Crim1 Case Digests - Module 6

1
MODULE 6: a dream, under the influence of a hallucination and not in

his right mind.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
We have thus far regarded the case upon the
supposition that the wound of the deceased was direct
PEOPLE VS TANEO result of the defendant's act performed in order to inflict
GR NO L-37673 it. Nevertheless we may say further that the evidence
MARCH 31, 1933 does not clearly show this to have been the case, but
that it may have been caused accidentally. Nobody saw
how the wound was inflicted. The defendant did not
FACTS: testify that he wounded his wife. He only seemed to have
heard her say that she was wounded. What the evidence
Potenciano Tadeo live with his wife in his parent's house shows is that the deceased, who was in the sala,
of the barrio of Dolores, municipality of Ormoc, Leyte. On intercepted the defendant at the door of the room as he
January 16, 1932, a fiesta was being celebrated in the was coming out. The defendant did not dream that he
said barrio and visitors were entertained in the house. was assaulting his wife but he was defending himself
Among them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. Early from his enemies. And so, believing that his wife was
that afternoon, Potenciano Taneo, went to sleep and really wounded, in desperation, he stabbed himself.
while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the room bolo in
hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, In view of all these considerations, and reserving the
he wounded her in the abdomen. Potenciano Taneo judgment appealed from, the courts finds that the
attacked Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao and tried to defendant is not criminally liable for the offense with
attack his father after which he wounded himself. which he is charged, and it is ordered that he be
Potenciano's wife who was then seven months pregnant, confined in the Government insane asylum.
died five days later as a result of her wound, and also
the foetus which was asphyxiated in the mother's womb. PEOPLE VS BONOAN
GR NO L-45130
An information for parricide was filed against Potenciano FEBRUARY 17, 1937
Taneo, and upon conviction he was sentenced by the
trial court to reclusion perpetua with the accessory FACTS:
penalties, to indemnity the heirs of the deceased in the
sum of P500 and to pay the costs. From this sentence,
On January 5, 1935, the prosecuting attorney of the City
the defendant appealed.
of Manila filed an information charging Celestino
Bonoan, the defendant-appellant herein, with the crime
The conclusion is that the defendant acted while in a of murder
dream and his acts, with which he is charged, were not
voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability. The defense counsel forthwith objected to the
ISSUE: arraignment on the ground that the defendant was
mentally deranged and was at the time confined in the
WON the defendant is liable Psychopatic Hospital. Dr. Fernandez appeared before
the court and ratified his report, stating that the accused
RULING: was not in a condition to defend himself. In view thereof,
In arriving at this conclusion, we are taking into the case was suspended indefinitely.
consideration the fact that the apparent lack of a motive On January 21, 1936, Dr. Dr. Fernandez reported to the
for committing a criminal act does not necessarily mean court that the defendant could be discharged from the
that there are none, but that simply they are not known hospital and appear for trial, as he was "considered a
to us, for we cannot probe into depths of one's recovered case." Summoned by the court, Dr.
conscience where they may be found, hidden away and Fernandez, appeared and testified that the accused "had
inaccessible to our observation. recovered from the disease.
Doctor Serafica, an expert witness in this case, is also of It appears that in the morning of December 12, 1934, the
the same opinion. The doctor stated that considering the defendant Celestino Bonoan met the now deceased
circumstances of the case, the defendant acted while in Carlos Guison on Avenida Rizal near a barbershop close
CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CASE DIGEST BY CLARRIS HARLINE ANGELI EGINA
FROM THE DISCUSSION OF ATTY LYAN JUANICO
2
to Tom's Dixie Kitchen. Francisco Beech, who was at the the date when the crime was committed — the
time in the barbershop, heard the defendant say in defendant and appellant had "an attack of insomnia",
Tagalog, "I will kill you." Beech turned around and saw which is one of the symptoms of, and may lead
the accused withdrawing his right hand, which held a to, dementia præcox.
knife, from the side of Guison who said, also in Tagalog,
"I will pay you", but Bonoan replied saying that he would The defendant-appellant appears to have been arrested
kill him and then stabbed Guison thrice on the left side. and taken to the police station on the very same day of
The assaultt was witnessed by policeman Damaso the perpetration of the crime, and although attempted
Arnoco who rushed to the scene and arrested Bonoan were made by detectives to secure a statement from him
and took possession of the knife. (see Exhibit B and D and testimony of Charles Strabel, t.
s. n. pp. 9, 10) he was sent by the police department to
ISSUE: the Psychopathic Hospital the day following the
commission of the crime. This is an indication that the
The defense set up being that of insanity, the only police authorities themselves doubted the mental
question to be determined in this appeal is whether or normalcy of the acused, which doubt found confirmation
not the defendant-appellant was insane at the time of the in the official reports submitted by the specialists of the
commission of the crime charged. (Insane at the time of San Lazaro Hospital.
commission of the crime, Dementia)
In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the
RULING: defendant-appellant was demented at the time he
To be sure, courts should be careful to distinguish perpetrated the serious offense charged in the
insanity in law from passion or eccentricity, mental information and that conseuently he is exempt from
weakness or mere depression resulting from physical criminal liability. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower
ailment. The State should guard against sane murderers court is hereby reversed, and the defendant-appellant
escaping punishment through a general plea of insanity. acquitted, with costs de oficio in both instances.
In the case at bar, however, we are not cconcerned with PEOPLE VS FORMIGONES
connecting two or more attacks of insanity to show the GR NO L-3246
continuance thereof during the intervening period or NOVEMBER 29, 1950
periods but with the continuity of a particular and isolated
attack prior to the commission of the crime charged, and FACTS:
ending with a positive diagnosis of insanity immediately
following the commission of the act complained of. Upon In the month of November, 1946, the defendant
the other hand, there are facts and circumstances of Abelardo Formigones was living on his farm in Bahao,
record which cannot be overlooked. Libmanan, municipality of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, with
his wife, Julia Agricola, and his five children. From there
From the evidence presented by the defense, they went to live in the house of his half-brother,
uncontradicted by the prosecution, it appears that the Zacarias Formigones, in the barrio of Binahian of the
herein defendant-appellant, during the periods from April same municipality of Sipocot, to find employment as
11 to April 26, 1922, and from January 6 to January 10, harvesters of palay. After about a month's stay or rather
1926, was confined in the insane department of the San on December 28, 1946, late in the afternoon, Julia was
Lazaro Hospital suffering from a disease diagnosed sitting at the head of the stairs of the house. The
as dementia præcox. His confinement during these accused, without any previous quarrel or provocation
periods, it is true, was long before the commission of the whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house and
offense on December 12, 1934, but this is a stabbed his wife, Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating
circumstance which tends to show that the recurrence of the right lung and causing a severe hemorrhage
the ailment at the time of the occurence of the crime is resulting in her death not long thereafter. The blow sent
not entirely lacking of any rational or scientific Julia toppling down the stairs to the ground, immediately
foundation. followed by her husband Abelardo who, taking her up in
his arms, carried her up the house, laid her on the floor
All persons suffering from dementia præcox are clearly
of the living room and then lay down beside her. In this
to be regarded as having mental disease to a degree
position he was found by the people who came in
that disqualifies them for legal responsibility for their
response to the shouts for help made by his eldest
actions.

3
daughter, Irene Formigones, who witnessed and testified stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being
to the stabbing of her mother by her father. feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental
condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife.
Investigated by the Constabulary, defendant Abelardo
signed a written statement, Exhibit D, wherein he After a careful study of the record, we are convinced that
admitted that he killed The motive was admittedly of the appellant is not an imbecile. According to the
jealousy because according to his statement he used to evidence, during his marriage of about 16 years, he has
have quarrels with his wife for the reason that he often not done anything or conducted himself in anyway so as
saw her in the company of his brother Zacarias; that he to warrant an opinion that he was or is an imbecile. He
suspected that the two were maintaining illicit relations regularly and dutifully cultivated his farm, raised five
because he noticed that his had become indifferent to children, and supported his family and even maintained
him (defendant). in school his children of school age, with the fruits of his
work. Occasionally, as a side line he made copra. And a
His counsel presented the testimony of two guards of man who could feel the pangs of jealousy to take violent
the provincial jail where Abelardo was confined to the measure to the extent of killing his wife whom he
effect that his conduct there was rather strange and that suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the belief that in
he behaved like an insane person; that sometimes he doing so he was vindicating his honor, could hardly be
would remove his clothes and go stark naked in the regarded as an imbecile. Whether or not his suspicions
presence of his fellow prisoners; that at times he would were justified, is of little or no import. The fact is that he
remain silent and indifferent to his surroundings; that he believed her faithless.
would refused to take a bath and wash his clothes until
forced by the prison authorities; and that sometimes he He seems to be one of those unfortunate beings, simple,
would sing in chorus with his fellow prisoners, or even and even feebleminded, whose faculties have not been
alone by himself without being asked; and that once fully developed. His action in picking up the body of his
when the door of his cell was opened, he suddenly wife after she fell down to the ground, dead, taking her
darted from inside into the prison compound apparently upstairs, laying her on the floor, and lying beside her for
in an attempt to regain his liberty.
hours, shows his feeling of remorse at having killed his
loved one though he thought that she has betrayed him.
The appeal is based merely on the theory that the
appellant is an imbecile and therefore exempt from PEOPLE VS PUNO
criminal liability under article 12 of the Revised Penal GR NO L-33211
Code. JUNE 29, 1981
According to the very witness of the defendant, Dr.

Francisco Gomez, who examined him, it was his opinion FACTS:
that Abelardo was suffering only from feeblemindedness
and not imbecility and that he could distinguish right from There is no doubt that at about two o'clock in the
wrong. afternoon of September 8, 1970, Ernesto Puno, 28, a
jeepney driver, entered a bedroom in the house of
ISSUE: Francisca Col (Aling Kikay), 72, a widow. The house was
located in the area known as Little Baguio, Barrio
WON the formigones is exempt from criminal liability. Tinajeros Malabon, Rizal
(No, the behaviour only constitutes a sign of remorse
and not of imbecility.) On seeing Aling Kikay sitting in bed, Puno insulted her
by saying: "Mangkukulam ka mambabarang mayroon
RULING:
kang bubuyog". Then, he repeatedly slapped her and
In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile struck her several times on the head with a hammer until
within the meaning of article 12 of the Revised Penal she was dead.
Code so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must
be deprived completely of reason or discernment and They testified that Puno's eyes were reddish. His look
freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime. was baleful and menacing.
As to the strange behaviour of the accused during his After the killing, Puno fled to his parents' house at Barrio
confinement, assuming that it was not feigned to Tugatog, Malabon and then went to the house of his
second cousin, Teotimo Puno, located at Barrio San

