Esguerra Notes

8/21/2019 Esguerra Notes

1/109

CRIMINAL LAW 1 UP College of Law

ESGUERRA NOTES 2004-2005

CRIMINAL LAW ICRIMINAL LAW I

I. DEFINITION AND SOURCES

A. DEFINITION

Criminal law is that branch or division of law whichdefines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for theirpunishment.

B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES

1. SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW (REYES)1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 31!" and its

amendments#. $pecial penal laws passed b% the Philippine Commission,

Philippine Assembl%, Philippine &e'islature, NationalAssembl%, the Con'ress of the Philippines, and theatasan' Pambansa.

3. Penal Presidential )ecrees issued durin' *artial &aw.

1987 Cons!"!on A#!$%& II' S&$!on Declaration of Principles and State Policies. The

maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, libert% andpropert%, and the promotion of the 'eneral welfare are essentialfor the en+o%ment b% all the people of the blessin's of democrac%.

1987 Cons!"!on A#!$%& I' S&$!on 1The le'islative power shall be vested in the Con'ress of

the Philippines which shall consist of a $enate and a ouse ofRepresentatives, e-cept to the e-tent reserved to the people b%the provision on initiative and referendum.

P&o*%& +. S,n!,-o (19)Facts $antia'o was drivin' an automobile at a hi'h

speed notwithstandin' the fact that he had to pass a narrowspace between a wa'on standin' on one side of the road and a

heap of stones on the other side where there were two bo%sstandin'. e ran over Parondo who was instantl% /illed as a resultof the accident. $antia'o was convicted b% the lower court of thecrime of homicide b% rec/less imprudence. The accused appealedchallen'in' the validit% of Act No. #0 which amended eneral2rder no. ! (which provides that all prosecutions for publicoffenses shall be in the name of the nited $tates a'ainst thepersons char'ed with the offenses", claimin' that the le'islatureis not authori4ed to amend the latter because its provisions havethe character of Constitutional &aw. $ec. # of Act No. #00contains that 5all prosecutions for public offenses shall be in thename of the People of the Philippine 6slands a'ainst the personchar'ed with the offense.7

Held The procedure in criminal matters is notincorporated in the Constitution of the $tates, but is left in thehands of the le'islature, so it that it falls within the realm ofpublic statutor% law.

The states, as part of its police power, have a lar'emeasure of discretion in creatin' and definin' criminal offenses. 6tis ur'ed that the ri'ht to prosecute and punish crimes is anattribute of soverei'nt%, but b% reason of the principle ofterritorialit% as applied in the suppression of crimes, such power isdele'ated to subordinate 'overnment subdivisions such asterritories. The Philippine &e'islature b% virtue of the 8ones &aw,li/e other territories of the $, has the power to define and punishcrimes. The present 'overnment of the Philippines created b% the$ Con'ress is autonomous. 6t is within the power of thele'islature to prescribe the form of the criminal complaint as lon'

as the constitutional provision of the accused to be informed othe nature of the accusation is not violated.

US +. P,/%o (1910)Facts:Pablo, a policeman, arrested )ato who was found

in a vacant lot where a +ueten' 'ame was conducted. presented a memorandum to his chief claimin' that he saw*alicsi and Rodri'o leavin' the area. owever, durin' the trial, he

chan'ed his statement and claimed that he did not see *alicsi noRodri'o leavin' the area. As a result, the two accused wereac9uitted. Pablo was char'ed with the crime of per+ur% and wasconvicted under Act. No. 10:;. 6t was claimed that the Acrepealed the provisions of the Penal Code relative to per+ur%, andthe last provision of the Administrative Code repealed the Actthus, there is no penal sanction for the crime of false testimon% oper+ur%.

Held: Notwithstandin' that the Act no. 10:; has beeninterpreted b% this court in its decisions to have repealedprovisions of the Penal Code relatin' to false testimon%, it did noe-pressl% repeal the pertinent provisions of the RPC. Also, theAdministrative Code, in totall% repealin' Act no. 10:;, did noe-pressl% repeal the said articles of the Penal Code. ence, theprovisions of the Penal Code relative to per+ur% remain in forceThe reason behind such interpretation is that crimes should not 'ounpunished or be freel% committed without punishment of an%

/ind.

. LIMITATIONS TO STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES

1987 Cons!"!on' A#. IIIS&$. 1.No person shall be deprived of life, libert% o

propert% without due process of law, nor shall an% person bedenied the e9ual protection of the laws.

S&$. 1. No person shall be held to answer for acriminal offense without due process of law.

6n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall bpresumed innocent until the contrar% is proved, and shall en+othe ri'ht to be heard b% himself and counsel, to be informed othe nature and cause of the accusation a'ainst him, to have aspeed%, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face toface, and to 'ave compulsor% process to secure the attendance o

witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. oweverafter arrai'nment, trial ma% proceed notwithstandin' the absenceof the accused provided that he has been dul% notified and hifailure to appear is un+ustifiable.

S&$. 18.No person shall be detained solel% b% reason ohis political beliefs and aspirations.

No involuntar% servitude in an% form shall e-ist e-cepas a punishment for a crime whereof the part% shall have beendul% convicted.

S&$. 19.


2/109



(b" To be informed of the nature and cause of theaccusation a'ainst him.

(c" To be present and defend in person and b% counselat ever% sta'e of the proceedin's, from arrai'nment topromul'ation of the +ud'ment. The accused ma%, however, waivehis presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth inhis bail, unless his presence is specificall% ordered b% the court forpurposes of identification. The absence of the accused without

+ustifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall beconsidered a waiver of his ri'ht to be present thereat. hen anaccused under custod% escapes, he shall be deemed to havewaived his ri'ht to be present on all subse9uent trial dates untilcustod% over him is re'ained. pon motion, the accused ma% beallowed to defend himself in person when it sufficientl% appears tothe court that he can properl% protect his ri'hts without theassistance of counsel.

(d" To testif% as a witness in his own behalf but sub+ectto cross=e-amination on matters covered b% direct e-amination.is silence shall not in an% manner pre+udice him.

(e" To be e-empt from bein' compelled to be a witnessa'ainst himself.

(f" To confront and cross=e-amine the witnesses a'ainsthim at the trial.


3/109



in times of war, provided that in the place of the commission ofthe crime no hostilities are in pro'ress and civil courts arefunctionin'.

hen the militar% court ta/es co'ni4ance of the case involvin' a

person sub+ect to militar% law, the Articles of ar appl%, not theRPC or other penal laws.

The prosecution of an accused before a court=martial is a bar toanother prosecution of the accused for the same offense.

2ffenders accused of war crimes are triable b% militar%

commission. A militar% commission has +urisdiction even if actualhostilities have ceased as lon' as a technical state of warcontinues.

E:$&*!ons o ;& -&n,% ,**%!$,!on o $#!3!n,% %,

Art. #, RPC, 5


4/109



US +. A; S!n- (1917)Facts: )efendant is a sub+ect of China who bou'ht ei'ht

cans of opium in $ai'on and brou'ht them on board thesteamship Shun Changdurin' the trip to Cebu. hen the steameranchored in the port of Cebu, the authorities in ma/in' the searchfound the cans of opium. )efendant admitted bein' the ownerbut did not confess as to his purpose in bu%in' the opium.

Held:rin'in' opium in local territor% even if it is merel%

for personal use and does not leave the forei'n merchant vesselanchored in Philippine waters is sub+ect to local laws particularl%under $ec. @ Act. No. #31 a./.a. 2pium &aw. nder the said law,importation includes merel% brin'in' the dru' from a forei'ncountr% to Philippine port even if not landed.

M!


5/109



since he is not a habitual delin9uent. The Court convicted Tu+anwith simple ille'al possession of firearm and ammunition but sinceTu+anBs len'th of detention is 'reater than the penalt% prescribed,the court ordered immediate release.

. STRICT CONSTRUCTION o *&n,% %,s ,-,!ns ;& S,&

1987 Cons!"!on' A#!$%& III' S&$. 1()

6n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall bepresumed innocent until the contrar% is provedE.

R"%&s o Cons#"$!on o P&n,% L,s1. Criminal statutes are liberall% construed in favor of

the offender. This means that no person shall be brou'htwithin their terms of the law who is not clearl% withinthem, nor should an% act be pronounced criminal which isnot clearl% made so b% statute.

#. The ori'inal te-t in which a penal law is approvedwill 'overn in case of a conflict with an official translation.ence, the RPC, which was approved in $panish te-t, iscontrollin' over its


6/109



II. FELONIES

Art. 3. Definitions. I Acts and omissions punishable b%law are felonies (delitos".

elonies are committed not onl% be means of deceit(dolo" but also b% means of fault (culpa".

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberateintent and there is fault when the wron'ful act results fromimprudence, ne'li'ence, lac/ of foresi'ht, or lac/ of s/ill.

elonies are acts and omissions punishable b% the Revised Penal

Code.

E%&3&ns o F&%on!&s

1. There must be an act or omission#. That the act or omission must be punishable b% the

RPC3. That the act is performed or the omission incurred

b% means of doloor culpa.

)efinition of terms

ACT > must be overt or e-ternal (mere criminal thou'ht

or intent is not punishable"OMISSION > failure to perform a dut% re9uired b% law

e-. ailure to render assistance, failure to issue receipt, non=disclosure of /nowled'e of conspirac% a'ainst the 'overnment.

A. HOW COMMITTED

Classification of felonies accordin' to the means b% which the%

are committed (6N


7/109



stem from proof be%ond reasonable doubt, the lac/ of motive onthe part of the accused pla%s a pivotal role towards his ac9uittal.This is especiall% true where there is doubt as to the identit% ofthe culprit as when the identification is e-tremel% tenuous as inthis case.

