People v.

Ortega (276 SCRA 166)

Facts :

In 1992, Benjamin Ortega, Jr., Manuel Garcia and a certain John Doe were changed
with murder for the killing Andre Man Masangkay. As narrated by a witness, the
victim answered the called of nature and went to the back portion of the house
where they were having a drinking spree. Accused Ortega followed him and later
they heard the victim shouting for help and when they ran towards the scene he
saw the accused on top of the victim and stabbing the latter with a long bladed
weapon. Thereafter, Ortega and Garcia brought the victim to a well and dropped
him and placed stones into the well. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. The accused appealed averring that the trial court erred in
holding them criminally liable because at the time the victim was dropped into the
well, he was still alive.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused may be held criminally liable for the death of the victim
which is not attributable to the stab wounds but due to drowning?

Decision:

A person who commits a felony is criminally liable for the direct natural and logical
consequences of his wrongful act even where the resulting crime is more serious
than that intended. The essential requisites for this criminal liability to attach are as
follows :

1. the intended act is felonious ;

2. the resulting act is likewise a felony; and
3. the unintended graven wrong was primarily caused by the actors wrongful acts.

Urbano v. People (G.R. No. 182750)

Facts:
Petitioner
Urbano testified being, in the afternoon of September 28, 1993, in the nearby town
of Bugallon for a picnic. He was with Tomelden and several others, including
Dominador Navarro, Chairperson of Lingayen Water District. At a restaurant in
Bugallon, the group ordered goats meat and drank beer. When it was time to
depart, Navarro asked petitioner to inform Tomelden, then seated in another table,
to prepare to leave.
When so informed, Tomelden insulted petitioner, telling the latter he had no
business stopping him from further drinking as he was paying for his share of the
bill. Chastised, petitioner returned to his table to report to Navarro. At that time,
petitioner saw that Tomelden had already consumed 17 bottles of beer. In all, the
group stayed at the picnic place for three and a half hours before returning to the
LIWAD. Upon reaching the LIWAD compound, Tomelden allegedly slapped and
hurled insults at him, calling him "sipsip" just to maintain his employment as
Navarros tricycle driver. Tomelden allegedly then delivered several fist and kick
blows at petitioner, a couple of which hit him despite his evasive actions. Petitioner
maintained that he only boxed the victim in retaliation, landing that lucky punch in
the course of parrying the latters blows.
Thereafter, Tomelden went to the hospital several times complaining of dizziness,
headache, and other pains. The last time he went to the hospital, things turned for
the worst. Tomelden died due, per Dr. Arellano, to "cardio-respiratory arrest
secondary to cerebral concussion with resultant cerebral hemorrhage due to
mauling incident."

Orje Salazar, their co-worker, attests to the provocative acts of Tomelden and to his
being the aggressor.

Issue:
Whether or not the victims insulting remarks directed at the accused, and
uttered immediately before the fist fight constitute sufficient provocation?

Decision:

When
the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating circumstance or as an essential
element of self-defense, the reference is to an unjust or improper conduct of the
offended party capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone; it is not enough
that the provocative act be unreasonable or annoying; the provocation must be
sufficient to excite one to commit the wrongful act and should immediately precede
the act. This third requisite of self-defense is present: (1) when no provocation at all
was given to the aggressor; (2) when, even if provocation was given, it was not
sufficient; (3) when even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the
person defending himself; or (4) when even if a provocation was given by the
person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of
aggression.
In the instant case, Tomeldens insulting remarks directed at petitioner and uttered
immediately before the fist fight constituted sufficient provocation. This is not to
mention other irritating statements made by the deceased while they were having
beer in Bugallon. Petitioner was the one provoked and challenged to a fist fight.

People of the Philippines vs Francisco Abarca

153 SCRA 742
One day in 1984, Francisco Abarca, through a peephole, caught his wife having
sexual intercourse with one Khingsley Paul Koh inside the Abarca residence. The two
also caught Abarca looking at them and so Koh grabbed his pistol and thereafter
Abarca fled. One hour later, Abarca, armed with an armalite, went to the gambling
place where Koh usually stays and then and there shot Koh multiple times. Koh died
instantaneously. However, two more persons were shot in the adjacent room. These
two other persons survived due to timely medical intervention.

Eventually after trial, Abarca was convicted of the complex crime of murder with
frustrated double murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment of conviction is correct.

HELD: No. Abarca is entitled to the provisions of Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code which provides:

Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of
them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious
physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married person
surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter. These elements are present in this case.

Even though one hour had already lapsed from the time Abarca caught his wife with
Koh and the time he killed Koh, the killing was still the direct by-product of Abarcas
rage. Therefore, Abarca is not liable for the death of Koh.

However, Abarca is still liable for the injuries he caused to the two other persons he
shot in the adjacent room but his liability shall not be for frustrated murder. In the
first place, Abarca has no intent to kill the other two persons injured. He was not
also committing a crime when he was firing his gun at Koh it being under Art. 247.
Abarca was however negligent because he did not exercise all precaution to make
sure no one else will be hurt. As such, he shall be liable for less serious physical
injuries through simple negligence for the injuries suffered by the two other persons
who were in the adjacent room when the incident happened.

Bataclan v. Medina [G.R. No. L-10126, October 22, 1957]

Facts:

At about 2:00am of September 13, 1952, the bus, operated by its owner defendant Mariano
Medina and driven by its regular chauffeur, Conrado Saylon, left the town of Amadeo, Cavite.
While on its way to Pasay City, one of the front tires burst and the vehicle began to zig-zag
until it fell into a canal or ditch on the right side of the road and turned turtle.

Some of the passengers managed to leave the bus but the three passengers seated beside
the driver, named Bataclan, Lara and the Visayan and the woman behind them named Natalia
Villanueva, could not get out of the overturned bus. No evidence to show that the freed
passengers, including the driver and the conductor, made any attempt to pull out or extricate
and rescue the four passengers trapped inside the vehicle.

After half an hour, came about ten men, one of them carrying a lighted torch, approach the
overturned bus, and almost immediately, a fierce fire started, burning and all but consuming
the bus, including the four passengers trapped inside it.

That same day, the charred bodies of the four passengers inside the bus were removed and
duly identified that of Juan Bataclan. By reason of his death, his widow, Salud Villanueva, in
her name and in behalf of her five minor children, brought the present suit to recover from

Mariano Medina compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees in the
total amount of P87,150.

After trial, the CFI Cavite awarded P1,000 to the plaintiffs plus P600 as attorney's fee, plus
P100, the value of the merchandise being carried by Bataclan to Pasay City for sale and
which was lost in the fire. Both plaintiffs and defendants appealed the case to CA which
endorsed the case to SC.

Issue: W/N the proximate cause of the death of Bataclan was the overturning of the bus or the fire that
burned the bus, including the 4 passengers left inside.

Held:

The Court held that the proximate cause was the overturning of the bus because when the
vehicle turned not only on its side but completely on its back, the leaking of the gasoline from
the tank was not unnatural or unexpected.

The coming of the men with a lighted torch was in response to the call for help, made not only
by the passengers, but most probably, by the driver and the conductor themselves, and that
because it was dark (about 2:30 in the morning), the rescuers had to carry a light with them,
and coming as they did from a rural area where lanterns and flashlights were not available.

In other words, the coming of the men with a torch was to be expected and was a natural
sequence of the overturning of the bus, the trapping of some of its passengers and the call for
outside help.

Moreover, the burning of the bus can also in part be attributed to the negligence of the carrier,
through its driver and its conductor. According to the witness, the driver and the conductor
were on the road walking back and forth. They, or at least, the driver should and must have
known that in the position in which the overturned bus was, gasoline could and must have
leaked from the gasoline tank and soaked the area in and around the bus.

The leaked gasoline can be smelt and directed even from a distance, and yet neither the
driver nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned or taken steps to warn the rescuers
not to bring the lighted torch too near the bus.

In addition, the case involves a breach of contract of transportation because the Medina
Transportation failed to carry Bataclan safely to his destination, Pasay City. There was
likewise negligence on the part of the defendant, through his agent, the driver Saylon. There is

evidence to show that at the time of the blow out, the bus was speeding and that the driver
failed to changed the tires into new ones as instructed by Mariano Medina.

The driver had not been diligent and had not taken the necessary precautions to insure the
safety of his passengers. Had he changed the tires, specially those in front, with new ones, as
he had been instructed to do, probably, despite his speeding, the blow out would not have
occurred.

People vs. Macario Ulep

GR No. L-36858, JUNE 20, 1988
People vs. UlepFacts: Macario Ulep, accused, elbowed her wife on her breast, upon
being drunk and utteringindecent words. Subsequently, the victim vomited and then
went to bed. !he accused then leftfor the fields and upon returning home, found his
wife dead. "e immediately reported this deathto their barrio captain. Medical reports
show that the victim#s cause of death is due to cardiacarrest and primary shock.
$ssue: %&' the accused is criminally liable for the death of his wife."eld: (es. )ven
though a blow with the fist or a kick does not cause any e*ternal wound, it may
easily produce inflammation of the spleen and peritonitis and cause death, and
even though the victim may have been previously affected by some internal
malady, yet if the blow with the fistor foot accelerated death, he who caused such
acceleration is responsible for the death as theresult of an in+ury willfully and
unlawfully inflicted. !here is that clear and categorical showing that on the appellant
fell the blame for these inhuman acts on his wife. "e should answer for her tragic
death.!hough, the appellant presented a witness to prove that sometime,his wife
was pinned down by a sack of rice and the side portion of a bullcart and was
attended to by a town quack doctorcalled an
arbularyo
. !his witness said that two - ribs on each side of the chest were fractured,
without stating which particular ribs were so affected. "owever, it was being held
that even if the victim is suffering from an internal ailment, liver or heart disease, or
tuberculosis, if the blow delivered by the accused / a is the efficient cause of
death0 orb accelerated his death0 orc is the pro*imate cause of death0
then there is criminal liability. 1propos to all these is that time2respected doctrine:
3"e who is the cause of the cause is thecause of the evil caused.3 !his is the
rationale in 1rticle 4 of the 5evised Penal 6ode whichprovides that 3criminal liability
shall be incurred by a person committing a felony delito although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended.3

PEOPLE VS BINDOY

G.R. NO. L-34665 August 28, 1931

FACTS: Appeal from a judgement of the CFI of Occidental Misamis, for appelant was
stenced to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal and to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased with the amount of P1,000. The crime charged against the accused is
homicide.

In the afternoon of May 6, 1930, a disturbance arose in a tuba wineshop. Donato

Bindoy offered some tuba to Faustino Paca's wife Tibay. She refused because she
already have one, but Bindoy threatened to injure her if she did not accept. Pacas
stepped in to defend his wife, attempting to take away from Bindoy the bolo he
carried. Emigdio Omamdam who came to the wine shop to see what;s happening,
instead got stabbed in the chest by Bindoy. This happened when Bindoy succeeded
in disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo from the latter's hand
towards the left behind the accused and with such violence that the point of the
bolo reached Omamdam's chest who was then behind Bindoy.

ISSUE(S): Whether or not Bindoy is criminally liable?

HELD: Corroborated by Gaudencio Cenas of the testimony of the accused, Pacas and
Bindoy were actually for the possession of the bolo. When Pacas let go of the bolo,
Bindoy had pulled so violently that it flew towards his left side, at the very moment
when Emigdio Omamdam came up and who was therefore hit in the chest without
Bindoy seeing him. Bindoy alleges that it was caused accidentally and without
malicious intent because he was only defending his possession of the bolo which
Pacas was trying to wrench away from him and his conduct was perfectly lawful.
The Court therefore acquitted Bindoy based on the facts stated.
35. PEOPLE v. TRINIDAD [169 SCRA 51 (1989)]

Facts: Trinidad accused of 2 counts of murder & 1 count frustrated murder. Accused
in member of INP in Nasipit. Crime occurred in Butuan between El Rio & Agfa while
they were in a fierra bounf for Davao. Trinidad shot & killed Soriano & Laron while he
shot and injured Tan

Issue: WON conviction is proper?

Held: Affirmed. Murder and attempted murder. Trinidad alibi is weak and overridden
by Tan and Commendadors positive identification. Though some discrepancies in
testimonies are found, these are trivial. Distance between Trinidad & 2 deceased

immaterial. Important is that he shot them. Tan has no seen ill motive to falsifiably
testify against Trinidad. It is attempted and not frustrated murder because he failed
to execute all acts due to moving vehicle

36. PEOPLE v. VELASCO [73 SCRA 574 (1976)]

Facts: Accused Ricardo Velasco charged of rapin five year old Estelita Lopez on Nov.
2, 1967, 5:30 pm at North Cemetery, Manila. Physical exam showed: fresh
laceration of hymen, vaginal opening painful and sensitive to touch, must have has
sexual intercourse recently before examination
Issue: WON conviction is valid
Held: Yes. Conviction affirmed
Ratio: Valid and strong testimony of medico-legal officer whos an expert. Proof
enough that male organ entered within labia of pudendum as required in People v.
Pastores

People vs. Domasian

G.R. No. 95322

March 1, 1993

FACTS:
March 11, 1982 morning: While Enrico was walking with Tirso Ferreras, his
classmate, along Roque street in the poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was
approached by Pablito Domasian who requested his assistance in getting his
father's signature on a medical certificate. Enrico agreed to help and rode with the
man in a tricycle to Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the man went into
a building to get the certificate. Enrico became apprehensive and started to cry
when, instead of taking him to the hospital, the man flagged a minibus and forced
him inside, holding him firmly all the while. The man told him to stop crying or he
would not be returned to his father. When they alighted at Gumaca, they took
another tricycle, this time bound for the municipal building from where they walked
to the market. Here the man talked to a jeepney driver and handed him an envelope
addressed to Dr. Enrique Agra, the boy's father. The two then boarded a tricycle
headed for San Vicente. As Enrico was crying and being firmly held, Alexander
Grate, the tricycle driver became suspicious and asked Domasian about his
relationship with the boy who told him they were brothers. Their physical
differences and the wide gap between their ages made Grate doubt so he
immediately reported the matter to two barangay tanods when his passengers
alighted from the tricycle. Grate and the tanods went after the two and saw the
man dragging the boy. Noticing that they were being pursued, Domasian was able
to escape, leaving Enrico behind. Enrico was on his way home in a passenger jeep

when he met his parents, who were riding in the hospital ambulance and already
looking for him.
At about 1:45 in the afternoon of the same day, after Enrico's return, Agra
received an envelope containing a ransom note. The note demanded P1 million for
the release of Enrico and warned that otherwise the boy would be killed. Agra
thought the handwriting in the note was familiar. After comparing it with some
records in the hospital, he gave the note to the police, which referred it to the NBI
for examination
March 11, 1982 1:45 pm: Agra received an envelope containing a ransom note
demanding P1 million otherwise Enrico will be killed. . Agra thought the handwriting
in the note was familiar so he referred it to the NBI for examination and it turned out
to be Dr. Samson Tans signature.
Domasian and Tan were subsequently charged with the crime of kidnapping with
serious illegal detention in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
o Domasians alibi: at the time of the incident he was watching a mahjong game
in a friend's house and later went to an optical clinic with his wife for the refraction
of his eyeglasses
o

Dr. Tans alibi: he was in Manila

Enrico, Tirso Ferreras and Grate all pointed Domasian.

RTC: Domasian and Tan guilty as charged and sentenced them to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and all accessory penalties

Appealed

ISSUE: W/N Domasian and Tan is guilty of kidnapping kidnapping with serious illegal
detention

HELD: YES. appealed decision is AFFIRMED

Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention may consist not only in
placing a person in an enclosure but also in detaining him or depriving him in any
manner of his liberty
Tan claims that the lower court erred in not finding that the sending of the
ransom note was an impossible crime which he says is not punishable.
Tan conveniently forgets the first paragraphs of the same article, which clearly
applies to him, thus:
Art. 4.

Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
Even before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping with serious
illegal detention had already been committed. The act cannot be considered an
impossible crime because there was no inherent improbability of its
accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective means. The
sending of the ransom note would have had the effect only of increasing the penalty
to death under the last paragraph of Article 267 although this too would not have
been possible under the new Constitution.
On the issue of conspiracy, we note first that it exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit
it, whether they act through physical volition of one or all, proceeding severally or
collectively. These acts were complementary to each other and geared toward the
attainment of the common ultimate objective, viz., to extort the ransom of P1
million in exchange for Enrico's life.
The motive for the offense is not difficult to discover. According to Agra, Tan
approached him 6 days before the incident happened and requested a loan of at
least P15,000.00. Agra said he had no funds at that moment and Tan did not believe
him, angrily saying that Agra could even raise a million pesos if he really wanted to
help.