CASE DIGEST: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729 CASE DIGEST: US vs Look Chow, 18 Phil 573

Case Title: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729 Case Title: US vs Look Chow, 18 Phil 573

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code Subject Matter: Applicability of the provisions of Art 2 of the Revised Penal
Code
Facts:

Facts:
The appellant, in representation of the Attorney General, filed an appeal that
urges the revocation of a demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance of
Manila presented by the defendant. The defendant, accused of having
Between 11 and 12 o'clock a.m. in August 19, 1909, the Port of Cebu and
illegally smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English
internal revenue agent of Cebu, respectively, went aboard the steamship
nationality while the said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half
Erroll to inspect and search its cargo, and found two sacks containing opium.
miles from the shores of the city. In the said demurrer, the defendant
The defendant stated freely and voluntarily that he had bought these sacks of
contended the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court of the said crime, which
opium in Hong Kong with the intention of selling them as contraband in
resulted to the dismissal of the case.
Mexico or Vera Cruz, and that as his hold had already been searched several
times for opium he ordered two other chinamen to keep the sack. All the
evidence found properly constitutes corpus delicti.
Issue:

It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it
Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime
came from Hong Kong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports in
committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdictional waters.
Manila and Cebu.

Held:
Issue:

Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in our internal waters thus
Whether or not courts of local state can exercise its jurisdiction over foreign
the Philippine courts have a right of jurisdiction over the said offense. The
vessels stationed in its port.
Court said that having the opium smoked within our territorial waters even
though aboard a foreign merchant ship is a breach of the public order
because it causes such drugs to produce pernicious effects within our
Held:
territory. Therefore, the demurrer is revoked and the Court ordered further
proceedings.

Yes. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the matter. The mere
possession of a thing of prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign
vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a Held:
crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being
considered as an extension of its own nationality. However, the same rule
does not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the Yes. As stated in the Opium Law, we expressly hold that any person who
Philippines, in the present case, a can of opium, is landed from the vessel unlawfully imports or brings any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands,
upon the Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the penal law when the prohibited drug is found under this person's control on a vessel
in force at the place of the commission of the crime. Only the court which has come direct from a foreign country and is within the jurisdiction
established in the said place itself has competent jurisdiction, in the absence limits of the Philippines, is guilty of the crime of illegal importation of opium,
of an agreement under an international treaty. unless contrary circumstances exist or the defense proves otherwise.

CASE DIGEST: US vs Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978 Padilla vs. Dizon (Crim1)

Case Title: US vs Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978 Alexander Padilla, complainant, vs. The Hon. Baltazar R. Dizon, Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 113, respondent.
Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

February 23, 1988

Facts:

Per Curiam
Ah Sing is a fireman at the steamship Shun Chang, a foreign vessel which
arrived in the port of Cebu from Saigon. He bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon,
brought them on board and had them in his possession during the said trip.
The 8 cans of opium were found in the ashes below the boiler of the Facts:
steamer's engine by authorities who made a search upon anchoring on the Respondent Baltazar R. Dizon acquitted, in his decision, the tourist and
port of Cebu. The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the opium accused, Lo Chi Fai, saying that Lo Chi Fai had no willful intention to violate
and that he had purchased it in Saigon. He dis not confess, however, as to his the law. He also directed the release to Lo Chi Fai of at least the amount of
purpose in buying the opium. He did not say that it was his intention to US$3,000.00 under Central Bank Circular No. 960.
import the prohibited drug.
Lo Chi Fai was caught by Customs guard at the Manila International Airport
while attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange
Issue: instruments out of the country.

An information was filed against Lo Chi Fai with the RTC for violation of Sec. 6,
Central Bank Circular No. 960 with a penal sanction provided by Sec. 1, PD
Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of opium into the Philippine NO. 1883.
Islands is criminally liable in the Philippines.
Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No. 960 provides that no person shall take out or
transmit or attempt to take out or transmit foreign exchange in any form out
of the Philippines without an authorization by the Central Bank. Tourists and apprehended at the airport and the amounts of such foreign exchange did
non-resident visitors may take out or send out from the Philippine foreign not correspond to the foreign currency declarations presented by Lo Chi Fai
exchange in amounts not exceeding such amounts of foreign exchange at the trial, and that these currency declarations were declarations belonging
brought in by them. Tourists and non-resident temporary visitors bringing to other people.
with them more than US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in other foreign
In invoking the provisions of the Central Bank Circular No. 960 to justify the
currencies shall declare their foreign exchange in the form prescribed by the
release of US$3,000.00 to Lo Chi Fai, Baltazar R. Dizon again diplayed gross
Central Bank at points of entries upon arrival in the Philippines.
incompetence and gross ignorance of law. There is nothing in the Central
Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1883 provides that any person who shall engage in the trading Bank Circular which could be taken as authority for the trial court to release
or purchase and sale of foreign currency in violation of existing laws or rules the said amount of US Currency to Lo Chi Fai.
and regulations of the Central Bank shall be guilty of the crime of
blackmarketing of foreign exchange and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
temporal (minimum of 12 years and 1 day and maximum of 20 years) and a Crim Law 1 Case Digest: People V. Oanis 1943
fine of no less than P50,000.00.
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257
At the trial, Lo Chi Fai tried to establish that he was a businessman from
Hongkong, that he had come to the Philippines 9 to 10 times to invest in G.R. No.L-47722 July 27, 1943
business in the country with his business associates, and that he and his MORAN, J.
business associates declared all the money they brought in and all
declarations were handed to and kept by him.

Because of the revolution taking place in Manila during that time, Lo Chi Fai Lesson applicable: mitigating circumstances
was urged by his business associates to come to Manila to bring the money
out of the Philippines.
FACTS:
Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a complaint against
Baltazar R. Dizon for acquitting Lo Chi Fai. Ø Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received from Major Guido a telegram of the
Issue: following tenor: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas
Whether or not respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of gross incompetence with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." Captain
or gross ignorance of the law in holding that the accused, Lo Chi Fai, for Monsod accordingly called for his first sergeant and asked that he be given
violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960, the prosecution must establish that four men.
the accused had the criminal intent to violate the law. Ø The same instruction was given to the chief of police Oanis who was
Held: likewise called by the Provincial Inspector.

Yes. Ø Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went to the room of Irene, and an
seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door where they were,
Ratio: simultaneously or successively fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber
Baltazar R. Dizon ignored the fact that the foreign currency and foreign revolvers. Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour already
currency instruments found in the possession of Lo Chi Fai when he was wounded, and looking at the door where the shots came, she saw the
defendants still firing at him. Shocked by the entire scene. Irene fainted; it offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
turned out later that the person shot and killed was not the notorious right-present
criminal Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent citizen named Serapio
injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
Tecson, Irene's paramour.
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.-not
Ø According to Appellant Galanta, when he and chief of police Oanis arrived present
at the house, the latter asked Brigida where Irene's room was. Brigida
Ø According to article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by 1
indicated the place, and upon further inquiry as to the whereabouts of
or 2 degrees than that prescribed by law shall, in such case, be imposed.
Anselmo Balagtas, she said that he too was sleeping in the same room.

ISSUE: W/N they may, upon such fact, be held responsible for the death thus
caused to Tecson US vs. Ah Chong (Crim1)

The United States, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ah Chong, defendant-appellant.

HELD: appellants are hereby declared guilty of murder with the mitigating
circumstance

YES.
En Banc
Ø ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake is
committed without fault or carelessness

Ø appellants found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to

immediate action. The person in the room being then asleep, appellants had Carson, March 19, 1910
ample time and opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort
to that end had been made, as the victim was unarmed.

Ø "No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, Topic: Mental element (Mens rea) - Deliberate intent (Dolo) - Mistake of fact
and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is
necessary for his detention."

Ø a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses

unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest
Facts:
Ø The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the
killing being intentional and not accidental. In criminal negligence, the injury
caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of The defendant Ah Chong was a cook at "Officers' quarters, No. 27," Fort
another act performed without malice. McKinley, Rizal Province

Ø 2 requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying Pascual Gualberto, deceased, works at the same place as a house boy or
one: muchacho
"Officers' quarters, No. 27" was a detached house some 40 meters from the Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under
nearest building the impression that Pascual was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the
door of their sleeping room, despite the defendant's warnings
No one slept in the house except the two servants who jointly occupied a
small room toward the rear of the building, the door of which opened upon a Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with
narrow porch running along the side of the building extenuating (mitigating) circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day
presidio mayor, the minimum penalty prescribed by law
This porch was covered by a heavy growth of vines for its entire length and
height Issue:

The door of the room was not furnished with a permanent bolt or lock; the Whether or not the defendant can be held criminally responsible
occupants, as a measure of security, had attached a small hook or catch on
Holding:
the inside of the door, and were in the habit of reinforcing this somewhat
insecure means of fastening the door by placing against it a chair No.
On the night of August 14, 1908, at about 10:00 pm, the defendant was Ratio:
suddenly awakened by some trying to force open the door of the room
By reason of a mistake as to the facts, the defendant did an act for which he
He called out twice, "Who is there?" would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them
to be (i.e. if Pascual was actually a thief, he will not be criminally
He heard no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was
liable/responsible because it would be self-defense), but would constitute the
being pushed open by someone bent upon forcing his way into the room
crime of homicide or assassination if the actor had known the true state of
The defendant warned the intruder "If you enter the room, I will kill you." the facts (i.e. if he knew that it was actually Pascual, he would be guilty of
homicide/assassination)
Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the defendant
struck out wildly at the intruder (when he entered the room) who turned out The defendant's ignorance or mistake of fact was not due to negligence or
to be his roommate Pascual bad faith

Pascual ran out upon the porch heavily wounded "The act itself foes not make man guilty unless his intention were so"

Recognizing Pascual, the defendant called to his employers who slept in the The essence of the offense is the wrongful intent, without which it cannot
next house and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's exist
wounds
"The guilt of the accused must depend on the circumstances as they appear
Pascual died from the effects of the wound the following day to him."

The roommates appear to have been in friendly and amicable terms prior to If one has reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts which will justify
the incident, and had an understanding that when either returned at night, he a killing, if without fault or carelessness he does believe them, he is legally
should knock that the door and acquaint his companion with his identity guiltless of the homicide

The defendant alleges that he kept the knife under his pillow as personal The defendant was doing no more than exercise his legitimate right of self-
protection because of repeated robberies in Fort McKinley defense
He cannot be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even
carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts
It appears from the evidence that on the evening of October 26, 1928, a
RTC's decision is reversed. The defendant is acquitted. number of Mamacas celebrated a reunion in the house of the Mansaca
Gabriel. There seems to have been a liberal supply of alcoholic drinks and
some of the men present became intoxicated, with the result that a quarrel
[ GR No. 32066, Mar 15, 1930 ] took place between the Mamaca, Dunca and the defendant Dunca and his
son Aguipo eventually left the house and were followed by Mapudul and one
PEOPLE v. GONA + Awad. The defendant left the house about the same time with intention of
DECISION assaulting Dunca, but in the darkness of the evening and in the intoxicated
condition of the defendant, he mistook Mapudul for Dunca and inflicted on
54 Phil. 605 him a mortal wound with a bolo.

OSTRAND, J.: There can be no doubt that the defendant killed Mapudul and that he is guilty
of the crime charged, but his attorney argues that in view of the fact that said
defendant had no intention to kill the deceased and committed the crime by
mistake, he should have been found guilty of homicide through negligence
under paragraph 1 of article 568 of the Penal Code and not of the graver
crime of intentional homicide.
The defendant was charged before the Court of First Instance of the Province
of Davao with the crime of homicide, the information reading as follows:
This contention is contrary to earlier decisions of this court. In the case of
United States vs, Mendieta (84 Phil., 242), the court said:
"That on or about October 26, 1928, in the municipal district of Pantukan,
Province of Davao, Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of the court,
the said accused voluntarily, illegally, and criminally and with a bolo which he "Even admitting that the defendant intended to injure Hilario Lauigan instead
then carried, assaulted the Mansaca Mapudul, causing him a mortal wound of Pedro Acierto, even that, in view of the mortal wound which he inflicted
on the left side of the neck and that, as a consequence of said wound, the upon the latter, in no way could be considered as a relief from his criminal
said Mapudul died." act. That he made a mistake in killing one man instead of another, when it is
proved that he acted maliciously and willfully, cannot relieve him from
criminal responsibility. Neither do we believe that the fact that he made a
Upon trial the court below found the defendant guilty as charged in the mistake in killing the wrong man should be considered as a mitigating
information and taking into consideration the extenuating circumstance of circumstance."
non-habitual intoxication, sentenced him to suffer twelve years and one day
of reclusion temporal with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the The appealed sentence is affirmed with the costs against the defendant. So
costs. From this sentence the defendant appealed. ordered.
 do not want to go upstairs, I will get Juana and if anyone tries to defend her I
will kill him."
Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez and Villa- Real, JJ., concur.

