Crim Law Digest 6

8/11/2019 Crim Law Digest 6

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim-law-digest-6 1/14

People vs. AlcongaPost under case digests , Criminal Law at Saturday, February 25, 20 2 Posted by Sc!i"op!renic #indFacts$%n #ay 2&, deceased Silverio 'arion, t!e ban(er o) t!e card game, was playing blac( *ac( against #aria +e aposo. +e aposo and Alconga were

partners in t!e game, t!ey !ad one money. Alconga was seated be!ind 'arion and !e gave signs to +e aposo. 'arion, w!o was su))ering losses in t!egame, )ound t!is out and !e e-pressed !is anger at Alconga. !e two almost )oug!t outrig!t t!is was stopped.

!e two met again on #ay 2/. w!en Alconga was doing !is *ob as a !ome guard. !ile t!e said accused was seated on a benc! in t!e guard!ouse,'arion came along and said 1Coroy, t!is is your brea()ast )ollowed by a swing o) !is 1pinga!an , a bamboo stic(. Alconga avoided t!e blow by )allingto t!e ground under t!e benc! wit! t!e intention to crawl out o) t!e guard!ouse. A second blow was given by 'arion but )ailed to !it t!e accused,!itting t!e benc! instead. Alconga managed to go out o) t!e guard!ouse by crawling on !is abdomen. !ile 'arion was about to deliver t!e 3rd blow,Alconga )ired at !im wit! !is revolver, causing !im to stagger and !it t!e ground. !e deceased stood up, drew )ort! !is dagger and directed a blow tot!e accused w!o was able to parry t!e attac( using !is bolo. A !and to !and)ig!t ensued. !e deceased, loo(ing already beaten and !aving sustainedseveral wounds ran away. 4e was )ollowed by t!e accused and was overta(en a)ter 200 meters.

A second )ig!t too( place and t!e deceased received a mortal bolo blow, t!e one w!ic! slase!de t!e cranium. !e deceased )ell )ace downward besidesmany ot!er blows delivered. Alconga surrendered.

ssue$ !et!er or not sel)6de)ense can be used as a de)ense by Alconga

4eld$ 7o. Sel)6de)ense cannot be sustained. Alconga guilty o) 4omicide

!e deceased ran and )led w8o !aving to in)licted so muc! a scratc! to Alconga, but a)ter, upon t!e ot!er !and, !aving been wounded wit! one revolvers!ot and several bolo slas!es t!e rig!t o) Alconga to in)lict in*ury upon !im !as ceased absolutely8 Alconga !ad no rig!t to pursue, no rig!t to (ill orin*ure. 4e could !ave only attac(ed i) t!ere was reason to believe t!at !e is still not sa)e. n t!e case at bar, it is apparent t!at it is Alconga w!o is t!esuperior )ig!ter and !is sa)ety was already secured a)ter t!e )irst )ig!t ended. !ere was no more reason )or !im to )urt!er c!ase 'arion. !e second)ig!t will be treated di))erently and independently. 9nder t!e )irst )ig!t, sel)6de)ense would !ave been valid, but t!at is not t!e case in t!e second )ig!t.

n t!e second )ig!t, t!ere was illegal aggression on t!e part o) Alconga and as a result, !e is )ound guilty o) 4omicide wit! no mitigating circumstance:#C; o) Provocation

7ote < Provocation in order to be an #C must be su))icient and immediately preceding t!e act. 1 t s!ould be proportionate to t!e act committed andade=uate to stir one to its commission

Sycip vs Court o) Appeals, 32> SC A ??&'y LL'e$LawLi)e'u""@tceteraFacts$

%n August 2?, />/, petitioner Francisco . Sycip, r., agreed to buy, on installment, )rom Francel ealty Corporation :F C;, a town!ouse unit int!e latterBs pro*ect at 'acoor, Cavite. 9pon e-ecution o) t!e contract to sell, as re=uired, issued to F C, )orty6eig!t :?>; postdated c!ec(s, eac! in t!eamount o) P/,30?.00,covering ?> mont!ly installments. A)ter moving in !is unit, Sycip complained, to F C regarding de)ects in t!e unit and

http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/2012/02/people-vs-alconga.html

http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/case%20digests


http://coffeeafficionado.blogspot.com/search/label/Criminal%20Law




http://lawlifebuzzetcetera.wordpress.com/author/lawlifebuzzetcetera/









incomplete )eatures o) t!e town!ouse pro*ect. F C ignored t!e complaint. +issatis)ied, Sycip served on F C two :2; notorial notices to t!e e))ect t!at!e was suspending !is installment payments on t!e unit pending compliance wit! t!e pro*ect plans and speci)ications, as approved by t!e 4ousing andLand 9se egulatory 'oard :4L9 ';. Sycip and twelve : 2; out o) )ourteen : ?; unit buyers t!en )iled a complaint wit! t!e 4L9 '. !e complaintwas dismissed as to t!e de)ect, but F C was ordered by t!e 4L9 ' to )inis! all incomplete )eatures o) its town!ouse pro*ect. Sycip appealed t!edismissal o) t!e complaint as to t!e alleged de)ects.

7otwit!standing t!e notorial notices, F C continued to present )or encas!ment SycipBs postdated c!ec(s in its possession. Sycip sent 1stop paymentorders to t!e ban(. !en F C continued to present t!e ot!er postdated c!ec(s to t!e ban( as t!e due date )ell, t!e ban( advised Sycip to close !is

c!ec(ing account to avoid paying ban( c!arges every time !e made a 1stop payment order on t!e )ort!coming c!ec(. +ue to t!e closure o) petitionerBsc!ec(ing account, t!e drawee ban( dis!onored si- postdated c!ec(s. F C )ile a complaint against petitioner )or violations o) '.P. 'lg. 22 involvingsaid dis!onored c!ec(s.

ssue$ !et!er or not t!e accused is criminally liable o) t!e '.P. 'lg. 22

4eld$ 7o. !e 'ouncing C!ec(s Law :'.P. 7o. 22;, is violated w!en t!e )ollowing elements are present$ : ; t!e ma(ing, drawing and issuance o) anyc!ec( to apply )or account or )or valueD :2; t!e (nowledge o) t!e ma(er, drawer, or issuer t!at at t!e time o) issue !e does not !ave su))icient )unds in or credit wit! t!e drawee ban( )or t!e payment o) suc! c!ec( in )ull upon its presentmentD and :3; t!e subse=uent dis!onor o) t!e c!ec( by t!e drawee

ban( )or insu))iciency o) )unds or credit or dis!onor )or t!e same reason !ad not t!e drawer, wit!out any valid cause, ordered t!e ban( to stop payment.n t!is case, alt!oug! t!e )irst element o) t!e o))ense e-ists, t!e ot!er elements !ave not been establis!ed beyond reasonable doubt. !e second element

