1. Magno v. CA
People
Petitioner was in process of puttingup a car repair shop
sometime in April 1983, but he did not have
complete equipment that could
make his venture workable. He lacked funds to purchase
necessary equipment. He approached Corazon Teng, VPof
Mancor Industries, a distributorof equipment who referred
him toLS Finance.
A lease/purchase agreementspecifying a warranty deposit
(29,790) of 30% for Magno to putup. Claimino lg he could
not affordit, Magno asked LS Finance to find a 3 rd party
lender to lend him theamount. LENDER = TENG,
specifieda 3% interest on short term loan.
Magno issued postdated checks toLS Finance, who gave it
to Teng.When check matured, Magno saidhe could not
cover it and he was not banking with Pacific Bank
anymore. In lieu, he issued 6 check- first 2 checks
honored, last 4 inquestion. When business failed, Magno
could no longer pay rent toLS Finance, LS pulled out
equipment. Magno promised to pay
the rest of the warranty deposit, but the remaining checks
were no longer honored due to closed account. He was
convicted of
fourcounts of violating BP 22. CAaffirmed this decision bec
auseissuing a bouncing check is a crime
ISSUE:
(1)WON Magno is guilty of violatingB.P. 22 upon review
(2)WON post-dated checks weredrawn or issued "to apply
onaccount or for value", as required under Section 1 of
B.P. Blg, 22.
Ruling: Decision REVERSED,accused-petitioner,
ACQUITTED
(1) NO. There is no violation of BP22
by issuance of check to cover warranty deposit given by
complainant to enable drawer to
import equipment financed on lease
purchase agreement. Since transaction did not become
purchase when Magno failed to pay
rent and LS Finance pulled out equipment. No need for
Magno to continue paying warranty deposit (warranty
deposit is for purchase of equipment).
(2) NO violation is committed when
complainant told drawer that he has insufficient funds in
the bank. The 4 checks were issued to
collateralize rent/ an accommodation and not for
purchase equipment/receipt of an
actual account or credit for value.
RTC and CAs decision merely relied on the law, without
looking into the real nature of warranty deposit.
Acquittal based on action not
constituting a wrong sought to be
punished in offense charged (not because of lack of
intent).
Protective theory affirms that the primary function of
punishment is the protective of society against actual and
potential wrongdoers
Ex. Actuations of Mrs. Carolina Teng
amount to that of potential wrongdoers whose operations
should also be clipped in order that the unwary public will
not fall prey to vicious transactions
2. Roque v.
In attempted or frustrated homicide, the offender must
have the intent to kill the victim; If there is no intent to kill
on the part of the offender, he is liable for physical injuries
only.
Facts: While brothers Reynaldo and Rodolfo Marquez were
in the house of Bella Salvador-Santos in Bulacan, Rodolfo
spotted Rogelio dela Cruz and shouted to him to join
them.
Believing that the shout was directed at him, Rogelio
Roque (accused) stopped the tricycle he and his wife were
in and cursed Rodolfo. Reynaldo apologized for the
misunderstanding but the accused was unyielding. Before
leaving, he warned the Marquez brothers that something
bad would happen to them if they continue to perturb
him. Bothered, Rodolfo went to the house of Barangay
Chairman Pablo Tayao (Tayao) to ask for assistance in
settling the misunderstanding. Because of this, Reynaldo,
who had already gone home, was fetched by dela Cruz
and brought to the house of Tayao. Since Tayao was then
no longer around, Reynaldo just proceeded to the
accuseds house to follow Tayao and Rodolfo who had
already gone ahead. Upon arriving at the accuseds
residence, Reynaldo again apologized to petitioner but the
latter did not reply. Instead, the accused entered the
house, was already holding a gun when he came out, and
suddenly fired at Reynaldo who was hit in his right ear. He
still shot Reynaldo when the latter hit the ground.
Unsatisfied, he kicked the victim on the face and back.
Reynaldo pleaded Tayao for help to no avail, since the
accused warned those around not to get involved.
Fortunately, Reynaldo's parents arrived and took him to a
local hospital for emergency medical treatment. Dr.
Renato Raymundo attended to him and issued a medical
certificate stating that a bullet entered the base of
Reynaldo's skull and exited at the back of his right ear.
The RTC found the accused guilty. The CA affirmed the
ruling.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of frustrated
homicide.