The accused waited until Juana and her niece Perfecta Buralo came
[ GR No. 25459, Aug 10, 1926 ]
downstairs, when they went in the direction of their house. The accused, who
PEOPLE v. RAMON MABUG-AT + was seen by the two girls, followed them without saying a word. It is only a
short distance from the house where the devotion took place to that of the
DECISION offended party, the houses being adjacent. As the two girls were going
51 Phil. 967 upstairs, the accused, while standing at the foot of the stairway, fired a shot
from his revolver which wounded Perfecta Buralo, the bullet passing through
a part of her neck, having entered the posterior region thereof and coming
ROMUALDEZ, J.: out through the left eye, which was completely destroyed. Due to proper
medical attention, Perfecta Buralo did not die and is one of the witnesses
who testified at the trial of this case.
The Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros impojed upon Ramon Mabug-at
the penalty of twelve years and one day cadena temporal, with the
accessories of the law, to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P700 The defense, without abandoning its allegation that the accused is not
and to pay the costs, for the crime of frustrated murder. responsible for the crime, contends that the crime proven is not frustrated
murder but the discharge of a firearm, with injuries, it not having been
proven that it was the accused's intention to kill.
The appellant appealed from this judgment, making two assignments of error
as committed by the trial court, to wit:
The relations existing between the accused and Juana Buralo, his
1. In holding that the crime committed is frustrated murder, and disappointment at her not accepting his invitation to take a walk, the fact that
the accused, revolver in hand, went to look for Juana Buralo at the house
2. In not giving any credit to the evidence presented by the defense, finding
where the devotion was being held, later following her to her house, and
the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
especially having aimed at her person the head are facts which, in our
The evidence of the prosecution shows that the accused and Juana Buralo opinion, permit of no other conclusion than that, in firing the shot, it was the
were sweethearts. Juana had been jealous of the accused on account of the accused's intention to kill.
latter having frequently visited the house of one Carmen. Their relations were
such that the accused invited Juana to take a walk on the afternoon of August
9, 1925, Juana refused him, later sending him a note of excuse. On the third In the decision of this court in the case of United States vs. Montenegro (15
day, or the night of August 11th, the accused went to the threshold of Cirilo Phil., 1), it was held:
Banyan's house where Juana Buralo had gone to take part in some devotion.
There the accused, revolver in hand, requested Francisco Abellon to ask Juana "We do not doubt that there may be cases wherein the discharge of a firearm
to come downstairs and as Abellon refused to do so, the accused said: "If you at another is not in itself sufficient to sustain a finding of the intention to kill,
and there are many cases in the books wherein the attendant circumstances
conclusively establish that on discharging a firearm at another the actor was the crime without any risk to himself arising from any defense that might be
not in fact animated by the intent to kill. But, in seeking to ascertain the made by the offended party, for neither the wounded party Bartolome
intention with which a specific act is committed, it is always proper and Lobejano, at whom the shot was aimed in order to kill him so that he might
necessary to look not merely to the act itself but to all the attendant not testify as to the assault committed upon him shortly before, as held by
circumstances so far as they are developed by the evidence; and where, as in the trial court, was not in a position to defend himself in any way, nor could
the case at bar, a revolver is twice discharged point-blank at the body of Nazario Inigo become aware of any attack so unjustified, rapid and
another, and the shots directed at the most vital parts of the body, it needs unforeseen; considering, further, that the purely accidental circumstance that
but little additional evidence to establish the intent to kill beyond a as a result of the shot a person other than the one intended was killed, does
reasonable doubt." not modify, in the instant case, the elements constituting the crime of murder
qualified by the treachery with which Alejandro Sola acted, whether with
The fact that a person received the shot which was in-tended for another,
respect to the wounded Bartolome Lobejano or to the deceased Nazario
does not alter his criminal liability. (Art. 1, par. 3, Penal Code.)
Inigo, for which reason the rules of article 65 are not applicable herein, the
culprit not having, in fact, committed a crime different from that which he
intended, taking into consideration the substantial and intrinsical meaning
The circumstances qualifying the murder alleged in the complaint are evident thereof, etc."
premeditation and treachery. Even when there is sufficient proof of
premeditation (which we do not believe has been sufficiently established), Although the case just cited refers to the crime of consummated murder, the
yet, it cannot be considered as a qualifying circumstance in the present case, doctrine sustained therein is applicable to the case at bar so far as the
because the person whom the accused intended to kill was not Perfecta concurrence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance is concerned.
Buralo, who was hit by the bullet, but her aunt Juana Buralo. Had evident
premeditation been proven, and there being no other qualifying circumstance
of frustrated murder present in this case, the acts should be held to be The crime now before us is frustrated murder, the accused having intended
frustrated homicide and punished with the maximum degree of the penalty to kill and performed all the acts of execution which would have produced
prescribed by law. (Question 2, p. 28, 1890 ed., Viada's Penal Code.) But, the the crime of murder but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of
'fact is that treachery was proven and must be taken into consideration in this causes independent of his Will. (Art. 3, Penal Code.)
case, because the accused fired at Perfecta Buralo, employing means which
tended to insure the execution of the crime without running any risk himself
from anyone who might attempt to defend the said offended party. The We find no merit in the first assignment of error. In regard to the second, it
treachery which, according to the evidence, would have attended the crime appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts enumerated above
had the bullet hit Juana Buralo was present in this case because the offended constitute the crime of frustrated murder. With the exception of the
party Perfecta Buralo and Juana were going upstairs with their backs towards qualifying circumstance of treachery, we find no other aggravating
the accused when he fired his revolver. The Supreme Court of Spain, in a circumstance. The judgment appealed from being in accordance with the law
decision of May 7, 1885 (Viada, do., pp. 29, 30), in holding a crime to be and the facts proven, the same is hereby affirmed in all its parts, with the
murder and not homicide, stated the following: costs against the appellant. So ordered.
"Considering that, according to the concept of treachery as it is explained in
article 10 of the Civil Code dealing with said circumstance, it is evident that in
firing the gun which Alejandro Sola was carrying which caused the death of Avanceña, C. J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Nazario Inigo, he employed means which tended to insure the commission of
[ GR No. 38511, Oct 06, 1933 ]

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO CAGOCO Y RAMONES "2. Assuming that the appellant is the person who committed the assault on
Yu Lon (a fact which we specifically deny), the trial court erred in finding that
58 Phil. 524
the appellant struck his supposed victim.

VICKERS, J.:
"3. Assuming that the appellant is the person who committed the assault on
Yu Lon, and that the appellant did strike his supposed victim (facts which we
specifically deny) the trial court erred in finding that the blow was dealt from
The accused was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the the victim's rear.
crime of asesinato, committed as follows:

"That on or about the 24th day of July, 1932, in the City of Manila, Philippine
Islands, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and "4. The trial court erred in finding that the identity of the appellant was fully
feloniously, without any just cause therefor and with intent to kill and established.
treachery, assault and attack one Yu Lon by suddenly giving him a fist blow on
the back part of the head, under conditions which intended directly and
especially to insure the accomplishment of his purpose without risk to himself "5. Assuming that the four preceding errors assigned are without merit, the
arising from any defense the victim Yu Lon might make, thus causing him to trial court erred in convicting the appellant of the crime of murder, under
fall on the ground as a consequence of which he suffered a lacerated wound article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, instead of convicting him of the crime
on the scalp and a fissured fracture on the left occipital region, which were of maltreatment, under article 266 of the said Code."
necessarily mortal and which caused the immediate death of the said Yu
Lon."
It appears from the evidence that about 8.30 on the night of July 24, 1932 Yu
Lon and Yu Yee, father and son, stopped to talk on the sidewalk at the corner
After hearing the evidence, Judge Luis P. Torres found the defendant guilty as of Mestizos and San Fernando Streets in the District of San Nicolas. Yu Lon
charged, and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua, with the accessory was standing near the outer edge of the sidewalk, with his back to the street.
penalties of the law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Yu Lon in the sum While they were talking, a man passed back and forth behind Yu Lon once or
of P1,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay twice, and when Yu Yee was about to take leave of his father, the man that
the costs. had been passing back and forth behind Yu Lon approached him from behind
and suddenly and without warning struck him with his fist on the back part of
the head. Yu Lon tottered and fell backwards. His head struck the asphalt
Appellant's attorney de oficio makes the following assignments of error: pavement; the lower part of his body fell on the sidewalk. His assailant
immediately ran away. Yu Yee pursued him through San Fernando, Camba,
and Jaboneros Streets, and then lost sight of him. Two other Chinese, Chin
"1. The trial court erred in finding that the appellant is the person who Sam and Yee Fung, who were walking along Calle Mestizos, saw the incident
committed the assault on Yu Lon, the victim of the crime charged in the and joined him in the pursuit of Yu Lon's assailant. The wounded man was
information. taken to the Philippine General Hospital, where he died about midnight. A
post-mortem examination was made the next day by Dr. Anastacia Villegas, assailant, because while that person was walking back and forth behind Yu
who found that the deceased had sustained a lacerated wound and fracture Lon, Yu Yee was facing the assailant.
of the skull in the occipital region, and that he had died from cerebral
hemorrhage; that he had tuberculosis, though not in an advanced stage, and
a tumor in the left kidney. We find the testimony of the defendant and his witnesses as to the
whereabouts of the defendant on the night in question unworthy of credit.

