Reference Cases Crim1

7/26/2019 Reference Cases Crim1

1/61

\LAW 109 : CRIMINAL LAW 1 DIGESTS

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION [322 SCRA 160 (2000)]

Nature:Petition for review of a decision of the Manila RC

Fat!: !n "#ne 1$% 1&&& the 'eartent of "#stice received frothe 'eartent of *orei+n Affairs a re,#est for the e-tradition ofrivate resondent Mar. "iene/ to the S he rand "#r

4ndictent% the warrant for his arrest% and other s#ortin+doc#ents for said e-tradition were attached alon+ with the re,#estChar+es incl#de5

1 Consirac to coit offense or to defra#d the S2 Attet to evade or defeat ta-3 *ra#d wire% radio% or television7 *alse stateent or entries8 9lection contr i#t ion in nae of another

he 'eartent of "#stice ('!")% thro#+h a desi+nated anelroceeded with the technical eval#ation and assessent of thee-tradition treat which the fo#nd havin+ atters needed to eaddressed Resondent% then re,#ested for coies of all thedoc#ents incl#ded in the e-tradition re,#est and for hi to e+iven ale tie to assess it

he Secretar of "#stice denied re,#est on the ff +ro#nds5

1 :e fo#nd i t reat#re to sec#re h i co ies r ior to thecoletion of the eval#ation At that oint in tie% the '!" is inthe rocess of eval#atin+ whether the roced#res andre,#ireents #nder the relevant law (P' 106&;Philiine9-tradition


2/61

os later in the ! 4t ecae effective onl fifteen das thereafteras rovided in A2 of the CC E 11 of the Revised AdinistrativeCode he word BlawsD in article 2 incl#des circ#lars E re+#lationswhich rescrie enalties P#lication is necessar to arise the#lic of the contents of the re+#lations E a.e the said enaltiesindin+ on the ersons affected there Coonwealth Act ?o 63$re,#ires that all Presidential 9!s havin+ +eneral alicailit sho#lde #lished in the ! 4t rovides that Bever order or doc#entwhich shall rescrie a enalt shall e deeed to have +eneralalicailit and le+al effect his alies to a violation of 9! ?o

626=A eca#se its confiscation E forfeit#re rovision or sanctiona.es it a enal stat#te 4t res#lts that the have ca#se of action forthe recover of the caraaos he s#ar confiscation wasnFt inorder he reciients of the caraaos sho#ld ret#rn the to thePesi+ans :owever% the cannot transort the caraaos to Gatan+aseca#se the are now o#nd the said e-ec#tive order ?either canthe recover daa+es 'octor Miranda E enerosa acted in +oodfaith in orderin+ the forfeit#re and disersal of the caraaos

Ju&+/e%t:!rder of disissal and confiscation and disersal of thecaraaos% reversed and set aside Resondents to restore caraaos%with the re,#isite doc#ents% to etitioners for their own disosal inGas#d or Siocot% Caarines S#r ?o costs

I/"$rta%t "$#%t: P#lication is necessar to arise the #lic ofthe contents of the re+#lations E a.e the said enalties indin+ onthe ersons affected here "#stice E fairness dictate that the #lic#st e infored of that rovision eans of the #lication on

the a/ette

TAADA v. TU;ERA [136 SCRA 2H (1&$8)]

Nature: Petition to review the decision of the 9-ec#tive Assistant tothe President

Fat!: 4nvo.in+ the eoleFs ri+ht to e infored on atters of#lic concern% a ri+ht reco+ni/ed in Section 6% Article 4> of the 1&H3constit#tion% etitioners see. a writ of anda#s to coelresondent #lic officials to #lish% andKor ca#se the #lication inthe !fficial a/ette% of vario#s residential decrees% letters ofinstr#ctions% +eneral orders% roclaations% e-ec#tive orders% letterof ileentation and adinistrative orders he resondents wo#ldhave this case disissed on the +ro#nd that etitioners have no le+alersonalit to rin+ this etition Petitioners aintain that since the

s#ect of the etition concerns a #lic ri+ht and its oect is tocoel #lic d#t% the need not show an secific interestResondents f#rther contend that #lication in the ! is not a sine,#a non re,#ireent for the effectivit of laws where the lawstheselves rovide for their own effectivit dates

I!!ue: J!? #lication in the !fficial a/atte is an indisensalere,#ireent for the effectivit of the P's%

e'&:@es 4t is the eoleFs ri+ht to e infored on atters of #licconcern E corollaril access to official records% E to doc#ents Eaers ertainin+ to official acts% transactions% or decisions% shall eafforded the citi/ens s#ect to s#ch liitation as a e rovided law (6 A4>% 1&H3 Constit#tion)


3/61

?o he alication of the +eneral rincile that the #risdictionof the civil tri#nals is #naffected the ilitar or other secialcharacter ro#+ht efore the for trial (RA ?o H088)Aellant clais that the act was service connected 4f this weretr#e% it a e #sed as a defense #t this cannot affect the ri+htof the Civil Co#rt to ta.es #risdiction of the caseD

Ju&+/e%t: "#d+ent there affired

BAn offense char+ed a+ainst a ilitar officer in conse,#ence of an

act done in oedience to an order is clearl shown on the face% wheres#ch offense is a+ainst the ilitar law% is not within the #risdictionof the co#rts of the Civil overnentDPer Cooper, J., concurring

SCNEC7ENienna convention on 'iloaticRelations% coission of a crie is not art of official d#t

!n the contention that there was no reliinar investi+ationcond#cted% s#ffice it to sa that reliinar investi+ation isnFt a atterof ri+ht in cases co+ni/ale the MeC s#ch as the one at ar Gein+#rel a stat#tor ri+ht% reliinar investi+ation a e invo.ed onlwhen secificall +ranted law he r#le on criinal roced#re isclear than no reliinar investi+ation is re,#ired in cases fallin+ wKinthe #risdiction of the MeC Gesides% the asence of reliinarinvesti+ation doesnFt affect the co#rtFs #risdiction nor does it iairthe validit of the inforation or otherwise render it defective

U.S. v. A SING [36 Phil &H$ (1&1H)]Cf. French vs. English rule

Fat!:he defendant is a s#ect of China eloed as a firean ona steashi he steashi is a forei+n steaer which arrived theort of Ce# on Aril 28% 1&1H% after a voa+e direct fro the ort ofSai+on he defendant o#+ht $ cans of oi# in Sai+on% ro#+htthe on oard the steashi and had the in his ossession d#rin+the tri fro Sai+on to Ce# Jhen the steaer anchored in the ortof Ce#% the a#thorities on a.in+ the search fo#nd the cans ofoi# hidden in the ashes elow the oiler of the steaerOs en+inehe defendant confessed that he was the owner of the oi# andthat he had #rchased it in Sai+on :e did not confess% however% asto his #rose in #in+ the oi# :e did not sa that it was hisintention to iort the rohiited dr#+

I!!ue: J!? the crie of ille+al iortation of oi# into the

Philiine 4slands has een roven

e'&:@es4t is the on#s of the +overnent to rove that the vesselfro which the dr#+ dischar+ed cae into Philiine waters fro aforei+n co#ntr with the dr#+ on oard 4n this case% it is to e notedthat 7 of Act ?o 23$1 e+ins% BAn erson who shall #nlawf#lliort or rin+ an rohiited dr#+ into the Philiine 4slandsD4ort and rin+ sho#ld e constr#ed as snono#s ters heere act of +oin+ into a ort% witho#t rea.in+ #l.% is ria facieevidence of iortation he iortation is not the a.in+ entr of+oods at the c#stoho#se% #t erel the rin+in+ the into theort% and the iortation is colete efore the entr to thec#stoho#se Moreover% ossession for ersonal #se is #nli.el%#d+in+ fro the si/e of the ao#nt ro#+ht

3 | C R I M I N A L L A W


4/61

MI>UIA4 ofthe Militar Gase A+reeent (MGA) E is erel art of theteorar ,#arters located wKin resented liits of the cit ofManila Moreover% e-tended installations E teorar ,#artersarenFt considered to have the sae #risdictional caacit aseranent ases E are +overned AT444 ars 2 E 7 he offenceat ar% therefore is in the eond the #risdiction of ilitar co#rts

. WON t(e $,,e%&er #! a /e/*er $, t(e US ar/e&

,$re!?o nder the MGA% a civilian eloee is not considered as aeer of the S ared forces 9ven #nder the articles of war%the ere fact that a civilian eloee is in the service of the SAr does not a.e hi a eer of the ared forces

GUMA


5/61

acted instantaneo#sl here was also no direct evidence oflannin+ or rearation to .ill

Art 27& RPC5 Penalt for hoicide is recl#sion teoral:owever% d#e to iti+atin+ circ#stances and incoletedefense% it can e lowered 3 de+rees (Art 67) to arresto aor

-. WON (e !($u'& *e '#a*'e ,$r !u*!#ar2#/"r#!$%/e%t !#%e (e #! u%a*'e t$ "a2 t(e #v#' #%&e/%#t2&ue t$ t(e $,,e%&e& "art2.

?o :e isnFt liale to e s#sidiaril irisoned for non=aentof civil indenit RA 8768 ade the rovisions of A3&alicale to fines onl E not to rearation of daa+e ca#sed%indenification of conse,#ential daa+es E costs ofroceedin+s Altho#+h it was enacted onl after its coission%considerin+ that RA 8768 is favorale to the acc#sed who is nota hait#al delin,#ent% it a e +iven retroactive effect#rs#ant to RPC A22

Ju&+/e%t: 'efendant +#ilt of hoicide #t wK iti+atin+circ#stances and e-ten#atin+ circ#stance of incolete selfdefense Penalt is 7 os arresto aor E to indenif each +ro#of heirs 7 wKo s#sidiar irisonent E wKo award for oraldaa+es Aellant has alread een detained 17 rs so hisiediate release is ordered

Gut#erre@8 !!e%t#%+.'efense of roert can onl e invo.edwhen co#led with for of attac. on erson defendin+ roert 4n

the case at ar% this was not so Aellant sho#ld then e sentencedto rision aor :owever% since he has served ore than that% hesho#ld e released

EOLE v. RINGOR [320 SCRA 372 (1&&&)]

Nature:A#toatic review of a decision of the Ga+#io Cit RC

Fat!:he acc#sed (Rin+or) on the ni+ht of "#ne 23% 1&&7 was seenenterin+ PeoleFs Resta#rant A witness *el Gatanes saw theacc#sed aroach a tale where the victi was sittin+% #lled hishair% E o.ed a .nife at the latterFs throat After% leavin+ theresta#rant% the acc#sed ret#rned with a +#n% entered the .itchen ofthe resta#rant% stealthil aroached the victi fro ehind E shothi 6 ties s#ccessivel he defendant was later arehended andca#+ht in his ossession was an #nlicensed weaon onverification in CaCrae% it was fo#nd o#t that Rin+or is not a

licensed firear holder E that the +#n was not licensed Rin+or #t# self=defense #t he failed to rove *loridaFs #nlawf#l a++ression:e was fo#nd +#ilt of #rder ,#alified treacher and wassentenced to death :e was fo#nd +#ilt of a searate char+e ofossession of an #nlicensed firear with a sentence of 1H to 20 rs

I!!ue!:1. WON t(e a/e%&at$r2 'a) RA 9B )(#( t$$

e,,et #% 199: r#/e $urre& #% 199B #! a""'#a*'e?o At the tie of the coission of the crie the #se of an#nlicensed firear was still not an a++ravatin+ circ#stance in#rder to hoicide o al it to Rin+or wo#ld increase hisenalt fro recl#sion eret#a to death :ence% RA $2&7cannot retroact as it is #nfavorale to the acc#sed% lest itecoes an e- ost facto law