4
Jose, Calumpit, Bulacan, reaching that place in the RULING:

evening. How he was able to go to that place, which was
then flooded, is not shown in the record. In the instant case, the trial court correctly characterized
the killing as murder.
Disregarding Puno's threat, Lina, after noting that he had
left, notified the Malabon police of the killing. Corporal After evaluating counsel de oficio's contentions in the
Daniel B. Cruz answered the call. He found Aling Kikay light of the strict rule just stated and the circumstances
sprawled on her bed already dead, Her head was surrounding the killing, we are led to the conclusion that
bloody. Her blanket and pillows were bloodstained. He Puno was not legally insane when he killed the hapless
took down the statements of Lina and Hilaria at the and helpless victim. The facts and the findings of the
police station. They pointed to Puno as the killer . psychiatrists reveal that on that tragic occasion he was
not completely deprived of reason and freedom of will.
Puno, a native of Macabebe, Pampanga, who testified
about five months after the killing, pretended that he did DISSENTING OPINION OF J. MAKASIARS
not remember having killed Aling Kikay- He believes that
there are persons who are "mangkukulam," I dissent. The appellant should not be held liable for the
"mambabarang" and "mambubuyog and that when one crime of murder. He was mentally ill when he committed
is victimized by those persons, his feet might shrink or the alleged killing of Francisca Col (Aling Kikay), a 72-
year old widow. His medical records, as properly
his hands might swan. Puno believes that a person
evaluated and confirmed by the expert testimony of the
harmed by a "mambabarang" might have a headache or
three physicians/psychiatrists who examined and treated
a swelling nose and ears and can be cured only by a him, undeniably establish the fact that appellant had
quack doctor (herbolaryo). Consequently, it is necessary been ailing with a psychotic disorder medically known as
to kill the "mangkukulam" and "mambabarang". chronic schizophrenia of the paranoid type. Appellant
was stin mentally sick at the time he attacked the victim.
The defense presented three psychiatrists. However, He previously suffered from a "displacement of
instead of proving that puno was insane when he killed aggressive and hostile behavior" when he got angry with
Aling Kikay, the medical experts testified that Puno acted his wife and when he tied and boxed their dog. He had
with discernment. the mental delusion that a "mangkukulam" was inflicting
harm on him. This delusion found its mark on the victim
Thus, Doctor Araceli Maravilla of the Psychiatry Section whom he believed was the "mangkukulam" and fearing
of the Dr. Jose R. Reyes Memorial Hospital, to whom that she would harm him, appellant had to kill her in self-
Puno was referred for treatment ten times between defense. Simply stated, the victim was a mere
September 8, 1966 and July 24, 1970, testified that Puno consequence of his mental delusion. He killed the
was an out-patient who could very well live with society, "mangkukulam" as personified by the victim; he did not
although he was afflicted with "schizophrenic reaction"; kin Aling Kikay herself. And the said fatal act was made
that Puno knew what he was doing and that he had by appellant in defending himself from the
psychosis, a slight destruction of the ego. Puno admitted "mangkukulam".
to Doctor Maravilia that one cause of his restlessness,
sleeplessness and irritability was his financial problem. While it has been established that appellant was
"manageable" and was "presently free from any social
The trial court also concluded that if Puno was a incapacitating psychotic symptoms" during the trial, the
homicidal maniac who had gone berserk, he would have fact remains that at the very moment of the commission
killed also Hilaria and Lina. The fact that he singled out of the alleged crime, he was still a mentally sick person.
Aling Kikay signified that he really disposed of her No evidence was produced to prove otherwise against
because he thought that she was a witch. the bulk of appellant's medical history for 8 years clearly
indicative of his mental psychosis.
His counsel de oficio in this review of the death
sentence, contends that the trial court erred in not As earlier stated, "social recovery" of a schizophrenic
sustaining the defense of insanity and in appreciating does not mean that he is "cured" (totally recovered) from
evident premeditation, abuse of superiority and disregard the disease.
of sex as aggravating circumstances.
PEOPLE VS DUNGO
ISSUE:
GR NO 89420
WON the defense of insanity can be given credence. JULY 31, 1991

5
rehabilitated after a series of medical treatment in their

clinic.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
On March 16, 1987 between 2:00 and 3:00pm, the
accused went to Mrs. Sigua's office at the Department of WON the accused was insane during the commission of
Agrarian Reform, Apalit, Pampanga. After a brief talk, the crime charged.
the accused drew a knife from the envelope he was
carrying and stabbed Mrs. Sigua several times. After RULING:
which he departed from the office with blood stained No. For insanity to relieve the person of criminal liability,
clothes, carrying a bloodied bladed weapon. The it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of
autopsy report revealed that the victim sustained 14 intelligence in committing the act, that he acts w/o the
wounds, 5 of which were fatal. Rodolfo Sigua, husband least discernment and that there be complete absence or
of the deceased, testified that sometime in February deprivation of the freedom of the will. Under Philippine
1987, the accused Rosalino Dungo inquired from him jurisdiction, there's no definite test or criterion for
why his wife was requiring so many documents from insanity. However, the definition of insanity under Sec
him. Rodolfo explained to him the procedure at the DAR. 1039* of the Revised Administrative Code can be
The accused, in defense of himself, tried to show that he applied. In essence, it states that insanity is evinced by a
was insane at the time of the commission of the offense: deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties,
Two weeks prior to March 16, 1987, Rosalino's wife which is manifested in language or conduct. An insane
noticed that he appears to be in deep thought always, person has no full and clear understanding of the nature
maltreating their children when he was not used to it and consequence of his act. Evidence of insanity must
before. There were also times that her husband would refer to the mental condition at the very time of doing the
inform her that his feet and head were on fire when in act. However, it is also permissible to receive evidence
truth they were not. of his mental condition for a reasonable period before
and after the time of the act in question.
On that fateful day, Rosalino complained of
stomachache but they didn't bother to buy medicine as The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward
the pain went away immediately. Thereafter, he went acts. It is not usual for an insane person to confront a
back to the store. But when Andrea followed him to the specified person who may have wronged him. But in the
store, he was no longer there. Worried, she looked for case at hand, the accused was able to Mrs. Sigua.
him. On her way home, she heard people saying that a From this, it can be inferred that the accused was aware
stabbing occurred. She saw her husband in her parents- of his acts. This also established that the accused has
in-law's house with people milling around. She asked her lucid intervals. Moreover, Dr. Echavez testified to the
husband why he did the act, to which Rosalino effect that the appellant could have been aware of the
answered, "That's the only cure for my ailment. I have nature of his act at the time he committed it when he
cancer of the heart. If I don't kill the deceased in a shouted (during laboratory examination) that he killed
number of days, I would die.” That same day, the Mrs. Sigua. This statement makes it highly doubtful that
accused went to Manila. Dr. Santiago and Dr. Echavez the accused was insane when he committed the act. The
of the National Center for Mental Health testified that the fact that the accused was carrying an envelope where he
accused was confined in the mental hospital, as per hid the fatal weapon, that he ran away from the scene of
order of the trial court dated Aug. 17, 1987. Based on the the incident after he stabbed the victim several times,
reports of their staff, they concluded that Rosalino was that he fled to Manila to evade arrest, indicate that he
psychotic or insane long before, during and after the was conscious and knew the consequences of his acts
commission of the alleged crime and classified his in stabbing the victim. (This was taken from the TC's
insanity as an organic mental disorder secondary to decision). Judgment: questioned decision AFFIRMED.
cerebro-vascular accident or stroke. But Dr. Balatbat
who treated the PEOPLE VS RAFANAN
GR NO L-54135
accused for ailments secondary to stroke, and Dr. Lim NOVEMBER 21, 1991
who testified that the accused suffered dorm occlusive
disease, concluded that Rosalino was somehow
FACTS:

6
The prosecution's evidence shows that on February 27, San Nicolas, Villasis, Pangasinan. Patrolman Mairina is
1976, complainant Estelita Ronaya who was then only a cousin of the father of the complainant. He advised
fourteen years old was hired as a househelper by the them to proceed to the municipal building while he went
mother of the accused, Ines Rafanan alias "Baket Ines" to fetch the accused. The accused was later brought to
with a salary of P30.00 a month. the police headquarter with the bolo, Exhibit "E", which
the accused allegedly used in threatening the
The accused Policarpio Rafanan and his family lived with complainant.
his mother in the same house at Barangay San Nicholas,
Villasis, Pangasinan. Policarpio was then married and The principal submission of appellant is that he was
had two children. suffering from a metal aberration characterized as
schizophrenia when he inflicted his violent intentions
On March 16, 1976, in the evening, after dinner, Estelita upon Estelita. At the urging of his counsel, the trial court
Ronaya was sent by the mother of the accused to help in suspended the trial and ordered appellant confined at
their store which was located in front of their house the National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong for
about six (6) meters away. Attending to the store at the observation and treatment. In the meantime, the case
time was the accused. At 11:00 o'clock in the evening, was archived. Appellant was admitted into the hospital
the accused called the complainant to help him close the on 29 December 1976 and stayed there until 26 June
door of the store and as the latter complied and went
1978.
near him, he suddenly pulled the complainant inside the
store and said, "Come, let us have sexual intercourse,"
to which Estelita replied, "I do not like," and struggled to Appellant's plea of insanity rests on Article 12 of the
free herself and cried. The accused held a bolo Revised Penal Code which provides:
measuring 1-1/2 feet including the handle which he
pointed to the throat of the complainant threatening her Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from
with said bolo should she resist. Then, he forced her to criminal liability. —
lie down on a bamboo bed, removed her pants and after
unfastening the zipper of his own pants, went on top of The following are exempt from criminal liability:
complainant and succeeded having carnal knowledge of
her inspite of her resistance and struggle. After the
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the
sexual intercourse, the accused cautioned the
latter has acted during a lucid interval.
complainant not to report the matter to her mother or
anybody in the house, otherwise he would kill her.
Where the imbecile or an insane person has
committed an act which the law defines as a
Because of fear, the complainant did not immediately
felony (delito), the court shall order his
report the matter and did not leave the house of the
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
accused that same evening. In fact, she slept in the
established for persons thus afflicted, which he
house of the accused that evening and the following
shall not be permitted to leave without first
morning she scrubbed the floor and did her daily routine
obtaining the permission of the same court.
work in the house. She only left the house in the evening
of March 17, 1976.
Although the Court has ruled many times in the past on
the insanity defense, it was only in People vs.
Somehow, in the evening of March 17, 1976, the family
Formigones that the Court elaborated on the required
of the accused learned what happened the night before standards of legal insanity, quoting extensively from the
in the store between Policarpio and Estelita and a Commentaries of Judge Guillermo Guevara on the
quarrel ensued among them prompting Estelita Ronaya Revised Penal Code, thus:
to go back to her house. When Estelita's mother
confronted her and asked her why she went home that The Supreme Court of Spain held that in order
evening, the complainant could not answer but cried and that this exempting circumstance may be taken
cried. It was only the following morning on March 18, into account, it is necessary that there be a
1976 that the complainant told her mother that she was complete deprivation of intelligence in
raped by the accused. Upon knowing what happened to committing the act, that is, that the accused be
her daughter, the mother Alejandra Ronaya, immediately deprived of reason; that there be no
accompanied her to the house of Patrolman Bernardo responsibility for his own acts; that he acts
Mairina of the Villasis Police Force who lives in Barrio without the least discernment; that there be a
complete absence of the power to discern or

7
that there be a total deprivation of freedom of In People vs. Puno (supra), the Court ruled that
the will. For this reason, it was held that schizophrenic reaction, although not exempting because
the imbecility or insanity at the time of the it does not completely deprive the offender of the
commission of the act should absolutely deprive consciousness of his acts, may be considered as a
a person of intelligence or freedom of will, mitigating circumstance under Article 13(9) of the
because mere abnormality of his mental Revised Penal Code, i.e., as an illness
faculties does not exclude imputability. which diminishes the exercise of the offender's will-
power without, however, depriving him of the
The allegation of insanity or imbecility must be clearly consciousness of his acts. Appellant should have been
proved. Without positive evidence that the defendant had credited with this mitigating circumstance, although it
previously lost his reason or was demented, a few would not have affected the penalty imposable upon him
under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code: "in all cases
moments prior to or during the perpetration of the crime,
in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty
it will be presumed that he was in a normal condition.
(reclusion perpetua in this case), it shall be applied by
Acts penalized by law are always reputed to be the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
voluntary, and it is improper to conclude that a person circumstances that may have attended the commission
acted unconsciously, in order to relieve him from liability, of the deed."
on the basis of his mental condition, unless his insanity
and absence of will are proved. PEOPLE VS MADARANG
GR NO 132319
The standards set out in Formigones were commonly
MAY 12, 2000
adopted in subsequent cases. A linguistic or grammatical
analysis of those standards suggests
that Formigones established two (2) distinguishable FACTS:
tests: (a) the test of cognition — "complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the [criminal] act," and (b) the The accused and Lilia Mirador were legally married and
test of volition — "or that there be a total deprivation their union was blessed with seven (7) children. The
freedom of the will." accused worked as a seaman for sixteen (16) years. He
was employed in a United States ship until 1972. In
In the present case: 1973, he worked as a seaman in Germany and stayed
there for nine (9) years, or until 1982. Thereafter, he
The fact that Rafanan threatened the complainant
returned to his family in Infanta, Pangasinan, and started
Estelita with death should she reveal she has been
a hardware store business. His venture however failed.
sexually assaulted by him indicates that Rafanan was
Worse, he lost his entire fortune due to cockfighting.
aware of the reprehensible moral quality of that assault.
In any case, it is the complete loss of intelligence which In the latter part of July 1993, the accused, his wife Lilia
must be shown if the exempting circumstance of insanity and their children were forced to stay in the house of
is to be found. Avelina Mirador as the accused could no longer support
his family. Moreover, Lilia was then already heavy with
Here, appellant failed to present clear and convincing
their eight child and was about to give birth.
evidence regarding his state of mind immediately before
and during the sexual assault on Estelita. It has been On September 3, 1993, at about 5:00 p.m., the accused
held that inquiry into the mental state of the accused and Lilia had a squabble. The accused was jealous of
should relate to the period immediately before or at the another man and was accusing Lilia of infidelity. In the
very moment the act is committed. Appellant rested his heat of the fight and in the presence of their children, the
case on the testimonies of two (2) physicians (Dr. accused stabbed Lilia, resulting in her untimely demise.
Jovellano and Dr. Nerit) which, however, did not purport
to characterize his mental condition during that critical The accused declared that he has absolutely no
period of time. They did not specifically relate to recollection of the stabbing incident. He could not
circumtances occurring on or immediately before the day remember where he was on that fateful day. He did not
of the rape. know the whereabouts of his wife. It was only during one
of the hearings when his mother-in-law showed him a
Accordingly, we must reject the insanity defense of picture of his wife in a coffin that he learned about her
appellant Rafanan. death. He, however, was not aware of the cause of her
demise. He claimed that he did not know whether he

