1.

Give two (2) examples of cases of incomplete requisites to justify the act or exempt
from criminal liability.
a.
PEOPLE v. OANIS
74 Phil. 257
G.R. No. L-47722
July 27, 1943

Facts:
Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed to arrest a notorious criminal
and escaped convict, Anselmo Balagtas, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive.
They went to the suspected house then proceeded to the room where they saw the
supposedly Balagtas sleeping with his back towards the door. Oanis and Galanta

supposedly Balagtas turned out to be Serepio Tecson, an innocent man.

Issue:
Whether or not requisites necessary to justify or exempt the appellants are
attendant.

Held:
No. There is only a mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the incomplete
justifying circumstance defined in article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code. According
to such legal provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment
of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are two requisites in order
that the circumstance may be taken as a justifying one: (a) that the offender acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and (b) that the injury or offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the
lawful exercise of such right or office. In the instance case, only the first requisite is
present appellants have acted in the performance of a duty. The second requisite is
wanting for the crime by them committed is not the necessary consequence of a due
performance of their duty.
 b.
US v TORING
191 SCRA 38, 45-48
G.R. No. L-56358
October 26, 1990

Facts:
On the night of the murder, there was a benefit dance held in Naga, Babag II, Lapu-
lapu City for the last canvassing of votes for the princesses who would reign at the sitio
fiesta and one of the candidates was the daughter of Samuel Augusto. Around 10:45 P.M.,
his daughter was proclaimed the winner. After the proclamation, Augusto stepped out of
the dancing area to answer the call of nature.
At that moment, Luis Toring, Diosdado Berdon, and Carmelo Berdin were seen by
barangay tanod Felix Berdin whispering in a dark area. Berdon handed a knife to Toring
who approached Augusto from behind and stabbed him in the right side. Thereafter, the
three assailants ran towards the dark and Felix was unable to catch them.
Augusto was brought to the hospital where he died on arrival. According to the

wound on the abdomen.

The location of the murder weapon was pointed out by Carmelo Berdin to be at

The three were charged with conspiracy in killing Samuel Augusto in a treacherous
manner. It was alleged that Berdon supplied the weapon which Toring used for stabbing
Augusto while Berdin concealed the weapon.
The morning after the incident, Toring was sleeping in the hut with his older
brother, Arsenio when Edgar Augusto, the younger brother of Samuel, shot them and
Arsenio was hit on the left leg. It was also mentioned that a year before the incident,
Toring was shot by Edgar.
Toring seeks his exoneration by contending that his assault on Samuel was
justified because he acted in defense of his first cousin, Joel Escobia. Article 11 (3) of the
Revised Penal Code provides that no criminal liability is incurred by anyone "who acts in
defense of ... his relatives ... by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that
the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present,
and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that
the one making defense had no part therein."

Issue:
Whether or not there was complete defense of a relative

Held:
No. The presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and the lack of
proof of provocation on the part of Toring notwithstanding, full credence cannot be given,
to Toring's claim of defense of a relative. Toring should be credited with the privileged
mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of relative and the generic mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
2. Give an example of Article 13, par 3.

PEOPLE vs. RABAO

67 Phil 255
G.R. No. L-46530
April 10, 1939

Facts:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur
convicting the appellant of the crime of parricide and sentencing him to an indeterminate
penalty of from eight years and one day of prision mayor to twenty years of reclusion
temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000 and to pay the
costs.
On the morning of December 15, 1937, when the defendant was hardly awake
after staying up late the previous night on account of the elections held in the municipality
of Naga, he noticed that his wife was preparing water with which to give the child a bath.
He told his wife not to bathe the child because it had a cold, but the wife insisted and a
quarrel arose in the heat of which the accused punched his wife on the abdomen. She fell
seated on a sack of rice nearby and immediately suffered an attack of which she died in
spite of the aid rendered her by the accused himself and other persons who had arrived.
The following morning Dr. Vicente Roxas performed an autopsy and found that
the spleen of the deceased had been hypertrophied due to an acute and chronic malaria
from which she had been suffering, and that death was caused by the hemorrhage of the
spleen when it was ruptured as a consequence of an external blow on the abdomen which
might have been that delivered by the accused.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance as provided
in Article 3, Paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code.

