MORILLO CRIMINAL LAW DIGEST

1. People v. Mabugat, 51 Phil 967

2. People v. Monleon, No. L-36282, Dec 10, 1976
3. People v. Margen, et al., 85 Phil. 839
4. People v. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004
5. People v. Tamayo, 61 Phil. 226
6. People v. Llobera, G.R. No. 203066, August 5, 2015
 People of the Philippines vs. Ramon Mabug-at (51 Phil. 967)
GR no 25459 | August 10, 1926 | Ponente: Romualdez, J.;

FACTS: Accused Ramon Mabug-at and Juan Buralo were sweethearts however Juana
had been jealous of Ramon because of his frequently visits at the house of Carmen. On
the night of August 11, 1925, Ramon went to the threshold of Cirilos house where
Juana and her niece, Perfecta, had gone to to take part of their devotion. Ramon, with a
revolver in his hand, requested Francisco to ask Juana to come downstairs and if
Francisco refuses to do so, he will get Juana and kill anyone who tries to defend her.
Ramon waited for Juana and Perfecto to came downstairs, as the two girls came,
Ramon fired a shot from his revolver which wounded Perfecta. The bullet passed
through a part of her neck, having entered the posterior region thereof and coming out
of her left eye, which was completely destroyed. Due to proper medical attention,
Perfecta did not die. The CFI of Negros Oriental charged him for committing the crime
of Frustrated murder. Ramon appealed from this judgement stating that the trial court
committed an error in holding the crime he committed is frustrated murder because he
committed a crime for a discharge of firearms, and for not finding proof that Ramon has
intention to kill.

ISSUE: W/N the accused, Ramon Mabug-at, committed frustrated murder and not
discharge of a firearm, with injuries.

HELD: YES, the fact that a person received the shot which was intended for another,
does not alter his criminal responsibility, although the mere act of firing a person is not a
proof per se of intent to kill, yet when the surrounding circumstances of the act are such
that they leave no room for doubt that the intention was to kill the person fired upon the
crime, is not simply discharge of firearm, but homicide or murder as the case may be.
The crime is frustrated murder because the accused, Ramon, having intent to kill and
performed all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of murder but which,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
 People of the Philippines vs. Cosme Monleon (74 SCRA 263)
GR no. L-36282 | December 10, 1976 | Ponente: Aquino, J.;

FACTS: At about 7:00 in the evening of June 1,1970, Accused Cosme Monleon arrived
home drunk and asked his wife, Concordia, whether their carabao had been fed by their
son, Marciano. Concordia assured him but upon checking by Cosme, it was not
adequately fed and he became furious. When he was about to hit Marciano, Corcordia
intervened, thereafter Cosme placed himself astride Corcodias chest, squeezed her
neck, pressed her head against a post and kicked her in the abdomen. The following
morning, Corcordia vomitted blood and thereafter, died due to acute abdomen. On
June 18, 1970, Cosme thumbmarked a confession that he assaulted his wife and that
he repented for the wrong act which he had done to her. The CFI found him guilty of
parricide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and payment of damages. After the
judgement was read to Cosme in open cout, he asked that the penalty be reduced. The
court advise him to appeal if he was not satisfied with the penalty. The Solicitor General
submits that the judgement of conviction should be affirmed but recommends executive
clemency because the penalty of reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive
considering the degree of malic exhibited by Cosme Monleon.

ISSUE: W/N there is sufficient justification for the Solicitor General to recommend
Cosme Monleons case to the Chief Executive for a reduction of penalty.

HELD: YES, the criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he is intended. The maltreatment
inflicted by Cosme on Corcordia was the proximate cause of her death. He was
provoked to castigate his wife because she prevented him from whipping his negligent
son. The trial court did not appreciate any mitigating circumstances in favour of Cosme.
The Solicitor General is correct in finding that the extenuation circumstances of lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong and intoxication which was not habitual are present in
this case. Hence, the penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua but considering that
Cosme had not intention to kill his wife, the penalty of reclusion perpetua appears to be
excessive due to lack of approriate medical attendance. Therefore there is sufficient
justification for the Solicitor General to recommend Cosmes case to the Chief Executive
for a reduction of penalty.
 People of the Philippines vs. Dario Margen (85 Phil. 839)
GR no. L-2681 | March 30, 1950 | Ponente: Reyes, J.;

