Article 13 Mitigating Circumstances

Praeter Intentionem
Case Facts Issue Held
1. People vs. 1. Amado WON Avelina YES
Nicolas Capina can avail of
Jaurigue and (deceased) the mitigating When the
Avelina had been circumstance deceased sat
Jaurigue courting of Praeter by Avelina and
February 21, Avelina. Intentionem placed his
1946 hands on her
2. On thigh, without
September 13, her consent,
1942, Avelina the chapel
was under her was lighted
house when with electric
Amado lights and
approached there were
her and spoke several people
of his love, in the chapel
which she including her
rejected and own father.
he Under these
subsequently circumstance
embraced and s, there was
kissed her and no possibility
touched her of her being
breasts. raped.
Avelina
slapped When she
Amado and gave Amado a
gave him fist thrust at the
blows and base of his
kicked him. neck, causing
She told her his death a
mother about few moments
it the next day later the
and armed means
herself with a employed by
long fan knife, her in defense
for self- of her honor
protection. was evidently
excessive.
3. On Sept. 20, She cannot be
Avelina heard legally
that Amado declared
had been completely
falsely exempt from
boasting that criminal
he had taken liability.
liberties with
her and that The fact she
she had asked had acted in
him to elope the immediate
with her and vindication of
that she a grave
would take offense and
poison if he obfuscation,
did not marry or temporary
her. loss of reason
and self-
4. On the control,
same day, should be
Nicolas considered as
Jaurigue mitigating
(Father of circumstance
Avelina) and in her favor.
Avelina went
to Church at 8 She further
in the claims that
evening. she had not
Amado was intended to
seated on the kill the
other side of deceased but
the chapel, merely
upon wanted to
observing her punish his
presence, he offending
moved to the hand with her
 knife, as
shown by the
bench where fact that she
Avelina was inflicted upon
seating. He him only one
then placed is single wound
hands on her is another
upper thigh. mitigating
Avelina then circumstance.
pulled out
with her right The
hand the fan aggravating
knife which circumstance
she had on that the killing
her pocket was done in a
with the place
intention of dedicated to
punishing religious
Amados worship,
offending cannot be
hand. But legally
Amado sustained; as
grabbed her there is no
right hand and evidence to
she quickly show that the
got the knife defendant and
with her left appellant had
hand and murder in her
stabbed him heart when
on his neck. she entered
the chapel
5. After the that fatal
stabbing night.
incident, she
surrendered She is entitled
herself to the to reduction
priest and to by one or two
his father. degrees
Vindication of a Grave Offense
Case Facts Issue Held
1. United 1. A fiesta WON the YES
States vs. was in Ampar can
Celemente progress and avail of the The court
Ampar roast pig was mitigating gave the
November 26, being served. circumstance accusded the
1917 of vindication benefit of
2. Clemente of a grave mitigating
Ampar offense circumstance
proceeded to which on
the kitchen cursory
and asked examination
Modesto would not
Patobo, the appear to be
deceased, for justified. The
some of the circumstance
delicacy. was that the
act was
3. Patobo committed in
answered in the immediate
There is no vindication of
more. Come a grave
here and I will offense to the
make roast one
pig for you. committing
the felony.
4. The effect
of this on the The offense
accused was which the
Why was he defendant was
doing like endeavoring
that, I am not to vindicate
a child. With would to the
this as the average
provocation, a person be
little later considered as
while the said a mere trifle.
 To this
defendant, an
old man, it
evidently was
serious
matter to be
made the butt
Modesto was of a joke in he
squatting presence of
down, Ampar so many
came up guests.
behind him Hence, it is
and struck believed that
him on the the lower
head with an court very
ax, causing properly gave
the death the defendant the
following day. benefit of a
mitigating
circumstance,
and correctly
sentenced
him to the
minimum
degree.
1. June Ignas
y Sanggino
guilty of
murder
2. People vs.
aggravated
June Ignas y
especially by
Sanggino
the use of an
Sept. 30, 2003
unlicensed
firearm.

