Crim Digestsdg

7/23/2019 Crim Digestsdg

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim-digestsdg 1/16

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintif-appellee,vs. FRANCISCO ABARCA, accused-appellant, .R. N!. "##$$Septe%&e' (#, ()*"(+$ SCRA "$+1. Legal Issue

Shall the accused sufer the penalty o arresto mayor subject by hiscriminal liability?2. Legal Facts That on or about 1th day o !uly 1"#$ in the city o Tacloban Leyte%hilippines& the accused Francisco 'barca (ent to the bus station andtra)el to *olores +astern Samar to etch his daughter in the morning.,nortunately& the trip (as delayed at 2 pm because o his ailure tocatch the trip plus the engine trouble (hich causes him to proceed athis ather-s house& and then later (ent home. hen he reaches homethe accused caught his (ie in the act o se/ual intercourse (ith0hingsley 0oh in the meantime his (ie and 0oh notice him& that maes

her (ie push her paramour and got his re)ol)er. 'barca peepingabo)e the builtin cabinet in their room jumped and ran a(ay to looor a 3rearm at the %4 soldier-s house to (here he got the 516 ri7e. The accused lost his (ie and 0oh in )icinity at his house andimmediately proceeded to a mahjong house (here he caught the)ictim aimed and shoot 0oh (ith se)eral bullets on his diferent partso his body causing 5r. 0hingsley 0oh-s instantaneous death. 8y thattime& 'rnold and Lina 'mparado had in7icted multiple (ounds due tostray bullets causing 5r. 'mparado-s one and onehal month loss o(oring capacity including his serious hospitali9ation and the latter-s(ie (ho had slighter physical injuries rom the incident. The :T4

hereby sentenced 'barca to death or 5urder (ith double Frustrated5urder and must indemniy the 'mparado Spouses and ;eirs o 0ho.<. ;olding The Supreme 4ourt modi3ed the appealed decision o destierro toarresto mayor rom the lo(er court sentencing our months and 21days to si/ months o arresto mayor indemniying 'mparado spousesor e/penses and damages.$. :easoning

The accusedappellant did not ha)e the intent to ill the 'mparadocouple. 'lthough as a rule& one committing an ofense is liable or all

the conse=uences o his act& the rule presupposes that the act doneamounts to a elony. The accusedappellant is totally ree rom anyresponsibility perorming an illegal act (hen he 3red shots at the)ictim but he cannot be entirely (ithout ault. It appears that beore3ring at the deceased& he uttered (arning (ords (hich is not enougho a precaution to absol)e him or the injuries sustained by the'mparados. The acts o e/ecution (hich should ha)e produced thecrimes o murders as a conse=uence& ne)ertheless did not produce it



by reason o causes independent o his (ill> nonetheless& the 4ourt3nds negligence on his part. ;e is liable under the 3rst part& secondparagraph& o 'rticle <6 that is less serious physical injuries throughsimple imprudence or negligence. For the separate injuries sufered bythe 'mparado spouses impose upon the accusedappellant arresto

mayor in its medium and ma/imum period to being the gra)er penalty.

PEOPLE vs. ENOSA, .R. N!. ($+)*(, anua' (+ //#.%eople o the %hilippines )s. 5ari)ic enosa

F'4TS@ This case stemmed rom the illing o 8en enosa& by his (ie5ari)ic enosa& appellant herein. *uring their 3rst year o marriage&5ari)ic and 8en li)ed happily but apparently thereater& 8en changedand the couple (ould al(ays =uarrel and sometimes their =uarrelsbecame )iolent. 'ppellant testi3ed that e)ery time her husband camehome drun& he (ould pro)oe her and sometimes beat her. hene)er

beaten by her husband& she consulted medical doctors (ho testi3edduring the trial. An the night o the illing& appellant and the )ictim(ere =uarreled and the )ictim beat the appellant. ;o(e)er& appellant(as able to run to another room. 'ppellant admitted ha)ing illed the)ictim (ith the use o a gun. The inormation or parricide againstappellant& ho(e)er& alleged that the cause o death o the )ictim (asby beating through the use o a lead pipe. 'ppellant in)oed seldeense and deense o her unborn child. 'ter trial& the :egional Trial4ourt ound appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt o the crime oparricide (ith an aggra)ating circumstance o treachery and imposedthe penalty o death.

