U.S. V.

AH CHONG
G.R. L-5272, MARCH 19, 1910 PEOPLE V. SYLVESTRE,
(MISTAKE OF FACT) G.R. NO. 35748, DECEMBER 14, 1931
Facts: Facts :
Ah Chong was employed as a cook in Officer’s Appellant Romana Silvestre, the only evidence
Quarters, No. 27 at Fort McKinley, RizalProvince. of record against her are: That, being married,
He and his fellow servant, the victim Pascual she lived adulterously with her codefendant Martin
Gualberto, sleep in a small room at the rear of the Atienza, a married man; that both were denounced
building. The door had no permanent lock, so they for adultery by Domingo Joaquin, Romana
attached a small hook inside the door, and Silvestre's second husband; that in view of the
reinforced it by placing a chair against the door. petition of the accused, who promised to
One evening, Ah Chong was suddenly awakened discontinue their life together, and to leave the
by someone trying to force open the door of the barrio of Masocol, and through the good offices
room. He called out and asked twice who was of the municipal president of Paombong, the
there, but got no answer. The noises he heard complaining husband asked for the dismissal of the
convinced him that the door was being opened, and complaint; that in pursuance of their promise, both
with the room very dark, Ah Chong feared that the of the accused went to lived in the barrio of
intruder was a robber or a thief, leapt to his feet and Santo Niño, in the same municipality; that
called out that he will kill the intruder if he enters under pretext for some nipa leaves from her
the room. At that moment he was struck above the son by her former marriage, Nicolas de la
knee by the edge of the chair, but in the darkness Cruz, who had gone to the barrio of Santo
and confusion he thought that the blow was inflicted Niño, Romana Silvestre followed him to his
by the intruder. Seizing a kitchen knife he kept house in the barrio of Masocol on November
under his pillow, Ah Chong struck out wildly at the 23, 1930, and remained there; that her
intruder, who turned out to be Pascual. Pascual codefendant, Martin Atienza followed her, and
died from the stab wounds. stayed with his coaccused in the same house;
Ah Chong was charged with the crime of that on the night of November 25, 1930, at
assassination, and the trial court found him guilty of about 8 o'clock, while all were gathered
homicide. During trial he admitted killing Pascual, together at home after supper, Martin Atienza
but insisted that he acted in self-defense. expressed his intention of burning the house as the
only means of taking his revenge on the Masocol
Issue: resident, who had instigated Domingo Joaquin to
Whether Ah Chong can be held criminally liable. file the complaint for adultery against them, which
compelled them to leave the barrio of Masocol;
Ruling: that Romana Silvestre listened to her
In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if codefendant's threat without raising a protest,
such ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to and did not give the
negative a particular intent which under the law is a alarm when the latter set fire to the house.
necessary ingredient of the offense charged (e. g.,
in larceny,animus furendi; in murder, malice; in Issue:
crimes and misdemeanors generally some degree Whether or not Romana Silvestre was an
of criminal intent) "cancels the presumption of accomplice to the crime of arson committed by
intent," and works an acquittal; except in those Martin Atienza
cases where the circumstances demand a
conviction under the penal provisions touching Held:
criminal negligence; and in cases where, xxx one It is held that: (1) Mere passive presence at
voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor the scene of another's crime, mere silence and
incurs criminal liability for any wrongful failure to give the alarm, without evidence of
actcommitted by him, even though it be different agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the
from that which he intended to commit. cooperation required by article 14 of the Penal
Code for complicity in the commission of the
crime witnessed passively, or with regard to
which one has kept silent; and (2) he who
desiring to burn the houses in a barrio, without
knowing whether there are people in them or not,
sets fire to one known to be vacant at the time,
which results in destroying the rest, commits the PEOPLE V. TALINGDAN
crime of arson, defined and penalized in article 550, G.R. NO. L-3216, JULY 6, 1978
paragraph 2, Penal Code.
By virtue wherefore, the judgment appealed Facts:
from is modified as follows: It is affirmed with Bernardo Bagabag was murdered in his own house
reference to the accused-appellant Martin in Abra on June 24, 1967 by Talingdan, Tobias,
Atienza, and reversed with reference to the Berras, Bides and Teresa Domogma, his alleged
accused-appellant Romana Silvestre, who is wife. The murder was witnessed by Corazon, the
hereby acquitted with one-half of the costs de eldest child of Bernardo and Teresa whom she
oficio. So ordered. testified to the crime committed by the accused-
appellants. Bernardo and Teresa have had several
conflicts in their married life and the latter was
suspected of having an illicit affair with Talingdan, a
policeman who lives nearby. After Bernardo was
killed, she became active in her cooperation with
the accused. These subsequent acts of her
constitute concealing or assisting in the escape of
the principal in the crime which makes her liable as
an accessory to the crime

Issue:
Whether or not Teresa Domogma is an
accessory to the crime committed of murder to his
husband Bernardo Bagabag

