G.R. No.

31268 July 31, 1929

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUARDIANO

MARQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

ROMUALDEZ, J.

FACTS:

This is a case of parricide which the trial court considered sufficiently proven against the
herein appellant, who was sentenced, in consequence, to life imprisonment, the accessories of
law, and a P1,000 indemnify to the heirs of the deceased, with costs.

The defendant admits that he killed his wife, Oliva Sumampong; but he alleges that he
caught her in the act of adultery, and so took her life.

This allegation of the defendant does not agree with his statements before the justice of
the peace during the preliminary investigation. According to both Exhibit B and the testimony of
the justice of the peace who conducted said investigation, the defendant had been fishing on
the night of the crime . . . "and when he came back at midnight the house was closed; he
knocked at the door but his wife did not awake, so he knocked again, but still she slept on;
then he went to the part of the house where his wife usually slept, and knocked on the wall;
she awoke then opened the door; and when he went up, there was a man who jumped out of
the window, and when he asked his wife why there was a man inside the house, she answered
that there was no man, but as he insisted that there had been one, and that he had jumped out
of the window, and as his wife would not tell the truth, for that reason alone he killed her.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of Parricide and not under Article 423 of the RPC.

RULING:

Yes. Accused is guilty of parricide. It is not justified under Article 423 of the RPC. It was
established at the trial that on the occasion of the crime, the defendant saw an unknown
person jump out of the window of his house and that the appellant's wife begged for his pardon
on her knees. The Court charged him of parricide because the wife is fully unaware of the
unknown person’s presence in her house that night.
 [G.R. No. L-46310. October 31, 1939. ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCIANO

GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.
CONCEPCION, J.:

FACTS:

Marciano Gonzales appealed from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Tayabas which found him guilty of parricide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with is
the accessories of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Sixta Quilason, in the
amount of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

On June 2, 1938, Appellant testified, upon returning to his house, he surprised his wife
and Isabelo Evangelio in the act of adultery. Isabelino escaped by jumping through the door of
the house. He scolded his wife, telling her that the man was the very one who used to ask rice
and food from them, and counseled her not to repeat the same faithlessness. His wife,
promised him not to do the act again.

Thereafter, he left the house and went towards the South to see his carabaos. Upon
returning to his house, at about five o’clock in the afternoon, not finding his wife there, he
looked for her and found her with Isabelo near the toilet of his house in a place covered with
underbush. When he saw them, his wife was rising up, while Isabelo, who was standing and
buttoning his drawers, immediately took to his heels. The accused went after him, but unable to
overtake him, he returned to where his wife was and completely obfuscated, attacked her with
a knife without intending to kill her. Thereafter, he took pity on her and took her dead body to
his house.

ISSUE:

Whether or not appellant is entitled to afford the privilege by Article 247 of the RPC.

HELD:

No. We do not believe that the accused can avail himself of the aforesaid article,
because the privilege there granted is conditioned on the requirement that the spouse surprise
the husband or the wife in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, the
accused did not surprise his wife in the very act of carnal intercourse, but after the act, if any
such there was, because from the fact that she was rising up and the man was buttoning his
drawers, it does not necessarily follow that a man and a woman had committed the carnal act.
 G.R. No. 74433 September 14, 1987

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FRANCISCO ABARCA, accused-appellant.

SARMIENTO, J.:

FACTS:

Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of accused Francisco Abarca, Jenny, had illicit
relationship. The illicit relationship apparently began while the accused was in Manila reviewing
for the 1983 Bar examinations. His wife was left behind in their residence in Tacloban, Leyte.

Upon reaching home, the accused found his wife, Jenny, and Khingsley Koh in the act of
sexual intercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour
who got his revolver. The accused who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet in their
room jumped and ran away.

The accused went to look for a firearm at Tacloban City. He went to the house of a
soldier. He got Talbo's firearm, an M-16 rifle, and went back to his house. He was not able to
find his wife and Koh there. He proceeded to the "mahjong session" as it was the "hangout" of
Kingsley Koh. The accused found Koh playing mahjong. He fired at Kingsley Koh three times
with his rifle. Koh was hit. Arnold and Lina Amparado were also hit by the shots fired by the
accused. Kingsley Koh died instantaneously. Arnold Amparado was hospitalized and operated on
in the kidney to remove a bullet. His wife, Lina Amparado, was also treated in the hospital as
she was hit by bullet fragments.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused for the crime charged instead
of entering a judgment of conviction under Article 247 of the RPC.

