Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

Criminal Law 1 Notes

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

Felony is committed although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. A. WHEN DEATH (OF THE VICTIM) IS PRESUMED TO BE THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED Facts that must be established: o o o Victim must be in normal health when the injury was inflicted Death maybe expected from the physical injuries Death ensued within a reasonable time Facts: Jundam who was in good health on the morning of the incident, was whipped, spanked, and threw against the post by his teacher, thereby his breast hitting it. Victim complained to his mother about the oppressive pain. He then found two suspicious bluish spots- one on his breast and another one in his upper left arm. He vomited blood until HE DIED 3 DAYS AFTER. o Held: No proof of any intervening cause. Defendant is liable for homicide.

Jurisprudence: People VS Tammang (Jundam Case) o

B. NOT DIRECT, NATURAL AND LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE FELONY COMMITTED Consequences produced have resulted FROM A DISTINCT ACT OR FACT ABSOLUTELY FOREIGN from the criminal act OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE. Person is not criminally liable FOR ALL POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES which MAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW HIS FELONIOUS ACT. o Jurisprudence: People VS Rockwell (Felonious Horse) Facts: Held: Assailant was not responsible for the death of that other person. o People vs Rockwell VS People vs Cagoco Cagoco case, here no active force that intervened between the felonious act and the result. Rockwell case, There was an active force, which produced the result. INJURY CAUSED is not the direct, logical, and necessary consequence of the felony committed, because the felony committed IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE RESULTING INJURY. o Related Jurispridence U.S. VS De los Santos (Cesspool) Facts: A inflicted injury upon B, and the injured person later deliberately immerses his body in a contaminated cesspool, thereby causing his injuries to become infected and serious. Person struck another with his fist and knocked him down. Horse near them jumped upon him and killed him.

Held: Bs deliberate act of immersing himself in the cesspool was the proximate cause of the serious physical injuries. NOT THE SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSE BY A. Therefore A is NOT LIABLE for serious physical injuries.

People VS Palalon (Like who dies with a sampal?) Facts: Accused struck a boy on the mouth with the back of his hand. Later, the boy died. Held: Death must have been caused by the fever that is prevalent in the area. Accused was not liable for the death of the deceased U.S. VS Embate (Bantay Bata Case #1) Facts: A child who was seriously ill with fever for three weeks was struck by the accused upon the thighs, pushed and dragged him, threw him heavily on the floor. Child dies two days after. Held: Cause of the childs death was not ascertained and proved. Accused was convicted of physical injuries ONLY.

Urbano VS IAC (Tetanus as cause of death) Facts: A distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time the deceased was wounded to the time of his death. Held: Accused must be acquitted of the crim of homicide

C. FELONY COMMITTED IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE RESULTING INJURY WHEN There is an ACTIVE FORCE that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury. o Active force must be a distinct act OR absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused. o Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim. If there is a neglect of or an improper treatment of the wound, would the accused be liable? o YES! Neglect of or improper treatment of wound are consequences of the criminal act and which might naturally follow. Must be deemed to have been among the consequences which were in contemplation of the guilty party. o Unskillful and improper treatment may be an active force, but not a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act. Would the accused be liable for the consequences which originated from the fault or carelessness of the injured person? o It was held in U.S. VS Monasterial that persons responsible for an act constituting a crime ARE LIABLE FOR ALL THE CONSEQUENCES ARISING THEREFROM and INHERENT THEREIN. EXCEPT those due to incidents ENTIRELY FOREIGN TO THE ACT EXECUTED, or which ORGINATED THROUGH THE FAULT OR CARELESSNESS OF THE INJURED PERSON o It was also held in PEOPLE VS QUIANSON that one who inflicts injury on another is deemed guilty of homicide IF THE INJURY CONTRIBUTES TO

