CRIMINAL LAW: ARTICLE 3 FELONIES

De Guzman, Jr. vs. People (2014)

FACTS: Victim Alexander Flojo was fetching water below his rented house when
Alfredo De Guzman, brother of his land lady Lucila Bautista, hit him on the nape.
Flojo informed Bautista, who asked for forgiveness and told Flojo to take a rest.
After two hours, Flojo went back to fetch water when De Guzman stabbed him on
his left face and chest. He was brought to the hospital where he was confined for
two days. His doctor Francisco Obmerga said the second one on the upper left
chest was fatal. But accused denied stabbing the petitioner and said they only
had a fistfight during which he hit petitioner on the cheek that caused his blood to
ooze. He appealed that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt
since the injuries were mere scuffmarks, that the stab wounds were not his
doing, and that he should only be charged with slight physical injuries. De
Guzman was convicted of frustrated homicide at the Mandaluyong RTC in 2003,
a decision the Court of Appeals affirmed in 2006. He was sentenced to a penalty
of 6 months, 1 day of prision correccional (minimum) to 6 years, 1 day of prision
mayor (maximum).

ISSUE: Whether or not De Guzman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

frustrated homicide.

HELD: YES. De Guzman wielded and used a knife in his assault on Flojo, an
attack unprovoked and firmly proving the presence of intent to kill. He has
already performed all the acts of execution for homicide but failed to produce the
desired effect by reason of causes independent of his will, which was the timely
medical attention to the victim. The lone witness was the victim himself whose
identification of assailant owes to the natural tendency of the victim to seek
justice for himself and remember the face of the attacker and the manner with
which he was attacked. De Guzmans sentence was changed to 4 years of
prision correccional (minimum) to 8 years, 1 day of prision mayor (maximum),
with P30,000 award for moral damages.

NOTES:

Elements of frustrated homicide:

o The accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of
a deadly weapon in his assault
 o The victim sustained fatal or mortal wound but did not die because
of timely medical assistance
o None of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248
of the RPC is present
Factors to determine the presence of intent to kill:
o The means used by the malefactors
o The nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim
o The conduct of the malefactors before, during, or immediately after
the killing of the victim
o The circumstances under which the crime was committed and the
motives of the accused

Rivera vs. People (2006)

FACTS: The accused are brothers Esmeraldo, Edgardo, and Ismael Rivera.
Victim Ruben Rodil, who used to work as a taxi driver, while going to a store to
buy food was mocked by Edgardo for being unemployed and dependent on his
wife for support, and a heated exchange of words followed afterwards. The next
day, as Ruben was going to the store again with his three-year-old daughter,
when the Rivera brothers emerged from the house and ganged up on Ruben.
While Esmeraldo and Ismael were mauling Ruben with fist blows, Edgardo hit
Ruben three times with a hollow block on the parietal area. The police came, the
Rivera brothers dispersed, and Ruben was taken to a hospital where the doctor
declared his lacerated wound in the parietal area was slight and superficial. But
Esmeraldo testified that during the afternoon that day, Ruben arrived at his
house and challenged the brothers to come out and fight. Ismael tried to pacify
Ruben and Esmeraldo. Meanwhile, Edgardo was throwing garbage and went
inside the house to avoid a confrontation. A fist fight ensued between Ruben and
Esmeraldo, Edgardo pushed Ruben aside but the latter stood up and pulled at
Edgardos shirt and hair where Ruben hit his head on the lamp post in the
process. The brothers appealed that they should only be held liable for physical
injuries since the prosecution failed to prove that they had the intention to kill
Ruben with the hollow block. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of frustrated murder, which the appeals court affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Rivera brothers are guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of frustrated murder.

HELD: YES. The prosecution mustered the requisite quantum of evidence to

prove the intent of petitioners to kill Ruben, who, while defenseless and with his
daughter, was mauled and hit three times with a hollow block. There exists an
overt act that has causal relation to the intended crime. He was overwhelmed
with the synchronized assault of the three siblings that was due to an altercation
the day before. The victim being impervious of the danger to his life, there is
treachery in the assault. Though the wounds were deemed superficial, the
brothers would still be liable for attempted murder.

NOTES:

Essential elements of an attempted felony:

o The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by
overt acts
o He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony
o The offenders act be not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance
o The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or
accident other than his spontaneous desistance
The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements:
o That there be external acts
o Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended
to be committed
Overt/external act some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention
to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation,
which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course,
without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense.

