Article 3, RPC with full text cases

8/21/2019 Article 3, RPC with full text cases

1/51

NATURE OF FELONIES (Article 3)

ELEMENTS OF FELONIES ---

PEOPLE v. S ILVESTRE AND ATIENZA

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, vs. ROMANA SILVESTRE !" MARTIN ATIENZA #.R. N$. L-

3%&', Dece*er +', +3+

Martin Atienza and Romana Silvestre appeal to this court from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan

convicting them upon the information of the crime of arson as follows !he former as principal "# direct participation$

sentenced to fourteen #ears$ eight months$ and one da# of cadena temporal $ in accordance with paragraph % of article &&'$

(enal Code) and the latter as accomplice$ sentenced to si* #ears and one da# of presidio mayor ) and "oth are further sentenced

to the accessories of the law$ and to pa# each of the persons whose houses were destro#ed "# the fire$ jointl# and severall#$ the

amount set forth in the information$ with costs.

Romana Silvestre lived adulterousl# with her codefendant Martin Atienza$ a married man) that "oth were denounced for

adulter# "# +omingo ,oa-uin$ Romana Silvestres second hus"and) that in view of the petition of the accused$ who promised to

discontinue their life together$ and to leave the "arrio of Masocol$ and through the good offices of the municipal president of

(aom"ong$ the complaining hus"and as/ed for the dismissal of the complaint) that in pursuance of their promise$ "oth of the

accused went to lived in the "arrio of Santo 0i1o$ in the same municipalit#) that under prete*t for some nipa leaves from her

son "# her former marriage$ 0icolas de la Cruz$ who had gone to the "arrio of Santo 0i1o$ Romana Silvestre followed him to

his house in the "arrio of Masocol on 0ovem"er %2$ 342'$ and remained there) that her codefendant$ Martin Atienza followed

her$ and sta#ed with his coaccused in the same house) that on the night of 0ovem"er %&$ 342'$ at a"out 5 ocloc/$ while all

were gathered together at home after supper$ Martin Atienza e*pressed his intention of "urning the house as the onl# means of

ta/ing his revenge on the Masocol resident$ who had instigated +omingo ,oa-uin to file the complaint for adulter# against

them$ which compelled them to leave the "arrio of Masocol) that Romana Silvestre listened to her codefendants threat withoutraising a protest$ and did not give the alarm when the latter set fire to the house. 6pon the strength of these facts$ the court

"elow found her guilt# of arson as accomplice.

Article 37 of the (enal Code$ considered in connection with article 32$ defines an cc$lice to "e $!e /$ "$e0 !$t t1e

"irect rt i! t/e c$i00i$! $2 t/e ct$ /$ "$e0 !$t 2$rce $r i!"ce $t/er t$ c$it it, !$r c$$erte0 i! t/e

c$i00i$! of the act "# another act without which it would not have "een accomplished$ 4et c$$erte0 i! t/e e5ecti$! of

the act *4 revi$0 $r 0ilt!e$0 cti$!0.

0ow then$ which previous or simultaneous acts complicate Romana Silvestre in the crime of arson committed "# her

codefendant Martin Atienza8 Is it her silence when he told the spouses$ 0icolas de la Cruz and Antonia de la Cruz$ to ta/e awa#

their furniture "ecause he was going to set fire to their house as the onl # means of revenging himself on the "arrio residents$ her

passive presence when Martin Atienza set fire to the house$ where there is no evidence of conspirac# or cooperation$ and her

failure to give the alarm when the house was alread# on fire8

!he complicit# which is penalized re6ire0 certi! "e7ree $2 c$$erti$!$ whether $rl$ through

or agreement $ or teril$ through external acts. In the case of the accused9appellant Romana Silvestre

moral or material cooperation$ and none of an agreement to commit the crime in -uestion. :er er

/ile t/e4 re 0ilt!e$0 ct0, "$ !$t c$!0titte c$$erti$!, 2$r it "$e0 !$t er t/t t/e4

Mrti! Atie!8 t$ c$it t/e crie $2 r0$!9 !" 0 2$r /er 2ilre t$ 7ive t/e lr, t/t *ei

"$e0 !$t 1e /er li*le 0 ! cc$lice.

!he trial court found the accused9appellant Martin Atienza guilt# of arson$ defined and penalized in arti

the (enal Code$ which reads as follows

AR!. &&'. !he penalt# of cadena temporal shall "e imposed upon

%. An# person who shall set fire to an# inha"ited house or an# "uilding in which people are accust

without /nowing whether or not such "uilding or house was occupied at the time$ or an# freight train i

caused in such cases shall e*ceed si* thou sand two hundred and fift# pesetas.

;hile the defendant indeed /new that "esides himself and his codefendant$ Romana Silvestre$ there

Cruzs house at the moment of setting fire to it$ /e c!!$t *e c$!victe" erel4 r0$! le00 0eri$0 t/

0e!te!ce" him for$ i!0c/ 0 t/t /$0e 0 t/e e!0 $2 "e0tr$4i!7 t/e $t/er0, !" /e "i" !

ere $ccie" t t/e tie $r !$t . If the greater seriousness of setting fire to an inha"ited house$ when

/now whether there are people in it at the time$ depends upon the danger to which the inmates are e*p

the arson committed "# setting fire to inha"ited houses "# means of another inha"ited house which th

empt# at the moment of committing the act$ if he did not /now whether there were people or not in the

same danger e*ists.

;ith the evidence produced at the trial$ t/e cc0e"-ell!t Martin Atienza i7/t /ve *ee! c$!

r0$! i! t/e $0t 0eri$0 "e7ree provided for in article &74 of the (enal Code$ i2 t/e i!2$rti$! tie $2 0etti!7 2ire t$ t/e /$0e, t/e "e2e!"!t 1!e t/t t/e $t/er /$0e0 ere $ccie" $ ta/ing

residents are accustomed to retire at the tolling o f the "ell for the souls in purgator#$ i.e.$ at 5 ocloc/ at n

For all the foregoing considerations$ we are of the opinion and so hold$ that vs. +>@A CR6


2/51

hideout in San Mateo$ Rizal. A team was organized to arrest Bo# Bicol. ?nce there$ the# saw Bo# Bicol "# a ta"le tal/ingwith accused9appellant. !he# shouted Bo# Bicol sumuko ka na may warrant of arrest ka.


3/51

"= ;hen an offense has just "een committed$ and he has pro"a"le cause to "elieve "ased on personal /nowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to "e arrested has committed it) and

c= ;hen the person to "e arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal esta"lishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporaril# con fined while his case is pending$ or hasescaped while "eing transferred from one confinement to another.

!he warrantless arrest of accused9appellant was effected under Sec. &


4/51

"ecause the# are materiall# contradictor#. ?asis averred that "e fired at !ecson when the latter was apparentl# watchingsome"od# in an attitudes of pic/ing up something from the floor) on the other hand$ alanta testified that ?asis shot !ecsonwhile the latter was a"out to sit up in "ed immediatel# after he was awa/ened "# a noise. alanta testified that he fired at!ecson$ the supposed Balagtas$ when the latter was rushing at him. But ?anis assured that when alanta shot !ecson$ the latter was still l#ing on "ed. It is apparent from these contradictions that when each of the appellants tries to e*culpate himself of thecrime charged$ he is at once "elied "# the other) "ut their mutual incriminating averments dovetail with and corro"oratesu"stantiall#$ the testimon# of Irene Re-uinea. It should "e recalled that$ according to Re-uinea$ !ecson was still sleeping in "ed when he was shot to death "# appellants. And this$ to a certain e*tent$ is confirmed "# "oth appellants themselves in their mutual recriminations. According$ to alanta$ ?anis shot !ecson when the latter was still in "ed a"out to sit up just after he wasawa/ened "# a noise. And ?anis assured that when alanta shot !ecson$ the latter was still l#ing in "ed. !hus corro"orated$and considering that the trial court had the opportunit# to o"serve her demeanor on the stand$ we "elieve and so hold that noerror was committed in accepting her testimon# and in rejecting the e*culpator# pretensions of the two appellants.Furthermore$ a careful e*amination of Irenes testimon# will show not onl# that her version of the traged# is not concocted "utthat it contains all indicia of veracit#. In her cross9e*amination$ even misleading -uestions had "een put which were

unsuccessful$ the witness having stuc/ to the truth in ever# detail of the occurrence. 6nder these circumstances$ we do not feelourselves justified in distur"ing the findings of fact made "# the trial court.

!he true fact$ therefore$ of the case is that$ while !ecson was sleeping in his room with his "ac/ towards the door$ ?anis andalanta$ on sight$ fired at him simultaneousl# or successivel#$ "elieving him to "e Anselmo Balagtas "ut without having made previousl# an# reasona"le in-uir# as to his ident it#. And the -uestion is whether or no t th e# ma#$ upon such fact$ "e h eldresponsi"le for the death thus caused to !ecson. It is contended that$ as appellants acted in innocent mista/e of fact in thehonest performance of their official duties$ "oth of them "elieving that !ecson was Balagtas$ the# incur no criminal lia"ilit#.Sustaining this theor# in part$ the lower court held and so declared them guilt# of the crime of homicide through rec/lessimprudence. ;e are of the opinion$ however$ that$ under the circumstances of the case$ the crime committed "# appellants ismurder through speciall# mitigated "# circumstances to "e mentioned "elow.