Yu Yee promptly reported the incident to the police, and about 3 o'clock the
next morning Sergeant Sol Cruz and other detectives, accompanied by Yu Yee, The testimony of the three Chinese that a man struck the deceased and then
went to the scene of the crime and found blood stains in the street. Yu Yee ran away is corroborated by the testimony of a 15-year old boy, Dominador
said that he could recognize his father's assailant, and described him as being Sales.
about five feet in height, 25 or 30 years old, with long hair and wearing a suit
of dark clothes. After Sergeant Sol Cruz had been working on the case for
three or four days he received information that the accused might be the As to the contention that the deceased would have fallen on his face if he had
person that had assaulted Yu Lon, and on August 4th the accused was been struck on the back of the head, the expert testimony shows that in such
arrested by detectives Manrique and Bustamante. He was wearing a dark a case a person instinctively makes an effort to preserve or regain his balance,
wool suit. Yu Yee was immediately called to the police station. The accused and that as result thereof the deceased may have fallen backwards. Another
was placed near the middle of a line of some eleven persons that had been consideration is that sidewalks almost invariably slope towards the pavement,
detained for investigation. They were wearing different kinds of clothes. Yu and this being true, when the deceased straightened up, he naturally tended
Yee without hesitation pointed out the defendant as the person that had to fall backwards. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that the accused
assaulted Yu Lon. He identified him not only by his long hair combed towards struck the deceased on the back of the head, because when the deceased
the back and worn long on the sides in the form of side-whiskers (patillas), was assaulted he and Yu Yee were standing on the sidewalk, facing each
but also by his high cheek-bones and the fact that his ears have no lobes. The other, and if the accused had not struck the deceased on the back of the
defendant was identified at the trial not only by Yu Yee, but also by Chin Sam head, it would have been necessary for him to go between the deceased and
and Yee Fung. Yu Yee. Since the accused struck the deceased from behind and without
warning, he acted with treachery. "There is treachery when the offender
commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
With respect to the first four assignments of error, which raise questions of forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
fact as to the identification of the accused, and whether or not he struck the execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
deceased, and if he did assault the deceased, whether he did so in a offended party might make." (Article 14, No. 16, of the Revised Penal Code.)
treacherous manner, we see no sufficient reason, after considering the
evidence and arguments of counsel, to doubt the correctness of the findings
of the trial judge. The accused was identified by Yu Yee and two other The fourth assignment of error is a repetition of the first.
Chinese, and although Yu Yee may have overstated at the trial some of the
facial peculiarities in the defendant that he claimed to have observed at the
time of the incident, it must be remembered that Yu Yee without hesitation In the fifth assignment of error it is contended that the appellant if guilty at
picked the defendant out of a group of eleven persons as his father's all, should be punished in accordance with article 266 of the Revised Penal
assailant, and that he had exceptional opportunities for observing his father's Code, or for slight physical injuries instead of murder.
Paragraph No. 1 of article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal We have seen that under the circumstances of this case the defendant is
liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although liable for the killing of Yu Lon, because his death was the direct consequence
the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended; but in order of defendant's felonious act of striking him on the head. If the defendant had
that a person may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which not committed the assault in a treacherous manner, he would nevertheless
he proposed to commit, it is indispensable that the two following requisites have been guilty of homicide, although he did not intend to kill the deceased;
be present, to wit: (a) That a felony was committed; and (b) that the wrong and since the defendant did commit the crime with treachery, he is guilty of
done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the crime murder, because of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
committed by the offender. (U. S. vs. Brobst, 14 Phil., 310; U. S. vs. Mallari, 29
Phil., 14; U. S. vs. Diana, 32 Phil., 344.)
The Supreme Court of Spain has held that there is no incompatibility, moral or
legal, between alevosia and the mitigating circumstance of not having
In the Brobst case, supra, it was held that death may result from a blow over intended to cause so great an injury:
or near the heart or in the abdominal region, notwithstanding the fact that
the blow leaves no outward mark of violence; that where death results as the
direct consequence of the use of illegal violence, the mere fact that the "Considering that there is no moral or legal incompatibility between
diseased or weakened condition of the injured person contributed to his treachery and the mitigating circumstance No. 3 of article 9 of the Penal
death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of criminal responsibility; that Code, because the former depends upon the manner of execution of the
one is not relieved, under the law in these Islands, from criminal liability for crime and the latter upon the tendency of the will towards a definite purpose,
the natural consequences of one's illegal acts, merely because one does not and therefore there is no obstacle, in case treacherous means, modes or
intend to produce such consequences; but that in such cases, the lack of forms are employed, to the appreciation of the first of said circumstances and
intention, while it does not exempt from criminal liability, is taken into simultaneously of the second if the injury produced exceeds the limits
consideration as an extenuating circumstance. (U. S. vs. Luciano, 2 Phil., 96.) intended by the accused; and for that reason it cannot be held in the instant
case that this mitigating circumstance excludes treachery, or that the
accused, being chargeable with the death of the offended party, should not
The reasoning of the decisions cited is applicable to the case at bar. There can be liable for murder, inasmuch as this was the offense committed due to the
be no reasonable doubt as to the cause of the death of Yu Lon. There is voluntary presence of treachery in the act perpetrated, although with the
nothing to indicate that it was due to some extraneous case. It was clearly the mitigation corresponding to the disparity between the act intended and the
direct consequence of defendants felonious act, and the fact that the act consummated, etc." (Decision of May 10, 1905, Gazette of April 20, 1906;
defendant did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve him Viada: 5th edition, Vol. 2, p. 156.)
from the consequence of his unlawful act, but is merely a mitigating
circumstance (U. S. vs. Rodriguez, 23 Phil., 22).
In the case of the United States vs. Candelaria (2 Phil., 104), this court
speaking through Chief Justice Arellano said:
The next question is whether the crime committed by the defendant should
be classified as homicide or murder. Can the defendant be convicted of
murder when he did not intend to kill the deceased?
"In tying Jacinto to a tree the three defendants acted treacherously
(alevosamente). Whether it was to prevent him from making resistance,
The appellant was sentenced by the Court of First In- stance of Occidental
whether it was to torture him for the purpose of making him give
Misamis to the penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal,
information, or whether it was for the purpose of inflicting further
with the accessories of law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the
punishment, the fact is that by this means the defendants secured
amount of P1,000, and to pay the costs. The crime charged against the
themselves against any risk which might have arisen from an attempt at self-
accused is homicide, according to the following information:
defense on the part of the victim. We are of opinion that they had no
intention to cause so great an evil as that which resulted, but this does not "That on or about the 6th of May, 1930, in the barrio of Calunod,
neutralize that other qualifying circumstance of the resulting death, because municipality of Baliangao, Province of Occidental Misamis, the accused
if there was no alevosia for the purpose of killing there was alevosia for the Donato Bindoy willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked and with his
purpose of illtreating. The means employed were not made use of for the bolo wounded Emigdio Omamdam, inflicting upon the latter a serious wound
precise purpose of making certain the death of Jacinto de Jesus, but as a safe in the chest which caused his instant death, in violation of article 404 of the
means of illtreating him without risk to the persons who were doing so. If by Penal Code."
this means the ill treatment was aggravated, it follows that it is a qualifying
circumstance in the death which resulted. It was not a condition of the The accused appealed from the judgment of the trial court, and his counsel
purpose, but it was a condition of the criminal act itself, in whatever sense in this instance contends that the court erred in finding him guilty beyond a
this be taken." reasonable doubt, and in convicting him of the crime of homicide.