Held:
Yes. The defendant did not really have the intention of committing so grave a
crime as parricide. The quarrel that led to the aggression had its origin from the natural
and justifiable desire of the defendant, as a father, to prevent his child, which was then
ill, from being given a bath. If, under the circumstances, he transgressed the law by an
unjust attack on his wife, he is, nevertheless, deserving of the mitigating circumstances
allowed in his favor.
3. Give an example of Article 13, par 4.

PEOPLE v MANANSALA, Jr.,

31 SCRA 401
G.R. No. L-23514
Feb. 17, 1970

Facts:
Early in the afternoon of March 27, 1962 Avelino was eating his lunch inside one
of the eateries dotting the market site, when Rodrigo Aringo alias Diego, a baggage boy
in the same market, approached him and demanded his fee for having carried Avelino's
baggage. Avelino said he was willing to pay for the services rendered at noon, but not for
those rendered earlier in the morning. He then took some money from his pocket and
proffered it to Rodrigo. Obviously peeved at having been thus publicly rebuffed, Rodrigo
brusquely brushed Avelino's hand aside and instantly gave him a fist blow in the face.
Avelino fell from his seat; he tried to get up, but was given another blow, and then a third.
As he reeled from the force of the last blow a batangas knife he was carrying fell from his
trousers pocket. Avelino picked up the knife, and Rodrigo, seeing that he was armed,
rushed to the carinderia's kitchen and returned almost immediately with a 10-inch knife
in his hand. With it he swung at his antagonist, but the latter evaded the blow.

Meanwhile, appellant Jose Manansala, an uncle of Avelino, noticed the

commotion from outside the carinderia, where he was loading baggage on a parked truck
some six meters away. He shouted at Rodrigo to stop. Rodrigo paid no heed and instead
delivered another thrust at Avelino, who again evaded it. At the third attempt, Jose
embraced Rodrigo from behind, and it was at that moment that Avelino stabbed Rodrigo
and inflicted the numerous wounds which proved fatal. Jose took the kitchen knife from
Rodrigo and threw it away, and then released his limp body on the papag nearby. When
the policemen arrived Avelino was still clutching the knife he had used. Both appellants
were apprehended.

Issue:
Whether or not there was sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party.
Held:
Yes. While it is clear that Avelino did not act in legitimate self-defense, the trial
court correctly held that there was sufficient provocation on the part of the victim. The
evidence given by the witnesses for the defense as to how and why the fight started, and
as to the fact that the deceased hit Avelino with his fist, is not controverted by the
witnesses for the prosecution, who did not see the incident from the very beginning. And
one fist blow at least is confirmed by the doctor who treated Avelino for a contusion
around one eye.
4. Give an example of Article 13, par 5.

PEOPLE v. DIOKNO
63 Phil. 601
G. R. No. 45100
October 26, 1936

Facts:
The deceased Yu Hiong was a vendor of sundry goods in Lucena, Tayabas. At about
7 o'clock in the morning of January 4, 1935, Salome Diokno, to whom Yu Hiong was
engaged for about a year, invited the latter to go with her. Yu Hiong accepted the
invitation but he told Salome that her father was angry with him. Salome answered him:
"No matter, I will be responsible." At about 6 o'clock in the afternoon of said day, Yu Hiong
and Salome Diokno took an automobile and went to the house of Vicente Verina, Salome's
cousin, in Pagbilao. As they found nobody in the house, they went on their way up to San
Pablo, Laguna. On January 5th or 6th of said year, Roman Diokno telegraphed his father
Epifanio Diokno, who was in Manila, informing him that Salome had eloped with the
Chinese Yu Hiong. On the morning of January 7, 1935, Epifanio Diokno and Roman Diokno
went to San Pablo, Laguna, in search of the elopers. Having been informed that the latter
were stopping at the house of Antonio Layco, they went there. Upon arriving near the
house, they saw Yu Hiong coming down the stairs. When Yu Hiong saw them, he ran
upstairs and they pursued him. As the Chinese found the door of the house locked, he
shouted that it be opened for him. At that moment, he was overtaken by the accused
who carried knives locally known as balisong, of different sizes. Yu Hiong fell on his knees
and implored pardon. In that situation Roman Diokno stabbed him with the knife in the
back and later in the left side. Epifanio Diokno also stabbed him once. Yu Hiong fell on the
landing of the stairs in the balcony, and there he was again stabbed repeatedly. Then
Roman Diokno said: "Enough, father." Yu Hiong lost consciousness. Juan Alcantara, who
lived on the same street, Hermanos Belen, in front of Antonio Layco's house, saw the
accused pursue Yu Hiong and fired shots for the police to come. Upon hearing the shots,
municipal policeman Francisco Curabo appeared and found Yu Hiong pale and lying on
the landing of the stairs. He then asked who had wounded the Chinese and the accused
Epifanio Diokno answered that it was he. The policeman took the knife which Epifanio
Diokno carried in his right hand and brought him to police headquarters.

Issue:
Whether or not Article 13, Par 5 can be invoked as a mitigating circumstance.

Held:
Yes. The presence of the fifth mitigating circumstance of article 13 of the Revised
Penal Code, that is, immediate vindication of a grave offense to said accused, may be
taken into consideration in favor of the two accused, because although the elopement
took place on January 4, 1935, and the aggression on the 7th of said month and year, the
offense did not cease while Salome's whereabouts remained unknown and her marriage
to the deceased unlegalized. Therefore, there was no interruption from the time the
offense was committed to the vindication thereof. Our opinion on this point is based on
the fact that the herein accused belong to a family of old customs to whom the elopement
of a daughter with a man constitutes a grave offense to their honor and causes
disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the home and at the same time spreads
uneasiness and anxiety in the minds of the members thereof.
5. Give an example of Article 13, par 6.

PEOPLE v. SAMONTE, Jr.

64 SCRA 319, 329-330
G. R. No. L-31225
June 11, 1975

Facts:
There is no dispute as to the fact that the deceased Agustin Santiago, Jr., was
fatally shot by the appellant Pablo Samonte, Jr. at about 11:30 in the evening of July 25,
1969, during a wake being held at 5 Ventanilla Street, Pasay City, for the death of Pablo
Samonte, Sr., father of herein defendant-appellant.
At about the aforementioned time and date, the deceased, in the company of
Jesus Dy, David Pagulayan, Angelito Caras and others, agreed to attend the wake and to
extend their condolences to the family of the departed father of defendant-appellant.
Upon arrival at the house where the wake was being held, the group seated
themselves outside the house and did not bother to go upstairs in order to view the
remains then lying in state. Jesus Dy, who walked ahead of the group, suddenly heard
somebody shouting, "Ambot, huwag, Ambot, huwag." (Ambot is the nickname of
appellant Pablo Samonte, Jr.) and then a gunshot followed. When he turned around to
see what the commotion was all about, he saw Agustin Santiago, Jr. fall. He further saw
defendant-appellant Pablo Samonte, Jr. holding a .45 caliber pistol. Defendant-appellant,
after having fired the shot, ran away. Thereafter, Jesus Dy and his friends brought to the
Philippine General Hospital the bleeding Agustin Santiago, Jr., who was pronounced dead
on arrival.
Defendant-appellant Pablo Samonte, Jr. testified thus: that he is 30 years old, a
staff sergeant in the Philippine Air Force, detailed with the Metrocom, and a veteran of
the Vietnam war; that in the evening of July 25, 1969, he was in the house of his late
father at No. 5 Ventanilla St., Pasay City, attending the wake for his deceased father; that
while he was in the upper story of the house, attending to the condolers and
sympathizers, one Fernando Cabardo came up and asked him to come down because
somebody was trying to create trouble by breaking a domino piece used by the condolers
playing domino and threatening to break the guitar of another mourner who refused to
give it to him; that he went down and saw the deceased brandishing a gun; that a
companion was trying to persuade the deceased to give him his gun; that that was the
first time he saw the deceased; that when he approached the deceased, he smelled of
liquor and that he requested the latter to put away his gun since the guests might be
scared; that the deceased pushed him; uttered the words, "putang ina mo", pointed the
gun at him; that he (appellant) heard the click of its trigger, but the gun however, misfired;
that as he was the sole support of his seriously ailing mother and fearing for his own life
if the deceased were to fire again, he pulled his own gun and shot the deceased.
Issue:
Whether or not the defendant-appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.

Held:
Yes. the circumstances under which the crime was committed serve to attenuate
the liability of defendant-appellant. The demise of a loved one brings sorrow to each and
every member of the family. And the wake which precedes the burial is one solemn
occasion that evokes respect and sympathy from those who share the feeling of
emptiness which death usually brings. The act of the deceased in creating trouble during
the wake of the departed father of defendant-appellant, while it does not fully justify the
tragedy that has befallen him, cannot likewise be condoned. Many traditions are less
venerated by our people than a wake. Stirring trouble during a wake scandalizes the
mourners and offends the sensibilities of the grieving family.
That the deceased was then drunk has been testified to by Andres Santiago, a
chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation. Santiago declared, as confirmed by his
own toxicology report, that he found the presence of ethyl alcohol in the amount of 0.145
in the blood of the deceased. He further opined that one who is not accustomed to
drinking and who takes such amount of alcohol would tend to be a little bit unruly
Therefore, considering that the trouble created by the deceased was both
unlawful and sufficient to infuriate accused-appellant, his guilt is mitigated by passion or
obfuscation
6. Give an example where there was no voluntary surrender

PEOPLE v. SIGAYAN
16 SCRA 834, 844
G.R. Nos. L-18523-26
April 30, 1966

Facts:
At about 8 o'clock in the evening of January 8, 1955, a band of armed men led by
Makasiro Tamiara and among whom were Balbal Sigayan, Demasindel Timba and Desoma
Timba (the last two having been forced to accompany the group), came to the two
neighboring houses of Anacleto Madrina and Leodegario Mendez, at sitio Kalubihon,
Dalipuga, Iligan City, fired shots and riddled them with bullets from different directions
through the floors and surrounding walls, as a result of which shooting Anacleto Madrina
and his 2 daughters Juana and Elena, were hit and died, while Julian Paculba, Juana's
husband, and their 2 young children were wounded. The house was thereafter robbed
and looted with P2,500.00 in cash and a pistol and shotgun worth P550.00 or a total of
P3,050.00 belonging to the family. As a consequence of the shooting of the other house,
Leodegario Mendez was hit and died inside said house, while about 20 paces therefrom,
Laureano Alongay fell dead also with gunshot wounds.

They travelled again through the forest and came out at Kiasar, where Demasindel
Timba told the group that he would procure some food. In his absence, a series of shots
came from constabulary soldiers, and everybody ran his way. In the course of the pursuit,
Sigayan gave up the loot he was carrying and went home to Guimba where he
surrendered to Dansalan Mayor Gosain Klaga, to whom he revealed that he was forced
by the band of robbers to go with them.

Issue:
Whether or not there was voluntary surrender

Held:
No. The trial court is assailed for its alleged failure to consider in Sigayan's favor
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. It was found established, however,
that Sigayan gave up after he was surrounded by the constabulary and police forces, when
he had no alternative except to surrender. This surrender cannot be considered voluntary.
It is true that he testified that after being pursued by the police authorities, he went to
Guimba and surrendered before Mayor Cosain Naga. This official was not, however,
presented to support his allegation and contradict the testimony of the P.C. provincial
commander that he was captured by the constabulary and police team. The lower court,
therefore, committed no error in disregarding this claim of voluntary surrender.
7. Give an example of Article 13, par 8.

PEOPLE v. NAZARIO
97 Phil 990
G.R. No. L-7628
September 29, 1955

Facts:
Appeal from the decision of the Manila Court of First Instance finding appellant
guilty of robbery in an inhabited house and sentencing him to imprisonment for six (6)
months and one (1) day prision correccional to six (6) years and one (1) day prision mayor.
Appellant is deaf and dumb. On this fact, his counsel constructs here the arguement that
possibly he did not know the import of his plea of guilt.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is entitled to additional mitigating circumstance of
being deaf and dumb.

Held:
Yes. Appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of being deaf and dumb,
(Art. 13, No. 8, R.P.C.) which in addition to the plea of guilty are two (2) more mitigating
circumstances. The court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law,
in the period that it may deem applicable. Therefore, applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, this appellant should be and is hereby sentenced to imprisonment for not
less than four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor not more than 4 years 2
months and 1 day of prision correctional.
8. Give an example of Article 13, par 9

PEOPLE v. BONOAN
64 Phil 95
G. R. No. 45130
February 17, 1937

Facts:
Celestino Bonoan is charged with the crime of murder for stabbing Carlos Guison
with a knife, which caused his death three days afterwards. An arraignment was then
called, but the defense objected on the ground that the defendant was mentally deranged
and was at the time confined at the Psychopatic Hospital. After several months of

assistant alienist Dr. Jose Fernandez finally reported to the court that Bonoan may be

and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The defense appealled, claiming the lower court made errors in finding Bonoan
suffered dementia only occasionally and intermittently, did not show any kind of

accused guilty.

Issue:
Whether or not the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty.

Held:
Yes. The Court finds the accused demented at the time he perpetrated the crime,
which consequently exempts him from criminal liability, and orders for his confinement
in San Lazaro Hospital or other hospital for the insane.

Comment:
Although the court did not rule that the case on hand falls under the mitigating
circumstance provided in Article 13, Paragraph 9 of the Revised Penal Code or not, it is
clear that there was lucid interval and that the defense was not able to prove insanity
during the time the crime was committed. The appellant, however, is given the benefit of
the doubt that his exercise of will-power was, in fact, diminished. He may have been
conscious with his acts but given the fact that he was hospitalized before, may have had
a psychological impact on his behavior or acts.
9. Give an example of Article 14, Par 1.

PEOPLE v. ASUNCION
179 SCRA 396, 402
G.R. No. 83870
November 14, 1989

Facts:
That on or about November 6, 1978, at nighttime, in the Barangay of Canili,
Municipality of Alfonso Castañeda, Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines, the accused
Reynato Asuncion and Leonardo Aguinaldo, Policeman and PC Sergeant, respectively,
both attached to the 183rd PC Company, with abuse of their public positions as such
police officer and PC Sergeant, with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, advantage
of superior strength and aid of armed men and the generic circumstances of nocturnity
and evident premeditation, and with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously mortally shoot with their service firearms (carbines) one Gregorio
Vergara, on different parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused took advantage of their public position to commit the
crime.

Held:
Yes. The accused were both on duty when the crime happened. The also used their
service firearms to commit the crime. The appellants used their authority as members of
the police and constabulary to disarm Vergara before shooting him.
10. Give an example of Article 14, Par 6.

PEOPLE v. PARDO
79 Phil 568, 578
G.R. No. L-562
November 19, 1947

Facts:
Jose Pardo was prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga together
with Agapito de la Cruz and Tomas Pesario, charged with "double murder." De la Cruz and
Pesario were discharged and used as state witnesses. This is an appeal by Pardo from a
judgment of conviction sentencing him to death.

Between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening of March 27, 1946, the appellant fired two
shots at Capt. Berthram Burchfield of the United States Army with a .45 caliber automatic
pistol. One of the shots struck the intended victim and from its effects he died at the
Zamboanga General Hospital at 9:30 o'clock of the same night. The other shot missed the
target and hit Francisco Cañete who was instantly killed. Both Capt. Burchfield and Cañete
were seated a few meters apart inside a former army mess hall watching a vaudeville
show, and the appellant sent the bullets from the outside through a side galvanized iron
wall of the building. The gun he used belonged to Agapito de la Cruz although he had one
of his own, a .25 caliber pistol which, according to De la Cruz, was handed to him by Pardo.

The lower court thinks that these crimes were committed in contempt of or with
insult to a public authority.

Issue:

of or with insult to public authority.

Held:
No. The only evidence on the official status of Captain Burchfield is that he was an
officer of the United States Army. There is not an iota of proof that he had been detailed
to the police department of Zamboanga city to take charge of peace and order. Now,
being an officer of the United States Army does not confer public authority within the
meaning of our penal laws.
11. Give an example of Article 14, on nighttime.

PEOPLE v. MATBAGON
60 Phil 887, 891-892, 893
G.R. No. L-42165
November 12, 1934

Facts:
That between eleven and twelve o'clock on the night of May 13, 1934, Marciano
Retubado, the deceased, and Vicente Matbagon, the defendant, had a fight at the cockpit
in Ilihan, in the municipality of Tobogon, Cebu Province. The fight resulted from a remark
made by the defendant respecting the tuba sold by the niece of Marciano Retubado.
Magno Surigao separated the defendant and the deceased, but they had already bitten
each other. Shortly afterwards Marciano Retubado called his son and they started home.
He carried a torch struck in a bottle, and was followed by his son, Emiliano Retubado, a
schoolboy, fifteen years old. When they came opposite a colo tree, about fifty meters
from the cockpit, the defendant with a knife in his hand approached the deceased and
stabbed him in the breast. The deceased struck the defendant on the head with the bottle
that he was carrying. The bottle was broken and the light went out. A struggle between
the accused and the deceased followed. The deceased received in all four wounds; one
on the chin, and another on the right side of the face; one, two inches deep, on the left
side of the chest, and another, one and one-half inches deep, on the breast. The injured
man died in a few minutes from the wounds that he had received on the breast and on
the left side of the chest. The accused then ran away.

Issue:
Whether or not nocturnity should be taken into account as an aggravating
circumstance in this case.

Held:
No. The fact that the crime happened at nighttime (between 11PM and 12PM),
does not prove that the accused used the hour to commit the crime. It was just but
incidental and may even fall on the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication. The
facts showed that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased prior to the
commission of the crime.
12. Give an example of Article 14, an uninhabited place.

PEOPLE v. NULLA
153 SCRA 471, 483
L-69346
August 31, 1987

Facts:
On or about March 20, 1981 Agustin Mecaral, a merchant of some means, and the
owner of a pump boat named "Two Brothers," caused the loading of 56 sacks of rice on
the boat at barangay Agpangi, Naval, Leyte, and thereafter set sail to sell the rice at some
nearby islands. With him on board were four crew members, one of which was Prudencio
Nulla.
At about 7 o'clock that night, Mecaral was struck on the head twice with a bolo
wielded by Prudencio Nulla, causing him to drop to the deck, senseless. The boat's anchor
and a trailer (push cart) were then tied to Mecaral's body, after which he was thrown
overboard. Mecaral slowly sank into the dark waters, never to be seen again.

Issue:
Whether or not the location where the crime was committed should be taken into
account as an aggravating circumstance in this case.

Held:
Yes. As defined in the book of Luis Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book 1, pp. 383.
where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable
distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each
other
such definition.
13. Give an example of Article 14, Par 9

PEOPLE v. COLOCAR
60 Phil 878, 884
G.R. No. L-40871
November 10, 1934

Facts:
The appellant was accused of the crime of arson. That on or about the 2nd day of
May, 1933, in the municipality of Calapan, Province of Mindoro, Philippine Islands, and
within the jurisdiction of this court, the said accused, did wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously set fire to a fish-net and a banca, belonging to Mauricio Ahorro, thereby
destroying the said fish-net, valued at three hundred fifty pesos (P350), and partially
damaging the banca to the amount of thirty pesos (P30).
The defendant has been previously punished for an offense to which the law
attaches a greater penalty. It was proved at the trial that the defendant was convicted of
robbery on November 28, 1916.

Issue:
Whether or not there was recidivism

Held:
Yes. It is true that if the accused had not been prosecuted for robbery within ten
years from the date when the crime was committed, it would have prescribed, but he was
prosecuted within that period and convicted, and we do not find anything in the law
which authorizes us to disregard that fact. Until the Legislature provides otherwise,
recidivism must be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance, no matter how
many years have intervened.
Robbery and arson are both included in Title X of the Revised Penal Code, and they
were included in the same title in the Penal Code, both being crimes against property.
The accused was therefore a recidivist, because at the time of his trial in the present case
he had been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the
same title of the Revised Penal Code.
14. Give an example of Article 14, Par 10

PEOPLE v. DURANTE
53 Phil 363
G.R. No. L-31101
August 23, 1929

Facts:
On January 15, 1929, after 1 o'clock in the afternoon had struck, and while a
brigade of prisoners was leaving its dormitory in Bilibid Prison, Raymundo Zafra, foreman
of said brigade, saw some other prisoners going into it and saying that someone had been
stabbed. At that moment, Mateo Gutierrez entered the said dormitory with his left hand
over his chest, and told Raymundo Zafra that someone had stabbed him. Zafra asked
Gutierrez where he had been stabbed, and at the same time tried to get a club from the
head of his bed, and on turning his face to where Gutierrez was, he saw the defendant
enter the room, and at once stab Gutierrez with the dagger in the abdomen, or more
properly speaking, according to the medical certificate Exhibit B, on the right side a little
above the waist, while the former reclined upon a table; after which, the defendant ran
away, and a few moments later, said Gutierrez expired as a result of his wounds.
Emiliano Ramos, chief foreman of Bilibid, on hearing the siren, he went into the
prison to find out what had happened, and there met the defendant Pedro Durante, who
was running and brandishing the knife. As the defendant would not give himself up when
required to do so by Ramos, the latter had to hit him with his truncheon on the neck and
waist, whereat he fell to the ground and let go of the knife. When the defendant had been
overpowered Ramos asked him what he had done, and the defendant answered that he
had attacked the deceased and that the knife he had used had been kept by him after
Christmas "for he was bent on killing him," because the latter had hit him with his fist.