Ruling: As aptly stated by the CA, In attempted or
frustrated homicide, the offender must have the intent to
kill the victim; If there is no intent to kill on the part of the
offender, he is liable for physical injuries only. Vice-versa,
regardless of whether the victim only suffered injuries that
would have healed in nine to thirty days, if intent to kill is
sufficiently borne out, the crime committed is frustrated
homicide (Arts. 263-266). Usually, the intent to kill is
shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and
the parts of the victim's body at which the weapon was
aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. Hence, when a
deadly weapon, like a bolo, is used to stab the victim in
the latter's abdomen, the intent to kill can be presumed
(Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 13TH ED., P. 431). It is
worth highlighting that the victim received two (2)
gunshot wounds in the head. Indeed the location of the
wounds plus the nature of the weapon used are ready
indications that the accused-appellant's objective is not
merely to warn or incapacitate a supposed aggressor.
Verily, had the accused-appellant been slightly better with
his aim, any of the two (2) bullets surely would have killed
him outright. Also, the intent to kill is further exhibited by
the fact that the accused-appellant even prevented
barangay officials from intervening and helping the
bleeding victim. Indeed, the fact that Reynaldo Marquez
was miraculously able to live through the ordeal and
sustain only modicum injuries does not mean that the
crime ought to be downgraded from frustrated homicide
to less serious physical injuries. After all, as was
mentioned above, what should be determinative of the
crime is not the gravity of the resulting injury but the
criminal intent that animated the hand that pulled the
trigger.
3. De Guzman, Jr. v. People
4. Rivera v. People
FACTS: As the victim, Ruben Rodil, went to a nearby store
to buy food, accused Edgardo Rivera mocked him for
being jobless and dependent on his wife for support.
Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a heated
exchange of words ensued. In the evening of the following
day, when Ruben and his three-year-old daughter went to
the store to buy food, Edgardo, together with his brother
Esmeraldo Rivera and Ismael Rivera, emerged from their
house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael
mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to the
ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block
on the parietal area. Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled
to their house only when the policemen arrived. Ruben
sustained injuries and was brought to the hospital. The
doctor declared that the wounds were slight and
superficial, though the victim could have been killed had
the police not promptly intervened. The trial court found
the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder. An
appeal was made by the accused, but the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision with
modification, changing the crime to attempted murder
and imposed an indeterminate penalty of 2 years of
prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of
prision mayor as maximum.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not there was intent to kill.
2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in
modifying the crime from frustrated to attempted murder.
3) Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of
treachery was properly applied.
4) Whether or not the correct penalty was imposed.
HELD:
1) Yes. The Court declared that evidence to prove intent to
kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the
means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and
number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of
the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after
the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which
the crime was committed and the motives of the accused.
In the present case, Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the
victim with fist blows, while Edgardo hit him three times
with a hollow block. Even though the wounds sustained by
the victim were merely superficial and could not have
produced his death, intent to kill was presumed.
2) Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
there is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance. Although the
wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial
and could not have produced his death, it does not negate
criminal liability of the accused for attempted murder. The
intent to kill was already presumed based on the overt
acts of the accused. In fact, victim could have been killed
had the police not promptly intervened.
3) Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack, which gives no opportunity for the
victim to repel it or defend himself. In the present case,
the accused attacked the victim in a sudden and
unexpected manner as he was walking with his three-
year-old daughter, impervious of the imminent peril to his
life. He was overwhelmed with the assault of the accused
and had no chance to defend himself and retaliate. Thus,
there was treachery.
4) No. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for
murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the accused
were guilty only of attempted murder, the penalty should
be reduced by two degrees, in accordance to Article 51 of
the Revised Penal Code. Thus, under Article 61 (2), in
relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the
penalty should be prision mayor. In the absence of any
modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime
other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the
maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken
from the medium period of prision mayor which has a
range of from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10)
years. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate
penalty, the penalty of prision mayor should be reduced
by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of
six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, the
accused were sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of from two (2) years of prision correccional in its
minimum period, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four
(4) months of prision mayor in its medium period, as
maximum.
5. Villareal v. People
February 1991- 7 freshmen law students of ADMU
signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis fraternity.
They were met by members of AL at the lobby of Ateneo
Law. They were informed that there will be physical
beatings and that they can quit anytime. The rites were
scheduled to last 3 days. They were subjected to
traditional Aquilan initiation rites such as the Indian Run,
Bicol Express, Rounds, Auxies Privilege Round, rough employers and ran back to his room to secure bandages
basketball, comic plays, and other forms of paddling.
Lenny received several blows, one of which was so strong
that it sent him sprawling to the ground. When they were
already sleeping, the neophytes were roused by Lennys
shivering and mumblings. He was brought to the hospital
but was pronounced dead on arrival.
Ruling:
No crime without a law punishing it
Thus, having in mind the potential conflict
between the proposed law and the core principle
of mala in seadhered to under the Revised Penal
Code, Congress did not simply enact an
amendment thereto. Instead, it created a special
law on hazing, founded upon the principle
of mala prohibita. This dilemma faced by
Congress is further proof of how the nature of
hazing unique as against typical crimes cast
a cloud of doubt on whether society considered
the act as an inherently wrong conduct or mala in
seat the time.
