CHAPTER 7 circumstances of the particular case.

Under
B. Self-defense the present situation, in the darkness of night,
the element of surprise in the assault, the
4. JAYME V PEOPLE perception that the aggressor was armed and
G.R. No. 124506. September 9, 1999 that three or more persons were ganging up
on him, gave the accused reasonable cause to
FACTS: use his weapon which was his only means of
On May 25, 1992 at around 7:00 pm, the defense. In emergencies of this kind, human
petitioner was on his way home while nature does not act upon processes of formal
carrying a pail of water when suddenly reason but according to the instinct of self-
complainant Ramil Cruz blocked his way and preservation. For having duly proved all the
attacked him with fist blows. Cruz was with essential elements of self-defense, the
his brothers and three other persons. accused is entitled to an acquittal.
Surprised at the sudden attack, Jayme drew a
knife and used it against Ramil. The other WHEREFORE, THE Court hereby REVERSES
three persons joined Ramil in attacking and and SETS ASIDE the appealed decision of the
one hit him on his head, causing him to drop Court of Appeals.
the knife. He then ran away. His head injury
was duly 5. VELASQUEZ V PEOPLE
The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision G.R. No. 195021, March 15, 2017
affirming that of the trial court convicting
accused-appellant of frustrated homicide, but FACTS:
credited him with the privileged mitigating On May 24, 2003 in the evening, Velasquez
circumstance of incomplete self-defense. (accused) while armed with stones and
wooden poles, conspiring, confederating and
ISSUE: mutually helping one another, with intent to
Whether or not the petitioner employed kill willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
reasonable means to repel the attack? maul and hit Jesus del Mundo inflicting upon
him injuries in the vital parts of his body, the
DECISION: said accused having thus commenced a felony
The petitioner has duly proved all the directly by overt acts, but did not perform all
essential elements of self-defense, namely, the acts of execution which could have
unlawful aggression on the part of the produced the crime of Murder but
complainant; reasonable necessity of the nevertheless did not produce it by reason of
means employed to prevent or repel it; and some causes or accident other than their own
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of spontaneous desistance to his damage and
the accused.[22 He is entitled to an acquittal. prejudice.
Reasonable means does not mean absolute
necessity. It must be assumed that one who is Jesus was brought to the hospital. After
assaulted cannot have sufficient tranquility of undergoing an x-ray examination, he was
the mind to think and make comparisons, found to have sustained a crack in his skull
which can be made in the calmness of the and was advised to undergo surgery.
home. The rule of reasonable necessity is not
ironclad in its application. It depends on the The accused invoke the first and second
justifying circumstances under Article 11 of on the weakness of the prosecution.
the Revised Penal Code reiterating that it was
Jesus, who was supposedly inebriated, vented WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The
his ire upon Nicolas and the other accused, as Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
well as on Mercedes. The accused thus
responded and countered Jesus' attacks,
leading to his injuries. The CA ruled that
accused-appellants are found guilty of Serious
Physical Injuries.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a sufficient
evidence to prove that justifying
circumstances?

DECISION:
A person invoking self-defense (or defense of
a relative) admits to having inflicted harm
upon another person - a potential criminal act
under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) of
the Revised Penal Code. However, he or she
makes the additional, defensive contention
that even as he or she may have inflicted
harm, he or she nevertheless incurred no
criminal liability as the looming danger upon
his or her own person (or that of his or her
relative) justified the infliction of protective
harm to an erstwhile aggressor.