Ruling:
The court affirmed the decision held by the
trial court that the accused are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and the wife of the
victim Teresa Domogma is guilty as accessory to
the same murder
Not showing the actual cooperation on her
part with her co-appellants in their culpable acts
does not mean she is entirely free from criminal
liability. There is in the record morally convincing
proof that she is at the very least an accessory to
the offense committed by her co-accused. She was
inside the room when her husband was shot. As
she came out after the shooting, she inquired from
Corazon if she was able to recognize the assailants
of her father. When Corazon Identified appellants
Talingdan, Tobias, Berras and Bides as the culprits,
Teresa did not only enjoin her daughter not to
reveal what she knew to anyone, she went to the
extent of warning her, "Don't tell it to anyone. I will
kill you if you tell this to somebody." Later, when the
peace officers who repaired to their house to
investigate what happened, instead of helping them
with the information given to her by Corazon, she
claimed she had no suspects in mind. In other
words, whereas, before the actual shooting of her
husband, she was more or less passive in her
attitude regarding her co-appellants' conspiracy,
known to her, to do away with him, after Bernardo
was killed, she became active in her cooperation
with them. These subsequent acts of her constitute
"concealing or assisting in the escape of the MANUEL V. PEOPLE
principal in the crime" which makes her liable as an G.R. NO. 165842, NOVEMBER 29, 2005
accessory after the fact under paragraph 3 of
Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code FACTS:
·         July 28, 1975: Eduardo married Rubylus
Gaña before Msgr. Feliciano Santos in Makati
o    Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 and
thereafter imprisoned
o    Eduardo only visited 3 times and never saw her
again
·         January 1996: Eduardo met Tina B.
Gandalera, 21 year old computer secretarial
student, in Dagupan City while she looked for a
friend during her 2 days stay
·         Later, Eduardo visited Tina, they went to a
motel together and he proposed marriage and
introduced her to his parents who assures that he is
single
·         April 22, 1996: Eduardo married Tina before
Judge Antonio C. Reyes, the Presiding Judge of
the RTC of Baguio City and they were able to build
a home after
·         1999: Eduardo only visited their home twice
or thrice a year and whenever jobless Tina would
ask for money, he would slap her
·         January 2001: Eduardo packed his things
and left and stopped giving financial support
·         August 2001: Tina through inquiries from the
National Statistics Office (NSO) in Manila and was
embarrassed and humiliated to learn that Eduardo
was previously married
·         Eduardo claimed that he did NOT know that
he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of
his first marriage before marrying Tina
·         RTC: Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of bigamy and sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of from 6 years and 10 months, as
minimum, to 10 years, as maximum and
P200,000.00 by way of moral damages, plus costs
of suit
o    Eduardo’s belief, that his first marriage had
been dissolved because of his first wife’s 20-year
absence, even if true, did not exculpate him from
liability for bigamy
·         Eduardo appealed to the CA contending that
he did so in good faith and without any malicious
intent whereas under Article 3 of the Revised Penal
Code, there must be malice for one to be criminally
liable for a felony
·         CA: affirming the decision of the RTC stating
that Article 41 of the Family Code should apply that
there should have been a judicial declaration of
Gaña’s presumptive death as the absent spouse
and modified minimum to 2 years and four months
ISSUE: not heard from her for more than 20 years since
W/N Eduardo is guilty of Bigamy, a felony by dolo 1975
(deceit).  o    failed to discharge his burden since no judicial
declaration as proof
HELD: ·         Article 41 of the Family Code amended the
YES. petition is DENIED. CA affirmed rules on presumptive death on Articles 390 and 391
of the Civil Code which states that before the
·         Art. 349. Bigamy. – The penalty of prision spouse present may contract a subsequent
mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall marriage, he or she must institute summary
contract a second or subsequent marriage before proceedings for the declaration of the presumptive
the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or death of the absentee spouse, without prejudice to
before the absent spouse has been declared the effect of the reappearance of the absentee
presumptively dead by means of a judgment spouse. 
rendered in the proper proceedings. ·         moral damages may be awarded under
o    The reason why bigamy is considered a felony Article 2219 in relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of
is to preserve and ensure the juridical tie of the Civil Code for being against public policy as
marriage established by law. they undermine and subvert the family as a social
o    Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code has institution, good morals and the interest and
made the dissolution of marriage dependent not general welfare of society
only upon the personal belief of parties, but upon
certain objective facts easily capable of accurate
judicial cognizance, namely, a judgment of the
presumptive death of the absent spouse
·         For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy,
the prosecution is burdened to prove the felony:
o    (a) he/she has been legally married; and      
o    (b) he/she contracts a subsequent marriage
without the former marriage having been lawfully
dissolved. 
§  The felony is consummated on the celebration of
the second marriage or subsequent marriage
·         Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code provides that there is deceit when the act is
performed with deliberate intent
o    Malice -a mental state or condition prompting
the doing of an overt act WITHOUT legal excuse or
justification from which another suffers injury
o    When the act or omission defined by law as a
felony is proved to have been done or committed
by the accused, the law presumes it to have been
intentional
o    For one to be criminally liable for a felony by
dolo, there must be a confluence of both an evil act
and an evil intent. 
§  Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
·         GR: mistake of fact or good faith of the
accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a
felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or
criminal intent.
·         EX: ignorance of the law is not an excuse
because everyone is presumed to know the law.  
o    Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
·         burden of the petitioner to prove his defense
that when he married he was of the well-grounded
belief that his first wife was already dead, as he had
 the head, missed, but still managed to hit the victim
Rivera v. People only in the parietal area, resulting in a lacerated
G.R. 166326, January 25, 2006 wound and cerebral contusions [end].

Facts:
One day, the victim Ruben Rodil went to a store to
buy food when one of the petitioners, Edgardo
Rivera, mocked him for being jobless and
dependent on his wife for support. A heated
exchange of words ensued. The next day, Ruben
went to the store to buy food and to look for his
wife. Momentarily, Esmeraldo and his two brothers,
petitioners Ismael and Edgardo, emerged from their
house and ganged up on Ruben. Esmeraldo and
Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows and he fell to
the ground. In that helpless position, Edgardo hit
Ruben three times with a hollow block on the
parietal area. Esmeraldo and Ismael continued
mauling Ruben. People who saw the incident
shouted: "Awatin sila! Awatin sila!" Ruben felt dizzy
but managed to stand up. Ismael threw a stone at
him, hitting him at the back. When policemen on
board a mobile car arrived, Esmeraldo, Ismael and
Edgardo fled to their house. Ruben was brought to
the hospital where he received medical treatment.
The doctor certified that the wound in the parietal
area was slight and superficial and would heal for 1
to 7 days.
The RTC of Imus, Cavite found the Riveras guilty of
frustrated murder. The CA affirmed the RTC.

