Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
Crime: Murder
Contention of the Accused:
Dominador:
He was at home with his wife and son Roberto & was about to eat dinner when he heard
Enrique call out for his son Rodrigo to come down. He peeped through the window and saw
Rodrigo hacking Enrique. When Enrique fell to the ground Rodrigo hastily fled. There was no other
person in the vicinity. He then went down his house where the victim was and saw the latters
firearm. He picked it up and when Chief of Police Balquin arrived, he turned over the firearm to
him.
Ruben, Rene and Rodney: Invoked alibi
Ruben claimed that he was at the provincial hospital in Bacolod City attending to his wife who
earlier underwent a caesarean operation, but failed to prove such. Rene and Rodney claimed
that they were at home sleeping when the killing occurred.
The accused claimed that some substantial points of his testimony were not corroborated
by Lopito Gaudia who was also present at the crime scene. Florencio maintained that aside from
Rodrigo, the other Estepanos, Dante, Rodney, Ruben and Rene, also attacked Enrique. Lopito,
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
on the other hand, asserted that he saw Rodrigo with only one companion at the time of the
incident.
Contention of the State:
With respect to accused-appellant Rene Estepano, the records show that he was only
thirteen (13) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. Under Art. 12, par. (3), of
The Revised Penal Code, a person over nine (9) years of age and under fifteen (15) is exempt
from criminal liability unless it is shown that he acted with discernment. The minor referred to here
is presumed to have acted without discernment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to
prove that such minor acted otherwise. Accordingly, even if he was indeed a co-conspirator, he
would still be exempt from criminal liability as the prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of
non-discernment on his part by virtue of his age.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED. Accused-appellants RUBEN
ESTEPANO and RODNEY ESTEPANO are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder.
Accused-appellant RENE ESTEPANO is ACQUITTED in the absence of proof that he acted with
discernment.
Exempting Circumstances (Minority)
People vs Doquena, 68 Phil 580
Juan Ragojos = victim,
Valentin Doquena = accused, minor(13y/o)
Facts:
On Nov 19, 1938, deceased Juan Ragojos was playing volleyball with some other friends and the
accussed- appellant Valentin Doquena intervened and tossed the ball at Juan hitting the latter's
stomach. The deceased chased him and slapped him on his nape. The accused, offended, took
a knife from his cousin and challenged Juan to give him another blow. Juan refused to do so, the
accused stabbed him in the chest with the knife.
Contention of the State:
The accused acted with discernment for having killed Juan Ragosjos by stabbing him in
the breast with a knife on Nov 19, 1938, in the municipality of Sual, Pangasinan. Under the
provisions of Art 12 par. 3 of the RPC, court ordered him to be sent to the Training School for Boys
to remain therein until he reaches the age of majority.
Held:
The minor, Valentin Doquena acted with discernment. The court did not only took into
consideration the facts and circumstances but also the state of mind at the time the crime was
committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the
consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment. The
discernment that constitutes an exemption to the exception from criminal liability of a minor
under 15 but over 9, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand
between right over wrong and all these must be afforded not only before and during the
commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
way to the forest, he saw the victims uncle lying on the floor in the interior of the shack sick of
fever and asked him where he could find a good place in which to hunt wild chickens, but
Sanchez is the one who answered pointing out a portion of the forest. And so Tanedo proceeded
to the forest, when he arrived, he saw a wild chicken & he fired a shot. Afterwhich, he heard a
human cry. Upon seeing that he wounded a man, he went back to his laborers & told the
occurrence to Bernardino Tagampa and so they went to see the dead body.
Tanedo & Tagampa concealed the body in the cogon grass. That evening, Tanedo & Tagampa
took the body from the cogon grass and carried it about 17 or 18 hundred meters from the place
where it had originally fallen, and buried it in an old well, covering it with straw and earth and
burning straw on top of the well for the purpose of concealing it.
Crime: Homicide (as decided by the lower court)
Contention of the accused: The accused testified that he did not invite the deceased to go
hunting with him neither did the deceased go with him. That the incident was an accident since
only one shot was heard that morning & a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. And that his
prior relations to the victim had been normal.
Contention of the State: In this case there is absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part
of the accused. Neither is there any question that he was engaged in the commission of a lawful
act when the accident occurred. Neither is there any evidence of the intention of the accused
to cause the death of the deceased. The only thing in the case at all suspicious upon the part of
the defendant are his concealment and denial.
Ruling: The evidence is insufficient to support the judgment of conviction. The judgment of
conviction is, therefore, reversed, the defendant acquitted, and his discharge from custody
ordered, costs de oficio.
