Crim Owndigest Oct11

8/12/2019 Crim Owndigest Oct11

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim-owndigest-oct11 1/27

isko 1

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Article 11, RPC)SELF-DEFENSE / DEFENSE OF RIGHTS

SOPLENTE vs. PEOPLE(Rogelio) *seeks reversal of the Decision and the Resolution denying his Motion for Reconsiderationthereof, rendered by CA.Facts:Rogelio Soplente and Nicanor Soplente are FIRST COUSINSEduardo Leyson VI – woundedJoel Nortarte – diedPenequito - police

DEFENSE:9:30pm on May 3, 1988, cousins watched the amateur singing contest being held near the Sta. Cruz Chapelat San Pedro Street.

- cousins were standing only few meters away from the group of people who were drinking inthe store of Diola.

- they were approached by two persons from the group of LEYSON, who were drinking at thestore of Diola,tapped Nicanor‘s shoulder

- want to get Nicanor, Nicanor ask help from Rogelio- Rogelio intervened to stop harassing Nicanor, few minutes, Nicanor went to Malig-on‘s store

and ordered orange.Past 11pm - R and N decided to go homepast 12 mn – Bukay (their cousin‘s wife) ask cousins to accompany her in looking for her children

- when they were gone about 300 meters, N separated to buy cigarettes from nearby store.- R and Bukay went onwards at a dist of 50 m from the stage, R stopped and Bukay continued

looking for her children.Few mins later – Bukay found her children and went home

- R on way home found himself surrounded by around 10 guys led by Leyson- He shouted Nicanor to run, Leyson drew his gun and fired at R but he was able to parry it by

tapping the base of Leyson‘s hand gun and fired his gun, Rogelio stabbed Leyson once- Notarte mauled Rogelio, Rogelio stabbed Notarte. He stabbed both to protect himself from

being killed by the group who were armed with canes and lead pipe asidefrom Leyson‘s gun.- Rogelio managed to escape and sought refuge to Susing‘s house (their cousin)

Before dawn -policeman arrived at Susing‘s house and R voluntarily gave himself up - the knife he used was also turned over to the police. After few hours, Nicanor was also picked

up by the police.

RTC: Case 1: Frustrated Homicide for wounding Leyson. (stabbed on his left arm (through and through) – Rogelio was acquitted for self-defense but not on case 2.

Case 2: Homicide for killing Notarte. – 6Y PC – 8Y 1D PM + 50 and 12.5K + hospitalization ofLeyson IV. (Notarte was stabbed on the left side of his body below the armpit.)

*Nicanorwas acquitted and didn‘t appeal anymore for the monetary awards in favor of the victims. CA: affirmed RTC‘s Decision because there was no unlawful aggression on the part of Notarte, which would justify Rogelio‘s claim of self -defense.SC: Decision appealed reversed and Rogelio Soplente is ACQUITTED of the crime charges against him.There was indeed unlawful aggression on the part of Notarte.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rogelio Soplente is criminally liable for the death of Notarte.

HELD:





isko 3

PEOPLE vs GENOSA(Marivic Genosa-wife); --- killed Ben Genosa (her husband) – knew each other since grade 3, they are 3rd cousins*Automatic Revoew of a decision of the RTC of Ormoc City, Leyte“In order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle AT LEASTTWICE.”

Facts:November 19. 1983 – married in Ormoc City

- Thereafter they lived with the parents of Ben at Isabel, Leyte with his brother Alex and his wifeSometime 1995 – Ben rented house from Steban Matiga a house at Brgy. Bilwang. Isabel, Leyte where theylived and have 2 children: John Marben and Earl PierreNov. 15, 1995 – Ben and Arturo Basobas went to cockfight p receiving their salaries, had 2 bootles of beerbefore heading home

-Ben got home and wife is not around, she found out that his wife was gone to Isabel, Leyte to lookfor him.

- Arturo did not see appellant arrive but on his way home paasing the side of Genosas‘ rentedhouse, he heard ―I WONT HESITATE TO KILL YOU, to which Ben replied ―WHY KILL ME WHEN I AM

INNOCENT? That was the last time Arturo saw Ben alive. Nov. 16, 1995 – Marivic asked Erlinda Paderog to look after her pig – she was going to Cebu – prenatalcheck up

12:15pm, Joseph Valida was waiting for a bus to Ormoc when he saw Marivic + 2 children in tow,each one carrying huge bags and locking the gate. They rode the same bus going to Ormoc.Nov. 18, 1995 – neighbors of Steban Matiga told Joseph Valida abot the foul smelling emanating fromrented Genosas‘ house.

- Steban destroyed the gate with steel saw- He went inside the unlocked bedroom where the foul smell was coming from- HE SAW THE LIFELESS BODY OF BEN LYING ON HIS SIDE COVERED WITH A BLANKET

(briefs with injuries at the back of his head)- Steban went outside and told Ben‘s mother (Iluminada Genosa) abt the incident

Morning same day, PO3 Leo Acodesin received a report abt the foul smell at Genosas‘ house - SPO1 Millares SPO1 Colon and Dr. Refelina Cerillo, and SPO3 Acodesin proceeded to the

house and saw the body of Ben.- Beside the aparado – saw metal pipe about 2 meters from where Ben was (metal pipe

measured 3‘6 long with dm of 1.5 ins) - Post mortem examination was done by Dr. Cerillo – Ben dead for two to three days ago and

decomposing… Ben‘s death ―cardiopulmonary arrest 2 to severe intracranial hemorrhage dueto depressed fracture of the occipital bone

Marivic admitted KILLING BEN-Nov 15, 1995 – got worried, went out with her cousing Ecel Arano to look for her husband –

gambling since pay day.. They found out that Ben was drunk upon the return to their house.- ben nagged her for ff him and even challenged her to a fight, she ignored him

- Ben off light and use chopping knife, cut the TV antenna … - Ben was to attack Marivic sho she ran but he got hold of her hands… she fell and screamed forhelp… Marivic packed cothes of Ben for him to leace.. Ben started to rage and drag marivic outside theirroom and told her ―YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE KILLED SO NOBODY WOULD NAG ME

- Marivic knew that there is a gun inside the drawer but Ben didn‘t get it bec no key but he 3 inchlong blade cutter in his wallet, she smashed arm of Ben with a pipe- Ben dropped cutter, smashed himagain on his nape and ran to bedroom



isko 4

- MARIVIC, HOWEVER, INSISTED THAT SHE ENDED LIFE OF HER HUSBAND BY SHOOTINGHIM. SHE SUPPOSEDLY DISTORTED THE DRAWER WHERE THE GUN WAS AND SHOT BEN. HE DIDNOT DIE ON THE SPOT, BUT IN THE BEDROOM.

RTC: Guilty of Parricide – penalty of DEATH + 50K (heirs) +50 k (moral damages) Automatic Review : Affirmed, modification with 2 mitigating circumstance no aggravating – reduced to 6y 1dPM to 14y 8m 1 RT, she is eligible for parole unless held for other unlawful cause.