Issue:
Whether the intent to kill was not proven.

Ruling: Petition DENIED.Evidence to prove

intent to kill in crimes against persons may
consist, inter alia, in
• 1)  the means used by the malefactors,
• 2)  the nature, location and number of
wounds sustained by the victim,
• 3)  the conduct of the malefactors before,
at the time, or immediately after the
killing of the victim,
• 4)  the circumstances under which the
crime was committed and,
• 5)  the motives of the accused.
If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act
of the malefactors, intent to kill is presumed.
In the present case, the prosecution mustered the
requisite quantum of evidence to prove the intent of
petitioners to kill Ruben. Petitioners Esmeraldo and
Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows. Even
as Ruben fell to the ground, unable to defend
himself against the sudden and sustained assault
of petitioners, petitioner Edgardo hit him three times
with a hollow block. Edgardo tried to hit Ruben on
PEOPLE V. PUNO  He said he even slowed the car
G.R. NO. 97471, FEBRURAY 17, 1993 down as he drove away, until he saw
(GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INTENT) that his employer had gotten a ride
 He claimed that she fell down when
FACTS: she stubbed her toe while running
across the highway
ISSUE:
 January 13, 1988 in QC, at around 5:00 pm: 1. Whether or not the accused can be
the accused Isabelo Puno, who is the convicted of kidnapping for ransom as
personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband charged
(who was then away in Davao purportedly 2. Whether or not the said robbery can be
on account of local election there) arrived at classified as "highway robbery" under PD
Mrs. Sarmiento's bakeshop in Araneta Ave, No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
QC Robbery Law of 1974)
 He told Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver Holding:
Fred had to go to Pampanga on an 1. No.
emergency so Isabelo will temporarily take 2. No.
his place
 When it was time for Mrs. Sarmiento to go RATIO:
home to Valle Verde in Pasig, she got into 1. There is no showing whatsoever that
her husband's Mercedes Benz with Isabelo appellants had any motive, nurtured prior
driving to or at the time they committed the
 After the car turned right on a corner of wrongful acts against complainant, other
Araneta Ave, it stopped and a young man, than the extortion of money from
accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car her under the compulsion of threats or
beside the driver intimidation.
 Enrique pointed a gun at Mrs. Sarmiento as  For this crime to exist, there must be
Isabelo told her that he needs to "get indubitable proof that the actual
money" from her intent of the malefactors was to
 Mrs. Sarmiento had P7,000 on her bag deprive the offended party of her
which she handed to the accused liberty
 But the accused said that they wanted  In the case, the restraint of her
P100,000 more freedom of action was merely an
 The car sped off north towards the North incident in the commission of
superhighway where Isabelo asked Mrs. another offense primarily intended
Sarmiento to issue a check for P100,000 by the offenders
 Mrs. Sarmiento drafted 3 checks: two  This does not constitute kidnapping
P30,000 checks and one P40,000 check or serious illegal detention
 Isabelo then turned the car around towards 2. Jurisprudence reveals that during the early
Metro Manila; later, he changed his mind part of the American occupation of our
and turned the car again towards country, roving bands were organized for
Pampanga robbery and pillage and since the then
 According to her, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped existing law against robbery was inadequate
out of the car then, crossed to the other side to cope with such moving bands of outlaws,
of the superhighway and was able to flag the Brigandage Law was passed (this is the
down a fish vendor's van, her dress had origin of the law on highway robbery)
blood because according to her, she fell  PD No. 532 punishes as highway
down on the ground and was injured when robbery only acts of robbery
she jumped out of the car perpetrated by outlaws
 The defense does not dispute the above indiscriminately against any person
narrative of the complainant except that or persons on Philippine highways
according to Isabelo, he stopped the car at and not acts of robbery committed
North Diversion and freely allowed Mrs. against only a predetermined or
Sarmiento to step out of the car particular victim
 The mere fact that the robbery
was committed inside a car which
 was casually operating on a
highway does not make PD No PEOPLE V. OANIS
532 applicable to the case G.R. NO. 47722, JULY 27, 1943
 This is not justified by the (MISTAKE OF FACT)
accused's intention
Accused-appellants convicted of robbery FACTS:
(indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months or Chief of Police Oanis and Constabulary Corporal
prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of Galanta were tasked to arrest a certain
prision mayor. Accused to pay Mrs. Sarmiento Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal. The
P7,000 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral instruction was to apprehend, and if overpowered,
damages.) to get him dead or alive. They were informed that
Balagtas was staying with Irene Requinea. The two
then went to Irene’s house, Oanis asked Brigida
Mallare where Irene’s room was and where was
Balagtas’ whereabouts. Mallare told them Irene’s
room and further stated that she was with her
paramour, she also said that Balagtas was sleeping
at Irene’s place. The two proceeded to Irene’s room
and saw a man sleeping with his back towards the
door. Without inquiring as to the identity of the man,
the two simultaneously and successively fired their
revolver at the man leading to the man’s death.
After the shooting, it turned out that the man was
not Balagtas, but Serapio Tecson. As defense, the
two alleged that they acted in innocent mistake of
fact and in the honest performance of duty. The
lower court found the two guilty of homicide through
reckless imprudence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Oanis and Galanta can be held
criminally liable for the death of Tecson. (YES)