involves (nowledge on t!e part o) t!e issuer at t!e time o) t!e c!ec(Bs issuance t!at !e did not !ave enoug! )unds or credit in t!e ban( )or paymentt!ereo) upon its presentment. '.P. 7o. 22 creates a presumption *uris tantum t!at t!e second element prima )acie e-ists w!en t!e )irst and t!ird elementso) t!e o))ense are present. 'ut suc! evidence may be rebutted. ) not rebutted or contradicted, it will su))ice to sustain a *udgment in )avor o) t!e issue,w!ic! it supports. Suc! (nowledge o) t!e insu))iciency o) petitionerBs )unds 1is legally presumed )rom t!e dis!onor o) !is c!ec(s )or insu))iciency o))unds. 'ut suc! presumption cannot !old i) t!ere is evidence to t!e contrary. n t!is case, t!e ot!er party !as presented evidence to contradict said

presumption. 4ence, t!e prosecution is duty bound to prove every element o) t!e o))ense c!arged, and not merely rely on a rebuttable presumption.!at are involved in t!is case are postdated c!ec(s. Postdating simply means t!at on t!e date indicated on its )ace, t!e c!ec( would be properly )unded,

not t!at t!e c!ec(s s!ould be deemed as issued only t!en. !e c!ec(s were issued at t!e time o) t!e signing o) t!e Contract to Sell in August />/.4owever, t!ere was no s!owing t!at at t!e time said c!ec(s were issued, petitioner !ad (nowledge t!at !is deposit or credit in t!e ban( would beinsu))icient to cover t!em w!en presented )or encas!ment. !e closure o) petitionerBs Account 7o. >?55 5 wit! Citiban( was not )or insu))iciency o)

)unds. t was made upon t!e advice o) t!e drawee ban(, to avoid payment o) !e)ty ban( c!arges eac! time petitioner issued a 1stop payment order to prevent encas!ment o) postdated c!ec(s in private respondentBs possession. Said evidence contradicts t!e prima )acie presumption o) (nowledge o)insu))iciency o) )unds. 'ut it establis!es petitionerBs state o) mind at t!e time said c!ec(s were issued. Petitioner de)initely !ad no (nowledge t!at !is)unds or credit would be insu))icient w!en t!e c!ec(s would be presented )or encas!ment.

SEC P S C%9 %F APP@ALSG 2505/#arc! &, 2000FAC S$For review on certiorari is t!e decision o) t!e Court o) Appeals w!ic! a))irmed t!e *udgment o) t!e egional rial Court o) Hue"on City, )inding

petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt o) violating '.P. 'lg. 22, t!e 'ouncing C!ec(s Law.%n August 2?, />/, Francisco . Sycip agreed to buy, on installment, )rom Francel ealty Corporation :F C;, a town!ouse unit. 9pon e-ecution o)



t!e contract to sell, Sycip, as re=uired, issued to F C, )orty6eig!t :?>; postdated c!ec(s, eac! in t!e amount o) P/,30?.00, covering ?> mont!lyinstallments.A)ter moving in !is unit, Sycip complained to F C regarding de)ects in t!e unit and incomplete )eatures o) t!e town!ouse pro*ect. F C ignored t!ecomplaint. +issatis)ied, Sycip served on F C two :2; notarial notices to t!e e))ect t!at !e was suspending !is installment payments on t!e unit pendingcompliance wit! t!e pro*ect plans and speci)ications, as approved by t!e 4ousing and Land 9se egulatory 'oard :4L9 ';. F C was ordered by t!e4L9 ' to )inis! all incomplete )eatures o) its town!ouse pro*ect.

7otwit!standing t!e notarial notices, F C continued to present )or encas!ment SycipIs postdated c!ec(s in its possession. Sycip sent Jstop payment

ordersJ to t!e ban(. !en F C continued to present t!e ot!er postdated c!ec(s to t!e ban( as t!e due date )ell, t!e ban( advised Sycip to close !isc!ec(ing account to avoid paying ban( c!arges every time !e made a Jstop paymentJ order on t!e )ort!coming c!ec(s. +ue to t!e closure o) petitionerIsc!ec(ing account, t!e drawee ban( dis!onored si- postdated c!ec(s. F C )iled a complaint against petitioner )or violations o) '.P. 'lg. 22 involvingsaid dis!onored c!ec(s.%n 7ovember >, // , t!e Hue"on City ProsecutorIs %))ice )iled wit! t!e C o) Hue"on City si- n)ormations c!arging petitioner )or violation o) '.P.'lg. 22. !e trial court )ound petitioner guilty o) violating Section o) '.P. 'lg. 22. +issatis)ied, Sycip appealed t!e decision to t!e Court o) Appeals

but t!e decision o) t!e C was up!eldSS9@$ w!et!er or not t!e Court o) Appeals erred in a))irming t!e conviction o) petitioner )or violation o) t!e 'ouncing C!ec(s Law.

4@L+8 AC % +@C +@7+ $!e instant petition is G A7 @+. Petitioner Francisco . Sycip, r., is ACH9 @+ o) t!e c!arges against !im under 'atas Pambansa 'lg. 22, )or

lac( o) su))icient evidence to prove t!e o))enses c!arged beyond reasonable doubt.9nder t!e provisions o) t!e 'ouncing C!ec(s Law :'.P. 7o. 22;, / an o))ense is committed w!en t!e )ollowing elements are present$: ; t!e ma(ing, drawing and issuance o) any c!ec( to apply )or account or )or valueD:2; t!e (nowledge o) t!e ma(er, drawer, or issuer t!at at t!e time o) issue !e does not !ave su))icient )unds in or credit wit! t!e drawee ban( )or t!e

payment o) suc! c!ec( in )ull upon its presentmentD and:3; t!e subse=uent dis!onor o) t!e c!ec( by t!e drawee ban( )or insu))iciency o) )unds or credit or dis!onor )or t!e same reason !ad not t!e drawer,wit!out any valid cause, ordered t!e ban( to stop payment.

n t!is case, we )ind t!at alt!oug! t!e )irst element o) t!e o))ense e-ists, t!e ot!er elements !ave not been establis!ed beyond reasonable doubt.o begin wit!, t!e second element involves (nowledge on t!e part o) t!e issuer at t!e time o) t!e c!ec(Is issuance t!at !e did not !ave enoug! )unds or

credit in t!e ban( )or payment t!ereo) upon its presentment. '.P. 7o. 22 creates a presumption *uris tantum t!at t!e second element prima )acie e-istsw!en t!e )irst and t!ird elements o) t!e o))ense are present. 'ut suc! evidence may be rebutted. ) not rebutted or contradicted, it will su))ice to sustaina *udgment in )avor o) t!e issue, w!ic! it supports. As pointed out by t!e Solicitor General, suc! (nowledge o) t!e insu))iciency o) petitionerIs )unds Jislegally presumed )rom t!e dis!onor o) !is c!ec(s )or insu))iciency o) )unds.J'ut suc! presumption cannot !old i) t!ere is evidence to t!e contrary. nt!is case, we )ind t!at t!e ot!er party !as presented evidence to contradict said presumption. 4ence, t!e prosecution is duty bound to prove everyelement o) t!e o))ense c!arged, and not merely rely on a rebuttable presumption.Admittedly, w!at are involved !ere are postdated c!ec(s. Postdating simply means t!at on t!e date indicated on its )ace, t!e c!ec( would be properly)unded, not t!at t!e c!ec(s s!ould be deemed as issued only t!en. !e c!ec(s in t!is case were issued at t!e time o) t!e signing o) t!e Contract to Sellin August />/. 'ut we )ind )rom t!e records no s!owing t!at t!e time said c!ec(s were issued, petitioner !ad (nowledge t!at !is deposit or credit int!e ban( would be insu))icient to cover t!em w!en presented )or encas!ment. %n t!e contrary, t!ere is testimony by petitioner t!at at t!e time o)

