Criminal Law Alternative Circumstance

7/25/2019 Criminal Law Alternative Circumstance

1/20

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE

G.R. No. L-8578 November 17,1913

1. US vs DIRIS

Fact:

Fulgencio Seal, who lived in the pueblo of

Calauag, Province of Tayabas, received from the

railroad company, more than P400 in payment of

certain land epropriated by that company, and

that the defendant Tomas !lea, a nephew of

Fugencio Seal, was present when the money

was counted and paid over to his uncle"

Thereafter, after Fulgencio Seal left the house

leaving his wife in charge of their tienda, thethree defendants appeared at the tienda and

#usta$uio Siaga engaged the woman in

conversation while the other two defendants

went upstairs, bro%e open the trun%, and too%

the money, amounting to P&'&, and a receipt for

P(00" )fter the discovery of the commission of

the crime, The nephew when found admitted the

theft of the money and promised that if the uncle

would not ma%e any trouble about it he would try

and recover it from the other defendants"

)t the trial the defendants denied that they werethe authors of the crime* !lea and +iris deniedthat they were present at the house on themorning in $uestion" owever, they wereconvicted for the crime of robbery" !n appeal,defendant #usta$uio Siaga, who remainedbelow in the tienda and engaged the woman inconversation while the other defendants went upinto the house, should only be held as acomplice -accessary before the fact. as defined

in the Penal Code, and not as a principal"

/ssue:

hether or not defendant #usta$uio Siagashould only be held liable as accomplice1

eld:

The defendant Siaga acted concurrently with theother defendants, and must be held to havebeen present with them aiding and abettingthem in the commission of the crime byremaining below and tal%ing with the woman inorder to distract her attention from what wasgoing on upstairs" /n doing so he was evidentlyserving as a guard to warn his companions incase there should arise any necessity for givingan alarm" hen the other defendants camedown out of the house he went away with them"

This court has repeatedly held that onewho shares the guilty purpose and aids andabets the commission of a crime by hispresence at the time of its perpetration, eventhough he may not have ta%en an active part inits material eecution, is guilty as a principal" ehave also held that one who stands as guardnear the place where a crime is committed to%eep others away or to warn his companionsand fellow conspirators of danger of discovery,ta%es a direct part in the commission of the

crime and is therefore guilty as a principal underarticle (& of the Penal Code

. UNITED STATES v. INDANAN !"#$%&. '3 (1913)*

Panglima /ndanan, accussed is theheadman of Parang"

1 !n 2ar" 34, ((3, /ndanan ordered the%illing of Sariol to his men )%iran, 5alya%an 6Suhuri in the Chinese Cemetary asserting that

/ndanan had an order to that effect from thegovernor"

1 The CF/ found /ndanan guilty of thecrime of murder 6 sentencing him to be hanged"

/ssues: !7 /ndanan is guilty of murder byinducement1

1 8#S" )(&-3., of the Penal Code declaresthose to be principals in a crime 9who directlyforce or induce others to commit it"

1 Commenting upon this paragraph, ;iadasays:

1 They force another to commit a crimewho physically by actual force or grave fear, foreample, with a pistol in hand or by any other

threatening means, oblige another to commit thecrime" /n our commentary on par" of )< -page3


2/20

criminal responsibility as the physical author ofthe crime, he who thus, by his command,directly induced him to the criminal act isconsidered by the law also as principal in thecrime"

1 The pacto by virtue of w=c ( purchasesfor a consideration the hand w=c commits the

crime ma%es him who gives, promises, or offersthe consideration the principal in the crime bydirect inducement, because w=o such offer orpromise the criminal act would never have beencommitted" ?ut this doesn>t mean that the ( whoactually commits the crime by reason of suchpromise, remuneration or reward is eemptedfrom criminal responsibility* on the contrary, suchcircumstance constitutes an aggravation of hiscrime"

1 e have heretofore said that in addition

to the precepto 6 the pacto there are similarmeans by w=c another may be induced tocommit a crime w=c also ma%e the ( who offersthe inducement the principal in the crime byvirtue of the provisions of )(&-3." ?ut it must beborne in mind that these acts of inducement donot consist in simple advice or counsel givenbefore the act is committed, or in simple wordsuttered at the time the act was committed" Suchadvice 6 such words constitute undoubtedly anevil act, an inducement condemned by the morallaw* but in order that, under the provisions of the

Code, such act can be considered directinducement, it is necessary that such advice orsuch words have a great dominance 6 greatinfluence over the person who acts* it isnecessary that they be as direct, as efficacious,as powerful as physical or moral coercion or asviolence itself"

3. #eo+&e vs C$%/0

Facts:

)ppellant and two others, !ng ?an ua

and 5ua Sing, were @ointly informed against by

the provincial fiscal of Aamboanga, charging

them with having feloniously burned a building in

which was located a store belonging to the

appellant" Bpon a plea of not guilty, appellant

and his codefendants were tried @ointly uponsaid information* and, after trial, while !ng ?an

ua and 5ua Sing were ac$uitted, appellant was

found guilty of the crime of arson

/ssue:

hether or not the appellant is criminally liableas principal by direct participation1

eld:

/n order to convict a defendant asprincipal in the commission of a crime, it must beshown either -(. that he too% a direct part in theeecution of the criminal act* -3. that he directlyforced or induced another or others to commit it*or -&. that he cooperated in the commission ofthe offense by an act without which it would nothave been accomplished" -Devised Penal Code,article (E". They ta%e direct part in the eecutionof a criminal act who, participating in the criminaldesign, proceed to carry out their plan andpersonally ta%e part in its eecution by actswhich directly tend to the same end" -;iada,Codigo Penal, 'th ed", vol" (, p" &4(* )lbertsDevised Penal Code )nn", (44".