RULING:
The theory of non-liability by reason of honest
mistake of facts laid down in the case of U.S. v. Ah
Chong, as relied upon by the defendants, is invalid
and not applicable in this case. The maxim
ignorantia facti excusat applies only when the
mistake is committed without fault or carelessness.
In the case of U.S. v. Ah Chong, there is an
innocent mistake of fact committed without any fault
or carelessness because Ah Chong, having no time
or opportunity to make a further inquiry, and being
pressed by circumstances to act immediately, had
no alternative but to take the facts as they then
appeared to him, and such facts justified his act of
killing. Under Rule 109, Sec. 2 (2), Rules of Court,
it states that "No unnecessary or unreasonable
force shall be used in making an arrest, and the
person arrested shall not be subject to any greater
restraint than is necessary for his detention." And a
peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal
liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in
making an arrest.|. In this case, Oanis and Galanta,
unlike Ah Chong, found no circumstances
whatsoever which would press them to immediate
action. The person in the room being then asleep,
the two had ample time and opportunity to Loney v. People
ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves, 482 SCRA 195, February 10, 2006
and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any
reasonable effort to that end had been made, as Facts:
the victim was unarmed, according to Irene Petitioners Loney, Reid, and Hernandez are the
Requinea. This, indeed, is the only legitimate officers of Marcopper Mining Corporation
course of action for appellants to follow even if the (Marcopper), a mining corporation mining in
victim was really Balagtas, as they were instructed Marinduque. One day, the tailings Marcopper
not to kill Balagtas at sight but to arrest him, and to stores gushed out from its tailings pit and into the
get him dead or alive only if resistance or Boac and Makanlupit rivers.
aggression is offered by him. The crime committed The DOJ separately charged Loney, et al. before
by Oanis and Galanta is not merely criminal the MTC of Boac, Marinduque with violations of the
negligence, the killing being intentional and not Water Code of the Philippines, the National
accidental. Thus, their conviction is modified from Pollution Control Decree of the Philippines (PD
homicide to murder (qualified by treachery) 984), the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, and Art.
mitigated by incomplete fulfillment of a duty under 365 of the RPC for reckless imprudence resulting to
Article 11 (5), RPC. damage to property. Loney, et al. moved to quash
the informations as they charged more than one
offense for a single act.
The MTC quashed the informations for violation of
the Water Code and the Pollution Control Decree,
and maintained the informations for violation of the
Mining Act and the RPC. The RTC Boac set aside
the quashal of the MTC and ordered the
reinstatement of all the charges. The CA affirmed
the RTC

Issue:
Whether all the charges filed against petitioners
except one should be quashed for duplicity of
charges and only the charge for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property
should stand.

Ruling:
Petition Denied. CA decision affirmed. There is
duplicity (or multiplicity) of charges when a single
Information charges more than one offense.
Xxx On petitioners' claim that the charge for
violation of Article 365 of the RPC "absorbs" the
charges for violation of PD 1067, PD 984, and RA
7942, suffice it to say that a mala in se felony
(such as Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property) cannot absorb mala
prohibita crimes (such as those violating PD
1067, PD 984, and RA 7942). What makes the
former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or
negligence (culpa); what makes the latter
crimes are the special laws enacting them. [end]
X killed B with the use of motor vehicle. X hit and
bumped B. X was charged with murder. So the
information charges an intentional felony of murder.
Trial on merits ensued, after the prosecution
presented evidence, the defense presented
evidence. PEOPLE V. GALVEZ
The defense was able to show, to prove beyond G.R. NO. 157221, MARCH 30, 2007
reasonable doubt that the reason for the said act of
killing B was because X lost control of his brake. FACTS
Therefore, according to them, there was only
imprudence and so X should only be held liable for 1. On July 27, 1991, at around 11PM, Rosalio
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Enojarda, together with his co-worker, took
a brak from making copra to eat dinner.
When Enojard stood up to drink water, he
was shot and later died.
2. An information for murder was filed against
Cesar Galvez, a member of PNP.
3. The prosecution presented evidence
showing that after Enojarda fell, the rest of
the group took cover and Rellios while in a
crawling position, saw Galvez about 5
meters away holding an armalite rifle and
firing at their direction.
4. Galvez, as his defenses, he testified that he
was staying at his father-in-law’s house on
July 27, 1991 and drank tuba at around
10:30 p.m. at a nearby store.
5. Galvez also presented a Forensic Analyst of
PNP Crime Lab, who testified that the
paraffin test conducted on both his hands
showed that there was no nitrate present.
6. A Ballistic Examiner was also presented by
Galvez, who testified that the shells found at
the scene of the crime were not fired from
the firearm issued to Galvez.
7. RTC convicted Galvez for murder.
a. Since this accused, Cesar Galvez,
has not fired his M16 armalite rifle
on that night of July 27, 1991, and
those five empty shells were not
fired from his armalite, but came
from the gun fired by any of the 3
unidentified persons who were the
companions of the Galvez at the
night of the incident.
b. Thus, Galvez was stripped of all the
military ranks he now hold in the
Armed Forces of the Philippines.
8. CA affirmed the decision but lowered the
penalty.

Hence, this petition.

Galvez Contention:
- the statement of the trial court that the offer of the
accused to have the case extra-judicially settled is
a tacit admission of guilt is unsubstantiated as
there is nothing in the records that shows that the
accused made an offer to settle the case out of
court.
 VELASCO V. PEOPLE
ISSUE/S G.R. NO. 166748, FEBRUARY 28, 2006
1. W/N the alleged extra-judicial settlement offered FACTS:
by Galvez is a tacit admission of guilt. •    April 19, 1998 7:30 am: Frederick Maramba was
cleaning and washing his owner type jeep in front
of his house when a motorized tricycle stopped
RULING & RATIO near him.  Rodolfo C. Velasco dashed out of the
tricycle, approached the complainant and fired at
- NO him several times with a .45 caliber pistol.  Velasco
missed his first shot but the second one hit the
1. While the Court agrees that in criminal complainant at the upper arm, causing him to
cases, an offer of compromise by the stumble on the ground.  But, Frederick stood up
accused may be received in evidence as an and ran, while Velasco fired 6 more but missed.
implied admission of guilt, such principle is •    After being reported as wearing a vest or a
not applicable in this case. “chaleco”, the police, composed of SPO4 Romulo
2. The only basis of the RTC in concluding that Villamil, PO3 Rolando Alvendo, and SPO1 Soliven
Galvez made on offer of compromise is pursued and caught Velasco who was on board a
when Galvez appeared together with the motorized tricycle to the highway going to Barangay
wife of Enorjado and manifested that there Banaoang in Calasiao town with a firearm
is a possibility of understanding and protruding from the waistline
settlement between the parties. •    Velasco’s Alibi: April 18, 1998, he spent the
a. HOWEVER, Galvez’s supposed night at a friend’s house in Lingayen, Pangasinan
offer of compromise was not and between 6:00-7:00am, he left Lingayen riding
formally offered and admitted as in the Volkswagen car of Berting Soriano then
evidence during the trial. The alighted at the corner of Banaoang diversion road
victim’s widow or any prosecution to ride a tricycle where he heard a jeep behind him
witness did not testify on any offer of blowing its horn and when he looked back he saw
compromise made by Galvez. three men on board pointing their guns at him.
3. Thus, the Court ruled that when the •    RTC: guilty of attempted murder appreciating
evidence on the alleged offer of treachery in the commission of the crime sentenced
compromise is amorphous, the same to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years
shall not benefit the prosecution in its of prision correccional, as minimum to Eight (8)
case against the accused. years and One (1) day of prision mayor, as
4. In People v. Godoy, the court ruled: maximum and to pay P2,696 as actual damages
a. accused is permitted to show that •    CA: Affirmed RTC
the offer was not made under a •    Velasco filed a petition for certiorari
consciousness of guilt, but merely to o    he had no motive to harm, much less kill, the
avoid the inconvenience of victim for he was total stranger and since the
imprisonment which would justify a identity of the assailant is in doubt, motive becomes
claim by the accused that the offer to important and his alibi gains weight and value and
compromise was not in truth an that the testimony of Armando Maramba is not
admission of guilt. credible, he being a relative of the victim
5. Galvez was not given the opportunity to
explain that it was given for some other ISSUE:
reason that would justify a claim that it was W/N Velasco is guilty of attempted murder
not an admission of guilt or an attempt to
avoid its legal consequences. HELD:
6. the presumption of innocence of Galvez YES. petition is DENIED
prevails over the alleged implied admission
of guilt. •    it was not physically impossible for Velasco to
be at the crime scene when the crime was
committed since it only takes a 10-minute ride from
the place where he allegedly alighted from the car
of one Berting Soriano to the crime scene
•    Even without a ballistic report, the positive People v. Delim
identification by prosecution witnesses is more than G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003
sufficient to prove accused’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. FACTS:
•    It must be stressed that motive is a state of Accused-appellants Marlon, Ronald and Leon,
(one’s) mind which others cannot discern. It is not together with Manuel alias Bong and
an element of the crime, and as such does not Robert, all surnamed Delim, were indicted for
have to be proved.  In fact, lack of motive for murder of Modesto Manalo Bantas, who was
committing a crime does not preclude conviction. It adopted by the father of the accused.
is judicial knowledge that persons have been killed On January 23, 1999, Modesto was forcibly taken
or assaulted for no reason at all. Even in the by defendants who were armed from his home;
absence of a known motive, the time-honored rule Marlon poked his gun at Modesto while Robert and
is that motive is not essential to convict when there Ronald simultaneously grabbed and hog-tied
is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit. Motive the victim; Rita and Randy (his wife and son) being
assumes significance only where there is no warned not to leave the house. His body was
showing of who the perpetrator of the crime was. discovered 4 days later by Randy and his relatives.
o    since petitioner has been positively identified The accused were found guilty for murder.
the lack of motive is no longer of consequence The Information read “that on or about January 23,
•    relationship could strengthen the witnesses’ 1999, in the evening at Brgy. Bila, Sison,
credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this
relative to falsely accuse someone other than the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
actual culprit armed with short firearms barged-in and entered
•    The fact that the shooting occurred in broad the house of Modesto Delim and once inside
daylight does not render its commission with intent to kill, treachery, evident premedidation
impossible.  The fact that petitioner was a navy (sic), conspiring with one another, did then
man, a protector of the people, does not mean that and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously grab,
he is innocent of the crime charged or that he is hold, hogtie, gag with a piece of cloth, brought
incapable of doing it. out and abduct Modesto Delim, accused Leon
•    The suddenness of the shooting and the fact Delim and Manuel Delim stayed in the house
that he was unarmed left private complainant with guarded and prevented the wife and son of
no option but to run for his life. – treachery Modesto Delim from helping the latter, thereafter
•    Having commenced the criminal act by overt with
acts but failing to perform all acts of execution as to abuse of superior strength stabbed and killed said
produce the felony by reason of some cause other Modesto Delim, to the damage and prejudice
than his own desistance, petitioner committed an of his heirs.”
attempted felony.  Petitioner already commenced The trial court rendered judgment finding accused
his attack with a manifest intent to kill by shooting guilty of aggravated murder, and was
private complainant seven times, but failed to sentenced to death.
perform all the acts of execution by reason of
causes independent of his will, that is, poor aim and ISSUE:
the swiftness of the latter.  Private complainant W/N the crime charged in the information is
sustained a wound on the left arm that is not kidnapping or murder? Murder.
sufficient to cause his death.  The settled rule is
that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not HELD:
sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only In determining what crime is charged in an
attempted murder, since the accused did not information, the material inculpatory facts
perform all the acts of execution that would have recited therein describing the crime charged in
brought about death relation to the penal law violated are controlling.
•    Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and Where the specific intent of the malefactor is
there being no aggravating or mitigating determinative of the crime charged such
circumstances, the minimum of the penalty to be specific intent must be alleged in the information
imposed should be within the range of prision and proved by the prosecution. A decade
correccional, and the maximum of the penalty to be ago, this Court held in People v. Isabelo Puno, et
imposed should be within the range of prision al. that for kidnapping to exist, there must be
mayor in its medium period.
indubitable proof that the actual specific intent of Modesto of his freedom or liberty and that killing
the malefactor is to deprive the offended party of him was merely incidental to kidnapping.
his liberty and not where such restraint of his Irrefragably then, the crime charged in the
freedom of action is merely an incident in the Information is Murder under Article 248 of the
commission of another offense primarily intended Revised
by the malefactor. Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article 268
What is primordial then is the specific intent of the thereof.
malefactors as disclosed in the ***The Court found the accused guilty of homicide
information or criminal complaint that is (not murder) for failure of the prosecution to
determinative of what crime the accused is present any witness or conclusive evidence that
charged with--that of murder or kidnapping. Modesto was defenseless immediately before
Specific intent is used to describe a state of mind and when he was attacked and killed (thus, not
which exists where circumstances indicate that treachery nor use of superior strength).
an offender actively desired certain criminal
consequences or objectively desired a specific
result
to follow his act or failure to act. Specific intent
involves a state of the mind. It is the particular
