You are on page 1of 23

PATRICIA MARINELA D.

PALILEO
1JD-C
103.

104. People vs. Listerio


FACTS:
Criminal Case No. 91-5842 and Criminal Case No. 91-5843 were filed against Agapito Listerio y
Prado and Samson dela Torre y Esquela
Upon arraignment, accused Agapito Listerio y Prado and Samson dela Torre y Esquela pleaded not
guilty to the crimes charged. Their other co-accused have remained at large.
May 14, 1991:
o Marlon Araques Version: Marlon and his brother Jeonito were in Purok 4, Alabang, Muntinlupa to
collect a sum of money from Tino. Having failed they turned backAs they were passing Tramo near
Tinos place, a group composed of Agapito Listerio, Samson dela Torre, George dela Torre, Marlon dela
Torre and Bonifacio Bancaya blocked their path and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed
weapons. Jeonito Araque from behind with 3 stab wounds: 1. upper right portion of his back, 2. lower
right portion and 3. middle portion of the left side of his back causing him to fall down. Marlon was hit
on the head by Samson dela Torre and Bonifacio Bancaya with lead pipes and momentarily lost
consciousness. When he regained consciousness 3 minutes later, Jeonito was already dead and the
group fled. He was brought to the hospital for treatment of his forearm and the shoulder
o Agapito Listerios Version: Agapito Listerio is a 39 years old, married, side walk vegetable vendor
and a resident of Purok 4.
1:00 pm: He was in store of Nimfa Agustin drinking beer with Edgar Demolador and Andres Gininao
2:00 pm: He went to his house and slept
5:00 pm: Remolador and Gininao woke him up and told him there was a quarrel near the railroad
track
6:00 pm: 2 policemen passed by going to the house of Samson de la Torre while he was chatting
with Remolador and Gininao and invited them for questioning. But, the two were sent home. He was
handed a Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Marlon Araque, implicating him for the death of Jeonito
Araque and the frustrated murder of Marlon Araque. When he confronted Marlon as to why he was
being included in the case, the latter replied because you ejected us from your house
Dr. Manimtims Autopsy Reports:
o Marlon Araque: 2 wounds on the forearm and the shoulder were caused by a sharp object like a
knife while the other 2 were caused by a blunt instrument such as a lead pipe
o Jeonito Araque: 3 stab wounds were inflicted from behind by a sharp, pointed and single-bladed
instrument like a kitchen knife, balisong or any similar instrument. Considering the involvement of a
vital organ and a major blood vessel, the first wound was considered fatal. Unlike the first, the second
and third wounds were non-fatal. The first and second wounds were inflicted by knife thrusts delivered
starting below going upward by assailants who were standing behind the victim
RTC: Attempted Homicide only on the basis of Dr. Manimtims testimony that none of the wounds
sustained by Marlon Araque were fatal
ISSUE: W/N there is a conspiracy for frustrated homicide
HELD: YES. appealed decision is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1.] the award of P5,000.00 to Marlon Araque by way of moral damages in Criminal Case No. 91-5843 is
DELETED;
2.] Accused-Appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 91-5843 of

Frustrated Homicide and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years of Prision
Correccional, as minimum to Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as maximum.
After finality of this Decision, the records shall be remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
which is directed to render judgment based on the evidence against Samson dela Torre y Esquela.
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found for criminals do not write down their lawless plans and
plots. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of
action and community of interest
conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of acts
charged, but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and
circumstances, which vary according to the purpose accomplished. Previous agreement to commit a
crime is not essential to establish a conspiracy, it being sufficient that the condition attending to its
commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal
purpose and objective
It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt acts as a direct or indirect
contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of
active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance
to his con-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral
ascendancy over the other co-conspirators
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship, it denotes an intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose
o all of them armed with deadly weapons at the locus criminis, indubitably shows their criminal
design to kill the victims
conspirator is equally liable for the crime as it is unnecessary to determine who inflicted the fatal
wound because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all
Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. That
circumstance qualifies the crime into murder.
o all of them armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes, blocked (hinarang) the path of the victims
effectively cutting off their escape
The commission of the crime was also attended by abuse of superior strength on account of the
fact that accused-appellant and his companions were not only numerically superior to the victims but
also because all of them, armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes, purposely used force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the persons attacked. However, this aggravating
circumstance is already absorbed in treachery. In the light of the finding of conspiracy, evident
premeditation need not be further appreciated, absent concrete proof as to how and when the plan to
kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out.
What determines whether a felony is attempted or frustrated is whether or not the subjective
phase in the commission of an offense has been passed (NOT gravity of the wound)
Subjective phase
o portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission of
the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should result in the
consummated crime.
Objective phase
o Forward the subjective phase
o period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he has control that period between the
point where he begins and the point where he voluntarily desists.
If between these two points the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own
voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt.

If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated
frustrated when: (subjective phase is completely passed. Subjectively the crime is complete)
o the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
o the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrators will
attempted felony: (offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense)
o the offender commits overt acts to commence the perpetration of the crime
o he is not able to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; and
o his failure to perform all the acts of execution was due to some cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance
intent to kill determines whether the infliction of injuries should be punished as attempted or
frustrated murder, homicide, parricide or consummated physical injuries
o intent to kill of the malefactors herein who were armed with bladed weapons and lead pipes can
hardly be doubted given the prevailing facts of the case
o can not be denied that the crime is a frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering that
after being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he lost consciousness and fell,
Marlons attackers apparently thought he was already dead and fled

105.People vs. Erina

Facts: Julian Eria charged of raping 3 yrs & 11 mo. old child. Doubt on whether actual
penetration occurred. Physical exam showed slight inflammation of exterior parts of organ
indicating effort to enter vagina. Mom found childs organ covered with sticky substance
Issue: WON crime is consummated?
Held: No. Frustrated only
1.
Possible for mans organ to enter labia of a 3 years and 8 months old child (Kennedy
v. State)
2.
No conclusive evidence of penetration so give accused benefit of the doubt.
Frustrated.