Consequently, the collective acts of the fraternity
members were tantamount to recklessness, which
made the resulting death of Lenny a culpable
felony. It must be remembered that organizations
owe to their initiates a duty of care not to cause
them injury in the process. With the foregoing
facts, we rule that the accused are guilty of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Since
the NBI medico-legal officer found that the
victims death was the cumulative effect of the
injuries suffered, criminal responsibility redounds
to all those who directly participated in and
contributed to the infliction of physical injuries
Our finding of criminal liability for the felony of
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide shall
cover only accused Tecson, Ama, Almeda, Bantug,
and Dizon. Had the Anti-Hazing Law been in effect
then, these five accused fraternity members
would have all been convicted of the crime of
hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua(life
imprisonment). Since there was no law
prohibiting the act of hazing when Lenny died, we
are constrained to rule according to existing laws
at the time of his death.
6. US v. Ah Chong
FACTS: August 14, 1908 About 10 pm: Ah Chong, a cook
was suddenly awakened by some trying to force open the
door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice,
"Who is there?" He heard no answer and was convinced
by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by
someone bent upon forcing his way into the room. The
defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a
thief, leaped to his feet and called out. "If you enter the
room, I will kill you." At that moment he was struck just
above the knee by the edge of the chair (thought to be an
unlawful aggression) which had been placed against the
door. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept
under his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the
intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his roommate,
Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the spirit
of mischief was playing a trick on him
Seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his
to bind up Pascual's wounds.
There had been several robberies not long prior to the
date of the incident, one of which took place in a house
where he was employed as cook so he kept a knife under
his pillow for his personal protection.
trial court held it as simple homicide
ISSUE: W/N defendant can be held criminally responsible
who, by reason of a mistake as to the facts, does an act
for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the
facts were as he supposed them to be, but which would
constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if the
actor had known the true state of the facts at the time
when he committed the act.
HELD: trial court should be reversed, and the defendant
acquitted of the crime
NO.
GR: acts constituting the crime or offense must be
committed with malice or with criminal intent in order that
the actor may be held criminally liable
EX: it appears that he is exempted from liability under one
or other of the express provisions of article 8 of the code
Article 1 RPC of the Penal Code is as follows:
Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and
ommissions punished by law.
o A person voluntarily committing a crime or
misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even though
the wrongful act committed be different from that which
he had intended to commit.
o voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act
o "malice" signifying the intent
o Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - "the act itself
does not make man guilty unless his intention were so
o Actus me incito factus non est meus actus - an act
done by me against my will is not my act
GR: courts have recognized the power of the
legislature to forbid, in a limited class of cases, the doing
of certain acts, and to make their commission criminal
WITHOUT regard to the intent of the doer
EX: intention of the lawmaker to make the commission
of certain acts criminal without regard to the intent of the
doer is clear and beyond question the statute will not be
so construed
ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the mistake
is committed without fault or carelessness
defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without
malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing
no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-
defense; that had the facts been as he believed them to
be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal
liability on account of his act; and that he can not be said
to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even
carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or
in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the
imminent danger which he believe threatened his person
and his property and the property under his charge.
7. Yapyucu v. Sandiganbayan
8. Loney v. People
A mala in se felony such as Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Damage to Property cannot absorb mala
prohibita crimes such as those violating the Water Code
and Ant-Pollution Law. What makes the former a felony is
criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes
the latter crimes are the special laws enacting them.
Facts: Loney, Reid and Hernandez are the President &
CEO, Senior Manager and Resident Manager for Mining
Operations or Marcopper Mining Corporation in
Marinduque. Marcopper had been storing tailings from its
operations in Mr. Tapian, Marinduque. On March 24, 1994,
tailings gushed out of or near the tunnels end. In a few
days, the pit had discharged millions of tons of tailings
into the 2 rivers. The DOJ separately charged them in the
MTC of Boac, Marinduque with violations of the Water
Code (PD 1067), National Pollution Control Decree (PD
984), The Philippine Mining Act (RA 7942) and Article 365
of the RPC for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage
to Property. They moved to quash the Informations on the
ground that they were charged more than one offense for
a single act. The MTC quashed the Informations, The RTC
set aside the Order of the MTC. The RTC held that there
can be no absorption of the three offenses as the acts
penalized by these laws are separate and distinct from
each other. Loney et al. contend that they should only be
charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Damage
to Property because all the charges filed against them
"proceed from and are based on a single act or incident of
polluting the Boac and Makalupnit rivers thru dumping of
mine tailings; and the charge for violation of Article 365
of the RPC "absorbs" the other charges since the element
of "lack of necessary or adequate protection, negligence,
recklessness and imprudence" is common among them.