8
suffered from any mental illness and did not remember Lastly, the appellant urges that he had no motive to kill
being confined at the NCMH for treatment. Lilia who was scheduled to give birth to their eighth child
three (3) days prior to the killing. Unless overpowered by
The initial examination of the accused at the NCMH something beyond his control, nobody in his right mind
revealed that he was suffering from a form of psychosis would kill his wife who was carrying his child. Jealousy,
known as schizophrenia. The accused was detained at the appellant posits, is not a sufficient reason to kill a
the hospital and was administered medication for his pregnant spouse.
illness. On June 19, 1996, after more than two (2) years
of confinement, the accused was discharged from the ISSUE:
NCMH and recommitted to the provincial jail as he was
already found fit to face the charges against him. WON the defense of insanity can be given merit. (NO)
RULING:
The appellant insists that at the time he stabbed his wife,
he was completely deprived of intelligence, making his In the Philippines, the courts have established a more
criminal act involuntary. His unstable state of mind could stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is
allegedly be deduced from the following: required that there must be a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the accused is
First. He had no recollection of the stabbing incident. deprived of reason; he acted without the least
Hence, he was completely unaware of his acts that discernment because there is a complete absence of the
fateful day and must have committed the crime without power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of the
the least discernment. will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not
exclude imputability.
Second. His behavior at the time of the stabbing proved
he was then afflicted with schizophrenia. He cited the The issue of insanity is a question of fact for insanity is a
testimony of Dr. Tibayan that a schizophrenic may go condition of the mind, not susceptible of the usual means
into extremes — he may be violent and destructive, or of proof. As no man can know what is going on in the
very silent and self-focused. The appellant exhibited his mind of another, the state or condition of a person's mind
violent tendencies on that fateful day. He killed his wife can only be measured and judged by his behavior.
and Avelina and her nephew were so frightened that Establishing the insanity of an accused requires opinion
they ran away at the sight of him holding a bolo. He did testimony which may be given by a witness who is
not seem to recognize anybody and could have turned to intimately acquainted with the accused, by a witness
anyone and inflicted further injury. He avers that this is who has rational basis to conclude that the accused was
peculiar only to persons who are mentally deranged for a
insane based on the witness' own perception of the
sane person who just committed a crime would have
appeared remorseful and repentant after realizing that accused, or by a witness who is qualified as an expert,
what he did was wrong. such as a psychiatrist. The testimony or proof of the
accused's insanity must relate to the time preceding or
Third. The appellant also relies on Dr. Tibayan's opinion coetaneous with the commission of the offense with
that there was a high possibility that he was already which he is charged.
suffering from insanity prior to his commission of the
In the case at bar, the appellant was diagnosed to be
crime on September 3, 1993. 17 The defense posits that
suffering from schizophrenia when he was committed to
his mental illness may have been caused by his loss of
fortune. His hardware business, which he started the NCMH months after he killed his wife. Medical books
through 16 years of working as a seaman, went describe schizophrenia as a chronic mental disorder
bankrupt. He ended up virtually dependent on his characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy
mother-in-law for his family's support and all these may and reality and often accompanied by hallucinations and
have been beyond his capacity to handle. delusions.
None of the witnesses presented by the appellant

The appellant further contends that the fact that he and
declared that he exhibited any of the myriad symptoms
his wife never engaged in a fight prior to that fateful day
should be considered. The marked change in his associated with schizophrenia immediately before or
behavior when he uncharacteristically quarreled with his simultaneous with the stabbing incident. To be sure, the
wife on that day and suddenly turned violent on her record is bereft of even a single account of abnormal or
confirms that he was mentally disturbed when he bizarre behavior on the part of the appellant prior to that
committed the crime. fateful day. Although Dr. Tibayan opined that there is a

9
high possibility that the appellant was already suffering in the appellant's behavior that could have suggested
from schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing, he also that he was suffering from any mental illness.
declared that schizophrenics have lucid intervals during
which they are capable of distinguishing right from PEOPLE VS ROBIOS
wrong. GR NO 138453
MAY 29, 2002
Hence the importance of adducing proof to show that the
appellant was not in his lucid interval at the time he
FACTS:
committed the offense. Although the appellant was
diagnosed with schizophrenia a few months after the Appellant assaulted his pregnant wife.
stabbing incident, the evidence of insanity after the fact
of commission of the offense may be accorded weight On March 25, 1995, at around seven o'clock in the
only if there is also proof of abnormal behavior morning, fifteen-year old Lorenzo Robiños was in his
immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of parents' house at Barangay San Isibro in Camiling,
the crime. Evidence on the alleged insanity must refer to Tarlac. While Lorenzo was cooking, he heard his
the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the parents, appellant Melecio Robiños and the victim
very moment of its execution. Lorenza Robiños, who were at the sala, quarrelling.
In the case at bar, we find the evidence adduced by the Lorenzo heard his mother tell appellant, 'Why did you
defense insufficient to establish his claim of insanity at come home, why don't you just leave?' After hearing
the time he killed his wife. There is a dearth of evidence what his mother said, Lorenzo, at a distance of about
on record to show that the appellant was completely of five meters, saw appellant, with a double-bladed knife,
unsound mind prior to or coetaneous with the stab Lorenza on the right shoulder. Blood gushed from
commission of the crime. The arguments advanced by where Lorenza was hit and she fell down on the floor.
the appellant to prove his insanity are speculative and Upon witnessing appellant's attack on his mother,
non-sequitur. For one, his claim that he has absolutely Lorenzo immediately left their house and ran to his
no recollection of the stabbing incident amounts to a grandmother's house where he reported the incident.
mere general denial that can be made with facility. The
Appellant and Lorenza were lying on the floor. Appellant,
fact that Avelina and her nephew were frightened at the
who was lying on his side and holding a bloodstained
sight of the appellant holding a bolo after he killed his
double-bladed knife with his right hand, was embracing
wife does not, by any stretch of imagination, prove that
his wife. He was uttering the words, 'I will kill myself, I
the appellant has lost his grip on reality on that occasion.
will kill myself.' Lorenza, who was lying on her back and
Neither is the appellant's seemingly non-repentant
facing upward, was no longer breathing. She appeared
attitude immediately after he stabbed his wife
to be dead.
an indicium of his alleged insanity. Even criminals of
stable mental condition take this non-remorseful stance. On the police report:
Similarly, that the appellant and his wife were never seen
quarreling prior to that fateful day does not by itself prove The victim Lorenza Robiños was six (6) months
the appellant's unstable mental condition. Neither can it pregnant. She suffered 41 stab wounds on the different
be said that jealousy is not a sufficient reason to kill a parts of her body.
pregnant spouse.
'That suspect (Melecio Robiños) was under the influence
The appellant attributes his loss of sanity to the fact that
of liquor/drunk [who] came home and argued/quarreled
he lost his business and became totally dependent on with his wife, until the suspect got irked, [drew] a double
his mother-in-law for support. We find this, however, knife and delivered forty one (41) stab blows.
purely speculative and unsupported by record. To be
sure, there was no showing of any odd or bizarre the defense interposed insanity. Herein accused-
behavior on the part of the appellant after he lost his appellant, testified that on March 25, 1995, he was in
fortune and prior to his commission of the crime that may their house and there was no unusual incident that
be symptomatic of his mental illness. In fact, the happened on that date. He did not know that he was
appellant's mother-in-law declared that during the time charged for the crime of parricide with unintentional
that she knew the appellant and while he lived in her abortion. He could not remember when he was informed
house, she did not notice anything irregular or abnormal

10
by his children that he killed his wife. He could not the former and to the police officers, and even showed to
believe that he killed his wife. them the knife used to stab the victim.
ISSUE: All the other defense witnesses testified on the supposed

manifestations of his insanity after he had already been
WON the defense of insanity can be given credence. detained in prison.
(NO)
PEOPLE VS OPURAN
RULING: GR NO 147674-75
Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely MARCH 17, 2004
deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at
the time of the commission of the crime. A defendant in a FACTS:
criminal case who relies on the defense of mental
incapacity has the burden of establishing the fact of There were 2 instances of attack inflicting stab wounds
insanity at the very moment when the crime was to Patrimonio and Dacles. Both attacks, Anacito Opuran
committed. Only when there is a complete deprivation of used a bladed weapon.
intelligence at the time of the commission of the
Murder of Dacles (Allan):
crime should the exempting circumstance of insanity be
considered.
The evidence for the prosecution discloses that on 19
The presumption of law always lies in favor of sanity November 1998, at about 6:30 p.m., prosecution witness
and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, every Bambi Herrera was studying his lessons inside his
person is presumed to be of sound mind. Accordingly, house. His brother and a certain Jason Masbang were
one who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity outside sitting side by side with each other on a plastic
has the burden of proving it. Failing this, one will be chair; opposite them was Allan Dacles, who was lying on
a bench.4
presumed to be sane when the crime was committed.
Moments later, Jason barged into Bambi’s house,

A perusal of the records of the case reveals that
shouting: "There’s a long-haired man!" Bambi stood up
appellant's claim of insanity is unsubstantiated and
and looked through the open door. He saw appellant
wanting in material proof. Testimonies from both
Anacito Opuran stab Allan on the chest with a knife while
prosecution and defense witnesses show no substantial
the latter appeared to be trying to stand up from the
evidence that appellant was completely deprived of
bench. Although Allan had several stab wounds on
reason or discernment when he perpetrated the brutal
different parts of his body, he managed to stand up and
killing of his wife.
run inside Bambi’s house, with Anacito chasing him.
Bambi immediately locked the door from the inside to
As can be gleaned from the testimonies of the prevent Anacito from entering. But the latter tried to force
prosecution witnesses, a domestic altercation preceded the door open by thrusting a knife at the door shutter. He
the fatal stabbing. Thus, it cannot be said that appellant also threw stones at the door. After a short while,
attacked his wife for no reason at all and without Anacito left.
knowledge of the nature of his action. To be sure, his act
of stabbing her was a deliberate and conscious reaction
He saw Anacito’s two brothers and asked for their
to the insulting remarks she had hurled at him as
assistance. But one of them merely said: "Never mind
attested to by their 15-year-old son Lorenzo Robiños.
because he [referring to Anacito] is mentally imbalanced.
Finally, the fact that appellant admitted to responding law

Murder of Patrimonio:
enforcers how he had just killed his wife may have been
a manifestation of repentance and remorse -- a natural
Tomas was on his way home, he saw Demetrio
sentiment of a husband who had realized the Patrimonio, Jr. He likewise noticed Anacito hiding in a
wrongfulness of his act. His behavior at the time of the dark place. When Demetrio Jr. reached the national
killing and immediately thereafter is inconsistent with his highway, near the so-called "lover’s lane," Anacito
claim that he had no knowledge of what he had just emerged from his hiding place and stabbed Demetrio Jr.
done. Barangay Kagawad Rolando Valdez validated the with a knife about three to four times.
clarity of mind of appellant when the latter confessed to
DEFENSE:

11
he defense presented, as its first witness, the appellant accused acted without the least discernment because of
himself, Anacito Opuran. He declared that on the a complete absence of the power to discern or a total
evening of 19 November 1998, he was resting in their deprivation of the will.
house in Canlapwas, another barangay in Catbalogan,
Samar. He never went out that night. While he was In People v. Rafanan, Jr., we analyzed
sleeping at about 8:30 p.m., eight policemen entered his the Formigones standard into two distinguishable tests:
house, pointed their guns at him, and arrested him. He (a) the test of cognition – whether there was a "complete
was brought to the police station and detained there until deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act"
the following morning. He denied being present at the and (b) the test of volition – whether there was a "total
place and time of the stabbing incidents. He admitted deprivation of freedom of the will." We observed that our
knowing Demetrio Jr. as a distant relative and friend case law shows common reliance on the test of
whom he had not quarreled with. As for Allan, he never
cognition, rather than on the test of volition, and has
knew him. He had no misunderstanding with prosecution
failed to turn up any case where an accused is exempted
witness Bambi Herrera. He asserted that the accusations
against him were fabricated because he was envied and on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of the
lowly regarded by his accusers. freedom of the will, i.e., without an accompanying
"complete deprivation of intelligence." This is expected,
Subsequent hearings were postponed owing principally since a person’s volition naturally reaches out only
to the failure of the defense to present witnesses. Then towards that which is represented as desirable by his
on 16 February 2000, the defense moved for the intelligence, whether that intelligence be diseased or
suspension of the hearing on the following grounds: (1) healthy.
on 10 January 2000, upon motion of the defense, the
trial court issued an Order authorizing the psychiatric A careful scrutiny of the records, however, indicates that
examination of Anacito. Anacito failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
the defense of insanity. For one thing, it was only
On 3 August 2000, the trial court received the Medical Bambi’s personal perception that there was no reason or
Report of Dr. Lyn Verona, physician-psychiatrist of the occasion for Anacito to wear Barong Tagalog. Tested
EVRMC, on the psychiatric examination she conducted against the stringent criterion for insanity to be
on Anacito. She found that Anacito had a psychotic exempting, such deportment of Anacito, his occasional
disorder characterized by flight of ideas and auditory silence, and his acts of laughing, talking to himself,
hallucinations. She confirmed her medical findings that staring sharply, and stabbing his victims within a 15-
Anacito was psychotic before and during the commission minute interval are not sufficient proof that he was
of the crime and even up to the present so that he could insane immediately before or at the time he committed
not stand trial and would need treatment and monthly the crimes. Such unusual behavior may be considered
check-up. Her diagnosis was that Anacito was suffering as mere abnormality of the mental faculties, which will
from schizophrenia.
not exclude imputability.
ISSUE: Anacito’s psychiatric history likewise fails to meet the

stringent yardstick established by case law. What it
WON Anacito was insane at the time of the commission shows is that Anacito was prescribed thorazine and
of the crime thus exempting him from criminal liability. evadyne, and later an injectable medicine to remedy "his
(NO) lack of sleep and noisiness." As the trial court noted, it
RULING: was never shown that these drugs were for a mental
illness that deprived Anacito of reason. Further, Anacito
Insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted was just an out-patient at the NCMH, EVRMC, and
condition of the mental faculties which is manifested in Samar Provincial Hospital. While Remedios claimed that
language and conduct. However, not every aberration of she requested the confinement of Anacito and that the
the mind or mental deficiency constitutes insanity. As doctors did not refuse her, the fact remains that Anacito
consistently held by us, "A man may act crazy, but it was never confined in a mental institution. Although Dr.
does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is Verona testified that there was a recommendation for
legally so. Anacito’s confinement, there was no indication in the
records as to when the recommendation was made, who
The stringent standard established in People v.
made the recommendation, and the reason for the
Formigones requires that there be a complete
recommendation.
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the

12
At any rate, in People v. Legaspi, we discarded the Verdadero had stolen the fan belt of their irrigation
confinement of the accused at the NCMH prior to the pump.
incident in question to be by itself proof of his insanity,
there being no proof that he was adjudged insane by the After a confrontation with Verdadero at the police station,
institute. Applying this principle to Anacito’s case, we find the three men made their way home on a tricycle but
another cogent reason to reject his plea of insanity. stopped at a drugstore as Maynard intended to buy
some baby supplies. Romeo proceeded towards a store
The records are likewise clear that Anacito was not near the drugstore while Ronnie stayed inside the
subjected to treatment from 1991 until 1999. While tricycle. From the drug store, Maynard saw Verdadero
Remedios insisted that the medicine prescribed for stabbing Romeo, after he was alerted by the shouts of
Anacito ran out of stock allegedly in 1990, there was no Ronnie.
proof that Anacito needed the medicine during that
period. In fact, there was no intimation that he needed Verdadero stabbed Romeo on the left side of the latter's
the medicine prior to the stabbing incident. She bought upper back with the use of a Rambo knife. He again
medicine for Anacito only in April 2000 because he was struck Romeo's upper back, just below the right
"again noisy in the jail." It seems that it was only after the shoulder. Maynard tried to help his father but Verdadero
stabbing incident, when he was in jail, that his symptoms attempted to attack him as well. He defended himself
reappeared. using a small stool, which he used to hit Verdadero in
the chest.
Moreover, as found by the trial court, the results of Dr.
Verona’s examinations on Anacito were based on DEFENSE:
incomplete or insufficient facts. For one thing, she Did not refute the alleged information but interposes a
admitted to have examined Anacito for only three defense of insanity stating that he had been an
sessions lasting one to two hours each. outpatient of CVMCs Psychiatric Department as he
Interestingly, Anacito failed to raise insanity at the claimed to hear strange voices and had difficulty in
earliest opportunity. He invoked it for the first time in the sleeping. Sometime in 2001, Miriam Verdadero (Miriam),
year 2000 and only after he had already testified on his Verdadero's sister, again brought him to the Psychiatric
defenses of alibi and denial. It has been held that the Department of CVMC after he became violent and
invocation of denial and alibi as defenses indicates that started throwing stones at a tricycle with a child on
the accused was in full control of his mental board. Verdadero was confined for two (2) months and
faculties. Additionally, the trial judge observed that, was diagnosed to be suffering from mental depression.
during the hearings, Anacito was attentive, well- On July 21, 2003, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia
behaved, and responsive to the questions propounded to and was given medications to address his mental illness.
him. Thus, the shift in theory from denial and alibi to a Verdadero would irregularly consult with his doctors as
plea of insanity, made apparently after the appellant he had a lifelong chronic disease. Then, in 2009, he was
realized the futility of his earlier defenses, is a clear again confined for the fourth (4th) time at CVMC due to a
indication that insanity is a mere concoction or an relapse.
afterthought. In any event, Anacito failed to establish by
convincing evidence his alleged insanity at the time he He claims that Maynard even admitted that he was not in
killed Demetrio Jr. and Allan Dacles. He is thus the proper state of mind when they were at the police
presumed sane, and we are constrained to affirm his station before the stabbing took place. Further, it
conviction. appeared that Verdadero was having hallucinations after
the stabbing incident as testified to by Dr. Andres-
VERDADERO VS PEOPLE Juliana. Verdadero notes that Dr. Pagaddu concluded
GR NO 216021 that he had a relapse at the time of the stabbing incident
MARCH 2, 2016 on March 12, 2009.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
WON the defense of insanity can be given credence.
On March 12, 2009, at around 3:00 o'clock in the
(YES)
afternoon, Maynard Plata (Maynard) and his father
Romeo were at the Baggao Police Station. Together with RULING:
Ronnie Elaydo (Ronnie), they went there to report that

13
The Court finds that Verdadero sufficiently proved that diagnosis.29 The evidence on record supports the finding
he was insane at the time of the stabbing. that Verdadero exhibited symptoms of a relapse of
schizophrenia at the time of the stabbing incident. Thus,
In the case at bench, it is undisputed that (1) as early as Dr. Pagaddu reiterated Dr. Andre-Juliana's conclusion
1999, Verdadero was brought to the Psychiatric that Verdadero was having a relapse of his illness on
Department of CVMC for treatment; (2) he was that fateful day.
diagnosed with depression in 2001; (3) he was
diagnosed with schizophrenia on July 21, 2003; (4) he Verdadero already raised the defense of insanity and
was confined in the psychiatric ward sometime in 2009 remained steadfast in asserting that he was deprived of
due to a relapse; (5) he was in and out of psychiatric intelligence at the time of the commission of the offense.
care from the time of his first confinement in 1999 until He no longer offered any denial or alibi and, instead,
the stabbing incident; and (6) he was diagnosed to have consistently harped on his mental incapacity. Unlike in
suffered a relapse on March 20, 2009. previous cases.
Thus, it is without question that he was suffering from In exonerating Verdadero on the ground of insanity, the
schizophrenia and the only thing left to be ascertained is Court does not totally free him from the responsibilities
whether he should be absolved from responsibility in and consequences of his acts. Article 12(1) of the RPC
killing Romeo because of his mental state. expressly states that "[w]hen an insane person has
committed an act which the law defines as a felony, the
Schizophrenia is a chronic mental disorder characterized court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals
by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which
and often accompanied by hallucinations and he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining
delusions. A showing that an accused is suffering from a the permission of the same court." Instead of
mental disorder, however, does not automatically incarceration, Verdadero is to be confined in an
exonerate him from the consequences of his act. Mere institution where his mental condition may be addressed
abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude so that he may again function as a member of society.
imputability. He shall remain confined therein until his attending
physicians give a favorable recommendation for his
It is true that there is no direct evidence to show release.
Verdadero's mental state at the exact moment the crime
was committed. This, however, is not fatal to the finding
that he was insane. His insanity may still be shown by PEOPLE VS GENOSA
circumstances immediately before and after the incident. 341 SCRA 493
Further, the expert opinion of the psychiatrist Dr. 419 SCRA 537
Pagaddu may also be taken into account.
Dr. Pagaddu categorically testified that Verdadero was FACTS:

suffering a relapse at the time of the stabbing incident.
Main witness: Joeph Valida saw tha appellate going out
Maynard was familiar with Verdadero as the latter was of there house with her 2 kids, locking the gate and
his neighbor for a long time. He had observed that there taking her children at the waiting area to wait for a bus
were times that Verdadero appeared to be of unsound going to Ormoc. They had no conversation as Joseph
mind as he would sometimes become violent. On the noticed that appellant did not want to talk to him.
day of the stabbing incident, Maynard perceived that
Verdadero was again of unsound mind noting that he Around 2 days after, the neighbors of Steban Matiga
had reddish eyes and appeared to be drunk. Moreover, told him about the foul odor emanating from his house
he was immediately transferred to the psychiatry being rented by Ben and appellant.
department because of his impaired sleep and to control
him from harming himself and others. Alone, Steban went inside the unlocked bedroom where
the offensive smell was coming from. There, he saw the
These circumstances are consistent with Dr. Paggadu's lifeless body of Ben lying on his side on the bed covered
testimony that drinking wine, poor sleep and violent with a blanket. He was only in his briefs with injuries at
behavior were among the symptoms of a relapse, the the back of his head. Seeing this, Steban went out of the
same testimony that was used as basis for his previous house and sent word to the mother of Ben about his