/n the instant case, it is not claimed thatappellant had ta%en a direct part in the burningof the building" /n fact, the prosecution laysstress on appellants absence from the scene ofthe fire as one of the suspicious circumstancesindicating his guilt"

". #eo+&e v %%2$% m%e

Guly 34, (&'+efendantsH)ppellants: 5iichi !mine, #duardo)utor, Iuis Iadion, )gapito Cortesano

)PP#)I from a @udgment of the CF/ of +avao

ACTS4+efendants )utor, Iadio, and Cortesano were

wor%ing on the hemp plantation of )ngel Pulidounder the direction of their coHdefendant 5iichi!mine, who was the overseer or manager, witha compensation of (0J of the receipts"

!mine as%ed Pulido for permission to open anew road through the plantation, but there was amisunderstanding because Pulido contends thathe refused to grant this re$uest because therewas already an unfinished road" !n the otherhand, !mine contends that Pulido gave him thepermission"

hen Pulido, with his son ilario, accompaniedby Saito Paton and a moro named ?arabadan,were returning home from a coc%pit they noticedthat a considerable number of hemp plants hadbeen destroyed for the purpose of opening anew road"

)ngered by the destruction of hemp plants,Pulido and his party went to the house of thedefendants where the crime happened"

)ccording to the prosecution:hile offended part was tal%ing with !mine,)utor attempted to intervene but was preventedby ilario and so he attac%ed him with a bolo butwounded him only on the left thumb" Iadion andCoretesano then held Pulido by the arms and)utor struc% Pulido in the breast with his bolo"

)ccording to the defendants:First to arrive was ilario, who after applying to!mine an offensive epithet, struc% him in thebreast with brass %nuc%les" hen )utorattempted to intervene, Pulido and his son

attac%ed him with their fists, /lario stri%ing him


3/20

on the right chee%" Iadion and Cortesano ranaway before Pulido was wounded by )utor"

ISSUE6ELDRATI4(. !7 there was conspiracy among thedefendants1 HH 7!

#vidence did not prove that Iadion and

Cortesano too% any part in the fight K

they ran away and were not presentwhen Pulido was wounded and were notincluded in the original complaint

/f they were present, there was also no

need for them to hold Pulido in order toenable )utor to stri%e him with his boloor for !mine to induce him to do so byshouting 9pegale y matale -hit him and%ill him.

ilario and )utor had already struc%

each other in the face before )ngelPulido intervene in the fight and he did

so, )utor, who had already drawn hisbolo, would stri%e him without a need foran inducement from !mine"

#ven if !mine uttered those words, they

would not be sufficient to ma%e him aprincipal by induction because it doesnot appear that these words caused)utor to stri%e Pulido"

)lthough )utor was wor%ing under the

direction of !mine, it does not appearthat !mine has any influence over)utor"

BS v /ndanan: /n order that a person may beconvicted of a crime by inducement, it isnecessary that the inducement it is necessarythat the inducement be made directly with theintention of procuring the commission of thecrime and that such inducement be thedetermining cause of the commission of thecrime"

SC of Spain: )lthough the phrases pronouncedwere imprudent and culpable, they were not so

to the etent that they may be considered theprincipal and moving cause of the effect

produced" +irect inducement cannot be inferredfrom such phrases, as in inducement must beprecede the act induced and must be soinfluential in producing the criminal act thatwithout it the act would not have beenperformed"

/t is necessary that such advice or such words

have great dominance and great influence overthe person who acts, that it is necessary thatthey may be as direct, as efficacious, aspowerful as physical or moral coercion or asviolence itself"

3. !7 )utor intended to %ill the offended partyK 7!)lthough the wound was serious and in a vitalpart of the body -(( inches in length, etendingfrom breast to the lower ribs on the right side., itwas not a stab wound and was probably givenduring a commotion and without being aimed atany particular part of the body" e only struc%Pulido once when he could have easily %illedhim"

owever, there is no merit in the contention of)utor that )ngel Pulido was accidentallywounded in a struggle for the possession of thebolo" /t was proven that he snatched out his boloand struc% Pulido in the stomach"

Decision appealed reversed as to Omine,Ladion and Cortesano and they were acquitted.

As to Autor, the decision is modified. He isconvicted of lesion graves and sentenced tosuffer 1 year, mos, and !1 days of prisioncorrectional, to indemnify in sum of "#$%.

'" P#!PI# v" 2!7T#)I#LD#M(N( SCD) E00 -(s either anterior conspiracy or unity ofcriminal purpose 6 intention immediately before

the commission of the crime charged* 6


4/20

o Cooperation in the commission of theoffense by performing another act w=o w=c itwould not have been accomplished"1 ?ut although there was no evidence ofprior agreement between Capalad 62ontealegre, their subse$uent acts shouldprove the presence of such conspiracy" TheCourt has consistently upheld such view in

previous cases -People v" Iaganson, People v"Cercano, People v" Larcia Cabarse, +acanay v"People.1 2ontealegre was correctly convicted ofthe comple crime of murder, $ualified bytreachery, w= assault upon a person of authority"

L"D" 7o" IH&3N34 February (3, (


5/20

homicide and assault upon agents of persons inauthority"

#I+: First, as to appellant Simeon, evidenceshows that the malefactors met in his house todiscuss the plan to rob the ban%" Thiscircumstance alone doesn>t conclude his guiltbeyond reasonable doubt" The facts do not

show that he performed any act tending to theperpetration of the robbery, nor that he too% adirect part therein or induced other persons tocommit, or that he cooperated in itsconsummation by some act w=o w=c it would nothave been committed" )t most, his actamounted to @oining in a conspiracy w=c is notpunishable" Simeon then was not a principalboth by agreement and encouragement for hisnonHparticipation in the commission of thecrime" 7or was it clearly proven that he hadreceived any part=fruits of the looted money asto ma%e him an accessory" )s recommended bySolLen, Simeon +oble is entitled to ac$uittal w=no sufficient evidence to establish his guiltbeyond reasonable doubt"7et, as regards Doma$uin 6 +oble, themalefactors who waited in the banca, bothcontend that their etraH@udicial statements uponw=c their conviction was principally made to rest,are inadmissible for having been allegedlyobtained by force and intimidation, torture andmaltreatment, and in violation of basic consti>l rtsto counsel and against selfHincrimination"owever, it must be noted that they didn>tpresent any medical cert to attest to the in@uriesallegedly inflicted" 2ore so that their testimoniesmatch each other>s" )nd it should also be notedthat Celso )$uino>s testimony, as one of theaccused, admitted that no violence was inflictedon him to procure his statement" This isevidence enough that the appellants could nothave been dealt w= differently as their coHaccused )$uino who was allowed to give hisstatement freely"The etraH@udicial statements of the appellantsare convincing to show that their liability is less

