PLEASE COPY AND PASTE TEMPLATE BELOW FOR DIGEST.
Title:
GR:
Date:
Ponente:
Ticker
FACTS
ISSUE
RULING & DOCTRINE
-
NOTES
Other details (Definition of an unfamiliar word, detail that may be crucial i.e. color of a thing
mentioned or name of the doctor or judge, etc)
Separate opinions
SAMPLE FOR ARTICLE:
Art. 249. Homicide. – Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another,
without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be
deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
ELEMENTS.
1.
STAGES.
1. Consummated
2. Frustrated
3. Attempted
DOCTRINES.
Article 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide
and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
A. Elements
1. That a person is killed;
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused;
3. That the deceased is the:
a) legitimate /illegitimate father
b) legitimate/ illegitimate mother
c) legitimate/illegitimate child
d) Other legitimate ascendant
e) Other legitimate descendant; or
f) Legitimate spouse
B. Essential Element of parricide
1. The relationship of the offender with the victim must be:
a) legitimate , except in the case of parent and child;
b) In the direct line; and
c) By blood, except in the case of a legitimate spouse.
C. Valid Subsisting Marriage
1. There must be a valid subsisting marriage at the time of the killing and such fact
should be alleged in the information.
2. Persons living together
a) There is a presumption that persons living together as husband and wife are
married to each other. The mere fact that no record of the marriage exists in
the registry of marriage does not invalidate said marriage, as long as in the
celebration thereof and all the requisites for its validity are present.
D. Not knowing that it is his own son
1. Still guilty of parricide, the law does not require knowledge of the relationship
between them.
E. Wanted to kill another, but mistakenly killed his own father
1. Still guilty of parricide, the law does not require knowledge of relationship between
them.
F. Criminal liability of the stranger conspiring to commit the crime of parricide
1. As to the relative, parricide
2. As to the co-conspirator, murder or homicide, because of the absence of
relationship.
a) The rule that the act of one is the act of all does not apply here, because of
the personal relationship of the offender to the offended party.
G. Against siblings, “X killed his brother.”
1. Not parricide, siblings (brothers or sisters) are not included in the enumerated
relations under article 246.
H. In case of adopted child
1. Adopted child is considered a legitimate child, but the relationship is exclusive
between the adopter and the adopted.
2. In case the adopted child killed the parents of his/her adopter, the crime is not
parricide, because the relationship of the adopted child as a legitimate child is
exclusive between the adopter and the adopted.
I.
Age of the Child
1. If the child killed by his parent
a) Less than 3 days old - infanticide, punsisahble under article 255
b) 3 days old and above - parricide
J.
Parricide not punishable by reclusion perpetua to death
1. Parricide through negligence
2. parricide by mistake
3. Parricide under exceptional circumstance
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. - Any legally
married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall
inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters
under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
A. Requisites
1. 2 kinds of offenders; a legally married person, and a parent.
a) Legally married person
(1) Surprised by his spouse having/in the act of committing a sexual
intercouse
(2) he/she killed any or both of them - Penalty is destierro
(3) he/she inflicted physical injuries of any kind - exempted from
punishment.
(4) He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitutions of his wife, or
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse
b) Parents
(1) The child is under 18 years of age
(2) Living with him
(3) Surprise by his/her child having/in the act of committing a sexual
intercouse
(4) having/in the act of committing a sexual intercouse
(5) he/she inflicted physical injuries of any kind - exempted from
punishment.
(6) He has not promoted or facilitated the porstitutions of his daughter,
or consented
B. It does not need to be alleged in the information since it does not define crimes, it can be
raised as a defense.
C. “Surprise” - to come upon suddenly or unexpectedly.
D. “Immediately thereafter” - the discovery, escape, pursuit, and the killing must all form
part of one continuous act.
1. The act done must be a direct result of the outrage of the cuckolded spouse.
E. It is not necessary that the spouse actually saw the sexual intercouse.
1. It is enough that he/she surprised them under such circumstances that no other
reasonable conclusion can be inferred but that a carnal act was being performed or
has just been committed.
F. If, after being surprised by the act, the spouse runs to get armed because the paramour is
armed, and returns and kills the paramour, he can be granted the benefits of article 247.
G. Parents need not be legitimate.
1. The law does not distinguish. It is not necessary that the parent be legitimate.
H. If the daughter is married.
1. This article is not applicable.
2. This applies only when the daughter is single because while under 18 years old and
single, she is under parental authority.
3. Her husband alone can claim the benefits of Article 247.
Is Art 247 applicable even if an hour had passed between the discovery of the act of sexual
intercourse and the killing of the victim? Yes. The RPC, in requiring that the accused “shall kill any of
them or both of them xxx immediately” after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does not say
that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate
result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon the spouse in the basest act of
infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse. (Ppl v. Abarca, 153
SCRA 735) The discovery, the escape, the pursuit and the killing must all form part of one continuous act.
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means
to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any
other means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse.
ELEMENTS:
1. A person is killed - ESSENTIAL ELEMENT whether in consummated, frustrated or attempted.
a. In ascertaining intent:
i.
The means used by the malefactor;
ii.
The nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
iii.
The conduct of the malefactors before, during, and after the killing;
iv.
The circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the
accused.
b. If no intent to kill, physical injuries only.
2. The deceased is killed by accused
a. If the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is
presumed.
3. The killing is attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC
a. Evident premeditation - To be appreciated, the following must be proved:
i.
The time when the accused decided to commit the crime
ii.
Overt act showing that the accused clung to their determination to commit the crime;
iii.
The lapse of a period of time between the decision and the execution of the crime
sufficient to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of the act.
b. Treachery and by means of explosion are qualifying circumstances.
i.
If treachery only, generic aggravating circumstances.
c. Treachery
i.