14
son's misfortune. Later that day, Iluminada Genosa, the predicament she is involved. (NOTE Marivic also alleged
mother of Ben, identified the dead body as that of [her] that there were multiple times that she wanted to leave
son. her husband but would reconcile eventually. In her
defense, witnesses who were not so closely related to
Appellant admitted killing Ben. She testified that going Marivic, testified as to the abuse and violence she
home after work on November 15, 1995, she got worried received at the hands of Ben.)
that her husband who was not home yet might have
gone gambling since it was a payday. With her cousin Appellant admits killing Ben Genosa but, to avoid
Ecel Araño, appellant went to look for Ben at the criminal liability, invokes self-defense and/or defense of
marketplace and taverns at Isabel, Leyte but did not find her unborn child.
him there. They found Ben drunk upon their return at the
Genosas' house. Ecel went home despite appellant's ISSUE:
request for her to sleep in their house.
WON self defense can be given credence. (NO)
"Then, Ben purportedly nagged appellant for following RULING:
him, even challenging her to a fight. She allegedly
ignored him and instead attended to their children who In sum, the defense failed to elicit from appellant herself
were doing their homework. Apparently disappointed her factual experiences and thoughts that would clearly
with her reaction, Ben switched off the light and, with the and fully demonstrate the essential characteristics of the
use of a chopping knife, cut the television antenna or syndrome.
wire to keep her from watching television. According to
appellant, Ben was about to attack her so she ran to the A battered woman has been defined as a woman "who is
bedroom, but he got hold of her hands and whirled her repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or
around. She fell on the side of the bed and screamed for psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her
help. Ben left. At this point, appellant packed his clothes to do something he wants her to do without concern for
because she wanted him to leave. Seeing his packed her rights. Battered women include wives or women in
clothes upon his return home, Ben allegedly flew into a any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore,
rage, dragged appellant outside of the bedroom towards
in order to be classified as a battered woman, the couple
a drawer holding her by the neck, and told her 'You
must go through the battering cycle at least twice. Any
might as well be killed so nobody would nag me.'
Appellant testified that she was aware that there was a woman may find herself in an abusive relationship with a
gun inside the drawer but since Ben did not have the key man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in
to it, he got a three-inch long blade cutter from his wallet. the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.
She however, 'smashed' the arm of Ben with a pipe,
Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such
causing him to drop the blade and his wallet. Appellant
then 'smashed' Ben at his nape with the pipe as he was as low self-esteem, traditional beliefs about the home,
about to pick up the blade and his wallet. She thereafter the family and the female sex role; emotional
ran inside the bedroom. dependence upon the dominant male; the tendency to
accept responsibility for the batterer's actions; and false
"Appellant, however, insisted that she ended the life of hopes that the relationship will improve.
her husband by shooting him. She supposedly 'distorted'
the drawer where the gun was and shot Ben. He did not Effect of Battery on Appellant
die on the spot, though, but in the bedroom.
Because of the recurring cycles of violence experienced
On cross-examination by the private prosecutor, Dr. by the abused woman, her state of mind
Pajarillo said that at the time she killed her husband metamorphoses. In determining her state of mind, we
Marivic'c mental condition was that she was 're- cannot rely merely on the judgment of an ordinary,
experiencing the trauma.' He said 'that we are trying to reasonable person who is evaluating the events
explain scientifically that the re-experiencing of the immediately surrounding the incident.
trauma is not controlled by Marivic. It will just come in
flashes and probably at that point in time that things To understand the syndrome properly, however, one's
happened when the re-experiencing of the trauma viewpoint should not be drawn from that of an ordinary,
flashed in her mind.' At the time he interviewed Marivic reasonable person. What goes on in the mind of a
'she was more subdued, she was not super alert person who has been subjected to repeated, severe
anymore x x x she is mentally stress (sic) because of the beatings may not be consistent with -- nay,

15
comprehensible to -- those who have not been through a From the expert opinions discussed earlier, the Court
similar experience. reckons further that crucial to the BWS defense is the
state of mind of the battered woman at the time of the
Thus, just as the battered woman believes that she is offense-- she must have actually feared imminent harm
somehow responsible for the violent behavior of her from her batterer and honestly believed in the need to kill
partner, she also believes that he is capable of killing him in order to save her life.
her, and that there is no escape. Battered women feel
unsafe, suffer from pervasive anxiety, and usually fail to Settled in our jurisprudence, however, is the rule that the
leave the relationship. Unless a shelter is available, she one who resorts to self-defense must face a real
stays with her husband, not only because she typically threat on one's life; and the peril sought to be avoided
lacks a means of self-support, but also because she must be imminent and actual, not merely imaginary.
fears that if she leaves she would be found and hurt
even more. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy the
required imminence of danger. Considering such
In the instant case, we meticulously scoured the records circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-defense
for specific evidence establishing that appellant, due to may be appreciated.
the repeated abuse she had suffered from her spouse
over a long period of time, became afflicted with the We reiterate the principle that aggression, if not
battered woman syndrome. We, however, failed to find continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the
sufficient evidence that would support such a conclusion. absence of such aggression, there can be no self-
More specifically, we failed to find ample evidence that defense -- complete or incomplete -- on the part of the
would confirm the presence of the essential victim.Thus, Marivic's killing of Ben was not completely
characteristics of BWS. justified under the circumstances.
(a) Each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be She was however given a mitigating factor.
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 PEOPLE VS DOQUENA
the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed GR NO 46539
probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – grave SEPTEMBER 27, 1939
harm to the accused based on the history of violence
perpetuated by the former against the latter. FACTS:
The defense fell short of proving all three phases of the The accused-appellant, who is a minor, was prosecuted
"cycle of violence" supposedly characterizing the for homicide in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan,
relationship of Ben and Marivic Genosa. No doubt there for having killed Juan Ragojos by stabbing him in the
were acute battering incidents. In relating to the court a breast with a knife on November 19, 1938, in the
quo how the fatal incident that led to the death of Ben municipality of Sual, Pangasinan. The court, after trying
started, Marivic perfectly described the tension-building the case, held that the accused acted with discernment
phase of the cycle. She was able to explain in adequate in committing the act imputed to him.
detail the typical characteristics of this stage. However,
that single incident does not prove the existence of the On the date of the crime, the appellant was exactly
syndrome. In other words, she failed to prove that in at thirteen years, nine months and five days old.
least another battering episode in the past, she had gone
through a similar pattern.
Between 1 and 2 o’clock in the afternoon of November
19,1938, the now deceased Juan Ragojos and one
In any event, the existence of the syndrome in a Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of the
relationship does not in itself establish the legal right of intermediate school of the municipality of Sual, Province
the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must still of Pangasinan. The herein accused, who was also in
be considered in the context of self-defense. said yard, intervened and, catching the ball, tossed it at
Juan Ragojos, hitting him on the stomach. For this act of

16
the accused, Juan Ragojos chased him around the yard was one of the brightest in said school and was a
and, upon overtaking him, slapped him on the nape. captain of a company of the cadet corps thereof, and
Said accused then turned against the deceased during the time he was studying therein he always
assuming a threatening attitude, for which reason said obtained excellent marks, this court is convinced that the
deceased struck him on the mouth with his fist, returning accused in committing the crime, acted with discernment
immediately to the place where Epifanio Rarang was in and was conscious of the nature and consequences of
order to continue playing with him. The accused, his act, and so also has this court observed at the time
offended by what he considered an abuse on the part of said accused was testifying in his behalf during the trial
Juan Ragojos, who was taller and more robust than he, of this case.
looked around the yard for a stone with which to attack
the now deceased Juan Ragojos, but finding none, he Article 12 section 3 of the Revised Penal Code states
approached a cousin of his named Romualdo Cocal, to that: A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
ask the latter to lend him his knife. Epifanio Rarang, who unless he has acted with discernment, in which case,
had heard what the accused had been asking his cousin, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance
told the latter not to give the accused his knife because with the provisions of Article 80 of this Code.
he might attack Juan Ragojos with it. The accused,
however, succeeded in taking possession of the knife When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
which was in a pocket of his cousin’s pants. Once in irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the provisions
possession of the knife, Valentin Doqueña approached of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to
Juan Ragojos and challenged the latter to give him the care and custody of his family who shall be charged
another blow with his fist, to which the deceased with his surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall
answered that he did not want to do so because he be committed to the care of some institution or person
(Juan Ragojos) was bigger than the accused. Juan mentioned in said Article 80.
Ragojos, ignorant of the intentions of the accused,
continued playing and, while he was thus unprepared
and in the act of stopping the ball with his two hands, the ORTEGA VS PEOPLE
accused stabbed him in the chest with the knife which he GR NO 151085
carried. AUGUST 20, 2008
ISSUE: FACTS:
WON the accussed acted with discernment. At the time of commission of rape, the accused was only
13 years old, while the victim AAA was 6, both minors. It
was alleged that petitioner raped her three times on
RULING:
three different occasions in 1996. The lower courts
convicted him of rape with criminal and civil liability
Yes, the accused acted with discernment. Accused imposed. The case was pending when Republic Act
mistakes the discernment for premeditation, or at least 9344 (R.A. No. 9344) or the Juvenile Justice and
for lack of intention, as a mitigating circumstance. Welfare Act of 2006, was enacted amending the age of
criminal irresponsibility being raised from 9 to 15 years
However, the DISCERNMENT that constitutes an old. Said law took effect on May 20, 2006. At the time of
exception from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years the promulgation of judgment, the accused already
but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is reached the age of majority. The Office of the Solicitor
his MENTAL CAPACITY to understand the difference General (OSG) claimed that petitioner is not exempt
between right and wrong, and such capacity may be from criminal liability because he is not anymore a child
known and should be determined by taking into as defined by R.A. No. 9344. The OSG further claimed
consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by that the retroactive effect of said law is applicable only if
the records in each case, the very appearance, the very the child-accused is still below 18 years old.
attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said
minor, not only before and during the commission of the ISSUE:
act, but also after and even during the trial.
WON RA 9344 should apply in favour of the minor (now
Taking into account the fact that when the accused in age of majority) accused. (YES)
Valentin Doqueña committed the crime in question, he
was a 7th grade pupil in the intermediate school of the
RULING:
municipality of Sual, Pangasinan, and as such pupil, he