To successfully invoke self-defense, an

accused must establish: "(1) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed CHAPTER 8 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of 1. PEOPLE V FORMIGONES
the person resorting to self-defense. G.R. No. L-3246 - November 29, 1950

Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated FACTS:

when uncorroborated by independent and The accused, without any previous quarrel or
competent evidence or when it is extremely provocation whatsoever, took his bolo from
doubtful by itself. Indeed, in invoking self- the wall of the house and stabbed his wife at
defense, the burden of evidence is shifted and the back, the blade penetrating the right lung
the accused claiming self-defense must rely which latter caused her death. When she fall
on the strength of his own evidence and not ont he ground the defendant carried her up
the house, laid her on the floor of the living of the lower court with the modification that
room and then lay down beside her. He was the appellant will be credited with one-half of
convicted of parricide and was sentenced to any preventive imprisonment he has
prison. The defendant entered a plea of not undergone.
guilty. His counsel claimed that e is an
imbecile therefore exempt from criminal
liability. Dr. Francisco Gomez told that
Abelardo was suffering only from 2. SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG
feeblemindedness and not imbecility and that KABATAAN V QUEZON CITY
he could distinguish right from wrong. G.R. No. 225442, August 08, 2017

ISSUE: FACTS:
Whether or not the appellant is imbecile and The campaign of President Rodrigo Roa
covered by Article 12 of RPC? Duterte to implement a nationwide curfew for
minors, several local governments in Metro
DECISION: Manila started to strictly implement their
The Supreme Court of Spain held that in order curfew ordinances on minors through police
that this exempting circumstances may be operations which were publicly known as part
taken into account, it is necessary that there of "Oplan Rody."
be a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act, that is, that the accused The Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan
be deprived of reason; that there be no (SPARK)- an association of young adults and
responsibility for his own acts; that he acts minors that aims to forward a free and just
without the least discernment;1 that there be society, in particular the protection of the
a complete absence of the power to discern, rights and welfare of the youth and minors
or that there be a total deprivation of filed this present petition, arguing that the
freedom of the will. For this reason, it was Curfew Ordinances are unconstitutional
held that the imbecility or insanity at the time because they: (a) result in arbitrary and
of the commission of the act should discriminatory enforcement, and thus, fall
absolutely deprive a person of intelligence or under the void for vagueness doctrine; (b)
freedom of will, because mere abnormality of suffer from overbreadth by proscribing or
his mental faculties does not exclude impairing legitimate activities of minors
imputability. during curfew hours; (c) deprive minors of the
right to liberty and the right to travel without
As to the strange behaviour of the accused substantive due process; and (d) deprive
during his confinement, assuming that it was parents of their natural and primary right in
not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be rearing the youth without substantive due
attributed either to his being feebleminded or process.
eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition
produced by remorse at having killed his wife. Petitioners likewise proffer that the Curfew
He could distinguish right from wrong. Ordinances: (a) are unconstitutional as they
deprive minors of the right to liberty and the
In conclusion, we find the appellant guilty of right to travel without substantive due
parricide and we hereby affirm the judgment process; and (b) fail to pass the strict scrutiny
test, for not being narrowly tailored and for The accused (Elicanal) was on board the
employing means that bear no reasonable Iorcha Cataluna as a crew with Guillermo
relation to their purpose. Guiloresa as theChiefmate & Juan Nomo as
the Captain; Accused is 22 years old, w/out
ISSUE: education & physically weak. The ship barely
Whether or not the Curfew Ordinances are leaving the mouth of Iloilo River, Guiloresa
unconstitutional? approached the accused and told him that he
would kill the captain which the accused
DECISION: thought as a joke since per his knowledge, no
The petition is partly granted. WHEREFORE, member of the crew has any resentment
the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. towards the captain. In the following
After a thorough evaluation of the ordinances' morning, Guiloresa assaulted the captain
respective provisions, this Court finds that inside his cabin, attempting to seize and hold
only the Quezon City Ordinance meets the the hands of the captain, at the same time
above-discussed requirement, while the calling the rest of the crew to come forward
Manila and Navotas Ordinances do not. and help him. At the request of Guiloresa, the
crew except Elicanal got hold of the captain
As parens patriae, the State has the inherent and tied his hands with a rope-At this
right and duty to aid parents in the moral instance, Guiloresa struck the captain in the
development of their children and, thus, back of the neck with an iron bar and
assumes a supporting role for parents to fulfill immediately handed the iron bar to Elicanal &
their parental obligations. ordered him to come forward and help in
disposing of the captain.-While the captain
The Court finds that all three Curfew still struggling, he seized the iron bar and
Ordinances have passed the first prong of the struck the captain on the head which caused
strict scrutiny test - that is, that the State has his death.
sufficiently shown a compelling interest to
promote juvenile safety and prevent juvenile ISSUE:
crime in the concerned localities, only the Whether or not there was a threat directed to
Quezon City Ordinance has passed the second the accused that would deprive him of his
prong of the strict scrutiny test, as it is the own volition and make him a mere
only issuance out of the three which provides instrument of the person who threatened
for the least restrictive means to achieve this him?
interest. In particular, the Quezon City
Ordinance provides for adequate exceptions DECISION:
that enable minors to freely exercise their Evidence fails to establish that the threat
fundamental rights during the prescribed directed to the accused by the chief mate, if
curfew hours, and therefore, narrowly drawn any, was of such a character as to deprive him
to achieve the State's purpose. of all volition and to make him a mere
instrument without will of his own but one
8. US v ELICANAL moved exclusively by him who threatened.
G.R. No. L-11439 - October 28, 1916 Nor does the threat appear to have been
such, or to have been made under such
FACTS: circumstances, that the accused could
reasonably have expected that he would
suffer material injury if he refused to comply.
In other words, the fear was not insuperable.