Issue: Whether or not appellant herein can validly invoke the―battered woman syndrome as constitutingself-defense. OR Whether or not Marivic acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus.

Held: NO! A battered woman has been defined as a woman ―who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical orpsychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concernfor her rights.

More graphically, the battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called ―cycle of violence, whichhas three phases: (1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving

(or, at least, nonviolent) phase.

The Court, however, is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the battered womansyndrome.

- First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at leasttwo battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner.

- Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must haveproduced in the battered person‘s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her battererand an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.

- Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable—not necessarilyimmediate and actual—grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violenceperpetrated by the former against the latter. Taken altogether, these circumstances could

satisfy the requisites of self-defense. Under the existing facts of the present case, however,not all of these elements were duly established.

The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the ―cycle of violence supposedly characterizing therelationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there were acute battering incidents but appellant failedto prove that in at least another battering episode in the past, she had gone through a similar pattern.Neither did appellant proffer sufficient evidence in regard to the third phase of the cycle.

Justifying Circumtances Requisites – failed to prove.

SC, Automatic Review: Affirmed, modification with 2 mitigating circumstance no aggravating – reduced to 6y1d PM to 14y 8m 1 RT, she is eligible for parole unless held for other unlawful cause.



isko 5

PEOPLE vs COURT of APPEALS and ELADIO C. TANGAN“Incomplete self -defense is not considered as a justifying act but merely a mitigating circumstance; absentunlawful aggression, there can never be self defense, complete or incomplete.” *Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA

FACTS: At around 11:30PM, Navy Captain Eladio C. Tangan was driving alone on Roxas Boulevard heading

south and at the same time, Generoso Miranda, a 29 year old optometrist was driving in the samedirection with his uncle, Manuel Miranda, moving ahead of Tangan, when suddenly, firecrackers werethrown in Generoso's way, causing him to swerve to the right and cut Tangan's path.

Tangan blew his horn several times to which Generoso slowed down to let Tangan pass. Tangan accelerated and took over Generoso, however when he got in front, he reduced speed and

when Generoso tried to overtake 4 or 5 times, he kept blocking his lane. As he approached Airport Road, Tangan slowed down to make a U-turn but Generoso passed him,

pulled over and got out of the car with his uncle, causing Tangan to stop and get out of his car. An argument took place: Generoso retorted, ―Putang ina mo, bakit mo ginigitgit angsasakyan ko? ,

Tangan pointed his hand to Generoso to which the other slapped it, saying, Generoso:―Huwag moakong dinuduro! Sino ka ba, ano ba ang pinagmamalakit mo? , and Tangan countered, ―Ikaw, ano anggusto mo? .

With this, Tangan, went to his car and got his .38 caliber handgun (issued by Philippine Navy) on thefront seat and the subsequent events were conflicting:

o According to the prosecution (Miranda): the accused pointed his gun at Generos, and whenManuel tried to intervene, the accused pointed the gun to Manuel and after pointed it again toGeneroso then shot him, hitting his stomach, causing him to fall.

o On the other hand, according to the defense (Tangan): when Tangan took out his gun, he andthe Mirandas started to fight for possession of the gun and they fell down at the back of the carof the accused, that the accused lost possession of the gun and when it fell, it exploded hittingGeneroso.

When the gun went off Tangan ran away, Manuel tried to chase him and told the policeman about theshooting.

Generoso died on the way to Philippine General Hospital. (severe hemorrhage secondary to gunshotwound in the abdomen)

RTC and CA: Tangan was charged with murder but was convicted of homicide with the privilegemitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and ordinary mitigating circumstances of sufficientprovocation on the part of the offended party and of passion and obfuscation being taken intoconsideration – affirmed by the CA.

Solicitor General filed a petition in behalf of the prosecution praying that the judgment be modified,convicting the accused without appreciating the mitigating circumstances and at the same time, Tanganfiled a petition for review.

o Evidenced disproved the Tangan's claim of accidental shooting. *It is noteworthy that during the trial, petitioner Tangan did not invoke self-defense but claimed that

Generoso was accidentally shot.

RTC: crime of MURDER with use of an unlicensed firearm, after investigation was amended toHOMICIDE (Amy-PC) with the use of a licensed firearm with separate charged with illegalpossession of unlicensed firearm (he was ACQUITTED in this case) – was allowed bail in thehomicide case, civil indemnity P30KCA:affirmed the RTC‘s decision but increased civil indemnity to P50KSC: Homicide case – dismissed,

Unlicensed firearm – affirmed with modifications PM-RT + same fees



isko 6

ISSUE: Whether or not Tangan acted in incomplete self-defense.

HELD:NO. The element of unlawful aggression in self-defense must not come from the person defending himselfbut from the victim. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is NOT sufficient.Considering the 3 requisites of SELF-DEFENSE.

- FIRST reqs. The exchange of insulting words and invectives between Tangan and GenerosoMiranda, no matter how objectionable, could not be considered as unlawful aggression, exceptwhen coupled with physical assault, and there being no unlawful aggression, the claim ofincomplete self-defense falls.

- SECOND reqs. Theres is unreasonable means employed to prevent the situation betweenTangan and Generoso.

- THIRD reqs. The lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself isnot supportedby evidence because Tangan was in effect the one who provoked Generoso.

SC: PETITION DISMISSED. SUFFER INDTERMINATE PENALTY OF 6Y 1D PM – 14Y 8M 1D = 50KHEIRS, 42K FUNERAL, 5K ATTY‘S FEE, 50K MORAL DAMAGESNo mitigating circumstances – Tangan‘s acts were done in the spirit of revenges and lawlessness, for which

no mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation can arise.

Tangan’s acts were done in the spirit of revenge and lawlessness, for which no mitigating circumstance of passion of obfuscation can arise.



isko 7

PEOPLE vs NARVAEZ (April 20, 1983)(Mamerto Narvaez) *appeal from the dec of FI of South Cotabato“The act of the victims of ordering and actually fencing off the house and rice mill of the accused constitutesunlawful aggression against property rights.” Fleischer and Co, Inc. – Fleischer – the secretary treasurer

- Rubia – the assistant manager

Narvaez is from northern and central Luzon who went to Mindanaos in 1937 and settled in Maitum, formersitio of Kiamba. He established his residence therein, built his house, cultivated the area, and was amongthose who petitioned then Pres. Quezon to order of subdivision of the defunct Celebes Plantation andnearby Kalaong Plantation totaling about 2,000 hectares, for distribution among the settlers.

- June 3, 1937 – Fleischer Co. headed by George Fischer (father of David) filed salesapplication over the same area formerly leased and later abandoned by Celebes Plantation.

- Actual survey report was not submitted, only 300 hectares in Kiamba were set for Sales Application while the rest were subdivided into subslots to be distributed among the settlers.

- The land was occupied by the settlers for about 30 years. However despite of amicable

settlements, nothing happened. CFI and CA were in favored of the Company.- Among those ejected was Narvaez, to avoid trouble, he dismantled his house built in 1947 at

cost of around 20K and transferred to his other house that he built in 1962 or 1963 near thehighway. The second house is not far from the first house. The ground floor of the secondhouse has store operated by Mrs. June Talens who was renting a portion.

