People vs Gonzales

G.R. No. 80762 March 19, 1990

 Bartolome Paja, the barangay captain of Barangay Tipacla, Ajuy, Iloilo, was awakened from his
sleep by the spouses Augusto and Fausta Gonzales
 Augusto informed Paja that his wife had just killed their landlord, Lloyd Peñacerrada, and thus
would like to surrender to the authorities.
 When arraigned, Augusto and Fausta both entered a plea of not guilty.
 Jose Huntoria, the witness for the prosecution, while when he was some 15 to 20 meters away,
he hid himself behind a clump of banana trees and allegedly saw all the accused ganging upon
and takings turns in stabbing and hacking the victim Lloyd Peñacerrada, near a "linasan" or
threshing platform. He said he clearly recognized all the accused as the place was then awash in
moonlight.
 Except Fausta who admitted killing Lloyd Peñacerrada in defense of her honor as the deceased
attempted to rape her, all the accused denied participation in the crime.
 The Regional Trial Court of Iloilo found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder
 The CA rendered a decision on the appeal of Custodio Gonzales, Sr. It modified the appealed
decision in that the lone appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
 He claimed that he was asleep in his house which was located some one kilometer away from
the scene of the crime when the incident happened. He asserted that he only came to know of it
after his grandchildren by Augusto and Fausta Gonzales went to his house that night to inform
him
 Issue: Whether Custodio Gonzales, Sr. is guilty of murder.
 Ruling: No. The guilt of the appellant has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 From his very testimony, Huntoria failed to impute a definite and specific act committed, or
contributed, by the appellant in the killing of Lloyd Peñacerrada.
 It also bears stressing that there is nothing in the findings of the trial court and of the Court of
Appeals which would categorize the criminal liability of the appellant as a principal by direct
participation under Article 17, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
 Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides how criminal liability is incurred.
 Art. 4. Criminal liability — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
 Thus, one of the means by which criminal liability is incurred is through the commission of a
felony. Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, provides how felonies are
committed.
 Art. 3. Definition — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
 Thus, the elements of felonies in general are: (1) there must be an act or omission; (2) the act or
omission must be punishable under the Revised Penal Code; and (3) the act is performed or the
omission incurred by means of deceit or fault.
 It has been said that "act," as used in Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, must be understood as
"any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world." In this instance,
there must therefore be shown an "act" committed by the appellant which would have inflicted
any harm to the body of the victim that produced his death.
 Huntoria admitted quite candidly that he did not see who "stabbed" or who "hacked" the victim.
This lack of specificity then makes the case fall short of the test laid down by Article 3 of the
Revised Penal Code previously discussed.
People vs Puno
G.R. No. 97471 February 17, 1993

 An Information was filed against Isabelo Puno and Enrique Amurao for kidnapping for ransom
 The accused Isabelo Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband (who was
then away in Davao purportedly on account of local election there) arrived at the bakeshop
called Nika Cakes and Pastries which is owned by Mrs. Sarmiento.
 Mrs. Socorro's time to go home to Valle Verde in Pasig came and so she got into the Mercedes
Benz of her husband with Isabelo on the wheel. On the way, the car stopped and the accused
Enrique Amurao, boarded the car beside the driver.
 Isabelo, who earlier told her that Enrique is his nephew, announced that he wants to get money
from Mrs. Sarmiento
 Mrs. Sarmiento gave them the cash amounting to P7,000 and issued 3 checks totalling P100,000
 The car sped off north towards the North superhighway. Ma. Socorro, according to her, jumped
out of the car and she was able to flag down a fish vendor’s van.
 On reaching Balintawak, Ma. Socorro reported the matter to CAPCOM
 The RTC of Quezon City found them guilty of robbery with extortion committed on a highway,
punishable under Presidential Decree No. 532
 Issue: Whether the accused are guilty of kidnapping for ransom, or highway robbery.
 Ruling: No.
 It is worth recalling an accepted tenet in criminal law that in the determination of the crime for
which the accused should be held liable in those instances where his acts partake of the nature
of variant offenses, and the same holds true with regard to the modifying or qualifying
circumstances thereof, his motive and specific intent in perpetrating the acts complained of are
invaluable aids in arriving at a correct appreciation and accurate conclusion thereon
 In the case at bar, there is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive, nurtured
prior to or at the time they committed the wrongful acts against complainant, other than the
extortion of money from her under the compulsion of threats or intimidation.
 With respect to the specific intent of appellants vis-a-vis the charge that they had kidnapped the
victim, we can rely on the proverbial rule of ancient respectability that for this crime to exist,
there must be indubitable proof that he actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive the
offended party of her liberty, and not where such restraint of her freedom of action was merely
an incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended by the offenders.
 That appellants in this case had no intention whatsoever to kidnap or deprive the complainant
of her personal liberty
 Neither can we consider the amounts given to appellants as equivalent to or in the nature of
ransom. These were merely amounts involuntarily surrendered by the victim upon the occasion
of a robbery.
 The purpose of brigandage is indiscriminate highway robbery. Presidential Decree No. 532
punishes as highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws
indiscriminately against any person or persons on Philippine highways as defined therein, and
not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular victim.
 If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if there
are at least four armed participants.
 Accordingly, we hold that the offense committed by appellants is simple robbery defined in
Article 293 and punished under Paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code with
prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period.
US vs De Los Reyes
G.R. No. 504 September 16, 1902

 Defendant TOMASA DE LOS REYES was married to Julian Gonzalez, the complaining witness, in
Manila, May 27, 1897
 On July 12, 1900, Tomasa was married in Manila by a Protestant clergyman to Ramon Martinez
 After their separation in July, 1898, she testifies that some time during the year following the
separation she was told by the mother of Gonzalez that she had been informed that her son was
dead. She says that she contracted the second marriage with the consent of the mother of
Gonzalez, and believing that the information which she had received from her as to the death of
Gonzalez was true. The mother of Gonzalez died before the trial.
 Julian Gonzales filed a complaint for bigamy under article 471 of the Penal Code.
 Issue: Whether Tomasa was guilty of the crime of bigamy.
 Ruling: No.
 On the whole, we have reached the conclusion, though not without some hesitation, that the
story told by the defendant is in the main more likely to be true than false, and that she
probably did contract the second marriage under a bona fide belief that the first marriage had
been dissolved by the death of Gonzalez.
 There can be no conviction where, by reason of a mistake of fact, the intention to commit the
crime does not exist
 We are, however, of the opinion that the defendant is chargeable with criminal negligence in
contracting the second marriage, and should have been convicted under article 568 of the Penal
Code.
 It does not appear that she made any attempt to ascertain for herself whether the information
received by her mother-in-law as to the death of Gonzalez was to be relied upon.