You are on page 1of 20

CONSPIRACY (emphasis provided)

PEOPLE VS AGUILOS

FACTS 2.Those who directly force or induce others to


commit it
Joselito Capa and Julian Azul was drinking in a
store in Mandaluyong, while in the midst of the 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of
drinking spree, Edmar Aguilos and Odilon the offense by another act without which it
Lagliba, arrived and they were invited to join would not have been accomplished
the drinking. During the course of the drinking,
All the overt acts of Odilon, Ronnie and the
Edmar had an argument with the Julian that led
appellant before, during, and after the stabbing
to a commotion of the store, Edmar punched
incident indubitably show that they conspired
Julian in the face, the latter and the former
to kill the victim. In this case, Odilon all by
exchanged punches.
himself initially decided to stab the victim. The
Joselito intervened to stop the fight but the appellant and Ronnie were on the side of the
Odilon grabbed the Joselito the neck and street. However, while Odilon was stabbing the
stabbed the latter with a knife, Ronnie and victim, the appellant and Ronnie agreed to join
accused arrived at the scene and they saw their in; they rushed to the scene and also stabbed
gang mate, Odilon, stabbing the victim, they the victim with their respective knives. The
immediately pulled out their knives and three men simultaneously stabbed the hapless
subsequently stabbed the victim, Ronnie victim.
bashed a hollow block and a bottle to the head
Odilon and the appellant fled from the scene
of the victim, the three accused fled from the
together, while Ronnie went after Julian. When
scene of the crime. Leaving the victim dead on
he failed to overtake and collar Julian, Ronnie
the spot.
returned to where Joselito fell and hit him with
ISSUE a hollow block and a broken bottle. Ronnie then
hurriedly left. All the overt acts of Odilon,
Whether or not the accused should be
Ronnie and the appellant before, during, and
considered as a co- principal in the commission
after the stabbing incident indubitably show
of the crime and not merely an accomplice
that they conspired to kill the victim.
HELD

