Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT
INTENDED
Art 4 RPC.
SEGURITAN V PEOPLE (2020)
FACTS:
November 25,1995: Roño Seguritan y Jara alias Ranio
was having a drinking session with his uncles Lucrecio
Seguritan (51 year old farmer), Melchor Panis and
Baltazar Panis, in the house of Manuel dela Cruz. Ranio
was seated beside Lucrecio as he claimed that
Lucrecio’s carabao entered his farm and destroyed his
crops which bun the heated argument. As Lucrecio was
about to stand up, he punched him twice hitting him in
the right and left temple causing him to fall face-up to
the ground and hit a hollow block which was being used
as an improvised stove causing him to fall face-up to the
ground and hit a hollow block which was being used as
an improvised stove. Lucrecio rode a tricycle home. His
wife noticed blood on his forehead so he explained that
he was stoned.
November 25,1995 9pm: Lucrecio’s wife and daughter
noticed that his complexion has darkened and foamy
substance was coming out of his mouth as he slept.
They tried to revive Lucrecio but failed.
December 4, 1995: Lucrecio’s wife learned of the
incident and requested the assistance of the NBI. NBI
Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Vertido concluded that
Lucrecio’s cause of death was traumatic head injury
October 1, 1996: He was charged with Homicide
Ranio presented Joel Cabebe, the Assistant Registration
Officer of Gonzaga, Cagayan, and Dr. Corazon Flor, the
Municipal Health Officer of Sta. Teresita, Cagayan, to
prove that Lucrecio died of a heart attack
RTC: homicide
CA: Affirmed
Ranio argued that he should be liable only for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide due to the absence of
intent to kill Lucrecio
ISSUE: W/N Ranio is guilty of homicide even if there is
no intent
HELD:
YES. petition is DENIED. AFFIRMED penalty of six years
and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to 12 years
and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum with
MODIFICATION that petitioner is further ordered to pay
P25,000.00 as temperate damages in lieu of actual
damages, and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill,
the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries, since
with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal
law looks particularly to the material results following
the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for
all the consequences thereof.
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
Unlawful act - punching Lucrecio
He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused
PEOPLE V SABALONES (1998)
FACTS:
Beronga, Sabalones, Alegarbes, and Cabanero were
convicted after a shooting incident in Cebu in 1985
which led to the death of Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo
Nardo, and fatal injuries of Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo
and Rogelio Presores. The victims were asked to bring
the car of a certain Stephen Lim who also attended a
wedding party. Nelson Tiempo drove the car with
Rogelio Presores. Alfredo Nardo drove the owner-type
jeep along with Glenn Tiempo and Rey Bolo to aid the
group back to the party after parking the car at Lim’s
house. When they reached the gate, they were met
with a sudden burst of gunfire. The accused were
identified as the gunmen. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the trial court. Sabalones and Beronga
appealed.
Crime Committed: Two counts of murder, and three
counts of frustrated murder
Contention of the People: Prosecution witnesses Edwin
Santos and Rogelio Presores testified about the
shooting and identified the faces of the accused.
Presores was riding in the car that is behind the jeep. He
positively identified Sabalones as one of the gunmen.
When the gunmen fired at the car, driver Nelson
Tiempo immediately maneuvered and arrived at Major
Juan Tiempo’s house from which they have escaped
death.
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
Contention of the Accused: Accused-appellants
Sabalones and Beronga denied their presence during
the commission of the crime. Sabalones presented
numerous witnesses who stated that he was sound
asleep when the incident took place [since he got tired
watching over his brother’s wake]. While Beronga
testified that he attended a cock-derby in Cebu, and
was fetched by his wife at 7 pm, arrived home by 10:30
pm to sleep. Sabalones even escaped from place to
place to flee from the wrath of Maj. Juan Tiempo, the
father of the two victims. The defense even pointed out
errors from the testimonies of the witnesses arguing
that the place where the incident happened is dim and
not lighted.
RULING: The appeal is DENIED. Costs against
appellants.
Issue 1: Whether the prosecution witnesses and
evidences are credible?
Yes. RTC findings were binding to court with
appreciated testimonies of two witnesses. There was
positive identification by survivors who saw them when
they peered during lulls in gunfire. The place was well-
lit, whether from post of car’s headlights. The
extrajudicial confession has no bearing because the
conviction was based on positive identification. It is
binding though to the co-accused because it is used as
cirmustancial evidence corroborated by one witness.