Attack should be without warning in a swift, deliberate, and unexpected manner.
ii.
Victim has no chance to resist or escape.
iii.
Sudden and unexpected attack rendering the victim unable and unprepared to
defend himself.
iv.
Requisites:
1. The malefactor employed such means, method or manner of execution as to
ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim
2. The said means, method, and manner of execution were deliberately adopted
3. It must be present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.
d. Abuse of superior strength.
i.
Superiority in numbers does not necessarily count.
ii.
Aggressors must combine forces in order to secure advantage from their superiority
in strength.
iii.
Simultaneous assault must be proven NOT ALTERNATELY.
e. By means of motor vehicles.
i.
Using of truck to pursue the victim and kill him by running over him then using a
motor vehicle after accomplishing his motive - qualified as murder.
ii.
If it’s only incidental, not qualified
1. E.g.: People v. Munoz: the police patrol keep was merely used by the
accused in looking for the victim to the place where it was dumped.
4. The killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.
Others:
1. Outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim constitutes murder.
Article 249. Homicide. Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding
article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
ELEMENTS:
1. A person is killed
2. The accused killed that person without any justifying circumstance
3. The accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed
4. The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide
or infanticide.
REQUISITES.
1. The death of the party alleged to be dead
2. That the death was produced by the criminal act of some other than the deceased and was not the
result of accident, natural cause or suicide;
3. That defendant committed the criminal act or was in some way criminally responsible for the act
which produced death.
●
Proof of homicide or murder requires incontrovertible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the
victim was deliberately killed (with malice), that is, with intent to kill.
If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively
presumed.
Even if there is no intent, the crime is homicide because with respect to crimes of personal
violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and hold
the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.
●
●
FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE.
ELEMENTS.
1. That the accused intended to kill the victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon of assault;
2. The victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance;
3. None of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Art. 248 of the RPC.
ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE.
1. Victim’s wounds are not fatal.
Title:
People v Stephen Whisenhunt
GR:
123819
Date:
Nov 14, 2001
Ponente:
Ynares - Santiago
Ticker
Chop-chop Elsa
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
FACTS
Accused was charged with murder of Esla-Santos Castillo.
The accused and victim were lovers. They were officemates in Apex Motor Corporation. Stephen was
manager, Elsa was the assistant manager. They were both married, but were separated from their
spouses.
Demetrio, his driver, was with the accused when he disposed of the dismembered body of the victim.
They put it on three plastic bags and disposed of it along the road of sta. rosa laguna, on their way to
Bataan.
Demetrio, last saw the victim when he fetched her at her home in blumentritt manila, and dropped her
off to the condominium unit of the accused.
The black bag was thrown in the river, while Elsa's clothes were thrown over the bridge. Elsa’s violet bag
(gordiano) was thrown when they passed pilar bataan. The clothes of elsa’s (short sleeved dress with
violet and green stripes) were thrown in a grassy lot.
On their way back to Manila, the accused burned an ATM card.
Demetrio asked him if he could go home to his house in Fairview, the accused said that he and his family
shall go on vacation, wherein he will give them money.
Demetrio told what happened to his wife, and went to fiscal Diaz to tell what happened. They were
assisted by the NBI.
The team headed to laguna to confirm the crime, when they saw a bunch of people gathered in the place
where elsa’s body was found
●
●
●
●
●
Accused was arrested. The atty handling the case noticed contusions in the accused face and ordered to
conduct a medico-legal.
The Medico-Legal Officer found contusions on accused-appellant’s left periumbilical region, right elbow,
left and right forearms and right leg.
Before the close of office hours, the accused-appellant was brought to the Department of Justice for
inquest.
However, accused-appellant moved that a preliminary investigation be conducted, and signed a waiver of
the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, he was detained at the NBI.
The NBI recovered the things of the victim.
Defense of the accused:
●
●
●
●
Denied all the allegations against him. That he did not ask Demetrio to fetch Elsa because he was sick.
They go to bataan to meet the family of the accused, when they arrived, Demetrio asked if he could
borrow the car so he could go home to the town
The accused alleged that the contusions found on his body were due to an accident that occurred when
he was jet-skiing and because he slipped on the stairs.
He alleged that he received two death threats from an anonymous sender, whom he and Elsa alleged that
came from her estranged husband
ISSUE
Whether Stephen is Guilty of murder for the death of Elsa
RULING & DOCTRINE
Yes. Stephen is guilty of murder qualified by circumstance of outraging and scoffing at the corpse and
not by abuse of superior strength.
●
●
●
●
Abuse of quality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of
superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken
advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. The fact that the victim was a woman
does not, by itself, establish that accused-appellant committed the crime with abuse of
superior strength. There ought to be enough proof of the relative strength of the aggressor and
the victim.
Abuse of superior strength must be shown and clearly established as the crime itself. In this
case, nobody witnessed the actual killing.
The mere decapitation of the victims head constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the
victim, thus qualifying the killing to murder.
○ In this case, accused-appellant not only beheaded Elsa. He further cut up her body like
pieces of meat. Then, he strewed the dismembered parts of her body in a deserted road
in the countryside, leaving them to rot on the ground. The sight of ElsaÊs severed body
parts on the ground, vividly depicted in the photographs offered in evidence, is both
revolting and horrifying. At the same time, the viewer cannot help but feel utter pity for the
sub-human manner of disposing of her remains.
○ Even if treachery was not present in this case, the crime would still be murder because of
the dismemberment of the dead body. One of the qualifying circumstances of murder
under Article 248, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code is „outraging or scoffing at (the)
person or corpse of the victim.
○ At the time of its commission, the penalty for murder was reclusion temporal maximum to
death. No aggravating or mitigating circumstance was alleged or proved; hence, the
penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.
