PEOPLE V.

PUGAY
Felonies: Culpa Distinguished from Dolo Date: November 17, 1988 Ponente: Medialdia, J.
FACTS: Pugay and Samson are found guilty of the murder of Bayani Miranda, a retardate. The
crime occurred one evening at the City Plaza during a fiesta fair. The accused, with some other
companions, all drunk, started making fun of the deceased (Miranda). They made him dance by
tickling him with a piece of wood. Pugay proceeded to take a can of gasoline under the engine
of the ferris wheel and poured the contents onto Miranda. Samson then set him on fire making a
human torch out of him. After trial, the trial court rendered a decision finding both accused
guilty on the crime of murder but crediting in favor of the accused Pugay the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. Found guilty by the trial court,
both the accused contend that they were not assisted by a counsel during the investigation; that
the prosecution suppressed evidence; and that Gabion is not a credible witness.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused are both guilty of the murder of Bayani Miranda NO.
DECISION & RATIO: Having taken the can from under the engine of the ferris wheel and holding
it before pouring its contents on the body of the deceased, this accused knew that the can
contained gasoline. The stinging smell of this flammable liquid could not have escaped his notice
even before pouring the same. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid
every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his companions
who at the time were making fun of the deceased. The accused is only guilty of homicide
through reckless imprudence defined in Article Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or
failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person performing such act. Compared to intentional felonies, such
as homicide or murder, what takes the place of the element of malice or intention to commit a
wrong or evil is the failure of the offender to take precautions due to lack of skill taking into
account his employment, or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other
circumstances regarding persons, time, and place. Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal
liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended. 2. By any person performing an act which
would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. In U.S. vs. Maleza, et. al. 14 Phil. 468, 470, this
Court ruled as follows: A man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in all his acts;
it is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of
incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts
which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon. Otherwise his own
person, rights and property, all those of his fellow-beings, would ever be exposed to all manner
of danger and injury. There is entire absence of proof in the record that the accused Samson had
some reason to kill the deceased before the incident. On the contrary, there is adequate
evidence showing that his act was merely a part of their fun-making that evening. There can be
no doubt that the accused Samson knew very well that the liquid poured on the body of the
deceased was gasoline and a flammable substance for he would not have committed the act of
setting the latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the benefit of doubt, it call be conceded
that as part of their fun-making he merely intended to set the deceased's clothes on fire. His act,
however, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. Burning the clothes of the victim would

cause at the very least some kind of physical injuries on his person, a felony defined in the
Revised Penal Code. If his act resulted into a graver offense, as what took place in the instant
case, he must be held responsible therefor. Article 4 of the aforesaid code provides, inter alia,
that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. As no sufficient evidence appears in
the record establishing any qualifying circumstances, the accused Samson is only guilty of the
crime of homicide defined and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
We are disposed to credit in his favor the ordinary mitigating circumstance of no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed as there is evidence of a fact from which such
conclusion can be drawn. The eyewitness Gabion testified that the accused Pugay and Samson
were stunned when they noticed the deceased burning.

CASE DIGEST ON INTOD V. CA [215 SCRA 52 (1992)]

November 10, 2010
Facts: Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. They fired at
her room. However, she was in another city then thus they hit no one.
Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder?
Held: No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an
impossible crime 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 family. Its
purpose is to punish criminal tendencies. There must either be (1) legal responsibility, or (2)
physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an
impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts even if completed, would
not amount to a crime.
Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:
(1) The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
(2) There is no intention to perform the physical act;
(3) There is a performance of the intended physical act; and
(4) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control
prevent consummation of intended crime. Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is
not a defense. If the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the
defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality, the crime was impossible of
commission. Legal impossibility on the other hand is a defense which can be invoked to avoid
criminal liability for an attempt. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical
impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under
Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible
crime.
People vs Alconga
Facts: On May 27, deceased Silverio Barion, the banker of the card game, was playing black jack
against Maria De Raposo. DeRaposo and Alconga were partners in the game, they had one
money. Alconga was seated behind Barion and he gave signs to DeRaposo. Barion, who was
suffering losses in the game, found this out and he expressed his anger at Alconga. The two
almostfought outright this was stopped. The two met again on May 29. when Alconga was doing
his job as ahome guard. While the said accused was seated on a benchin the guardhouse, Barion
came along and said Coroy, this is your breakfast followed by a swing of his pingahan, a
bamboostick. Alconga avoided the blow by falling to the ground under the bench with the

intention to crawl out of the guardhouse. Asecond blow was given by Barion but failed to hit the
accused, hitting the bench instead. Alconga managed to go out of theguardhouse by crawling on
his abdomen. While Barion was about to deliver the 3rd blow, Alconga fired at him with his
revolver,causing him to stagger and hit the ground. The deceased stood up, drew forth his
dagger and directed a blow to the accused whowas able to parry the attack using his bolo. A
hand to handfight ensued. The deceased, looking already beaten and havingsustained several
wounds ran away. He was followed by the accused and was overtaken after 200 meters. A
second fight took place and the deceased received a mortal bolo blow, the one which slasehde
the cranium. The deceased fellface downward besides many other blows delivered. Alconga
surrendered.
Issue: Whether or not self-defense can be used as a defense by Alconga
Held: No. Self-defense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty of Homicide The deceased ran and
fled w/o having to inflicted so much a scratch to Alconga, but after, upon the other hand, having
beenwounded with one revolver shot and several bolo slashes the right of Alconga to inflict injury
upon him has ceased absolutely/Alconga had no right to pursue, no right to kill or injure. He
could have only attacked if there was reason to believe that he is stillnot safe. In the case at bar,
it is apparent that it is Alconga who is the superior fighter and his safety was already secured
after thefirst fight ended. There was no more reason for him to further chase Barion. The second
fight will be treated differently andindependently. Under the first fight, self-defense would have
been valid, but that is not the case in the second fight. In the secondfight, there was illegal
aggression on the part of Alconga and as a result, he is found guilty of Homicide with no
mitigatingcircumstance (MC) of Provocation Note Provocation in order to be an MC must be
sufficient and immediately preceding the act. It should be proportionate to theact committed
and adequate to stir one to its commission