *!oted State vs/ :e))3 JFhere accidental ,illin) is relied !&on as a defense# the acc!sed is not re*!ired to &rove s!ch a defense 41 a &re&onderance of the evidence# 4eca!se there is a denial of intentional ,illin)# and the 4!rden is !&on the state to show that it was intentional# and if# fro' a consideration of all the evidence# 4oth that for the state and the &risoner# there is a reasona4le do!4t as to whether or not the ,illin) was accidental or intentional# the @!r1 sho!ld ac*!it/J Co!rt held that the evidence was ins!fficient to s!&&ort the @!d)'ent of conviction/ Dec" "#$: !d)'ent of Conviction is reversed# the acc!sed ac*!itted# and dischar)ed fro' c!stod1/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. :INDOY 66 Phil/ 16 (1$31) Fact : On Ma1 6# 1$30# %onato Cindo1 offered so'e t!4a to Ti4a1# (a!stino PacasK wife/ She ref!sed and Cindo1 threatened to in@!re her if she did not acce&t/ Pacas ste&&ed in to defend his wife and atte'&ted to ta,e awa1 fro' Cindo1 the 4olo he carried/ The dist!r4ance attracted the attention of 7'i)dio O'a'da'/ 2n the co!rse of the str!))le# Cindo1 s!cceeded in disen)a)in) hi'self fro' Pacas# wrenchin) the 4olo fro' the latterKs hand# with s!ch violence that the &oint of the 4olo reached O'a'da'Ks chest# who was then 4ehind Cindo1/ The trial co!rt held that Cindo1 was )!ilt1 of the cri'e of ho'icide/ Cindo1 a&&ealed# alle)in) that the death of O'a'da' was ca!sed accidentall1 and witho!t 'alicio!s intent/ I ue: FO= the cri'e of which Cindo1 was fo!nd )!ilt1 of can 4e 'iti)ated on the )ro!nd of accident/ 7e&%: >es/ %ecision is reversed/ Cindo1 is ac*!itted accordin) to Article "# =o/ " of the Revised Penal Code Rat"#: 1/ There is no evidence to show that Cindo1 deli4eratel1 and intentionall1 ,illed O'a'da'/  =o evidence that O'a'da' too, &art in the fi)ht 4etween Cindo1 and Pacas/  =o evidence that Cindo1 was aware of O'a'da'Ks &resence/  =o evidence that there was disa)ree'ent or ill feelin)s 4etween Cindo1 and O'a'da'/ On the contrar1# the1 were ne&hew and !ncle# and were on )ood ter's with each other/ 2/ The witness for the defense corro4orates the defendant to the effect that Pacas and Cindo1 were act!all1 str!))lin) for the &ossession of the 4olo# and that when the latter let )o# the

-.

WON a!!e&&a$tJ '##t"$* (a a$ acc"%e$t ('"c' .a1 )e u e% a a$ e4e.!t"$* c"rcu. ta$ce =o# it cannot/ A&ellant contends that since his )!n accidentall1 went off while he was cleanin) it# he sho!ld 4e ac*!itted on the 4asis of the e+e'&tin) circ!'stance of accident !nder Art/ 12(5) of the RPC/ The co!rt is not &ers!aded/ 2n Art/ 12(5)# cri'inal lia4ilit1 does not arise in a case where a cri'e is co''itted 41 an1 &erson who# while &erfor'in) a lawf!l act with d!e care# ca!ses an in@!r1 41 'ere accident witho!t fa!lt or intention of ca!sin) it/ 7+e'&tion is 4ased on the lac, of cri'inal intent/ %eclarations of innocence of a&&ellant contradicted 41 testi'onies of wife and s!rvivin) son/ Cefore acc!sed can 4e e+e'&ted fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1 !nder Art 12 (5)# there sho!ld 4e3  A &erson &erfor'in) a lawf!l act  %!e care  Ca!ses an in@!r1 to another 41 'ere accident  Fitho!t an1 fa!lt and intention of ca!sin) it Act of firin) a shot)!n (and an !nlicensed one at that) is not lawf!l/ Accident is an occ!rrence that Jha&&ens o!tside the swa1 of o!r will# and altho!)h it co'es a4o!t thro!)h so'e act of o!r will# lies 4e1ond the 4o!nds of h!'anl1 foreseea4le conse*!encesA E connotes a4sence of cri'inal intent/ (irear' was a shot)!n that needs to 4e coc,ed first 4efore it can 4e fired/ A&&ellant contends that he is onl1 )!ilt1 of rec,less i'&r!dence/ C!t the co!rt disa)rees/ Rec,less i'&r!dence consists of vol!ntaril1 doin) or failin) to do# witho!t 'alice# an act fro' which 'aterial da'a)e res!lts 41 reason of an ine+c!sa4le lac, of &reca!tion on the &art of the &erson &erfor'in) or failin) to &erfor' s!ch act/ 2ntent is not lac,in) in the instant case/ A&&ellantKs e+ternal acts &rove 'alice or cri'inal intent/