2.
3. People vs. 1.Alberto WON Benito NO
Alberto Benito Benito shot can avail of
y Restubog Pedro the Mitigating We see no
December 17, Moncayo, Jr. circumstance justification
1976 with a .22 of Vindication under the
caliber of a Grave circumstance
revolver on offense s recited
December 12, above for
1969. He changing our
alleged for the prior opinion
mitigating that the
circumstance mitigating
of immediate circumstance
vindication of cannot be
a grave appreciated in
offense. Benitos favor.
As aptly
2. Alberto was stated, Benito
an employee had more than
of the Civil sufficient time
Service to suppress
Commission. his emotion
He was filed over said
with remark if he
Dishonesty ever did
case and was resent it.
suspended for
60 days. After The six-hour
this, he was interval
then charged between the
with alleged grave
Malversation offense by
of Public Moncayo and
Funds, the
Qualified assassination
Theft, Estafa, was more
and than sufficient
Falsification to enable
of Public Benito to
Documents recover his
and sued by serenity. But
the Civil instead of
Service and using that
was time to regain
dismissed. He his
alleged that composure, he
these were evolved the
fabricated by plan of
Pedro liquidating
Moncayo, the Moncayo after
deceased. He office hours.
said his co- He acted with
workers treachery and
disliked him evident
for being premeditation
strict. in
perpetrating
3. Because of the cold-
his dismissal, blooded
he had a murder.
difficult time
and was
embarrassed.

4. Around 7pm
of Dec. 11,
1969, he went
to the office
and saw the
deceased. He
inquired about
his case and
asked for help
from the
deceased.
Pedro then
replied
Umalis ka na
nga diyan
baka may
mangyari pa
sa iyo at baka
ipayari kita
dito so he
left.

5. Around
11am the next
day, he saw
the deceased
again to which
the deceased
utter
Nagiistambay
pala dito and
magnanakaw
and he left.

6. Around 5:25
in the
afternoon of
the same day,
he saw Pedro
driving his
car. He then
followed him
and shot him
8 times to
which he fell
on his seat.
He called the
police
thereafter.

7. Benito
contends that
Moncayo
insulted him
when he
remarked that
a thief was
loitering in the
premises of
 the Civil
Service
Commission.
Benito argues
that that
remark was
tantamount to
kicking a man
already down
and to rubbing
salt into a raw
wound and
that as it was
made publicly
and in a loud
voice, he was
exposed to
ridicule in the
presence of
his
officemates.

Passion or Obfuscation

Case Facts Issue Held

1. United 1. Augustus WON Augustus NO
States vs. Hicks lived Hicks can
Augustus together with avail of the He
Hicks Agustina Sola, mitigating deliberately
September 23, A Christian circumstance and after due
1909 Moro woman, of Passion or reflection had
illicitly. Obfuscation resolved to
Agustina kill the woman
quitted Hicks who had left
house and him for
separation another man.
from him, To accomplish
went to live his intention
with her with safety, he
brother-in-law, entered the
Luis Corrales. house
A few days greeting
later, she everyone
contracted courteously
new relations and conversed
with another with his
African victim, in
American what
named appeared to
Wallace be a proper
Current, a manner,
corporal in the disguising his
Army who intention and
then went to claiming her
live in the said by his
house. apparent
repose and
tranquility,
doubtless in
order to
successfully
accomplish
his criminal
design,
behaving
himself
properly as he
had planned
to do
beforehand.