The rules on evidence and jurisprudence sustain the conviction of an accused through
circumstantial evidence when the following requisites concur: (1) there must be more than one
circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all
circumstances produces a conviction beyond doubt of the guilt of the accused.
○ In the case at bar, the following circumstances were successfully proven by the
prosecution without a shadow of doubt.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City finding accusedappellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, is
AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS: Accused-appellant is ORDERED to pay the heirs of
Elsa Santos Castillo actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00; civil indemnity in the amount of
P50,000.00; moral damages in the amount of P1,000,000.00; exemplary damages in the amount of
P1,000,000.00; and attorneyÊs fees in the amount of P150,000.00. Costs against accused-appellant.
NOTES
●
factual findings of the trial court
○ factual findings of the trial court deserve the highest respect. This is based on the fact
that the trial judge is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses who
appeared before his sala as he had personally heard them and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.
●
Physical Evidence ranks high in the hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
○ Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the
hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence.
●
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court of
jurisdiction over the person of an accused.
○ otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
●
3 kinds of bags of Elsa
○ A paper bag
○ a violet Giordano
○ a thick brown leather bag with the trademark of „Mitsubishi.
●
Elsa is wearing
○ a violet-colored blouse with floral prints.
●
Atty. Artemio Sacaguing,
○ head of the Anti-Organized Crime Division
Title:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CRESENCIANO MARAMARA alias
Cresing
GR:
G.R. No. 110994
Date:
Ponente:
Pardo, J.
Ticker
October 22, 1999
FACTS
In the evening thereof, at Barangay Calpi, Municipality of Claveria, Province of Masbate, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with intent to kill, evident premeditation,
treachery and taking advantage of nighttime, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and shoot with a handgun one Miguelito Donato, hitting the latter on the chest,
thereby inflicting wound which caused his death.
Prosecution’s version:
● On November 18,1991, a benefit dance sponsored by the Calpi Elementary School PTA, of
which CRESCENCIANO MARAMARA is the president, was held in his yard.
● About 12MN, Ricardo Donato was dancing with Rowena. Dante then approached Ricardo and
boxed him on the chest.
● Miguelito Donato (deceased) was 2 meters away from Ricardo when Crescenciano fired at him
(hitting on the left breast). Ricardo tried helping his brother but someone struck his head with an
iron bar which knocked him for about 3 minutes.
● After waking up, Ricardo went home and informed their parents.
● Miguelito was rushed to the hospital (Pio Duran Hospital) where he died the following morning.
● Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Nora Presbitero and revealed that aside from
the gunshot wound, there were three more wounds cause by blunt and sharp instruments and
considered that it was inflicted by more than two persons.
Defense’s version:
● At about 11pm in the evening, Donato brothers arrived at the benefit dance. They approached a
dancing pair where they ganged up on Dante Arce.
● Maramara, who was about 8 meters away then, rushed to the scene to pacify the trio.
● Ricardo held Maramara’s hands at his back then Miguelito repeatedly stabbed him.
● Maramara is claiming that he was treated in a hospital for days and due to the stabs he received
from Miguelito, he was not capable anymore of inflicting injury on Miguelito.
ISSUE
WON the death of Miguelito Donato can be appreciated in a tumultuous affray?
RULING & DOCTRINE
The Court ruled no and modified the judgment. Maramara is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Homicide.
There is no merit in accused-appellant’s position that he should be held liable only for death caused in a
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY (Art. 251). It was in such situation that accused came at the scene and joined
the fray purportedly to pacify the protagonists when Miguelito attacked him causing four (4) stab wounds
in different parts of his body - TWO ON THE STOMACH, ONE ON THE LEFT NIPPLE, AND ONE ON
THE LEFT ARM. Then the accused appellant with his handgun shot Miguelito. Assuming that a rumble
or a free-for-all fight occurred at the benefit dance, Article 251 of the RPC cannot apply because
prosecution witnesses Ricardo and Regarder Donato positively identified the accused-appellant as
Miguelito Donato’s killer.
Title:
Sison vs. People
GR:
G.R. Nos. 114931-33.
Date:
November 16, 1995.
Ponente:
Puno, J.
Ticker:
Marcos loyalists
pumatay
FACTS
On July 27, 1986, in the aftermath of the 1986 EDSA Revolution, a rally was scheduled to be held at the
Luneta by Marcos loyalists. Despite Being denied a permit, three thousand of them gathered at the Rizal
Monument of the Luneta, and started an impromptu singing contest, recited prayers and delivered
speeches in between. When the authorities arrived and no permit could be produced, they were told to
disperse. One of the leaders, Atty. Lozano, turned to his group and said "Gulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng
Cory infiltrators," and a commotion ensued. They eventually fled, and later, some of them converged at
the Chinese garden of Luneta.
Another commotion ensued and the loyalists started attacking persons in yellow, the color of the
"Coryistas," one of which was Salcedo. He was chased, boxed, kicked and mauled. Salcedo somehow
managed to get away but he was pursued and mauled in the process.
One Ranulfo Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo away from them, but several accused came forward and
resumed mauling Salcedo despite his pleas for mercy. He died upon arrival at the Philippine General
Hospital of hemorrhage, intracranial trauma.
ISSUE
Whether tumultuous affray can be appreciated.
RULING & DOCTRINE
No. Tumultuous affray does not apply. The quarrel in the instant case, if it can be called a quarrel, was
between one distinct group and one individual. Confusion may have occured because of the police
dispersal of the rallyists, but this confusion subsided eventually after the loyalists fled to Maria Orosa
Street. It was only a while later after said dispersal that one distinct group identified as loyalists picked
one defenseless individual and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting punches, kicks and
blows on him. There was no confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal
aggression at this stage of the incident.
