crim1 law notes

7/27/2019 Crim1 Law Notes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim1-law-notes 1/29

Criminal Law 1 Notes 7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

Felony is committed although the wrongful act done be different from that which he

intended.

A. WHEN DEATH (OF THE VICTIM) IS PRESUMED TO BE THE NATURAL

CONSEQUENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED

Facts that must be established:

o Victim must be in normal health when the injury was inflicted

o Death maybe expected from the physical injuries

o Death ensued within a reasonable time

Jurisprudence: People VS Tammang (Jundam Case)

o Facts:

Jundam who was in good health on the morning of the incident,

was whipped, spanked, and threw against the post by his teacher,

thereby his breast hitting it.

Victim complained to his mother about the oppressive pain. He

then found two suspicious bluish spots- one on his breast and

another one in his upper left arm. He vomited blood until HE DIED

3 DAYS AFTER .

o Held:

No proof of any intervening cause. Defendant is liable for homicide.

B. NOT DIRECT, NATURAL AND LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE FELONY

COMMITTED

Consequences produced have resulted FROM A DISTINCT ACT OR FACT

ABSOLUTELY FOREIGN from the criminal act OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE.

Person is not criminally liable FOR ALL POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES which MAY

IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW HIS FELONIOUS ACT.

o Jurisprudence: People VS Rockwell (Felonious Horse)

Facts:

Person struck another with his fist and knocked him down.

Horse near them jumped upon him and killed him.

Held:

Assailant was not responsible for the death of that other

person.

o People vs Rockwell VS People vs Cagoco

Cagoco case, here no active force that intervened between the

felonious act and the result.

Rockwell case, There was an active force, which produced the

result.

INJURY CAUSED is not the direct, logical, and necessary consequence of the

felony committed, because the felony committed IS NOT THE PROXIMATE

CAUSE OF THE RESULTING INJURY.

o Related Jurispridence

U.S. VS De los Santos (Cesspool)



Held: B’s deliberate act of immersing himself in the cesspool

was the proximate cause of the serious physical injuries.

NOT THE SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSE BY A.

Therefore A is NOT LIABLE for serious physical injuries.

People VS Palalon (Like who dies with a sampal?)

Facts: Accused struck a boy on the mouth with the back of

his hand. Later, the boy died.

Held: Death must have been caused by the fever that is

prevalent in the area. Accused was not liable for the death

of the deceased

U.S. VS Embate (Bantay Bata Case #1)

Facts: A child who was seriously ill with fever for three

weeks was struck by the accused upon the thighs, pushed

and dragged him, threw him heavily on the floor. Child dies

two days after.

Held: Cause of the child’s death was not ascertained and

proved. Accused was convicted of physical injuries ONLY.

Urbano VS IAC (Tetanus as cause of death)

Facts: A distinct possibility that the infection of the wound

by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or

between the time the deceased was wounded to the time of

his death.

Held: Accused must be acquitted of the crim of homicide

C. FELONY COMMITTED IS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE RESULTING

INJURY WHEN-

There is an ACTIVE FORCE that intervened between the felony committed and

the resulting injury.

o Active force must be a distinct act OR absolutely foreign from the

felonious act of the accused.

o Resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.

If there is a neglect of or an improper treatment of the wound, would the accused

be liable?

o YES! Neglect of or improper treatment of wound are consequences of

the criminal act and which might naturally follow. Must be deemed to

have been among the consequences which were in contemplation of the

guilty party.

o Unskillful and improper treatment may be an active force, but not a

distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the criminal act.

Would the accused be liable for the consequences which originated from the

fault or carelessness of the injured person?

o It was held in U.S. VS Monasterial that persons responsible for an act

constituting a crime ARE LIABLE FOR ALL THE CONSEQUENCES

ARISING THEREFROM and INHERENT THEREIN. EXCEPT those due to

incidents ENTIRELY FOREIGN TO THE ACT EXECUTED, or which



THE DEATH OF THE LATTER . Even if there are chances that the victim

would survive if he had taken proper care of himself.

o The fault or carelessness of the injured party, which would break the

relation of the felony committed and the resulting injury, MUST HAVE ITS

ORIGIN FROM HIS MALICIOUS ACT OR OMMISSION.

D. A SUPERVENING EVENT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF AMENDMENT OF ORIGINAL

INFORMATION OR OF A NEW CHARGE WITHOUT DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Illustrative Example: People VS Petilla

o Facts:

Charge contained in the original information was for slight physical

injuries, because at that time, the fiscal believed that the victim’s

wound needs at 8 days of medical attendance to heal.

During the preliminary investigations, the justice of the peace

found out that the wound inflicted REALLY NEEDS 30 days of

medical attendance to heal.

o Held:

The act which converted the crime into a more serious one HAD

SUPERVENED after the filinf of the original information.

