SURVEY OF CASES IN CRIMINAL LAW

January-December 2012 Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra

Book I
CRIMINAL LIABILITY Villareal vs. People, GR No. 151258, 1 February 2012; People vs. CA, GR No. 154954, 1 February 2012; Dizon vs. People, GR No. 155101, 1 February 2012. Accused cannot be held criminally liable for physical injuries when actual death occurs. Accused shall be liable for the consequences of an act, even if its result is different from that intended The accused were members of a fraternity, the victim was their neophyte. In the course of the initiation, the condition of the victim deteriorated due to the physical beatings, a traditional form of initiation, employed by the accused. When the victims condition worsened, they rushed the victim to a hospital where he was declared dead on arrival. The accused were convicted of slight physical injuries by the CA. According to the CA,
Based on the medical findings, it would appear that with the exclusion of the fatal wounds inflicted by the accused Dizon and Villareal, the injuries sustained by the victim as a result of the physical punishment heaped on him were serious in nature. However, by reason of the death of the victim, there can be no precise means to determine the duration of the incapacity or the medical attendance required. To do so, at this stage would be merely speculative. In a prosecution for this crime where the category of the offense and the severity of the penalty depend on the period of illness or incapacity for labor, the length of this period must likewise be proved beyond reasonable doubt in much the same manner as the same act charged [People v. Codilla, CA-GR No. 4079-R, June 26, 1950]. And when proof of the said period is absent, the crime committed should be deemed only as slight physical injuries [People v. De los Santos, CA, 59 O.G. 4393, citing People v. Penesa, 81 Phil. 398]. As such, this Court is constrained to rule that the injuries inflicted by the appellants, Tecson, Ama, Almeda and Bantug, Jr., are only slight and not serious, in nature. (Emphasis supplied and citations included)

Attributing the criminal liability solely to Villareal and Dizon is contrary to the CAs own findings. The death of the victim was due to the cumulative effect of the multiple injuries he suffered. The only logical conclusion is that the criminal responsibility should redound to all those who have been proven to have directly participated in the infliction of physical injuries on the victim. The accumulation of bruising on the victims body caused him to suffer cardiac arrest. The accused should be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. The accused cannot be convicted of slight physical injuries because the victim died because of their collective acts. Article 4(1) of the RPC states that the accused shall be liable for the consequences of an act, even if its result is different from that intended. Thus, once a person is found to have committed an initial felonious act, courts are required to automatically apply the legal framework governing the destruction of life under Articles 246 to 261 for intentional felonies or Article 365 for culpable felonies, not under physical injuries.

PROXIMATE CAUSE Sabiniano Dumayag vs. People, GR No. 172778, November 26, 2012. In this case, a bus driven by Sabiniano collided with a tricycle resulting in the death of four (4) persons and causing physical injuries to five (5) others, who were all passengers of the tricycle. During the incident, the tricycle was overtaking another vehicle while approaching a blind curve when it suddenly swerved to the bus drivers lane. The bus collided with the tricycle. The cases of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries were filed against the accused. Records show that the bus driver was driving fast when the collision happened. The Supreme Court said that the negligence of the tricycle driver and not Sabinianos is the proximate cause which caused the mishap to happen. Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. Proximate legal cause is that act first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom. The evidence shows that before the collision, the tricycle was overtaking another vehicle while approaching a blind curve, in violation of Sec. 37 of R.A. No. 4136. If not for the act of the driver of the tricycle, the accident would not have occurred. Moreover, the records show that the tricycle was carrying eight (8) people. It was overloaded. The Supreme Court also reiterated the definition of reckless imprudence as that which consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. In order to establish a motorists liability for the negligent operation of a vehicle, it must be shown that there was a direct causal connection between such negligence and the injuries or damages complained of. Thus, to constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act must be something more than a mere negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, and a willful and wanton disregard of the consequences is required. The immediate and proximate cause being the act of the driver of the tricycle, the petitioner should be acquitted. However, he is still civilly liable. The records of the case show that there is contributory negligence on his part. Even though he knew that there was a curve ahead, he still sped up his driving.

ATTEMPTED FELONIES People vs. Figueroa, GR No. 186141, 11 April 2012. The accused was convicted for violating Sec. 26 of R.A. No. 9165 or the attempted sale of dangerous drugs. There is an attempt to commit a crime when the offender commences its commission directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of
2

execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. This definition has essentially been adopted by R.A. No. 9165.