The inconcistencies are minor and inconsequential
which strengthen credibility of testimony. Furthermore,
in aberratio ictus [mistake in blow], mistake does not
diminish culpability; same gravity applies, more proper
to use error in personae. Alibi cannot prevail over
positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
Issue 2: Whether the alibis are acceptable?
No. It was still quite near the crime scene. It is overruled
by positive identification. Using the case of People v.
Nescio, Alibi is not credible when the accused-appellant
is only a short distance from the scene of the crime.
Furthermore, flight indicates guilt.
Issue 3: Whether the correct penalty is imposed?
No. Under Article 248 of the RPC, the imposable penalty
is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, to death.
There being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
aside from the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the
appellate court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua
for murder. The CA erred in computing the penalty for
each of the three counts of frustrated murder. Under
Article 50 of the RPC, the penalty for frustrated felony is
next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony. Because there are no mitigating
or aggravating conspiracy between the two accused. It
does not matter that the prosecution has failed to show
who was between the two who actually pulled the
trigger that killed the child. They are liable as co-
conspirators since the act of a conspirator becomes the
act of another regardless of the precise degree of
participation in the act.
Also there was a presence of treachery, because of the
circumstances that the crime was done at night time
and that the accused hid themselves among the
bamboo. Evident premeditation is also an aggravating
circumstance [the accused had planned to kill the victim
some days before].
URBANO V IAC (1998)
Compare the above cases with the following:
1. Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in Blow)
2. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)
3. Praeter Intentionem (No intent to Commit so
Grave a Wrong - Art 13(3) RPC)
OMISSION
Art 4 RPC. 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.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Art 116 RPC. Misprision of treason. — Every person
owing allegiance to (the United States) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a
foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy
against them, conceals or does not disclose and make
known the same, as soon as possible to the governor
or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the
city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be
punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.
Art 137 RPC. Disloyalty of public officers or employees.
— The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon public officers or
employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
the means in their power, or shall continue to
discharge the duties of their offices under the control
of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office
under them. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
Art 208 RPC. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and
tolerance. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period and suspension shall be imposed
upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in
dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously
refrain from instituting prosecution for the
punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate
the commission of offenses.
Art 223 RPC. Conniving with or consenting to evasion.
— Any public officer who shall consent to the escape
of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be
punished: 1. By prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been
sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and
temporary special disqualification, in case the fugitive
shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a
detention prisoner for any crime or violation of law or
municipal ordinance.
Art 234 RPC. Refusal to discharge elective office. —
The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
person who, having been elected by popular election
to a public office, shall refuse without legal motive to
be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.
Art 275 RPC. Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of one's own victim. — The penalty of
arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any
person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render
such assistance without detriment to himself, unless
such omission shall constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to
another whom he has accidentally wounded or
injured.3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned
child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said
child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to
take him to a safe place.
PD 953. REQUIRING THE PLANTING OF TREES IN
CERTAIN PLACES AND PENALIZING UNAUTHORIZED
CUTTING, DESTRUCTION, DAMAGING AND INJURING
OF CERTAIN TREES, PLANTS AND VEGETATION
WHEREAS, the planting of trees on lands adjoining the
edge of rivers and creeks in both a measure of
beautification and reforestation; and
WHEREAS, the planting of trees along roads and areas
intended for the common use of owners of lots in
subdivisions will provide shade and healthful
environment therein;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and
decree:
Section 1. The following shall plant trees:
1. Every person who owns land adjoining a river or
creek, shall plant trees extending at least five meters
on his land adjoining the edge of the bank of the river
or creek, except when such land, due to its permanent
improvement, cannot be planted with trees;
2. Every owner of an existing subdivision shall plant
trees in the open spaces required to be reserved for
the common use and enjoyment of the owners of the
lots therein as well as along all roads and service
streets. The subdivision owner shall consult the
Bureau of Forest Development as to the appropriate
species of trees to be planted and the manner of
planting them; and
3. Every holder of a license agreement, lease, license
or permit from the Government, involving occupation
and utilization of forest or grazing land with a river or
creek therein, shall plant trees extending at least
twenty (20) meters from each edge of the bank of the
river or creek.
The persons hereinabove required to plant trees shall
take good care of them, and, from time to time,
remove any tree planted by them in their respective
areas which has grown very old, is diseased, or is
defective, and replant with trees their respective areas
whenever necessary.
Section 2. Every owner of land subdivided into
residential/commercial/industrial lots after the
effectivity of this Decree shall reserve, develop and
maintain not less than thirty percent (30%) of the total
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
area of the subdivision, exclusive of roads, service
streets and alleys, as open space for parks and
recreational areas.