than that of a coHprincipal by conspiracy or by

actual participation" Cresencio was merely inHcharge of the banca and had no %nowledge ofthe concrete plan and eecution of the crime"The mastermind obviously did not etendconfidence in him as he was only as%ed toprovide a banca @ust a few hours before thecommission of the crime" 7or was Doma$uinconsidered a principle malefactor as there was a

gun pointed at him by Cresencio to prevent himfrom fleeing away from the scene, evident toshow that he never @oined in the criminalpurpose and that his acts were not voluntary")n accomplice is one who, not being principal asdefined in )rt (E DPC, cooperates in theeecution of the offense by previous orsimultaneous acts" There must be a communityof unlawful purpose between the principal andaccomplice and assistance %nowingly andintentionally given to supply material and moralaid in the consummation of the offense" /n thiscase, the appellants> cooperation is li%e that of adriver of a car used for abduction w=c ma%es thedriver a mere accomplice"?ut it isn>t established by evidence that in themtg held in the house of Simeon that they allagreed to %ill and not @ust rob" The finding thatappellants are liable as mere accomplices mayappear too lenient but evidence fails to establishtheir conspiracy w= the real malefactors whoactually robbed the ban% and %illed severalpeople"herefore, +oble 6 Doma$uin are guilty beyondreasonable doubt as accomplices for the crimeof robbery in band" The penalty imposable uponappellants is prision mayor min" Thecommission of the crime was aggr by nighttime6 the use of a motoried banca" There being no2C, both appellants should be sentenced to anindeterminate penalty of prision correccionalfrom ' yrs, 4 mos, 3( days to < yrs of prisionmayor as maimum"

" P#!PI# ;S +!CT!I#D!

L"D" 7o" (&(s decision in convicting the

respondent as charged and held the latter onlyguilty of homicide" The $ualifying circumstanceof treachery was disregarded because the samewas not proven by the prosecution" )lso, theaward of damages was modified to P((3,4(&"40as actual damages, ecluding epenses forcustomary practices of th day, 40th day and (stdeath anniversary" 2oral damages waslessened to P'0,000 and P'0,000 was f ied ascivil indemnity"

1'. #E#LE T6E#6ILI##INES,

plaintiffHappellee,

vs"LE EC6EGARA #IL,

accusedHappellant"

G.R. No. 117"7 ebr/r 7, 1997

ACTS4 R%$0 //%s0 2re& /:

s/& +%s$me0


6/20

)ccusedHapellant Ieo #chegaray was chargedand convicted for the crime of raping his tenHyear old daughter" The crime having beencommitted sometime in )pril, (4, during whichtime Depublic )ct 7o" EN', commonly %nownas the +eath Penalty Iaw, was already in effect,accusedHappellant was inevitably meted out thesupreme penalty of death"

/n appealing the conviction, it raised theconstitutionality of the +eath Penalty Iaw asbeing severe and ecessive, cruel and unusualin violation of the constitution" e invo%es theruling in rm/ vs. Geor%/wherein the BSSupreme Court categorically ruled that deathpenalty is cruel and degrading" e also arguesthat death is an ecessive and cruel punishmentfor a crime of rape because there is no ta%ing oflife in rape" e invo%es the ruling in Co;er vs.Geor%/ which said that while rape deservesserious punishment, it should not involve theta%ing of human life" /n rape, life is not over forthe victim" +eath penalty should only beimposed where the crime was murder"

ISSUE4 hether or not +eath Penalty is crueland unusual punishment"

6ELD4 7!" The penalty is neither cruel,un@ust nor ecessive" /n the BS case of5emmler, it was held that punishments are cruelwhen they involve torture or a lingering death" /timplies there something inhuman, barbarous,something more than the etinguishment of life"/t is degrading if it involves public humiliation"The severity is not sufficient, but must bedisproportionate to the crime committed"#cessiveness is measured by (. seriousness ofthe crime, 3. policy of the legislative, &.perversity of the accused"

The issue in rm/ vs. Geor%/ is not somuch the death penalty itself, but thearbitrariness pervading the procedures by whichthe death penalty was imposed by the @ury" /t

was nullified because the discretion in which the

statute vested in trial @udges and sentencing@uries was uncontrolled and without anyparameters, guidelines, or standards"

ith regard to the case of Co;er vs. Geor%/,the SC held that this case has no bearing onPhilippine eperience and culture" Such apremise is in fact an ennobling of the biblicalnotion of retributive @ustice of an eye for an eye,a tooth for a tooth" ?ut, the forfeiture of lifesimply because life was ta%en, never was adefining essence of the death penalty in thecontet of our legal history and culturaleperience* rather, the death penalty is imposedin heinous crimes because the perpetratorsthereof have committed unforgivably eecrableacts that have so deeply dehumanied a personor criminal acts with severely destructive effects,and because they have so caused irreparableand substantial in@ury to both their victim and thesociety and a repetition of their acts would poseactual threat to the safety of individuals and thesurvival of government, they must bepermanently prevented from doing so"

D) EN' already sufficiently defined what areheinous crimes K crimes punished with deathare those that are grievous, odious, and hatefulby reason of inherent viciousness, atrocity andperversity, those that are repugnant andoutrageous to common standards of norms anddecency and morality in a @ust, civilied andordered society" They also include crimes whichare despicable because life is callously ta%en, orthe vict im is treated as an animal ordehumanied"

11. Er%&e vs S/&/


7/20

There is one other reason and a fundamentalone at that why )rticle 4< of the Penal Codecannot be applied in the case at bar" /f murderwere not compleed with rebellion, and the twocrimes were punished separately -assuming thatthis could be done., the following penaltieswould be imposable upon the movant, namely:-(. for the crime of rebellion, a fine noteceeding P30,000 and prision mayor, in thecorresponding period, depending upon themodifying circumstances present, but nevereceeding (3 years of prision mayor, and -3. forthe crime of murder, reclusion temporal in itsmaimum period to death, depending upon themodifying circumstances present" /n otherwords, in the absence of aggravatingcircumstances, the etreme penalty could not beimposed upon him" owever, under )rticle 4ose To&%

-both the accused., twins, both married, are natives of?arrio7enita Samar" They are illiterate farmerstilling their own lands"

)ntonios daughter, Ieonora, was wor%ing in2anila" Goses three children had stayed in2anilaalso since (N4" )ntonio decided to go to2anila after receiving a letter from Ieonoratellinghim that she would give him money"

To have money for his epenses, )ntonio %illeda pig and sold the meat to Goses wife forsitypesos" Gose decided to go with )ntonio inorder to see his children" e was able to raiseeightyHfive pesos for his epenses"

Ieonora gave her father P'0" )ntoniosgrandson, gave him P&0" )ntonio placed theeightypesos in the right poc%et of his pants"

)fter buying their tic%ets home, they boarded thenight ?icol epress train at about five ocloc%inthe afternoon" The train left at si ocloc% that

evening" The twins were in coach 7o" "

#ach seat in the coach faced an opposite seat")n aisle separated the two rows" Thebrotherswere seated side by side on thefourththreeHpassenger seat from the rear, facing thebac% door"Gose was seated between )ntonio,who was near the window, and a threeHyear oldboy" ?esidethe boy was a woman breastHfeeding

her baby who was near the aisle" That woman


9/20

wasCoraon ?ernal" There were more than onehundred twenty passengers in the coach"Somepassengers were standing on the aisle"

Sitting on thethirdseat and facing the brothers were two men andan old woman who wassleeping with her headresting on the bac% of the seat" on the twoHpassenger seat across theaisle in line with theseat where the brothers were sitting, there wereseated a fat woman, whowas near the window,and one Cipriano Deganet who was on her left"!n the opposite seat wereseated a woman, herdaughter and )manda 2apa with an eightHmonth old baby" They were infront of Deganet"

The train stopped at Cabuyao, Iaguna, and notlong after it resumed regular speed,)ntoniostood up and stabbed the man sittingdirectly in front of him with scissors" Gosestabbed thesleeping old woman sitting in front ofhim with a %nife"

The twins ran amuc% and started stabbing thepeople in the coach" They were finallystoppedwhen Constabulary soldiers aboard thetrain heard about the incident" )t thattime,Constabulary Sergeant ;icente Dayel was

not on duty and was simply ta%ing his wife childtoRueon" e was at the dining car when theincident happened" Constabulary Sargeant;icente)ldea was in the dining car as well"

The dead amounted to twelve" #ight sufferedfrom stab wounds while others died afterthey @umped off the train, apparently tryingto escape the violence" Seven were in@ured,though oneof them was reported to have died as

well

(4" #eo+&e vs S/&v%&&/A+r%& ?,199'Me&e2$o @ 6errer/, >/20s4

Petitioner: ?ienvenido Salvilla

)pril (3, (tbudge after moreultimatums" This resulted toin@uries to the girls, as well as to the accusedDonaldo and Deynaldo Canasares" 2ary>srightleg had to be amputated due to her in@uries"

The appellant maintained that the money, walletand watches were all left on the counter andwere never touched bythem" e also claimedthat they never fired on the military because theyintended to surrender"/ssues:

!7 the crime of robbery was consummated

!7 there was a mitigating circumstance ofvoluntary surrenderR/0%o4

8es" The robbery shall be deemedconsummated if the unlawful 9ta%ing iscomplete"oBnlawful ta%ing of personal property of another

is an essential part of the crime of robbery" The


10/20

respondentclaimed that none of the items-money, watches and wallet. were recoveredfrom them" owever, based on theevidence, themoney demanded, the wallet and the wristwatchwere within the dominion and control oftheappellant and his coHaccused and thus theta%ing was completed"o/t is not necessary that the property be ta%eninto the hands of the robber or that he shouldhave actually carriedthe property away, out ofthe physical presence of the lawful possessor, orthat he should have made his escapewith it"

7o" The 9surrender of the appellant and his coHaccused cannot be considered in their favour tomitigate their liability"oTo be mitigating, a surrender must have thefollowing re$uisites: that the offender had notbeen actuallyarrested, that the offendersurrendered himself to a person in authority or tohis agent, and that the surrenderwasvoluntary" The 9surrender by the appellantand his coHaccused hardly meets thesere$uirements" There is novoluntary surrender tospea% of"&ote' (he nature of the lin)ed offenses*ro++ery with serious physical inuries andserious illegal detention- was alsodiscussed.(he detention in the case at +ar wasnot only incidental to the ro++ery +ut was anecessary means to commit the same so

thenature of the offense was affirmed.6e&:4Gudgment appealed is )FF/D2#+

(N" #eo+&e v. S%mo3" SCRA 555, 5?9 (199")G.R. No.93'8/20s4)ccusedHappellant 2artin Simon was chargedwith a violation of Section 4, )rticle // of Depublic)ct 7o" N43', as amended, otherwise %nown asthe +angerous +rugs )ct of (E3, under an

indictment alleging he sold four tea bags of

mari@uana to a 7arcoticsCommand -7)DC!2.poseurHbuyer in consideration of the sum of P40"00"Isse4hether or not accusedHappellant Simon shouldbe given a lighter punishment of simonths tosi years instead of reclusion perpetua,pursuant to the amendments of Depublic )ct7o" EN' to Depublic )ct 7o" N43'6e&:48es, since Depublic )ct 7o" EN' was effected on+ecember &(, (&"

(" People vs !yanib

- Tagalog ;ersion. wala english

2isis, naa%tuhang na%i%ipagtali% sa iba

/5) )T )7L ?)T)S 7i /5) )T )7L ?)T)Sni )tty"Gose C" Sison Bpdated February (,300& H (3:00am0 0 googleplus0 0I)?/7I/2)7L taon nang %asal sina 2ando atIinda" +alawa ang ana%" Sa loob ng panahongiyon, marami nang beses silang nag%aroon ngsamaan ng loob %aya sila ay nagdesisyongmaghiwalay"

5ahit hiwalay na, sinubu%an pa ring suyuin ni2ando si Iinda na ma%ipagbali%an ito para samga bata" Subalit ipinagyabang pa ni Iinda namayroon siyang %asintahan, si Gaime" 2insan ayna%ita ni 2ando ang dalawa at binantaan angasawa ngunit tina%ot pa siya ni Iinda napapatayin nito at ni Gaime"