An automatic re)ie( beore the Supreme 4ourt& appellant 3led an,:+BT A5BI8,S 5ATIAB praying that the ;onorable 4ourt allo( C1Dthe e/humation o 8en enosa and the ree/amination o the cause ohis death> C2D the e/amination o 5ari)ic enosa by =uali3edpsychologists and psychiatrists to determine her state o mind at thetime she illed her husband> and 3nally& C<D the inclusion o the saide/perts- reports in the records o the case or purposes o theautomatic re)ie( or& in the alternati)e& a partial reopening o the casea =uo to tae the testimony o said psychologists and psychiatrists. TheSupreme 4ourt partly granted the ,:+BT A5BI8,S 5ATIAB o the

appellant. It remanded the case to the trial court or reception oe/pert psychological andEor psychiatric opinion on the battered(oman syndromeG plea. Testimonies o t(o e/pert (itnesses on thebattered (oman syndromeG& *ra. *ayan and *r. %ajarillo& (erepresented and admitted by the trial court and subse=uently submittedto the Supreme 4ourt as part o the records.

ISS,+@



1. hether or not appellant herein can )alidly in)oe the battered(oman syndromeG as constituting sel deense.2. hether or not treachery attended the illing o 8en enosa.

:uling@ 1. The 4ourt ruled in the negati)e as appellant ailed to pro)e

that she is aHicted (ith the battered (oman syndromeG.

' battered (oman has been de3ned as a (oman (ho is repeatedlysubjected to any orceul physical or psychological beha)ior by a manin order to coerce her to do something he (ants her to do (ithoutconcern or her rights. 8attered (omen include (i)es or (omen in anyorm o intimate relationship (ith men. Furthermore& in order to beclassi3ed as a battered (oman& the couple must go through thebattering cycle at least t(ice. 'ny (oman may 3nd hersel in anabusi)e relationship (ith a man once. I it occurs a second time& andshe remains in the situation& she is de3ned as a battered (oman.G

5ore graphically& the battered (oman syndrome is characteri9ed bythe socalled cycle o )iolence&G (hich has three phases@ C1D thetensionbuilding phase> C2D the acute battering incident> and C<D thetran=uil& lo)ing Cor& at least& non)iolentD phase.

The 4ourt& ho(e)er& is not discounting the possibility o seldeensearising rom the battered (oman syndrome. First& each o the phaseso the cycle o )iolence must be pro)en to ha)e characteri9ed at leastt(o battering episodes bet(een the appellant and her intimatepartner. Second& the 3nal acute battering episode preceding the illing

o the batterer must ha)e produced in the battered person-s mind anactual ear o an imminent harm rom her batterer and an honest belie that she needed to use orce in order to sa)e her lie. Third& at the timeo the illing& the batterer must ha)e posed probable not necessarilyimmediate and actual gra)e harm to the accused& based on thehistory o )iolence perpetrated by the ormer against the latter. Taenaltogether& these circumstances could satisy the re=uisites o seldeense. ,nder the e/isting acts o the present case& ho(e)er& not allo these elements (ere duly established.

The deense ell short o pro)ing all three phases o the cycle o

)iolenceG supposedly characteri9ing the relationship o 8en and 5ari)icenosa. Bo doubt there (ere acute battering incidents but appellantailed to pro)e that in at least another battering episode in the past&she had gone through a similar pattern. Beither did appellant profersucient e)idence in regard to the third phase o the cycle.

In any e)ent& the e/istence o the syndrome in a relationship does notin itsel establish the legal right o the (oman to ill her abusi)e



partner. +)idence must still be considered in the conte/t o seldeense. Settled in our jurisprudence& is the rule that the one (horesorts to seldeense must ace a real threat on one-s lie> and theperil sought to be a)oided must be imminent and actual& not merelyimaginary. Thus& the :e)ised %enal 4ode pro)ides that the ollo(ing

re=uisites o seldeense must concur@ C1D ,nla(ul aggression> C2D:easonable necessity o the means employed to pre)ent or repel it>and C<D Lac o sucient pro)ocation on the part o the persondeending himsel.

,nla(ul aggression is the most essential element o seldeense. Itpresupposes actual& sudden and une/pected attac or an imminentdanger thereo on the lie or saety o a person. In the present case&ho(e)er& according to the testimony o 5ari)ic hersel& there (as asucient time inter)al bet(een the unla(ul aggression o 8en and heratal attac upon him. She had already been able to (ithdra( rom his

)iolent beha)ior and escape to their children-s bedroom. *uring thattime& he apparently ceased his attac and (ent to bed. The reality ore)en the imminence o the danger he posed had ended altogether. ;e(as no longer in a position that presented an actual threat on her lieor saety.