No mitigating
circumstance
was present,
not even to
wit loss of
reason and
self-control by
 jealousy as
alleged by the
defense, in as
much as the
only causes
which
mitigate the
criminal
responsibility
for the loss of
self-control
originate from
legitimate
feelings, not
those which
arise from
vicious,
unworthy, and
immoral
passions.
2. United 1. Hilario De Shall he who The impulse
States vs. La Cruz, in the kills a woman upon which
Hilario De La heat of with whom he defendant
Cruz passion, killed is living in acted and
March 29, 1912 the deceased, concubinage which
who had for having naturally
therefore caught her in produced
been his her passion and
querida upon underclothes obfuscation
discovering with another was not that
her in party and the woman
flagrante in afterwards declined to
carnal shoots have illicit
communicatio himself, relations with
n with a inflicting a him, but the
mutual serious sudden
acquaintance. wound, be revelation that
responsible she was
for that crime untrue to him
 and his
discovery of
her in
flagrante in
the arms of
anothe. This
was a
sufficient
impulse in
with the
the ordinary
extenuating
and natural
circumstance
course of
of having
things to
acted with
produce the
violent
passion and
passion and
obfuscation
obfuscation?
which the law
declares to be
one of the
extenuating
circumstance
s to be taken
into
consideration
by the court.
3. People vs. 1. Catalino WON Catalino YES
Catalino Rabao Rabao killed Rabao can
April 10, 1939 his wife avail of the The court is
Salvacion mitigating convinced
Agawa on circumstance that the
December 15, of passion or defendant
1937. obfuscation that the
defendant did
2. On not really
December 15, have the
1937, when intention of
the defendant committing a
was hardly grave crime
awake, he as parricide.
 The quarrel
that led to the
noticed his aggression
wife was had its origin
preparing from the
water with natural and
which to give justifiable
the child a desire of the
bath. Catalino defendant,
opposed her aas a father,
and said the to prevent his
child did not child, which
need a bath was then ill,
because the from being
child had a given a bath.
cold. From If, under the
this, a quarrel circumstance
arose. The s, he
defendant transgressed
then gave a the law by an
fist blow to unjust attack
the on his wife, he
deceaseds is,
abdomen, nevertheless,
causing her to deserving of
fall down. the mitigating
circumstance
s allowed in
his favor.

Voluntary Surrender

1. People vs. 1. On WON Edgar The court is

Edgar Dawaton September 20, Dawaton can not persuaded
September 17, 1998, avail of the by the version
2002 Esmeraldo mitigating of the
Cortez was circumstance accused that
entertaining of Voluntary the victim
visitors in his Surrender threatened to
house. His harm him with
brother-in-law a grenade and
Edgar that it was
Dawaton and only to
kumpadre prevent this
Leonides from
Lavares happening
dropped by at that he was
about 12 noon forced to stab
followed by Leonides. The
Domino Reyes. victim had no
They were chance to
drinking. defend
Around 3pm, himself as he
they went to was dead
Amado drunk and fast
Dawatons asleep. He
house, Edgars had no inkling
uncle. They off what was
stayed at the going to
balcony of the happen to him
house and since there
continued was no prior
drinking. argument or
Amado was untoward
not in. incident
between him
4.Leonides, and the
already drunk, accused. From
decided to all indications
sleep. At they were on
about 3:30 friendly terms.
pm, Edgar Clearly, the
stoop up to attack was
leave for his not only
house. He sudden but
returned and also
brought with deliberately
him a adopted by
stainless knife the accused
with a blade to ensure its
of 2-3 inches execution
long. WIthout without risk to
a word, he himself.
approached
Leonides and While the
stabbed him accused
near the base offered to
of his neck. plead guilty,
Awakened, he was
Leonides charged with
shouted murder for
Bakit Pare, which he had
bakit? already
entered a plea
5. Leonides of not guilty.
attempted to An offer to
flee but Edgar enter a plea of
was much guilty to a
bigger, lesser offense
grabbed his cannot be
shirt. Edgar considered as
then an attenuating
repeatedly circumstance
stabbed him under Art. 13
which led to because to be
his death. voluntary, the
plea of guilty
6. Edgar did must be to the
not deny that offense
he stabbed charged.
Leonides but
insisted that There is no
he was voluntary
provoked into surrender
stabbing him. because he
That the night was arrested
before, his at his uncles
uncle residence.
Armando Voluntary
Ramirez went surrender
to his house must have
to welcome (1)the
his return. And offender has
that they had not been
been drinking actually
since the day arrested (2)
before. His The offender
version was surrendered
that Leonides himself to a
was drunk and person in
angry when authority
he arrived at (3)the
about 2:30 in surrender
the afternon must be
and demanded voluntary.
that they
return He argues
candles. that he was
Leonides was not arrested
the godfather but fetched
of the Son of as he
Edgar. voluntarily
Leonides went with the
cursed and policemen
theatened to when they
hang a came for him.
grenade on This attempt
Edgar. is absurd.
Leonides left That he did
the house to not try to
get a grenade escape or
and from this, resist after he
he held on to was taken did
him and not amount to
stabbed him. voluntary
That he was surrender. A
also in a state surrender
 wherein his
must be
mind went
voluntary and
blank during
spontaneous,
the stabbing
showing the
incident.
intent to
submit
7. That the
oneself
medico-legal
unconditionall
stated that he
y to the
sustained 10
authorites
stab wounds
because of his
in front and
guilt or he
one at the
wishes to
back and on
save the
his left hand.
trouble in
And that his
search and
tongue was
capture.
cut off.
2. People vs.
Eladio Viernes
y Ildefonso
December 13,
2001
3. People vs. 1. The vitctim, WON Ronnie To benefit an
Ronnie Thelma Abolidor, accused, the
Abolidor, Subosa, Claudio following
Claudio cohabited Barcimo and requisites
Barcimo, Jr. with her Francisco must be
and Francisco common-law Comoda can proven: (1)
Comoda husband avail of the The offender
February 18, Warlito mitigating has not
2004 Huesca and circumstance actually be
lived together, of Voluntary arrested (2)
and thereafter Surrender The offender
died. surrendered
himself to a
2. In June 14, person in
1993, a day authority (3)
after the the surrender
burial, She, was voluntary.
her children, Voluntary
and younger surrender
sister of presupposes
Warlito, repentance.
Milagros That going to
Huesca, were the police
awakened by station to
four men who clear ones
entered their name does
house and not show any
declared it a intent to
hold up. surrender
Ronnie unconditionall
Abolidor tied y to the
her mouth authorities.
with a
handkerchief Francisco
and Claurdio surrendered
Barcimo, Jr. to the
shot the authorities
victim several after more
times than a year
resulting to had lapsed
her death. since the
incident and
3. Ellyn and in order to
Roselyn disclaim
identified responsibility
Claudio and for killing the
Ronnie since victim. This
they slept on neither shows
the same mat repentance or
with the acknowledge
victim and a ment of the
kerosene lamp crime nor
was near the intention to
victims head. save the
They government
confirmed the trouble
 that he was
their neighbor
for several
years and that
Claudio was a
friend of and expense
Warlito. for his search
Thelma also and capture.
told Roselyn At the time of
during the his surrender,
burial that it there was
was Claudio already a
who killed pending
Warlito. warrant to
Francisco was arrest him.
later
identified by
the witnesses
at the police
station.

Article 14 Aggravating Circumstances

Case Facts Issue Held
1. People vs. Magdalena WON the YES
Magdalena Caliso was the Justifying
Caliso house maid. Cricumstance Grave abuse
July 1, 1933 She poisoned of Abuse of of confidence
the child of Confidence is was present
her employer. present in the since
case of appellant was
Magdalena a domestic
being a house servant of the
maid / nanny family. It is
inherent in the
offense of
murder by
means of
poisoning. In
 poisoning the
child, was
actuated more
by a spirit of
lawlessness
and revenge
than any
sudden boost
of natural and
uncontrollable
fury. Was not
provoked by
prior unjust or
improper acts
of the victim
or his parents.
2. People vs. 1. Belinda WON the YES
Belinda Lora Y Lora Y Vequizo Justifying
Vequizo alias was employed circumstance There was
Lorena as housemaid of Abuse of abuse of
Sumilew in the Confidence is confidence
March 30, 1982 household of present in this because the
the spouses case accused was
Ricardo Yap a domestic
and Myrna servant of the
Yap. They had family. She
two children, was entrusted
Emily and by the victims
Oliver, who parents are to
were 3 years take care of
old and 5 him
months old
respectively.

2. One day
Mrs. Yap
returned home
having found a
ransom note
that said
Oliver was to
be sold to a
couple and
that the writer
needed money
for her
mothers
hospitalizatio
n.

3. The
Spouses gave
money to
Belinda, then
she said that
a woman
whom she
hired would
give the boy
the next day.

4. The
following
morning, upon
waking up in
his house,
Ricardo Yap
noticed that
blood was
dripping from
the ceiling. He
then went
upstairs to
find his son
placed inside
the carton of
Marlboro
cigarettes.
The head of
 the child was
inside the
carton while
his feet
protruded
outside. His
mouth tied
with
stockings. The
child was
already dead.

Nighttime
Case Facts Issue Held
1. People vs. 1. That On WON the NO
Rosalio September 6, justifying
Laguardia, 1979, at about circumstance Nighttime is
Dante Bartulay, 10:30pm, of Nighttime rejected
Baltazar Beran Dante can be because it
and Raymundo Bartulary and appreciated in was not
Bartulay Baltazar this case especially
February 27, Beran, sought. Chuas
1987 signaled to a trip schedule
stop a truck and not the
owned by discretion of
Fortune the culprits
Tobacco determined
Corporation. the time of its
This truck commission.
was being
driven by
Miguel Chua,
the deceased.

2. Beran
approached
one side of
the truck and
pretended to
 borrow a
screwdriver
and while
Chua looked
for the tool,
Bartulay
shouted Hold-
up

3. With guns
drawn, the
two men
ordered Chua
and his three
companions,
Benigno Caca,
Frank
Morante, and
Eduardio
Aniar, to
alight. Beran
herded the
three
companions
inside the
panel where
thy were
locked. Then
they heard
two gunshots.

4. When Beran
got off the
truck, he saw
Chua lying on
the ground but
now bleeding
in the head.

Evident Premeditation
Case Facts Issue Held
1. People vs. 1. On October WON NO
Angelo Zeta 28, 1995, at mitigating
March 27, 2008 around 12:00 circumstance Evident
midnight, of Evident premeditation
Edwin, Rey Premeditation qualifies the
and Melvin shall be killing of a
had a drinking appreciated in person to
spree. At this case murder if the
about 2:00 in these pre
the morning of requisites are
the same present:
date, a car (1) The time
stopped in when the
front of the offender
three. determined to
commit the
2. Appellant crime (2) an
was driving act manifestly
the car while indicating that
Petronilla was the culprit
seated beside clung to his
him. Petronilla resolve (3) a
opened the sufficient
cars window interval of
and asked time between
Edwin if he the
knows Ramon determination
and the or conception
latters and the
address No. execution of
25-C General the crime to
Tinio Street, allow him to
Qc. Edwin reflect upon
replied that he the
did not know consequence
Ramon or his of his act and
address. to allow his
Petronilla and conscience to
Appellant left. overcome the
resolution of
3. That on his will if he
2:15 in the desired to
morning, the hearken to its
car boarded warning.
by appellant
and Petronilla The first two
stopped in elements are
front of present.
Ramons
house. The time
Petronilla manifesting
repeatedly Petronilla and
called Ramon. appellants
While Ramon determination
was walking to kill Ramon
down the was when
stairs, they, at about
appellant 2am
suddenly repeatedly
entered the asked Edwin
house and about Ramon
shot Ramon and the his
several times address, and
on different when they
parts of the subsequently
body. proceeded to
the house of
Ramon. When
Appellant and
Petronillas
determination
subsequent
act of
shooting him
at around
2:15-2:30 in
the morning
indicating that
they had clung
to their
determination
to kill Ramon.

The third
element is
lacking,
however. The
span of thirty
minutes or
half an hour
from the time
they showed
their
determination
to kill up to
the time they
shot him
could not have
afforded them
full
opportunity
for meditation
and reflection
on the
consequences
of the crime
they
committed.
We held that
the lapse of
thirty minutes
between the
determination
of the crime
and the
execution is
insufficient
for a full
meditation.

The essence
of
premeditation
is that the
execution of
the crime
must be
preceded by
cool thought
and reflection
on the
resolution to
carry out the
criminal intent
during a
space time to
arrive at a
calm
judgement. To
justify the
interference,
there must be
a period
sufficient in a
judicial sense
to afford full
opportunity
for meditation
and reflection
and to allow
the
conscience of
the actor to
overcome the
resolution of
his will if he
desire to
hearken to its
 warning. If no
sufficient time
is appreciable
from the
determination
to commit,
evident
premeditation
is not
appreciated.

Article 19 - Accessories

Case Facts Issue Held

Norma Dizon- 1. Norma Issues: WON Held: YES
Pamintuan vs Dizon- Norma is 1. Fencing
People Pamintuan guilty of under Section
July 11, 1994 guilty of violation of 2 is the act of
violating Anti-the Anti- any person
Fencing Law. Fencing Law who, with
and the third intent to gain
2. On February element is for himself or
12 to 24 1988, present. for another,
bought and shall buy,
kept in her receive,
possession possess, keep,
and/sell or acquire,
dispose conceal, sell
jewelries all or dispose of,
valued at or shall buy
105k. and sell, or in
Committed by any manner
Joselito deal in any
Sacdalan artile, time,
against object or
Teodora and anything of
Luzviminda value which
Encarnacion. he knows, or
should be
3. Anti-fencing known to him,
Law elements: to have been
a. A crime of derived from
robbery or the proceeds
theft has been of the crime of
committed robbery or
b. Person (not theft.
participating
in the crime) 2. Before PD
possess, buys, 1612, a fence
receives, is only
keeps, prosecuted as
acquires, an accessory
conceals, under Article
sells or 19. PD 1612
disposes, or was enacted
buys and sells to impose
or in any heavy
manner deal penalties on
in any article persons who
or item, object profit by the
or anything of effects of the
value. crimes of
c. With robbery and
personal theft.
knowledge or However, in
should be this case he
known to said ceases to be a
person that mere
said item, accessory but
object or becomes a
anything of principal in
value has the crime of
been derived fencing.
from the
proceeds of 3. No doubt in
the crime of this case that
robbery or the First,
theft. Second, and
d. With intent Fourth
to gain for elements
himself or for were
another established.

4. The first 4. When

element is knowledge of
present. There the existence
was in fact a of a particular
robbery fact is an
because Sps. element of an
Encarnacion offense, such
reported the knowledge
robbery. established if
a person is
5. The second aware of a
element is like high
wise probability of
established its existence
because unless he
Norma bought actually
the jewelry believes that
from another it does not
person. And exist. It is
the said determined
jewelries were from the overt
owned by the acts of that
Sps. person.
Encarnacion.
The jewelries 5. Since
were section 5 of
proceeds of PD 1612
the crime of expressly
robbery. provides
mere
6. Sec. 5 of possession
the Anti- is prima facie
fencing law evidence of
provides: Mere fencing it
possession of follows that
any good, the petitioner
article, item, is presumed
object or to have
anything of knowledge
value which that the
has been jewelries were
subject of the proceeds
robbery or of theft.
theft shall be
prima facie 6. However,
evidence of Justice
fencing. Isagani Cruz
Knowledge said Failure
and intent to on the part of
gain are the accused
proven by the to explain his
fact that the possession of
jewelries were stolen
found in property may
possession of give rise to
Norma. the
reasonable
presumption
that it was he
himself who
had stolen it.
The
constitutional
presumption
of innocence
will not apply.

7. Norma
relied solely
on the
testimony of
her brother
and that she
was engaged
in the
purchase and
sale of jewelry
and that she
used to buy
from a certain
Fredo.

8.Penalty of
prision mayor
shall be
imposed upon
the accused if
the value of
the property
involved is
more than 12k
but does not
exceed 22k,
adding one
year for each
additional 10k
in value. In
this case the
value of the
property is
87k.

9. There is
double
jeopardy when
(1) the first
jeopardy must
have attached
prior to the
second (2) the
first jeopardy
must have
validly been
terminated (3)
the second
jeopardy must
 be for the
same offenses
as that in the
first.
2. Ramon C. Facts: Issue: WON Held: NO
Tan vs. People 1. there was a 1. Robbery is
August 26, Complainant violation of the taking of
1999 Rosita Lim is the Anti- the personal
engaged in Fencing Law property
the business belonging to
of another, with
manufacturing intent to gain,
propellers or by means of
spare parts violence
for boats. against or
Manuelito intimidation of
Mendez is one any person, or
of her using force
employees. upon things.
Sometime Feb Theft is
1991, committed if
Manuelito the taking is
Mendez left without
the company violence
and at the against or
same time intimidation of
Rosita noticed persons nor
some of the force upon
welding rods, things.
propellers and
boat spare 2.
parts valuing Complainant
more or less Rosita claims
around 48k she lost
were missing. certain items
to which
2. Manuelito Manuelito
was convicted Mendrez
and he then confessed he
pointed to stole. Rosita
Ramon Tan for never
buying the reported the
stolen items theft or even
who paid in loss to the
the amount of police.
13k. Because she
did not report
3. Mr. Mendez any loss, we
admitted to cannot hold
Supt. Perlas to for certain
having stolen that there was
the missing committed a
items and sold crime of theft.
to Mr. Ramon. Here the extra
Again he judicial
brought Mr. confession
Mendez where was not give
he appointed the
to Mr. Tan as assistance of
the buyer but counsel,
when hence,
confronted, inadmissible
Mr. Tan denied against the
the same. Mr. witness.
Tan denied
having talked 3. No showing
to Manuelito at all that the
over the accused knew
phone of the or should have
delivery of the known that
stolen items the very
and could not stolen articles
have accepted were the ones
the said sold him. One
delivery of the is deemed to
stolen items know a
personally. It particular fact
is not possible if he has the
for him to be cognizance,
 consciousnes
s or
awareness
at his office at thereof, or is
about 7 in the aware of the
morning to 8 existence of
in the morning something, or
because he has the
usually acquaintance
reported to with facts, or
his office at 9 if he has
in the something
morning. within the
minds grasps
with certitude
and clarity.

Art. 48
Complex Crimes

Compound Crimes
Case Facts Issue Held
1. People vs. 1. Celerino Did the YES
Celerino Castromero accused,
Castromero with a Celerino
October 9, balisong for Castromero,
1997 means of perform a
force and compound
intimidation crime in this
raped case?
Josephine
Baon and as
she fled,
injured herself
resorting to
an operation
on her spine.
 2. Trial court
convicted
Celerino
Castromero
guilty of the
crime of Rape
with serious
physical
injuries and
hereby
sentences him
to Reclusion
Perpetua.
Considering
that Celerino
is a detention
prisoner, he
shall be
credited with
the period of
his detention
during his
preventive
imprisonment.
2. Marcelino 1. On March .
Lontok, Jr. vs 29, 1973,
Hon. Alfredo Marcelino
Gorgonio, as Lontok, Jr.
Presiding was charged
Judge of the with delito
Municipal compuesto.
Court of San
Juan, Rizal 2. On
April 30, 1979 November 14,
1972, he was
recklessly
driving
wherein he
crashed into a
jeep and
injured 3
passengers.

3. Lontok filed
a motion to
quash
because the
offense
prescribes in
two months
and was
committed on
November 14,
1972, the last
day of the
sixty-day
period for
filing the
charge as to
that offense
was January
14, 1973.

4. OSG com