LANDMARK CASES IN CRIMINAL LAW 1:

CASE TITLE
Schooner Exchange vs.
McFadden

FACTS

US vs. Bull

People vs. Lol-lo and

Manzanaris vs. People

*Manzanaris is a clerk of
court
*He
received
property
bonds from Borja
*Discovered the property
is not registered, thus
inefficacious
*He returned the copy to
Borja to reconstitute the
property
*Charged with Infidelity in
the custody of documents
*Acquitted, sincere desire
to protect the Government

US vs. Ah Chiong

*Cook
struck
his
roommate believing him to
be a robber

US vs. Brobst

US
vs.
Page
People vs. Toling

US vs. Sornito

citng

Woman jumped out of a

jeepney when one of the
culprits
told
the
passengers to bring out
their money and not to
shout or there will be shots

DOCTRINE
WARSHIPS:
Crimes committed on board a public or
war vessel are beyond the criminal
jurisdiction of the Philippines.
FRENCH RULE: Crimes committed on
board a private merchant ship are
cognizable only by the courts of the
cournty to which the vessel belongs ,
except those whoch affect the tranquility
of the port or persons foreign to the crew
ENGLISH RULE:
PIRACY:
Piracy is triable everywhere regardless of
where it was committed. Piracy is a crime
against
humanity,
Hostes
Humani
Generis.
ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT
REA:
Crime is not committed if the mind of the
person committing the act complained of
be innocent.

HONEST MISTAKE OF FACT:

If ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient
to negative a particular intent which,
under the law, is necessary ingredient of
the offesne charged, it destroys the
presumption of intent and works an
acquittal
ELEMENTS OF PAR 1, ART 4: ACCUSED
LIABLE FOR A FELONY DIFFERENT FROM
THAT WHICH HE INTENDED:
1. It must be an intentional felony
2. The wrong done be the direct,
natural and logical consequence
of the felony. (Proximate Cause)
Any person who creates in anothers
mind an immediate sense of danger,
which causes the latter to do something
resulting in the latters injuries, is liable
for the resulting injuries.
Wrong done must be the direst, natural
and logical conseuence of the felonious
act. It is n established rule that a person
is criminially responsible
for acts

US vs. Marasigan

People vs. Oanis

People vs. Mallari

Bataclan vs. Medina

*Oanis and Alberto were

instructed
to
arrest
Balagtas,
a
notorious
criminal
*Fired at the sleeping
victim without making any
reasonable inquiry as to
his identity
*
Found
to
be
in
possession of firearms in
his
house
while
gis
application
for
a
permanent
permit
is
pending
*Mallari, acquitted. Good
faith.
Bus was overturned and
gasoline leaked trapping
passengers inside the bus
Rescuers came to help
with torches. The bus was
set on fire. SC ruled that
the proximate cause of the
death of the passengers
was the overturning of the
bus and not the bringing of
torches.

People
Biganda

vs.

Datu

People vs. Cagoco

People vs. Quianzon

committed by him in violation of the law

and for all the natuaral and logical
consequences resulting therefrom.
The offended party is not obliged to
submit to a surgical operaiton to relieve
the accused from natural and ordinary
results of his crime
INAPPLICABILTY OF HONEST MISTAKE OF
FACT/ERROR IN PERSONAE
There is no honest mistake of fact when
there is negligence or fault on the part of
the accused.

EXCEPTION TO GOOD FAITH NOT A

DEFENSE IN MALUM PROHIBITUM:
The spirit of the law regarding possession
of firearms is to punish only those who
possess the same without the knowledge
of the authorities concerned and without
even bothering themselves to legalize
such pssession
DEFINITION OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
Proximate cause is that cause which in
the ordinary and continuous sequence of
events, unbroken by any efficient
intervening casue produces the injury
and without which the injury would not
have occurred.