purpose or specific intention in doing the prohibited
act. Specific intent must be alleged in the
Information and proved by the state in a
prosecution for a crime requiring specific intent.
Kidnapping and murder are specific intent crimes.
Specific intent may be proved by direct evidence or
by circumstantial evidence. It may be inferred
from the circumstances of the actions of the
accused as established by the evidence on record.
Specific intent is not synonymous with motive.
Motive generally is referred to as the reason which
prompts the accused to engage in a particular
criminal activity. Motive is not an essential element
of a crime and hence the prosecution need not
prove the same. As a general rule, proof of motive
for the commission of the offense charged does not
show guilt and absence of proof of such
motive does not establish the innocence of accused
for the crime charged such as murderIn
murder, the specific intent is to kill the victim. In
kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive the
victim of his/her liberty. If there is no motive for the
crime, the accused cannot be convicted for
kidnapping. In kidnapping for ransom, the motive is
ransom. Where accused kills the victim to
avenge the death of a loved one, the motive is
revenge.
In this case, it is evident on the face of the
Information that the specific intent of the
malefactors in
barging into the house of Modesto was to kill him
and that he was seized precisely to kill him with
the attendant modifying circumstances. The act of
the malefactors of abducting Modesto was
merely incidental to their primary purpose of killing
him. Moreover, there is no specific
allegation in the information that the primary intent
of the malefactors was to deprive
Yapyucu v. Sandiganbayan mistaken belief of the defendant, and it does not
G.R. 120744-46, June 25, 2012 look at all to the belief or state of mind of any other
person.
Facts: A proper invocation of this defense requires
Three informations for murder, frustrated murder • (a)  that the mistake be honest and
and multiple counts of attempted murder were filed reasonable;
before the Sandiganbayan against petitioners • (b)  that it be a matter of fact; and
Yapyuco, Jr., Cunanan, Jr., Puno (members of the • (c)  that it negate the culpability required
police); Pamintuan and Reyes (Brgy. Captains of to commit the crime or the existence of
Quebiawan and Del Carmen, Pampanga); Puno, the mental state which the statute
Reyes, Manguerra, David, Lugtu, Lacson, Yu, and prescribes with respect to an element of
Pablan (either members of the Civil Home Defense the offense.
Force or civilian volunteer officers in their The justification of an act, which is otherwise
barangays), in connection with a shoot-out which criminal on the basis of a mistake of fact, must
resulted in the death of Licup and injuries to preclude negligence or bad faith on the part of
Villanueva. the accused.
One evening, Villanueva, Licup, and four other This brings us to whether the guilt of petitioners for
companions were leaving the house of Salangsang homicide and frustrated homicide has been
as guests at the barrio fiesta celebrations. established beyond cavil of doubt. Xxx The
Villanueva was driving the Tamaraw jeepney at 5- prosecution is burdened to prove corpus delicti
10 KPH with his headlights dimmed, Licup was in beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence
the passenger seat while the rest were at the back. or by circumstantial or presumptive evidence.
As they were traversing a left curve on the road, Corpus delicti consists of two things: first, the
they were suddenly met with gunfire. The shots criminal act and second, defendant's agency in the
originated from Yapyuco, et al., who were commission of the act. xxx Proof of homicide or
positioned on the front yard of Naron’s residence, murder requires incontrovertible evidence, direct or
which was on the right side of the road right after circumstantial, that the victim was deliberately killed
the curve. The bullets penetrated the Tamaraw’s (with malice), that is, with intent to kill. Such
passenger side and hit Villanueva and Licup. The evidence may consist in the use of weapons by the
latter subsequently died as a result. malefactors, the nature, location and number of
Only Yapyuco, Jr. testified for the defense. He wounds sustained by the victim and the words
alleged that Pamintuan, thru David, sought police uttered by the malefactors before, at the time or
assistance concerning the reported presence of immediately after the killing of the victim. If the
NPA members in Quebiawan. Paminutan sought victim dies because of a deliberate act of the
the help of barangay captain Reyes, who brought a malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively
number of armed men, and that there were Cafgu presumed. In such case, even if there is no
members at the Naron residence. When the intent to kill, the crime is homicide because
Tamaraw driven by Villanueva drew closer, with respect to crimes of personal violence, the
Pamintuan announced that it was the target penal law looks particularly to the material
vehicle; thus Yapyuco, Cunanan and Puno took results following the unlawful act and holds the
post in the middle of the road. Yapyuco signaled at aggressor responsible for all the consequences
the Tamaraw to stop, but as the latter did thereof. Evidence of intent to kill is crucial only to a
accelerated to the left instead, the police fired a finding of frustrated and attempted homicide, as the
warning shot. The Tamaraw still went forward, same is an essential
hence the police were impelled to shoot its tires. element of these offenses, and thus must be
Instantaneously, gunshots from Naron’s yard hit the proved with the same degree of certainty as that
Tamaraw. required of the other elements of said offenses.
The Sandiganbayan found that Yapyuco, et al. In the instant case, Yapyuco, et al., without
were guilty as co-principals for homicide for the abandoning their claim that they did not intend to
death of Licup and attempted homicide for the kill anyone of the victims, admit having willfully
injury sustained by Villanueva, and acquitted them discharged their service firearms; and the manner
of attempted murder for the rest of Licup and by which the bullets concentrated on the passenger
Villanueva’s companions. It held that the acts side of the jeepney permits no other conclusion
Yapyuco, et al. performed preparatory to the than that the shots were intended for the persons
shooting demonstrated a clear intent to kill the lying along the line of fire. Xxx The rule is that in
occupants of the Tamaraw. inquiry is into the ascertaining the intention with which a specific act
is committed, it is always proper and necessary to general intent. The them that it was proceeding to
look not merely to the act itself but to all the evade their authority. And in instances like this,
attendant circumstances so far as they develop in their natural and logical impulse was to debilitate
the evidence. the vehicle by firing upon the tires thereof, or to
The firearms used by petitioners were either M16 debilitate the driver and hence put the vehicle to a
rifle, .30 caliber Garand rifle or .30 caliber carbine. halt. The evidence we found on the jeepney
While the use of these weapons does not always suggests that petitioners’ actuations leaned
amount to unnecessary force, they are towards the latter.
nevertheless inherently lethal in nature. At the level This demonstrates the clear intent of petitioners
the bullets were fired and hit the jeepney, it is not to bring forth death on Licup who was seated
difficult to imagine the possibility of the passengers on the passenger side and to Villanueva who
thereof being hit and even killed. It must be was occupying the wheel, together with all the
stressed that the subject jeepney was fired upon consequences arising from their deed. The
while it was pacing the road and at that moment, it circumstances of the shooting breed no other
is not as much too difficult to aim and target the inference than that the firing was deliberate and
tires thereof as it is to imagine the peril to which its not attributable to sheer accident or mere lack
passengers would be exposed even assuming that of skill.
the gunfire was aimed at the tires – especially Verily, the shooting incident subject of these
considering that petitioners do not appear to be petitions was actualized with the deliberate intent of
mere rookie law enforcers or unskilled neophytes in killing Licup and Villanueva, hence we dismiss
encounters with lawless elements in the streets. Yapyuco’s alternative claim in G.R. No. 120744 that
Thus, judging by the location of the bullet holes he and his co-petitioners must be found guilty
on the subject jeepney and the firearms merely of reckless imprudence resulting in
employed, the likelihood of the passenger next homicide and frustrated homicide. Here is why:
to the driver – and in fact even the driver First, the crimes committed in these cases are not
himself – of being hit and injured or even killed merely criminal negligence, the killing being
is great to say the least, certain to be precise. intentional and not accidental. In criminal
This, we find to be consistent with the uniform claim negligence, the injury caused to another should be
of Yapyuco, et al. that the impulse to fire directly at unintentional, it being the incident of another act
the jeepney came when it occurred to performed without malice.
Second, that petitioners by their acts exhibited
The Sandiganbayan also held that the theory of conspiracy, as correctly found by the
mistaken belief could not likewise benefit Yapyuco, Sandiganbayan, likewise militates against their
et al. because there was supposedly no showing claim of reckless imprudence. [end]
that they had sufficient basis or probable cause to
rely fully on Pamintuan’s report that the victims
were armed NPA members, and they have not
been able by evidence to preclude ulterior motives
or gross inexcusable negligence when they acted
as they did.

Issue:
Whether Yapyuco, et al. were not liable due to
mistake of fact.

Ruling:
Petitions DENIED.
The invocation of the concept of mistake of fact
faces certain failure. In the context of criminal law,
a “mistake of fact” is a misapprehension of a fact
which, if true, would have justified the act or
omission which is the subject of the prosecution.
Generally, a reasonable mistake of fact is a
defense to a charge of crime where it negates the
intent component of the crime. It may be a defense
even if the offense charged requires proof of only
 Contrary to the petitioner’s submission, the wounds
De Guzman, Jr. v. People sustained by Alexander were not mere scuffmarks
G.R. 178512, November 26, 2014 inflicted in the heat of anger or as the result of a
fistfight between them. The petitioner wielded and
Facts: used a knife in his assault on Alexander. The
One evening the victim Alexander Flojo (Alex) was medical records indicate, indeed, that Alexander
fetching water below his rented house in sustained two stab wounds, specifically, one on his
Mandaluyong City when accused Alfredo De upper left chest and the other on the left side of his
Guzman, Jr. suddenly appeared and hit him on the face. The petitioner’s attack was unprovoked with
nape. The sister of Alfredo and Alex’s landlady the knife used therein causing such wounds,
Lucila apologized on Alfredo’s behalf and told Alex thereby belying his submission, and firmly proving
to go upstairs, which the latter did. Two hours later the presence of intent to kill. There is also to be no
Alex resumed fetching water, when suddenly doubt about the wound on Alexander’s chest being
Alfredo appeared again and stabbed Alex on his sufficient to result into his death were it not for the
face and chest. Alex was rushed to hospital where timely medical intervention.[end]
he received timely medical treatment, which
prevented his death. Alfredo on the other hand,
denied stabbing Alex.
The RTC Mandaluyong City convicted Alfredo of
frustrated homicide, and the CA confirmed the
conviction.

Issue:
Was De Guzman, Jr. not properly found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide?

Ruling:
Petition DENIED.The essential element in
frustrated or attempted homicide is the intent of the
offender to kill the victim immediately before or
simultaneously with the infliction ofinjuries. Intent to
kill is a specific intent that the State must allege in
the information, and then prove by either direct or
circumstantial evidence, as differentiated from a
general criminal intent, which is presumed from the
commission of a felony by dolo.
Intent to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned by
the courts only through external manifestations, i.e.,
the acts and conduct of the accused at the time of
the assault and immediately thereafter.
In Rivera v. People, the Court considered the
following factors to determine the presence of
intent to kill, namely:1) the means used by the
malefactors;
2) the nature, location, and number of wounds
sustained by the victim;
3) the conduct of the malefactors before,
during, or immediately after the killing of the
victim; and
4) the circumstances under which the crime
was committed and the motives of the accused.
The Court also considered as determinative factors
the motive of the offender and the words he uttered
at the time of inflicting the injuries on the victim.
Here, both the trial and the appellate court agreed
that intent to kill was present. We concur with them.
ROQUE V. PEOPLE can be presumed (Reyes, The Revised Penal
G.R. NO. 193169, APRIL 6, 2015 Code, 13TH ED., P. 431).
It is worth highlighting that the victim received two
Facts: gunshot wounds in the head. Indeed the location
Petitioner Rogelio Roque was charged with of the wounds plus the nature of the weapon
frustrated homicide in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan. used are ready indications that Roque’s
The prosecution averred that Reynaldo Marquez objective is not merely to warn or incapacitate a
sought to settle a misunderstanding with Roque, supposed aggressor. Verily, had Roque been
and with the assistance of the barangay chairman slightly better with his aim, any of the two bullets
Tayao, he went to Roque’s house to talk to the surely would have killed Marquez outright. Also,
latter. Marquez apologized to Roque, but the latter the intent to kill is further exhibited by the fact
shot at Marquez, who was hit in the right ear and that Roque even prevented barangay officials
nape. Unsatisfied, Roque kicked Reynaldo- who from intervening and helping the bleeding
was then on the ground-on the face and back. victim. Indeed, the fact that Reynaldo Marquez
Marquez pleaded for help from Tayao but Roque was miraculously able to live through the ordeal
warned those around not to get involved. and sustain only modicum injuries does not mean
Fortunately, Marquez’s parents arrived and brought that the crime ought to be downgraded from
him to the hospital, and he survived. frustrated homicide to less serious physical injuries.
Roque, on the other hand, alleged that Reynaldo After all, as was mentioned above, what should be
and his brother Rodolfo, who were both drunk, determinative of the crime is not the gravity of the
cursed Roque. The latter ignored the two and just resulting injury but the criminal intent that animated
went home. Later, the Marquez brothers went to the hand that pulled the trigger [end].
Roque’s house, still shouting invectives at the
latter. The Marquez brothers were persuaded to
leave, but not without threatening to kill Roque.
They did return and challenged Roque to a gun
duel, and Reynaldo fired his gun. As an act of self-
defense, Roque fired back twice.
The RTC found Roque guilty as charged, and the
CA affirmed the conviction.

Issue:
Whether Roque is guilty only of less serious
physical injuries, not frustrated homicide.

Ruling:
Petition DENIED.The CA correctly affirmed the
RTC’s ruling that Roque is guilty of frustrated
homicide and not merely of less serious physical
injuries as the latter insists. As aptly stated by the
CA:
In attempted or frustrated homicide, the
offender must have the intent to kill the victim.
If there is no intent to kill on the part of the
offender, he is liable for physical injuries only.
Vice-versa, regardless of whether the victim only
suffered injuries that would have healed in nine to
thirty days, if intent to kill is sufficiently borne out,
the crime committed is frustrated homicide (Arts.
263-266).
Usually, the intent to kill is shown by the kind of
weapon used by the offender and the parts of
the victim’s body at which the weapon was
aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. Hence,
when a deadly weapon, like a bolo, is used to stab
the victim in the latter’s abdomen, the intent to kill