The direct participation of the accused in


MANABAN v. CA
stabbing the victim, resulting to the victims
accelerated death, constitutes to conspiracy. G.R. No. 150723 July 11, 2006Carpio, J.:
The overt act executed by accused qualifies the
FACTS:
latter to be a co-principal in the crime. Article
17 of the revised Penal Code states: At around 1:00 am on Oct. 11, 996,
Principals Joselito Bautistas daughter was rushed to UP
Health Center.
The following are considered principals
Needing money,Bautista (member of UP Police
1.Those who take direct part in the execution of
force) went to withdraw money from the ATM
the act
at BPI Kalayaan Branch where accused
Ramonito Manaban was on duty. It was alleged Bautista suddenly turned his back and was
that had taken alcoholic drinks before that. allegedly about to draw his gun. Fearing that he
Bautista failed to withdraw and that his card would be shot first, Manaban pulled the trigger
was captured because he had entered a wrong and shot Bautista. Manaban declared that it did
pin. He then started kicking and pounding the not occur to him to simply disable thevictim for
machine. Manaban asked him the problem and fear that Bautista would shoot him first.
suggested that Bautista return the next
ISSUE:
morning. This angered Bautista all the more and
resumed pounding the machine. Whether there was unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim, Bautista.
Manaban urged him to calm down but
continued raging and striking the machine. HELD:
When Manaban could no longer pacify him, he
fired a warning shot. That diverted the NO. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical
attention of Bautista. Instead of venting his ire assault or at least a threat to attack or inflict
against the machine, he confronted Manaban. physical injury upon a person. Amere
After some exchange of words, a shot rang out threatening or intimidating attitude is not
fatally hitting Bautista. Several police officers considered unlawful aggression, unless the
arrived at the crime scene where they saw threat is offensive and menacing, manifestly
Bautista lying on the ground, still breathing. showing the wrongful intent to cause injury.
There must be an actual, sudden, unexpected
They noticed that a .38 caliber pistol was tucked attack or imminent danger thereof,which puts
in Bautistas waist. Bautista was shot at the the defendants life in real peril.
back. Manaban allegedly admitted the shooting.
They brought Bautista to East Avenue Medical In this case, there was no unlawful aggression
Center where he died. on the part of the victim. First, Bautista was
shot at the back as evidencedby the point of
The NBI medico-legal officer testified that entry of the bullet. Second, when Bautista was
Bautista was shot at the back, the muzzle of the shot, his gun was still inside a locked holster
gun at about more than 24inches away from and tucked inhis right waist. Third, when
the entry point, and that the wound incurred by Bautista turned his back at Manaban, Manaban
him was fatal as the bullet hit the right lung and was already pointing his service firearm at
lacerated parts of the liver, stomach and the
pancreas. He deduced that assailant must have Bautista. These circumstances clearly belie
been behind the victim. Manabans claim of unlawful aggression on
Bautista's part.The allegation of Manaban that
Manaban testified that after he fired the Bautista was about to draw his gun when he
warning shot, Bautista allegedly raised his shirt turned his back at Manaban is merespeculation.
and showed his gun which was tucked in his Besides, Manaban was already aiming his
waist. Manaban stepped back and told Bautista loaded firearm at Bautista when the latter
not to draw his gun, otherwise he would shoot. turned his back.
However,Bautista allegedly kept on moving
toward Manaban, who again warned Bautista In that situation, it was Bautista whose life was
not to come near him or he would be forced to in danger considering that Manaban, who had
shoot him. already fired a warning shot, was pointing his
firearm at Bautista. Bautista, who was a
policeman, would have realized this danger to and overpowering Jaime, thruste the knife into
his life and would nothave attempted to draw his body.
his gun which was still inside a locked holster
Issue: W/N the appellant acted in complete self-
tucked in his waist. Furthermore, if Manaban
defense that in killing Jaime Ballesteros
reallyfeared that Bautista was about to draw his
absolving him from criminal liability.
gun to shoot him, Manaban could have easily
disabled Bautista by shooting his

arm or leg considering that Manabans firear m Held: No.


was already aimed at Bautista. Aggression
presupposes that the person attacked must face Ratio:
a real threat to his life and the peril sought to In criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the
be avoided is imminent and actual, not prosecution which may rely on the strength of
imaginary. its evidence and not on the weakness of the
Absent such actual or imminent peril to ones defense. However, upon invoking self-defense,
life or limb, ther e is nothing to repel and there the accused admits that he killed the victim and
is no justification for taking the life or inflicting the burden of proof is upon him in proving that
injuries on another. he really acted in self-defense.

Basic requirement for self-defense as a


justifying circumstance is unlawful aggression
PEOPLE VS DECENA against the person defending himself.

It must be shown that there was a previous


unlawful and unprovoked attack that placed the
Facts:
life of the accused in danger forcing him to
On Christmas day, around 4pm, Luzviminda (14 inflict wounds upon his assailant
y.o., daughter of the Jaime Ballesteros, victim),
According to the defense, the unlawful
saw Decena rushing towards her father with a
aggression started when the victim started
long bladed weapon prompting her to warn her
poking the appellant with a fork
father.
Elementary rule: when the aggressor leaves, the
Decena, however, stabbed him on the right
aggression ceases. It follows that when
chest causing his death.
appellant and Jaime heeded the advice of the
Narration of the defense: barangay tanod, the unlawful aggression had
ended. Since the aggression no longer existed,
At about 4pm, the victim was drunk and for no
appellant had no right to kill or even wound the
apparent reason, he held the appellant by the
former aggressor.
neck and poked a fork against it. A barangay
tanod intervened and advised the appellant to The defense failed to establish that the victim
go home. Appellant left but was later followed persisted in his design to attack the appellant
by Jaime (victim).
Defense: continuing aggression
Biala, uncle of the appellant, testified that he
Whenever the victim was drunk, he would look
saw Jaime attacking the appellant with a
for trouble (refuted by the testimony of the
balisong. Appellant was able to parry the blow,
wife)
The shot that took his life was on the left side of
the chest penetrating the heart.
Witnesses: Jaime was staggering or wobbling as
he walked the victim could not have persisted
in attacking the appellant with his current state.
dela Cruz had no license to carry the firearm.
Testimony of the uncle: imaginative or coached
witness Issue: W/0 the accused is able to prove to
the court the elements of self defense in order
to e tenuate him from the crime.
PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ

accused-appellant. Held: No.