-
NOTES
Other details (Definition of an unfamiliar word, detail that may be crucial i.e. color of a thing
mentioned or name of the doctor or judge, etc)
Separate opinions
Title:
People v Abarca 153 SCRA
GR:
74433
Date:
September 14, 1987
Ponente:
Sarmiento, J
Ticker
Surprised by his wife who was having
a sexual intercourse with her
paramour
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
FACTS
Accused was sentenced to death for the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.
Pleaded not guilty
Khingsley paul koh, the victim and the wife of the accused was having an illicit relationship
The affair begun, when the accused was in manila for review of the bar exams
The accused found his wife and koh in the act of sexual intercourse.
The accused went to look for a firearm at tacloban city. After getting the firearm, he went back to his
house.
Upon arriving, the wife and the victim were not there, thus he went to the hangout place of koh, majhong
session house.
He fired at Kingsley Koh three times with his rifle.
Koh was hit. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying a room adjacent to the room where Koh was
playing mahjong were also hit by the shots fired by the accused
RTC found Abarca guilty of a complex crime of murder with double frustratred murder
ISSUE
Whether Abarca is entitled to the benefit of Art 247 of theRPC?
RULING & DOCTRINE
Yes, Abarca is entitled to the justifying circumstance of Art 247.
There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour, the victim in this
case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit
of passionate outburst.
● The court held that even one hour has passed, the shooting must be understood to be the
continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant.
● it only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming
the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity.
● The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.
Punishment of Destierro
● Destierro is mere banishment and, as held in a case, is intended more for the protection of
the accused than a punishment.
● The court conclude that Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code does not define and provide for a
specific crime, but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of another or
the infliction of serious physical injuries under the circumstances therein mentioned
● He is banished, but that is intended for his protection. For the possible retaliation of the family of
the victim
Ruling with regards to the complex crime of frustrated murder:
● The accused-appellant did not have the intent to kill the Amparado couple. Although as a
rule, one committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, that rule presupposes
that the act done amounts to a felony. (Art 4)
● However, court held, that since the accused was not committing a delito, when he fired the
gun,
● He shall only be liable for the negligence of his acts under 365, resulting in serious physical
injuries.
● Guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
●
●
NOTES
1. Elements of Art 247:
a. That a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person
b. That he kills any of them in the act or immediately thereafter.
2. Art 247 also applies to the parents of minor daughter, living the under the parental guidance of the
parents, surprises with the acts of sexual intercourse with her seducer.
3. Art 4, defines the criminal liability of an accused. Criminal liability shall be incurred”
(a) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done is different from that
which he is intended;
(b) By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means
4. Art 6: degrees of crimes
(a) Consummated, when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present
(b) Frustrated, when the offender performs all act of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence, but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator
(c) Attempted, when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or overt acts, and
does not perform all act of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous will.
ARTICLE 251. Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray.
Elements
1. There be several persons
2. They did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking
each other reciprocally
3. These several persons quarreled and assaulted each other in a confused and tumultuous manner
4. And in the course of the affray someone is killed
5. And it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased
6. The person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified
Persons liable:
1. The person or persons who inflicted the serious physical injuries are liable (Art 251, par1)
2. If it is not known who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased - ALL the persons
who used violence upon the person of the victim are liable but with lesser liability (Art.251, par2)
ARTICLE 253. Giving Assistance to Suicide.
Elements:
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or not;
2. Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself
(Reyes, RPC 2)
-
The penalty for giving assistance to suicide if the offender is the father, mother, child, or
spouse of the one committing suicide is the same since the law does not distinguish
-
A doctor who resorted yo euthanasia amy be held liable for murder under 248 since
euthanasia is giving assistance to suicide but doing the killing himself.
(Reyes, RPC 2)
Article 256 Intentional abortion
It is the willful killing of the fetus in the uterus or the violent expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb
which results in the death of the fetus (Reyes)
Elements
1. There is a pregnant woman
2. That violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise acts
upon such pregnant woman
3. As a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages, the fetus dies, either womb or after
having been expelled therefrom;
4. That the abortion in intended
Persons liable
1. The person who intentionally caused the abortion under Art. 256
2. The pregnant woman if she consented under Art. 258
ARTICLE 257. Unintentional Abortion.
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman
2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion
3. That the violence is intentionally exerted; and
4. That as a result of the violence, the fetus dies either in the womb or after having been expelled
therefrom
-Unintentional abortional can be committed through violence (Reyes)
-When a woman commits suicide, there is no unintentional abortion because the crim requires physical
violence. There is no criminal liability under Art. 4, par.1 becaus ehse was not committing a felony when
she attempts suicide, as suicide is not a felony.
-The woman herself cannot commit unintentional abortion because it is always committed by violence
inflicted upon a pregnant woman (Boado)
ARTICLE 258. Abortion Practiced by the Woman Herself or by Her Parents
Elements
1) There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;
2) The abortion is intended;
3) The abortion is caused by:
a) the pregnant woman herself;
b) any other person, with her consent; or
c) any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonor.
CHAPTER 2 - PHYSICAL INJURIES
Crimes of Physical Injuries - MSA-LS
1. Mutilation (Art.262)
2. Serious physical injuries (Art.263)
3. Administering injurious substance or beverages (Art.264)
4. Less serious physical injuries (Art.265)
5. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art.266)
ARTICLE 262. Mutilation. — The penalty of reclusión temporal to reclusión perpetua shall be
imposed upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him, either totally
or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prisión mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
Art. 262 - Important provision
"Mutilation" means the lopping or the clipping off of some part of the body.
Putting out an eye, stabbing a woman in the eye - not mutilation. - US v. Bogel.