7e&%: =o/ The idea that Tanedo intended to ,ill Sanche- is ne)ated 41 the fact that the chic,en and the 'an were shot at the sa'e ti'e# there havin) onl1 one shot fired/ Also# accordin) to3  Article 1 of the Penal Code3 Cri'es or 'isde'eanors are vol!ntar1 acts and o'issions &!nished 41 lawL  Article "3 8e who while &erfor'in) a le)al act with d!e care# ca!ses so'e in@!r1 41 'ere accident witho!t lia4ilit1 or intention of ca!sin) it/  Section 6D of Code of Cri'inal Proced!re3 A defendant in a cri'inal action shall 4e &res!'ed to 4e innocent !ntil the contrar1 is &roved# and in case of a reasona4le do!4t that his )!ilt is satisfactoril1 shown he shall 4e entitled to an ac*!ittal/ 2n this case there is no evidence of ne)li)ence on the &art of the acc!sed# nor is it dis&!ted that the acc!sed was en)a)ed in a le)al act# nor is there evidence that the acc!sed intended to ,ill the deceased/ The onl1 thin) s!s&icio!s is his denial of the act and his conceal'ent of the 4od1/

for'er had &!lled so violentl1 that it flew towards O'a'da'# who was therefore hit in the chest# witho!t Cindo1Ks seein) hi'# 4eca!se O'a'da' had &assed 4ehind hi'/ The testi'on1 of this witness was not contradicted 41 an1 re4!ttal evidence add!ced 41 the fiscal/ 3/ 2f# in the str!))le# the defendant had atte'&ted to wo!nd his o&&onent# and instead of doin) so# had wo!nded O'a'da'# he wo!ld 4e lia4le for his act# since whoever willf!ll1 co''its a felon1 or a 'isde'eanor inc!rs cri'inal lia4ilit1# altho!)h the wron)f!l act done is different fro' that which he intended/ This is not the case here/ Cindo1 did not tr1 to wo!nd Pacas/ 8e was onl1 tr1in) to defend his &ossession of the 4olo# which Pacas was tr1in) to wrench awa1 fro' hi'/ 8is cond!ct was &erfectl1 lawf!l/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. LISING 2"6 SCRA 6$6 (1$$") Fact : 2n March 1$$0# Rodolfo Manalili# a 4!siness'an# as,ed (eli'on 0arcia# his town'ate# if he ,new so'e4od1 who co!ld alle)edl1 affect the arrest of Ro4ert 8errera# the s!s&ect in the ,illin) of his 4rother# %elfin Manalili/ On A&ril 21# 1$$0# 0arcia called !& Manalili and infor'ed hi' that he alread1 contracted a &olice'an to hel& hi'/ On A&ril 22# 0arcia introd!ced Ro4erto :isin)# 7nrico %i-on and another 'an to Manalili/ %!rin) the 'eetin)# Manalili offered to &a1 the' P60N for the @o4/ On A&ril 23;25# :isin)Ks )ro!& 'et with <ic :is4oa and cond!cted a s!rveillance on the CastaVos residence in the ho&e of seein) 8errera/ (ailin) to do so# the )ro!& was as,ed to ret!rn the ne+t da1/ On A&ril 26# the )ro!& saw a 'an and a wo'an who ha&&ened to 4e Cochise Cerna4e# 26 1ears old and a new )rad!ate of the .P Colle)e of :aw# and Cee4o' CastaVos# 22 ;1ears old and a )rad!atin) st!dent of the .P Colle)e of Mass Co''!nication# leave the CastaVos residence in a )reen 4o+ t1&e :ancer car/ The )ro!& followed the :ancer car with :isin)# %i-on and Man)a ridin) in a 4lac, car and :is4oa and 0arcia in a 'otorc1cle/ The :ancer car sto&&ed at %a1ritKs 8a' and C!r)er 8o!se on Ti'o) Circle/ Ali)htin) fro' the car# the1 were accosted 41 %i-on and Man)a/ On !ne 21# two sec!rit1 )!ards told the CAPCOM that their friends Ra!l Morales and !n Medrano# 4oth e'&lo1ees of Ro4erto :isin)# infor'ed the' that :isin) ,illed a 'an and a wo'an in their wareho!se/ On !ne 23# Ra!l Morales was &ic,ed !& and told his stor1/ On !ne 26# the 4od1 of Cochise was e+h!'ed/ The ca!se of his death was '!lti&le sta4 wo!nds/ The ne+t da1# Cee4o'Ks 4od1 was e+h!'ed fro' a