G.R. No. 128359, 6 December 2000 Ratio:

Facts: Three conditions must concur to e tenuate


him:
dela Cruz and San Antonio were currently
living together when Macapagal (victim, San 3. unlawful aggression by the person injured or
Antonios ex live in partner" went to their killed
apartment, holding a gun (.35 caliber pistol"
and banged the door of the bedroom ahere presuppose an actual, sudden, and unexpected
dela Cruz was demanding him to go out attack or imminent danger on the life and limb
of a person 5 not a mere threatening or
dela Cruz opened the door, and upon seeing intimidating attitude but most importantly at
that Macapagal was pointing the gun at him, he the time the defensive action was taken against
immediately went back' to the room and closed the aggressor.
the door.

the next time he went out, he, too, was
already holding a gun (.35 caliber revolver). -In this case, the victim banged at the bedroom
door with his gun but the appellant, upon
he two immediately grappled each other and seeing the victim pointing a gun at him was able
not long after, shots were heard and Macapagal to prevent at this stage harm to himself by
fell dead on the floor. promptly closing the door.

He could have stopped there. Instead, he


Appellant told San Antonio to call the police
confronted the victim. .
and when they arrive, he surrendered the gun
he used and told the police that he shot Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
Macapagal in self defense. prevent or repel that unlawful aggression

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.

Amado Capina died a few minutes after.


Barrio lieutenant, Casimiro Lozada was there
FACTS: and Avelina surrendered herself. Lozada
advised the Jaurigues to go home immediately
Avelina Jaurigue and Nicolas Jaurigue, for fear of retaliation of Capinas relatives.
her father, were prosecuted for the crime of
murder for which Nicolas was acquitted while
Avelina was found guilty of homicide. She EVENTS PRIOR:
appealed to the Court of Appeals for Southern
Luzon on June 10, 1944 to completely absolve One month before that fatal night,
her of all criminal responsibility for having acted Amado Capina snatched Avelinas handkerchief
in defense of her honor, to find in her favour bearing her nickname while it was washed by
additional mitigating circumstances and omit her cousin, Josefa Tapay.
aggravating circumstance.
7 days prior to incident (September 13,
At about 8:00 PM of September 20, 1942), Amado approached her and professed
1942, Amado Capina, deceased victim, went to his love for her which was refused, and
the chapel of Seventh Day Adventists to attend thereupon suddenly embraced and kissed her
religious services and sat at the front bench and touched her breasts. She then slapped him,
facing the altar. Avelina Jaurigue entered the gave him fist blows and kicked him. She
chapel shortly after the arrival of her father for informed her matter about it and since then,
the same purpose and sat on the bench next to
she armed herself with a long fan knife be an attempt to rape. To provide for a
whenever she went out. justifying circumstance of self-defense, there
must be a) Unlawful aggression, b) Reasonable
2 days after (September 15, 1942), necessity of the means employed to prevent or
Amado climbed up the house of Avelina and repel it, c) Lack of sufficient provocation on the
entered the room where she was sleeping. She part of the person defending himself. Attempt
felt her forehead and she immediately to rape is an unlawful aggression. However,
screamed for help which awakened her parents under the circumstances of the offense, there
and brought them to her side. Amado came out was no possibility of the defendant to be raped
from where he had hidden and kissed the hand as they were inside the chapel lighted with
of Avelinas father, Nicolas. electric lights and contained several people.
Thrusting at the base of Capinos neck as her
Avelina received information in the means to repel aggression is not reasonable but
morning and again at 5:00 PM on the day of the is instead, excessive.
incident (September 20, 1942) that Amado had
been falsely boasting in the neighbourhood of Mitigating circumstances are
having taken liberties with her person. In the considered in her favour. Circumstances include
evening, Amado had been courting the latter in her voluntary and unconditional surrender to
vain. the barrio lieutenant, provocation from the
deceased which produced temporary loss of
reason and self-control of the defendant and
ISSUES: lack of intent to kill the deceased evidenced by
infliction of only one single wound.
Whether or not the defendant should
be completely absolved of all criminal Aggravating circumstance of having
responsibility because she is justified in having committed offense in a sacred place is not
acted in the legitimate defense of her honor. sustained as there is no evidence that the
defendant had intended to murder the
Whether or not the Court should find deceased when she entered the chapel that
the additional mitigating circumstances of night. She killed under great provocation.
voluntary surrender, presence of provocation
and absence of intent in her favour