THE DEATH OF THE LATTER. Even if there are chances that the victim would survive if he had taken proper care of himself. o The fault or carelessness of the injured party, which would break the relation of the felony committed and the resulting injury, MUST HAVE ITS ORIGIN FROM HIS MALICIOUS ACT OR OMMISSION. D. A SUPERVENING EVENT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF AMENDMENT OF ORIGINAL INFORMATION OR OF A NEW CHARGE WITHOUT DOUBLE JEOPARDY Illustrative Example: People VS Petilla o Facts: Charge contained in the original information was for slight physical injuries, because at that time, the fiscal believed that the victims wound needs at 8 days of medical attendance to heal. During the preliminary investigations, the justice of the peace found out that the wound inflicted REALLY NEEDS 30 days of medical attendance to heal. o Held: The act which converted the crime into a more serious one HAD SUPERVENED after the filinf of the original information. THIS SUPERVENING CAN STILL BE THE SUBJECT OF AMENDMENT OR OF A NEW CHARGE without necessarily placing the accused in double jeopardy. E. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES Commission of an impossible crime: o o Indicative of criminal propensity or tendency on the part of the actor Person committing impossible crime is a potential criminal. Protect the community from anti-social activities of the morbid type of person AKA socially dangerous person. Requisites of impossible crimes: o Act performed would be an offense against persons or property The offender intends to commit a felony against persons or properties Act performed would have been an offense against persons or property THE FELONY MUST NOT BE COMITTED, OTHERWISE, THE PERSON WOULD BE LIABLE FOR THAT FELONY. What are crimes against persons? HIMPA-DRP: Homicide, Infanticide, Murder, Paricide, Abortion, Duel, Rape, Physical Injuries What are crimes against properties? BRUCT-SCAM: Brigandage, Robbery, Usurpation, Culpable Insolvency, Theft, Swindling, Chattel Mortgage, Arson, Malicious Mischief Act was done with evil intent Simply means that the actor, in performing the act MUST HAVE THE INTENT TO DO AN INJURY TO ANOTHER.

Why are we punishing impossible crimes? o

(1) Accomplishment of the act is INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE, the (2) means employed is either INADEQUATE or INEFFECTUAL Inherent Impossibility: Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment Act intended by the offender is by its nature ONE OF IMPOSSIBLE ACCOMPLISHMENT: o Legal Impossibility: Intended acts, even if consummated would not amount to a crime o Physical Impossibility: Extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. In People VS Balmores, the court enumerated examples of Impossible Crimes which are punishable under RPC, viz: 1) Putting poison on another soup, BUT what was actually mixed was a not-sopoisonous substance, 2) Murdering a corpse. Jurisprudence: Jacinto VS People o Facts: A collector for a company did not remit the customers check payment to the company but instead appropriated it for herself by depositing it in the bank of a relative. The check bounced. Impossible Crime: With evil intent: YES- intent to gain or be unjustly rich Crime against property/person: YES- theft, one of the crimes against property Consummation of the act is inherently impossible: YES theres nothing to steal because the check was unfunded. Example of offense against persons: Murdering a corpse of a dead person. In crimes against person, it is necessary that the victim could be injured or killed. Jurisprudence: Intod VS C.A. o Facts: Accused with intent to kill a person, peppered the latters bedroom with bullets. Intended victim was not at home, and was therefore not hurt. Impossible Crime: With evil intent: YES- Intent to kill Crime against property/person: YES- murder, one of the crimes against persons

Consummation of the act is inherently impossible: YEStheres no one to kill because the intended victim is not there

Example of offense against properties: A person took the watch of another. When the former had possession of the watch, he found out that it was the watch he had lost a week before. In crimes against property, the property taken must belong to another. An employee who knows the combination of the safe, opens it with the purpose of stealing money, but said safe was empty. No personal property could be taken, hence impossible.

Employment of inadequate means: The means to consummate the felony is insufficient (E.G. Small Quantity of Poison) The means were adequate BUT expected result was not produced- NOT AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME but a FRUSTRATED FELONY Employment of ineffectual means: The means employed did not produce the expected result (E.G. Pressed the trigger of the gun, not knowing that it is empty)

Act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.

Criminal Law 1 Notes

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

A. IN CONNECTION WITH ACTS WHICH SHOULD BE REPRESSED BUT WHICH ARE NOT COVERED BY THE LAW The aforestated provision of Art. 5 contemplates a trial of a criminal case: o o o o Act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law; Court deems it proper to repress such act; Court must dismiss the case and acquit the accused Judge must make a report to the Chief Executive through the Sec. of Justice, stating the reasons on why he/she believe that the unpunished act should be made a subject of penal legislation . B. IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES Court after trial finds the accused guilty Penalty prescribed by law and which was imposed by court appears to be clearly excessive because: o o Accused acted with lesser degree of malice No injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity

Court should not suspend the execution of the sentence Judge should submit a statement to the C.E. through the S.J. recommending executive clemency o Examples of the accused acting with lesser degree of malice: People VS Monleon Facts: Accused maltreated is wife in his inebriated state, because the latter prevented the former from whipping their child. The maltreatment inflicted on the victim is the proximate cause of her death. Accused was sentenced with reclusion perpetua Held: Court held that assuming the accused did not have intent to kill his wife, and the death might have been hastened because of lack of proper medical intention, reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive. People VS Espino, Et. Al. Facts: Father and son were convicted of qualified theft for stealing 10 coconut fruits from two coconut trees in a coconut plantation, for the familys consumption. Court sentenced each of them to an intermediate penalty of 4 mos. and 1 day of arresto mayor TO 3 years, 6 mos, and 21 days of prision correccional.

Held: C.A. believes that the degree of malice behind the appellants felonious act does not warrant the imposition of so stiff a penalty. Hence they were recommended for pardon after serving 4 months of the penalty imposed.

Example of total absence of injury People VS Cabagsan

C. EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY RECOMMENDED FOR THE WIFE WHO KILLED HER CRUEL HUSBAND People VS Canja o Facts: The accused apparently killed her husband and was convicted for the said act. On the day she killed her husband, victim came home drunk and struck him on the stomach until she fainted. When she recovered and asked her husband on why he did the foregoing, he threatened to renew the beating. During supper, instead of eating the meal set before him, he threw the rice from his plate. He left the house, and upon his return, she boxed his wife again. Thus prompted accused to kill her husband. o Held: Because of the circumstances, the provocations, and the fact that her conviction was based on her confession, court finds her deserving of executive clemency. Not full pardon but only a substantial reduction or commutation to her life sentence C. PENALTIES ARE NOT EXCESSIVE WBE INTENDED TO ENFORCE A PUBLIC POLICY People VS Estoista: Promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons (May cause rampant lawlessness against property, person, and the very security of the government) justify imprisonment which in normal circumstances may appear excessive Peope VS Tiu Ua: Profiteering justifies a heavy fine to prevent dealers from taking advantage of critical conditions to make unusual profits (In this case, the accused was meted with a fine of 5,000 pesos for selling a can of powdered Klim milk for 2.20 pesos when the SRP should be 1.80 pesos0. D. COURTS HAVE THE DUTY TO APPLY THE PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW Well settled rule: Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or mortality of laws. The only function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws and apply it if its not in disharmony with the constitution.

In short, regardless of the opinion of the judge regarding a certain penalty prescribed by law, if it is not deemed unconstitutional, he/she must apply it. People VS Olaes o Facts: A trial court judge sentenced the accused to life imprisonment although the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide was attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and in band, in view of the attitude of the C.E. on death penalty. o Held: Court MUST interpret and apply the laws as they find them on the statute books. Regardless of the manner their judgement are executed and implemented by the executive departments.

E. JUDGE HAS THE DUTY TO APPLY THE LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT People VS Santos: Notwithstanding his own opinion of the matter, it is the duty of the judge to apply the law as interpreted by the highest court of the land. The judge must think that any deviation from a principle laid down by him/her would apparently cause unnecessary, inconveniences, delays and expenses to the litigants. People VS Amigo: Accused-appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion perpetua is too cruel and harsh a penalty and pleads for sympathy. COURTS ARE NOT THE FORUM TO PLEAD FOR SYMPATHY. THEIR DUTY IS TO ENFORCE THE LAW REGARDLESS OF THEIR FEELING OF SYMPATHY OR PITY OF AN ACCUSED. DURA LEX SED LEX. F. WHEN A STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE Second paragraph of article 5 implies that: o Article 5 is not applicable to the offenses defined and penalized by a special law (People VS Salazar/Codal Provision itself. After the 4th comma of 2nd paragraph). o Article 5 may not be invoked in cases involving acts mala prohibita, because said article only applies to acts male in se (People VS Quebral/Codal provision itself after the last comma of the 2nd paragraph)