The mitigating actors o psychological paralysis and passion andobuscation (ere& ho(e)er& taen in a)or o appellant. It should beclari3ed that these t(o circumstances psychological paralysis as (ellas passion and obuscation did not arise rom the same set o acts.

The 3rst circumstance arose rom the cyclical nature and the se)erityo the battery in7icted by the battererspouse upon appellant. That is&the repeated beatings o)er a period o time resulted in herpsychological paralysis& (hich (as analogous to an illness diminishingthe e/ercise o her (ill po(er (ithout depri)ing her o consciousness o her acts.

's to the e/tenuating circumstance o ha)ing acted upon an impulseso po(erul as to ha)e naturally produced passion and obuscation& ithas been held that this state o mind is present (hen a crime iscommitted as a result o an uncontrollable burst o passion pro)oed

by prior unjust or improper acts or by a legitimate stimulus so po(erulas to o)ercome reason. To appreciate this circumstance& the ollo(ingre=uisites should concur@ C1D there is an act& both unla(ul andsucient to produce such a condition o mind> and C2D this act is notar remo)ed rom the commission o the crime by a considerablelength o time& during (hich the accused might reco)er her normale=uanimity.



2. BA. 8ecause o the gra)ity o the resulting ofense& treachery mustbe pro)ed as conclusi)ely as the illing itsel. 8esides& e=uallya/iomatic is the rule that (hen a illing is preceded by an argument ora =uarrel& treachery cannot be appreciated as a =ualiyingcircumstance& because the deceased may be said to ha)e been

ore(arned and to ha)e anticipated aggression rom the assailant.5oreo)er& in order to appreciate ale)osia& the method o assaultadopted by the aggressor must ha)e been consciously and deliberatelychosen or the speci3c purpose o accomplishing the unla(ul act(ithout ris rom any deense that might be put up by the partyattaced.

The appellant acted upon an impulse so po(erul as to ha)e naturallyproduced passion or obuscation. The acute battering she sufered thatatal night in the hands o her battererspouse& in spite o the act thatshe (as eight C#D months pregnant (ith their child& o)er(helmed her

and put her in the aoresaid emotional and mental state& (hicho)ercame her reason and impelled her to )indicate her lie and that oher unborn child.

The Supreme 4ourt armed the con)iction o appellant or parricide.;o(e)er& considering the presence o t(o C2D mitigating circumstancesand (ithout any aggra)ating circumstance& the penalty is reduced tosi/ C6D years and one C1D day o prision mayor as minimum> to 1$ years# months and 1 day o reclusion temporal as ma/imum. Inasmuch asappellant has been detained or more than the minimum penaltyhereby imposed upon her& the director o the 8ureau o 4orrections

may immediately :+L+'S+ her rom custody upon due determinationthat she is eligible or parole& unless she is being held or some otherla(ul cause.

BAT+@ 'ter this case (as decided by the Supreme 4ourt& :.'. "262&other(ise no(n as 'ntiJiolence 'gainst omen and their 4hildren'ct o 2KK$ (as enacted. Sec. 26 o said la( pro)ides that ///.Jictimsur)i)ors (ho are ound by the courts to be sufering rombattered (omen syndrome do not incur any criminal and ci)il liabilitynoth(ithstanding the absence o any o the elements or justiying

circumstances o seldeense under the :e)ised %enal 4ode.///

PEOPLE 0. ALLEO 1RE2E3IAL4

In %eople ). Teehanee& (e e/plained the procedure or A,TAF4A,:TI*+BTIFI4'TIAB and the test to determine the admissibility o suchidenti3cation& )i9@



Autocourt identi3cation is conducted by the police in )arious (ays.It is done thru sho(ups (here the suspect alone is brought ace tocae (ith the (itness or identi3cation. It is done thru mug shots (herephotographers are sho(n to the (itness to identiy suspect. It is also

done thru lineups (here a (itness identi3es the suspect orm a groupo persons lined up or the purpose.

In resol)ing the admissibility o and relying on outocourtidenti3cation o suspects& courts ha)e adopted the TAT'LITM AF4I:4,5ST'B4+S T+ST (here they consider the ollo(ing actors@

the (itnessN opportunity to )ie( the criminal at the time o the crime>the (itnessN degree o attention at that time>the accuracy o any prior description& gi)en by the (itness>the le)el o certainty demonstrated by the (itness at the identi3cation

the length o time bet(een the crime and the identi3cation> andthe suggesti)eness o the identi3cation procedure.,sing the Totality o 4ircumstances Test& (e 3nd that the identi3cationo allego as LamataNs assailant through a sho(up is credible.

allego is a complete stranger to the (itnesses. no illmoti)e can beascribed against them to alsely testiy against him. 'bsent anye)idence sho(ing any reason or moti)e or them to perjure& the logicalconclusion is that no such improper moti)e e/ists& as their testimoniesare thus (orthy o ull aith and credit.

In light o the positi)e identi3cation o allego as LamataNs assailant&the accusedNs deense o denial and alibi must ail. Time and again& this4ourt has ruled that %ASITIJ+ I*+BTIFI4'TIAB AF T;+ '44,S+* (illpre)ail o)er the *+F+BS+ AF *+BI'L 'B* 'LI8I. 5oreo)er& or thedeense o alibi to prosper& it must be sho(n that it (as physicallyimpossible or the accused to ha)e been at the scene o the crime atthe appro/imate time o its commission. This& the accused ailed to doso. ' borne out by the testimonies o the deense (itnesses& allegoNshouse C(here allego supposedly (as at the time Lamata (asstabbedD (as only about < to $ ilometers rom the scene o the crime a distance (hich by motorcycle could be negotiated in 1K minutes.

Pe!ple vs ene&la5! $"( SCRA +"$PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINESplaintifandappellee,



vs. 2A6I2O ENEBLA7O,accused-appellant.

Facts@ 'le/ Abien& testi3ed that on !anuary 1& 1"##& at around 12@KKmidnight he and*omingo Apalsa(ere(aling along Oue9on Street& 4alauag& Oue9on& bound or home(hen 5a/imino enebla9o and around si/unno(n companions stonedthem. Abien and Apalsa retaliated by also thro(ing stones atenebla9o andcompany. ;o(e)er& upon seeing that enebla9o (asabout to dra( his nie& they ran a(ay. 5a/iminoenebla9o caught up(ith *omingo Apalsa and stabbed the latter t(ice P

the 3rst stab landed on the let sideo the body in the area o thearmpit& (hile the second landed on the let side o the ace.S%A1+mmanuel Ouiogue (as at home on the night in =uestion. ;e heard acommotion outside. %eeping outthe (indo( he sa( some menthro(ing stones at each other. ;e got his gun and (ent outside.Boticing thechase (hich ensued& he (ent ater the men. 't the sceneo the incident& S%A1 Ouiogue sa( t(o men almostloced in anembrace. ;e 3red his gun but the t(o did not dra( apart so he stoodbet(een them so as toseparate them. Ane o the men ell to theground (hile the person (ho (as let standing stabbed him. Anlyhis3nger (as hit. ;e recogni9ed the person (ho stabbed him as 5a/imino

enebla9o. Thereater S%A1Ouiogue& Abien and 8arangay 4aptain Torres o %inagtalyeran broughtApalsa to St. %eter-s ;ospital (herethe latter (as pronounced dead on arri)al.4rime 4ommitted@5urder4ontention o the State@ The accusedcommitted unla(ul aggression& enebla9o attaced and stabbed *omingo Apalsa suddenlyandune/pectedly (ithout gi)ing the latter any opportunity to deend

himsel or to escape (hich caused hisdeath.4ontention o the 'ccused@ 'ccusedappellant 5a/imino enebla9o alleges that he illed the)ictim *omingo Apalsa inseldeense. :uling@



For seldeense to prosper& it must be established that@ C1D there (asunla(ul aggression by the )ictim>C2D that the means employed topre)ent or repel such aggression (as reasonable> and C<D thatthere(as lac o sucient pro)ocation on the part o the person

deending himsel.It is =uite apparent that it (as not the )ictim (ho committed theunla(ul aggression but the accusedappellant himsel.,nla(ul aggression contemplates an actual& sudden and une/pectedattac& or imminent danger thereo& and not merely a threatening orintimidating attitude there has to e/ist a real danger to the lieorpersonal saety o the person claiming seldeense.

;o(e)er& the matter o (hether or not the deceased (as theaggressor is actual.It is a settledrule that thetrial court is in a better position to ascertain the acts under thecircumstances. ;eld@The decision 3nding accusedappellant guilty o the crime o murder&is5A*IFI+*instead& the 4ourt 3ndsaccusedappellant 5a/imino enebla9o guilty

o the crime o ;omicide.

Luis A. Ta&uena, et al. vs. Sandi8an&aan 19* SCRA $$,Fe&'ua' (", ())"4F'4TS@ Then %res. Ferdinand 5arcos instructed Luis Tabuena& eneral 5anagero the 5anilaInternational 'irport 'uthority C5I''D& o)er the phone topay directly to the president-soce and in cash (hat the 5I'' o(esthe %hil. Bational 4onstruction 4orp. The )erbalinstruction (asreiterated in a %residential memorandum.In obedience to %res. 5arcos-instruction& Tabuena& (ith the help o erardo *abao and'dolo

%eralta& the 'sst. en. 5gr. and the 'cting Finance Ser)ices 5gr. o5I''&respecti)ely& caused the release o %5 o 5I'' unds o threeC<D (ithdra(als anddeli)ered the money to 5rs. Fe :oaimene9&pri)ate secretary o 5arcos. imene9 issueda receipt or all theamounts she recei)ed rom Tabuena. Later& it turned out that%B44ne)er recei)ed the money.The case in)ol)es t(o C2D separatepetitions or re)ie( by Luis Tabuena and 'dolo %eralta.They appeal theSandiganbayan decision con)icting them o mal)ersation o 5I'' unds



inthe amount o %5.Further& petitioners claimed that they (erecharged (ith intentional mal)ersation& asalleged in the amendedinormation& but it (ould appear that they (ere con)ictedormal)ersation (ith negligence. ;ence& their con)iction o a crimediferent rom that charged)iolated their constitutional right to be

inormed o the accusation.ISS,+@C1Dhether or not the Sandiganbayan con)icted them o a crime notcharged in theamended inormation> andC2Dhether or not Tabuenaand %eralta acted in good aith.;+L*@C1DBo. 5al)ersation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. Thedoloor theculpa

present in the ofense is only a modality in the perpetration o theelony. +)en i the mode charged difers rom the mode pro)ed& thesame ofense o mal)ersation isin)ol)ed.C2DMes. Tabuena acted in strictcompliance (ith the 5':4AS 5emorandum. The orderemanated romtheAce o the %residentand bears the signature o the %residenthimsel& the highest ocial othe land. It carries (ith it the presumption that it (asregularly issued.'nd on its ace& the memorandum is patently la(ul or no la(maesthe payment o an obligation illegal. This act& coupled (ith theurgent tenor or itse/ecution constrains one to act s(itly (ithout

=uestion.;o(e)er& a more compelling reason or the '4O,ITT'L is the)iolation o the accusedNsbasic constitutional right to due process.:ecords sho( that the Sandiganbayan acti)elytoo part in the=uestioning o a deense (itness and o the accused themsel)es. The=uestions o the court (ere in the nature o cross e/aminationscharacteristic o conrontation& probing and insinuation. Tabuena and%eralta may not ha)e raised the issueas an error& there is ne)erthelessno impediment or the court to consider such matter asadditional basisor a re)ersal since the settled doctrine is that an appeal thro(s the(holecase open to re)ie(& and it becomes the duty o the appellatecourt to correct such errorsas may be ound in the judgment appealed

rom (hether they are made the subject o assignments o error ornot.The cold neutrality o an impartial judge re=uirement o due process (as certainly deniedTabuena and %eralta(hen the court& (ith its o)er9ealousness& assumed the dual role omagistrate and ad)ocate. Time and again the 4ourt has declared thatdue process re=uiresno less than the cold neutrality o an impartial judge. That the judge must not only beimpartial but must also appear



to be impartial& to gi)e added assurance to the parties thathis decision(ill be just. The parties are entitled to no less than this& as aminimumguaranty o due process.;+B4+& Luis Tabuena and 'dolo%eralta are ac=uitted o the crime o mal)ersation.

OHN PHILIP :E0ARRA, petiti!ne',vs.HONORABLE INACIO AL2O3O0AR, 'esp!ndent.

F'4TS@

P An Actober 2"& 1"#$& the %etitioner (ho (as then 11 years old (asplaying (ith best riend Teodoro 'lmine !r. and three other children intheir bacyard. The children (ere targetshooting bottle caps placed 1to 2K meters a(ay (ith an air ri7e borro(ed rom a neighbour.

P In the course o game& Teodoro (as hit by a pellet on his let collarbone (hich caused his unortunate death.

P The e/amining 3scal ater in)estigation e/culpated petitioner due tohis age and because the unortunate appeared to be an accident.

P Jictim-s parents appealed to 5inistry o !ustice& (ho ordered 3scal to3le a case against petitioner or ;omicide through reclessimprudence.

P An Actober 2& 1"#& the petitioner mo)ed to =uash the said

inormation on the ollo(ing grounds@

aD That the acts charged do not constitute an ofense

bD Inormation contains a)erments (hich i true (ould constitute alegal e/cuse or justi3cation

cD That the 4ourt has no jurisdiction o)er the ofense charged and theperson o deendant

P ;is primary argument (as that the term discernment connotes intent

under the e/empting circumstance ound under 'rticle 12& Section < o the :%4. I this (as true& then no minor bet(een the age o " to 1may be con)icted o =uasi ofense under 'rticle 26 (hich is criminalnegligence.

P An 'pril $& 1"#6& the said motion (as denied (ith respect to the 3rstand third grounds relied upon decision on and part (as deerred untile)idence shall ha)e been presented during trial.



P ' petition or certiorari (as 3led.

ISS,+S@

1. ;+T;+: 'B +L+J+B C11D M+': AL* 8AM 4A,L* 8+ 4;':+*IT; T;+ 4:I5+ AF ;A5I4I*+ T;:, :+40L+SS I5%:,*+B4+& 'B*

2. ;+T;+: T;+ 4A,:T ;'* !,:IS*I4TIAB AJ+: T;+ 4'S+BATIT;ST'B*IB T;+ F'4T T;'T IT *I* BAT %'SS T;:, T;+8':'B'M L,%AB.

;+L*@

Mes.Intent and discernment are t(o diferent concepts. Intent means@ a

determination to do certain things> an aim> the purpose o the mind&including such no(ledge as is essential to such intent. *iscernmentmeans@ the mental capacity to understand the diference bet(een rightand (rong.

The second element o dolus is intelligence> (ithout this po(er&necessary to determine the morality o human acts to distinguish a licitrom an illicit act& no crime can e/ist& and because Q the inant < ChasDno intelligence& the la( e/empts ChimD rom criminal liability.

In e)aluating elonies committed by means o culpa& three C<D

elements are indispensable& namely& intelligence& reedom o action&and negligence. Ab)iously& intent is (anting in such elonies. ;o(e)er&intelligence remains as an essential element& hence& it is necessarythat a minor abo)e nine but belo( 3teen years o age be possessed(ith intelligence in committing a negligent act (hich results in a =uasiofense. For him to be criminally liable& he must discern the rightnessor (rongness o the efects o his negligent act. Indeed& a minor o)ernine years o age but belo( 3teen may be held liable or a =uasiofense under 'rticle <6 o the :%4. ' reading o the said 'rticle(ould re)eal such act as it starts of (ith the phrase 'ny person. . .G(ithout any distinction or e/ception made. ,bi le/ non distin=uit nec

nos distinguere debemos.

5inors "yrs to 1yrs are presumed to be (ithout criminal capacity> butthis presumption may be rebutted i it could be pro)en that they (erecapable o appreciating the nature and criminality o the act& that is&that CtheyD acted (E discernment.

8ecause o this& ue)arra (as not e/empted.



Mes. The petitioner-s contention that he (as entitled to a t(odegreepri)ileged mitigating circumstance due to his minority because o %.*.1K#. ;e argued that this can be applied to his case because the

penalty imposable is reduced to not higher than arresto menor rom anoriginal arresto mayor ma/imum to prision correccional medium asprescribed in 'rticle <6 o the :%4.

The jurisdiction o a court o)er a criminal case is determined by thepenalty imposable under the la( or the ofense and not the penaltyultimately imposed.

The same principle applies in construing Section 2C<D o %.*. 1K#&(hich states@

/// /// ///

C<D Afense punishable by imprisonment e/ceeding <K day & or a 3nee/ceeding % 2KK.KK> Q Cemphasis suppliedD

+/pounding on the abo)e pro)ision& a member o the committee thatdrated %.*. 1K# has said@

The la( says Rpunishable&- not Rpunished.- Ane should thereoreconsider the penalty pro)ided or by la( or ordinance as distinguishedrom the penalty actually imposed in particular cases ater considering

the attendant circumstances afecting criminal liability.

The oregoing 3nds support in our jurisprudence as abo)e cited. ethereore rule that& in construing Section 2C<D o %.*. 1K#& the penalty(hich the la( de3ning the ofense attaches to the latter should beconsidered. ;ence& any circumstance (hich may afect criminal liabilitymust not be considered.

The petitioner& in his arguments& asserts that since %.*. 1K# has notbeen complied (ith& the trial court has no jurisdiction o)er the case. This erroneous perception has been corrected long beore. 's

intimated in the case o :oyales )s. I'4& 12 S4:' $K& andcategorically stated in +bol )s. 'min& 1< S4:' $<#& %.*. 1K# is not jurisdictional.

;+:+FA:+& %:+5IS+S 4ABSI*+:+*& this petition is hereby*IS5ISS+* or lac o merit and the Temporary :estraining Arderefecti)e 1 September 1"#6 is LIFT+*. Let this case be :+5'B*+* tothe lo(er court or trial on the merits. Bo cost.



Pe!ple v 3un8!

Facts@ An 5arch 16& 1"# bet(een 2@KK and <@KKpm& the accused (entto 5rs. SiguaNs oce at the *epartment o 'grarian :eorm& 'palit&

%ampanga. 'ter a brie tal& the accused dre( a nie rom theen)elope he (as carrying and stabbed 5rs. Sigua se)eral times. 'ter(hich he departed rom the oce (ith blood stained clothes& carryinga bloodied bladed (eapon. The autopsy report re)ealed that the )ictimsustained 1$ (ounds& o (hich (ere atal.

:odolo Sigua& husband o the deceased& testi3ed that sometime inFebruary 1"#& the accused :osalino *ungo in=uired rom him (hy his(ie (as re=uiring so many documents rom him. :odolo e/plained tohim the procedure at the *':.

The accused& in deense o himsel& tried to sho( that he (as insane atthe time o the commission o the ofense@

T(o (ees prior to 5arch 16& 1"#& :osalinoNs (ie noticed that heappears to be in deep thought al(ays& maltreating their children (henhe (as not used to it beore. There (ere also times that her husband(ould inorm her that his eet and head (ere on 3re (hen in truth they(ere not.

An that ateul day& :osalino complained o stomachache but theydidnNt bother to buy medicine as the pain (ent a(ay immediately.

Thereater& he (ent bac to the store. 8ut (hen 'ndrea ollo(ed himto the store& he (as no longer there. orried& she looed or him. Anher (ay home& she heard people saying that a stabbing occurred. Shesa( her husband in her parentsinla(Ns house (ith people millingaround. She ased her husband (hy he did the act& to (hich :osalinoans(ered& ThatNs the only cure or my ailment. I ha)e cancer o theheart. I I donNt ill the deceased in a number o days& I (ould die.G That same day& the accused (ent to 5anila.

*r. Santiago and *r. +cha)e9 o the Bational 4enter or 5ental ;ealthtesti3ed that the accused (as con3ned in the mental hospital& as per

order o the trial court dated 'ug. 1& 1"#. 8ased on the reports otheir staf& they concluded that :osalino (as psychotic or insane longbeore& during and ater the commission o the alleged crime andclassi3ed his insanity as an organic mental disorder secondary tocerebro)ascular accident or stroe. 8ut *r. 8alatbat (ho treated theaccused or ailments secondary to stroe& and *r. Lim (ho testi3edthat the accused sufered dorm occlusi)e disease& concluded that



:osalino (as someho( rehabilitated ater a series o medicaltreatment in their clinic.

Issue@ hether or not the accused (as insane during the commissiono the crime charged.

;eld@ Bo. For insanity to relie)e the person o criminal liability& it isnecessary that there be a complete depri)ation o intelligence incommitting the act& that he acts (Eo the least discernment and thatthere be complete absence or depri)ation o the reedom o the (ill.

,nder %hilippine jurisdiction& thereNs no de3nite test or criterion orinsanity. ;o(e)er& the de3nition o insanity under Sec 1K<" o the:e)ised 'dministrati)e 4ode can be applied. In essence& it states thatinsanity is e)inced by a deranged and per)erted condition o themental aculties& (hich is maniested in language or conduct. 'ninsane person has no ull and clear understanding o the nature and

conse=uence o his act.

+)idence o insanity must reer to the mental condition at the )erytime o doing the act. ;o(e)er& it is also permissible to recei)ee)idence o his mental condition or a reasonable period beore andater the time o the act in =uestion. The )agaries o the mind can onlybe no(n by out(ard acts.

