General and Specific Intent:

Criminal Law- People vs. Delim

This case is with regard to Art 8 and 13 of the Revised Penal Code

"the act of one is the act of all"

Case of People of the R.P. vs. Delim

G.R. No. 142773 28January2003

FACTS OF THE CASE:

It is due to the automatic review of the decision of the RTC Branch 46 (Urdaneta City) finding
the appellants, guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing them to death for the murder of
Modesto Bantas.

Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The appellants and victim are “related” for modesto
is an adopted son of their father. On January 23,1999 Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim charged
into the house and poked a gun at modesto and herded him outside the house. Leon and Manuel
Delim both armed stayed put and made sure that randy and rita stayed put.

Modesto's lifeless body was then found on January 25, 1999. Marlon, Ronald, and Leon used
denial and alibi as their evidence against the charge.

*alibis are the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy and treachery present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime?

Yes there is:

CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide
to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself,
more specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to
the existence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of
commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed.

appellants acted in unison when they abducted Modesto. So their acts were synchronized and
executed with precision evincing a preconceived plan to kill Modesto

There is no:

TREACHERY- there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.

For it to be appreciated prosecution needs to prove:

to defend himself

b. the means of execution is deliberately and consciously adopted

in the appellants case there are no evidence to the particulars on how Modesto was assaulted and
killed and this in fact does mean that treachery cannot be proven since it cannot be presumed that
modesto was defenseless during the time that he was being attacked and shot at by the
appellants.

Sheer numbers by the appellants when they attacked modesto does not constitute proof that the
three took advantage of their numerical superiority and their handguns when Modesto was shot
and stabbed

HELD:

APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE FELONY OF

HOMICIDE (THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS WERE MODIFIED TO LOWER
THE CRIME FROM MURDER TO HOMICIDE)

MISTAKE OF FACT
People v. Ah Chong 15 Phil. 488
G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910
CARSON, J.

Lesson: mistake of fact, definition of felony

Laws: Article 1 RPC, Art 3 RPC

FACTS:
• August 14, 1908 About 10 pm: Ah Chong, a cook was suddenly awakened by some trying to
force open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and called out twice, "Who is there?" He heard
no answer and was convinced by the noise at the door that it was being pushed open by someone
bent upon forcing his way into the room. The defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or
a thief, leaped to his feet and called out. "If you enter the room, I will kill you." At that moment
he was struck just above the knee by the edge of the chair (thought to be an unlawful aggression)
which had been placed against the door. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under
his pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it afterwards turned out, was his
roommate, Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the spirit of mischief was playing a
trick on him
• Seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers and ran back to his room to
secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds.
• There had been several robberies not long prior to the date of the incident, one of which took
place in a house where he was employed as cook so he kept a knife under his pillow for his
personal protection.
• trial court held it as simple homicide

ISSUE: W/N defendant can be held criminally responsible who, by reason of a mistake as to the
facts, does an act for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he
supposed them to be, but which would constitute the crime of homicide or assassination if the
actor had known the true state of the facts at the time when he committed the act.
HELD: trial court should be reversed, and the defendant acquitted of the crime
NO.
• GR: acts constituting the crime or offense must be committed with malice or with criminal
intent in order that the actor may be held criminally liable
EX: it appears that he is exempted from liability under one or other of the express provisions of
article 8 of the code
• Article 1 RPC of the Penal Code is as follows:
Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and ommissions punished by law.
o A person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even
though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit.
o voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act
o "malice" signifying the intent
o Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - "the act itself does not make man guilty unless his
intention were so
o “ Actus me incito factus non est meus actus” - an act done by me against my will is not my
act
• GR: courts have recognized the power of the legislature to forbid, in a limited class of cases,
the doing of certain acts, and to make their commission criminal WITHOUT regard to the intent
of the doer
• EX: intention of the lawmaker to make the commission of certain acts criminal without
regard to the intent of the doer is clear and beyond question the statute will not be so construed
• ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or
carelessness
• defendant at the time, he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief
that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts
been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on
account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness
or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to
defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his
property and the property under his charge.

PARTIES:
Plaintiff and appellee: People of the Philippines

Defendants and appellant: Antonio Oanis, Alberto Galanta

FACTS:

Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal and escaped
convict, Anselmo Balagtas, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. They went to the
suspected house then proceeded to the room where they saw the supposedly Balagtas sleeping
with his back towards the door. Oanis and Galanta simultaneously or successively fired at him
which resulted to the victim’s death. The supposedly Balagtas turned out to be Serepio Tecson,
an innocent man.
ISSUE:

1. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no liability due to innocent mistake of fact in the honest
performance of their official duties.

2. WON Oanis and Galanta incur no criminal liability in the performance of their duty.

HELD:

1. No. Innocent mistake of fact does not apply to the case at bar. “Ignorance facti excusat”
applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness. The fact that the
supposedly suspect was sleeping, Oanis and Galanta could have checked whether it is the real
Balagtas.

2. No. Oanis and Galanta are criminally liable. A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts
in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are 2 requisites to
justify this: (1) the offender acted in teh perfomance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right
or office, (2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. In this case, only the first
requisite is present.

Malum prohibitum as the exception to the requirements of mens rea.

Padilla vs dizon

Facts:

 Respondent Baltazar R. Dizon acquitted, in his decision, the tourist and accused, Lo Chi
Fai, saying that Lo Chi Fai had no willful intention to violate the law. He also directed
the release to Lo Chi Fai of at least the amount of US$3,000.00 under Central Bank
Circular No. 960.

 Lo Chi Fai was caught by Customs guard at the Manila International Airport
while attempting to smuggle foreign currency and foreign exchange instruments
out of the country.

 An information was filed against Lo Chi Fai with the RTC for violation of Sec. 6,
Central Bank Circular No. 960 with a penal sanction provided by Sec. 1, PD NO.
1883.

 Sec. 6, Central Bank Circular No. 960 provides that no person shall take
out or transmit or attempt to take out or transmit foreign exchange in any
form out of the Philippines without an authorization by the Central Bank.
Tourists and non-resident visitors may take out or send out from the
Philippine foreign exchange in amounts not exceeding such amounts of
foreign exchange brought in by them. Tourists and non-resident temporary
visitors bringing with them more than US$3,000.00 or its equivalent in
other foreign currencies shall declare their foreign exchange in the form
prescribed by the Central Bank at points of entries upon arrival in the
Philippines.

 Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1883 provides that any person who shall engage in the
trading or purchase and sale of foreign currency in violation of existing
 laws or rules and regulations of the Central Bank shall be guilty of the
crime of blackmarketing of foreign exchange and shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion temporal (minimum of 12 years and 1 day and maximum of
20 years) and a fine of no less than P50,000.00.

 At the trial, Lo Chi Fai tried to establish that he was a businessman from
Hongkong, that he had come to the Philippines 9 to 10 times to invest in business
in the country with his business associates, and that he and his business associates
declared all the money they brought in and all declarations were handed to and
kept by him.

 Because of the revolution taking place in Manila during that time, Lo Chi Fai was
urged by his business associates to come to Manila to bring the money out of the
Philippines.

 Commissioner of Customs, Alexander Padilla, then filed a complaint against Baltazar R.

Dizon for acquitting Lo Chi Fai.

Issue:

 Whether or not respondent Baltazar R. Dizon is guilty of gross incompetence or gross

ignorance of the law in holding that the accused, Lo Chi Fai, for violation of Central
Bank Circular No. 960, the prosecution must establish that the accused had the criminal
intent to violate the law.

Held:

 Yes.

Ratio:

 Baltazar R. Dizon ignored the fact that the foreign currency and foreign currency
instruments found in the possession of Lo Chi Fai when he was apprehended at the
airport and the amounts of such foreign exchange did not correspond to the foreign
currency declarations presented by Lo Chi Fai at the trial, and that these currency
declarations were declarations belonging to other people.
  In invoking the provisions of the Central Bank Circular No. 960 to justify the release of
US$3,000.00 to Lo Chi Fai, Baltazar R. Dizon again diplayed gross incompetence and
gross ignorance of law. There is nothing in the Central Bank Circular which could be
taken as authority for the trial court to release the said amount of US Currency to Lo Chi
Fai

Magno vs. CA

Facts:

Oriel Magno, lacking fund in acquiring complete set of equipment to make his car repair shop
operational, approached Corazon Teng, Vice President of Mancor Industries.

VP Teng referred Magno to LS Finance and Management Corporation, advising its Vice
President, Joey Gomez, that Mancor was willing to supply the pieces of equipment needed if LS
Finance could accommodate Magno and and provide him credit facilities.

The arrangement went on requiring Magno to pay 30% of the total amount of the equipment as
warranty deposit but Magno couldn't afford to pay so he requested VP Gomez to look for third
party who could lend him that amount.

Without Magno's knowledge, Corazon was the one who provided that amount.

As payment to the equipment, Magno issued six checks, two of them were cleared and the rest
had no sufficient fund.

Because of the unsuccessful venture, Magno failed to pay LS Finance which then pulled out the
equipment.

Magno was charged of violation of BP Blg. 2 (The Bouncing Checks Law) and found guilty.

Issue:

Whether or not Magno should be punished for the issuance of the checks in question.

Held:
No

Ratio:

To charge Magno for the refund of a warranty deposit which he did not withdraw as it was not
his own account, it having remained with LS Finance, is to even make him pay an unjust debt
since he did not receive the amount in question. All the while, said amount was in the
safekeeping of the financing company which is managed by the officials and employees of LS
Finance.