The penalty for murder (article 248 of the Revised Penal Code) is reclusion The record shows that in the afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance arose
temporal in its maximum period to death, and there being present in this case in a tuba wineshop in the barrio market of Calunod, municipality of Baliangao,
one mitigating and no aggravating circumstance the prison sentence of the Province of Occidental Misamis, started by some of the tuba drinkers.
appellant is reduced to seventeen years, four months, and one day of There were Faustino Pacas (alias Agaton), and his wife called Tibay. One
reclusion temporal. As thus modified, the decision appealed from is affirmed, Donato Bindoy, who was also there, offered some tuba to Pacas' wife; and
with the costs against the appellant. as she refused to drink having already done so, Bindoy threatened to injure
her if she did not accept. There ensued an interchange of words between
Tibay and Bindoy, and Pacas stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to
take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. This occasioned a disturbance
Avanceña, C. J., Street, Abad Santos, and Butte, JJ., concur.
which "attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam, who, with his family,
lived near the market. Emigdio left his house to see what was happening*
while Bindoy and Pacas were struggling for the bolo. In the course of this
[ GR No. 38511, Oct 06, 1933 ]
struggle, Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching
PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO CAGOCO Y RAMONES the bolo from the latter's hand towards the left behind the accused, with
such violence that the point of the bolo reached Emigdio Omamdam's chest,
56 Phil. 15 who was then behind Bindoy.

VILLAMOR, J.:
There is no evidence that Emigdio took part in the fight between Bindoy and although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Pacas. Neither is there any indication that the accused was aware of Emigdio (Art. 1 of the Penal Code.) But, as we have said, this is not the case.
Omamdam's presence in the place, for, according to the testimony of the
witnesses, the latter passed behind the combatants when he left his house to
satisfy his curiosity. There was no disagreement or ill feeling between Bindoy The witness for the defense, Gaudencio Cenas, corroborates the defendant
and Omamdam, on the contrary, it appears they were nephew and uncle, to the effect that Pacas and Bindoy were actually struggling for the
respectively, and were on good terms with each other. Bindoy did not try to possession of the bolo, and that when the latter let go, the former had
wound Pacas, and instead of wounding him, he hit Omamdam; he was only pulled so violently that it flew towards his left side, at the very moment when
defending his possession of the bolo, which Pacas was trying to wrench Emigdio Omamdam came up, who was therefore hit in the chest, without
away from him, and his conduct was perfectly lawful. Donato's seeing him, because Emigdio had passed behind him. The same
witness adds that he went to see Omamdam at his home later, and asked him
about his wound when he replied: "I think I shall die of this wound." And
The wound which Omamdam received in the chest, judging by the description then continued: "Please look after my wife when I die: See that she doesn't
given by the sanitary inspector who attended him as he lay dying, tallies with starve,'* adding further: "This wound was an accident. Donato did not aim at
the size of the point of Bindoy's bolo. me, nor I at him: It was a mishap." The testimony of this witness was not
contradicted by any rebuttal evidence adduced by the fiscal.

There is no doubt that the latter caused the wound which produced Emigdio
Omamdam's death, but the defendant alleges that it was caused accidentally We have searched the record in vain for the motive of this kind, which, had
and without malicious intent. it existed, would have greatly facilitated the solution of this case. And we
deem it well to repeat what this court said in United States vs. Carlos (15
Phil., 47), to wit:
Pacas and the widow of the deceased, Carmen Angot, testified having seen
"The attention of prosecuting officers, and especially of provincial fiscals,
the accused stab Omamdam with his bolo. Such testimony is not
directed to the importance of definitely ascertaining and proving, when
incompatible with that of the accused, to the effect that he wounded
possible, the motives which actuated the commission of a crime under
Omamdam by accident. The widow testified that she knew of her husband's
investigation.
wound being caused by Bindoy from his statement to her before his death.