WHEN DEATH IS PRESUMED TO BE THE

NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF PHYSICAL
INJURIES INFLICTED:
1. That the victim at the time the
physical ijuries were inflicted was
in normal health
2. That death may be expecred from
the pgysical njuries inflicted
3. That death ensued within a
reasonable time.
*Accused gave a fist blow
on the back of the head
that caused the victim to
fall and hit his head on the
asphalt
*Cagoco
charged
with
murder, guilty
* Victim removed the
drainage of the wound due
to the physical pain
*Accused contended that
he should only be liable for
homicide not murder

PROXIMATE CAUSE
Death of the victim was the direct result
of Cagocos act. Since Cagoco did commit
the crime with treachery, he is guilty of
murder.
A person shall incur criminal liability
although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
Death was the natural consequence of
the mortal wound inflicted. The victim in
removing the drainage from his wound,

*SC found him liable for

homicide
People vs. Reyes

People vs. Moldes

People vs. Morallos

US vs. Navarro

Urbano vs. IAC

People vs. Mariano

*Urbano inflicted a wound

on Javiers right palm, the
later submitted to medical
treatment
under
the
expense of Urbano. On the
healing process, while on
the
3rd
week,
Javier
returened to work in the
tobacco farm with his bare
hands where he infected
his wounds with tetanus
toxins
*Urbano acquitted
Repes 6 year old girl, girl
dies because she hit her
head in the pavement.

did not do so voluntarily and with

knowledge that it was prejudicial to his
health.
PRESUMPTION OF DEATH AS A NATURAL
CONSEQUENCE OF THE INJURY:
When on a person of normal health,
physical injuries are caused from which
death may be expected and death
ensues within a reasonable time it shall
be presumed that it is the natural
consequence and result of the injuries
inflicted upon the deceased.
UNSKILLFUL OR ERRONEOUS MEDICAL
TREATMENT:
He who inflicts injury is not relieved of
responsibility if the wound inflicted is
dangeroud, that is calculated to destroy
or endanger life, even though the
immediate casue of the death was
erroneous or unskillful medical or surgical
treatment.
NEGLECT
OF
THE
WOUND
OR
UNSKILLFUL TREATMENT:
The neglect of the wound or its unskillful
and imrpoper treatment, which are of
themselves consequences of the criminal
act and which might naturally follow in
any case, must in law be deemed to have
been among those consequences which
were in cinteplation of the guilty party
and for which he is to be held
responsible.
FAULT OR CARELESSNESS OF THE
INJURED PERSON
The fault or carelessness of the injured
party, which would break the relaiton of
the felony committed and the resulting
injury, must have its origin from his
malicious act or omissions, as when the
injured party had a desire to increase the
criminal liability of his assailant.
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE:
The deceased himself interrupted the
ordinary, normal and continuous process
of healing by voluntarily going to his
tobacco farm.

Committing a felony person should

commit a feleony, not merely perform an
act, thus the act should be punished by
the RPC. The act should be committed
with malice.

US vs. Divino

Defendant who was not a

medical practitioner tied a
girl, wrapped her feet with
rags
saturated
with
petroleum and set them
on fire causing injuries.
Person snatches a bolo
because of curiosity

US vs. Villanueva
People vs. Bindoy

People vs. Morallos

Intod
vs.
Appeals

Court

of

Accused had an altercaiton

with Pacas. Omamdam
went into the scene.
Accused
succeded
in
disengaging himself from
Pacas with such force
thaht the tip of the bolo
reached
Omamdams
chest who was behind him
Accused did not remit the
customers check payment
to
his
company
but
instead appropriated it for
herself by depositing it to
the bank account of a
relative. The check was,
however, dishonored.
*Intod and his companions
went to the house of
Palangpangan to have her
killed. They fired at her
room. It turned out that
Palangpangan
was
in
another city.
*SC found him guilty of
impossible crime

People vs. Pelagio

Paddayuman vs. People

People vs. Limaco

Accused was liable for injuries through

imprudence

Not criminally lible because there is no

provision in the RPC which punishes the
act of snatching a bolo
No evidence that it was deliberate, he
was only trying to retain what belongs to
him. Acquitted.