. WON RTC erre& #% $%v#t#%+ a""e''a%t ,$r ! #/"'e#''e+a' "$!!e!!#$% $, ,#rear/! a%& !e%te%e& (#/ t$ !u,,era% #%&eter/#%ate !e%te%e $, 1 t$ 0 2ear!.@es 4n cases where #rder or hoicide is coitted with the#se of an #nlicensed firear% there can e no searateconviction for the crie of ille+al ossession of firears #nderP' 1$66 4t is sil considered as an a++ravatin+circ#stance% no lon+er as a searate offence Accordin+ to theA22 of RPC% retroactivit of the law #st e alied if it isfavo#rale to the acc#sed h#s% insofar as it sares acc#sed=

aellant a searate conviction for ille+al ossession of firears%RA $2&7 has to e +iven retroactive alication

-. WON t r#a' $urt e rre& #% $%v#t#%+ au!e& $ , /ur&er?o *or self=defense to roser% #nlawf#l a++ression%roortionalit of ethods to fend said a++ression% and lac. ofs#fficient rovocation fro defender #st e roven 4n thiscase% defendant failed to rove #nlawf#l a++ression hestateent that the victi aroached hi with a olo wasinconsistent to the witnessF stateent of the victi ein+ in arone osition in the tale his does not constit#te the re,#isite,#ant# of roof for #nlawf#l a++ression Jith the firstre,#ireent issin+% the last two re,#isites have no asis

B. WON RTC erre& #% !e%te%#%+ t(e au!e& t$ &eat(,$r /u&er )(#( )a!%4t "r$ve% 5 t(at t(e a''e+e& /ur&er$//#tte& *2 t(e a""e''a%t8 t(e a""r$"r#ate "e%a't2 ,$r

t(e $,,e%!e #! re'u!#$% "er"etua &ue t$ t$ t(e a*!e%e $,a% a++ravat#%+ #ru/!ta%e.@es 4n the asence of iti+atin+ or a++ravatin+ circ#stances toa crie of #rder as descried A27$ RPC% a lesser enalt ofrecl#sion eret#a has to e iosed in accordin+ to A63(2) RPC

EOLE v. LACSON [Ma 2$% 2002]

Nature:Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA

Fat!: Soon after the anno#nceent on Ma 1$% 1&&8 that the#raton+ Galelen+ +an+ had een slain in a shooto#t wK the olice% 2witnesses s#rfaced rovidin+ the testion that the said slain+ wasa r#=o#t !n "#ne 1% 1&&8% Chief S#erintendent "o A Mao% P?P'irector for 4nvesti+ation% filed #rder char+es with the !ffice of the!#dsan a+ainst &H officers E ersonnel of AGR4* he ne-t=

of=.in of the slain G eers also filed #rder char+es a+ainstthe sae officers and ersonnel

!n ?ov 2% 1&&8% after 2 resol#tions% the !#dsan filed eforethe SG 11 inforations of #rder a+ainst the defendant E 28oliceen as rincials on otion of the resondent% the criinalcases were reanded to the !#dsan E in a re=investi+ation% theinforations were aended down+radin+ the rincial into anaccessor Jith the down+radin+ of char+es% the case was latertransferred fro the SG to the RC not d#e to #risdictional ,#estionsover the s#sects #t d#e to the fail#re to indicate that the offenseschar+ed therein were coitted in relation to% or in dischar+e of% theofficial f#nctions of the resondent% as re,#ired RA $27& Gefore thearrai+nent% the witnesses of the rosec#tion recanted theirstateents while the H rivate colainants s#itted their affidavitsof desistance All 26 s#sects filed individ#al otions to (1) a.e a#dicial deterination of the e-istence of roale ca#se for theiss#ance of warrants of arrestL (2) hold in aeance the iss#ance of

the warrants% E (3) disiss the cases sho#ld the C find lac. ofroale ca#se he cases were disissed

4t was on March 2H% 2001 when P?P director Mendo/a indorsed tothe '!" new affidavits of new witnesses wKc it e+an to investi+ate Eto file wK the RC he resondent% invo.in+ aon+ others% their ri+hta+ainst do#le eoard% then filed wK the CA a etition statin+ that $%R#le 11H of the 2000 R#les on Cri Pro ans the revival of the#rder cases a+ainst hiL a etition the CA denied !n "#ne 6% 2001%11 4nforations for #rder involvin+ the .illin+ of the sae eersof the Kuratong Baleleng +an+ were filed efore the RC VC he new

4nforations char+ed as rincials 37 eole% incl#din+ resondent


6/61

Jas notice for the otion% the hearin+ and thes#se,#ent disissal +iven to the heirs of the victis

Sec $% R#le 11H is not alicale to the case since theconditions for its alicailit% nael5 1) rosec#tion with thee-ress consent of the acc#sed or oth of the ove forrovisional disissal% 2) offended art notified% 3) co#rt +rantsotion and disisses cases rovisionall% 7) #lic rosec#torserved with co of orders of rovisional disissal% which is thedefendantFs #rden to rove% wKc in this case hasnFt een done

a he defendant never filed and denied

#ne,#ivocall in his stateents% thro#+h co#nsel at theCo#rt of Aeals% that he filed for disissal nor did he a+reeto a rovisional disissal thereof

?o notice of otion for rovisional disissal%hearin+ and s#se,#ent disissal was +iven to the heirs ofthe victis

. WON t#/e*ar #% RC 11 !($u'& *ea""'#e& "r$!"et#ve'2 $r retr$at#ve'2.ie=ar sho#ld not e alied retroactivel ho#+h roced#ralr#les a e alied retroactivel% it sho#ld not e if to do sowo#ld wor. in#stice or wo#ld involve intricate roles of d#erocess Stat#tes sho#ld e constr#ed in li+ht of the #rosesto e achieved E the evils to e reedied his is eca#se to doso wo#ld e re#dicial to the State since% +iven that the "#d+edisissed the case on March 2&%1&&&% E the ?ew r#le too.effect on 'ec 1%2000% it wo#ld onl in effect +ive the 1 r E 3onths to wor. instead of 2 rs At that tie% the had no

.nowled+e of the said r#le and therefore the sho#ld not eenali/ed for that B4ndeed for #stice to revail% the scales #stalanceL #stice is not to e disensed for the acc#sed aloneD

he 2=r eriod fi-ed in the new r#le is for the enefit ofoth the State E the acc#sed 4t sho#ldnFt e easc#lated Ered#ced an inordinate retroactive alication of the tie=artherein rovided erel to enefit the acc#sed o do so wo#ldca#se an in#stice of hardshi to the state E adversel affect theadinistration of #stice

e'&:Motion +ranted

EOLE v. LACSON [!ctoer H% 2003]

Fat!: Petitioner asserts that retroactive alication of enal lawssho#ld also cover roced#res% and that these sho#ld e alied onl

to the sole enefit of the acc#sed Petitioner asserts that Sec $ waseant to reach ac. in tie to rovide relief to the acc#sed in linewith the constit#tional +#arantee to the ri+ht to seed trial

I!!ue!:1. WON t(e A!!$#ate

Ju!t#e! #%(#*#t t(e/!e've! ,r$/ &e#%+ #% t(e MFR+#ve% t(e2 )ere $%'2 a""$#%te& #% t(e SC a,ter (#! Fe*.198 00 $ra' ar+u/e%t!.he r#le sho#ld e alied rosectivel he co#rt #held theetitionersF contention that while $ sec#res the ri+hts of theacc#sed% it doesnFt E sho#ldnFt recl#de the e,#all iortantri+ht of the State to #lic #stice 4f a roced#ral r#le iairs avested ri+ht% or wo#ld wor. in#stice% the said r#le a not e+iven a retroactive alication

. WON t(e a""'#at#$%$, t(e t#/e*ar u%&er RC 11 *e +#ve% a retr$at#vea""'#at#$% )H$ re!ervat#$%!8 $%'2 5 !$'e'2 $% t(e *a!#! $,#t! *e#%+ ,av$ra*'e t$ t(e au!e&.he Co#rt isnFt andated to al r#les retroactivel #st eca#seitFs favorale to the acc#sed he tie=ar #nder the new r#le isintended to enefit oth the State E the acc#sed Jhen the r#lewas aroved the co#rt% it intended that the r#le e aliedrosectivel and not retroactivel% for to do so wo#ld etantao#nt to the denial of the StateFs ri+ht to d#e rocess A

retroactive alication wo#ld res#lt in as#rd% #n#st E oressiveconse,#ences to the State E to the victis of cries E their heirs


7/61

he coination of all the circ#stances is s#ch as to rod#ce

a conviction eond reasonale do#t

reacher (attac.ed has no chance to defend hiself or retaliatedelierate adotion of eans) and evident reeditiation (tiewhen decided and clin+in+ to deterination and lase etweendeterination and e-ec#tion) sho#ld e roven rosec#tionh#s% d#e to lac. of a++ravatin+ circ#stances% death is lowered

EOLE v. MULETA [30& SCRA 17$ (1&&&)]

Fat!: he victiFs od was fo#nd na.ed in Malolos G#lacan tied toa ost with the #se of a air of ants and oth her hand were withtied with a ra She had 3 sta wo#nds in her nec. and 2 at herac. Accordin+ to the investi+ation cond#cted the ?G4% thedefendant is the victiFs #ncle 4t was alle+ed that the aellant hadleft his wor. in ondo a da efore the victiFs od was fo#nd :eret#rned onl in the ornin+ of the ne-t da Accordin+ to hisco#nsel% he aditted havin+ raed and later .illed the victiAnother witness testified that d#rin+ the wa.e of the victi% theaellant #ttered incriinatin+ words he aellant was fo#nd +#iltof #rder E sentenced to life irisonent E aent of daa+es

I!!ue!: J!? the circ#stantial evidence was eno#+h to estalish+#ilt of the aellant Secificall5

1. WON e6tra=u#a' $%,e!!#$% #! va'#& a%&a&/#!!#*'e1stassi+nent of error5 the co#rt erred in +ivin+ wei+ht andcredence to the evidence for the rosec#tion and in the rocessdisre+ardin+ the defence and alii of the acc#sed=aellant hisaeal is eritorio#s he e-tra=#dicial confession isinadissile and the evidence ins#fficient he aellant aditsto the confession% with the asence of co#nsel he aellantwas also s#erficiall infored of his constit#tional ri+hts whichis in violation of the re,#ireent of BeffectiveD co#nicationMost of the stateents were terse and erf#nctor stateents4t sho#ld confor with Article 444 sec 12 of Constit#tion

a Ri+ht to e infored of constit#tional ri+hts I acc#sedsho#ld #nderstand ri+hts Stateents were tense anderf#nctor witho#t considerin+ if acc#sed #nderstood'oesnFt rove vol#ntariness

Ri+ht to co#nsel I A+ent olentinoFs sworn stateentshows that confession e+an on Seteer 1&% 1&&3 when

lawer onl arrived the followin+ da Confession e+anwitho#t assistance of co#nsel ictorina Ca+aan+ ("#li#sF wife) thatshe rin+s o#t her h#sandFs firears he acc#sed fired two oreshots at the fallen victi >ictorina +ave a s#itcase to elor% whothen too. the 3$ calier which was inside% and fled

4n A#+#st 1&$1% elor% an ?PA% s#rrendered (it was act#all aass s#rrender of ?PAFs) after hidin+ in the o#ntains 4n 26?oveer 1&$1% he was arrested G#enavista olice at the #licar.et and then detained at #nicial ail Re+ardin+ the #rder ofCa+aan+% elorFs alii was that da #ntil the ne-t% he was withhis father for drin.in+ and #l#tan !n $ "#ne 1&$2% the acc#sed wasconvicted and sentenced to s#ffer reclusion perpertua% and toindenif the heirs of the victi P12%000 :e aealed

4n this aeal% the aellant alle+es that the co#rt a ,#o erred5(1) in findin+ that he was ositivel identified the rosec#tionwitness as the .iller% and (2) in reectin+ his defense of alii

I!!ue:J!? the acc#sed is +#ilt of #rder

e'&:@es% the acc#sed is +#ilt of #rder "#d+ent aealed frois A**4RM9' in all resects and civil indenit increased to P30 4twas roven that he had otive in .illin+ Ca+aan+5 he had.nowled+e that Ca+aan+ ossessed a firearL this was otiveeno#+h to .ill hi% as art of ?PAFs Ba+aw arasD caai+n or.illin+s eretrated ?PA for the #rose of ac,#irin+ orefirears Moreover% roof of otive is not essential when the c#lrithas een ositivel identified Also% his fli+ht ilies +#ilt

he rosec#tion witness% >ictorina Ca+aan+% a have inorinconsistencies in her testion #t this does not diinish hercrediilit I that is art of ein+ h#an Jhat is iortant is thatshe had ositivel identified the acc#sed as the assailant and thather testion is corroorated other witnesses

*#rtherore% the acc#sedFs alii was #naccetale eca#se it wasself=servin+ and #ncorroorated 4t cannot overr#le ositiveidentification% it was erel 18=20 in#tes awa fro crie sceneand Perol was at wor.

