Article 13 Paragraph 1

Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty

Par. 5 Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA, defendants-appellants.

Facts
 Antonio Oanis ( Chief of Police of Cabantuan) and Alberto Galanta (Corporal of
the Philippine Constabulary) were accused of murdering Serapio Tecson.
 Major Guido sent Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector
of Cabanatuan Nueva Ecija, stating the escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas is
with a bailarina named Irene, and that he should be captured dead or alive.
 Monsod called for his men (Nicomedes Oralo, Venancio Serna and D. Fernandez)
and defendant Alberto Galanta was one of them. They were shown the telegram
along with a newspaper clipping containing a picture of Balagtas.They were
instructed to arrest Balagtas, and if overpowered, to follow the instruction in the
telegram. The same instruction was also given to one of the Defendants, Antonio
Oanis which is the Chief of Police of Cabanatuan.
 Upon order of the Provincial inspector, The chief of police voluntarily joined the
search of the whereabouts of Irene when his men failed to show up.
 Oanis approached Brigida, who then told him where Irene;s worn was, indicating
that she was sleeping with her paramour (lover)
 They went and fired at the man they saw sleeping with his back towards the door.
 Later, it was found that the man they shot was not Anselmo balagtas, but was an
innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson
 When asked by the Provincial Inspector, the defendants admitted to having killed
Tecson.

Defense
 Oanis claimed that he had given a warning, telling the man to stand up if he was
Balagtas, but testified that Galanta fired at Tecson immediately after the warning
even though Tecson was still laying down and continued firing. After seeing
Tecson, allegedly Balagats, watching and picking up something, he too fired his
shots.
 Galanta testified differently, allegedly, after the warning given by Oanis, when
Irene and Tecson went to sit up Oanis fired at Tecson. Only after Oanis shouted
that it was Balagtas did Galanta fired .
Issue
Whether or not Galanta and Oanis is criminally liable.
Ruling

The court ruled, as the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime
committed is murder with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. There is a
mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the incomplete justifying circumstance
defined in article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code. According to such legal
provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty
or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
There are two requisites in order that the circumstance may be taken as a
justifying one: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right
or office. In the instance case, only the first requisite is present — appellants have
acted in the performance of a duty. The second requisite is wanting for the crime by
them committed is not the necessary consequence of a due performance of their
duty. Their duty was to arrest Balagtas or to get him dead or alive if resistance is
offered by him and they are overpowered. But through impatience or over-anxiety or
in their desire to take no chances, they have exceeded in the fulfillment of such duty
by killing the person whom they believed to be Balagtas without any resistance from
him and without making any previous inquiry as to his identity.

The crime committed by appellants is not merely criminal negligence, the

killing being intentional and not accidental. In criminal negligence, the injury caused
to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice.

The doctrine is restated in the new Rules of Court thus: "No unnecessary or
unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall
not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention." (Rule 109,
sec. 2, par. 2). And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he
uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest (5 C.J., p. 753;
U.S. vs. Mendoza, 2 Phil., 109). It may be true that Anselmo Balagtas was a
notorious criminal, a life-termer, a fugitive from justice and a menace to the peace of
the community, but these facts alone constitute no justification for killing him when in
effecting his arrest, he offers no resistance or in fact no resistance can be offered, as
when he is asleep.
Article 13, Paragraph 6
That having acted upon impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion
or obfuscation
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EMILIA GUY-SAYCO, defendant-appellant.

Facts
 Gelasio Galupitan who was having an affair with Lorenza Estrada stayed away
from home for more than 2 weeks and was remaining in the barrio of Dujat.
 On 20th of March, 1907, the defendant decided to go to the barrio where her
husband always frequent under the pretext that he was doing field work.
 Before reaching the barrio with her child and servant, it was already night time
and she had to dismiss the vehicle she rented. For fear of being attacked, she
diguised herself using her husband’s clothes.
 Seeing her husband’s horse tied infront of the house, she immediately entered
where she saw her husband, his lover Lorenza and the owner of the house
having supper. Overcomed by jealousy, the defendant stabbed Lorenza with a
penknife, inflicting 5 wounds. As a result, Lorenza died within a few minutes.
Emilia immediately left and went to Modesto Ramos for a change of clothes.
 A complaint was thereupon filed by the provincial fiscal on May 31, 1907, and
the corresponding proceedings were instituted. The court below entered
judgment on June 29, 1908, sentencing the accused, Emilia Gut-Sayco, to the
penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, to suffer the
accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000,
and to pay the costs. From said judgment she has appealed.
 Emilia pleaded not guilty and claimed self - defense. She alleged that when
Lorenza heard her remonstrate with her husband, Lorenza asked why she was
there and showed up with a knife in her hand and in a threatening manner.
Emilia caught the hand which carried the knife and as a defense stabbed the
deceased with a penknife that she allegedly had found on the floor.
Issue
Whether or not Emilia can plead self-defense
Ruling
The court held even though it were true that when the accused, Emilia, made her
appearance, the deceased Lorenza arose with a knife in her hand and in a threatening
manner asked the accused what had brought her there, such attitude, under the
provisions of article 8, No. 4 of the Penal Code, does not constitute that unlawful
aggression, which, among others, is the first indispensable requisite upon which
exemption by reason of self-defense may be sustained.
In order to consider that an unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is
necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining
the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made; a mere threatening
or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to justify the commission of an act which is
punishable per se, and allow a claim of exemption from liability on the ground that it was
committed in self-defense. It has always been so recognized in the decisions of the
courts, in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code.
Mitigating circumstances can be applied since it has been proven that the
accused, at the time when the crime was committed, acted upon the impulse of
passion (Article 13, Par. 6) and under great jealous excitement at the sight of her
husband taking supper in the company of his mistress, after he had been absent
from the conjugal dwelling for several days.
Article 14, Paragraph 16.
That the Act be committed with Treachery

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FRANCISCO CAGOCO Y RAMONES (alias FRANCISCO
CAGURO, alias FRANCISCO ADMONES, alias BUCOY, alias FRISCO
GUY), defendant-appellant.

Facts
 (July 24 1932) Father and son Yu Lon and Yu Yee, stopped to talk on the side
walk at the corner of Mestizo and San Fernanddo Street. in the District of San
Nicolas.
 While they were talking, a man was passing behind Yu Lon back and forth.
When Yu Yee was about to leave, the man suddenly struck Yu Lon with his fist
without warning which caused Yu Lon to fall backwards, hitting his head in the
asphalt pavement as a result while his lowerbody fell on the sidewalk.
 Chin Sam and Yee Fung who witnessed the incident, joined Yu See in pursuing
the assailant who immediately ran.
 Yu Lon was sent to the hospital where he died from cerebral hemorrhage.
 Yu Yee reported the incident to Sergeant Sol Cruz where he also described his
father’s assailant. After 3 to four days, Yu Yee was presented with eleven people
from which he identified the accused without hesitation. During Trial, the
witnesses also identified the accused as the same man.
Issue
Whether or not the offence was done in a treacherous manner
Ruling
The court ruled that under the circumstances of this case the defendant is liable for
the killing of Yu Lon, because his death was the direct consequence of defendant's
felonious act of striking him on the head. If the defendant had not committed the
assault in a treacherous manner. he would nevertheless have been guilty of homicide,
although he did not intend to kill the deceased (Article 13 Paragraph 3); and since
the defendant did commit the crime with treachery, he is guilty of murder, because of
the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. that there is no doubt as to
the death of Yu Lon.
Paragraph No. 1 of article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provide that criminal
liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended; but in order that a person
may be criminally liable for a felony different from that which he proposed to commit,
it is indispensable that the two following requisites be present, to wit: (a) That a
felony was committed; and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved person be the
direct consequence of the crime committed by the offender.
Since the deceased was struck from behind without warning, the accused has
acted with treachery. As stated in Article 14, Paragraph 16. of the RPC “There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make”

The penalty of murder (article 248 of the Revised Penal Code) is reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death, and there being present in this case one
mitigating and no aggravating circumstance the prison sentence of the appellant is
reduced to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal. As thus
modified, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.
Appellant's attorney de oficio makes the following assignments of error:
1. The trial court erred in finding that the appellant the person who committed the
assault on Yu Lon, the victim to the crime charged in the information.
2. Assuming that the appellant is the person who committed the assault on Yu Lon (a
fact which we specifically deny), the trial court erred in finding that the appellant
struck his supposed victim.
3. Assuming that the appellant is the person who committed the assault on Yu Lon,
and that the appellant did strike his supposed victim (facts which we specifically deny)
the trial court erred in finding that the blow was dealt from the victim's rear.
4. The trial court erred in finding that the identity of the appellant was fully established.
5. Assuming that the four preceding errors assigned are without merit, the trial court
erred in convicting the appellant of the crime of murder, under article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, instead of convicting him of the crime of maltreatment, under
article 266 of the said Code.
SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts
 In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos
Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house in Katugasan,
Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and asked him to go with them to the house of
Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio
and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he
wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and
that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be
killed.
 Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms,
arrived at Palangpangan's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis
Occidental. At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location of
Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig
fired at said room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City
and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was
in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.
 One witness testified that before the five men left the premises, they shouted:
"We will kill you (the witness) and especially Bernardina Palangpangan and we
will come back if (sic) you were not injured"
 The Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder. The court (RTC),
as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, holding that Petitioner was guilty of
attempted murder. Petitioner seeks from this Court a modification of the
judgment by holding him liable only for an impossible crime, citing Article 4(2) of
the Revised Penal Code:
“ By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account
of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means”

Issue
Whether or not the act committed is an impossible crime

Ruling
We hereby hold Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime as defined and
penalized in Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively.
Having in mind the social danger and degree of criminality shown by Petitioner, this
Court sentences him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, together
with the accessory penalties provided by the law, and to pay the costs.
In the US. Impossible crimes are merely defense to an attemt charge and are
categorized into two categories:
Factual - factual impossibility of the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the
crime could have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant
believed them to be, it is no defense that in reality the crime was impossible of
commission.
Legal impossibility - is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal liability for
an attempt.
In our jurisdiction, impossible crimes are recognized. The impossibility of
accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by
itself. Furthermore, the phrase "inherent impossibility" that is found in Article 4(2) of
the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical
impossibility and legal impossibility
VIRGILIO TALAMPAS y MATIC, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts
 Virgilio Talampas with intent to kill, armed with a short firearm without any
justifiable cause, shot Ernesto Matic Msinloc. The shot inflicted a gunshot would
at the back of his body which directly caused his death.
 witnesses Jose Sevillo, Francisco Matic, Jerico Matic, Dr. Valentin Bernales, and
Josephine Matic testified they were infron of thei house repairing his tricycle
when Virgilio who was riding a motorcycle passed by and stopped. Virgilio
walked a few steps and brought out a short gun (revolver) and poked Eduardo.
He fired the gun, hitting Eduardo who toke refuge behind Ernesto.
 Firing the gun three times, Ernesto was shot once at the right portion of his back
and fell face down, while Eduardo fell down on his back after being shot in his
nape. The victims were brought to the hospital, while the appellant ran
 Talampas interposed self-defense and accident. He insisted that his enemy had
been Eduardo Matic (Eduardo), not victim Ernesto Matic (Ernesto); that Eduardo,
who was then with Ernesto at the time of the incident, had had hit him with a
monkey wrench, but he had parried the blow; that he and Eduardo had then
grappled for the monkey wrench; that while they had grappled, he had notice
that Eduardo had held a revolver; that he had thus struggled with Eduardo for
control of the revolver, which had accidentally fired and hit Ernesto during their
struggling with each other; that the revolver had again fired, hitting Eduardo in
the thigh; that he had then seized the revolver and shot Eduardo in the head;
and that he had then fled the scene when people had started swarming around.
 Based on the testimony given by eye witness Sevilla, RTC found Talampas as
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. With one mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender, and hereby sentences him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of IMPRISONMENT ranging from TEN (10) years and One
(1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) years and EIGHT (8)
months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. He is likewise ordered to pay the
heirs of Ernesto Matic y Masinloc.
 Petitoner seeks for review on certiorati before the Court of Appeals.
Issue
Whether or not Talampas acted on self-defense
Ruling
The court held that with Talampas claiming self - defense, he had likewise
admitted to killing Ernesto Masinloc. He had assumed the burden to prove the
elements of self defence but has failed to do so and therefor the petition was denied
for lack of merit.

In the nature of self-defense, the protagonists should be the accused and the
victim. The established circumstances indicated that such did not happen here, for it
was Talampas who had initiated the attack only against Eduardo; and that Ernesto
had not been at any time a target of Talampas’ attack, he having only happened to
be present at the scene of the attack. In reality, neither Eduardo nor Ernesto had
committed any unlawful aggression against Talampas. Thus, Talampas was not
repelling any unlawful aggression from the victim (Ernesto), thereby rendering his
plea of self-defense unwarranted.
Secondly, Talampas could not relieve himself of criminal liability by invoking
accident as a defense. Article 12(4) of the Revised Penal Code,the legal provision
pertinent to accident, contemplates a situation where a person is in fact in the act of
doing something legal, exercising due care, diligence and prudence, but in the
process produces harm or injury to someone or to something not in the least in the
mind of the actor – an accidental result flowing out of a legal act.Indeed, accident is
an event that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about
through some act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences.12 In short, accident presupposes the lack of intention to commit the
wrong done.

And, thirdly, the fact that the target of Talampas’ assault was Eduardo, not
Ernesto, did not excuse his hitting and killing of Ernesto. The fatal hitting of Ernesto
was the natural and direct consequence of Talampas’ felonious deadly assault
against Eduardo. Talampas’ poor aim amounted to aberratio ictus, or mistake in the
blow, a circumstance that neither exempted him from criminal responsibility nor
mitigated his criminal liability. Lo que es causa de la causa, es causa del mal
causado (what is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused). Under
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code,criminal liability is incurred by any person
committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FERNANDO DE FERNANDO, defendant-appellant.

Facts
 A day before the crime, Moro prisoners had escaped from the Penal Colony of
San Ramon, Zamboanga.
 The residents of the barrio was alarmed by the presence of three suspicious
looking persons around the area
 Fernando De Fernando, who was a municipal police man, was called by
Pacencia Delgado, daughter of Remigio Delgado. He met Remigio and was
informed of the suspicious looking men, dressed in blue prowling round his
house.
 While talking, a person in dark clothes appeared calling “Nong Miong”. Pacencia
and Fernando both had no idea who it was. The accused asked what he wanted,
but instead of answering he advanced with a bolo in his hand. Fernando took out
his revolver and fired a shot in the air.
 Seeing that the man continued to ascend the stairs, he fired at him. The man
disappeared and ran to the house of Leon Torres where he eventually died.
 Upon recognizing the voice and hearing he gun shots, Remigio ran and took
hold of the arm of the defendant and asked why he had shot Buenventura
Paulino.
 The accused only said to let him go and that it was a crosse eyed person. He
immediately called Santiago Torres and told him about what had happened.
After examination it was found out that the bullet penetrated the base of the neck
at the right, embedding itself in the left side of under the skin.
 The court of first instance of Zamboanga ruled Fernando as guilty of murder. The
accused raised an appeal on the grounds that he was exempt from criminal
liabilit and should be acquitted. Article 12 Par. 4 - Any person who while
performing a lawful act with due care and diligence causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of doing it.
Issue
Whether or not Fernando is guilty of murder
Ruling
Taking into consideration the estate of mind of the accused at the time, and
the meaning that he gave to the attitude of the unknown person, in shooting the latter
he felt that he was performing his duty by defending the owners of the house against
an unexpected attack, and such act cannot constitute the crime of murder, but only
that of simple homicide. He cannot be held guilty, however, as principal with
malicious intent, because he though at the time that he was justified in acting as he
did, and he is guilty only because he failed to exercise the ordinary diligence which,
under the circumstances, he should have by investigating whether or not the
unknown man was really what he though him to be. In firing the shot, without first
exercising reasonable diligence, he acted with reckless negligence.
The crime committed by the caused, therefore, is homicide through reckless
negligence defined and punished in article 568, in relation with article 404, of the
Penal Code, the penalty prescribed by law arresto mayor in its maximum degree
to prision correcional in its minimum degree.
In view of the foregoing and reversing the appealed judgment, the accused is
held guilty of the crime of homicide through reckless negligence, and he is sentenced
to suffer one year prision correcional, to pay the amount of P500 to the heirs of the
deceased as an indemnity, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the
costs and with credit of one-half of the preventive imprisonment already suffered.
So ordered.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
VS.
RODOLFO ADVINCULA Y MONDANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Fact
 Accused - Appelant, Rodolfo Advincula Mondano was charged with murder and
found guilty on the grounds that on August 4, 2005, with an intent to kill, qualified
by evident premeditation and treachery, feloniously attacked Reggie Tan y
Aranes. He stabbed him with a bladed weapon which hit on the different parts of
the body. The attack inflicted serious and mortal damages that caused Tan’s
death. (RTC Branch 219, Quezon City
 He raised an appeals against the decision of the CA and RTC of Quezon
pleading not guilty.
 The witness testified that petitioner grabbed Reggie by the neck with his left
hand and drove a knife at Reggie’s side. Reggie tried to ran away but was again
caught by the petitioner before being stabbed twice in the chest. Reggie was
pronounced dead on arrival. (Rollane Enriquez)
 The accused however claims that he was at home at the time of the crime,
when Reggie entered the living room armed with a knife and threatened to stab
the accused two siblings. When Reggie saw Rodolfo, he ran away to the nearby
store.
 Following Reggie, Rodolfo had the intention of hurting him because of his threats.
While grappling for the possession of the knife, the accused got hold of it and
stabbed Reggie’s body.
 The RTC further ruled that treachery and evident premeditation attended the
killing of Reggie; thus, it concluded that the accused-appellant should be held
liable for murder. The accused raised an appeal to the Court of Appeals, but the
court of appeals maintained the decision of the RTC.
Issue
Whether or not Rodolfo is criminally liable

Ruling
Justifying Circumstances
The court held that the justifying circumstances of defense of relative has not been
proven in this case.
Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the primordial element of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without unlawful aggression, there can be no
justified killing in defense of oneself. There was no unlawful aggression on the part of
Reggie when he was stabbed by the accused-appellant. Records will confirm that the
attack by the accused-appellant on Reggie was swift and deliberate and was not
preceded by any provocation on the part of the latter.
There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the
victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self
defense.The absence of any unlawful aggression on the part of Reggie renders
ineffectual the accused-appellant's alibi of defense of a relative. Consequently, the
two other essential elements of self-defense would have no factual and legal bases
without any unlawful aggression to prevent or repel.[48] For this reason, it becomes
immaterial to further discuss the two other elements of defense of a relative

Treachery
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1)
at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2)
the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or
forms of attack employed by him.[55]
 The prosecution was able to prove beyond doubt that the accused appellant
had consciously and deliberately adopted the means of execution to ensure his
success in killing Reggie, i.e., the accused-appellant surreptitiously sneaked behind
Reggie and gave him a headlock that restrained his movement, thus denying him the
chance to defend himself or to parry the stab blows the accused-appellant would
deliver. It is noteworthy that despite the fact that Reggie tried to escape further
aggression by running, he failed because the accused-appellant caught up with him
when he stumbled. Obviously, Reggie, who was then bleeding, was no longer in a
position to protect himself when the accused-appellant delivered two more fatal
blows. Considering that the elements of treachery attended the killing of Reggie, the
CA was correct in convicting the accused-appellant of murder.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The 29 April 2014 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06009 finding the accused-appellant RODOLFO
ADVINCULA y MONDANO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that he shall be liable to the heirs of Reggie
Tan y Arañes for the following: civil indemnity of P75,000.00; moral damages of
P75,000.00; exemplary damages of P75,000.00; temperate damages of P50,000.00;
and loss of earning capacity of P825,930.00. In addition, interest at the rate of six
percent (6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from the date of
finality of this decision until fully paid.
RAUL ZAPATOS Y LEGASPI, Petitioner,
Vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts
 A case was filed against the petitioner Rodolfo Mondano before the
Sandiganbayan where he was found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of murder and frustrated murder.
 On january 14, 1990 at Bayugan Agusan Del Sur, the accused, Raul Legazpi
who was at the time a public officer working as a Community Environment
National Resources Officer at Bayugan Agusan del Sur committed a crime with
intent to kill and with the use of firearm by shooting Socrates Platero. Socrates
was shot in the leg and would have caused his death, if not for timely medical
assistance.
 At the time of the incident. Platero and Mayor Leonardo Cortez was ontheir way
hom from Butuan City. However since they were running out of gasoline, they
had to stop at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Monitoring Station,
Barangay Maygatasan, Bayugan. With no gasoline to spare, Station Guard Pfc.
Michael Gatillo accompanied them to the nearby Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) checkpoint.
 Gatillo approached Tan to ask for extra gasoline. Subsequently, Platero heard
gunshots and the bullet hit Mayor Cortez. Platero saw Raul Zapatos holding an
Armalite in a firing position”, for which he immediately retaliated. In an attempt to
pull Mayor Cortez away from the cross fire, his foot got shot. Gatillan brought
them to Bayugan Community Hospital. (four (4) wounds had been inflicted upon
Mayor Cortez — one in the vicinity of the left nipple, one on the right axillary
region, one on the right knee, and another on the left iliac region)
 The petitioner’s defense was on the justifying circumstances of self - defence.
He testified that he was the Team Leader of the DENR Sentro Striking Force
whose primary duty is to seize illegally-cut forest products. He claims that a burst
of gunshot awakened him. Seeing that the guardhouse wa being riddled with
bullets, he immediately dropped to the floorand took the armalite rifle from the
locker under his bed. Hiding behind a barricade, he fired at his attackers. He
crawled and managed to walkaway until he reached Nilo Libre’s house. The
following day, he heard the news that Mayor Cortez was killed. After that he
immediately surrendered himself and armalite to Sgt. Benjamin Amorio of the
Philippine Army Brigade.
 Tan supported the testimony of Zapatos. He stated that Gatillo approached him
to ask about the whereabouts of Zapatos, for which he answered that the latter
was sleeping. He noticed that there were other policemen within the vicinity and
Mayor and Platero was each carrying an M-16 rifle. The mayor asked where the
petitoner was, from which he answered the same. He suddenly heard gunshots,
he ran away before going to the chief of police of sibagat the following day to
report what had happened.
 Before petitioner could be arraigned, the private prosecutor filed with the RTC a
motion to refer the cases to the Sandiganbayan but it was denied in an Order
dated March 11, 1991. 46 Petitioner was then arraigned and pleaded not guilty
to both charges.
Issue
Whether or not Zapatos is guilty of both charges of frustrated murder and murder
Ruling
The courtheld that the prosecution failed to prove by evidence beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of herein petitioner for murder and frustrated murder. What is apparent
is that Mayor Cortez and his men were the aggressors. Petitioner, who was just
awakened by the gunfire, was justified in firing back at them. His act is in accordance
with man’s natural instinct to save his life from impending danger. We cannot expect
him to simply retreat or wait for the bullet to hit and kill him.
Petitioner’s act of surrendering himself and his weapon to the authorities
immediately the day after the incident dissipates any conjecture that he had a
criminal mind when he fired his gun upon the victims. His courage to face his accuser,
in spite of the opportunity to flee, indicates his innocence.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
TEODORO SABIO, defendant-appellant.

Facts
 Romeo Bacobo asked Sabio where he spent the holy week at the same time
gave him a footkick greeting, touching Sabio’s foot with his own left foot. As a
result, Sabio dealt Bacobo a fist blow which inflicted a lacerated wound, 3/4
inches long at the upper lid of th eye.
 It took 11 days to heal and prevented him from going to work. Following that,
Sabio was prosecuted for less serious physical injury before the Municipal Trial
court where he was found guilty and was sentenced to an imprisonment of 5
months and 10 days plus cost.
 He raised an appeal to the court of first instance, where he was also found guilty
but with mitigating circumstances of provocation. His penalty was reduced to one
month and five days of arresto mayor plus indemnity of 100 pesos and cost.
 Defendant appealed from this judgement and claims that his act was an act of
self defence and that he should be acquitted from all liabilities, civil and criminal
Issue
Whether or not the defendant should be acquited on all the liabilities on the ground of
self defense.
Ruling
A primordial requisite for self-defense is unlawful aggression (Art. 11, Rev.
Penal Code). And for unlawful, aggression to be present, there must be real danger
to life or personal safety (People vs. Beatriz Yuman, 61 Phil. 786). For this reason, a
mere push or a shove, not followed by other acts, has been held insufficient to
constitute unlawful aggression (People vs. Yuman, supra). A playful kick — the lower
court rejected defendant's claim that it was a "vicious kick" — at the foot my way of
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. Appellant's submission that it amounts to
unlawful aggression cannot therefore be sustained. As rightly found by the Court of
First Instance, such kick was only a mere slight provocation.
Reference is made to a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain (prom. Jan.
20, 1904, 72 Jur. Crim. 123-125), considering a slap on the face an unlawful
aggression. No parity lies between said case and the present. Since the face
represents a person and his dignity, slapping, it is a serious personal attack. It is a
physical assault coupled with a willful disregard, nay, a defiance, of in individual's
personality. It may therefore be frequently regarded as placing in real danger a
person's dignity, rights and safety. A friendly kick delivered on a person's foot
obviously falls short of such personal aggression.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto. Costs
against appellant. So ordered.
SAMSON VILORIA CALDERON, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents
 Samson Viloria Caledron was convicted of homicide by the court of first instance
of Manila as a result of reckless negligence and was sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 months of arresto mayor to 1 year and 6
months of prision correctional.
 . On appeal taken by said defendant, the Court of Appeals found him guilty of
homicide and imposed upon him an indeterminate penalty of homicide and
imposed upon him an indeterminate penalty of not less than 6 years and 1 day
of prision mayor nor more than 14 years , 8 months and 1 day of prision
mayor nor more than 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal and, in
all other respects, affirmed the decision of the court of first instance, with costs
against the defendant. The latter has brought the case to us for review by writ
of certiorari.
 Samson believed that he was Huk so he shot Eustadio Rodil, it was grounded on
the information that there were many huks in the area. He further stated that they
had a conversation, telling Eustadio to halt threee times, from which the latter
replied that he would kill them if they do not clear out of the area. During the
encounter, he had identified himself as soldier and told Eustadio not to move, but
the latter swung his bolo in reply so Samson retreated.
 When Eustadio was advancing and tried to hack samson three times, samson
shot him in self - defense and acting under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury (Art. 12 paragraph 6)

Appellant maintains that:

I. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that late Eustacio Rodil did not commit acts
of unlawful aggression against the petitioner-appellant;
II. The Court of Appeals erred in not holding that petitioner-appellant fired the shot
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a n equal or greater injury;
III. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the shot fired by the petitioner-
appellant did not proceed from an innocent mistake of fact;
IV. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the ruling held by this Honorable Court
in People vs. Oanis et al. (74 Phil. 259), is applicable in the instant case.

Issue
Whether or not the act is homicide or homicide through simple or reckless negligence

Ruling
The court ruled that the appellant did not act under the mistake of fact and because
of this , there is no reason for his acquittal

In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so hold that the decision of
the Court of Appeals should be as it is hereby affirmed. However, in view of the
appellant's youth and considering that he had joined the Philippine Army a few
months only, prior to the occurrence, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to forward
a copy of this decision to the President of the Philippines, through the Secretary of
Justice for reconsideration of the propriety of extending to appellant herein the
benefits of executive clemency, after service of such period of the sentence imposed
as maybe deemed sufficient to satisfy the demands of justice and public interest.
With costs against the appellant. So ordered.