presentation o) t!e c!ec(s, !e !ad P 50,000,00 cas! or credit wit! Citiban(

Sycip vs Court o) Appeals



G. . 7o. 205/#arc! &, 2000

Facts$

%n August 2?, />/, Francisco . Sycip, r., agreed to buy, on installment, )rom Francel ealty Corporation :F C;, a town!ouse unit in t!e latterBs pro*ect at 'acoor, Cavite. 9pon e-ecution o) t!e contract to sell, as re=uired, issued to F C, )orty6eig!t :?>; postdated c!ec(s, eac! in t!e amount o)

P/,30?.00, covering ?> mont!ly installments.A)ter moving in !is unit, Sycip complained, to F C regarding de)ects in t!e unit and incomplete )eatures o) t!e town!ouse pro*ect. F C ignored t!ecomplaint. +issatis)ied, Sycip served on F C two :2; notorial notices to t!e e))ect t!at !e was suspending !is installment payments on t!e unit pendingcompliance wit! t!e pro*ect plans and speci)ications, as approved by t!e 4ousing and Land 9se egulatory 'oard :4L9 ';. Sycip and twelve : 2; outo) )ourteen : ?; unit buyers t!en )iled a complaint wit! t!e 4L9 '. !e complaint was dismissed as to t!e de)ect, but F C was ordered by t!e4L9 ' to )inis! all incomplete )eatures o) its town!ouse pro*ect. Sycip appealed t!e dismissal o) t!e complaint as to t!e alleged de)ects.

7otwit!standing t!e notorial notices, F C continued to present )or encas!ment SycipBs postdated c!ec(s in its possession. Sycip sent 1stop paymentorders to t!e ban(. !en F C continued to present t!e ot!er postdated c!ec(s to t!e ban( as t!e due date )ell, t!e ban( advised Sycip to close !is

c!ec(ing account to avoid paying ban( c!arges every time !e made a 1stop payment order on t!e )ort!coming c!ec(s. +ue to t!e closure o) petitionerBs c!ec(ing account, t!e drawee ban( dis!onored si- postdated c!ec(s. F C )ile a complaint against petitioner )or violations o) '.P. 'lg. 22involving said dis!onored c!ec(s.

ssues$

:a; !et!er or not t!e accused is criminally liable o) t!e '.P. 'lg. 22

:b; !et!er or not t!e trial court erred in a))irming t!e conviction o) petitioner )or violation o) t!e 'ouncing C!ec(s Law

4eld$

!e trial court )inds accused Francisco . Sycip guilty beyond reasonable doubt o) a violation o) Sec. o) t!e 'atas Pambansa 'lg. 22 and, accordingly,!e is !ereby sentenced ordered to pay t!e o))ended party, F C, as and )or actual damages wit! interest t!ereon at t!e legal rate )rom date o)commencement o) t!ese actions, until )ull payment t!ereo).

+issastied, Sycip appealed t!e decision to t!e Court o) Appeals. !e Appellate Court erred in a))irming t!e decision o) t!e lower court )inding t!at t!eaccused6appellant did not !ave any *usti)iable cause to stop or ot!erwise prevent t!e payment o) t!e sub*ect c!ec(s by t!e drawee ban(. !e CA alsoerred t!at t!e accused6appellant did not !ave su))icient )unds wit! t!e drawee to cover t!e sub*ect c!ec(s upon resentment )or payment t!ereo).

4owever, w!ile '.P. 'lg. 22 was enacted to sa)eguard t!e interest o) t!e ban(ing system. t is di))icult to see !ow conviction o) t!e accused in t!is casewill protect t!e sanctity o) t!e )inancial system.



Given t!e )indings o) t!e 4L9 ' as to incomplete )eatures in t!e construction o) petitionerBs and ot!er units o) t!e sub*ect condominium boug!t oninstallment )rom F C, t!e Court o) Appeals !eld t!at t!e petitioner !ad a valid cause to order !is ban( to stop payment. 4ence, it said t!at o))enses

punis!ed by a special law, li(e t!e 'ouncing C!ec(s Law, are not sub*ect to t!e evised Penal Code, t!e Code is supplementary to suc! law. !e petitioner, Francisco . Sycip, r., is ac=uitted o) t!e c!arges against !im under '.P. 'lg. 22, )or lac( o) su))icient evidence to prove t!e o))ensesc!arged beyond reasonable doubt. 7o pronouncement as to costs.

1'A @ @+ %#A7 SE7+ %#@ AS A A'L@ PL@A 4 7 4@ C%7C@P %F S@LF6+@F@7S@P@%PL@ %F 4@ P4 L PP 7@S S. #A C G@7%SAG. . 7o. 35/> . September 2/, 2000

Facts$ %n or about t!e 5t! day o) 7ovember //5, at 'arangay 'ilwang, #unicipality o) sabel, province o) Leyte, accused #arivic Genosa, wit!intent to (ill, wit! treac!ery and evident premeditation, did t!en and t!ere will)ully, unlaw)ully and )eloniously attac(, assault, !it and wound '@7G@7%SA, !er legitimate !usband, wit! t!e use o) a !ard deadly weapon, w!ic! t!e accused !ad provided !ersel) )or t!e purpose, in)licting severalwounds w!ic! caused !is deat!.

!e lower court )ound t!e accused, #arivic Genosa y sidro, G9 L E beyond reasonable doubt o) t!e crime o) parricide and sentenced t!e accusedwit! t!e penalty o) +@A 4.%n appeal, t!e appellant alleged t!at despite t!e evidence on record o) repeated and severe beatings s!e !ad su))ered at t!e !ands o) !er !usband, t!elower court )ailed to appreciate !er sel)6de)ense t!eory. S!e claimed t!at under t!e surrounding circumstances, !er act o) (illing !er !usband wase=uivalent to sel)6de)ense.

ssue$ !et!er or not t!e 1battered woman syndrome as a viable plea wit!in t!e concept o) sel)6de)ense is applicable in t!is case.4eld$ 7o. !e court, !owever, is not discounting t!e possibility o) sel)6de)ense arising )rom t!e battered woman syndrome. e now sum up our main

points. First, eac! o) t!e p!ases o) t!e cycle o) violence must be proven to !ave c!aracteri"ed at least two battering episodes between t!e appellant and!er intimate partner. Second, t!e )inal acute battering episode preceding t!e (illing o) t!e batterer must !ave produced in t!e battered personBs mind anactual )ear o) an imminent !arm, )rom !er batterer and an !onest belie) t!at s!e needed to use )orce in order to save !er li)e. !ird, at t!e time o) t!e(illing, t!e batterer must !ave posed probableKnot necessarily immediate and actualKgrave !arm to t!e accused, based on t!e !istory o) violence

perpetrated by t!e )ormer against t!e latter. a(en altoget!er, t!ese circumstances could satis)y t!e re=uisites o) sel)6de)ense. 9nder t!e e-isting )acts o) t!e present case, !owever, not all o) t!ese elements were duly establis!ed.