EOLE v. ASSAN [18H SCRA 261 (1&$$)]

Fat!: san :assan% 18 rs !ld of Saal rie in ao Cit wasconvicted of #rder of Pichel Pichel was staed to death at fr#it

aradise while sittin+ at his red honda otorccle% waitin+ for friend"ose Sason who was #in+ fr#its

I!!ue: J!? conviction is valid

e'&: ?o Conviction reversed Ac,#itted he Medico er/o was considered iortant whenthere is do#t in the identit of c#lrit and reiterated in Peole vsPervelo which stated that identification is ten#o#s

EOLE v. DELIM ["an#ar 2&% 2003]

Fat!: Marlon%


8/61

heard 3 +#nshots and accordin+l% decoosin+ od was fo#ndwith +#nshot wo#nds and stas

-. WON t(ere )a! $%!"#ra23@es Consirac is when two or ore ersons a+ree and decideto coit a felon his is roven acts of criinal Gefored#rin+ and after crie coitted and that acc#sed had sae#rose and #nited in e-ec#tionL act of one act of all Jhartoncriinal law;act#al resence not necessar if thereFs directconnection et actor and crie

B. WON )#t%e!! te!t#/$%#e! )ere va '#&3@es 4nconsistencies ean and even stren+then 4t was notrehearsed

. WON a'#*# )arra%te&3?o Positive identification over alii nale to rove that thewere in another lace and iossile to +o to crie scene

K. WON t(ere )a! t rea(er2 a%& $ t(er a++ravt#%+#ru/!ta%e!3?o reacher and ta.in+ advanta+e of s#erior stren+th was notroven as there was no witness or evidence he #nlicensedfirear and dwellin+ was f#rther not incl#ded in inforation

e'&: Conviction affired with odification

ESTRADA v. SANDIGAN


9/61

Fat!: Ah Chon+ was a coo. in *t Mcinle :e was afraid of adeleents !ne evenin+% efore +oin+ to ed% he loc.ed hiself in hisroo lacin+ a chair a+ainst the door After havin+ +one to ed% hewas awa.ened soeone trin+ to oen the door :e called o#ttwice% BJho is there%D #t received no answer *earin+ that the intr#derwas a roer% he leaed fro his ed E called o#t a+ain% B4f o# enterthe roo 4 will .ill o#D G#t at that recise oent% he was str#c. the chair that had een laced a+ainst the door% E elievin+ that hewas ein+ attac.ed he sei/ed a .itchen .nife E str#c. E fatall

wo#nded the intr#der who t#rned o#t to e his rooate

e'&:Ah Chon+ #st e ac,#itted eca#se of ista.e of fact

Rat#$::ad the facts een as Ah Chon+ elieved the to e% hewo#ld have een #stified in .illin+ the intr#der #nder A11% ar 1% ofthe RPC% which re,#ires% to #stif the act% that there e5

#nlawf#l a++ression on the art of the erson .illed%

reasonale necessit of the eans eloed to revent or

reel it% E lac. of s#fficient rovocation on the art of the erson

defendin+ hiself

4f the intr#der was reall a roer% forcin+ his wa into the roo ofAh Chon+% there wo#ld have een #nlawf#l a++ression on the art ofthe intr#der here wo#ld have een a necessit on the art of AhChon+ to defend hiself andKor his hoe he .nife wo#ld haveeen a reasonale eans to revent or reel s#ch a++ression And

Ah Chon+ +ave no rovocation at all nder A11 of the RPC% there isnothin+ #nlawf#l in the intention as well as in the act of the ersona.in+ the defense

EOLE v. OANIS [H7 Phil 28H (1&73)]

Fat!: Chief of Police !anis and his co=acc#sed Cororal alantawere #nder instr#ctions to arrest one Gala+tas% a notorio#s criinaland escaed convict% and if overowered% to +et hi dead or aliveProceedin+ to the s#sected ho#se% the went into a roo and onseein+ a an sleein+ with his ac. toward the door% si#ltaneo#slfired at hi with their revolvers% witho#t first a.in+ an reasonalein,#ir as to his identit he victi t#rned o#t to e an innocentan% ecson% and not the wanted criinal

e'&:Goth acc#sed are +#ilt of #rder

Rat#$:9ven if it were tr#e that the victi was the notorio#s criinal%the acc#sed wo#ld not e #stified in .illin+ hi while the latter wassleein+ 4n arehendin+ even the ost notorio#s criinal% the lawdoes not erit the cator to .ill hi 4t is onl when the f#+itivefro #stice is deterined to fi+ht the officers of law who are trin+to cat#re hi that .illin+ hi wo#ld e #stified

EOLE v. CARMEN [388 SCRA 26H (2001)]

Fat!: he trial co#rt rendered a decision and the acc#sed=aellants were all fo#nd +#ilt eond reasonale do#t of thecrie of M#rder after havin+ erfored a c#ltic healin+ ra=overwhich res#lted to the death of Rand


10/61

Resondent "#d+e e disissed fro service All leave andretireent enefits and rivile+es to which he a e entitled arehere forfeited with re#dice to his ein+ reinstated in an ranchof +overnent service% incl#din+ +overnent=owned andKorcontrolled a+encies or cororations

he resondent #d+e has shown +ross incoetence or +rossi+norance of the law in holdin+ that to convict the acc#sed forviolation of CG Circ#lar ?o &60% the rosec#tion #st estalish thatthe acc#sed had criinal intent to violate the law he resondent

o#+ht to .now that roof of alice or delierate intent (ens rea) isnot essential in offenses #nished secial laws% which are alarohiita A #d+e can not e held to acco#nt or answer% criinall%civill or adinistrativel% for an erroneo#s decision rendered hiin +ood faith G#t these circ#stances which a.e the storconcocted the acc#sed so alal #nelievale as to render thefindin+s of the resondent #d+e ovio#sl contrived to favor theac,#ittal of the acc#sed% there clearl ne+atin+ his clai that herendered the decision Bin +ood faithD

ADILLA v. COURT OF AEALS [26& SCRA 702 (1&&H)]

Nature:Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA

Fat!:Padilla fi+#red in a hit and r#n accident in !ct 26% 1&&2 :ewas later on arehended with the hel f a civilian witness onarrest followin+ hi+h owered firears were fo#nd in his ossession5

1 38H calier revolver with 6 live a#nition2 M=16 Ga Aralite a+a/ine with ao3 3$0 ietro eretta with $ ao7 6 live do#le action ao of 3$ calier

revolver

Padilla claied aers of +#ns were at hoe :is arrest for hit andr#n incident odified to incl#de +ro#nds of 4lle+al Possession offirears :e had no aers !n 'ec 3% 1&&7% Padilla was fo#nd+#ilt of 4lle+al Possession of *irears #nder P' 1$66 the RC ofAn+eles Cit :e was convicted and sentenced to an indeterinateenalt fro 1H ears 7 onths% 1 da of recl#sion teoral asini# to 21 ears of recl#sion eret#a as a-i# he Co#rtof Aeals confired decision and cancelled ailond RC of An+elesCit was directed to iss#e order of arrest Motion for reconsiderationwas denied Co#rt of Aeals Padilla filed lots of other etitionsand all of a s#dden% the Solicitor eneral ade a colete

t#rnaro#nd and filed BManifestation in


11/61

frae=# (testionies E evidence roved otherwise) E evidence wasinadissile (held% eca#se there was no co#nsel)

I!!ue:J!? correct enalt aliede'&:?o Conviction odified here was overlain+ error in thelaw th#s the SC had to haroni/e conflictin+ rovisions rovidin+for de+rees of +rad#ation R#le5 de+rees alied deendin+ on,#antit then al iti+atin+ or a++ravatin+ circ#stance alde/ and Silicio !rodio r#nnin+down the hill awa fro the aoo +roves he lower co#rt decidedthat the acc#sed are +#ilt of #rder% iosin+ #on each the thecaital enalt of death% daa+es and costs

I!!ue:J!? there was a consirac etween the acc#sed in .illin+Ma,#ilin+

e'&:@es "#d+ent A**4RM9' G#t #nder the 1&$H Constit#tion% inview of the aolition of caital #nishent% the alicale enalt isrecl#sion eret#a he evidence of the rosec#tion is ore thanade,#ate to s#stain the findin+ of consirac etween the twoacc#sed 4t does not atter that the rosec#tion has failed to showwho was etween the two who act#all #lled the tri++er thatconse,#entl .illed the child he are liale as co=consirators sincean act of a co=consirator ecoe the act of the other re+ardless ofthe recise de+ree of articiation in the act

Also% there was resence of treacher% eca#se of thecirc#stances that the crie was done at ni+ht tie and that theacc#sed hid theselves aon+ the aoo 9vident reeditation isalso an a++ravatin+ circ#stance (the acc#sed had lanned to .illthe victis soe das efore)

EOLE ;. ESCO


12/61

?o !enin+ of +ate is noral when soeone .noc.s eseciallif o# .now hi :e i+ht have lac.ed etter #d+ent or la-itin erforance of d#ties tho#+h he firin+ of the +#n as a rit#alto avoid s#sicion is too ris. a rit#al 4t can .ill 8=10 in#testoo short a tie to lan a consirac A#en even as.edP#n/alan to .ill 9scoar hen A#en ointed the +#n at9scoar and as.ed P#n/alan to tie hiL he also tries to shoothi !fferin+ the inforation that he was not hit was also #st toass#re eloer who seeed concerned Mrs Ch#aFs stateenta have een conf#sed ca#se it was ta.en last Perhas she

for+ot details d#e to a+itation

-. WON u%@a'a% #! +u#'t2@es 9-tra#dicial confession is inadissile eca#se it was notroerl erfored and was witho#t co#nsel Consirac wasroven :e was fetched and he fled with s#sects :e sho#ldFve+one to the olice if innocent Peole vs Ro+el5 :oicidethro#+h roer% all rincials in roer are liale for hoicide#nless the tried reventin+ it

EOLE v. NATIONAL [27$ SCRA 122 (1&&8)]

Fat!: ?acional% Millaino% M#sa%


13/61

EOLE v. DIO [131 SCRA 181 (1&$7)]

Fat!: 'io and oias are char+ed with roer with hoicide forattetin+ to steal Sei.o wrist watch of Civil 9n+ineer Cris#lo Ale+aat the Pasa Cit #lic ar.et on noontie of "#l 27% 1&H1 Ale+aresisted th#s was staed and he died

I!!ue!:1. WON $,,e%!e #!

r$**er2

?o he were not ale to carr o#t roer 4t was notcons#ated d#e to Ale+oFs resistance h#s its onl attetedroer

. WON Deat( e%a't2!($u'& *e #/"$!e&?o ?o a++ravatin+ circ#stance th#s #nish with noralenalt Miti+ate d#e to attet

e'&:Modified I Atteted roer

EOLE v. TRINIDAD [16& SCRA 81 (1&$&)]

Fat!:rinidad acc#sed of 2 co#nts of #rder E 1 co#nt fr#strated#rder Acc#sed in eer of 4?P in ?asiit Crie occ#rred inG#t#an etween 9l Rio E A+fa while the were in a fierra o#nf for