- Rice mill – located 15 meters east of his house and concrete pavement b/n the rice mill andthe house – for drying grains and copra. The land he was residing was still uncertain regardinghis ownership.

June 25, 1968 – david wrote him a letter regarding his non-payment of 6-month rental to Fleischer and Co.,Inc. as agreement executed on Feb. 21, 1967. David gave him 6 months to remove his house, ricemill,bodega, and water pitcher pumps from the land of the company and the six-month shall expire on Dec 31,1968 (1966 in the FT), if not removed they will do immediate demolition.

August 21, 1968 – Fleische and Rubia with their laborers started fencing Lot 38 by putting bamboo posts,the fence when finished will have the effect to shut off the accessibility of Narvaez to his house and rice mill.The fencing continued until…. August 22, 1968

August 22, 1968, 2:30 pm - Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibanez together with the two deceasedDavis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing the land of George Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Q.Fleischer.

- The place was in the boundary of the highway and the hacienda owned by George Fleischer inMaitum, South Cotabato. At the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier ofappellant Mamerto Narvaez.

- At that time, appellant was taking his rest (after working in his farm all morning), but when he

heard that the walls of his house were being chiselled, he arose and there he saw the fencinggoing on.If the fencing would go on, appellant would be prevented from getting into hishouse and the bodega of his ricemill. So he addressed the group, saying 'Pare, if possibleyou stop destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over what is good ,' addressing thedeceased Rubia, who is appellant's compadre. The deceased Fleischer, however, answered:'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.'

- Narvaez apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot Fleischer, hitting him. AsFleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards the jeep, and knowing there is a gun on the jeep,



isko 8

Narvaez fired at Rubia, likewise hitting him. Both Fleischer and Rubia died as a result of theshotting.

RTC/CFI: Narvaez – crime of MURDER qualified by treachery with aggravating circumstance, penalty – Reclusion Perpetua.

a. deceased Davis Q. Fleischer – RP + 12Kcompensatory, 10k moral, 2K atty‘s fee b. deceased Flaviano Rubia – RP + same fees as above

Issue: Whether or not Narvaez acted in defense of his property rights.

Held: YES, but in INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE1. The court held in affirmative.Defense of one's person or rights is treated as a justifying

circumstance under Art. 11, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code , but in order for it to be appreciated,the following requisites must occur :

First.Unlawful aggression; In the case at bar, there was unlawful aggression towards Narvaez‘ property rights. Fleisher hadgiven Narvaez December 31, 1968 (6 months) within which to vacate the land. He should haveallowed appellant the peaceful enjoyment of his properties up to that time, instead of chiselingthe walls of his house and closing appellant's entrance and exit to the highway.

The deceased (Fleisher) had no right to destroy or cause damage to appellant's house, nor toclose his accessibility to the highway while he was pleading with them to stop and talk thingsover with him. The assault on appellant's property, therefore, amounts to unlawfulaggression as contemplated by law .

Illegal aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of immediate andimminent kind (People vs. Encomiendas, 46 SCRA 522).

In the case at bar, there was an actual physical invasion of appellant's property, which he hadthe right to resist.

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;Shooting of the victims by the appellant from the window of his house while the former wereproceeding with the fencing off of appellant‘s rented estate despite the latter‘s plea to stop thesame is disproportionate to the physical aggression of the victims. The reasonableness of theresistance is also a requirement of the justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of one'srights under paragraph 1 of Article 11, Revised Penal Code. When the appellant fired his shotgunfrom his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the attack.

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself (Art. 11,par. 1, Revised Penal Code, as amended). Appellant who was sleeping when the victims chiseled his house and fenced off his estate and who

asked them to stop doing so is not guilty of sufficient provocation when he shot the victims whoignored his plea. WE find, however, that the third element of defense of property is present, i.e.,lack of sufficient provocation on the part of appellant (Narvaez) who was defending his property. Asa matter of fact,there was no provocation at all on his part, since he was asleep at first andwas only awakened by the noise produced by the victims and their laborers. His plea for thedeceased and their men to stop and talk things over with him was no provocation at all.

RTC: The crime committed is homicide on two counts. The qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot beappreciated in this case because of the presence of provocation on the part of the deceased.



isko 9

Consequently, appellant is guilty of two crimes of homicide only, the killing not being attended by anyqualifying nor aggravating circumstance, but extenuated by the privileged mitigating circumstance ofincomplete defense-in view of the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victims and lack ofsufficient provocation on the part of the appellant-and by two generic mitigating circumstance of voluntarysurrender and passion and obfuscation.

CA: DISPOSITION: The court finds the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of only two (2) homicides,mitigated by the privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self-defense as well as by two (2)generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation, without any aggravatingcircumstance. Suffer imprisonment of 4M Amy, 4K each to the heirs of Fleischer and Rubia, No award formoral damages and atty‘s fee. *Considering that Narvaez has been under detention for almost 14 years since his voluntary surrender on Aug 22, 1968. - ordered IMMEDIATE RELEASE.



isko 10

PEOPLE vs BOHOLST-CABALLERO(Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero) *appeal from judgment of the CFI of Leyte, Ormoc City“Requisites must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.”

Facts:she allegedly killed her husband, Francisco Caballero, using a hunting knife.

- The couple was married in June 7, 1956 and had a daughter, lived in barrio Ipil, Ormoc City.They had frequent quarrels due to the husband‘sgambling and drinking and there were timeswhen he maltreated and abused his wife. After more than a year, Francisco abandoned hisfamily.

- Nov. 1957, their daughter got sick and to her husband, askinghelp, husband said ―I DON‘TCARE IF YOU ALL DIE

- In January 2,1958, Cunigunda went caroling with her friends and when she was on her wayhome she met her husband who suddenly held her by the collar and accused her of going outfor prostitution.

- HUSBAND :―WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN PROSTITUTING? YOU ARE SON OF A BITCH! - WIFE: ―WHAT IS YOUR BUSINESS. ANYWAY YOU HAVE ALREADY LEFT US : - Then Francisco said he would kill her, held her by the hair, slapped her until her nose bled

then pushed her towards the ground. She fell to the ground, he knelt on her and proceeded tochoke her and uttered ―NOW IS THE TIME I CAN WHATEVER I WANT. I WILL KILL YOU. Cunigunda, having earlier felt a knife tucked in Francisco‘s belt line while holding unto hiswaist so she wouldn‘t fall to the ground, grabbed the hunting knife and thrust it into herhusband‘s left side, near the belt line just above the thigh.

- He died 2 days after the incident due to the stab wound. Then she ran home and threw theknife away.

- The next day, JANUARY 3, 1958 she surrendered herself to the police along with the torndress that she wore the night before.

- PAT. CABRAL THEN ACCOMPANIED HER TO look for the weapon but because they couldnot find it the policeman advised her to get any knife, and she did, and she gave it to the desksergeant marked as Exhibit C for the prosecution.

RTC: Guilty of Parricide, indeter 8Y 1D PM – 14Y 8M 1D RT +6KCA: Accused-appellant acted in legitimate self-defense – ACQUITTED

Issue: Whether or not Cunigunda, in stabbing her husband, acted in legitimate self-defense.

Held: Yes, she did.Ratio:

1. Burden if proof of self-defense rests on the accused. In this case, the location and nature of the stabwound confirms that the said victim, the husband, was the aggressor.With her husband kneeling over her and choking her, accused had no other choice but to pull the

knife tucked in his belt line and thrust it into his side.The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity where the knife was drawn from is a strong indication of

the truth of the testimony of the accused. Based on the re-enactment of the incident, it was natural for her touse her right hand to lunge the knife into husband‘s left side. 2. Three requisites of legitimate self-defense are present- Unlawful aggression.



isko 11

The husband resorting to pushing her to the ground then choking her just because she was outcaroling at night constitutes unlawful aggression, There was imminent danger of injury.- Reasonable necessity of means employed.

While being choked, Cunigunda had no other recourse but to take hold of the knife and plunge itinto husband‘s side in order to protect herself. Reasonable necessity does not depend upon the harm donebut on the imminent danger of such injury.- Lack of sufficient provocation. provocation is sufficient when proportionate to the aggression.

In this case, there was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused (Cunigunda) to warrantthe attack of her husband. All that she did to provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of herhusband was to be out caroling at night.



isko 12

PEOPLE vs CHUA HIONG(Federico M. Chua Hiong)*appeal from judgment of the CFI of Manila―Person libeled justified to hit back with another libel.” – Self-defense is man’s inborn right. In a physicalassault retaliation has ceased, because there would be no further harm to repel. Once aspersion is case itssting clings and the one thus defamed may avail himself all necessary means to shake it off. He may hitback with another libel which, if adequate will be justified.

Facts:Chua Hiong and Gocheco known each other for 25 years- Federico M. Chua Hiong – uncle by affinity, authored ―Seriously Speaking, married to Go Away- Cesareo Gocheco – nephew, authored ―Doubtful Citizenship – published on Feb 11, 1952 in ManilaChronicle- Benito Solipco, fictitious- 2 aunts – Go Chi Gun and Go Away (sisters of the late father of Cesareo, Paulino Gocheco)

Persecution Mania – is the one who has the persecution instinct

CFI Manila – Federico Chua Hiong was found guilty of the crime libel, and was sentenced to theindeterminate penalty of from 3M 11D of Amy to 1Y 8M 21D PC

- Chua Hiong appealed on the ff assignment of errors:o ―1. Lower court mistake in holding exhibit B (Seriously Speaking) was published to

answer Soliongco‘s ― Seriously Speaking. Column and not Cesario Gocheco‘s―doubtful Citizenship.

o ―2. Lower court mistake in holding that Cesario Gocheco‘s, Exhibit 2, ―DoubtfulCitizenship. Contains derogatory imputations against accused.

o ―3. Lower court mistake exhibit B as qualifiedly privileged.o ―4. The lower court mistake that the truth of the matter contained in the article, Exhibit

B, have no basis and that said article was not publish with good motives and for justifiable ends.

Antecedent facts:- On Aug 10, 1951 – the Gocheco’s party wrote the Chief Finance Agent of the Dept of Finance

charging Chua-Hiong with tax evasion and using a fake Filipino citizenship.- On Oct 1, 1951 – Gocheco wrote to the VP Fernando Lopez, accusing Chua Hiong of

supposed illeg al transactions with the Phil Gov’t - On July 15, 1951 – “Benito Solipco” wrote a letter to Chua Hiong – concerning the vengeance

against him by the Go family and with the rope (“This serves as for your personal use”) – implying to hang himself

- Doubtful Citizenship – published and showed that Chua Hiong is portrayed as a Filipinowhose citizenship was acquired though questionable means.

- Seriously Speaking – was published in response to the article ―Doubtful Citizenship,

highlighting Gocheco‘s obsession with persecution mania in order to besmirch his (ChuaHiong) name and his reputation and harass his family.- Accused’s uncle published a libelous article – accused is a shrewd businessman, his naturalization shouldnot be granted, Chua Hiong caused the publication of another letter from Gocheco stating that his uncle ismore shrewd than him and his naturalization should not also be granted. Uncle filed libel against accused. - CFI-Manila decision- Cesareo Gocheco knew that if they lost the case they would lose 2/3 of the important inheritance left byone Paulino P. Gocheco.



isko 13

Issue: Whether or not Chua Hiong was justified when he gave the alleged libelous matter for publication.

Held:YES. The act of Chua Hiong in publishing ―Seriously Speaking as a counter constitutes valid defense todispel the bad impression about him of those who have read his nephew‘s publish article (DoubtfulCitizenship). The aggrieved party was even compared to thephrase: ―Nigger in the wood- pile . Chua Hiongonly defended himself from the slanderous deed of his nephew. Every Filipino citizen should meet thekeenest defense from him. And that is what he has done when he wrote in the article ―Seriously Speakingcolumn in Manila Chronicle. To flout in public the genuineness of one‘s citizenship is slanderous. Theprimary purpose of the nephew was to malign the appellant.

(1) Unlawful aggression: when the uncle caused the publication of the defamatory letter against accused.UA still existing at the time Chua Hiong wrote another letter reputing the allegation of his uncle. In libel, oncethe aspersion is cast, it stings, and the person defamed may avail of all remedies to shake the moth.(2) Reasonable necessity: sir‘s words: ―reasonably necessary kasi ang sinagot lang niya yung mga paratangng tiyo niya laban sa kanya, but CA said, had Chua Hiong considered other matters in his letter supposedlyin reply to the letter of his uncle, sabihin nating hindi lang siya shrewd businessman, kundi rapist, manyak,hindi na yun,iba nay un, hindi na reasonably necessary under the circumstances (not part of the case,

maybe example from the previous class hopefully handled by same prof)

CFI-Manila: Chua Hiong – guily of libelCA: Chua Hiong was ACQUITTED



isko 14

DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

PEOPLE vs TORING(Luis B. Toring, Diosdado Berdon and Carmelo Berdin)*appeal from the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu City

Circuit Criminal Court: Luis B. Toring (MC: voluntary surrendered) – guilty of crime of MURDER by directparticipation as principal – Reclusion Perpetua

Diosdado Berdon – as accomplice – ind penalty 6Y PC -12Y 1D RTCarmelo Berdin – as accessory – being 17 years old, 6M 1D PC

All – plus 15K comp dam and 50K mor dam*appellant seek the reversal of the above decisionSamuel – died, 30 years old, son of a brgy captainFacts:

- May 25, 1980 – benefit dance in sitio Naga, Babag II, Lapu-lapu City, last canvassing of votesfor the candidates who would reign at the sitio fiesta

- outside the area- kwaknit gang dancing bird-like moves and they‘re all drun and provokingtrouble. Kwaknit gang was led by Luis Toring – called the ―alas king

- 10:45 pm -Samuel Augusto‘s daughter was proclaimed the winner; beer and softdrinks wereserved to the parents by the officers of the Naga Chapel Association.