Villareal vs. People (2012)

FACTS: Leonardo Lenny Villa died of hazing in 1991 after he underwent the
initiation rites to be admitted to the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila
Fraternity) in Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. The seven freshmen
were subjected to physical beatings on the first night; on the second day, they
presented comic plays, played rough basketball, and memorized and recited
Aquilas principles. Later that night, alumni fraternity members Fidelito Dizon and
Artemio Villareal demanded that the rights be reopened, and they subjected the
neophytes to paddling and another round of physical pain. Lenny received strong
paddling that left him sprawling to the ground, after which he complained of
intense pain and difficulty in breathing. Subsequently, he can no longer walk. The
neophytes, later that night, slept at the carport. But they were roused by Lennys
shivering and incoherent mumblings. The members helped him through a
sleeping bag but his condition only worsened, so he was brought to a hospital.
He was pronounced dead on arrival. There were 35 accused in this case. The
trial court decided that 26 of them were guilty of homicide. In 2002, the Court of
Appeals ruled: 19 were acquitted because their individual guilt was not
established by reasonable doubt; four were found guilty of the crime of slight
physical injuries; and twoVillareal and Dizonwere found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. Villareals counsel filed a Notice of
Death of Party in 2011, while Dizon sought the reversal of the CAs decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dizon is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.

HELD: YES. Although hazing was not punishable as a crime at that time, the
intentional infliction of physical injuries on Villa was nonetheless a felonious act
under Articles 263-266 of the RPC. The accused are guilty of homicide as it was
the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the physical injuries they had
intentionally inflicted. This case involves an ex ante situationthe fraternity
initiation ritesand Dizons behavior must not be automatically viewed as
evidence of a genuine, evil motivation to kill Lenny Villa, but must be taken within
the context of the fraternitys psychological initiation. The rituals performed on
Lenny were done with consent. But even absent malicious intent, the accused
are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The accused should have
restrained themselves from reopening the rites. It is also worth noting that the
accused were drunk during the rites.

US vs. Ah Chong (1910)

FACTS: Ah Chong, a cook at the officers quarters at Fort McKinley, Rizal

Province, killed Pascual Gualberto, a houseboy. They shared a room wherein
there were no other openings aside from the door and a window. Defendant, who
was already in the room at 10 oclock, was awakened by someone trying to force
open the door of the room. When defendant asked who goes there, no one
answered. Ah Chong threatened to kill the intruder if he does not answer.
Fearing that it might be a thief, he seized a kitchen knife he kept under his pillow,
and struck wildly at the intruder, who turned out to be Pascual. Ah Chong
admitted to stabbing his roommate, but it was under the impression that the latter
was a thief because of a series of robberies in the area not long before the
incident, which also explains Ah Chongs possession of a kitchen knife. The trial
court found him guilty of simple homicide and sentenced him to 6 years, 1 day
presidio mayor.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong can be held criminally liable by reason of a

mistake of fact.

HELD: NO. There is no criminal liability provided that the alleged ignorance or
mistake of fact was not due to negligence or bad faith, because it cancels the
presumption of intent and works an acquittal. Since evil intent is in general an
inseparable element in every crime, a mistake of fact shows that the act
committed preceded from no evil in the mind and relieves the actor from criminal
liability. In this case, Ah Chong believed to be acting no more than exercising his
legitimate right to self-defense.

NOTES:

A person acting in defense of his person or rights is exempt from criminal

liability, provided the following circumstances exist:
o Illegal aggression
o Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
o Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself

Loney vs. People (2006)

FACTS: John Eric Loney, Steven Paul Reid, and Pedro Hernandez, heads of the
Marcopper Mining Corporation, which was engaged in mining in Marinduque,
were accused of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property, Article
365 of the Revised Penal Code, among other violations. This was due to the
storing tailings from its operations in a pit in Mt. Tapian, Marinduque that ran into
a drainage tunnel that led to the Boac and Makalupnit Rivers. Petitioners argued
that the Informations were duplicitous because the DOJ charged more than one
offense for a single act. The MTC maintained infos for violation of RA 7942 an
Article 365 of the RPC, ruling that these laws are separate and distinct form each
other. The CA affirmed this, even though petitioners contended that the MTC
violated People v. Relova where no accused should be harassed by multiple
prosecutions for offenses which though different from one another are
nonetheless each constituted by a common set or overlapping sets of technical
elements.
ISSUE: Whether or not the charges filed against petitioner contravenes People v.
Relova, and therefore should be quashed for duplicity of charges.

HELD: NO. A single act or incident might offend against two or more entirely
distinct and unrelated provisions of law, justifying the prosecution of the accused
for more than one offense. Where two different laws define two crimes, prior
jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other. In this
case, RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act), there is willful violation and gross neglect
on the part of the accused to abide by the terms and conditions of the
Environmental Compliance Certificate. In Article 365 of the RPC, there is lack of
necessary or adequate precaution, negligence, recklessness, and imprudence to
prevent damage to property. Those punished by the special law are mala
prohibita, while those punishable by the RPC are mala in se. Mala in se felony
cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes.