Case of People of the Guevarra vs. AlmodovarG.R.No. 75256 26January1989

FACTS OF THE CASE:The Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, petitioned the court for a special civil action for certiorari against the Hon. Judge Ignacio Almodovar of the city court of Legaspi. The petitioner, then 11 years old was target shooting with his best friend Teodoro Amine, Jr. and three other children in the backyard in the morning of 29October1984. Unfortunately, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on the left collar bone, w/c then caused his death.

ISSUE OF THE CASE:

Can an 11- year old boy be charged w/ the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence?

HELD:PETITION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND THE TRO EFFECTIVE 17SEPTEMBER1986 IS LIFTED. LET IT BE REMANDED TO THE LOWER COURT FOR TRIAL ON THE MERITS. NO COSTS.

- Intent and discernment are two different concepts. Intent means: a determination to do certain things; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such intent. Discernment means: the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong- While they (intent and discernment) are products of mental processes w/in a person; intent refers to the desired of one’s act (active) while discernment refers to the moral significance that a person ascribes to an act (passive)- Minors 9yrs to 15yrs are presumed to be without criminal capacity; but this presumption may be rebutted if it could be proven that they were capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of the act, that is, that (they) acted w/ discernment- Discernment is embraced w/in the concept of intelligence w/c is one of the elements of a culpable felony, thus it is important that a minor 9yrs to below 15 yrs of age to have acted w/ discernment to show that he acted w/ intelligence thus being liable for the offense under Art 365 of the R.PC

GIOVANI SERRANO Y CERVANTES V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 175023, 5 July 2010

Facts:

A brawl involving 15 to 18 members of two (2) rival groups resulted to the stabbing of Anthony Galang (victim) by the herein petitioner, Giovanni Serrano. During the rumble, the victim was stabbed at the left side of his stomach and was beaten until he fell into a nearby creek. In his fallen position, Galang claimed that when he inspected his stabbed wound he saw a portion of his intestines showed. The victim received medical attention, stayed in the hospital for one week and thereafter stayed home for one month to recuperate.

The RTC held that the crime committed reached the frustrated stage since the victim was stabbed on the left side of his stomach and that the victim had to be referred from an infirmary to hospital for medical treatment.

On the other hand, the CA ruled that the crime committed only reached the attempted stage as there was lack of evidence that the stab wound inflicted was fatal to cause the victim’s death. It was observed that the attending physician did not testify in court and that the Medical Certificate and the Discharge Summary issued by the hospital fell short of “specifying the nature or gravity of the wound.” 

Issue:

Whether the accused is guilty of attempted homicide instead of frustrated homicide.

Held:

Yes. The crucial point to consider is the nature of the wound inflicted which must be supported by independent proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause the victim’s death without timely medical intervention. When nothing in the evidence shows that the wound would be fatal without medical intervention, the character of the wound enters the realm of doubt; under this situation, the doubt created by the lack of evidence should be resolved in favor of the petitioner.  Thus, the crime committed should be attempted, not frustrated homicide.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NGANO SUGAN, et.alG.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011

Facts:

At around 6:45 p.m. of  February 8, 1998, Gaga, Saligo, Ngano Sugan, Nga Ben Latam and one alias Francing, all armed with guns, entered Fortunato Delos Reyes’ residence Surallah, South Cotabato, and declared a hold up. Kamison and Cosme Latam stayed outside and acted as lookouts.

Once inside, the armed men ordered Fortunato, his wife, Thelma, and their son, Nestor, to drop to the floor. The armed men inquired from them where the money and other valuables were hidden; thereafter, they took cash, personal belongings, and an air gun. Ngano then brought Nestor outside the house, and shot him. Reggie, another son of Fortunato, rushed to the scene, but Kamison and Cosme prevented him from entering the house by pointing a knife and a gun at him, respectively.  Thereafter, all the seven (7) armed men fled together. Nestor was rushed to the hospital, but died due to multiple gunshot wounds.

Issue:

Whether conspiracy is attendant to the crime thereby holding guilty all the accused as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide.