People vs. 7arvae", 2 SC A 3>/ : />3;

FAC S$ #amerto 7arvae" !as been convicted o) murder :=uali)ied by treac!ery; o) +avid Fleisc!er and Flaviano ubia. %n August 22, / >, 7arvae"s!ot Fleisc!er and ubia duringt!e time t!e two were constructing a )ence t!at would prevent 7arvae" )rom getting into !is !ouse and rice mill. !e de)endant was ta(ing a nap w!en!e !eard sounds o) construction and)ound )ence being made. 4e addressed t!e group and as(ed t!em to stop destroying !is !ouse and as(ing i) t!ey could tal( t!ings over. Fleisc!erresponded wit! J7o, gadamit, proceed, goa!ead.J +e)endant lost !is Je=uilibrium,J and s!ot Fleis!er wit! !is s!otgun. 4e also s!ot ubia w!o was running towards t!e *eep w!ere t!e



deceasedIs gun was placed. Prior to t!es!ooting, Fleisc!er and Co. :t!e company o) Fleisc!erIs )amily; was involved in a legal battle wit! t!e de)endant and ot!er land settlers o) Cotabatoover certain pieces o) property. At t!e timeo) t!e s!ooting, t!e civil case was still pending )or annulment :settlers wanted granting o) property to Fleis!er and Co. to be annulled;. At time o) t!es!ooting, de)endant !ad leased !is

property )rom Fleis!er :t!oug! case pending and owners!ip uncertain; to avoid trouble. %n une 25, de)endant received letter terminating contract because !e allegedly didnIt pay rent.

4e was given mont!s to remove !is !ouse )rom t!e land. S!ooting was barely 2 mont!s a)ter letter. +e)endant claims !e (illed in de)ense o) !is person and property. CF ruled t!at 7arvae" was guilty. Aggravating circumstances o) evident premeditation o))set by t!e mitigating circumstance o) voluntary surrender. For bot!murders, CF sentenced !im to reclusion perpetua, to indemni)y t!e !eirs, and to pay )or moral damages.

SS9@S$. !et!er or not CF erred in convicting de)endant6appellant despite t!e )act t!at !e acted in de)ense o) !is person.

7o. !e courts concurred t!at t!e )encing and c!iselling o) t!e walls o) t!e !ouse o) t!e de)endant was indeed a )orm o) aggression on t!e part o) t!evictim. 4owever, t!isaggression was not done on t!e person o) t!e victim but rat!er on !is rig!ts to property. %n t!e )irst issue, t!e courts did not err. 4owever, inconsideration o) t!e violation o) property rig!ts, t!e courts re)erred to Art. 30 o) t!e civil code recogni"ing t!e rig!t o) owners to close and )ence t!eirland.

Alt!oug! is not in dispute, t!e victim was not in t!e position to subscribe to t!e article because !is owners!ip o) t!e land being awarded by t!egovernment was still pending, t!ere)ore putting owners!ip into =uestion. t is accepted t!at t!e victim was t!e original aggressor.

2. %7 t!e court erred in convicting de)endant6appellant alt!oug! !e acted in de)ence o) !is rig!ts.

Ees. 4owever, t!e argument o) t!e *usti)ying circumstance o) sel)6de)ense is applicable only i) t!e 3 re=uirements are )ul)illed. Art. : ; PCenumerates t!ese re=uisites$9nlaw)ul aggression. n t!e case at bar, t!ere was unlaw)ul aggression towards appellantIs property rig!ts. Fleis!er !ad given 7arvae" mont!s and !es!ould !ave le)t !im in peace be)ore time was up, instead o) c!iseling 7arvae"Is !ouse and putting up )ence. Art. 53 o) t!e Civil Code also providest!at possession may not be ac=uired t!roug! )orce or intimidationD w!ile Art. 53/ provides t!at every possessor !as t!e rig!t to be respected in !is

possessioneasonable necessity o) means employed to prevent or repel attac(. n t!e case, (illing was disproportionate to t!e attac(.

Lac( o) su))icient provocation on part o) person de)ending !imsel). 4ere, t!ere was no provocation at all since !e was asleepSince not all re=uisites present, de)endant is credited wit! t!e special mitigating circumstance o) incomplete de)ense, pursuant to Art. 3: ; PC. !esemitigating circumstances are$ voluntary surrender and passion and ob)uscation :read p. ?05 e-planation; Crime is !omicide :2 counts; not murder

because treac!ery is not applicable on account o) provocation by t!e deceased. Also, assault was not deliberately c!osen wit! view to (ill since slayeracted instantaneously. !ere was also no direct evidence o) planning or preparation to (ill. Art. 2?/ PC$ Penalty )or !omicide is reclusion temporal.4owever, due to mitigating circumstances and incomplete de)ense, it can be lowered t!ree degrees :Art. ?; to arrestomayor.



3. %7 !e s!ould be liable )or subsidiary imprisonment since !e is unable to pay t!e civil indemnity due to t!e o))ended party.

7o. 4e is not liable to be subsidiarily imprisoned )or nonpayment o) civil indemnity. A 5? 5 made t!e provisions o) Art. 3/ applicable to )ines onlyand not to reparation o) damage caused, indemni)ication o) conse=uential damages and costs o) proceedings. Alt!oug! it was enacted only a)ter itsconviction, considering t!at A 5? 5 is )avorable to t!e accused w!o is not a !abitual delin=uent, it may be given retroactive e))ect pursuant to Art. 22o) t!e PC.

udgment$ +e)endant guilty o) !omicide but w8 mitigating circumstances and e-tenuating circumstance o) incomplete sel) de)ense. Penalty is ? mont!sarresto mayor and to indemni)yeac! group o) !eirs ?,000 w8o subsidiary imprisonment and w8o award )or moral damages. Appellant !as already been detained ? years so !isimmediate release is ordered.