Whether or not committing said offense


in a sacred place is an aggravating circumstance People vs. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389 (1983)
in this case FACTS: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of
murder (qualified by treachery) of David
Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22,
HELD: 1968, Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during

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.

Although is not in dispute, the victim was not in


At the time of the shooting, the civil case was the position to subscribe to the article because
still pending for annulment (settlers wanted his ownership of the land being awarded by the
granting of property to Fleisher and Co. to be government was still pending, therefore putting
annulled). At time of the shooting, defendant ownership into question. It is accepted that the
had leased his property from Fleisher (though victim was the original aggressor.
case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid
trouble. On June 25, defendant received letter
terminating contract because he allegedly didn't 2. WON the court erred in convicting
pay rent. defendant-appellant although he acted in
defence of his rights.
He was given 6 months to remove his house
from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months
after letter. Defendant claims he killed in
defense of his person and property. CFI ruled Yes. However, the argument of the justifying
that circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if
the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC
Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating circumstances enumerates these requisites:
of evident premeditation offset by the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there
For both murders, CFI sentenced him to was unlawful aggression towards appellant's
reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs, and property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6
to pay for moral damages. months and he should have left him in peace
before time was up, instead of chiseling
Narvaez's house and putting up fence. Art. 536
of the Civil Code also provides that possession
ISSUES:
may not be acquired through force or
1. Whether or not CFI erred in convicting intimidation; while Art. 539 provides that every
defendant-appellant despite the fact that he possessor has the right to be respected in his
acted in defense of his person. possession
Reasonable necessity of means employed to -Appellant Dagani Javier while Santiano shot
prevent or repel attack. In the case, killing was Javier twice at his left side, killing the latter.
disproportionate to the attack.
-Appellants said that they were ordered by their
Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person desk officer to investigate a commotion at the
defending himself. Here, there was no canteen.
provocation at all since he was asleep
- That Dagani approached Javier who had been
Since not all requisites present, defendant is striking a bottle of beer on the table. Javier then
credited with the special mitigating pulled out a .22 caliber revolver and attempted
circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to fire at Dagani, but the gun failed to go off.
to Art. 13(6) RPC. These mitigating
-Then suddenly, while outside the canteen,
circumstances are: voluntary surrender and
Santiano heard gunfire and, from his vantage
passion and obfuscation (read p. 405
point, he saw Javier and Dagani grappling for a
explanation) Crime is homicide (2 counts) not
.22 caliber gun which belonged to Javier.
murder because treachery is not applicable on
account of provocation by the deceased. Also, -
assault was not deliberately chosen with view
to kill since slayer acted instantaneously. There During the course of the struggle, the gun went
was also no direct evidence of planning or off, forcing Santiano to fire a warning shot
preparation to kill. Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for -
homicide is reclusion temporal. However, due
to mitigating circumstances and incomplete He
defense, it can be lowered three degrees (Art. heard Javiers gun fire again, so he decided to
64) to arrestomayor. rush into the canteen. Santiano then shot Javier
from a distance of less than four meters.