106. People vs. Hernandez

Facts: Domingo Hernandez, 70 yrs old charged of raping his 9 yr old step granddaughter,
Conrada Jocson with threat to kill if she/doesnt give in to his wish. Aggravating: (1) related,
(2) grave abuse of confidence since they lived in same house.
Issue: WON act is consummated rape
Held: Yes, plus there is an aggravating circumstance.

1.
People v. Rivers: rupture of hymen not necessary as long as there is proof that
theres some degree of entrance of male organ within labia of
2.
Physical exam findings: hymen intact, labia and vaginal opening inflamed,
abundance of semen, she felt intense pain

107. People vs. Orita


Facts: Victim: Cristina Abaya, 19 years old, freshman at St. Josephs College in
Borongan, Eastern Samar At around 1:30 am, after attending a party, Abayan came
home to her boarding house. As she knocked at the door, Orita suddenly held her
and poked a knife at her neck. She pleaded for him to let her go but instead of
doing so, Orita dragged her upstairs with him while he had his left arm wrapped
around her neck and his right hand holding and poking the balisong at the victim. At
the second floor, he commanded Christina to look for a room. Upon finding a room,
Orita held her against the wall while he undressed himself. He then ordered her to
undress. As she took off her shirt, he pulled off her bra, pants and panty, and
ordered her to lie on the floor. He then mounted her and, pointing the balisong at
her neck, ordered he to hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. In this position,
only a portion of his penis entered her, so he ordered Abayan to go on top of him.
With him lying on his back and Abayan mounting him, still, he did not achieve full
penetration and only part of his penis was inserted in the vagina. At this instance,
Abayan got the opportunity to escape Orita because he had both his hands and the
knife on the floor. Abayan, still naked, was chased from room to room with Orita
climbing over the partitions. Abayan, frantic and scared, jumped out of a window
and darted for the municipal building and was finally found by Pat. Donceras and
other policemen. Due to darkness though, the failed to apprehend Orita. In the
medico legal, Dr. Ma. Luisa Abude had the following findings: circumscribed
hematoma at Ant. neck, linear abrasions below left breas, multiple pinpoint marks
at the back, abrasions on both kness, erythemetous areas noted surrounding
vaginal orifice, tender; hymen intact; no laceration fresh and old noted; examining
finger can barely enter and with difficulty; vaginal cavity tight, no discharges noted
Issue: Whether or not rape is consummated
Held: Rape was consummated. Perfect penetration is not essential. For the
consummation of rape, any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient to qualify as having carnal knowledge. In the crime of rape, from the
moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his
purpose and from that moment, the essential elements of the offense have been
accomplished.

108. People vs. Campuhan

Facts: Primo Campuhan was accused of raping four year old Crysthel Pamintuan.
Campuhan was caught by childs mother on April 25, 1996 at around 4pm in their
house. Campuhan, helper of Corazons brother was allegedly kneeling in front of the
child with both their pants downa dn child was crying ayoko, ayoko while Primo
forced his penis into childs vagina
Issue: WON crime is rape?
Held: No. Modified to attempted rape 1. Consummated rape: perfect penetration not
essential. Slight penetration is equivalent to rape. Mere touching of external
genitalia considered when its an essential part of penetration not just touching in
ordinary sense (People v. Orita). Labia majora must be entered for rape to be
consummated (People v. Escober) 2. Attempted no penetration or didnt reach
labia/mere grazing of surface 3. Failed to prove that penetration occurred. Mothers
testimony questionable with regards to her position relative to Primo and child. They
failed to establish how she could have seen actual contact in her position 4. Mans
instinct is to run when caught. Primo could not have stayed or to satisfy his lust
even if .. seeing Corazon 5. Child denied penetration occurred People v. Villamor
consummation even when penetration doubted: pains felt, discoloration of inner
lips of vagina or red labia minora or hymenal tags not visible. Now seen in case,
Medico legal officer, though penetration not needed to prove contact, no medical
basis to hold that there was sexual contact. Hymen intact.

109. US vs. Adiao


Facts: Defendant: Tomas Adiao Adiao, a customs inspector, took a leather belt
valued at P0.80 from the baggage of T. Murakami Adiao kept the belt in his desk at
the Custom House, where it was found by other customs employees He was
charged with the crime of theft in the Municipal Court of the city of Manila He was
found guilty of frustrated theft He appealed to the Court of First Instance of the
city of Manila and the decision of the Municipal Court was affirmed and he was
sentence to pay a fine of P100, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to pay the costs The defendant claimed in his appeal that the lower court erred
in holding that he was guilty of the crime of theft as disclosed by the facts
appearing of record
Issue: WON the act of the defendant is frustrated theft
Held: No, the crime cannot properly be classified as frustrated. The defendant has
performed all of the acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment of the
crime of theft. He has taken possession of the belt and this already constitutes the
crime of theft. The act of making use of the thing having been frustrated, which,
however does not go to make the elements of the consummated crime (Decision of
Supreme Court of Spain) Note: The ponente referred to the decision of Supreme

Court of Spain in its decision. It illustrated several situations that constitute


consummated theft.