CONSPIRACY People vs. Castro, GR No. 187073, 14 March 2012. Although the prosecution witness did not see who shot the victim, she positively identified all of the accused who went inside the store, took the victims beltbag, and the ones who fled the scene of the crime thereafter. The witness testified that she heard three (3) gunshots, and when the accused fled, she entered the store again and found the victim lying on the floor in his own blood. The exact identity of the one who shot the victim and took the bag from him is not material. All of the accused are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide since the existence of conspiracy among them in the commission of the robbery makes the act of one the act of all. 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. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. People vs. Delabajan, GR No. 192180, 21 March 2012. The accused is convicted of two (2) counts of rape for having carnal knowledge, through threats and intimidation, with a blind woman, against her will. The victim, although blind, was able to identify the accused through their voices because they were neighbors. The Court found the detailed narration made by the victim clear, convincing, and credible. Conspiracy exists when the acts of the accused demonstrate a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose. Here, the acts of the two accused clearly showed a unity of action. Both accused entered the house of the victim at the same time; they both ordered her to lie down and threatened to kill her if she refused; accused Kino undressed her while accused Delabajan tied her hands; Delabajan held the victims feet while Kino had carnal knowledge with her; and then Delabajan took his turn in having carnal knowledge with the victim. The accused performed these acts with such closeness and coordination to indicate an unmistakable common purpose or design to commit the felony. Thus, they are each liable for two (2) counts of rape on account of their conspiracy. People vs. Angelio, GR No. 197540, 27 February 2012. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It can be inferred from the circumstances where all of the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense. Conspiracy is sufficiently established when the concerted acts of the accused show the same
3

purpose or common design and are united in its execution. The testimony of the eyewitness proves the overt acts of the two accused showing conspiracy. First, they flagged down the tricycle driven by the victim. Second, accused Olaso went inside the tricycle cab while accused Angelio sat at the back of the driver. Third, while Angelio embraced and held the driver, Olaso stabbed the victim. And fourth, they immediately fled after the incident. When there is conspiracy, it is not important who delivered the fatal blow since the act of one is the act of all. Thus, Angelio is equally liable with Olaso, even if he did not stab the victim. People vs. Mamaruncas, GR No. 179497, 25 January 2012. Conspiracy exists "when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary x x x [as it] may be shown through circumstantial evidence, deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such lead to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest." All three accused went to the shop together and all three shot the victim while he was unarmed and defenseless. These circumstances show that there was unanimity in design, intent, and execution. The acts were performed with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose and design in the commission of the crime. People vs. Medice, GR No. 181701, 18 January 2012. The accused is charged of the crime of murder. It was alleged that the accused, along with Dollendo went out to look for the victim. Dollendo, accompanied by the accused Medice, with the use of a bolo, stabbed the victim causing the latters death. The aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were also alleged in the information. The accused alleged that it was Dollendo, not him, who stabbed the victim. In conspiracy, to be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act. The acts of the accused of looking for the victim, fetching Dollendo to bring him to the victim, giving Dollendo the bolo, and their fleeing after the commission of the crime are acts which, taken collectively, show the community of criminal design to kill the victim. Once conspiracy is proven, the act of one is the act of all. Marquez vs. People, GR No. 181138, 3 December 2012. Accused are charged with and convicted of the crime of robbery with force upon things for robbing a Rice-in-a-Box store. The accused used a lead pipe to destroy the lock of the store. The store was only being leased by the owner of the Rice-in-a-Box and uses it for purely commercial purposes only. From the testimony of one of the co-conspirators, it was proven that conspiracy was present in this case. Everyone acted in concert to ensure the execution of the crime, showing their unity of purpose and design. It must be stressed that what is important in conspiracy is that all conspirators performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate an unmistakably common purpose or design to commit the crime. The responsibility of the conspirators is therefore collective rendering all of them equally liable regardless of the extent of their respective participation.

People vs. Alberto M. Baso alias Dodong et al., GR No. 189820, 10 October 2012. In this case, ten armed people entered the house of the complainant. The armed men identified themselves as members of the New Peoples Army (NPA), pointed the gun at the members of the complainants family, and said that they would not be harmed if they give them money. During this time, some of the men acted as look-out while others proceeded to hogtie the other members of the family. Some of them took the complainant upstairs where they took money, jewelries and other items amounting to 87,000.00. Dissatisfied with the amount, they demanded another P3,000,000.00 be given to them. The complainant was unable to satisfy their demand, and so, they took her husband who is a Japanese national. They threatened that if the complainant did not give them P3,000,000.00 her husband would be killed. After seven days, and without receiving the money, the accused released the complainants husband. A complaint for Robbery with Violence and Intimidation of Persons by a Band and Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention was filed against the accused. They were subsequently convicted by the trial court. Some of them appealed their conviction. The Court pronounced that conspiracy is present in this case. Under Art. 8 of the RPC, there is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime which, when taken altogether, would be enough to reveal a community of criminal design, as the proof of conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances. To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. The community of criminal design of the accused could be inferred from their clearly designated roles when perpetrating the deed.

