People v Boholst-Caballero

GR. No. L-23249 November 25, 1974

J. Muoz Palma

People v Catbagan
G.R. Nos. 149430-32 February 23, 2004
J. Panganiban

Facts
* One night, after carolling, Boholst met
Caballero who upon seeing her, manhandled
her. There were an exchange of words and
later on, Caballero was already holding her
by the hair and slapping her face until her
nose bled.
* Caballero pushed her to the grounds, and
to stop herself from falling, she held on to his
waist. As she did so, she grasped the knife
tucked by the left side of his body.
* She fell to the ground then Caballero knelt
over her and chocked her saying that he will
kill her. Because she had no other recourse,
she pulled out the knife of her husband and
thrust it at him, hitting the left side of his
body near the belt line.
* When she was finally free, she ran home
and on the way, she threw the knife.
* In the morning, she surrendered to the
police and presented the torn and bloodstained dress she wore that night. The police
officer accompanied her to look for the
weapon but when it can no longer be found,
she was advised to just give any knife and
she did (now marked Exhibit C).
* However, according to another witness, on
the night of the incident, Boholst was already
waiting for Caballero, and when he
approached her, she suddenly stabbed
Francisco her with the knife marked by the
prosecution as Exhibit C.
Issue
WON Boholst act in legitimate defense of her
person
Held
Yes. All the elements of self-defense are
present:
* unlawful aggression as pointed out above
* reasonable necessity for means employed:
woman strangled and chocked by a furious
aggressor, rendered almost unconcious by
the strong pressure on her throat. What is
vital is the imminent peril to Boholsts life.
The knife afforded appellant the only
reasonable means with which she could free
and save herself. Necessity knows no law.
* Lack of sufficient provocation: Boholst did
not provoke Caballero. She gave a valid
excuse that she went carolling to earn money
for their child.

Facts
* Danilo Lapidante, employee of Manila
Water Company, held his birthday on
March 15, 1998. During the reveries, Sgt.
Celso Suico of the Philippine Air Force and
member of the PSG, a guest, fired shots
in the air. Since it was election time and the
gun ban was in effect, the shots got the
attention
of Carmelo Catbagan, an
investigator of PNP who lived one block away
from Lapidantes house.
* At 5:00 pm, Catbagan went there to ask
who fired the shots but Suico
was
not
present
because
the
latter
accompanied the birthday celebrant in
bringing some guests
home.
Suico,
embarrassed, went home.
* At 5:30pm,
Catbagan
returned
and
inquired.
Suico answered Its nothing,
just part of the celebration.
* Suddenly a piece of stone was thrown from
the house of Lapidante to the direction of the
accused. Irritated, the accused asked his
companion Farabier to investigate.
* At that moment, Suico extended his hand
towards Catbagan to introduce himself as
part of PSG.
Catbagan
drew
out
his
gun
and
fired successively at Suico who
was shouting, Wag, pare. Despite
this,
Catbagan
fired
some
more
shots.
Catbagan also fired at one Jun Lacadan,
another guest, and at Lapidante.
Issue
WON Catbagan was justified in shooting the
victim out of fulfillment of duty
Held
No. Art. 111 of the RPC provides that a
person who acts in fulfillment of a duty
or in lawful exercise of a right or office
does not incur criminal liability. In the
present case, Catbagan was not performing
his duties at the time because the men he
shot had not been indiscriminately firing
guns in his presence. Also, he was not
there to effect an arrest because he did not
know who fired the gun. He was only there to
determine who fired the gunshots, the fatal
wounds on his victims were not a necessary
consequence of the performance of his
duty. His presence at the scene was in
the
legitimate performance of his duty.
But
his
act
of
shooting cannot
be

justified. His presence at the scene of

the crime is different from his act of shooting
the victims.
People v Madarang
G.R. No. 132319. May 12, 2000
J. Puno
Facts
* Appellant was convicted of parricide for
stabbing his wife, causing her death.
* Appellant alleges he was in a state of
insanity and claims he had no recollection of
the stabbing incident. He insists that he was
deprived of intelligence, making his act
involuntary.
* His psychiatric evaluation revealed he was
suffering from schizophrenia but after two
years in the National Center for Mental
Health his condition improved thus, he was
released.
Issue
WON the accused can claim the exemption of
insanity
Held
No. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties
will not exclude immutability. The issue of
insanity is a question of fact. The state or
condition of a mans mind can only be
measured and judged by his behavior.
Establishing
ones
insanity
requires
testimony of an expert witness, such as a
psychiatrist. The proof must relate to the
time preceding or coetaneous with the
commission of the offense with which he is
charged. None of the witnesses declared that
he exhibited any of the symptoms associated
with schizophrenia immediately before or
simultaneous with the stabbing incident. Also
schizophrenics have lucid intervals during
which they are capable of distinguishing right
from wrong.
People v Bonoan
GR. No. L-45130 February 17, 1937
J. Laurel
Facts
* Celestino Bonoan is charged with the crime
of murder for stabbing Carlos Guison with a
knife, which caused his death three days
afterwards. An arraignment was then called,
but the defense objected on the ground that
the defendant was mentally deranged and
was at the time confined at the Psychopatic
Hospital.