P&o*%& +. D&%os S,nos (22@)

Facts: )elos $antos stab lores with a /itchen /nifehittin' him on the different parts of his bod%, inflictin' upon himmortal wounds which directl% caused his death. )elos $antos thenar'ues that since the prosecution witnesses testified that therewas no altercation between him and lores, it follows that nomotive to /ill can be attributed to him.

Held:The court held that the ar'ument of )elos $antosis inconse9uential. Proof of motive is not indispensable for aconviction, particularl% where the accused is positivel% identifiedb% an e%ewitness and his participation is ade9uatel% established.6n People vs. alano, the court ruled that in the crime of murder,motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes material onl%when the evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there issome doubt on whether the accused had committed it. 6n thiscase, the court finds that no such doubt e-its as witnesses, )e&eon and Tablate positivel% identified )elos $antos.

MISTAE OF FACT

6t is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the personwho caused in+ur% to another. e is not, however, criminall% liable,because he did not act with criminal intent.

R&


8/109



)alum prohibitum > an act is wron' onl% becausethere is a law punishin' it. 6t is enou'h that the prohibited actwas voluntaril% committed and need not be committed with maliceor criminal intent to be punishable.

Es#,4, +. S,n4!-,n/,>,n (221)Facts: (1998)Facts: $ale% was convicted of 10 cases of ille'a

recruitment, one of which was on the lar'e scale. $he was alsoconvicted of 11 counts of estafa. $he claims that she was noen'a'ed in recruitment but is merel% actin' as an a'ent. $he also

claimed that she was merel% aidin' the processin' of thecomplainantBs visas.

Held:$ale% is 'uilt% of ille'al recruitment and estafa$he has no valid license or authorit% to en'a'e in placement owor/ers. There is no double +eopard% in this case. Convictiounder the &abor Code for ille'al recruitment is malum prohibitawhile estafa under the RPC is malum in se.

P&o*%& +. S!3on (199)Facts: The accused was arrested after a bu%=bus

operation conducted b% the police wherein the accused sold # teaba's of mari+uana to a poseur bu%er for P@?.

Held: To sustain a conviction for sellin' prohibited dru'under the )an'erous )ru's Act of 1:;#, the sale must be clearl%established. The commission of the offense of ille'al sale oprohibited dru's re9uires merel% the consummation of the sellin'transaction.

The court held that in the instant case the imposablepenalt% under RA 0@#! as amended b% RA ;0!: is prisoncorreccional to be ta/en from the medium period thereof pursuanto Art. 0@ of the RPC, there bein' no a''ravatin' and miti'atin'circumstance.

)issent 6t is thus clear that an offense is punished b%the RPC if both its definition and the penalt% therefore are foundin the special law. That the latter imports or borrows from the RPCits nomenclature of penalties. 6n short, the mere use b% a specialaw of a penalt% found in the RPC can b% no means ma/e anoffense thereunder an offense 5punished or punishable7 b% thRPC.

L,4on-, + P&o*%& (22)Facts $pouses &adon'a were convicted b% the RTC fo

violation of P. l'. ## (3 counts". The husband applied foprobation while the wife appealed ar'uin' that the RTC erred infindin' her criminall% liable for conspirin' with her husband as theprinciple of conspirac% is inapplicable to P l'. ## which is aspecial law.

Held: .P. l'. ## does not e-pressl% prescribe thesuppletor% application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in thabsence of contrar% provision in .P. l'. ##, the 'eneraprovisions of the RPC which, b% their nature, are necessaril%applicable, ma% be applied suppletoril%. The court cited the caseof Ku vs. People, where the provisions on subsidiarimprisonment under Article 3: 3# of the RPC to .P. l'. ## wasapplied suppletoril%.

The suppletor% application of the principle of conspirac%in this case is analo'ous to the application of the provision onprincipals under Article 1; in .$. vs. Ponte. or once conspirac%or action in concert to achieve a criminal desi'n is shown, the acof one is the act of all the conspirators, and the precise e-tent o

modalit% of participation of each of them becomes secondar%since all the conspirators are principals.The Court in this case however ruled in favor o

&adon'a(wife" as the prosecution failed to prove that shperformed an% overt act in furtherance of the alle'ed conspirac%.

P&o*%& +. B"s!n, (22)Facts ustinera was convicted b% the trial Court fo

9ualified theft under Article 31? of the Revised Penal Code for theunlawful ta/in' of the ta-i cab driven b% him which is owned andoperated b% Cipriano and was sentenced to suffer the penalt% oreclusion perpetua.

/liz@ Pa'e #??@=#??!


9/109



Held: The unlawful ta/in' of motor vehicles is nowcovered b% the anti=carnappin' law (RA No. 0!3:" and not b% theprovisions on 9ualified theft or robber%. The trial court havin'convicted ustinera of 9ualified theft instead of carnappin', erredin the imposition of the penalt%. hile the information alle'es thatthe crime was attended with 'rave abuse of confidence, the samecannot be appreciated as the suppletor% effect of the RevisedPenal Code to special laws, as provided in Article 1? of said Code,

cannot be invo/ed when there is a le'al impossibilit% ofapplication, either b% e-press provision or b% necessar%implication.

*oreover, when the penalties under the special law aredifferent from and are without reference or relation to those underthe Revised Penal Code, there can be no suppletor% effect of therules, for the application of penalties under the said Code or b%other relevant statutor% provisions are based on or applicable onl%to said rules for felonies under the Code.

The court cited the case of People v. Panida whichinvolved the crime of carnappin' and the penalt% imposed was theindeterminate sentence of 1@ %ears and months, as minimum,to 1; %ears and @ months, as ma-imum, this Court did not appl%the provisions of the Revised Penal Code suppletoril% as the anti=carnappin' law provides for its own penalties which are distinctand without reference to the said Code.

ustinera was sentenced to an indeterminate penalt% of

1@ %ears and months as minimum, to 1; %ears and @ months,as ma-imum for the crime of carnappin' under RA 0!3:, asamended.

A#. . C#!3!n,% %!,/!%!>. I Criminal liabilit% shall be incurred1. % an% person committin' a felon% (delito" althou'h

the wron'ful act done be different from that which he intended.#. % an% person performin' an act which would be an

offense a'ainst persons or propert%, were it not for the inherentimpossibilit% of its accomplishment or an account of theemplo%ment of inade9uate or ineffectual means.

B. PUNISHABLE CONDUCT

1. WRON6FUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED

2ne who commits an intentional felon% is responsiblefor all the conse9uences which ma% naturall% and lo'icall% resulttherefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.

Rationale &% mista/e in the blow, that is,when the offender intendin' to do an in+ur% to oneperson actuall% inflicts it on anotherF and

c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM> the act e-ceeds the intent,that is, the in+urious result is 'reater than that intended.

The felon% committed must be the pro-imate cause of the

resultin' in+ur%.

PROGIMATE CAUSE> the cause, which, in natural andcontinuous se9uence, unbro/en b% an% efficient intervenin'cause, produces the in+ur%, and without which the result wouldnot have occurred.

hen death is presumed to be the natural conse9uence o

ph%sical in+uries inflicted1. That the victim at the time the ph%sical in+uries were

inflicted was in normal health.#. That the death ma% be e-pected from the ph%sica

in+uries inflicted.3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.

The felon% committed is not the pro-imate cause of theresultin' in+ur% when

a. There is an active force that intervened between thefelon% committed and the resultin' in+ur%, and the active force ia distinct act or fact absolutel% forei'n from the felonious act othe accusedF or

b. The resultin' in+ur% is due to the intentional act of thvictim.

P&o*%& +. S,/,%on&s (1988)Facts: Two vehicles proceeded to the house of $tephen

&im when $abalones et. al. fired towards the vehicles /illin' # othe passen'ers and seriousl% in+urin' 3 others. The lower courconvicted the accused. Appellants accuse the trial court oen'a'in' in con+ecture in rulin' that there was aberratio ictus inthis case.

Held: The alle'ation does not advance the cause of theappellants. 6t must be stressed that the trial court relied on theconcept of aberratio ictus to e-plain wh% the appellants sta'edthe ambush, not to prove that appellants did in fact commit thecrimes. 6n an% event, the lower court was not en'a'in' icon+ecture because the conclusion that the appellants /illed thwron' persons was based on the e-tra+udicial statement oappellant eron'a and the testimon% of one witness. Nonethelessthe fact that the% were mista/en does not diminish theiculpabilit%. *ista/e in the identit% of the victim carries the same'ravit% as when the accused 4eroes in on his intended victim.

. OMISSION

A#. 110. )isprision of treason. I


10/109



#. % prision correccional in its minimum period andtemporar% special dis9ualification, in case the fu'itive shall nothave been finall% convicted but onl% held as a detention prisonerfor an% crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.

A#. @. Refusal to ischarge elective office.I The penalt%of arresto mayor or a fine not e-ceedin' 1,??? pesos, or both,

shall be imposed upon an% person who, havin' been elected b%popular election to a public office, shall refuse without le'almotive to be sworn in or to dischar'e the duties of said office.

A#. 7. $banonment of person in anger anabanonment of one.s o#n victim!I The penalt% of arrestomayorshall be imposed upon

1. An% one who shall fail to render assistance to an% personwhom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in dan'erof d%in', when he can render such assistance without detrimentto himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more seriousoffense.

#. An%one who shall fail to help or render assistance to anotherwhom he has accidentall% wounded or in+ured.

3. An%one who, havin' found an abandoned child under seven%ears of a'e, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or tohis famil%, or shall fail to ta/e him to a safe place.

@. PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY

A#. 8. Conspiracy an proposal to commit felony. IConspirac% and proposal to commit felon% are punishable onl% inthe cases in which the law speciall% provides a penalt% therefore.

A conspirac% e-ists when two or more persons come toan a'reement concernin' the commission of a felon% and decideto commit it.

There is proposal when the person who has decided tocommit a felon% proposes its e-ecution to some other person orpersons.

