People vs. Nacional GR Nos.

111294-95
Ponente: Justice Reynato Puno

On Febuary 21, 1985, the group of Wilson Lita set for Danaga to confront Quirino and Joel Lagason who were
military informants.
Wilson, Zacharias and appellant Javier Mirabete remained at a waiting shed to provide security for the
group while the rest provide security for the group while the rest proceeded on their way to Quirino and Joel’s
house.
Along the way they saw Qurino and Joel Lagason. Walter Nacional approached Quirino and shot him. Absalon
Millamina shot Joel on the head seconds later.
All accused including appellant were found liable for the murder of the Lagasons.

Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy among the appellants in killing the Lagasons.

Decision: Yes. Conspiracy arises at the very moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly to commit the felony
and forthwith to acutally pursue it. The conspiracy in the instant case was established at the meeting of Febuary
25, 1985. Apprently, nobody disagreed with the plan. Clearly, the shooting was characterized by unity of purpose,
intention and design. Appellant though not present at the specific place of the shooting, served as security to
those who carried out the shooting.

Doctrine: Providing security to those who carry out the crime, is an act of conspiracy.

Benito vs. People GR No. 204644

Ponente: Justice Mavric Mario Victor Leoner

Agbulos entered into a transaction with Abadilla for the sale of jewelry. Agbulas issued checks as payment
for the jewelries. In all these transactions, petitioner Angelita Benito accompanied Agbulas.
Agbulas failed to pay or return the unsold jewelries, prompting Abadilla to deposit the checks. The checks
were dishonored by reason of closed account.
Abadilla later discovered that her jewelries were pawned by a cetain Linda Chua who later tuned out to be
petitioner Benito.
The RTC found that Agbulos and Benito conspired to commit estafa.

Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy to commit estafa.

Decision: No. As testified by Abadilla, only Agbulos received the jewelry from her and Benito was merely present
during the negotiation. Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not indicative of conspiracy.
Further, when Agulos failed to return the jewelry, she is presumed to have misappropriated them as a
consequence, estaffa was already commited when Benito pawned the jewelry. There can be no ex post facto conspiracy.

Doctrine: There can be no ex post for to conspiracy. An act done after the commission and consummation of a crime
is not conspiracy.

People vs. Santiago GR No. 175326

Ponente: Justice Minita Chico-Nazario

At around 10 in the evening of April 8, 1999, inspector Cortez received a tip from an informat that a drug
trafficking is taking place in Binondo, Manila. Accordingly. An entrapment operation was planned.
During the entrapment, appellant Vladimir first met the poor lawyer and asked him to show the money.
Vladimir then left and when he went back, he was accompanied by Edgardo and Vicente. Edgardo bought out three packs
of shabu while Vicente bought a weighing scale. Appellant assisted each other in weighing the shabu.
After the transaction was completed, the appellants were arrested and were convicted for violation of RA
6425.

Issue: Whether or not there was conspiracy between the accused.

Decision: Yes, Conspiracy among the accused in this case is established in the following manner:
a. Vladimir asked the poser buyer to show him the money.
b. Vladimir fetched Edgardo and Vicente;
c. Edgardo brought out the 3 bags of shabu;
d. Vicente brought out the weighing scale;
e. Appellant assisted each other in weighing the shabu.

Doctrine: Taking part in a drug transaction like weighing, packing and receving the prurchase money tantamount to
conspiracy.

ARTICLE II

People vs. Genosa GR No. 135981

Ponente: Justice Artemio Panganiban

Appellant Marivic Genosa admittedly killed her husband Ben Geneosa. Accroding to her, on the night of
November 15, 1995, she was worried that her husband will not go home after work since it was a payday. She and her
cousin found Ben drunk in a marketplace and was bought home. Ben then nagged her for following him. Ben got
disappointed when Mavrivic ignored her so he cut off the TV antenna so she could not watch TV. Ben was about to
attack her so she went inside the bedroom but Ben got hold of her and whirled her around. She fell on the side of
the bedroom and asked for help. Ben left. Marivic then packed Ben’s clothes as she wanted him to leave. Ben then
dragged appellant outside the bedroom while holding her by the neck. He then got a blade cutter from his wallet but
Maviric managed to smash Ben’s arm with a pipe, causing him to drop the blade. Marivic smashed Ben’s nape and ran
inside the bedroom. Later, she fatally shot Ben.
Marivic also testified that it was not the first time that a battering incident happened to her.she
testified that Ben beats her every time he gets drunk. There were times that she attempted to leave Ben but he
always asks for forgiveness promising not to do it again.
The RTC found Marivic guilty of Parricide and sentenced her to death.
 Through an ominous motion, the case was remanded to the RTC for reception of expert testimonies regarding
her defense of battered women syndrome and such testimonies be admitted as part of the documents and records of the
case.

Issue: Whether or not the act of Marivic in killing her husband is a valid self-defense.

Decision: No. For Battered woman syndrome to constitute a valid defense the following phases of the syndrome must
be adequately established and should be undergone by the couple at least twice.

1. The tension-building phase.

2. The battering incident
3. The non-violent phase.
During the tension-building phase, minor… exhibited by the batterer.
The acute battering incident… futile to fight back.
The final phase of the cycle… responsible for his well-being.
Battered woman don’t attempt… and hurt even more.
The defense fell short of providing the existence of the three phases of the cycle of violence
characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic. That single incident does not prove the existence of the
syndrome. She failed to prove that she went through the same pattern in another battering incident. Appellant did
not offer sufficient evidence to prove the third phase. She admitted that she would ran away to her parents’ house
whenever Ben would beat her.
Also crucial to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the woman at the time of the offense. The fear of
imminent danger must be present.
According to the testimony of Marivic herself, Ben already ceased his attack and went to bed when she
attacked him. Therefore, the imminent danger feared of is absent. Impending danger prior to the defendant’s use of
deadly weapon must be shown. Aggression, if not constinuous does not warrant self-defense.
In sum, in order for BWS to be appreciated as self defense;
First, each of the phases of the cycle… perpetrated by the former against the latter.

Doctrine:
1. To qualify as a battered woman her relationship must at least, undergo the cycle of violence at least
twice.
2. In order for BWS to be appreciated as self-defense, “ditto last paragraph”

People vs. Narvaes GR No. L-33466-67

Ponente: Justice Felix Makasiar

Appellant was one of the settlers on the lot claimed by the company owned by the accused Doris Fleischer.
Pending the resolution of the case, appellant agreed to lease the area he is occupying just to avoid trouble.
However, appellant failed to pay the agreed rentals thus prompting the deceased to demolish appellants house.
Upon seeing his house being demolished by Flescher;s men, he pleaded then to stop and talk matters over but
Flescher angrily ordered his men, to continue the demolition. Insensed by Aescher’s utterance, he took his gun and
shot Flescher. He also shot Flaviano Rubia.
He was convicted of murder for the death or Rubia and Flescher.
In his defense, he argued that he only acted in defense of his property.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid defense of property.

Decision: No. His act of firing from the window is disproportionate to the attack.

Doctrine: Firing upon those who intrude on one’s property who are unarmed, is a disproportimate means to repel the
attack and does not constitute a valid defense.