g. Explain Par. 3. of Article 12 in relation to Sec. 6 of RA 9344.

Life of human being is divided into 4 periods

Paragraph 3, Article 12 of the RPC is deemed repealed by the provision 1. The age of absolute irresponsibility – 15 years and below (infancy).
of RA No. 9344 declaring a child 15 years of age or under exempt from
2. The age of conditional responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18
criminal liability. The law provides thus:
years.
“SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15)
3. The age of full responsibility – 18 years or over (adolescence) to 70
years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense
(maturity).
shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be
subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this 4. The age of mitigated responsibility – 15 years and 1 day to 18 years,
Act. the offender acting with discernment; over 70 years of age.
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the A child in conflict with law
fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
A person who at the time of the commission of the offense is below
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age 18 years old but not less than 15 years and one day old.
shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in Meaning of discernment
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
The capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense
proceedings in accordance with this Act.
to understand the differences between right and wrong and the
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not consequences of the wrongful act.
include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
Determination of discernment
accordance with existing laws.”
Shall take into account the ability of a child to understand the moral
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years
and psychological components of criminal responsibility and
of age who acted without discernment exempt from criminal
consequences of the moral act; whether a child can be held
liability
responsible for essentially antisocial behavior.
A minor under 18 but above 15 must have acted with discernment to
Basis of paragraph 3 – complete absence of intelligence.
incur criminal liability. The minor is presumed to have acted without
discernment since the phrase “unless he/she acted with discernment” h. Read and explain Secs. 38 and 40 of RA 9344.
indicates an exception to the general rule that a minor under 18 but
above 15 has acted without discernment. SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child
who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission
Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a minor who of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall
is over 15 but under 18 years of age has acted with discernment, in determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
order for the minor not to be entitled tho this exempting from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
circumstances. judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with
the law under suspended sentence, without need of application: The legislative intent reflected in the Senate deliberations[158] on
Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied Senate Bill No. 1402 (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
even if the juvenile is already eighteen years (18) of age or more at of 2005) further strengthened the new position of this Court to cover
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. heinous crimes in the application of the provision on the automatic
suspension of sentence of a child in conflict with the law. The
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various
pertinent portion of the deliberation reads:
chcumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
If a mature minor, maybe 16 years old to below 18 years old
xxxx is charged, accused with, or may have committed a serious offense,
and may have acted with discernment, then the child could be
Applying Declarador v. Gubaton,[153] which was promulgated
recommended by the Department of Social Welfare and Development
on 18 August 2006, the Court of Appeals held that, consistent with
(DSWD), by the Local Council for the Protection of Children (LCPC), or
Article 192 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended,[154] the
by [Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s] proposed Office of Juvenile
aforestated provision does not apply to one who has been convicted Welfare and Restoration to go through a judicial proceeding; but the
of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
welfare, best interests, and restoration of the child should still be a
imprisonment.[155]
primordial or primary consideration. Even in heinous crimes, the
Meanwhile, on 10 September 2009, this Court promulgated the intention should still be the child’s restoration, rehabilitation and
decision in Sarcia,[156] overturning the ruling in Gubaton. Thus: reintegration. xxx (Italics supplied in Sarcia.)[159]

The xxx provision makes no distinction as to the nature of the offense On 24 November 2009, the Court En Banc promulgated the Revised
committed by the child in conflict with the law, unlike P.D. No. 603 Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law, which reflected the same
and A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. The said P.D. and Supreme Court (SC) Rule position.[160]
provide that the benefit of suspended sentence would not apply to a
These developments notwithstanding, we find that the benefits of a
child in conflict with the law if, among others, he/she has been
suspended sentence can no longer apply to appellant. The suspension
convicted of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
of sentence lasts only until the child in conflict with the law reaches
imprisonment. In construing Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344, the Court is
the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.[161] Section 40[162] of
guided by the basic principle of statutory construction that when the the law and Section 48[163] of the Rule are clear on the matter.
law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish. Since R.A. No.
Unfortunately, appellant is now twenty-five (25) years old.
9344 does not distinguish between a minor who has been convicted
of a capital offense and another who has been convicted of a lesser Be that as it may, to give meaning to the legislative intent of the Act,
offense, the Court should also not distinguish and should apply the the promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law should
automatic suspension of sentence to a child in conflict with the law extend even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one
who has been found guilty of a heinous crime.[157] (21) years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she was
still a child. The offender shall be entitled to the right to restoration,
rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the Act in order 2. With due care;
that he/she is given the chance to live a normal life and become a
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
productive member of the community. The age of the child in conflict
with the law at the time of the promulgation of the judgment of 4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
conviction is not material. What matters is that the offender
committed the offense when he/she was still of tender age. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

Thus, appellant may be confined in an agricultural camp or any other Elements:

training facility in accordance with Sec. 51 of Republic Act No.
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force.
9344.[164]
2. That the physical force must be irresistible.
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court.
- If the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures 3. That the physical force must come from a third person.
imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled,
or if the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable
the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the fear of an equal or greater injury.
child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for Elements:
execution of judgment.
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years at least equal to, that which he is required to commit;
of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine
whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order 2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the
execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
For the exempting circumstance of an uncontrollable fear to be
twenty-one (21) years.
invoked successfully, the following requisites must concur: (a)
i. Discuss, state the elements of, and explain each of the existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) the fear must be real and
remaining four exempting imminent; and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal
to that committed.
circumstances.
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention
of causing it. Elements:

Elements: 1. That an act is required by law to be done;

1. A person is performing a lawful act; 2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or After seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tanedo ran back to his
insuperable cause. workers and asked one,"Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the
body, which they did by putting it amidst the tallcogon grass, and later
j. Explain Par. 4 of Article 12.
burying in an old well. Only one shot was heard that morning and a
Discussion: chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were found
at the scene of the crime prior to the trial, the accused denied all
1. Act must be lawful, therefore when a person acting in self-defense knowledge of the crime, but later confessed during the trial. The CFI
discharges a firearm in a thickly populated place in the city of Manila of Tarlac found the accused guilty of homicide, having invited the
being prohibited and penalized by Article 155 of RPC, he cannot invoke deceased into the forest and intentionally shooting him in the chest
the exempting circumstance in par. 4. So far as can be ascertained, there was no enmity and no unpleasant
relations between them. There appears to have been no motive
2. A person must not be guilty of negligence.
whatever for the commission of the crime. The only possible reason
3. Accidents – something that happens outside the sway of our will, that the accused could have for killing the deceased would be found
and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond in the fact of a sudden quarrel between them during the hunt. That
the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences. idea is wholly negative by the fact that the chicken and the man were
shot at the same time, there having been only one shot fired. Hence,
If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is in the the decision was appealed
performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without
intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability. Issue:

Basis of par. 4 – lack of negligence and intent. Under this Whether or not the court is correct in ruling that there is criminal
circumstance, a person does not commit either an intentional felony liability
or a culpable felony.
Held:
j.1. Discuss U.S. v. Tañedo, G.R. No. L-5418, 12 February
NO, If life is taken by misfortune or accident while in the performance
1910.
of a lawful act executed with due care and without intention of doing
(1) harm, there is no criminal liability.

