Exempting

Circumstances

Irresistible Force/ Uncontrollable Fear

US vs Elicanal

Facts:
Eduardo Elicanal, a 22-year old uneducated and somewhat physically weak man,
was a member of the Iorcha Cataluna cruising the Philippine waters of lloilo under
the captaincy of Juan Nomo. The first mate was Guillermo Guiloresa. On
December 11, 1914, Guiloresa tells Elicanal that he was going to kill the captain
because he was very angry with him. Elicanal mistook the statement as a joke,
as Guiloresa was a great joker and was smiling at that time. Nobody paid
attention for no one had any resentment against the captain and they did not
know of any plan directed against him. The following morning, finding the captain
in his cabin, Guiloresa assaulted him & attempted to seize & hold his hands. At
the same time, he was calling the crew to come forward & help him. At
Guiloresas request, the rest of the crew w/ the exception of the accused seized
the captain & tied him w/ rope. After he had been rendered helpless, Guiloresa
struck him in the neck w/ an iron bar, delivering the weapon to Elicanal, ordered
him to come forward & assist in disposing of the captain. Elicanal seized the bar &
while the captain was still struggling, struck him a blow on the head w/c caused
his death. Elicanals defense during the trial was that he was acting under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury induced by the threat of
Guiloresa. He was absolutely overwhelmed that in striking the blow which killed
the captain, he acted without his own volition & was reduced to a mere
instrument in the hands of the chief mate. The trial court refused to accept his
defense holding that Guiloresa did not exercise such influence over him that
amounted to an uncontrollable fear or a deprivation of his volition. Elicanal and
others were convicted of murder and sentenced to death
Issues:
1. WON there was a threat directed to the accused that would deprive him of
his own volition and make him a mere instrument of the person who
threatened him.
2. WON the court erred in ruling that the crime committed was murder instead
of homicide.
3. WON the court erred in refusing to apply Article 11 of the Penal Code in favor
of the accused.
Ruling:
1. None. The evidence presented failed to establish a threat so bad that it
deprived the accused of his volition. Neither were they able to establish a
threat that was made under such circumstances that the accused could
reasonably have expected that he would suffer material injury if he refused
to comply.
2. No. It appears undisputed that, at the time the accused struck the deceased
with iron bar and thereby caused his death, the latter was bound hand and
foot and was helpless and defenseless. While it is quite true that there was
no treachery at the beginning of the struggle terminating in the death of the
captain, this does not necessarily dispose the question of treachery. Even

3.

though the beginning of an attack resulting in the death of the deceased is

free from treachery of any sort, nevertheless it will be found present if, at
the time the fatal blow is struck, the deceased is helpless and unable to
defend himself. The crime was committed with treachery and that it was
properly denominated murder instead of homicide.
No. The personal qualities and characteristics of the accused are matters
particularly cognizable by the TC, & the application of this section is
peculiarly w/in the jurisdiction of that court.

Decision: There being neither aggravating nor extenuating circumstances,

judgment appealed from is REVERSED and the accused is hereby sentenced to
cadena perpetua.
US vs. Caballeros
Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Cebu
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 under Art12(5) is tenable
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

Exempting Circumstances

Irresistible Force/ Uncontrollable Fear

People vs Rudy Fronda

Vicky Ty vs People

Facts:
Brothers, Edwin & Esminio Balaan were taken by 7 armed men in fatigue
uniforms with long firearms, suspected to be NPA members, accompanied by the
accused Rudy Fronda and Roderick Padua from the house of Ferminio Balaan. The
armed men tied the hands of the deceased at their back lying down face
downward, in front of the house of Ferminio. They all proceeded towards Sitio
Tulong passing through the rice fields. Three years later, the bodies or remains of
the Balaan brothers were exhumed. Afterwhich, the remains, were brought to the
house of Freddie Arevalo, a reltive of the deceased where they were laid in state
for the wake. The RTC declared Fronda guilty as a principal by indispensable
cooperation. The appellant says he was only taken by the armed men as a
pointer & interposes the exempting circumstance under RPC A12(6) claiming that
all his acts were performed under the impulse of uncontrollable fear and to save
his life.

Facts: Edgardo Reyes, private respondent, married to Anna Maria Villanueva

both in a civil and church ceremony respectively. However, the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court of Quezon City declared their marriage null and void ab
initio for lack of marriage of license. Before the decree of was issued in nullifying
the marriage of said spouses, private respondent wed Ofelia Ty, petitioner, in the
City Court of Pasay and thereafter in a church wedding in Makati. Out of their
union bore two daughters. Until private respondent petition that their marriage
be declared null and void for lack of marriage of license and that at the time they
got married, he was still married to Anna Maria. He stated that at the time he
married petitioner the decree of nullity of his marriage to Anna Maria had not
been issued. Ofelia defended that lack of marriage license in their marriage is
untrue. She submitted the marriage license in court and private respondent did
not question the evidence. However, RTC and CA affirmed their decision in favor
of private respondent.

Issue: WON Fronda can claim the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner may claim damages for failure to comply with
marital obligations of the respondent.

Held:
No. Fear in order to be valid should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable
fear for ones life or limb. (People vs. Abanes) In the case at bar, the records
indicate that appellant was seen being handed by and receiving from one of the
armed men a hunting knife. Also, as aforesaid, appellant was not able to explain
his failure to report the incident to the authorities for more than three years.
These circumstances, among others, establish the fact that the appellant
consciously concurred with the acts of the assailants. In order that the
circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the
compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to escape or selfdefense in equal combat. (People v. Loreno) Appellant had the opportunity to
escape when he was ordered by the armed men to go home after bringing the
victims to the mountains. He did not. Instead he joined the armed men when
required to bring a spade with which he was ordered to dig the grave. Appellant
also chose to remain silent for more than three years before reporting the killing
to the authorities. Based on these circumstances, We hold that the
contemporaneous and subsequent acts of appellant cannot be regarded as having
been done under the impulse of uncontrollable fear.

Ruling: There can be no action for damages merely because of a breach of

marital obligation. Supreme Court also viewed that no damages should be
awarded in the present case, but for another reason. Petitioner wants her
marriage to private respondent held valid and subsisting. She is suing to maintain
her status as legitimate wife. In the same breath, she asks for damages from her
husband for filing a baseless complaint for annulment of their marriage which
caused her mental anguish, anxiety, besmirched reputation, social humiliation
and alienation from her parents. Should they grant her prayer, they would have a
situation where the husband pays the wife damages from conjugal or common
funds. To do so, would make the application of the law absurd. Logic, if not
common sense, militates against such incongruity.