There is no quesiton that as of the time

that the petitioner took possession of the
check meant for the company, she had
performed all the acts to consummate
the crime of theft, had it not been
impossible of accomplishment in this
case. Petitioner found guilty of impossible
crime.
IMPOSSIBLE
CRIME;
FACTUAL
IMPOSSIBILITY
Factual
impossibility
occurs
when
extraneous circumstances unknown to
the actor or beyond his control prevent
the cinsummation of the intended crime.

DESISTANCE AT THE ATTEMPTED STAGE

EXEMPTS OFFENDER FROM LIABILITY:
If after having commenced to execute the
felony by external acts, he stops by a free
and spontaneous feeling, on the brink of
the abyss, then he is saved. His stopping
is a call to repentance, to the conscience,
a grace, a pardon which the law grants to
voluntary repentance.
Accused
stabbed
the
victim twice on the chest
which is indicative of
intent to kill. Believing that
the victim was dying, the
accused left.
COURTS HAVE THE DUTY TO APPLY THE
PENALTY PROVIDED BY LAW
It is a well-settled rule that the courts are
not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy,
or morality of laws. That question falls
exclusively within the province of the
Legislature which enacts them and the
Chief executive who approves or vetoes
them. The only function of the judiciary is

People vs. Orita

Valenzuela vs. People

People vs. Geronimo

People vs. Pugay

People vs. Monroy

People vs. Buntag

Pugay took a can of

gasoline under a Ferris
wheel and poured it over
the body of Miranda.
Samson set Miranda on
fire making a human torch
out of him.

to interpret the laws and if not in

disharmony with th onstitution, to apply
them.
ELEMENTS OF FRUSTRATED FELONY
1. The offender performs all the acts
of execution
2. All the acts performed would
produce
the
felony
as
a
consequence
3. But the felony is not produced
By reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.
THERE IS NO CRIME OF FRUSTRATED
THEFT.
Theft is produced when there is
deprivation of personal propertydue to its
taking by one with intent ot gain. It is
immaterial that the ffender is able or
unable to freely dispose of the proerty
stolen.
INDICATIONS OF CONSPIRACY:
When the defendants by their acts aimed
at the same object, one performing one
part and the other performing another
part so as to complete it, with a view to
the attainment of the same object, and
their
acts,
though
apparently
independent, were in fact concerted and
cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association, concerted action
and concurrence of sentiments, the court
will be justified in concluding that said
defendants
were
engaged
in
a
conspiracy.
NEITHER JOINT NOR SIMULTANEOUS ACT
IS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF CONSPIRACY.
THERE MUST BE A CONCERTED ACTION:
Where there is nothing in the records
showing
that
there
was
previous
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose
between the two accused immediately
before the comission of the crime, where
there was no animosity between the
deceased and the accused and it is clear
that the accused merely wanted to make
fun of the deceased, the liability is
individual and not collective.
Unlike in evident premeditation, where a
sufficient period of time must elapse to
afford full opportunity for meditation and
reflection, conspiracy arises on the very
instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly, to commit the felony and
decide to pursue it.
Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as
co-principals regardless of the extent and
character of their participation because in
contemplation of law, the act of one
conspirator is the act of all.