In support of the theor# of non9lia"ilit# "# reasons of honest mista/e of fact$ appellants rel# on the case of #.$. v. Ah %hong $ 3&(hil.$ 755. !he ma*im is ignorantia facti excusat $ "ut this applies onl# when the mista/e is committed without fault or carelessness. In the Ah Chong case$ defendant therein after having gone to "ed was awa/ened "# someone tr#ing to open thedoor. :e called out twice$ Kwho is there$K "ut received no answer. Fearing that the int ruder was a ro""er$ he leaped from his "ed

and called out again.$ KIf #ou enter the room I will /ill #ou.K But at that precise moment$ he was struc/ "# a chair which had "een placed against the door and "elieving that he was then "eing attac/ed$ he seized a /itchen /nife and struc/ and fatall#wounded the intruder who turned out to "e his room9mate. A common illustration of innocent mista/e of fact is the case of aman who was mar/ed as a footpad at night and in a lonel# road held up a friend in a spirit of mischief$ and with leveled$ pistoldemanded his mone# or life. :e was /illed "# his friend under the mista/en "elief that the attac/ was real$ that the pistolleveled at his head was loaded and that his life and propert# were in imminent danger at the hands of the aggressor. In theseinstances$ there is an innocent mista/e of fact committed without an# fault or carelessness "ecause the accused$ having no timeor opportunit# to ma/e a further in-uir#$ and "eing pressed "# circumstances to act immediatel#$ had no alternative "ut to ta/ethe facts as the# then appeared to him$ and such facts justified his act of /illing. In the instant case$ appellants$ unli/e theaccused in the instances cited$ found no circumstances whatsoever which would press them to immediate action. !he person inthe room "eing then asleep$ appellants had ample time and opportunit# to ascertain his identit# without hazard to themselves$and could even effect a "loodless arrest if an# reasona"le effort to that end had "een made$ as the victim was unarmed$according to Irene Re-uinea. !his$ indeed$ is the onl# legitimate course of action for appellants to follow even if the victim wasreall# Balagtas$ as the# were instructed not to /ill Balagtas at sight "ut to arrest him$ and to get him dead or alive onl# if resistance or aggression is offered "# him.

Although an officer in ma/ing a lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is reasona"l# necessar# to secure and detain the

offender$ overcome his resistance$ prevent his escape$ recapture him if he escapes$ and protect himself from "odil# harm

As the deceased was /illed while asleep$ the crime committed is murder with the -ualif#ing circumstanhowever$ a mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the incomplete justif#ing circumstance defin

of the Revised (enal Code. According to such legal provision$ a person incurs no criminal lia"ilifulfillment of a dut# or in the lawful e*ercise of a right or office. !here are two re-uisites in order that tta/en as a justif#ing one


5/51

2. US v0. ENRI?UEZ (3= P/il., =


6/51

which of @icups three wounds was first inflicted$ #et it could "e that the "ullet to the a"domen was delivered ahead of theothers "ecause it would have caused @icup t o lean forward and stoop down with his head l#ing low and stead#.E27

Finall#$ Att#. ictor Bartolome$ hearing officer at the 0ational (olice Commission


7/51

street and inside the front #ard of 0arons house) the deli"erate shutting off of the lights in the near"# houses and the lamp post) and the positive "allistic findings on the firearms of petitioners. ED%

!his evidentiar# resum$ according to the Sandigan"a#an$ not onl# fortified petitioners admission that the# did

discharge their firearms$ "ut also provided a predicate to its conclusion that petitioners conspired with one another toachieve a common purpose$ design and o"jective to harm the unarmed and innocent victims. !hus$ since there was noconclusive proof of who among the several accused had actuall# fired the gunshots that injured illanueva and fatall#wounded @icup$ the Sandigan"a#an imposed collective responsi"ilit# on all those who were shown to have discharged their firearms that night petitioners herein.ED2 Interestingl#$ it was speculated that the manner "# which the accused collectivel#and individuall# acted prior or su"se-uent to or contemporaneousl# with the shooting indicated that the# were either drun/ or that some$ if not all of them$ had a grudge against the emplo#ees of San Miguel Corporation) ED7 and that on the "asis of the self9serving evidence adduced "# the defense$ there could possi"l# have "een a massive cover9up of the incident "#(hilippine Consta"ular# and I0( authorities in (ampanga as well as "# the 0A(?@C?M. ED& It li/ewise found ver#conse-uential the fact that the other accused had chosen not to ta/e the witness stand) this$ supposedl# "ecause it was

incum"ent upon them to individuall# e*plain their participation in the shooting in view of the weight of the prosecutionevidence$ their invocation of the justif#ing circumstance of lawful performance of official dut# and the declaration of someof them in their affidavits to the effect that the# had "een deplo#ed that evening in the front #ard of 0arons residence fromwhich the volle# of gunfire was discharged as admitted "# Lap#uco himself.EDD

As to the nature of the offenses committed$ the Sandigan"a#an found that the -ualif#ing circumstance of

treacher# has not "een proved "ecause first$ it was supposedl# not shown how the aggression commenced and how the actscausing injur# to illanueva and fatall# injuring @icup "egan and developed$ and second$ this circumstance must "esupported "# proof of a deli"erate and conscious adoption of the mode of attac/ and cannot "e drawn from meresuppositions or from circumstances immediatel# preceding the aggression. !he same finding holds true for evident premeditation "ecause "etween the time Lap#uco received the summons for assistance from (amintuan through +avid andthe time he and his men responded at the scene$ there was found to "e no sufficient time to allow for the materialization of all the elements of that circumstance.EDG

A((>A@ !? !:> SC

In .R. 0os. 3%'G7797D$ Lap#uco disputes the Sandigan"a#ans finding of conspirac# and la"els the same to "econjectural. :e points out that the court a &uo has not clearl# esta"lished that he had "# positive acts intended to participate

in an# criminal o"ject in common with the other accused$ and that his participation in a supposed common criminal o"jecthas not "een proved "e#ond reasona"le dou"t. :e "elieves the finding is "elied "# Flores and illanueva$ who saw him atthe scene onl# after the shooting incident when the wounded passengers were ta/en to the hospital on his jeepne#. EG2 :ealso points out the uncertaint# in the Sandigan"a#ans declaration that the incident could not have "een the product of awell9planned police operation$ "ut rather was the result of either a hidden agenda concocted against the victims "# the "aranga# officials involved or an amateurish attempt on their part to earn commendation. :e theorizes that$ if it were thelatter alternative$ then he could hardl# "e found guilt# of homicide or frustrated homicide "ut rather of rec/less imprudenceresulting in homicide and frustrated homicide. EG7 :e laments that$ assuming arguendo that the injuries sustained "# thevictims were caused "# his warning shots$ he must nevertheless "e e*onerated "ecause he responded to the scene of theincident as a bona fide mem"er of the police force and$ hence$ his presence at the scene of the incident was in line with thefulfillment of his dut# as he was in fact in the lawful performance thereof a fact which has "een affirmed "# the 0A(?@C?M en banc when it dismissed on appeal the complaint for gross misconduct against him$ Cunanan and (uno.EG& :e also invo/es the concept of mista/e of fact and attri"utes to (amintuan the responsi"ilit# wh# he$ as well as the other accused in these cases$ had entertained the "elief th at the suspects were armed re"el elements. EGD

In .R. 0o. 3%%DGG$ petitio ners Manguerra$ Mario Re#es and Andres Re#es claim that the Sandigan"a#an has not

proved their guilt "e#ond reasona"le dou"t$ and the assailed decision was "ased on acts the evidence for which has "een

adduced at a separate trial "ut erroneousl# attri"uted to them. !he# e*plain that there were two sets of accused$ in thecase one$ the police officers comprised of Lap#uco$ Cunanan and (uno and$ two$ the "aranga# officials and C:+Fs

comprised of +avid$ @ugtu$ @acson$ Lu and themselves who had waived the presentation of evidenconviction of the charges vis'a'vis the ac-uittal of +avid$ @ugtu$ @acson and Lu who$ li/e them$ and had waived their right to present evidence in their "ehalf. !he# emphasize in this regard thaofficials and C:+Fs did not participate in the presentation of the evidence "# the accused police ofinding that the# too had fired upon the !amaraw jeepne# is hardl# "ased on an esta"lished fact. EG

the findings of fact "# the Sandigan"a#an were "ased on inadmissi"le evidence$ specificall# on ecourt itself and those presented in a separate trial.!he# la"el the assailed decision to "e specususpicious and$ hence$ antithetical to the -uantum of evidence re-uired in a criminal prosecutionthat the finding of conspirac# has no "asis in evidence and that the prosecution has not even shown other accused at the scene of the incident or that the# were among those who fired at the victimsidentified as among the perpetrators of the crime. EG4

In .R. 0o. 3%%GGD$ Cunanan and (uno li/ewise dispute the finding of conspirac#. !he# clauncertaint# in the conclusion of the Sandigan"a#an as to whether the i ncident was the result of a leg

or a careless plot designed "# the accused to o"tain commendation$ conspirac# has not "een prodou"t. !his$ "ecause the# "elieve the prosecution has not$ as far as "oth of them are concerned$ sh "een part of such malicious design to commit an am"uscade as that alluded to in the assailed decisio police officers$ the# merel# followed orders from their commander$ Lap#uco$ "ut were not priv# to the latter$ +avid and (amintuan$ moments "efore the shooting. !he# posit the# could hardl# "communit# of criminal design with the rest of the accused.E5' !he# affirm Lap#ucos statement shots at the su"ject jeepne#$E53 "ut onl# after it h ad passed the place where the# were posted and onwhen flagged down as it then "ecame apparent that it was going to speed awa# as supposedl# shownchassis and not on the rear portion of the jeepne#. !he# also harp on the a"sence of proof of ill motherwise urged them to commit the crimes charged$ especiall# since none of the victims had "remotel# /nown to either of them. !hat the# were not intending to commit a crime is$ the# "elievethe# did not directl# aim their rifles at the passengers of the jeepne# and that in fact$ the# immediateFlores identified themselves as emplo#ees of San Miguel Corporation. !he# conceded that if /illinthe# could have easil# fired at the victims directl#.E5%

Commenting on these petitions$ the ?ffice of the Special (rosecutor stands "# the fi

esta"lished "# the fact that all accused$ some of them armed$ had assem"led themselves and awaite

though having previousl# /nown that it would "e coming from Salangsangs residence. It posits ththe jeepne# was fired upon demonstrates a communit# of purpose and design to commit the crimesthat criminal intent is discerni"le from the posts the accused had chosen to ta/e on the road that wline of fire at the target as shown "# the trajectories of the "ullets that hit the !amaraw jeepsupposedl# realized when after the volle# of gunfire$ "oth Flores and @icup were wounded asupervening conse-uence.E5& It refutes the invocation of lawful performance of dut#$ mainl# "ecau "asis to support the "elief of the accused that the occupants were mem"ers of the 0(A$ as indeed ththe# had previousl# verified the wherea"outs of the suspect vehicle.But while it recognizes that responded to the call of dut# when summoned "# (amintuan through +avid$ it is convinced that performance thereof when the# fired upon the !amaraw jeepne# occupied$ as it turned out$ "# innocE5D

As to the contention of Mario Re#es$ Andres Re#es and Manguerra that the eviden

Sandigan"a#an as well the findings "ased thereon should not "e "inding on them$ the ?S( e*plaitogether with (amintuan$ +avid$ @ugtu$ @acson and Lu$ had previousl# withdrawn their motion fdirected later on su"mitted the case for decision as to them with the filing of their memorandum.denial of due process to said petitioners in view of their agreement for the reproduction of the evid

"ail at the trial proper as well as "# their manifestation to forego with the presentation of their ow

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn84http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn84http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn85http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn85http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn89http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn69http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn70http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn76http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn77http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn78http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn79http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn80http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn82http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn83http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn84http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn85http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn88http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn89


8/51

present witnesses is waiva"le. Also$ where an accused is jointl# tried and testifies in court$ the testimon# "inds the other accused$ especiall# where the latter has failed to register his o"jection thereto. E5G

!he decision on review apparentl# is laden with conclusions and inferences that seem to rest on loose predicates.

Let we have pored over the records of the case and found that evidence nonetheless e*ists to support the penultimatefinding of guilt "e#ond reasona"le dou"t.

I.

It is as much undisputed as it is "orne "# the records that petitioners were at the situs of the incident on the dateand time alleged in the Informations. Lap#uco$ in his testimon# which was adopted "# Cunanan and (uno as well asManguerra$ Mario Re#es and Andres Re#es in their affidavits which had "een offered in evidence "# the prosecution$E55 e*plained that their presence at the scene was in response to the information rela#ed "# (amintuan through +avid thatarmed re"el elements on "oard a vehicle descri"ed to "e that occupied "# the victims were reportedl# spotted in Baranga#Hue"iawan. It is on the "asis of this suspicion that petitioners now appeal to justification under Article 33 ven more telling is the a"sence of reference to the victims having launched sucthreaten the safet# of an# one of the accused$ or having e*hi"ited such defiance of authorit# that waccused$ particularl# those armed$ to em"ar/ on a violent attac/ with their firearms in self9defenevidence was presented at the trial to show that the accused were placed in real mortal dangervictims$ e*cept ma#"e their "are suspicion that the suspects were armed and were pro"a"l# prepared

But whether or not the passengers of the su"ject jeepne# were 0(A mem"ers and whethetime armed$ are immaterial in the present in-uir# inasmuch as the# do not stand as accused in thBesides$ even assuming that the# were as the accused "elieved them to "e$ the actuations of these remust inevita"l# "e ranged against reasona"le e*pectations that arise in the legitimate course of pduties. !he rules of engagement$ of which ever# law enforcer must "e thoroughl# /nowledgea"le alwa#s e*ercise the highest caution$ do not re-uire that he should immediatel# draw or fire his weaaccosted does not heed his call. (ursuit without danger should "e his ne*t move$ and not vengeancea damaged pride. (olice wor/ re-uires nothing more than the lawful apprehension of suspects$ sinc process pertains to other government officers or agencies.E3'5

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn97http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn97http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn98http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn98http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn99http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn100http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn101http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn101http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn102http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn103http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn103http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn111http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn91http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn92http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn93http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn94http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn95http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn96http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn97http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn98http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn99http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn100http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn101http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn102http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn103http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn105http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn106http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn107http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn109http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn110http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/120744-46.htm#_ftn111


9/51

A law enforcer in the performance of dut# is justified in using such force as is reasona"l# necessar# to secure anddetain the offender$ overcome his resistance$ prevent his escape$ recapture him if he escapes$ and protect himself from "odil# harm.E3'4 #nited $tates v. %ampoE33' has laid down the rule that in the performance of his dut#$ an agent of theauthorities is not authorized to use force$ e*cept in an e*treme case when he is attac/ed or is the su"ject of resistance$ andfinds no other means to compl# with his dut# or cause himself to "e respected and o"e#ed "# the offender. In case injur# or death results from the e*ercise of such force$ the same could "e justified in inflicting the injur# or causing the death of theoffender if the officer had used necessar# force.E333 :e is$ however$ never justified in using unnecessar# force or in treatingthe offender with wanton violence$ or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could "e effected otherwise.E33% People v. #lepE332 teaches that

!he right to /ill an offender is not a"solute$ and ma# "e used onl# as a last resort$ and under

circumstances indicating that the offender cannot otherwise "e ta/en without "loodshed. !he law doesnot clothe police officers with authorit# to ar"itraril# judge the necessit# to /ill. It ma# "e true that police officers sometimes find themselves in a dilemma when pressured "# a situation where an

immediate and decisive$ "ut legal$ action is needed. :owever$ it must "e stressed that the judgment anddiscretion of police officers in the performance of their duties must "e e*ercised neither capriciousl#nor oppressivel#$ "ut within reasona"le limits. In the a"sence of a clear and legal provision to thecontrar#$ the# must act in conformit# with the dictates of a sound discretion$ and within the spirit and purpose of the law. ;e cannot countenance trigger9happ# law enforcement officers whoindiscriminatel# emplo# force and violence upon the persons the# are apprehending. !he# must alwa#s "ear in mind that although the# are dealing with criminal elements against whom societ# must "e protected$ these criminals are also human "eings with human rights.E337

!hus$ in People v. Tabag,E33& where mem"ers of the +avao C:+F had /illed four mem"ers of a famil# in their home "ecause of suspicions that the# were 0(A mem"ers$ and the accused sought e*oneration "# invo/ing among othersthe justif#ing circumstance in Article 33 el*i!$M7"0l, Sr., /i0 i2e >e!"el4!, !" t/eir c/il"re! ere e*er0 $2 t/e NPA. A!" eve! i2 t/e4

ere e*er0 $2 t/e NPA, t/e4 ere e!title" t$ "e r$ce00 $2 l. ?n that fateful night$ the# were peacefull# resting in their hum"le home e*pecting for the dawn of another uncertain da#. Clearl#$therefore$ nothing justified the sudden and unprovo/ed attac/$ at nighttime$ on the Magdasals. !hemassacre was nothing "ut a merciless vigilante9st#le e*ecution. E33D

(etitioners rationalize their election to aim their fire directl# at the jeepne# "# claiming that it failed to heed the

first round of warning shots as well as the signal for it to stop and instead tried to flee. ;hile it is possi"le that the jeepne#had "een flagged down "ut "ecause it was pacing the dar/ road with its headlights dimmed missed petitioners signal tostop$ and compound to it the admitted fact that the passengers thereof were drun/ from the part# the# had just "een to$E33G still$ we find incomprehensi"le petitioners -uic/ resolve to use their firearms when in fact there was at least one other vehicle at the scene the Sarao jeepne# owned "# Lap#uco which the# could actuall# have used to pursue their suspectswhom the# supposedl# perceived to "e in flight.

@awlessness is to "e dealt with according to the law. ?nl# a"solute necessit# justifies the use of force$ and it is

incum"ent on herein petitioners to prove such necessit#. ;e find$ however$ that petitioners failed in that respect.Althoughthe emplo#ment of powerful firearms does not necessaril# connote unnecessar# force$ petitioners in this case do not seem

to have "een confronted with the rational necessit# to open fire at the moving jeepne# occupie*planation is offered wh# the#$ in that instant$ were inclined for a violent attac/ at their suspects e*an*iet# or impatience or simpl# their careless disposition to ta/e no chances. Clearl#$ the# e*ce police duties the moment the# actualized such resolve$ t here"# inflicting @icup with a mortal "ulleto illanueva and e*posing the rest of the passengers of the jeepne# to grave danger to life and lim"have "een the necessar# conse-uence of the fulfillment o f their duties.

III.

At this juncture$ we find that the invocation o f the concept of mista/e of fact faces certaof criminal law$ a mista/e of fact is a misapprehension of a fact which$ if true$ would have justifwhich is the su"ject of the prosecution. E335 enerall#$ a reasona"le mista/e of fact is a de fense to a cnegates the intent component of the crime.E334 It ma# "e a defense even if the offense charged re-uirintent.E3%' !he in-uir# is into the mista/en "elief of the defendant$ E3%3 and it does not loo/ at all to thof an# other person. E3%% A proper invocation of this defense re-uires


10/51

!he -uestion then s-uarel# presents itself$ whether in this jurisdiction one can "e heldcriminall# responsi"le who$ "# reason of a mista/e as to the facts$ does an act for which he would "ee*empt from criminal lia"ilit# if the facts were as he supposed them to "e$ "ut which would constitutethe crime of homicide or assassination if the actor had /nown the true state of the facts at the time whenhe committed the act. !o this -uestion we thin/ there can "e "ut one answer$ and we hold that under such circumstances there is no criminal lia"ilit#$ provided alwa#s that the alleged ignorance or mista/eof fact was not due to negligence or "ad faith. E32%

IV.

!his "rings us to whether the guilt of petitioners for homicide and frustrated homicide has "een esta"lished "e#ond cavil of do u"t. !he precept in all criminal cases is t hat the prosecution is "ound "# the invaria"le re-uisite of esta"lishing the guilt of the accused "e#ond reasona"le dou"t. !he prosecution must rel# on the strength of its ownevidence and not on the evidence of the accused. !he wea/ness of the defense of the accused does not relieve the prosecution of its responsi"ilit# of proving guilt "e#ond reasona"le dou "t.E322 B# reasona"le dou"t is meant that dou"t

engendered "# an investigation of the whole proof and an ina"ilit#$ after such investigation$ to let the mind rest eas# uponthe certaint# of guilt. E327 !he overriding consideration is not whether the court dou"ts the innocence of the accused$ "utwhether it entertains reasona"le dou"t as to h is guilt.E32&

!he prosecution is "urdened to prove corpus delicti "e#ond reasona"le dou"t either "# direct evidence or "#circumstantial or presumptive evidence.E32D %orpus delicti consists of two things first$ the criminal act and second$defendants agenc# in the commission of the act .E32G In homicide


11/51

$econd, that petitioners "# their acts e*hi"ited conspirac#$ as correctl# found "# the Sandigan"a#an$ li/ewise

militates against their claim of rec/less imprudence.Article 5 of the Revised (enal Code provides that there is conspirac# when two or more persons agree to commit

a felon# and decide to commit it. Conspirac# need not "e proven "# direct evidence. It ma# "e inferred from the conduct of the accused "efore$ during and after the commission of the crime$ showing that the# had acted with a common purpose anddesign. Conspirac# ma# "e implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed "# their acts to wards the accomplishmentof the same unlawful o"ject$ each doing a part so that their com"ined acts$ though apparentl# independent of each other were$ in fact$ connected and cooperative$ indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.Conspirac# once found$ continues until the o"ject of it has "een accomplished and unless a"andoned or "ro/en up. !o holdan accused guilt# as a co9principal "# reason of conspirac#$ he must "e shown to have performed an overt act in pursuanceor furtherance of the complicit#. !here must "e intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. E3&3

Conspirac# to e*ist does not re-uire an agreement for an apprecia"le period prior to the occurrence. From thelegal viewpoint$ conspirac# e*ists if$ at the time of the commission of the offense$ the accused had the same purpose andwere united in its e*ecution.E3&% !he instant case re-uires no proof of an# previous agreement among petitioners that the#were reall# "ent on a violent attac/ upon their suspects. ;hile it is far9fetched to conclude that conspirac# arose from themoment petitioners$ or all of the accused for that matter$ had converged and strategicall# posted themselves at the placeappointed "# (amintuan$ we nevertheless find that petitioners had "een ignited "# the common impulse not to let their suspect jeepne# flee and evade their authorit# when it suddenl# occurred to them that the vehicle was attempting to escapeas it supposedl# accelerated despite the signal for it to stop and su"mit to them.As aforesaid$ at that point$ petitioners wereconfronted with the convenient #et irrational option to ta/e no chances "# preventing the jeepne#s supposed escape even if it meant /illing the driver thereof. It appears that such was their common purpose. And "# their concerted action of almostsimultaneousl# opening fire at the jeepne# from the posts the# had deli"eratel# ta/en around the immediate environment of the suspects$ convenientl# affording an opportunit# to target the driver$ the# did achieve their o"ject as shown "# theconcentration of "ullet entries on the passenger side of the jeepne# at angular and perpendicular trajectories. Indeed$ thereis no definitive proof that tells which of all the accused had discharged their weapons that night and which directl# causedthe injuries sustained "# illanueva and fatall# wounded @icup$ #et we adopt the Sandigan"a#ans conclusion that sinceonl# herein petitioners were shown to have "een in possession of their service firearms that night and had fired the same$the# should "e held collectivel# responsi"le for the conse-uences of the su"ject law enforcement operation which had gone

terri"l# wrong.E3&2

VI.

!he Sandigan"a#an correctl# found that petitioners are guilt# as co9principals in the crimes of homicide andattempted homicide onl#$ respectivel# for the death of @icup and for the non9fatal injuries sustained "# illanueva$ and thatthe# deserve an ac-uittal together with the other accused$ of the charge of attempted murder with respect to the unharmedvictims.E3&7 !he allegation of evident premeditation has not "een proved "e#ond reasona"le dou"t "ecause the evidence isconsistent with the fact that the urge to /ill had materialized in the minds of petitioners as instantaneousl# as the# perceivedtheir suspects to "e attempting flight and evading arrest. !he same is true with treacher#$ inasmuch as there is no clear andindu"ita"le proof that the mode o f attac/ was consciousl# and deli"eratel# adopted " # petitioners.

:omicide$ under Article %74 of the Revised (enal Code$ is punished "# reclusion temporal whereas an attempt

thereof$ under Article %&' in relation to Article &3$ warrants a penalt# lower "# two degrees than that prescri"ed for principals in a consummated homicide. (etitioners i n these cases are entitled to the ordinar# mitigating circumstance of voluntar# surrender$ and there "eing no aggravating circumstance proved and appl#ing the Indeterminate Sentence @aw$ theSandigan"a#an has properl# fi*ed in Criminal Case 0o. 3DD3% the range of the penalt# from si*


12/51

;hen he reached (laza de Miranda$ uillen was carr#ing two hand grenades concealed in a paper "ag which also contained peanuts. :e "uried one of the hand grenades *hi"it +=$ in a plant pot located close to the platform$ and when he decided tocarr# out his evil purpose he stood on the chair on which he had "een sitting and$ from a distance of a"out seven meters$ hehurled the grenade at the (resident when the latter had just closed his speech.

eneral Casta1eda saw the smo/ing$ hissing$ grenade and without losing his presence of mind$ /ic/ed it awa# from the platform$ along the stairwa#$ and towards an open space where the general thought the grenade was li/el# to do the least harm)and$ covering the (resident with his "od#$ shouted to the crowd that ever#"od# should lie down. !he grenade fell to the groundand e*ploded in the middle of a group of persons who were standing close to the platform. It was found that the fragments of the grenade had seriousl# injured Simeon arela va$ ,ose Fa"io$ (edro Carrillo and >milio Maglalang.

!:> ISS6>S

Fir0t i00e ;hether or not uillen is guilt # of murder for the death of Simeon arela.

R6@I0 Les$ uillen is guilt# o f murder.

!he evidence shows "e#ond an# shadow of dou"t that$ when uillen attended that meeting$ carr#ing with him two handgrenades$ he /new full# well that$ "# throwing one of those two hand grenades in his possession at (resident Ro*as$ andcausing it to e*plode$ he could not prevent the persons who were around his main and intended victim from "eing /illed or atleast injured$ due to the highl# e*plosive nature of the "om" emplo#ed "# him to carr# out his evil purpose.

uillen stated that he performed the act voluntaril#) that his purpose was to /ill the (resident) although it was not his mainintention to /ill the persons surrounding the (resident$ he felt no conjunction in /illing them also in order to attain his main purpose of /illing the (resident.

!he facts do not support the contention of counsel for appellant that the latter is guilt# onl# of homicide through rec/lessimprudence in regard to the death of Simeon arela and of less serious ph#sical injuries in regard to Alfredo >va$ ,ose Fa"io$

(edro Carrillo and >milio Maglalang$ and that he should "e sentenced to the corresponding penalties for the different feloniescommitted$ the sum total of which shall not e*ceed three times the penalt# to "e imposed for the most serious crime inaccordance with article G' in relation t o article G7 of the Revised (enal Code.

In throwing hand grenade at the (resident with the intention of /illing him$ the appellant acted with malice. :e is thereforelia"le for all the conse-uences of his wrongful act) for in accordance with article 7 of the Revised (enal Code$ criminal lia"ilit#is incurred "# an# person committing felon#


13/51

"ecause in an# event article 75 of the Revised (enal Code a"ove9-uoted re-uires that the penalt# for the most serious of saidcrimes "e applied in its ma*imum period. !he penalt# for murder is reclusion temporal in its ma*imum period to death. S (60IS:>+ BL S(>CIA@ @A; J

3. >lements of felonies

People v. $ilvestre and Atien-a$

#$ v. ivino$

+ecem"er 7$ 34'5 .R. 0o. 774'THE UNITED STATES, vs. FELI;IANO DIVINO, defendant9appellant.

!his cause was "rought against Feliciano +ivino for the crime of lesiones graves$ and appealed "# him to this court from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of +avao$ Moro (rovince$ where"# he was sentenced to the penalt# of two #earseleven months and eleven da#s of presidio correccional, with the accessor# penalt# of suspension from all pu"lic office$ profession$ occupation$ or right of suffrage$ and to pa# the costs of the proceedings.

!he feet of the witness show several large scars which surround "oth feet$ "eginning at the instep and e*tending to the soleall around the feet. !he appearance of the said scars indicates that the# were not caused "# "lows inflicted "# a cuttinginstrument$ "ut are the result of a lesion of considera"le width. In addition to the wide scar that surrounds each foot thereare several small scars


14/51

!he third witness for the prosecution is Mr. ?rville ;ood$ 2' #ears of age$ agriculturist$ residing in the municipalit# of+avao) he was formerl# an assistant superintendent of schools$ and later served as secretar# of the district of +avao from,anuar#$ 34'7$ until the time when he testified) he states that he had "een in the old house of Feliciano$ where the affair issaid to have occurred$ for a"out three hours some ti me in 34'&) that he /no ws Maria erano who is married to Feliciano+ivino$ and "elieves that he saw her the da# "efore that on which he testified) that he has also /nown Feliciano +ivinosince the #ear 34'7$ and that he /nows Alfonsa$ the girl who testified in court in his presence on that same da#) and hedescri"ed a conversation that he had with Feliciano +ivino on the "alcon# of the government "uilding in the followingterms

;hen Feliciano first came to the "alcon# we spo/e of another matter) what he afterwards stated in connection with thismatter was in answer to a -uestion finall# addressed to him "# the overnor Bolton) overnor Bolton said to Feliciano thathe$ Feliciano$ had informed him previousl# that it was Maria who had "urned Alfonsas feet$ "ut overnor Bolton /ne w atthe time that this was not true$ and as/ed him who had "urnt her feet) Feliciano replied that it was he who "urnt Alfonsas

feet$ "ut that his wife$ Maria$ had ordered him to do it) the g overnor as/ed him who was the head o f his house) he or hiswife.

!he witness goes on to sa# that he su"se-uentl# spo/e with (etra$ Catalina$ and (edro in regard to the affair in 34'7$ andalso spo/e with (etra$ Alfonsa$ and another whose name he does n ot recollect$ and that$ when he as/ed Alfonsa who had "urnt her feet$ she at first said that she did not /now$ "ut when he insisted on her telling him she replied that Felicianoschildren had done it. ?n "eing as/ed if he /new of the crime in ,une$ 34'2$ he said no$ that it had come to his /nowledge inthe month of Septem"er$ 34'7) when as/ed whether$ prior to the ti me that Feliciano told overnor Bolton in the presenceof the witness that he$ Feliciano$ had "urnt Alfonsas feet$ Feliciano had told him that another person had done it$ heanswered #es$ that his wife$ Maria$ had "urnt Alfonsas feet) this statement was made to him at his office in the month of+ecem"er$ 34'7$ the other one having "een made to the governor in ?cto"er$ 34'&) and to the -uestion K;h# did he tell#ou this8 he replied

;hen Alfonsa came to the office for the first time$ she was ver# frightened$ and we could hardl# get an#thing$ from her) werelied upon Felicianos word as to who was the guilt# part#) the girl was small and sic/l# and we could not o"tain an#

information from her. ;hen she was removed from the hands of Feliciano and turned over to anoth er famil# that was notrelated to him$ and when she found out that she would not have return to him$ it happened one da# that I was at the "alcon#of the office and saw her coming up the street) when she had nearl# reached the road$ Feliciano +ivino was coming out ofthe Auats store$ directl# in her road) she turned round at once and ran to the stairs of the office$ and hid herself "ehindSegundo >sperat) as the result of a conversation that I had with her$ on said occasion I spo/e to Feliciano and he thenconfessed his guilt) Feliciano told me that Maria had "urnt Alfonsas feet at a time when she was a"sent from his house) hedid not sa# when$ and said nothing more.

Clara +ivino$ 3D #ears of age$ a witness for the defense$ testified) that when Alfonsa went to their house she had severalsores on her face and feet$ and a "ruise on her an/le) her father wanted to appl# some medicines to them "ut she too/ noheed) that one da# her father said K@et us cure her with her"s)K the treatment too/ a long time$ and as she would not remain-uiet$ her father ordered her to sta# in the house in order to cure her the "etter$ "ut she alwa#s went out$ and her father thencalled her and put petroleum on her feet) this proved ver# effective and cured her to some e*tent) her father$ in order to prevent her going out of the house loc/ed her in the storeroom for several da#s$ and afterwards in the pantr# upstairs$ aroom for one side of the /itchen used "# the servants) and that after Alfonsa ran awa# from the house$ she saw her in thestreets) that no force was used in treating h er) that her father held her while the# applied petroleum to her feet) she denied

that she ever "ound or secured with a stic/ or laid on the floor$ "ecause she held her "# the shoulders) that she was sitting

down with her feet stretched out) that her feet had "een "andaged man# times) that her father was nothat petroleum was applied to Alfonsas feet) that a ph#sician called at their house to attend to Alfoncame to their house$ her feet were sore and ul cerated. And it was the fiscal who put in the -uestion Khad onl# a small ulcer on her feet$K to which she replied #es) that at that time the# had previousl# wwith hot water$ and that thereafter the petroleum was applied and the feet "andaged.

Finall#$ Feliciano +ivino$ the accused$ testified as follows

Captain !omas sent the girl to me for treatment "ecause she was suffering from ulcers. As Captain !admitted her to m# house. ;hen we got to m# house I found out that she had a great man# sores anorder to cure her. I too/ care of her and gave her food and clothing. :er malad# improved at times$ months reappeared. She had ulcers on "oth feet and on the face. !he sores on her face healed$ "ut t h

"ecame worse until the# finall# e*tended to the sole of the foot. I ordered her to treat the sore with pwould not do it. After some time I had to loo/ after the ulcers personall#. At times the# improved$ anworse. !he ulcer on the sole of her foot "ecame larger. !he other ulcers did not entirel# heal$ the inf!he wounds on the instep and upper part of the feet progressed fairl# well$ "ut those that she had on "ecause she alwa#s went out of the house and wal/ed a"out. I continued to loo/ after and treat all thAs several #ears elapsed without the ulcers "ecoming enti rel# cured$ I decided to cure them with peo"jected and smelled "adl#$ I called her one evening to the sala and e*amined it. ;hen I found that on "oth feet$ I ordered some hot water and told m# daughters to hold the girl "ecause she o"jected toapplied to her feet. I ordered them to hold her while I washed the ulcers with hot water. I then pourefeet and "andaged them. Fearing that she would go out of the house and again wal/ in the dirt$ put hAfter a few da#s I ordered her upstairs and loc/ed her in the pantr# where the servants slept.;hen -uestioned as to where the servants went with Alfonsa$ he said that he came to /now of it "ecsent him word and told him that his servant girl accused him of "urning her feet$ "ut he denied it anthe matter$ of how he had tried to cure her feet) the governor told him to go "ac/ to his house$ and ththe affair) he afterwards ordered him to the town and when he reached it$ Mr. ;ood alone was therethat the "est thing that he could do was to settle the matter as soon as possi"le.$ !he court then as/ed

;as this the same conversation as to which Mr. ;ood testified8 A. I did not understand what Mr "ut I will onl# sa# what too/ place. ;hen I as/ed him what /ind of a settlement he wished$ he suggsupport Alfonsa for four #ears at the rate of & pesos a month. :e made a written agreement with mehad rendered me good service$ I had no o"jection to allowing her & pesos a month. :e as/ed me to sme that the agreement was that I was to pa# Alfonsa & pesos a month for a period o f four #ears. I did "ecause I had great confidence in Mr. ;ood. 6nder said agreement I have "een pa#ing for two #ear

H. In what condition were the feet of the girl when she first ent ered #our house8 A. ;hen she cawere somewhat deformed$ the toes were twisted$ and there was an ulcer on her an/le.

!omas Monteverde$ the Captain !omas to whom the accused refers$ testified that he had twice "eentwice justice of the peace) that one da# as he was going "e#ond !alomo$ where the accused lived$ incorpse$ he saw Alfonsa on the road in ver# " ad condition) she was covered from the face to her feet called ibung $ and which smelled offensivel#) he gave her to Feliciano to "e cured) this was i n 3545$

justice of the peace in the time of the Spanish overnment) su"se-uentl#$ in answer to -uestions pu


15/51

that$ after the girl was delivered to Feliciano$ he saw her almost ever# month "ecause when going to pue"lo the# called athis house) on ma/ing him descri"e the ulcers and scars that he had seen$ he said that the whole of the i nstep was red incolor and denuded of the s/in$ and that she had ulcers in th e sole of her foot$ a scar a"ove the left an/le$ and several scarson her face.In view of the admission of the accusedK sa#s the trial judge Kin view of the present condition of the feet of theinjured part#$ which positivel# prove that the scars which appear on them are the result of "urns$ and in view of the lac/ o fan# e*planation on the part of the defense as to the manner in which said "urns were produced$ it limiting itself to showingthat the# are the result of ulcers$ the court has no dou"t that Alfonsa and (etra told the truth in ever#thing of i mportance.

And considering that the accused was gui lt# of the crime of lesiones graves$ defined and punished "# article 73 D$ paragraph2$ of the (enal Code$ with the aggravating circumstances 3 and % of article 3' of the said code$ without an# mitigatingcircumstance$ the court sentenced him to the penalties stated in the "eginning.!he testimon# of ?rville ;ood$ who at that time was secretar# of the militar# governor of said district$ was not impugned

or discredited in an# wa#$ and far from "eing ignored in the e*amination of these proceedings$ should command dueattention as "eing the testimon# t hat furnished the data for the proper judgment of facts that four #ears later were putforward as constituting a crime$ without there appearing in the proceedings an# reason or cause where"# a poor helplessgirl$ after living five or si* #ears in the house of the accused$ should ha ve "een injured "# the latter i n so cruel a manner asdescri"ed. If Alfonsa spo/e the truth$ one month and three wee/s after she was tortured she was on her wa# to thegovernment "uilding$ and on seeing th e accused in the road she Kran to t he stairs of the office and hid herself "ehindSegundo >sperat.K She was accompanied "# one Huirina$ and Alfonsa Ksaid hardl# an #thing$ it was her friend Huirina whosaid the most$K and Huirina onl# complained of the treatment that she had received in Felicianos house$ and re-uested thatshe "e sent elsewhere. And as overnor Bolton was aware of the circumstance$ had it parta/en of the character of a crime$it can not "e assumed$ "ecause nothing induces such a presumption$ that he would have let it pass without causing it to "e prosecuted and punished.

!hat petroleum was forci"l# applied to the feet of Alfonsa$ there can "e no dou"t) "ut t hat "esides the action of the o il$ firewas applied$ and a"ove all$ t hat said application of fire was a mere stro/e of cruelt#$ and that the torture was /ept up for anhour and a half$ or the ti me re-uired to smo/e two cigarettes$ or one cigarette$ when the testimon# even regarding themanner in which said coercion was effected was contradictor#$ a point which was so important$ for the su"jection of the

tortured girl or the patient to whom the cure was applied$ is a thing that can not "e conclusivel# esta"lished) and even if$ "#means of circumstantial evidence$ the "urns were actuall# proven$ it can not "e esta"lished in a conclusive manner that theinjur# was caused maliciousl#.

!his must have "een the consideration which induced the secretar#$ who$ as an honora"le man$ must have "een ind ignant atthe cruel injuries which the prosecution has attempted to e*aggerate at the trial$ to limit his action to o"taini ng from theaccused a written o"ligation allowing Alfonsa a monthl# pension of five pesos for her su"sistence. !his was confirmed "#the accused$ and has in no manner "een contradicted in the proceedings$ although the investigations to esta"lish thecriminalit# of the deed were most searching.

!he e*pert testimon# offered "# the prosecution should "e carefull# noted$ as should also the opini on of the lower court inconnection therewith contained in its judgment. !he said witness states that he rendered assistance to Alfonsa from the %4thof +ecem"er$ 34'&$ to the 3Dth of +ecem"er$ 34'D the "u rns are supposed to have "een caused two #ears previousl# on account of a large ulcer that she had on the left foot$ in a place that showed an old scar) according to the courts remar/on folio 3'4$ said left foot was the most deformed.K

It was a "ad ulcerK sa#s the e*pert Kthat e*tended over the instep under the an/le$ passing to thwas two and half inches wide$ and it lac/ed two inches of surrounding the foot.

!he soles of "oth feet are deformed "# reason of protu"erances of what appears to "e callous matter

!he witness continues his e*planation o f the prolonged treatment of the said ulcer$ and ends th us

After the new soft tissue was formed level with the s/in$ in order to avoid an e*cessive contraction$ girls s/in and placed them over t he wound. I did this several ti mes "efore effecting a complete cureseven hundred and si*t#9si* pesos milio Aguinaldo$ and the flag or "anner or device used duringthe (hilippine Islands to designate and identif# those in armed insurrection against the 6 previous to the on e a"ove set forth the appellant had purchased the stoc/ of goods in smedallions formed a part$ at a pu"lic sale made under authorit# of the sheriff of the cit# o-uestion$ the 7th of August aforesaid$ the appellant was arranging his stoc/ of goods for ththem to the pu"lic and in so doing placed in his showcase and in one of the windows of h


16/51

descri"ed. !he appellant was ignorant of the e*istence of a law against the displa# of the medallions in -uestionand had conse-uentl# no corrupt int ention. !he facts a"ove stated are admitted.

In the opinion of this court it is not necessar# that the appellant should have acted with the criminal intent. Inman# crimes$ made such "# statutor# enactment$ the intention of the person who commits the crime is entirel#immaterial. !his is necessaril# so. If it were not$ the statute as a deterrent influence would "e su"stantiall#worthless. It would "e impossi"le of e*ecution. In man# cases the act complained of is itself that which producesthe pernicious effect which the statute see/s to avoid. In those cases the pernicious effect is produced with precisel# the same force and result whether the intention of the person performing the act is good or "ad. !hecase at "ar is a perfect illustration of this. !he displa# of a flag or em"lem used particularl# within a recent period$ "# the enemies o f the o vernment tends to incite resistance to governmental functions and insurrectionagainst governmental authorit# just as effectivel# if made in the "est of good faith as if made with the mostcorrupt intent. !he displa# itself$ without the intervention of an# other factor$ is the evil. It is -uite different fromthat large class of crimes$ made such "# the common law or "# statute$ in which the injurious effect upon the

pu"lic depends upon the corrupt intention of the person perpetrating the act. If A discharges a loaded gun and/ills B$ the interest which societ# has in the act depends$ not upon Bs death$ upon the intention with which Aconsummated the act. If the gun were discharged intentionall#$ with the purpose of accomplishing the death of B$then societ# has "een injured and its securit# violated) "ut if the gun was discharged accidentall# on the part of A$then societ#$ strictl# spea/ing$ has no concern in the matter$ even though the death of B results. !he reason for this is that A does not "ecome a danger to societ# and institutions until he "ecomes a person with a corrupt mind.!he mere discharge of the gun and the death of B do not of themselves ma/e him so. ;ith those two facts mustgo the corrupt intent to /ill. In the case at "ar$ however$ the evil to societ# and the overnmental does not dependupon the state of mind of the one who displa#s the "anner$ "ut upon the effect which that displa# has upon the pu"lic mind. In the one case the pu"lic is affected "# the intention of the actor) in the other "# the act itself.

It is stated in volume 3% of C#c.$ page 375$ that

!he legislature$ however$ ma# for"id the doing of an act and ma/e its commission a crime without regard to the

intent of the doer$ and if such an intention appears the courts must give it effect although the intention ma# have

"een innocent. ;hether or not in a given case the statute is to "e so construed is to "e determined "# the court "#

considering the su"ject9matter of the prohi"ition as well as the language of the statute$ and thus ascertaining the

intention of the legislature.

!he opinion of the court in that case sa#s

As the law stands$ /nowledge or intention forms no elements of the offense. !he act alone$ irrespective of its

motive$ constitutes the crime.

*** *** ***

It is notorious that the adulteration of food products has grown to proportions so enormous as to menace the

health and safet# of the people. Ingenuit# /eeps pace with greed$ and the careless and heedless consumers are

e*posed to increasing perils. !o redress such evils is a plain dut# "ut a difficult tas/. >*perience has taught the

lesson that repressive measures which depend for their efficienc# upon proof of the dealers /nowledge or of his

intent to deceive and defraud are of title use and rarel# accomplish their purpose. Such an emergenc# ma# justif#

legislation which throws upon the seller the entire responsi"ilit# of the purit# and soundness of what he sells andcompels him to /now and certain.

!he court ruled out the evidence offered$ and held that intentionall# doing the act prohi"ited constitu

-uite clear that the facts offered to "e shown$ if true$ would relieve the defendant from the imputatio

and$ indeed$ from an# intent to violate the statute. !he defendants made a mista/e of law. Such mist

commission of prohi"ited acts. K!he rule on the su"ject appears to "e$ that in acts mala in se$ intent g

mala prohi"it a$ the onl# in-uir# is$ has the law "een violated8

*** *** ***

!he authorities seem to esta"lish that sustain and indictment for doing a prohi"ited act$ it is sufficien

was /nowingl# and intentionall# done.

In the case of Fiedler vs. +arrin


17/51

!he court sa#s

!he prohi"ition is a"solute and general) it could not "e e*pressed in terms more e*plicit and comprehensive. !he

statutor# definition of the offense em"races no word impl#ing that the for"idden act shall "e done /nowingl# or

willfull#$ and if it did$ the designed purpose of the act would "e p racticall# defeated. !he intention of the

legislature is plain$ that persons engaged in the traffic so engage in it at t heir peril and that the# can not set up

their ignorance of the nature and -ualities of the commodities the# sell$ as a defense.

It is clear from the authorities cited that in the act under consideration the legislature did not intend that a criminal intent

should "e a necessar# element of the crime. !he statutor# definition of the offense em"races no word impl#ing that the

prohi"ited act shall "e done /nowingl# or willfull#. !he wording is plain. !he Act means what it sa#s. 0othing is left to the

interpretation.

Care must "e e*ercised in distiguishing the differences "etween the intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate

the act. !he accused did not consciousl# intend to commit a crime) "ut he did intend to commit an act$ and the act is$ "# t he

ver# nature of things$ the crime itself intent and all. !he wording of the la w is such that the intent and the act are

insepara"le. !he act is the crime. !he accused intended to put the device in his windo w. 0othing more is re-uired to

commit the crime.

People v. *ayona!he law which the defendant violated is a statutor# provision$ and the intent with which he v iolated it is immaterial. It ma#

"e conceded that the defendant did not intend to intimidate an# elector or to violate the law in an# other wa#$ "ut when he

got out of his automo"ile and carried his revolver inside of the fence surrounding the pollin g place$ he committed the act

complained of$ and he committed it willfull#. !he act prohi"ited "# the >lection @aw was complete. !he intention to

intimidate the voters or to interfere otherwise with th e election is not made an essential element of the offense. 6nless such

an offender actuall# ma/es use of his revolver$ it would "e e*tremel# di fficult$ if not impossi"le$ to prove that he intended

to intimidate the voters.

!he rule is that in acts mala in se there must "e a criminal intent$ "ut in those mala prohibita it is sufficient if the prohi"ited

act was intentionall# done. KCare must "e e*ercised in distinguishing the difference "etween the intent to commit the crime

and the intent to perpetrate the act. ...K whether a conviction under the (ure Food and +rugs Act can "e sustained whereof adulterated food products charged in the information was made without guilt# /nadulteration$ and without conscious intent to violate the statute) and second$ whether a priunder the Act for a sale of adulterated goods made "# one of his agents or emplo#ees in themplo#ment$ "ut without /nowledge on the part of the principal of th e fact that the goods

;hile it is true that$ as a rule and on principles of a"stract ju stice$ men are not and should not "e hel

responsi"le for acts committed "# them without guilt# /nowledge and criminal or at least evil inten

alwa#s recognized the power of the legislature$ o n grounds of pu"lic polic# and compelled "# neces

of things$K to for"id in a limited class of cases the doing of certain acts$ and to ma/e their commissio

regard to the intent of the doer.


18/51

offense) this is especiall# so as to statutor# offenses. ;hen the statute plainl# for"ids an act to "e done$ and it is

done "# some person$ the law i mplies conclusivel# the guilt# intent$ although the offender was honestl# mista/en

as to the meaning of the la w he violates. ;hen the language is plain and positive$ and the offense is not made to

depend upon the positive$ will intent and purpose$ nothing is left to interpretation.

In the case of #nited $tates vs. +o %hico


19/51

participates in the criminal conduct of his servant$ there is a decided conflict of opinion as to his responsi"ilit# when the act

of the servant is without the masters /nowledge or connivance and against his e*press orders. !hese cases can "e

reconciled to some e*tent "# the di fference in the language emplo#ed in the statutes to define the various offenses$ and the

polic# of the statutes themselves. ;herever guilt# intent is an essential ingredient of the crime$ it would "e impossi"le to

fi* responsi"ilit# upon the master for his servants transgression of the law$ if the master did not har"or such an intent. . . .

In most instances where the master is held to "e responsi"le criminall# for the wrongful conduct of his servant$ it is on the

theor# that the act complained of is positivel# for"idden$ and therefore guilt# intention is not essential to a conviction of the

offense.K

And in section %&G2$ supported "# numerous citations from cases dealing with infringement of li-uo r laws and pure food

laws$ he sa# KI f certain acts are positivel# for"idden "# statute$ and it is the polic# of the law t o prohi"it them$ irrespective

of what the motive or intent of the person violating statute ma# "e$ no principle of justice is violated "# holding the master

responsi"le for the conduct of his servant on the same theor# that he is held responsi"le civill#.K

6pon the reasoning and the auth orit# of the cases there referred to$ we are of opinion that even in the a"sence of e*press

provisions in the statute$ the appellant in the case at "ar was properl# held criminall# responsi"le for the act of his agent in

selling the adulterated coffee$ and indeed it seems write clear that his lia"ilit# is e*pressl# contemplated under the provision

of section 3% of Act 0o. 3D&& of the (hilippine Commission$ which is as follows

!he word KpersonK as used in this Act shall "e construed to import "oth the plural and the singular$ as the case

demands$ and shall include corporations$ companies$ societies$ associations$ and o ther commercial or legal

entities. ;hen construing and enforcing the provisions of this Act$ the act$ omission$ or failure of an# officer$

agent$ or other person acting for or emplo#ed " # an# corporation$ compan# societ#$ association$ or other

commercial or legal entit#$ within the scope of his emplo#ment or office$ shall in ever# case "e also deemed to "e

the act$ omission$ or failure of such corporation$ compan#$ societ#$ association$ or other commercial or legal

entit#$ as well as that of the person.

It is contended that the e*press provisions of this section$ referring as the# do to t he lia"ilit# of an# Kcorporation$ societ#$

association$ or other commercial or legal entit#$K do not include cases of agenc # of a private individual. ;e are of opinion$

however$ that the words Kcommercial or legal entit#K as used in th is provision is sufficientl# comprehensive to include a

private individual engaged in "usiness who ma/es use of agent or agents$ emplo#ee or emplo#ees$ in the conduct of his

"usiness) and even if this position could "e successfull# controverted we would still "e of opinion that the provisions of this

section clearl# and definitel# indicate the polic# of the statute to prohi"i t and penalize the acts for"idden thereunder$

irrespective of what the motive or intent o f the person violating the statute ma# "e$ and to hold the master in all cases

responsi"le for the act$ omission or failure of his servant$ within the scope of his emplo#ment$ whether he "e a private

individual$ a corporation$ compan#$ societ#$ association$ or other commercial or legal entit#.

;e conclude that the judgment of conviction entered in the court "elow should "e affirmed$ with the costs of this instances

against the appellant. So ordered.

(>?(@> vs. @A0+IC:? ITNESSES9 RELATIONSHIP PER SE OF A >ITNESS

DOES NOT NE;ESSARIL MEAN HE IS @IASED. Accused9appellant strives to persuaerred in giving full credence to the testimon# of his father9in9law$ Alipio >use"io$ and his ow

Mendoza. But having "een in a "etter position to o"serve the witnesses$ the trial court

testimon#$ truthfulness$ honest#$ and candor$ deserves the highest respect use"io$ attested to the fact th at accused9appellant and his dau

-uarrelling. Accused9appellant suspected that Cecilia was having an illicit relationship

contends that Alipio is not a credi"le witness for the prosecution in view of his relationship w

Alipio resents him on account of his having children with another woman. It is "asic prece

se of a witness with the victim does not necessaril# mean he is "iased. !he Court finds imp

human e*perience accused9appellants claim that Alipio testified for no other purpose "ut rev

that Alipio was actuated "# improper motive$ thus$ his testimon# is entitled to full faith and cr


20/51

3. ID.9 ID.9 ID.9 MERE RETRA;TION @ A PROSE;UTION >ITNESS DOES NOT NE;ESSARIL VITIATE

THE ORI#INAL TESTIMON.Accused9appellant virtuall# "an/s$ for ac-uittal$ on Charmaines retraction. But the

trial court correctl# disregarded the same. !he first time Charmaine too/ the witness stand was in +ecem"er$ 3455$

"arel# a month after h er mothers death. :er recantation was made two #ears later when she was alread# in the

custod# of accused9appellant who was allowed to go out on "ail. Charmaines first testimon# was to the effect that she

saw her father$ accused9appellant$ hiding a gun under the "ed$ and her su"se-uent testimon# was that she saw no such

act. Such contradictor# statements should not discredit Charmaine as a wit ness. !he present rule is that testimon# of a

witness ma# "e "elieved in part and dis"elieved in part$ depending upon the corro"orative evidence and pro"a"ilities

and impro"a"ilities of the case People vs. %ura, %7' SCRA %27 E344&=. Moreover$ mere retraction "# a prosecution

witness does not necessaril# vitiate the original testimon#. !estimon# solemnl# given in court should not "e set aside

and disregarded lightl#$ and "efore this can "e done$ "oth the previous testimon# and the su"se-uent one should "e

carefull# compared and ju*taposed$ the circumstances under which each was made carefull# and /eenl# scrutinized$

and the reasons or motives for the change discriminatingl# anal #zed olina vs. People, %&4 SCRA 325 E344D=. !he

trial court "elieved that the testimon# given "# Charmaine for the defense did not alter her former testimon# for the

prosecution. !he second declaration was received with caution$ and it did not impressed the trial court. 0either are

we persuaded to hold otherwise for it must "e "orne in mind that Charmaine was living with and dependent upon her

father$ accused9appellant$ at the time she gave her second declaration.

'. ID.9 ID.9 ADMISSI@ILIT9 ;ONSTITUTIONAL PROTE;TION A#AINST UNREASONA@LE SEAR;HES

AND SEIZURES ;ANNOT @E EGTENDED TO A;TS ;OMMITTED @ PRIVATE

INDIVIDUALS. Accused9appellant also denied having and possessed the .25 colt revolver with Serial 0um"er

73''3$ the fatal weapon$ and even implied that the gun "elongs to the victim. According to accused9appellant$ there

had "een a dispute "etween him and his wife over the unlicensed .25 cali"er gun which his wife carried wherever she

went$ and not a"out the fact that his wife was having an illicit relationship with another man. But this claim is "elied

"# the overwhelming evidence pointing to accused9appellant as the possessor of the fatal weapon. Charmaine

testified that the fatal gun$ when e*hi"ited in court$ was the gun she saw on the night her mother was shot. And wee/s

earlier$ she said$ it was the same gun which she saw with his father. +efense witness$ Antonio a"ac$ when as/ed "#

the @as (ias police investigators to surrender the gun$ claimed that the same was surrendered to him "# accused9appellant shortl# after the shooting incident. !he possession of the fatal gun "# accused9appellant himself and a

mission order authorizing him to carr# the said weapon. But accused9appellant claims that these documents were

illegall# procured in grave violation of his constitutional right to privac# of cohmunication and papers$ andor his

right against unreasona"le search and seizure. !he Solicitor eneral is correct in e*plaining that such right applies as

a restraint directed onl# against the government and its agencies. !he case in point is People vs. arti


21/51

Cecilia Mendoza was pronounced dead on arrival. !he autops# report indicated the cause of death as follows

:emorrhage$ severe$ secondar# to gunshot wounds of the "ac/ and left shoulder

6pon receiving information a"out the shooting incident$ Chief Investigator Cpl. @eopoldo Africa$ together with

investigators Cpl. (rudencio (arejas$ Cpl. orgonio 0ortales and (fc. Rolando Almario$ proceeded to the hospital to

investigate the incident$ "ut accused9appellant refused to give an# statement or comment. !hereafter $ the policemen invited

Antonio a"ac to accompan# them to the crime scene at 0o. % !ramo Street$ Camella :omes$ (hase III$ (amplona$ @as

(ias. ;hile the# were inspecting the premises$ Cpl. Africa noticed something tuc/ed inside a"acs waist. :e promptl# told

a"ac Pare pakisurrender mo nga iyong baril. a"ac immediatel# handed Cpl. Africa a .25 cali"er revolver with Serial

0o. 73''3 and with two empt# shells and t wo live rounds. a"ac informed Africa that th e gun was handed to h im "#

accused9appellant when a"ac arrived at the crime scene to respond to the call of accused9appellant for assistance use"io$ having "een informed of his daughters death$ and that valua"les were "eing ta/en out

of his daughters house$ decided to remove$ together with his sons$ the remaining pieces of propert# therein$ including

accused9appellants personal effects -uipment$ dated 0ovem"er 3'$ 345D$ approved "# Captain @uis @. Salanguit of the (hilippine

Air Force and @t. Col. Ramon Bandong and issued to one ?ctavio @. Mendoza$ Captain$ (AF$ Assistant +irector for

(ersonnel which descri"ed the firearm as ?ne Colt Revolver S0 73''3


22/51

+uring the trial of the case$ it was dul# esta"lished that the onl# persons residing at 0o. % !ramo Street$ Camella

:omes$ (hase III$ (amplona$ @as (ias$ were the Mendozas$ namel#$ accused9appellant ?ctavio$ his daughter Charmaine$

and his now deceased wife Cecilia. ?n the night Cecilia was shot to death$ no one was there e*cept these three

persons. Accused9appellant struggled to persuade the trial court of his innocence "# den#ing that he /illed his wife$

insinuating that another person is the /iller. !his stance of denial is negative self9serving evidence which deserves no

evidentiar# weight


23/51

In the instant case$ the memorandum receipt and mission order were discovered "# accused9appellants father9in9law

Alipio >use"io$ a private citizen. Certainl#$ a search warrant is dispensa"le.

Finall#$ contrar# to accused9appellants claim that he was licensed and authorized to carr# a .7& cali"er pistol$ the

certification of Captain A"raham arcillano$ Chief$ Records$ @egal and Research Branch of the Firearm and >*plosive

6nit$ dated +ecem"er %4$ 3454$ shows that accused9appellant is not a licensed firearm holder of an# /ind HEREFORE$ e*cept as a"ove modified$ the appealed decision is here"# AFFIRM>+$ without special

pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

2. when the act described by special law are inherently immoral ' Estrada vs. Sandiganbaan$ 0ovem"er 34$ %''3=.

,?:0 S!6AR! MI@@$ in his essa# )n 4iberty$ unleashes the full fur# of his pen in defense of the rights of theindividual from the vast powers of the State and the inroads of societal pressure. But even as he draws a sacrosanct linedemarcating the limits on individualit# "e#ond which the State cannot tread 9 asserting that Kindividual spontaneit#K must "e allowed to flourish with ver# little regard to social interference 9 he verita"l# ac/nowledges th at the e*ercise of rightsand li"erties is im"ued with a civic o"ligation$ which societ# is justified in enforcing at all cost$ against those who wouldendeavor to withhold fulfillment. !hus he sa#s 9

The sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the lib

their number, is self'protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over acivili-ed community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

(arallel to individual li"ert# is the natural and illimita"le right of the State to self9presermaintaining the integrit# and cohesiveness of the "od# politic$ it "ehooves the State to formulatewould compel o"eisance to its coll ective wisdom and inflict punishment for non9o"servance.

!he movement from Mills individual li"eralism to uns#stematic collectivism wrought chancarr#ing with it a ne w formulation of fundamental rights and duties more attuned to the imperatives political ideologies. In t he process$ the we" of rights and State impositions "ecame tangled and threads of multiple shades and colors$ the s/ein irregular and "ro/en. Antagonism$ often outright coas the e*pression of the will of the State$ and the zealous attempts "# its mem"ers to preservedignit#$ inevita"l# followed. It is when individual rights are pitted against State authorit# that judiits severest test.

(etitioner ,oseph >jercito >strada$ the highest9ran/ing official to "e prosecuted under RA G'5 Penali-ing the %rime of Plunder =$E3 as amended "# RA GD&4$E% wishes to impress upon us thadefectivel# fashioned that it crosses that thin "ut distinct line which divides the valid from the contherefore ma/es a stringent call for this Court to su"ject the (lunder @aw to the cruci"le of c "ecause$ according to him$


24/51

=2 *y taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to un9ustly enrich himself or

themselves at the expense and to the damage and pre9udice of the !ilipino people and the 3epublic of the Philippines.

$ection 6. +efinition of the Crime of (lunder$ (enalties. 9 Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance withmembers of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or ot her persons, amasses,

accumulates or ac&uires ill'gotten wealth through a combination or series o! overt or criminal acts as described in$ection 1 d2 hereof, in the aggregate amount or total value of at least fifty million pesos P,>>>,>>>.>>2 shall be guilty

of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said

public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for suchoffense. (n the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating

circumstances as provided by the 3evised Penal %ode shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and allill'gotten wealth and their interests and ot her incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived

from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the $tate underscoring supplied2.

$ection . Rule of >vidence. 9 !or purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove eac"and ever criminal act done b t"e accused in !urt"erance o! t"e sc"eme or conspirac to amass# accumulate or ac$uireill%gotten &ealt"# it being su!!icient to establis" beond reasonable doubt a pattern o! overt or criminal acts indicative o!

Article 3, RPC with full text cases

Documents