Benjamin A. Umipig vs. People, Renato B. Palomo and Margie C. Mabitad vs. People, Carmencita Fontanilla-Payabyab vs. People, GR No. 171359, GR No. 171755, GR No. 171776, July 18, 2012. The above named accused were public officers of National Maritime Polytechnic (NMP), an attached agency of the Department of Labor and Employment. They were charged with violation of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because of their gross negligence which resulted in great prejudice to the government. Sometime in 1995, the NMP undertook an expansion program. For this reason, a team was created to look for a site in Cavite, and a suitable location was thereafter found. Palomo started negotiating with a person named Solis who represented himself as an Attorney-in-Fact of the registered owners of the land. Although some legal infirmities in the documents related to the sale were noted, the sale of the land took place, in deliberate disregard of existing rules. However, after the purchase of the lot, Solis disappeared. Upon inquiry, it was found out that the Special Power of Attorney presented by Solis was fake. The accused are those public officers engaged in the transaction.

The Court found the accused to be in conspiracy with one another when the accused authorized the payments on the second purchase in utter disregard for the rules. Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The existence of the assent of minds which is involved in a conspiracy may be, and from the secrecy of the crime, usually must be, inferred by the court from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, apparently indicate that they are merely parts of some complete whole. If it is proved that two or more persons, by their acts, aim towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, although apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiments, then a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. Thus, the proof of conspiracy, which is essentially hatched under cover and out of view of others than those directly concerned, is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances only. The fraudulent transaction could not have happened without the participation of the accused who were the Executive Director, Administrative Officer, and Chief Accountant of NMP. People vs. Nazareno, GR No. 196434, October 24, 2012. During a wake, the victim was drinking liquor with the accused and a co-accused who remains at-large when a heated argument between them arose. The next evening and upon encountering the victims party again, the accused hit the victim with a stick while his co-accused hit the victims head with a rock. The victim tried to flee but the two accused pursued him. The assault stopped when some barangay tanods intervened. The victim died because of the resulting fracture in his head. Conspiracy is present in this case. There is conspiracy when two or more persons to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Actions indicating close personal association and shared sentiment among the accused can prove its presence. Proof that the perpetrators met beforehand and decided to commit the crime is not necessary as long as their acts manifest a common design and oneness of purpose. The concerted actions of the two accused in this case shows conspiracy. Posiquit vs. People, GR No. 193943, 16 January 2012. The accused alleged that the Court of Appeals was not correct in affirming the decision of the trial court convicting them for violating R.A. 9165. It is his contention that the CA wrongly appreciated the circumstance of conspiracy in convicting him with the said offense. Contrary to the contention of the accused, the crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist; the circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. Villareal vs. People, GR No. 151258, 1 February 2012; People vs. CA, GR No. 154954, 1 February 2012; Dizon vs. People, GR No. 155101, 1 February 2012. Conspiracy applies only to felonies committed by means of dolo or malice. The Solicitor General filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 challenging the decision of the CA acquitting 19 of the accused and convicting 4 of the accused of the crime

of slight physical injuries. It is his contention that everyone should have been found guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries based on conspiracy among the accused. The SC ruled that there was no conspiracy in this case. The existence of malicious intent is necessary in order for conspiracy to attach. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it" is to be interpreted to refer only to felonies committed by means of dolo or malice. The phrase "coming to an agreement" connotes the existence of a prefaced "intent" to cause injury to another, an element present only in intentional felonies. In culpable felonies or criminal negligence, the injury inflicted on another is unintentional, the wrong done being simply the result of an act performed without malice or criminal design. Here, a person performs an initial lawful deed; however, due to negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill, the deed results in a wrongful act. Verily, a deliberate intent to do an unlawful act, which is a requisite in conspiracy, is inconsistent with the idea of a felony committed by means of culpa. The presence of an initial malicious intent to commit a felony is thus a vital ingredient in establishing the commission of the intentional felony of homicide. Being mala in se, the felony of homicide requires the existence of malice or dolo immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill or animus interficendi cannot and should not be inferred, unless there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of such intent. Furthermore, the victims death must not have been the product of accident, natural caus e, or suicide. If death resulted from an act executed without malice or criminal intent but with lack of foresight, carelessness, or negligence the act must be qualified as reckless or simple negligence or imprudence resulting in homicide.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; SELF-DEFENSE; DEFENSE OF STRANGERS People vs. Gonzales, GR No. 195534, 13 June 2012. Self-defense, as a justifying circumstance, implies the admission by the accused that he committed the acts which would have been criminal in character had it not been for the presence of the circumstances whose legal consequences negate the commission of a crime. By invoking it, the accused admitted that he shot the victim. With this admission, the burden of evidence shifted to the accused to prove that he acted in accordance with the law. The elements of self-defense are as follows: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. No self-defense can exist without unlawful aggression since there is no attack that the accused will have to prevent or repel. Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action, or only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to ones life. In this case, the element of unlawful aggression is patently absent. There is no evidence showing any circumstance that the accuseds life was in danger when he met the victim. There was no evidence proving the gravity of the utterances and the actuations allegedly made by the victim indicating his unlawful intent to injure the accused. In fact, the