No plan for a subdivision shall be approved by the
Land Registration Commission or any office or agency
of the government unless at least thirty percent (30%)
of the total area of the subdivision, exclusive of roads,
service streets and alleys, is reserved as open space for
parks and recreational areas and the owner thereof
undertakes to develop such open space, within three
(3) years from the approval of the subdivision plan, in
accordance with the development plan approved by
the Bureau of Forest Development and to maintain
such parks and recreational areas.
Section 3. Any person who cuts, destroys, damages or
injures, naturally growing or planted trees of any kind,
flowering or ornamental plants and shrubs, or plants
of scenic, aesthetic and ecological values, along public
roads, in plazas, parks other than national parks,
school premises or in any other public ground or place,
or on banks of rivers or creeks, or along roads in land
subdivisions or areas therein for the common use of
the owners of lots therein, or any species of vegetation
or forest cover found therein shall, be punished with
imprisonment for not less than six months and not
more than two years, or a fine of not less than five
hundred pesos and not more than five thousand
pesos, or with both such imprisonment and fine at the
discretion of the court, except when the cutting,
destroying, damaging or injuring is necessary for public
safety or the pruning thereof is necessary to enhance
beauty, and only upon the approval of the duly
authorized representative of the head of agency or
political subdivision having jurisdiction therein, or of
the Director of Forest Development in the case of trees
on banks of rivers and creeks, or of the owner of the
land subdivision in the case of trees along roads and in
other areas therein for the common use of owners of
lots therein. If the offender is a corporation,
partnership or association, the penalty shall be
imposed upon the officer or officers thereof
responsible for the offense, and if such officer or
officers are aliens, in addition to the penalty herein
prescribed, he or they shall be deported without
further proceedings before the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation. Nothing in this Decree
shall prevent the cancellation of a license agreement,
lease, license or permit from the Government, if such
cancellation is prescribed therein or in Government
regulations for such offense.
Section 4. Any person who shall violate any provision
of Section one hereof, or any regulation promulgated
thereunder, shall be punished with imprisonment for
not less than six months but not more than two years,
or with a fine of not less than five hundred pesos but
not more than five thousand pesos, or with both such
imprisonment than fine at the discretion of the court.
If the offender is a public officer or employee, he shall,
in addition, be dismissed from the public service and
disqualified perpetually to hold public office.
Section 5. Any person who shall violate the provision
of Section 2 hereof, or any regulation promulgated
thereunder, shall be punished with imprisonment for
not less than two (2) years but not more than five (5)
years, or with a fine equivalent to the value, at current
valuation, of the area representing thirty percent
(30%) of the total area of the subdivision, or both such
fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Court.
Section 6. The Director of Forest Development shall
issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Decree.
Section 7. All laws, rules and regulations, or parts
thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 8. This Decree shall take effect upon its
promulgation.
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of July in the
year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-six.
PD 1153. REQUIRING THE PLANTING OF ONE TREE
EVERY MONTH FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS BY
EVERY CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES
WHEREAS, more abundant natural resources,
particularly forest resources, will prevent floods,
droughts, erosion and sedimentation, and will increase
our water supply needed to generate more power,
expand farm productivity, and meet the ever
increasing demand for domestic consumption of our
exploding population; and
WHEREAS, to achieve a holistic ecosystem approach to
forest resource management, to prevent irreversible
consequences of human activities on the environment,
and to promote a healthier ecosystem for our people,
it is time to make an urgent call upon our citizenry to
plant trees:
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and
decree the following:
Section 1. It is the policy of the State to call upon every
citizen of the Philippines to help, as a duty and
obligation, to conserve and develop the resources of
the country.
Section 2. In furtherance of said policy, every citizen of
the Philippines at least ten (10) years of age, actually
residing therein, unless physically disabled to do so,
shall plant one tree every month for five (5)
consecutive years.
Section 3. The planting of such trees shall be done in
any of the following places:
(a) In lands or lots owned by his family;
(b) In lands or lots leased by his family with the
consent of the owner thereof;
(c) In lands which are parts of public grounds or places
such as plazas, schools, markets, roadside and parks,
and
(d) In lands of the public domain designated by the
Presidential Council for Forest Ecosystem
Management, hereafter referred to as the Council,
such as appropriate forest lands, grazing or pasture
lands, mineral lands, resettlement lands, civil and
military reservations.
Section 4. The trees to be planted shall be fruit-
bearing, shade, ornamental or forest trees, and the
same shall be taken care of for at least two years after
each planting and replaced if the same die, are
diseased or are defective.
Section 5. The Council, in consultation with the
appropriate government agencies, shall issue such
rules and regulations which may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of this Decree and Letter of
Instruction No. 423 whenever applicable.
Section 6. Any person who violates any provision of
this Decree or any rule or regulation promulgated
thereunder shall be punished with a fine of not more
than one thousand pesos or, in appropriate cases, with
disqualification to acquire or enjoy any privilege
granted exclusively to citizens of the Philippines, such
as the acquisition either through sale, free patent,
homestead, or lease of public lands, enjoyment of a
franchise to own or operate a public utility or the grant
of lease, license or a privilege involving natural
resources; and for a period of five years be disqualified
to hold public office, to graduate from any educational
institution at all levels, to take any bar, board or civil
service examination, and to practice any profession
licensed and regulated by the Supreme Court or the
Professional Regulation Commission.
Section 7. This Decree shall take effect upon its
promulgation.
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of June in the
year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-
seven.
PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY
Art 8 RPC. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.
— Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.
Art 115 RPC. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason; Penalty. — The conspiracy or proposal to
commit the crime of treason shall be punished
respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding
P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding P5,000 pesos.
Art 136 RPC. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy and
proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by
prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which
shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).
The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or
insurrection shall be punished respectively, by prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine which
shall not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and
by prision correccional in its medium period and a fine
not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As
amended by R.A. 6968, approved October 24, 1990).
Art 141 RPC. Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons
conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be
punished by prision correccional in its medium period
and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos. (Reinstated by
E.O. No. 187).
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
Art 186 RPC. Monopolies and combinations in restraint
of trade. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or
agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in
restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by
artificial means free competition in the market;
2. Any person who shall monopolize any merchandise
or object of trade or commerce, or shall combine with
any other person or persons to monopolize and
merchandise or object in order to alter the price
thereof by spreading false rumors or making use of
any other article to restrain free competition in the
market;
3. Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer, or
processor of any merchandise or object of commerce
or an importer of any merchandise or object of
commerce from any foreign country, either as principal
or agent, wholesaler or retailer, shall combine,
conspire or agree in any manner with any person
likewise engaged in the manufacture, production,
processing, assembling or importation of such
merchandise or object of commerce or with any other
persons not so similarly engaged for the purpose of
making transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce, or
of increasing the market price in any part of the
Philippines, of any such merchandise or object of
commerce manufactured, produced, processed,
assembled in or imported into the Philippines, or of
any article in the manufacture of which such
manufactured, produced, or imported merchandise or
object of commerce is used.
If the offense mentioned in this article affects any food
substance, motor fuel or lubricants, or other articles of
prime necessity, the penalty shall be that of prision
mayor in its maximum and medium periods it being
sufficient for the imposition thereof that the initial
steps have been taken toward carrying out the
purposes of the combination.
Any property possessed under any contract or by any
combination mentioned in the preceding paragraphs,
and being the subject thereof, shall be forfeited to the
Government of the Philippines.
Whenever any of the offenses described above is
committed by a corporation or association, the
president and each one of its agents or representatives
in the Philippines in case of a foreign corporation or
association, who shall have knowingly permitted or
failed to prevent the commission of such offense, shall
be held liable as principals thereof.
Art 306 RPC. Who are brigands; Penalty. — When
more than three armed persons form a band of
robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the
highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose
to be attained by means of force and violence, they
shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands.
Persons found guilty of this offense shall be punished
by prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion
temporal in its minimum period if the act or acts
committed by them are not punishable by higher
penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high
penalties.
If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be an
unlicensed firearms, it shall be presumed that said
persons are highway robbers or brigands, and in case
of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in the
maximum period.
Art 340 RPC. Corruption of minors. — Any person who
shall promote or facilitate the
prostitution or corruption of persons underage to
satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished by prision
mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic officer or employee,
including those in government-owned or controlled
corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty of
temporary absolute disqualification. (As amended by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 92).
US V BAUTISTA (1906)
FACTS:
n 1903 a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered
into by a number of Filipinos in Hongkong, for the
purpose of overthrowing the government of the United
States in the Philippine Islands by force of arms and
establishing a new government. Francisco Bautista (1), a
close friend of the chief of military forces (of the
conspirators) took part of several meetings. Tomas
Puzon (2) held several conferences whereat plans are
made for the coming insurrection; he was appointed
Brigadier-General of the Signal Corps of the
revolutionary forces. Aniceto de Guzman (3) accepted
some bonds from one of the conspirators. The lower
court convicted the three men of conspiracy. Bautista
was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and a P3,000
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
fine; Puzon and De Guzman to 3 years imprisonment
and P1,000
ISSUES: WON the accused are guilty of conspiracy
HOLD:
Judgment for Bautista and Puzon CONFIRMED.
Judgment for de Guzman REVERSED. Yes, Bautista and
Puzon are guilty of conspiracy. Bautista was fully aware
of the purposes of the meetings he participated in, and
even gave an assurance to the chief of military forces
that he is making the necessary preparations. Puzon
voluntarily accepted his appointment and in doing so
assumed all the obligations implied by such acceptance.
This may be considered as an evidence of the criminal
connection of the accused with the conspiracy.
However, de Guzman is not guilty of conspiracy. He
might have been helping the conspirators by accepting
bonds in the bundles, but he has not been aware of the
contents nor does he was, in any occasion, assumed any
obligation with respect to those bonds. Note: see RPC
Art. 136: Crimes against pub
lic order: conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’
etat, rebellion or
insurrection.
PEOPLE V VENGCO (1984)
In the evening of August 24, 1967, Celadena got off a
taxi. A group of five persons, including Vengco and
David, were 30 meters away from Celadena. Rolando
Quiane invited Celadena to go to his apartment so that
Celadena could avoid Vengco’s group, as there had
been a recent incident involving Vengco chasing and
throwing bottles at Celadena. Celadena refused this
offer. Later, two men restrained Celadena while Vengco
and two other men stabbed Celadena. This incident was
seen and testified to by several witnesses (Quiane as
regards previous incident between Vengco and
Celadena as well as the invitation to Celadena to go to
the apartment; Go Hong, another neighbor, as regards
Vengco’s act of stabbing, and Leneses and three other
persons moving away from the place of the incident,
while carrying a dagger, ice pick, and another pointed
weapon; and Purita Delgado, a person inside of
Celadena’s sister’s house, corroborating the incident
where Celadena was being held by two men while being
stabbed.)
Vengco, Encarnacion, Soliba, Leneses, and David were
all charged for the Murder of Celadena. The CFI –
Manila (Branch 20) found them guilty.
Leneses argues that he was dead drunk throughout the
evening of August 24, 1967.
David denies being part of the group; he was walking
away as the incident occurred.
Issue: Whether Leneses and David are guilty of
Murder. YES.
Ruling: Judgment affirmed with modification.
Ratio:
1. The Court gives full faith and credit to the clear and
positive testimony of the witnesses, especially since
no improper motive is shown for them to testify
against the accused.
2. The Court saw David’s hiding in Cavite as a
circumstance indicative of his guilt.
3. David’s explanation of being afraid of Vengco was
not appreciated. The Court said that if he was
innocent, he would not have gone into hiding,
would have told the authorities of what happened,
and would testify in court against the others.
4. The Court finds the testimonies sufficient.
5. There are neither inconsistencies nor
contradictions.
6. The testimony of just one witness, if credible,
positive, and satisfactory to the court beyond
reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict (citing
People v. Agrana).
7. The positive identification of Leneses defeats his
weak defense of alibi. Leneses has failed to present
clear, positive, and convincing proof of his alibi.
8. This case involves Murder qualified by Abuse of
Superior Strength.
a. The Court took into account the
commission, manner of perpetration, and
abuse of superior strength.
b. The conspiracy was shown by the conduct
of the accused.
i. The manner of their assault, and
their conduct sometime before, and
immediately after, show an
agreement to kill.
ii. The rule is that “if it is proven that
two or more persons aimed by their
acts towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful object, each
doing a part so that their acts,
although apparently independent,
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
were in fact connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness
of personal association and
concurrence of sentiment, a
conspiracy may be inferred though
no actual meeting among them is
proven” (citing Underhill)
9. Reworded: A conspiracy may be inferred even
though no actual meeting is proven, if it is shown
that there is a closeness of personal association and
concurrence of sentiment between two or more
persons whose apparently-independent acts are
actually connected and cooperative to accomplish
the same unlawful object.
10. The proper penalty is reclusion temporal.
a. There are no generic aggravating
circumstances.
i. Nighttime, evident premeditation,
and treachery were not sufficiently
proven by the prosecution.
b. There are no mitigating circumstances.
c. The penalty is reclusion temporal to death
for Murder.