THIS SUPERVENING CAN STILL BE THE SUBJECT OF

AMENDMENT OR OF A NEW CHARGE without necessarily placing

the accused in double jeopardy.

E. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES

Commission of an impossible crime:

o Indicative of criminal propensity or tendency on the part of the actor

o Person committing impossible crime is a potential criminal.

Why are we punishing impossible crimes?

o Protect the community from anti-social activities of the morbid type of

person AKA socially dangerous person.

Requisites of impossible crimes:

o Act performed would be an offense against persons or property

The offender intends to commit a felony against persons or

properties

Act performed would have been an offense against persons or

property

THE FELONY MUST NOT BE COMITTED, OTHERWISE, THE PERSON

WOULD BE LIABLE FOR THAT FELONY.

What are crimes against persons?

HIMPA-DRP: Homicide, Infanticide, Murder, Paricide,

Abortion, Duel, R ape, Physical Injuries

What are crimes against properties?

BRUCT-SCAM: Brigandage, R obbery, Usurpation, Culpable

Insolvency, Theft, Swindling, Chattel Mortgage, Arson,

Malicious Mischief



o (1) Accomplishment of the act is INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE, the

(2) means employed is either INADEQUATE or INEFFECTUAL

Inherent Impossibility:

“Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment ”

Act intended by the offender is by its nature ONE OF

IMPOSSIBLE ACCOMPLISHMENT:

o Legal Impossibility: Intended acts, even if

consummated would not amount to a crime

o Physical Impossibility: Extraneous

circumstances unknown to the actor or

beyond his control prevent the consummation

of the intended crime.

In People VS Balmores, the court enumerated

examples of Impossible Crimes which are punishable

under RPC, viz: 1) Putting poison on another soup,

BUT what was actually mixed was a not-so-

poisonous substance, 2) Murdering a corpse.

Jurisprudence: Jacinto VS People

o Facts: A collector for a company did not remit

the customer’s check payment to the

company but instead appropriated it for

herself by depositing it in the bank of a

relative. The check bounced.

Impossible Crime:

With evil intent: YES- intent to

gain or be unjustly rich

Crime against property/person:

YES- theft, one of the crimes

against property

Consummation of the act is

inherently impossible: YES –

there’s nothing to steal because

the check was unfunded.

Example of offense against persons:

Murdering a corpse of a dead person. In crimes

against person, it is necessary that the victim could

be injured or killed.

Jurisprudence: Intod VS C.A.

o Facts: Accused with intent to kill a person,

peppered the latter’s bedroom with bullets.

Intended victim was not at home, and was

therefore not hurt.

Impossible Crime:

With evil intent: YES- Intent to



Consummation of the act is

inherently impossible: YES-

there’s no one to kill because

the intended victim is not there

Example of offense against properties:

A person took the watch of another. When the

former had possession of the watch, he found out

that it was the watch he had lost a week before. In

crimes against property, the property taken must

belong to another.

An employee who knows the combination of the safe,

opens it with the purpose of stealing money, but said

safe was empty. No personal property could be

taken, hence impossible.

Employment of inadequate means: The means to consummate the

felony is insufficient (E.G. Small Quantity of Poison)

The means were adequate BUT expected result was not

produced - NOT AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME but a

FRUSTRATED FELONY

Employment of ineffectual means: The means employed did not

produce the expected result (E.G. Pressed the trigger of the gun,

not knowing that it is empty)

o Act performed should not constitute a violation of another

provision of the RPC.




A. IN CONNECTION WITH ACTS WHICH SHOULD BE REPRESSED BUT WHICH

ARE NOT COVERED BY THE LAW

The aforestated provision of Art. 5 contemplates a trial of a criminal case:

o Act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law;

o Court deems it proper to repress such act;

o Court must dismiss the case and acquit the accused

o Judge must make a report to the Chief Executive through the Sec. of

Justice, stating the reasons on why he/she believe that the unpunished

act should be made a subject of penal legislation .

B. IN CASES OF EXCESSIVE PENALTIES

Court after trial finds the accused guilty

Penalty prescribed by law and which was imposed by court appears to be

clearly excessive because:

o Accused acted with lesser degree of malice

o No injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity

Court should not suspend the execution of the sentence

Judge should submit a statement to the C.E. through the S.J. recommending

executive clemency

o Examples of the accused acting with lesser degree of malice:

People VS Monleon

Facts: Accused maltreated is wife in his inebriated state,

because the latter prevented the former from whipping

their child. The maltreatment inflicted on the victim is

the proximate cause of her death. Accused was

sentenced with reclusion perpetua

Held: Court held that assuming the accused did not have

intent to kill his wife, and the death might have been

hastened because of lack of proper medical intention,

reclusion perpetua appears to be excessive.

People VS Espino, Et. Al.

Facts: Father and son were convicted of qualified theft

for stealing 10 coconut fruits from two coconut trees in a

coconut plantation, for the family’s consumption. Court

sentenced each of them to an intermediate penalty of 4

mos. and 1 day of arresto mayor TO 3 years, 6 mos,

and 21 days of prision correccional.



Held: C.A. believes that the degree of malice behind the

appellant’s felonious act does not warrant the imposition

of so stiff a penalty. Hence they were recommended for

pardon after serving 4 months of the penalty imposed.

o Example of total absence of injury

People VS Cabagsan

C. EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY RECOMMENDED FOR THE WIFE WHO KILLED HER

CRUEL HUSBAND

People VS Canja

o Facts: The accused apparently killed her husband and was convicted

for the said act. On the day she killed her husband, victim came home

drunk and struck him on the stomach until she fainted. When she

recovered and asked her husband on why he did the foregoing, he

threatened to renew the beating. During supper, instead of eating the

meal set before him, he threw the rice from his plate. He left the

house, and upon his return, she boxed his wife again. Thus prompted

accused to kill her husband.

o Held: Because of the circumstances, the provocations, and the fact

that her conviction was based on her confession, court finds her

deserving of executive clemency. Not full pardon but only a substantialreduction or commutation to her life sentence

C. PENALTIES ARE NOT EXCESSIVE WBE INTENDED TO ENFORCE A PUBLIC

POLICY

People VS Estoista: Promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons (May

cause rampant lawlessness against property, person, and the very security of

the government) justify imprisonment which in normal circumstances may

appear excessive

Peope VS Tiu Ua: Profiteering justifies a heavy fine to prevent dealers from

taking advantage of critical conditions to make unusual profits (In this case,

the accused was meted with a fine of 5,000 pesos for selling a can of

powdered Klim milk for 2.20 pesos when the SRP should be 1.80 pesos0.

D. COURTS HAVE THE DUTY TO APPLY THE PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW

Well settled rule: Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or

mortality of laws. The only function of the judiciary is to interpret the laws

and apply it if it’s not in disharmony with the constitution.



In short, regardless of the opinion of the judge regarding a certain penalty

prescribed by law, if it is not deemed unconstitutional, he/she must apply it.

People VS Olaes

o Facts: A trial court judge sentenced the accused to life imprisonment

although the commission of the crime of robbery with homicide was

attended by the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and in band,

in view of the attitude of the C.E. on death penalty.

o Held: Court MUST interpret and apply the laws as they find them on

the statute books. Regardless of the manner their judgement are

executed and implemented by the executive departments.

E. JUDGE HAS THE DUTY TO APPLY THE LAW AS INTERPRETED BY THE

SUPREME COURT

People VS Santos: Notwithstanding his own opinion of the matter, it is the

duty of the judge to apply the law as interpreted by the highest court of the

land. The judge must think that any deviation from a principle laid down by

him/her would apparently cause unnecessary, inconveniences, delays and

expenses to the litigants.

People VS Amigo: Accused-appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion

perpetua is too cruel and harsh a penalty and pleads for sympathy. COURTS

ARE NOT THE FORUM TO PLEAD FOR SYMPATHY. THEIR DUTY IS TO ENFORCETHE LAW REGARDLESS OF THEIR FEELING OF SYMPATHY OR PITY OF AN

ACCUSED. DURA LEX SED LEX.

F. WHEN A STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE

Second paragraph of article 5 implies that:

o Article 5 is not applicable to the offenses defined and penalized by a

special law (People VS Salazar/Codal Provision itself. After the 4th

comma of 2nd paragraph).

o Article 5 may not be invoked in cases involving acts mala prohibita,

because said article only applies to acts male in se (People VS

Quebral/Codal provision itself after the last comma of the 2nd

paragraph)



7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

A. CONSUMMATED FELONY: All the elements necessary for its

execution and accomplishment are present.

B. FRUSTRATED FELONY: The (1) offender performs all the acts of

execution which would produce the felony as a consequence BUT

which, nevertheless, (2) do not produce it by (3)reason of causes

independent of the will of the perpetrator.

C. ATTEMPTED FELONY:

Elements:

o Offender commences the commission of a felony directly

by overt acts.o Does not perform all the acts of execution that will

consummate the felony

o Offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous

desistance

o Non-performance of all acts of execution was due to CAUE

or ACCIDENT other than his spontaneous desistance

“Commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts

o When is the commission of a felony deemed commenceddirectly by OVERT ACTS?:

There be external acts

External acts have direct connection with the crime

intended to be committed

o EXTERNAL ACTS must be RELATED TO THE OVERT

ACTS OF THE CRIME THE OFFENDER INTENDED TO

COMMIT

Such act must not be mere preparatory acts,

BECAUSE preparatory acts do not have direct

connection with the crime which the offender

intends to commit.