shallow )rave# 2 ,ilo'eters fro' where CochiseKs 4od1 was fo!nd/ One 41 one# the 'en res&onsi4le for the ,illin) of Cochise and Cee4o' fell into the hands of the a!thorities/ :isin)# 0arcia and Manalili e+ec!ted e+tra@!dicial state'ents/ .&on arrai)n'ent# all the acc!sed &leaded not )!ilt1/ The &rosec!tion &resented two vital witnesses3 (roilan Oli'&ia# who witnessed the a4d!ction of the 1o!n) co!&le at %a1ritKs 8a' and C!r)er 8o!seH and Ra!l Morales# the pahinante who testified on the ,illin) of Cochise/ 2n their defense# the acc!sed &olice'en alle)e that there was ins!fficient evidence to s!stain their conviction/ 7ach one also &resented an ali4i/ On !l1 1# 1$$2# the Co!rt held Manalili# :isin)# 0arcia# Man)a and %i-on )!ilt1 of the cri'e of do!4le '!rder *!alified with treacher1 and a))ravated 41 &re'editation and a4!se of &!4lic &osition 41 :isin)# Man)a and %i-on/ The Co!rt also held :isin)# %i-on and Man)a )!ilt1 of the cri'e of sli)ht ille)al detention a))ravated 41 !se of a 'otor vehicle/ The acc!sed were ac*!itted of the cri'e of ,idna&&in)# since the !se of the car was done onl1 to facilitate the co''ission of the cri'e of sli)ht ille)al detention I ue 6 7e&% a$% Rat"#: 1. t'e e4tra;u%"c"a& tate.e$t #+ a!!e&&a$t Garc"a a$% L" "$* (ere a%." ")&e. WON Ma$a&"&"6

7+tra@!dicial state'ents can also 4e !sed as evidence a)ainst several &ersons char)ed with the sa'e offense when the state'ents are in all 'aterial res&ects identical and there co!ld have 4een no coll!sion a'on) the &arties/  Jinterloc,in) confessionsJ  2n this case# the state'ents were inde&endentl1 e+ec!ted and rather identical with each other in their 'aterial details/ The trial co!rtKs decision in convictin) all the acc!sed was 4ased not 'erel1 on the e+tra@!dicial state'ents of the acc!sed alone 4!t 'ainl1 on the e1ewitness acco!nt of the two witnesses# which the trial co!rt )ave wei)ht and credence as tr!e/ -. t'e !r# ecut"#$ ("t$e M#ra&e (ere cre%")&e. e WON Fr#"&a$6 O&".!"a a$% Rau&

>es/ The testi'on1 of Ra!l Morales satisfied the trial co!rt 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t# as 4ein) consistent and credi4le# s!fficient to convict all the acc!sed for the cri'e of '!rder/  8e testified &ositivel1/  The oc!lar ins&ection cond!cted 41 the trial co!rt s!&&orted MoralesK narration of the events/ The inconsistencies and discre&ancies in the testi'on1 referrin) to 'inor details and not !&on the 4asic as&ect of the cri'e do not i'&air the witnessK credi4ilit1/ These consistencies even tend to stren)then# rather than wea,en# the credi4ilit1 of the witnesses as the1 ne)ate an1 s!s&icion of a rehearsed testi'on1/ The initial rel!ctance of the witnesses to vol!nteer infor'ation a4o!t a cri'inal case and their !nwillin)ness to 4e involved in the cri'inal investi)ation is of co''on ,nowled)e and has 4een @!diciall1 declared as ins!fficient to affect credi4ilit1/ A sworn state'ent or an affidavit does not indicate the co'&lete details of the event/ 2t is a 'atter of @!dicial e+&erience that a sworn state'ent 4ein) ta,en e+ &arte is al'ost alwa1s inco'&lete and often inacc!rate/ %iscre&ancies 4etween the sworn state'ent and the testi'on1 do not necessaril1 discredit the witness/ 2n case of discre&anc1# the latter &revails over the for'er/ Fhen it co'es to the iss!e of credi4ilit1 of the witnesses# the a&&ellate co!rts )ive '!ch wei)ht to the findin)s of the trial co!rt since the latter had the ca&acit1 to e+a'ine and o4serve the witnesses/

