Case Digest: U.S. vs.

Ah Chong
G.R. No. L-7929 March 19, 1910

Facts: Because of the many bad elements happening at Fort McKinley, Ah Chong, a cook, locked himself
in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone
trying to open the door of his room. He called out twice, Who is there, but received no answer. Fearing
that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, If you enter the room I will
kill you. But at the precise moment, he was struck by the chair and believing that he was being attacked,
he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his
roommate.

Issue: Whether or not Ah Chong was guilty of murder.

Ruling:
Under Article 11 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code provides that to justify the act, there should be:

First.
Unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed;

Second.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Ah Chong was not held liable
for the death of his roommate. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts conviction of homicide,
saying that Ah Chong committed a mistake of fact. He would not have stabbed his roommate had he
known the identity of the person who entered the room. If the person who opened the door had really
been a robber instead of his roommate, he would not be criminally liable if he had stabbed that person
in self-defense.
PEOPLE vs. OANIS

June 19, 2012 Leave a comment

People vs. Oanis

July 27, 1943 (74 Phil 257)

PARTIES:

Plaintiff and appellee: People of the Philippines

Defendants and appellant: Antonio Oanis, Alberto Galanta

FACTS:

Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal and escaped convict,
Anselmo Balagtas, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. They went to the suspected house then
proceeded to the room where they saw the supposedly Balagtas sleeping with his back towards the
door. Oanis and Galanta simultaneously or successively fired at him which resulted to the victims death.
The supposedly Balagtas turned out to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent man.

ISSUE:

1. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake of fact in the honest performance
of their official duties.

2. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability in the performance of their duty.

HELD:

1. No. Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. Ignorance facti excusat applies only
when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. The fact that the supposedly suspect was
sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have checked whether it is the real Balagtas.

2. No. Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable. A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the
fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are 2 requisites to justify this: (1)
the offender acted in teh perfomance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office, (2) that the
injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office. In this case, only the first requisite is present.
Criminal Law- People of the R.P. vs. Pugay
THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ART. 3(2) & 8(2) OF THE R.P.C.

"A Conspiracy exists when two or more people come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it."

"A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious,
careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment."

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Pugay
No. L-74324 17November1988

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of
murder of Bayani Miranda and sentencing them to a prison term ranging from 12 years (prison mayor)
as mimimum to 20 years (prison temporal) as maximum and for samson to be sentenced to reclusion
perpetua.

Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they used to
sleep together. On the evening of May 19, 1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario
Cavite. Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived (they
were drunk), and they started making fun of Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun of the Bayani, took
a can of gasoline and poured its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) told Pugay not to do
the deed. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. They were arrested the
same night and barely a few hours after the incident gave their written statements.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime? If not what are the criminal
responsibilities of the accused?

There is no:
CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit
it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically
by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a
previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the
accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed.
Since there was no animosity between miranda and the accused, and add to the that that the meeting
at the scene of the incident was purely coincidental, and the main intent of the accused is to make fun
of miranda.
Since there is no conspiracy that was proven, the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson
arising from different acts directed against miranda is individual NOT collective and each of them is
liable only for the act that was committed by him.

**Conspiracy may be implied from concerted action of the assailants in confronting the victim.

Criminal Responsibilities:
PUGAY: Having failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising
from any act committed by his companions who at the same time were making fun of the deceased. -
GUILTY OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE

SAMSON:Since there are NO sufficient evidence that appears in the record establishing qualifying
circumstances (treachery, conspiracy). And granted the mitigating circumstance that he never INTENDED
to commit so grave a wrong. - GUILTY OF HOMICIDE

HELD:
JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. JUDGEMENT FOR GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR MURDER WAS LOWERED TO THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS.

PEOPLE VS GARCIA
423 SCRA 583
FEBRUARY 23, 2004

Facts:
On May 22, 1998, Bentley Billon and Sanily, boarded a passenger jeepney on their way to school
and alighted on Zabarto Road. While Sanily was crossing the street, a passenger jeepney hit her. The
jeepney stopped and suddenly accelerated running over Sanilys stomach. Bentley and appellant pulled
her from underneath the vehicle and brought her to the hospital where she died four days later. The
lower court rendered judgment, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Murder qualified by evident premeditation because he deliberately ran over the slumped body of the
victim.