Held:

Yes. While it was only Ngano who shot Nestor, the appellants were found liable for robbery with homicide.  Case law establishes that whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused – before, during and after the commission of the crime – which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence of the offense; it is sufficient that at the time of its

commission, the malefactors had the same purpose and were united in its execution.

The foregoing circumstances prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants acted in concert to attain a common purpose. The evidence does not show that any of the appellants sought to avert the killing of Nestor. As in People of the Philippines v. Nonoy Ebet, it was ruled that once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.

Case Digest on People v. Sultan G.R. No. 132470(April 27, 2000)

Facts

The victim was abducted by the appellant, who brought her to his

house. When they arrived at the appellant’s house the victim was

divested of her jewelry and other valuables, afterwhich she was raped

several times.  The appellant was convicted of the special complex

crime of robbery with homicide. Whether multiple rape can be

considered as an aggravating circumstance.

HELD:

No. In several cases the Court realized that there was no law

providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to

be considered as aggravating circumstance. It further observed that

the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the

Revised Penal Code is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code

which enumerates the mitigating circumstances where analogous

circumstances may be considered, hence, the remedy lies with the

legislature. Consequently, unless and until a law is passed providing

that the additional rape/s or homicide/s may be considered

aggravating, the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the

offender as no person may be brought within its terms if he is not

clearly made so by the statute. Under this view, the additional rape

committed by accused-appellant is not considered an aggravating

circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. (2), of the Revised Penal Code

which provides that “(i)n all cases in which the law prescribes a

penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules

shall be observed in the application thereof x x x x 2. (w)hen there

are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission

of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied,” the lower penalty

of reclusion perpetuashould be imposed on accused-appellant. Spp

Raymund Madali and Rodel Madali vs. People of the Philippines

GR 180380 (August 4, 2009)

Facts:

Petitioners inflicted physical injuries to the victim which caused the latter’s death. At the time of the crime, Raymund and Rodel were minors – 14 years old and 16 years old respectively. The lower court found them guilty of homicide. Petitioners elevated the case to the CA and during the pendency of the appeal, RA 9344 took effect.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners should be exempted from criminal liability.

HELD

Yes. At the time of the commission of the crime, petitioners were minors. By provisions of RA 9344, they are exempted from liability but not from criminal liability. Their exemption however differs. In the case of Raymund, the case is dismissed as to him since he was below 15 years old. He is to be released and custody is given to the parents by virtue of RA 9344 Secs. 6 and 20 – setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility and who will have custody respectively. In the case of Rodel, who was 16 years old at that time, It is necessary to determine whether he acted with discernment or not. Sec 6 provides that children above 15 but below 18 will be exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with discernment. He, however, should be subjected to an intervention program. Sec 38 provides for the automatic suspension of sentence.

U.S. v. AH SING [36 Phil. 978 (1917)]Cf. French vs. English rule

Facts: The defendant is a subject of China employed as a fireman on a steamship. The steamship is a foreign steamer which arrived the port of Cebu on April 25, 1917, after a voyage direct from the port of Saigon. The defendant bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon, brought them on board the steamship and had them in his possession during the trip from Saigon to Cebu. When the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu, the authorities on making the search found the cans of opium hidden in the ashes below the boiler of the steamer's engine. The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in Saigon. He did not confess, however, as to his purpose in buying the opium. He did not say that it was his intention to import the prohibited drug.

Issue: WON the crime of illegal importation of opium into the Philippine Islands has been proven?

Held: Yes. It is the onus of the government to prove that the vessel from which the drug discharged came into Philippine waters from a foreign country with the drug on board. In this case, it is to be noted that §4 of Act No. 2381 begins, “Any person who shall unlawfully import or bring any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands…” Import and bring should be construed as synonymous terms. The mere act of going into a port, without breaking bulk, is prima facie evidence of importation. The importation is not the making entry of goods at the customhouse, but merely the bringing them into the port, and the importation is complete before the entry to the customhouse. Moreover, possession for personal use is unlikely, judging from the size of the amount brought.

INTOD V. CA [215 SCRA 52 (1992)]

Facts: Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. They fired at her room. However, she was in another city then thus they hit no one.

Issue: WON he is liable for attempted murder?

Held: No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an impossible crime—an act which, were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate would constitute a felony against person or family. Its purpose is to punish criminal tendencies. There must either be (1) legal responsibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:

(1) The motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;

(2) There is no intention to perform the physical act;(3) There is a performance of the intended physical act; and(4) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not

amount to a crime.

Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control prevent consummation of intended crime.

Factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality, the crime was impossible of commission. Legal impossibility on the other hand is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for an attempt. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.

U.S. v. ADIAO [38 Phil. 754 (1955)]

Facts: Tomas Adiao, customs inspector, got a leather bag costing P0.80 from baggage of T. Murakami and kept it in his desk where it was found by other employees

Issue: WON act is consummated theft?

Held: Yes. Aggravating Circumstance, public possession

1.He performed all acts of execution as required by RPC Art. 3. He didn’t need to take it out of the building

2.Spanish Supreme Court: taking first caught by police still consummated no proof of contrary; pickpocket got money but returned it later on, still consummated; took money even if it’s on top of safe, still consummated.

PEOPLE v. LAMAHANG [61 Phil. 703 (1935)]

Facts: Aurelio Lamahang was caught opening with an iron bar a wall of a store of cheap goods in Fuentes St. Iloilo. He broke one board and was unfastening another when a patrolling police caught him. Owners of the store were sleeping inside store as it was early dawn. Convicted of attempt of robbery

Issue: WON crime is attempted robbery?Held: No. Attempted trespass to dwelling. Attempt should have logical relation to a particular and concrete offense which would lead directly to consummation. Necessary to establish unavoidable connection & logical & natural relation of cause and effect. Important to show clear intent to commit crime. In case at bar, we can only infer that his intent was to enter by force, other inferences are not justified by facts. Groizard: infer only from nature of acts executed. Acts susceptible of double interpretation can’t furnish ground for themselves. Mind should not directly infer intent. Spain SC: necessary that objectives established or acts themselves obviously disclose criminal objective.

PEOPLE v. BINDOY [56 Phil. 15 (1931)]

Facts: On May 6, 1930, Donato Bindoy offered some tuba to Tibay, Faustino Pacas' wife. She refused and Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept. Pacas stepped in to defend his wife and attempted to take away from Bindoy the bolo he carried. The disturbance attracted the attention of Emigdio Omamdam. In the course of the struggle, Bindoy succeeded in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter's hand, with such violence that the point of the bolo reached Omamdam's chest, who was then behind Bindoy. The trial court held that Bindoy was guilty of the crime of homicide. Bindoy appealed, alleging that the death of Omamdam was caused accidentally and without malicious intent.

Issue: WON the crime of which Bindoy was found guilty of can be mitigated on the ground of accident.

Held: Yes. Decision is reversed. Bindoy is acquitted according to Article 8, No. 8 of the Revised Penal Code

Ratio:

1.There is no evidence to show that Bindoy deliberately and intentionally killed Omamdam. No evidence that Omamdam took part in the fight between Bindoy and

Pacas. No evidence that Bindoy was aware of Omamdam's presence. No evidence that there was disagreement or ill feelings between

Bindoy & Omamdam. On the contrary, they were nephew & uncle, & were on good terms with each other.

2.The witness for the defense corroborates the defendant to the effect that Pacas and Bindoy were actually struggling for the possession of the bolo, and that when the latter let go, the former had pulled so violently that it flew towards Omamdam, who was therefore hit in the chest, without Bindoy's seeing him, because Omamdam had passed behind him. The testimony of this witness was not contradicted by any rebuttal evidence adduced by the fiscal.

3.If, in the struggle, the defendant had attempted to wound his opponent, and instead of doing so, had wounded Omamdam, he would be liable for his act, since whoever willfully commits a felony or a misdemeanor incurs criminal liability, although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended.This is not the case here. Bindoy did not try to wound Pacas. He

was only trying to defend his possession of the bolo, which Pacas was trying to wrench away from him. His conduct was perfectly lawful.