"In many criminal cases one of the most important aids in completing the
The testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution tends to show that the
proof of the commission of the crime by the accused is the introduction of
accused stabbed Omamdam in the chest with his bolo on that occasion. The
evidence disclosing the motives which tempted the mind of the guilty
defendant, indeed, in his effort to free himself of Pacas, who was
person to indulge the criminal act."
endeavoring to wrench his bolo from him, hit Omamdam in the chest; but, as
we have stated, there is no evidence to show that he did so deliberately and In view of the evidence before us, we are of opinion and so hold, that the
with the intention of committing a crime. If, in his struggle with Pacas, the appellant is entitle to acquittal according to article 8, No. 8, Penal Code.
defendant had attempted to wound his opponent, and instead of doing so, Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the accused
had wounded Omamdam, he would have had to answer for his act, since Donato Bindoy is hereby acquitted with costs de oficio. So ordered.
whoever willfully commits a felony or a misdemeanor incurs criminal liability,
 “ That even though the death of the injured person should not be considered
as the exclusive and necessary effect of the very grave wound which almost
US vs VALDEZ
completely severed his axillary artery , occasioning a hemorrhage impossible
US VS. CALIXTO VALDEZ to stanch under the circumstances in which that person was placed,
nevertheless as the persistence of the aggression of the accused compelled
G.R No. L-16486 22 March 1921 his adversary, in order to escape the attack, to leap into the river, an act
which the accused forcibly compelled the injured person to do after having
inflicted, among others, a mortal wound upon him and as the aggressor by
FACTS: Sometime in November 1919, a small boat was sent out to raise the said attack manifested a determined resolution to cause the death of the
anchor. The crew of this boat consisted of the accused, Calixto Valdez and six deceased, by depriving him of all possible help and putting him in the very
others among who was the deceased, Venancio Gargantel. During their work, serious situation narrated in the decision appealed from, the trial court, in
the accused began to abuse the men with offensive words. Gargantel qualifying the act prosecuted as consummated homicide, did not commit any
complained, saying that it would be better if he would not insult them. The error of law, as the death of the injured person was due to the act of the
accused took this as a display of insubordination, thus, he moved towards accused.”
Gargantel, with a big knife in hand, threatening to stab him. At the instant
when the accused had attained to within a few feet of Gargantel, the latter,
evidently believing himself in great and immediate peril, threw himself into The accused must, therefore, be considered the responsible author of the
the water and disappeared beneath its surface to be seen no more. death of Venancio Gargantel, and he was properly convicted of the offense of
homicide. The trial judge appreciated as an attenuating circumstance the fact
that the offender had no intention to commit so great a wrong as that
As alleged in the information, that said Gargantel had died by drowning, as a committed. ( Par.3, Art 9 Penal Code)
consequence of having thrown himself into the water and upon seeing
himself threatened and attacked by the accused. The Judgment rendered
against the accused. Having been convicted as the author of the homicide, Crim Law 1 Case Digest: People V. Ortega 1997
the accused alleged on appeal that he was only guilty of the offense of
inflicting serious physical injuries, or at most of frustrated homicide. People v. Ortega

G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is liable for the death of Venancio
Gargantel.
Lessons Applicable: Indeterminate Sentence Law

HELD:
Laws Applicable: Art. 4 RPC

The Supreme Court disallowed the appeal of the accused, enunciated the
FACTS:
following doctrine:
• October 15, 1992 5:30 pm: Andre Mar Masangkay (courting Raquel bled and fell to the ground. Andre drew a knife and stabbed him, hitting him
Ortega), Ariel Caranto, Romeo Ortega, Roberto San Andres, Searfin, Boyet on the left arm, thereby immobilizing him. Andre then gripped his neck with
and Diosdado Quitlong were having a drinking spree with gin and finger his left arm and threatened to kill him. Unable to move, Ortega shouted for
foods. help. Quitlong came, seized the knife and stabbed Andre 10 times with it.
Andre then ran towards the direction of the well. Then, he tended his wound
• October 15, 1992 11:00 pm: Benjamin Ortega, Jr. and Manuel Garcia who
in the lips and armpit and slept.
were already drank joined them.
• RTC: Benjamin and Manuel through conspiracy and the taking advantage
• October 16, 1992 midnight: Andre answering a call of nature went to the
of superior strength committed murder
back portion of the house and Benjamin followed him. Suddenly, they heard
a shout from Andre “Don’t, help me!” (Huwag, tulungan ninyo ako!)

• Diosdado and Ariel ran and saw Benjamin on top of Andre who was lying ISSUE: W/N Benjamin and Manuel should be liable for murder.
down being stabbed. Ariel got Benjamin Ortega, Sr., Benjamin’s father while
Diosdado called Romeo to pacify his brother. Romeo, Benjamin and Manuel
lifted Andre from the canal and dropped him in the well. They dropped stones HELD: NO. PARTLY GRANTED. Benjamin is guilty only of homicide. Manuel
to Andre’s body to weigh the body down. Romeo warned Diosdado not to deserves acquittal
tell anybody what he saw. He agreed so he was allowed to go home. But, his
conscience bothered him so he told his mother, reported it to the police and • If Ortega’s version of the assault was true, he should have immediately
accompanied them to the crime scene. reported the matter to the police authorities. If Ortega’s version of the
assault was true, he should have immediately reported the matter to the
• NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Ludivico J. Lagat: police authorities. It is incredible that Diosdado would stab Andre 10 times
successively, completely ignoring Benjamin who was grappling with
o cause of death is drowning with multiple stab wounds, contributory
Masangkay and that Andre was choking him while being stabbed.
o 13 stab wounds
• Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent on the part of the
o stab wound on the upper left shoulder, near the upper left armpit and left accused to take advantage of such superiority – none shown
chest wall- front
o Andre was a 6-footer, whereas Ortega, Jr. was only 5’4”
o stab wound on the back left side of the body and the stab wound on the
• Article 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code states that criminal liability
back right portion of the body – back
shall be incurred by “any person committing a felony (delito) although the
• Manuel Garcia alibi wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.”

o He was asked to go home by his wife to fetched his mother-in-law who o The essential requisites
performed a ritual called “tawas” on his sick daughter and stayed home after
1. the intended act is felonious – assisting Benjamin by carrying the body to
• Benjamin Ortega, Jr. story the well

o After Masangkay left, he left to urinate and he saw Andre peeking through 2. the resulting act is likewise a felony - concealing the body of the crime to
the room of his sister Raquel. Then, Andre approached him to ask where his prevent its discovery
sister was. When he answered he didn’t know, Andre punched him so he
3. the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily caused by the actor’s house, and then later went home. When he reaches home the accused
wrongful acts (praeter intentionem) – still alive and was drowned to death caught his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with Khingsley Koh in the
meantime his wife and Koh notice him, that makes her wife push her
• a person may be convicted of homicide although he had no original intent
paramour and got his revolver. Abarca peeping above the built-in cabinet in
to kill
their room jumped and ran away to look for a firearm at the PC soldier’s
• Garcia is a brother-in-law of Benjamin house to where he got the M-16 rifle. The accused lost his wife and Koh in
vicinity at his house and immediately proceeded to a mahjong house where
o Exempt by Article 20 of RPC he caught the victim aimed and shoot Koh with several bullets on his different
ART. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. -- The parts of his body causing Mr. Khingsley Koh’s instantaneous death. By that
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are time, Arnold and Lina Amparado had inflicted multiple wounds due to stray
such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, bullets causing Mr. Amparado’s one and one-half month loss of working
natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the capacity including his serious hospitalization and the latter’s wife who had
same degrees with the single exception of accessories falling within the slighter physical injuries from the incident. The RTC hereby sentenced Abarca
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article. to death for Murder with double Frustrated Murder and must indemnify the
Amparado Spouses and Heirs of Kho.
• The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code, which is imposable in its medium period, absent any 3. Holding
aggravating or mitigating circumstance, as in the case of Appellant Ortega. The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision of destierro to arresto
Because he is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the mayor from the lower court sentencing four months and 21 days to six
minimum term shall be one degree lower, that is, prision mayor. months of arresto mayor indemnifying Amparado spouses for expenses and
damages.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 4. Reasoning