HELD:

Yes. There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour, the
victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the
deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that
a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter. These elements are present in this case. The trial court, in convicting the accused-
appellant of murder, therefore erred.

Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the
accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time
the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the
pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant. The Revised Penal Code, in requiring that the
accused "shall kill any of them or both of them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in
the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. It
only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the
accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity.
 G.R. No. L-11021 December 1, 1915

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EUFRASIO ALANO Y AGBUYA, defendant-appellant.

TORRES, J.:

FACTS:

On July 27, 1914, Modesta Carballo went to Teresa's house to make her a present of
five tickets for admission to cinematograph. They got ready to go to the cinematograph.
However, Tomas Ramos and his wife who both also lived in that house, did not do so, because
the former was in a billiard hall at the time, and the latter was lying sick in a room. The
defendant Teresa Marcelo did not accompany the party to the cinematograph. Afterwards
Modesta Carballo approached the house to call Teresa, that she would not go to the
cinematograph. About half past seven that evening, his wife told her husband that she would
go down for a moment to the Chinese store nearby.

Terese was slow returning and her sick child was crying, Eufrasio Alano left the house to
look for her. He started to return when he could not find her. However, he stopped near a
clump of thick bamboo seeing a man was lying upon a woman in a position to hold sexual
intercourse with her. Alano recognized his wife and the man as Martin Gonzalez, who
immediately started to run. Enraged by what he had seen, the defendant drew a fan-knife he
had in his pocket and pursued Martin Gonzalez but did not succeeded.

He returned to the house where he found his wife Teresa. He reprimanded her for her
disgraceful conduct and immediately stabbed her several time. Teresa Marcelo who had arisen
and gone down the stairs out of the house; but her infuriated husband again assaulted her and
when she reached the ground she fell on one of the posts beside the stairs. When the
defendant saw her fall, he entered the house, took some clothes and started out in the
direction of Fort McKinley.

ISSUE:

Whether or not confession of guilt and his explanatory statements in his own defense
must be considered and admitted in their entirety.

HELD:

Yes. When the defendant's confession is accepted to find him guilty, without setting
forth other grounds, it must be admitted in its entirety, as well in respect to what is prejudicial
to him as to what is beneficial; and if it unquestionably appears therefrom that the crime was
attended by the extenuating circumstance of prior and immediate provocation by the injured
party, this circumstance must be taken into consideration." 

When such a circumstance as alleged by the defendant in his confession appears to be

intimately connected therewith in such wise that the circumstance and the confession form but
one complex fact, so that the crime confessed is essentially conditioned by the circumstance
alleged, in which case the defendant's confession is qualificative and individual, as that made by
the defendant Eufrasio Alano, then, in the absence of proof to the contrary, such confession
must be accepted in all its parts.
 G.R. No. L-2228             February 28, 1950

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FRUCTUOSO RABANDAN, defendant-appellant.

REYES, J.:

FACTS:

Fructuoso Rabandan and deceased Florida Napala were husband and wife living
together in a house in one of the barrios of the municipality of Abuyog, Leyte. Coming home
one night from his camote plantation, appellant found his wife lying in bed with another man.
The man was able to escape through the window, but the wife received a severe scolding from
her husband and was ordered to leave the house. Calling her husband names, the wife
gathered her clothes and picked up a bolo in the kitchen, and when her husband followed her
there, she attacked him with bolo, wounding him twice in the abdomen. Wrestling the bolo
from his wife, appellant stabbed her with it in the breast. She died from her wound that same
night. But appellant, though seriously wounded, survived and is now being made to answer for
the killing of his wife.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court should give benefit of Article 247 of the RPC to the
accused.