Issue: Whether or not the violations of the special laws
are absorbed by the charge under Art. 365 of the RPC.
Ruling:
No. A single act or incident might offend against two or
more entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law thus
justifying the prosecution of the accused for more than
one offense. The only limit to this rule is the Constitutional
prohibition that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for "the same offense." In each of the laws on
which Loney at al were charged, there is one essential
element not required of the others. The violation of Art
365 of the RPC also does not absorb the charges for
violation of the Water Code, Anti-Pollution Law and Mining
Act. A mala in se felony such as Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Damage to Property cannot absorb mala
prohibita crimes such as those violating the Water Code
and Ant-Pollution Law. What makes the former a felony is
criminal intent (dolo) or negligence (culpa); what makes
the latter crimes are the special laws enacting them.
9. Garcia v. CA
Doctrine:
Mala Prohibita:
Criminal acts not inherently immoral
Become punishable only because the law says they are
forbidden
Sole issue is whether the law has been violated
Criminal intent not necessary where the acts are
prohibited for reasons of public policy
Mala in se:
Defined and penalied in the Penal Code
Inherently immoral
Criminal intent must be clearly established with other
elements of the crime
May 11, 1995:
Election officer Arsenia Garcia, Municipal Treasurer
Herminio Romero and others decreased the votes
received by senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel Jr from
6,988 votes to 1,921 (from 159 precincts)
ISSUE
1.Is a violation of Sec. 27 b of RA 6646 classified under
mala in se or mala prohibita? MALA IN SE
2. W/N good faith and lack of criminal intent be valid
defenses - Yes
Ruling:
Acts prohibited in Sec 27 aremala in se, otherwise, errors
and mistakes committed due to fatigue would be
punishable. Given the volume of votes to be to be counted
and canvassed within a limited amount of time, errors and
miscalculations are bound to happen. It could not be
the intent of the law to punish unintentional election
canvass errors.
10. Garcia v. People
The Fozes were having a drinking spree at their apartment
when Chy asked them to quiet down to which Garcia
commented that Chy was being arrogant and that one day
he would lay a hand on him. Two days later, the group
decided to drink at a store owned by Chys sister,
Esquibel. Chy was about to come out of his house and
upon being summoned, Garcia suddenly punched him.
Chy continued to parry the blows and when he found an
opportunity to escape, he ran home and phoned his wife
to call the police regarding the mauling. He also
complained of difficulty in breathing. He was found later
unconscious on the kitchen floor, salivating.
Cause of death is heart attack to which Garcia appeals
that the injuries he caused were not as violent in nature
as to have caused the death of Chy. Garcia pleaded not
guilty to the crime of homicide. The autopsy doctor
confirms that the boxing and the striking of the bottle
beer on the victim could not have caused any direct
physical effect to cause the heart attack if the victims
heart is healthy. What could have caused said heart
attack is the victims emotions concerning the violence
inflicted upon him.
ISSUE: Whether the circumstance of having no intention
to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should be
appreciated
RULING: The circumstance that the petitioner did not
intend so grave an evil as the death of the victim does not
exempt him from criminal liability. Since he deliberately
committed an act prohibited by law, said condition simply
mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article 13(3) of the
Revised Penal Code. Nevertheless, said circumstance
must be appreciated in favour of the petitioner. The fact
that the physical injuries he inflicted on the victim could
not have naturally and logically caused the actual death
of the victim, if the latters heart is in good condition.
Considering this mitigating circumstance, imposable
penalty should be in the minimum period, that is,
reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the trial court properly
imposed upon petitioner an indeterminate penalty of ten
(10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as
maximum.
11. Ppl v. Ulep
-On Dec 22 1995, Buenaventura Wapili appeared to have gone
crazy and kept on running without any particular direction.
-SPO1 Ulep, together with Espadera and Pillo, arrived at the scene
armed with M-16 rifles and saw the naked Wapili approaching
them.
-The police claimed that Wapili was armed with a bolo and a
rattan stool, while Wapilis relatives and neighbours said he had
no bolo, but only a rattan stool.
-SPO1 Ulep fired a warning shot in the air and told Wapili to put
down his weapons ar they would shoot him.
-When Wapili was only about 2-3 meters away from them, SPO1
Ulep shot the victim with his M-16 rifle, hitting him in various parts
of his body. As the victim slumped to the ground, SPO1
Ulep came closer and pumped another bullet into his
head and literally blew his brains out.