This court has held repeatedly that, even

though the beginning of an attack resulting in
the death of the deceased is free from
treachery of any sort, nevertheless it will be
found present if, at the time the fatal blow is
struck, the deceased is helpless and unable to
defend himself. We cannot agree with counsel
fro the appellant that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery, or alevosia, has
not been proved. It appears undisputed that,
at the time the accused struck the deceased
with the iron bar and thereby caused his CHAPTER 9
death, the latter was bound hand and foot MITIGATING CIRSUMSTANCES
and was helpless and defenseless.
D. MINORITY
There being neither aggravating nor 2. PEOPLE V MANTALABA
extenuating circumstances, the judgment G.R. No. 186227 - July 20, 2011
appealed from is reversed and the accused is
hereby sentenced to cadena perpetua. FACTS:
On October 1, 2003 Appellant Allen Udtoja
Mantalaba was caught selling shabu during
abuy-bust operation. At the time he
committed the offense he was seventeen (17)
years of age. On September 14, 2005 the
Regional Trial Court of Butuan City (RTC)
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of
Republic Act No. 1965 (R.A.9165), otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act. The Court of Appeals (CA)affirmed
the decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the minority of Mantalaba at
the time of the commission of the crime may
be admitted as privilege mitigating
circumstances?

DECISION:
The CA must have appreciated Mantalaba's
minority as privileged mitigating circumstance The deceased said, So you are here, even as
in fixing the penalty. Thus, applying the rules he dropped the cue stick he was holding and
stated above, the proper penalty should be tried to draw the knife tucked in his waist.
one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, Accused-appellant claimed that he then
which is reclusion temporal, the privileged stabbed the deceased in the stomach with
mitigating circumstance of minority having the knife he (accused-appellant) was carrying
been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying and ran away because the deceased had
the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the several companions.
minimum penalty should be taken from the
penalty next lower in degree which is prision The prosecution presented an eyewitness,
mayor and the maximum penalty shall be Domingo Lombreno, Jr., to refute accused-
taken from the medium period of reclusion appellants claim. Lombreno, Jr. While the
temporal, there being no other mitigating game was in progress, Lombreno, Jr. said he
circumstance nor aggravating circumstance. noticed accused-appellant shoving people out
of his way as he walked towards the
WHEREFORE the appellant Allen Udtojan deceased, who was then waiting for his turn
Mantalaba, guilty beyond reasonable doubt at the billiard table. He said that when
of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of accused-appellant arrived, he said to Silvano,
RA 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED with the So you are here! Then accused-appellant
MODIFICATION that the penalty that should stabbed the deceased and quickly made his
be imposed on appellant's conviction of exit. According to Lombreno, Jr., the deceased
violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, is six (6) was unarmed.
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) The accused-appellant claims that he killed
months and one (1) day of reclusion Vic Jun Silvano in self-defense and claims that
temporal, as maximum. the second stab wound suffered by the
deceased could have been caused when the
G. IMMEDIATE VINDICATE OF A GRAVE latter fell to the ground.
OFFENSE
5. PEOPLE V PALABRICA ISSUE:
G.R. No. 129285 : May 7, 2001 Whether or not the accused is entitled of the
mitigating circumstance?
FACTS:
On the night of August 16, 1995, the day DECISION:
before the incident subject of this case, Accused-appellant claims that the mitigating
Silvano (victim) shot up accused-appellants circumstance of immediate vindication of a
store with a slingshot, locally called indian grave offense should have been appreciated
pana, as a result of which accused-appellants in his favor. The circumstance cannot be
father was hit in the mouth. appreciated where, as here, the accused had
sufficient time to recover equanimity. For in
According to accused-appellant, the deceased this case, the incident at the store, from
was facing the billiard table holding a cue which reason accused-appellant claims he
stick. When the deceased saw him, accused- stabbed the deceased, happened the night
appellant asked what it was that he wanted. before. Thus, he had sufficient time to regain
his composure.
The killing of Silvano was premeditated. CHAPTER 10
Contrary to his claim, accused-appellant had a AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
reason for attacking Silvano. Thus, the
following elements of evident premeditation: 1. PEOPLE V VILLAVER
(1) the time when the accused determined to G.R. No. L-32104. March 25, 1983
commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused had clung to his FACTS:
determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time Francisca was seen running back from the
between such determination and execution to mangrove in an uneasy appearance, her dress
allow him to reflect upon the consequences torn on the left side, and she confided to
of his act were established in this case. Genara that her father, the herein appellant,
wanted and tried to abuse her. That night, at
WHEREFORE , the decision of the Regional about seven o'clock, appellant forced
Trial Court, finding accused-appellant Roberto Francisca to swallow and drink "Endrin", a
Palabrica y Barcuma guilty of murder and liquid used for killing worms in the ricefield.
sentencing him to death, is AFFIRMED with Appellant grabbed Francisca by the hair with
the modifications that the award of actual one hand and with the other, forced her
damages is in increased to P14, 137.65 and mouth to open and poured the poison into
that accused-appellant is ordered to pay the her mouth. Francisca was rushed by her
legal heirs of the deceased Vic Jun Silvano the mother to a hospital where emergency
further sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages treatment was applied. Notwithstanding, she
and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages. died after 25 minutes from arrival.

The incident was witnessed by Remedios

Villaver, a younger sister of the victim.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was an aggravating
circumstances on the crime committed?

DECISION:
Tthough hearsay in nature, same may not be
considered as it does not fall under any of the
aggravating circumstances enumerated in Art.
14 of the Revised Penal Code. Unlike
mitigating circumstances (Art. 13, par. [10],
R.P.C.), there is no such thing as similar nature
and analogous to those . . . mentioned as
aggravating circumstances."