17
The rape case was dismissed and petitioner is hereby find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and meted a
referred to the local social welfare and development penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for selling shabu without
officer of the locality for the appropriate intervention considering his minority at the time of the commission of
program. the crime. He was also sentence for 6 yrs and 1 day, as
minimum, to 8 yrs as maximum of Prision Mayor,
However, while the law exempts petitioner from criminal applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, for illegal
liability for the two (2) counts of rape committed against possession of shabu.
AAA, Section 6 thereof expressly provides that there is
no concomitant exemption from civil liability. Anent the age of the appellant when he was arrested,
this Court finds it appropriate to discuss the effect of his
penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the minority in his suspension of sentence. The appellant
accused. In this case, the plain meaning of R.A. No. was seventeen (17) years old when the buy-bust
9344's unambiguous language, coupled with clear operation took place or when the said offense was
lawmakers' intent, is most favorable to herein petitioner. committed, but was no longer a minor at the time of the
No other interpretation is justified, for the simple promulgation of the RTC's Decision.
language of the new law itself demonstrates the
legislative intent to favor the CICL. It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect on May 20,
2006, while the RTC promulgated its decision on this
It bears stressing that the petitioner was only 13 years case on September 14, 2005, when said appellant was
old at the time of the commission of the alleged rape. no longer a minor. The RTC did not suspend the
This was duly proven by the certificate of live birth, by sentence in accordance with Article 192 of P.D.
petitioner's own testimony, and by the testimony of his 603, The Child and Youth Welfare Code and Section
mother. Furthermore, petitioner’s age was never 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, the Rule on Juveniles in
assailed in any of the proceedings before the RTC and Conflict with the Law, the laws that were applicable at
the CA. Indubitably, petitioner, at the time of the the time of the promulgation of judgment, because the
commission of the crime, was below 15 years of age. imposable penalty for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165
Under R.A. No. 9344, he is exempted from criminal is life imprisonment to death.
liability.
It may be argued that the appellant should have been
PEOPLE VS MANTALABA entitled to a suspension of his sentence under Sections
GR NO 186227 38 and 68 of RA 9344 which provide for its retroactive
JULY 20, 2011 application.
FACTS: ISSUE:
Allen Mantalaba, 17 years old at the time, was selling WON Allen Mantalaba may be given the benefit of RA
shabu at Purok 4 Brgy 3, Agao District, Butuan City. A 9344’s retrospective application. (YES, but not to the
buy bust operation was conducted composed of 2 police suspension only to the penalty.)
officers (PO1 Pajo and PO1 Simon and 2 poseur-buyer).
Around 7 in the evening when the poseur-buyer RULING:
approached Mantalaba and handed the 2 pieces of Php
100.00 marked bills in exchange of a sachet of shabu. If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen
The poseur buyer went back to the police officers and (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the
told them that the transaction has been completed and court shall determine whether to discharge the child in
they rushed to the place and handcuffed Mantalaba. In accordance with this Act, to order execution of
the presence of barangay officials, the police officers sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a
found a big sachet of shabu and the marked money that certain specified period or until the child reaches the
Mantalaba thrown on the ground. The laboratory maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
examination revealed that the substance recovered from
Mantalaba is an illegal drugs (methamphetamine Hence, the appellant, who is now beyond the age of
hydrochloride). twenty-one (21) years can no longer avail of the
provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his
Thereafter, two information were filed against him for suspension of sentence, because such is already moot
violation of Section 5 and 11 of RA 9165, selling and and academic. It is highly noted that this would not have
possession of dangerous drugs respectively. The RTC happened if the CA, when this case was under its

18
jurisdiction, suspended the sentence of the appellant. petition, arguing that the Curfew Ordinances are
The records show that the appellant filed his notice of unconstitutional because they: (a) result in arbitrary and
appeal at the age of 19 (2005), hence, when RA 9344 discriminatory enforcement, and thus, fall under the void
became effective in 2006, appellant was 20 years old, for vagueness doctrine; (b) suffer from overbreadth by
and the case having been elevated to the CA, the latter proscribing or impairing legitimate activities of minors
should have suspended the sentence of the appellant during curfew hours; (c) deprive minors of the right to
because he was already entitled to the provisions of liberty and the right to travel without substantive due
Section 38 of the same law, which now allows the process; and (d) deprive parents of their natural and
suspension of sentence of minors regardless of the primary right in rearing the youth without substantive due
penalty imposed as opposed to the provisions of Article process.[11] In addition, petitioners assert that the Manila
192 of P.D. 603. Ordinance contravenes RA 9344, as amended by RA
10630.
A violation of Section 5 RA 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act)
merits the penalty of life imprisonment to death; US VS TANEDO
however, in Section 98, where the offender is minor, the GR NO L-5418
penalty of life imprisonment to death shall become FEBRUARY 12, 1910
reclusion perpetua to death. Basically, this means that
the penalty can now be graduated as it has adopted the
technical nomenclature of penalties provided in the RPC. FACTS:
Consequently, the privileged mitigating circumstance of Cecilio Tanedo (accused), a landowner, went with some
minority can now be appreciated in fixing the penalty that
workers to work on the dam on his land, carrying with
should be imposed. Applying this rule, Mantalba being
minor, the proper penalty should be one degree lower him a shotgun and a few shells. Upon reaching the dam,
than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal. the accused went on his way to hunt for wild chickens.
Necessarily, also applying the ISLAW, the minimum On his way, he met Feliciano Sanchez (victim) and the
penalty should be taken from the penalty next lower in latter’s mother and sick uncle. The accused asked the
degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty victim’s uncle for the best place to hunt for the wild
shall be taken from medium of reclusion temporal, there chickens, but since the latter was sick, the victim
being no other mitigating nor aggravating circumstances. answered for him and pointed to a general direction in
The ISLAW is applicable in the present case because the forest. Upon the victim’s recommendation, the
the penalty which has been originally an indivisible accused then went to the forest to continue his search
where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a divisible penalty for the wild chickens. When the accused saw one, he
by virtue of minority. Therefore a penalty of 6 yrs and 1 shot it, and simultaneously heard a human cry out in
day of prision mayor as minimum, and 14 yrs 8 mos and pain. After seeing that Sanchez was shot in the heart
1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum would be the
Tanedo ran back to his workers and asked one
proper imposable penalty.
Bernardino Tagamba (Tagampa) to help him hide the
body. They did so by putting it amidst the tall cogon
SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN
grass, and later burying the body in an old well and
VS QUEZON CITY
covering it with burnt cogon grass. Only one shot was
GR NO 225442
AUGUST 8, 2017 heard that morning, and it isn’t contested that a chicken
was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were
found at the scene of the crime, as well, and there is no
FACTS: enmity between the accused and he victim. Prior to the
trial, the accused denied all knowledge of the crime, but
Following the campaign of President Rodrigo Roa
later confessed during the trial that he buried the victim’s
Duterte to implement a nationwide curfew for minors,
body. The lower court found the accused guilty of
several local governments in Metro Manila started to
strictly implement their curfew ordinances on minors homicide.
through police operations which were publicly known as The deceased was a tenant on land belonging to a
part of "Oplan Rody."[3]
relative of the accused. There was no enmity and no
Petitioners,[9] spearheaded by the Samahan ng mga
unpleasant relations between them. No attempt was
Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK)- an association of
young adults and minors that aims to forward a free and made to show any. There appears to have been no
just society, in particular the protection of the rights and motive whatever for the commission of the crime. The
welfare of the youth and minors[10] - filed this present Government has not attempted to show any. The only

19
possible reason that the accused could have for killing drunk and was in an angry mood. The accused kicked
the deceased would be found in the fact of a sudden the door and table, and then threw the electric fan away.
quarrel between them during the hunt. That idea is He was prevailed upon by Guillermo to take a rest. But
wholly negative by the fact that the chicken and the man the accused did not heed the advice of Guillermo as he
were shot at the same time, there having been only one took instead his sling and arrow from the house ceiling
shot fired. where he was keeping them. Dejectedly, Guillermo
transferred to the adjacent house of her daughter [in-law]
In this case there is absolutely no evidence of Yolanda. From there, Guillermo heard the victim crying
negligence upon the part of the accused. Neither is there and, afterwards, shouting at the accused. Guillermo
any question that he was engaged in the commission of concernedly ordered Yolanda to see what was
a lawful act when the accident occurred. Neither is there happening inside the house of Consorcia, and Yolanda
any evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the obeyed. On her way, Yolanda met the accused carrying
death of the deceased. The only thing in the case at all the bloodied body of Consorcia. Guillermo, the accused,
suspicious upon the part of the defendant are his and Yolanda brought Consorcia to the hospital but to no
concealment and denial. avail. From all the circumstances gathered, the infliction
ISSUE: of the fatal injury upon Consorcia was preceded by a
quarrel between her and the accused. This spat negated
WON Tanedo is criminally liable. the accused's version that he was practicing the use of
the weapon when Consorcia was hit by the arrow, and
RULING:
lends credence to the prosecution's contention that the
No, The only possible reason that the accused could shooting was intentional.
have for killing the victim would be a sudden quarrel
The accused raised as an issue his lack of intent to do
between them during the hunt, which is negated by the
the fatal harm to his wife. This is the same issue to be
fact that the chicken and the man were shot at the same
resolved by this Court. Whether or not the fatal injury
time, there having only one shot fired. According to
sustained by the victim was accidental.
Article 8 subdivision 8 of the Penal Code, “he who, while
performing a legal act with due care, causes some injury ISSUE:
by mere accident without liability or intention of causing
it.” WON the accussed hitting his wife with an arrow was an
accident.
It is uniformly held that if life is taken by misfortune or
accident while in the performance of a lawful act RULING:
executed with due care and without intention of doing NO. It is not accidental. "Accident" is an affirmative
harm, there is no criminal liability. In this case, there is defense which the accused is burdened to prove, with
absolutely no evidence of negligence on the part of the clear and convincing evidence. The defense miserably
accused. Neither is there any question that he was failed to discharge its burden of proof. The essential
engaged in the commission of a lawful act when the requisites for this exempting circumstance, are: (1) a
accident occurred. Neither is there any evidence of the person is performing a lawful act (2) with due care; (3)
intention of the accused to cause the death of the he causes and injury to another by mere accident (4)
deceased. The only thing in the case at all suspicious on without fault or intention of causing it. By no stretch of
the part of the accused are his concealment and denial, imagination could playing with or using a deadly sling
and no sufficient evidence was found to support the and arrow be considered as performing a "lawful act."
judgment of conviction. Thus, on this ground alone, appellant's defense of
PEOPLE VS CASTILLO accident must be struck down because he was
GR NO 172695 performing an unlawful act during the incident.
JUNE 29, 2007 Furthermore, in the instant case, the following
circumstances satisfactorily established appellant's
intent to kill his wife: (1) The killing was immediately
FACTS: preceded by a quarrel between the appellant and his
wife. Leticia, the victim's sister, testified that the
Guillermo Antiporta, father of the victim, narrated in
deceased suffered from the violent behavior of the
Court that in the evening of November 5, 1993, between
appellant who would often lay hand on the victim during
9:00 o'clock to 10:00 o'clock, the accused came home

20
their marital squabbles. (2) It has always been said that Marcial Luciño saw him. "Noy, why is [it] your son did
criminal cases are primarily about human nature. something to my brother?" Emmanuel ignored the
appellant. The appellant was incensed and ran after
In the instant case, appellant disappeared after his Emmanuel. He
wounded wife was rushed to the hospital. This is indeed
contrary to human nature. A husband is expected to lend overtook Emmanuel, grabbed and pushed the pedicab
comfort to his dying wife up to her last breath. In this which nearly fell into a canal. Emmanuel again ignored
case, however, appellant took flight. It is well-established the appellant and pedaled on until he reached his house.
that the flight of an accused is competent evidence to His wife, Norberta Cañon was in the balcony of their
indicate his guilt, and flight, when unexplained, as in this house, above the porch waiting for him to arrive.
case, is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt Emmanuel, Jr., meanwhile, was already asleep.
may be drawn. (3) The location of the wound and its Undeterred, the appellant continued following
extent likewise proved appellant's intent to kill the victim. Emmanuel. Shortly after Emmanuel had entered his
The autopsy report revealed that the victim sustained a house, the appellant arrived and tarried at the porch.
punctured wound in the neck, a vital organ, which fatally Emmanuel suddenly opened the door and demanded to
lacerated her jugular vein causing massive hemorrhage. know why he was being followed. The appellant told
The extent of the physical injury inflicted on the Emmanuel that he just wanted to talk to Emmanuel, Jr.,
deceased manifests appellant's intention to extinguish but Emmanuel told the appellant that his son was
life. (4) As regards appellant's act of carrying the body of already asleep. Norberta went down from the balcony
his wounded wife and bringing her to the hospital, the and placed her hand on her husband's shoulder to pacify
same does not manifest innocence. It is merely an him. The appellant forthwith pulled out a handgun from
indication of an act of repentance or contrition on the under his T-shirt and shot Emmanuel on the forehead.
part of appellant. There is likewise no merit in appellant's The latter fell to the floor as the appellant walked away
contention that assuming he was the one who killed his from the scene. Norberta shouted for help. The
wife, the same was accidental and not intentional. The neighbors, her daughter, and her son-in-law arrived.
exempting circumstance of accident is not applicable in They brought Emmanuel to the Tuburan District Hospital,
the instant case. but the victim died shortly thereafter. The appellant
PEOPLE VS RETUBADO admitted shooting the victim but claimed that he was
GR NO 124058 merely performing a lawful act with due care; hence,
DECEMBER 10, 2003 cannot be held criminally liable for the victim's death. He
testified that when he insisted that Emmanuel wake up
his son, Emmanuel went to his room and emerged
FACTS: therefrom holding a handgun with his right hand.
Emmanuel's trigger finger was outside the trigger guard,
Shortly before November 5, 1993, someone played a
and he held the firearm with the muzzle facing
joke on Edwin Retubado, the appellant's younger brother
downward. Fearing that he would be shot, the appellant
who was mentally ill. Someone inserted a lighted
took hold of Emmanuel's right hand with his left, and
firecracker in a cigarette pack and gave it to Edwin. He
pulled the gun towards Emmanuel's stomach. The
brought the cigarette home and placed it on the dining
appellant grabbed Emmanuel's free hand with his right
table as he was having dinner with his father.
hand, and the old man almost fell on his knees to the
Momentarily, the firecracker exploded. The suspect was
ground. Emmanuel still resisted. The appellant pulled the
Emmanuel Cañon, Jr. The Cañons and the appellant
gun to the level of Emmanuel's forehead, and the gun
were neighbors. The matter was brought to the attention
suddenly went off. The bullet hit Emmanuel's forehead.
of the barangay captain who conducted an investigation.
It turned out that Emmanuel Cañon, Jr. was not the The appellant asserts that he was merely performing a
culprit. The barangay captain considered the matter lawful act of defending himself when he grabbed the
closed. The appellant, however, was bent on confronting victim’s hand which held the gun. The gun accidentally
Emmanuel Cañon, Jr. On November 5, 1993, at about fired and the bullet hit the victim’s forehead.
9:00 p.m., 50year-old Emmanuel Cañon, Sr., a pedicab
driver called it a day and decided to go home after a ISSUE:
day's work. He drove his pedicab and stopped at the
WON the death of Emmanuel was an accident caused
junction of Rizal and Gallardo Streets, at the poblacion of
by the appellant.
Tuburan. The appellant, who was conversing with