'avao rinidad shot E .illed Soriano E acal) :ewas identified not nae #t .nowled+e of who acc#sedwas who fre,#ented his lace efore

2 Alii is wea. :is alle+ed location was near eno#+h to criescene th#s not iossile to reach it 4nconsistent witnesses!verridden ositive identification of a witness who doesnFtosses ill otive to falsel testif a+ainst acc#sed

3 'efective inforation not assailed efore acc#sed waived ri+ht

to do so 9ach shot sho#ld e considered as one act th#s lialefor three searate cries% Cole- crie (RPC=7$) onl whenone act res#lts to different felonies here was treacher th#sMario sho#ld have een for #rder% #t atteted not fr#stratedca#se wo#nds were not fatal as attested to doctor

7 'aa+es5 P80 civilian indenit fi-ed as roven deathMoral daa+es5 P80 eerate daa+es5 a e witho#troof Mario5 no roof of oral daa+aes 9-elar daa+es5onl when thereFs a++ravatin+ circ#stances Act#al daa+esreresents #nearned incoe

EOLE ;. LI?ADA ["an#ar 27% 2003]

Fat!:*reedie


14/61

2 ?o concl#sive evidence of enetration so +ive acc#sed enefit ofthe do#t *r#strated

EOLE v. ;ELASCO [H3 SCRA 8H7 (1&H6)]

Fat!: Acc#sed Ricardo >elasco char+ed of rain five ear old9stelita


15/61

herself Reasonale necessit does not deend #on the hardone #t on the iinent dan+er of s#ch in#r

La $, !u,,##e%t "r$v$at#$%.rovocation is s#fficientwhen roortionate to the a++ression 4n this case% there was nos#fficient rovocation on the art of the acc#sed (C#ni+#nda) towarrant the attac. of her h#sand All that she did to rovo.e ania+inar coission of a wron+ in the ind of her h#sandwas to e o#t carolin+ at ni+ht

EOLE v. RICOERMOSO [86 SCRA 731 (1&H7)]

Nature:Aeal fro a #d+eent of the Circ#it Criinal Co#rt ofol.annto


16/61

Prosec#tion5 there were no standin+ oli+ations in favor

of the P?CC at the tie of dis#rseent of 88M P?CC saidtheselves that the didnFt receive the P88M

a#ena claied that he was onl colin+ with the

direct order of Marcos (l#s the Marcos eorand# whichcontained sae order) to iediatel forward to the office ofthe President% 88M in cash% as artial aent of M4AAOsoli+ations to P?CC and that he elieved that M4AA indeed hadthose liailities to P?CC 4n short% that a#ena acted in +oodfaith

Sandi+anaan reected a#enaOs clai of +ood faith andfo#nd hi +#ilt of alversation ne+li+ence% hence this case

I!!ue:J!? a#ena% in followin+ the orders of his s#erior% was+#ilt of alversation (or if eca#se of the #stifin+ circ#stance offollowin+ the orders of his s#erior% in +ood faith% he wo#ld not ecriinall liale% #t erel civill liale)

e'&:a#ena is erel civill liale he ver fact that he waserel followin+ the orders of his s#erior is a #stifin+circ#stance

Rat#$:1 !n the oint raised a#ena that he cannot e char+ed with

intentional alversation and e convicted alversation ne+li+ence% the Co#rt r#led that the dolo and c#la of theoffense is onl a odalit in the eretration of the felon hesae felon is still there and conviction thereof is roer

2 !n the defense of +ood faith5 it is a valid defense a+ainstalversation eca#se it wo#ld ne+ate criinal intent oconstit#te a crie% the act #st% e-cet in certain crieseaccoanied criinal intent or s#ch ne+li+ence orindifference to d#t or to conse,#ences as is e,#ivalent tocriinal intent he a-i act#s non facit re#% nisi ens sitrea I a crie is not coited if the ind of the ersonerforin+ the act colained of is innocent (alversationcases5 S v Catolico% S v 9lvina)

3 he Co#rt% ased on the evidence resented% fo#nd that a#enahad no other choice #t to act#all follow the order stated in theMarcos Meorand#% eca#se% as resident of the Philiines%ind#ital the head of +overnental a+encies s#ch as the M4AAand P?CC% Marcos is #ndenial the s#erior of a#ena

7 a#ena entitled to the #stifin+ circ#stance of Nan ersonwho acts in oedience to an order iss#ed a s#erior for soelawf#l #roseD eca#se he is onl actin+ in +ood faith% faithf#lland efficientl carrin+ o#t orders fro the hi+hest official in theland Moreover% there was nothin+ in the Marcos Meorand#that a invite s#sicion = there was no ,#estion ao#t thelawf#lness of the order contained in s#ch a eorand#a#ena had reason to elieve that the 88M was indeed art of ad#e and deandale det% a ortion of a i++er liailit to P?CC(e-istence of s#ch dets deterined fro testionies) So evenif the order was ille+al and a#ena was not aware of theille+alit% he wo#ld not e liale eca#se there wo#ld onl e aista.e of fact coitted in +ood faith

8 a#ena followed the eorand# to the letter% ain+iediatel the P?CC% thro#+h this office (office of theresident) the s# of 88M a#ena had reasonale +ro#nd toelieve that the President was entitled to receive the oneeca#se as Chief 9-ec#tive% Marcos e-ercised s#ervision andcontrol over +overnental a+encies (+ood faith in the aent

of #lic f#nds relieves a #lic officer fro the crie ofalversation)

6 Jhile even a#ena aditted that roced#res were i+nored andthat the dis#rseent was #n#s#al% he is fo#nd to e e-c#sedfro s#ch eca#se the Marcos Meorand# enoined his4MM9'4A9 C!MP


17/61

he followin+ ,#estions were roo#nded51 Jhat is the law resectin+ alle+ed cries coitted

ersons afflicted with insane del#sion As% for instance% where atthe tie of the coission of the alle+ed crie% the acc#sed.new he was actin+ contrar to law% #t did the act colainedof with a view% #nder the infl#ence of insane del#sion% ofredressin+ or reven+in+ soe s#osed +rievance or in#r or ofrod#cin+ soe s#osed #lic enefit

2 Jhat are the roer ,#estions to e s#itted to the #rwhen a erson alle+ed to e afflicted with insane del#sion ischar+ed with the coission of a crie and insanit is set # asa defense

3 4n what ters o#+ht the ,#estion e left to the #r% as to therisonerOs state of ind at the tie when the act wascoitted

7 4f a erson #nder an insane del#sion as to e-istin+ factscoits an offense in conse,#ence thereof% is he theree-c#sed

8 Can a edical an () conversant with the disease of insanitwho never saw the risoner revio#sl to the trial% #t who wasresent d#rin+ the whole trial and the e-aination of all thewitnesses% e as.ed his oinion at the state of the risonerOsind at the tie of the alle+ed crie

A%!)er *2 Mr8 Ju!t#e Mau'e:1 here is no law that a.es ersons in the state

descried in the ,#estion not resonsile for their criinal acts

o render a erson irresonsile for crie on acco#nt of#nso#ndness of ind% the #nso#ndness sho#ld% accordin+ to thelaw% as it has lon+ een #nderstood and held% e s#chas rendered hi incaale fro .nowin+ ri+ht fro wron+

2 he ,#estions to e s#itted to the #r arethose ,#estions of fact which are raised on record he ares#osed to assist the #r in coin+ to a ri+ht concl#sion Jhatthose ,#estions are% and the anner of s#ittin+ the% is aatter of discretion for the #d+e% a discretion to e +#ided aconsideration of all the circ#stances attendin+ the in,#ir

3 here are no ters which the #d+e is lawre,#ired to #se

7 Answer to first ,#estion is alicale to 7th,#estion

8 hese circ#stances% of his never havin+ seenthe erson efore% and of his havin+ erel een resent at thetrial% not ein+ necessaril s#fficient to e-cl#de the lawf#lness ofa ,#estion which is otherwise lawf#lL tho#+h 4 will not sa that

an in,#ir i+ht not e in s#ch a state% as that thesecirc#stances sho#ld have s#ch an effect

L$r& C(#e, Ju!t#e T#%&a':1 :e is #nishale accordin+ to the nat#re of the

crie coitted% if he .new at the tie of coittin+ s#chcrie that he was actin+ contrar to law

2 E 3 5 9ver an is to e res#ed sane% andto ossess a s#fficient de+ree of reason to e resonsile for hiscries% #ntil the contrar e roved to their satisfaction oestalish a defense of the +ro#nd of insanit% it #st e clearlroved that% at the tie of the coittin+ of the act% the artacc#sed was laorin+ #nder s#ch a defect of reason fro diseaseof the ind% as not to .now the nat#re and ,#alit of the act hewas doin+L or if he did .now it% that he did not .now he wasdoin+ what was wron+

7 he ,#estion #st deend on the nat#re of the del#sion !n theass#tion that he laors #nder s#ch artial del#sion onl andis not in other resects insane% we thin. he #st e consideredin the sae sit#ation as to resonsiilit as if the facts withresect to which the del#sion e-ists were real

8 Je thin. the edical an% #nder the circ#stances s#osed%cannot in strictness e as.ed his oinion in the ters aovestated% eca#se each of those ,#estions involves thedeterination of the tr#th of the facts deosed to% which it is forthe #r to decided% and the ,#estions are not ere ,#estions#on a atter of science% in which case s#ch evidence isadissile G#t where the facts are aditted or not dis#ted%and the ,#estion ecoes s#stantiall one of science onl% ita e convenient to allow the ,#estion to e #t in that+eneral for% tho#+h the sae cannot e insisted on as aatter of ri+ht

EOLE v. ESTRADA [333 SCRA 6&& (2000)]

Nature: A#toatic review of the death enalt

Fat!:'eceer 2H% 1&&7% at the St "ohnOs Cathedral% 'a+#anCit% while the sacraent of confiration was ein+ erfored the Gisho% a an fro the crowd wal.ed towards the center of thealtar and sat on the GishoOs chair Crisanto Santillan% who was anassistant saw this :e re,#ested the acc#sed to vacate% #t the latterref#sed he called on the +#ard 'esite reeated re,#est% he did

not ove As the +#ard was attetin+ to stri.e the victi with hisni+htstic. to a.e hi leave acc#sed=aellant drew a .nife andstaed Mararac :e reeated it a lot After% he +ot # and sho#tedvia the icL ?o one can eat e hereZ SP!1 *rancisco saw a an%with red stains on his shirt and a .nife in one hand sittin+ on a chair:e advised hi to dro the .nife Acc#sed=aellant oeed%Mararac% the sec#rit +#ard% was ro#+ht to the hosital where hee-ired a few in#tes #on arrival

Acc#sed=aellant% filed a N'e#rrer to 9videnceN where he claisthat5 rosec#tion failed to rove #rderL that there was #nlawf#la++ression the victiL and that acc#sed=aellant was of #nso#ndind 4nsector >alde/ ("ail warden) re,#ested the co#rt to allowacc#sed=aellant% to e treated at the Ga+#io eneral :osital todeterine whether he sho#ld reain in ail or e transferred to soeother instit#tion Jhile otion for reconsideration was endin+%co#nsel for acc#sed=aellant filed a NMotion to Confine Acc#sed for

Phsical% Mental and Pschiatric 9-ainationN AellantOs co#nselinfored the co#rt that acc#sed=aellant had een e-hiitin+anoral ehavior for the ast wee.s here were 2 letters of thewarden re,#estin+ the sae he trial co#rt denied reconsiderationof the order denin+ the N'e#rrer to 9videnceN 'r Maria Soledadawidan% a resident hsician in the 'eartent of Pschiatr at theGa+#io eneral :osital% testified to the acc#sed ein+ confined anddia+nosed with NSchi/ohrenic Pschosis% Paranoid e;schi/ohrenia% aranoid% chronic% aranoid teN

he trial co#rt rendered a decision on "#ne 23% 1&&H 4t #held therosec#tion evidence and fo#nd acc#sed=aellant +#ilt of the criechar+ed and there sentenced hi to death%