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

A. CONSUMMATED FELONY: All the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. B. FRUSTRATED FELONY: The (1) offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence BUT which, nevertheless, (2) do not produce it by (3)reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. C. ATTEMPTED FELONY: Elements: o Offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. o Does not perform all the acts of execution that will consummate the felony o Offenders act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance o Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to CAUE or ACCIDENT other than his spontaneous desistance Commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts o When is the commission of a felony deemed commenced directly by OVERT ACTS?: There be external acts External acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed o EXTERNAL ACTS must be RELATED TO THE OVERT ACTS OF THE CRIME THE OFFENDER INTENDED TO COMMIT Such act must not be mere preparatory acts, BECAUSE preparatory acts do not have direct connection with the crime which the offender intends to commit. Overt Acts defined: Some physical activity or deed, indicating intention to commit a particular crime. MORE THAN A MERE PLANNING OR PREPARATION, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course,

without being frustrated by external obstacles, nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator will logically ripen into a concrete offense. Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts when the following crime intended to be committed: Preparatory Acts VS Overt Acts D. DEVELOPMENT OF CRIME: 1. Internal Acts: Mere ideas in the mind of a person. Not punishable, even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime. Intent and effect must concur: Suppose A intended to commit treason and joined a body of armed men believing they were makapilis, when in fact they were guerilleros, A cannot be liable for treason though there was intent. 2. External Acts Preparatory Acts: Generally, not punishable,

Criminal Law 1 Notes

ARTICLE 7: On light felonies

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

Light Felonies: Those infraction of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor OR a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both is provided. L.F. punished by the RPC: (TAMIS)- Theft, Alteration of boundaries, Malicious mischief, Intriguing against honor, Slight Physical injuries As mentioned above, penalties are: Arresto Menor (1-30 days of imprisonment) or a fine not exceeding Php 200.00

IMPORTANT WORDS/PHRASES What is the meaning of exception of those committed against persons or property: o General Rule: L.F. punishable only when they have been consummated Ratio: L.F. produces light and inisignificant moral and material injuries THAT PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IS SATISFIED WITH PROVIDING A LIGHT PENALTY FOR THEIR CONSUMMATION o Exception: L.F. committed against persons/property are punishable even if attempted or frustrated. Ratio: Felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender moral depravity. Hence, even attempted or frustrated light felonies against persons or property are punishable. EXAMPLE OF L.F. AGAINST PERONS: Theft by hunting/gathering in an inclosed property/field where the value of the thing stolen doesn't exceed 5.00 pesos Theft where the value of the stolen property does not exceed 5 pesos. Offender prompted inter alia by hunger, poverty, etc Alteration or boundaries Malicious mischief where damage is not more 200.00 pesos.

Criminal Law I Notes

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

ARTICLE 8: On conspiracy and proposal to commit felony: IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES: What is the meaning of conspiracy and proposal to commit felony? o Indicates that conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are two different acts or felonies- conspiracy to commit a felony and proposal to commit a felony What is meaning of Only in the cases which the law sprecially provides a penalty therefore o Mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony. UNLESS there is a specific revision in the RPC that provides a penalty for conspiracy or proposal to commit a felony. Conspiracy is not a crime EXCEPT WHEN THE LAW SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES A PENALTY THEREFOR: Conspiracy- exist when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

Felonies where conspiracy is penalized: Treason, Rebellion, Sedition. o General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not punishable Ratio: Conspiracy and proposal are only preparatory acts. The law regards them innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases. The RPC specially provides a penalty for mere conspiracy in: o Art. 115 (Conspiracy

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

Criminal Law 1 Notes

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

ARTICLE 9: On classifications of felonies: Article 9 classifies felonies according to their gravity. o Gravity of the felonies is determined by the penalties attached to them by law. What is the meaning of To which the law attaches the capital punishment? o It means that grave felonies are those which are punishable by the capital punishment, it being DEATH PENALTY. What is the meaning of Or penalties in any of their periods are afflictive? o When the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the higher or highest of the penalties MUST BE AN INFLICTIVE PENALTY. Ex: Felony punishable by prision correctional to prision mayor is a grave felony. The higher penalties prescribed, that is, the latter, is an afflictive penalty. o Penalty prescribed is composed of 2 or more periods corresponding to different divisible penalties, higher or maximum period MUST BE THAT OF AN AFFLICTIVE PENALTY Ex: Felony punishable by prision correctional in its maximum period to minimum period of prision mayor is a grave felony. The higher period, i.e. minimum period of prision mayor is an afflictive penalty. What are the afflictive penalties in enumerated in Art. 25 of the RPC: o Reclusion perpetua o Reclusion temporal o Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification o Perpetual or temporary special disqualification o Prision mayor What is the meaning of penalties which in their maximum period are correctional

o When the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of two or more distinct penalties, higher or highest penalties must be a correctional penalties. Felony punishable by arresto menor to destierro is a less grave felony, higher of the two penalties prescribed which is destierro is a correctional penalty. o Penalty prescribed is composed of two or more periods corresponding to different divisible penalties, the higher or maximum period must be that of correctional penalty

