People v.

Mauricio
Rape by his grand father
Bantay bata
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Overt acts has been defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its
natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense

Dolo- intentional felony/ with malicious intent

Culpa- culpable felony/ without malicious intent/ incident of another act

Calimutan v. People

Calimutan, with intent to kill, assaulted Cantre. He hit Cantre, which resulted to Cantre’s spleen getting
lacerated and his death a day later.

Ratio:
Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only a moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. It does not require absolute certainty and exclusion of all possible error.
Despite uncertainty regarding the actual cause of death, the Court still found Calimutan liable for Cantre’s
death.

One is not relieved from criminal liability for the

natural consequences of one’s illegal acts
merely because one does not intend to
produce such consequences

P v. Guillen
Guillen testified for himself said that he performed voluntarily; that he intended to kill the president but that
it did not make any difference if there were some people around the president when he hurled that bomb
because the `killing of those who surrounded the President was tantamount to killing the president, were
identified with the latter. Although it was not his main intention to kill the persons surrounding the President,
he felt no compunction in killing them also in order to kill president

Ratio:
He is liable because throwing grenade at president has malice. In throwing said hand grenade at the President
with the intention of killing him, the Court stated that the appellant acted with malice, and was therefore
liable for all consequences of his wrongful act, for in accordance with Article 4 of the RPC, criminal liability
is incurred by any person committing felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended. The act cannot be classified as criminal negligence because such requires that the injury
incurred be unintentional as the incident of an act performed without malice (People v Sara, 55 Phil 939).
The Court finds that a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is inconsistent with the idea of reckless
imprudence. A mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence
(People v Gona, 54 Phil 605). Commented [1]:

P v. Guia

Facts:
Gona assaulted and killed Mapudul by giving the latter a mortal wound on his neck using a bolo. In his
defense, Gona said that he did not mean to kill Mapudul, but Dunca, whom he had an altercation with the
night of the homicide (note that he has criminal intent).

Issue: WON Gona was still criminally liable even though he meant to kill Dunca

Held: Yes.

As a result of the quarrel, wanted to kill Dunca, but instead killed Mapudul by mistake. This mistake in
killing one man instead of another did not relieve him from criminal responsibility. Despite the fact that he
killed the wrong man, Gona still intentionally and maliciously committed murder.

Deceit
Elements:
Freedom , intelligence, criminal intent
Intent to perform the act is the criminal intent. Why punishable? Because it is inherently evil.

Manuel v. P
July 1975, Eduardo married Rubylus Gana
Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned
Eduardo only visited 3 times and never saw her again
January 1996, Eduardo met Tina, a 21-year old computer secretarial student, while she looked for a friend
during her 2-day stay in Dagupan
Later on, Eduardo visited Tina, THEY WENT TO A MOTEL TOGETHER AND HE PROPOSED
MARRIAGE AND INTRODUCED HER TO HIS PARENTS WHO ASSURES THAT HE IS SINGLE :o
April 1996, Tina finally agreed for them to marry and so they did, before the RTC of Baguio, where they had
a home
1999, Eduardo only visited their home twice or thrice a year. Tina was jobless, and whenever he asked for
money from Eduardo he would slap her
January 2001, Eduardo packed his things and left and stopped giving financial support
August 2001, Tina, through his inquiries from the NSO in Manila was embarrassed and humiliated to learn
that Eduardo was previously married

Ratio:
The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to preserve and ensure the juridical tie of marriage as
established by law
Art 3(2) of the RPC provides that there is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent
Malice – a mental state or condition prompting the doing of an overt act WITHOUT legal excuse or
justification from which another suffers injury
When the act or omission defined by law as a felony is proved to have been done or committed by the
accused, the law presumes it to have been intentional
For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of both an evil act and an evil
intent
General Rule: mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by
dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal intent
Exception: ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law
Burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that when he married he was of the well-grounded belief that
his first wife was already dead, as he had not heard from her for more than 20 years since 1975
Failed to discharge his burden since no judicial declaration was presented for proof

Guevarra v. Almadovar

On October 29, 1984, the Petitioner who was then 11 years old was playing with best friend Teodoro Almine
Jr. and three other children in their backyard. The children were target-shooting bottle caps placed 15 to 20
meters away with an air rifle borrowed from a neighbour.
In the course of game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which caused his unfortunate
death.mThe examining fiscal after investigation exculpated petitioner due to his age and because the
unfortunate appeared to be an accident.

Victim’s parents appealed to Ministry of Justice, who ordered fiscal to file a case against petitioner for
Homicide through reckless imprudence.