/sang gabi matapos ang hapunan, %inailangangpuntahan ni 2ando si Iinda upang hilingin nadumalo ito sa pulong ng mga magulang dahilang grado ng ana% nilang lala%i ay bumagsa%"7ang ma%arating sa bahay ni Iinda, na%arinig si

2ando ng ungol mula sa loob" Pilit niyangbinu%san ang pintuan sa pamamagitan ngbalisong na lagi niyang dala para prote%syon sasarili" 7ang nabu%san na niya ang pinto, na%itaniya ang asawa at si Gaime na nagtatali%"

Sinipa ni Gaime si 2ando sa mu%ha" Sina%sa%naman ito ni 2ando" )t dahil mabilis ang pagHata%e, nawalan ng balanse si Gaime at nahulog"Sina%sa% siya ni 2ando sa tiyan" Samantala,%umuha si Iinda ng isang bote at ipinu%po% saulo ni 2ando habang sumisigaw na patayin mosiya, Gaime, patayin mo, Gaime"

+alawang beses sina%sa% ni 2ando si Gaime satiyan samantalang sina%sa% naman ni Iinda angbraso ni 2ando ng basag na bote" 7agalit si2ando %aya sina%sa% niya si Iinda sa %aliwangdibdib at tatlong beses pa sa iba pang bahagi ng%atawan nito" 7amatay ang dalawa samantalangsi 2ando ay sumu%o sa awtoridad"

7aa%usahan si 2ando ng murder at parricide"/namin niya ang mga pagpatay subalit sinabiniyang ginawa niya ito sa ilalim ng eceptionalcircumstances dahil nahuli niya ang %anyangasawa at ang %alaguyo nito sa a%tong pagtatali%o pag%atapos na pag%atapos nito" Subalitnahatulan siya ng 5orte sa salang homicide atparricide at nasentensiyahan ng reclusion

perpetuasa pagpatay niya sa asawa atpina%amabigat na walong taong pag%a%a%ulongsa pagpatay %ay Gaime" Tama ba ang hatol ng5orte1

Mali" 5ahit na aminin ni 2ando ang mgapagpatay, ang parusa rito ay hindi pa rinmaipapataw" 7ang ma%ita ni 2ando ang asawaat ang %alaguyo nito na nagtatali%, nanaig ang%anyang selos at galit %aya6(4N*t sina%sa%niya si Gaime nang lumaban at nanipa" /binaling

niya ang galit sa asawa nang sa halip na
http://www.philstar.com/author/IKAW%20AT%20ANG%20BATAS%20ni%20Atty.Jose%20C.%20Sison/IKAW%20AT%20ANG%20BATAShttp://www.philstar.com/author/IKAW%20AT%20ANG%20BATAS%20ni%20Atty.Jose%20C.%20Sison/IKAW%20AT%20ANG%20BATAShttp://www.philstar.com/author/IKAW%20AT%20ANG%20BATAS%20ni%20Atty.Jose%20C.%20Sison/IKAW%20AT%20ANG%20BATAShttp://www.philstar.com/author/IKAW%20AT%20ANG%20BATAS%20ni%20Atty.Jose%20C.%20Sison/IKAW%20AT%20ANG%20BATAS


11/20

pumanig sa %anya ay ipinagtanggol pa ang%alaguyo %aya sina%sa% niya ito nang maramingbeses" 7apatunayan na sinorpresa ni 2andosina Iinda at Gaime habang nagtatali%" )ng%anyang a%syon ay sa%law ng )rti%ulo 34E ng5odigo Penal na ang mga elemento ay: -(. nasinorpresa ng legal na asawa ang %anyangasawa habang ito ay na%i%ipagtali% sa ibang tao*-3. pinatay ang %anyang asawa at ang %alaguyosa a%to ng pagtatali% o pag%atapos napag%atapos nito* -&. at hindi niya pinahintulutanang asawa sa pangangaliwa"

)ng pagtatanggol sa dangal ng isang tao ay%ini%ilala dahil sa is%andalong maidudulot ngnangangaliwang asawa* ang batas ay istri%tongpinapayagan na %astiguhin ang asawahanggang %amatayan"

Si 2ando ay nahatulan ng dalawang taon atapat na buwan na destierro" ?atay sa parusangito, hindi siya pinapayagan ng 5orte na pumaso%sa siyudad %ung saan siya na%atira o sa lugarng pinangyarihan ng %rimen o sa radius na (00%m" ng nasabing siyudad" *"eople of the"hilippines vs. Oyani+ ./. &o. 10%0$20#3arch 1!, !%%1-

1. .Pc formigones/20s4 /n the month of 7ovember (4N,

)belardo was living on his farm in CamarinesSur with his wife, Gulia )gricola and their 'children" From there they transferred in thehouse of his halfHbrother, Aacarias Formigonesin the same municipality to find employment asharvesters of palay" )fter a month, Gulia wassitting at the head of the stairs of the housewhen )belardo, without previous $uarrel orprovocation whatsoever, too% his bofo from thewall of the house and stabbed his wife Gulia, inthe bac%, the blade penetrating the right lungand causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in

her death" )belardo then too% his dead wife andlaid her on the floor of the living room and then

lay down beside her" /n this position, he wasfound by the people who came in response tothe shouts made by his eldest daughter, /reneFormigones"

The motive was admittedly that of @ealousybecause according to his statement, he used tohave $uarrels with his wife for reason that heoften saw her in the company of his brother,Aacarias* that he suspected the two weremaintaining illicit relations because he noticedthat his wife had become indifferent to him"+uring the preliminary investigation, the accusedpleaded guilty" )t the case in the Courts of First/nstance, he also pleaded guilty but did nottestify" is counsel presented the testimony oftwo guards of the provincial @ail where )belardowas confined to the effect that his conduct wasrather strange and that he behaved li%e aninsane person, at times he would remain silent,wal% around star% na%ed, refuse to ta%e a bathand was his clothes etc""" The appeal is basedmerely on the theory that the appellant is an/2?#C/I# and therefore eempt fromcriminalliability under article (3 of the DPC"

Isse: hether or not )belardo is an imbecile atthe time of the commission of the crime andtherefore eempted from criminal liability

6e&:4 7o" e is not an imbecile" )ccording +r"Francisco Lomes, he was suffering only fromfeeblemindedness and not imbecility and that he

could distinguish between right and wrong" /norder that a person could be regarded as animbecile within the meaning of article (3 of theDPC so as to be eempt from criminal liability,he must be deprived completely of reason ordiscernment and freedom of will at the time ofcommitting the crime"