110. People vs. Dino


Facts
On June 20, 1946, Roberto Dio was hired as a driver of the US army at a stationin Quezon City. At
above 11:30 in the morning, he brought a truck load of articlesto manila harbor; the article came from the
US army. At the check point a guardapproached the truck and found three boxes, containing ten caliber 30
army rifles.The guard brought Dio to the lieutenant of the US army for questioning,
Dio pointed to the gang but later denied. Later Dio confessed that there were four persons who placed
the boxes on board and he was instructed to bring them out of the area. While they were to meet after
the truck passed the checkpoint.
Issue:
whether or not the crime f theft was consummated considering theforegoing.
Ruling:
Trial Court: Dio was found guilty as an accomplice in the consummatedcrime of theft.Supreme Court:
Dio was found guilty as a principal in the frustrated crime of theft.Reason: in order for the crime of theft
to be consummated the article should have passed the checkpoint, so that the thief could have full control
and could dispenseof the property.

111. Valenzuela vs. People


FACTS:
On 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside
the Super Sale Club, asupermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North
EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guardwho was then manning his post at
the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who waswearing an
identification card with the mark "Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)," hauling a push
cart with cases of detergent of the well-known "Tide" brand. Petitioner unloaded
these cases in an open parking space, whereCalderon was waiting. Petitioner then
returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged withmore
cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the
open parking space.
Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab
and directed it towards theparking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon
loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, thenboarded the vehicle. All
these acts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the
openparking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise,
petitioner and Calderon reacted byfleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to
alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner andCalderon were
apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered.

The filched items seized fromthe duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1)
case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with
an aggregate value of P12,090.00.
In a Decision
promulgated on 1 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City,
Branch 90,convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of consummated
theft. They were sentenced to anindeterminate prison term of two (2) years of
prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as maximum.
Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be
convicted of frustrated theftsince he was not able to freely dispose of the articles
stolen.
Decision dated 19 June 2003,the Court of Appeals rejected this contention and
affirmed petitioners conviction
,thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court.ISSUE: Whether or
not the crime committed has a frustrated stage.HELD: NO.
The petition was DENIED
.
Article 6
of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all
the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
Article 308
states that, in the crime of theft, the following elements should be present: (1) that
there betaking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intentto gain; (4) that the taking be done without the
consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplishedwithout the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
The Court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property
by one with intent togain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable
to freely dispose the property stolen since hehas already committed all the acts of
execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued fromsuch acts.
Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted
or consummated.

111. Valenzuela vs. People


FACTS:
While a security guard was manning his post at the open parking area of a supermarket, he
saw the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent
and unloaded them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then
returned inside the supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of
detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the cartons inside. As the
taxi was about to leave, the security guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the

merchandize. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently apprehended
at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of
consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he
should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the
articles stolen. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision, thus the Petition for
Review was filed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage.
HELD:
No. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all the
elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft,
the following elements should be present: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2)
that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4)
that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be
accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things. The Court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property
by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely
dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the
deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have
a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.

112. People vs. Lamahang


Facts: Aurelio Lamahang was caught opening with an iron bar a wall of a store of
cheap goods in Fuentes St. Iloilo. He broke one board and was unfastening another
when a patrolling police caught him. Owners of the store were sleeping inside store
as it was early dawn. Convicted of attempt of robbery.
Issue: WON crime is attempted robbery?
Held: No. Attempted trespass to dwelling. Attempt should have logical relation to a
particular and concrete offense which would lead directly to consummation.
Necessary to establish unavoidable connection & logical & natural relation of cause
and effect. Important to show clear intent to commit crime. In case at bar, we can
only infer that his intent was to enter by force, other inferences are not justified by
facts. Groizard: infer only from nature of acts executed. Acts susceptible of double
interpretation cant furnish ground for themselves. Mind should not directly infer
intent. Spain SC: necessary that objectives established or acts themselves obviously
disclose criminal objective.

113. People vs. Salvilla

Facts: Petitioner: Bienvenido Salvilla April 12, 1986, at about noon time
Petitioner, together with Reynaldo, Ronaldo and Simplicio (all surnamed Canasares),
staged a robbery at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard They were armed with homemade
guns and a hand grenade On their way inside the establishment, they met Rodita
Habiero, an employee there who was on her way out for her meal break, and
informed her that it was a hold-up. They went inside the office and the petitioner
pointed his gun at Severino Choco, the owner, and his two daughters, Mary and
Mimmie. They informed Severino that all they needed was money. Severino asked
Mary to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000 cash (P5000 acc to the
defense) and handed it to the petitioner. Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and
wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his 2 daughters and Rodita were kept
inside the office. According to the appellant, he stopped Severino from getting the
wallet and watches. At about 2:00 of the same day, the appellant told Severino to
produce P100,000 so he and the other hostages can be released. Severino told
him it would be hard to do that since banks are closed because it was a Saturday
The police and military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. Major
Melquiades Sequio, Station Commander of the INP of Iloilo City, negotiated with
the accused and appealed to them to surrender. The accused refused to surrender
and release the hostages. Rosa Caram, OIC Mayor of Iloilo City, joined the
negotiations. Appellant demanded P100,000, a coaster, and some raincoats.
Caram offered P50,000 instead. Later, the accused agreed to receive the same and
to release Rodita to be accompanied by Mary in going out of the office. One of the
accused gave a key to Mayor Caram and with the key, Mayor Caram unlocked the
door and handed to Rodita P50,000, which Rodita gave to one of the accused.
Rodita was later set free but Mary was herded back to the office. The police and
military authorities decided to assault the place when the accused still wouldnt
budge after more ultimatums. This resulted to injuries to the girls, as well as to the
accused Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. Marys right leg had to be amputated
due to her injuries. The appellant maintained that the money, wallet and watches
were all left on the counter and were never touched by them. He also claimed that
they never fired on the military because they intended to surrender.
Issues: WON the crime of robbery was consummated WON there was a mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender
Held: Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful taking is
complete. o Unlawful taking of personal property of another is an essential part of
the crime of robbery. The respondent claimed that none of the items (money,
watches and wallet) were recovered from them. However, based on the evidence,
the money demanded, the wallet and the wristwatch were within the dominion and
control of the appellant and his co-accused and thus the taking was completed. o It
is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber or that he
should have actually carried the property away, out of the physical presence of the

lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escape with it. No. The
surrender of the appellant and his co-accused cannot be considered in their
favour to mitigate their liability. o To be mitigating, a surrender must have the
following requisites: that the offender had not been actually arrested, that the
offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to his agent, and that the
surrender was voluntary. The surrender by the appellant and his co-accused
hardly meets these requirements. There is no voluntary surrender to speak of. Note:
The nature of the linked offenses (robbery with serious physical injuries and serious
illegal detention) was also discussed. The detention in the case at bar was not only
incidental to the robbery but was a necessary means to commit the same so the
nature of the offense was affirmed.

114. People vs. Borinaga


Facts: Accused: Basilio Borinaga, associated with Juan Lawaan, a maker of fish
corral Victims: Harry H. Mooney, American, resident of Calubian Leyte Prior to March
4, 1929, Mooney contracted with Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish corral.
On March 4, despite the corral being only 2/3 finished, Lawaan, with some of his
men, visited Mooney and attempted to collect the whole amount in their contract.
Upon Mooneys refusal to pay, Lawaan warned and threatened him that something
would happen to him (Mooney). On the evening of the same day, Mooney was in the
store of his neighbor, Perpetua Najarro, sitting in front of Najarro, with his back
towards a window. Suddenly, Borinaga, from the window, struck with a knife at
Mooney. The knife imbedded on the back of the seat though. Mooney fell off from
the impact but was not injured. Borinaga left the scene and ran for the market
place, where he was heard prior to the incident to say he would kill Mooney, and
now saying that he apparently hit the chair instead of Mooney. After ten minutes,
Borinaga returned to have another attempt at Mooney but was warded off by
Mooney and Najarro frightening him by turning a flashlight on him.
Issue: Whether or not the crime is frustrated murder.
Held: YES. The Court affirms the judgment of the RTC. As an essential condition of a
frustrated crime, Borinaga performed all the acts of execution, attending the attack.
There was nothing left that he could do further to accomplish the work. The cause
resulting in the failure of the attack arose by reason of forces independent of his
will. Borinaga also voluntarily desisted from further acts. The subjective phase of
the criminal act was passed. Dissenting opinion, J. Villa-Real: The acts of execution
perfomed by [Borinaga] did not produce the death of Mooney as a consequence not
could they have produced it because the blow did not reach his body; therefore, the
culprit did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony.
There was lacking the infliction of the deadly wound upon a vital spot of the body of
Mooney. What the back of the chair prevented was the wounding of Mooney, not
his death. It is the preventing of death by causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator, after all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a

consequence had been performed, that constitutes a frustrated felony, according to


the law, and not the preventing of the performances of all the acts of execution
which constitute a felony, as in the present case. Attempted murder only.

115. People vs. Sy Pio


Facts: Sy Pio shot three people early in the morning of September 3, 1949. Tan
Siong Kiap, Ong Pian and Jose Sy. Sy Pio entered the store at 511 Misericordia Sta
Cruz Manila and started firing with a .45 caliber pistol. First to be shot was Jose Sy.
Upon seeing Sy Pio fire at Jose Sy, Tan asked what is the idea? thereupon, Sy Pio
turned around and fired at him as well. Tan was shot at his right shoulder and it
passed through his back. He ran to a room behind the store to hide. He was still able
to hear gunshots from Sy Pios pistol, but afterwards, Sy Pio ran away. Tan Siong
Kiap was brought to the Chinese General Hospital where his wound was treated. He
stayed there from Septenber 3-12, 1949. He was released upon his request and
against physicians advice and was requested to return for further treatment which
he did 5 times in a period of 10 days. His wound was completely healed; he spent
P300 for hospital and doctors fees. Sy Pio was found by the Constabulary in Tarlac.
Lomotan, a police from Manila Police Department went to Tarlac to get Sy Pio. He
admitted to Lomotan that he shot the victims and handed him the pistol used in the
shooting. According to Sy Pios declaration, some months prior to the incident, he
was employed in a restaurant owned by Ong Pian. Sy Pios wife, Vicenta was also
employed by Ong Pians partner. When he tried to borrow money from Ong Pian fpr
his wifes sick father, Ong Pian only lent him P1. his wife was able to borrow P20
from her employer.
Afterwards, defendant-appellant was dismissed from his work. Ong Pian presented a
list of Sy Pios debts and these were deducted from his wifes monthly salary. Sy Pio
could not remember incurring such debts. As such, he was resentful of Ong Pians
conduct. In Tan Siong Kiaps case, a few months before Sept3, Sy Pio was able to
realize the sum of P70 and he put his money in a place in his room. The next day,
Sy Pio found that his money was gone. Tan tolf Sy Pio that he had probably given
the money to his wife. Thereafter, Sy Pio could hear that he had lost his money
gambling. ASo early in the morning of Sept 3, while Ngo Cho, a Chinaman who has a
pistol was away, he got his pistol and went to a restaurant in Ongpin where Ong
Pian worked and shot him. Afterwards he went to Sta Cruz and shot Jose Sy and Tan.
Issues: Trial court erred in not finding that Tan received the shot accidentally from
the same bullet that had been fired at Jose Sy. The evidence is not sufficient to
sustain the judgment of conviction. Lower court erred in sentencing him to pay an
indemnity of P350. Defendant-appellant should only be found guilty of less serious
physical injuries instead of frustrated murder. Held: 1. Sy Pio had to turn around to
shoot Tan Siong Kiap. 2. There is sufficient proof. (Uncontradicted testimony of the
victim, admissions made to Lomotan, testimony of physician, etc.) 3. Assignment of