- Samuel was tipsy – went out the dancing area to void. Felix Berdin (brgy tanod) saw Toring,Berdin, and Berdon went to dark area while whispering each other.

- Diosdado handed knife to Toring.- Toring approached Samuel from behind, held Samuel‘s left hand by his left hand, RIGHT

HAND stabbed with the knife the RIGHT SIDE of Samuel‘s ABDOMEN - Upon seeing Felix running towards them, Toring pulled out the knife together with the two, ran

towards the dark.- Felix tried to chase but unsuccessful- Accdg to Maria Catalina Sorono – 6 meters away from the incident, Diosdado and Carmelo

delivered fist blows to Samuel just before Toring stabbed him. Diosdao gave the knife to

Toring- Sorono shouted for hel when she saw the stabbing incident. 3 ran towards the fields.- Jocinto Lobas and Mario Andog responded her shouts and brought Samuel to the Opon

Emergency Hospital DOA- Necropsy report – died due to MASSIVE HEMORRHAGE SECONDARY TO THE STAB

WOUND ON THE ABDOMEN. (with herniation of omental tissues)- Death weapon – KITCHEN KNIFE (stainless steel and with red-colored handle) recovered

from the house of Toring- Accdg to Patrolman Pantaleon P. Amodia, Toring left the knife to Carmelo /―Camilo, when

Carmelo was confronted by the police, he led them to the house of Toring- Information of MURDER was filed against Toring… Diosdado was allagedconveniently

supplied the weapon, Carmelo for allegedly concealed the knife

- 3 pleaded not guilty…o Toring – not pres of kwaknit gang, he wwnt to the benefit dance with 7 men Excluding

Diosdado and Carmelo. Stating that Samuel ―maldito approached them and heldVenir Ybanez (one of the 7 men) by his collar. Samuel thrust the nutt of his dhotgunto the chin of Joel Escobia (one of the 7 men) and strike his shotgun to Eli Amion‘s(one of the 7 men) chest several times. Toring reacted by getting his knife on hiswaist and stabbed Samuel once as he did not intend to kill Samuel After, he ran andento home where he left the knife and proceeded to the hut by the fishpond of Roman





isko 16

STATE OF NECESSITY / AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

TY vs PEOPLE(Vicky C. Ty)*Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals

Facts:Vicky Ty – petitionerChua Lao So Un – mother of Vicky; Judy Chua – sister of VickyManila Doctor‘s Hospital – complainant hospital

RTC of Manila – Vicky Ty was guilty of seven counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg 22 or the BouncingChecks Law. Imprisonment of 6 months per count (6 months x 7 counts) for a total of 42 months.

CA: affirmed RTC‘s decision with modifications – It set aside the penalty of imprisonment and insteadsentenced TY ‗to pay a fine of 60K equivalent to double the amount of the check, in each case. (60k x 7 =420K)

- Ty‘s mother and sister, Chua Lao So (Oct 1990-Jun 1992) and Judy Chua (May 1991-May1992) were confined at the Manila Doctor‘s Hospital

- Ty signed the ―Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment in the Contract of Admissiondated 30 October 1990.

- The total hospital bills of the 2 patients amounted to P1,075,592.95.- On 5 June 1992, Petitioner executed promissory note wherein she assumed payment in

installments. To assure payment, she drew 7 postdated checks, each covering the amount ofP30,000,even if the petitioner was aware she did not have sufficient funds.

- All the check were deposited on their respective due dates. But they were all dishonored bythe drawee bank (Metrobank) and returned unpaid to the complainant hospital due toinsufficiency of funds, with ―Account Closed advice. Soon, the complainant hospital sentdemand letters to the petitioner by registered mail, but no response were received from the

petitioner.

As the demand letters were not heeded, complainant hospital filed 7Informations for violation of B.P. 22(Bouncing Checks Law) against petitioner before the RTC of Manila. These 7Informationsare the 7separate criminal cases, which pertains to the 7 different postdated-checks. The cases were consolidatedand jointly tried. At her arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty.

- For petitioner‘s defense, she issued the checks ―under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear ofa greater injury or in avoidance of a greater evil or injury for her mother. She was forced toissue check to have her mother released from the hospital, which inhumanely and harshlytreated her mother and would not discharge her unless the hospital bills are settled or paid.

o Deprived of room facilities (no AC, ref, TV and cuuting of phone lines)o Late delivery of her mother‘s food o Refusal to change her mother‘s gown and bedsheets o Suspending medical treatment of her mother

Issue: Whether or not, the defense of TY regarding uncontrollable fear warrants her exemption from criminalliability.

Held:



isko 17

NO. Ty‘s defense does not exempt her from criminal liability because a mere threat of the future is notenough. It should not be speculative, fanciful or remote.It should be based on a real, imminent orreasonable fear for one’s lif e or limb. A person invoking uncontrollable fear must show therefore that thecompulsion was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting not only without will but against his willas well. It must be of such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape.

The fear, if any, harbored by Ty was not real and imminent. Ty claims that she was compelled to issue thechecks a condition the hospital allegedly demanded of her before her mother could be discharged forfear that her mother‘shealth might deteriorate further due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital orworse, her mother might commit suicide. This is speculative fear; it is not the uncontrollable fearcontemplated by law.

There was no showing that the mother‘s illness wasso life-threatening such that her continued stay in thehospital suffering all its alleged unethical treatment would induce a well-grounded apprehension of herdeath. Also, it is not the law‘s intent to say that any fear exempts one from criminal liability much lesspetitioner‘s flimsy fear that her mother might commit suicide. The fear Ty invokes was not impending orinsuperable as to deprive her of all volition and to make her a mere instrument without will, movedexclusively by the hospital‘s threats or demands. Ty has also failed to convince the Court that she was leftwith no choice but to commit a crime. She did not take advantage of the many opportunities available to herto avoid committing one. (Had a choice – to give here jewelries or other forms of security instead.

Exempting circumstance: the following requisites must concur to be invoked successfully: (1) existence ofan uncontrollable fear; (2) the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is greater than orat least equal to that committed

ORFirst req. In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated. If the evilsought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, THIS DEFENSE ISNOT APPLICABLE. Ty could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing the crime. Byher own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other forms of security instead of postdated

checks to secure her obligation.Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the greater injury feared should not

have been brought about by the negligence or imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In thiscase, the issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by Ty‘s own failure to pay her mother‘shospital bills.