It is not usual or an insane person to conront a speci3ed person (homay ha)e (ronged him. 8ut in the case at hand& the accused (as ableto 5rs. Sigua. From this& it can be inerred that the accused (as a(are

o his acts. This also established that the accused has lucid inter)als.

5oreo)er& *r. +cha)e9 testi3ed to the efect that the appellant couldha)e been a(are o the nature o his act at the time he committed it(hen he shouted Cduring laboratory e/aminationD that he illed 5rs.Sigua. This statement maes it highly doubtul that the accused (asinsane (hen he committed the act.

The act that the accused (as carrying an en)elope (here he hid theatal (eapon& that he ran a(ay rom the scene o the incident ater hestabbed the )ictim se)eral times& that he 7ed to 5anila to e)ade

arrest& indicate that he (as conscious and ne( the conse=uences ohis acts in stabbing the )ictim. CThis (as taen rom the T4Ns decisionD.

Pe!ple v. Ra;anan, /# SCRA 9+

F'4TS@ 4omplainant +stelita :onaya (as only 1$ years old (hen hiredas a househelper by the mother o the accused. The accused %olicarpio:aaran and his amily li)ed (ith his mother in the same house.



%olicarpio (as married and has children. Ane e)ening& the mother othe accused called complainant to help him close the door. hen thecomplainant (ent near him& he pulled her inside the store and rapedher despite her resistance. 'ter that& he (arned the complainant notto tell anyone about it or he (ill ill her. The ne/t day& the amily o the

accused ne( (hat happened. 'ppellant claimed that he is suferingrom schi9ophrenia (hen he in7icted )iolent intentions to +stelita. Trialcourt suspended the tria> and ordered his con3nement to Bational5ental ;ospital in 5andaluyong. 'ter 2 years& he (as reported to bebeha)ed and in impro)ed condition and in mental condition to standcourt in trial. Trial o case resumed.

ISS,+@ EB the reason o insanity is sucient to relie)e him romcriminal liability

;+L*@ Bo. The allegation o insanity or imbecility must be clearlypro)ed. ithout positi)e e)idence that the deendant had pre)iouslylost his reason or (as demented& a e( moments prior to or during theperpetration o the crime& it (ill be presumed that he (as in a normalcondition.

Pe!ple v I&ane5

Facts@ Ibane9 (as charged (ith three counts o raping his o(ndaughter under three pieces o inormation beore the :T4 o 4a)ite.hen arraigned he plead not guilty. An the 1st charge& ''' testi3ed

she (as at their home in 4a)ite and did not inorm anyone o theincident C!une 1""D. An the 2nd charge& ''' testi3ed being raped #times rom !anuary to *ecember 1""#. The <rd rape happenedsometime in 'pril 1""" (hile her mother (as at (or. 'ter (hich& shetold her cousin (ho brought her to the B8I& (here complaint ada)it(as e/ecuted.

Ibane9 denied ha)ing raped his daughter (ith an alibi o being al(aysa(ay rom home.

Issue@ hether or not the precise dates o the commission o the rape

be alleged in the inormation

;eld@ BA. 'n inormation is )alid as long as it distinctly states theelements o the ofense and the acts or omissions constituti)e thereo. The e/act date o the commission o a crime is not an essentialelement o the crime charged. Thus& in a prosecution or rape& thematerial act or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence o therape& not the time o its commission. The gra)amen o the ofense is



carnal no(ledge o a (oman. The precise time o the crime has nosubstantial bearing on its commission. Thereore& it is not essential thatit be alleged in the inormation (ith ultimate precision.

The allegation in the pieces o inormation that the appellant

committed the rape sometime in !une 1""G and sometime in 'pril1"""G (as sucient to inorm appellant that he (as being charged o=uali3ed rape committed against his daughter. The allegationade=uately aforded appellant an opportunity to prepare his deense. Thus& appellant cannot complain that he (as depri)ed o his right to beinormed o the nature and cause o the accusation against him.

It (as also too late or appellant to =uestion the suciency o thecriminal pieces o inormation since he had himsel arraigned andentered a plea o not guilty to the crime o rape (hich is e=ui)alent to(ai)ing his right to object to the pieces o inormation on the ground o

an error as to the time o the alleged rape.

'ppellant could ha)e 3led a motion or a bill o particulars beore hisarraignment or a motion to =uash on the ground that the pieces oinormation alleged erroneous dates prior to his entry o plea.

Documents

Crim Digestsdg