>es/ 7+tra@!dicial state'ents are# as a r!le# ad'issi4le as a)ainst their res&ective declarants# &!rs!ant to the r!le that the act# declaration# or o'ission of a &art1 as to a relevant fact 'a1 4e )iven in evidence a)ainst hi'/  Cased !&on the &res!'&tion that no 'an wo!ld declare an1thin) a)ainst hi'self# !nless s!ch declarations were tr!e/  The res&ective e+tra@!dicial state'ent of Manalili and 0arcia were e+ec!ted vol!ntaril1/ The1 were assisted 41 a co!nsel and &ro&erl1 sworn to 4efore a d!l1 a!thori-ed officer/ The1 'erel1 relied on their e+tra@!dicial state'ents and did not ta,e the witness stand/  :isin) clai's that he was coerced and tort!red into e+ec!tin) the e+tra@!dicial state'ent/ 8owever# he did not &resent hi'self for &h1sical e+a'ination# nor did he file ad'inistrative char)es a)ainst his alle)ed tor'entors/  The followin) are indicators of the vol!ntariness in the e+ec!tion of :isin)Bs e+tra@!dicial state'ent3 ; 2t contains 'an1 details and facts which the investi)atin) officer co!ld not have ,nown witho!t the infor'ation )iven 41 :isin)/ ; 2t 4ears corrections d!l1 initialed 41 :isin)/ ; 2t tends to e+&lain or @!stif1 his cond!ct and shift the 4la'e to his co;acc!sed Manalili/

,.

WON t'e +"$%"$* #+ c#$ !"rac1 a.#$* t'e a!!e&&a$t (a u++"c"e$t&1 !r#ve$. >es/ Cons&irac1 is a !nit1 of &!r&ose and intention in the co''ission of a cri'e/ Cons&irac1 e+ists when 2 or 'ore &ersons co'e to an a)ree'ent concernin) the co''ission of a felon1 and decide to co''it it/ Fhile direct evidence is not necessar1# cons&irac1 'a1 4e inferred fro' and &roven 41 acts of the acc!sed when d!rin) and after said acts &oint to a @oint &!r&ose and desi)n# concerted action and co''!nit1 of interest The trial co!rt did not err in findin) the e+istence of cons&irac1 in this case )iven the interloc,in) confessions of Manalili# 0arcia and :isin) Fhere cons&irac1 is esta4lished# the act of one is the act of all/ The &recise 'odalit1 or e+tent of &artici&ation of each individ!al cons&irator 4eco'es secondar1/ The de)ree of act!al &artici&ation in the co''ission of cri'e is i''aterial/

he was )oin) to ,ill the ca&tain 4eca!se he was ver1 an)r1 with hi'/ 7licanal 'istoo, the state'ent as a @o,e# as 0!iloresa was a )reat @o,er and was s'ilin) at that ti'e/ =o4od1 &aid attention for no one had an1 resent'ent a)ainst the ca&tain and the1 did not ,now of an1 &lan directed a)ainst hi'/ The followin) 'ornin)# findin) the ca&tain in his ca4in# 0!iloresa assa!lted hi' and atte'&ted to sei-e and hold his hands/ At the sa'e ti'e# he was callin) the crew to co'e forward and hel& hi'/ At 0!iloresaKs re*!est# the rest of the crew with the e+ce&tion of the acc!sed sei-ed the ca&tain and tied hi' with ro&e/ After he had 4een rendered hel&less# 0!iloresa str!c, hi' in the nec, with an iron 4ar# deliverin) the wea&on to 7licanal# ordered hi' to co'e forward and assist in dis&osin) of the ca&tain/ 7licanal sei-ed the 4ar and while the ca&tain was still str!))lin)# str!c, hi' a 4low on the head which ca!sed his death/ 7licanalKs defense d!rin) the trial was that he was actin) !nder the i'&!lse of an !ncontrolla4le fear of a )reater in@!r1 ind!ced 41 the threat of 0!iloresa/ 8e was a4sol!tel1 overwhel'ed that in stri,in) the 4low which ,illed the ca&tain# he acted witho!t his own volition and was red!ced to a 'ere instr!'ent in the hands of the chief 'ate/ The trial co!rt ref!sed to acce&t his defense holdin) that 0!iloresa did not e+ercise s!ch infl!ence over hi' that a'o!nted to an !ncontrolla4le fear or a de&rivation of his volition/ 7licanal and others were convicted of '!rder and sentenced to death I ue 6 7e&% a$% Rat"#: 1. WON t'ere (a a t'reat %"recte% t# t'e accu e% t'at (#u&% %e!r"ve '". #+ '" #($ v#&"t"#$ a$% .aBe '". a .ere "$ tru.e$t #+ t'e !er #$ ('# t'reate$e% '".. =one/ The evidence &resented failed to esta4lish a threat so 4ad that it de&rived the acc!sed of his volition/ =either were the1 a4le to esta4lish a threat that was 'ade !nder s!ch circ!'stances that the acc!sed co!ld reasona4l1 have e+&ected that he wo!ld s!ffer 'aterial in@!r1 if he ref!sed to co'&l1/ -. WON t'e c#urt erre% "$ ru&"$* t'at t'e cr".e c#.."tte% (a .ur%er "$ tea% #+ '#."c"%e. =o/ 2t a&&ears !ndis&!ted that# at the ti'e the acc!sed str!c, the deceased with iron 4ar and there41 ca!sed his death# the latter was 4o!nd hand and foot and was hel&less and defenseless/ Fhile it is *!ite tr!e that there was no treacher1 at the 4e)innin) of the str!))le ter'inatin) in the death of the ca&tain# this does not necessaril1 dis&ose the *!estion of treacher1/ J7ven tho!)h the 4e)innin) of an attac, res!ltin) in the death of the deceased is free fro' treacher1 of an1 sort# nevertheless it will 4e fo!nd &resent if# at the ti'e the fatal 4low is str!c,# the deceased is hel&less