21
RULING: POMOY VS PEOPLE

GR NO 150647
Yes, The shooting was no accident. A number of legal SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
scholars in Europe are of the view that the act of the FACTS:
accused in a state of necessity
Policemen arrested Tomas Balboa, a master teacher of
is justifying circumstance; hence, lawful. Under Article Concepcion College of Science and Fisheries in
12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, a "state of Concepcion, Iloilo, for he was allegedly connected with a
necessity" is a justifying circumstance. The accused robbery. He was brought to the Headquarters of the
does not commit a crime in legal contemplation; hence, Philippine Constabulary Company at Camp Jalandoni in
is not criminally and civilly liable. By admitting causing Iloilo where he was detained. Roweno Pomoy, a
the injuries and killing the victim, the accused must rely member of the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company,
on the strength of his own evidence and not on the directed the latter to come out for a tactical interrogation
weakness of the evidence of the prosecution because if at the investigation room. Petitioner had a gun hanging
such evidence is weak but the accused fails to prove his from his holster. After that, 2 gunshots were heard.
defense, the evidence of the prosecution can no longer Petitioner was seen holding his .45 caliber
be disbelieved. Whether the accused acted under a state
of necessity is a question of fact, which is addressed to pistol facing Balboa who was lying in a pool of blood.
the sound discretion of the trial court. The facts are clear Balboa died. The version of the defense presented by
as established by the trial court that when Norberta accused Pomoy, Erna Basa (eyewitness) and Eden
heard her husband and the appellant arguing with each Legaspi (was sitting with Basa at the time the incident
other in the porch of their house, she went down from occured) is that Balboa allegedly tried to grab the handle
the balcony towards her husband and placed her hand of Pomoy’s gun. Balboa was no able to take actual hold
on the latter's shoulders. She was shocked when the of the gun because of his efforts in preventing him. He
appellant pulled out his handgun and deliberately shot and Balboa grappled in taking control of his gun, then
the victim on the forehead. After shooting the victim, the Balboa was accidentally shot.
appellant fled from the situs criminis. He surrendered to
ISSUE:
the police authorities only on November 6, 1993, but
failed to surrender the gun he used to kill the victim. The WON the shooting was an accident.
appellant's claim that he placed the gun on the dining
table before entering his bedroom to change his clothes RULING:
is incredible. There is no evidence that the appellant
Exemption from criminal liability proceeds from a finding
informed the police authorities that he killed the victim in
that the harm to the victim was not due to the fault or
a state of necessity and that his brother, Edwin, threw
negligence of the accused, but to circumstances that
the gun into the sea. The appellant never presented the
could not have been foreseen or controlled. Thus, in
police officer to whom he confessed that he killed the
determining whether an "accident" attended the incident,
victim in a state of necessity.
courts must take into account the dual standards of lack
The appellant had the motive to shoot and kill the victim. of intent to kill and absence of fault or negligence. This
The victim ignored the appellant as the latter talked to determination inevitably brings to the fore the main
him at the junction of Rizal and Gallardo streets, in the question in the present case: was petitioner in control of
poblacion of Tuburan. The appellant was incensed at the the .45 caliber pistol at the very moment the shots were
effrontery of the victim, a mere pedicab driver. The fired?
appellant followed the victim to his house where the
Petitioner was not in control of the Gun when it fired.
appellant again confronted him. The appellant insisted
on talking with the victim’s son but the victim refused to The records show that, other than petitioner himself, it
wake up the latter. The appellant, exasperated at the was Erna Basa who witnessed the incident firsthand.
victim’s intransigence, pulled out a gun from under his
shirt and shot the victim on the forehead. It was The deceased persistently attempted to wrest the
impossible for the victim to survive. With the appellant’s weapon from him, while he resolutely tried to thwart
admission that he shot the victim, the matter on whether those attempts. That the hands of both petitioner and the
he used his right or left hand to shoot the latter is victim were all over the weapon was categorically
inconsequential. asserted by the eyewitness. In the course of grappling

22
for the gun, both hands of petitioner were fully engaged weapon from causing accidental harm to others. As he
-- his right hand was trying to maintain possession of the so assiduously maintained, he had kept his service gun
weapon, while his left was warding off the victim. It would locked when he left his house; he kept it inside its holster
be difficult to imagine how, under such circumstances, at all times, especially within the premises of his working
petitioner would coolly and effectively be able to release area.
the safety lock of the gun and deliberately aim and fire it
at the victim. At no instance during his testimony did the accused
admit to any intent to cause injury to the deceased,
It is undisputed that both petitioner and the victim much less kill him.
grappled for possession of the gun. This frenzied
grappling for the weapon -- though brief, having been US VS CABALLEROS
finished in a matter of seconds -- was fierce and vicious. GR NO 1352
The eyewitness account amply illustrated the logical MARCH 29, 1905
conclusion that could not be dismissed: that in the
course of the scuffle, the safety lock could have been
FACTS:
accidentally released and the shots accidentally fired.
The defendants have been sentenced by the CFI of
That there was not just one but two shots fired does not
Cebu to the penalty of seven years of presidio mayor as
necessarily and conclusively negate the claim that the
accessories after the fact in the crime of assassination or
shooting was accidental, as the same circumstance can
murder perpetrated on the persons of the American
easily be attributed to the mechanism of the .45 caliber
school-teachers Louis A. Thomas, Clyde O. France,
service gun. More significantly, the present case involves
John E. Wells, and Ernest Eger, because, without having
a semi-automatic pistol. . 45 caliber is prone to
taken part in the said crime as principals or as
accidental firing when possession thereof becomes the
accomplices, they took part in the burial of the corpses of
object of a struggle.
the victim in order to conceal the crime.
Furthermore, the wound inflicted by the accidental firing
As regards Roberto Baculi, although he confessed to
does not negate the existence of the alleged grappling.
having assisted in the burial of the corpses, it appears
that he did so because he was compelled to do so by the
The elements of accident are as follows: 1) the accused
murderers of the four teachers. And not only does the
was at the time performing a lawful act with due care; 2)
defendant affirm this, but he is corroborated by the only
the resulting injury was caused by mere accident; and 3)
on the part of the accused, there was no fault or no eyewitness to the crime, Teodoro Sabate, who, by the
intent to cause the injury. From the facts, it is clear that way, is a witness for the prosecution. This witness says
all these elements were present. At the time of the he was present when the Americans were killed; that
incident, petitioner was a member -- specifically, one of Roberto Baculi was not a member of the group who
the investigators -- of the Philippine National Police killed the Americans, but that he was in a banana
(PNP) stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force plantation on his property gathering some bananas; that
Company. Thus, it was in the lawful performance of his when he heard the shots he began to run; that he was,
duties as investigating officer that, under the instructions however, seen by Damaso and Isidoro, the leaders of
of his superior, he fetched the victim from the latter’s cell the band; that the latter called to him and striking him the
for a routine interrogation. butts of their guns they forced him to bury the corpses.
Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a ISSUE:

law enforcer that petitioner tried to defend his
possession of the weapon when the victim suddenly tried WON the court is right in convicting Caballero as an
to remove it from his holster. As an enforcer of the law, accessory of the crime.
petitioner was duty-bound to prevent the snatching of his
RULING:
service weapon by anyone, especially by a detained
person in his custody. Such weapon was likely to be No, The Penal Code exempts from liability any person
used to facilitate escape and to kill or maim persons in who performs the act by reason of irresistible force (par.
the vicinity, including petitioner himself. 9, art. 8). Baculi acted, doubtless, under such
circumstances when he executed the acts which are
Petitioner cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised charged against him.
all the necessary precautions to prevent his service

23
This witness says he was present when the Americans Also Elias Monge and his two daughters, Monica and
were killed; that Roberto Baculi was not a member of the Cristina, saw and recognized Eustaquio Loreno as he
group who killed the Americans, but that he was in a entered the sala as one of the companions of the man in
banana plantation on his property gathering some dark sweater. All the occupants of the house were
bananas; that when he heard the shots he began to run; ordered by the man in dark sweater and Loreno to
that he was, however, seen by Damaso and Isidoro, the remain lying flat on their stomachs on the floor.
leaders of the band; that the latter called to him and
striking him the butts of their guns they forced him to Jimmy Marantal stayed as lookout outside the house.
bury the corpses. Thereafter, the man in dark sweater instructed Loreno to
tie all their victims on the floor. Loreno tied them with
PEOPLE VS LORENO rattan. The man in dark sweater cut the baby's hammock
GR NO L-54414 (duyan) and got the ropes with which he and Loreno
JULY 9, 1984 used to reinforce in tying the victim's hands together
behind their backs. After Loreno and Fabie returned to
the sala, the man in dark sweater got hold of Monica
FACTS:
Monge and dragged her up to a room located above the
In the evening of January 7, 1978, Barangay Captain balcony. She tried to resist but she was then still tied.
Elias Monge along with his family (2 young daughters) Inside the room, Monica was asked to reveal the
and some workers of the farm that stayed with the whereabouts of her piggy bank savings. She said there
family. They were preparing to attend a dance held at was none. He ransacked the room but found none. The
the barrio. man in dark sweater then seized Monica and forcibly
removed her pants. Monica resisted and shouted at her
At about 7:40 o'clock that same evening, while he was at parents for help. He boxed and slapped her. Despite her
the balcony of said house, Francisco Fabie saw at first struggle, he was able to remove her panty and
four men with flashlights approaching. When they came successfully raped her. After that, he dragged Monica
near, he heard one of them call Elias Monge saying that back to the sala and proceeded to do the same to
there was a letter from the chief (hepe). Elias Monge Cristina. While all of this was happening, the other men
asked them to come inside since he can’t read the letter then proceeded to ransack the house and found and
properly. When he and the man in dark sweater were took a lot of valuables including a kulambo and kaserola
inside the sala Elias Monge asked his daughter, Monica tangina nila pati yun kinuha.
to fetch his reading glasses. On reading the letter, Elias
Monge and Monica read the following: "Kami mga NPA", Thereafter, Loreno entered the room where Cristina was
which caused Monica to run to her mother, seized with still lying on the floor and proceeded to kiss and touch
fear, informing her just what she came to know about her vagina. Suddenly, he was called to hurry up because
their visitors. Cristina Monge attempted to run to the someone was approaching the house. When he went
kitchen to get a bolo but she was held back by the man back, the dark shirt guy warned everyone not to tell
in dark sweater who then announced to all those inside anyone, got their valuables, and left. They managed to
not to make any scandal. When Elias Monge turned to untie themselves eventually and after positively affirming
look at him, the man in dark sweater poked his gun at the identities of their malefactors, along with Elias finding
him, and ordered all those inside to lie on the floor. In the out the sexual abuse his daughters suffered, filed a
meantime, outside at the balcony the man in red clothes report against the robbery-rape incident. After substantial
asked Fabie for a glass of water, and the latter asked examination to his daughters and initial investigation, the
Mario Monge to get the glass of water, but Mario did not accused were detained, charged and found guilty.
obey and instead went to the sala. Hence, Fabie himself Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy Marantal
went inside the house to fetch the glass of water. But, as claimed that they acted under the compulsion of an
he went inside the sala, he noticed the man in red irresistible force and/or under the impulse of
clothes following him. As Fabie reached the door to the uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. They
sala, the man in red clothes poked his gun on Fabie's admitted that they were in the house of
back and pointed a sharp instrument on his neck and
then he was pushed to go inside the sala. Once inside Elias Monge on the night of January 7, 1978, but they
the sala, which was lighted, Fabie saw and recognized were only forced by a man wearing black sweater and
the man in red clothes to be Eustaquio Loreno. his five companions who claimed to be members of the
New People's Army (NPA), operating in the locality, with