2 Kinds of mutilation
1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ
for reproduction. - Mutilation, Castration
2. By intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by lopping or clipping off any part of the body of the
offended party, other than the essential organ for reproduction, to deprive him of that part of his body. Mayhem
Elements of mutilation of the first kind:
1. That there be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation, such as the penis
or ovarium.
2. That the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of
some essential organ for reproduction. (Guevara)
●
●
●
The offender must have the intention to deprive the offended party of a part of his body.
Mutilation must always be intentional. If there is no intent to deprive the victim of the body part, the
crime committed is physical injuries. It cannot be committed by negligence.
There must also be no intent to kill. In the presence of such intent, the crime committed may either be
frustrated homicide or murder.
Vasectomy is not mutilation
The ordinary use of the term “mutilation” is the deprivation of a lim or essential part of the body, with the
operative expression being “deprivation.” “Castration” - removal of testes and ovaries. - (Aguirre v. SOJ)
Penalty when the victim of other intentional mutilation is under 12 years of age
Reclusion perpetua when the victim is 12 years of age. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 7610)
ARTICLE 263. Serious Physical Injuries. — Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another,
shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prisión mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the injured person
shall become insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to
smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have lost the use of any such
member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was theretofore habitually
engaged;
3. The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted, the person injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other
part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión correccional in its minimum period, if the
physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for
more than thirty days.
If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in article 246, or with
attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in article 248, the case covered by subdivision
number 1 of this article shall be punished by reclusión temporal in its medium and maximum periods; the
case covered by subdivision number 2 by prisión correccional in its maximum period to prisión mayor in
its minimum period; the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prisión correccional in its medium and
maximum periods; and the case covered by subdivision number 4 by prisión correccional in its minimum
and medium periods.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent who shall inflict physical
injuries upon his child by excessive chastisement.
How is the crime of serious physical injuries committed? - WBAA
1. By wounding
2. By beating
3. By assaulting (Art.263)
4. By administering injurious substance (Art.264)
Elements - What are serious physical injuries?
1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted.
2.When the injured person
a. loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or
a leg, or
b. loses the use of any such member,
c. becomes incapacitated for the work in which he was theretofore habitually engaged, in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted.
3. When the person injured
a. becomes deformed,
b. loses any other member of his body, or
c. loses the use thereof,
d. becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for
more than 90 days, in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted.
4. When the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but must not be
more than 90 days), as a result of the physical injuries inflicted.
Classes of serious physical injuries - (US v. Santos, 17 Phil. 87)
1. Consequences of the injuries inflicted
2. Nature and character of the wound inflicted
3. Proper penalty
There must NOT be intent to kill
Physical Injuries
Attempted of Frustrated Homicide
Offender inflicts physical injuries
No intent to kill offended party
May be committed even if no physical injuries
are inflicted
Offender has intent to kill offended party
ELEMENT 1: (Causing Helplessness)
● Impotence - inability to copulate. Serility.
● Penalty when the victim of SeriousPI under par. 1 is under 12 years of age shall be reclusion perpetua,
one degree higher. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 7610)
● Blindness under par. 1 must be of two eyes while blindness under par. 2 note the loss of an eye only.
Mere weakness of vision is not contemplated.
ELEMENT 2: (Causing Incapacity)
● Loss of power to hear of BOTH ears. If there is loss of power of one ear only, it is SeriousPI under par. 2
● Loss of the use of hand or incapacity for work must be permanent.
●
All the body parts mentioned are principal members of the body (eye, hand, foot etc.)
ELEMENT 3: (Causing Deformity)
ELEMENT 4: (Causing Illness)
ARTICLE 264. Administering Injurious Substances or Beverages. — The penalties established by
the next preceding article shall be applicable in the respective cases to any person who, without
intent to kill, shall inflict upon another any serious physical injury, by knowingly administering to
him any injurious substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity.
ELEMENTS
1. That the offender inflicted upon another any serious physical injury;
2. That it was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious substance or beverages or by taking
advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity;
3. That he had no intent to kill.
If the accused did not know of the injurious nature of the substances administered, he is not liable under
this article.
ARTICLE 265. Less Serious Physical Injuries. — Any person who shall inflict upon another
physical injuries not described in the preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended
party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period, shall
be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted with the manifest intent to insult or
offend the injured person, or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense, in addition to the
penalty of arresto mayor, a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators,
teachers, or persons of rank, or persons in authority, shall be punished by prisión correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, provided that, in the case of persons in authority, the deed does not
constitute the crime of assault upon such persons.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or more, (but not more than 30 days), or
needs medical attendance for the same period of time;
2. That the physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding articles [serious physical
injuries].
If the incapacity is more than 30 days or the illness lasts for more than 30 days, it is SeriousPI under par.
4,A263
ARTICLE 266. Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical injuries
shall be punished:
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended
party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused
physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require
medical attendance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall
ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury.
Kinds of Slight Physical Injuries:
1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended party from one to nine days, or required medical
attendance during the same period
2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or
which did not require medical attendance
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury
When there is no evidence of actual injury, it is only slight physical injury.
Title:
Aguirre v. SOJ
GR:
547 SCRA 431
GR No.170723
Date:
March 3, 2008
Ponente:
CHICO-NAZARIO, J
Tickler:
Retard vasectomy/sexual
mutilation
FACTS
June 19, 1986: RTC Balanga Bataan appointed Legal Guardianship of Larry Aguirre to Spouses Pedro and
Lourdes Aguirre. Laureano “Larry” Aguirre7 used to be a charge of the Heart of Mary Villa, a child caring agency
run by the Good Shepherd Sisters and licensed by the Department of Social Work and Development (DSWD)
Delayed cognitive and physical growth was noted on Larry's development. He was later found to be suffering mild
to moderate mental retardation, special education training was advised .