ACCORDINGLY, We find the accused appellant

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of parricide, with the modification that the
penalty is reduced to Reclusion Perpetua, provocation. It is considered aggravating
there being no aggravating nor mitigating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy
circumstances attendant to the commission the law accords to human abode. He who
thereof. With costs against the appellant. goes to anothers house to hurt him or do him
wrong is more guilty than he who offends him
DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, SEX AND elsewhere. Anent the generic aggravating
DWELLING circumstance of disregard of the respect due
the offended party on account of age, it is
4. PEOPLE V BAJAR considered present when the offended
G. R. No. 143817 : October 27, 2003 person, by reason of his age, could be the
father of the offender.
FACTS:
For the killing of his father-in-law, Aquilio WHEREFORE, the 17 July 2000 Decision of the
Tiwanak, appellant Alejandro Bajar was found Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental,
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. 99-942 is
of murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty hereby AFFIRMED with modifications.
of death in the 17 July 2000. The information Appellant ALEJANDRO BAJAR is found guilty
against Alejandro states in part that he, then beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
armed with a sharp bolo, with intent to kill, murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
and with evident premeditation, and death.
treachery, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously stab one 85-year- EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
old Aquilio Tiwanak, accuseds father-in-law, 6. PEOPLE V VARGAS
hitting him on the different parts of his body, G.R. No. 230356, September 18, 2019
which caused his instantaneous death. The
information sufficiently warned him of the FACTS:
circumstance of treachery which, once THE accused, conspiring, confederating and
proved, qualifies the crime of murder. mutually helping one another, with intent to
The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, kill, with treachery, evident premeditation
taking advantage of superior strength, employing means to insure or afford impunity,
disregard of the respect due the victim on did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
account of his age, habitual intoxication and feloniously attack, assault and shot Miguel
relationship attended the commission of the Belen y Abala, with the use of unlicensed
crime. Caliber 45, hitting him on the different parts
of his body, thus, inflicting mortal wounds,
ISSUES: which was the proximate cause of his death,
Whether or not there is an aggravating The RTC found that the prosecution was able
circumstances of disregard to the age and to clearly establish that Belen was shot
dwelling? several times, and despite the medical
attention received, he nonetheless died. The
DECISION: RTC also found that the killing of Belen was
Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime attended by the qualifying circumstances of
was committed in the dwelling of the treachery and evident premeditation, and
offended party, who has not given any thus the crime committed was murder.
 premeditation cannot qualify the killing of
ISSUE: Belen.
Whether or not the CA erred that there is a
treachery and evident premeditation as an WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The
aggravating circumstances on the act of the Court of Appeals affirming the Judgment is
accused? AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

DECISION:
We find that the lower courts did not err in
finding that the killing of Belen was attended
by treachery. Treachery must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence as conclusively
as the killing itself.17 Under Article 14,
paragraph 16 of the RPC, two conditions must
necessarily occur before treachery or alevosia
may be properly appreciated, namely: (1) the
employment of means, methods, or manner
of execution that would insure the offender's
safety from any retaliatory act on the part of
the offended party, who has, thus, no
opportunity for self-defense or retaliation;
and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of
means, methods, or manner of execution.

However, as to the finding of evident

premeditation, we find that the prosecution
failed to prove the elements of evident
premeditation. The prosecution must prove,
beyond reasonable doubt, each element of
evident premeditation as follows: (1) the time
when the accused determined to commit the
crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the
accused has clung to his determination; and
(3) sufficient time between such
determination and execution to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act.
Absent any proof as to how and when the
plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed
before it was carried out, evident
premeditation cannot be appreciated. In this
case, there was no showing as to whether or
not sufficient time had passed from the
determination to carry out their criminal plan
until the execution of such plan. Thus, evident
 Apduhan, Jr. of robbery with homicide and
sentencing him to death and "to indemnify
the heirs of the deceased

Respondent along with five other persons

entered the house of the spouses Miano,
shooting Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton
that killed both and took money amountingto
Php 322.00 belonging to Geronimo Miano.
Respondent pleaded not guilty initially and
later after advise from counsel Tirol,
pleaded guilty. Judge Hipolito Alo informed
respondent that the penalty imposed might
be death and respondent insisted on pleading
guilty with the condition that he be sentenced
to life imprisonment instead of death.
Respondent then desisted from his plea of
guilt and having made it on record, counsel
Tirol conferred with him and later manifested
that respondent will enter the plea of guilty
with the trial court’s ascertainment that he
was not forced into pleading guilty. The
mitigating circumstances alleged by
respondent were 1) intoxication that
was not corroborated; 2) voluntary plea of
guilty; and 3) Lack of intent to commit a grave
so wrong that was withdrawn after
prosecution withdrew the fourth aggravating
circumstance abuse of superior strength.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the intoxication of the
CHAPTER 11 accused may be considered as an alternative
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES circumstance?