accused was armed while the victim was unarmed, and it was the accused that fired at the direction of the victim. In addition, the accuseds claim of self-defense is belied by his own conduct after the shooting. Self-defense loses its credibility given the accuseds flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities about the incident. Records show that the accused went into hiding for four (4) years after he was criminally charged. People vs. Fontanilla, GR No. 177743, 25 January 2012. The accused was charged with Murder for assaulting and striking the victim on the head with a long coconut night stick and a stone. Treachery and evident premeditation were appreciated as qualifying circumstances. As his defense, the accused claimed self-defense. According to him, he was standing on the road near his house when the drunk victim suddenly boxed and kicked him, that he was forced to defend himself and struck the victim on the head with a stone. In order for self-defense to be appreciated, the following elements should be proved: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The element of unlawful aggression is an indispensable requirement. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself, the peril must not be imagined or imaginary threat. The elements of unlawful aggression are: (a) there must be a physical or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful. There are two kinds of unlawful aggression: (a) actual or material unlawful aggression, and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. The latter must be an attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude nor merely imaginary; it must be offensive and positively strong. By invoking self-defense, the accused admitted that he was the author of the killing of the victim. Thus, it becomes his duty to prove, by sufficient and satisfactory proof, the elements of the justifying circumstance. The accused failed to prove the justifying circumstance of self-defense. First, the victim did not commit unlawful aggression upon the accused. There was no evidence presented showing the injuries that the accused suffered because of the unlawful aggression of the victim. Second, the object used by the accused and the location and injury suffered by the victim showed that there was intent to kill on the part of the accused. The use of a stone was not proportional to the alleged punches and kicks delivered by the victim. The wound was located at the back of the head and the victim was struck at the same location more than once proving that there was treachery and it was not an effort of self-defense. Nacnac vs. People, GR No. 191913, 21 March 2012. The requisites for a valid self-defense are: (a) unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are
8

present. It would presuppose an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude but most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. There is aggression in contemplation of the law only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to ones life. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not just speculative. The act of the victim of allegedly drawing a gun from his waist cannot be categorized as unlawful aggression. It did not put in real peril the life or personal safety of the accused. However, the Court still considered unlawful aggression to be present given the unique circumstances of the case. According to the Court, the following circumstances should be considered: (a) the drunken state of the victim; (b) the victim was also a police officer who was professionally trained at shooting; (c) the accused fired a warning shot; (d) a lawful order of the accused was ignored by the victim; and (e) the victim was known for his combative and drunken behavior. The accused was, therefore, justified in defending himself from an inebriated and disobedient colleague. The means employed must be reasonably commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted. The lone gunshot was a reasonable means chosen by the accused in defending himself in view of the proximity of the armed victim, his drunken state, disobedience of an unlawful order, and failure to stand down despite a warning shot. The accused gave the victim a lawful order and fired a warning shot before shooting the armed and drunken victim. There was no evidence on record that the accused provoked the victim prior to the shooting. People vs. Marcial Malicdem y Molina, GR No. 184601; November 12, 2012. The accused was convicted of murder for the death of Wilson Molina. He claims that he stabbed Wilson out of self-defense. However, the testimony of his wife says that Wilson fell on the knife as Wilson and the accused were grappling for the knife. The Supreme Court reiterated that in order for a claim of self-defense to prosper, the following essential elements have to be proven: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. Citing Toledo vs. People, the Court further stated that the claim of self-defense is not consistent with the claim that accident is the cause of the death of the victim. There is no such defense as accidental self-defense in the realm of criminal law. Self-defense under Art. 11, par. 1 of the RPC necessarily implies a deliberate and positive overt act of the accused to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression of another with the use of reasonable means. The defense is based on necessity which is the supreme and irresistible master of men of all human affairs, and of the law. From necessity, and limited by it, proceeds the right of selfdefense. The right begins when necessity does, and ends where it ends. On the other hand, the basis of exempting circumstances under Art. 12 of the RPC is the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. The basis of the exemption under Art. 12, par. 4 of the RPC, which provides for accident as an exempting circumstance, is lack of negligence and intent.

By admitting killing the victim in self-defense or by accident without fault or without intention of causing it, the burden is shifted to the accused to prove such affirmative defenses. He should rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. If the accused fails to prove his affirmative defense, he can no longer be acquitted. Josue vs. People, GR No. 199579, 10 December 2012; People vs. Efren Laurio y Rosales, GR No. 182523, September 13, 2012; People vs. Del Castillo, GR No. 169084, 18 January 2012 (same doctrines as stated above).