and !na4le to defend hi'self/J The cri'e was co''itted with treacher1 and that it was &ro&erl1 deno'inated '!rder instead of ho'icide/ ,. WON t'e c#urt erre% "$ re+u "$* t# a!!&1 Art"c&e 11 #+ t'e /e$a& C#%e "$ +av#r #+ t'e accu e%. =o/ The &ersonal *!alities and characteristics of the acc!sed are 'atters &artic!larl1 co)ni-a4le 41 the trial co!rt# and the a&&lication of this section is &ec!liarl1 within the @!risdiction of that co!rt/

Dec" "#$: There 4ein) neither a))ravatin) nor e+ten!atin) circ!'stances# @!d)'ent a&&ealed fro' is R7<7RS7% and the acc!sed is here41 sentenced to cadena &er&et!a/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. LORENO 130 SCRA 311 (1$"5) Nature: A&&eal fro' the @!d)'ent of the C(2 of Ca'arines S!r Fact : Caran)a1 Ca&tain 7lias Mon)e# his fa'il1 and (rancisco (a4ie# their far' hel&er were ho'e &re&arin) for the 4arrio dance when :oreno and a 'an in a dar, sweater ca'e 41 their ho!se# sa1in) there was a letter fro' the chief (he&e)/ 7lias let the' in and when the1 read the letter# it said that the1 were =PA/ The1 were 'ade to lie on the )ro!nd while other 'en went in the ho!se/ The alle)ed =PA 'e'4ers ro44ed the fa'il1 of several 4elon)in)s/ Moreover# the 'an in the dar, sweater ra&ed the two da!)hters of 7lias# Cristina and Monica/ 7lias# Cristina# Monica and (a4ie &ositivel1 identified :oreno as one of the ro44ers/ (a4ie also identified Marantal/ I ue: FO= :oreno and Marantal are e+e'&ted fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1 !nder the defenses of Article 12(6) and (6) 7e&%: =o/ A&&ellants 7!sta*!io :oreno and i''1 Marantal clai'ed that the1 acted !nder the co'&!lsion of an irresisti4le force andGor !nder the i'&!lse of !ncontrolla4le fear of e*!al or )reater in@!r1/ The1 ad'itted that the1 were in the ho!se of 7lias that ni)ht 4!t the1 were onl1 forced 41 a 'an wearin) 4lac, sweater and his five co'&anions who clai'ed to 4e 'e'4ers of the =PA# with the threat that if the1 did not o4e1# a&&ellants and their fa'ilies wo!ld 4e ,illed/ This was fo!nd !ntena4le/ A &erson who acts !nder the co'&!lsion of an irresisti4le force# li,e one who acts !nder the i'&!lse of !ncontrolla4le fear of e*!al or )reater in@!r1# is e+e'&t fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1 4eca!se he does not act with freedo'/ The force '!st 4e irresisti4le to red!ce hi' to a 'ere instr!'ent who acts not onl1 witho!t will 4!t a)ainst his will/ The d!ress# force# fear or inti'idation '!st 4e &resent# i''inent and i'&endin) and of s!ch a nat!re as to ind!ce a well;)ro!nded a&&rehension of death or serio!s 4odil1 har' if the act is not done/ A threat of f!t!re in@!r1 is not eno!)h/ The co'&!lsion '!st 4e of s!ch character as to leave

@.

