Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PEOPLE VS AGUILOS
According to the autopsy, Macapagal sustained the number of wounds sustained by the victim
4 wounds. 3 of which were non-penetrating would negate this component of self defense.
(upper jaw, below the left shoulder, right side The four gunshot wounds indicate a determined
of the waist".
effort to kill.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the the last one nearest the door. Upon seeing
person defending himself Avelina, Amado went and sat by Avelinas right
side from his seat on the other side of the
When the appellant confronted the victim, chapel, and without saying a word, placed his
instead of taking precautionary measures, hand on the upper part of her right thigh.
appellant could no longer argue that there was
no provocation on his part Avelina Jaurigue, therafter, pulled out
with her right hand the fan knife which she had
in a pocket of her dress with the intention of
Claim of self defense rejected punishing Amados offending hand. Amado
seized her right hand but she quickly grabbed
the knife on her left hand and stabbed Amado
PEOPLE VS JARIGUE once at the base of the left side of the neck
inflicting upon him a wound about 4 inches
deep, which is mortal.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NICOLAS
Nicolas saw Capina bleeding and
JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE
staggering towards the altar, and upon seeing
C.A. No. 384 February 21, 1946 his daughter approached her and asked her the
reason for her action to which Avelina replied,
Ponencia, De Joya
Father, I could not endure anymore.
Conviction of defendant is sustained the time the two were constructing a fence that
and cannot be declared completely exempt would prevent Narvaez from getting into his
from criminal liability. To be entitled to a house and rice mill. The defendant was taking a
complete self-defense of chastity, there must nap when he heard sounds of construction
andfound fence being made. He addressed the
group and asked them to stop destroying his No. The courts concurred that the fencing and
house and asking if they could talk things over. chiselling of the walls of the house of the
Fleischer responded with "No, gadamit, defendant was indeed a form of aggression on
proceed, go ahead." the part of the victim.
Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot However, this aggression was not done on the
Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia person of the victim but rather on his rights to
who was running towards the jeep where the property. On the first issue, the courts did not
deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the err. However, in consideration of the violation
shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of of property rights, the courts referred to Art. 30
Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle of the civil code recognizing the right of owners
with the defendant and other land settlers of to close and fence their land.
Cotabato over certain pieces of property.
Crime of murder was reduced to homicide by -They argued that the prosecution failed to
the Supreme Court absence proof of treachery establish treachery and conspiracy.
and it also dissolved ruling of RTC and -RTC nonetheless find them guilty beyond
affirmation of CA that there was conspiracy reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with
between 2 accused. the presence of the mitigating circumstance of
- Accused are Dagani and Santiano voluntary surrender
- At about 4:45 in the afternoon a group of men - RTC is convinced about the judgment because:
were drinking in the canteen located inside the - appellants failed to prove that Javier
compound of PNR. attempted to squeeze the trigger of the .22
- All of a sudden, appellants, who were security caliber gun when he pointed it at Dagani that
officers of the PNR entered the canteen and during the course of the struggle for the
approached the group.
possession of the .22 caliber gun, the danger to reclusion perpetua
the life of the accused ceased to be imminent
[26]
These criteria was not satisfied. Accused were FACT: On January 16, 1998, around 8:00 in the
not in duty when incident happened. Assuming evening, brothers Servillano, Melton, and
arguendo that they are, what they did will still MichaelFerrer were having their drinking spree
not fall within the boundaries of fulfilling their at their house but later decided to proceed to
lawful duty. Tidbits VideokeBar to continue their drinking
spree and to sing. Thereafter, Jaime Palaganas
-The law does not clothe police officers with arrived together withFerdinand Palaganas
authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill (nephew) and Virgilio Bautista. Later, when
Jaime was singing, Melton Ferrer sang along
it must be stressed that the judgment and
with him as he was familiar with the song My
discretion of police officers in the performance
Way.
of their duties must be exercised neither
Jaime got irritated and insulted. He felt he was Its pertinent provision states: If homicide or
being mocked by Melton Ferrer that caused him murder is committed with the use of an
to go to Ferrers table and utter statements unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
which began the fight. With this, Ferdinand, firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
Jaimes nephew, sought help to his brother, circumstance
Rujjeric Palaganas, who was now the petitioner
. This special aggravating circumstance cannot
in this case.