I!!ue:J!? he was indeed insane

e'&: Jhen a erson coits a felonio#s act the act is res#ed tohave een done vol#ntaril 4n the asence of evidence to thecontrar% the law res#es that ever erson is of so#nd ind andthat all acts are vol#ntar An insane erson is e-et fro criinalliailit #nless he has acted d#rin+ a l#cid interval 4n the ees of thelaw% insanit e-ists when there is a colete derivation ofintelli+ence in coittin+ the act Mere anoralit of the entalfac#lties will not e-cl#de i#tailit Since the res#tion isalwas in favor of sanit% he who invo.es insanit as an e-etin+circ#stance #st rove it clear and ositive evidence here arecertain circ#stances that sho#ld have laced the trial co#rt onnotice that aellant a not have een in f#ll ossession of hisental fac#lties e+ when he attac.ed Mararac% then went # theicrohone Acc#sed=aellantOs histor of ental illness wasro#+ht to the co#rts

T$ te!t )(et(er t(e au!e& )$u'& (ave a ,a#r tr#a' there aretwo distinct atters to e deterined (1) whether defendant iscoherent to rovide his co#nsel with inforation necessar (2)whether he is ale to corehend the si+nificance of the trial and hisrelation to it o #t a le+all incoetent erson on trial or toconvict and sentence hi is a violation of the constit#tional ri+hts toa fair trial he deterination of whether a sanit investi+ation orhearin+ sho#ld e ordered rests +enerall in the discretion of the trialco#rt 4n the case at ar% when acc#sed=aellant oved fors#sension of the arrai+nent on the +ro#nd of acc#sedOs entalcondition% the trial co#rt denied the otion after findin+ that the,#estions roo#nded on aellant were intelli+entl answered

hi he fact that acc#sed=aellant was ale to answer the,#estions as.ed the trial co#rt is not concl#sive evidence that hewas coetent eno#+h to stand trial and assist in his defense hetrial co#rt too. it solel #on itself to deterine the sanit ofacc#sed=aellant he trial #d+e is not a schiatrist orscholo+ist or soe other e-ert e,#ied with the seciali/ed.nowled+e 4f the edical histor was not eno#+h to create areasonale do#t in the #d+eOs ind of acc#sed=aellantOscoetenc to stand trial% s#se,#ent events sho#ld have done so!ne onth after the rosec#tion rested its case% there were lettersre,#estin+ that acc#sed e confined in hosital% as well as theco#nselOs filin+ of otion And desite all the overwhelin+indications of acc#sed=aellantOs state of ind% the #d+e ersistedin his ersonal assessent and never even considered s#ectin+acc#sed=aellant to a edical e-aination o to it all% the #d+efo#nd aellant +#ilt and sentenced hi to deathZ

Ju&+/e%t:At this late ho#r% a edical findin+ alone a a.e itiossile for #s to eval#ate aellantOs ental condition at the tieof the crieOs coission for hi to avail of the e-etin+circ#stance of insanit ?onetheless% #nder the resentcirc#stances% acc#sed=aellantOs coetence to stand trial #ste roerl ascertained to enale hi to articiate in his trialeanin+f#ll Reanded to the co#rt a ,#o for the cond#ct of aroer ental e-aination on acc#sed=aellant% a deterination ofhis coetenc to stand trial% and for f#rther roceedin+s

EOLE v. ;ILLA JR. [331 SCRA 172 (2000)]

Nature:Aeal to decision of RC that convicted hi of 7 #rders

Fat!: 'ionito *ernande/ was c#ttin+ +rass when his nei+horRodolfo >illa% "r% a eer of the CA* cae o#t with his M=1



18/61

arand rifle and shot 'ionito .illin+ hi instantl (discovered laterthat 'ionito acc#sed hi of stealin+ chic.ens) Ronald and Sheila%children of 'ionito% r#shed o#t and were also shot Sheila was onlshot in the thi+h and t# Sa#el 9clevia% atteted to wrestlethe rifle #t was also +#nned down >illa "r s#rrendered and waschar+ed with #ltile #rder :e leaded not +#ilt and invo.ed selfdefense (sas that 'ionito was char+in+ at hi with a olo) :is newlawer (he chan+ed lawers in the iddle) oved for a schiatrice-aination and it was +ranted :e was confined in the Mental:osital for eval#ation (for insanit) for a onth which res#lted inthe findin+ of 4nsanit or Pschosis classified as Schi/ohrenia :ewas fo#nd to e incoetent to stand trial After 6 onths% thedoctors fo#nd hi fit to stand trial After his release% he leadedinsanit as a defense% which was disre+arded he onl iss#e to eresolved is whether acc#sed=aellant was insane d#rin+ thecoission of the cries as wo#ld e-et hi fro criinalliailit

e'&: Co#rt was not convinced that he was insane d#rin+ thecoission of the crie since the eval#ation did not sa so in#ne,#ivocal ters 'r alsos was #ns#re when she testified 4norder that insanit can e considered as an e-etin+ circ#stance%it #st e shown to e-ist #st efore or d#rin+ the coission of theoffense 4t #st e shown eond do#t that there was coletederivation of reason or discernent and freedo of the will at thetie of the coission of the crie% which the acc#sed failed torove

4nsanit is evidenced a deran+ed and erverted

condition of the ental fac#lties which is anifested in lan+#a+eand cond#ct An insane erson has no f#ll and clear#nderstandin+ of the nat#re and conse,#ences of his acts Jeare convinced that acc#sed=aellant was sane at the tie heeretrated the .illin+s he followin+ circ#stances clearloint to saneness (a) 4ediatel s#rrenderin+ to the PoliceL() :e showed reorse d#rin+ his confineentL (c) ave asworn stateent efore the Prosec#torOs !ffice after the criesnarratin+ the incident (adit that he was of so#nd ind) heseare hardl the acts of a erson with a sic. ind

he law res#es ever an to e of so#nd ind h#s%

a erson acc#sed of a crie who leads the e-etin+circ#stance of insanit has the #rden of rovin+ it

he defense an.s heavil on the findin+s of the

schiatrists 'octors did not sa that he was totall insane towarrant concl#sion that he was insane eno#+h to .ill all thoseeole Je a+ree with the trial co#rt that the res#lts of thee-ainations cond#cted the schiatrists on acc#sed=aellant aear to e ased on incolete or ins#fficient factsRecords show that the schiatrists relied ainl on the datas#lied acc#sed=aellant and his olice escort 4t co#ld ethat he was insane while ein+ eval#ated and was contactedd#rin+ his detention rior trial% ae d#e to +#ilt orreali/ations o e a defense it has to e there when crie wascoissioned

here sho#ld e no a++ravatin+ circ#stance #st

eca#se he was fro CA* and had an M=1 rand Rifle

Co#rt affirs decision with a odification in enalties

EOLE v. MADARANG [332 SCRA && (2000)]

Nature:Aeal fro a decision of the RC G#r+os% Pan+asinan

Fat!: *erdinand Madaran+ Ma+no was char+ed with arricide forthe .illin+ of his wife


19/61

se of ai+#o#s words li.e Ns#stantial caacitN and

NareciateN 9-cl#des schoaths or ersons whose anoralities are

anifested onl reeated criinal cond#ct

8 Areciation test (#sed in S federal co#rts)5 re lie son the co+nitive testL shifts the #rden of roof to the defense%liited the scoe of e-ert testion% eliinated the defense ofdiinished caacit and rovided for coitent of acc#sedfo#nd to e insane

Sta%&ar& a""'#e& #% (#'#""#%e $urt!:here #st e a coletederivation of intelli+ence at the tie of coittin+ the act heacc#sed is derived of reasonL he acted witho#t the leastdiscernent eca#se there is a colete asence of the ower todiscern or that there is a total derivation of the will Mereanoralit of the ental fac#lties will not e-cl#de i#tailit

I!!ue: J!? the acc#sed% invo.in+ insanit% can clai e-etionfro liailit for the crie he coittede'&: ?o 'ecision of the trial co#rt convictin+ the aellant of thecrie of arricide is A**4RM9' in toto

Rat#$ ?one of the witnesses resented the acc#sed declared

that he e-hiited an of the an stos associated withschi/ohrenia iediatel efore or si#ltaneo#s with thestain+ incident

Altho#+h 'r iaan oined that it was hi+hl roalethat the acc#sed was alread insane efore the coission ofthe crie% he also said that schi/ohrenics have l#cid intervalsd#rin+ which the are caale of distin+#ishin+ ri+ht frowron+

:is clai that he had no recollection of the stain+

incident ao#nts onl to a ere +eneral denial that can eade with facilit

he fact that Avelina and her nehew were fri+htened at

the si+ht of hi holdin+ a olo does not% in an wa% rove thathe was insane at that tie

:is non=reentant attit#de after he staed his wife

cannot e an indication of his insanit eca#se even criinals ofso#nd ental condition can e non=reorsef#l

he fact that he and his wife never ,#arreled did not

rove his insanit 4t cannot e said that ealo#s is not a s#fficient reason to

.ill a re+nant so#se he acc#sed attri#tes his loss of insanit on his ad

fort#ne his is #rel sec#lative and #ns#orted record Avelina testified that d#rin+ his sta in her ho#se% she did

not notice an anoral or irre+#lar ehavior on the art of theacc#sed that co#ld have s#++ested that he was insane

Since he had alread aditted to coittin+ the crie

#t leaded not +#ilt on the +ro#nd of insanit% he is tried onthe iss#e of insanit alone and if he is fo#nd to e sane% a#d+ent of conviction is rendered witho#t an trial on the iss#eof +#ilt

EOLE v.


20/61

Fat!:!ct 21% 1&$1 = eodorico went to wor. as the deliver anof a door=to=door service of cash one of the fir M#no/ S#rresarande :e had with hi P80 to e delivered to clients% #t he washeld # two en% later identified as 9dwin and Antonio 9dwinstaed hi while Antonio +raed the a+ with the cash inside hetwo ran in oosite directions 9dwin was ca#+ht the o whileAntonio escaed% #t he was ositivel identified two witnessesGoth lead not +#ilt to the char+es a+ainst the

4n the trial% 9dwin averred that he e e-ained e-erts of the?ational Center for Mental :ealth to deterine whether he wasentall fit to #nder+o the ri+ors of trial he trial co#rt +ranted theotion and ordered the s#sension of trial endin+ s#ission the 'irector% ?ational Center for Mental :ealth% of his reort% whichsaid that he was entall fit he defense was that 9dwin wass#fferin+ fro dr#+ schosis% therefore he sho#ld e e-etedfro the criinal liailit G#t the C convicted oth as rincials ofthe crie coitted and sentenced the (see aove Nnat#reN)

I!!ue!:1. WON E&)#% )a! #%!a%e at t(e t#/e $, t(e

r#/e ?o% he wasnOt he reort of the ?ational Center for

Mental :ealth and the testion of 'r Perfecto ' Ch#aChen+ 444 do not rove insanit of acc#sed=aellant 9dwinCaneta he #rden of roof lies on the defense% #t thewere not ale to rove the insanit of 9dwin he defense ofinsanit re,#ires that the acc#sed s#ffered fro a coletederivation of reason in coittin+ the act here #st e

no conscio#sness of resonsiilit for his acts% or that theree colete asence of the ower to discern he defenseof insanit or iecilit #st e clearl roved he lawres#es ever an to e sane

. WON t(e te!t#/$%2 $, )#t%e!! Eva%+e'#%e8 )($#&e%t#,#e& A%t$%#$ A*e! a! $%e $, t(e a!!a#'a%t! a''e&T$%2 G#'8 !($u'& *e +#ve% re&e%e