24
the threat that if they did not obey, appellants and their fact admitted that he was the one who furnished the
families would be killed. rattan which he got from inside the house (pp. 14-15,
tsn, Id.).
ISSUE:
4. When Monica Monge was struggling and shouting for
help from inside the room where she was earlier dragged
WON the accused acted under the compulsion of an
by the man in dark sweater, Loreno’s immediate reaction
irresistible force and are therefore exempt from criminal
was to point his gun to the victims who were then lying
liability. (NO)
on the floor, telling them not to rise if they wanted to live
RULING: (p. 38, tsn, Id.).
A person who acts under the compulsion of an The records likewise revealed that on the two occasions
irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse or Eustaquio Loreno brought Beata Monge to the master’s
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt room and the teacher’s room where he made her open
from criminal liability because he does not act with the trunk and the "aparador" with her keys and got the
freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to contents which he brought and poured on the floor of the
a mere instrument who acts not only without will but sala, appellant Loreno acted alone, without the threat
against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation and assistance of the man in dark sweater. And after the
must be present, imminent and impending and of such a man in dark sweater consummated his lust on Cristina
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of Monge in the teacher’s room and seeing Cristina Monge
death of serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A still lying on the floor, Loreno embraced her and tried to
threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion kiss and touch her private parts.
must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to
the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO
GR NO 127755
A perusal of the appellants statement of the robbery- APRIL 14, 1999
rape incident as summarized in their joint brief (pp. 3-
10), showed that they admitted their participation in the
commission of the crimes of robbery and rape against FACTS:
Elias Monge and his family on January 7, 1978. Further On 13 May 1996 between 6:00 and 6:30 in the evening,
established were facts inconsistent with appellant s claim Alonzo stopped his tricycle by the side of Nita’s
of having acted under the compulsion of an irresistible Drugstore, General Luna St., Cabanatuan City, when
force and/or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear three women flagged him. Parked at a distance of about
of equal or greater injury, to wit: one and a-half (1½) meters in front of him was a tricycle
driven by accused Joselito del Rosario. At that point,
1. Appellant Eustaquio Loreno was armed with a short Alonzo saw two (2) men and a woman grappling for
firearm when he and the man in dark sweater went up possession of a bag. After taking hold of the bag one of
the house of Elias Monge. While inside the house, the two men armed with a gun started chasing a man
Loreno pointed the gun to the victims which enabled the who was trying to help the woman, while the other
malefactors to ransack the house (p. 38, tsn, Oct. 30, snatcher kicked the woman sending her to the ground.
1979 PM). Soon after, the armed man returned and while the
woman was still on the ground he shot her on the head.
2. When Eustaquio Loreno and the man in dark sweater The bag taken by the man was brought to the tricycle of
reached the balcony, Loreno positioned himself next to accused del Rosario where someone inside received the
the post in the balcony, while the man in dark sweater bag. The armed man then sat behind the driver while his
delivered the letter to Elias Monge. Loreno admitted that, companion entered the sidecar. When the tricycle sped
without prior instructions, he immediately positioned away Alonzo gave chase and was able to get the plate
himself near the post of the balcony (p. 10, tsn, Id.), an number of the tricycle. He also recognized the driver,
act which showed his voluntary participation in the after which he went to the nearest police headquarters
criminal acts. and reported the incident.
3. Eustaquio Loreno himself tied the victim with rattan
and thereafter, with ropes of the hammock. Loreno in

25
Joselito del Rosario gave his own version of the incident: PEOPLE VS BANDIAN
At around 5:30 in the afternoon he was hired for P120.00 GR NO 45186
5 by a certain "Boy" Santos, 6 his co-accused. SEPTEMBER 30, 1936
Upon arriving at Dicarma, the three (3) men alighted and

warned del Rosario not to inform the police authorities FACTS:
about the incident otherwise he and his family would be
Valentin Aguilar, the appellant's neighbor, saw the
harmed. Del Rosario then went home. Because of the
appellant go to a thicket about four or five brazas from
threat, however, he did not report the matter to the
her house, apparently to respond to a call of nature
owner of the tricycle nor to the barangay captain and the
because it was there that the people of the place used to
police.
go for that purpose. A few minutes later, he again saw
As earlier stated, the court a quo found accused Joselito her emerge from the thicket with her clothes stained with
del Rosario guilty as charged and sentenced him to blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly
death. He now contends in this automatic review that the showing signs of not being able to support herself. He
court a quo erred in: (1) Not finding the presence of ran to her aid and, having noted that she was very weak
threat and irresistible force employed upon him by his and dizzy, he supported and helped her go up to her
co-accused Virgilio "Boy" Santos, Ernesto "Jun" house and placed her in her own bed. Upon being asked
Marquez and "Dodong" Bisaya; before Aguilar brought her to her house, what happened
to her, the appellant merely answered that she was very
ISSUE: dizzy. Not wishing to be alone with the appellant in such
circumstances, Valentin Aguilar called Adriano Comcom,
WON Del Rosario acted upon because of an irresistible
who lived nearby, to help them, and later requested him
force.
to take bamboo leaves to stop the hemorrhage which
RULING: had come upon the appellant. Comcom had scarcely
gone about five brazas when he saw the body of a
Yes, A person who acts under the compulsion of an newborn baby near a path adjoining the thicket where
irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of the appellant had gone a few moments before. Comcom
an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is informed Aguilar of it and latter told him to bring the body
exempt from criminal liability because he does not act to the appellant's house. Upon being asked whether the
with freedom. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. baby which had just been shown to her was hers or not,
An act done by me against my will is not my act. The the appellant answered in the affirmative.
force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce
the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without By the way, it should be stated that there is no evidence
will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or showing how the child in question died. Dr. Nepomuceno
intimidation must be present, imminent and impending; himself affirmed that the wounds found in the body of the
and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded child were not caused by the hand of man but by bites
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act animals, the pigs that usually roamed through the thicket
be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The where it was found.
compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
ISSUE:
opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in
equal combat. WON Bandian committed infanticide.
As a rule, it is natural for people to be seized by fear
when threatened with weapons, even those less RULING:
powerful than a gun, such as knives and clubs. People
will normally, usually and probably do what an armed
man asks them to do, nothing more, nothing less. In the Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be
instant case, del Rosario was threatened with a gun. He punishable, must be committed wilfully or consciously, or
could not therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life to at least it must be result of a voluntary, conscious and
help a stranger. A person under the same circumstances free act or omission. Even in cases where said crimes
are committed through mere imprudence, the person
would be more concerned with his personal welfare and
who commits them, under said circumstances, must be
security rather than the safety of a person whom he only
saw for the first time that day.

26
in the full enjoyment of his mental faculties, or must be already dead child with wounds on the body produced by
conscious of his acts, in order that he may be held liable. the bites of pigs.
The evidence certainly does not show that the appellant, As the herein accused was not aware that she had
in causing her child's death in one way or another, or in delivered and that the child had been exposed to the
abandoning it in the thicket, did so wilfully, consciously or rough weather and to the cruelty of animals, it cannot be
imprudently. She had no cause to kill or abandon it, to held that she deceitfully committed the crime of
expose it to death, because her affair with a former lover, infanticide or that of abandonment of a minor, because
which was not unknown to her second lover, Luis Kirol, according to the above-cited legal provision there is
took place three years before the incident; her married deceit when the act punishable by law is performed with
life with Kirol — she considers him her husband as he deliberate intent. Suffering from fever and from
considers her his wife — began a year ago; as he so dizziness, the appellant under the circumstances was
testified at the trial, he knew that the appellant was not aware that she had given birth and, consequently,
pregnant and he believed from the beginning, affirming she could not have deliberately intended to leave her
such belief when he testified at the trial, that the child child, of whose existence she was ignorant, to perish at
carried by the appellant in her womb was his, and he the mercy of the elements and of the animals. Neither
testified that he and she had been eagerly waiting for the can it be held that she faultily committed it because, as
birth of the child. The appellant, therefore, had no cause already stated, not knowing for lack of experience in
to be ashamed of her pregnancy to Kirol. childbirth that in defecating — a perfectly lawful
physiological act, being natural — she might expel the
The act performed by the appellant in the morning in child she carried in her womb, she cannot be considered
question, by going into the thicket, according to her, to imprudent, a psychological defect of a person who fails
respond to call of nature, notwithstanding the fact that to use his reasoning power to foresee the pernicious
consequences of his willful act.
she had fever for a long time, was perfectly lawful. If by
doing so she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to
her child in that same place and later abandoning it, not
because of imprudence or any other reason than that
she was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme
debility, she should not be blamed therefor because it all
happened by mere accident, from liability any person
who so acts and behaves under such circumstances (art.
12, subsection 4, Revised Penal Code).
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE VILLAREAL.
I concur in the acquittal of the accused Josefina Bandian

not on the ground that she is exempt from criminal
liability but because she has committed no criminal act
or omission.
The evidence conclusively shows that on the day in

question the accused Josefina Bandian had spent a year
of marital life with her lover Luis Kirol by whom she was
begotten with a child for the first time. Her said lover
knew that she was pregnant and both were waiting for
the arrival of the happy day when the fruit of their love
should be born.
Believing that she did nothing more to respond to an

urgent call of nature which brought her there, she
returned home staggering for lack of strength to support
herself and for being dizzy, without suspecting that she
was leaving a newborn child behind her, and she only
knew that she had given birth when she was shown the


Crim1 Case Digests - Module 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim1 Case Digests - Module 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim1 Case Digests - Module 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

MODULE 6: a dream, under the influence of a hallucination and not in

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

According to the very witness of the defendant, Dr.

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

Jose, Calumpit, Bulacan, reaching that place in the RULING:

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

rehabilitated after a series of medical treatment in their

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

None of the witnesses presented by the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

ISSUE: All the other defense witnesses testified on the supposed

Moments later, Jason barged into Bambi’s house,

Finally, the fact that appellant admitted to responding law

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

ISSUE: Anacito’s psychiatric history likewise fails to meet the

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

Dr. Pagaddu categorically testified that Verdadero was FACTS:

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

RULING: POMOY VS PEOPLE

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a ISSUE:

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

Upon arriving at Dicarma, the three (3) men alighted and

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE VILLAREAL.

I concur in the acquittal of the accused Josefina Bandian

The evidence conclusively shows that on the day in

Believing that she did nothing more to respond to an

CRIMINAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST

You might also like