PETITIONER: U.S In the case where there is no evidence of negligence upon the part of
the accused. Neither is there any question that he was engaged in the
RESPONDENT: CECILIO TAÑEDO commission of a lawful act when the accident occurred. Neither is
Facts: there any evidence of the intention of the accused to cause the death
of the deceased. The only thing in the case at all suspicious upon the
That on or about the 26th day of January of this year, the accused, part of the defendant are his concealment and denial.
with the intention of killing Feliciano Sanchez, invited him to hunt wild
chickens, and, upon reaching the forest, with premeditation shot him Where accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, the accused is not
in the breast with a shotgun which destroyed the heart and killed him. required to prove such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence,
because there is a denial of intentional killing. The burden is upon the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
State to show that it was intentional.
vs.
Evidence of misadventure gives rise to an important issue in a
EUSTAQUIO LORENO y MALAGA and JIMMY MARANTAL y LONDETE,
prosecution for homicide, which must be submitted to the jury, and
accused-appellants.
since a plea of misadventure is a denial of criminal intent which
constitutes an essential element in criminal homicide, to warrant a G.R. No. L-54414 July 9, 1984
conviction it must be negative by the prosecution beyond a reasonable
doubt. Facts: Barangay Captain Elias Monge, his family & Francisco Fabie,
their farm helper were home preparing for the barrio dance when
Judgment is reversed. Loreno & a man in a dark sweater came by their house, saying there
was a letter from the chief (hepe). Elias let them in & when they read
k. Explain Par. 5 of Article 12.
the letter, it said that they were NPA. They were made to lie on the
This exempting circumstance presupposes that a person is compelled ground while other men went in the house. The alleged NPA members
by means of force or violence to commit a crime. robbed the family of several belongings. Moreover, the man in the
dark sweater raped the 2 daughters of Elias, Cristina & Monica. Elias,
Before a force can be considered to be an irresistible one, it must
Cristina, Monica & Fabie positively identified Loreno as 1 of the
produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all
robbers. Fabie also identified Marantal.
resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such,
incapable of committing a crime. It must be such that, in spite of the Issue: WON Loreno and Marantal are exempted from criminal liability
resistance of the person on whom it operates, it compels his members under the defenses of Article 12(5) and (6)
to act and his mind to obey. Such a force can never consist in anything
Held: No. Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy Marantal claimed
which springs primarily from the man himself; it must be a force which
that they acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force and/or
acts upon him from the outside and by a third person.
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury.
The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or They admitted that they were in the house of Elias that night but they
obfuscation. It must consist of an extraneous force coming from a were only forced by a man wearing black sweater and his five
third person. companions who claimed to be members of the NPA, with the threat
that if they did not obey, appellants and their families would be killed.
Basis – complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness.
This was found untenable.
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like
one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or
one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or
greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not
act with freedom.
act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a
k.1. Discuss People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. L54414, 09 July 1984 mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will.
The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and
impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded imminent; and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A to that committed.
threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such
The accused must not have opportunity for escape or self-defense –
character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-
a threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of
defense in equal combat.
such character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
Loreno and Marantal had admitted their participation in the or self-defense in equal combat.
commission of the crimes of robbery and rape against Elias and is
Distinction between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear –In
family. Facts inconsistent with the appellants’ defense were
irresistible force, the offender uses violence or physical force to
established: (a) having been armed with a firearm, (b) Loreno
compel another person to commit a crime; in uncontrollable fear, the
positioning himself near the post of the balcony without prior
offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to
instructions, (c) Loreno furnishing the rattan to tie the victims, and (d)
commit a crime.
Loreno pointing his gun to the other victims when Monica was being
raped. Furthermore, Loreno brought Beata, Elias’s wife to the different Basis – Complete absence of freedom. “Actus me invite factus non
rooms to open the trunks and closets, without the threat and est meus actus.” (“An act done by me against my will is not my act."
assistance of the man in dark sweater. And lastly, Loreno tried to
molest Cristina after being raped by the man in dark sweater. l.1. Discuss People v. Semañada, G.R. No. L-11361, 26 May
1958.
When Marantal kicked Fabie when the latter saw his face, it was due
to the fact the Fabie had recognized him & the blows which he gave G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958
to Fabie who was still tied was a warning not to report his presence &
participation in the crime. Furthermore, there was no showing that
Jimmy Marantal raised a voice of protest nor did an act to prevent the THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
commission of the crimes. All these demonstrated the voluntary
participation & the conspiracy of the appellants. Not only was their vs.
defense untenable, but the facts show that that there was conspiracy. FELIX SEMAÑADA, alias SEMAÑADA, alias COMMANDER DANTE,
l. Explain Par. 6 of Article 12. defendant-appellant.

