Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
And she is joined in this pose by the We are persuaded that she did not do
Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Solicitor General, who recommends what she had done with criminal
Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the
her acquittal, coupled with the intent. That she meant to punish
circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty observation that although "petitioner Wilma and somehow make her feel
of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal. is not criminally liable for her conduct, such punishment may be true, but We
she may still be held accountable for are convinced that the means she
Bagajo vs. Marave her conduct administratively." actually used was moderate and that
Facts: she was not motivated by ill-will,
hatred or any malevolent intent.
- Petitioner who was a teacher, left her classroom to go to the principal's
office. WHEREFORE, petitioner is hereby
- While the teacher was thus out of the room, complainant Wilma acquitted, with costs de oficio,
Alcantara, one of her pupils, left her desk and went to chat with Lilibeth without prejudice to her being dealt
Purlas, a classmate, while leaning over the desk of Ponciano Navarro, with administratively or in a civil case
another classmate. for damages not resulting ex-delicto.
- At that juncture, a fourth classmate, Benedicta Guirigay passed near
Wilma, who suddenly raised her leg causing the former to stumble on it People vs Carmen
and fall down, her head hitting the edge of the desk, her stomach a Issue:
sharp pointed umbrella and her knee a nail of the desk. She fainted. Whether accused-appellants can be held liable for reckless imprudence
- At that precise moment, petitioner was entering the room. resulting in homicide, considering that the information charges them with
- She asked Wilma what happened but the latter denied having anything murder. We hold that they can.
to do with what had just taken place.
- Petitioner thereupon became angry and, with a piece of "bamboo Accused Argument Court
stick" which she was using as a pointer whipped Wilma behind her legs Accused-Appellants urges that they It would appear that accused-
have no intention to kill the boy, they appellants are members of a cult and
and her thigh
were merely trying to heal him. that the bizarre ritual performed over
the victim was consented to by the
victims parents. With the permission
of the victims parents, accused-
appellant Carmen, together with the Yapyuco vs Sandiganbayan
other accused-appellants, proceeded
to subject the boy to a treatment Accused Argument
calculated to drive the bad spirit from Yapyuco disputes the Sandiganbayan’s finding of conspiracy and labels the same
the boy’s body. Unfortunately, the to be conjectural.
strange procedure resulted in the
death of the boy. Thus, accused- The court has not established that he had by positive acts intended to
appellants had no criminal intent to participate in any criminal object in common with the other accused, and that
kill the boy. Their liability arises from his participation in a supposed common criminal object has not been proved
their reckless imprudence because beyond reasonable doubt.
they ought that to know their actions
would not bring about the cure. They He also points out the uncertainty in the Sandiganbayan’s declaration that the
are, therefore, guilty of reckless incident could not have been the product of a well-planned police operation,
imprudence resulting in homicide and but rather was the result of either a hidden agenda concocted against the
not of murder. victims by the barangay officials involved or an amateurish attempt on their
part to earn commendation.
The elements of reckless imprudence
are apparent in the acts done by He theorizes that, if it were the latter alternative, then he could hardly be found
accused-appellants which, because of guilty of homicide or frustrated homicide but rather of reckless imprudence
their lack of medical skill in treating resulting in homicide and frustrated homicide.
the victim of his alleged ailment,
resulted in the latters death. As He also says that the injuries were results of warning shots and that his
already stated, accused-appellants, presence at the scene was because he is a bona fide member of the police
none of whom is a medical force.
practitioner
He also invokes mistake of facts since they believed that the victims who were
The fact that the information does not in the jeepney were armed rebels.
allege that the falsification was
committed with imprudence is of no
Court’s Ruling:
moment for here this deficiency
appears supplied by the evidence First, the crimes committed in these cases are not merely criminal negligence,
submitted by appellant himself and the killing being intentional and not accidental. In criminal negligence, the
the result has proven beneficial to injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being the incident of
him. Certainly, having alleged that the another act performed without malice.
falsification has been willful, it would
be incongruous to allege at the same
Second, that petitioners by their acts exhibited conspiracy, as correctly found by
time that it was committed with
the Sandiganbayan, likewise militates against their claim of reckless
imprudence for a charge of criminal
intent is incompatible with the imprudence.
concept of negligence.
The Sandiganbayan correctly found that petitioners are guilty as co-principals in classifies felonies according to the
the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide only, respectively for the death means by which they are committed,
of Licup and for the non-fatal injuries sustained by Villanueva, and that they in particular: (1) intentional felonies,
deserve an acquittal together with the other accused, of the charge of and (2) culpable felonies. These two
types of felonies are distinguished
attempted murder with respect to the unharmed victims.
from each other by the existence or
absence of malicious intent of the
Calimutan vs. People offender –
The Act that was punishable was “the bringing of firearms outside of the
workplace”. Since the petitioner is only the president of the agency where the
security guards who brought their firearms was employed, Petitioner has no
action to begin with that is punishable therefore he is of no felonious act since
the punishable act was done – not by him – but by the guards on duty.