“Overt Acts” defined:

Some physical activity or deed, indicating

intention to commit a particular crime.

MORE THAN A MERE PLANNING OR

PREPARATION, which if carried to its complete

termination following its natural course,



without being frustrated by external obstacles,

nor by voluntary desistance of the perpetrator

will logically ripen into a concrete offense.

Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts

when the following crime intended to be

committed:

Preparatory Acts VS Overt Acts

D. DEVELOPMENT OF CRIME:

1. Internal Acts: Mere ideas in the mind of a person. Not punishable,

even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute a crime.

Intent and effect must concur: Suppose A intended to commit treason and joined a body of armed men believing they were

makapilis, when in fact they were guerilleros, A cannot be liable

for treason though there was intent.

2. External Acts

Preparatory Acts: Generally, not punishable,




ARTICLE 7: On light felonies

Light Felonies: Those infraction of law for the commission of

which the penalty of arresto menor OR a fine not exceeding 200

pesos or both is provided.

L.F. punished by the RPC: (TAMIS)- Theft, Alteration of

boundaries, Malicious mischief, Intriguing against honor, Slight

Physical injuries

As mentioned above, penalties are: Arresto Menor (1-30 days of

imprisonment) or a fine not exceeding Php 200.00

IMPORTANT WORDS/PHRASES

What is the meaning of exception of those committed against

persons or property:o General Rule: L.F. punishable only when they have been

consummated

Ratio: L.F. produces light and inisignificant moral and

material injuries THAT PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IS

SATISFIED WITH PROVIDING A LIGHT PENALTY FOR

THEIR CONSUMMATION

o Exception: L.F. committed against persons/property are

punishable even if attempted or frustrated. Ratio: Felonies against persons or property

presupposes in the offender moral depravity. Hence,

even attempted or frustrated light felonies against

persons or property are punishable.

EXAMPLE OF L.F. AGAINST PERONS:

Theft by hunting/gathering in an inclosed property/field where

the value of the thing stolen doesn't exceed 5.00 pesos

Theft where the value of the stolen property does not exceed 5

pesos. Offender prompted inter alia by hunger, poverty, etc…

Alteration or boundaries

Malicious mischief where damage is not more 200.00 pesos.



Criminal Law I Notes 7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

ARTICLE 8: On conspiracy and proposal to commit felony:

IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES:

What is the meaning of “conspiracy and proposal to commit

felony”?

o Indicates that conspiracy and proposal to commit felony

are two different acts or felonies- conspiracy to commit a

felony and proposal to commit a felony

What is meaning of “Only in the cases which the law sprecially

provides a penalty therefore”

o Mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony. UNLESS there

is a specific revision in the RPC that provides a penalty forconspiracy or proposal to commit a felony.

Conspiracy is not a crime EXCEPT WHEN THE LAW

SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES A PENALTY THEREFOR:

Conspiracy- exist when two or more persons

come to an agreement concerning the

commission of a felony and decide to commit

it.

Felonies where conspiracy is penalized:Treason, Rebellion, Sedition.

o General Rule: Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony

are not punishable

Ratio: Conspiracy and proposal are only preparatory

acts. The law regards them innocent or at least

permissible except in rare and exceptional cases.

The RPC specially provides a penalty for mere conspiracy in:

o Art. 115 (Conspiracy



7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM




ARTICLE 9: On classifications of felonies:

Article 9 classifies felonies according to their gravity.

o Gravity of the felonies is determined by the penalties

attached to them by law.

What is the meaning of “To which the law attaches the capital

punishment”?

o It means that grave felonies are those which are

punishable by the capital punishment, it being DEATH

PENALTY.

What is the meaning of “Or penalties in any of their periods are

afflictive”?o When the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of

two or more distinct penalties, the higher or highest of the

penalties MUST BE AN INFLICTIVE PENALTY.

Ex: Felony punishable by prision correctional to

prision mayor is a grave felony. The higher penalties

prescribed, that is, the latter, is an afflictive penalty.

o Penalty prescribed is composed of 2 or more periods

corresponding to different divisible penalties, higher ormaximum period MUST BE THAT OF AN AFFLICTIVE

PENALTY

Ex: Felony punishable by prision correctional in its

maximum period to minimum period of prision mayor

is a grave felony. The higher period, i.e. minimum

period of prision mayor is an afflictive penalty.