PEOPLE V VALDEZ (1988)
FACTS:
Abe Valdez y Dela Cruz, accused-appellant, is charged
for violating Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The
accused was allegedly caught in flagrante delicto and
without authority of law, planted, cultivated and
cultured seven (7) fully grown marijuana plants known
as Indian Hemp from which dangerous drugs maybe
manufactured or derived. Appellant was arraigned and
with assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the
charge. Trial on the merits then ensued.
The prosecution presented its witnesses, namely: SPO3
Marcelo Tipay, SPO2 Noel V. Libunao, SPO2 Pedro S.
Morales, SPO1 Romulo G. Tobias and PO2 Alfelmer I.
Balut, all member of the police force, who testified how
the information was received, the commencement of
their operation and its details under the specific
instruction of Inspector Parungao. Accordingly, they
found appellant alone in his nipa hut. They, then,
proceeded to look around the area where appellant had
his kaingin and saw seven (7) five-foot high, flowering
marijuana plants in two rows, approximately 25 meters
away from his nipa hut. PO2 Balut asked appellant who
owned the prohibited plants and, according to Balut,
the latter admitted that they were his. They uprooted
the seven marijuana plants, took photos of appellant
standing beside the cannabis plants and arrested him.
One of the said plants was sent to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory for analysis which
produced a positive result. The prosecution also
presented a certification from the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources that the land
cultivated by appellant where the growing marijuana
plants were found, was part of the public domain.
Appellant was acknowledged in the certification as the
occupant of the lot, but no Certificate of Stewardship
had yet been issued in his favor.
The defense presented appellant as its sole witness. He
testified he was weeding his vegetable farm when he
was called by a person whose identity he does not
know. He was asked to go with the latter to see
something. This unknown person then brought
appellant to the place where the marijuana plants were
found, approximately 100 meters away from his nipa
hut. Five armed policemen were present and they made
him stand in front of the hemp plants. He was then
asked if he knew anything about the marijuana growing
there. When he denied any knowledge thereof, SPO2
Libunao poked a fist at him and told him to admit
ownership of the plants. Appellant was so nervous and
afraid that he admitted owning the marijuana. The
police team then brought him to the police station at
Villaverde. At the police headquarters, appellant
reiterated that he knew nothing about the marijuana
plants seized by the police. Appellant contends that
there was unlawful search. First, the records show that
the law enforcers had more than ample time to secure a
search warrant. Second, that the marijuana plants were
found in an unfenced lot does not remove appellant
from the mantle of protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures. The right against unreasonable
searches and seizures is the immunity of one’s person,
which includes his residence, his papers, and other
possessions.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the search and seizure of the
marijuana plants in the present case is lawful and the
seized evidence admissible.
(2) Whether or not the seized plants is admissible in
evidence against the accused.
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
In the instant case, there was no search warrant issued
by a judge after personal determination of the existence
of probable cause given the fact that police had ample
time to obtain said warrant. The protection against
illegal search and seizure is constitutionally mandated
and only under specific instances are searches allowed
without warrants. The mantle of protection extended
by the Bill of Rights covers both innocent and guilty
alike against any form of high-handedness of law
enforcers, regardless of the praiseworthiness of their
intentions.
With respect to the first issue, the confiscated plants
were evidently obtained during an illegal search and
seizure. As to the second issue, which involves the
admissibility of the marijuana plants as evidence for the
prosecution, the said plants cannot, as products of an
unlawful search and seizure, be used as evidence
against appellant. They are fruits of the proverbial
poisoned tree. It was, therefore, a reversible error on
the part of the court a quo to have admitted and relied
upon the seized marijuana plants as evidence to convict
appellant.
(3) Whether or not the prosecution has proved
appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the third issue, it is fundamental in criminal
prosecutions that before an accused may be convicted
of a crime, the prosecution must establish by proof
beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed
and that the accused is the author thereof. The
evidence arrayed against the accused, however, must
not only stand the test of reason, it must likewise be
credible and competent. Competent evidence is
“generally admissible” evidence. Admissible evidence,
in turn, is evidence “of such a character that the court
or judge is bound to receive it, that is, allow it to be
introduced at trial. And as earlier discussed, it was error
on the trial court’s part to have admitted evidences
against the accused and to have relied upon said proofs
to convict him for said evidence is doubly tainted.
(4) Whether or not the sentence of death by lethal
injection is correct.
In the fourth issue, the Constitution decrees that, “In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved.” To justify the
conviction of the accused, the prosecution must adduce
that quantum of evidence sufficient to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence. The
prosecution must stand or fall on its evidence and
cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the accused. Absent the required degree of
proof of an accused’s guilt, he is entitled to an acquittal.