He was enrolled in St. John Ma Vianney, an educational institution for special children, where he finished his
elementary and high school. He was later enrolled in a vocational course at Don Bosco which he was unable to
continue. There has been no reported behavioral problems in school and he gets along relatively well with his
teachers and some of his classmates.
2001,Spouses Aguirre intended to have Larry who was then 24y.o, vasectomized. Dr. Juvido Agatep, required that
Larry be evaluated by a psychiatrist in order to confirm and validate WON he could validly give his consent to the
medical procedure
Larry was hence brought to Dr. Marissa Pascual who in her psychiatric report on Larry states that: “The
responsibility of decision making may be given to his parent or guardian.
June 11 2002, Gloria Aguirre, Aguirres' eldest child, instituted a criminal complaint for the violation of the A172
(Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified Documents) and 262 (Mutilation) of RPCin relation to
Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as “Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, against Pedro
Aguirre, her sister Michelina Aguirre-Olondriz, Dr. Agatep, Dr. Pascual and several John/Jane Does (for acting
upon the apparent instructions of respondents Michelina Aguirre-Olondriz and/or Pedro B. Aguirre) for falsification,
mutilation and child abuse.
The Assistant City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
Gloria appealed the resolution to the Secretary of the DOJ by means of a Petition for Review. DOJ dismissed the
petition stating,“the element[s] of castration or mutilation of an organ necessary for generation is completely absent
as he was not deprived of any organ necessary for reproduction, much less the destruction of such organ
Gloria went to the CA by means of a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the RoC
ISSUE
WON bilateral vasectomy correspond to mutilation
WON procedure caused the perpetual destruction of Larry’s reproductive organs of generation or conception
RULING & DOCTRINE
No, Article 262 of the Revised Penal Code necessitates that there be intentional total or partial deprivation of some
essential organ for reproduction. Tubes, seminal ducts, vas deferens or prostatic urethra not being organs,
therefore, that vasectomy does not correspond to mutilation.
Mutilation
The bilateral vasectomy done on Larry could not have amounted to the crime of mutilation as defined and punished
under A262, paragraph 1, of the RPC.
The elements of mutilation are the ff:
​
1) that there be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation; and
2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some
essential organ for reproduction.
​
​
In vasectomy, the tubular passage, called the vas deferens is divided and the cut ends merely tied. That
part, which is cut, that is, the vas deferens, is merely a passageway that is part of the duct system of the
male reproductive organs. The vas deferens is not an organ, i.e., a highly organized unit of structure,
having a defined function in a multicellular organism and consisting of a range of tissues.
Even assuming that the tubular passage can be considered an organ, the cutting of the vas deferens does not
divest or deny a man of any essential organ of reproduction for the simple reason that it does not entail the
taking away of a part or portion of the male reproductive system. The cut ends, after they have been tied, are
then dropped back into the incision.
vasectomy denies a man his power of reproduction, such procedure does not deprive him, either totally or
partially, of some essential organ for reproduction.
The ordinary usage of the term “mutilation” is the deprivation of a limb or essential part (of the body), with the
operative expression being “deprivation.” In the same manner, the word “castration” is defined as the removal of
the testes or ovaries
Lest it be forgotten, the reason for having Larry psychiatrically evaluated was precisely to ascertain WON he can
validly consent with impunity to the proposed vasectomy, and not to obtain his consent to it or to oblige Dr.
Pascual to explain to him what the import of the medical procedure was.
Gloria Aguirre contradicted her very own allegations when she persists in the contention that Larry has the mental
age of a child; hence, legally incapable of validly consenting to the procedure.
Larry's consent to be vasectomized was not obtained by the psychiatrist was of no moment, because nowhere is it
stated in said report that such assent was obtained.
NOTES
Clinical summary performed by Dr. Pascual
- Larry, then two years and nine months of age when adopted
- cognitive and physical growth did not appear normal in that “at age 3 to 4 years
- he did not utter his first word until 3yo
- did not speak in sentences until his 6yo
- learned to stand up and walk after he turned 5yo
- First enrolled in Colegio de San Agustin at age 6 ; had to repeat 1st and 4th grades
- adoptive mother has Bipolar Mood Disorder and used to physically maltreat him
- he had an episode of dizziness, vomiting and headaches after he was hit by his adoptive mother which
showed in his tests in Makati Med
- At 24, employed in the company of his sister - photocopying, enjoys playing billiards and basketball, his
leisure time watching TV and listening to music, needs supervision in taking a bath, cannot prepare his
own meal and never allowed to go out and run errands alone, claims that he once had a girlfriend, never
had sexual relationss, learned to smoke and drink alcohol, no history of abuse of alcohol or any prohibited
substance, No suicidal/homicidal thoughts
- human figure was comparable to a 7-8 year old
Pedro Aguirre: vasectomy is reversible through a procedure called Vasovasostomy. I can also state with
confidence that the procedure enables men who have undergone a vasectomy to sire a child
The Spanish text, which should govern, uses the word “castrare,” inadequately translated into English as “castrate.
‘castration’ which consists of the amputation of whatever organ is necessary for generation.
Title:
Li v People 427 SCRA 217
GR:
427 SCRA 217
Date: April 14, 2004
Ponente:
Tinga
Ticker
FACTS
18 year old Christopher Arugay was killed with multiple stab wounds allegedly by the accused Kingston
Li, the two were neighbors.
The version presented by the prosecution was that the fight stemmed from an indecorous public bath by
Kigston Li and Eduardo Sangalang. Arugay was watching television at home with his sisters Cristy and
Baby Jane, his girlfriend dela Camara and Baby Jane’s boyfriend, Tan, at 1:15am a sudden noise was
heard outside. Peering through the window, they saw Li and a certain Eduardo "Eddie Boy" Sangalang
taking a bath completely naked. The two were facing the house of the Arugays.