What are the afflictive penalties in enumerated in Art. 25 of the

RPC:

o Reclusion perpetua

o Reclusion temporal

o Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification

o Perpetual or temporary special disqualification

o Prision mayor

What is the meaning of “penalties which in their maximum

period are correctional”



o When the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of

two or more distinct penalties, higher or highest penalties

must be a correctional penalties.

Felony punishable by arresto menor to destierro is a

less grave felony, higher of the two penalties

prescribed which is destierro is a correctional

penalty.

o Penalty prescribed is composed of two or more periods

corresponding to different divisible penalties, the higher or

maximum period must be that of correctional penalty



7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

ARTICLE 10:

Offenses punishable under special laws are subject to the provisions of

the RPC?

Special laws are not under penal laws

RPC is supplementary to special laws

Penal code is not intended to supersede special penal laws.

o Statcon: Special legal provisions prevail over general ones.

2nd clause provides that RPC is supplementary to special laws

unless the latter should provide the contrary.

What is a special law? Not defined in the RPC

Statute enacted by congress, that is penal in character, and does

not amend the RPC.

Provisions of the RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses

punishable under special laws:

Reason: S.L. do not provide for a scale of penalties as that in

Art. 71 of the RPC. Where given period provided by the speciallaws does not contain 3 period.

o Imprisonment should be used in reference to the penalty

for the crime of illegal possession of firearms. P.

Correcional and Mayor and Arresto Mayor are peculiar for

crimes under RPC.

Where the special law adopted penalties from the revised penal code, THE

RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES BY DEGREES OR DETERMINING THE

PROPER PERIOD SHOULD BE APPLIED.



Criminal Law I Notes 7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

Imputability: The quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner.

Implies that the act committed has been freely and consciously done. Therefore it can be

attributed as his/her very own.

Responsibility: Obligation of suffering the penal and civil consequences of a crime.

Imputability VS Responsibility

Imputability implies that a deed may be imputed to a person

Responsibility implies that the person must take the consequence of such a deed

Guilt: Element of responsibility

Justifying Circumstances:

Those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law. The person is

deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.

Basis of Justifying Circumstances: Non existences of a crime and the person do not incur

any criminal liability.

ARTICLE 11

- NO CRIME COMMITTED, THE ACT BEING JUSTIFIED

BURDEN OF PROOF: Circumstances mentioned in article 11 are matters of defense.

Incumbent upon the accused to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him IN

ORDER TO AVOID CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

SELF DEFENSE:

When the accused invokes self defense, HE/SHE HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE BY CLEAR

AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HE INDEED ACTED IN DEFENSE OF HIMSELF.

Plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained WHERE IT IS NOT

UNCORROBORATED BY ANY SEPARATE COMPETENT EVIDENCE.

RIGHTS INCLUDED IN SELF-DEFENSE (PPHR): Person, Property, Honor, R ights

WHY PENAL LAW MAKES SELF-DEFENSE LAWFUL:

Man’s natural instinct to protect, repel, and save his person or rights from an impending

peril.

Classicists in penal law:

o Quite impossible for the state in all cases prevent aggression upon its citizens

o Quite impossible for state to offer protection to the person unjustly attacked

o Hard to conceive THAT a person should succumb to an unlawful aggression

WITHOUT OFFERING RESISTANCE

Positivists in penal law: An exercise of right, an act of social justice done to repel the

attack of an aggression.

REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE:

Unlawful aggression



o For right to self defense to exist: We be assaulted/attacked OR at least we be

threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner.

o AGGRESSION MUST BE UNLAWFUL

Two kinds of aggression:

Lawful: Exercise of a right in a more or less violent manner.

PEOPLE VS GAYRAMA:

Facts: Chief of police threw stoned at the accused when the latter

was running away from him to elude arrest for a crime committed

in his presence.

Held: Action of the chief of police is not an unlawful aggression

because the purpose of the peace officer is to apprehend the

criminal and put him under arrest.

VALCORZA VS PEOPLE :

Facts: A policeman fired five cautionary shots into the air, aimed

directly at the escaping detainee when said accused already had

reasons to fear that the latter would be able to elude him and his

pursuing companions.

A person may use force as may be reasonably necessary to repel

or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful invasion or usurpation

of his property.

A person who had killed his wife and/or the paramour exercised a

lawful right, because by the said act, he was merely defending his

honor and rights (US VS. MERCED)

Unlawful: An attack that has actually broken out or materialized

or at the very least is clearly imminent.

Equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of an

immediate and imminent kind.

There is unlawful aggression when there is peril to one’s

life, limb, or right is actual or imminent.