Issue: w/n accussed should be acquitted on the basis of his claim
that the killing of the victim was in the course of the performance
of his official duty as a police officer, and in self-defense
Held: It cannot be said that the fatal wound in the head of the
victim was a necessary consequence of accused-appellants due
performance of a duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office.
The evidence does not favour his claim of self-defense. Accused-
appelant SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP is found guilty of Homicide,
instead of murder.
RD: -The accused must prove the presence of 2 requisites: (1)
that he acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or an office, and (2) the injury caused or the
offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of the duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
office.
There were two stages of the incident:
1. The victim threatened the safety of the police officers by
menacingly advancing towards them. Up to that point, his
decision to respond with a barrage of gunfire to halt the
victims further advance was justified under the
circumstances.
2.When he fatally shot the victim in the head, perhaps in his
desire to take no chances, even after the latter slumped to the
ground due t multiple gunshot wounds sustained while charging
at the police officers. He cannot be exonerated from
overdoing his duty.
-The aggression that was initially begun by the victim already
ceased when accused-appellant attacked him. From that
moment, there was no longer any danger to his life.
-No treachery, thus the offense is only murder. Victim was given
more than sufficient warning before he was shot.
Art. 69 of RPC is applicable.
Incomplete justification is a special or privileged mitigating
circumstance, which, not only cannot be offset by aggravating
circumstances but also reduces the penalty by one or two
degrees than that prescribed by law.
The instant case would have fallen under Art. 11, par 5 had the
two conditions therefore concurred.
12. Belbis v. Ppl
Jose Bahilo (victim) was a Brgy Tanod in Albay. Then he
left his house to do his rounds. At around 10pm, Veronica
Dacir, hi live-in partner, heard Jose shouting and calling
her name and went to where Jose was and saw blood at
his back and shorts. It was there that Jose told Veronica
that he was held by Brucales while Belbis stabbed him. He
was confined for 6 days. He was brought the next day and
it was found out that his kidneys had inflamed due to
infection. He died the next day.
The petitiones clamin that Jose thrust a nightstick on
Belbis but the latter was able to evade it. The nightstick
was actually a bolo.
Ruling: The allegations of the accused is not credible to
cast a doubt which would warrant his acquittal. Belbis
admitted stabbing the victim but insists self-defense. The
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim ceased when
Belbis was able to get hold of the bladed weapon. 4 stab
wounds at the back of the victim are not necessary to
prevent the alleged continuous unlawful aggression from
the victim as the latter was without a weapon. Guilty of
homicide.
13. Urbano v. IAC
On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano was on
his way to his ricefield. He found the place where he
stored palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation
canal. Urbano went to the elevated portion to see what
happened, and there he saw Marcelino Javier and Emilio
Efre cutting grass. Javier admitted that he was the one
who opened the canal. A quarrel ensued, and Urbano hit
Javier on the right palm with his bolo, and again on the leg
with the back of the bolo. On October 27, 1980, Urbano
and Javier had an amicable settlement. Urbano paid P700
for the medical expenses of Javier. On November 14,
1980, Urbano was rushed to the hospital where he had
lockjaw and convulsions. The doctor found the condition
to be caused by tetanus toxin which infected the healing
wound in his palm. He died the following day. Urbano was
charged with homicide and was found guilty both by the
trial court and on appeal by the Court of Appeals. Urbano
filed a motion for new trial based on the affidavit of the
Barangay Captain who stated that he saw the deceased
catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals on November
5. The motion was denied; hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier
was the proximate cause of the latters death
Held: A satisfactory definition of proximate cause is...
"that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred."And more comprehensively, "the proximate
legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury,
either immediately or by setting other events in motion,
all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events,
each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately
effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the
cause which first acted, under such circumstances that
the person responsible for the first event should, as an
ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that
an injury to some person might probably result
therefrom."
If the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was
already infected by tetanus germs at the time, it is more
medically probable that Javier should have been infected
with only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms
of tetanus appeared on the 22nd dayafter the hacking
incident or more than 14 days after the infliction of the
wound. Therefore, the onset time should have been more
than six days. Javier, however, died on the second day
from theonset time. The more credible conclusion is that
at the time Javier's wound was inflicted by the appellant,
the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet
present. Consequently, Javier's wound could have been
infected with tetanus after the hacking incident.
Considering the circumstance surrounding Javier's death,
his wound could have been infected by tetanus 2 or 3 or a
few but not 20 to 22 days before he died.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct,
natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted
upon him by the accused. And since we are dealing with a
criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused the
victim's death must convince a rational mind beyond
reasonable doubt. The medical findings, however, lead us
to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or
between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his
death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to
the crime.