People vs Dagani Angel - Appellants invoked the justifying


circumstances of self-defense and lawful
Facts: performance of official duty as PNR security
- officers.

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

- in grappling for the weapon, Dagani


-
controlled the hands of Javier andpushed
them away from his body; Hence, necessary review of Supreme Court
- appellants failed to produce the two empty -
shells as physical evidence of the gunfire
allegedly caused by Javier; Appellants say that RTC and CA erred in not
APPRECIATING SELF DEFENSE, LAWFUL
- no points of entry or bullet markings on the PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL DUTY, unable
walls of the canteen were shown to CONSPIRACY, thus fail to establish Guilt
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT SC Ruling:
- no unlawful aggression was present on the
part of the victim -
- Murder was reduced to homicide absence
proof of treachery. Conspiracy between
appellants failed to prove that they were on
accused was dissolved absence proof. Self-
official duty at the time of the incidence
defense and performance of official duty cannot
- be invoked as justifying circumstance Ratio: On
self defense: The defense was unable to prove
since it was not established that Javier actually
that there was unlawful aggression on the part
fired his gun, the injury inflicted upon him
of Javier. They were unable to present evidence
cannot be regarded as a necessary consequence
that the victim actually fired his gun. No spent
of the due performance of an official duty;
shells from the .22 caliber pistol were found
- and no bullets were recovered from the scene
of the incident. Javier also tested negative for
appellants were acting in conspiracy; gunpowder residue.
- Moreover, the trial court found appellant
on the issue of treachery, it is clear that Javier Daganis account of
had been shot while his hands were being held the incident to be incredible and self-serving. In
by Dagani and his body was out of balance and sum, the defense presented a bare claim of self-
about to fall; and that the mitigating defense without any proof of the existence of
circumstance its requisites.
- [15]
RTC considered mitigating circumstance due to
voluntary surrender and penalty was reduced to
reclusion -

- danger to their lives had already ceased the


moment Dagani held down the victim and
CA affirmed decision of RTC with slight grappled for the gun with the latter. After the
modification. Appellants were sentenced to
victim had been thrown off-balance, there was capriciously nor oppressively, but within
no longer any unlawful aggression reasonable limits.

- The prosecution did not establish that the act


of Dagani in trying to wrestle the gun from
Javierand in the process, held the latters hands,
- was for the purpose of enabling Santiano to
shoot at
Santiano went beyond the call of self-
preservation when he proceeded to inflict the Javier
excessive and fatal injuries on Javier,
- Dagani "seem[ed] to be shocked, he was
- standing and looking at the victim" as Javier
gradually fell to the ground
Means that are reasonable and necessary were
not satisfied to invoke self defense. Considering - It must be resolved in favor of the accused
the circumstances in its entirety.

It does not justify appellant Santianos

act of fatally shooting the victim twice.

[26]

- Regarding exercise of lawful duty as justifying,


Two requisites must concur before this defense
can prosper: 1) the accused must have acted in RUJJERIC Z. PALAGANAS,
the performance of a duty or in the lawful
petitioner,vs.
exercise of a right or office; and 2) the injury
caused or the offense committed should have PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
been the necessary consequence of such lawful
exercise. respondent

[31] G.R. No. 165483 September 12, 2006

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.

The defendants shifted the responsibility of


killing in their version of the case. PEOPLE VS NORMA HERNANDEZ

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines

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.

Appellant has the privilege to reconsider her


previous commitment to marry and it would be
Appellant said she felt torture because she
utterly inconsistent to convict her for slander by
wasnt honestly in love with Vivencio and so she
deed simply because she desisted in continuing
decided to leave home as last recourse to
with the marriage.
prevent the marriage.

Appellants parents also corroborated her


testimony. If she would be liable then that would be
tantamount to compelling her to go into a
marriage without her free consent.
RTC convicted her of serious slander by deed
because she purposely and deliberately fled to
prevent celebration of marriage. Thus, she Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the
appealed. evil of going through a loveless marriage. (Art.
11 par.4, RPC)

HELD:
IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY

Court reversed the RTC judgment and acquitted


the appellant. PEOPLE VS DE LIMA

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.

Another prisoner, Mariano Ibaez stated that


Held:
Epifanio Labong did not answer their call so
Ignacio Lagata ordered to go look for him in the
mountain. He said that Abria went to the
The killing was done in the performance of a
camote plantation and found footprints and
duty. The deceased was under the obligation to
called on Lagata to inform him about the
surrender, and had no right, after evading
footprints. When Abria told Lagata of the
service of his sentence, to commit assault and
flattened grass and that he was unable to look
disobedience with a weapon in the hand, which
for Labong, Ignacio
compelled the policeman to resort to such an
extreme means, which, although it proved to be Lagata fired at him and he was hit on his left
fatal, was justified by the circumstances. arm. Abria told Lagata he was wounded and in
(People vs. Delima, G.R. No. L-18660, December turn, Lagata told them to assemble. Once they
22, 1922) were assembled, Lagata cocked his gun and
shot Ceferino Tipace. Mariano said that when
he saw Tipace was shot, he ran away because
PEOPLE VS LAGATA he also could have been shot.

FACTS: Eustaquio Galet, another detainee, received


good treatment from Lagata though his
The accused, Ignacio Lagata, a provincial guard testimony corroborated those of the other
of Catbalogan, Samar, was in charge of 6 prisoners.
prisoners (Jesus, Tipace, Eusebio, Mariano,
Labong & Abria) assigned to work in the capitol Pedro Mayuga, chief of Samar Provincial
plaza of Samar. Hospital &
Gilberto Rosales, Sanitary Division president, Even if Lagata sincerely believed that he acted
verified the gunshot wound and that the death in the performance of his duties, the
of Tipace resulted therein. circumstances show that there was no necessity
for him to fire directly against the prisoners as
to wound them seriously and even kill one of
Ignacio Lagata, however, said that he fired his them.
gun because the prisoners were running far
from him when he already ordered them to
stop. He said that he would be the one in jail if While custodians should take care for prisoners
a prisoner escaped under his custody. not to escape, only ABSOLUTE NECESSITY would
authorize them to fire against them.

Furthermore, he would be discharged from duty


like the others. He was hopeless already. MAMANGUN VS PEOPLE
Moreover, the picking up of gabi was not part of
FACTS:
the prisoners work.
Policeman (PO2) Rufino Mamangun was
responding to a robbery-holdup call, with his
HELD: fellow police officers, at Brgy. Calvario,
Meycauayan, Bulacan. A certain Liberty
Contreras was heard shouting, which prompted
Court ruled that Lagata should be sentenced for residents to respond and chase the suspect,
homicide and serious physical injuries. who entered the yard and proceeded to the
rooftop of Antonio Abacan. Mamangun, with
Appellant was entitled to the benefit of PO2 Diaz and Cruz, each armed with a drawn
mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying handgun, searched the rooftop and saw a man
circumstance. (Art.11 par.5, RPC) who they thought was the robbery suspect.
RATIO: Mamangun, who was ahead of the group, fired
his gun once and hit the man, who turned out
to be Gener Contreras (not the suspect)
It was clear that Lagata had absolutely no Contreras died of the gunshot wound.
reason to fire at Tipace. The record does not
show that Tipace was bent on committing any
act of aggression or that he attempted to According to the lone witness Crisanto Ayson,
escape. he accompanied the policemen to the lighted
rooftop. He was beside Mamangun when he
(Ayson) recognized the deceased. According to
According to Lagata himself, Tipace was running Ayson, Mamangun pointed his gun at the man,
towards and around him. How could anyone who instantly exclaimed Hindi ako, hindi ako!
intending to escape run towards and around to which Mamangun replied, Anong hindi
the very guard one was supposed to escape ako? and shot him.
from?
The defense rejects this testimony, alleging that After supposed introductions and forewarnings
they were the only ones at the dark rooftop uttered allegedly by Mamangun, it is contrary to
when Mamangun noticed a crouching man who human experience for a man (who is not the
suddenly continued to run. Mamangun shouted suspect) to attack one of three policemen with
Pulis, tigil! whereupon the person stopped drawn guns
and raised a steel pipe towards Mamanguns
Mamanguns admission that he did not ask the
head. This prompted Mamangun to shoot the
victim Why did you try to hit me, if you are not
person. The three police claim that Contreras
the one? clearly belies their claim
only said Hindi ako, hindi ako only when they
approached him. Mamangun then asked Why The location of the entry of bullet belies their
did you go to the rooftop? You know there are claim because it appears that the victim
policemen here. Mamangun reported the instinctively shielded himself instead
incident to the desk officer who directed
investigator Hernando Banez to investigate the Additionally, petitioners pretense that
incident. Banez later on found a steel pipe on Contreras struck him was not initially reported
the roof. to the desk and was only conveniently
remembered when the investigator found a
pipe in the crime scene.

