Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 3 Case Digest
1 3 Case Digest
8, 1914
FACTS
On the September 25, 1913, Carson Taylor, the citing editor
and proprietor, manager, printer, and publisher in the city
of Manila of the bilingual newspaper known as the Manila
Daily Bulletin, a paper of general circulation which has the
English and Spanish versions, willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously, maliciously, and with intent to impeach the
honesty, virtue, and reputation of one Ramon Sotelo as a
member of the bar of the Philippine Islands.
In addition, it published ad circulated a contempt and
ridicule article against the mentioned lawyer.
On September 25, 1913, a certain false and malicious
defamation and libel in the English language of and
concerning the said Ramon Sotelo which has the headline of
"OWNERS FIRED BUILDING TO COLLECT INSURANCE. — CRIMINAL
CHARGES FOLLOWS CIVIL SUIT."
On April 4, 1913, the house located at 2157 Calle O'donnell
was destroyed by fire.1awphil.net The house was insured for
P5,000, the contents for an additional P5,000, with the West
of Scotland Insurance Association, of which Lutz & Co. are
the local agents, with an additional P1,500 with Smith, Bell
& Co.
On the article published, it discussed that one Atty. Ramon
Sotelo had been in conspiracy and fraud between the owner of
the burnt building so as to collect insurance. Atty. Sotelo
further contended that the article was of a certain false
and malicious defamation and libel. The CFI agreed to Atty.
Sotelo; hence, this appeal.
ISSUE
Did the lower court erred in ruling that the defendant was
criminally liable under Act No. 277 as manager of Manila Daily
Bulletin?
HELD
YES. As per the Solicitor-General, the proof shows that the
defendant was the "manager." He must, therefore, be acquitted of
the crime charged against him, unless it is shown by the proof
that he, as "manager" of the newspaper, was in some way directly
responsible for the writing, editing, or publishing of the matter
contained in said alleged libelous article. From an examination
of the editorial page of said exhibit, we find that it shows that
the "Manila Daily Bulletin" is owned by the "Bulletin Publishing
Company," and that the defendant was its manager. There is not a
word of proof in the record which shows what relation the manager
had to the publication of said newspaper. For the foregoing
reasons, therefore, there being no proof whatever in the record
showing that the defendant was the “author, the editor, or the
proprietor” of the newspaper in question, the sentence of the
lower court must be reversed, the complaint dismissed and the
defendant discharged from the custody of the law, with costs de
officio.
DOCTRINE
By explained by the Supreme Court, common law crimes do not exist
in the Philippine islands. Thus, an act does not constitute a
crime when no law makes it so. In the instant case, although
libel is made a crime, the defendant is not the author, editor,
or proprietor of the said newspaper—instead, only its manager.
Neither does the proof show in the record that the manager played
a part in the publication of the article.
US vs. Peñalosa
FACTS
Marcosa Peñalosa and Enrique Rodriguez were married on the 3rd of
May, 1901. However, it appeared from the evidence that Peñalosa
was not 21 years old on the day of her marriage and contracted
marriage without the consent of her father violating Article 475
of the old Penal Code. Peñalosa stated that she believed that she
was born in 1879; that so her parents had given her to understand
ever since her tenderest age; that she had not asked them
concerning her age because her father had given her to so
understand since her childhood. Rodriguez, on the other hand,
stated to have received a letter from Peñalos two days before
their marriage in which she said that she was 21 years of age.
This letter was shown to the clergyman who married them. Further,
Rodiguez had no suspicion that Peñalosa was a minor.
ISSUE
Whether or not the accused are guilty of violating Article 475 of
the old Penal Code.
RULING
NO. One cannot be convicted under Article 475 when by reason of a
mistake of fact there does not exist the intention to commit the
crime. As stated by Peñalosa in the trial, she believed that she
was born in 1879; that so her parents had given her to understand
ever since her tenderest age; that she had not asked them
concerning her age because her father had given her to so
understand since her childhood. Her father was present in the
court room as the complaining witness. If his daughter was
deviating from the truth it would have been an easy matter for
him to have testified denying the truth of what she had stated.
It is evident that he was interested in the conviction of his
daughter, and the fact that the complaining witness did not
contradict her obliges us to accept as true the statements of the
witness. Being true, they disclose that she acted under a mistake
of fact; that there was no intention on her part to commit the
crime provided for and punished in Article 475. As for the
husband, it has been proved that two days before the marriage was
celebrated he received a letter from the woman in which she said
that she was 21 years of age. This letter was showed to the
clergyman who married them. Peñalosa, when the marriage ceremony
was performed took an oath before the clergyman, in the presence
of her husband, that she was 21 years of age. Rodriguez testifies
that he had no suspicion that the she was a minor. This statement
has not been contradicted and is proper to consider that it
suffices to demonstrate that the defendant acted under a mistake
of fact, and in conformity with the principle laid down in this
opinion he has not been guilty of a violation of Article 475 in
connection with Article 13, No. 3, nor in any other manner.
US vs. Apego
FACTS
Spouses Pio and Maria Bautista returned to their home from
Nasugbu. Before entering the house, the spouses called Genoveva
Apego, Maria’s sister, who was inside. As there was no reply, Pio
led the way and opened the door; he was followed by Maria who,
once inside, lit a match and then a kerosene lamp. In the mean
time, Pio went to the place where Genoveva was, who, startled,
immediately awoke, seized a pocketknife which was in a box at her
side, and attacked and struck Pio in the breast. Maria, who was
not aware of the aggression, asked Genoveva why empty tin cans
and other articles were scattered about the azotea of the house,
realizing that the spouses were already home, she got up in front
of the said spouses; at this moment Maria advised her to reflect,
but Genoveva immediately ran out of the house, asking for help;
it was then that the Maria noticed that her husband was seriously
wounded. Few moments after Pio was brought to the hospital, he
died. Genoveva was charged with Murder before the CFI of
Batangas, but it was ruled that she was only guilty of homicide
as there was no qualifying circumstances present. In her defense,
Genoveva argued that someone touched her left arm which awoke
her. She believed that somebody was trying to abuse her, thus
seizing the pocketknife and struck the person holding her.
ISSUE
Whether or not Genoveva can be held criminally liable for the
crime charged.
RULING
It cannot be denied that, upon the Genoveva's awakening, startled
at feeling somebody grasp her left arm and believing that an
attempt was being made against her honor, she understood that
there was a positive unlawful aggression from which she had to
defend herself. It is also undeniable that there was no previous
provocation on her part; but it is unquestionable that, in making
use of this deadly weapon, even in the defense of her person and
rights, by decidedly wounding him who had touched her or caught
her by the arm, the Genoveva exceeded her right of defense. Since
there was no real need of wounding Pio who had merely caught her
arm, and perhaps did so to awake her, as she was asleep and had
not replied to Maria’s calls; Further, Pio performed no other act
of aggression as might have indicated a decided purpose to commit
an attempt against her honor than merely to catch her by the arm.
Although she believed that there was an attempt to her honor and
she had to defend herself, once awake and provided with an
effective weapon for her defense, there was no just nor
reasonable cause for striking a blow in the center of the body,
where the principal vital organs are seated, of the man who had
not performed any act which might be considered as an actual
attempt against her honor. Thus, it is concluded that in the
commission of the crime there was present the circumstance of
incomplete exemption from responsibility. For the foregoing
reasons it is our opinion that, with a reversal of the judgment
appealed from, the defendant, Genoveva Apego, should be, as she
is hereby, sentenced to the penalty of two years of prision
correccional, to the accessories of article 61, to pay an
indemnity of five hundred pesos to the heirs of the deceased,
and, in case of insolvency, to subsidiary imprisonment which
shall not exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to the
payment of the costs of both instances. In computing the time of
the sentence, credit shall be allowed for one-half of the time of
imprisonment suffered by the defendant while awaiting trial.
PEOPLE VS. GERVERO
Facts
1. Victims Hernando Villegas (Hernando), Jose Villegas (Jose),
and Benito Bausug, Jr. (Bausug) were members of the Civilian
Volunteer Organization (CVO). 2. Accused were members of the
Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU), and were
carrying firearms. They approached the victims and asked money
from Hernando, and the latter gave them Php 20. One of the
accused (Bañes) remarked, “Is that the only amount you can give
when you just received money from your wife?” The other accused
(Castigador), took the money and said “You just watch out.” Later
in the evening, a burst of gunfire from where the victims were
walking was heard. A shout was heard, “This is Hernando, a CVO!”
and someone replied, “Birahi na! (Shoot now!)”. 4. The accused
interposed the defense of mistake of fact, claiming that they
thought the victims were members of the New People’s Army (NPA).
The accused were given oral instructions by Senior Inspector
Benigno Baldevinos to conduct a tactical patrol and combat
operations against the NPA. They were told to use the password
“Simoy”, to which the response would be “Amoy”.
ISSUE
Whether the defense of mistake of fact applies in this case
RULING
No, mistake of fact finds on application in this case. As early
as in the case of People v. Oanis and Galanta, 15 the Court has
ruled that mistake of fact applies only when the mistake is
committed without fault or carelessness: In support of the theory
of non-liability by reasons of honest mistake of fact, appellants
rely on the case of US. v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil., 488. The maxim is
ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies only when the mistake
is committed without fault or carelessness Here, there was no
reason for the accused not to recognize the victims because they
were traversing an open area which was illuminated not only by
moonlight, but also by a light bulb. In addition, the witnesses
testified that the victims were conversing and laughing loudly.
It must be borne in mind that it was not the first time that the
accused had seen the victims as, in fact, accused Bañes and
Castigador met Hernando just a few hours before the shooting.
Moreover, they all reside in the same town and, certainly, the
accused who were all members of the CAFGU would know the
residents of that town so as to easily distinguish them from
unknown intruders who might be alleged members of the NPA. Also,
when Jose fell down, Hernando identified himself and shouted,
“This is Hernando!” However, instead of verifying the identities
of the victims, the accused continued to fire at them. One of
them even shouted, “Birahi na!” (“Shoot now!”). In addition, when
the victims fell down, the accused approached their bodies. At
that point, they could no longer claim that they didn’t recognize
the victims; and still not contented, they sprayed them with
bullets such that Jose suffered 14 gunshot wounds, Hernando 16
gunshot wounds, and Benito 20 gunshot wounds . PEOPLE VS.
BAYAMBAO FACTS: On the night of the incident, Bayambao was
informed by his wife that someone threw stones at their house. He
then took his revolver and went down. Since he saw no one, he was
about to ascend the staircase, when he saw a black figure rushing
towards him with its hands lifted up as if it was going to strike
him. Bayambao was frightened and thought that the black figure
was an outlaw, thus, he fired his revolver at the black figure,
but it turned out that the black figure was his brother-in-law.
After realizing that it was his brother-in-law, he went straight
to the latter and embraced him asking for forgiveness as he
thought that his brother-in-law was an outlaw. His brother
replied stating that he also thought that Bayambao was an outlaw.
The lower court found him guilty of murder. The reason why
Bayambao thought that his brother in law was an outlaw was
because days before the incident, a soldier killed two outlaws.
Being a tax collector for the government, he feared that they are
being targeted by them. ISSUE: Whether or not Bayambao is
criminally liable for murder? RULING: NO. Bayambao acted from the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an ill at least equal in
gravity, in the belief that the deceased was a malefactor who
attacked him with a kampilan or dagger in hand, and for this
reason, he was guilty of no crime and is exempt from criminal
liability. Furthermore, his ignorance or error of fact was not
due to negligence or bad faith, and this rebuts the presumption
of malicious intent accompanying the act of killing. This case is
analogous to the case of U.S. v. Ah Chong where the Court
acquitted the accused, thus, the Court deem that the doctrine
laid in Ah Chong to be applicable in this case. Therefore,
Bayambao was acquitted