People

v Boholst-Caballero
GR. No. L-23249 November 25, 1974
J. Muoz Palma

Facts
* One night, after carolling, Boholst met Caballero
who upon seeing her, manhandled her. There
were an exchange of words and later on,
Caballero was already holding her by the hair
and slapping her face until her nose bled.
* Caballero pushed her to the grounds, and to
stop herself from falling, she held on to his waist.
As she did so, she grasped the knife tucked by the
left side of his body.
* She fell to the ground then Caballero knelt over
her and chocked her saying that he will kill her.
Because she had no other recourse, she pulled
out the knife of her husband and thrust it at him,
hitting the left side of his body near the belt line.
* When she was finally free, she ran home and on
the way, she threw the knife.
* In the morning, she surrendered to the police
and presented the torn and blood-stained dress
she wore that night. The police officer
accompanied her to look for the weapon but
when it can no longer be found, she was advised
to just give any knife and she did (now marked
Exhibit C).
* However, according to another witness, on the
night of the incident, Boholst was already waiting
for Caballero, and when he approached her, she
suddenly stabbed Francisco her with the knife
marked by the prosecution as Exhibit C.
Issue
WON Boholst act in legitimate defense of her
person
Held
Yes. All the elements of self-defense are present:
* unlawful aggression as pointed out above
* reasonable necessity for means employed:
woman strangled and chocked by a furious
aggressor, rendered almost unconcious by the
strong pressure on her throat. What is vital is the
imminent peril to Boholsts life. The knife
afforded appellant the only reasonable means

with which she could free and save herself.

Necessity knows no law.
* Lack of sufficient provocation: Boholst did not
provoke Caballero. She gave a valid excuse that
she went carolling to earn money for their child.

People v Catbagan
G.R. Nos. 149430-32 February 23, 2004
J. Panganiban

Facts
* Danilo Lapidante, employee of Manila Water
Company, held his birthday on March 15,
1998. During the reveries, Sgt. Celso Suico of the
Philippine Air Force and member of the PSG,
a guest, fired shots in the air. Since it was
election time and the gun ban was in effect, the
shots got the attention of Carmelo Catbagan, an
investigator of PNP who lived one block away
from Lapidantes house.
* At 5:00 pm, Catbagan went there to ask who
fired the shots but Suico was not present
because the latter accompanied the birthday
celebrant in bringing some guests home. Suico,
embarrassed, went home.
* At 5:30pm, Catbagan returned and
inquired. Suico answered Its nothing, just
part of the celebration.
* Suddenly a piece of stone was thrown from the
house of Lapidante to the direction of the
accused. Irritated, the accused asked his
companion Farabier to investigate.
* At that moment, Suico extended his hand
towards Catbagan to introduce himself as part
of PSG. Catbagan drew out his gun and
fired successively at Suico who was shouting,
Wag, pare. Despite this, Catbagan fired some
more shots. Catbagan also fired at one Jun
Lacadan, another guest, and at Lapidante.
Issue
WON Catbagan was justified in shooting the
victim out of fulfillment of duty
Held
No. Art. 111 of the RPC provides that a person
who acts in fulfillment of a duty or in lawful

exercise of a right or office does not incur

criminal liability. In the present case, Catbagan
was not performing his duties at the time
because the men he shot had not been
indiscriminately firing guns in his presence.
Also, he was not there to effect an arrest because
he did not know who fired the gun. He was only
there to determine who fired the gunshots, the
fatal wounds on his victims were not a necessary
consequence of the performance of his duty.
His presence at the scene was in the
legitimate performance of his duty. But his act
of shooting cannot be justified. His presence
at the scene of the crime is different from his
act of shooting the victims.

People v Madarang
G.R. No. 132319. May 12, 2000
J. Puno

Facts
* Appellant was convicted of parricide for
stabbing his wife, causing her death.
* Appellant alleges he was in a state of insanity
and claims he had no recollection of the stabbing
incident. He insists that he was deprived of
intelligence, making his act involuntary.
* His psychiatric evaluation revealed he was
suffering from schizophrenia but after two years
in the National Center for Mental Health his
condition improved thus, he was released.
Issue
WON the accused can claim the exemption of
insanity
Held
No. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will
not exclude immutability. The issue of insanity is
a question of fact. The state or condition of a
mans mind can only be measured and judged by
his behavior. Establishing ones insanity requires
testimony of an expert witness, such as a
psychiatrist. The proof must relate to the time
preceding or coetaneous with the commission of
the offense with which he is charged. None of the
witnesses declared that he exhibited any of the

symptoms associated with schizophrenia

immediately before or simultaneous with the
stabbing incident. Also schizophrenics have lucid
intervals during which they are capable of
distinguishing right from wrong.

People v Bonoan
GR. No. L-45130 February 17, 1937
J. Laurel

Facts
* Celestino Bonoan is charged with the crime of
murder for stabbing Carlos Guison with a knife,
which caused his death three days afterwards.
An arraignment was then called, but the defense
objected on the ground that the defendant was
mentally deranged and was at the time confined
at the Psychopatic Hospital.
* After several months of summons for doctors,
production of the defendants complete record of
mental condition from the hospital and
defendants admission to the hospital for
personal observation, assistant alienist Dr. Jose
Fernandez finally reported to the court that
Bonoan may be discharged for being a
recovered case.
* After trial, the lower court found Bonoan guilty
and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
* The defense now appeals, claiming the lower
court made errors in finding Bonoan suffered
dementia only occasionally and intermittently,
did not show any kind of abnormality, that the
defense did not establish the defendants insanity
and finding accused guilty.
Issue
WON the lower court erred in finding the
accused guilty
Held
Yes. The Court finds the accused demented at the
time he perpetrated the crime, which
consequently exempts him from criminal
liability, and orders for his confinement in San
Lazaro Hospital or other hospital for the insane.
This ruling was based on the following evidence:

* Uncontradicted evidence that accused was

confined in the insane department of San Lazaro
Hospital and diagnosed with dementia praecox
long before the commission of the offense and
recurrence of ailments were not entirely lacking
of scientific foundation
* Persons with dementia praecox are
disqualified from legal responsibility because
they have no control of their acts; dementia
praecox symptoms similar to manic depression
psychosis
* Accused had an insomnia attack, a symptom
leading to dementia praecox, four days prior to
act according to Dr. Francisco
* Accused was sent the Psychopatic hospital on
the same day of crime and arrest, indicating the
polices doubt of his mental normalcy
* Defendant suffered from manic depressive
psychosis according to Dr. Joson

People v Estepano
G.R. No. 126283 May 28, 1999
J. Bellosillo

Facts
* The case was woven mainly on the
testimony of Florencio Tayco, that on April
16, 1991 at around 10 pm, he was on his
way home in Barangay IV Himamaylan with
Lopito Gaudia and Enrique Balinas.
* En route, they met Dominador at the BM
Trucking compound. Lopito than talked to
Dominador while he and Estepano stood
nearby. Rodrigo appeared without any
provocation stabbed Enrique in the stomach
with a guinunting (fighting bolo).
* Ruben armed with a cane cutter and
Rodney, Dante and Rene, each armed with a
bolo followed suit in hacking Enrique.
* While this was happening, Dominador told
his companions You better kill him!" Lopito
confirmed the testimony of Florencio.
Issue
WON Rene, who was 13 years old, is guilty of
murder

Held
No. With respect to accused-appellant
Rene Estepano, the records show that he was
only 13 years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense. Under Art 12, par. 3
of the RPC, a person over 9 years of age &
under 15 is exempt from criminal liability
unless it is shown that he acted with
discernment. Scrutiny of records show that
prosecution failed to prove that Rene acted with
discernment, what was only established was
his presence & his supposed participation in
the killing

US v Caballeros
G.R. No. 1352 March 29, 1905
J. Mapa

Facts
Robert Baculi and Apolonio Caballeros were
convicted as accessories to the crime
of assassination or murder of four American
school-teachers, having buried the corpses of
the victims to conceal the crime. They were
allegedly coerced.
Issue
WON the defense of uncontrollable fear is
tenable to warrant exemption from criminal
liability?
Held
Yes. Not only is Baculis confession that he only
assisted in the burial of the corpses because he
was compelled by the murderers, but this
was corroborated by the only eyewitness to
the crime, Sabate. Sabate said that he was
present when the Americans were killed; that
Baculi was not a member of the group of
murderers but he was in the banana
plantation gathering some bananas; that when
he heard the shots he began to run; that
he was, however, seen by Damaso and Isidro,
the leaders of the band; that the latter called to
him and striking him with the butts of their
guns forced him to bury the corpses. As for
Caballeros, there was no proof that he took any

part in the execution of the crime; there was

conclusive proof to the contrary. Sabate and
Baculi declared that Caballeros did not take
any part in the burial of the aforesaid
corpses, nor was he even in the place of the
occurrence when the burial took place. Their
failure to report the crime is not an offense
punished by the Penal Code

Cabrera v Pajares
142 SCRA 127 May 30, 1986

Facts
* Cabrera is the defendant in a civil case which
Pajares was trying. The case filed by Cabrera's
dad & half-siblings for the annulment of the
sale made to Cabrera of 28 ha. of land in
Camarines Sur. Cabrera was advised by
his counsel to accommodate any request for
money from the judge so that latter won't give
him a hard time.
*On Sept. 1984, Pajares intimated that he
needed money and so Cabrera gave him P1000.
* 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.
* Jan. 22, 1985, 8:15 a.m.: Cabrera went to
Pajares chamber with NBI agent Angelica
Somera who pretended to be Cabreras wife.
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 with 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.
Issue
WON it was an entrapment or instigation
operation
Held
It is an entrapment. Instigation is when officers
of the law or their agents incite, induce,
instigate or lure an accused into committing
an offense which he otherwise wouldnt
commit and has no intention of committing.
Accused cannot be held liable. Its a trap for
unwary innocent. While an entrapment is when
there is criminal intent or design to commit the
offense charged originates in the mind of the
accused & law enforcement officials merely
facilitate the commission of the crime, the
accused cannot justify his conduct. It is
considered as a trap for the unwary criminal.
Instigation is not actually an issue since
Pajares claims that this was a frame-up.
However, this claim has no basis as proven by
the evidence presented.