WON t'e &"a)"&"t1 #+ Garc"a " ."t"*ate% )1 A1D '" &acB #+ "$te$t #r .#t"ve6 A-D '" act (ere .a%e u$%er t'e c#.!u& "#$ #+ a$ "rre " t")&e +#rce6 a$% A,D '" v#&u$tar1 urre$%er6 ('"c' (#u&% .aBe '". .ere&1 a$ acc#.!&"ce t# t'e cr".e =o/ To 4e e+e'&t fro' cri'inal lia4ilit1# a &erson invo,in) irresisti4le force or !ncontrolla4le fear '!st show that the force e+erted was s!ch that it red!ced hi' to a 'ere instr!'ent who acted not onl1 witho!t will 4!t a)ainst his will/ S!ch co'&!lsion '!st 4e of so'e character as to leave the acc!sed no o&&ort!nit1 for self;defense in e*!al co'4at or for esca&e/ 0arciaKs &artici&ation and &resence fro' the ti'e the a4d!ction was hatched# !& to the ,illin) of the victi's is !ndis&!ted/

Ju%*.e$t: (indin) Manalili# .sin)# 0arcia# Man)a and %i-on )!ilt1 of do!4le '!rder E affir'ed/ (indin) :isin)# %i-on# Man)a )!ilt1 of sli)ht ille)al detention E 'odified to ,idna&&in) (considerin) that a fe'ale victi' was involved) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE AU.S.2D v. ELICANAL 36 Phil/ 20$ (1$16) Nature: A&&eal fro' the @!d)'ent of C(2 of lloilo Fact : 7d!ardo 7licanal# a 22;1ear old !ned!cated and so'ewhat &h1sicall1 wea, 'an# was a 'e'4er of the 2orcha Catal!na cr!isin) the Phili&&ine waters of lloilo !nder the ca&tainc1 of !an =o'o/ The first 'ate was 0!iller'o 0!iloresa/ On %ece'4er 11# 1$15# 0!iloresa tells 7licanal that

no o&&ort!nit1 to the acc!sed for esca&e or self;defense in e*!al co'4at/ :oreno and Marantal had ad'itted their &artici&ation in the co''ission of the cri'es of ro44er1 and ra&e a)ainst 7lias and is fa'il1/ (acts inconsistent with the a&&ellantsB defense were esta4lished3 (a) havin) 4een ar'ed with a firear'# (4) :oreno &ositionin) hi'self near the &ost of the 4alcon1 witho!t &rior instr!ctions# (c) :oreno f!rnishin) the rattan to tie the victi's# and (d) :oreno &ointin) his )!n to the other victi's when Monica was 4ein) ra&ed/ (!rther'ore# :oreno 4ro!)ht Ceata# 7liasBs wife to the different roo's to o&en the tr!n,s and closets# witho!t the threat and assistance of the 'an in dar, sweater/ And lastl1# :oreno tried to 'olest Cristina after 4ein) ra&ed 41 the 'an in dar, sweater/ Fhen Marantal ,ic,ed (a4ie when the latter saw his face# it was d!e to the fact the (a4ie had reco)ni-ed hi' and the 4lows which he )ave to (a4ie who was still tied was a warnin) not to re&ort his &resence and &artici&ation in the cri'e/ (!rther'ore# there was no showin) that i''1 Marantal raised a voice of &rotest nor did an act to &revent the co''ission of the cri'es/ All these de'onstrated the vol!ntar1 &artici&ation and the cons&irac1 of the a&&ellants/ =ot onl1 was their defense !ntena4le# 4!t the facts show that that there was cons&irac1/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; US v. CA:ALLEROS 5 Phil/ 360 (1$06) Nature: A&&eal fro' a @!d)'ent of the C(2 of Ce4! Fact : Ro4ert Cac!li and A&olonio Ca4alleros were convicted as accessories to the cri'e of assassination or '!rder of fo!r A'erican school;teachers# havin) 4!ried the cor&ses of the victi's to conceal the cri'e/ The1 were alle)edl1 coerced/ I ue: FO= the defense !nder Art12(6) is tena4le 7e&%: >es/ =ot onl1 is Cac!liBs confession that he onl1 assisted in the 4!rial of the cor&ses 4eca!se he was co'&elled 41 the '!rderers# 4!t this was corro4orated 41 the onl1 e1ewitness to the cri'e# Sa4ate/ Sa4ate said that he was &resent when the A'ericans were ,illedH that Cac!li was not a 'e'4er of the )ro!& of '!rderers 4!t he was in the 4anana &lantation )atherin) so'e 4ananasH that when he heard the shots he 4e)an to r!nH that he was# however# seen 41 %a'aso and 2sidro# the leaders of the 4andH that the latter called to hi' and stri,in) hi' with the 4!tts of their )!ns forced hi' to 4!r1 the cor&ses/ As for Ca4alleros# there was no &roof that he too, an1 &art in the e+ec!tion of the cri'eH there was concl!sive &roof to the contrar1/ Sa4ate and Cac!li declared that Ca4alleros did not ta,e an1 &art in the 4!rial of the aforesaid cor&ses# nor was he even in the &lace of the occ!rrence when the 4!rial too, &lace/ Their fail!re to re&ort the cri'e is not an offense &!nished 41 the Penal Code