Gutierre", dissenting. +e)ense o) property can only be invo(ed w!en coupled wit! )orm o) attac( on person de)ending property. n t!e case at bar, t!iswas not so. Appellant s!ould t!en be sentenced to prision mayor. 4owever, since !e !as served more t!an t!at, !e s!ould be released.

usti)ying and @-empting Circumstancesattyrcd 8 anuary 2>, 20 0

usti)ying circumstances are t!ose w!erein t!e acts o) t!e actor are in accordance wit! law and, !ence, !e incurs no criminal and civil liability. !e *usti)ying circumstances by sub*ect are as )ollows$

. Sel)6de)ense Anyone w!o acts in de)ense o) !is person or rig!ts. :Art. , Par. ; !e scope included sel)6de)ense not only o) li)e, but also o) rig!ts li(e t!ose o)c!astity, property and !onor. t !as also been applied to t!e crime o) libel. :People v C!ua C!iong, 5 %G /32;

ts elements are$a. 9nlaw)ul aggressionAggression is considered unlaw)ul w!en it is unprovo(ed or un*usti)ied. !ere must be real danger to li)e or personal sa)ety. An imminent danger o)aggression, and not merely imaginary, is su))icient. A slap on t!e )ace is actual unlaw)ul aggression. :+ec., Sup. Ct. o) Spain, #arc! >, >>&;

!ere is no unlaw)ul aggression e-ists in a case o) an agreed )ig!t. o constitute an agreement to )ig!t, t!e c!allenge must be accepted. :People v. +elPilar, ?? %G 5/ ; 9nlaw)ul aggression may no longer e-ist i) t!e aggressor ran away a)ter t!e attac(. :People v. Alconga, &> P!il. 3 ; ) t!eaggression !as ceased, t!e one de)ending !imsel) !as no rig!t to in)lict any )urt!er in*ury to !is assailant. :H , //3 'ar;#ere oral t!reat to (ill, unaccompanied by any une=uivocal act clearly indicative o) t!e intent to carry out t!e t!reat, does not amount to unlaw)ulaggression. :People v. 'inondo, /&22&, %ct. 20, //2; !e mere coc(ing o) an #6 ? ri)le by t!e victim, wit!out aiming t!e )irearm at any particular

person is not su))icient to conclude t!at t!e li)e o) t!e person : ice6Governor; w!om t!e accused was allegedly protecting, was under actual t!reat orattac( )rom t!e victim. !ere is no unlaw)ul aggression. :Almeda v. CA, #arc! 3, //&;

b. easonable necessity o) t!e means employed to prevent or repel it.!e rule 1stand ground w!en in t!e rig!t applies w!en a person is unlaw)ully assaulted and i) t!e aggressor is armed wit! a weapon. :9S v. +omen, 3&

http://attyrcd.wordpress.com/author/attyrcd/

http://attyrcd.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/justifying-and-exempting-circumstances-2/

http://attyrcd.wordpress.com/author/attyrcd/

http://attyrcd.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/justifying-and-exempting-circumstances-2/



P!ils. 5&; !et!er t!e means employed is reasonable or not it will depend upon t!e (ind o) weapon o) t!e aggressor, !is p!ysical condition, c!aracter,si"e and ot!er circumstances as well as t!ose o) t!e person attac(ed and t!e time and place o) t!e attac(. :People v. Padua, ?0 %G //>; !e instinct o)sel)6preservation more o)ten t!an not is t!e moving power in manBs action in de)ending !imsel). :People v. Artu", & SC A ;c. Lac( o) su))icient provocation on t!e part o) t!e person de)ending !imsel).A person may be *usti)ied in causing in*ury to anot!er in de)ense o) !is property :)encing o)) t!e !ouse o) t!e accused; even i) t!ere was no attac(against !is person. o !old ot!erwise would render nugatory t!e provisions o) circumstance 7o. w!ic! recogni"es t!e rig!t o) an individual to de)end!is rig!ts, one o) w!ic! is to own and en*oy !is property. :People v. 7arvae", 2 SC A 3>/; @ven assuming t!at t!e victim was scaling t!e wall o) t!e)actory compound to commit t!e crime inside t!e same, s!ooting !im is never *usti)iable, even admitting t!at suc! act is considered unlaw)ulaggression on t!e property rig!ts. n t!e instant case, t!e second element is absent considering t!at t!e victim was unarmed. !ere is t!ere)ore anincomplete sel)6de)ense. :H , // 'arD H?, //0 'ar;

o be entitled to a complete sel)6de)ense o) c!astity, t!ere must be an attempt to rape. :People v. aurigue, & P!il. &?;!en a person is libeled, !e may !it bac( wit! anot!er libel, w!ic!, i) ade=uate, will be *usti)ied. %nce t!e aspersion is cast, its sting clings and t!e one

t!us de)amed may avail !imsel) o) all necessary means to s!a(e it o)). :People v. C!ua 4ong, 5 %G /32;2. +e)ense o) elative Any one w!o acts in de)ense o) t!e person or rig!ts o) !is spouses, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate or adopted brot!ers or sisters, or o) !isrelatives by a))inity in t!e same degrees, and t!ose by consanguinity wit!in t!e )ourt! civil degree, and in case t!e provocation was given by t!e personattac(ed, t!at t!e one ma(ing t!e de)ense !ad no part t!erein. :Art. , Par. 2;@ven i) two persons agreed to )ig!t, and at t!e moment w!en one was about to stab t!e ot!er, t!e brot!er o) t!e latter arrived and s!ot !im, de)ense o)relative is present as long as t!ere is an !onest belie) t!at t!e relative being de)ended was a victim o) an unlaw)ul aggression, and t!e relative de)ending!ad no (nowledge o) t!e agreement to )ig!t. :9S v. @smedia & P!il. 2>0;3. +e)ense o) Stranger. Anyone w!o acts in de)ense o) t!e person or rig!ts o) a stranger and t!at t!e person de)ending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or ot!er evilmotive. :Art. , Par. 3;A person w!o struggled wit! t!e !usband w!o was attac(ing !is wi)e wit! a bolo )or t!e possession o) t!e bolo and in t!e course o) t!e struggle,wounded t!e !usband, was !eld to !ave acted in de)ense o) a stranger. :People v. alde", 5> P!il. 3 ;?. State o) 7ecessity Any person w!o, in order to avoid an evil or in*ury, does an act w!ic! causes damage to anot!er. :Art. , Par. ?;

ts re=uisites are$a. !e evil soug!t to be avoided actually e-ists.

b. !e in*ury )eared be greater t!an t!at done to avoid it.c. !ere be no ot!er practical and less !arm)ul means o) preventing it.

!is is t!e only *usti)ying circumstances w!erein civil liability may arise but t!is is borne by t!e person bene)ited by !is act. !e 1state o) necessitye-ists w!en t!ere is a clas! between two une=ual rig!ts, t!e lesser rig!t giving way to t!e greater rig!t.An accused was ac=uitted o) t!e crime o) slander by deed, w!en s!e eloped wit! anot!er man a)ter all wedding preparations wit! t!e o))ended partywere made, since t!ere was a necessity on t!e part o) t!e accused to avoid a loveless marriage wit! t!e o))ended party. :People v. 4ernande", 55 %G



>? 5;n a case w!en in saving t!e li)e o) t!e mot!er, t!e doctor sacri)iced t!e li)e o) t!e unborn c!ild, is t!e attending p!ysician criminally liable 7o,

because !is acts are *usti)ied under t!is Article :State o) necessity;. 4owever, in mercy (illing w!ere t!e doctor deliberately turned o)) t!e li)e supportsystem costing t!e li)e o) t!e patient, t!e doctor is criminally liable. @ut!anasia is not a *usti)ying circumstance in our *urisdiction. :H3, //0 'ar;5. Ful)illment o) duty Any person w!o acts in t!e )ul)illment o) a duty or in t!e law)ul e-ercise o) a rig!t or o))ice. :Art. , Par. 5; !e in*ury caused or t!e o))ensecommitted is t!e necessary conse=uence o) t!e due per)ormance o) suc! rig!t or o))ice.

!e (illing by a policeman o) an escaping detention prisoner is presumed to be committed in t!e per)ormance o) !is o))icial duties. 'ut s!ooting a t!ie)w!o re)used to stop inspite o) t!e order o) t!e accused will ma(e !im liable as !e e-ceeded )ul)illment o) !is duty. :People v. 'entres, ?/ %G ?/ /;Also, under t!e doctrine o) sel)6!elp, t!e law *usti)ies t!e act o) t!e owner as law)ul possessor o) a t!ing in using suc! )orce as is reasonably necessary)or t!e protection o) !is proprietary or possessory rig!t. :Art. ?2/, Civil Code;

it! respect to t!e wounding o) t!e stranger during t!e commission o) crime o) deat! under e-ceptional circumstances :Art. 2?&;, t!e de)ense o) law)ule-ercise o) a rig!t is a *usti)ying circumstance. :H ?, // 'ar;

. %bedience to superior order Any person w!o acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior )or some law)ul purpose. :Art. , Par. ;

t is re=uired t!at t!e order in itsel) must be law)ulD t!at it is )or a law)ul purposeD and t!at t!e person carrying out t!e order must also act wit!in t!e law.'ut even i) t!e order is illegal i) it is patently legal and t!e subordinate is not aware o) its illegality, t!e subordinate is not liable. :7assi) v. People, &>P!il. &; !is is due to a mista(e o) )act committed in good )ait!. @ven i) t!e order is illegal, t!e subordinate may still invo(e t!e e-emptingcircumstances o) compulsion o) irresistible )orce or acting under t!e impulse o) an uncontrollable )ear o) an e=ual or greater in*ury.@-empting circumstances are t!ose w!erein t!ere is an absence in t!e agent o) t!e crime o) all t!e condition t!at would ma(e an act voluntary and,!ence, alt!oug! t!ere is no criminal liability, t!ere is civil liability. n e-empting, t!e crime is committed but t!ere is absent in t!e person o) t!e o))ender any element o) voluntariness, and so !e is not criminally liable but is civilly liable e-cept in t!e e-empting circumstances o) accident and law)ul orinsuperable cause.

. mbecility and t!e insanity.An imbecile is one w!o may be advanced in years, but !as a mental development comparable only to c!ildren between 2 and & years o) age. An insaneis one w!o su))ers )rom a mental disorder in suc! degree as to deprive !im o) reason. !e insane person may be !eld criminally liable i) !e acted duringa lucid interval.

!en t!e imbecile or an insane person !as committed an act w!ic! t!e law de)ines as a )elony, t!e court s!all order !is con)inement in one o) t!e!ospitals or asylums establis!ed )or persons t!us a))licted, w!ic! !e s!all not be permitted to leave wit!out )irst obtaining t!e permission o) t!e samecourt. :Art. 2, Par. ;

!e test o) imbecility or insanity is complete deprivation o) intelligence in t!e commission o) t!e act, t!at is, t!at t!e accused acted wit!out t!e leastdiscernment. :People v. Aldemeta, 55033, 7ov. 3, /> ; !e evidence regarding insanity must re)er to t!e very moment o) its e-ecution and must be

proven by clear and positive evidence. :People v. 'asco, ?? P!il. 20?;@ven i) t!e o))ender is not an imbecile nor insane, i) !e is completely deprived o) t!e consciousness o) !is acts w!en !e commits t!e crime, !e isentitled to e-emption )or a cause analogous to imbecility or insanity. So, one committing a crime w!ile dreaming during !is sleep :People v. aneo, 5>P!il. 255; or in a state o) somnambulism or sleep wal(ing :People v. Gimena, 55 P!il. 0?; is not criminally liable as t!e acts are embraced wit!in t!e



plea o) insanity.2. #inorityA person under nine :/; years o) age. :Art. 2, Par. 2; n t!is case, t!e minor is completely devoid o) discernment and are irresponsible.A persons over nine :/; years o) age but under )i)teen : 5;, unless !e !as acted wit! discernment, in w!ic! case, suc! minor s!all be proceeded againstin accordance wit! t!e provisions o) Art. >0 M epealed by P+ 03N. :Art. 2, Par. 3; +iscernment is t!e mental capacity to determine not merely t!e di))erence between rig!t or wrong, but is also involves t!e capacity to compre!end t!enature o) t!e act and its conse=uences.

!e age o) t!e minor is computed up to t!e time o) t!e commission o) t!e crime c!arged, not up to t!e date o) trial.:People v. 7avarro, 5 %G ?0/; )t!e minor is e-empt )rom criminal liability, !e s!all be committed to t!e care o) !is or !er )at!er or mot!er or nearest relative or )amily )riend in t!ediscretion o) t!e court and sub*ect to its supervision. :Art. >/, P+ 03, as amended;#inority is always a privileged mitigating circumstance under t!e PC and lowers t!e prescribe penalty by one or two degrees in accordance wit!Article > o) t!e Code. 'ut li(e any modi)ying circumstance, it is not availing to t!ose accused o) crimes mala pro!ibita. :People v. #angusan, >/SC A 2?; 4owever, t!is privileged mitigating circumstance may be appreciated in violations o) t!e +angerous +rugs Act : A ?25;, t!e penalty to

be imposed s!ould not be lower t!an prision correccional. :People v. Simon, /3 2>, uly 2/, //?;3. AccidentAny person w!o, w!ile per)orming a law)ul act wit! due care, causes in*ury by mere accident wit!out )ault or intention o) causing it. :Art. 2, Par. ?;

ts re=uisites are$a. !e o))ender must be per)orming a law)ul act.

b. it! due care.c. Causes in*ury to anot!er by mere accident.d. it!out )ault or intent o) causing it.An accident is any !appening beyond t!e control o) a person t!e conse=uences o) w!ic! are not )oreseeable. ) )oreseeable, t!ere is )ault or culpa. Anaccidental s!ooting due to legitimate sel)6de)ense is e-empting. :People v. rinidad, ?/ %G ?>>/; n per)orming a law)ul act wit! due care by snatc!ingaway t!e 1balisong in de)ense o) stranger, t!e 1balisong )lew wit! )orce t!at it !it anot!er person w!o was seriously in*ured, ommy is e-empted)rom criminal liability because o) mere accident. :H2, //2 'ar;9nder t!is e-empting circumstance, t!ere is no civil liability.?. Compulsion o) irresistible )orce. Any person w!o acts under t!e compulsion o) irresistible )orce. :Art. 2, Par. 5;

!e )orce re)erred to !ere must be a p!ysical )orce, irresistible and compelling and must come )rom a t!ird person. t cannot spring primarily )rom t!eo))ender !imsel). :People v. Fernando, 33 SC A ?/; !us, i) a person was struc( wit! t!e butts o) t!e guns o) t!ose w!o (illed anot!er to compel !imto bury t!eir victim, !e is not liable as an accessory because !e acted under t!e compulsion o) an irresistible )orce. :9S v. Caballeros, ? P!il. >50;