Acts in the fulfillment of duty and self-defense


does not completely justify the petitioners
Issue:
firing the fatal gunshot. The element of
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim
was absent, which leads to the failure of the
W/N the death of the victim was the necessary
petitioners plea. Also, there can only be
consequence of the petitioners fulfillment of
incomplete justification (a privileged mitigating
his duty
circumstance) in the absence of a necessary
justifying circumstance the injury was caused by
necessary consequence of due performance of
duty.
Held:

RTC nonetheless find them guilty beyond


No. The Court denies the instant petition and reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with
affirms Sandiganbayans decision after finding the presence of the mitigating circumstance of
the petitioners testimony to be nothing but a voluntary surrender and granting them the
concocted story designed to evade criminal benefit of [the] Indeterminate Sentence Law
liability. Per Sandiganbayans observations, the -
defense was self-serving for the accused and
biased with respect to his co-policemen-
witnesses because:
RTC is convinced about the judgment because:
-appellants failed to prove that Javier -Appellants say that RTC and CA erred in not
attempted to squeeze the trigger of the .22
APPRECIATING SELF DEFENSE, LAWFUL
caliber gun when he pointed it at Dagani
PERFORMANCE OF AN OFFICIAL DUTY, unable
-that during the course of the struggle for the to CONSPIRACY, thus fail to establish Guilt
possession of the .22 caliber gun, the danger to BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
the life of the accused ceased to be imminent
SC Ruling:
-in grappling for the weapon, Dagani
- Murder was reduced to homicide absence
controlled the hands of
proof of treachery. Conspiracy between
Javier and pushed them away from his body; accused was dissolved absence proof. Self-
defense and performance of official duty cannot
-appellants failed to produce the two empty
be invoked as justifying circumstance Ratio: On
shells as physical evidence of the gunfire
self defense:
allegedly caused by Javier;
The defense was unable to prove that there was
-no points of entry or bullet markings on the
unlawful aggression on the part of Javier. They
walls of the canteen were shown
were unable to present evidence that the
-no unlawful aggression was present on the victim actually fired his gun. No spent shells
part of the victim from the .22 caliber pistol were found and no
bullets were recovered from the scene of the
-appellants failed to prove that they were on incident. Javier also tested negative for
official duty at the time of the incidence gunpowder residue. Moreover, the trial court
-since it was not established that Javier actually found
fired his gun, the injury inflicted upon him appellant Daganis account of the incident to be
cannot be regarded as a necessary consequence incredible and self
of the due performance of an official duty;
-serving. In sum, the defense presented a bare
-appellants were acting in conspiracy; claim of self-defense without any proof of the
-on the issue of treachery, it is clear that Javier existence of its requisites.
had been shot while his hands were being held [15]
by Dagani and his body was out of balance and
about to fall; and that the mitigating
circumstance
-danger to their lives had already ceased the
- moment Dagani held down the victim and
grappled for the gun with the latter. After the
victim had been thrown off-balance, there was
-CA affirmed decision of RTC with slight no longer any unlawful aggression
modification. Appellants were sentenced -Santiano went beyond the call of self-
toreclusion perpetua preservation when he proceeded to inflict the
excessive and fatal injuries on Javier,

