Case Issue Facts
Intod v CA WON guilty of impossible Kill a person who is in
crime another town
People v Saladino WON accomplice of death Death of victim by beating
to get confession
Saladino asked Alejo to
shoot Bernabe to look like
an accident
Jacinto v People WON felony is considered Steal a check that had no
impossible crime worth
US v Eduave WON Frustrated or Tried to kill daughter of his
Attempted Murder paramour, hit in a vital part
of the body
Rivera v People WON Attempted Murder or Brothers assaulted a man
Physical Injuries using fist blows and hit
hollow blocks but
interrupted by police
Baleros v People WON Guilty of Attempted UST student Malou
Rape disturbed in sleep by a man
using a handkerchief with
chemical to rape
Valenzuela v People WON guilty of frustrated Tried to steal detergent
theft Detergent already in taxi
Stopped by guard
Ruling Ratio
Guilty of impossible crime Art 4 par 2
Punish criminal intent
Physical impossibility
Saladino- guilty of Alejo is guilty since he
assassination concealed saladinos
crime
Alejo- accessory of the Alejo cant contradict the
crime order of his superior
Impossible crime Accused perform all acts to
consummate the crime of
theft but there was no fund
in the bank
Frustrated Murder Subjective phase is over, did
all acts but felony did not
prosper
Attempted Murder There was intent to kill by
using hollow blocks when
man was already on the
ground
Subjective phase not
passed since police
intervened
Unjust vexation only Baleros was fully clothed,
no time to undress Malou
Incident is not considered
rape according to Art 335
or RPC
Consummated Theft Theft only consummated
and attempted
Unlawful taking is
important
Not matter whether
items were disposed or
not
*elements of theft (5)
 Case Issue Facts
People v Lamahang WON guilty of attempted Lamahang tried to enter
robbery store using iron bar
People v Borinaga WON guilty of Frustrated Borinaga tried to kill
Muder Mooney using a knife but
hit chair and missed
Reason: not giving money
for unfinished fish coral
People v Kalalo WON guilty of murder or Killed people because of
homicide land dispute
Used bolo while the
victims had a revolver
People v Trinidad WON guilty of murder Police killed 2 people in a
car
Shot driver on the leg
Martinez v CA WON Guilty of Frustrated Stabbed a guy outside an
Homicide office because of
complaint filed
Martinez claimed self-
defense because guy
attacked first
Mondragon v People WON guilty of attempted Mondragon hit Nacionales
homicide on the hand with a bolo
over ricefield argument
Did not pursue after
Ruling
Attempted trespass
Frustrated Murder
2 counts of homicide, 1 Both had weapons which
count of attempted
homicide
2 counts of murder, 1 count Subjective phase did not
of attempted murder
Frustrated Murder
Less Serious Physical Intent to kill is not proven
Injuries
Ratio
Entering using iron bar is
only preparatory act= not
punishable
No evidence to show
accused has intent to
take something from the
store
Intent was evident
Subjective phase passed
Failure was independent
from the will of the
perpetrator
would lower murder to
homicide= no abuse of
superior strength, risk
was even
Subjective phase did not
pass since the victim was
not hit in a vital organ
because he was able to
ran away
pass since the victim was
not hit in a vital organ
because he was able to
ran away
Failed to prove self-
defense= no elements
were present
Motivated by revenge
because of complaint
filed against accused
Injury was not fatal
 Case Issue Facts
People v Sy Pio WON Guilty of Frustrated Killed 2 people prior
Murder with Tan Siong Kiap Hit Tan on right shoulder
Tan ran to a room behind
the store
Sy pio did not pursue
People v Dio WON crime was Tried to rob a watch but
consummated victim died with watch still
on wrist
People v Salvilla 1. WON crime was Tried to rob a store with
attempted people and minor
2. WON mit. circ of Hostages gave money- on
voluntary surrender is the table
apppreciated Asked for 100k but banks
were closed
Mayor gave 50k, given to
hostage to give to
robbers
Police launched offense
and then they
surrendered