)s to the strange behavior of the accused duringhis confinement, assuming it was not feigned tostimulate insanity, it may be attributed either tohis being feebleminded or eccentric, or to a

morbid mental condition produced by remorse at

having %illed his wife" ) man who could feel thepangs of @ealousy and ta%e violent measures tothe etent of %illing his wife who he suspected ofbeing unfaithful to him, in the belief that in doingso, he was vindicating his honor, could hardly beregarded as an imbecile" hether or not thesuspicions were @ustified, is of little or noimportance" The fact is that he believedher faithless" Furthermore, in his writtenstatement, he readily admitted that he %illed hiswife, and at the trial he made no effort to deny ofrepudiate said written statements, thus savingthe government all the trouble and epense ofcatching him and securing his conviction"

There are however 3 mitigating circumstancespresent:

(. Passion or obfuscation -having %illed his wifein a @ealous rage.

3. Feeblemindedness

/n conclusion, the appellant is found guilty ofparricide and the @udgment of the lower court ishereby affirmed with the modification thathe appellant will be credited with oneHhalf of anypreventive imprisonment he has undergone-because of the 3 mitigating circumstances.

. #AL C. RANCISC v.CURT A##EALS )7+ T#!7!D)?I# 2)U/2! C" C!7TD#D)S L"D"7o" (0


12/20

Francisco failed to ma%e an appeal on the DTC>sdecision ma%ing it final" The 2TC issued awarrant of arrest, but before Francisco was to bearrested, he filed an application for probationwhich the 2TC denied" e went to the Court of)ppeals on certiorari which was also denied"

/SSB#: hether Pablo Francisco is still $ualifiedto avail of probation"

DBI/7L:

7o" Petitioner is no longer eligible for probation"First, Francisco violated Sec"4 of the ProbationIaw in which no application for probation shallbe entertained after the @udgement is final"

Second, Francisco misunderstood when hethought that his prison sentence held by the2TC was not $ualified for probation" 2ultipleprison terms should not be added up"Conse$uently, Francisco lost his right toprobation when he appealed the 2TC decisionto the DTC" The law considers appeal andprobation mutually eclusive remedies"

Third, Francisco>s appeal to the DTC was not forreducing his penalties but for his assertion of hisinnocence" The Probation Iaw preventopportunism when petitioners apply forprobation when their appeal was dismissed"

Iastly, the application for probation was f iled

way beyond the period allowed by law"

?. I /2&/o v. M0%/,the Court declared that an order placingdefendant on probation is not a sentence but israther, in effect, a suspension of the impositionof sentence" e held that the grant of probationto petitioner suspended the imposition of theprincipal penalty of imprisonment, as well asthe accessory penalties of suspension frompublic office and from the right to follow a

profession or calling, and that of perpetualspecial dis$ualification from the right of suffrage"

e thus deleted from the order grantingprobation the paragraph which re$uired thatpetitioner refrain from continuing with herteaching profession"

3E" #E#LE T6E#6ILI##INES VS. RGELI

ATAS CRDVA3&N SCD) 3&, September 3, (4

/20s4

Dogelio ?ayotas y Cordova, accusedHappellant,was charged with rape before ?ranch (N, DTCDoas City -Criminal Case 7o" CH&3(E." e wasconvicted on Gune (, ((" Pending appeal ofhis conviction, ?ayotas died on February 4,(3, at the 7ational ?ilibid ospital due to

cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepaticencephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinomagastric malingering"

The Supreme Court dismissed the criminalaspect of the appeal in a resolution dated 2ay30, (3"

Isse4

+oes death of the accused pending appeal ofhis conviction etinguish his civil liability1

6e&:4(" +eath of the accused pending appeal of hisconviction etinguishes his criminal liability aswell as the civil liability based solely thereon" )sopined by Gustice Degalado, in this regard, 9thedeath of the accused prior to final @udgmentterminates his criminal liability and only the civilliability directlyarising from and based solely onthe offense committed, i"e", civil liability e4delicto in senso strictiore"3" Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives

notwithstanding the death of accused, if thesame may also be predicated on a source ofobligation other than delict" )rticle (('E of theCivil Code enumerates these other sources ofobligation from which the civil liability may ariseas a result of the same act or omission:a. Iawb. Contractsc. RuasiHcontractsd. " " "e. RuasiHdelicts&" here the civil liability survives, as eplainedin 7umber 3 above, an action for recoverytherefor may be pursued but only by way of filinga separate civil action and sub@ect to Section (,Dule ((( of the (


13/20

)ccusedHappellant applied for amnesty underProclamation 7o" E34" is application wasfavorably granted by the 7ational )mnesty?oard concluding that his activities were done inpursuit of his political beliefs"

Isse4hat is the effect of the grant of amnestyto the conviction of the accusedHappellant1

6e&:4)mnesty commonly denotes a generalpardon to rebels for their treason or other highpolitical offenses, or the forgiveness which onesovereign grants to the sub@ects of another, whohave offended, by some breach, the law ofnations" )mnesty loo%s bac%ward, and abolishesand puts into oblivion, the offense itself* it sooverloo%s and obliterates the offense with whichhe is charged, that the person released byamnesty stands before the law precisely as

though he had committed no offense"

Paragraph & of )rt"


14/20

/n order to entitle a person to the benefits of the)mnesty Proclamation of (4N, it is notnecessary that he should, as a conditionprecedent or sine $ua non, admit havingcommitted the criminal act or offense with whichhe is charged and allege the amnesty as adefense* it is sufficient that the evidence either ofthe complainant or the accused, shows that theoffense committed comes within the terms ofsaid )mnesty Proclamation"

&4" Florencio Pelobello vsLregorio Palatino

A+solute "ardon

Palatino was the mayor elect of Torri@os,2arindu$ue" Pelobello filed a $uo warranto

proceeding alleging that Palatino is no longer$ualified to hold office because he was alreadyconvicted before and was even imprisoned"?ecause of such conviction and imprisonment,Peleobello averred that Palatino is alreadybarred from voting and being voted upon"Palatino also invo%ed par -a., sec 4 of the#lection Code which supports his contention"

