CRIM 1: ARTICLE 11 CASE DIGESTS

Vasquez vs. People NO DIGEST

People vs. Olarbe
FACTS
That on or about May 7, 2006 at about 12:00 o'clock midnight, at Sitio Pananim, Municipality of
Luisiana, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery and with the use of a rifle
(airgun) converted to caliber .22 and a bolo, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
shoot and hack one ROMEO ARCA with the said weapons, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot
wound and hacking wounds on the different parts of his body which resulted to (sic) his
instantaneous death, to the damage and. prejudice of his surviving heirs.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
The CA recounted the factual and procedural background of the case in its assailed decision
thusly:
Arraigned, OLARBE initially pled not guilty to the crime charged. Upon re-arraignment, OLARBE
pleaded guilty but subsequently withdrew his plea of guilt and manifested for the presentation of
his defense. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution's diegesis of the case is synthesized as follows:
On 8 May 2006 at around 12:30 o'clock midnight, OLARBE voluntarily surrendered to police
officers SPO2 Vivencio Aliazas, PO3 Ricardo Cruz and PO1 William Cortez at the Police Station
of Luisiana, Laguna. OLARBE informed them that he happened to have killed Romeo Arca (Arca)
in Sitio Pananim, Luisiana, Laguna. Forthwith, OLARBE was booked, arrested and detained at
the police station. Thereafter, the police officers proceeded to the crime scene and found the
lifeless body of Arca with several wounds and the bolo used by OLARBE in killing him. The Death
Certificate revealed that Arca's antecedent cause of death was gunshot wounds and his
immediate cause of death was hacked wounds.
For his part, OLARBE invoked self-defense and avowed -
On the fateful incident, he and his wife Juliet were sleeping in their house in Barangay San
Antonio, Sitio Pananim, Luisiana, Laguna. Suddenly they were awakened by the sound of a
gunshot and shouting from Arca who appeared to be drunk. Arca was holding a rifle (an airgun
converted to a calibre .22) and shouted "mga putang ina ninyo, pagpapatayin ko kayo." Then,
Arca forcibly entered their house and aimed the gun at them. OLARBE immediately grabbed the
gun from him and they grappled for its possession. OLARBE managed to wrest the gun away
from Arca. In a jiff, OLARBE shot Arca causing the latter to lean sideward ("napahilig").
Nevertheless, Arca managed to get his bolo from his waist and continued to attack them. OLARBE
grabbed the bolo and in their struggle for its possession, they reached the outer portion of the
house. OLARBE was able to wrestle the bolo and instantly, he hacked Arca. After the killing
incident, OLARBE voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities.
the RTC pronounced him guilty of murder as charged
the CA affirmed the conviction of Olarbe because the factual findings of the RTC were consistent
with the evidence on record and accorded with human experience; and because treachery had
attended the killing.
ISSUE
In his appellant's brief filed in the CA, Olarbe submitted that it was erroneous to reject his pleas
of self-defense and defense of stranger because he had killed Arca to save himself and his
common-law wife from the latter's unlawful aggression; that his use of the victim's gun and bolo
to repel or stop the unlawful aggression was necessary and reasonable; and that the killing was
consequently legally justified.
The OSG countered that it was Olarbe who had mounted the unlawful aggression against Arca;
and that the latter had been defenseless when Olarbe hacked him to death.
HELD
The appeal has merit.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on March 22,
2016 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07112; ACQUITS accused RODOLFO OLARBE y BALIHANGO on
the grounds of SELF-DEFENSE and DEFENSE OF A STRANGER; DECLARES him NOT
CIVILLY LIABLE to the heirs of the late Romeo Arca; and DIRECTS his IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FROM CONFINEMENT unless he is otherwise legally confined for another cause.