There is a likelihood that the wound was but
the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure
to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have
been the proximate cause of Javier's death with which the
petitioner had nothing to do. "A prior and remote cause
cannot be made the be of an action if such remote cause
did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to
the occasion by which the injury was made possible, if
there intervened between such prior or remote cause and
the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient
cause of the injury, even though such injury would not
have happened but for such condition or occasion. If no
danger existed in the condition except because of the
independent cause, such condition was not the proximate
cause. And if an independent negligent act or defective
condition sets into operation the instances which result in
injury because of the prior defective condition, such
subsequent act or condition is the proximate cause."
14. Ppl v. Villacorta
Villacorta, armed with a sharpened bamboo stick, with
intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation,
willfully,unlawfully and feloniously attacked, assaul
ted and stabbed Danilo Cruz, thereby infl ictingserio
us wounds which caused immediate death. Immediately after
he was stabbed by Villacorta, Cruz was rushed to
and treated as an out patient at Tondo Medical Center. It was
only after 22 days that Cruz was admitted to San Lazaro hospital
for symptoms of severe tetanus infection, w
h e r e h e d i e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y.
R u l i n g : There is merit in the argument proffered by
Villacorta that in the event he is found to have indeed
stabbed Cruz, he should only be held liable for slight
physical injuries for the stab wound he inflicted upon
Cruz. The proximate cause of Cruzs death is the tetanus
infection, and not the stab wound.
Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which,
in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred.
15. Ppl v. Acuram
The appellant shot the victim who later died. After charges
were filed and his commanding officer was told of the
incident, he was ordered not to leave camp, where he
surrendered.
HELD: Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender
The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the
intent of the accused to give himself up and submit
himself unconditionally to the authorities either because
he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the
trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and
capture. In this case, it was appellants commanding
officer who surrendered him to the custody of the court.
Being restrained by ones superiors to stay within the
camp without submitting to the investigating authorities
concerned, is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as
contemplated by law.
16. Ppl v. Talampas
Jose Sevillo (Jose) witnessed the incident in
question, together with Eduardo
M a t i c (Eduardo) and Ernesto Matic (Ernesto) were
infront of his house, repairing his tricyclewhen he
noticed the appellant who was riding on a bicycle
passed by and stopped. The latter alighted at about
three meters away from him, walked a few steps and
broughtout a short gun, a revolver, and poked the
same to Eduardo and fi red it hitting Eduardo who
took refuge behind Ernesto. The appellant again
fi red his gun three times, one shot hitting Ernesto
at the right portion of his back causing him
(Ernesto) to fall on theground with his face
down. Thereafter, the appellant ran away, while
he (Jose) and his neighbors brought the victims to the
hospital.
Ruling: Homicide
17. Ppl v. Flora
The 2 accused (Hermogenes and Edwin) were convicted
for the murder of Emerita and Ireneo and the attempted
murder of Flor. The 2 were found to have conspired to kill
Ireneo. However, during the commission of the crime,
Emerita was also killed and Flor hit by a bullet.
HELD: Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done
pursuant to the conspiracy. For other acts done outside
the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not
the necessary and logical consequence of the intended
crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. Evidence
only shows conspiracy to kill Ireneo and no one else.
Hence, both can be convicted for the murder of Ireneo.
However, only Hermogenes who fired at Emerita and Flor
can be convicted for the murder of Emerita and Flor
respectively.
18. Ppl v. Violin
19. Ppl v. Adriano
20. Ppl v. Noel Sales
On September 19, 2002, brothers Noemar and Junior, then nine
and eight years old, respectively, left their home to attend the
fluvial procession of Our Lady of Peafrancia without the
permission of their parents. They did not return home that
night. When their mother, Maria Litan Sales (Maria), looked for
them the next day, she found them in the nearby Barangay of
Magsaysay. Afraid of their fathers rage, Noemar and Junior
initially refused to return home but their mother prevailed upon
them. When the two kids reached home a furious appellant
confronted them. Appellant then whipped them with a stick
which was later broken so that he brought his kids outside their
house. With Noemars and Juniors hands and feet tied to a
coconut tree, appellant continued beating them with a thick
piece of wood.
When the beating finally stopped, the three walked back to the
house, Noemar collapsed and lost consciousness. Maria then
told appellant to call a quack doctor. He left and returned with
one, who told them that they have to bring Noemar to a
hospital. Appellant thus proceeded to take the unconscious
Noemar to the junction and waited for a vehicle to take them to
a hospital. As there was no vehicle and because another quack
doctor they met at the junction told them that Noemar is
already dead, appellant brought his son back to their house.
Appellant denied that his son died from his beating since no
parent could kill his or her child. He claimed that Noemar died
as a result of difficulty in breathing. In fact, he never
complained of the whipping done to him. Besides, appellant
recalled that Noemar was brought to a hospital more than a
year before September 2002 and diagnosed with having a
weak heart.