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE; INSANITY People vs. Edwin Isla Y Rossell, GR No. 199875, 21 November 2012. According to the victims account, she and her children were inside their house when she noticed the accused standing by the kitchen door. The accused then poked a knife at her. The accused proceeded to close the window and the door of the living room and dragged the victim inside the bedroom. Inside the bedroom, the accused successfully had carnal knowledge of the victim while pointing the knife at her. After the act, the victim saw that the knife was already bloodied. She tried to wrestle the knife away from the accused but the accused stabbed her again. The accused admitted raping and stabbing the victim but he interposed the defense of insanity. Two doctors were presented to substantiate his claim of insanity, both of which testified that he was suffering from a major depressive disorder with psychotic features, but since there was no examination on the day the incident happened, they could not be certain that the accused was not lucid during the incident. Two (2) sets of Information were filed against the accused. The first information alleges rape. The second information imputes the crime of frustrated murder against the accused and alleges treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength as qualifying circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused. It said that insanity is the exception rather than the rule in the human condition. Under Art. 800 of the Civil Code, the presumption is that every human in sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence. It is in the nature of confession and avoidance and an accused invoking insanity admits to have committed the crime but claims that he or she is not guilty because of insanity. The testimony or proof of the insanity of the accused must, however, relate to the time immediately preceding or simultaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged. In this case, the defense failed to overcome the presumption of sanity. Moreover, the Court adopted the observation of the RTC when it said that the overt acts of the accused are of a criminal mind and not of a lunatic. There was no indication whatsoever that he was completely deprived of reason or discernment when he discreetly closed the door and windows and pointed the knife at the victim. These are calculated means to ensure the consummation of his lewd design. With respect to the stabbings, the Court said that the accused committed two acts one while he was still raping the victim and another after the act. Further, the Court considers the first stabbing and the rape as one continuous act, the stabbing being necessary for the successful perpetration of the crime. The second stabbing, on the other hand, is a separate and distinct offense as it was not a necessary means to commit the rape.

10

MITIGATING CIRSUMSTANCE; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER People vs. Del Castillo, GR No. 169084, 18 January 2012. The accused were charged with the crime of murder for repeatedly hacking and stabbing the victims with the use of bolos. Invoking self-defense and defense of strangers, the accused alleged that the victims held the hand of Winifreda, their companion and relative, and were about to draw something from their waists. Believing that the victim will draw a weapon, the accused drew their bolos and used it against the victim. The elements of voluntary surrender are: (a) the accused has not been actually arrested; (b) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latters agent; and (c) surrender is voluntary. Voluntary surrender was not appreciated in this case. The last requisite was not present. The surrender must be spontaneous, indicating the intent of the accused to unconditionally submit himself to the authorities because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessary for his search and capture. However, the accused went to the barangay chairman, not to surrender himself, but because he was seeking for protection against the retaliation of the victims relatives.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; MINORITY People vs. Villaflores, GR No. 184926, 11 April 2012. Art. 266-B of the RPC states that the death penalty shall be imposed if the victim of the crime of rape is below seven (7) years old. This article declared tender age of the victim as an aggravating circumstance in rape. People vs. Padigos, GR No. 181202, 5 December 2012. Two Informations were filed against the accused, the father of the victim, namely: (a) the crime of rape in relation to R.A. No. 7610; and (b) acts of lasciviousness in relation to R.A. No. 7610. In People v. Pruna, the Court formulated a set of guidelines that will serve as a jurisprudential benchmark in appreciating age either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance in order to address the seemingly conflicting court decisions regarding the sufficiency of evidence of the victims age in rape cases. The Pruna guidelines are as follows: 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40,

11

Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victims mother or relatives concerning the victims age, the complainants testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. 6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. (Citation omitted.) In the case at bar, the prosecution may have been unable to present the victims birth certificate or other authentic document such as a baptismal certificate during trial. However, the accuseds own counter affidavit stated that the victim was below 7 years of age. This admission from the accused, taken with the testimony of the victim, sufficiently proved the victims minority.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; EVIDENT PREMEDITATION People vs. Adviento, GR No. 175781, 20 March 2012. Evident premeditation is present when two days before the killing of the victim, all of the accused had a conference wherein they agreed and planned to kill the victim. People vs. Edwin Isla y Rossell, GR No. 199875, November 21 2012. According to the victims account, she and her children were inside their house when she noticed the accused standing by the kitchen door. The accused then poked a knife at her. The accused proceeded to close the window and the door of the living room and dragged the victim inside the bedroom. Inside the bedroom, the accused successfully had carnal knowledge of the victim while pointing the knife at her. After the act, the victim saw that the knife was already bloodied. She tried to wrestle the knife away from the accused but the accused stabbed her again. The accused admitted raping and stabbing the victim but he interposed the defense of insanity. Two doctors were presented to substantiate his claim of insanity, both of whom testified he was suffering from a major depressive disorder with psychotic features, but since there was no examination on the day the incident happened, they could not be certain the accused was not lucid during the incident. Two (2) sets of Information were filed against the accused. The first information alleges rape. The second information imputes the crime of frustrated murder against the accused and alleges treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength as qualifying circumstances.
12