A#. 11. Conspiracy an proposal to commit treasonPenalty! I The conspirac% or proposal to commit the crime oftreason shall be punished respectivel%, b%prision mayor and a

fine not e-ceedin' P1?,??? pesos, andprision correccionaland afine not e-ceedin' P!,??? pesos.

A#. 1@0. Conspiracy an proposal to commit coup .etat&rebellion or insurrection!I The conspirac% and proposal tocommit coup d(etat shall be punished b% prision mayor inminimum period and a fine which shall not e-ceed ei'ht thousandpesos (P,???.??".

A#. 11. Conspiracy to commit seition! I Personsconspirin' to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished b%prision correccional in its medium period and a fine not e-ceedin'#,??? pesos

A#. 180. )onopolies an combinations in restraint oftrae! I The penalt% of prision correccional in its minimum

period or a fine ran'in' from #?? to 0,??? pesos, or both, shall beimposed upon

1. An% person who shall enter into an% contract ora'reement or shall ta/e part in an% conspirac% or combination inthe form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerceor to prevent b% artificial means free competition in the mar/etF

A#. @20. ho are brigans Penalty!I hen more thanthree armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose ofcommittin' robber% in the hi'hwa%, or /idnappin' persons for thepurpose of e-tortion or to obtain ransom or for an% other purpose

to be attained b% means of force and violence, the% shall bedeemed hi'hwa% robbers or bri'ands.

Persons found 'uilt% of this offense shall be punished b%prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in itsminimum period if the act or acts committed b% them are nopunishable b% hi'her penalties, in which case, the% shall suffesuch hi'h penalties.

6f an% of the arms carried b% an% of said persons be an

unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that said persons arehi'hwa% robbers or bri'ands, and in case of convictions thpenalt% shall be imposed in the ma-imum period.

A#. @2. Corruption of minors. An% person who shapromote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption of personundera'e to satisf% the lust of another, shall be punished b%

prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic officer or emplo%eeincludin' those in 'overnment=owned or controlled corporationshe shall also suffer the penalt% of temporar% absolutdis9ualification.

Conspirac% and proposal to commit a felon% are two differen

acts or felonies (1" conspirac% to commit a felon%, and (#proposal to commit a felon%.

6ENERAL RULEConspirac% and proposal to commit a felon% arenot punishableEGCEPTIONThe% are punishable onl% in the cases in which thelaw speciall% provides a penalt% therefore.RATIONALE Conspirac% and proposal to commit a crime areonl%preparatory actsand the law re'ards them as innocent or aleast permissible e-cept in rare and e-ceptional cases.

CONSPIRACY= e-ists when two or more persons come to an

a'reement concernin' the commission of a felon and decide tocommit it.

The RPC speciall% provides a penalt% for mere conspirac% in

treason, coup dBetat, rebellion or sedition. Treason, coup dBetatrebellion or sedition must not actuall% be committed or elseconspirac% shall no lon'er be punishable because it is not a

separate offense from the felon% itself.

INDICATIONS OF CONSPIRACY

= for a collective responsibilit% amon' the accused to beestablished, it is sufficient that at the time of the a''ression, all othem acted in concert, each doin' his part to fulfill their commondesi'n to commit the felon%.

REUISITES OF CONSPIRACY

,. T;, o o# 3o#& *sons $,3& o ,n,-#&&3&n= a'reement presupposes meetin' of the minds of twoor more persons

/. T;, ;& ,-#&&3&n $on$n&4 ;&commission o , &%on> ,n4= the a'reement must refer to the commission of a

crime. 6t must be an a'reement to act, to effect, tobrin' about what has alread% been conceived andetermined

$. T;, ;& &:&$"!on o ;& &%on> /& 4&$!4&4"*on.= the conspirators have made up their minds to commi

the crime. There must be a determination to committhe crime of treason, rebellion or sedition.

PROPOSAL

R&


11/109



a. That a person has decided to commit a felon%F andb. That he proposes its e-ecution to some other

person or persons.

There is no criminal proposal when

a. The person who proposes is not determined tocommit the felon%.

b. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal.

c. 6t is not the e-ecution of a felon% that is proposed.

6t is not necessar% that the person to whom the proposal is

made a'rees to commit treason or rebellion.

US +. B,"!s, (1920)Facts: )urin' the latter part of 1:?3, a +unta was

or'ani4ed and a conspirac% entered into b% a number of ilipinoresidents in L for the purpose of overthrowin' the 'overnmentof the $ in the Philippines and replacin' it with Republica)ni!ersal Democratica Filipinas. )efendant Ricarte was reco'ni4edas chief of militar% forces to be or'ani4ed in the Philippines.)efendant autista was an intimate friend of Ricarte and waspresent in several meetin's. )efendant Pu4on admitted that heaccepted emplo%ment as chief of si'nal corps of such +unta.

Held The fact that one accused of conspirac% tooverthrow the 'overnment has actuall% and voluntaril% acceptedappointment b% the conspirators as an officer of armed forcesraised or to be raised in furtherance of the desi'ns of theconspirators ma% be ta/en into consideration as evidence of thecriminal connection of the accused with the conspirac%.

P&o*%& +. &n-$o (198)The conspirac% between Constantino &eneses and &eon

)avid is discernible from the wa% in which the assaultedCeladerna and their conduct sometime before and immediatel%after the stabbin' that clearl% show that the% had a'reed to /illhim. The rule is that 5if it is proven that two or more personsaimed b% their acts towards the accomplishment of the sameunlawful ob+ect, each doin' a part that their acts, althou'happarentl% independent, were in fact connected and cooperative,indicatin' a closeness of personal association and concurrence ofsentiment, a conspirac% ma% be inferred thou'h no actual

meetin' amon' them is proven.

P&o*%& +. ,%4& (1988)Facts:


12/109



ello, ar'ued that her alle'ed conspirac% with the otheraccused was not sufficientl% established b% circumstantialevidence as there was no showin' that she had the same purposeand united with the other accused in the e-ecution of the crime.$he alle'ed that her mere presence in the crime scene is not perse a sufficient indi9ium of conspirac%. $he insists that she acteda'ainst her will due to the irresistible force emplo%ed b% her co=accused.

Held: The Court held that ello conspired with her co=accused to commit the crime. Records clearl% reveal that ellowas part of the plan to rob the mone%chan'er. The chain ofevents and the conduct of ello lead to no other conclusion thanthat she conspired with her co=accused to commit the crime.

Conspirac% e-ists where the plotters a'ree, e-pressl% orimpliedl%, to commit the crime and decide to pursue it. Conspirac%is predominantl% a state of mind as it involves the meetin' of theminds and intent of the malefactors. Conse9uentl%, direct proof isnot essential to establish it. The e-istence of the assent of mindsof the co=conspirators ma% be inferred from proof of facts andcircumstances which, ta/en to'ether, indicate that the% are partsof the complete plan to commit the crime.

L! +. P&o*%& (221)Facts ecause of an altercation between Aru'a% and &i,

&i armed himself with a baseball bat and used the same to hit

Aru'a% on the arm. Aru'a% armed with a bolo, retaliated b%hac/in' &i on the head causin' the bat to fall from his hand andleavin' him unconscious or semi=unconsious. At this point intime, $an'alan', who was also present stabbed Aru'a% severaltimes which resulted to the latterBs death. The lower court heldthat there was conspirac% in the present case

Held: The e-istence of conspirac% should be ruled out.$an'alan' was the main actor in stabbin' Aru'a% to death. As &iwas incapacitated or probabl% unconscious at the time $an'alan'stabbed Aru'a%, it cannot be assumed that $an'alan' did what hehas done with the /nowled'e or assent of &i, much more incoordination with each other. ased on the circumstances, theCourt is hard put to conclude that $an'alan' and &i had acted inconcert to commit the offense. 6n fact, the stabbin' of Aru'a%could ver% well be construed as a spur=of=the=moment reaction b%$an'alan' upon seein' that his friend &i was struc/ on the headb% Aru'a%. rom such a spontaneous reaction, a findin' ofconspirac% cannot arise.

Provin' conspirac% is a dice% matter, especiall% difficultin cases such as the present wherein the criminal acts arosespontaneousl%, as opposed to instances wherein the participantswould have the opportunit% to orchestrate a more deliberate plan.$pontaneit% alone does not preclude the establishment ofconspirac%, which after all, can be consummated in a momentBsnotice I throu'h a sin'le word of assent to a proposal or anunambi'uous handsha/e. Ket it is more difficult to presumeconspirac% in e-temporaneous outbursts of violenceF hence, thedemand that it be established b% positive evidence. A convictionpremised on a findin' of conspirac% must be founded on facts, noton mere inferences and presumption.

P&o*%& +. B,-,no (22)Facts 8eremias and his wife *erlinda were sleepin' in

their home when the% were awa/ened b% someone repeatedl%callin' 8eremias name. 8eremias went to the window to see whoit was and thereafter left their room to 'o outside. *erlindaremained in their room, but peerin' throu'h the window she sawCaOete suddenl% embrace 8eremias as the latter was openin' the'ate. Thereupon, a'ano with ice pic/ in hand stabbed 8eremiason the chest. 8eremias stru''led to free himself from CaOetesclasp and ran, but a'ano 'ave chase. 8eremias died upon arrivalat the hospital.

Held:Conspirac% is attendant in the commission of thecrime. or conspirac% to e-ist, it is sufficient that at the time ofthe commission of the offense the accused had the same purpose

and were united in its e-ecution. Proof of an actual plannin' othe perpetuation of the crime is not a condition precedent. romthe mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, andas can be inferred from their acts, it is evident that a'ano andCaOete were one in their intention to /ill 8eremias. ence, iaccordance with the principle that in conspirac% the act of one isthe act of all, the fact that it was a'ano who delivered the fatablow on 8eremias and CaOetes participation was limited to a mere

embrace is immaterial. Conspirac% bestows upon them e9ualiabilit%F hence, the% shall suffer the same fate for their acts.

P&o*%& +. B,n-$,4o (222)Facts $P21 an'cado to'ether with $P21 anisa

fris/ed and searched Co'asi, Clemente, Adawan and &ino to see ithe% were concealin' an% weapons. After ma/in' sure that thevictims were unarmed, an'cado directed the victims to form aline a'ainst a ord ierra. ecause an'cado and anisa wereholdin' hand'uns, Co'asi and his friends did as the% were toldand were cau'ht unaware when the% were shot b% an'cadoAdawan and &ino died of 'unshot wounds in the head, whilCo'asi and Clemente sustained head wounds. The lower courconvicted both an'cado and anisa for # counts of murder and #counts of frustrated murder.

Held: There bein' no findin' of Conspirac% wit

an'cado, the Court ac9uitted anisa of all the char'es a'ainshim. 6n the absence of an% previous plan or a'reement to commia crime, the criminal responsibilit% arisin' from different actdirected a'ainst one and the same person is individual and notcollective, and that each of the participants is liable onl% for hiown acts. Conse9uentl%, anisa must be absolved from criminaresponsibilit% for the assault on the victims. 6t is clear that neithethe victims nor anisa could have anticipated an'cados act oshootin' the victims since the attac/ was sudden and without anreason or purpose. Thus, the criminal desi'n of an'cado had no%et been revealed prior to the /illin's.

P&o*%& +. R,3os (22)Facts The trial court found appellant


13/109



The above circumstances clearl% show the commonpurpose and concerted efforts on the part of appellant and her co=accused.

STA6ES OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME

A#. 0. Consummate& frustrate& an attempte felonies!I Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated

and attempted, are punishable.A felon% is consummated when all the elements

necessar% for its e-ecution and accomplishment are presentF andit is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts ofe-ecution which would produce the felon% as a conse9uence butwhich, nevertheless, do not produce it b% reason of causesindependent of the will of the perpetrator.

There is an attempt when the offender commences thecommission of a felon% directl% or over acts, and does not performall the acts of e-ecution which should produce the felon% b%reason of some cause or accident other than this ownspontaneous desistance.

DEELOPMENT OF A CRIME

a. internal acts > such as mere ideas in the mind of a

person, are not punishable even if, had the% beencarried out, the% would constitute a crimeb. external acts> cover a" preparator% and b" acts of

e-ecutionc. preparatory> acts tendin' toward the crimeF ordinaril%

not punishable unless specificall% provided forF theseacts do not %et constitute even the first sta'e of the actsof e-ecutionF intent not %et disclosed

d. acts of execution > acts directl% connected to theintended crimeF varies with the crime and is punishableunder the codeF usuall% overt acts with a lo'ical relationto a particular concrete offense

STA6ES OF COMMISSION1. $ttempte > there is an attempt when the offender

performs all the acts of e-ecution which would producethe felon% as a conse9uence but which, nevertheless, do

not produce it b% reason of causes independent of thewill of the perpetrator.#. 0rustrate> it is frustrated when the offender performs

all the acts of e-ecution which would produce the felon%as a conse9uence but which nevertheless, do notproduce it b% reason of some cause or accident otherthan his own spontaneous desistance.

3. Consummate > a felon% is consummated when all theelements necessar% for its e-ecution andaccomplishment are present.

ATTEMPTED FELONY

E%&3&ns1. The offender commences the commission of the felon%

directl% b% overt actsF#. e does not perform all the acts of e-ecution which should

produce the felon%F3. The offenderBs act is not stopped b% his own spontaneous

desistanceF@. The non=performance of all acts of e-ecution was due to

cause or accident other than his own spontaneousdesistance.

The commission of the felon% is deemed commenced directl% b%

overt acts when 1" there be e-ternal actsF #" such e-ternal actshave direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

'1ER" $C" > some ph%sical activit% or deed, indicatin' theintention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere plannin'or preparation, which if carried to its complete terminationfollowin' its natural curse, without bein' frustrated b% e-ternaobstacles nor b% voluntar% desistance of the perpetrator, wilo'icall% and necessaril% ripen into a concrete offense.

)rawin' or tr%in' to draw a pistol or raisin' a bolo as if to stri/e

the offended part% with it is not an overt act of homicide.

*NDE"ER)*N$"E '00ENSE> 6t is one where the purpose of theoffender in performin' an act is not certain. 6ts nature in relationto its ob+ective is ambi'uous.

The intention of the accused must be viewed from the nature o

the acts e-ecuted b% him, and not from his admission.

S2,3EC"*1E $ND ',3EC"*1E P+$SES '0 $ 0EL'N4

1. SUBECTIE PHASE= That portion of the e-ecution of the crime

startin' from the point where the offender still has controover his acts.

= 6f the offender reaches the point where he hasno more control over is acts, the sub+ective phase ipassed.

= 6f it is alread% passed but the felon% is noproduced, it is frustrated.

. OBECTIE PHASE= the result of the acts of e-ecution, that is, the

accomplishment of the crime.= 6f the sub+ective and ob+ective phases are

present, there is consummated felon%.

P&o*%& +. L,3,;,n- (19@)Facts: The accused was cau'ht in the act of ma/in' an

openin' with an iron bar on the wall of a store where the ownerwas sleepin'. The accused had onl% succeeded in brea/in' oneboard and in unfastenin' another from the wall, when thpoliceman showed up, who instantl% arrested him. The trial courconvicted him of attempted robber%.

Held The conviction is erroneous. 6t is the opinion of the$C that the attempt to commit an offense which the Penal codepunishes is that which has a lo'ical relation to a particularconcrete offenseF that, which is the be'innin' of the e-ecution othe offense b% overt acts of the perpetrator, leadin' directl% to itsreali4ation and consummation. hat we have here is an attempto commit an indeterminate offense.

There is no doubt that it was the intention of theaccused to enter the store b% means of violence, passin' throu'hthe openin' which he had started to ma/e on the wall, but it inot sufficient, for the purpose of imposin' penal sanction to ma/an assumption that the act was in preparation for the commissionof robber%. There is no lo'ical and natural relation between theact of enterin' and robber%. Thus, he should be 'uilt% oattempted trespass to dwellin'.

P&o*%& +. D!o (198)

Facts: The appellant and his companion tried to divesCrispulo of his $ei/o wrist watch but Crispulo resisted theiattempt and fou'ht the robbers. The victim was stabbed and latedied. The $ei/o watch was still strapped to his wrist. The lowecourt convicted the appellant of the special comple- crime orobber% with homicide.

Held: The decision of the lower court was erroneousThe accused were unsuccessful in their criminal venture since thwatch was still securel% strapped to the victimBs wrist. The crimeof robber% was therefore not consummated. The /illin' ma% beconsidered as merel% incidental to the plan to carr% out the

/liz@ Pa'e 13#??@=#??!


14/109



robber%. The accused must be convicted of attempted robber%with homicide.

P&o*%& +. T#!n!4,4 (1989)Facts:)eceased $oriano and &aroa to'ether with Tan

were inside a ord ierra Trinidad as/ed for a ride. The accusedshot the two deceased. Tan 'ot off the ierra and rode a +eepne%which +ust passed b%. hen he saw the accused ridin' at the bac/

of the +eep, he tried to run but when the +eep started drivin'awa%, he clun' to its side. The accused fired two shots at Tan, onehittin' him on his thi'h. The lower court convicted him offrustrated murder.

Held: The accused can onl% be convicted of Attempted*urder because the accused was unable to perform all acts ofe-ecution which would have produced the murder. The victimBswound in the ri'ht thi'h was not fatal and the doctrinal rule isthat where the wound is inflicted on the victim is not sufficient tocause his death, the crime is onl% attempted murder.

P&o*%& +. C,3*";,n (222)Facts:The mother of the @=%ear=old victim cau'ht the

housebo% Campuhan in the act of almost rapin' her dau'hter. Theh%men of the victim was still intact but since in previous 2ritarulin', entr% into labia is considered rape even without rupture ofh%men and full penetration is not necessar%, 9uestion arises

whether what transpired was attempted or consummated rape.Held Attempted rape onl%. *ere touchin' of e-ternal

'enitalia b% the penis is alread% rape. owever, touchin' shouldbe understood as inherentl% part of entr% of penis into labia andnot mere touchin' of the pudendum. There must be clear andconvincin' proof that the penis indeed touched the labia and slidinto the female or'an and N2T *


15/109



penetrate her. 2nl% a small part of his penis inserted her va'ina.The victim was able to escape and report to the police whathappened. The lower court convicted the accused of frustratedrape.

Held: Perfect penetration is not essential for theconsummation of rape. those which are consummated b% asin'le act (e-. $lander, adulter%"There can be no ATT


16/109



&ess 'rave felonies are those which the law punisheswith penalties which in their ma-imum period are correctional, inaccordance with the above=mentioned Art.

Art. : classifies felonies accordin' to their 'ravit%.

a. 6RAE FELONIES > those in which the law attaches acapital punishment or afflictive penalt%.

Capital punishment is death penalt%

The afflictive penalties in accordance with Art. #! of this

code arereclusion perpetuareclusion temporalperpetual or temporar% absolute

dis9ualificationperpetual or temporar% special

dis9ualificationprision mayor

b. LESS 6RAE FELONIES> those in which their ma-imumperiod are correctional

hen the penalt% prescribed for the offense is composed

of two or more distinct penalties, the hi'her or hi'hest ofthe penalties must be a correctional penalt%.

The followin' are correctional penalties

prision correccionalarresto mayorsuspensiondestierro

c. LI6HT FELONIES > those infractions of law in which thepenalt% is arresto menor or a fine not e-ceedin' P#?? orboth.

A felon% punishable b% a fine not e-ceedin' P#?? and

censureis a li'ht felon%, because public censure, li/earresto menor, is a li'ht felon%.

