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
his own volition and make him
threatened him.
2. WON the court erred in ruling
instead of homicide.
3. WON the court erred in refusing
favor of the accused.

to the accused that would deprive him of

a mere instrument of the person who
that the crime committed was murder
to apply Article 11 of the Penal Code in

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 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

3.

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.

Exempting Circumstances:Irresistible Force/ Uncontrollable Fear

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

Vicky Ty vs People
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: Whether or not petitioner may claim damages for failure to comply
with marital obligations of the respondent.
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.