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; U.S. v. EGALTACION 3 Phil/ 33$ (1$06) Nature: A&&eal fro' a @!d)'ent of the C(2 C!lacan Fact : On March 26# 1$03# :i4erate 7+altacion and C!enavent!ra Tanchinco were char)ed with re4ellion E willf!ll1 and ille)all1 4o!nd the'selves to ta,e &art in a re4ellion a)ainst the )overn'ent of the .S# swearin) alle)iance to the Nati&!nan Societ1 (whose &!r&ose was to overthrow the )overn'ent 41 force of ar's)/ 7+altacion and Tanchinco clai' that the1 were ca&t!red 41 ar'ed 4andits and were co'&elled to si)n doc!'ents (containin) oath ta,en in the na'e of 0od and a covenant to carr1 o!t s!&erior orders of the Nati&!nan Societ1 and never diso4e1 the' !ntil their death in the defense of the 'other co!ntr1) !nder threat of death/ 7+altacion and Tanchinco re&orted the incident to the )overnor# lie!tenant of vol!nteers and the &resident of Me1ca!a1an/ Fitnesses testified to this fact as well/ I ue: 8avin) si)ned the said doc!'ents# are the defendants )!ilt1 of the cri'e of re4ellionQ Or did defendants inc!r cri'inal lia4ilit1 when the1 si)ned the doc!'entsQ 7e&%: =o/ The evidence for the &rosec!tion and the doc!'ents si)ned 41 the acc!sed is not s!fficient to &rove the )!ilt of the latter or to @!stif1 the i'&osition !&on the' of the &enalt1 inflicted 41 the @!d)'ent of the co!rt 4elow/ The facts# esta4lished 41 the evidence# that the defendants were ,idna&&ed 41 4ri)ands who 4elon)ed to the Contreras Cand# and that the1 si)ned the said doc!'ents !nder co'&!lsion and while in ca&tivit1# relieve the' fro' all cri'inal lia4ilit1 fro' the cri'e of re4ellion of which the1 are char)ed/ The cond!ct of the defendants in &resentin) the'selves to the a!thorities as soon as the1 were released is corro4orative of their innocence/ 0!ilt of defendants was not esta4lished 4e1ond reasona4le do!4t/ Ju%*.e$t: %ecision of %efendants ACT.2TT7% the lower co!rt R7<7RS7%/