vs. FRANCISCO ABARCA, accused-appellant, G.R. No. 74433 September 14,

1987 The accused-appellant did not have the intent to kill the Amparado couple.
153 SCRA 735 Although as a rule, one committing an offense is liable for all the
consequences of his act, the rule presupposes that the act done amounts to a
1. Legal Issue felony. The accused-appellant is totally free from any responsibility
Shall the accused suffer the penalty of arresto mayor subject by his criminal performing an illegal act when he fired shots at the victim but he cannot be
liability? entirely without fault. It appears that before firing at the deceased, he
uttered warning words which is not enough of a precaution to absolve him for
2. Legal Facts the injuries sustained by the Amparados. The acts of execution which should
have produced the crimes of murders as a consequence, nevertheless did not
That on or about 15th day of July 1984 in the city of Tacloban Leyte
produce it by reason of causes independent of his will; nonetheless, the Court
Philippines, the accused Francisco Abarca went to the bus station and travel
finds negligence on his part. He is liable under the first part, second
to Dolores Eastern Samar to fetch his daughter in the morning.
paragraph, of Article 365 that is less serious physical injuries through simple
Unfortunately, the trip was delayed at 2 pm because of his failure to catch the
imprudence or negligence. For the separate injuries suffered by the
trip plus the engine trouble which causes him to proceed at his father’s
Amparado spouses impose upon the accused-appellant arresto mayor in its Petitioners argue that the CA erred in ruling that the statements made by the
medium and maximum period to being the graver penalty. victim in the presence of witnesses Veronica Dacir right after being stabbed,
and SPO1 Lerma Bataller before he died, are dying declarations as the victim
still lived for one month after the said dying declaration was made.
BELBIS v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 181052 November 14, 2012 Dying Declaration,
Res Gestae
ISSUE:
JUNE 1, 2019

FACTS:
Whether or not the court of appeals erred in finding that the statements
made by the victim to Veronica Dacir, one month prior to the victim’s death,
On December 9, 1997 at around 10:00 p.m., Veronica Dacir, Jose Bahillo’s constitutes a dying declaration within the contemplation of Section 37, Rule
live-in partner, heard him shouting and calling her name. She went to where 130 of the Rules of Court.
Jose was and saw blood at his back and shorts. It was there that Jose told
Veronica that he was held by Boboy while petitioner Rodolfo Belbis, Jr.
stabbed him. RULING:

Jose died on January 8, 1998. The petition lacks merit.

Thus, petitioners were charged with the crime of homicide. A dying declaration is a statement made by the victim of homicide, referring
to the material facts which concern the cause and circumstances of the killing
and which is uttered under a fixed belief that death is impending and is
Petitioners claimed self-defense. certain to follow immediately, or in a very short time, without an opportunity
of retraction and in the absence of all hopes of recovery.

The RTC convicted the petitioners of the crime charged against them, but
appreciated the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. In other words, it is a statement made by a person after a mortal wound has
been inflicted, under a belief that death is certain, stating the facts
concerning the cause and circumstances surrounding his/her death.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision with modification that there was
no mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition. As an exception to the hearsay rule, the requisites for its admissibility are as
follows: (1) the declaration is made by the deceased under the consciousness
of his impending death; (2) the deceased was at the time competent as a
witness; (3) the declaration concerns the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarant’s death; and (4) the declaration is offered in a Crim Law 1 Case Digest:Intod V. CA 1992
criminal case wherein the declarant’s death is the subject of inquiry.
Intod v. CA

It is the belief in impending death and not the rapid succession of death in
G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992
point of fact that renders the dying declaration admissible.

Lessons Applicable:
As such, the CA incorrectly ruled that there were dying declarations.

Laws Applicable:
The CA should have admitted the statement made by the victim to Veronica
Dacir right after he was stabbed as part of the res gestae and not a dying
declaration. Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, reads as follows:
FACTS:

• February 4, 1979: Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and

Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae. – Statements made by a person while a Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house and asked him to go with
startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, they had a
thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan who told Mandaya that he wanted
as part of the res gestae. So also, statements accompanying an equivocal act Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that
material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part Mandaya should accompany them. Otherwise, he would also be killed.
of the res gestae.
• February 4, 1979 10:00 pm: All of them armed arrived at Palangpangan's
house and fired at Palangpangan's bedroom but there was no one in the
room.
All that is required for the admissibility of a given statement as part of the res
gestae, is that it be made under the influence of a startling event witnessed • RTC: convicted Intod of attempted murder based on the testimony of the
by the person who made the declaration before he had time to think and witness
make up a story, or to concoct or contrive a falsehood, or to fabricate an
account, and without any undue influence in obtaining it, aside from referring
to the event in question or its immediate attending circumstances. ISSUE: W/N Intod is guilty attempted murder since it is an impossible crime
under Art. 4 (2)

Clearly, the statement made by the victim identifying his assailants was made
immediately after a startling occurrence which is his being stabbed, HELD: YES. petition is hereby GRANTED, the decision of respondent Court of
precluding any chance to concoct a lie. Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder is hereby MODIFIED.
sentences him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor,
together with the accessory penalties provided by the law, and to pay the • United States: where the offense sought to be committed is factually
costs impossible or accomplishment - attempt to commit a crime; legally
impossible of accomplishment - cannot be held liable for any crime.

• Art. 4(2). CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY. — Criminal Responsibility shall be

incurred:

xxx xxx xxx

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against

persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means. Crim Law 1 Case Digest: People V. Domasian 1993
Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night People v. Domasian
he and his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently
impossible.

• The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, recognizes in the G.R. No. 95322 March 1, 1993
offender his formidability to punish criminal tendencies in Art. 4(2)

• Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, Lessons Applicable:
would not amount to a crime

• Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where

Laws Applicable: Art. 4
1. the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the
law

2. there is intention to perform the physical act FACTS:

3. there is a performance of the intended physical act • March 11, 1982 morning: While Enrico was walking with Tirso Ferreras, his
classmate, along Roque street in the poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was
4. the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a approached by Pablito Domasian who requested his assistance in getting his
crime father's signature on a medical certificate. Enrico agreed to help and rode
o Ex: The impossibility of killing a person already dead with the man in a tricycle to Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the
man went into a building to get the certificate. Enrico became apprehensive
• Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to and started to cry when, instead of taking him to the hospital, the man
the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended flagged a minibus and forced him inside, holding him firmly all the while. The
crime – this case man told him to stop crying or he would not be returned to his father. When
they alighted at Gumaca, they took another tricycle, this time bound for the
o Ex: man who puts his hand in the coat pocket of another with the
municipal building from where they walked to the market. Here the man
intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty
talked to a jeepney driver and handed him an envelope addressed to Dr.
Enrique Agra, the boy's father. The two then boarded a tricycle headed for
ISSUE: W/N Domasian and Tan is guilty of kidnapping kidnapping with serious
San Vicente. As Enrico was crying and being firmly held, Alexander Grate, the
illegal detention
tricycle driver became suspicious and asked Domasian about his relationship
with the boy who told him they were brothers. Their physical differences and
the wide gap between their ages made Grate doubt so he immediately
reported the matter to two barangay tanods when his passengers alighted HELD: YES. appealed decision is AFFIRMED
from the tricycle. Grate and the tanods went after the two and saw the man • Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention may consist not only in
dragging the boy. Noticing that they were being pursued, Domasian was able placing a person in an enclosure but also in detaining him or depriving him in
to escape, leaving Enrico behind. Enrico was on his way home in a passenger any manner of his liberty
jeep when he met his parents, who were riding in the hospital ambulance and
already looking for him. • Tan claims that the lower court erred in not finding that the sending of the
ransom note was an impossible crime which he says is not punishable.
• At about 1:45 in the afternoon of the same day, after Enrico's return, Agra
received an envelope containing a ransom note. The note demanded P1 • Tan conveniently forgets the first paragraphs of the same article, which
million for the release of Enrico and warned that otherwise the boy would be clearly applies to him, thus:
killed. Agra thought the handwriting in the note was familiar. After comparing Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
it with some records in the hospital, he gave the note to the police, which
referred it to the NBI for examination 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
• March 11, 1982 1:45 pm: Agra received an envelope containing a ransom
note demanding P1 million otherwise Enrico will be killed. . Agra thought the • Even before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping with
handwriting in the note was familiar so he referred it to the NBI for serious illegal detention had already been committed. The act cannot be
examination and it turned out to be Dr. Samson Tan’s signature. considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent improbability
of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective
• Domasian and Tan were subsequently charged with the crime of means. The sending of the ransom note would have had the effect only of
kidnapping with serious illegal detention in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon increasing the penalty to death under the last paragraph of Article 267
o Domasian’s alibi: at the time of the incident he was watching a mahjong although this too would not have been possible under the new Constitution.
game in a friend's house and later went to an optical clinic with his wife for • On the issue of conspiracy, we note first that it exists when two or more
the refraction of his eyeglasses persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
o Dr. Tan’s alibi: he was in Manila decide to commit it, whether they act through physical volition of one or all,
proceeding severally or collectively. These acts were complementary to each
• Enrico, Tirso Ferreras and Grate all pointed Domasian. other and geared toward the attainment of the common ultimate objective,
• RTC: Domasian and Tan guilty as charged and sentenced them to suffer viz., to extort the ransom of P1 million in exchange for Enrico's life.
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and all accessory penalties • The motive for the offense is not difficult to discover. According to Agra,
• Appealed Tan approached him 6 days before the incident happened and requested a
loan of at least P15,000.00. Agra said he had no funds at that moment and
Tan did not believe him, angrily saying that Agra could even raise a million phone; but theycould be reached through Valencia, a neighbor and former
pesos if he really wanted to help. co-employee of Jacqueline Capitle at Mega Foam.Valencia then told
Ricablanca that the check came from Baby Aquino, and instructed Ricablanca
to ask Baby Aquinoto replace the check with cash. Valencia also told
Ricablanca of a plan to take the cash and divide it equally intofour: for herself,
Ricablanca, petitioner Jacinto and Jacqueline Capitle. Ricablanca, upon the
advise of Mega Foam'saccountant, reported the matter to the owner of Mega
G.R. No. 162540 Foam, Joseph Dyhengco.Thereafter, Joseph Dyhengco talked to Baby Aquino
and was able to confirm that the latter indeed handedpetitioner a BDO check
July 13, 2009 for P10,000.00 as payment for her purchases from Mega Foam. Baby Aquino
GEMMA T. JACINTO, furthertestified that petitioner Jacinto also called her on the phone to tell her
that the BDO check bounced. Verificationfrom company records showed that
Petitionervs. petitioner never remitted the subject check to Mega Foam. However,
BabyAquino said that she had already paid Mega Foam P10,000.00 cash as
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RespondentPERALTA,
replacement for the dishonored check.Dyhengco filed a Complaint with the
J National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and worked out an
entrapmentoperation with its agents. Ten pieces of P1,000.00 bills provided
.:
by Dyhengco were marked and dusted withfluorescent powder by the NBI.
A petition for review on Thereafter, the bills were given to Ricablanca, who was tasked to pretend
that shewas going along with Valencia's plan.Ricablanca, petitioner, her
certiorari husband, and Valencia then boarded petitioner's jeep and went on to Baby
filed by petitioner Gemma T. Jacinto seeking the reversal of the Decision of Aquino'sfactory. Only Ricablanca alighted from the jeep and entered the
the Court of Appealsaffirming petitioner's conviction of the crime of Qualified premises of Baby Aquino, pretending that shewas getting cash from Baby
Theft, and its Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Aquino. However, the cash she actually brought out from the premises was
theP10,000.00 marked money previously given to her by Dyhengco.
Facts: Ricablanca divided the money and uponreturning to the jeep, gave P5,000.00
Baby Aquino handed petitioner Gemma Jacinto a Banco De Oro (BDO) Check each to Valencia and petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner and Valencia
in the amount of P10,000.00. The check waspayment for Baby Aquino's werearrested by NBI agents, who had been watching the whole time.A case
purchases from Mega Foam Int'l., Inc., and petitioner was then the collector was filed against the three accused, Jacinto, Valencia and Capitle. RTC
of MegaFoam. Somehow, the check was deposited in the Land Bank account rendered its Decisionfinding them
of Generoso Capitle, the husband of Jacqueline Capitle; the latter is the sister GUILTY
of petitioner and the former pricing, merchandising and inventory clerk of
Mega Foam.Later, Rowena Ricablanca, another employee of Mega Foam, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
received a phone call from an employee of Land Bank,who was looking for QUALIFIED THEFT
Generoso Capitle. The reason for the call was to inform Capitle that the
subject BDO checkdeposited in his account had been dishonored. Ricablanca and sentenced eachimprisonment of
then called and relayed the message through accusedAnita Valencia, a former
FIVE (5) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS AND ELEVEN (11) DAYS,
employee/collector of Mega Foam, because the Capitles did not have a
as minimum Intod v. Court of Appeals

, to SIX(6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND TWENTY (20) DAYS, is highly instructive and applicable to the present case. In

as maximum Intod (see doctrines laid out inIntod)

.The three appealed to the CA and the decision of the trial court was , the Court went on to give an example of

MODIFIED

, in that:(a) thesentence against accused Gemma Jacinto stands; (b) the an offense that involved factual impossibility,
sentence against accused Anita Valencia isreduced to 4 months
i.e.
arresto mayor
, a man puts hishand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal
medium, and (c) The accused Jacqueline Capitle is acquitted. Hence,the the latter's wallet, but gets nothing since the pocket isempty
present Petition for Review on

Certiorari

filed by petitioner alone,

Issue:

Whether or not a worthless check can be the object of theft.

Held:

As may be gleaned from the aforementioned Articles of the Revised Penal

Code,

the personal property subject of thetheft must have some value, as the
intention of the accused is to

gain

from the thing stolen

. This isfurther bolstered by Article 309, where the law provides that the
penalty to be imposed on the accused isdependent on the value of the thing
stolen.In this case, petitioner unlawfully took the postdated check belonging
to Mega Foam, but the same was apparentlywithout value, as it was
subsequently dishonored. Thus, the question arises on whether the crime of
qualified theftwas actually produced. The Court must resolve the issue in the
negative.