US vs. Merced

People vs. Sabio

People vs. Cajurao

US vs. Ferrer

People vs. Gutierrez

People vs. Quinto

US vs. Domen

Browell vs. People

US vs. Aviado

SELF-DEFENSE NOT APPLICABLE TO A

PARAMOUR
A paramour can not invoke self-defense
in killing the husband when the latter
assaulted the paramour with a bolo. The
husband is merely exercising his lawful
right sanctioned under Art. 274.
A SLAP ON THE FACE IS AN UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION. (ART. 11)
Since the face represents a person and
his dignity, slapping it is a serious
personal attack. It is a physical assault
coupled with a wilful regard, nay, a
defiance of an individuals personality. It
may therefore be frequently regarded as
placing in real danger a persons dignity,
rights and safety.
RETALIATION IS NOT A JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCE: The settled rule in
jurisprudence is that when unlawful
aggression ceases, the defender no
longer has the right to kill or even wound
the former aggressor.
TO JUSTTIFY HOMICIDE ON THE GROUND
OF SELF-DEFENSE, THERE MUST BE NO
APPRECIABLE INTERVAL OF TIME:
The killing of the deceased by the
defendant be simultaneous with the
attack made by the deceased, or at least
both acts succeed each other without
appreciable interval of time.
The unlawful aggression must come,
directly or indirectly, from the person who
was attacked by the accused.
NO UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION WHEN
THERE IS AN AGREEMENT TO FIGHT:
When the fight is agreed upon, each of
the protagonists is at once ssailant and
assaulted, and neither can invoke the
right of self-defense, because aggression
which is an incident in the fight is bound
to arise from one or the other of the
combatants.
The rule now is STAND GROUND WHEN
ON THE RIGHT:
Where the accused is where he has the
right to be, the law does not require him
to retreat when his assailant is rapidly
advancing upon him with a deadly
weapon
THE PERSON
DEFENDING
IS NOT
EXPECTED TO CONTROL HIS BLOW:
One is not justified, when hard pressed
to draw fine distinctions as to the extent
of the injury which a reckless and
infuriated assailant might probably inflict
upon him.
BASIS OF DEFENSE OF STRANGER
What one may do in his defense, another

People vs. Oanis

People vs. Galicia

People vs. Yu

People vs. Galang de

Bautista

U.S. vs. Salandanan

People vs. Gervacio

People vs. Balansi

People vs. Durente

may do for him. The ordinary man would

not stand idly by and ee his companion
killed without attempting to save his life.
Although an officer in making a lawful
arrest is justified in using such force as is
reasonably necessary to secure and
detain the offender, overcome his
resistance, prevent his escape, repacture
him if he escapes, and protect himself
from bodily harm, yet he is never justified
in using unnecessary force or in treating
him with wanton violence, or in resorting
to dangerous means when the arrest
could be affected otherwise.
INSTIGATION and ENTRAPMENT
Entrapment isn o bar to the prosecution
and conviction of the lawbreaker. But
when there is instigation, the accused
must be acquitted.
ART. 13, PAR. 3, IS NOT APPLICABLE
WHEN THE OFFENDER EMPLOYED BRUTE
FORCE.
It is easy enough for the accused to say
that he had no intention to do great
harm. But he knew the girl was very
tender in age, weak in body, helpless and
defenseless. He knew or ought to have
known te natural and inevitable result of
the act of strangulation
PAR. 3 IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO OFFENSES
RESULTING IN PHYSICAL INJURIES OR
MATERIAL HARM.
Thus, it can not be appraciated in cases
of defamation or slander
PASISON OR OBFUSCATION
When
there
are
causes
naturally
producing
in
a
person
powerful
excitement, he loses his reason and selfcontrol, thereby diminishing the exercise
of his will power.
REQUISITE FOR VOLUNTARINESS
It must be spontaneous in such a manner
that it shows the inerest of the accused
to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities,
either
because
he
acknowledged his guilt or because he
wishes to save them the trouble and
expenses necesarrily incurred in his
search and capture.
CRIME BE COMMITTED AT THE DWELLING
OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Sanctity of privacy the law accords to
human abode. Ones dwelling place is a
sanctuary worthy of repect and that
one who slanders in the latters house is
more guilty than he who ofends him
elsewhere
ESSENCE OF PREMEDITATION
The execution of the criminal act must be

People vs. Lacao

U.S. vs. Abaigar

People vs. Torrfiel

preceded by cool thought and reflection

upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during the space of time
sufficeint to arrive a a calm judgment.
TREACHERY
The offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing mean,
methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially
to insure its execution without risk to
himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.
IGNOMINY
A circumstance pertaining to the moral
order, which adds disgrace and obloquy
to the material injury caused by the
crime.
When the accused raped a woman after
winding cogon grass around his genital
organ, he thereby augmented the wrong
done by increasing the pain thereto.