of the Calaan 4rothers were e+h!'ed/ Afterwhich# the re'ains# were 4ro!)ht to the ho!se of (reddie Arevalo# a reltive of the deceased where the1 were laid in state for the wa,e/ The RTC declared (ronda )!ilt1 as a &rinci&al 41 indis&ensa4le coo&eration/ The a&&ellant sa1s he was onl1 ta,en 41 the ar'ed 'en as a &ointer and inter&oses the e+e'&tin) circ!'stance !nder Art/ 12(6) RPC clai'in) that all his acts were &erfor'ed !nder the i'&!lse of !ncontrolla4le fear and to save his life/ I ue: FO= (ronda can clai' the e+e'&tin) circ!'stance of !ncontrolla4le fear/ 7e&%: =o/ (ear in order to 4e valid sho!ld 4e 4ased on a real# i''inent or reasona4le fear for oneBs life or li'4/ (Peo&le vs/ A4anes) 2n the case at 4ar# the records indicate that a&&ellant was seen 4ein) handed 41 and receivin) fro' one of the ar'ed 'en a h!ntin) ,nife/ Also# as aforesaid# a&&ellant was not a4le to e+&lain his fail!re to re&ort the incident to the a!thorities for 'ore than three 1ears/ These circ!'stances# a'on) others# esta4lish the fact that the a&&ellant conscio!sl1 conc!rred with the acts of the assailants/ 2n order that the circ!'stance of !ncontrolla4le fear 'a1 a&&l1# it is necessar1 that the co'&!lsion 4e of s!ch a character as to leave no o&&ort!nit1 to esca&e or self;defense in e*!al co'4at/ (Peo&le v/ :oreno) A&&ellant had the o&&ort!nit1 to esca&e when he was ordered 41 the ar'ed 'en to )o ho'e after 4rin)in) the victi's to the 'o!ntains/ 8e did not/ 2nstead he @oined the ar'ed 'en when re*!ired to 4rin) a s&ade with which he was ordered to di) the )rave/ A&&ellant also chose to re'ain silent for 'ore than three 1ears 4efore re&ortin) the ,illin) to the a!thorities/ Cased on these circ!'stances# Fe hold that the conte'&oraneo!s and s!4se*!ent acts of a&&ellant cannot 4e re)arded as havin) 4een done !nder the i'&!lse of !ncontrolla4le fear/ ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; U.S. v. 9INCENTILLO 1$ Phil/ 11" (1$11) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; /EO/LE v. FRONDA 222 SCRA D1 (1$$3) Nature: A&&eal fro' the decision of RTC of A&arri# Ca)a1an Fact : Crothers# 7dwin and 7s'inio Calaan were ta,en 41 seven ar'ed 'en in fati)!e !nifor's with lon) firear's# s!s&ected to 4e =PA 'e'4ers# acco'&anied 41 the acc!sed R!d1 (ronda and Roderic, Pad!a fro' the ho!se of (er'inio Calaan/ The ar'ed 'en tied the hands of the deceased at their 4ac, l1in) down face downward# in front of the ho!se of (er'inio/ The1 all &roceeded towards Sitio T!lon) &assin) thro!)h the rice fields/ Three 1ears later# the 4odies or re'ains Fact : One 'ornin)# <alentin A)!ilar saw his nei)h4or# osefina Candian# )ot to a thic,et a&&arentl1 to res&ond to the call of nat!re/ (ew 'in!tes later# Candian e'er)ed fro' the thic,et with her clothes stained with 4lood 4oth in the front and 4ac,# sta))erin) and visi4l1 showin) si)ns of not 4ein) a4le to s!&&ort herself/ R!shin) to her aid# he 4ro!)ht her to her ho!se and &laced her on the 4ed/ 8e called on Adriano Co'co' to hel& the' Co'co' saw he 4od1 of a new4orn 4a4e near a &ath ad@oinin) the thic,et where the a&&ellant had )one a few /EO/LE v. :ANDIAN 63 Phil 630 (1$36) Nature: A&&eal fro' a @!d)'ent of the C(2 of Oriental Misa'is

'o'ents 4efore/ She clai'ed it was hers/ %r/ 7'ilio =e&o'!ceno declared that the a&&ellant )ave 4irth in her own ho!se and three her child into the thic,et to ,ill it/ The trial co!rt )ave credit to this o&inion/ I ue: FO= Candian is )!ilt1 of infanticide

7e&%: =o/ 2nfanticide and a4andon'ent of a 'inor# to 4e &!nisha4le# '!st 4e co''itted willf!ll1 or conscio!sl1# or at least it '!st 4e the res!lt of a vol!ntar1# conscio!s and free act or o'ission/ The evidence does not show that the a&&ellant# in ca!sin) her childBs death in one wa1 or another# or in a4andonin) it in the thic,et# did so willf!ll1# conscio!sl1 or i'&r!dentl1/ She had no ca!se to ,ill or a4andon it# to e+&ose it to death# 4eca!se her affair with a for'er lover# which was not !n,nown to her second lover# Nirol# too, &lace three 1ears 4efore the incidentH her 'arried life with Nirol9she considers hi' her h!s4and as he considers hi' his wife94e)an a 1ear a)oH as he so testified at the trial# he ,new of the &re)nanc1 and that it was his and that the1Bve 4een ea)erl1 awaitin) the 4irth of the child/ The a&&ellant# th!s# had no ca!se to 4e asha'ed o her &re)nanc1 to Nirol/ A&&arentl1# she was not aware of her child4irth# or if she was# it did not occ!r to her or she was !na4le# d!e to her de4ilit1 or di--iness# which ca!se 'a1 4e considered lawf!l or ins!&era4le to constit!te the seventh e+e'&tin) circ!'stance# to ta,e her child fro' the thic,et where she had )iven it 4irth# so as not to leave it a4andoned and e+&osed to the dan)er of losin) its life/ 2f 41 )oin) into the thic,et to &ee# she ca!sed a wron) as that of )ivin) 4irth to her child in that sa'e &lace and later a4andonin) it# not 4eca!se of i'&r!dence or an1 other reason than that she was overco'e 41 stron) di--iness and e+tre'e de4ilit1# she co!ld not 4e 4la'ed 4eca!se it all ha&&ened 41 'ere accident# with no fa!lt or intention on her &art/ The law e+e'&ts fro' lia4ilit1 an1 &erson who so acts and 4ehaves !nder s!ch circ!'stances (Art/ 12(5)# RPC)/ Th!s# havin) the fo!rth and seventh e+e'&tin) circ!'stances in her favor# she is ac*!itted of the cri'e that she had 4een acc!sed of/

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close