The Court said that the attack was not attended with evident premeditation. The elements of evident premeditation are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to commit the crime; (2) overt act/acts manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution sufficient to allow accused to reflect upon the consequence of his acts. These elements are absent in the case at bar. The facts reveal that there was no sufficient lapse of time for the accused to decide on the commission of time and to reflect on the consequences of the act. Moreover, there was no overt act that would show that he clung to his determination to commit murder. The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. When the accused stabbed the victim the second time, it was more of a reaction to the possibility of being disarmed, rather than a well-planned attack to kill her. People vs. Medice, GR No. 181701, 18 January 2012. The accused is charged with the crime of murder. It was alleged that the accused, along with Dollendo went out to look for the victim. Dollendo, accompanied by the accused Medice, with the use of a bolo, stabbed the victim causing the latters death. The aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were also alleged in the information. The elements of evident premeditation are: (a) time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The prosecution was not able to prove that a sufficient amount of time had elapsed to afford the accused the time to reflect on the consequences of their actions. Only two minutes had passed from the time the accused were looking for the victim to the time of the attack.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH People vs. Chito Nazareno, GR No. 196434, October 24, 2012. During a wake, the victim was drinking liquor with the accused and a co-accused who remains at large when a heated argument between them arose. The next evening and upon encountering the victims party again, the accused hit the victim with a stick while his co-accused hit the victims head with a rock. The victim tried to flee but the two accused pursued him. The assault stopped when some barangay tanods intervened. The victim died because of the resulting fracture in his head. The Supreme Court said the killing of the victim should be characterized as one of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength. There is abuse of superior strength when the aggressors purposely use excessive force rendering the victim unable to defend himself. The notorious inequality of forces creates an unfair advantage for the aggressor. Here, two accused evidently armed themselves beforehand while the victim was unarmed. The two chased the victim as he fled, and he eventually died because of the assault.

13

People vs. Del Castillo, GR No. 169084, 18 January 2012. The accused were charged with the crime of murder for repeatedly hacking and stabbing the victims with the use of bolos. Invoking self-defense and defense of strangers, the accused alleged that the victims held the hand of Winifreda, their companion and relative, and were about to draw something from their waists. Believing that the victim will draw a weapon, the accused drew their bolos and used it against the victim. There is abuse of superior strength if the accused purposely uses excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked, or if there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of superior strength; it may refer to the number of aggressors and weapons used. In the case, the victims were outnumbered by the accused, three to six. In addition, the victims were unarmed while the accused were armed with their bolos.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; TREACHERY People vs. Escleto, GR No. 183706, 25 April 2012. The accused was charged with and convicted of the crime of murder qualified by treachery for stabbing the victim on the chest while the former was intoxicated. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution which tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for it to be properly appreciated, its two elements must be present, namely: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself. Treachery was properly appreciated in this case. Although the attack on the victim was frontal, the same was sudden and unexpected. The victim was completely unaware of the imminent peril to his life. The victim, unaware that the accused was armed with a balisong, approached the accused thinking that they would only talk. Thus, the victim was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself and repel the attack. People vs. Gonzales, GR No. 195534, 13 June 2012. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The elements of treachery are: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender. Both were present in this case. First, the accused fired at the unsuspecting victim as the latter was alighting from a tricycle. The victim was unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself. Second, the evidence showed that the victim was first lured in going to
14

the house of the accused by a companion. The accused was armed and waiting for the arrival of the victim. Afterwards, the accused immediately fired at the victim. People vs. Lagman, GR No. 197807, 16 April 2012. While inside a tricycle, Sicor, victim of physical injuries, was suddenly grabbed from the sidecar and stabbed in the middle of her buttocks with a small knife by the accused. After a few moments, the accused then went to Santiago, the victim of murder, and stabbed him four (4) times. The accused was then charged with two (2) crimes, murder and frustrated homicide. However, the RTC convicted the accused of murder and less serious physical injuries only; this was affirmed by the CA. Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. Treachery was properly appreciated in this case. The victim was caught off guard when the accused, without warning, stabbed him repeatedly leaving the latter no chance to evade the knife thrusts and defend himself from the onslaught. People vs. Vilbar, GR No. 186541, 1 February 2012. The accused was charged with and convicted of murder by the RTC. According to the prosecution, the victim, while carrying his child, was admonishing a person because the latter was urinating in front of their stall. The person urinating was drinking with the accused in another store located near the store of the victim. Despite the warning, the person urinating refused to pay attention. The victim then put down his child when all of a sudden the accused stood up, approached the victim, and stabbed him under the chest. The victim died instantly. The prosecution proved that the assault was accompanied with treachery. The CA modified the decision and convicted the accused of homicide. It did not appreciate the qualifying circumstance of treachery. In affirming the decision of the CA, the Court said treachery cannot be appreciated because the attack was sudden and unexpected. Where the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done impulsively, there is no treachery even if the attack was sudden and unexpected. It cannot be presumed form the mere suddenness of the attack. People vs. Mamaruncas, GR No. 179497, 25 January 2012; People vs. Asilan, GR No. 188322, 11 April 2012; People vs. Dones, GR No. 188329, 20 June 2012; People vs. Adviento, GR No. 175781, 20 March 2012; People vs. Angelio, GR No. 197540, 27 February 2012; People vs. Salafranca, GR No. 173476, 22 February 2012; People vs. Cabtalan, GR No. 175980, 15 February 2012; People vs. Biglete, GR No. 182920, 18 June 2012; People vs. Edwin Isla Y Rossell, GR No. 199875, November 21 2012; People vs. Medice, GR No. 181701, 18 January 2012 (same doctrines as stated in the above cases).
15

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE People vs. Biglete, GR No. 182920, 18 June 2012. While driving his passenger jeepney, plying his usual route at night, the victim was suddenly shot on the head by a man on a motorcycle. After the shooting, the accused immediately overtook the jeepney and sped away. The accused was caught only after almost three years of hiding. The RTC and the CA convicted him of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by use of a motor vehicle. A motorcycle was used to facilitate the commission of the crime as well as his escape after the deed had been accomplished. Thus, the aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle was properly appreciated by the trial court. The accused was on board the motorcycle when he tried to overtake the jeepney being driven by the victim. When he was already near the left side of the victim, the accused shot him at close range. Immediately after, he fled from the crime scene using his motorcycle.

PENALTIES People vs. Deocampo, GR No. 185212, 15 February 2012. R.A. No. 9346 now prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. People vs. Tadah, GR No. 186226, 1 February 2012. The accused was convicted of five counts of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The RTC sentenced the accused to the death penalty for each count of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, appreciating that the accused committed the kidnapping to extort ransom, and used a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts to facilitate the commission of the crimes. The CA affirmed the decision but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua in all five cases. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties imposed. The aggravating circumstance of using a motorized vehicle and motorized watercrafts cannot affect he imposable penalty because Art. 63 of the RPC states that in all cases where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. With the passage of R.A. 9346, the penalty of death should rightfully be reduced to reclusion perpetua. In addition, the accused shall not be eligible for parole as stated in Sec. 3 of R.A. 9346. People vs. Del Castillo, GR No. 169084, 18 January 2012. Murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, an indivisible penalty. Being indivisible, the attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances would not affect the penalties.

16

Candao vs. People, GR No. 186659-710, 1 February 2012. Under Article 217, paragraph 4 of the RPC, as amended, the crime of malversation, if the amount involved exceeds P22,000.00, is punishable by the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua in addition to a fine equal to the amount malversed. Considering that no aggravating or any mitigating circumstance was appreciated, the maximum imposable penalty will be within the range of the medium period of reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua. Applying the ISL, the minimum penalty will be within the range of prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium.

COMPLEX CRIMES People vs. Wenceslao Nelmida @ Eslao and Ricardo Ajok @ Pordoy, GR No. 184500, 11 September 2012. This is an en banc decision of the Supreme Court which clarified the application of Art. 48. In this case, the accused were convicted beyond reasonable doubt of double murder with multiple frustrated murder and double attempted murder after they ambushed the party of Mayor Johnny Tawantawan, causing death and injury to several people. They simultaneously riddled the vehicles belonging to the party of Mayor Tawantawan with high-powered guns. The circumstances of the case is enough to show that the accused were in conspiracy with one another. The Supreme Court, however, believes that the two accused should be convicted not of a complex crime but of two (2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts of attempted murder as the killing and wounding of the victims in this case were not the result of a single act but of several acts of the accused, making Art. 48 of the RPC inapplicable. In a complex crime, two or more crimes are actually committed, however, in the eyes of the law and in the conscience of the offender they constitute only one crime, thus, only one penalty is imposed. There are two kinds of complex crime. The first is known as a compound crime, or when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies while the other is known as complex crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. The classic example of the first kind is when a single bullet results in the death of two or more persons. A different rule governs where separate and distinct acts results in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. Evidently, there is in this case no complex crime proper. And the circumstances present in this case do not fit exactly the description of a compound crime. In this case, the court reverted to the doctrine of People vs. Hon. Pineda where the Court recognized the deeply rooted doctrine that when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. The Court also applied the ruling in People vs. Tabaco which clarified the applicability of Art. 48 of the RPC. In People vs. Tabaco, the Court elucidated that in order for the first half of Art. 48 to apply, there must be a singularity of the criminal act. Whether or not there is conspiracy is immaterial because singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law.