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

ARTICLE 10: Offenses punishable under special laws are subject to the provisions of the RPC? Special laws are not under penal laws RPC is supplementary to special laws Penal code is not intended to supersede special penal laws. o Statcon: Special legal provisions prevail over general ones. nd 2 clause provides that RPC is supplementary to special laws unless the latter should provide the contrary. What is a special law? Not defined in the RPC Statute enacted by congress, that is penal in character, and does not amend the RPC.

Provisions of the RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special laws: Reason: S.L. do not provide for a scale of penalties as that in Art. 71 of the RPC. Where given period provided by the special laws does not contain 3 period. o Imprisonment should be used in reference to the penalty for the crime of illegal possession of firearms. P. Correcional and Mayor and Arresto Mayor are peculiar for crimes under RPC. Where the special law adopted penalties from the revised penal code, THE RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES BY DEGREES OR DETERMINING THE PROPER PERIOD SHOULD BE APPLIED.

Criminal Law I Notes

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

Imputability: The quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner. Implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done. Therefore it can be attributed as his/her very own. Responsibility: Obligation of suffering the penal and civil consequences of a crime. Imputability VS Responsibility Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person Responsibility implies that the person must take the consequence of such a deed

Guilt: Element of responsibility Justifying Circumstances: Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law. The person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. Basis of Justifying Circumstances: Non existences of a crime and the person do not incur any criminal liability.



BURDEN OF PROOF: Circumstances mentioned in article 11 are matters of defense. Incumbent upon the accused to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him IN ORDER TO AVOID CRIMINAL LIABILITY. SELF DEFENSE: When the accused invokes self defense, HE/SHE HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HE INDEED ACTED IN DEFENSE OF HIMSELF. Plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained WHERE IT IS NOT UNCORROBORATED BY ANY SEPARATE COMPETENT EVIDENCE.

RIGHTS INCLUDED IN SELF-DEFENSE (PPHR): Person, Property, Honor, Rights

WHY PENAL LAW MAKES SELF-DEFENSE LAWFUL: Mans natural instinct to protect, repel, and save his person or rights from an impending peril. Classicists in penal law: o o o Quite impossible for the state in all cases prevent aggression upon its citizens Quite impossible for state to offer protection to the person unjustly attacked Hard to conceive THAT a person should succumb to an unlawful aggression WITHOUT OFFERING RESISTANCE Positivists in penal law: An exercise of right, an act of social justice done to repel the attack of an aggression.


For right to self defense to exist: We be assaulted/attacked OR at least we be threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner.

AGGRESSION MUST BE UNLAWFUL Two kinds of aggression: Lawful: Exercise of a right in a more or less violent manner.

PEOPLE VS GAYRAMA: Facts: Chief of police threw stoned at the accused when the latter was running away from him to elude arrest for a crime committed in his presence. Held: Action of the chief of police is not an unlawful aggression because the purpose of the peace officer is to apprehend the criminal and put him under arrest.

VALCORZA VS PEOPLE: Facts: A policeman fired five cautionary shots into the air, aimed directly at the escaping detainee when said accused already had reasons to fear that the latter would be able to elude him and his pursuing companions. A person may use force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful invasion or usurpation of his property. A person who had killed his wife and/or the paramour exercised a lawful right, because by the said act, he was merely defending his honor and rights (US VS. MERCED) Unlawful: An attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent. Equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind. There is unlawful aggression when there is peril to ones life, limb, or right is actual or imminent. Can be actual physical assault or at least a threat (offensive and positively strong) US VS PADILLA Facts: Deceased was kidding the accused that the latter had no voice for singing. After an exchange of words and while still in the spirit of fun, the victim seized the accused by the throat. Said accused killed the victim with his riffle. Held: The fact that the deceased seized the accused by the throat and exerted pressure, and in spite of the opposition of the accused, it cannot be considered as an illegal aggression. PEOPLE VS YNCIERTO Facts: The son of the accused was in possession of a knife. The deceased held the hands of the accused and requested him to release the knife, but to no avail. In order to prevent bloodshed, the deceased tried to wrest the knife from him and subsequently, without any intention of hurting him, the accused pressed him against a coconut tree.

