People V.

Rabandan (Art 247)

Facts:
The accused upon coming home one night from his camote plantatio, found his wife in bed with another
man. The man was able to escape through the window, but the wife received a severe scolding from her
husband and was ordered to leave the house. The wife gathered her clothes and picked up a bolo in the
kitchen, and when her husband followed her there, she attacked him with bolo, wounding him twice in
the abdomen. Wrestling the bolo from his wife, appellant stabbed her with it in the breast. She died
from her wound that same night.
Rabandan survived and was convicted of parricide. Hence this appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not the crime is parricide or should benefit under Art. 247 of RPC
Held:
He was not given the benefit of article 247 of the RPC, because although he found his wife in bed with
another man, he did not kill her on that account. For her reprehensible conduct he merely unbridled her
and bade her leave the house.
The trial court erred in not finding that appellant had acted in self-defense. The evidence shows
unlawful serious aggression on the part of the victim without sufficient provocation, and it also seems
apparent that there was reasonable necessity for the means employed to repel the assault. Rabandan,
was justified in believing that his wife wanted to finish him off because, according to the evidence, she
struggled to regain possession of the bolo after he had succeeded in wrestling it from her. With the
aggressor still unsubdued and showing determination to fight to the finish, it would have been folly on
the part of appellant, who must already have been losing strength due to loss of blood, to throw away
the bolo and thus give his adversary a chance to pick it up and again use it against him. Having the right
to protect his life, appellant was not in duty bound himself to such contingency.
The judgment appealed from was reversed and appellant.

People v. Kalalo (Homicide)

Facts:
Appellant Marcelo Kalalo and Isabela Holgado had litigation over a parcel of land situated in Calumpang
San Luis Batangas. Marcelo filed a complaint against Isabela in the CFI Batangas, but by virtue of motion
filed by Isabela, his first and second complaints were dismissed respectively. Marcelo cultivated such
land in question but when harvest time came Isabela reaped all the planted good thereon. Isabela and
his brother Arcadio Holgado (one of the deceased) decided to order the land plowed. When it came to
m. luna

Page 1

Marcelo's knowledge about the plowing of the Holgados, He together with his brothers Felipe and Juan,
and other appelants proceeded to place as well. They are armed with bolos
and thus ordered the laborers of Isabela to stop plowing.
When Isabela, Marcelino Panaligan (another deceased) and other companion arrived at place with food
for the laborers, after knowing the cause of suspension for plowing ordered the laborers to ditch again.
At this juncture Marcelo approached Arcadio and Felipe, Juan and Gregorio approached Marcelino. At
the remark of the Kalalos' mother saying "What is detaining you?" they all simultaneously stuck with
their bolos Arcadio and Marcelino inflicting wounds which caused their death. Marcelo took the revolver
from Palanigan's body and fired 4 shots at Hilarion Holgado who was fleeing then from the scene. The
appellants attempted to prove that the fight which resulted in the death of 2 deceased was provoked by
Marcelino when he fired a gun shot to Marcelo. The trial court did not give any credit to the testimony
of the appellants stating that the improbabilities of the defenses of the accused. It held on 3 separate
criminal cases guilty the defendants for the murder of Marcelino Palanigan (1st case) and Arcadio
Holgado (2nd case) and Illegal charge of firearm (3rd case). Co-accused Fausta, Alipia, Gregorio and
Alejandro were acquitted with the charges therein.
Issue:
Whether the appellants guilty of murder or of simple homicide on 3 cases?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that under Art.248 RPC which defines murder, the circumstance of "abuse of
superior strength" if present, raises homicide to the category of murder. However, said circumstance
may not properly be taken into consideration into the 2 cases at bar, either qualifying or as a generic
circumstance, if it is borne in mind that the deceased were also armed (with bolo and revolver). The
risk was even for the contending parties and their strength was almost balanced because a revolver is as
effective as, if not more so than 3 bolos. Thus, the SC finds these 2 cases constitute 2 homicides not
murder. As to the 3rd case, when Marcelo Kalalo fired 4 successive gun shots at Hilarion, the fact that
Marcelo not having contented himself firing once and the circumstance that immediately before doing
so , he and other appellants had already killed Arcadio and Marcelino, shows that he was bent on killing
Hilarion. He performed everything necessary on his part to commit the crime that he determined to
commit but he failed by reason of causes independent of his will, either of poor aim or because he
intended victim succeeded in dodging the shots. None of which found its mark. The Supreme Court
ruled that such act constitutes attempted homicide.
People v. Veloso (Robbery with Violence)
Facts:
One evening while Felimon Odiamar was leisurely reading the newspaper in the confines of his
home in Pacol, Naga City, Veloso and a companion entered the house masked and armed with .45 cal
pistol while his companion had a revolver.

m. luna

Page 2

Veloso declared hold-up when they apprehended the family of Felimon Odiamar while Felimon
was upstairs getting his weapons. The rest of the family was ordered to lie flat on the floor. The son,
Hermie, upon seeing his mother bleeding, begged the intruders to spare her life. Not hearing his plea,
Veloso shot him in the chest which immediately caused his death.
Felimon was then on his way down when he was fired upon. They exhanged fire until Felimons
rifle jammed. Felimon was about to fire his other weapon when his wife begged him to stop for fear that
all of them will be killed.
On the other hand, the version of the accused was different. He claimed that he pulled Hermie
and used him as a human shield and that the bullet intended for him hit Hermie in his chest. However,
on the affidavit he executed, Veloso admitted to have accidentally shot Hermie during the robbery.
Four other masked men joined Veloso and his companion. They ordered the odiamars and the
maid to lie on the floor on the room upstairs.
One of the robbers ransacked the house and took valuable items like necklaces and a wrist
watch. After taking what they wanted, they took the jeep owned by the family and used it to escape.
The naga city police with the help of makati police found Veloso in a house in Makati, Rizal. He
was then brought back to naga where he was charged of robbery with homicide and double serious
physical injuries together with 5 otther men who are still at large.
Issues:
1. WON the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the case for want of preliminary investigation
2. WON the extrajudicial confession was obtained through intimidation and therefore inadmissible
3. WON the offense charged was proper
Held:
1. Record shows that on July 5, 1970, Judge Templo conducted a preliminary investigation and on
the basis of the sworn statements of Felimon Odiamar and his witnesses. Judge Templo set the
case for preliminary investigation to afford the accused the occasion to confront the witnesses
against him and to present his own evidence. But instead of availing himself of this oppurtunity
he waived his right. Hence, the case was forwarded to the CFI for further proceedings.
2. There was nothing in the record to show that he was subjected to violence or intimidation after
he was brought to Naga city where his confession was given. In fact, the accused admitted in
open court that he was never harmed while in the custody of the naga city police
3. Felimon Odiamar and his daughter testified that it was Veloso who shot Hermie while the later
was kneeling with his hands up. the court a quo found their testimonies clear and convincing
and this factual finding of the lower court is entitled to great respect.
It is undisputed that during the commision of the robbery, Hermie was killed, while the odiamar
spouses sustained serious physical injuries. The fact that the death of Hermie resulted during the
m. luna

Page 3

robbery makes th latter guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide and double serious
physical injuries.

Borjal v. CA & wenceslao (libel)

Facts:
The petitioners Borjal and Soliven are among the incorporators of PhilStar Daily Inc., a daily
newspaper. At the time the complaint was filed, Borjal was its president while soliven was the publisher
and the chairman of its Editorial board. Borjal was a regular writer in the newspaper who runs the
column Jaywalker.
Private respondent, Wenceslao, was a civil engineer, businessman and journalist by
profession. On feb. 28 1989, wenceslao was elected executive director of FNCLT or First National
Conference on Land Transporation whose objective was to draft an omnibus bill that would embody a
long term land transportation policy for presentation to congress.
The conference would be funded through solicitations from various sponsors such as
governmental agencies, private organizations, transport firms and individual delegates or participants.
As such, he wrote numerous solicitation letters to the business community to support the conference.
Between May and July 1989, a series of artcicles were written byBorjal attacking among
others h=the solicitation letters he sent to support conference to be launch concerning the resolution of
transportation crisis that is tainted with anomalous activities.
Wenceslao, however, was never named in any of the acticles nor was the conference he was
organizing. A civil action for damages was then files for libel against borjal and soliven. The lowr court
ordered the petioners to indemnify wenceslao for damages which was affirmed by the CA. hence, this
petition for review filed before the SC.
Issue:
WON there are sufficient grounds to constitute guilt of petitioner for libel
Held:
The decision of the CA was reversed and set aside, and the complaint for damages against the
petioners was dismissed.
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable although it is not
necessary that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as the
person attacked or offended but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him as the
object of the libelous publication.

m. luna

Page 4

These requisites have not been complied with in the case at bar. The lement of identifiability
was not met since it was wenceslao who revealed he was the organizer of said conference and had he
not done so the public would not have known.
The concept of privileged communications is implicit in the freedom of press and that privileged
communications must be protective of public opinion. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest
are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. when thediscreditable
imputation is directed against a public personin his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable.
Inorder that such discreditable imputation to a public officialmay be actionable, it must either be a false
allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition.
The questioned article dealt with matters of public interest as the
declared objective of the conference, the composition of itsmembers and participants, and
the manner by which it was intended to be funded no doubt lend to its activities as being genuinely
imbued with public interest. Respondent is also deemed to be a public figure and even otherwise is
involved in a publicissue.
Therefore, these are matters abut which the public has the right to be informed, taking into
account thee very public charater of the conference itself.

People v. Padua (Title v)

Facts:
The accused was found to be in possession of dangerous drug during a buy-bust operation. He
was charged of illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, popularly known
as shabu, under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
After trial, the court a quo found accused-appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to
suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The Court also finds accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of section 11, article ii of the same law and sentences him to suffer a
prison term ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as
maximum, and to pay a fine of P300.000.00
After his appeal, CA ruled that the buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers was
proper and there was no irregularity in the conduct of the same. Accused was caught in flagrante
delicto, thus, his arrest was lawful and the sachets ofshabu confiscated from him were admissible in
evidence, being the fruits of the crime. The Court of Appeals also ruled that there was no evidence of
any improper motive on the part of prosecution witness, who was a member of the team who
conducted the buy-bust operation.

m. luna

Page 5

Later on, the accused submitted his supplemental brief. He asserts that the police officers failed
to account for the chain of custody of the seized items alleged to be shabu. He questions the nonpresentation as witness of the alleged investigator, the officer on duty who received the specimen
together with the request for laboratory examination. Hence, this petition for review.
Issue/s:
1. WON the the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt for failure
of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody of the specimen.
2. WON CA erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite failure of the prosecution to present
the alleged informant.
Held:
Contrary to accused-appellants claim, there is no broken chain in the custody of the seized
items, found to be shabu, from the time police officer got the shabu, to the time it was turned over to
the investigating officer, and up to the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime
Laboratory for laboratory examination.
The fact that the persons who had possession or custody of the subject drugs were not
presented as witnesses to corroborate apprehending officers testimony, is of no moment. The nonpresentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the forensic chemist, is not a
crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not
for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the
right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.
Regarding the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of the informant, it is wellsettled that the testimony of an informant in drugpushing cases is not essential for conviction and may
be dispensed if the poseur-buyer testified on the same. Informants are almost always never presented
in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police.
Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in
court. There is nothing in RA 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such
requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been
broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable
that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.
The decision of CA was affirmed.

m. luna

Page 6

m. luna

Page 7