Enraged, Arugay yelled, "Pare bastos kayo, ba’t kayo nakahubad?" Li shouted back, "Putang Ina!" and
threw something at the Arugays’ house. Sangalang also yelled, "Putang Ina mo, lumabas ka, papatayin
kita!"
Arugay went out the house where he was met by Li, carrying a baseball bat. Li struck Arugay on the
head with the bat, causing Arugay to fall. Li ran back to his house to get a knife. Tan and dela Camara
assisted Arugay and were trying to drag him back to his house when Li re-emerged, Li then stabbed
Arugay once. A brawl ensued among all the parties.
The version offered by the accused Li was that, he encountered Arugay out on the street a few hours
before the brawl. Arugay was carrying a bayong containing various liquors. He invited Li to a drinking
session which the latter refused as he had work the following day.
The next day, around 1am, Li was watching television at his home with his friend Ricky Amerol when
they heard objects being thrown at the house. Peeping through the window, they saw Arugay and dela
Camara in front of the gate throwing stones and bottles at the direction of Li’s house. The stones broke
window jalousies and also struck Amerol. At the same time, Arugay was also hurling invectives at Li.
Annoyed, Li opened the door asking, "Pare, ano ba problema mo? Wala naman kaming kasalanan sa
’yo." Arugay and his girlfriend just kept on stoning the house and hurling invectives at petitioner. Arugay
kicked the gate but Li prevented him from opening it. Arugay then ran towards his house across the
street.
Li saw Arugay coming out of the house armed with two kitchen knives, so Li went inside his house and
got a baseball bat. Arugay attacked Li with a knife. Li managed to avoid Arugay’s thrusts and hit Arugay
with the baseball bat on the right shoulder. Arugay got a 2 foot long bolo and tried to hit Li. Arugay was
able to mae contact with Li’s right temple and right wrist and right shoulder. Li passed out. Upon
regaining consciousness, Li tried to crawl back to his house but Ronald Tan hit him at the back of his left
ear with a baseball bat. Eventually, Li managed to get back to his house and was brought to Makati
Medical Center.
Li admitted that Eduardo Sangalang was also in his house at the time the incident started. Sangalang
was the boyfriend of Li’s half-sister, Cristy.
RTC found Li guilty of homicide.
CA affirmed RTC’s decision. MR denied.
Li filed the present Petition for Review, seeking the reversal of his conviction for the crime of homicide.
There is a difference in the factual findings of the RTC and those of the Court of Appeals.Thus, the court
granted the review of the findings of the two courts.
Neither court disputes that the proximate cause of the death of Arugay was the stab wounds he
received. The RTC concluded it was Kingstone Li who hit first with a baseball bat Christopher Arugay
hitting the latter not on the head but at the right arm which is near the shoulder. After Kingstone Li has hit
the deceased with a baseball bat, the deceased who is armed with a bolo, retaliated by hacking
Kingstone Li on the head and right wrist causing Kingstone Li to lose his hold on the baseball bat and fell
unconscious. Eduardo Sangalang, who was then also present stabbed the deceased several times at
least six times.
While the RTC concluded that Li had not stabbed Arugay, it nevertheless held him guilty, predicated on a
finding of conspiracy with Sangalang.
In contrast, the CA held that since it has not been established which wound was inflicted by either one of
them, they should both be held liable and each one is guilty of homicide, whether or not a conspiracy
exists.
ISSUES
1. What injury is attributable to Li? (The contusion on the victim’s right arm that resulted from Li
striking Arugay with a baseball bat)
2. What offense did Li commit? (ART. 266 Slight Physical Injuries)
RULING & DOCTRINE
The CA’s formulation is wrong as the converse is the correct rule: with the existence of conspiracy, it is
no longer necessary to determine who among the malefactors rendered the fatal blow;26 whereas in the
absence of conspiracy, each of the accused is responsible only for the consequences of his own acts.27
Thus, it is necessary to determine whether a conspiracy existed between Li and Sangalang, and if there
was none, to ascertain the particular acts performed by Li.
There is the dubious claim of Tan and dela Camara that they did see Li stab Arugay once. Assuming this
were true, this blow would not have been the fatal stab wound, as it did not prevent Arugay from further
participating in the rumble and, as subsequently established, inflicting damaging blows on Li. However,
the physical evidence belies any conclusion that Li inflicted any of the several fatal wounds on Arugay.
Dr. Pedro P. Solis, the medico-legal consultant of Makati Medical Center who also happens to be one of
the country’s leading experts in Legal Medicine47, examined Li’s injuries on the same day of the
incident, and subsequently testified on his findings. The injuries suffered by Kingstone Li were defense
wounds, and that there were two (2) weapons used in inflicting injuries on Kingstone Li.
Li was slashed on the head by Arugay with a bolo, causing a twelve centimeter (12 cm.)-wound, among
other wounds. In such a condition, it is highly improbable that he was capable of inflicting the fatal stab
wounds on Arugay. Moreover, it could not be established that Li was ever armed with a knife. Difficult as
it is already to believe that the wounded Li could have stabbed Arugay several times, the incredulity is
compounded by imagining that Li would have also groped around for a knife, dazed and severely
wounded as he was.
There were four participants in the brawl, namely Li, Sangalang, Arugay and Tan. The first blow was
struck by Li, who had armed himself with a baseball bat and used the same to hit Arugay on the left
upper arm. This unprovoked assault by Li establishes at least some degree of criminal culpability on his
part. Arugay then armed himself with a bolo which he used to inflict an incised wound on the head of Li.
After Li had fallen, Sangalang, himself armed with a knife, fatally stabbed Arugay at least four times. Tan
had picked up the baseball bat dropped by the wounded Li and struck Li on the head with the bat. These
findings are consistent with the physical evidence.
