Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Apolinar, 1938 from Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid
trouble. On June 25, defendant received letter terminating contract
Facts: because he allegedly didnt pay rent. He was given 6 months to remove
The accused Apolinar was an occupant of a parcel of land owned his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months after letter.
by Joaquin Gonzales in Papallasen, La Paz, Umingan, Pangasinan. On the Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property. CFI ruled
midnight of December 22, 1936, Armed with a shotgun, Apolinar was that Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating circumstances of evident
looking over the land when he observed that there was a man carrying a premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
bundle on his shoulder. Believing that he was a thief (of palay), Apolinar surrender. For both murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to
called his attention but the thief ignored him. Apolinar then fired in the indemnify the heirs, and to pay for moral damages.
air and then at the person who managed to flee. The person, later Issues:
identified as Domingo Petras, was able to get back to his house and told
Angel Natividad, the barrio chief, that he had been wounded in the back 1. WON CFI erred in convicting defendant-appellant despite the
by a shotgun for getting palay from the part of the land tilled by the fact that he acted in defense of his person.
accused. He had two wounds, one in each side of the spinal column and 2. WON the court erred in convicting defendant-appellant
were circular and a little bigger than a quarter of an inch according to the although he acted in defence of his rights.
medical reports. 3. WON he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he
is unable to pay the civil indemnity due to the offended party.
Apolinar surrendered to the authorities immediately after the
incident and gave a sworn statement before the Justice of the Peace of Held:
Umingan the day after. He stated that on that night, upon seeing a person
coming from the water, carrying a sack filled with palay, he shouted to ask 1. No. The courts concurred that the fencing and chiselling of the walls
who it was but since there was no response, he fired in the air (warning of the house of the defendant was indeed a form of aggression on
shot). He asked again and Petras still did not answer and instead turned the part of the victim. However, this aggression was not done on the
around and fled. Apolinar then fired at him. Apolinar did not say anything person of the victim but rather on his rights to property. On the first
regarding any aggression committed or attempted by Petras towards the issue, the courts did not err. However, in consideration of the
barrio chief Bonifacio Mendones, which is the basis of his defense. violation of property rights, the courts referred to Art. 30 of the civil
code recognizing the right of owners to close and fence their land.
Issue: Although is not in dispute, the victim was not in the position to
subscribe to the article because his ownership of the land being
W/N Apolinar can invoke self-defense as a justifying awarded by the government was still pending, therefore putting
circumstance. ownership into question. Its accepted that victim was the original
Held: aggressor.
No. According to the defendant and his witness, the aggression 2. Yes. However, the argument of the justifying circumstance of self-
against Mendones was carried out by Petras with a bolo. In the present defense is applicable only if the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art.
case, no bolo has been presented before the court which would have 11(1) RPC enumerates these requisites:
supported his defense. Furthermore, the evidence shows that upon a) Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there was unlawful
getting seriously wounded, he was carrying the sack of palay on his arms aggression towards appellants property rights. Fleisher had
coming from the land tilled by Apolinar. This is not, however, sufficient given Narvaez 6 months and he should have left him in peace
justification. The right to property is not of such importance as right to before time was up, instead of chiseling Narvaezs house and
life. Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying circumstance only putting up fence. A536 of the CC also provides that possession
when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said may not be acquired through force or intimidation; while Art.
property. 539 provides that every possessor has the right to be respected
in his possession
People v. Narvaez, 1983 b) Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel
Facts: attack. In case, killing was disproportionate to attack.
c) Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending
Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by himself. Here, there was no provocation at all since he was
treachery) of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, asleep
Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during the time the two were
constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his Since not all requisites present, defendant is credited w/ the special
house and rice mill. The defendant was taking a nap when he heard mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to A13(6)
sounds of construction and found fence being made. He addressed the RPC. These mitigating circumstances are: voluntary surrender &
group and asked them to stop destroying his house and asking if they passion & obfuscation (read p. 405 explanation)
could talk things over. Fleischer responded with No, gadamit, proceed, Crime is homicide (2 counts) not murder because treachery is not
go ahead. Defendant lost his equilibrium, and shot Fleisher with his applicable on account of provocation by the deceased. Also, assault
shotgun. He also shot Rubia who was running towards the jeep where the wasnt deliberately chosen with view to kill since slayer acted
deceaseds gun was placed. Prior to the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the instantaneously. There was also no direct evidence of planning or
company of Fleischers family) was involved in a legal battle with the preparation to kill.
defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of
property. At the time of the shooting, the civil case was still pending for Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. However,
annulment (settlers wanted granting of property to Fleisher and Co. to be due to mitigating circumstances and incomplete defense, it can be
annulled). At time of the shooting, defendant had leased his property lowered 3 degrees (Art. 64) to arresto mayor.
3. No. He isnt liable to be subsidiarily imprisoned for non-payment of On the following day, the accused delivered a privilege speech
civil indemnity. RA 5465 made the provisions of A39 applicable to during the regular session of the City Council of Davao City, wherein,
fines only & not to reparation of damage caused, indemnification of although without directly mentioning the governor as receving tongs,
consequential damages & costs of proceedings. Although it was the reference to the latter after a series of interpellation and answers
enacted only after its commission, considering that RA 5465 is during the speech became obvious.
favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent, it may be
given retroactive effect pursuant to RPC A22. The accused admits having said those things but claims that (1) he
uttered those words in confidence to Clapano and that they are covered
Judgment: Defendant guilty of homicide but w/ mitigating circumstances by the rule on privileged communication, (2) that since the crime as
and extenuating circumstance of incomplete self defense. Penalty is 4 charged which is for serious slander is different from, and not included in,
mos. arresto mayor & to indemnify each group of heirs 4K w/o subsidiary the crime as proved which is intriguing against honor, the conviction is
imprisonment & w/o award for moral damages. Appellant has already illegal, (3) that he uttered those words and phrases in self-defense to what
been detained 14 yrs so his immediate release is ordered. then Gov. Almendras in the latters speech had stated of him in another
place a few days before, and (4) that the award for nominal damages
Gutierrez, dissenting. Defense of property can only be invoked when should have been what he was also entitled to as a result of the slander
coupled with form of attack on person defending property. In the case at made to him by Almedras.
bar, this was not so. Appellant should then be sentenced to prision mayor.
However, since he has served more than that, he should be released. Issue:
People v. Chua Hiong, 1954 W/N the claim of the accused that he acted in self-defense is valid.
Facts: Held:
Accused Federico Chua Hiong was found guilty of the crime of No. On his first contention, in the first place, his contention of
libel for which he comes on appeal. confidence is inconsistent with his other contention of self-defense. If the
communication was for the purpose of self-defense, it should no have
Chua Hiong assumes full authorship of the alleged libelous been made in confidence as he alleged. In the second place, the records
publication which claimed that the investigations on his citizenship was also show that on the following day, he delivered a speech at the session
instigated by his nephew Cesario Gocheco. He claimed that in the 25 years of the City Council, wherein although he did not mention names, he made
that they have known each other, Gocheco never lifted a finger to protest it obvious that he was referring to Almendras. In the third place, there
his citizenship. He further claimed that Gocheco instigated the were others who heard the remarks when he was talking to Clapano.
investigation as a form revenge since they were opposing parties in a civil Thus, he could not have given the communication in confidence.
case where Gocheco lost two-thirds of important inheritance left by one
Paulino Gocheco. He also claimed that the Benito Solipco who sent him a On his second contention, the facts do not constitute intriguing
piece of rope to hang himself with was fictitious and was Gocheco in against honor because the information given by the accused to Clapano
disguise. within the hearing of others allegedly came from a definite source. Where
the source of the information can be pin-pointed and definitely
Issue: determined and adopting the information as his own, passes the same to
W/N Chua Hiong was justified when he gave the alleged libelous another for the purpose of causing dishonor to the complainants
matter for publication. reputation, the act is not intriguing against honor but clearly one of
slander.
Held:
On his contention of self-defense, fot it to exist in instances such as
Yes. Chua Hiongs action was intended to counteract the this, the defender should not go beyond explaining what was previously
impression left in the mind of the public by the articles entitled Doubtful said of him for the purpose of repairing or minimizing if not entirely
Citizenship which the aggrieved party caused to be published in the removing the effect of the damage caused to him. The principle does not
Manila Chronicle. license him to utter blow-for-blow scurrilous language in return for what
he received.
Where the the goes beyond mere explaining his side, or repairing,
minimizing, or removing the effect of the damage by hitting back, his
People v. Pelayo, 1966 retaliation becomes an entirely independent act of his own of which he
may stand to answer the consequences.
Facts:
In the case at bar, if it is true that on a previous occasion Almendras
This is an appeal from the judgment convicting the accused of light had imputed to the accused, that he, the latter, was receiving money from
oral defamation. gambling operators, the accused was not licensed to make the same
imputation or accusation because to do that is not an act of defense but
On November 15, 1956, in the office of Atty. Clapano, the accused an aggression itself.
told the latter, within the hearing of Francisco Baez, Rafael Mascarias,
and Prisco Parmisano, that while investigating the existence of gambling US v. Esmedia, 1910
in the community, a Chinese operator named Lim Peng told him that then
Governor (Senator during the pendency of the case) Almendras used to Facts:
receive from the Chinese P500 protection money. He added that This is an appeal from a sentence convicting Ponciano and Mena
Almendras was not satisfied with P500 so he asked for P1000 but because Esmedia of the crime of double homicide.
the Chinese could not afford that amount, Almendras raided his place.
Ciriaco Abando, his wife, and their son, Santiago, lived in the wounded at the time. They honestly believed and had good grounds upon
barrio of Bongbongan in Sibalom, Antique. Gregorio Esmedia, father of which to found their belief that Santiago would continue his attack upon
the two accused, son-in-law of Ciriaco and brother-in-law of Santiago, their father.
lived in the same barrio. The two families lived very near each other and
owned adjoining rice lands. There has been a dispute between the As for the death of Ciriaco, when the accused attacked him, the
families with regards to the ownership of the rice land that was then other trouble had already terminated and they were not in danger of any
occupied by Ciriaco. bodily harm from him. Ciriaco was 80 and did not arrive on the scene until
after the trouble between the two accused and Santiago had terminated.
At about 2 pm on June 24, 1909, Ciriaco instructed Santiago to Furthermore, Ciriaco was entirely unarmed and made no demonstration
go to a certain place in his rice field to let out water so that they could and said no word prior to the assault upon him by the two accused.
plant rice in that said field. Santiago proceeded as ordered and while at
work, Gregorio appeared and started a quarrel with Santiago. Soon People v. Norma Hernandez, 1959
thereafter, Gregorio drew a dagger and stabbed Santiago in the back. Facts:
Santiago fell to the ground but arose immediately and attacked Gregorio
with his bolo, inflicting several wounds on Gregorio which made him fall The accused were charged with serious slander by deed.
to the ground. Before the conflict could end, the two accused appeared.
The complainant, Vivencio Lascano, 19, started courting the accused
The two contend that they were working in their rice field Maria Norma Hernandez sometime in August 1954,. After months of
nearby, and upon seeing Ciriaco and Santiago attacking their father, they courtship, Norma finally accepted Vivencio on January 6, 1955. On the
went to the scene to help their father. same day, they talked about their marriage, Norma telling Vivencio to
bring his parents to her house so that they could talk about their marriage.
Ponciano claimed that when he got near the place, he was met On February 6, 1955, Vivencios parents together with his 12
by Ciriaco and Santiago, who attacked him with bolos and clubs and that (HAHAHAHAHAHA) aunts, bringing along 30 chickens and 3 goats, went
he acted in self-defense when he knocked them both down. After they fell to Normas house to ask for her hand in marriage. The parents of both
down, Mena arrived. Ponciano further contends that he only used a club agreed to the marriage. They set March 19, 1955 as the wedding date.
and not a bolo. They likewise agreed that Vivencios parents would buy a wedding dress,
As a result of this fight, Ciriaco was left dead on the scene, two vestidos, a pair of shoes for the bride, to advance P20 for fetching the
Gregorio received fatal wounds from which he died within four hours, and sponsors in the wedding and to repair the roof of Normas uncle.
Santiago also received fatal wounds from which he died five days later. The family of Vivencio prepared everything that was needed for the
Ciriaco received two wounds on the top of his head, one 8 cm wedding. While the celebration was going on, however, Norma could be
long and the other 3 cm long, caused by some cutting instrument, and found nowhere. Vivencio and his parents waited until 12 midnight of
also sustained a fracture in the skull apparently caused by a blow. He also March 19 but Norma never showed up, causing them shame and
had a wound on the head 3 cm deep, on the neck below the left ear 31 humiliation.
cm in depth (tang ina tagos na sa neck) and 3 cm in length, a bruise on the Norma testified that she was never in love with Vivencio and only
left eye, and a wound on the right palm 3 cm in length and 2 mm deep. said yes to the marriage because her parents wanted her to. As the date
Santagio received seven wounds. One crosswise of the head, of the marriage was approaching, she felt a sense of torture because she
back of the left ear, 8 cm long and 1 cm deep. Another on top of his head, wasnt in love with Vivencio. She then decided to leave her home as a last
just above the first wound, 5 cm long and 0.5 cm deep. Third on the left recourse to prevent the marriage. She went to Mindoro and stayed with
part of the neck, 4 cm long. All of the three wounds being caused by a her cousin at Calapan where she remained until April of 1956 when she
cutting instrument. Fourth wound was caused by a sharp instrument, 1 was fetched by her cousin because she was under arrest for the present
cm deep and 8 cm long, on top of the head. Fifth wound is 2.5 cm long case.
and 5 mm deep which was in the nature of a contusion and appeared on Appellee recommends reversal of the appealed judgment because
the frontal region of the head. Sixth is 2 cm long and 3.5 cm deep in the what Norma did does not constitute the crime of slander by deed.
back, and last is on the left hand, 4 cm long and 2 mm deep which had
apparently been caused by some cutting instrument. Issue:
Gregorio had four wounds. A bruise on the front of the head, W/N the actions of the accused constitute slander by deed.
5x6 cm in dimension, one running across the head and caused by a cutting
instrument, 6 cm long. Another apparently caused by a blow with some Held:
blunt instrument on the breast. A wound 1 cm deep apparently caused by No. Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander, has not been
a cutting instrument and also a bruise on the left arm. proven. Norma was merely exercising her right to not give her consent to
Issue: the marriage. Since no marriage can be solemnized unless the consent of
both parties are freely given, to penalize Norma for not continuing with
W/N the two accused can be acquitted on the ground of the proposed marriage would make the State practically instrumental in
defense of relative. in compelling an unwilling party to enter into marriage. If a party to an
agreement to marry can be who backs out should be held liable for the
Held: crime of slander by deed, then that would be an inherent way of
Yes for the death of Santiago but not for Ciriaco. compelling said party to go into a marriage without his or her free
consent.
The accused are exempt from criminal liability for having caused
the death of Santiago inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted Regina v. Dudley, 1884
those wounds upon him in defense of their father who was fatally
Facts: for ones life or limb. A mere threat of a future injury is not enough. It
should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote. A person invoking
Dudley and Stephens along with Brooks and Parker(victim) were uncontrollable fear must show therefore that the compulsion was such
cast away at sea without weeks of food and water except for some turnips that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting not only without will but
and a turtle. After twenty days, Dudley and Stephens proposed one against his will as well. It must be of such character as to leave no
person sacrifice himself in order to save the rest. Brooks dissented while opportunity to the accused for escape.