FACTS: Before 11 March 1944, deceased Diego Testor was asked by one Ponting to
take a quantity of fish to 8 constabulary detachment headed by Accused Sergeant
Margen. Needing for food for his children, Diego traded the fish for camote, and when
he was sent for by Sgt Margen to make him account for his breach of trust, he brought
with him to the barracks a quantity of fish called Kalapion. Irritated by Diegos conduct,
Sgt Margen threw the fish into Diegos face. And then he had Diegos hand tied behind
his back and gave him fist blows. Thereafter, Sgt Margen forced Diego to eat up two of
the Kalapion. In this he was aided by Tarrayo, who shoved the fish into Diegos mouth,
and by Midoranda, who held the loose ends of the rope with which Diegos hand were
tied. After this, Diego was taken to Calbyagog where he died the following day. For the
death of Diego Testor, Margen, Tarrayo and Midoranda were prosecuted for murder but
only Midoranda was tried because the other two had escape.

ISSUE: W/N appellant Andres Midoranda should not be charged with the crime of
murder for following an order of Sgt Margen

HELD: NO, obedience to an order of a superior give rise to exemption from criminal
liability only when the order is for some lawful purpose, in accordance with Article 11 of
the Revised Penal Code. Sgt Margens order to have deceased Diego tortured was not
of that kind. Although Diego may have given offense, but it did not give Sgt Magen the
right to take the law into his own hands and have the offender subjected to inhuman
punishment. The order was illegal, and Andres Midoranda was not bound to obey it.
 People of the Philippines vs. PO3 Ferdinand Fallorina (424 SCRA 655)
GR no. 137347 | March 4, 2004 | Ponente: Callejo, Sr., J,;

FACTS: On 26 September 1998, in Quezon City, Philippines, accused Fallorina, with

intent to kill by means of treachery and taking advantage of superior strength, did and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and employ personal violence
upon Vincent Jorojoro, a minor, by shooting him with a gun, hitting him on the head,
thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wound which was the direct and
immediate cause of his death, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the said
offended party. Upon arraignment, Accused Fallorina pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the
trial ensured and the RTC of Quezon City convicted him of murder for killing an eleven-
year-old child while the latter was flying his kite on top of a roof.

ISSUE: W/N Accused Fallorina may invoke par. 4, Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code to
exempt him from criminal liability.

HELD: NO, the elements of paragraph 4 of Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code are; 1) a
person is performing a lawful act; 2) with due care; 3) he causes an injury to an another
by mere accident; and 4) without any fault or intention of causing it. am accident is an
occurrence that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about
through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences. If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of
negligence. There is no dispute that Accused Fallorina is a policeman and that he used
his service firearm in shooting the victim; however, there is no evidence on record that
he took advantage of his position when he shot the victim. The shooting occurred only
when he saw the victim on the roofdeck playing with his kite.
 People vs. Tamayo (61 Phil 226)
GR no. L-41423 | March 23, 1935 | Ponente: Hull, J;

Facts: Defendant Tamayo was convicted of a crime in violation of Section 2 of

Municipal Ordinance no. 5, series of 1932. However, while his appeal was still pending
at the Court of First Instance, the municipal council have decided to repeal Section 2 of
Municipal Ordinance no. 5, therefore making a legal act of a once illegal act.

Issue: W/N defendant Tamayo may move to dismiss the case?

Ruling: Yes, the repeal made by the municipal council was absolute, and not a re-
enactment and repeal by implication. The legislative intent shown by the action of the
municipal council is that such conduct, formerly denounced, is no longer deemed
criminal. Therefore, defendant Tamayo may move to dismiss the case.
 People of the Philippines vs. Rodelio Llobera (765 SCRA 379)
GR no. 203066 | August 5, 2015 | Ponente: Perez, J.;

FACTS: Accused Rodelio, armed with an improvised shotgun (sumpak) shoot Cristituto
Biona, Jr., hitting his abdomen, inflicting him mortal wound which caused his death.
Upon arraignment, Rodelio pleaded not guilty and the trial ensured. The RTC find him
guilty of murder and did not accept his reason of alibi. Treachery attended the killing of
the victim Cristituto. Upon appeal to the CA, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
but modified the award of damages.

ISSUE: W/N Treachery is present in the crime committed by Accused Rodelio

HELD: YES, treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the
execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. There are two conditions that must occur; a) the employment of means of
execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and
b) the means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted. The
essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim with
no chance to resist or escape. In the case at bar, treachery is evident. The use of a shot
gun against an unarmed victim is undoubtedly treacherous, as it denies the victim the
chance to fend off the offender.