On the other hand, Maria testified that Noemar suffered from
epilepsy. Whenever he suffers from epileptic seizures, Noemar
froths and passes out. But he would regain consciousness after
15 minutes. His seizures normally occur whenever he gets
hungry or when scolded.
The trial court charged the accused guilty of parricide and slight
physical injuries.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crimes charged.
Rulings:
Yes. All the elements of the crime of parricide is present in this
case.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of accused.
In the case at bench, there is overwhelming evidence to prove
the first element, that is, a person was killed. There is likewise
no doubt as to the existence of the second element that the
appellant killed the deceased. It is sufficiently established by
the positive testimonies of Maria and Junior. As to the third
element, appellant himself admitted that the deceased is his
child.
As to the charge of Physical injuries, the victim himself, Junior
testified that he, together with his brother Noemar, were
beaten by their father, herein appellant, while they were tied to
a coconut tree. He recalled to have been hit on his right eye
and right leg and to have been examined by a physician
thereafter. Maria corroborated her sons testimony.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2)
the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased
is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of accused.
In the case at bench, there is overwhelming evidence to
prove the first element, that is, a person was killed.
Maria testified that her son Noemar did not regain
consciousness after the severe beating he suffered from
the hands of his father. Thereafter, a quack doctor
declared Noemar dead. Afterwards, as testified to by
Maria, they held a wake for Noemar the next day and
then buried him the day after. Noemars Death Certificate
was also presented in evidence.
21. Intod v. CA
Under Art. 4(2) 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: or (2) the means employed is either
(a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual. There must be either
impossibility of accomplishing the intended act 12 in
order to qualify the act an impossible crime.The SC held
that the accused is liable only for an impossible crime, as
extraneous circumstances unknown to him prevented the
consummation of the intended crime. Intod shot the place
where he thought his victim would be, although in reality,
the victim was not present in said place and thus, Intod
failed to accomplish his end. This factual/physical
impossibility rendered the intended crime impossible of
accomplishment. He is liable only for an impossible crime.
Facts: Sulpicio Intod told his companions that he wanted
to kill Bernardina Palangpangan because of a land dispute.
Together with his companions, Intod went to the house of
Bernardina Palangpangan in Lopez Jaena, Misamis
Occidental. Intod, together with Pangasian, Tubio and
Daligdig fired at Bernardinas bedroom. However, it turned
out that Bernardina was in another city and her home was
occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in
the room when Intod fired the shots. No one was hit by
the gun fire. The RTC convicted Intod of attempted
murder. The decision was affirmed by the CA. Intod now
seeks a modification of the judgment, holding that he is
liable only for an impossible crime under Article 4(2) of
the RPC.
Issue: Whether or not Intod is guilty of an impossible
crime or attempted murder.
Ruling: Intod is only guilty of an impossible crime. Under
Art. 4(2) 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: or (2) the means employed is either
(a) inadequate or (b) ineffectual. There must be either
impossibility of accomplishing the intended act 12in order
to qualify the act an impossible crime. On the other hand,
factual impossibility occurs when extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended crime. One
example is the man who puts his hand in the coat pocket
of another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet
and finds the pocket empty.The case at bar belongs to this
category. Intod shot the place where he thought his victim
would be, although in reality, the victim was not present
in said place and thus, Intod failed to accomplish his end.
22. Jacinto v. Ppl
The Supreme Court ruled that there was no qualified
theft. However, it ruled that there was an impossible
crime. Jacinto performed all the acts to consummate the
crime of qualified theft, which is a crime against property.
Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would
have received the face value thereof, which was not
rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the
extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a
fact unknown to Jacinto at the time, that prevented the
crime from being produced.
Facts: Gemma Jacinto accepted a BDO Check for 10,000
as payment from a client of Mega Foam where she worked
as a collector. However, instead of remitting such amount,
she deposited it to the account of her brother-in-law. They
were informed that the check was dishonored. They then
hatched a plan to collect the amount in cash from the
client. The owner of Mega Foam learned of this and set-up
an entrapment and Jacinto et al were arrested and
charged with qualified theft. Jacinto asserted that there
was no crime of qualified theft, holding that a worthless
check cannot be the object of theft. Jacinto was found
guilty of the crime of qualified theft. Jacinto appealed but
the CA affirmed the decision. Jacinto asserts in this appeal
that there was no crime of qualified theft, holding that a
worthless check cannot be the object of theft.
Issue: Whether or not there was qualified theft.