Issue:Whether or not he is guilty of murder or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

Ruling:

The elements of evident premeditation are: 1) a previous decision by the appellant to commit the
crime; 2) an overt acts/acts manifestly indicating that the appellant clung to his determination; and 3) a
lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow
appellant to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. When the vehicle stopped and accelerated the
crime. There is also no evidence that shows overt acts for the commission of the crime. The court ruled
that the accused is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

Art. 365 of the RPC states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice,
doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution. In this case, the appellant showed an inexcusable lack of precaution when he disregarded a
traffic sign cautioning motorist to slow down and drove his vehicle in full speed despite being aware that
he was transversing a school zone and pedestrian were crossing the street.
Garcia v. CA
GR 157171
Facts: The petitioner was charged and convicted for violating Section 27b of Rep#!lic Act 6646 case'
wherein she raise the defence of lack of intent and good faith.

Issue: Whether or not the defence has merit.
Held: No' since the evidence adduced !- the trial court provides otherwise. It is noteworthy that the
Supreme Court defined differentiates mala in se and mala prohi!ita' wherein the former are inherently
immoral' while the latter are not inherently immoral but becomes punishable by legislative intent. Also
although the subject law at the present case is a special law the same was deemed to be a mala in se
since the act or omission punished are inherently immoral' since it is done with malice and intent to
injure another.
Manuel v. People
G.R. No. 165842 November 29, 2005

Lesson: Felony, Bigamy, Judicial Declaration of Presumptive Death, malice, good faith as a valid
defense
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

Laws Applicable: Art. 3 par 2 RPC, Art. 349 RPC, Art. 41 FC

FACTS:
July 28, 1975: Eduardo married Rubylus Gaa before Msgr. Feliciano Santos in Makati
o Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned
o Eduardo only visited 3 times and never saw her again
January 1996: Eduardo met Tina B. Gandalera, 21 year old computer secretarial student, in
Dagupan City while she looked for a friend during her 2 days stay
Later, Eduardo visited Tina, they went to a motel together and he proposed marriage and introduced
her to his parents who assures that he is single
April 22, 1996: Eduardo married Tina before Judge Antonio C. Reyes, the Presiding Judge of the
RTC of Baguio City and they were able to build a home after
1999: Eduardo only visited their home twice or thrice a year and whenever jobless Tina would ask
for money, he would slap her
January 2001: Eduardo packed his things and left and stopped giving financial support
August 2001: Tina through inquiries from the National Statistics Office (NSO) in Manila and was
embarrassed and humiliated to learn that Eduardo was previously married
Eduardo claimed that he did NOT know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his
first marriage before marrying Tina
RTC: Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
of from 6 years and 10 months, as minimum, to 10 years, as maximum and P200,000.00 by way of
moral damages, plus costs of suit
o Eduardos belief, that his first marriage had been dissolved because of his first wifes 20-year
absence, even if true, did not exculpate him from liability for bigamy
Eduardo appealed to the CA contending that he did so in good faith and without any malicious intent
whereas under Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, there must be malice for one to be criminally
liable for a felony
CA: affirming the decision of the RTC stating that Article 41 of the Family Code should apply that
there should have been a judicial declaration of Gaas presumptive death as the absent spouse
and modified minimum to 2 years and four months

ISSUE: W/N Eduardo is guilty of Bigamy, a felony by dolo (deceit).

HELD: YES. petition is DENIED. CA affirmed

Art. 349. Bigamy. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall
contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or
before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered
in the proper proceedings.
o The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure the juridical tie of marriage
established by law.
o Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code has made the dissolution of marriage dependent not only upon
the personal belief of parties, but upon certain objective facts easily capable of accurate judicial
cognizance, namely, a judgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse
For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, the prosecution is burdened to prove the felony:
o (a) he/she has been legally married; and
o (b) he/she contracts a subsequent marriage without the former marriage having been lawfully
dissolved.
The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage
Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is deceit when the act is
performed with deliberate intent
o Malice -a mental state or condition prompting the doing of an overt act WITHOUT legal excuse or
justification from which another suffers injury
o When the act or omission defined by law as a felony is proved to have been done or committed by the
accused, the law presumes it to have been intentional
o For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of both an evil act and
an evil intent.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
GR: mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by
dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal intent.
EX: ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law.
o Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that when he married he was of the well-grounded
belief that his first wife was already dead, as he had not heard from her for more than 20 years since
1975
o failed to discharge his burden since no judicial declaration as proof
Article 41 of the Family Code amended the rules on presumptive death on Articles 390 and 391 of
the Civil Code which states that before the spouse present may contract a subsequent marriage, he
or she must institute summary proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive death of the
absentee spouse, without prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the absentee spouse.
moral damages may be awarded under Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil
Code for being against public policy as they undermine and subvert the family as a social institution,
good morals and the interest and general welfare of society

Criminal Law- People vs. Delim
This case is with regard to Art 8 and 13 of the Revised Penal Code
"the act of one is the act of all"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Delim
G.R. No. 142773 28January2003

FACTS OF THE CASE:

It is due to the automatic review of the decision of the RTC Branch 46 (Urdaneta City) finding the
appellants, guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing them to death for the murder of Modesto
Bantas.

Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The appellants and victim are related for modesto is an
adopted son of their father. On January 23,1999 Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim charged into the
house and poked a gun at modesto and herded him outside the house. Leon and Manuel Delim both
armed stayed put and made sure that randy and rita stayed put.

Modesto's lifeless body was then found on January 25, 1999. Marlon, Ronald, and Leon used denial and
alibi as their evidence against the charge.
*alibis are the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy and treachery present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime?

Yes there is:
CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit
it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically
by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a
previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the
accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed.
appellants acted in unison when they abducted Modesto. So their acts were synchronized and executed
with precision evincing a preconceived plan to kill Modesto

There is no:
TREACHERY- there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
For it to be appreciated prosecution needs to prove:
a. employment of means of execution which gives the person no opportunity
to defend himself
b. the means of execution is deliberately and consciously adopted
in the appellants case there are no evidence to the particulars on how Modesto was assaulted and killed
and this in fact does mean that treachery cannot be proven since it cannot be presumed that modesto
was defenseless during the time that he was being attacked and shot at by the appellants.
Sheer numbers by the appellants when they attacked modesto does not constitute proof that the three
took advantage of their numerical superiority and their handguns when Modesto was shot and stabbed.

HELD:
APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE FELONY OF HOMICIDE (THE DECISION
OF THE LOWER COURTS WERE MODIFIED TO LOWER THE CRIME FROM MURDER TO HOMICIDE)
Ivler vs. San Pedro G.R. No. 172716 November 17, 2010
Bill of Rights

Ivler vs. San Pedro
G.R. No. 172716November 17, 2010
FACTS:

Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MTC), with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent
Ponce); and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of
respondent Ponces husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponces vehicle.

Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases. On 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the
charge on the first delict and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction,
petitioner moved to quash the Information for the second delict for placing him in jeopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.

The MTC refused quashal, finding no identity of offenses in the two cases.

The petitioner elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City (RTC), in a petition for
certiorari while Ivler sought from the MTC the suspension of proceedings in criminal case, including the
arraignment his arraignment as a prejudicial question.

Without acting on petitioners motion, the MTC proceeded with the arraignment and, because of
petitioners absence, cancelled his bail and ordered his arrest.

Seven days later, the MTC issued a resolution denying petitioners motion to suspend proceedings and
postponing his arraignment until after his arrest. Petitioner sought reconsideration but as of the filing of
this petition, the motion remained unresolved.

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner forfeited his standing to seek relief from his petition for certiorari when the MTC
ordered his arrest following his non-appearance at the arraignment in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent; and

2. Whether petitioners constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings
in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of respondent
Ponces husband.

RULING:

The accused negative constitutional right not to be "twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense" protects him from, among others, post-conviction prosecution for the same offense, with the
prior verdict rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid information.

Petitioner adopts the affirmative view, submitting that the two cases concern the same offense of
reckless imprudence. The MTC ruled otherwise, finding that Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight
Physical Injuries is an entirely separate offense from Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property "as the [latter] requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not."

The two charges against petitioner, arising from the same facts, were prosecuted under the same
provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article 365 defining and penalizing quasi-
offenses.

The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable. Indeed, the notion that quasi-offenses,
whether reckless or simple, are distinct species of crime, separately defined and penalized under the
framework of our penal laws, is nothing new.

The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not
merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts, undergirded
this Courts unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as applied to Article 365.

These cases uniformly barred the second prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible under the
Double Jeopardy Clause.

Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and simpler protection
of their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. True, they are thereby denied the
beneficent effect of the favorable sentencing formula under Article 48, but any disadvantage thus
caused is more than compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying
as "light offenses" (or, as here, for the more serious consequence prosecuted belatedly). If it is so
minded, Congress can re-craft Article 365 by extending to quasi-crimes the sentencing formula of Article
48 so that only the most severe penalty shall be imposed under a single prosecution of all resulting acts,
whether penalized as grave, less grave or light offenses. This will still keep intact the distinct concept of
quasi-offenses. Meanwhile, the lenient schedule of penalties under Article 365, befitting crimes
occupying a lower rung of culpability, should cushion the effect of this ruling.

Petition granted.