PEOPLE V ESCOBER (1988)
PEOPLE V NATIONAL (1995)
PEOPLE V ELIJORDE (1999)
FACTS:
In the evening of May 21, 1995, at around 6:00 pm, Eric
Hierro and Benjamin Visbal went out from Rodel
Contemplados house where they were drinking to buy
mango at a nearby sari-sari store. Accused Gilbert
Elijorde, Reynaldo Punzalan and Edwin Menes were at
the time in front of the store. As Menes approached
Hierro, the latter warned Menes, “Dont touch me, my
clothes will get dirty.” Suddenly, Menes punched Hierro
on the face, followed by Elijorde who also boxed Hierro
on the face, and Punzalan who kicked Hierro at the back.
Hierro and Visbal ran and sought shelter at the
Contemplados house. Some three minutes later, Hierro
proceeded home together with Visbal and the latters
wife. As they walked home, they noticed the accused
Elijorde, Punzalan and Menes waiting for them and as
they drew near, Punzalan kicked Hierro at the back for
the second time. Hierro ran away pursued by Elijorde and
upon overtaking the former, the latter stabbed him at
the back. Hierro fell down and Elijorde placed himself on
top of Hierro who was now raising his arms defensively
and pleading, “Maawa na kayo, huwag ninyo akong
patayin, wala akong kasalanan sa inyo.” Despite pleas of
mercy, Elijorde stabbed Hierro with a knife on the chest
and then fled. Hierro died soon after at the hospital.
Charged before the trial court, accused Elijorde and
Punzalan were convicted of murder and were sentenced
to suffer the penalty of death.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, both accused
contended that the court a quo (RTC Bulacan) erred in
finding that treachery qualified the killing to murder. The
defense also questioned the finding on Punzalan being
guilty of murder by reason of conspiracy with Elijorde.
The defense argued that he did not conspire with Elijorde
because his only participation was his kicking of Hierro
twice which were neither in pursuance of the same
criminal design of Elijorde nor done in concert aimed at
the attainment of the same objective of killing Hierro.
ISSUE: WON Punzalan is guilty of murder by reason of
conspiracy.
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
RULING:
SC sustained the conviction of Elijorde but ruled to acquit
Punzalan.
With respect to accused Reynaldo Punzalan, the Court
held that it cannot assert with moral certainty that he is
guilty of murder because to convict him as a principal by
direct participation in the instant case, it is necessary
that conspiracy between him and co-accused Elijorde be
proved. This is precisely wanting in the present case. To
hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an
overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.
Hence, conspiracy exists in a situation where at the time
the malefactors were committing the crime, their actions
impliedly showed unity of purpose among them, a
concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim.
On the basis of the testimony, the only involvement of
Punzalan was kicking Hierro at the back before the latter
was pursued and stabbed by accused Elijorde. After
kicking the victim, Punzalan remained where he was and
did not cooperate with Elijorde in pursuing Hierro to
ensure that the latter would be killed. There is no other
evidence to show unity of purpose and design between
Punzalan and Elijorde in the execution of the killing,
which is essential to establish conspiracy. His act of
kicking Hierro prior to the actual stabbing by Elijorde
does not of itself demonstrate concurrence of will or
unity of purpose and action. For it is possible that the
accused Punzalan had no knowledge of the common
design, if there was any, nor of the intended assault
which was committed in a place far from where he was.
The mere kicking does not necessarily prove intention to
kill. The evidence does not show that Punzalan knew that
Elijorde had a knife and that he intended to use it to stab
the victim.
ADDITIONAL:
1. In a great majority of cases, complicity was
established by proof of acts done in concert, i.e., acts
which yield the reasonable inference that the doers
thereof were acting with a common intent or design.
The task, therefore, in every case is determining
whether the particular acts established by the
requisite quantum of proof do reasonably yield that
inference.
2. Neither can Punzalan be considered an accomplice in
the crime of murder. In order that a person may be
considered an accomplice in the commission of the
offense, the following requisites must concur: (a)
community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal
design of the principal by direct participation, he
concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) he
cooperates in the execution of the offense by
previous or simultaneous acts; and, (c) there must be
a relation between the acts done by the principal and
those attributed to the person charged as
accomplice. The cooperation that the law punishes
is the assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered
which cannot exist without previous cognizance of
the criminal act intended to be executed. It is
therefore required in order to be liable either as a
principal by indispensable cooperation or as an
accomplice that the accused must unite with the
criminal design of the principal by direct
participation. There is nothing on record to show
that accused Punzalan knew that Elijorde was going
to stab Hierro, thus creating serious doubt on
Punzalans criminal intent. In the absence of a
previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the
criminal responsibility arising from different acts
directed against one and the same person is
individual and not collective, and that each of the
participants is liable only for his own acts.