Dudley and Stephens decided to kill Parker since he was the weakest and
In this case, far from it, the fear, if any, harbored by Ty was not real
youngest. On the 25th of July, seeing no rescue in sight, the two men killed
and imminent. Ty claims that she was compelled to issue the checks a
Parker and the three men feasted on his body. Four days later a vessel
condition the hospital allegedly demanded of her before her mother
rescued them and Dudley and Stephens were charged with murder.
could be discharged for fear that her mothers health might deteriorate
further due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital or worse, her
Issue:
mother might commit suicide. This is speculative fear; it is not the
uncontrollable fear contemplated by law.
Whether the killing of Parker was murder considering the
circumstances of this case. To begin with, there was no showing that the mothers illness was so
life-threatening such that her continued stay in the hospital suffering all
Held: its alleged unethical treatment would induce a well-grounded
apprehension of her death. Secondly, it is not the laws intent to say that
Yes, it is murder. Stephens and Dudley to be sentenced to death. any fear exempts one from criminal liability much less petitioners flimsy
The necessity of hunger does not justify larceny, let alone murder. fear that her mother might commit suicide. In other words, the fear she
Stephens and Dudley chose the weakest and youngest to kill and it was invokes was not impending or insuperable as to deprive her of all volition
not more necessary to kill him than any of the other grown men. and to make her a mere instrument without will, moved exclusively by the
hospitals threats or demands.
Stephens and Dudley were tempted to kill Parker but temptation Ty has also failed to convince the Court that she was left with no
itself is not an excuse for murdering him. Their unfortunate circumstances choice but to commit a crime. She did not take advantage of the many
also do not lend leniency to the legal definition of murder. opportunities available to her to avoid committing one. By her very own
words, she admitted that the collateral or security the hospital required
prior to the discharge of her mother may be in the form of postdated
Discussion: checks or jewelry. And if indeed she was coerced to open an account with
the bank and issue the checks, she had all the opportunity to leave the
As necessary the circumstances seemed where sacrificing ones life scene to avoid involvement.
would save the rest, that itself does not justify murder. The fact that
Avoidance of a greater evil or injury
Dudley and Stephens chose the weakest person to be the victim also does
not justify that Parker could not have survived. Instead, by killing him, it The law prescribes the presence of three requisites to exempt the
is only making certain that he had no chance of survival. actor from liability under this paragraph: (1) that the evil sought to be
avoided actually exists; (2) that the injury feared be greater than the one
Ty v. People, 2004 done to avoid it; (3) that there be no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it.
Facts:
In the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected
Ty's mother and sister was confined at the Manila Doctors or anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
Hospital. The total hospital bills amounted to P1 million. After signing a anticipated or may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable. Ty
contract of responsibility with the hospital, Ty issued 7 checks to cover could have taken advantage of an available option to avoid committing a
the said expenses, all of which were dishonored for being drawn against crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or other
a closed a account. Manila Doctors Hospital sued Ty for violation of BP forms of security instead of postdated checks to secure her obligation.
22. In her defense, Ty alleged that she issued the checks because of an
"uncontrollable fear of a greater injury". She averred that her mother Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be availing, the
threatened to commit suicide due to the inhumane treatment she greater injury feared should not have been brought about by the
allegedly suffered while confined in the hospital. Ty was found guilty by negligence or imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In
the trial court of 7 counts of violation of BP 22. Ty appealed wherein she this case, the issuance of the bounced checks was brought about by Tys
reiterated her defense that she issued the checks under the impulse of an own failure to pay her mothers hospital bills.
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury or in avoidance of a greater evil or People v. Belbes, 2000
injury.