People vs. Regalario (see screenshot digest)
People vs. Fontanilla (see screenshot digest)
Josue vs. People NO DIGEST
Toledo vs. People (HINDI AKO SURE DITO kaya 2 Toledo vs. People lalagay ko haha)
FACTS
The accused Toledo was charged with homicide for the killing of one Ricky Duarte. Toledo insisted
that when he killed the victim, the same was purely accidental. He claimed that the victim was so
drunk that the same charged at the door of his house. This prompted the accused to get his bolo
and when he tried to prevent Ricky from entering, he accidentally hit the latter whereby killing him.
But still the RTC and the Ca found him guilty. And so, the accused goes to the SC wherein this
time, he claims that his actions were purely on self-defense. It was done when the victim attacked
him and in trying to defend himself, he accidentally killed Duarte.
ISSUE
Should the Court find his actions exempting and/or justifying?
HELD
The SC ruled that there is no such thing as accidental self-defense. The accused cannot claim
the death purely accidental and when the findings of the lower courts were unfavorable, later on
change his defense by alleging that what happened was purely self-defense. The two defenses
perpetuated by the accused are totally inconsistent with each other. Although in the justifying
circumstance of self-defense, an accused is excused because of DELIBERATELY trying to repel
an unlawful aggression which could have killed or injure him. And so, such acts are not in tune
with ACCIDENT which presupposes an act which was not even contemplated or planned but
purely accidental.
Toledo vs. People
FACTS
This is a case of homicide against Toledo. Morales and Holgado agreed to a bolo duel over a
parcel of land.Toledo allegedly intervened in the duel that dealt a mortal blow to Morales. Holgado
executed a written testimony that during the duel there is no one present but him and the victim.
ISSUE
Whether or not the statement executed by Holgado (a statement of fact against penal interest) be
admitted as evidence.
HELD
Any man outside of a court and unhampered by the pressure of technical procedure, unreasoned
rules of evidence, and cumulative authority, would say that if a man deliberately acknowledged
himself to be the perpetrator of a crime and exonerated the person charged with the crime, and
there was other evidence indicative of the truthfulness of the statement, the accused man should
not be permitted to go to prison or to the electric chair to expiate a crime he never committed.
The purpose of all evidence is to get at the truth. The reason for the hearsay rule is that the
extrajudicial and unsworn statement of another is not the best method of serving this purpose. In
other words, the great possibility of the fabrication of falsehoods, and the inability to prove their
untruth, requires that the doors be closed to such evidence. So long therefore as a declarant is
available as a witness, his extrajudicial statement should not be heard. Where, however, the
declarant is dead or has disappeared, his previous statements, out of court, if not inadmissible on
other grounds, are the best evidence. But they are not rendered inadmissible by the mere fact
that the declarant is unavailable, — something else is necessary. One fact which will satisfy this
necessity is that the declaration is or was against the declarant's interest, and this is because no
sane person will be presumed to tell a falsehood to his own detriment.
Dela Cruz vs. People NO DIGEST (see fb photos)
Guevarra vs. People NO DIGEST
People vs. Sevillano NO DIGEST
People vs. Genosa
Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 11(1) and Art. 14 of the Revised Penal
Code
FACTS
Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995, attacked and wounded his husband which
ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant, she did not provoke her husband when she
got home that night and it was her husband who began the provocation. The appellant said she
was frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver
her baby safely.
The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five
times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile. The appellant said that the
reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because he was crazy about
his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The appellant, after being interviewed by specialist, has been
shown to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self-defense
admitted the killing of her husband. She was found guilty of the crime of parricide, with the
aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.
ISSUES
(1) Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense.
(2) Whether or not treachery attended the killing.
HELD
For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements of self-defense
arising from battered woman syndrome, to wit: (a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence
must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and
her intimated partner; (b) The final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer
must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her
batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life, and; (c) At the
time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual
– grave harm to the accused based on the history of violence perpetuated by the former against
the latter.
For the second issue, the SC ruled out treachery as an aggravating circumstance because the
quarrel or argument that preceded the killing must have forewarned the victim of the assailant’s
aggression.