Can be actual physical assault or at least a threat

(offensive and positively strong)

US VS PADILLA

Facts: Deceased was kidding the accused that the latter

had no voice for singing. After an exchange of words and

while still in the spirit of fun, the victim seized the accused

by the throat. Said accused killed the victim with his riffle.

Held: The fact that the deceased seized the accused by the

throat and exerted pressure, and in spite of the opposition

of the accused, it cannot be considered as an illegal

aggression.

PEOPLE VS YNCIERTO

Facts: The son of the accused was in possession of a knife.

The deceased held the hands of the accused and requested

him to release the knife, but to no avail. In order to



Held: Father of the deceased is not justified in killing the

deceased because there was not unlawful aggression on

the part of the latter.

PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE

Actual: Danger must be present

US VS. JOSE LAUREL

Facts: Concepcion Lat and several young people was

walking on their way from the house of Exequiel Castillo in

Tanauan, Batangas. On that night, Lat was approached by

Jose Laurel who suddenly kissed her and immediately ran

off. Laurel was pursued by Lat’s companions by they were

not able to catch Laurel. Several days after the incident,

Laurel and some young people attended an entertainment

in the parochial school. Laurel was then approached by

three of Castillo’s friend telling him that the latter wanted

to see him. On the third summon, he already ascertained

what Castillo wanted. When the two met, Castillo asked

Laurel why he kissed Lat. When the latter gave the reason

of his kissing Lat, Castillo struck him with a cane on the

head which made him dizzy. Afraid that his aggressor

would continue to assault him, he took hold his pocketknife

and stabbed Exequiel. Castillo did not die though because

of the timely medical aid rendered to him.

Held: The act of Laurel was justified because it was

attended by the three requisites necessary for him to make

a self-defense- there was a lack of sufficient provocation

on the part of Laurel and Laurel in defending himself with a

pocketknife against the assault made upon him with a

cane, employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the

same.

Imminent: Danger is on the point of happening. Not

necessary that attack already begins.

PEOPLE VS CABUNGCAL

Facts: The accused invited several persons to a picnic in a

fishery in his property in Tayabas. After spending the

whole day in the property, they returned in two boats- one

being steered by the accused. The boat of the accused was

carrying his wife, his son, and a nursing child of a married

couple. The deceased was apparently a passenger of the

accused’s boat. When the boat reached an area of great

depth, the deceased rocked the boat which started it to

take water. With the fear that the boat might capsize,

accused asked the deceased to stop, but when the

deceased seemed not to listen, the accused struck him on



more with the oar, thereby causing him to submerge and

die as a consequence thereof.

Held: The actions of the accused was actually justified.

When the deceased was first warned to stop rocking the

boat for it might upturn it, and did not listen, the accused

thought that hitting him with the oar would be the only

way of separate the deceased from the boat. Obviously

there was a need for him to be disabled momentarily so

and giving him a blow on the forehead was the least that

could reasonably have been done. This consideration

militates the second blow given in his neck, because then

the danger was greater, especially the deceased had

expressed his intention to upset it.

THERE MUST BE ACTUL PHYSICAL FORCE OR ACTUAL USE OF

WEAPON.

Person defending himself must have been attacked with actual

physical force OR with actual use of weapon.

Insulting words addressed to the accused does not constitute

unlawful aggression.

Light push or a mere push or shove, not followed by other acts

does not constitute unlawful aggression.

Slap on the face is an unlawful aggression. WHY? Because the face

represents a person and his dignity, slapping it is a serious

personal attack.

MERE BELIEF OF AN IMPENDING ATTACK IS NOT SUFFICIENT

Mere belief of an impending attack, intimidating or threatening

attitude, a mere push or shove is not an unlawful aggression.

FOOT KICK IS NOT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

PEOPLE VS. SABIO

Facts: Sabio was squatting in a plaza with a friend. Romeo

Bacobo and his friends approached Sabio et. al. Apparently

all of them are close and old friends. Then Bacobo asked

Sabio where he spent the holy week. And while asking he

gave Sabio a foot kick greeting. Sabio thereupon stoop up

and dealt Romeo Bacobo with a fist blow causing Bacobo

to have a lacerated wound which took 11 to 12 days to

heal. It also prevented Bacobo from working.

Held: Foot kick greeting between friends may be a

practical joke, and may even hurt. BUT IT IS NOT A

SERIOUS OR REAL ATTACK ON A PERSON’S SAFETY.

RETALIATION IS NOT SELF-DEFENSE

Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense.

RETALIATION: aggression given by the injured party ALREADY

CEASED TO EXIST.



WHY? Because it is a settled rule in jurisprudence that WHEN

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION CEASES, THE DEFENDER NO LONGER

HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL OR EVEN WOUND THE FORMER

AGGRESSOR.

A PUBLIC OFFICER EXCEEDING HIS AUTHORITY MAY BECOME AN

UNLAWFUL

NATURE, CHARACTER, LOCATION, AND EXTENT OF WOUND OF THE

ACCUSED ALLEGEDLT INFLICTED BY THE INJURED PARTY MAY

BELIE CLAIM ON SELF-DEFENSE

Accused claiming self-defense, exhibited a small scar caused by an

instrument on his head.

Location, number, and seriousness of the stab wounds inflicted on

the victims belie the claim of self-defense.

Nature, character, location, and extend of the wounds suffered by

the deceased belie any supposition that it was the deceased who

was the unlawful aggressor.

Appellant’s theory of self -defense is negative by the nature and

location of the victim’s wounds which, having a right-to left

direction could not have possibly been inflicted by a right-handed

person in front of the victim with a two-feet long bolo.

In the view of the number of wounds of the deceased, 19 in

number, the plea of self-defense cannot be seriously entertained.

IMPROBABILITY OF THE DECEASED BEING THE AGGRESSOR

BELIES ON CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE.

PHYSICAL FACT MAY DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACCUSED ACTED

IN SELF-DEFENSE

WHEN THE AGGRESSOR FLEES, UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION NO

LONGER EXIST.

PEOPLE VS ALCONGA

Facts: Deceased was the banker in a game of black jack.

On the other hand the accused posted himself behind the

deceased acting as a spotter thereby communicating the

deceased’s cards to his partner by signs. When the

deceased discovered the trick, a fight ensued between the

him and the accused. Both of them engaged in a hand

fight wherein the accused and the deceased used a bolo

and a dagger respectively. When the deceased sustained

several wounds, he ran away, but was followed by the

accused. Unsurprisingly, another fight ensued, this time,

the accused caused slashed the cranium of the deceased.

Held: 2 stages in the fight that ensued. 1st stage. Accused

was acting in self-defense because then the deceased who

had attacked the accused with repeated blows was the

unlawful aggressor. The 2nd stage the accused now



WOUNDING HIM, ALCONGA WAS NO LONGER ACTING IN

SELF-DEFENSE.

NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WHEN THERE IS AGREEMENT TO

FIGHT.

REASON: When parties mutually agree to fight, it is immaterial

who attacks or receives the wound first, for the first act of force is

an incident of the fight itself. Attacks that would be given by either

of the two parties IS NOT AN UNWARRANTED AND UNEXPECTED

AGGRESSION which alone cannot legalize self-defense.

AGGRESSION WHICH IS AHEAD OF THE STIPULATED TIME AND

PLACE IS UNLAWFUL.

ONE WHO VOLUNTARILY JOINED A FIGHT CANNOT CLAIM SELF-

DEFENSE. (REFER TO PEOPLE VS KRUSE)

THE RULE NOW IS STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE RIGHT

If one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked

in the back by the aggressor.

HOW TO DETERMINE THE UNLAWFUL AGGRESSOR:

In the absence of direct evidence, 1.) The person who was deeply

insulted and was apparently in the proper position to demand for

an explanation from the perpetrator of said insult. 2.) The one who

also struck the first blow when he/she was not satisfied with the

explanation.

o UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION IN DEFENSE OF OTHER RIGHTS

Attempt to rape a woman- defense of right to chastity

Defense of property

Defense of home

PEOPLE VS DE LA CRUZ

Facts: The accused is a woman who was walking with a

certain Francisco Rivera on the night the incident

happened. It was already dark and they were passing

through a narrow path. When the others were far ahead,

the deceased threw his arms around the accused from

behind, caught hold of her breasts, kissed her, and

TOUCHED HER HOOHAH! When could not do anything

more against the strength of her aggressor, she got a knife

from her pocket and stabbed him.

Held: She was justified in making use of the knife to

protect her from the attack against her honor.

PEOPLE VS JAURIGUE

Facts: The deceased was courting the accused in vain.

When on the time the accused confessed his love for the

accused, the latter turned him down, after that the

deceased embraced and kissed. After that encounter, the

accused started to bring a knife whenever she would leave



part of her thigh. Accused pulled out her fan knife and with

it stabbed the deceased inflicting a mortal wound.

Held: Means employed by the accused in the defense of

her honor was evidently excessive. With the circumstances

surrounding the crime scene- well-lighted area, with many

people in there- the father of the deceased and the barrio

lieutenant included, it was impossible for a rape to ensue.

PEOPLE VS APOLINAR

Facts: The accused armed with a shotgun was looking over

his land. He then noticed a man carrying a bundle on his

should which he believe was palay stolen from his land.

The accused shouted at the deceased and demanded him

to stop, but to no avail. The accused then fired at him

causing his death.