be offset by an ordinary mitigating
They went to the bar and upon seeing the circumstance. Voluntary surrender of petitioner
Ferrer soutside, Ferdinand, pointing at the in this case is merely an ordinary mitigating
Ferrers, instructed Rujjeric to shoot them. circumstance. Thus, it cannot offset the special
Rujjeric Palaganas shotServillano, Melton, and aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
Michael with the use of unlicensed firearm. As a firearm. In accordance with Article
result, Melton was killed,Servillano was fatally 64,paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, the
wounded, and Michael was shot in his right penalty imposable on petitioner should be in its
shoulder. maximumperiod. Therefore, decision was
AFFIRMED by SC with certain modifications
On October 28, 1998, RTC of Pangasinan
appreciating the specialaggravating
decided in 3 Criminal Cases finding the
circumstance in the case at bar.
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of homicide and two (2) counts of AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL
frustrated homicide of Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury
On September 30, 2004, Court of Appeals
AFFIRMED thedecision of the lower court with PEOPLE VS RICOHERMOSO
modifications considering his voluntary
surrender as ordinary mitigating circumstance.
However, on November 16, 2004, petitioner Facts:
prayed for the reversal of the decision holding
that the CA erred in affirming the judgment of
conviction of RTC and in not aquitting him on Geminiano de Leon, together with his common-
the ground of self-defense. Hence, this law wife, son Marianito de Leon and one Rizal
certiorari Rosales, chanced upon Pio Ricohermoso.
i.ISSUE: Owning a parcel of land, which Ricohermoso
cultivated as kaingin, Geminiano asked about
Whether or not the use of the unlicensed his share of palay harvest and added that she
firearm is a special aggravating circumstance should be allowed to taste the palay harvested
which should be appreciated by the court at the from his land. Ricohermoso said Geminiano
case at bar? could collect the palay anytime.
HELD: YES. An aggravating circumstance was
provided for under PD No. 1866 as amended by
RA8294 which is a special law that was passed Upon returning from his trip to Barrio
on June 6, 1997. Bagobasin, Geminiano dropped by
Ricohermosos house and asked him about the
palay, to which the latter answered defiantly Treachery was also appreciated in the case. The
that he will not give him the palay, whatever trial court convicted the appellants with
happens. Geminiano remonstrated and that lesiones leves, from an attempted murder
point (as if by prearrangement), Ricohermoso charge with respect to Marianito de Leon.
unsheathed his bolo, while his father-in-law
Severo Padernal got an axe, and attacked
Geminiano. At the same time and place, Judgment as to Juan Padernal affirmed.
Ricohermosos brother-in-law Juan Padernal
suddenly embraced Marianito. They grappled
and rolled down the hill, at which point (Note: Severo Padernal withdrew his appeal,
Marianito passed out. When he regained thus, in effect, accepted the prosecutions
consciousness, he discovered that the rifle he version of the case and trial courts finding of
carried beforehand was gone and that his guilt.)
father was mortally wounded.
Issue:
Defendant-Appellants: Maria Norma
Hernandez, Mariano Hernandez (father) &
W/N appellant Juan Padernal can invoke the Ramona Martinez (mother)
justifying circumstance of avoidance of a
greater evil or injury
FACTS:
Held:
Vivencio Lascano, 19 y/o, started courting
appellant, Maria Norma Hernandez and after
No. Juan Padernals reliance on the justifying months of courtship, appellant finally accepted
circumstance is erroneous because his act in Vivencio. On the same date, she asked him to
preventing Marianito from shooting bring his parents over her home so that they
Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, the could talk about their marriage.
aggressors in this case, was designed to insure
the killing of Geminiano de Leon without any
risk to the assailants and not an act to prevent When Vivencio and his parents went to her
infliction of greater evil or injury. His intention house, they brought chickens and goats and
was to forestall any interference in the assault. they agreed to buy a wedding dress, 2 vestidas,
shoes, P20 for the sponsors and to repair the
uncles roof.
While the celebration was going on, appellant Malice, one of the essential requisites of
was nowhere to be found. Vivencio and his slander hasnt been proven. There is no malice
parents waited but she never showed up thus in the act of the appellant changing her mind.
causing them great shame and humiliation. She was merely exercising her right not to give
her consent the marriage after mature
consideration.
Norma Hernandez averred that Vivencio was
really courting her but that she wasnt really in
love with him. Her parents tried to persuade Furthermore, there were no strained relations
her to accept the proposal and that she only existing between the complainant & appellant
accepted it out of obedience to her parents and before the incident.
the uncles insistence.