Consequently, accused Punzalan must be absolved
from all responsibility for the killing of Hierro. It may
be emphasized that at the time accused Elijorde
intervened in the assault, Punzalan had already
desisted from his own acts of aggression. He did
nothing in fact to assist Elijorde in the immediate
commission of the murder. Moreover, the act of
kicking by Punzalan prior to the actual stabbing by
Elijorde was evidently done without knowledge of
the criminal design on the part of the latter as that
design had not yet been revealed prior to the killing
of Hierro.
3. As to accused Gilbert Elijorde, the Court likewise held
that the trial court correctly ruled that treachery
attended the killing of Hierro thus qualifying the
crime to murder.
PEOPLE V BOTONA (1999)
LECAROZ V SANDIGANBAYAN (1998)
FACTS:
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
Francisco, Mayor of Santa Cruz, Marinduque, and son
Lenlie, KB chair and SBmember, Lecaroz were charged
with 13 counts of estafa through falsification of
publicdocuments. Alleged that Francisco did not
recognize appointment of Red as new KBchair in
Matalaba and SB member. Alleged that Leslie continued
to receive salary evenafter his term has expired. Convict
by Sandiganbayan
ISSUE: Issue: WON Lecaroz is criminally liable?
HOLDING:
1. No. Acquitted1. SB term: 6 yrs. If sectoral/group rep
term is coterminus with sectoral term
2. KB term: till last Sunday, November 1985 or until
new officers have qualified
3. Lenlie can hold over. Law doesn’t say he can or is
prevented from doing so. Thus he can stay
untilsuccession qualifies.
a. Duldulao v. ramos: law abhors vacuum in
public offices
b. Foley v. mcnab: hold over: avoid hiatus in
performance of government function?
Barnes v. Holbrook: holdover to prevent
public convenience from suffering dueto
vacancy
4. Red not qualified. Oath administered by Batasang
Pambansa member who’s not authorized to do so is
invalid
5. lack of criminal intent
a. appointment not recognized since there
were no authenticated copies of
appointment papers
b. Francisco sought advice of MILG Secretary
Pimentel regarding Red’s papers: Provincial
Memo Circular 86-02: No authentication
from President can’t assume position;
Memo-Circ. 86-17: SB, Splung, Splala: Hold
office, be compensated until replaced by
president or MILG
c. Executive Silence on hold over for 30 yrs
not equal to prohibition
d. Francisco: well respected. Perhaps he just
made erroneous interpretation. Mabutol v
Pascual and Cabungcal v. Cordova:
misrepresentation is not equal to bad faith,
thus not liable? Falsification: no document
statement from offended to narrate facts
and facts were not proven wrong or false.?
Conspiracy not proven: should be
established separately for crime and must
meet same degree of proof.
PEOPLE V BELLO (2004)
FACTS:
Accused Bello and Eladio were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.Accused
were arrested singly after renting a room at a lodge
wherein a man, a messenger/collector in
amoneychanger, was found stabbed and dead. There
were no actual witnesses to the actual commission of
thecrime so the prosecution built its case through
circumstantial evidence.
ISSUE:
WON it can be proved that conspiracy exists.
HOLDING:
Yes. Conspiracy exists where the plotters agree,
expressly or impliedly, to commit the crime and
decideto pursue it. Consequently, direct proof is not
essential to establish it. It may be inferred from proof of
facts andcircumstances which, taken together, indicate
that accused are parts of the complete plan to commit
the crime.
PEOPLE V ROM (2004)
PEOPLE V COMADRE (2004)
PEOPLE V DE CHAVEZ (2010)
RONQUILLO ET AL V PEOPLE (2010)
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Art 4 RPC. 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.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Art 59 RPC. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to
commit the crime because the means employed or the
aims sought are impossible. — When the person
intending to commit an offense has already performed
the acts for the execution of the same but
nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of
Crim HW # 4 Table 3 and Impossible Crimes
the fact that the act intended was by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment or because the means
employed by such person are essentially inadequate to
produce the result desired by him, the court, having in
mind the social danger and the degree of criminality
shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500
pesos.
INTOD V CA (1992)