Exempting Circumstances
Irresistible Force/Uncontrollable Fear
Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Factus An Act Done By Me Against My Will is Not My Act
People vs Baldogo, 396 SCRA 31
Edgar Bermas Bunso = died before he could be arraigned
= an inmate of the penal colony who was assigned as a domestic helper of the Camacho
spouses
Baguio = an inmate of the penal colony who was assigned as a domestic helper of the
Camacho spouses
Julio Camacho, Sr. = security guard in the Iwahig Prison and Penal Colony
Heather Esteban = wife of Julio
Jorge Camacho
Julie Camacho
Facts:
Bunso & Baguio was assigned as a domestic helper of the Camacho spouses
They resided in a hut located about ten meters away from the house of the Camacho
family.
On February 22, 1996, Bunso & Baguio served dinner to Julio, Jorge & Julie.
After dinner, Julio left the house to attend a bible study
4
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
the armed man returned and while the woman was still on the ground he shot her on the
head (Jun)
The bag taken by the man was brought to the tricycle of accused del Rosario where
someone inside received the bag (Boy Santos)
The armed man then sat behind the driver while his companion entered the sidecar
Alonzo was able to get the plate number of the tricycle & quickly reported it to the
authorities, luckily he recognized the driver
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
them a long journey by boat, however, they failed to secure a trial on the first occasion being
due to the fact that the written complaint, which was entrusted to the policeman in charge of
the prisoner, was either lost or stolen.
HELD:There is nothing in the record upon which to base the finding that defendant caused the
arrest and subsequent detention of the prisoner otherwise than in the due performance of his
official duties; and there can be no doubt of his lawfully authority in the premises. The trial judge
pays great stress upon the trivial nature of the offense for which the arrest was made, but keeping
in mind the fact that there was no judicial officer in the remote community where the incident
occurred at the time of the arrest, and no certainty of the early return of the absent justice of the
peace, or his auxillary.
The judgement of the lower court convicting and sentencing the defendant must be reversed
and he is hereby acquitted of the offense with which he is charged, with cost in both instances
de oficio.
Exempting Circumstances
Insuperable or Lawful Cause
People vs Bandian, 63 Phil 530
Josefina Bandian
Valentin Aguilar = Josefinas neighbor
Facts:
One morning, Valentine saw Josefina go to a thicket apparently to respond to the call of
nature
Josefina emerged from the thicket with her clothes stained with blood
Valentin brought her to his house & called on Adriano Comcom to help them, where
Comcom saw the body of a new born baby near a path adjoining the thicket where the
appellant had gone a few moments later.
Josefina confirmed it was hers
The physician, Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her own
house and brought her child into the thicket to kill it.
Crime: Infanticide & abandonment of a minor
Contention of the Accused: Apparently, Bandian was not aware of their 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 as lawful or insuperable cause to constitute mitigating circumstances, to take her
child from the thicket to pee. She caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in the same
place and later abandoning it not because of imprudence or any other reason that she was
overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she could not blame herself because it all
happened by mere accident, with no fault or intention of causing it.
HELD:
The act performed by the appellant in the morning in question, by going into the thicket,
according to her, to respond to call of nature, notwithstanding the fact that she had fever for a
long time, was perfectly lawful. If by doing so 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 should not be
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
blamed therefor because it all happened by mere accident, from liability any person who so acts
and behaves under such circumstances.
Josefina is acquitted of the crime.
Exculpatory Causes
Instigation
People vs Lua Chu, 56 Phil 44
Customs:
Juan Samson
Joaquin Natividad
Illegal importation of opium
Facts:
On Nov. 1929, Uy Se Tieng, was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium coming from
Hongkong. He collaborated with Samson & Natividad of the Customs by paying them an amount
of P6K for the opium to be released safely from Customs. On Dec. 1929, upon arrival of the
Shipment of Opium in the ports of Cebu, Uy Se Tieng informed Samson that the former consult the
real owners on how to proceed the payment of P6K & will come over to Samson house on Dec.
17, 1929 to inform the decision of the owners. On the same day Samson informed the
Constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo & the Provincial Fiscal requesting a
stenographer to take down the conversation between him & Uy Se Teung.On the night of Dec.
17, 1929, Capt. Buencosejo and a stenographer named Jumapao from a law firm and hid
themselves behind the curtains in the house of Samson to witness the conversation between
Samson, Uy Se Teung and Lua Chu.
Uy Se Teung informed Samson that Lua Chu was one of the owners of the Opium.
Lua Chu informed Samson that aside from him, there were co-owners named Tan
and another located in Amoy.
Lua Chu promised to pay the P6,000 upon delivery of the opium from the
warehouse of Uy Se Tieng.
A Customs Collector had a conversation before when Samson was on vacation in
Europe, with Lua Chu and agreed on the business of shipping the Opium.
The following morning Uy Se Tieng and companion, Uy Ay presented papers to
Samson & Captain Buencosejo showed up & caught them in the act & arrested the
two Chinese. The Constabulary then arrested Lua Chu & confiscated P50K worth of
Opium (3,252 tins).
Contention of the Accused.
The defendants' principal defense is that they were induced by Juan Samson to import the
opium in question.