* After several months of summons for

doctors, production of the defendants
complete record of mental condition from the
hospital and defendants admission to the
hospital for personal observation, assistant
alienist Dr. Jose Fernandez finally reported to
the court that Bonoan may be discharged for
being a recovered case.
* After trial, the lower court found Bonoan
guilty
and
sentenced
him
to
life
imprisonment.
* The defense now appeals, claiming the
lower court made errors in finding Bonoan
suffered dementia only occasionally and
intermittently, did not show any kind of
abnormality, that the defense did not
establish the defendants insanity and finding
accused guilty.
Issue
WON the lower court erred in finding the
accused guilty
Held
Yes. The Court finds the accused demented
at the time he perpetrated the crime, which
consequently exempts him from criminal
liability, and orders for his confinement in
San Lazaro Hospital or other hospital for the
insane. This ruling was based on the
following evidence:
* Uncontradicted evidence that accused was
confined in the insane department of San
Lazaro Hospital and diagnosed with dementia
praecox long before the commission of the
offense and recurrence of ailments were not
entirely lacking of scientific foundation
* Persons with dementia praecox are
disqualified from legal responsibility because
they have no control of their acts; dementia
praecox
symptoms
similar
to
manic
depression psychosis
* Accused had an insomnia attack, a
symptom leading to dementia praecox, four
days prior to act according to Dr. Francisco
* Accused was sent the Psychopatic hospital
on the same day of crime and arrest,
indicating the polices doubt of his mental
normalcy
* Defendant suffered from manic depressive
psychosis according to Dr. Joson
People v Estepano
G.R. No. 126283 May 28, 1999
J. Bellosillo

Facts
* The case was woven mainly on the
testimony of Florencio Tayco, that on
April 16, 1991 at around 10 pm, he was
on
his
way
home
in Barangay
IV
Himamaylan
with
Lopito
Gaudia
and
Enrique Balinas.
* En route, they met Dominador at the BM
Trucking compound. Lopito than talked
to Dominador while he and Estepano
stood nearby. Rodrigo appeared without
any provocation stabbed Enrique in the
stomach with a guinunting (fighting bolo).
* Ruben armed with a cane cutter and
Rodney, Dante and Rene, each armed
with a bolo followed
suit
in
hacking
Enrique.
* While this was happening, Dominador
told his companions You better kill him!"
Lopito
confirmed
the
testimony
of
Florencio.
Issue
WON Rene, who was 13 years old, is guilty of
murder
Held
No. With
respect
to
accused-appellant
Rene Estepano, the records show that he
was only 13 years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense. Under Art 12,
par. 3 of the RPC, a person over 9 years
of age & under 15 is exempt from
criminal liability unless it is shown that
he acted with discernment. Scrutiny of
records
show that prosecution failed to
prove that Rene acted with discernment,
what was only established was his
presence & his supposed participation
in the killing
US v Caballeros
G.R. No. 1352 March 29, 1905
J. Mapa
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 of uncontrollable fear is
tenable to warrant exemption from criminal
liability?
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
Cabrera v Pajares
142 SCRA 127 May 30, 1986
Facts
* Cabrera is the defendant in a civil case
which Pajares was trying. The case filed by
Cabrera's dad & half-siblings
for
the
annulment of the sale made to Cabrera
of 28 ha. of land in Camarines Sur.
Cabrera was advised by his counsel
to accommodate any request for money
from the judge so that latter won't give him
a hard time.
*On Sept. 1984, Pajares intimated that he
needed money and so Cabrera gave him
P1000.
* After 2 months, Pajares & Cabrera met
in front of the Naga Hall of Justice & the
Pajares told Cabrera that he needed
money again. This time, Cabrera asked the
assistance of the
NBI
in
entrapping
Pajares. He submitted 10 P100 bills for
marking to be used in the entrapment.
* Jan. 22, 1985, 8:15 a.m.: Cabrera went to
Pajares chamber with NBI agent Angelica
Somera
who pretended to be Cabreras
wife. Cabrera told the judge
that
he
decided not to settle the case but instead
he filed a MFR appointing a surveyor to
delineate a portion of the land in dispute for

his half-siblings in settlement. Then Pajares

asked O ano ngayon ang atin. Cabrera then
got the envelope with the marked money &
gave it Pajares. Cabrera then rushed out of
the chamber on the pretext that he forgot
the keys in the car as a signal to the other
NBI agents. As soon as they got in,
Somera pointed out where the money
was. It was inserted between the pages of
a diary on the judges table. Photos were
taken.
NBI
Forensic
Chemist
Vallado
established that the envelope & the
money in it were those marked by the NBI.
Pajares & his diary were
both
found
positive of orange fluorescent powder.
Issue
WON it was an entrapment or instigation
operation
Held

It is an entrapment. Instigation is when

officers of the law or their agents incite,
induce, instigate or lure an accused into
committing
an
offense
which
he
otherwise wouldnt commit and has no
intention of committing. Accused cannot be
held liable. Its a trap for unwary innocent.
While an entrapment is when there is
criminal intent or design to commit
the
offense charged originates in the mind of
the accused & law enforcement officials
merely facilitate the commission of the
crime, the accused cannot justify his
conduct. It is considered as a trap for the
unwary criminal. Instigation
is
not
actually an issue since Pajares claims
that this was a frame-up. However, this
claim has no basis as proven by the evidence
presented.