SC: Vicky Ty GUILTY of violating Batas Pambansa Blg 22 with MODIFICATIONS – imprisonment in case ofinsolvency of the ‗double the amount of each dishonored check‘ and was ordered to pay 210K to ManilaDoctor‘s Hospital representing the total amount of dishonored checks. PETITION DISMISSED.



isko 18

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

BAXINELA vs PEOPLE(SPO2 Eduardo L. Baxinela)*Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of AppealsFacts:Witnesses for defense:

- Insp. Joel Regimen, Romy Manuba, (Ret.) SPO4 Nepomuceno Legarda, and himselfWitness for prosecution:

- Abelardo Alvarez, Rolando Gabriel, Salvador Advincula, Janet Lajo testified for damages,Ronald Nahil for sur-rebuttal

Accdg to Abelardo Alvarez: (security guard assigned in Kingsmen building)- Alvarez was acquainted already to Baxinela- Oct 18, 1996, 11 PM – Alvarez saw Baxinela, Legarda, and Regimen drinking in the Superstar

Disco Pub- 12MN to 12:30AM – there was a minor disagreement between Sgt. Lajo and another customer

at the pub but eventually resolved.

- Lajo to go out the pub. Baxinela followed Lajo with a gun already drawn up.- Then from behind of Lajo, Baxinela held Lajo‘s left arm

o Baxinella: ―Ano ka hay? Mam-an may baril ka? (Who are you? Why do you have agun?)

o Lajo: ―I am a MIG, Pare - After that conversation, Alvarez heard an explosion coming from Baxinela‘s gun - Baxinela got a gun from Lajo‘s waist and handed it over to Regimen. - Baxinela held both arms of Lajo and pushed him against wall and repeated the question ―Who

are you? Why do you have a gun? - Lajo: ―Why did you shoot me? I am also military. - Lajo got out his wallet and gave it to Baxinela. Baxinela opened the wallet and looked at an ID.- Afterward Baxinela and Regimen just left without giving aid to Lajo.

- Alvarez and other guards helped Lajo, boarded in tricycle. Rolando Gabriel brough him tohospital.

Accdg to Baxinela- At Lajo‘s table, Baxinela introduced himself as a policeman and asked Lajo why he had a gun.- Lajo did not respond but turned to face Baxinela, drawing his gun.- Baxinela immediately drew his firearm (.45 caliber handgun) and beat him to the draw, hitting

the man on his left arm.(hitting Lajo‘s left arm) - Lajo fell, Baxinela picked up Lajo‘s gun and handed it to Regimen. - Baxinela also took Lajo‘s wallet for identification - Regimen told one of the SGs to bring Lajo hospital

RTC found the version of the prosecution, that Baxinela shot Lajo as the latter was turning around andwithout having drawn his gun.

RTC: crime of HOMICIDE, with mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender and provocation) – imprisonment -> 4Y PC – 8Y 1D PM +50K civil indem, 81K comp dam, 30K mor damCA: modified Baxinela‘s conviction by disallowing the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation, guiltyof HOMICIDE (affirmed) with modifications – ind penalty 8Y 1D PM – 12Y 10M 21D RT

*Baxinela file petition – certiorari

Issue: Whether or not Baxinela may validly invoke fulfillment of duty in his defense.



isko 19

Held:NO. Inorder to avail this justifying circumstance it must be shown that: 1) the accused acted in theperformance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the offensecommitted is the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right oroffice

- First condition: is present/fulfilled- Second Condition: is wanting/deficient/lacking

Baxinela‘s duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a gun tucked behind his waist in a public place.This was what Baxinela was doing when he confronted Lajo at the entrance, but perhaps through anxiety,edginess or the desire to take no chances, Braxinela exceeded his duty by firing upon Lajo who was not allresisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be considered due performance of a duty if that at that time Lajoposed no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to civilians in the pub. The Court will, however, attribute toBaxinela the incomplete defense of fulfillment of a duty as a privileged mitigating circumstance. In Lacinaovs CA, it was held that if the first condition is fulfilled but the second is lacking, Article 69 of the RPC isapplicable so that penalty lower than one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed.

SC: AFFIRMED crime of HOMICIDE but his sentence is reduced to ind penalty of 4Y 2M PC – 8Y PM,

awards of damages also AFFIRMED.*Judgment modified, conviction affirmed but appellant’s sentence reduced.

Art. 69.Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. — A penalty lower by oneor two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason ofthe lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in theseveral cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be present. Thecourts shall impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number andnature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.



isko 20

POMOY vs PEOPLE(Roweno Pomoy)*petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CAPomoy – accused; a police sergeant, 30 y/oTomas Balboa – victimJessica – Balboa‘s wife

Facts:Version of Prosecution:

- Balboa – master teacher of Concepcion College of Science and Fisheries in Concepcion, Iloilo- Jan 4, 1990, 7:30 AM – Balboa was arrested by policemen in school due to alleged robbery

took on Dec 1989.- Balboa and Policemen passed by the Concepcion Elementary School, Balboa‘s wife was there

and asked him,o Wife: ―Why will you be arrested? ,o Balboa: ―Even I, do not know why I am arrested. That is why I am even going there

inorder to find out the reason for my arrest. - Balboa was brought to 321st Philippine Constabulary Company at Camp Jalandoni, Sara, Iloilo

- He was detained in jail along with Edgar Samudio, another suspect in the robbery case.- 2 PM – Pomoy went near the door of the jail where Balboa was detained and directed him to

come ou, purportedly for tactical interrogation at the investigation room(but Pomoy didn‘t tellto Balboa the purpose of going to investigation room)

o Pomoy: ―Let‘s go to the investigation room. The room located at the main buildinginside the jail compound.

- Nicostrado Estepar – jail guard on duty, opened the jail door and walked towards theinvestigation room.

- At that time, Pomoy had a gun (.45 caliber pisto), tucked in a holster w/c was hanging by theside of his belt. (only handle of the gun is protruding from the holster)

- When Pomoy and Balboa reached the main building and were near the investigation, twogunshots were heard.

- Pomoy was seen holding a .45 caliber pistol, facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood,about two feet away

- Commanding officer of the headquartes arrived, disarmed Pomoy and brought Balboa to thehospital

- Dr. Palma to be at the crime as he was visiting his brother in Phil Const. Dr. Palma examinedBalboa – told it was unnecessary to bring Balboa to the hospital for he was dead

- Medico-legal as requested by the wife: Dr. Ricardo Jabonete gunshots – 1) laterally towardleft to right 5th ICS into thoracic cavity perforating thru and thru, 2) left hypochondriac region,perforating his stomach (anterior midline)

o Cause of death: Massive hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds on chest andabdomen

Version of Defense:

- Erna Basa, lone eyewitness of the incidento Jan 4, 1990 – she was working in office in camp til afternoon.o Past 2 PM – she heard noise and exchange of words which were not clearo She opened the door to verify and saw Pomoy and Balboa GRAPPLING FOR THE

POSSESION of the guno She was inside the room one meter from the door, the two were grappling about 2 to

3 meters away from the dooro Then the gun of Pomoy was suddenly pulled out from its holster and then there was

explosion



isko 21

o ERNA BASA WAS NOT CERTAIN WHO PULLED THE GUN- Accdg to Pomoy

o As he was holding the doorknob of the jail with his RIGHT hand to open the door,suddenly approached him (Balboa) and grab his gun.