@es :e was ositivel identified eewitness 9van+eline

Mico he ositive identification of a alefactor a not edisre+arded #st eca#se his nae was not .nown to thewitness *or the eewitness acco#nt is reised on the factthat the witness saw the acc#sed coit the crie% and noteca#se the witness .new his nae he C% which had theoort#nit to oserve the deeanor of 9van+eline wasconvinced of her tr#stworthiness Nhe tie=tested doctrineis that a CFs assessent of the crediilit of a witness isentitled to +reat wei+ht even concl#sive and indin+ on theCo#rt% if not tainted with aritrariness or oversi+ht of soefact or circ#stance of wei+ht and infl#enceN

De#!#$%: "#d+ent affired% with the M!'4*4CA4!? that theindenit is raised to P80%00000% in line with c#rrent r#lin+s

EOLE v. DIA? [320 SCRA 16$ (1&&&)]

Nature: A#toatic review of an Aril 11% 1&&H Ce# Cit RCdecision which fo#nd 'ia/ +#ilt eond reasonale do#t of #rderin relation to se-#al a#se (sodo) of a child attended treacher% sentenced hi to death !rdered hi to a the heirs ofthe victi5 P80 (death indenit)L 280 (oral daa+es)L 100(e-elar daa+es)L 70 (f#neral e-enses)

Fat!: 1&&6 At aro#nd $% *rancis Gart *#lache (11)% his rother*elart (10)% E 'ia/ (30)% a friend *rancis Gart .new fro thehanta.an% a +ain+ lace near their store% went to Pier 3 todefecate

*rancis Gart invited his rother to +o to Pier 7 #t *elart

ref#sed Jhen he didnFt ret#rn the afternoon of the followin+da% his arents +ot worried E started to loo. for hi A da after%the olice received a reort that a od of a o#n+ o 10=11 ohad een fo#nd at the G#lacao rid+e Nsic.enin+ state of n#dit Ehsical a#seN face was covered wK a i+ stone in an aarentattet to hide the od he a#tos showed5o ca#se of death5 intercranial heorrha+e

o other findin+s5 cont#sions% arasions E lacerations all over

the odL head fract#reL #ltile lacerations in his rect#(doctorOs oinion5 ca#sed a l#nt instr#ent li.e a f#llerect enis)

'ec &% 1&&65 a an (later identified as 'ia/) went to

*rancis GartOs f#neral and ca#sed a cootion% recitin+ oes%and sin+in+ the thee fro he alerio% "r)

herefore% the .illin+ of *rancis Gart #st e deeed iso

facto ,#alified treacher eca#se of his inherentdefenselessness (Peole v% Gacalto)

A*u!e $, Su"er#$r Stre%+t( Glatant ine,#alit of stren+th etween 'ia/ and the o

G#t cannot e areciated even as +eneric a++ravatin+circ#stance ein+ necessaril asored in treacher

herefore% the crie coitted is #rder. WON t(e &eat( "e%a't2 !($u'& *e #/"$!e&

N['ia/] sho#ld not e eted the s#ree enalt of deathN

he 4nforation char+ed 'ia/ onl wK #rder ,#alified

treacher% a#se of s#erior stren+th E evidentreeditationL failed to ention the coission of se-#ala#se or sodo% the 4nforation desi+nated the crie asN#rder in relation to RA H610N #t the act#al recital offacts in the colaint or inforation failed to ention these-#al a#se or sodo

As a r#le% what controls is not the desi+nation of the offense #t

its act#al descrition in the colaint or inforation hereal nat#re of the criinal char+e cannot e deterinedfro the cation or reale of the inforation of fro theere reference to a artic#lar rovision of law alle+ed tohave een violated eca#se the are concl#sions of law

herefore% even if there is ositive roof of se-#al a#se% 'ia/cannot e convicted therefor eca#se s#ch was not alle+ed inthe act#al recital of facts in the 4nforation

-. WON D#a@ )a! !a%e at t(e t#/e $, $//#!!#$% $, at 'ia/ failed to overcoe the le+al res#tion of sanit

Jhen 'ia/ was confined at the ?ational Center for Mental

:ealth% he was dia+nosed with edohilia% not insanit Pedohilia is not insanitL Pedohilia is a se-#al disorder

wherein the s#ect has stron+% rec#rrent and #ncontrollalefantasies which he tries to f#lfill% eseciall when there areno eole aro#nd G#t the erson can still distin+#ish ri+htfro wron+

A defendant in a criinal case who interoses the defense

of ental incaacit has the #rden of estalishin+ thatfact% ie he was insane at the ver oent when the crie

was coitted :e #st rove it clear and ositiveevidence (Peole v Gascos)

4n the case at ar% the defense of insanit as an

e-etin+ circ#stance was not estalished and did notovercoe the le+al res#tion that a ersonOs acts are ofhis own free will and intelli+ence

herefore% 'ia/ was sane at the tie of coission of the crie

Ju&+/e%t:Modified

RTC SUREME COURTCr#/e M#rder in relation to

se-#al a#se (sodo)of a child attended treacher

M#rder

Se%te%e 'eath Recl#sion eret#a



21/61

Da/a+e! death indenit5 80oral daa+es5 280e-elar dFs5 100f#neral e-enses5 70

death indenit5 80oral daa+es5100e-elar daa+es5 28f#neral e-enses5 70

to coensate for thedaa+es to their feelin+s% notto enrich the

EOLE v. MEDINA [2$6 SCRA 77 (1&&$)]

Nature: Aeal fro a decision of RC Gatan+as Cit convictin+Alerto Medina of the crie of #rder of Andres 'alisa

Fat!: "#ne = !ctoer 1&$2% Medina was confined in the ?ationalMental :osital for schi/ohrenifor disorder% where he wass#se,#entl released Relatives sa that his condition did not seeto irove :e was referred to 'r Adi+#e for f#rther e-ainationsMa 20% 1&&1% 11 % a art was attended oth 'alisa andMedina% as well as


22/61

estalish the char+es "ac,#elineOs fail#re to iediatelreort the crie does not necessaril cast do#t on thecrediilit of her char+e Je cannot e-ect o#n+ "ac,#elineto disre+ard the threat on her life and iediatel cr raein the face of her fatherOs threats and his constant resencein her hoe

4t is hi+hl inconceivale that

"ac,#eline wo#ld invent a char+e that wo#ld onl rin+shae and h#iliation #on the and their fail and ethe oect of +ossi aon+ their classates and friends inorder to +et even with their father or to eathi/e with hersister% eseciall +iven o#r c#lt#re

4t is a-ioatic in criinal law that in

order to s#stain a conviction for rae% f#ll enetration is notre,#ired

2 fors of intiidation #nder Art

338 RPC (Matrionio)5 (1) threats% (2) overowerin+ oralinfl#ence

a#+oca e-ercised overowerin+

oral infl#ence over the victis% ein+ their father his iss#fficient to intiidate and force the to s#it to hisdesires

*or rae to e-ist% it is not necessar

that the intiidation eloed e so +reat or of s#chcharacter as co#ld not e resisted Jhat is necessar is thatthe intiidation e s#fficient to cons#ate the #rosethe acc#sed had in ind

4n the case at ar% with the revio#s

eatin+s "in. had +otten fro a#+oca% resistance co#ldnot have een e-ected fro her

a#+ocaOs contention of consens#al

se- is ridic#lo#sZ ?o showin+ that "in. is a se-#al ervertor a woan of loose orals

Consent otained fear of

ersonal violence is not consentZ herefore% a#+oca is +#ilt of two

(2) co#nts of rae

. WON t(e RTC (a& =ur#!t#$% @es a#+ocaOs osition that the the RCOs #risdiction to

#nish hi is liited onl to the "in.Os criinal colaintof fr#strated rae E cannot cover cons#ated rae is aeritless ar+#ent

Jhen it is said that the filin+ of the colaint the

offended art in cases of rae is #risdictional% what is

eant is that it is the colaint that starts the rosec#torroceedin+% #t it is not the colaint which confers#risdiction on the co#rt to tr the case

he co#rtOs #risdiction is vested in it the "#diciar


23/61

reained ?4MPR!>9' reatent contin#ed in San icente A erson with Chronic Schi/ohrenia does not

EOLE v.


24/61

EOLE v. DUNGO [1&& SCRA $60 (1&&1)]

Nature:A#toatic review of the decision of the RC of Paan+aconvictin+ the acc#sed of #rder

Fat!:!n March 16% 1&$H etween 2500 and 3500% the acc#sedwent to Mrs Si+#aOs office at the 'eartent of A+rarian Refor%Aalit% Paan+a After a rief tal.% the acc#sed drew a .nife frothe enveloe he was carrin+ and staed Mrs Si+#a several ties

After which he dearted fro the office with lood stained clothes%carrin+ a loodied laded weaon he a#tos reort revealed thatthe victi s#stained 17 wo#nds% 8 of which were fatal

Rodolfo Si+#a% h#sand of the deceased% testified that soetie in*er#ar 1&$H% the acc#sed Rosalino '#n+o in,#ired fro hi whhis wife was re,#irin+ so an doc#ents fro hi Rodolfoe-lained to hi the roced#re at the 'AR

he acc#sed% in defense of hiself% tried to show that he was insaneat the tie of the coission of the offense5

wo wee.s rior to March 16% 1&$H% RosalinoOs wife

noticed that he aears to e in dee tho#+ht alwas%altreatin+ their children when he was not #sed to it eforehere were also ties that her h#sand wo#ld infor her thathis feet and head were on fire when in tr#th the were not

!n that fatef#l da% Rosalino colained of stoachache

#t the didnOt other to # edicine as the ain went awa

iediatel hereafter% he went ac. to the store G#t whenAndrea followed hi to the store% he was no lon+er thereJorried% she loo.ed for hi !n her wa hoe% she heardeole sain+ that a stain+ occ#rred She saw her h#sand inher arents=in=lawOs ho#se with eole illin+ aro#nd Sheas.ed her h#sand wh he did the act% to which Rosalinoanswered% NhatOs the onl c#re for ailent 4 have cancer ofthe heart 4f 4 donOt .ill the deceased in a n#er of das% 4wo#ld dieD hat sae da% the acc#sed went to Manila

'r Santia+o and 'r 9chave/ of the ?ational Center for Mental :ealthtestified that the acc#sed was confined in the ental hosital% as erorder of the trial co#rt dated A#+ 1H% 1&$H Gased on the reorts oftheir staff% the concl#ded that Rosalino was schotic or insane lon+efore% d#rin+ and after the coission of the alle+ed crie andclassified his insanit as an or+anic ental disorder secondar tocerero=vasc#lar accident or stro.e G#t 'r Galatat who treated the

acc#sed for ailents secondar to stro.e% and 'r


25/61

e'&:?o :e is not an iecile Accordin+ 'r *rancisco oes%altho#+h he was feeleinded% he is not an iecile as he co#ld stilldistin+#ish etween ri+ht E wron+ E even feel reorse 4n order thata erson co#ld e re+arded as an iecile wKin the eanin+ of RPCA12 so as to e e-et fro criinal liailit% he #st e derivedcoletel of reason or discernent E freedo of will at the tie ofcoittin+ the crie (?ote that definition is sae as insanit)

As to the stran+e ehavior of the acc#sed d#rin+ his confineent%ass#in+ it was not fei+ned to sti#late insanit% it a e attri#tedeither to his ein+ feeleinded or eccentric% or to a orid entalcondition rod#ced reorse at havin+ .illed his wife A an who

co#ld feel the an+s of ealo#s E ta.e violent eas#res to the e-tentof .illin+ his wife who he s#sected of ein+ #nfaithf#l to hi% in theelief that in doin+ so% he was vindicatin+ his honor% co#ld hardl ere+arded as an iecile J!? the s#sicions were #stified% is of littleor no iortance he fact is that he elieved her faithless*#rtherore% in his written stateent% he readil aditted that he.illed his wife% E at the trial he ade no effort to den of re#diate saidwritten stateents% th#s savin+ the +overnent all the tro#le Ee-ense of catchin+ hi E sec#rin+ his conviction