error must be dismissed. Offended party spent P300 for the hospital fees. 4. The
fact that he was able to escape which appellant must have seen, must have
produced in the mind of the defendant-appellant that he was not able to hit his
victim at a vital part of the body. The defendant appellant knew that he had not
actually performed all acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that the subjective phase of the acts of execution
had been completed.

116. People of the Philippines vs. Trinidad


Facts:
Trinidad is accused of 2 counts of murder & 1 count frustrated murder. Accused is a member
of INP in Nasipit. Crime occurred in Butuan between El Rio & Agfa while they were in a fierra
bound for Davao. Trinidad shot & killed Soriano & Laron while he shot and injured Tan.
Issue:
Whether or not conviction is proper?
Held:
The Court affirmed. Trinidad is convicted of murder and attempted murder. Trinidads
alibi is weak and overridden by Tan and Commendadors positive identification. Though
some discrepancies in testimonies are found, these are trivial. Distance betweenTrinidad &
the 2 deceased is immaterial. What is important is that he shot them. Tanhas seen no ill
motive to falsifiable testify against Trinidad. It is attempted and notfrustrated murder
because he failed to execute all acts due to the moving vehicle
because it shielded Tans body. Moreover, h
is wound was not fatal thus not sufficient tocause death (People v. Pilones)

117. PEOPLE v. RAVELO


Facts: The accused-appellants are members of the Civilian Home Defense Force
(CHDF) stationed at a checkpoint near the airport of Tandag. At approximately 6:30
PM of May 21, 1984, accused-appellants allegedly kidnapped by means of force one
Reynaldo Gaurano. They then detained Gaurano at the house of Pedro Ravelo, one
of the accused. Thereafter, they assaulted, attacked, and burned Gaurano, with the
intent of killing the latter. Reynaldo Gaurano died on May 22.

At about 1AM of May 22, the accused-appellants also kidnapped by means of force
Joey Lugatiman. The latter was also brought to Ravelo's house where he was
tortured. At 5AM, Lugatiman was transferred to the house of accusedappellant
Padilla. There he was tied to the wall with a nylon line and was told he would be
killed at 9AM. Shortly after, accused-appellants had to attend to Gaurano;
Lugatiman was thus left alone. He was able to escape.
He reported what happened to him and to Gaurano to the police authorities. RTC
convicted the accused-appellants of murder of Gaurano and frustrated murder of
Lugatiman.
In this appeal, counsel for the accused aver that the lower court erred in finding that
accused-appellants are guilty of frustrated murder. Counsel further contends that
there can be no frustrated murder absent any proof of intent to kill, which is an
essential element of the offense of frustrated murder. The trial court merely relied
on the statement of the accused-appellants stating they would kill Lugatiman to
establish intent to kill.
Issue: Whether the statement by the accused stating that Lugatiman would be killed
is sufficient proof of intent to convict a person of frustrated murder
Held: No
Ratio: In a crime of murder or an attempt of frustration thereof, the offender must
have the intent or the actual design to kill which must be manifested by external
acts. A verbal expression is not sufficient to show an actual design to perpetrate the
act. Intent must be shown not only by a statement of the aggressor, but also by the
execution of all acts and the use of means necessary to deliver a fatal blow while
the victim is not placed in a position to defend himself.
Tying the victim on 2 by piece of wood and leaving him inside the house of the
accused are not acts that would result in death. Notes: Under the circumstances,
accused-appellants could not even be convicted of an attempt to commit murder.
There was no commencement of the criminal act by overt acts which have a direct
connection with the crime of murder intended to be committed. Accused-appellants,
therefore, are not guilty of frustrated murder but only of the crime of slight physical
injuries.

118. PEOPLE v. KALALO


Facts:
Appellant Marcelo Kalalo (cousin of the deceased Marcelino Panaligan) and
IsabelaHolgado (sister of the deceased Arcadio Holgado) had a litigation over a
parcel of land in Calumpang, San Luis, Batangas.
Marcelo Kalalo cultivated the said land during the agricultural years 1931 and
1932, but when harvest time came it as Isabela Holgado who took all that had been
planted.