ISSUE4 hether or not Palatino is eligible forpublic office"

6ELD4 8es, Palatino was granted a conditional

pardon by the then LovHLen but such pardonwas converted into an absolute pardon byPresident Rueon who succeeded the LovHLen"The pardon was already after Palatino>s electionbut prior to him assuming office" The SC thenheld that since there is an absolute pardon, allthe former disabilities imposed and attached tothe prior conviction had been removed and thatPalatino is therefore eligible for the public officein $uestion"

&'" G.R No. L-"1?", De2ember 1, 195

IN T6E MATTER T6E #ETITIN INANTE R T6E ISSUANCE

A BRIT 6AEAS CR#US.ANTNI INANTE, #ETITINER

AND A##ELLE,Vs

T6E #RVINCIAL BARDEN NEGRS ACCIDENTAL,RES#NDENT AND A##ELLANT

TUASN, >.4

ACTS4 )ntonio /nfante -petitioner., herein, wasconvicted of murder and was sentenced to (Eyears, 4 months and ( day" )fter serving ('years, E months, and (( days of his sentence,he was granted a conditional pardon and

released from imprisonment" The period of thesentence remaining to be served was ( year and(( days" The condition of the pardon was that9he shall not again violate any of the penal lawof the "hilippines5.)fter (0 years on the date hewas released from imprisonment, )ntonio/nfante was convicted of a violation of theDevised 2otor ;ehicle Iaw for driving a @eepwithout a license and was sentenced to pay P(0with subsidiary imprisonment in case ofinsolvency"

ISSUE4 hether or not /nfante can be reHarrested and serve the unepired term or periodof his sentence for breach of the conditions ofthe aforesaid pardon

6ELD4 ) conditional pardon delivered andaccepted has been said to constitute a contractbetween the sovereign power or the eecutiveand the criminal that the former will release thelatter upon compliance with the conditions"

)ccording to article & of the DevisedPenal Code the period of prescription ofpenalties commences to run from the date whenthe culprit should evade the service of hissentence" /t is evident from the provision thatevasion of the sentence is an essential elementof prescription" There has no such evasion inthis case"

The condition of the pardon which theprisoner was charged with having breached wasno longer operative when he committed aviolation of 2otor ;ehicle Iaw"

Pardon is an act of grace, and there isgeneral agreement that limitations upon itsoperation should be strictly construed -4N C"G"(303.* so that, where a conditional pardon issusceptible of more than one interpretation, it isto be construed most favorably to the grantee"-& )m" Gur", 'N4. Thus, in Huff vs. Dyer, 40!hio C"C" '', '" I D ), 7 S, 7ote (0N4., it washeld that the duration of the conditions

subse$uent, anneed to a pardon, o&: be&%m%0e: 0o 0$e +er%o: o 0$e +r%soersse0e2e unless an intention to etend itbeyond that time was manifest from the natureof the condition or the language in which it wasimposed" /n that case, the prisoner wasdischarged on ha+eas corpusbecause the termof the pardon in $uestion did not, in the opinionof the court, imply that it was contemplated tohave the condition operated beyond the term ofhis sentence" The herein petitioners pardon, itwill be noted, does not state the time within

which the conditions thereof were to beperformed or observed" /n adopting, which wehereby do, the rule of strict construction, we ta%einto account, besides the benevolent nature ofthe pardon, the fact that the general run outprisoners are unlettered or at least unfamiliarwith the intricacies and legal implications ofconditions subse$uent imposed in a pardon"

3?.C/r+%o


15/20

vs.DoroF/( &/R&%)

L"D" 7o"


16/20

centimeter hematoma at the bac% ofilson>s head could have rendered thehim unconscious so he drowned" The4&Hcentimeter abrasion on the rightside of ilson>s face could have alsobeen caused by rubbing against aconcrete wall or pavement, or by contactwith a rough surface" e also statedthat the trachea region was full of mud,but that there was no sign ofstrangulation"

DTC: granted demurer to evidence on

the ground of insufficiency of evidence C): )ffirmed DTC

/SSB#: =7 )c$uittal in criminal case bars acivil action where the @udgment of ac$uittal holdsthat the accused did not commit the criminalacts imputed to them

#I+: 8#S" petition is +#7/#+ #very person criminally liable for a

felony is also civilly liable"o The civil liability of such person established in

)rticles (00, (03 and (0& of the Devised PenalCode includes restitution, reparation of thedamage caused, and indemnification forconse$uential damages

LD: hen a criminal action is instituted,

the civil action for the recovery of civilliability arising from the offense chargedshall be deemed instituted with thecriminal action

#U: the offended party waives the civil action,reserves the right to institute it separately orinstitutes the civil action prior to the criminalaction

ith the implied institution of the civil

action in the criminal action, the twoactions are merged into one compositeproceeding, with the criminal actionpredominating the civil"

The prime purpose of the criminal action

is to punish the offender in order to deter

him and others from committing thesame or similar offense, to isolate him

from society, to reform and rehabilitatehim or, in general, to maintain socialorder"

The sole purpose of the civil action is

the restitution, reparation orindemnification of the private offendedparty for the damage or in@ury hesustained by reason of the delictual orfelonious act of the accused

o hile the prosecution must prove the guilt of theaccused beyond reasonable doubt for the crimecharged, it is re$uired to prove the cause ofaction of the private complainant against theaccused for damages and=or restitution"

o /nsofar as the civil aspect of the case isconcerned, the prosecution or the privatecomplainant is burdened to adducepreponderance of evidence or superior weight ofevidence" K failed

V That the deceased fell or slipped cannot be totallyforeclosed because even Larcia testified thatthe drainage culvert was dar%, and that hehimself was so afraid that he refused to @oinrespondents )ndres and Pacheco inside

V failed to adduce proof of any illHmotive on the partof either respondent to %ill the deceased beforeor after the latter was invited to @oin them infishing

LD: The etinction of the penal action

does not carry with it the etinction ofthe civil action"

#U: civil action based on delict shall be deemedetinguished if there is a finding in a final@udgment in the civil action that the act oromission from where the civil liability may arisedoes not eist

a person committing a felony is

criminally liable for all the natural andlogical conse$uences resultingtherefrom although the wrongful actdone be different from that which heintended

o 7atural H an occurrence in the ordinary course ofhuman life or events

o Iogical H a rational connection between the act ofthe accused and the resulting in@ury or damage