Ruling: No. There is no crime of qualified theft in this
case. The RPC provided that the personal property subject
of the theft must have some value, as the intention of the
accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is further
bolstered by Article 309, where the law provides that the
penalty to be imposed on the accused is dependent on
the value of the thing stolen.In this case, Jacinto
unlawfully took the postdated check belonging to Mega
Foam, but the same was apparently without value, as it
was subsequently dishonored. The crime of qualified theft
was not produced. However, there is an impossible crime.
The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act
performed would be an offense against persons or
property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent; and
(3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or
the means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual.
In this case, Jacinto performed all the acts to consummate
the crime of qualified theft, which is a crime against
property. Jacinto's evil intent cannot be denied, as the
mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega
Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched.
Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would
have received the face value thereof, which was not
rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the
extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a
fact unknown to Jacinto at the time, that prevented the
crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by
Jacinto turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the
check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had
received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored
check.
23. Ppl v.Tan
FACTS:
March 11, 1982 morning: While Enrico was walking
with Tirso Ferreras, his classmate, along Roque street in
the poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was approached by
Pablito Domasian who requested his assistance in getting
his father's signature on a medical certificate. Enrico
agreed to help and rode with the man in a tricycle to
Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the man
went into a building to get the certificate. Enrico became
apprehensive and started to cry when, instead of taking
him to the hospital, the man flagged a minibus and forced
him inside, holding him firmly all the while. The man told
him to stop crying or he would not be returned to his
father. When they alighted at Gumaca, they took another
tricycle, this time bound for the municipal building from
where they walked to the market. Here the man talked to
a jeepney driver and handed him an envelope addressed
to Dr. Enrique Agra, the boy's father. The two then
boarded a tricycle headed for San Vicente. As Enrico was
crying and being firmly held, Alexander Grate, the tricycle
driver became suspicious and asked Domasian about his
relationship with the boy who told him they were
brothers. Their physical differences and the wide gap
between their ages made Grate doubt so he immediately
reported the matter to two barangay tanods when his
passengers alighted from the tricycle. Grate and the
tanods went after the two and saw the man dragging the
boy. Noticing that they were being pursued, Domasian
was able to escape, leaving Enrico behind. Enrico was on
his way home in a passenger jeep when he met his
parents, who were riding in the hospital ambulance and
already looking for him.
At about 1:45 in the afternoon of the same day, after
Enrico's return, Agra received an envelope containing a
ransom note. The note demanded P1 million for the
release of Enrico and warned that otherwise the boy
would be killed. Agra thought the handwriting in the note
was familiar. After comparing it with some records in the
hospital, he gave the note to the police, which referred it
to the NBI for examination
March 11, 1982 1:45 pm: Agra received an envelope
containing a ransom note demanding P1 million otherwise
Enrico will be killed. . Agra thought the handwriting in the
note was familiar so he referred it to the NBI for
examination and it turned out to be Dr. Samson Tans
signature.
Domasian and Tan were subsequently charged with
the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention in
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
o Domasians alibi: at the time of the incident he was
watching a mahjong game in a friend's house and later
went to an optical clinic with his wife for the refraction of
his eyeglasses
o Dr. Tans alibi: he was in Manila
Enrico, Tirso Ferreras and Grate all pointed
Domasian.
RTC: Domasian and Tan guilty as charged and
sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and all accessory penalties
Appealed
ISSUE: W/N Domasian and Tan is guilty of kidnapping
kidnapping with serious illegal detention
HELD: YES. appealed decision is AFFIRMED
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention may
consist not only in placing a person in an enclosure but
also in detaining him or depriving him in any manner of
his liberty
Tan claims that the lower court erred in not finding
that the sending of the ransom note was an impossible
crime which he says is not punishable.
Tan conveniently forgets the first paragraphs of the
same article, which clearly applies to him, thus:
Art. 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.
Even before the ransom note was received, the crime
of kidnapping with serious illegal detention had already
been committed. The act cannot be considered an
impossible crime because there was no inherent
improbability of its accomplishment or the employment of
inadequate or ineffective means. The sending of the
ransom note would have had the effect only of increasing
the penalty to death under the last paragraph of Article
267 although this too would not have been possible under
the new Constitution.
On the issue of conspiracy, we note first that it exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it, whether they act through physical volition of
one or all, proceeding severally or collectively. These acts
were complementary to each other and geared toward the
attainment of the common ultimate objective, viz., to
extort the ransom of P1 million in exchange for Enrico's
life.
The motive for the offense is not difficult to discover.
According to Agra, Tan approached him 6 days before the
incident happened and requested a loan of at least
P15,000.00. Agra said he had no funds at that moment
and Tan did not believe him, angrily saying that Agra
could even raise a million pesos if he really wanted to
help.