Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE
DOCTRINE
People vs Moton
(PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS)
Not liable
*When a new law repeals the existing
law so that the act that was penalized
under the old law is no longer
punishable, the crime is obliterated
*Retroact only when favorable to the
accused, otherwise is stated in this
case
Manzanaris vs People
(ARTICLE 3)
Relucio vs CSC
(ARTICLE 3)
No liable
*good faith
US vs Ah Chong
(ARTICLE 3)
Not liable
*ignorance or mistake of fact (not
mistake of person, blow or commit so
grave a wrong)
US vs Bautista
(ARTICLE 3)
Not liable
*resisted arrest as he did not know
that such persons arresting him are
vested with authority
*upon knowledge that they are of
authority, he immediately submitted
himself
People vs Bayambao
(ARTICLE 3)
Not liable
*impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
an injury
*ignorace or error in fact
People vs Oanis
(ARTICLE 3)
Liable
*the defense of honest mistake of fact
cannot be used when there is
NEGLIGENCE OR FAULT on the part of
the accused
People vs Apego
(ARTICLE 3)
Cuenca vs People
(ARTICLE 3)
Not liable
*good faith
*not expected to ask for license from
his boss
People vs Landicho
(ARTICLE 3)
Not liable
*just doing a good deed
*animus posendi shall be relaxed
People vs Mallari
(ARTICLE 3)
Not liable
*applied for a license, but there is
unreasonable delay to the application
of such
*cannot suffer the consequences of
said delay
People vs Cagoco
(ARTICLE 4)
WON liable
Liable
*The fist blow on the back part of the
head that caused the victim to fall and
hit his head on the pavement
*liable for the consequences of the
acts
People vs Dalag
(ARTICLE 4)
WON liable
Liable
*Relentless breathing that caused the
death of his wife
*liable for the consequences of the
acts
US vs Brobst
(ARTICLE 4)
Liable
*liable for natural result of act.. THO
UNEXPECTED
People vs Martin
(ARTICLE 4)
People vs Piamonte
(ARTICLE 4)
People vs Itlanas
(ARTICLE 4)
People vs Opero
(ARTICLE 4)
People vs Sitchon
(ARTICLE 4)
US vs Rodriguez
(ARTICLE 4)
People vs Quianzon
Liable
*he who is the cause of the evil cause
is the cause of the evil caused
*liable for the supervening death as a
consequence thereof
Liable
(ARTICLE 4)
People vs Reloj
(ARTICLE 4)
WON liable
Liable
*even due to the paralysis of ileum
contracted when the internal organs
of the victim were exposed during the
surgical operation in the abdomen
caused by the wound inflicted by the
accused
*neglect, unskillfull and improper
treatment (oks-non mortal/ not oksmortal)
US vs Marasigan
(ARTICLE 4)
***doctrine
VICTIM NOT OBLIGED TO SUBMIT TO
A SURGICAL OPERATION in order to
relieve, minimize or completely
absolve from natural and ordinary
consequences of felonious act.
People vs Ancasan
(ARTICLE 4)
Won liable
Not liable
*Efficient intervening cause
*tetanus effect
People vs Reyes
(ARTICLE 4)
****
Doctrine: Death presumed to be
natural consequence and result of
injuries when Physical injuries are
expected to result to death and when
death ensues within a reasonable time
People vs Moldes
(ARTICLE 4)
****
Liable if 1) there is mortal wound + 2)
Intod vs People
(ARTICLE 4)
Won liable
Liable
*impossible crime
*tho there be a factual impossible due
to the nature of the act
Jacinto vs People
(ARTICLE 4)
Won liable
Liable
*Cheque due to the extraneous
circumstances of the check being
unfunded, a fact unknown to Jacinto
*impossible crime
People vs Gutierrez
(ARTICLE 5)
No
*take into consideration the
circumstances
People vs Orifon
(ARTICLE 5)
No
*raped by his father
People vs Canja
(ARTICLE 5)
Won liable
Liable
Appellant must be declared to have
feloniously extinguished the life of her
husband. He may have been
unworthy. He may have been a rascal
and a bully; but that is no excuse for
murdering him. His badness is not
even a mitigating circumstance.
Valenzuela vs People
(ARTICLE 6)
Yes
(1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property
belongs to another; (3) that the taking
1) WOUNDS; 2) NO MEDICAL
TESTIMONY OF THE GRAVITY
OF SUCH WOUNDS
= ATTEMPTED
People vs Kalalo
(ARTICLE 6)
US vs Eduave
(ARTICLE 6)
People vs Erina
(ARTICLE 8)
People vs Ruiz
(ARTICLE 8)
Yes.
Circumstances shown the intent
1) boarding together
2) proceed to Talisay where Vito was
3) alighting vehicle upon arrival at
Talisay; respective positions
4) firing simultaneously
5) get away together
6) bringing of the co-accused to the
hospital
7) pattern of feigning total ignorance
re incident
People vs Medios
(ARTICLE 8)
responsibility
People vs Abut
(ARTICLE 8)
Yes.
YES.
His presence not only gave moral
support to the two other accused, but
likewise reinforced the aggression by
serving as a deterrent so that the
People vs Cantuba
(ARTICLE 8)
Rodolfo wanted to kill Atty. Celera. So
he shared this plan with Pio, Ricardo
Yes.
Implied Conspiracy ito.
They knew of the place, date, approx
and Pedrito
time of killing
People vs Portugueza
People vs Caayao
No.
No.
(ARTICLE 8)
People vs Varroga
(ARTICLE 8)
People vs Agda
(ARTICLE 8)
People vs Agripa
Wife tried to kill Jose as he was not able to bring home money (or his salary)
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Defense of one's life of person
-For survival -Take a life of another in exchange of another
People vs Luague
Paulino came to the house of the Luague's to rape Natividad
Natividad used the knife Paulino left on the floor
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Defense of honor
-Because virginity or chastity, once defiled, cannot be restored
People vs Tilos
Bro fishermen have in possession fishing net, but not yet fully paid, chief of police received info from municipal
president to seize the fishing net and deposit it to the mun bldg
Brothers protected the said nets
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Defense of Property
People vs Dala
-Francisco had with him a kitchen knife -Francisco cursed his wife -Meanwhile, there came Absalon and Julio, both in
high spirits
-Pinagtripan siya ng dalawa -So, he sheated the kitchen knife he was holding and stabbed Absalon on the right side of
chest
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Unlawful agression is the condition precedent (indispensable!)
-not merely a threatening attitude and intimidating attack
Rugas vs People
-Defendant voluntarily and practically joined a fight
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
A person who voluntarily joins a fight cannot claim self-defense because there is no unlawful aggression
-exposed himself to consequences -everything, then, became an incident of the fight
US vs Sta. Ana
-Antonio Santos caught by Arm Dorotea Ramos and tried to take advantage of the later.
-Thus, Ramos retaliated with the bolo -Ramos charged with lesiones menos graves
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Defense of one's honor
-married woman -once a woman certainly takes his life and liberty in his own hands,losing the latter, his loss thereby
is no greater than he deserves
US vs Merced
-Pantaeleon Arabe caught wife Apolinia Patron with Catalino Merced in adultery
-Catalino retaliated upon the attack of Pantaleon at the expense of the latter's life
ART 11, PAR 1 SELF-DEFENSE
Paramour caught in adultery with wife cannot invoke self-defense. Deceased husband had the right to defend
his honor
-Article 432 of RPC -lawful right
People vs Mangantilao
-Florencio came home and saw that his wife and his children are being attacked so thereby he retaliated to the point of
killing the unknown assailant
fray
People vs Eduarte
-Roberto Trinidad & Fredeswindo was fighting -when Roberto was about to give his final blow (after all the clubbing
done), Florentino Eduarte intercepted and shot Roberto in defense of Fredeswindo
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
Requisites be proved with CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence
-too self-serving and corroborated
People vs Yncierto
-Olimpio & Fidel fistfighting -Aniceto ran with a hunting knife -Narciso tried to stop Aniceto, but latter resisted
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
-Not justified, imagine 13 cm deep! Aww man!
-Also, remember the factors! Strength and weight! :)
-Narciso then held and pressed Aniceto against stump of a coconut tree -Father of Aniceto, Teodolfo killed Narciso
-remember: stab on back and breast (13 cm deep)
Olbinar vs CA
-Romeo Cahilog & Fernando Jimenez was physically assaulting Emiliano Olbinar -His wife, Procerfina, having no
knowledge of what transpired prior, quickly acted to rescue his wife and retailed for her husband with bolo. -thereby,
killing Romeo & Fernando
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending his/her relative
-compelling urgency -no time to think -no way of thinking if his husband provoked the fight or not, as long as no suff
provocation on her part, okay tayo :) -using bolo is justified, as she is of no match to one or both of the assailants
US vs Rivera -Cayetano challenged Domingo to a fight -Father of Domingo rescued the latter & a certain Canuto
ART 11, PAR 2 DEFENSE OF SON
They did no more than manifest necessities of the occasion demanded
Solely to save a son & a friend from IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH AT THE HANDS of his much stronger and
better-armed adversary
People vs Padilla
-Bro in law Severino was trying to abuse the wife of Dario -Dario, then, struck Severino with a bolo (left forearm and
left thumb, 60 days to cure rendered the left hand useless)
People vs Valdez
ART 11, PAR 3
Had to deal with a
-His own wife and his (friend's) wife
DEFENSE OF A STANGER
desperate or possibly insan person who had to be rendered harmless
People vs Ayaya
ART 11, PAR 4 STATE OF NECESSITY
Thrusting an umbrella, wc hit the husband's eyes, to prevent her son's head from being crushed by the door
People vs Oanis
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
NO NEGLIGENCE DAPAT
-ascertain first identity by inquiring before firing (regardless of the person's criminality haha?)