G#t 2 iti+atin+ circ#stances are resent5 assion or of#scation(havin+ .illed his wife in a ealo#s ra+e) E feeleindednessJu&+/e%t:4n concl#sion% aellant is fo#nd +#ilt of arricide E thelower co#rtFs #d+ent is here affired wK the odification thataellant will e credited with half of an reventive irisonenthe has #nder+one (eca#se of the 2 iti+atin+ circ#stances)

EOLE v. ESTEANO [30H SCRA H0H (1&&&)]

Nature: Aeal fro a decision of the RC of :iaalan% ?e+ros!ccidental wKc fo#nd the defendants +#ilt of the crie of MR'9R

Fat!: 9nri,#e Galinas was staed E hac.ed to death for wKc'oinador% Rodri+o% R#en% Rodne% 'ante E Rene% all s#rnaed9steano were char+ed wK #rder Rodri+o died d#rin+ the trial Eefore #d+ent co#ld e rendered 'ante was never arehendedhence% as a+ainst hi% the case was never archived After trial%'oinador was ac,#itted on reasonale do#t !nl R#en% RodneE Rene were fo#nd +#ilt Accordin+l% the 3 were sentenced torecl#sion eret#a E ordered to indenif the heirs of 9nri,#eGalinas in the ao#nt of P100 for oral daa+es E P&8 foract#al daa+es wKo s#sidiar irisonent in case of insolvenc

A! t$ t(e r#/e: he case was woven ainl on the testion of*lorencio aco% that on Aril 16% 1&&1 at aro#nd 10 % he was onhis wa hoe in Garan+a 4> :iaalan with


26/61

ho#se cleanin+ a hoeade +#n to e #sed for evenin+ atrol (hewas a aran+a tanod) when the +#n accidentall went off% fatallhittin+ his son (in the +l#te#s a-i#sZZZ) after which he went to hisson and eraced hi Afterwards he s#rrendered he r#lin+ of trialco#rt +ave credence to rosec#tion witnessesL diselieved thataellantOs shootin+ was an accident

I!!ue8 e'& a%& Rat#$:1. WON

)#t%e!!e! are re*'eConchita and Re A+lida are credile witnesses Aellant

clais co#rt sho#ld have elieved hi since he does not havean reason to .ill his son who has a ri+ht f#t#re% and that hiswitnesses ("ose Mataan+ and SP!1 !ina) are ore credileCo#rt disa+rees Jhen the iss#e is one of crediilit% anaellate co#rt will norall not dist#r the findin+s of the trialco#rt Mataan+Os testion was asicall what aellant toldhi = iased and liitedL while !inaOs clai that Conchita toldhi that shootin+ was accidental is not acc#rate% since she wasstill in a state of shoc.

. WONa""e''a%t! !($$t#%+ )a! a% a#&e%t )(#( /a2 *e u!e&a! a% e6e/"t#%+ #ru/!ta%e?o% it cannot Aellant contends that since his +#n accidentallwent off while he was cleanin+ it% he sho#ld e ac,#itted on theasis of the e-etin+ circ#stance of accident #nder RPCA12(7) he co#rt is not ers#aded 4n A12(7)% criinal liailit

does not arise in a case where a crie is coitted anerson who% while erforin+ a lawf#l act with d#e care% ca#sesan in#r ere accident witho#t fa#lt or intention of ca#sin+it 9-etion is ased on the lac. of criinal intent 'eclarationsof innocence of aellant contradicted testionies of wife Es#rvivin+ son Gefore acc#sed can e e-eted fro criinalliailit #nder A12 (7)% there sho#ld e5

A erson erforin+ a lawf#l

act '#e care

Ca#ses an in#r to another

ere accident Jitho#t an fa#lt and intention

of ca#sin+ it

Act of firin+ a shot+#n (E an #nlicensed one at that) is not lawf#lAccident is an occ#rrence that Nhaens o#tside the swa of o#rwill% E altho#+h it coes ao#t thro#+h soe act of o#r will% lieseond the o#nds of h#anl foreseeale conse,#encesD Iconnotes asence of criinal intent *irear was a shot+#n thatneeds to e coc.ed first efore it can e fired

Aellant contends that he is onl +#ilt of rec.less ir#denceG#t the co#rt disa+rees Rec.less ir#dence consists ofvol#ntaril doin+ or failin+ to do% witho#t alice% an act frowhich aterial daa+e res#lts reason of an ine-c#sale lac.of reca#tion on the art of the erson erforin+ or failin+ toerfor s#ch act 4ntent is not lac.in+ in the instant caseAellantOs e-ternal acts rove alice or criinal intent

Ju&+/e%t:Aeal denied

US v. TANEDO [18 Phil 1&6 (1&10)]

Nature:Aeal fro a #d+ent of the C*4 of arlac

Fat!: !n "an#ar 26% 1&0&% Cecilio anedo% a landowner% went withsoe wor.ers to wor. on the da on his land% carrin+ with hi hisshot+#n E a few shells on reachin+ the da% the acc#sed went onhis wa to h#nt for wild chic.ens% eetin+ the victi% *elicianoSanche/% the latterOs Mother E ncle he acc#sed went into the forest#on the recoendation of the deceased to contin#e his search for

the el#sive wild chic.ens on seein+ one% anedo shot one% #tsi#ltaneo#sl% he heard a h#an cr o#t in ain After seein+ thatSanche/ was wo#nded% anedo ran ac. to his wor.ers and as.ed one%Gernardino a+aa% to hel hi hide the od% which the did #ttin+ it aidst the tall co+on +rass% E later #rin+ in an old well!nl 1 shot was heard that ornin+ E a chic.en was .illed a+#nshot wo#nd Chic.en feathers were fo#nd at the scene of thecrie here was no enit etween the acc#sed and the deceasedPrior to the trial% the acc#sed denied all .nowled+e of the crie% #tlater confessed d#rin+ the trial he lower co#rt fo#nd the acc#sed+#ilt of hoicide% havin+ invited the deceased into the forest Eintentionall shootin+ hi in the chest Acc#sed was sentenced to 17rs% $ os E 1 da of recl#sion teoral% accessories% indenificationsE costs he acc#sed aealed

I!!ue:J!? the acc#sed is +#ilt

e'&: ?o he idea that anedo intended to .ill Sanche/ is ne+ated

the fact that the chic.en and the an were shot at the sae tie%there havin+ onl one shot fired Also% accordin+ to5

Article 1 of the Penal Code5 Cries or isdeeanors are

vol#ntar acts and oissions #nished law Article $5 :e who while erforin+ a le+al act with d#e

care% ca#ses soe in#r ere accident witho#t liailit orintention of ca#sin+ it

Section 8H of Code of Criinal Proced#re5 A defendant in

a criinal action shall e res#ed to e innocent #ntil thecontrar is roved% and in case of a reasonale do#t that his+#ilt is satisfactoril shown he shall e entitled to an ac,#ittal

4n this case there is no evidence of ne+li+ence on the art of theacc#sed% nor is it dis#ted that the acc#sed was en+a+ed in a le+alact% nor is there evidence that the acc#sed intended to .ill thedeceased he onl thin+ s#sicio#s is his denial of the act and hisconcealent of the od

he co#rt ,#oted State vs


27/61

hel hi !n Aril 22% arcia introd#ced Roerto


28/61

1. WON t(ere )a! at(reat rete& t$ t(e au!e& t(at )$u'& &e"r#ve (#/ $,(#! $)% v$'#t#$% a%& /ae (#/ a /ere #%!tru/e%t $, t(e"er!$% )($ t(reate%e& (#/.?one he evidence resented failed to estalish a threat so adthat it derived the acc#sed of his volition ?either were theale to estalish a threat that was ade #nder s#chcirc#stances that the acc#sed co#ld reasonal have e-ectedthat he wo#ld s#ffer aterial in#r if he ref#sed to col

. WON t(e $urt erre&

#% ru'#%+ t(at t(e r#/e $//#tte& )a! /ur&er #%!tea& $,($/##&e.?o 4t aears #ndis#ted that% at the tie the acc#sed str#c.the deceased with iron ar and there ca#sed his death% thelatter was o#nd hand and foot and was helless anddefenseless Jhile it is ,#ite tr#e that there was no treacher atthe e+innin+ of the str#++le terinatin+ in the death of thecatain% this does not necessaril disose the ,#estion oftreacher N9ven tho#+h the e+innin+ of an attac. res#ltin+ inthe death of the deceased is free fro treacher of an sort%nevertheless it will e fo#nd resent if% at the tie the fatal lowis str#c.% the deceased is helless and #nale to defendhiselfN he crie was coitted with treacher and that itwas roerl denoinated #rder instead of hoicide

-. WON t(e $urt erre% re,u!#%+ t$ a""'2 Art#'e 11 $, t(e e%a' C$&e #% ,av$r

$, t(e au!e&.?o he ersonal ,#alities and characteristics of the acc#sed areatters artic#larl co+ni/ale the C% E the alication ofthis section is ec#liarl wKin the #risdiction of that co#rt

De#!#$%: here ein+ neither a++ravatin+ nor e-ten#atin+circ#stances% #d+ent aealed fro is R9>9RS9' and theacc#sed is here sentenced to cadena eret#a

EOLE v. LORENO [130 SCRA 311 (1&$7)]

Nature:Aeal fro the #d+ent of the C*4 of Caarines S#r

Fat!:Garan+a Catain 9lias Mon+e% his fail E *rancisco *aie%their far heler were hoe rearin+ for the arrio dance when


29/61

e'&: ?o *ear in order to e valid sho#ld e ased on a real%iinent or reasonale fear for oneFs life or li (Peole vsAanes) 4n the case at ar% the records indicate that aellant wasseen ein+ handed and receivin+ fro one of the ared en ah#ntin+ .nife Also% as aforesaid% aellant was not ale to e-lainhis fail#re to reort the incident to the a#thorities for ore thanthree ears hese circ#stances% aon+ others% estalish the factthat the aellant conscio#sl conc#rred with the acts of theassailants 4n order that the circ#stance of #ncontrollale fear aal% it is necessar that the co#lsion e of s#ch a character asto leave no oort#nit to escae or self=defense in e,#al coat

(Peole v


30/61

c#nnin+ on the art of the acc#sed Sho#tin+ fro the o#tside thatthe wanted to # ci+s% the ind#ced the inates to oen the doorfor the

*or lac. of necessar votes% the death enalt cannot e iosed%th#s the enalt is odified to recl#sion eret#a

EOLE v. AGAL [H& SCRA 8H0 (1&HH)]

Pa+al and orcelino were convicted of the crie of roer withhoicide he invo.e the iti+atin+ circ#stances of s#fficientrovocation and assion or of#scation

e'&: *irst% rovocation and of#scation arisin+ fro one and thesae ca#se sho#ld e treated as onl one iti+atin+ circ#stanceSince the alle+ed rovocation which ca#sed the of#scation of theaellants arose fro the sae incident% that is% the alle+edaltreatent andKor ill=treatent of the aellants the deceased%those two iti+atin+ circ#stances cannot e considered as twodistinct and searate circ#stances #t sho#ld e treated as one

Secondl% the circ#stance of assion and of#scation cannot eiti+atin+ in a crie which is lanned and call editated eforeits e-ec#tion% as in the case at ar

hird% the altreatent that aellants clai the victi to havecoitted a+ainst the occ#rred #ch earlier than the date of thecoission of the crie Provocation in order to e iti+atin+ #ste s#fficient and iediatel recedin+ the act

h#s% where the acc#sed .illed his wife d#rin+ a ,#arrel% eca#se

he% who had no wor.% resented her s#++estion to oin her rother inthe #siness of c#ttin+ lo+s% the 2 iti+atin+ circ#stances of rovo=cation E of#scation cannot e considerin+ in favor of the acc#sed

U.S. v. AMAR [3H Phil 201 (1&1H)]