FACTS (SUMMARIZED VERSION):
Issue:
Patrolman Domingo Belbes was assigned to maintain peace and order at
Is the defense of uncontrollable fear or avoidance of a greater evil
or injury tenable to warrant Ty's exemption from criminal liability? the prom night of Pili Barangay High School. During the event, he
responded to a report by two female students that someone was making
Held: trouble at one of the schools temporary building. He and Patrolman
Uncontrollable fear Jose Pabon found Fernando Bataller, drunk, with his two companions,
and it appeared that Fernando was breaking the bamboo walls of the
For this exempting circumstance to be invoked successfully, the temporary building. Belbes, armed with an armalite, fired at Bataller,
following requisites must concur: (1) existence of an uncontrollable fear;
who was hit at several different parts of his body, and died. Whether or
(2) the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is
not there was a confrontation is disputed (appellee says there was none,
greater than or at least equal to that committed.
appellant (Belbes) says there was).
It must appear that the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear is
of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it. It should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear
Trial court held Belbes guilty for murder. In his appeal, Belbes said he However, the evidence reveals an incomplete justifying circumstance
fired the shots at Bataller out of self-defense and that he was performing defined in Article 11, paragraph number 5 of the Revised Penal Code.
his official functions when he did so. For a person not to incur criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment
of a duty, 2 requisites must concur: (1) that the offender acted in the
FACTS (DETAILED VERSION): performance of a duty; (2) that the injury or offense committed be the
APPELLEEs VERSION: necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office.
W/N the accused was insane at the time of the commission of The fact that immediately after the incident, he thought of
the crime. surrendering to the authorities is incontestable proof that he knew what
he had done was wrong and that he was going to be punished for it.
Held: (Uncharacteristic of insanity complete deprivation of intelligence)
Yes. The accused was repeatedly confined in the insane People v. Puno, 1981
department of the San Lazaro Hospital suffering from dementia praecox.
The symptoms of the disease are similar to those of depressive psychosis Facts:
where the mind appears deteriorated because when a person becomes At about 2 pm of September 8, 1970, Ernesto Puno, 28, a
affected by the disease, during the period of excitement, he has no jeepney driver, entered a bedroom in the house of Francisca Col (Aling
control whatever of his acts. There is a pathologic lessening of normal Kikay), 72, a widow, and his neighbor, in Little Baguio in Malabon, Rizal.
inhibitions and the case with which impulses may lead to actions impairs
deliberations and the use of normal checks to motor impulses. On seeing Aling Kikay in bed, Puno insulted her by saying,
mangkukulam ka, mambabarang, mayroon kang bubuyog. Then, he
Furthermore, an intern at San Lazaro Hospital testified that 4 repeatedly slapped her and struck her several times on the head with a
days prior to the incident, the accused had an attack of insomnia which is hammer until she was dead.
one of the symptoms of and may lead to dementia praecox. Also, the
police authorities themselves doubted the mental normalcy of the The assault was witnessed by Hilaria de la Cruz, who was in the
accused because they sent him to the Psychopathic Hospital the day bedroom with the old woman, and Lina Pajes, a tenant of the adjoining
following the incident. room. They testified that Punos eyes were reddish and his look was
baleful and menacing. After the killing, Puno went to Linas room where
People v. Ambal, 1980 Hilaria had taken refuge and warned them that if they tell anything to the
Facts: authorities he would have his revenge on them.
Honorato Ambal appealed from the decision of the CFI of He then fled to his parents house and then went to the house
Camiguin convicting him of parricide. of his second cousin, Teotimo Puno, in Calumpit, Bulacan.
In the morning of January 20, 1977, the barangay captain found Disregarding Punos threat, Lina, after noting that he had left,
under some flowering plants near the house of Honorato, Felicula notified the Malabon police of the killing.
Vicente-Ambal, the wife of Honorato, mortally wounded. Upon autopsy, it was discovered that the victim had lacerated
wounds on her right eyebrow and contusions on the head caused by a
hard instrument. On opening the skull, the doctor found extensive and
generalized hemorrhage. The cause of death was intracranial, traumatic
hemorrhage.
Issue:
Held:
The trial court also concluded that Puno was sane during the
incident and that he knew that what he did was wrong as shown by the
fact that he made threats to the witnesses and that if he really was a
homicidal maniac and had gone berserk, he would have also killed the
witnesses. The fact that he singled out Aling Kikay signified that he really
disposed of her because he thought she was a witch.