1.

Aberratio Ictus - Mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to
do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another.

Case: People of the Philippines v Mabug-At

Facts:

The accused, Ramon Mabug-At, is the sweetheart of Juana Buralo. Juana

had been jealous of the accused on account of the latter having frequently visited
the house of one Carmen. On the afternoon of August 9, 1925, Ramon invited
Juana to take a walk which Juana later refused. On the night of August 11,
Ramon, with a revolver in hand, went to Cirilo Banyan’s house wherein Juana
had gone to take devotion and asked Francisco Abellon to ask Juana to go
downstairs in which Francisco refused to do. Angered, Ramon threatened to go
upstairs and get Juana himself and dares to kill anyone who defends her.

When Juana and her niece Perfecta Buralo went in the direction of their
house, Ramon, the accused, waited until they came downstairs Cirilo’s house.
When the two girls arrived at their house, standing at the foot of the stairway,
while the two girls were going upstairs, Ramon fired a shot from his revolver
which wounded Perfecta Buralo, the bullet passed through a part of her neck,
having entered the posterior region thereof and coming out through her left eye,
which was completely destroyed. Due to proper medical attention, Perfecta
Buralo did not die and later testified at the trial of this case.

Issue:

Whether or not Ramon should be liable for the crime he committed even if it
was Perfecta who got injured instead of Juana, who he intended to shoot.
Held:

Yes. Ramon is still liable for the crime he commited even if it was Perfecta
who got injured instead of Juana, who he intended to shoot. The intent to kill was
manifested by the action of Ramon in discharging his firearn, and he has
performed all the acts of execution, which would have produced the crime of
murder but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
independent of his will and instead of Juana, Perfecta was shot instead. Although
there is a mistake in blow or aberratio ictus in this case through a lack of precision
on the part of the accused, still he is criminally liable for his actions under the
Revised Penal Code.

2. Absenti Nemo Ne Ne Cuisse Velit - Let no one be willing to speak ill of the
absent.

3. Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus - An act done by me against
my will is not my act.

Case: People of thePhilippines v Del Rosario y Pascual

Facts:

Accused Joselito del Rosario, at around 5:30 in the afternoon, was hired for
P120.00 by a certain "Boy" Santos. Del Rosario was instructed to drive Santos to
a cockpit at the Bias Edward Coliseum. However despite their earlier
arrangement Santos directed him to proceed to the market place to fetch "Jun"
Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya, to which del Rosario followed. Marquez and
Bisaya boarded in front of the parking lot of a public market. Subsequently, del
Rosario was asked to proceed and stop at the corner of Burgos and General
Luna Sts. where Bisaya alighted on the pretext of buying a cigarette. Bisaya then
approached Virginia Bernas, the victim, and wrestled with her for the possession
of her bag. Jun Marquez went to help Bisaya. After seeing such incident,del
Rosario tried to leave and seek help but Santos who was inside the tricycle
prevented him from leaving and threatened to shoot him. After Bisaya
successfully taken the victim’s bag he shot her. Del Rosario was then instructed
to drive the tricyle away from the crime scene. Upon arriving at their destinatio,
Dicarma, the three men warned del Rosario to not inform the authorities about
what happened and threatened to kill him and his family if he reports. With fear,
del Rosario did not report he matter to any police authorities. After being caught,
along with the other men, del Rosario was sentenced to death.

Issue:
Whether or not del Rosario, which has not acted according to his own volition
due to imminent force, be liable for conspiracy with the three other men who
committed the crimes of robbery and homicide.

Held:
No. Del Rosario is not liable for the crimes of robbery and homicide. Under
Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus which means that an act done by me
against my will is not my act, del Rosario, having acted upon the control of an
unctrollable fear did not conspire with the three other men in committing
aforementioned crimes.

4. Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea - The act does not make a person
criminal unless his mind be criminal.

Case: People of the Philippines v Ojeda

Facts:

This is a case for estafa and violation of BP 22. Cora Ojeda, accused, used to
buy fabrics from Ruby Chua. On November 5, 1983, appellant purchased from
Chua various fabrics and textile materials worth P228,306 for which she issued
22 postdated checks bearing different dates and amounts. When the checks
were presented for payment, they were dishonored due to “account closed”.
Criminal charges were lodged against Ojeda. In defense, Ojeda claims good faith,
absence of deceit, lack of notice of dishonor and full payment of the amount of
the checks. Furthermore, Ojeda claims she advised Chua not to cash the checks
because they were not yet sufficiently funded. Finally, she claims she made
partial payments worth 50,000 pesos in the form of finished garments. The trial
court convicted her but only for 14 counts out of 22 bouncing checks issued. This
was because some checks were not covered by the indictment and others were
not signed by her but by her husband.

Issue:

Whether or not the defense of Ojeda for absence of deceit is tenable.

Held:

Yes. Under Art. 315 of the RPC the following are the requisites for estafa: first,
a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time
it is issued; second, lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; third,
damage to the payee thereof. Deceit and damage are essential elements of the
offense and must be established by satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.
Deceit was not proven by the prosecution. In fact, Ojeda not only made
arrangements for the payment of the debts but also paid, during the pendency of
the appeal an affidavit of desistance was introduced by Ojeda and is a sign of
good faith and absence of malice – an essential element of estafa and crimes
under the RPC which are mala in se. Thus, Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit
Rea which means that an act does not make a person criminal unless his mind be
criminal.

5. Animus Manendi - Intention to remain.

6. Animus Revertendi - Intention to return.

Case: IN RE: Petition for Admission to be a Citizen of the Philippines.

ANANDRAM VALIRAM DARGANI, petitioner-appellant v.REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellee

Facts:

Petitioner, Anandram Dargani, a citizen of India, came to the Philippines in

June 1936 and left for India in 1941. In 1947 he returned to the Philippines. On
July 13, 1952 he filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines and on July 15, 1955 he filed his application for naturalization.
Petitioner alleges in his petition that he returned to the Philippines in 1947 soon
after the resumption of the maritime transportation between the Philippines and
India, and he states in his brief that he was unable to return to the Philippines
from 1941 to 1947, because of the outbreak of World War II. Witnesses Josefina
Floresca and Antonio Rillera testified that they have personally known the
petitioner as a student since 1936 and since his return to the Philippines. Though
petitioner lived in the Philippines for many years, the government of the
Philippines denied his petition. Petitioner's claim that actual physical presence is
not required everyday of the statutory period is correct. Where there is "animus
revertendi" or intention to return, there may be a temporary absence which may
not be considered as breaking the continuity of the applicant's residence.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner’s animus revertendi to the Philippines was

manifested by his actions.

Held:

No. The government of the Philippines see no record on the petitioner’s

behalf on his intention to return to the Philippines. His absence of six years from
the Philippines is not of a short duration. Petitioner during that period got married
in India and raised his children there. There is no evidence that he left properties
or was engaged personally in business in the Philippines when he left for India in
1941 and was only a salesman in the company of his uncle. His purpose of
leaving the country is not known and there is no evidence that when he left he
had the positive intention to return. We hold that under the above circumstances
his absence for six years from the country has broken the continuity of his
residence. Consequently, the petition is denied because petitioner does not have
the 10-years continuous residence required by law.

7. Caso Fortuito - Fortuitous event.

Case: ERNESTO CANADA, doing business under the name and style of
HI-BALL FREIGHT SERVICES v. ALL COMMODITIES MARKETING
CORPORATION
Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
filed by Ernesto P. Canada, challenging the November 15, 1999 Decision and the
October 11, 2000 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner Ernesto P.
Canada is engaged in business of providing trucking and hauling services under
the name Hi-Ball Freight Services. Respondent All Commodities Marketing
Corporation has been a valued client of petitioner for several years. Respondent
contracted petitioner’s services to haul and deliver one thousand sacks of sugar
from Pier 18, North Harbor in Tondo, Manila to the Pepsi Cola Plant at
Muntinlupa, Metro Manila (now Muntinlupa City), however respondent
complained that no delivery took place and the drivers of the trucks, along with
the helpers, had since vanished into thin air.

Respondent demanded payment of the value of the sugar, but the demand
was not heeded, consequently, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati to recover the value of the lost
sugar.

Petitioner admitted that respondent contracted him to haul and deliver 1,000
sacks of sugar, but denied that the cargo did not reach their destination. He
averred that the cargo were delivered to the Pepsi Cola Plant
in Muntinlupa City on October 27, 1986. He rejected responsibility for the claim
arguing that the loss of the goods was either due to respondents negligence or
due to (caso forfuito) fortuitous event. By way of counterclaim, petitioner asserted
his right to payment of P350,000.00, representing the value of the truck that was
allegedly seized by respondent. In due course, the RTC rendered judgment
against petitioner which was affirmed by the Court of Apepals wherein petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration.

Issue:
 Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding liability against petitioner
and whether petitioner may exculpate himself from liability by insisting that the
incident was a caso fortuito.

Held:

No. Petitioner may exculpate himself from liability by insisting that the incident
was a caso fortuito. The exempting circumstance of caso fortuito may be availed
of only when: (a) the cause of the unforeseen and
unexpected occurrence was independent of the human will; (b) it was
impossible to foresee the event which constituted the caso fortuito or, if it could
be foreseen, it was impossible to avoid; (c) the occurrence must be such as to
render it impossible to perform an obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the
person tasked to perform the obligation must not have participated in any course
of conduct that aggravated the accident. Since none of the elements is present in
the case at bar, and no evidence is offered by petitioner to substantiate his claim.
Thus, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in sustaining the finding
of liability againts herein petitioner.

Submitted to: Atty. Carlo Vincent Gimena

Submitted by: Vanessa Kaye S. Caharian- M7

Legal Profession (Wednesday)

8:00- 9:00 P.M.