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:

It does not justify appellant

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.

Two years thereafter, Beronilla, along with the


OBEDIENCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER OF A executioner, digger and jury, were indicted for
SUPERIOR the murder of Borjal. Soon after, President
Manuel Roxas issued Executive Proclamation 8,
which granted amnesty to persons who
committed acts in furtherance of the resistance
PEOPLE VS BERONILLA
to the enemy against persons aiding in the war
efforts of the enemy.
Criminal intent then could not be established.
The maxim here is actus non facit reum, nisi
The rest of defendants applied and were
mens rea (Crime is not committed if the mind of
granted amnesty, but Beronilla and others were
the person performing the act complained of to
convicted on the grounds that the crime was
be innocent).
made on purely personal motives and that the
crime was committed after the expiration of
time limit for amnesty proclamation.
Additionally, the lower court should not have
denied their claim to the benefits of the Guerilla
Amnesty Proclamation No. 8 inspite of
Issue: W/N the defendant-appellants actions
contradictory dates of liberation of La Paz, Abra.
are covered by justifying circumstances for
Even if the dates were contradictory, the court
obedience to lawful order of superior
should have found for the Beronila, et al
because if there are any reasonable doubt as
to whether a given case falls within the
Held: (amnesty) proclamation should be resolved in
favor of the accused.

Yes. The accused acted upon orders of their


superior officers, which as military Judgement reversed, appellants acquitted.
subordinates, they could not question and
obeyed in good faith without the being aware
of its illegality.
TABUENA VS SANDIGANBAYAN

The evidence is sufficient to sustain the claim of


the defense that arrest, prosecution and trial of
Borjal was done in pursuant to express orders Facts:
of superiors. Additionally, it could not be
established that Beronilla received the
radiogram from Colonel Volckmann, overall Through their separate petitions for review, Luis
area commander, which called attention to the A. Tabuena and Adolfo M. Peralta appeal the
illegality of Borjals conviction and sentence. Sandiganbayan decision dated October 12,
Had Beronilla known the violation, he would 1990, as well as the Resolution dated December
not have dared to report it to Arnold. The 20. 1991 denying reconsideration, convicting
conduct of the accused also does not show them of malversation under Article 217 of the
malice on their part because of the conduct of Revised Penal Code.
the trial, defense through counsel given to
Borjal, suspension of trial based on doubts of
illegality and death sentence review sent to the There were three (3) criminal cases filed (nos.
superior officers. 11758, 11759 and 11760) since the total
amount of P55 Million was taken on three (3)
separate dates of January, 1986. Tabuena
appears as the principal accused he being appreciated in absolving the appellants in the
charged in all three (3) cases. crime charged?

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.

In obedience to President Marcos' verbal


instruction and memorandum, Tabuena, with
the help of Dabao and Peralta, caused the
release of P55 Million of MIAA funds by means
of three (3) withdrawals (January 10, 16 and 31,
1986).

The disbursement of the P55 Million was, as


described by Tabuena and Peralta themselves,
"out of the ordinary" and "not based on the
normal procedure". With the rejection by the
Sandiganbayan of their claim of good faith
which ultimately led to their conviction,
Tabuena and Peralta now set forth a total of ten
(10) errors committed by the Sandiganbayan for
this Court's consideration.

Issue: Whether or not the justifying


circumstance of obedience to a lawful order be

You might also like