Frias vs People -neighbors for help -As police, Gervacio brought with him his gun -Saw Bartolome, also armed with a
gun, left the place of Manuel
-Refused to surrender, so fire a shot
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
-necessary consequences of duty -2 warning shots -not required that police be exposed to peril
Masipequina vs CA
-Leopoldo Potane showed sign of violent insanity -Father and brother requested Norberto M. and Jovencio Alampayan
to apprehend Leopoldo -Leopoldo rushed to them with a bolo
-Patrolmen defended themselves in the expense of Leopoldo's life
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
-ordered by their substation commander to apprehend Leopoldo
People vs Delima
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
-even extreme means, in the right to bring back the escapee
Valcorza vs People
ART 11, PAR 5 FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE
ARTICLE 13
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
*PRESUPPOSES EXISTENCE OF BOTH CRIMES AND CRIMINAL
*as distinguished from EXEMPTING: recognizes felonious act but no criminal offender (as no voluntariness)
*privilege exempting- DEGREE; No offset
*ordinary- PERIOD; Can be offset
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in
the respective cases are not attendant.
De Luna vs CA
-Unlawful aggression is an indispensible requisite to claim incomplete self-defense
People vs Buenafe
-Unlawful aggression + (requirement 2 or requirement 3) = incomplete self-defense
-Subordinate
People vs Pasca (incomplete self-defense)
-Genaros terrible force was not reasonable necessity for the means employed by the accused to prevent or repel the unlawful
aggression
People vs Lucero (incomplete self-defense)
-Ciriaco threw a stone at Epifanio, causing the latter to swerve as to prevent being hit by the coming vehicle. The said
swerving caused Epifanio to be thrown to the ground
-Of course, Epifanio was infuriated and thus, struck Ciriaco with a bolo
-Not reasonable ulit (tho there was unlawful aggression + lack of sufficient provocation)
People vs Toring (incomplete defense of a relative)
-motivated by RRO
Pepito vs CA
-Ceasing of Unlawful Aggression = no incomplete defense of relative
-No justification for attacking the victim, as the latter stopped about 8 meters from door of Pepito and turned towards his
mother-in-laws house before Sinonor went after him
People vs Gonzales
-CURSING & SHOUTING NOT CONSTITUTED UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
People vs Jaurigue (incomplete defense of honor)
-Chapel, stabbed with a fan knife as the man put his hand on the legs of the accused
-Means employed WERE EVIDENTLY EXCESSIVE
2. A child above fifteen but below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense who acted with
discernment, in which case he shall be subjected to appropriate diversion programs under Sec 23 to 31 of this Act.
DIMUNITION OF INTELLIGENCE
Privileged Mitigating ONE DEGREE
No discernment
Diversion measures
o CONDITIONS OF DIVERSION PROGRAM
A) Not more than 6 years imprisonment
Who: LEO, Punong Barangay (with assistance of local social welfare and devt officer or other LCPC
member)
What to do: conduct Mediation, Family Conferencing and Conciliation, (where appropriate) Adopt
indigenous modes of conflict resoln in accord with best INTEREST of the child with a view to
accomplishing the objectives of RESTORATIVE JUSTICE and formulation of a diversion program
CHILD & HIS/HER FAMILY SHALL BE PRESENT
LEVEL
o CONFERENCE, MEDIATION, CONCILIATION
Contract of diversion may be entered during this stage
o CONTRACT OF DIVERSION
Voluntary admits the commission of act
However, such admission shall not be used against the children in judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative
Effective upon approval
o DUTIES OF CHILD UNDER DIVERSION CONTRACT
o DUTY OF PUNONG BRGY WHEN NO DIVERSION
o DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
o NOT BE SUBJECTED TO DIVERSION MEASURES
o PUBLIC PROSEC = CONDUCT PI
Over 70 years bawal na mahatulan ng reclusion perpetua
3. The offender had no intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
4.