C. INTOXICATION DECISION:
1. PEOPLE V APDUHAN JR The defense failed to substantiate its
G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968 contention that intoxication should be
(People vs. Apduhan G.R. No. L-19491 August considered mitigating.
30, 1968)
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken
FACTS: into consideration as a mitigating
the Court of First Instance of Bohol (Judge circumstance when the offender has
Hipolito Alo presiding) convicting Apolonk) committed a felony in a state of intoxication,
if the same is not habitual or subsequent to 5, 1997, a civil case was commenced by
the plan to commit said felony but when the Pangilinan against Malolos for accounting,
intoxication is habitual or intentional it shall recovery of commercial documents,
be considered as an aggravating enforceability and effectivity of contract and
circumstance. specific performance before the Regional Trial
Court of Valenzuela City.
it would appear that what the prosecution
actually intended to admit was the non- Five days thereafter or on December 10,
habituality of the accused to drinking liquor, 1997, Pangilinan filed a “Petition to Suspend
not as a matter of fact, but due to the State's Proceedings on the Ground of Prejudicial
inability to disprove the same. The Question” before the Office of the City
prosecution apparently did not concede the Prosecutor of Quezon City, citing as basis the
actual intoxication of the accused. We are of pendency of the civil action she filed with the
the firm conviction that, under the RTC of Valenzuela City. The City Prosecutor
environmental circumstances, the defense approved the petition upon the
was not relieved of its burden to prove the recommendation of the assistant City
accused's actual state of intoxication. Prosecutor on March 2, 1998.
Pangilinan filed an “Omnibus Motion to
ACCORDINGLY, with the modification that the Quash the Information and to Defer the
death sentence imposed upon Apolonio Issuance of Warrant of Arrest” before MeTC,
Apduhan, Jr. by the court a quo is reduced to Branch 31, Quezon City. She alleged that her
reclusion perpetua, the judgment a quo is criminal liability has been extinguished by
affirmed in all other respects, without reason of prescription
pronouncement as to costs. ISSUE:
Whether or not the filing of the affidavit-
CHAPTER 13 complaint for estafa and violation of BP Blg.
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY 22 against respondent interrupted the period
of prescription of such offense?
2. PEOPLE V PANGILINAN
G.R. No. 152662 - June 13, 2012 DECISION:
The action has not prescribed. The
FACTS: prescription shall be interrupted when
Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, the respondent in proceedings are instituted against the guilty
this instant case allegedly issued 9 checks person, and shall begin to run again if the
with the aggregate amount of P9,658,692 in proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
favor of Virginia Malolos. But, upon Malolos' constituting jeopardy.
presentment of the said checks, they were Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a
dishonored. penalty of imprisonment of not less than
thirty (30) days but not more than one year or
Virginia Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint by a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes
for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa in four (4) years in accordance with the
Blg.22 against the respondent, Pangilinan on aforecited law. The running of the
September 16, 1997 with the Office of the prescriptive period, however, should be tolled
City Prosecutor of Quezon City. On December upon the institution of proceedings against
the guilty person.
When proceedings are instituted against the
N LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the instant guilty person," (in Act No. 3326) refers to
petition is GRANTED. The 12 March 2002 "judicial proceedings" and not administrative
Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby proceedings. Hence, the filing of the
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Department of complaint before the prosecutor in a case
Justice is ORDERED to re-file the informations involving a violation of municipal ordinance,
for violation of BP Blg. 22 against the which is covered by the Rule on Summary
respondent. Procedure and which does not require a
preliminary investigation, does not interrupt
5. ZALDIVIA V REYES the period of prescription of the offense.
G.R. No. 102342 July 3, 1992
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and
FACTS: the challenged Order dated October 2, 1991 is
A complaint was filed before the fiscal’s office SET ASIDE. Criminal Case No. 90-089 in the
constituting an offense in violation of a city Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez, Rizal, is
ordinance. The petitioner is charged with hereby DISMISSED on the ground of
quarrying for commercial purposes without a prescription