!e )orce must be irresistible to reduce !im to a mere instrument w!o acts not only wit!out will, but against !is will. !e duress, )orce, )ear orintimidation must be present, imminent and impending and o) suc! a nature as to induce a well grounded appre!ension o) deat! or serious bodily !armi) t!e act is not done. A t!reat o) )uture in*ury is not enoug!. !e compulsion must be one o) suc! a c!aracter as to leave no opportunity to t!e accused)or escape or sel)6de)ense in e=ual combat. :People v. 7alipanat, ?5 SC A ?>3;5. mpulse o) uncontrollable )ear



Any person w!o acts under t!e impulse o) an uncontrollable )ear o) an e=ual or greater in*ury. :Art. 2, Par. ; 9ncontrollable )ear is an impulse coming )rom wit!in t!e person o) t!e actor !imsel). !e actor acts not against !is will but because !e is engendered

by t!e )ear. !e t!reat producing t!e insuperable )ear must be grave, actual, serious and suc! (ind t!at t!e ma*ority o) men would !ave succumbed tosuc! moral compulsion. :Feria and Gregorio, evised Penal Code, ol. , 22?; !us, i) one is compelled under )ear o) deat! to *oin t!e rebels, !e is notliable )or rebellion because !e acted under t!e impulse o) uncontrollable )ear o) an e=ual or greater in*ury. :9S v. @-altacion, 3 P!il. 33/;

. nsuperable or law)ul cause. Any person w!o )ails to per)orm an act re=uired by law, w!en prevented by some law)ul insuperable cause. :Art. 2, Par. &;

!is is a )elony by omission. !e )ailure o) a policeman to deliver t!e prisoner law)ully arrested to t!e *udicial aut!orities wit!in t!e prescribed period because it was not possible to do so wit! practicable dispatc! as t!e prisoner was arrested in a distant place would constitute a non6per)ormance o) dutyto an insuperable cause. :9S v. icentillo, / P!il. >;&. Absolutory causes.

!ese are instances w!ic! actually constitute a crime but by reason o) public policy and sentiment, it is considered to be wit!out liability and no penaltyis imposed, li(e$a. Spontaneous desistance at t!e attempted stage o) a )elony. :Art. , Par. 3;

b. Accessories e-empt )rom criminal liability. :Art. 20;c. +eat! or p!ysical in*uries in)licted under e-ceptional circumstances.O:Art. 2?&;d. @nter a dwelling )or t!e purpose o) preventing serious !arm or service to !umanity. :Art. 2>0;e. @-empt )rom t!e)t, swindling or malicious misc!ie) by relations!ips. :Art. 332;). #arriage o) t!e o))ended party in seduction, abduction, acts o) lasciviousness and rape. :Art. 2??;g. nstigation ta(es place w!en a peace o))icer induces a person to commit a crime. it!out t!e inducement, t!e crime would not be committed. 4ence,it is e-empting by reason o) public policy. !e person instigating must not be a private person as !e will be liable as a principal by inducement. :Art.

&, Par. 2; n t!is case, t!e criminal intent :mens rea; originates in t!e mind o) t!e instigator and t!e accused is lured into t!e commission o) t!e o))ensec!arged in order to prosecute !im. 4owever, entrapment is t!e employment o) suc! ways and means devised by a peace o))icer )or t!e purpose o)trapping or capturing a lawbrea(er. it! or wit!out t!e entrapment, t!e crime !as been committed already. 4ence, entrapment is neit!er e-empting ormitigating. !e idea to commit t!e crime originated )rom t!e accused, t!us t!e actor is criminally liable.

!e di))erence between entrapment and instigation lies in t!e origin o) t!e criminal intent. n entrapment mens rea originates )rom t!e mind o) t!ecriminal. !e idea and resolve to commit t!e crime comes )rom !im. n instigation, t!e law o))icer conceives t!e commission o) t!e crime and suggestsit to t!e accused, w!o adopts t!e idea and carries it into e-ecution. :Araneta v. CA, ? 3>, uly /, /> ;A 1buy6bust operation is a )orm o) entrapment employed by peace o))icer to trap and catc! a male)actor in )lagrante delicto, commonly involvingdangerous drugs. :People v. +el Pilar, >> SC A 3&; !ere a person !ad a ready supply o) dangerous drugs )or sale to anyone willing to pay t!e priceas(ed )or, alt!oug! !e mig!t not !ave t!e drug wit! !im at t!e time o) t!e initial transaction, t!e situation supports an entrapment, not an instigation.

!e )act t!at t!e accused returned wit! t!e drugs s!ortly a)ter t!e transaction was entered into, s!ows t!at !e !ad ready contacts wit! t!e supplier )romw!om !e could readily get t!e drug. ) t!e accused were merely instigated to loo( )or t!e drug, it would !ave ta(en !im a considerable lengt! o) time toloo( )or a source. :People v. @stevan, / SC A 3?; :H>, //2 'ar;



An e-ample o) instigation is given in H/, //5 'ar as )ollows$ Suspecting t!at uan was a drug pus!er, SP%2 #ercado gave uan a P 006bill andas(ed !im to buy some mari*uana cigarettes. +esirous o) pleasing SP%2 #ercado, uan went inside t!e s!opping mall w!ile t!e o))icer waited at t!ecorner o) t!e mall. A)ter 5 minutes, uan returned wit! ten stic(s o) mari*uana cigarettes w!ic! gave to SP%2 #ercado w!o t!ereupon placed uanunder arrest and c!arged !im wit! violation o) t!e +angerous +rugs Law by selling mari*uana. s uan guilty o) any o))ense uan cannot be c!arged o) any o))ense punis!able under t!e +angerous +rugs Act. Alt!oug! uan is a suspected drug pus!er, !e cannot be c!arged on t!e basis o) a meresuspicion. 'y providing t!e money wit! w!ic! to buy mari*uana cigarettes, SP%2 #ercado practically induced and prodded uan to commit t!e o))enseo) illegal possession o) mari*uana. Set against t!e )acts, instigation is a valid de)ense available to uan. Case o) People o) t!e .P. vs. GenosaG. .7o. 35/> 5 anuary200?

FAC S %F 4@ CAS@$

!at #arivic Genosa, t!e Appellant on t!e 57ovember //5, attac(ed and wounded !is !usband, w!ic! ultimately led to !is deat!. According to t!eappellant s!e did not provo(e !er !usband w!en s!e got !ome t!at nig!t it was !er !usband w!o began t!e provocation. !e Appellant said s!e was)rig!tened t!at !er !usband would !urt !er and s!e wanted to ma(e sure s!e would deliver !er baby sa)ely. n )act, !e Appelant !ad to be admittedlater at t!e i"al #edical Centre as s!e was su))ering )rom eclampsia and !ypertension, and t!e baby was born prematurely on +ecember , //5.