Held: Father of the deceased is not justified in killing the deceased because there was not unlawful aggression on the part of the latter.

PERIL TO ONES LIFE Actual: Danger must be present

US VS. JOSE LAUREL Facts: Concepcion Lat and several young people was walking on their way from the house of Exequiel Castillo in Tanauan, Batangas. On that night, Lat was approached by Jose Laurel who suddenly kissed her and immediately ran off. Laurel was pursued by Lats companions by they were not able to catch Laurel. Several days after the incident, Laurel and some young people attended an entertainment in the parochial school. Laurel was then approached by three of Castillos friend telling him that the latter wanted to see him. On the third summon, he already ascertained what Castillo wanted. When the two met, Castillo asked Laurel why he kissed Lat. When the latter gave the reason of his kissing Lat, Castillo struck him with a cane on the head which made him dizzy. Afraid that his aggressor would continue to assault him, he took hold his pocketknife and stabbed Exequiel. Castillo did not die though because of the timely medical aid rendered to him. Held: The act of Laurel was justified because it was attended by the three requisites necessary for him to make a self-defense- there was a lack of sufficient provocation on the part of Laurel and Laurel in defending himself with a pocketknife against the assault made upon him with a cane, employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the same. Imminent: Danger is on the point of happening. Not necessary that attack already begins.

PEOPLE VS CABUNGCAL Facts: The accused invited several persons to a picnic in a fishery in his property in Tayabas. After spending the whole day in the property, they returned in two boats- one being steered by the accused. The boat of the accused was carrying his wife, his son, and a nursing child of a married couple. The deceased was apparently a passenger of the accuseds boat. When the boat reached an area of great depth, the deceased rocked the boat which started it to take water. With the fear that the boat might capsize, accused asked the deceased to stop, but when the deceased seemed not to listen, the accused struck him on the forehead with an oar. The deceased fell into the water and obviously was submerged. When he recovered, he attempted to capsize the boat, and because of fear that the boast might overturn, the accused struck him once

more with the oar, thereby causing him to submerge and die as a consequence thereof. Held: The actions of the accused was actually justified. When the deceased was first warned to stop rocking the boat for it might upturn it, and did not listen, the accused thought that hitting him with the oar would be the only way of separate the deceased from the boat. Obviously there was a need for him to be disabled momentarily so and giving him a blow on the forehead was the least that could reasonably have been done. This consideration militates the second blow given in his neck, because then the danger was greater, especially the deceased had expressed his intention to upset it. THERE MUST BE ACTUL PHYSICAL FORCE OR ACTUAL USE OF WEAPON. Person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force OR with actual use of weapon. Insulting words addressed to the accused does not constitute unlawful aggression. Light push or a mere push or shove, not followed by other acts does not constitute unlawful aggression. Slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. WHY? Because the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it is a serious personal attack. MERE BELIEF OF AN IMPENDING ATTACK IS NOT SUFFICIENT Mere belief of an impending attack, intimidating or threatening attitude, a mere push or shove is not an unlawful aggression. FOOT KICK IS NOT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION PEOPLE VS. SABIO Facts: Sabio was squatting in a plaza with a friend. Romeo Bacobo and his friends approached Sabio et. al. Apparently all of them are close and old friends. Then Bacobo asked Sabio where he spent the holy week. And while asking he gave Sabio a foot kick greeting. Sabio thereupon stoop up and dealt Romeo Bacobo with a fist blow causing Bacobo to have a lacerated wound which took 11 to 12 days to heal. It also prevented Bacobo from working. Held: Foot kick greeting between friends may be a practical joke, and may even hurt. BUT IT IS NOT A SERIOUS OR REAL ATTACK ON A PERSONS SAFETY. RETALIATION IS NOT SELF-DEFENSE Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense. RETALIATION: aggression given by the injured party ALREADY CEASED TO EXIST. SELF DEFENSE: AGGRESSION WAS STILL EXISTING when the aggressor was injured by the person making a defense. RETALIATION IS NOT A JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE



NATURE, CHARACTER, LOCATION, AND EXTENT OF WOUND OF THE ACCUSED ALLEGEDLT INFLICTED BY THE INJURED PARTY MAY BELIE CLAIM ON SELF-DEFENSE Accused claiming self-defense, exhibited a small scar caused by an instrument on his head. Location, number, and seriousness of the stab wounds inflicted on the victims belie the claim of self-defense. Nature, character, location, and extend of the wounds suffered by the deceased belie any supposition that it was the deceased who was the unlawful aggressor. Appellants theory of self-defense is negative by the nature and location of the victims wounds which, having a right -to left direction could not have possibly been inflicted by a right-handed person in front of the victim with a two-feet long bolo. In the view of the number of wounds of the deceased, 19 in number, the plea of self-defense cannot be seriously entertained.



WHEN THE AGGRESSOR FLEES, UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION NO LONGER EXIST. PEOPLE VS ALCONGA Facts: Deceased was the banker in a game of black jack. On the other hand the accused posted himself behind the deceased acting as a spotter thereby communicating the deceaseds cards to his partner by signs. When the deceased discovered the trick, a fight ensued between the him and the accused. Both of them engaged in a hand fight wherein the accused and the deceased used a bolo and a dagger respectively. When the deceased sustained several wounds, he ran away, but was followed by the accused. Unsurprisingly, another fight ensued, this time, the accused caused slashed the cranium of the deceased. Held: 2 stages in the fight that ensued. 1st stage. Accused was acting in self-defense because then the deceased who had attacked the accused with repeated blows was the unlawful aggressor. The 2nd stage the accused now becomes the unlawful aggressor. THE MOMENT THE DECEASED RAN AWAY, THERE WAS NO LONGER DANGER TO THE LIFE OF THE ACCUSED. AND WHEN HE OPTED TO CHASE THE DECEASED AND THEREBY FATALLY

WOUNDING HIM, ALCONGA WAS NO LONGER ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE. NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WHEN THERE IS AGREEMENT TO FIGHT. REASON: When parties mutually agree to fight, it is immaterial who attacks or receives the wound first, for the first act of force is an incident of the fight itself. Attacks that would be given by either of the two parties IS NOT AN UNWARRANTED AND UNEXPECTED AGGRESSION which alone cannot legalize self-defense. AGGRESSION WHICH IS AHEAD OF THE STIPULATED TIME AND PLACE IS UNLAWFUL. ONE WHO VOLUNTARILY JOINED A FIGHT CANNOT CLAIM SELFDEFENSE. (REFER TO PEOPLE VS KRUSE) THE RULE NOW IS STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE RIGHT If one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked in the back by the aggressor. HOW TO DETERMINE THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR: In the absence of direct evidence, 1.) The person who was deeply insulted and was apparently in the proper position to demand for an explanation from the perpetrator of said insult. 2.) The one who also struck the first blow when he/she was not satisfied with the explanation. o UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF OTHER RIGHTS Attempt to rape a woman- defense of right to chastity Defense of property Defense of home PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ Facts: The accused is a woman who was walking with a certain Francisco Rivera on the night the incident happened. It was already dark and they were passing through a narrow path. When the others were far ahead, the deceased threw his arms around the accused from behind, caught hold of her breasts, kissed her, and TOUCHED HER HOOHAH! When could not do anything more against the strength of her aggressor, she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him. Held: She was justified in making use of the knife to protect her from the attack against her honor. PEOPLE VS JAURIGUE Facts: The deceased was courting the accused in vain. When on the time the accused confessed his love for the accused, the latter turned him down, after that the deceased embraced and kissed. After that encounter, the accused started to bring a knife whenever she would leave the house. When the accused went to the church, it so happened that the deceased was also there. The latter sat down beside the accused and placed his hand on the upper

