Q9

Y had been seriously Ill for 3 weeks, he was stuck by X with a slipper upon
the thighs.
One or 2 days later the child died
The doctor examining the body stated that the body showed unequivocal sins
of a serious disease of the heart, and that the bruises could not have caused
the death of Y, but might have contributed to accelerate the fatal result of
that illness.
It was also stated by the doctor that, even without the blows, basing on the
age and circumstances surrounding the child, fatal results could already be
expected.
HELD: X should NOT be convicted for the charge of homicide.
The testimony of the doctor proves that the evidence is not sufficient as to
prove that the blows caused or hastened the death of the Y.
(U.S. vs. Embate)

Q10
-

X gave Y two blows with the fist. He was knocked down but was able to get
up with the help of the people who were present at that time
Having walked a short distance, he fell to the ground again and this time he
died.
HELD: X should be responsible for the crime of homicide.
The assaulted party was previously affected by some internal malady and by
the blow given (which may well produce inflammation of the spleen and
peritonitis and cause death) his death was hastened.
(U.S. vs. Rodriguez)
*the difference between the Embate case and this case is that, here there
was sufficient proof that the blows hastened the death and in the former case
there was none.

Q11
-

X assaulted Y with a small penknife. Y was immediately taken to the hospital

where he was given first aid treatment, a slight operation, cleaning and
sewing up the wound.
According to the doctor it was not serious however Y was admonished to keep
quiet because any movement he might make the injury worse.
In spite of the admonition and because of his nervous condition, Y moved
about, sitting up in bed, getting up and pacing about the room. This later
produced death.
HELD: it cannot be contended that the accused can only be convicted
of slight physical injuries, instead of the serious crime of homicide. If
the accused must answer for all the consequences of her acts
voluntarily performed, it necessarily and logically follows that she
must be convicted of the graver offense.

Where a person voluntarily and with intent of injuring another commits an act
which is unlawful, he shall be held responsible for the consequences of his
criminal action.
The crime of homicide is committed when death ensues or follows, as a result
of a wound inflicted by another, whether death be the immediate
consequence, or whether it resulted from accidents caused or brought on by
reason of such wounds or injuries received by the patient.
*This should be distinguished from cases where the resulting deaths were
due to alien acts, malicious and imprudent, performed by the injured persons
themselves.
(People vs. Almonte)

Q12
-

X struck Z with a piece of hard wood which wounded him and caused him to
faint
After a medical exam it was said that the wounds would require 58 days to
heal, a longer time actually needed as a consequence of Zs habitual drinking
of tuba.
HELD: It is correct to determine the gravity or classification of the
crime on the basis of the number of days required to cure the victim,
considering that it could have been possible for him to be cured
sooner had it not been for his habitual drinking of Tuba.
If the wounded man owing to his physical condition and the state of his
health, was not cures in a less number of days than that specified, the
perpetrator of the crime is responsible nevertheless for all the consequences
of the personal injuries that resulted.
(U.S. vs. Bayutas)

Q13
-

Whenever one sole act constitutes two or more crimes (example: A crime of
discharge of a firearm causing lesions menos graves), or if one of them is
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty corresponding to the
more serious crime shall be imposed on its maximum degree.
(U.S. vs. Marasigan)

Q14
-

X intended to kill Z however because of the darkness of the evening and

intoxicated condition of X he mistook U for Z and killed him instead
HELD: He should STILL be charged for the graver crime of intentional
homicide and not homicide though negligence.
The fact that the accused intended to injure another person instead of his
victim, could in no way be considered as a relief from his criminal act. That he
made a mistake in killing one man instead of another, when it is proved that
he acted maliciously and wilfully, cannot relieve him from criminal

responsibility. Neither can the fact that he made a mistake in killing the
wrong man be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Q15
-

L who had tuberculosis, though not in an advanced stage, and a tumor in the
left kidney, was hit by X from behind. L fell backwards and his head struck
the asphalt pavement he sustained a lacerated wound and fracture of the
skull. He died from cerebral hemorrhage
X claims that he did not intend to cause so great an injury
HELD: The fact that X did not intend to cause so great an injury does
not relieve him from the consequences of his unlawful act, but is
merely a mitigating circumstance.
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
In order that a person may be criminally liable for such, it is indispensable
that the two following requisites must be present:
o A felony was committed
o That the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct
consequence of the crime committed by the offender.

Q15.1
-

The crime committed by X should be classified as murder.

Ls death was the direct consequence of defendants felonious act of striking
him on the head.
If X did not commit the assault in a treacherous manner he would be guilty of
homicide, although he did not intend to kill the deceased.
However since he committed the crime with treachery he is guilty of murder.
(Because of the presence of treachery)

Q15.2
-

Treachery depends upon the manner of the execution of the crime

Mitigating circumstance depends upon the tendency of the will towards a
definite purpose
It cannot be held in the instant case that said mitigating circumstance
excludes treachery.

Q16
-

V fell into the sea. Upon reaching small banca at the pier X boxed him and
he fell into the sea again and then drowned.
X inquired are you already dead
HELD: X can be liable for homicide
There is no disclosure on how the initial attack or assault on the victim
started and therefore the requisite of treachery was not present.
It is the rule that treachery should be proven as fully as the crime itself.

The crime is homicide and not murder.

Q17
-

X and his companions went to the house of Z with the intention of killing her
They fired at her room however it turned out that Z was in another city and
no one was in the room when X and the others fired the shots. No one was hit
by the gun fire
HELD: X and his companions cannot be convicted of attempted
murder because this crime was inherently impossible
Art 4 (2) of The Revised Penal code penalizes an act which were it not aimed
at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove
inadequate would constitute a felony against person or against property.
The rational is to punish criminal tendencies.
Under this Art. the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense
against person or property because:
1. The commission of the offense is inherently impossible of accomplishment
2. The means employed is either (a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual
Legal impossibility occurs when the intended acts, even if completed, would
not amount to a crime. (ex. The impossibility of killing a person already dead)
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the
actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime
(ex. The man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the
intention to steal the latters wallet and finds the pocket empty.) -> the case
at bar falls under this.