HELD:

No. it appearing that although he found his wife in bed with another man, he did not kill
her on that account. For her reprehensible conduct he merely unbridled her and bade her leave
the house. But the accused should be acquitted because he acted on self-defense.
 G.R. No. 176266               August 8, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
FELIX ORTOA Y OBIA, Accused-Appellant.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS:

On April 3 2001, she was at home together with her mother and four siblings. Suddenly,
she felt the need to defecate. As they were occupying a small house, she asked her mother and
siblings to leave her alone so that she could relieve herself using a plastic bag – a practice their
family has been accustomed to do given the cramped space of their abode. And so her mother
and her siblings went to the nearby house of a relative leaving AAA by herself. It was at that
time when appellant arrived home from the barbershop where he worked. Appellant then
closed the windows and the door of their house, removed AAA’s underwear and shorts, and
proceeded to molest her on their makeshift bed. After satisfying his sexual urge, appellant
ordered her to put on her panty and shorts. A few minutes later, her mother and her siblings
arrived. AAA was still lying then on the bed while her father was sitting on one of its edges.
After about an hour, appellant decided to go back to work. With appellant gone, BBB asked AAA
about what had just happened and the latter revealed her harrowing ordeal in the hands of her
own father.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of qualified rape?

RULING:

Yes. this Court has been traditionally guided by three principles: (a) an accusation of
rape can be made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for
the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
rape where only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for
the defense.

In the crime of rape, the conviction of an accused invariably depends upon the
credibility of the victim as she is oftentimes the sole witness to the dastardly act. Thus, the rule
is that when a woman claims that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape has been committed and that if her testimony meets the crucible test of
credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof
 G.R. No. L-14752 April 30, 1963

FRANCISCO R. CARIÑO, petitioner,

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, (1st

Division), respondents

LABRADOR, J.

FACTS:

On April 28, 1952, Cariño was charged with the crime of rebellion with murders, arsons,
robberies and kidnapping for having, as a high ranking officer and/or member of CPP and the
Huks. Allegedly, the accused has done rebellious acts from May 6, 1946 until September 12,
1950, before he was arrested. The petitioner, being a close friend of a top leader of the
Communists, Dr. Jesus Lava, provided accommodation, food and assistance to the members of
the rebel groups.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cariño’s acts constitute him as an accomplice to the crime of rebellion.

RULING:

No, the Supreme Court does not agree that the acts of the petitioner constitute acts of
cooperation in the execution of the act of overthrowing the Government because his alleged
acts cannot carry or prove any criminal intent of helping the Huks in committiong the crime of
insurrection and/or rebellion. The Court held that Cariño may only be guilty of aiding the
communists in their unlawful designs to overthrow the Government, however, his assistance is
not enough to be considered as being an accomplice to the rebel groups.
 G.R. No. L-58284 November 19, 1981

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, BERNABE

BUSCAYNO, JOSE MA. SISON and JULIET SISON, petitioners,
vs.
MILITARY COMMISSIONS NOS. 1, 2, 6 and 25, GENERAL FABIAN VER, GENERAL
FIDEL RAMOS, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VIRGILIO SALDAJENO, CAPTAIN MELCHOR A.
ACOSTA and REVIEW BOARD OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:

Since 1971, Bernabe Buscayno and Jose Ma. Sison were wanted by the Government
authorities because they were allegedly subversives classified as PKP/HMB/CPP/MAMAO and
Traditional Armed Group personalities. Both were included in the “National Target List” of active
participants in the conspiracy to seize political and state power and to take over the
Government by force whose arrest was ordered under General Order No. 2. Thereafter, herein
petitioners were arrested and were charged with subversion by the Military Commision in
different charge sheets on different dates for acts committed prior to the effectivity of
Presidential Decree No. 885. The three petitioners were all charged with revellion but only
Buscayno’s case was decided by the Military Commission who found him guilty imposing the
penalty of death by firing squad.

On October 2, 19881, the petitioners filed an omnibus, catcall petition for habeas
corpus, prohibition and mandamus couched in repetitious, involuted and obfuscatory verbiage.
They prayed that the decision of Military Commission convicting Buscayno be declared void
because he was denied of his constitutional right to present evidence and that he be released
from detention. Also, they prayed that the charges of rebellion and subversion be dismissed for
being in contravention of the rule on double jeopardy. They are claiming that when Republic
Act No. 1700 was repealed by P.D. No. 885, criminal liability for subversion was extinguished.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the P.D. No. 885 extinguishes the criminal liability for subversion for the
acts committed prior to its effectivity.