Held: Killing of the ostensible burglar was unjustified.

Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying

circumstance ONLY when it is couple with an attack on the

person who is at the possession of the said property.

o BELIEF OF THE ACCUSED MAY BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE

EXISTENCE OF UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

o THERE IS SELF-DEFENSE EVEN IF THE AGGRESSOR USED A TOR PISTOL

PROVIDED THE ACCUSED BELIEVED IT WAS REAL GUN.

o PEOPLE VS. CALIP- Forcibly pushing picketers to let company trucks enter

the compound is not unlawful aggression against the rights of the

picketers.

o MERE THREATENING ATTITUDE IS NOT UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION

US VS GUY-SAYCO

Facts: Accused decided to go to the town where her husband was.

After preparing her things and some of her husband’s as well, he

hired a carromata that will bring her to the camarin of her

husband. Upon arriving, she saw her husband’s horse, and upon

entering she saw her husband eating supper with the deceased

and the ownders of the house. Because of jealousy she rushed at

Lorenza Estrada, attacked her with a pen knife and inflicted 5

wounds upon her, thereby causing her death.

Held: No unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. Mere

asking of why accused was there does not constitute an unlawful

aggression

o EXAMPLES OF THREATS TO INFLICT REAL INJURY

One aims a revolver at another with intention to shoot him

Opening a knife and making a motion as if to make an attack

Above cases are threatening attitude. Both are offensive and

positively strong

o AGGRESSION MUST BE REAL NOT MERELY IMAGINARY (PEOPLE VS DE LA



WE repel the aggression that places us in actual danger

“The law protects not only the person who repels BUT EVEN the person

who tries to prevent the aggression that is expected.

o NECESSITY TO TAKE A COURSE OF ACTION:

While the danger to his person or life subsists, HE HAS A PERFECT AND

INDISPUTABLE RIGHT TO REPEL SUCH DANGER BY WOUNDING HIS

ADVERSARY / DISABLE HIM COMPLETELY

o REASONABLENESS OF THE NECESSITY DEPENDS UPON THE

CIRCUMSTANCES

PEOPLE VS OCAÑA AND C.A.

Facts: Accused who was then unarmed who was being mauled with

fistic blows by the deceased and his companions picked up a lead

pipe and struck the deceased on the forehead thereby causing his

death.

Held: The use by the accused of such lead pipe under the

circumstances is reasonable. The accused did not select a lesser

vital portion of the body of deceased to hit is reasonably to be

expected. In that situation, accused must move in split-second OR

else his life would be endangered.

Necessity of the course of action taken

o Necessity of the course of action taken: Necessity

of the course of action taken depends on the

existence of unlawful aggression.

o In determining the existence of unlawful

aggression that induced a person to take a course

of action, place and occasion of the assault and the

other circumstances MUST BE CONSIDERED

PLACE AND OCCASION OF THE ASSAULT

CONSIDERED

DARKNESS OF THE NIGHT AND THE

SURPRISE WHICH CHARACTERIZED THE

ASSAULT CONSIDERED

NO NECESSITY OF THE COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN

On the case of Alconga, the course of action taken by the latter is

not necessary anymore because the deceased already ran away.

If the danger or risk on his part disappeared, stabbing the

aggressor while defending himself should have stopped.

U.S. VS Rivera: FACTS: Deceased endeavor to set fire to the house

of the accused wherein two small children of the accused were

sleeping. HELD: The fact that the deceased was already outside of

the house and prostrate on the ground because she was boloed by

the accused, ther e’s no necessity of killing her already.

U.S. VS Pacsa: FACTS: Accused picked up a bamboo pole to keep

his adversary at bay, then struck the deceased on the head with it.



it. He should’ve limited his assault to an attempt to push the

accused back to the shallow pool.

THE PERSON DEFENDING IS NOT EXPECTED TO CONTROL HIS

BLOW

Person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as

to control his blow.

Killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified AS LONG AS

THE MORTAL WOUNDS ARE INFLICTED AT A TIME WHEN THE

ELEMENTS OF COMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE ARE STILL PRESENT.

Aggression is so sudden that there is no time left to the one

making a defense to determine what course of action to take.

PEOPLE VS PANTE

o Facts: When the deceased was about to stab the

superior officer of the accused, the latter hit the

deceased with a palma brava. Trial court believed

that accused should have only struck his hand to

disable it, or only hit him in a less vulnerable part

of the body.

o Held: It can be deduced that the court finds the

accused’s actions as justified. It held that the trial

court demanded too much of the accused’s

wisdom, judgement, and discretion during the split

second he had to think and act to save his

superior.

Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.



7/10/2013 8:33:00 AM

crim1 law notes

Documents