Issue:
Whether or not the aggravating circumstance provided in Article 14, paragraph 10
should be taken into account in this case

Held:
Yes. The fact that at the time of the commission of the crime the defendant was
serving two sentences for frustrated murder in Bilibid, proves clear enough that the
offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal
or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
15. Give an example of Article 14, Par 13

US v. MANALINDE
G.R. L-No. 5292
August 28, 1909

Facts:
Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the 19th of January, 1909, while Juan
Igual, a Spaniard, was seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa's store in Cotabato, Moro
Province, he suddenly received a wound on the head delivered from behind and inflicted
with a kris. Ricardo Doroteo, a clerk in the said store, who was standing behind the
counter, upon hearing the noise and the cry of the wounded man, ran to his assistance
and found him lying on the ground. Meanwhile the aggressor, the Moro Manalinde,
approached a Chinaman named Choa, who was passing along the street, and just as the
latter was putting down his load in front of the door of a store and was about to enter,
attacked him with the same weapon, inflicting a severe wound in the left shoulder, on
account of which he fell to the ground. The Moro, who came from the rancheria of Dupit
and had entered the town carrying his weapon wrapped up in banana leaves, in the
meantime escaped by running away from the town. Both wounded men, the Chinaman
and the Spaniard, were taken to the hospital, where the former died within an hour, the
record not stating the result of the wound inflicted on the Spaniard Juan Igual.
When Manalinde was arrested he pleaded guilty and confessed that he had
perpetrated the crime herein mentioned, stating that his wife had died about one
hundred days before and that he had come from his home in Catumaldu by order of the
Datto Rajamudah Mupuck, who had directed him to go juramentado in Cotabato in order
to kill somebody, because the said Mupuck had certain grievances to avenge against a
lieutenant and a sergeant, the said datto further stating that if he, Manalinde, was
successful in the matter, he would give him a pretty woman on his return, but that in case
he was captured he was to say that he performed the killing by order of Maticayo, Datto
Piang, Tambal and Inug. In order to carry out his intention to kill two persons in the town
of Cotabato he provided himself with a kris, which he concealed in banana leaves, and,
traveling for a day and a night from his home, upon reaching the town, attacked from
behind a Spaniard who was seated in front of a store and, wounding him, immediately
after attacked a Chinaman, who was close by, just as the latter was placing a tin that he
was carrying on the ground and he was about to enter a store nearby, cutting him on the
left shoulder and fleeing at once; he further stated that he had no quarrel with the
assaulted persons.
Issue:
Whether or not the act was committed with evident premeditation

Held:
It is unquestionable that the accused deliberately considered and carefully and
thoughtfully meditated over the nature and the consequences of the acts which, under
orders received from the said datto, he was about to carry out, and to that end provided
himself with a weapon. The person having been deprived of his life by deeds executed
with deliberate intent, the crime is considered a premeditated one as the firm and
persistent intention of the accused from the moment he received the order until the
crime was committed.
 16. Give an example of Article 14, Par 16.

PEOPLE v. TAMANI
55 SCRA 153, 175
G.R. No. L- 22160
Jan. 21, 1974

Facts:
On June 10th Teodoro Tamani and Domingo Cadawan (also a former policeman
like Teodoro Tamani) were summoned for a conference by the vice-mayor to his house at
Barrio Aniog, Angadanan. Present at the conference were the vice-mayor and his men,
Matias de la Fuente and Rufino de los Santos. It was decided at that meeting that Mayor
Domingo should be liquidated. De la Fuente handed to Teodoro Tamani a carbine.
Appellant Tamani and Cadawan spent the night in the vice-mayor's house. On the
following morning of June 11th, Cadawan was sent on a mission to the poblacion of
Angadanan to ascertain the whereabouts of the quarry, Mayor Domingo. At around seven
o'clock in the evening, Cadawan returned to the vice-mayor's house and told appellant
Tamani that Domingo was in front of the store of Pedro Pua at the town's commercial
street.
From the place where Cadawan and Tamani had positioned themselves, they had
a good view, through the holes of the gate, of Mayor Domingo and his group in front of
Pua's store. Cadawan opened a hole in the gate, about three inches in diameter, through
which Teodoro Tamani inserted the barrel of the carbine. Tamani fired at Mayor Domingo
who was the target.