PEOPLE v. BANDIAN [63 Phil 530 (1936)]

Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Oriental Misamis

Facts: One morning, Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor, Josefina Bandian, got to a thicket apparently to respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later, Bandian emerged from the thicket with her clothes stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly showing signs of not being able to support herself. Rushing to her aid, he brought her to her house and placed her on the bed. He called on Adriano Comcom to help them Comcom saw he body of a newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments before. She claimed it was hers. Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her own house and three her child into the thicket to kill it. The trial court gave credit to this opinion.

Issue: WON Bandian is guilty of infanticide

Held: No. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be committed willfully or consciously, or at least it must be the result of a voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. The evidence does not show that the appellant, in causing her child’s death in one way or another, or in abandoning it in the thicket, did so willfully, consciously or imprudently. She had no cause to kill or abandon it, to expose it to death, because her affair with a former lover, which was not unknown to her second lover, Kirol, took place three years before the incident; her married life with Kirol—she considers him her husband as he considers him his wife—began a year ago; as he so testified at the trial, he knew of the pregnancy and that it was his and that they’ve been eagerly awaiting the birth of the child. The appellant, thus, had no cause to be ashamed o her pregnancy to Kirol.

Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was unable, due to her debility or dizziness, which cause may be considered lawful or insuperable to constitute the 7th exempting circumstance, to take her child from the thicket where she had given it birth, so as not to leave it abandoned and exposed to the danger of losing its life. If by going into the thicket to pee, she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in that same place and later abandoning it, not because of imprudence or any other reason than that she was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she could not be blamed because it all happened by mere accident, with no fault or intention on her part. The law exempts from liability any person who so acts and behaves under such circumstances (RPC A12(4)). Thus, having the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances in her favor, she is acquitted of the crime that she had been accused of.

U.S. v. HICKS [14 Phil. 217 (1909)]

Facts: For about 5 years, the accused and the deceased lived illicitly in the manner of husband and wife. Afterwards, the deceased separated from the accused and lived with another man. The accused enraged by such conduct, killed the deceased.

Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted with obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such which originate from legitimate feelings, and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy and immoral passions.

PEOPLE v. SIMON [34 SCRA 555 (1994)]

Nature: Appeal from a judgment of Guagua, Pampanga RTC

Facts: Oct. 22, 1988, Pampanga. Martin Simon was convicted of violating RA 6425 AII §4 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) through a NARCOM poser-buyer. It was appealed for reversal alleging it was a frame-up (testimonies & evidence proved otherwise) & evidence was inadmissible (held, because there was no counsel).

Issue: WON correct penalty applied?

Held: No. Conviction modified. There was overlapping error in the law thus the SC had to harmonize conflicting provisions by providing for degrees of graduation. Rule: degrees applied depending on quantity then apply mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Least penalty should be prision correccional so as not to depreciate seriousness of crime. Justified in applying RPC provisions because law adopted penalties under RPC in their technical terms thus significations and effects will also apply. It rules in people v. Tsang Hin Wai that when special law grants discretion to SC to apply penalties, Code won’t be held. Otherwise, SC should be guided by rules in RPC that being the expert in criminal law administration.

United States vs Eduave36 phil. 209

Facts:

The accused was living with the victim as the querido of her mother, as such at the time of the crime was committed. The accused rushed upon the girl suddenly and struck her from behind, in part at least, with a sharp bolo, producing a frightful gash in the lumber region and slightly to the side eight and one-half inches long and two inches deep, severing all of the muscles and tissues of that part. The accused stated that he was incensed at the girl because he was falsely charged of raped and the cause of her pregnancy. The accused is guilty of frustrated murder by the court of first instance of Misamis.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder

Whether or not the felony committed is frustrated and not attempted

Ruling:

The judgment was affirmed by the appellate court, because of the circumstances of alevosia, sudden attack from the rear constitutes treachery

The case is clearly a frustrated murder, the offender perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as what is stated in the art. 3 of penal code. There was no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the commission of the crime and the moment when all of the acts have been performed which result in the consummated crime, the subjective phase was already complete.