o Pomoy immediate held his gun with his LEFT hand, he released his RIGHT handfrom the doorknob and with that RIGHT hand, he held the handle of his gun;

o Balboa – unable to actual hold the gun because of his effort in preventing him tohold/grab using his LEFT hand

o While Pomoy was holding his gun with his RIGHT hand, he felt that someone isholding his RIGHT hand - He and Balboa grappled in 2 to 3 seconds, the gun nowwas drawn from its holster as BOTH of THEM held the gun.

o More grappling followed and five seconds after, the gun was taken from its holster itfired.

o Balboa was to his right side when the gun was drawn until it firedo (the gun was already loaded in its chamber and cocked when he left his house, and it

WAS LOCKED WHEN IT FIRED)o *During the grapplinh, Pomoy use his LEFT hand to prevent Balboa from holding his

gun, while Balboa used his RIGHT hand to reach the guno After the gun fired – Balboa fell

Pomoy is taller, though Balboa was bigger in buildo Sgt Alag – shouted, ―Stop that o Capt Rolando Maclang - their commanding officer, came, disarmed Pomoy and

investigated Pomoy said, when his gun was put in its holster, only its handle protrude or

come out from it.CA‘s Ruling:The CA ruled consistently with the RTC anchoring its decision on:

- (1) that the victim was not successful in his attempt to grab the gun since petitioner had been incontrol of the weapon when the shots were fired

- (2) the gun had been locked prior to the alleged grabbing incident and immediately before it wentoff; it was petitioner who released the safety lock before he deliberately fired the fatal shots; and

- 3) the location of the wounds found on the body of the deceased did not support the assertion ofpetitioner that there had been a grappling for the gun.

To the appellate court, all the foregoing facts discredited the claim of petitioner that thedeath of Balboa resulted from an accident . Citing People v. Reyes the CA maintained that "a revolver isnot prone to accidental firing..." unless it was already first cocked and pressure was exerted on the trigger inthe process. The shooting of the deceased must have been intentional because pressure on the trigger wasnecessary to make the gun fire. Moreover, the appellate court concurred with the observation of the OSGthat the Petitioner‘s theory of accident would have been easier to believe had the victim been shot onlyonce. In this case, however, petitioner shot the victim notonce but twice, thereby establishing petitioner‘sdetermined effort to kill the victim.

Issue: 1) Whether or not the shooting of Tomas Balboa was a result of an accident.

2) Whether or not Pomoy was able to prove self-defense

Held:1) YES. In order that the incident can indeed be defined as an accident, the following elements must bepresent:

a) the accused was at the time performing a lawful act with due care;b) the resulting injury was caused by mere accident; andc) on the part of the accused, there was no fault or no intent to cause the injury. From the facts, it is

clear that all these elements were present. At the time of the incident, petitioner was in the lawful



isko 22

performance of his duties as investigating officer that, under the instructions of his superior, he fetched thevictim from the latter‘s cell for a routine interrogation. That, in the same lawful performance of his duty,petitioner tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried to remove it from hisholster. As an enforcer of the law, petitioner was duty-bound to prevent the snatching of his service weaponby anyone, especially by a detained person in his custody.

2) NO. On self-defense: the fatal shots in this case was not out of any conscious or premeditated effort tooverpower, maim or kill the victim for the purpose of self-defense against any aggression; rather, theyappeared to be the spontaneous and accidental result of both parties‘ attempts to possess the firearm.Hence, the SC concluded that this discussion is not necessary.

Self-Defense is inconsistent with Accident.

RTC: guilty of the crime HOMICIDECA: AFFIRMED RTC‘s decision with modifications – ind prison 6Y 4M 10D PM – 14Y 8M 20D RTSC: Petition GRANTED, Decision REVERSED. Petitioner ACQUITTED.



isko 23

ANGCACO vs PEOPLE(John Angcaco)*petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CAall accused pleaded not guilty except Ramon DecostoFacts:From the prosecution (7 witnesses – Noe, Noel Brgante, Dr. Alberto Lim, Honorato Flores, Henry Pulga, Antonio Arosio, and Adolfo Jagmis) gist of their testimonies.

- Sept. 25 1980, 4 AM – Noe Bergante, Noel Bergante (brothers), and Freddie Ganancial(cousin of the brothers) – were awakened by the sound of gunfire – asleep in Bato, Taytay,Palawan

- Mother fainted – scared, helped by noe- Noel went to kitchen and saw Protacio Edep fire his cabine, as he shouted, ―Kapitan, you

come down, this is a peace officer. – referring to Restituto Bergante (Kapitan)- Noel answered that his father went to Puerto Prinsesa- Edep then ordered the men in the house to come out.- Noel went to the gate and called Noe to come out. Noe and Freddie went out also.- All outside the house, Noe and Freddie were flanked by petitioner Angcaco on the right side

and accused Ramon Decosto on the left side.

- Decosto pointed an ARMALITE at the two and warned – not to run- Edep approached Freddie saying, ―You are tough, and pushed him - Then shots rang out from the ARMALITE and and short firearm of Decosto and Edep- As a result, Freddie turned around and dropped to the ground face down. Decosto was around

3 meters away from Freddie.- In fright, Noe and Noel ran inside the house.- Now saw from the window, Lota and Angcaco turning over the body of Freddie.- Lota and Angcaco left the body for 15 minutes and came back. Noe said Lota brought with him

an object wrapped in a newspaper – a knife.- Lota placed the knife in the RIGHT hand of Freddie.- Noel came back to the crime scene and recovered two empty shells – give to Major Solis.- Noe reported the matter to brgy tanods Sabino Mahinay and Ramon.

- Antonio Arosio – Bargantes‘ neighbor – corroborated with Noe and Noel‘s testimonies o Decosto and Felizarte fetched Arosion from his house short time later and took him to

Edep. Arosio was asked by Edep where is the brgy capt Restituto Bergante, told,went to Palawan.

o Arosio said while on his way back home, he saw a person lying on the ground inprone position.

o Arosio identified in the Court the policeman whom he saw that morning – Edep,Decosto, Felizarte, Lota, and Angcaco

o Arosio agreed to testify after three years from the incident testified on 1984- Dr. Romeo D. Valino – postmortem exam – 1)gunshot wound on 3rd arm right passing thru

right midaxillary line at the level of 9th ICS hitting the ascending colon and small intestine, 2)epigastric region hitting the liver, 3) right MCL, mid mammary line

o Cause of death: Shock secondary to internal and external hemorrhage due togunshot wounds – body and abdomenFrom defense – Edep, Decosto, Angcaco, and Lota

- Sept 25, 1980, went to house of Restituto Bergante to serve warrant of arrest. When theyreached Restituto‘s house, his men took positions as they had warned Restituo might RESIST ARREST.

o Decosto and Angcaco – armaliteso Lota – carbineo Felizarte – revolver



isko 24

o Edep – carbine and revolver- They asked Restituto to come out, Wife answered that her husband went to Puerto Prinsesa- Angcaco saw a man coming down from the house, they fired warning shots to stop the man- Angcaco saw another person with a bolo near Edep, Angcaco shouted, ―Sarge, this is the man

who tried to hack you! and Angcaco SHOT the unidentified man - Freddie Ganancial

RTC: Angcaco – guilty of crime of MURDER with mit circ (lack of intent to commit) – ind sentenceimprisonment 17Y 4M RT – 20Y RT +50 k death indemnity*edep, decosto, lota, felizarte ACQUITTED due to insufficiency of evidence

CA: with modifications only to mitigating circ (incomplete fulfillment of a lawful duty should be appreciated indetermining the imposable penalty) same imprisonment penalty as RTC.