Contention of the State:
A public official who induces a person to commit a crime for purposes of gain, does not
take the steps necessary to seize the instruments of the crime and to arrest the offender, before
having obtained the profit he had in mind. It is true that Juan Samson smoothed the way for the
introduction of the prohibited drug, but that was after the accused had already planned its
importation and ordered said drug, leaving only its introduction into the country through the
Cebu customhouse to be managed, and he did not do so to help them carry their plan to a
8
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
successful issue, but rather to assure the seizure of the imported drug and the arrest of the
smugglers.
Held: Decision of the lower court was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Exculpatory Causes
Instigation
ARANETA vs CA, 142 SCRA 532 GR NO. L-46638
August 26, 1971
Cabanatuan City
Facts:
Gertrudes Yoyongco, upon the death of her husband, she approached Atty. Araneta to
inquire about the procedure for filing a claim for death compensation.
She then complied with the requirements & filed them at Pampanga.
After a few days, she was informed that her claim papers had been forwarded to
Cabanatuan, particularly to Atty. Araneta.
So she went to see the appellant. She was told that she had to pay P 100.00 so that her
claim would be acted upon.
The complainant had no money then so she went to her brother-in-law, Col. Yoyongco &
informed him of the demand of the appellant.
After giving her money, she was referred to Col. Laureaga for help.
She was then instructed to entrap the appellant.
Yoyongco & CIC Carlos went to see Atty. Araneta.
While at Atty. Aranetas office, Carlos pretended to be the complainant's nephew.
Lt. Carlos and Sgt. Beleno stationed themselves outside the room and observed events
through a glass window.
The complainant again requested the appellant to process her claim.
The appellant countered by asking her if she already had the P100.00. In answer, the
complainant brought out the two 50-peso bills from her bag and handed them to the
appellant. As the appellant took hold of the money, CIC Balcos grabbed her hand and
told her she was under arrest. Whereupon, Lt. Carlos and Sgt. Beleno immediately entered
the room and helped in the arrest of the appellant.
CRIME: Bribery
HELD:
There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the
apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when
the accused was induced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the
origin of the crim intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The
idea and the resolve to commit the crime came from him. In instigation, the law officer conceives
the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into
execution.
Wherefore, appellant is guilty of the crime of bribery, a violation of Sec 3 RA No 3019 known as
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Considering though that this case was pending since
1971 and she is a mother of four and the amount involved is only PhP100, it is recommended that
petitioner be granted either executive clemency or the privilege of probation if she is qualified.
Decision affirmed.
9
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
Entrapment
1. The practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal
prosecutions
2. It is a scheme or technique ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by being in the
actual crime scene.
3. The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if he have done the following:
a. He does not induce a person to commit a crime for personal gain or is not
involved in the planning of the crime.
b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest
the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.
Instigation:
This is the involvement of a law officer in the crime itself in the following manners:
a. He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain
b. Doesnt take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest
the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.
He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary
steps seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders
Exculpatory Causes
Instigation
CABRERA vs PAJARES, 142 SCRA 127
Enrico Cabrera = complainant
Judge James B. Pajares = accused
Facts:
Cabrera is the defendant in a civil case which Judge Pajares was trying
It was a case filed by Cabreras father & his half-siblings for the annulment of the sale of
land made to Cabrera.
Cabrera was advised by his counsel to accommodate any request for money from the
judge so that the judge won't give him a hard time.
Sept. 1984: Pajares intimated that he needed money & so Cabrera gave him P1k.
After 2 months, Pajares & Cabrera met in front of the Naga Hall of Justice & the Pajares
told Cabrera that he needed money again. This time, Cabrera asked the assistance of the
NBI in entrapping Pajares. He submitted 10 P100 bills for marking to be used in the
entrapment. Such bills were marked w/orange flourescent crayon & dusted w/orange
flourescent crayon by the NBI.
The following month, Cabrera told the judge that he decided not to settle the case but
instead he filed a MFR appointing a surveyor to delineate a portion of the land in dispute
for his half-siblings in settlement. Then Pajares asked O ano ngayon ang atin. Cabrera
then got the envelope w/the marked money & gave it Pajares. Cabrera then rushed out
of the chamber on the pretext that he forgot the keys in the car as a signal to the other
NBI agents. As soon as they got in, Somera pointed out where the money was. It was
inserted between the pages of a diary on the judges table. Photos were taken. NBI
Forensic Chemist Vallado established that the envelope & the money in it were those
marked by the NBI. Pajares & his diary were both found positive of orange fluorescent
powder.
10
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
Criminal Law 1
Case Digests
Analyn L. Taguiling
Jun was then learned to be Florencio Doria while Neneth is Violata Gaddao.
They were both convicted feloniously selling, administering and giving away to another 11
plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops, in violation of R.A 6425, as amended by
RA 7659
13