RULING:

No, the repealing law does not extinguish the criminal liability of subversion for the acts
committed prior to the effectivity of the said law because it was expressly provided in its
Section 7 that “acts committed in violation” of the former law before the effectivity of the said
decree “shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the provision of the former Act”
and that nothing in the said decree “shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for violation of
“Republic Act No. 1700”.

G.R. No. L-5803            November 29, 1954

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NARCISO UMALI, ET AL., defendants.
NARCISO UMALI, EPIFANIO PASUMBAL and ISIDRO CAPINO, defendants-appellants.

MONTEMAYOR, J.

FACTS:

On Novermber 14, 1951, a group of men staged a raid in the house of Marcial Punzalan,
who was then elected Mayor of Tiaong and was running for re-election. Allegedly, the raid was
headed by then elected Congressman, Narciso Umali, candidate for the Mayor election, Epifanio
Psumbal and with the help of some members of the Huks. It was said that the reason for and
the object of the raid rooted from the political feud between Umali and Punzalan. Thereafter,
the Courts of First Instance found herein defendants guilty of a complex crim of rebellion with
multiple murder, frustrated murder arson and robbery.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the crime committed was complex crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, frustrated murder, arson and robbery.

RULING:

No, the crimes committed are sedition, multiple murder, arson, frustrated murder and
physical injuries because it was found by the Supreme Court that the purpose of the raid was
not against the Government but rather to inflict an act of revenge upon Punzalan. The Court
held that the acts were sufficient to constitute sedition, as defined under Article 139 of the
Revised Penal Code.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DONATO B. CONTINENTE and JUANITO T. ITAAS, JOHN DOE, PETER DOE, JAMES
DOE, PAUL DOE and SEVERAL OTHER DOES (at large), accused

G.R. Nos. 100801-02

August 29, 2001

DE LEON, JR., J.

FACTS:

On April 21, 1989, U.S. Col. James N. Rowe was killed in an ambush, while his driver,
Joaquin Vinuya was wounded. The investigation of the Police appeared Donato Continente,
Juanito Itaas, and other John Does were the ones responsible for the crime. Thereafter,
Continente and Itaas were arrested and were found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellants claim of being members of a rebellion group can
be considered so that their criminal acts can be absorbed in the crime of rebellion.

RULING:

No, the Supreme Court said that is obvious that it is a desperate attempt of the accused
to avoid responsibility for the crimes of murder and frustrated murder. It has been held that
their membership in a rebel organization does not automatically qualify their criminal acts to be
absorbed in the crime of rebellion which carries a lighter penalty. Therefore, since they failed to
prove that they committed the crimes in connection to rebellion, their criminal acts cannot be
absorbed.

G.R. No. L-4974               May 16, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JOSE LAVA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

ZALDIVAR, J.

FACTS:

On or about My 6, 1946, and for sometime prior and subsequent thereto, herein
accused allegedly committed illegal acts for the purpose of overthrowing the Government. The
accused were determined as high ranking officers of rebellious group. It was said that the
accused committed wanton acts of murder, spoilage, looting, arson planned destruction of
private and public buildings, to create and spread terrorism for the purpose of destroying the
Government.

The Courts finding against Jose Lava was based from the documents seized from his
rented house which was mostly believed to be written and signed by him as the General
Secretary of the group. The prosecution presented a handwriting expert to prove that the said
documents were written and signed by Lava using different aliases. Thus, it was being
contended by the side of Lava that since no genuine specimen of Lava’s handwriting was
presented as standard for comparison, it cannot be used as evidence against him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the seized documents can be used as an evidence against Jose Lava in
proving his guilt.

RULING:

Yes, the Supreme Court held that the seized documents were proven to be in his
handwriting and signatures as proven by the witnesses who personally saw him executing the
documents and who he was acquainted with. The Court was convinced that he was the author
of many articles owned by his group. Also, the Supreme Court pointed out that an accuse is not
entitled to an acquittal simply because of his previous good moral character and exemplary
when the accused presented witnesses to testify for his good moral character instead of taking
the stand to testify in his behalf.