A#. 7. hen light felonies are punishable!I &i'ht feloniesare punishable onl% when the% have been consummated, with thee-ception of those committed a'ainst person or propert%.&i'ht felonies are those infractions of law for the commission ofwhich a penalt% of arresto menor or a fine not e-ceedin' #??pesos or bothF is provided.

This should be seen in the li'ht of articles prescribin' penalties

for crimes in their different sta'es of commission. This means thatli'ht felonies which are onl% attempted or frustrated are notpunishable b% law.

owever, in the commission of crimes against persons and

property, ever% sta'e of e-ecution is punishable but onl% theprincipals and accomplices are liable in li'ht felonies, theaccessories are not.

Rationale &i'ht felonies produce such sli'ht or insi'nificant

moral and material in+uries that public conscience is assua'ed bnot providin' for penalt% for li'ht felonies which are notconsummated and to mere accomplices.

III. CRIMINAL LIABILITY

A. HOW INCURRED

A#. . Criminal liability!I Criminal liabilit% shall be incurred1. % an% person committin' a felon% (delito" althou'h

the wron'ful act done be different from that which he intended.#. % an% person performin' an act which would be an

offense a'ainst persons or propert%, were it not for the inherenimpossibilit% of its accomplishment or an account of theemplo%ment of inade9uate or ineffectual means.

This article has no reference to the manner criminal liabilit% is

incurred. The manner incurrin' criminal liabilit% under the RPC istated under Art. 3, that is, performin' or failin' to do an actwhen either is punished b law, b% means of deceit or fault.

Art. @ merel% states that criminal liabilit% is incurred b% those

mentioned b% the said article.

5! ,y any person committing a felony although the#rongful act one be ifferent from that #hich he intene

REUISITESa. That an intentional felony has been committedF andb. That the wron' done to the a''rieved part% be the

direct and natural and logical conse9uence of thefelon%.

An% person who creates in anotherBs mind an immediate sense

of dan'er, which causes the latter to do somethin' resultin' in thlatterBs in+uries, is liable for the resultin' in+uries.

ron' done must be the direct, natural and lo'ical conse9uenc

of the felon% committed.= where it clearl% appears that the in+ur% would not hav

cased death, in the ordinar% course of events, but would havehealed in so man% da%s and where it is shown be%ond all doubthat the death was due to the malicious or careless acts of thein+ured person or a third person, the accused is not liable fohomicide.

The offended part% is not obli'ed to submit to a sur'ica

operation to relieve the accused from the natural and ordinar%results of his crime.

The felon% committed must be the pro-imate cause of theresultin' in+ur%.

The causes which ma% produce a result different from tha

which the offender intended area. ERROR IN PERSONAE= mista/e in the identit% o

the victimF in+urin' one person mista/en foanother (this is a comple- crime under Art. @:"

b. ABERRATIO ICTUS= mista/e in the blow, that iswhen the offender intendin' to do an in+ur% to oneperson actuall% inflicts it on anotherF and

c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM> the act e-ceeds theintent, that is, the in+urious result is 'reater thanthat intended.

G RPC, Art. 13 +itigating circumstance > 3" Thathe offender had no intention to commit so 'rave awron' as that committed.

6! ,y any person performing an act #hich #oul be anoffense against persons or property& #ere it not for theinherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an accountof the employment of inae9uate or ineffectual means!

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

REUISITES

/liz@ Pa'e 10#??@=#??!


17/109



1.T;, ;& ,$ *o#3&4 o"%4 /& ,n o&ns& ,-,!nspersons o#property!

FELONIES A6AINST PERSONS AREa. Parricideb. *urderc. omicided. 6nfanticidee. Abortion

f. )uel'. Ph%sical 6n+uriesh. Rape

FELONIES A6AINST PROPERTY AREa. Robber%b. ri'anda'ec. Theftd. surpatione. Culpable 6nsolvenc%f. $windlin' and other deceits'. Chattel *ort'a'eh. Arson and other crimes involvin'

destructioni. *alicious *ischief

.T;, ;& ,$ ,s 4on& !; evil intent!The offender must have intent to do in+ur% to another.

@.T;, !s ,$$o3*%!s;3&n !s inherently !3*oss!/%&' o#;, ;& 3&,ns &3*%o>&4 !s &!; inae9uate o#ineffectual.

6n impossible crime, the act performed b% the offendercannot produce an offense a'ainst persons or propert%because

,. the commission of the offense is inherentlyimpossible of accomplishment

= The act intended b% the offender is b% its nature one ofimpossible accomplishment.

= There must either 1" &


18/109



hand was treated for the !=centimeter wound sustained b% him onhis ri'ht forearm. Jalledor invo/ed the defense of insanit%.

Held: Jalledor failed to dischar'e the burden ofovercomin' the presumption of sanit% at the time of thecommission of the crime.

8ud'in' from his acts, Jalledor was clearl% aware and incontrol of what he was doin' as he in fact purposel% chose to stabonl% the two victims. Two other people were also inside the room,

but Jalledor went for the victims. is obvious motive of reven'ea'ainst the victims was accentuated b% callin' out their namesand utterin' the words, M6 had m% reven'eM after stabbin' them.inall%, his act of immediatel% fleein' from the scene after theincident indicates that he was aware of the wron' he has doneand the conse9uence thereof.

As consistentl% held b% this Court, MA man ma% act cra4%but it does not necessaril% and conclusivel% prove that he isle'all% so. Then, too, the medical findin's showin' that Jalledorwas sufferin' from a mental disorder after the commission of thecrime, has no bearin' on his liabilit%. hat is decisive is hismental condition at the time of the perpetration of the offense.ailin' to dischar'e the burden of provin' that he was le'all%insane when he stabbed the victims, he should be held liable forhis felonious acts.

B. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTIN6 CRIMINAL LIABILITY

IMPUTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY

ualit% b% which an actma% be ascribed to aperson as its author orowner.

2bli'ation of sufferin' theconse9uences of thecrime.

6mplies that a deed ma%be imputed to a person.

6mplies that the personmust ta/e theconse9uence of such deed.

1. USTIFYIN6 CIRCUMSTANCES

Those where the act of a person is said to be inaccordance with law, so that such person is deemed not to havetrans'ressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil

liabilit%.

The law reco'ni4es the non=e-istence of a crime b%e-pressl% statin' in the openin' sentence of Art. 11 that theperson therein mentioned 5)2 N2T 6NCR CR6*6NA& &6A6&6TK.7

A#. 11.3ustifying circumstances.I The followin' do not incuran% criminal liabilit%

1. An%one who acts in defense of his person or ri'hts,provided that the followin' circumstances concurF

First. nlawful a''ressionSecond.Reasonable necessit% of the meansemplo%ed to prevent or repel it.,hird.&ac/ of sufficient provocation on thepart of the person defendin' himself.

#. An% one who acts in defense of the person or ri'hts ofhis spouse, ascendants, descendants, or le'itimate, natural oradopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives b% affinit% in the samede'rees and those consan'uinit% within the fourth civil de'ree,provided that the first and second re9uisites prescribed in thene-t precedin' circumstance are present, and the furtherre9uisite, in case the revocation was 'iven b% the personattac/ed, that the one ma/in' defense had not part therein.

3. An%one who acts in defense of the person or ri'hts oa stran'er, provided that the first and second re9uisitementioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present andthat the person defendin' be not induced b% reven'eresentment, or other evil motive.

@. An% person who, in order to avoid an evil or in+ur%does not act which causes dama'e, provided that the followin'

re9uisites are present

First. That the evil sou'ht t be avoidedactuall% e-ists.Second.That the in+ur% feared be 'reaterthan that done to avoid itF,hird.That there be no other practical andless harmful means of preventin' it.

!. An% person who acts in fulfillment of a dut% or in thelawful e-ercise of a ri'ht or office.

0. An% person who acts in obedience to an order issuedb% a superior for some lawful purpose.

Q Article 11 reco'ni4es the acts of such persons as +ustified. $uchpersons are not criminals, as there is no crime committed

P,#. 1 SELF=DEFENSE

$elf=defense includes not onl% the defense of thperson or bod% of the one assaulted but also that of his ri'htsthat is, those ri'hts the en+o%ment of which is protected b% law.

REUISITES

a! "here must be unla#ful aggression

Q This is an indispensable re9uisite.Q 6f there is no unlawful a''ression, there is nothin' t

prevent or repel.

Q nlawful a''ression is e9uivalent to assault or at leasthreatened assault of an immediate and imminent /ind.Q There must be an ACTA& PK$6CA& assault upon a

person, or at least a TR


19/109



Q 6n self=defense, the person must have no time nor occasionfor deliberation and cool thin/in'.

Q The unlawful a''ression must come from the person whowas attac/ed b% the accused.

Q There is no unlawful a''ression when there is a'reement tofi'ht because where the fi'ht has been a'reed upon, each of

the prota'onists is at once assailant and assaulted. ut whenthe a''ression is ahead of the stipulated time and place, it isunlawful.

Q The rule now is $TAN) R2N)


20/109



that leischer and Rubia, to'ether with their laborers, werefencin' the land of the father of the deceased leischer. 6f thefencin' would 'o on, Narvae4 would be prevented from 'ettin'into his house and the bode'a of his ricemill so he as/ed the'roup to stop but the% refused. The accused 'ot mad so he 'othis shot'un and shot leischer. Rubia ran towards the +eep and/nowin' there is a 'un on the +eep, the accused fired at Rubia aswell. Narvae4 claimed he acted in defense of his person and

ri'hts.Held:The court too/ into consideration the fact that the

# deceased were accompanied with three laborers and that thewere usin' tools which could be lethal weapons such as nail andhammer, bolo, etc. and that the +eep the deceased used containeda 'un leanin' near the steerin' wheel. There was a''ression onthe part of the victims not on the person of the accused but on hispropert% ri'hts when leischer an'ril% ordered the continuance ofthe fencin'.

The third element of self=defense is also present becausethere was no sufficient provocation on the part of Narvae4 sincehe was sleepin' when the deceased where fencin'.

owever, the second element was lac/in'. $hootin' thevictims from the window of his house is disproportionate to theph%sical a''ression b% the victims. Thus, there is incomplete self=defense and the accused is entitled to a penalt% lower b% one ortwo de'rees.

Dissent )efense of propert% is not of such importanceas the ri'ht to life and defense of propert% can onl% be invo/edwhen it is coupled with some form of attac/ on the person of oneentrusted with said propert%. 6n this case before us, there is noevidence that an attac/ was attempted. The utterance, 5no,'addemit, proceed, 'o ahead7 is not unlawful a''ression whichentitles him neither to a plea of self=defense nor to a miti'atin'circumstance of incomplete self=defense.

P&o*%& +. Bo;o%s=C,/,%%o (197)Facts: oholst (wife" and Caballero (husband" are

married to each other. ut since their marria'e was an unhapp%one, the% separated. 2ne evenin', the wife went carolin' with herfriends and she was seen b% her husband standin' in a corner ofthe %ard of arabad. $he accused her of prostitutin' andthreatened to /ill her as he held her b% the hair, slapped her faceuntil her nose bled. e, then, cho/ed her and at the same timecontinuousl% sa%in' that he will /ill her. The wife then pulled outthe /nife of her husband tuc/ed inside the belt line and stabbedhim. hen she was released, she ran home. The wife is claimin'self=defense.

Held: The wife who bein' stran'led and cho/ed b% afurious a''ressor had no other recourse but to 'et hold of an%weapon within her reach to save herself. The claim that it was notproper for the wife to be standin' in the middle of the ni'htoutside a %ard 'ivin' the impression that she is prostitutin'herself, is not sufficient provocation. All that the accused did wasto provo/e an ima'inar% commission of a wron' in the mind ofher husband which is not a sufficient provocation under the law ofself=defense.

P&o*%& +. A%$on-, (197)Facts:The deceased arion was the ban/er in the 'ame

of blac/ +ac/. Raposo pla%ed the 'ame while the accused postedhimself behind the arion actin' as a spotter of the cards of thelatter and communicatin' it to his partner Raposo. hen arionlearned about what Raposo and Alcon'a, an e-chan'e of wordsensued. 2ne mornin', when Alcon'a was in the 'uardhouse,arion arrived and swun' his pingahan but the former theaccused was able to avoid the blow. 6n a crawlin' position,Alcon'a avoided the followin' blows and was able to draw hisrevolver and shoot arion. e was able to crawl out of the'uardhouse and a hand=to=hand fi'ht ensued. avin' sustainedseveral wounds, arion ran awa% but was followed b% the accusedand another fi'ht too/ place. Alcon'a then slashed arionBs head

with a bolo which caused the latterBs death. The accused pleadedself=defense.

Held: An accused was no lon'er actin' in self=defensewhen he pursued and /illed a fleein' adversar%, thou'h ori'inall%the unlawful a''ressor, there bein' no more a''ression to defena'ainst, the same havin' ceased from the moment the deceasedtoo/ to his heels.

P&o*%& +. S"3!$,4 (19@)Facts: $umicad was haulin' lo's when Cubol suddenl

struc/ him with his fist. $umicad tried to escape but Cubocontinued to stri/e him with his fists. $umicad receded until hefound himself cornered b% a pile of lo's which prevented him fromfurther retreat. As Cubol advanced towards him, $umicad drewout his bolo and struc/ him. Cubol tried to wrest the bolo from$umicad and to prevent this, the latter struc/ him a'ain twicewhich bro/e his CubolBs cranium resultin' to his death.

Held:As a 'eneral rule, a man is not +ustified in /illin'an assailant who is not armed with an% dan'erous weapon. Thirule applies onl% when the contendin' parties are in the open andthe person assaulted can escape. owever, where one has nomeans of escapin', the one who is assaulted can use a weapon inan% wa% reasonabl% necessar% to his protection a'ainst tha''ressor.

The deceased here is a bull of /nown violent characte

and althou'h unarmed, he attempted to ta/e from the accused abolo which is the onl% means of defense possessed b% the latter6t would have been an act of suicide on the part of the accused toallow the bolo to pass into the hands of his anta'onist.

P&o*%& +. L",-"& (19@)Facts:The deceased tried to rape the accused while he

husband was awa%. The deceased threatened the accused with a/nife to compel her to have se- with him. As the deceased wapreparin' to lie down with her, he placed the /nife on the flooand so the accused too/ advanta'e of the situation b% 'ettin' the/nife and stabbin' the deceased with it.

Held:An attempt to rape is a sufficient a''ression for ale'itimate claim of self=defense. e have the ri'ht to 2N2RomanBs honor is a ri'ht as precious as her ver% e-istencbecause chastit% once defiled cannot be restored.

P&o*%& +. D&%, C#" (19@)Facts: Accused was found 'uilt% of homicide for stabbin'

and /illin' Rivera. Prosecution claimed that )ela Cru4 and Riverahad a relationship and that the accused was madl% in love withthe deceased and was e-tremel% +ealous of another woman withwhom Rivera also had a relationship. )ela Cru4 claimed, on theother hand, that on her wa% home one evenin', Rivera followedher, embraced and /issed her and touched her private parts. $hedidnBt /now that it was Rivera and that she was unable to resisthe stren'th of Rivera so she 'ot a /nife from her poc/et andstabbed him in defense of her honor.

Held:$he is +ustified in usin' the poc/et/nife in repellinwhat she believed to be an attac/ upon her honor. 6t was a dar/ni'ht and she could not have identified Rivera. There bein' noother means of self=defense.

P&o*%& +. ",#!-"& (190)Facts: Amado (deceased" has been courtin' the accusedAvelina in vain. 2n the da% of the crime, Avelina and Amado werein Church. Amado sat beside Avelina and placed his hand on hethi'h. Thereafter, Avelina too/ out her /nife and stabbed Amadoin the nec/, causin' the death of Amado.

Held:Althou'h the defense of oneBs honor e-empts onefrom criminal liabilit%, it must be proved that there is actuadan'er of bein' raped. 6n this case, 1" the church was well=lit, #"there were several people in the church, includin' the father othe accused and other town officials. 6n li'ht of these

/liz@ Pa'e #?#??@=#??!


21/109



circumstances, accused could not have possibl% been raped. Themeans emplo%ed in defense of her honor was evidentl% e-cessive.

US +. B"3,-%,n- (1929)Facts: uman'lan' was missin' @? bundles of pala%.

&ater, accompanied b% his co=defendants, he awaited the culpritand cau'ht Ribis so the% confronted him assaulted him with stic/sand other cuttin' and stabbin' weapons. As a result, Ribis died.

)efendants declared that durin' the fi'ht the% onl% beat thedeceased with stic/s and Ribis unsheathed his bolo. uman'lan'et al were convicted of homicide.

Held: The bolo of the deceased was sheathed when thebod% was discovered. There was no unlawful a''ression on thepart of Ribis. Thus, there can be no claim of self=defense.

Separate 'pinion: A man who ambushed one hesuspects to be a thief can claim defense of propert%. Not onl% wasthere unlawful a''ression a'ainst uman'la', there was also awron'ful invasion of his habitat and attempt to commit a felon%a'ainst his propert%. ith the imminence of dan'er to his life, hereali4ed that he had to as/ assistance from his friends,considerin' RibisB criminal record, character and unusual stren'th.

To%&4o +. P&o*%& (22) Facts: Toledo saw his nephew, Ric/%, and the lattersfriends about ! m awa% from his house, havin' a drin/in' spree.

e ordered them not to ma/e loud noises, and the% obli'ed. ethen went to his house and went to sleep. Ric/% and his friendsalso went to sleep after some time. The% had not laid down forlon' when he heard stones bein' hurled at the roof of the house.Ric/% saw Toledo stonin' their house and as/ed him wh% he wasdoin' the same. Toledo did not answer but met Ric/% at thedoorstep of his house and without warnin' stabbed Ric/% on theabdomen with a bolo which resulted to his death. 6n the lowercourts, Toledo defended himself b% alle'ein' that his boloaccidental% hit the stomach of the victim and that he was able toprove all the essential elements of self defense.

Held:The Court ruled that it is an aberration for Toledoto invo/e the two defenses at the same time because the saiddefenses are intrinsicall% antithetical. There is no such defense asaccidental self=defense in the realm of criminal law.

The court further ruled that Toledo was not +ustified instabbin' Ric/%. There was no imminent threat in his lifenecessitatin' his assault. Records reveal that there is no unlawfula'ression, a condition sine 9ua non for the +ustif%in' circumstanceof self defense, on the part of Ric/%. Ric/% arrived at ToledoBshouse unarmed. ith no weapon to attac/ Toledo or defendhimself, no si'n of hostilit% ma% be deduced from him.

P&o*%& +. En&$,n,(22)Facts hile Adelaida and her husband &eo were on

their wa% home, the% were sideswiped b% a tric%cle driven b%appellant


22/109



the 'round that it was committed in self=defense or defense of arelative.

6n the case at bar, petitioner Ricardo utterl% failed toadduce sufficient proof of the e-istence of a positivel% stron' actof real a''ression on the part of the deceased $enando.. 6t washe and his /in who had inititated the unlawful a'ression and not$enando. urther, the natural impulse of an% person who has/illed someone in defense of his person or relative is to brin'

himself to the authorities and tr% to dispel an% suspicion of 'uiltthat the authorities mi'ht have a'ainst him. Ricardo failed to dothe same. ith the e-ception of his self=servin' alle'ations, thereis nothin' on record that would +ustif% his /illin' of $enando.

P&o*%& +. D!J,n (22)Facts$ilvestre and ilario were at a store to bu% some

ci'arettes when the% saw the 'roup of )i+an, Pa'linawan and&i4ardo, passin' b% the store. Pa'linawan suddenl% confrontedilario for purportedl% 'ivin' him a Mbad stare.M $ilvestreapolo'i4ed and e-plained that it was the natural wa% ilario 'a4edat people. )i+an, Pa'linawan and &i4ardo then left the place while$ilvestre and ilario proceeded home. hile $ilvestre and ilariowere wal/in', the 3 accused, 'an'ed up on, and too/ turns instabbin', ilario. At that point, ilario, who was wal/in' sli'htl%ahead of $ilvestre, cried out and told the latter to flee. $ilvestreran awa% until he was able to clin' to a passin' passen'er

+eepne%. ilario was found to have sustained several stab wounds,punctured and incised wounds, and abrasion in various parts ofthe bod% which caused his death. Appealin' his conviction incourt, )i+an invo/ed the +ustif%in' circumstance of 5defense of astran'er.7

Held: 6n order to successfull% put up this defense anaccused must show the e-istence of unlawful a''ression on thepart of the victim. The unlawful a''ression must be a continuin'circumstance or must have been e-istin' at the time the defenseis made. 2nce unlawful a''ression is found to have ceased, theone ma/in' the defense of a stran'er would li/ewise cease tohave an% +ustification for /illin', or even +ust woundin', theformer a''ressor. rom the defense account, it would appear thatilario was alread% disarmed and the unlawful a''ression b%ilario (if indeed he was the a''ressor" to have b% then beenabated, when )i+an still delivered the fatal thrusts on the victim.

The number of wounds sustained b% the victim woulditself li/ewise ne'ate )i+anBs claim of defense of a stran'er. Theautops% conducted on the corpse would show that the deceasedsustained 1@ in+uries consistin' of : stab wounds, 3 puncturedwounds, an incised wound and an abrasion. Certainl%, the natureand number of wounds inflicted b% an accused on the victimshould be si'nificant indiciain determinin' the plausibilit% of thedefense plea.

P,#. AOIDANCE OF A 6REATER EIL

An% person who, in order to avoid an evil or in+ur%, does an act

which causes dama'e to another.

DAMA6E TO ANOTHER > the term covers in+ur% topersons and dama'e to propert%.

REUISITES1. "hat the evil sought to be avoie actually exists= The evil must actuall% e-ist and not merel%

e-pected or anticipated or ma% happen in the future.

6! "hat the in(ury feare be greater than that one toavoi it

Note The instinct of self=preservation willalwa%s ma/e one feel that his own safet% is of 'reaterimportance than that of another.

= The 'reater evil should not be brou'ht about b% thene'li'ence or imprudence of the actor.

= The evil which brou'ht about the 'reater evil musnot result from a violation of law b% the actor.

7! "hat there be no other practical an less harmfumeans of preventing it!

8eneral rule No liabilit% in +ustif%in' circumstancebecause there is no crime.

Exception There is C6J6& &6A6&6TK under thipara'raph. 6t is borne b% the persons benefited b% the act. The%shall be liable in proportion to the benefit which the% ma% havbeen received.

P&o*%& +. R!$o;oso (197)Facts: The land Ricohermoso cultivated belon'ed to

eminiano. hen the latter went to the house of the former, as b% prearran'ement, Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo anapproached eminiano from the left while $evero (RicoBs fatherin=law" 'ot an a-e and approached from the ri'ht. Rico stabbedeminiano first and while in a helpless position, the latter washac/ed on the bac/ b% $evero.

At that same place and time while the /illin' oeminiano was ta/in' place, 8uan (son of $evero" suddenlembraced *arianito (son of eminiano", who had a 'un slun' onhis shoulder, from behind. The% 'rappled and rolled downhi

towards the camote patch. *arianito passed out and when here'ained consciousness, his rifle was 'one. e wal/ed uphill andsaw his father. eminiano died later. 8uan invo/ed the +ustif%in'circumstance of 'reater necessit% in e-plainin' his act opreventin' *arianito from shootin' Rico and $evero.

Held:The act of 8uan was desi'ned to insure the /illin'of eminiano without an% ris/ to his assailants. 8uan was noavoidin' an% evil but his malicious intention was to forestall an%interference in the felonious assault. e acted in conspirac% withRico and $evero.

T> +. P&o*%& (22)Facts T%s mother Chua &ao $o n was confined at the

*anila )octors ospital from 2ctober 1::? until 8une 1::#ein' the patients dau'hter, T% si'ned the MAc/nowled'ment oResponsibilit% for Pa%mentM in the Contract of Admission. T%sister, 8ud% Chua, was also confined at the same hospital. Thetotal hospital bills of the two patients amounted to P1,?;!,!:#.:!T% e-ecuted a promissor% note wherein she assumed pa%ment othe obli'ation in installments. To assure pa%ment of theobli'ation, she drew ; postdated chec/s a'ainst *etrobanpa%able to the hospital which were all dishonored b% the draweeban/ and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficienc% ofunds. or her defense, T% claimed that she issued the chec/because of 5an uncontrollable fear of a 'reater in+ur%7 $haverred that she was forced to issue the chec/s to obtain releasefor her mother who was bein' inhumanel% and harshl% treated bthe hospital. $he alle'ed that her mother has comtemplatesuicide if she would not be dischar'ed from the hospital. T% wasfound 'uilt% b% the lower courts of ; counts of violation of P##.

Held:The court sustained the findin's of the lowecourts. The evil sou'ht to be avoided is merel% e-pected oanticipated. 6f the evil sou'ht to be avoided is merel% e-pected o

anticipated or ma% happen in the future, the defense of auncontrollable fear of a 'reater in+ur%7 is not applicable. T% couldhave ta/en advanta'e of an available option to avoid committin'a crime. % her own admission, she had the choice to 'ive +ewelr%or other forms of securit% instead of postdated chec/s to secureher obli'ation.

*oreover, for the defense of state of necessit% to beavailin', the 'reater in+ur% feared should not have been brou'habout b% the ne'li'ence or imprudence, more so, the willfuinaction of the actor. 6n this case, the issuance of the bouncedchec/s was brou'ht about b% T%s own failure to pa% her motherhospital bills.

/liz@ Pa'e ###??@=#??!


23/109



P,#. FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL EGERCISE OFRI6HT OR OFFICE.

REUISITES1. "hat the accuse acte in the performance of a

uty or in the la#ful exercise of a right or office

$rt! ;6

The actual invasion of propert% ma% consist of a mere

disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession.

6! "hat the in(ury cause or the offense committebe the necessary conse9uence of the ue performance of

uty or the la#ful exercise of such right or office!

$hootin' an offender who refused to surrender is +ustified but

shootin' a thief who refused to be arrested is not +ustified.

P&o*%& +. D&%!3, (19)Facts: Napilon escaped from the +ail where he was

servin' sentence. $ome da%s afterwards the policeman, )elima,who was loo/in' for him found him in the house of Ale'ria, armedwith a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance. )elimademanded the surrender of the weapon but Napilon refused.)elima fired his revolver to impose his authorit% but the bullet didnot hit him. The criminal ran awa% and )elima went after him andfired a'ain his revolver this time hittin' and /illin' him.

Held: The /illin' was done in the performance of a dut%.The deceased was under the obli'ation to surrender and had nori'ht, after evadin' service of his sentence, to commit assault anddisobedience with a weapon in his hand, which compelled thepoliceman to resort to such e-treme means, which, althou'h itproved to be fatal, was +ustified b% the circumstance.

P&o*%& +. O,n!s (19@)Althou'h an officer in ma/in' a lawful arrest is +ustified

in usin' such force as is reasonabl% necessar% to secure anddetain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape,recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodil%harm, %et he is never +ustified in usin' unnecessar% force or intreatin' him with wanton violence or in resortin' to dan'erousmeans when the arrest could be effected otherwise.

Po3o> +. P&o*%& (22)

Fats: Police ser'eant Pomo%, went near the door of the+ail where alboa was detained for robber% and directed the latterto come out, purportedl% for tactical interro'ation at theinvesti'ation room. At that time, petitioner had a 'un, a .@!caliber pistol, tuc/ed in a holster which was han'in' b% the side ofhis belt. The 'un was full% embedded in its holster, with onl% thehandle of the 'un protrudin' from the holster. alboa tried toremove Pomo%Bs 'un and the two 'rappled for possession of the'un. Thereafter, # 'unshots were heard. hen the source of theshots was verified, petitioner was seen still holdin' a .@! caliber

pistol, facin' alboa, who was l%in' in a pool of blood. Pomo%invo/ed the defense of accident for his defense.

Held:Pomo% is ac9uitted. At the time of the incidentpetitioner was a member I specificall%, one of the investi'ators Iof the Philippine National Police (PNP" stationed at the 6loiloProvincial *obile orce Compan%. Thus, it was in the lawfuperformance of his duties as investi'atin' officer that, under theinstructions of his superior, he fetched the victim from the latter

cell for a routine interro'ation.The participation of petitioner, if an%, in the victim

death was limited onl% to acts committed in the course of thelawful performance of his duties as an enforcer of the law. Theremoval of the 'un from its holster, the release of the safet% loc/and the firin' of the two successive shots I all of which led to thedeath of the victim I were sufficientl% demonstrated to havebeen conse9uences of circumstances be%ond the control opetitioner. At the ver% least, these factual circumstances createserious doubt on the Pomo%Bs culpabilit%.