This exempting circumstance presupposes that a person is compelled Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Frine C.
to commit a crime by another, but the compulsion is by means of Zaballero for appellee.
intimidation or threat, not force or violence. Edgardo Z. Olivera for appellant.
For the exempting circumstance of an uncontrollable fear to be FELIX, J.:
invoked successfully, the following requisites must concur: (a)
existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) the fear must be real and Sometime in 1950 Felix Semañada, alias Semañada, alias Commander
Dante, a young boy of 17 years of age, joined the Hukbalahap
organization, which was composed of 4 units, namely, the
organization, the contacting, the liquidation and the courier groups, who in turn reported the matter to the Philippine Constabulary, and
and Semañada was assigned to form part of the latter group, whose that same evening the authorities found the deceased Serapio Villate
duty was to deliver letters and messages. Apparently, Felix Semañada lying dead, face downward and hogtied.
was unhappy and discontented and oftenly scolded by his parents, so
A post-mortem examination of the cadaver disclosed that a total of 51
he easily yielded to the propaganda of the Hukbalahap organization,
wounds were inflicted on the thorax and abdomen of the deceased,
for he did not have the opportunity to obtain any academic schooling
50 of which were superficial and only one fatal, for it penetrated the
except up to Grade II.
abdomen, with a depth of 5 inches, one inch long and one centimeter
On or about 6 o'clock in the evening of June 12, 1952, Felix, wide (Exhibit A).
Semañada, then 19 years of age, and in company of 2 Huks, i.e.,
The widow, however, kept silent as to the identity of Felix Semañada
Commanders Wennie and Heling, all armed, arrived at the house of
as one of the malefactors until he surrendered to the authorities in
the spouses Serapio Villate and Nieves Magtibay, situated at barrio
Nagcarlang, Laguna, on December 5, 1955. Upon learning that said
Sastre, Gumaca, Quezon, where they had a store. The couple were
Huk was already in the custody of the law, she revealed to the
taking their supper when Felix Semañada ordered Serapio Villate to
authorities that the person who stabbed her husband to death in the
go down and, apparently because the latter resisted the order, he was
evening of June 12, 1952, was Felix Semañada and explained that the
brought down to a distance of about an arm's length from his house.
reason for her long silence was her fear that while Semañada were at
Once there he was seized and hogtied by Commanders Wennie and
Heling with a string used for fishing. As his companions held the victim large living in the mountains, she might be liquidated if he would learn
that a charge for murder was filed against him by the widow of the
Semañada stabbed Villate several times with a sharp pointed bolo
deceased.
measuring about a palm's length (dangkal). The torture lasted for
about 30 minutes causing the victim to cry in agony "aroy, aroy". His Due to this revelation and after the corresponding investigation a
wife, Nieves Magtibay, who hails from the same barrio of Semañada, complaint for "robbery in band with murder" was filed in the Justice
actually saw the stabbing from the opening of an upstair a window of the Peace Court of Gumaca, Quezon, against Felix Semañada, alias
and she ran to her husband's aid but she was not able to help him Semañada, alias Commander Dante et al., without naming the said 2
because of the 2 Huks that were unknown to her, one of whom other commanders who were still at large unidentified. After proper
blocked her way while the other hit her with the butt of his gun on the proceedings the Justice of the Peace Court, convinced that the
upper lip, as a result of which her upper lip was cut and she lost 3 accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense imputed
front teeth. to him, remanded the case to the Court of First Instance of Quezon
where the Provincial Fiscal filed the corresponding information this
After the killing of Serapio Villate, Felix Semañada and his companions
time against Felix Semañada, alias Semañada, alias Commander
went up the victims house. There Semañada pushed Nieves Magtibay
Dante alone, charging him with the crime of robbery with homicide,
to a corner, threatened to kill her and demanded from her the shotgun
defined and punished by Article 294 in connection with Article 299 of
of the deceased. The three also ransacked the couples wardrobe, after
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 18.
which they left with the shotgun valued at P250.00 and other
merchandise and money of a total value of P900. The widow also left Upon arraignment the defendant pleaded not guilty but after hearing
the place to report the incident to her brother-in-law Daniel Villate, the Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
robbery with homicide, defined and punished under Article 294, 5. In holding the accused-appellant liable for the acts of his
paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, with the attendance of 3 companions when he had neither knowledge of the intention to kill
aggravating circumstances with none mitigating to offset the same, the deceased nor had he actually participated in its commission; and
and sentenced him to die in the electric chair, to indemnify the heirs
6. In not holding and extending to the accused the mitigating
of the deceased Serapio Villate in the sum of P6,000.00 and to pay
circumstances of (1) lack of instruction; (2) for having acted under the
the further sum of P900.00, value of the cash and goods robbed from
influence of grave fear not entirely uncontrollable under paragraph 1,
the deceased, with costs.
article 13, in connection with paragraph 6 of article 12 of the Revised
Defendant did not appeal from this decision but this case was Penal Code; and (3) voluntary surrender of the accused to the
nevertheless, brought to this Court under the provisions of Section 9 authorities on December 5, 1955, within paragraph 10, of article 13
Rule 118 of the Rules of Court, for review and judgment as law and of the Revised. Penal Code.
justice shall dictate.
The version of the defendant as to the execution of the crime at bar
In this instance counsel for the defense maintains that the lower Court is as follows:
erred:

1. In holding that the accused-appellant Felix Semañada is guilty

On or about June 12, 1952, at about 3 o'clock p.m., while Felix
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with murder,
Semañada was in barrio Labnig, Gumaca, Quezon, waiting for letters
although the evidence of the prosecution is wholly insufficient as it is
to be delivered, Commanders Wennie and Heling of the liquidation
improbable and contrary to common experience;
unit arrived. The 2 commanders ordered him to accompany them to
2. In giving weight and merit to the evidence of the prosecution to the barrio Sastre, but he refused on the ground that as a courier he had
effect that widow Nieves Magtibay kept silent as to identify assailant his own duty to do, but the said commanders took their firearms,
until the accused surrendered to the authorities for fear that she might pointed them toward him saying that he would be killed if he refused
be liquidated also by the accused with as living in the mountain as a to guide them to the house of Serapio Villate. He was told that they
Hukbalahap; were just to visit Serapio Villate without showing any intention of
killing that man. Had he not been forced to go to with them to barrio
3. In concluding that the wounds have been inflicted one by one,
Sastre, he would not have gone with them. They arrived at barrio
torturing the deceased for one-half hour constituting all aggravating
Sastre at about 6 o'clock in the evening and when they were about 20
circumstance of cruelty, although there is no evidence to support said arm-length away from the house of Serapio Villate, the 2 commanders
conclusion;
Wennie and Heling ordered him to stay guard near the road; while
4. In not extending to the accused-appellant the benefit of Article 12, thus guarding alone, he could have escaped but he did not for fear
paragraphs 5 and 6, although the evidence shows that he acted under that if he did so he would be liquidated by the 2 notorious
the influence of uncontrollable fear or compulsion of an irresistible commanders and, beside that, he had no reason to escape, as he was
force; made to believe that they were going there only for a visit. As a matter
of fact, while thus guarding the road he heard neither cries nor shouts
from the house of Villate. On the other hand, he hold not have gone Upon going over the evidence on record, We find no reason for the
to town because he would have been arrested by the army. widow Nieves Magtibay to testify falsely against the defendant herein
and to impute to him the commission of so heinous offense. She knew
On December 5, 1955, in Nagcarlang, Laguna, upon realizing the evils
very well the defendant and was able to identify him fully. Any way,
of communism and having grown up to understand the beauty of
the matter devolves into a case of credibility of witnesses and the trial
democracy, he surrender voluntarily to Sgt. Regalado of the 26th
judge, who had the opportunity of observing their demeanor while
B.C.T. He said that he wanted to live peacefully and to start a new
testifying in his presence and is in a better position than the appellate
life.
Court to gauge their credibility, has given full credence to the
In consonance with this version defendant disclaims any criminal testimony of said widow.
liability for the death of Villate and the robbery in the latter's house.
As to the circumstance of lack of instruction, the Solicitor General
He admitted having been at the scene of the crime at the time it was
states that the test for the mitigating circumstance is not illiteracy
being committed, but he says that it was so, because he was under
alone, but rather lack of sufficient intelligence (People vs. Ripas, et al.,
the influence of a great fear. Consequently — counsel for the defense
* G.R. No. L-6246, promulgated May 28, 1954), and the record
argues — that in so far as the defendant is concerned, the
discloses that far from his claim that he suffers from lack of instruction,
circumstances of treachery and cruelty cannot be appreciated against
he possesses an intelligence worthy of a lawyer considering his ability,
him, because the killing was not executed by him, aside from the fact
for one unschooled, to distinguish between implications and
that the testimony of the widow Nieves Magtibay, who averred to have innuendos. At any rate, lack of instruction is not mitigating in cases of
seen the defendant stabbing the deceased for 30 minutes deserves
robbery (U.S. vs. Pascual, 9 Phil., 491; People vs. Melendrez, 59 Phil.,
no credence because from the opening of the window thru which she
154; People vs. De la Cruz, et al., 77 Phil., 44), although it might be
allegedly was peeping, she was unable to see the defendant, specially
under certain situations in cases of murder (People vs. Taluk, et al.,
if it is considered, that her view was intercepted by at least 3 persons.
65 Phil., 696) and homicide (People vs. Hubero, 61 Phil., 64).
Counsel further maintains that even if convicted of the crime charged
With respect to the alleged "uncontrollable fear or compulsion of an
defendant is entitled to the benefits of the mitigating circumstances irresistible force", which appellant says the lower court did not
of (1) lack of instruction; (2) having acted under the influence of fear
consider in his favor, the Government contends that the purported
not entirely uncontrollable to be exempting under Article 12,
uncontrollable fear was a mere fabrication and that appellant was a
paragraph 6 of the Revised Penal Code, but coming within the purview
willing participant in the criminal design. Moreover, fear or duress in
of Article 13 paragraph 1 of the same legal body; and (3) voluntary
order to be a valid defense, should be based on real, imminent or
surrender to the authorities on December 5, 1955, which also may be
reasonable fear for one's life or limb. It should not be inspired by
considered as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph
speculative, fanciful or remote fear. A person should not commit a
10 of the Revised Penal Code, for it constitutes a circumstance of a
very serious crime on account of a flimsy fear (People vs. Quilloy, 88
similar nature and analogous to the circumstance of voluntary
Phil., 53), and the evidence on record does not show that defendant
surrender to a person in authority or agent covered, by paragraph 7
really acted by such uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
of said article 13.
Anent the circumstance of voluntary surrender or of a similar or
analogous circumstance We hold that defendant cannot claim it in his
favor in the case at bar, because he did not surrender to the authority
or its agents by reason of the commission of the crime for which he is
herein prosecuted, but for being a Huk who wanted to come within
the pale of the law (see People vs. Sakam, 61 Phil., 27, 33-34).

On the strength of the foregoing considerations We find Felix

Semañada, alias Semañada, alias Commander Dante, guilty of the
crime of robbery with homicide attended by the aggravating
circumstance of treachery (which include nocturnity and aid of
superior strength), dwelling and cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanly increasing the sufferings of the victim. He should,
therefore, be sentenced to the supreme penalty of death which,
however, cannot be imposed upon him for lack of the required number
of votes necessary for the imposition of said penalty.

Wherefore, the decision of the lower Court rendered in this case and
brought to Us in consultation is hereby affirmed, although the penalty
imposed upon the defendant is lowered to life imprisonment (reclusion
perpetua), in accordance with the provisions of the last paragraph of
Section 9 of Republic Act. 296, known as the Judiciary Act of 1948,
with the corresponding accessories of the law and the payment of the
costs. It is so ordered.