People v Orita WON guilty of frustrated Woman was held by a
rape knife on the neck
Accused asked her to put
penis inside her vagina
No full penetration
People v Campuhan WON Guilty of Mother found accused on
Consummated rape top of daughter with his
shorts on his knees and
her daughter with no
panties on
US v Valdes WON guilty of frustrated Katulong tried to burn
Arson house using jute sack and
rag soaked with kerosene
Ruling Ratio
Attempted Muder Victim was not hit in vital
part
Accused did not pursue
after victim ran knowing
that he did not kill the
victim
Not perform all acts of
execution
Attempted robbery with Only attempted since
homicide watch was still with the
victim when he died
1. Consummated Robbery Taking away was present-
2. No mitigating hostages gave the money
circumstances Doesnt matter if the
actual money was in the
hand of the accused at
the time of the arrest as
long as asportation took
place
They only surrendered
when the had no choice
Consummated Rape No frustrate stage for
rape
As long as the penis hit
the labia major-
considered rape
Attempted Rape There was no penetration
yet
Child said ayoko na not
aray ko
Frustrated arson All acts of execution has
been done
Sack and rag placed near
the partition of the
 Case Issue Facts
People v Aguilos WON Pilola is guilty of Capa was stabbed by
murder Lagliba
Pilola brothers joined
picked but hollow block
and bashed capas head
Capa died. So Sad
Manaban v CA WON Just cir of self-defense Guard shot man, who
is applicable turned his back and
allegedly getting a gun
Senoja v People WON Just cir of self-defense Lumasac was angry
is applicable looking for his
brother,had a bolo which
was taken by senoja and
others and they were
okay, Lumasac left
Senoja attacked Lumasak
at the back
People v Decena WON Just cir of self-defense Decena stabbed
is applicable Ballesteros who was on
this way to his home
Decena claimed
Ballesteros held him by the
neck and poked with a fork
People v Dela cruz WON Just cir of self-defense Macapagal went inside
is applicable the house of Delacruz
Knocked on the bedroom
and dela cruz saw the
gun and closed the door
Delacruz opened the
door and shot Macapagal
Called police after to
report
Ruling Ratio
entresol, partition might
have burned if not put
out on time
Murder Conspiracy is present
(implied)- closeness of
personal association and
concurrence of sentiment
All are liable as co-
principals
Not applicable No unlawful aggression
Guilty of homicide on part of victim
Mere speculation about
getting the gun of the
victim
NO. Homicide Burden of proof shift to
accused to prove self-
defense
No unlawful aggression
when Lumasac left
Senoja became the
aggressor when he
followed Lumasac
NO. Homicde Not self-defense but
revenge
Unlawful aggression
ended when Ballesteros
went home
No self-defense When he closed the door,
Homicide with mit he should have stopped
circ(voluntary surrender) there to prevent further
harm
Voluntary surrender was
appreciate
 Case Issue
People v Jaurigue WON just cir- defending
her honor
WON mit circ- voluntary
surrender
WON aggriv cir- offense in
scared place
People v Narvaez (include WON exempted because he
dissenting) acted in defense of his
person and rights
Sabang v People
Facts Ruling Ratio
Jaurigue stabbed Capina at Homicide with mit circ No self-defense because
their church during mass (voluntary surrender) at the time of the crime
claiming shes defending no attempt to rape since
her honor they are in mass, only
Capina made statements touched thigh
they he took advantage of Mit circ appreciated
her Aggriv circ not
appreciated because it
was not established she
planned on killing victim
when she entered the
church
Narvaez shot 2 people Not exempted but mit circ Incomplete def because
who were fencing the and 2 generic mit circ lack of elements of self
land of Fleicher, which he defense
was renting a house Mit cir- voluntary
surrender
Mit circ- passion and
obfuscation, house was
violated and lack of
access to the highway
J Santos- unlawful
aggression only on
persons not property
J Guitierez- defense is
only on property