Ratio:

Intent and discernment are two different concepts. Intent means: a determination to do certain things; an aim;
the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such intent. Discernment means: the
mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong.

The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power, necessary to determine the morality of
human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist, and because … the infant 3 (has) no
intelligence, the law exempts (him) from criminal liability.

In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa, three (3) elements are indispensable, namely,
intelligence, freedom of action, and negligence. Obviously, intent is wanting in such felonies. However,
intelligence remains as an essential element, hence, it is necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen
years of age be possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which results in a quasi-offense.
For him to be criminally liable, he must discern the rightness or wrongness of the effects of his negligent act.
Indeed, a minor over nine years of age but below fifteen may be held liable for a quasi-offense under Article
365 of the RPC.

People v. Rey
On the evening of May 28, 1983, which was a fiesta day, while Rosette Pagayunan, a teacher at the San
Esteban Elementary School, was preparing to cook food at her house, she found out that there was no water.
Accordingly, Mrs. Pagayunan instructed her two (2) children, Babette and Nicolas, to get water from the
faucet of the accused Saturnino Rey, also a public school teacher. At that time, Mr. Rey's faucet was
allegedly the only one with water at the neighborhood because of the long drought.
Babette and Nicolas proceeded towards the house of Mr. Rey to get water. Babette and Nicolas found Roban
Rey, son of the accused, near the faucet. Roban was sitting atop the steps of the kitchen stairway talking with
Nicolas.
While Nicolas was standing beside the faucet waiting for his pail to be filled with water, he was shot twice
by Saturnino Rey from the window of his bedroom which was about four (4) meters away.
Nicolas fell in front of Roban R

Ratio:
The defendant-appellant also failed to rebut the presumption that the shooting was done with criminal
intention. His conduct after the shooting incident was inconsistent with the conduct of a person who had
innocently shot a person by accident. It would appear that he did not do anything to help his victim who was
lying down on the ground, bleeding and moaning. He did not go down from his house even after finding that
the person he had shot was Nicolas Pagayunan. Instead, he uttered curses.10 Then, very early the next
morning, at about 5:30 o'clock, he left his house and stayed with his brother in a neighboring
municipality, 11 and did not go home even to help the police in their investigation. 12 Flight is an indication
of a guilty mind.

Kui v. CA
None

Criminal intent
General intent

Most crimes require general intent, meaning that the

prosecution must prove only that the accused meant to do
an act prohibited by law. Whether the defendant intended
the act’s result is irrelevant.

Specific intent

Specific intent crimes typically require that the defendant

intentionally commit an act and intend to cause a particular
result when committing that act.

How is it determined? May be inferred from the facts of the

case

May a crime be committed without it? No mala in se - evil

intent mala prohibite- intent

Soriano v. People
Federico Soriano was charged on August 22, 1945, with the
crime of theft of one electric motor marked "Cyclix," with
Western Electric Company cable, and one lantern slide
projector, with their corresponding accessories, for the
operation of motion pictures, valued at P6,000, belonging to
the Eagle Cinema Co., Inc., represented by its President-
Manager, Teodoro S. Benedict.
ISSUE: WON the acts of the accused constitute theft.
HELD: YES.
As to the element of intent, it is clear that when the
petitioner carried away and concealed from the owner and
the police authorities the above-mentioned articles, he acted
with intent of gain. Intent is a mental state, the existence of
which is shown by the overt acts of a person, which in the
present case unmistakably point to that intent.

US v. Catalico
Picture
 Commented [2]:

US v. Reyes
This case is basically about the appeal of the judgment of
the lower court of Reyes being guilty of Estafa
RB Blackman is a surveyor in Pangasinan, where Domingo
Reyes also lives.
Blackman employed Reyes to collect certain amounts due
from 12 individuals form Blackman’s work in connection with
the survey of their lands
Total amount to be collected by Reyes was Php 860. He
however only succeeded in collecting Php 540. He delivered
to Blackman Php 368. He retained the balance, Php 172. (di
ko to gets pero nasa origs yan swear copy paste ko nalang
para sure)
The difficult point concerns the exact terms of the contract. It
was merely an oral agreement between Blackman and
Reyes.
Blackman claims he agreed to pay Reyes a commission of
10%, whereas Reyes claims he was to receive 20%.
RTC ruled that the commission shall be at 10%.
To return to the figures again, it would be noticed that if the
SC would accept the statements of Blackman, Ryees was
entitled to 10% of Php 540 (or Php 530), or Ph 54, making
Php 118 misappropriated.
If the SC accepts the statements of Ryees (20%
commission), then the amount claimed to be
misappropriated is Php 172.

Ratio: