SAMPLE CASES ON ART.
12
Tuesday, 17 September 2019
10:38 AM
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
People vs. Bascos
a. Witnesses say that the accused has been insane for many years
b. The doctor who examined the accused testified that the accused was a violent maniac and
that he may have been insane when he killed the victim
c. Lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill the victim bears the assumption that accused
was insane
WHEN DEFENSE OF INSANITY IS NOT CREDIBLE, CONVICTION FOLLOWS
People vs Renegado, GR No. L-27031
Appellant testified that he acted sanely before the act
Saw Lira at the canteen, who banged his folder, elbowed him and pushed a chair towards him
He remembered that Lira threatened to kill him before
At one point he lost his senses
Only regained his senses upon hearing someone shouting at him
The appellant, Loreto injured Lira
The defense of insanity is incredible
People vs Ambal, GR No. L-52688
The accused showed signs of being sane before and after the incident
He immediately surrendered after the incident
In jail, he mopped the floor and cooked food for fellow prisoners
Was sent unescorted to buy food in the market
The accused in not insane
People vs Magallano, GR No. L-32978
Psychiatric doctors observed the accused for a month and half
Found him to be in good contact with his environment and relate circumstances that led to
his confinement
He voluntarily surrendered to the police after killing his wife
He was coherent and intelligent
The presumption of insanity has not been overcome
People vs Puno, No. L-33211
The accused was afflicted with “schizophrenic reaction”
Had psychosis, a slight destruction of the ego
In spite of his “schizophrenic reaction” his symptoms were not socially incapacitating
He could distinguish between right and wrong
No delusions and was not mentally deficient
Not legally insane
People vs Aquino, GR No. 87084
The accused was afflicted with a mental illness
It was described as “organic mental disorder with psychosis”
The doctor observed that the mental illness came on and off
Accused recalled having taken 120 cc of cough syrup and consumed marijuana before the
commission of the crime
The presence of his reasoning faculties enabled him to exercise sound judgment
The accused was not insane
COMMITING A CRIME WHILE IN A DREAM
People vs Taneo
The one who got while sleeping, wounded his wife and attacked other persons
Without criminal intent
People vs Gimena
Somnambulism/sleepwalking
The act afflicted is automatic
Must be clearly proven
US vs Odicta
Inconsistent with People vs Gimena
The somnambulism falls under the rule that the acts of the person are not voluntary
COMMITING A CRIME WHILE SUFFERIN FROM A MALIGNANT MALARIA
People vs Lacena
The one who was suffering from malignant malaria wounded another
The illness affects the nervous system
Causes complication as acute melancholia and insanity at times
Paragraph 5:
U.S. vs. Caballeros
Baculi, an accused, but not a member of a band was seen by the leaders
The leaders struck him with the butts of their guns and compelled him to bury the dead
bodies
Held: Baculi is not criminally liable as accessory for concealing the body of the crime of
murder
Ratio: Because Baculi acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force
PERSONS PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT
People vs Galacgac
The act of firing the revolver randomly at a public place injuring 2 persons is not a lawful act
The accused, even though just defending himself against the unjustified assault upon his
person
The act of discharging of a firearm is prohibited and penalized by Article 155 of the RPC
STRIKING ANOTHER WITH A GUN IN SELF-DEFENSE IS A LAWFUL ACT
People vs Vitug
It was lawful since the deceased gave him fist blow on the shoulder
The accused only struck him, did not shoot the deceased
Whether the gun was cocked or un-cocked, the striking could not be done in any other
manner
The injury without fault or intention on the part of the defendant
People vs Reyta
The act of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel, not being in self-defense is unlawful-
is light threat
There is no room for the invocation of accident as a ground for exemption
A PERSON PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT MUST DO SO WITH DUE CARE, WITHOUT FAULT OR
NEGLIGENCE
People vs San Juan
The accused acted with negligence, cannot invoke par 4 of Art. 12
EXAMPLES OF ACCIDENT
US vs Tanedo
The accused while hunting fired at wild chickens
The slug after hitting a wild chicken, recoiled
Hitting and killing a man, who was a relative of the accused
He acted with due care
A mere accident
It was not foreseeable that the slug would recoil
US vs Tayongtong
A chauffeur was driving at the proper side of the road, at a moderate speed and with due diligence
Suddenly and unexpectedly saw a man in front of the vehicle
He ran over the man with his car
Not criminally liable
Mere accident
US vs Knight
The accused is a truck driver, driving the truck passing thru a slow-moving road roller
A boy jumped from the sideboard of the roller
Knocked down, ran over and instantly killed
Unfortunate accident
No criminal liability