Thus, Sangalang alone had stabbed Christopher Arugay.
A conviction premised on a finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and
presumption. the prosecution devoted its efforts to prove that Li had actually inflicted the stab wounds on
Sangalang, tagging him as a direct participant in the crime. Thus, there seems to be no evidence that
would directly establish the fact that Li and Sangalang had come into an agreement to commit a
common felony. Any conclusion that there was a conspiracy will have to be drawn inferentially, as the
RTC did.
It is not necessary to prove a previous agreement to commit a crime if there is proof that the malefactors
have acted in concert and in pursuance of the common objectives. Direct proof is not essential to show
conspiracy since it is by its nature often planned in utmost secrecy and it can seldom be proved by direct
evidence. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a
joint purpose and design. Complicity may be determined by concert of action at the moment of
consummating the crime and the form and manner in which assistance is rendered to the person
inflicting the fatal wound.
RTC established that there was implied conspiracy. An implied conspiracy must still be based on facts
established by positive and conclusive evidence. Even if conspiracy per se is not criminal, as it rarely is
in this jurisdiction, the weight of factual evidence necessary to prove conspiracy is the same as required
to establish criminal liability – proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The RTC’s conclusion that there was a conspiracy was drawn from these circumstances, namely: that Li
and Sangalang were in the same house at the same time; and that they both armed themselves before
going out to meet Arugay. The fact that they were in the same house at the same time is not in itself
sufficient to establish conspiracy. Conspiracy transcends companionship, and mere presence at the
scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy.
Moreover, it appears that the fight involved two distinct phases. The first phase commenced when Li,
without sufficient provocation, assaulted Arugay with the baseball bat. Li’s participation in this phase,
albeit as a solitary actor, was indubitably established. Sangalang’s participation, much less his physical
presence during this phase, was not established at all. In the second phase, Sangalang was the main
actor. Li was incapacitated by then. Clearly, the existence of conspiracy should be ruled out.
The only injury attributable to Li is the contusion on the victim’s right arm that resulted from Li striking
Arugay with a baseball bat. In view of the victim’s supervening death from injuries which cannot be
attributed to Li beyond reasonable doubt, the effects of the contusion caused by Li are not mortal or at
least lie entirely in the realm of speculation. When there is no evidence of actual incapacity of the
offended party for labor or of the required medical attendance, the offense is only slight physical injuries,
penalized as follows:
Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. – The crime of slight physical injuries shall be
punished:
….
2. By aresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused
physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require
medical attendance;
Since the Information against Li states that among the means employed to commit the felonious act was
the use of the baseball bat, conviction on the lesser offense of slight physical injuries is proper. There
being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances established, the imposition of the penalty in its medium
period is warranted. Li was convicted by the RTC on January 5, 1994. Having long served more than the
imposable penalty, Li is entitled to immediate release unless, of course, he is being lawfully detained for
another cause.
Careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the criminal culpability of Kingstone Li in the death of
Christopher Arugay was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the person who is
responsible for the death apparently remains at large. Yet absent any clear showing of conspiracy, as in
this case, Kingstone Li cannot answer for the crime of Eduardo Sangalang.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. Petitioner Kingstone Li is
ACQUITTED of the charge of Homicide for lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. However, he is
found GUILTY of the crime of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES, as defined and punished by Article 266 of
the Revised Penal Code, and accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of arresto menor in the
medium period of ten (10) to twenty (20) days. Considering that petitioner has been incarcerated
well-beyond the period of the penalty herein imposed, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons is ordered to
cause petitioner’s IMMEDIATE RELEASE, unless petitioner is being lawfully held for another cause, and
to INFORM this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision, of the compliance with such
order.
-
NOTES
Dr.Reyes (medico legal of NBI) found Christopher Arugay sustained an incise[d] wound on scalp,
on the left chest, and four stab wounds that are fatal, two (2) of them piercing his liver
The RTC itself cast doubt on the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution eye witnesses
(Tan and dela Camara) the court has to state that it has noted that the witnesses for the
prosecution and that of the defense either held back on material facts or have deliberately
withheld some facts or added some matters to the real facts for these are not only gaps but holes
in the versions of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense. What this court can do is to
cull from the evidence presented what could be the approximate or near the truth. The
-
-
prosecution did not help this court any to have a good view of the facts and neither the defense.
The relationships of the witnesses dela Camara and Tan to Arugay or the latter’s family cannot
be easily discounted.
the respective testimonies of dela Camara and Tan are inconsistent with each other with respect
to material points. Dela Camara claimed that she and Tan together assisted Arugay after the
latter had been struck down with the baseball bat. Yet while Tan admitted that he had pulled
Arugay away from the scene of the melee, he made no mention of the assistance of dela
Camara. In fact, Tan stated that dela Camara remained inside the house. Tan never mentioned
any baseball bat having been used by Li during the incident. Nor did he mention any participation
of Sangalang in the actual brawl. On the other hand, dela Camara in her own sworn statement,
asserted that both Li and Sangalang had stabbed Arugay and that she herself was hacked on the
arm by Kristine Li. Both Tan and dela Camara testified that Li stabbed Arugay on the left side of
the body as the latter was being pulled towards his house after having been struck with the
baseball bat.However, Tan testified that Li came from behind Arugay to inflict the stab wound,
while dela Camara stated that Arugay was facing Li when he was stabbed.
Spontaneity alone does not preclude the establishment of conspiracy, which after all, can be
consummated in a moment’s notice – through a single word of assent to a proposal or an
unambiguous handshake. Yet it is more difficult to presume conspiracy in extemporaneous
outbursts of violence; hence, the demand that it be established by positive evidence. A conviction
premised on a finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and
presumption.