mayor's permit in violation of Ordinance No.
2, Series of 1988, of the Municipality of 11. MATUBIS V PRAXEDES
Rodriguez, in the Province of Rizal. The fiscal G.R. No. L-11766 - October 25, 1960
did not file the complaint before the court
immediately but instead filed it 3 months FACTS:
later. The defendant’s counsel filed a motion Socorro Matubis (plaintiff) and Zoilo Praxedes
to quash on ground that the action to file the (defendant) were legally married on January
complaint has prescribed. The fiscal contends 10, 1943. For failure to agree on how they
that the filing of the complaint before his should live as husband and wife, the couple
office already interrupts the prescription agreed to live separately from each other,
period. which status remained unchanged until the
present. On April 3, 1948, plaintiff and
ISSUE: defendant entered into an agreement which
Whether or not the filing of provides among others that “neither of them
information/complaint before the fiscal office can prosecute the other for adultery or
constituting a violation against a special concubinage or any other crime arising from
law/ordinance interrupts prescription? their separation.” In January, 1955, defendant
began cohabiting with one Asuncion
DECISION: Rebulado and said Asuncion gave birth to a
The mere filing of complaint to the fiscal’s child. Plaintiff thereafter filed an action for
office does not interrupt the running of legal separation against the defendant. As
prescription on offenses punishable by a shown in the facts, the plaintiff has consented
special law. The complaint should have been to the commission of concubinage by her
filed within a reasonable time before the husband as proven by their “agreement.
court. It is only then that the running of the
prescriptive period is interrupted. ISSUES:
Whether or not the action prescribe and that underSec. 16 of the Probation Law of
whether or not Socorro consented to the 1976 (Probation Law), the final discharge of
commission of concubinage by her husband? theprobation shall operate to restore to him
all civil rights lost or suspended as a resultof
DECISION: his conviction and to fully discharge his
Under Art. 102 of the Code Code, an action liability for any fine imposed. Theorder of the
for legal separation cannot be filed except trial court datedDecember 18, 2000 allegedly
within one year from and after the date on terminated his probationand restored to him
which the plaintiff became cognizant of the all the civil rights he lost as a result of his
cause and within five years from after the conviction, includingthe right to vote and be
date when cause occurred (now 5 years under voted.
Art. 57, FC). The complaint was filed outside
the periods provided for by the above Article. ISSUE:
By the very admission of plaintiff, she came to Whether or not Moreno’s probation grant him
know the ground (concubinage) for the legal the right to run in public office?
separation in January, 1955. She instituted the
complaint only on April 24, 1956. DECISION:
The fact that the trial court already
The condonation and consent here are not issued an order finally discharging Moreno
only implied but expressed. in writing, the fortifies his position. Sec. 16 of the Probation
plaintiff is now undeserving of the court's Law provides that the final discharge of the
sympathy. The very wording of the agreement probationer shall operate to restore to him all
gives no room for interpretation other than civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his
that given by the trial judge. Condonation and conviction and to fully discharge his liability
consent on the part of plaintiff are necessarily for any fine imposed as to the offense
the import of paragraph 6(b) of the for which probation was granted. Thus,
agreement. The condonation and consent when Moreno was finally discharged upon the
here are not only implied but expressed. The court’s finding that the has fulfilled the terms
law specifically provides that legal separation and conditions of his probation, his case was
may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, deemed terminated and all civil rights lost or
provided there has been no condonation of or suspended as a result of his conviction were
consent to the adultery or concubinage. restored to him, including the right to run for
public office.

20. MORENO V COMELEC Probation is not a right of an accused but a

G.R. No. 168550 August 10, 2006 mere privilege, an act of grace and clemency
or immunity conferred by the state, which is
FACTS: granted to a deserving defendant who
Norma L. Mejes (Mejes) filed a petition to thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the
disqualify Moreno from runningf or Punong penalty imposed by law for the offense of
Barangay on the ground that the latter was which he was convicted.
convicted by final judgmentof the crime of
Arbitrary Detention and was sentenced to
suffer imprisonment. Moreno also argued