!e Appellant testi)ied t!at during !er marriage s!e !ad tried to leave !er !usband at least )ive :5; times, but t!at 'en would always )ollow !er and t!eywould reconcile. !e Apellant said t!at t!e reason w!y 'en was violent and abusive towards !er t!at nig!t was because I!e was cra"y about !is recentgirl)riend, Lulu ubillos.

!e Appellant a)ter being interviewed by specialists, !as been s!own to be su))ering )rom 'attered oman Syndrome.!e appellant wit! a plea o) sel) de)ense admitted t!e (illing o) !er !usband, s!e was t!en )ound guilty o) Parricide, wit! t!e aggravating circumstance

o) treac!ery, )or t!e !usband was attac(ed w!ile asleep.

SS9@S %F 4@ CAS@$

Can #arivic Genosa be granted t!e usti)ying circumstance o) Sel)6de)ense, and can s!e be !eld liable )or t!e aggravating circumstance o) treac!ery

7o, Since sel)6 de)ense since t!e e-istence o) 'attered woman syndrome, w!ic! t!e appellant !as been s!own to be su))ering in t!e relations!ip doesnot in itsel) establis! t!e legal rig!t o) t!e woman to (ill !er abusive partner. @vidence must still be considered in t!e conte-t o) sel)6de)ense.

n t!e present case, !owever, according to t!e testimony o) t!e appellant t!ere was a su))icient time interval between t!e unlaw)ul aggression o) t!e!usband and !er )atal attac( upon !im. S!e !ad already been able to wit!draw )rom !is violent be!avior and escape to t!eir c!ildrenIs bedroom. +uringt!at time, !e apparently ceased !is attac( and went to bed. !e reality or even t!e imminence o) t!e danger !e posed !ad ended altoget!er. 4e was nolonger in a position t!at presented an actual t!reat on !er li)e or sa)ety.

it!out continuous aggression t!ere can be no sel)6de)ense. And absence o) aggression does not warrant complete or incomplete sel)6de)ense.



7o, !ere is treac!ery w!en one commits any o) t!e crimes against persons by employing means, met!ods or )orms in t!e e-ecution t!ereo) wit!outris( to onesel) arising )rom t!e de)ense t!at t!e o))ended party mig!t ma(e.

!e circumstances must be s!own as indubitably as t!e (illing itsel)D t!ey cannot be deduced )rom mere in)erences, or con*ectures, w!ic! !ave no placein t!e appreciation o) evidence. 'esides, e=ually a-iomatic is t!e rule t!at w!en a (illing is preceded by an argument or a =uarrel, treac!ery cannot beappreciated as a =uali)ying circumstance, because t!e deceased may be said to !ave been )orewarned and to !ave anticipated aggression )rom t!eassailant.

n t!e present case, !owever it was not conclusively s!own, t!at t!e appellant intentionally c!ose a speci)ic means o) success)ully attac(ing !er!usband wit!out any ris( to !ersel) )rom any retaliatory act t!at !e mig!t ma(e. o t!e contrary, it appears t!at t!e t!oug!t o) using t!e gun occurred to!er only at about t!e same moment w!en s!e decided to (ill !er spouse. n t!e absence o) any convincing proo) t!at s!e consciously and deliberatelyemployed t!e met!od by w!ic! s!e committed t!e crime in order to ensure its e-ecution, t!e doubt s!ould be resolved in !er )avor.4@L+$

!e conviction o) Appellant #arivic Genosa )or parricide is !ereby AFF #@+. 4owever, t!ere being two :2; mitigating circumstances and noaggravating circumstance attending !er commission o) t!e o))ense, !er penalty is @+9C@+ to si- : ; years and one : ; day o) prision mayor asminimumD to ? years, > mont!s and day o) reclusion temporal as ma-imum.

A++@7+9#$!en can ' S :'attered oman Syndrome; as sel) de)ense be appreciated!ere t!e brutali"ed person is already su))ering )rom ' S, )urt!er evidence o) actual p!ysical assault at t!e time o) t!e (illing is not re=uired.ncidents o) domestic battery usually !ave a predictable pattern. o re=uire t!e battered person to await an obvious, deadly attac( be)ore s!e can de)end

!er li)e Jwould amount to sentencing !er to Imurder by installment.I Still, impending danger :based on t!e conduct o) t!e victim in previous batteringepisodes; prior to t!e de)endantIs use o) deadly )orce must be s!own. !reatening be!avior or communication can satis)y t!e re=uired imminence o)danger. Considering suc! circumstances and t!e e-istence o) ' S, sel)6de)ense may be appreciated

People v. GenosaG. . 7o. 35/> , 2/ September 2000

FAC S$

#arivic Genosa was convicted o) Parricide )or (illing !is legitimate !usband 'en Genosa and wit! t!e aggravating circumstance o) treac!ery,s!e was meted t!e penalty o) deat!. !e case was elevated to t!e SC )or automatic review.

Appellant subse=uently )iled an 9rgent %mnibus #otion praying )or !er e-amination by e-pert psyc!ologists and psyc!iatrist and t!e reception



o) latterIs reports to prove !er claim o) sel)6de)ense on t!e t!eory o) battered woman syndrome.

!e SC remanded t!e case to t!e trial court )or t!e reception o) e-pert psyc!ological8psyc!iatric opinion on t!e plea o) battered womansyndrome.

#arivic Genosa was e-amined by +ra. 7atividad A. +ayan, a clinical psyc!ologist, w!o testi)ied t!at #arivic J)its t!e pro)ile o) a batteredwomanJ and by +r. Al)redo Para*illo, a psyc!iatrist, w!o Je-plained t!at wit! Ineurotic an-ietyI, t!e victim relieves t!e beating or trauma as i) it werereal, alt!oug! s!e is not actually beaten at t!at timeJ and t!at at t!e time #arivic (illed !er !usband, !er Jmental condition was t!at s!e was Jre6e-periencing t!e trauma.I !at t!e Jre6e-periencing o) t!e trauma is not controlled by #arivic. t will *ust come in )las!es - - -.J

SS9@S$ ; !et!er or not appelant acted in sel)6de)ense. 2; !et!er or not treac!ery attended t!e (illing.4@L+$ ; !e SC !eld t!at t!e de)ense )ailed to establis! all t!e elements o) sel)6de)ense arising )rom battered woman syndrome, to wit$

a; @ac! o) t!e p!ases o) t!e cycle o) violence must be proven to !ave c!aracteri"ed at least two battering episodes between t!e appellantand !er intimate partner.

b; !e )inal acute battering episode preceding t!e (illing o) t!e batterer must !ave produced in t!e battered personIs mind an actual )earo) an imminent !arm )rom !er batterer and an !onest belie) t!at s!e needed to use )orce in order to save !er li)e.

c; At t!e time o) t!e (illing, t!e batterer must !ave posed probable66not necessarily immediate and actual66grave !arm to t!e accused, based on t!e !istory o) violence perpetrated by t!e )ormer against t!e latter.

2; !e SC ruled out treac!ery as an aggravating circumstance because t!e =uarrel or argument t!at preceded t!e (illing must !ave )orewarnedt!e victim o) t!e assailantIs aggression.

Documents

Crim Law Digest 6