 Case Issue
People v Dagani WON Guilty of murder Santiago saw victim and
WON self defense is
appreciated
WON theres treachery Fired warning shot then
and conspiracy
Palaganas v People
People v Ricohermoso WON just cir of preventing
greater evil/injury is
appreciated
People v Norma Hernandez WON guilty of Slander by
deed
People v Delima WON killing was done in
performance of duty
Facts
Dagani Aqcuitted
Dagani grappling for a
gun
Self def not appreciated
shot victim
Padernal embraced
Marianito and rolled
down the hill while the
formers brother in law
and father killed the
latters father
Marianitos revolver was
missing
He claimed he did it to
avoid Marionito from
killing the other 2 people
Norma disappeared on her
wedding day to because
she did not love the groom
Only stayed in relationship
because of her parents
insistance
Delima shot a criminal
who got out of jail
Fired warning shot first
Ruling Ratio
Santiago took advantage
Santiago Homicide of his status by firing the
Yes gun
There was no absolute
No treachery and necessity to shoot victim
conspiracy since he had no weapon
during the grappling
NO. Guilty of attempted Logic of using just cir as
murder defense is erroneous
What he did was forestall
interference in the
assault
Treachery is appreciated
Not guilty Cant force someone to
marry they dont love
Malice was not proven
which is essential in
slander
 Case Issue Facts Ruling Ratio
Victim had bamboo when Yes Deceased was under
he attacked delima obligation to surrender
since his sentence was
not yet finish
Act dont was justified
People v Lagata WON act done was in line of Lagata shot 2 inmates in NO Acted outside duty when
duty fear of them escaping Guilty of Homicide and he allowed inmates to
while picking gabi in the serious physical injury with pick gabi, not part of his
talahiban area mit circ responsibility
There was no evidence
that the deceased was
trying to escape
Mit cerc- incomplete just
cir because he truly
believed he acted within
scope of authority
There was no absolute
necessity to shoot
Mamangun v People WON act done was in line of Mamangun shot an No No reason to shoot
duty innocent man who he Homicide with incomplete deceased because he had
believed was a robber just circ no weapon (pipe claim
Even after the deceased not accepted)
shouted it wasnt him Inc just circ- in line of
Mamangun claimed self- duty but not absolute
defense because the necessity to shoot
deceased was gonna hit deceased
him with a pipe (only
stated after pipe was
recovered)
People v Beronilla WON guilty of murder Beronilla executed Borjal Not Guilty What they did was in line
by death penalty when of their duty
jury found him guilty of Their superior
treason and other crimes congratulated them for
State claimed there was a their act
radiogram about the Exec There was no intent on
Proc 8 by Pres Roxas the part of the accused
granting amnesty Art 11 par 5
 Case
Tabuena v Sandiganbayan
People v Lua Chu
People v Doria
Intestate Estate of Manolita
Gonzales v People
Issue
WON guilty of Malversation
WON Samson is involve in
the crime
WON warrantless seizure is
valid
Facts Ruling Ratio
Pres. Marcos asked Not guilty They were only doing the
Tabuena to transfer order of the president
P55M, first over the issued in the memo
phone then a memo was Memo had signature of the
released president
Presumed to be issued
regularly
Art 11 par 5
Opium was to be NO It was entrapment
smuggled into the port of Samson did not induced
Cebu where Samson is the accused to commit
part of the Customs the crime because prior
personell to approaching Samson
Uy asked the help of the act was already in
Samson and he agreed motion
Samson reported to the Samson only introduced
authorities and had the the opium to PH soil in
next meeting recorded by order to trap the accused
the police
Police found an open box NO Warrantless arrest was
infront of the house of illegal because only
the accused speculation of another
Looked inside and found accused was made
marijuana leaves Plain view is not
Arrested accused appreciated since the
officer had to look inside
the box to see the
content