Fat!: '#rin+ a fiesta% an old an H0 ears of a+e as.ed thedeceased% Patoo% for soe roast i+ 4n the resence of an+#ests% the deceased ins#lted the old an% sain+5 Nhere is noore Coe here and 4 will a.e roast i+ of o#N A little later%while the deceased was s,#attin+ down% the old an cae # ehindhi and str#c. hi on the head with an a-e'&:Jhile it a e ere trifle to an avera+e erson% it evidentlwas a serio#s atter to an old an% to e ade the #tt of a o.e inthe resence of so an +#ests he acc#sed was +iven the enefitof the iti+atin+ circ#stance of vindication of a +rave offense 4nthis case% the a+e of the acc#sed and the lace were considered indeterinin+ the +ravit of the offense

EOLE v. ARANA [67 Phil 331 (1&3H)]

Fat!:Parana was convicted of the crie of #rder with the enaltof recl#sion eret#a and to indenif the heirs of the deceasedhe a++ravatin+ circ#stances that the aellant is a recidivist andthat there was treacher #st e ta.en into consideration Areiti+atin+ circ#stances attendante'&:he fact that the acc#sed was slaed the deceased in theresence of an ersons a few ho#rs efore the forer .illed thelatter% was considered a iti+atin+ circ#stance that the act wascoitted in the iediate vindication of a +rave offense Altho#+hthe +rave offense (slain+ of the acc#sed the deceased)% whichen+endered ert#ration of ind% was not so iediate% it was heldthat the infl#ence thereof% reason of its +ravit and the

circ#stances #nder which it was inflicted% lasted #ntil the oentthe crie was coitted he other iti+atin+ circ#stance that theaellant had vol#ntaril s#rrendered hiself to the a+ents of thea#thorities #st e consideredCa!e! $, v$'u%tar2 !urre%&er.S#rrender is not iti+atin+ whendefendant was in fact arrested G#t where a erson% after coittin+the offense and havin+ oort#nit to escae% vol#ntaril waited forthe a+ents of the a#thorities and vol#ntaril +ave hiself #% he isentitled to the enefit of this circ#stance% even if he was laced#nder arrest a olicean then and there

EOLE v. DIO7NO [63 Phil 601 (1&36)]

Fat!: @# :ion+% a Chinaan% had eloed with the da#+hter of9ifanio 'io.no


31/61

a#thorit #rs#ant to Art 182 of the RPC% as aendedL neither didhe as. the forer to fetch hi at his ho#se so he co#ld s#rrenderhe fact alone that he did not resist #t went eacef#ll with thearan++a catain does not ean that he vol#ntaril s#rrenderedGesides% vol#ntar s#rrender res#oses reentance

Ju&+/e%t:here ein+ no iti+atin+ nor a++ravatin+ circ#stancethe enalt is the edi# eriod of that rescried law for thatoffense Acc#sed is fo#nd +#ilt of hoicide% and not #rder% andalin+ the 4ndeterinate Sentence


32/61

EOLE v. DULOS [23H SCRA 171 (1&&7)]

Fat!: '#los% acc#sed=aellant% aid S#san E Alice P100 each toentertain soe ale +#ests Alice left earl% while S#san staedS#san was offered P800 to chec. in wK 1 of '#losF +#ests Jhen she+ot the one% she chan+ed her ind E ar+#ed wK her c#stoerAlice fo#nd o#t E called ara% a Militar Police assi+ned at the saidhotel as watchan to intervene Jhen '#los fo#nd o#t ao#t it heconfronted S#san wK her ofriend Pa#l Pa#l aolo+i/ed sain+ thathis +irlfriend does not accet intiate dates he two with Alice Esoe other friend left to +o hoe '#los followed the with a +#nand the fled #t '#los was ale to overta.e the '#los deandedthe one ac. and S#san +ave hi ac. P100 She leaded with'#los and later tried wrestin+ the +#n #t she was violentl #shedPa#l leaded for erc #t '#los instead shot hi twicee'&: he +eneric iti+atin+ circ#stance of vol#ntar s#rrendercannot e areciated in acc#sed=aellantFs favor 4t is necessarthat Bit #st e sontaneo#s and ade in s#ch anner that it showsthe intent of the acc#sed to s#rrender #nconditionall to thea#thorities either eca#se he ac.nowled+es his +#ilt or eca#se hewishes to save the the tro#le and e-enses necessaril inc#rred inhis search and sei/#re :ere there was no conscio#s effort on the'#los art to vol#ntaril s#rrender to the ilitar a#thorities whenhe cae to Ca Sion+co% 'inai+% Ma+#indanao after the incident:e was not laced #nder c#stod the ilitar a#thorities as hewas free to roa aro#nd as he leased :e went to said ca to

ta.e # residence% not to vol#ntaril s#rrender to the a#thories


33/61

.illin+% his ind went totall lan. and he did not .now what hewas doin+ :e clais that he was insane then

I!!ue! a%& Rat#$:1. WON au!e&a""e''a%t Jav#er a% 'a#/ /#t#+at#%+

#ru/!ta%e! $, #''%e!! a%& $, "a!!#$% a%& $*,u!at#$%?o to oth !n illness% since "avier has alread aditted to the.illin+% it is inc#ent #on hi to rove the claied iti+atin+circ#stance !S fo#nd no s#fficient evidence or edicalfindin+ to s#ort his clai *or the iti+atin+ circ#stance of#''%e!! of the offender to e areciated% the law re,#ires the

resence of the ff re,#isites5 4llness #st diinish the e-ercise of the

willower of the offender% and S#ch illness sho#ld not derive the offender of

conscio#sness of his acts

*or the circ#stance of "a!!#$% a%& $*,u!at#$% of theoffender to e areciated% the law re,#ires the resence of theff re,#isites5

here sho#ld e an act oth #nlawf#l and

s#fficient to rod#ce s#ch condition of ind% and S#ch act wKc rod#ced the of#scation was not

far reoved fro the coission of the crie aconsiderale len+th of tie% d#rin+ wKc the eretratori+ht recover his oral e,#aniit

he defense never resented an edical record of the acc#sed

nor was a schiatrist resented to validate the defense ofinsanit ?one of the eleents=re,#isites were roved to eresent E in his testion% "avier even stated that he was notealo#s of his wife 9,#all iortant% the defense% d#rin+ the trial%never alle+ed the aove=claied iti+atin+ circ#stances ofillness E assion E of#scation% th#s wea.enin+ the case ofacc#sed=aellant he alle+ed iti+atin+ circ#stances are ereaftertho#+ht to whittle (to shae) down his criinal liailit

. WON (e !($u'& *e !e%te%e t$ !u,,er a '$)er "e%a't2@es he crie of arricide% not ein+ a caital crie er se isnot #nishale andator death enalt #t the fle-ileenal t of reclusion perpetua to death% two indivisileenalties he alication of the lesser of +reater enaltdeends on the resence of iti+atin+ and a++ravatin+circ#stances h#s% in the asence of an a++ravatin+ oriti+atin+ circ#stance for the acc#sed% the lesser enalt ofreclusion perpetuasho#ld e iosed

$'%+: Aealed decision affired wK odification "avier tos#ffer reclusion perpetua and PhP80 iosed as civil indenitinstead of oral daa+es

NOTES:here is assional of#scation when the crie is coittedd#e to an #ncontrollale #rst of assion so rovo.ed rior #n#stor iroer acts% or d#e to a le+itiate sti#l#s so owerf#l as toovercoe reason

EOLE v. ARA?O [R ?o 1211H6% ]#lv $% 1&&&]

Nature:Motion for Reconsideration of a decision of the SC

Fat!: Marlon Para/o was convicted for rae and fr#stratedhoicide !n Ma 2&% 1&&H% Para/o filed a otion for reconsiderationwhich alle+ed that Para/o was not rovided with a si+n lan+#a+ee-ert 4f the alle+ation sho#ld e roven the #d+eent ofconviction sho#ld e set aside !n *er#ar 10% 1&&$ the co#rtresolved to +rant the #r+ent oni#s otion o hold in aeance consideration of his otion endin+ his

edical e-aination o allow a s#leental otion for reconsideration after his

edical e-aination o s#it the aellant for e-aination a hsician of the

S#ree Co#rtI!!ue:J!? the #d+ent of conviction sho#ld e set asidee'&:@es Aellant was e-ained Geatri/ ! Cr#/ (SC MedicalServices Pscholo+ist) he res#lt of her e-aination was that MrPara/oFs intelli+ence f#nction ased on the oodeno#+h is +a#+ed onthe ild to oderate de+ree of ental retardation with an estiated4V of 60 :is ental a+e on the other hand% is e,#ivalent to H rs E& onths

"#l 2&% 1&&$ Meorand# reort I Prole of Marlon Para/o isthe severe defect or deafness he resence of an or+anic disordercannot e deterined eca#se of the latterFs inailit toco#nicate :owever% soe de+ree of ental retardation was+athered with the #se of WPaer E Pencil estF :is ental a+e isseven ears and nine onths :is 4V is 60

Meorand# reort of 'r Rosa Mendo/a of P: I Mr MarlonPara/o is indeed hearin+ iaired and s#ffers fro entalretardation

estionies of the eole who have .nown Marlon Para/o sincechildhood corroorated the testionies of the edical e-erts heother of Para/o% aran+a chairan% school teacher stated that theaellant was deaf and #te

Gased on the collateral inforation +athered fro ersons whohave .nown the atient since childhood% to+ether with the res#lt ofthe dia+nostic test at P=P: and evidenced the scholo+icalreort% it is now estalished that Marlon Para/o is s#fferin+ fro (1)Profo#nd :earin+


34/61

4ronicall% that aorho#s role that he laed in the lives of the

children% and which enaled hi to a#se the% offers hisalvation fro the death enalt which he deserves he deathenalt contelated for a real +#ardian #nder the aendentsintrod#ced RA ?o H68& cannot e iosed since he doesnot fit into that cate+or

*#rtherore% Art 338 ori+inall rovided onl for sile rae

#nishale recl#sion eret#a% #t RA 7111 introd#cedaendents thereto rovidin+ for ,#alified fors of raecarrin+ the death enalt% that is% when coitted with the #seof deadl weaon or two or ore ersons% when reason or

on the occasion of the rae the victi ecoes insane% or% #nderthe sae circ#stances% a hoicide is coitted

he hoicide in the last two instances in effect created a secial

cole- crie of rae with hoicide he first two attendantcirc#stances are considered as e,#ivalent to ,#alifin+circ#stances since the increase the enalties de+rees% andnot erel as a++ravatin+ circ#stances which effect onl theeriod of the enalt #t do not increase it to a hi+her de+reehe ori+inal rovisions of Article 338 and the aendents ofRA 7111 are still aintained

RA H68& thereafter introd#ced H ore attendant circ#stances

which th#s ,#alifies crie increasin+ the enalt 1 de+reehi+her thro#+h the iosition of the death enalt All these newattendant circ#stances% #st li.e those introd#ced RA7111% arta.e of the nat#re of ,#alifin+ circ#stances% and noterel a++ravatin+ circ#stances% on the sae rationalealread e-lained

V#alifin+ circ#stances #st e roerl leaded in theindictent% otherwise% if roven% the shall e considered onlas a++ravatin+ circ#stance 4nforation filed a+ainst aellantchar+ed onl the felon of sile rae and no attendant,#alifin+ circ#stance was alle+ed h#s% he cannot e#nished with the enalt of death even ass#in+ ar+#endothat he is s#ch a +#ardian ?either can that fact e consideredto a++ravate his liailit as the enalt for sile rae is thesin+le indivisile enalt of recl#sion eret#a

h#s for the ten cries of rae of which he was +#ilt% onl the

enalt of recl#sion eret#a can e iosed

EOLE v. RAMOS [2&6 SCRA 8$& (1&&$)]

Nature:A#toatic Review of a decision of the RC of Pan+asinan !ctoer 16% 1&&8 I 9li/aeth Raos filed a criinal colaint

for rae a+ainst *eliciano M Raos 4t was alle+ed that theaellant was ale to eretrate the felon a+ainst the inorthro#+h the #se of force and intiidation in its e-ec#tion

9li/aeth Raos% a inor of 17 ears old% was raed her

father while her rothers and sisters were

Reference Cases Crim1

Documents

Transcript of Reference Cases Crim1