17

People vs. Villaflores, GR No. 184926, 11 April 2012. The felony of rape with homicide is a composite crime. A composite crime, also known as a special complex crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. As such, it is a specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law. It is different from compound or complex crimes. Compound or complex crimes are defined, under Art. 48 of the RPC, as:
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

There are distinctions between a composite crime, on the one hand, and a complex or compound crime under Article 48, supra, on the other hand. In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate Information.

DEATH OF A PARTY People vs. Brillantes, GR No. 190610, 25 April 2012. It is plain that both the personal penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary penalty of fine of the accused were extinguished upon his death pending appeal of his conviction by the lower courts. However, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict. Thus, since the accused died while his case was still pending with the Court, his civil and criminal liabilities arising from the crime charged are extinguished. People vs. Bayot, GR No. 200030, 18 April 2012. The accused died during the pendency of his appeal with the CA. This extinguished both his civil and criminal liabilities for the crime of rape. Art. 89(1) of the RPC states,
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. Criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

The article specifically provides the effect of the death of the accused on his criminal, as well as his civil, liability. Since the case was still in the appeal stage, and there was no final and executory judgment yet, both the civil and criminal liabilities of the accused are extinguished.

18

Whether or not the accused was guilty of the crime charged had become irrelevant because even assuming the accused did incur criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto, these were totally extinguished by his death by virtue of Art. 89. Villareal vs. People, GR No. 151258, 1 February 2012; People vs. CA, GR No. 154954, 1 February 2012; Dizon vs. People, GR No. 155101, 1 February 2012. The accused filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to question the decision of the CA on the grounds of denial of due process and conviction absent proof beyond reasonable doubt. While the Petition was pending before the SC, the counsel of the accused filed a Notice of Death of a Party; the accused died a couple of months before the filing of the notice. The counsel asserts that the subject matter of the Petition does not survive the death of the accused. Criminal liability for personal penalties is totally extinguished by the death of the convict. In contrast, criminal liability for pecuniary penalties is extinguished if the offender dies prior to final judgment. However, civil liability arising out of an obligation other than the delict survives the death of the accused and is recoverable through a separate civil action. Thus, the death of the accused, prior to the final judgment of this case, extinguished his criminal liability for both personal and pecuniary penalties, including his civil liability ex delicto.

PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES People vs. Pangilinan, GR No. 152662, 13 June 2012. The accused was charged with violating B.P. No. 22. The RTC convicted her of the crime charged. However, on appeal, the CA decided to acquit the accused on the ground of prescription. It ruled that the five (5) year prescriptive period for special laws is tolled only when the complaint or information is filed with the proper court, thereby excluding prosecutors. The Court ruled against the accused, and ordered the DOJ to re-file the Informations. Since B.P. Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefore prescribes in four (4) years in accordance with the aforecited law. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of proceedings against the guilty person. The filing of the complaint with the Fiscals Office suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a criminal offense. There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription. Similarly, investigations conducted by the SEC for the violations of the Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulations Code effectively interrupts the prescriptive period because it is equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases.

19

Aggrieved parties, especially those who do not sleep on their rights and actively pursue their causes, should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily further simply because of circumstances beyond their control, like the accuseds delaying tactics or the delay and inefficiency of the investigating agencies.

CIVIL PENALTIES; AWARD OF DAMAGES People vs. Efren Laurio y Rosales; GR No. 182523, September 13, 2012. The accused was found guilty of the crime of murder. According to the facts of the case, the accused was drinking with another person when a balut vendor threw a bottle in their direction. The accused companion confronted the vendor and punched him. While the vendor was still on the ground, the accused stabbed him seven (7) times. The vendor died as a result of the incident. The accused invoked self-defense to ward off criminal liability. The Court awarded (1) civil indemnity ex delicto; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. Civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is mandatory and is granted without need of evidence other than the commission of the crime. Moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00 shall be awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victims heirs. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional anguish on the part of the victims family. Also, pursuant to Art. 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages amounting to P30,000.00 may be imposed as the crime was committed with the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery. Moreover, where the amount of actual damages for funeral expenses cannot be ascertained due to the absence of receipts, temperate damages in the sum of P25,000.00 may be granted in lieu thereof since it cannot be denied that the family of the victim suffered pecuniary loss because of the death of the victim although the amount of the pecuniary loss cannot be ascertained. People vs. Brillantes, GR No. 190610, 25 April 2012. There is no civil liability involved in violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. No private offended party is involved in this case as there is in fact no reference to civil liability in the decision of the RTC.

20