There always existed good relations between
them for they were neighbours so it cannot be
sustained that appellant was motivated by spite
Before Vivencios parents came to their home,
or ill-will in deliberately frustrating the
she already counselled them not to bring the
marriage.
chickens and that they should not regret
whatever may happen later.
HELD:
IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY
RATIO:
Facts: Lagata ordered the prisoners to go to the
nursery to pick up gabi. Not long afterwards,
Lorenzo Napilon escaped from the jail. Some
they were called to assemble. Epifanio Labong
days afterwards, policeman Felipe Delima found
was missing so Lagata ordered the 5 remaining
him in the house of Jorge Alegria, armed with a
prisoners to go look for him.
pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a
lance, and demanded his surrender. Napilon
answered with a stroke of his lance. Delima
Eusebio Abria said that while they were
dodged, it, and to impose his authority fired his
gathering gabi, he heard 3 shots. He was
revolver, but the bullet did not hit him. Napilon
wounded by the 2nd one. They were already
ran away, without parting with his weapon.
assembled by the 1st shot and that he did not
Delima went after him and fired again his
see Tipace being shot. He said he ran away
revolver, this time hitting and killing him.
because he was afraid that he might be shot
Delima was tried and convicted for homicide
again and that his companions were also
and sentenced to reclusion temporal and the
probably scared and that is why they ran.
accessory penalties.
Hence, necessary review of Supreme Court -Means that are reasonable and necessary
were not satisfied to invoke self defense.
Considering the circumstances in its entirety. Facts:
Santianos act of fatally shooting the victim Manuel Beronilla, Policarpio Paculdo, Filipino
twice. Velasco and Jacinto Adriatico file an appeal
from the judgement of the Abra CFI, which
-Regarding exercise of lawful duty as justifying,
convicted them of murder for the execution of
Two requisites must concur before this Arsenio Borjal, the elected mayor of La, Paz,
defense can prosper: Abra (at the outbreak of war), which was found
to be aiding the enemy.
1) the accused must have acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office; and
Borjal moved to Bangued because of death
2) the injury caused or the offense committed threats was succeeded by Military Mayor
should have been the necessary consequence of Manuel Beronilla, who was appointed by Lt. Col.
such lawful exercise. Arbold, regimental commander of the 15th
Infantry of the Phil. Army, operating as guerilla
These criteria was not satisfied. Accused were unit in Abra. Simultaneously upon his
not in duty when incident happened. Assuming appointment, Beronilla received a
arguendo that they are, what they did will still memorandum which authorized him to appoint
not fall within the boundaries of fulfilling their a jury of 12 bolo men to try persons accused of
lawful duty. - treason, espionage and aiding or abetting the
enemy.
The law does not clothe police officers with Upon the return of Borjal and his family to Abra,
authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill to escape bombing in Bangued, he was placed
under custody and tried and sentenced to death
by the jury based on various complaints made
it must be stressed that the judgment and by the residents. Beronilla reported this to Col.
discretion of police officers in the performance Arnold who replied, saying I can only
of their duties must be exercised neither compliment you for your impartial but
capriciously nor oppressively, but within independent way of handling the whole case.
reasonable limits.
Gathered from the documentary and Held: The Court reversed the ruling of the
testimonial evidence are the following essential Sandiganbayan. Accused Tabuena and Peralta
antecedents: are ACQUITTED. It is settled that good faith is a
valid defense in a prosecution for malversation
for it would negate criminal intent on the part
Then President Marcos instructed Tabuena of the accused.
over the phone to pay directly to the
Tabuena had no other choice but to make the
president's office and in cash what the MIAA
withdrawals, for that was what the MARCOS
owes the Philippine National Construction
Memorandum required him to do. He could not
Corporation (PNCC), to which Tabuena replied,
be faulted if he had to obey and strictly comply
" Yes, sir, I will do it ." About a week later,
with the presidential directive, and to argue
Tabuena received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez,
otherwise is something easier said than done.
then private secretary of Marcos, a Presidential
Marcos was undeniably Tabuena's superior
Memorandum dated January 8, 1986
the former being then the President of the
(hereinafter referred to as MARCOS
Republic who unquestionably exercised control
Memorandum) reiterating in black and white
over government agencies such as the MIAA
such verbal instruction.
and PNCC.