Oct. 1, 1932 -- Isabela and Arcadio Holgado ordered several laborers to have the
said land plowed.
Marcelo Kalalo found out about this and went to the land with his brothers Felipeand
Juan Kalalo, Gregorio Ramos, etc., armed with bolos. Upon their arrival, they ordered
those who were plowing to stop what they were doing, and the laborersfollowed the
order.
Marcelino Panaligan arrives, and tells the laborers to continue with their work.
Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio Holgado, while Felipe and Juan Kalalo
andGregorio Ramos all approached Marcelino Panaligan.
Fausta Abrenica, mother of the Kalalos, then remarked, "What is detaining you?"and
they all simultaneously struck with their bolos, with Marcelo Kalalo slashing Arcadio
Holgado, and Felipe and Juan Kalalo along with Gregorio Ramos slashedMarcelino
Panaligan. Arcadio and Marcelino died instantly.
Marcelo Kalalo then took Marcelino Panaligan's revolver from a holster on thelatter's
belt, and fired four shots at Hilarion Holgado who was fleeing from the scenein order
to save his own life.
Felipe and Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos were not arrested until after severaldays
after the incident took place, because they had been hiding in order to avoidarrest.
Issue:
W/N the appellants are guilty of murder or of simple homicide in
thekilling of both Marcelino Panaligan and Arcadio Holgado; W/N the appellant
Marcelo Kalalo is guilty of attempted homicide in the attempt to shoot Hilarion
Holgado.
Held:
Regarding the first issue -- The Attorney-General maintains that they are guilty
of murder in view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of
superiorstrength, while the trial court held that they are guilty of simple homicide
but withthe aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
Under the RPC, the circumstance of "abuse of superior strength," if proven to
have been present, raises homicide to the category of murder. The Supreme Court
doesnot agree that there was the circumstance of "abuse of superior strength" in
the saidcase, because the deceased were also armed--Arcadio had a bolo, while
Marcelinohad a revolver. The risk was even for the contending parties and their
strength wasalmost balanced because there is no doubt that a revolver is as
effective as, if notmore so, than three bolos. Appellants are pronounced guilty of
homicide.

Regarding the second issue -- Marcelo Kalalo, not having contented himself
withfiring only once, fired four successive shots at Hilarion Holgado. This shows that
he was bent on killing the latter.
The acts of Marcelo Kalalo constitute attemptedhomicide with no modifying
circumstance

119.
120.

121. People vs. Boholst-Caballero


Facts: Cunigunda Boholst Caballero seeks reversal of the judgment of the CFI of
Ormoc City finding her guilty of parricideshe allegedly killed her husband,
Francisco Caballero, using a hunting knife. The couple was married in 1956 and had
a daughter. They had frequent quarrels due to the husband's gambling and drinking
and there were times when he maltreated and abused his wife. After more than a
year, Francisco abandoned his family. In 1958, Cunigunda went caroling with her
friends and when she was on her way home she met her husband who suddenly
held her by the collar and accused her of going out for prostitution. Then he said he
would kill her, held her by the hair, slapped her until her nose bled then pushed her
towards the ground. She fell to the ground, he knelt on her and proceeded to choke
her. Cunigunda, having earlier felt a knife tucked in Francisco's belt line while
holding unto his waist so she wouldn't fall to the ground, grabbed the hunting knife
and thrust it into her husband's left side, near the belt line just above the thigh. He
died 2 days after the incident due to the stab wound. Then she ran home and threw
the knife away. The next day, she surrendered herself to the police along with the
torn dress that she wore the night before.
Issue: WON Cunigunda, in stabbing her husband, acted in legitimate self-defense
Held: Yes, she did. Acquitted
Ratio: 1. Burden if proof of self-defense rests on the accused. In this case, the
location and nature of the stab wound confirms that the said victim, the husband,
was the aggressor. With her husband kneeling over her and choking her, accused
had no other choice but to pull the knife tucked in his belt line and thrust it into his
side. The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity where the knife was drawn from is
a strong indication of the truth of the testimony of the accused. Based on the reenactment of the incident, it was natural for her to use her right hand to lunge the
knife into husband's left side.

2. Three requisites of legitimate self-defense are present Unlawful aggression. The


husband resorting to pushing her to the ground then choking her just because she
was out caroling at night constitutes unlawful aggression, There was imminent
danger of injury. Reasonable necessity of means employed. While being choked,
Cunigunda had no other recourse but to take hold of the knife and plunge it into
husband's side in order to protect herself. Reasonable necessity does not depend
upon the harm done but on the imminent danger of such injury. Lack of sufficient
provocation. provocation is sufficient when proportionate to the aggression. In this
case, there was no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused (Cunigunda) to
warrant the attack of her husband. All that she did to provoke an imaginary
commission of a wrong in the mind of her husband was to be out caroling at night.

122. People vs Alconga


Facts:
On the night of May 27, 1943, in Mauricio Jepes' house in San
Dionisio, people were playing prohibited games. The deceased
Silverio Barion, the banker of black jack, was loosing to Maria de
Raposo because the accused Dioscoro Alconga was helping her by
communicating the cards of the deceased. Upon discovery of the
cheating, the deceased became angry and there was an exchange of
words between him and the accused. They almost hit each other if not
for the intervention of the maintainer. The deceased left,
threatening the accused, "tomorrow morning I will give you a
breakfast."
The deceased and the accused did not meet the next day. When the
accused was performing his duties as "home guard", the deceased came
along and, addressing the former, said, "Coroy, this is your
breakfast," then he tried to hit him. The accused avoided the blow
by crawling under the bench with the intention to runaway. He was
also avoided the second blow. The accused then managed to go out of
the guardhouse by crawling on his abdomen. While the deceased was in
the act delivering the third blow, the accused, while still in a
crawling position, fired at him with his revolver, causing him to
stagger and to fall to the ground. The deceased drew his dagger and
directed a blow at the accused, however, was able to dodge it with
his bolo. Then, there was a hand-to-hand fight. Having sustained
several wounds, the deceased ran away but was followed by the
accused. After running a distance of about 200 meters, the deceased
was overtaken, and another fight took place, during which the mortal
bolo blow caused the deceased to fall to the ground. The other
accused, Adolfo Bracamonte, arrived and, being the leader of

the "home guards" of San Dionisio, placed under his custody the
accused Alconga with the contention of surrendering him.
On their way to San Dionisio, the two accused were stopped by Juan
Collado, a guerrilla soldier. Adolfo Bracamonte turned over Alconga
to Collado who in turn took him to the headquarters. In the
afternoon of the same day, Collado delivered Alconga to Gregorio
Barredo, a municipal policeman of San Dionisio, together with the
weapons used in the fight: a revolver, a bolo, and a dagger.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused, Alconga, can invoke self-defense.
Ruling:
Alconga was found guilty of the crime of HOMICIDE.
Reason:
There were two stages in the fight:
First - commenced when the deceased assaulted appellant without
sufficient provocation on the part of the latter There was
unlawful aggression because he was being attacked. There was
employed reasonable necessity of means used to prevent it because,
as a security guard, he has in hand a revolver. There was no
sufficient provocation on his part.
Second stage when the deceased ran and was pursued by the accused.
When the deceased ran, it meant that the unlawful aggression
subsisted.

123.US vs Mack
Facts: The accused was sitting on a bench a few feet back from the street in the
town of Tacloban, Leyte, in an open space some 3 or 4 feet in width between the
tienda of a woman named Olimpia and another building. - The deceased, with
another policeman, approached the place and directed Olimpia to close her tienda;
ordered the accused and another soldier to go to their quarters - The accused did
not obey such order. - Some words may have passed between them, which angered
the deceased. - The deceased dragged himself free from his companion and
attacked the accused, at the same time drawing his bolo and brandishing it in a
threatening manner.

- Accused got up, drew his revolver, and the deceased having then approached
within a distance of from 3 to 6 feet, the accused fired three shots, one hit the left
breast the left breast of the deceased, another in the back of his head. - Trial court
held that the defendant adopted a mode of defense which was not reasonably
necessary - accused was taller than the deceased - deceased was perhaps under
the influence of liquor - shot a vital part
Issue: Whether there was a reasonable necessity for the use of the means
employed by accused to defend himself
Held: Yes; Mere physical superiority is no protection to an unarmed man, as against
assailant armed with a large bolo If it be true that the deceased was under the
influence of liquor when he that attack, his intoxication probably rendered him the
more dangerous, unless he was so drunk as to be physically helpless, which is not
suggested in the evidence. It was dark, the reasonable and natural thing for the
accused to do was to fire at the body. The shots were fired in rapid succession in
order to repel the attack; it could not be said that these were unnecessary. The
judgment of the trial court is reversed and the appellant acquitted of the crime.
124.

125. People vs. Genosa


FACTS: Marivic and Ben Genosa, who knew each other since elementary and were
3rd cousins, were married in November 19, 1983 in Ormoc City. Their marriage,
save for the first year where, according to Marivic, she lived happily with Ben, had
been tumultuous and unhappy because of the many and frequent quarrels of the
couple which usually resulted in the cruel treatment of Marivic by Ben. This went on
for about 10 or 11 years, occurring around thrice a week when everytime the latter
got drunk.
On the evening of November 15, 1995, Ben and Arturo Basobas, his co-worker, after
having collected their salary, went to the cock-fighting place of ISCO where they
stayed for 3 hours and drank 2 bottles of beer, each. They then went to the Genosa
residence but Marivic was not there because, as she explained, she was out with her
cousin looking for Ben, knowing that it was a payday and that he was probably out
to gamble again. Upon arriving later at the Genosa residence and finding Ben drunk
because of his staggering walking, Marivic asked Ecel to sleep in the house
because she was scared that Ben might again beat her, but Ecel declined for fear of
a repetition of an incident a year ago.
Ben was in his usual unruly behavior, nagging and yelling at Marivic, even cutting
the antenna wire with a bolo to keep her from watching TV. There were basically 2
incidents of attack made by Ben: 1) he whirled Marivic, causing her to fall on the
bedside, and two hours later when 2) he dragged her out of the room towards the
drawer, holding her neck. He tried opening the drawer, failed, so reached for a

blade instead in his wallet. At this point, she was aware that he was going to kill her
so she smashed his arm, causing the wallet and blade to fall. She also subsequently
smashed him with a metal pipe before running to the childrens room, where she
felt overwhelming selfpity and felt nauseous.
Marivic admitted killing her husband, however, by shooting him later on. She had
distorted the drawer where the gun was and shot him. The RTC charged Genosa
with parricide, giving her the death penalty.
ISSUES: 1) WON Marivic acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus (invoking
BWS) 2) WON there was treachery in the killing of Ben Genosa
HELD: 1) No, but with 2 mitigating circumstances 2) None
RATIO: 1) Crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered woman at
the time of the offense she must have actually feared imminent harm from her
batterer and honestly believed that killing him would save her life. Here, there was a
sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack
upon him. The reality or even imminent danger he posed ended altogether the
moment he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed, notwithstanding the
Courts recognition of this special case that requiring the battered person to await
an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life would amount to
sentencing her to murder by installment and that threatening behavior or
communication can satisfy the required imminence of danger. Aggression, if not
continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such aggression, there
can be no self-defense complete or incompleteon the part of the victim.
Mitigating circumstance 1: Par. 9 and 10 of Art. 13 of the RPC

126. People vs. Luague and Alcansare


November 7, 1935
62 SCRA 504

FACTS:

The wife of Wenceslao, Natividad was left in the house with their 3 children.
Wenceslao left to grind corn several kilometers away. Paulino Disuadido, their
neighbor, came and began to make love to Natividad. She cant dissuade Paulino
and so he drew and opened a knife and threatening her with death. In preparing to
lie with her, Paulino leave the knife to the floor and Natividad and stabbed him in
the abdomen. Paulino ran away by jumping through the window.

ISSUE:

WON Natividad is exempted from criminal liability.

HELD:

Yes, The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an aggression sufficient to put her in
a state of self defense inasmuch as a womans honor cannot be esteemed as a right
as precious, if not more, than her very existence; and it is evident that a woman
who, thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender, should be afforded exemption
from criminal liability. Witness devoid probability. ACQUITTED both accused.

127. People vs. Dela Cruz


March 30, 1935
61 SCRA 344

Facts:
In a narrow part of a trail that was dark, after going to a wake, a man suddenly
threw his arms around her from behind, caught hold of her breasts and kissed her,
and seized her in her private parts; she tried to free herself, but he held her and
tried to throw her down; that when she felt weak and could do nothing more against
the strength of the man, she got a knife from her pocket, opened it, and stabbed
him in defense of her honor. Man did not say anything, she asked but he did not
answer. She cried for help but no one answered. She scarcely recognized the face
because of darkness. She desisted as soon as he released her. (Illiterate barrio girl,
unable to write her name, 18 years old)

Issue: WON Remedios de la Cruz is exempted from criminal liability.

Yes, Whether she did in fact cried for help, as claimed by her, or failed to do so
because of the suddenness with which the deceased grabbed her and the fright that
which it naturally caused, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case,
she is exempt from criminal liability in the defense of her honor. ACQUITTED. There
is also a mistake of fact in the case.

128. People vs. Jaurigue and Jaurigue


February 21, 1946
76 SCRA 174

Facts:

Avelina Jaurigue cannot endure anymore what the deceased Amado Capina was
doing to her. (Courting her and stalking) One morning, inside a chapel, the deceased
Amado noticed Avelina and went to the bench where Avelina was sitting, he placed
his hand on the upper right thigh of the defendant and Avelina pulled with her right
hand the fan knife she always brought with her. Amado seized her right hand but
she quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado in the left side
of his neck, 4 and a half inches deep, which was necessarily mortal. He died a few
minutes later.

Issue:

WON Avelina Jaurigue is exempted from criminal liability.


Held:
No, she is not exempted from criminal liability because the said chapel was lighted
with electric lights, her father is inside and there were important people
accompanying her. Under the circumstances, there was and there could be no
possibility of her being raped. The means employed by her in defense on her honor
is evidently excessive. She committed the crime of HOMICIDE. Arresto Mayor
minimm, Prision correctional maximum.

129. People vs. Apolinar

Facts: Midnight of December 22, 1936, the defendant and appellant Anastacio
Apolinar alias Atong was at that time the occupant of a parcel of land owned by
Joaquin Gonzales in Papallasen, La Paz, Umingan, Pangasinan. Armed with a
shotgun, Atong was looking over said land when he observed that there was a man
carrying a bundle on his shoulder. Believing that he was a thief (of palay), the
defendant called his attention but he ignored him. The defendant fired in the air
and then at the person. The man, identified as Domingo Petras, was able to get
back to his house and consequently narrated to Angel Natividad, the barrio chief,
that he had been wounded in the back by a shotgun. He then showed the two
wounds - one in each side of the spinal column - which wounds were circular in
form and a little bigger than a quarter of an inch, according to the medical report of
Dr. Mananquil. Petras died of the wounds he sustained. The defendant
surrendered to the authorities immediately after the incident and gave a sworn
statement (Exhibit F) before the Justice of Peace of Umingan on December 23,
1936.
Issue: WON the killing of Petras was justified by defense of property
Held: No; the right to property is not of such importance as right to life, and defense
of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with
an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property.

130. People vs. Narvaez


Facts: In the afternoon of August 22, 1968, GRACIANO JUAN, JESUS VERANO, CESAR
VERANO, CESAR IBANEZ, GEORGE FLEISCHER and FLAVIANO RUBIA were fencing
the land of George Fleischer, situated in MAITUM, SOUTH COTABATO. At the place of
fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant MAMERTO NARVAEZ. At that time
appellant was sleeping and was awakened by the sound of the chiseling of the walls
of his house. He then arose and saw the fencing. If the fencing continued appellant
would be prevented from entering his house and rice mill bodega. So he addressed
the group, through Rubia to stop and talk things over. To which Fleischer answered
no and continued the fencing. At this instance, appellant lost his equilibrium and got
his gun and shot Fleischer, hitting him. Rubia ran towards the jeep, and knowing
that there is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at Rubia likewise hitting him. Both
Fleischer and Rubia died
Issue: WON the aggression was unlawful
Held: YES, it was unlawful. The angry order of Fleischer to continue the fencing
would have resulted in the further chiselling of the wall of appellants house as well
as the closure of the access to and from his house and rice mill is an aggression
against appellants property rights. However, when the appellant fired his shotgun
from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate to the
attack. The third element is also present. There was no provocation on the part of

the appellant, since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by the noise
produced by the victims and laborers. His plea for the deceased and their men to
stop and talk things over with him was no provocation at all. Appellants act in
killing the deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements for justification
are present. The crime committed is HOMICIDE on two counts mitigated by the
privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self defense as well as by two
generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and obfuscation. He was
sentenced to 4 months of imprisonment and considering that appellant has been
under detention for 14 years since his voluntary surrender, his immediate release
was ordered.

You might also like