Case Digest

People vs Alconga, 78 Phil 366

Facts:

1. The incident occurred on May 29, 1943, involving the accused Dioscoro Alconga and Rodolfo
Bracamonte and the deceased Silverio Barion.

2. The incident began with a confrontation between Alconga and Barion in a home guard shed.

3. There was a previous gambling incident on May 27, 1943, where Barion threatened Alconga.

4. Barion attacked Alconga with a carrying lever, and Alconga defended himself by firing a gunshot
from a paltik given to him by Bracamonte.

5. The fight continued with Barion using a dagger, and Alconga defending himself with a bolo.

6. Barion sustained multiple wounds, including a fatal blow to the cranium.

Rulings:

1. The court rejected the testimonies of Luis Ballaran and Maria de Raposo, considering them
unreliable.

2. Adolfo Bracamonte was acquitted, indicating that the court did not find evidence of his active
participation in the fight.

3. The court accepted the defense's version presented by Alconga, ruling that he acted in self-
defense against an illegal aggression by Barion.

4. The court rejected the theory of dividing the fight into two stages and concluded that the fight
was continuous and uninterrupted.

Issues:

1. Credibility of witnesses: The court had to assess the credibility of witnesses, particularly Luis
Ballaran and Maria de Raposo, whose testimonies were contradicted by the defense witnesses.

2. Self-defense: The main issue was whether Alconga's actions were justified as self-defense or if
he exceeded reasonable force in responding to the aggression by Barion.

3. Participation of Bracamonte: The court needed to determine whether Bracamonte actively

participated in the fight or arrived at the scene after Barion's death.

4. Continuous nature of the fight: The court had to decide whether the fight was a single,
continuous incident or if it could be divided into distinct stages.
People vs Roxas, 58 Phil 733
Facts: On February 22, 1933, in Puerto Galera, Mindoro, Leoncio Roxas attacked Felicisimo Garcia with
an automatic pocket-knife. Armed with the weapon, Roxas inflicted two wounds on Garcia, leading to
Garcia's instantaneous death. The prosecution charged Roxas with homicide, alleging that the attack
was willful, unlawful, and felonious.

During the trial, Roxas admitted that Garcia was the aggressor but argued that Garcia was unarmed.
Despite this admission, the court found no rational necessity for the means used by Roxas to repel the
attack. The court concluded that the circumstances of legitimate defense could not be invoked.

The defense presented an argument that Roxas was a minor below eighteen at the time of the offense,
urging the court to consider this as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 2, of the
Revised Penal Code.

Issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred in not recognizing the mitigating circumstance of legitimate
defense in favor of the accused.

2. Whether the trial court erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion temporal instead of prision
mayor.

3. Whether the age of the accused, being below eighteen at the time of the offense, should be
considered as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal
Code.

Ruling:

1. The court affirmed the trial court's findings that, despite the deceased being the aggressor,
there was no rational necessity for the means used by the accused to repel the attack. The
circumstance of legitimate defense was not recognized.

2. The court held that the penalty imposed by the trial court, twelve years and one day of reclusion
temporal, was excessive. The court invoked mitigating circumstances, including the age of the
accused, provocation, obfuscation, and voluntary surrender, and ordered the defendant to be
placed in the Philippine Training School for Boys until reaching majority.

3. The court considered the age of the accused (seventeen years and eight months) as a mitigating
circumstance under Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code. The ruling specified that
the defendant would be placed in the Philippine Training School for Boys until reaching majority,
subject to the conditions of Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code.
People VS De la Cruz, 61, Phil 733
Facts: On June 25, 1945, at approximately 8:30 p.m., four armed men robbed Dr. Gregorio B. Sison's
drug store in Manila. The assailants, with revolvers, forced the victims, including Dr. Sison, to lie face
down. They stole money from the cash register, bills, silver coins, and a pair of earrings with diamonds.
Teodoro de la Cruz y Tojos (the appellant) was charged with robbery in band for his alleged participation
in the crime.

Issues:

1. Whether the identity of the appellant as one of the robbers was conclusively established.

2. Whether the prosecution's witnesses' identification of the appellant was credible.

3. Whether the act of robbery committed by the appellant was driven by extreme necessity or
moral perversity.

Ruling:

1. The court found that appellant was conclusively identified as one of the robbers. Witnesses
recognized him as the one who watched people lying down during the robbery, stuck a revolver
at Dr. Sison's ribs, manipulated the revolver inside the drug store, and was known as "Doro."
The identification process was conducted in a group, strengthening its credibility.

2. The court affirmed the credibility of the witnesses' identification, emphasizing that the
circumstances allowed for a reasonable and accurate recognition of the appellant. The fact that
the witnesses singled out the appellant among the four robbers further supported the reliability
of the identification.

3. The court rejected any notion of extreme necessity justifying the robbery, emphasizing that the
appellant engaged in various profitable activities, including selling food and luxury items. The
court denounced banditry and gangsterism, stating that such acts under the prevailing
conditions were no longer excusable, and the perpetrators should be condemned and ostracized
from society.

People Vs Lara, 48. Phil 153

Facts: Gregorio Lara, the appellant, was found guilty of homicide for the death of Cayetano Querido. The
incident occurred when Querido and his companions insulted Lara, making derogatory remarks about
Lara's concubine. Lara, feeling provoked, armed himself with a revolver and confronted the group. In the
ensuing struggle, Lara fired his revolver, and the bullet passed through Querido's abdomen, resulting in
Querido's death three days later. Lara claimed self-defense, asserting that he shot Querido to prevent
him from taking the loaded revolver.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant acted in self-defense.

2. Whether the means employed by the appellant were reasonably necessary to repel the attack.

Ruling: The court held that the appellant acted in self-defense under subsection 4 of article 8 of the
Penal Code. The court emphasized that there was no provocation from Lara, and the insults and
aggressive behavior from Querido justified Lara's response. The court concluded that Querido's unlawful
aggression and the evident intention to harm Lara constituted a case of self-defense.

Regarding the means employed by the appellant, the court considered the circumstances, including the
darkness of the night, the surprise element, and Querido's revealed intention to harm Lara physically.
The court found that Lara, fearing for his life, was justified in using the revolver to repel the attack. The
struggle for the possession of the pistol continued even after the deadly shot was fired, reinforcing the
belief that Lara acted to prevent Querido from using the loaded weapon against him.

The court referenced precedents to support the view that in cases of self-defense, the person under
attack is not bound to expose themselves to unnecessary risks. The court acquitted the appellant,
reversing the judgment and absolving him from the information, with costs of both instances de oficio.
One justice dissented, expressing a belief that the evidence did not prove the deceased's extraordinary
superiority of strength over the accused.

People vs alviar, 58 Phil, 98 , 101

Undisputed Facts:
On November 6, 1965, the body of an unidentified woman was discovered by the Makati Police
Department along the West Rainbow Area of the Pasig River. The body was taken to the
Funeraria Quiogue in Manila for identification, potential claims by relatives, and an autopsy.
Despite efforts, no one claimed the body. Autopsy results were conducted by Dr. Ricardo G.
Ibarrola, Jr. of the National Bureau of Investigation, revealing fingerprints that matched those of
Dolores Imson Alviar in the Election Registrar of Pateros, Rizal.
The body was initially buried in the South Cemetery of Makati but was later exhumed and
transferred to the Pateros cemetery.
Subsequently, an information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Pasig, Rizal, charging
Jose Alviar Tuazon and Antonio Cotas with parricide, alleging that on or about November 5,
1965, the accused killed Dolores Alviar by beating her to unconsciousness and throwing her into
the river.
Evidence for the Prosecution:
1. Crisanto B. Gonzales testified to witnessing Jose Alviar chasing Dolores on the night of
November 5, 1965, and later saw Dolores being pushed back to their house. However,
he had not shared this information before being presented as a witness.
2. Loida Buenaventura testified about a quarrel between Jose and Dolores on November 4,
1965, and how she saw Jose chasing Dolores on the night of November 5, 1965. She
later heard a loud sound from their house, and Jose was seen carrying Dolores. She did
not immediately report what she witnessed.
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant can be acquitted solely based on the co-accused's acquittal when
conspiracy was alleged as a means in the commission of the crime.
2. Whether the trial court erred in treating Ernesto Manalo's testimony as retraction and in
imposing an excessive contempt sentence.
3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on circumstantial
evidence, given the alleged fabricated nature of the prosecution's story and potential
inconsistencies in witness testimonies.
Ruling:
1. The court ruled against the appellant, emphasizing that the co-accused's acquittal does
not automatically lead to the appellant's acquittal since conspiracy was not charged
separately.
2. The court upheld the contempt finding but deemed the 30-day imprisonment excessive,
modifying the sentence in accordance with the Rules of Court.
3. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting flaws in the prosecution's
evidence. It underscored inconsistencies and suggested a prefabricated story,
concluding that guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
People Vs Bentres CA, 49 0.6.4919
Facts:
1. Incident:
 On April 19, 2006, in Cebu City, Roger Racal @ Rambo stabbed Jose "Joe"
Francisco, resulting in Francisco's death.
 The incident occurred at around 4:20 A.M. while "trisikad" drivers were lining up
to pick passengers.
2. Charge:
 Racal was charged with murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended.
3. Prosecution's Case:
 Witnesses testified that Racal attacked Francisco without warning, using a knife,
and stabbed him multiple times.
 Treachery was alleged as a qualifying circumstance.
4. Defense:
 Racal admitted to the stabbing but raised the defense of insanity.
 Expert witnesses argued that Racal had a predisposition to episodes of losing
reason and acting compulsively.
5. Trial and Lower Court Decisions:
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Racal guilty of murder, sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua.
 Racal appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the conviction with
modifications in damages.
6. Supreme Court Decision:
 The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision.
 The court rejected Racal's insanity defense, citing insufficient evidence and
irrelevant psychiatric evaluations.
 Treachery was upheld as a qualifying circumstance for murder.
  The court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of illness.
 The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was not proven.
 Damages were modified, with increased moral damages and the award of
exemplary damages. Actual damages were replaced with temperate damages.
Issues:
1. Insanity Defense:
 Did Racal's defense of insanity have merit, and was there sufficient evidence to
support it?
2. Qualifying Circumstance - Treachery:
 Was treachery properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance in the murder?
3. Aggravating Circumstance - Evident Premeditation:
 Was there sufficient evidence to prove the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation?
4. Mitigating Circumstance - Illness:
 Was the court correct in appreciating the mitigating circumstance of illness?
5. Damages:
 Were the modifications made by the Supreme Court to the damages awarded
appropriate?
Ruling:
1. Insanity Defense:
 The court rejected Racal's insanity defense, citing insufficient and irrelevant
evidence.
2. Qualifying Circumstance - Treachery:
 Treachery was upheld as a qualifying circumstance for murder, considering the
sudden and unexpected nature of the attack.
3. Aggravating Circumstance - Evident Premeditation:
 The court ruled that evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no
evidence of planning and a sufficient lapse of time.
4. Mitigating Circumstance - Illness:
  The court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of illness, considering Racal's
diminished capacity to discern right from wrong.
5. Damages:
 Damages were modified, with increased moral damages and the award of
exemplary damages. Actual damages were replaced with temperate damages.
In summary, the Supreme Court affirmed Racal's conviction for murder, upheld treachery as a
qualifying circumstance, rejected evident premeditation, appreciated the mitigating
circumstance of illness, and made modifications to the damages awarded by the lower courts.

People vs Ambal No. L- 52688

Facts:
1. Incident:
 On January 20, 1977, Felicula Vicente-Ambal was found mortally wounded near
her house in Barrio Balbagon, Mambajao, Camiguin.
 She sustained seven incised wounds and, despite being brought to the hospital,
died forty minutes after arrival.
2. Confession:
 Honorato Ambal, the husband, confessed to killing his wife. He informed the
barangay captain's spouse and later surrendered to a policeman, admitting the
crime.
 Ambal was bespattered with blood, his shirt torn, and appeared weak. The
policeman confiscated Ambal's long bolo, which had a broken tip.
3. Marital Issues:
 The couple had been married for fifteen years, marked by constant quarrels and
exacerbated by Felicula's occasional absence from their home.
 The immediate provocation for the assault was a quarrel over Felicula's failure to
buy medicine for Ambal, who had influenza.
4. Legal Proceedings:
  Ambal was charged with parricide, and during the trial, his defense claimed
insanity.
 The trial court ordered a psychiatric examination, and the examining doctor
found Ambal to be a "passive-aggressive, emotionally unstable, explosive, or
inadequate personality."
5. Psychiatric Evaluations:
 Dr. Maximino R. Balbas, Jr., found Ambal normal during the observation period.
 Dr. Cresogono Llacuna, who had treated Ambal in 1975, found no mental
disorder, describing him as normal but nervous.
6. Defense Claim:
 Ambal, during his testimony, claimed not to know what he was doing at the time
of the killing, citing a lack of full possession of his normal mental faculties.
Issues:
1. Insanity Defense:
 Whether Ambal's alleged insanity is substantiated by sufficient evidence.
 Whether he should be exempted from criminal liability based on mental
incapacity.
2. Mitigating Circumstances:
 Whether additional mitigating circumstances, such as obfuscation and illness,
should be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.
Ruling:
1. Insanity Defense:
 The court ruled that Ambal's alleged insanity was not substantiated by sufficient
evidence. The presumption of sanity was not overturned.
 Ambal was not completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of
will when he committed the crime, and he was not suffering from any mental
disease or defect.
2. Mitigating Circumstances:
 The court acknowledged the marital issues and the mental condition of Ambal
but did not consider additional mitigating circumstances.
  Ambal was found guilty of parricide, and reclusion perpetua was imposed, with
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Additional Observations (Concurring Opinion):
 Justice Abad Santos concurred with the judgment but added observations about the
unbearable nature of Ambal's spouse and suggested additional mitigating circumstances
of obfuscation and illness.
 He recommended executive clemency for Ambal based on the circumstance

People Vs Formigomes, 87, Phil 658,661

1. Facts of the Case:

 Abelardo Formigones lived with his wife and children on his farm in Bahao,
Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
 The family moved to his half-brother's house in Binahian to work as harvesters.
 On December 28, 1946, Abelardo, without provocation, stabbed his wife in the
back with a bolo, leading to her death.
2. Defendant's Admission and Motive:
 Abelardo admitted to killing his wife due to jealousy, suspecting her of having an
affair with his half-brother Zacarias.
 He believed his wife was unfaithful and killed her to vindicate his honor.
3. Defendant's Mental State:
 The defense claimed Abelardo was an imbecile, while the court argued he
suffered from feeble-mindedness.
 The court emphasized that complete deprivation of reason and freedom of will is
necessary to be considered an imbecile under Article 12 of the Revised Penal
Code.
4. Mitigating Circumstances:
 The court recognized mitigating circumstances, including Abelardo's feeble-
mindedness and the absence of treachery during the crime.
  The defendant's strange behavior during confinement was attributed to feeble-
mindedness or remorse, not insanity.
5. Punishment and Sentencing:
 The court found Abelardo guilty of parricide.
 Mitigating circumstances led to a lighter penalty, and the court suggested
bringing the case to the Chief Executive for possible reduction of the sentence.
6. Legal Precedents:
 The decision refers to Spanish legal precedents regarding imbecility and insanity
as grounds for exemption from criminal liability.
7. Judges' Opinions:
 Justice Montemayor wrote the decision, rejecting the imbecility claim.
 Justice Padilla concurred with the result.
In summary, Abelardo Formigones was found guilty of parricide, with the court recognizing his
feeble-mindedness as a mitigating circumstance. The decision suggests bringing the case to the
Chief Executive for possible reduction of the sentence.

People Vs Puno No, L-33211

Issues:
1. Insanity Defense: Whether Ernesto Puno was legally insane at the time of the murder,
considering his history of schizophrenia.
2. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances: Determination of aggravating and mitigating
circumstances affecting the degree of culpability.
3. Evident Premeditation: Whether there is evidence of evident premeditation in the
commission of the crime.
Ruling:
1. Insanity Defense: The court rejected the insanity defense. The psychiatrists' evaluations
indicated that Puno, while having a history of schizophrenia, was not legally insane at
the time of the crime. He was found to have discernment and freedom of will.
2. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances:
  Aggravating Circumstances: Abuse of superiority was recognized. Dwelling and
disregard of the respect due to the victim's old age were considered but
disregard of sex was not.
 Mitigating Circumstances: Voluntary surrender and Puno's mental illness (mild
psychosis or schizophrenic reaction) were considered as mitigating factors.
3. Evident Premeditation: The court found evident premeditation lacking due to the
absence of clear evidence indicating the time of determination, acts manifesting a
clinging to the decision, and a sufficient interval between determination and execution.
Facts:
1. Crime Details: Ernesto Puno murdered Francisca Col (Aling Kikay) using a hammer,
believing she was a witch.
2. Witness Testimonies: Witnesses described Puno's menacing demeanor, reddish eyes,
and the confession he made after the murder, threatening them not to report to the
police.
3. Escape: Puno fled to his parents' house and later to his second cousin's house in
Calumpit, Bulacan.
4. Legal Proceedings: Puno was charged with murder, and the trial court convicted him,
imposing the death penalty.
5. Psychiatric Evaluation: Psychiatrists testified that Puno was not legally insane at the time
of the crime, despite a history of schizophrenia. He was considered free from social
incapacitating psychotic symptoms during the evaluation.
6. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances: Abuse of superiority was recognized as an
aggravating circumstance. Dwelling and disregard of the victim's old age were
considered aggravating, while disregard of sex was not. Mitigating circumstances
included voluntary surrender and Puno's mental illness.
7. Ruling on Penalty: The death penalty was set aside, and Puno was sentenced to
reclusion perpetua. The indemnity imposed by the trial court was affirmed.

People Vs Bonoan

Facts:
 1. Incident: On December 12, 1934, Celestino Bonoan attacked and fatally stabbed Carlos
Guison in Manila, Philippines.
2. Legal Proceedings:
 Bonoan was charged with murder, alleging evident premeditation and treachery.
 Defense claimed Bonoan was mentally deranged and provided a history of his
confinement for dementia praeox.
 Mental health evaluations were conducted by Dr. Toribio Joson and Dr. Jose A.
Fernandez.
 Bonoan, initially considered unfit for trial, was later declared recovered, and the
trial proceeded.
Issues Raised on Appeal:
1. The trial court erred in finding that Bonoan had dementia only occasionally and not
immediately before the crime.
2. The trial court erred in finding that Bonoan showed no abnormality during and after the
offense.
3. The trial court erred in placing the burden on the defense to prove Bonoan's mental
derangement and declaring the defense failed.
4. The trial court erred in finding Bonoan guilty and not acquitting him.
Ruling:
 The court reiterated that the burden of proving insanity rests with the defense,
requiring clear and convincing evidence.
 The court acknowledged Bonoan's past confinement for dementia praeox and
presented evidence, including insomnia before the crime and police's doubt about his
mental condition.
 Dr. Toribio Joson's report diagnosed manic depressive psychosis.
 The court raised concerns about the intermittent nature of the mental disorder and the
immediate events surrounding the offense.
 The case was remanded for further review, challenging the trial court's conclusion
regarding Bonoan's sanity during the crime.
People vs Taneo 58,Phil 255
Facts:
1. Potenciano Taneo, the defendant, lived with his wife in his parents' house.
2. During a fiesta on January 16, 1932, Potenciano, while asleep, suddenly woke up,
wounded his pregnant wife in the abdomen, attacked others, and wounded himself.
3. Potenciano's wife and the fetus died as a result of their injuries.
4. Potenciano was charged with parricide and convicted; he appealed the sentence.
Issues Raised on Appeal:
1. Potenciano acted involuntarily and while dreaming, not with criminal intent.
2. Lack of apparent motive for the crime, and the defendant's love for his wife, suggest he
did not act voluntarily.
3. The wound's direct cause was not clearly established, and it may have been accidental.
Ruling:
1. The court concluded that Potenciano acted involuntarily and not with criminal liability.
2. The lack of motive and the defendant's love for his wife weighed against his voluntary
criminal intent.
3. The evidence did not clearly establish that Potenciano inflicted the wound directly; it
may have been accidental.
4. Expert witness Dr. Serafica opined that the defendant acted in a dream, under
hallucination, and not in his right mind.
5. The court found Potenciano not criminally liable and ordered his confinement in the
Government insane asylum until deemed safe for release.

US Vs Elicanal, 35 , Phil 209

Facts:
1. Eduardo Elicanal, the defendant, was part of the crew of the lorcha Cataluña.
2. The captain of the lorcha was assaulted by the first mate, Guillermo Guiloresa.
 3. The accused, under the orders of Guillermo, struck the captain with an iron bar, causing
his death.
4. The defense claimed the accused acted under uncontrollable fear induced by threats
from Guillermo.
Issues Raised on Appeal:
1. Whether the accused acted under uncontrollable fear as a defense.
2. Whether the crime should be considered murder or homicide.
3. Application of Article 11 of the Penal Code regarding personal circumstances.
Ruling:
1. The court rejected the defense of uncontrollable fear, stating the threat must promise
grave and imminent results to induce insuperable fear.
2. Premeditation was not proven, but treachery (alevosia) was established as the accused
struck the captain when he was bound and defenseless.
3. Article 11 of the Penal Code (regarding personal qualities of the accused) was not
applied, as the trial court's discretion in this matter was acknowledged.
Disposition:
1. The trial court's judgment was reversed.
2. The accused was sentenced to cadena perpetua (imprisonment for life) for the crime of
murder.

Cites :
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/sep1974/gr_l_32276_1974.html
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1925/oct1925/gr_l-24014_1925.html
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1946/feb1946/gr_l-52_1946.html
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1933/nov1933/gr_l-39630_1933.html
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1947/apr1947/gr_l-162_1947.html
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1981/jun1981/gr_33211_1981.html
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1981/jun1981/gr_33211_1981.html
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c52a8#:~:text=%22That%20on%20or%20about
%20the,Dolores%20Alviar%20(lawfully%20wedded%20wife
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/oct1980/gr_52688_1980.html
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c3977
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1937/feb1937/gr_l-45130_1937.html
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1937/feb1937/gr_l-45130_1937.html
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1916/oct1916/gr_l-11439_1916.html