Issue: Whether or not the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty is applicable in this case.

Held:NO. For this justifying circumstance to be appreciated, the following must be established: 1) thet theoffender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or a duty; and 2) that the injury or offense committed be thenecessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office.

In this case, the mission of petitioner and his colleagues was to effect the arrest of RestitutoBergante. The standard procedure in making an arrest was, first, to identify themselves as police officersand to show the warrant to the arrestee and to inform him of the charge against him, and second, to take thearrestee under custody. But it was not shown here that the killing of Freddie was in furtherance of such duty.No evidence was presented by the defense to prove that Freddie attempted to prevent Angcaco and hisfellow officers from arresting Restituto. There was in fact no clear evidence as to how Freddie was shot.Indeed, as already stated, any attempt by the victim to arrest the wanted person was pointless as Restitutowas not in the house. As regards to second requisite, there can be no question that the killing of Freddiewas not necessary consequence of the arrest to be made on Restituto.

SC: Judgment affirmed with MODIFICATION

50K death indem + 50K moral dam. Guilty of the crime of HOMICIDE not murder – suffer 8Y 1DPM – 14Y 8M 1D RT





isko 26

Million in cash as partial payment of MIAA‘s obligations to PNCC, and that he (Tabuena) was of thebelief that MIAA indeed had liabilities to PNCC. Peralta for his part shared the same belief and so heheeded the request of Tabuena, his superior, for him (Peralta) to help in the release of P5 Million.

Sandiganbayan rejected Tabuena‘s claim of good faith and found him guilty of malversation bynegligence, hence this case.

Issue: WON Tabuena, in following the order of Pres. Marcos, can be held criminally liable for malversationor merely civilly liable putting into consideration the justifying circumstance cited in Art. 11 (6) – acting inobedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose?

Held: Tabuena and Peralta were ACQUITTED of the crime of malversation. The very fact that they weremerely following the orders of a superior is a justifying circumstance.

1. Tabuena had no other choice but to make the withdrawals, for that was what the MARCOSMemorandum required him to do. He could not be faulted if he had to obey and strictly comply withthe presidential directive, and to argue otherwise is something easier said than done. Marcos wasundeniably Tabuena‘s superior – the former being then the President of the Republic whounquestionably exercised control over government agencies such as the MIAA and PNCC. In otherwords, Marcos had a say in matters involving inter-government agency affairs and transactions,such as for instance, directing payment of liability of one entity to another and the manner in whichit should be carried out. And as a recipient of such kind of a directive coming from the highestofficial of the land noless, good faith should be read on Tabuena‘s compliance, without hesitationnor any question, with the MARCOS Memorandum. Tabuena therefore is entitled to the justifyingcircumstance of ― Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for somelawful purpose. The subordinate-superior relationship between Tabuena and Marcos is clear. And

so too, is the lawfulness of the order contained in the MARCOS Memorandum, as it has for itspurpose partial payment of the liability of one government agency (MIAA) to another (PNCC).Tabuena had no reason not to believe that the 55M was indeed part of a due and demandabledebt, a portion of a bigger liability to PNCC (existence of such debts determined from testimonies).So even if the order was illegal and Tabuena was not aware of the illegality, he would not be liablebecause there would only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith.

2. Even assuming that the real and sole purpose behind the MARCOS Memorandum was to siphon-out public money for the personal benefit of those then in power, still, no criminal liability can beimputed to Tabuena. There is no showing that Tabuena had anything to do whatsoever with theexecution of the MARCOS Memorandum. Nor is there proof that he profited from the feloniousscheme. Tabuena only followed the memorandum to the letter, paying immediately the PNCC,

through the Office of the President, the sum of P55 Million. Tabuena had reasonable ground tobelieve that the President was entitled to receive the money because as Chief Executive, Marcosexercised supervision and control over governmental agencies.

3. ―Good faith in the payment of public funds relieves a public officer from the crime of malversation.Not every unauthorized payment of public funds is malversation. There is malversation only if thepublic officer who has custody of public funds should appropriate the same, or shall take ormisappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence shall permit any otherperson to take such public funds. Where the payment of public funds has been made in good faith,



and there is reasonable ground to believe that the public officer to whom the fund had been paidwas entitled thereto, he is deemed to have acted in good faith, there is no criminal intent, and thepayment, if it turns out that it is unauthorized, renders him only civilly but not criminally liable.Maxim: actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – a crime is not commited if the mind of the personperforming the act complained of is innocent.

4. While even Tabuena admitted that procedures were ignored and that the disbursement wasunusual, he is found to be excused from such because the Marcos Memorandum enjoined hisIMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE. On the other hand, while this allows for the negation of criminal intent,as Tabuena acted in good faith, he would still be civilly liable (but he‘s not criminally liableanymore, escaping the harsher penalties)

5. This is not a sheer case of blind and misguided obedience, but obedience in good faith of a dulyexecuted order. Indeed, compliance to a patently lawful order is rectitude far better thancontumacious disobedience. In the case at bench, the order emanated from theOffice of thePresident and bears the signature of the President himself, the highest official of the land. It carrieswith it the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patentlylawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor

for its execution constrains one to act swiftly without question.Obedientia est legis essentia.

6. The principles underlying all that has been said above in exculpation of Tabuena equally apply toPeralta in relation to the P5 Million for which he is being held accountable, i.e., he acted in goodfaith when he, upon the directive of Tabuena, helped facilitate the withdrawal of P5 Million ofthe P55 Million of the MIAA funds.

7. What appears to be a more compelling reason for their acquittal is the violation of the accused‘sbasic constitutional right to due process in the sense that it was obvious that the Sandiganbayanwas overzealous in its attempt to convict parties involved – as seen in the volume of questionsasked, and the manner the same were posed (cross examinations characteristic of confrontation,probing and insinuation). ―Respect for the Constitution, to borrow once again Mr. Justice Cruz‘s

words,―is more important than securing a conviction based on a violation of the rights of theaccused . While going over the records, we were struck by the way the Sandiganbayan activelytook part in the questioning of a defense witness and of the accused themselves. Tabuena andPeralta may not have raised this as an error, there is nevertheless no impediment for usto consider such matter as additional basis for a reversal since the settled doctrine is that anappeal throws the whole case open to review, and it becomes the duty of the appellate court tocorrect such errors as may be found in the judgment appealed from whether they are made thesubject of assignments of error or not. Time and again this Court has declared that due processrequires no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Bolstering this requirement, we haveadded that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to give addedassurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The parties are entitled to no less than this,as a minimum guarantee of due process.

SC: ACQUITTED of the crime of malversation.

Documents

Crim Owndigest Oct11