Issue:
Whether or not treachery should be taken in consideration as an aggravating
circumstance.

Held:
Yes. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make. 1 The fact that the appellant hid behind the gates
and drew a hole thereat, defense from the offended party cannot be attained.

[1] Art. 14, par 16 of the Revised Penal Code

17. Give an example of Article 14, Par 17.

US v. DE LEON
1 Phil 163, 164
G.R. No. 522
March 10, 1902
Facts:
On the 28th of June, 1897, Don Julio Banson, now deceased, was in a small hut
with his wife and child. Two men, called Fabian and Tolome, presented themselves,
apparently unarmed. After entering the hut, they drew their bolos, bound the said
Banson, and compelled him to go with them. Upon reaching a point near the fields of said
Banson, the two kidnappers also abducted 5 of the former's servants. At that point the
defendant joined them, appearing from behind a knoll where he had concealed himself.
The defendant then beat him with the butt of a gun which he carried until they arrived at
a place called Bulutong, where he made the five servants place themselves in single file
and ordered Don Julio to kneel before them and maltreated the latter brutally. Not
satisfied with torturing the deceased by himself he ordered Tolome to give him a blow
upon the chest with a bolo. After the servant had been sent all were led to a place called
Cosme and upon arriving there the defendant ordered Fabian and Tolome to conduct Don
Julio to a ditch. At the same time the witness and his three companions were given their
liberty by the defendant, who remained with his two companions and with Don Julio. Don
Julio was never afterwards seen alive and his headless body was found two or three days
later in this same place.

Issue:
Whether or not the means employed or circumstances brought about added
ignominy to the natural effects of the act.

Held:
Yes. In the present case, the deceased was bound, was beaten, and was made to

intended to put the deceased to shame as the acts aforementioned were not necessary
to produce the crime committed.
18. Give an example of Article 14, Par 21.

US v ORO
19 Phil 54, 554
G.R. No. 5781
August 14, 1911

Facts:
The defendant in this case is charged with the murder of Carolina or Carola
Oribiada, a female infant 11 months old, and the court, in view of the evidence presented
at the trial, sentenced him to the death penalty, to the payment of an indemnity of P500
to the mother of the deceased, and to pay the costs of the case. From this judgment the
defendant has appealed to the Supreme Court.
ursday morning, April 22, 1909, Joaquina went out of her
house to bathe, leaving the defendant therein with the child. She returned to her house
at about noon that same day, after an absence of approximately two hours. When she
entered the house, she found the child with burns; thereupon she inquired of the
defendant how the child had burnt itself, and he replied that she had fallen.
Catalina Olaso, a witness, is an old woman of about 60 years of age and lived at an
approximate distance of 40 brazas from the house of the defendant and Joaquina. She
testified that, on the 22nd of April 1909, she went down out of her house to a spot some
40 brazas from

lying, face up, on the floor of the house, while Vicente Oro, the defendant, was sitting
beside her, and that Vicente Oro and the child were the only persons in the house at that
time.
Pedro Olayres, also a witness, testified that he lived at a distance of about 30
brazas from the house of the crime, and that, on the morning of the 22nd of April, he
went out of his house and into the coconut grove in front of it; that while there he saw
the child on the floor of the house, face down, and with fire just below her waist; that the
defendant was near the child; that witness was then about 17 brazas from the house.
Appellant was sentenced to death by hanging.

Issue:
Whether or not the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.

Held:
Yes. The qualifying circumstance of alevosia enters into the commission of this
crime, since the defendant caused the death of the child without any risk whatever to
himself. It is also qualified by the circumstance of extreme cruelty, for the reason that, if
the desires of the defendant had been only to kill the child, he could have carried out his
purpose in some other more expeditious manner, without compelling the victim to
undergo such great suffering and for so long a time.