PEOPLE v.

NARVAEZ 121 SCRA 389 (1983) Facts: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during the time the two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill. The defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and found fence being made. He addressed the group and asked them to stop destroying his house and asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer responded with no. Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia who was running towards the jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the shooting, Fleischer and the company of Fleischer's family was involved in a legal battle with the defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the time of the shooting, the civil case was still pending for annulment .At time of the shooting, defendant had leased his property from Fleisher to avoid trouble. On June 25, defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. He was given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months after letter. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property. CFI ruled that Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. For both murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs, and to pay for moral damages. Issue: WON the court erred in convicting defendant-appellant although he acted in defence of his rights. Held: The argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC enumerates these requisites: Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there was unlawful aggression towards appellant's property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months and he should have left him in peace before time was up, instead of chiselling Narvaez's house and putting up fence Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack. In the case, killing was disproportionate to the attack. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. Here, there was no provocation at all since he was asleep. Since not all requisites present; defendant is credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense. These mitigating circumstances are: voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation. Crime is homicide (2 counts) not murder because treachery is not applicable on account of provocation by the deceased. Also, assault was not deliberately chosen with view to kill since slayer acted instantaneously. There was also no direct evidence of planning or preparation to kill .Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. However, due to mitigating circumstances and incomplete defense, it can be lowered three degrees (Art. 64) to arresto mayor.

PEOPLE v. DUNGO 199 SCRA 860 (1991) Facts: On March 16, 1987 between 2:00 and 3:00pm, the accused went to Mrs. Sigua's office at the Department of Agrarian Reform, Apalit, Pampanga. After a brief talk, the accused drew a knife from the envelope he was carrying and stabbed Mrs. Sigua several times. Rodolfo Sigua, husband of the deceased, testified that sometime in February 1987, the accused Rosalino Dungo inquired from him why his wife was requiring so many documents from him. Rodolfo explained to him the procedure at the DAR. The accused, in defense of himself, tried to show that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense:

Two weeks prior to March 16, 1987, Rosalino's wife noticed that he appears to be in deep thought always, maltreating their children when he was not used to it before. There were also times that her husband would inform her that his feet and head were on fire when in truth they were not. On that fateful day, Rosalino complained of stomach ache but they didn't bother to buy medicine as the pain went away immediately. Thereafter, he went back to the store. But when Andrea followed him to the store, he was no longer there. Worried, she looked for him. On her way home, she heard people saying that a stabbing occurred. She saw her husband in her parents-in-law's house with people milling around. She asked her husband why he did the act, to which Rosalino answered, "That's the only cure for my ailment. I have cancer of the heart. If I don't kill the deceased in a number of days, I would die. That same day, the accused went to Manila. Dr. Santiago and Dr. Echavez of the National Center for Mental Health testified that the accused was confined in the mental hospital, as per order of the trial court dated Aug. 17, 1987.Based on the reports of their staff, they concluded that Rosalino was psychotic or insane long before, during and after the commission of the alleged crime and classified his insanity as an organic mental disorder secondary to cerebrovascular accident or stroke. But Dr. Balatbat who treated the accused for ailments secondary to stroke, and Dr. Lim who testified that the accused suffered dorm occlusive disease, concluded that Rosalino was somehow rehabilitated after a series of medical treatment in their clinic. Issue: WON the accused was insane during the commission of the crime charged. Held: No. For insanity to relieve the person of criminal liability, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that he acts without the least discernment and that there be complete absence or deprivation of the freedom of the will. It is not usual for an insane person to confront a specified person who may have wronged him. But in the case at hand, the accused was able to Mrs. Sigua. From this, it can be inferred that the accused was aware of his acts. This also established that the accused has lucid intervals. Moreover, Dr. Echavez testified to the effect that the appellant could have been aware of the nature of his act at the time he committed it when he shouted (during laboratory examination) that he killed Mrs. Sigua. This statement makes it highly doubtful that the accused was insane when he committed the act. The fact that the accused was carrying an envelope where he hid the fatal weapon, that he ran away from the scene of the incident after he stabbed the victim several times, that he fled to Manila to evade arrest, indicate that he was conscious and knew the consequences of his acts in stabbing the victim

PEOPLE v. TANEO 58 Phil. 255 (1933) Facts: Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his parent's house in Dolores, Ormoc. On January 16, 1932, a fiesta was being celebrated in the said barrio and guests were entertained in the house, among them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. Early that afternoon, Potenciano went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, wounded her in the abdomen. He also attacked Fred and Luis and tried to attack his father, after which, he wounded himself. Potenciano's wife, who was 7 months pregnant at that time, died five days later as a result of the wound. The trial court found Potenciano guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. It appears from the evidence that the day before the commission of the crime, the defendant had a quarrel over a glass of "tuba" with Collantes and Abadilla, who invited him to come down and fight. When he was about to go down, he was stopped by his wife and his mother. On the day of the commission of the crime, it was noted that the defendant was sad and weak, had a severe stomach ache that's why he went to bed in the early afternoon. The defendant stated that when he fell asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadila held his feet. That's why he got up and it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down; he armed himself with a bolo and left the room. At the door, he met his

wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded. Then, he fancied seeing his wife really wounded and in desperation wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way. Issue: WON defendant acted while in a dream. Held: Yes. The defendant acted while in a dream and his acts, therefore, were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability. The apparent lack of motive for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean that there are none, but that simply they are not known to us. Although an extreme moral perversion may lead a man to commit a crime without a real motive but just for the sake of committing it. In the case at hand, the court found not only lack of motives for the defendant to voluntarily commit the acts complained of (read: he loved his wife dearly, he tried to attack his father in whose house the lived and the guests whom he invited), but also motives for not committing the acts. Dr. Serafica, an expert witness in the case, stated that considering the circumstances of the case, the defendant acted while in a dream, under the influence of a hallucination and not in his right mind. The wife's wound may have been inflicted accidentally. The defendant did not dream that he was assaulting his wife, but that he was defending himself from his enemies. Judgment: defendant not criminally liable for the offense. It was also ordered that he be confined in the government insane asylum and will not be released until the director thereof finds that his liberty would no longer constitute a menace.

US v. TANEDO 15 Phil. 196 (1910) Facts: On January 26, 1909 Cecilio Tanedo, a landowner, went with some workers to work on the dam on his land, carrying with him his shotgun and a few shells. Upon reaching the dam, the accused went on his way to hunt for wild chickens, meeting the victim, Feliciano Sanchez, the latter's Mother and Uncle. The accused went into the forest upon the recommendation of the deceased to continue his search for the elusive wild chickens. Upon seeing one, Tanedo shot one, but simultaneously, he heard a human cry out in pain. After seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tanedo ran back to his workers and asked one, Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the body, which they did by putting it amidst the tall cogon grass, and later burying in an old well. Only one shot was heard that morning and a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were found at the scene of the crime. There was no enmity between the accused and the deceased. Prior to the trial, the accused denied all knowledge of the crime, but later confessed during the trial. The lower court found the accused guilty of homicide, having invited the deceased into the forest and intentionally shooting him in the chest. Accused was sentenced to 14 years,8 months and one day of reclusion temporal, accessories, indemnifications and costs. The accused appealed. Issue: Whether the accused is guilty Held: No. The idea that Tanedo intended to kill Sanchez is negated by the fact that the chicken and the man were shot at the same time, there having only one shot fired. In this case there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the accused, nor is it disputed that the accused was engaged in a legal act, nor is there evidence that the accused intended to kill the deceased. The only thing suspicious is his denial of the act and his concealment of the body. The court quoted State vs. Legg: "Where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, the accused is not required to prove such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence, because there is a

denial of intentional killing, and the burden is upon the state to show that it was intentional, and if, from a consideration of all the evidence, both that for the state and the prisoner, there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the killing was accidental or intentional, the jury should acquit." Court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment of conviction. Decision: Judgment of Conviction is reversed, the accused acquitted, and discharged from custody