The felony committed must be the

proimate cause of the resulting in@uryo Proimate causeV cause which in natural and continuous se$uence,

unbro%en by an efficient intervening cause,produces the in@ury, and without which the resultwould not have occurred

V acting first and producing the in@ury, eitherimmediately, or by setting other events inmotion, all constituting a natural and continuouschain of events, each having a close causalconnection with its immediate predecessor

o There must be a relation of 9cause and effect,V cause W felonious act of the offenderV effect W resultant in@uries and=or death of the

victim" The 9cause and effect relationship is

not altered or changed because of theo preHeisting conditionsV pathological condition of the victimV predisposition of the offended partyV physical condition of the offended partyo concomitant or concurrent conditionsV negligence or fault of the doctorsV conditions supervening the felonious actX tetanusX pulmonary infectionX gangrene

not the proimate cause of the resulting

in@ury when:(" there is an active force that intervened between

the felony committed and the resulting in@ury,and the active force is a distinct act or factabsolutely foreign from the felonious act of theaccused* or

3" the resulting in@ury is due to the intentional act ofthe victim

The offender is criminally liable for the

death of the victim if his delictual actcaused, accelerated or contributed tothe death of the victim"

the prosecution was burdened to prove

the corpus delicti which consists of twothings:

(" first, the criminal act H ob@ective


17/20

3" second, defendant>s agency in the commissionof the act H sub@ective element of crimes

Y /n homicide -by dolo. and in murder cases, theprosecution is burdened to prove:

(" the death of the party alleged to be dead3" that the death was produced by the criminal act

of some other than the deceased and was notthe result of accident, natural cause or suicide

&" that defendant committed the criminal act orwas in some way criminally responsible for theact which produced the death

"'. 6e%rs o C/s0ro vs. s0osFacts:

Despondent )polonio ?ustos was charged in the Court of First /nstance of Pampanga on!ctober 3N, (N3 with the crime of murder forthe %illing of Daymundo Castro whose heirs are

now the petitioners" The trial court found ?ustosguilty only of homicide and, crediting him withtwo mitigating circumstances, namely, passionor obfuscation and voluntary surrender,sentenced him to an indeterminate prison termof3 years, 4 months and ( day ofprision correccional, as minimum, to < years and ( day ofprision mayor, as maimum, and to indemnify the petitioners,who were represented in the case by a privateprosecutor, in the sum of si thousand pesos

-PN,000. without pre@udice to whatever theaccused -respondent. is entitled from theLovernment Service /nsurance System -LS/S.for his services of around twentyHsi -3N. yearsas a public schoolteacher, prior to !ctober 30,(N3" ?oth respondent and petitionersappealed to the Court of )ppeals,respondentas%ing that appellate, court ac$uithim and petitioners praying, on the other hand,that respondent be convicted ofmurder, that theportion regarding what said respondentwillreceive from the LS/S be deleted and that hebe ordered topay petitioners the aggregate sumof P'0,EN4"00 as indemnity and actual,

moral, temperate and eemplary damages" Forthe purposes of their appeal, petitioners evenfiled unnecessarily a printed record on appeal"!n !ctober(


18/20

[P(3,000"00, without the need of any evidenceor proof ofdamages, and even though there mayhave been mitigatingcircumstances attendingthe commission of the offense"

3")s indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased[an amount to be fied by the Court according tothecircumstances of the deceased related to hisactual incomeat the time of death and hisprobable life epectancy, thesaid indemnity tobe assessed and awarded by the court asamatter of duty, unless the deceased had noearningcapacity at said time on account ofpermanent disability notcaused by the accused"/f the deceased was obliged to givesupport,under )rt" 3(, Civil Code, the recipient who isnotan heir, may demand support from

the accused for not morethan five years, theeact duration to be fied by the court"

&" )s moral damages for mental anguish,[an amount to befied by the court" This may berecovered even by theillegitimate descendantsand ascendants of the deceased"

4" )s eemplary damages, when the crime is attended byone or more aggravatingcircumstances,

[an amount to befied in the discretion of thecourt, the same to be consideredseparate fromfines"

'" )s attorneys fees and epresses of litigation,[theactual amount thereof, -but only whena separate civil actionto recover civil liabilityhas been filed or when eemplarydamages areawarded."

N" /nterests in the proper cases"

E"/t must be emphasied that the indemnities for loss ofearning capacity of the deceased andfor moral damages arerecoverable separately from and in additionto the fied sumof P(3,000"00 corresponding tothe indemnity for the solefact of death, and thatthese damages may, however, berespectivelyincreased or lessened according to themitigatingor aggravating circumstances, ecept items( and4 above, for obvious reasons"

Court of )ppeals erred in eliminating in its amendeddecision, the items of moral damagesand compensation forloss of earning capacity ofthe deceased

e, therefore, overrule the prayer for additionaldamages inpetitioners brief and e hold that,on the basis of the factsnot $uestioned by

respondent, they are entitled only tothePN,000"00 as moral damages and theP(&,&


19/20

&" here the civil liability survives, as eplainedin 7umber 3 above, an action for recoverytherefor may be pursued but only by way of filinga separate civil action and sub@ect to Section (,Dule ((( of the (


20/20

friendship, desperate illness or even patriotism,there can be a ground for ac$uittal"

The courts have recognied the fact that thereare operatives in the police who have used thismethod of arrest for illegal and wrongful

purposes" !ne such story ishere" / wrote itbefore" /ts the one where the police framed aman who was visiting his brotherHinHlaw" Thecourts recognie the danger of abusein entrapment, sometimes calling it ;iceIegislation and its important that chec%s and

balances must be made inside and outside thepolice force to protect the public from dirty copsand the cops themselves from unwantedelements"
http://http/philcritic.clickbankphilippines.com/2010/08/arrest-quotas-and-planting-of-evidence.htmlhttp://http/philcritic.clickbankphilippines.com/2010/08/arrest-quotas-and-planting-of-evidence.htmlhttp://http/philcritic.clickbankphilippines.com/2010/08/arrest-quotas-and-planting-of-evidence.html

Documents

Criminal Law Alternative Circumstance