P&o*%& +. U%&* (222)Accused=appellant and the other police officers involved

ori'inall% set out to perform a le'al dut% to render policeassistance, and restore peace and order at *undo' $ubdivisionwhere the victim was then runnin' amuc/. There were two (#sta'es of the incident at *undo' $ubdivision. )urin' the firs

sta'e, the victim threatened the safet% of the police officers b%menacin'l% advancin' towards them, notwithstandin' accusedappellants previous warnin' shot and verbal admonition to thevictim to la% down his weapon or he would be shot. As a policeofficer, it is to be e-pected that accused=appellant would stand his'round. p to that point, his decision to respond with a barra'e o'unfire to halt the victims further advance was +ustified under thecircumstances. After all, a police officer is not re9uired to affordthe victim the opportunit% to fi'ht bac/. Neither is he e-pected >when hard pressed and in the heat of such an encounter at close9uarters > to pause for a lon' moment and reflect cooll% at hisperil, or to wait after each blow to determine the effects thereof.

owever, he cannot be e-onerated from overdoin' hisdut% durin' the second sta'e of the incident I when he fatallshot the victim in the head, even after the latter slumped to the'round due to multiple 'unshot wounds sustained while char'in'at the police officers. $ound discretion and restraint dictated thaaccused=appellant, a veteran policeman, should have ceased firin'at the victim the moment he saw the latter fall to the 'round. Thevictim at that point no lon'er posed a threat and was alread%incapable of mountin' an a''ression a'ainst the police officers$hootin' him in the head was obviousl% unnecessar%.

The law does not clothe police officers with authorit% toarbitraril% +ud'e the necessit% to /ill= it must be stressed thattheir +ud'ment and discretion as police officers in the performancof their duties must be e-cercised neither capriciousl% nooppressivel%, but within reasonable limits.

P,#. 0 OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOMELAWFUL PURPOSE

REUISITES1. ,hat an order has been issued by a superior.

#. ,hat such order must be for some lawful purpose.3. ,hat the means used by the subordinate to carry out

said order is lawful.

hen the order is not for a lawful purpose, th

subordinate who obe%ed it is criminall% liable.The subordinate is not liable for carr%in' out an ille'a

order of his superior, if he is not aware of the ille'alit% of theorder and he is not ne'li'ent.

P&o*%& +. Bon!%%, (19)

/liz@ Pa'e #3#??@=#??!


24/109



Facts: or+al was the elected ma%or of &a Pa4, Abra atthe outbrea/ of war and continued to serve as *a%or durin'8apanese occupation. eronilla was appointed later as *ilitar%*a%or. &ater, while the operations for the liberation of Abra was inpro'ress, eronilla, pursuant to his instructions, placed or+al inhis custod% and as/ed the residents to file char'es of espiona'e,aidin' the enem%, and abuse of authorit% a'ainst him. After trial,or+alBs e-ecution too/ place. &ater, eronilla, to'ether with a

priest, e-ecutioner, 'raver di''er, etc. were indicted for murder.The prosecution claimed that Col. Jol/mann transmitted aradio'ram messa'e statin' that the +ur% s%stem or'ani4ed b% themunicipalit% is ille'al and cannot order e-ecution of or+al.

Held: There is no proof that eronilla was able to receivethe radio'ram messa'e. The records are ample to sustain theclaim of the accused that the arrest, prosecution and trial weredone pursuant to e-press orders of the 1!th6nfantr% . herethe accused acted upon orders of superior officers that the, asmilitar% subordinates, could not 9uestion, and obe%ed in 'oodfaith, without bein' aware of their ille'alit%, without an% fault orne'li'ence on their part, the act is not accompanied b% criminalintent. A crime is not committed if the mind of the personperformin' the ac be innocent.

T,/"&n, +. S,n4!-,n/,>,n (1997)Facts:Pres. *arcos instructed Tabuena over the phone

to pa% directl% to the 2ffice of the President in cash what *6AAowes the Phil. National Construction Corporation (PNCC" whichlater was reiterated in writin'. The *arcosB memo indicated theamount of P!!m for partial pa%ment of the obli'ation to PNCC asmentioned in 2n'pinBs memo. 6n obedience to *arcosB instruction,the accused withdrew the amount b% means of 3 separateissuances of mana'erBs chec/ and encashment in 3 separate datesas well. The mone% withdrawn were placed in peerless bo-es andduffle ba's and delivered to the private secretar% of *arcos alsoin 3 separate da%s. Accordin' to the accused, the disbursementwas not in the normal procedure since it is paid in cold case, therewere no vouchers supportin' it and no receipt from PNCC.

Tabuena and Peralta were convicted b% the$andi'anba%an of malversation as defined in Art. #1;, RPC formisappropriatin' funds of *anila 6nternational Airport Authorit%(*6AA" worth P!!*.

Held: The accused are ac9uitted. The accused is entitledto the +ustif%in' circumstance of obedience to an order issued b%a superior for some lawful purpose. $andi'anba%an claimed that*arcosB memo was unlawful because it orders disbursement ofP!!* when the 2n'pin memo reveals that the liabilit% is onl%3@.!*. rantin' this to be true, it will not affect TabuenaBs 'oodfaith as to ma/e him criminall% liable. Thus, even if the order isille'al if it is patentl% le'al and subordinate is not aware of itsille'alit%, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would onl%be a mista/e of fact committed in 'ood faith.

. EGEMPTIN6 CIRCUMSTANCES


25/109



evidence points to insanit% subse9uent to the commission of thecrime, the accused cannot be ac9uitted.

Q eeblemindedness is not imbecilit% because a feeble=mindedperson can distin'uish ri'ht from wron'.Q Cases covered under this article

a. )ementia praeco-b. Lleptomania > if found b% a competent ps%chiatrist

as irresistiblec. sleep=wal/in'e. *ali'nant malaria > which affects the nervous

s%stem

In R& MN,-;&n (18@)6"!4&%!n&s

A man who shot someone claimed insanit%.Held:


26/109



Q $enilit%, althou'h said to be the second childhood, is onl%miti'atin'.

PERIODS OF THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEIN6a. : %ears and below >

/01 'F /2S'3),1 4RR1SP'5S42434,6b. between : and 1! %ears =

/01 'F C'5D4,4'5/3 R1SP'5S42434,6

c. 1 or over to ;? %ears =/01 'F F)33 R1SP'5S42434,6

d. over : and under 1! with discernmentF 1! or over butless than 1, over ;? %ears of a'e >/01 'F +4,40/,1DR1SP'5S42434,6.

P,#. @. A PERSON OER 9 YEARS OF A6E AND UNDER 1UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT' IN WHICHCASE' SUCH MINOR SHALL BE PROCEEDED A6AINST INCOORDANCE WITH THE PROISIONS OF ARTICLE 82 OFTHIS CODE.

A minor over : and under 1! %ears of a'e must have actedwithout discernment to be e-empted from criminal liabilit%.

DISCERNMENT> means the mental capacit% of a minor between

: and 1! %ears of a'e to full% appreciate the conse9uences of hislawful act.

DISCERNMENT INTENT

*oral si'nificance that aperson ascribes to the saidact

)esired act of the person

Q )iscernment ma% be shown b% 1" the manner the crime wascommitted or #" the conduct of the offender after its commission.

P&o*%& +. Do


27/109



e-penses above mentioned, such share which is not paid b% saidmunicipalit% shall be borne b% the National overnment.Chartered cities shall pa% two=thirds of said e-pensesF and in casea chartered cit% cannot pa% said e-penses, the internal revenueallotments which ma% be due to said cit% shall be withheld andapplied in settlement of said indebtedness in accordance withsection five hundred and ei'ht%=ei'ht of the Administrative Code.

Q hen the minor is ad+ud'ed criminall% irresponsible > dut% ofcourt is to commit him to custod% of his famil% or someinstitution.

Q The alle'ation of 5with intent to /ill7 in the information issufficient alle'ation of discernment.

PD 02@THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE

A#!$%& 189. 4outhful 'ffener Define.= A %outhful offender isone who is over nine %ears but under twent%=one %ears of a'e at thetime of the commission of the offense.

A child nine %ears of a'e or under at the time of the offenseshall be e-empt from criminal liabilit% and shall be committed to thecare of his or her father or mother, or nearest relative or famil% friendin the discretion of the court and sub+ect to its supervision. The same

shall be done for a child over nine %ears and under fifteen %ears of a'eat the time of the commission of the offense, unless he acted withdiscernment, in which case he shall be proceeded a'ainst inaccordance with Article 1:#.

The provisions of Article ? of the Revised Penal Code shallbe deemed modified b% the provisions of this Chapter.

A#!$%& 192. Physical an )ental Examination!= 6t shallbe the dut% of the law=enforcement a'enc% concerned to ta/e the%outhful offender, immediatel% after his apprehension, to the propermedical or health officer for a thorou'h ph%sical and mentale-amination. henever treatment for an% ph%sical or mental defect isindicated, steps shall be immediatel% underta/en to provide the same.

The e-amination and treatment papers shall form part of therecord of the case of the %outhful offender.

A#!$%& 191. Care of 4outhful 'ffener +el forExamination or "rial! = A %outhful offender held for ph%sical and

mental e-amination or trial or pendin' appeal, if unable to furnish bail,shall from the time of his arrest be committed to the care of the)epartment of $ocial elfare or the local rehabilitation center or adetention home in the province or cit% which shall be responsible forhis appearance in court whenever re9uired Provided, That in theabsence of an% such center or a'enc% within a reasonable distancefrom the venue of the trial, the provincial, cit% and municipal +ail shallprovide 9uarters for %outhful offenders separate from other detainees.The court ma%, in its discretion, upon recommendation of the)epartment of $ocial elfare or other a'enc% or a'encies authori4edb% the Court, release a %outhful offender on reco'ni4ance, to thecustod% of his parents or other suitable person who shall beresponsible for his appearance whenever re9uired.

A#!$%& 19. Suspension of Sentence an Commitmentof 4outhful 'ffener!= 6f after hearin' the evidence in the properproceedin's, the court should find that the %outhful offender hascommitted the acts char'ed a'ainst him the court shall determine the

imposable penalt%, includin' an% civil liabilit% char'eable a'ainst him.owever, instead of pronouncin' +ud'ment of conviction, the courtshall suspend all further proceedin's and shall commit such minor tothe custod% or care of the )epartment of $ocial elfare

Documents

Esguerra Notes