ACTS THAT ARE UNLAWFUL AND PUNISHABLE

malice being therefore criminally liable as a principal by direct participation in the crime
of homicide.

1. PEOPLE v. LOJO, JR.

June 21, 2012 Leave a comment
People v. Lojo, Jr.

2. US v. VIERA
June 21, 2012 Leave a comment

November 26, 1928 (52 Phil 390)

AN ACT OR FUNNING OVER A POLICEMAN AND CAUSING HIS DEATH WAS
DONE WITH MALICE OR CRIMINAL INTENT

US v. VIERA
PARTIES:
December 20, 1902 (1 Phil 584)
Plaintiff and appellee: People of the Phlippines
AN ACT OF TEARING DOWN A WALL WITHOUT CRIMINAL INTENT IS NOT
PUNISHABLE

Defendant and appellant: Manuel Lojo, Jr.

PARTIES:

FACTS:

Complainant and appellant: United States

Manuel Lojo, Jr. who was found guilty of the crime homicide and the violation of Sec.
1189 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, appealed to the Court. On
January 18, 1928, Lojo Jr. who going at great speed sees in the middle of the road
directly in his path a policeman signalling to him with his hand to stop, paying no
attention to the order nor lessens the speed of his car, but goes straight for the said
policeman, runs over him, and kills him instantly.

Defendant and appellee: Domingo Viera

FACTS:
The defendant was accused of tearing down a wall and stealing the stones used in the
wall. The defendant claimed that he acted under bona fide belief that it was the
property of the College of the Sisters of Charity where he was the administrator. He
used the stones to repair the public highway and the colleges courtyard. He gained no
pecuniary profit on the said offense.

ISSUE:
WON the defendant had the intention to cause injury.
HELD:

ISSUE:
WON the defendant has criminal intent on the said act.

Yes. The defendant cannot claim that he did not intend to cause the evil that he did
because even within the limits of human foresight, such an act cannot produce any
other result than what took place. The defendant acted with full knowledge and with

ACTS THAT ARE UNLAWFUL AND PUNISHABLE

HELD:
No. The defendant did not even attempt to conceal the torn wall and even used the
stones for the benefit of the public and for a charitable institution. Where an unlawful
act is of such nature that it negatives criminal intent, such intent must be otherwise
established. Domino Viera was acquitted by the Court.

3. PEOPLE V SIA TEB BAN

CRIMINAL INTEREST IS PRESUMED FROM INHIBITED ACT (STEALING A WATCH)

4. Serrano v. People, GR No. 175023

Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code;
Stages of felonies
CRIMINAL INTENT IS A MENTAL STATE. THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS HOWN BY
THE COURT ACTS OF A PERSON
Facts:
A brawl involving 15 to 18 members of two rival groups resulted to the stabbing of
Anthony Galang, the victim, by the herein petitioner, Giovannie Serrano. During the
rumble, the victim was stabbed at the left side of his stomach and was beaten until he
fell into a nearby creek. In his fallen position, Galang claimed that when he inspected
his stabbed wound, he saw a portion of his intestines showed. The victim received
medical attention, stayed in the hospital for one week and thereafter stayed home for
one month to recuperate.

Intent: Purely a mental process, is presumed and the presumption arises from the
commission of the unlawful act. PP vs Sia Teb Ban (Accused took the watch and
alleged as defense that intent was not proven. From the felony committed freely and
deliberately, intent to gain was presumed indisputable and conclusively.)

ACTS THAT ARE UNLAWFUL AND PUNISHABLE

any clear information from Ramiscal so he turnedhim over to the other soldier, Antancio
Nanquil for further examination.Sergeant who commanded that patrol was feeling ill so
he remained in ahouse in a neighborhood. As Atanasio Nanquil examined Ramiscal on
a road,Masiglat was 20 brazas from them. All of a sudden, Masiglat heard a blowand
saw Ramsical fall to the ground. Nanquil struck him with his gun whichconsequently
killed Ramiscal. Atansio Nanquil was prosecuted for the crimeof homicide and
sentence by the trial court to fourteen years, eight monthsand one day of reclusion
temporal. The defendant appealed

ISSUE
:W/N Nanquil should be charged with homicide through reckless imprudence.

The RTC held that the crime committed reached the frustrated stage since the victim
was stabbed on the left side of his stomach and that the victim had to be referred from
an infirmary to hospital for medical treatment. On the other hand, the CA ruled that the
crime committed only reached the attempted stage as there was lack of evidence that
the stab wound inflicted was fatal to cause the victims death. It was observed that the
attending physician did not testify in court and that the Medical Certificate and the
Discharge Summary issued by the hospital fell short of specifying the nature or gravity
of the wound.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of attempted homicide instead of frustrated
homicide.
Held:

HELD
:No. The court finds a mitigating circumstance of the accused not having hadthe
intention to cause the death of the deceased. For this reason the penaltyof reclusion
temporal must be imposed in its minimum degree. The judgmentappealed from is
modified, and the appellant sentenced to twelve years andone day of reclusion
temporal, to the accessory penalties provided by article59 of the Penal Code, to
indemnify the heirs of Severino Ramiscal in theamount of one thousand pesos

Yes. The crucial point to consider is the nature of the wound inflicted which must be
supported by independent proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to
cause the victims death without timely medical intervention. When nothing in the
evidence shows that the wound would be fatal without medical intervention, the
character of the wound enters the realm of doubt; under this situation, the doubt
created by the lack of evidence should be resolved in favor of the petitioner. Thus, the
crime committed should be attempted, not frustrated homicide.

(P1,000), and to pay the costs of bothinstances.

5. PEOPLE V. NANQUIL-- 43 Phil 232

RATIO
:Nanquil had no intention to commit so serious an evil as that which resulted,the crime
committed by him cannot be that of homicide through recklessimprudence, because he
did have the intention to do some evil unlawfully(maltreating the deceased), and this
intention, although it was not that of killing, is inconsistent with reckless imprudence.

6. CALDERON V PEOPLE AND CA

WILFUL MALTREATMENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE

FACTS:
Juan Rosas cart and carabao disappeared, he requested the assistance of
theConstabulary to recover them and find the suspect. A sergeant and twosoldiers
were commissioned to investigate. During the investigation, theycalled Severino
Ramiscal, and one of them, surnamed Masiglat, examinedRamiscal. He did not obtain