part of her thigh. Accused pulled out her fan knife and with it stabbed the deceased inflicting a mortal wound. Held: Means employed by the accused in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive. With the circumstances surrounding the crime scene- well-lighted area, with many people in there- the father of the deceased and the barrio lieutenant included, it was impossible for a rape to ensue. PEOPLE VS APOLINAR Facts: The accused armed with a shotgun was looking over his land. He then noticed a man carrying a bundle on his should which he believe was palay stolen from his land. The accused shouted at the deceased and demanded him to stop, but to no avail. The accused then fired at him causing his death. Held: Killing of the ostensible burglar was unjustified. Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance ONLY when it is couple with an attack on the person who is at the possession of the said property. o BELIEF OF THE ACCUSED MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION o THERE IS SELF-DEFENSE EVEN IF THE AGGRESSOR USED A TOR PISTOL PROVIDED THE ACCUSED BELIEVED IT WAS REAL GUN. o PEOPLE VS. CALIP- Forcibly pushing picketers to let company trucks enter the compound is not unlawful aggression against the rights of the picketers. o MERE THREATENING ATTITUDE IS NOT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION US VS GUY-SAYCO Facts: Accused decided to go to the town where her husband was. After preparing her things and some of her husbands as well, he hired a carromata that will bring her to the camarin of her husband. Upon arriving, she saw her husbands horse, and upon entering she saw her husband eating supper with the deceased and the ownders of the house. Because of jealousy she rushed at Lorenza Estrada, attacked her with a pen knife and inflicted 5 wounds upon her, thereby causing her death. Held: No unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. Mere asking of why accused was there does not constitute an unlawful aggression o EXAMPLES OF THREATS TO INFLICT REAL INJURY One aims a revolver at another with intention to shoot him Opening a knife and making a motion as if to make an attack Above cases are threatening attitude. Both are offensive and positively strong o AGGRESSION MUST BE REAL NOT MERELY IMAGINARY (PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it o When we are attacked: WE prevent the aggression that places us in imminent danger

WE repel the aggression that places us in actual danger The law protects not only the person who repels BUT EVEN the person who tries to prevent the aggression that is expected.


REASONABLENESS OF THE NECESSITY DEPENDS UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES PEOPLE VS OCAA AND C.A. Facts: Accused who was then unarmed who was being mauled with fistic blows by the deceased and his companions picked up a lead pipe and struck the deceased on the forehead thereby causing his death. Held: The use by the accused of such lead pipe under the circumstances is reasonable. The accused did not select a lesser vital portion of the body of deceased to hit is reasonably to be expected. In that situation, accused must move in split-second OR else his life would be endangered. Necessity of the course of action taken o Necessity of the course of action taken: Necessity of the course of action taken depends on the existence of unlawful aggression. o In determining the existence of unlawful aggression that induced a person to take a course of action, place and occasion of the assault and the other circumstances MUST BE CONSIDERED PLACE AND OCCASION OF THE ASSAULT CONSIDERED DARKNESS OF THE NIGHT AND THE SURPRISE WHICH CHARACTERIZED THE ASSAULT CONSIDERED NO NECESSITY OF THE COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN On the case of Alconga, the course of action taken by the latter is not necessary anymore because the deceased already ran away. If the danger or risk on his part disappeared, stabbing the aggressor while defending himself should have stopped. U.S. VS Rivera: FACTS: Deceased endeavor to set fire to the house of the accused wherein two small children of the accused were sleeping. HELD: The fact that the deceased was already outside of the house and prostrate on the ground because she was boloed by the accused, theres no necessity of killing her already. U.S. VS Pacsa: FACTS: Accused picked up a bamboo pole to keep his adversary at bay, then struck the deceased on the head with it. HELD: Accused was not justified in striking the head of the deceased with it BECAUSE his life was not in real danger. Even if the deceased was armed with a bolo, he did not attempt to draw

it. He shouldve limited his assault to an attempt to push the accused back to the shallow pool. THE PERSON DEFENDING IS NOT EXPECTED TO CONTROL HIS BLOW Person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to control his blow. Killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified AS LONG AS THE MORTAL WOUNDS ARE INFLICTED AT A TIME WHEN THE ELEMENTS OF COMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE ARE STILL PRESENT. Aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the one making a defense to determine what course of action to take. PEOPLE VS PANTE o Facts: When the deceased was about to stab the superior officer of the accused, the latter hit the deceased with a palma brava. Trial court believed that accused should have only struck his hand to disable it, or only hit him in a less vulnerable part of the body. o Held: It can be deduced that the court finds the accuseds actions as justified. It held that the trial court demanded too much of the accuseds wisdom, judgement, and discretion during the split second he had to think and act to save his superior. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM