PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

MARIVIC GENOSA, appellant

G.R. No. 135981. January 15, 2004]
PANGANIBAN, J.

Issue
Whether the appellant herein can validly invoke the battered woman syndrome as
constituting self-defense.

Facts
This was a crime wherein a battered wife put an end to her husbands life. Appellant
testified that every time her husband came home drunk, he would provoke her and sometimes
beat her. Whenever beaten by her husband, she consulted medical doctors who testified during
the trial. On the night of the killing, appellant and the victim had a fight and the victim beat the
appellant. However, appellant was able to run to another room. Appellant admitted having killed
the victim with the use of a gun. The information for parricide against appellant, however,
alleged that the cause of death of the victim was by beating through the use of a lead pipe.
Appellant invoked self-defense and defense of her unborn child. After trial, the Regional Trial
Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of parricide thereby, moving
the appellant to file a motion to the higher courts.

Decision
The appellant cannot claim that she is afflicted with the battered woman syndrome for
she failed to prove such. Revised Penal Code provides that the following requisites of self-
defense must concur: (1) Unlawful aggression; (2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it; and (3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. In the present case, however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself, there was a
sufficient time interval between the unlawful aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him.
She had already been able to withdraw from his violent behavior and escape to their childrens
bedroom. During that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to bed. The reality or even
the imminence of the danger he posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a position that
presented an actual threat on her life or safety. The principle of aggression was that, if not
continuous, does not warrant self-defense. In the absence of such aggression, there can be no
self-defense on the part of the victim. Thus, Marivics killing of Ben was not completely justified
under the circumstances.
People vs Bulagao
G.R. No. 184757
October 05, 2011
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Issue
Whether the accused can invoke insanity as a defense for the crime committed

Facts
The victim herein was an adopted daughter of the biological parents of the accused-
appellant, Aniceto Bulagao. The victim was allegedly raped twice by Bulagao and by his
deceased adoptive father five times when she was young. Later, the victim changed her
testimony and claimed that what was happened between her and Bulagao was consensual.

A mental examination was conducted to Bulagao and it was found that he was suffering
from mental retardation as he had an IQ of below 50. The RTC believed that the victim recanted
her testimony because she was dependent upon the family of the accused and she has nowhere
else to go. With this, RTC finds the accused guilty for two (2) counts of rape and for the penalty
of death, wherefore and appeal to the higher court was made.

Decision
Insanity presupposes that the accused was completely deprived of reason or discernment
and freedom of will at the time of the commission of the crime. Only when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the exempting
circumstance of insanity be considered. In the case at bar, it was noted that the psychological
examination of accused-appellant was conducted more than a couple of years after the dates of
the complained of incidents. There was no showing from the findings of the psychologist that
accused-appellant had the same mental or psychological condition at the time of the said
incidents. Therefore, the appeal was denied and the decision of the RTC was affirmed.
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MAXIMO MARALIT, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. L-11979 January 25, 1917
MORELAND, J.

ISSUE
Whether discernment was not proven to validly invoke minority as a defense

FACTS
The crime happened when two groups crossed each other. The victim was carrying
zacate, when they have happened to pass with the group of the appellant when the victim and the
accused suddenly had a fist fight. After the commotion, when the victim was about to get his
zacate, the appellant immediately stab the victim with a knife which caused the latters death.

The accused however, in his version of the story stated that he was only acting in self-
defense because the victim had been continuously hitting him with a club. Nonetheless, the
counsel of the appellant strenuously contends that the accused should be acquitted on the ground
that the prosecution did not prove that the accused, a minor, in stabbing the deceased, acted with
discernment, that is, with a full understanding of the nature and consequences of his act.

DECISION
It is the party who asserts discernment that must prove the same to the court. In this case,
there was no evidence in the record upon which that finding can be based. However, the trial
court taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstance presented by the record, together
with the appearance of the accused as he stood and testified in court, drew the conclusion that the
accused was of sufficient intelligence and was sufficiently endowed with judgment to know that
the act which he committed was wrong and that it was likely to produce death. Therefore, the
court made the finding that the accused in committing the act complained of acted with
discernment thus, minority as a defense cannot be invoked.
Joemar Ortega vs People
G.R. No. 151085
August 20, 2008
NACHURA, J.

Issue
Whether the petitioner would be exempted from criminal liability for the defense of
minority

Facts
This was a rape case between the appellant, Joemar Ortega, a minor, and a victim, also a
minor. The victims side of the story states that she was raped three (3) times by Ortega and that
she was told not to tell anyone or she will be spanked by the accused. Upon consulting with
Doctors, that based on the medical records, it cannot ascertain if the victim was actually been
molested.

Defense version of the case was that it was the brother of the victim who raped the latter
and not the accused herein. According to the testimony of the mother of the accused, they
havent seen anything different when they responded to the scene and that after the incident; the
father of the victim spanked his son for the latter was the one pointed by the victim as the one
who raped her.

Both the RTC and CA ruled that the denial of the petitioner could not prevail over the
positive identification of the victim and her brother. Further, CA opined that petitioner acted with
discernment as shown by his covert acts. Thus, a petition to the Supreme Court was made.

Decision
The court was convinced that the appellant committed rape against the victim. However,
the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. 9344) should be applied to the accused. The
Petitioner was only 13 years old at the time of the commission of the alleged rape, which
exempted the appellant from criminal liability. Therefore, the case filed against Ortega was
dismissed was referred to the local social welfare and development officer of the locality for the
appropriate intervention program.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO ABRAZALDO @
PEDING, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 124392. February 7, 2003
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Issue
Whether the stab wound inflicted to the victim was caused by mere accident which can
exempt the accused from criminal liability

Facts
This case was between the intoxicated appellant, Federico Abrazaldo, who killed Delfin
Guban, the victim, a barangay tanod who was then just trying to assist the accused upon seeing
the latter have blood oozing from his forehead.

Appellants version on the incident was that he was hit by Guban with an iron pipe
causing the bleeding of his forehead and as when Guban followed the accused inside his house,
Guban tried to stab the accused with a knife but instead hit himself during the commotion that
happened by accident.

The sister of the accused on the other hand testified that the reason for the bleeding of the
forehead of the accused was that he bumped an artesian well. Thus, the accused was convicted
for Murder. Thus, the accused herein filed an appeal to the higher courts.

Decision
Accident presupposes lack of intention to stab the victim. In the case at bar, the
exempting circumstance of accident cannot be appreciated considering accused-appellants flight
from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities of the incident. Furthermore, that
he did not surrender the knife to the authorities is inconsistent with a clean conscience and,
instead, indicates his culpability of the crime charged. Also, In the last minute of the victims
life, it even stated that he was stabbed by the accused. Therefore, with this corroborating
evidence, the accused cannot claim accident as a defense to free him from criminal liability.
People vs Oanis
G.R. No. L-47722
July 27, 1943
Moran, J.

Issue
WON Oanis and Galanta can be granted a mitigating circumstance for the crime
committed as they were just performing their duty.

Facts
The defendants on this case were Police Officers who were tasked to arrest a fugitive, that if
overpowered, get the latter dead or alive. Upon reaching the location of the fugitive, they saw a man
sleeping on his back that the defendants thought was the fugitive, thus, in sight shoot and killed the man.
The latter was then identified as Anselmo Balagtas, an innocent citizen.

In connection with the crime committed, the defendants raised that they are only acting in the
honest performance of their official duties, as they were tasked to capture the fugitive, dead or alive. They
rose that they were acting in the performance of their duty thus might be free from criminal liability.
However, they were not granted the justifying circumstance for the fulfillment of a duty because one
element was not met.

Decision
The accused can claim mitigating circumstance for the crime committed. Mitigating
Circumstance may be granted when not all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from
criminal liability are justified. In the case at bar, for the defense of fulfillment of duty, the first element of
acting in the performance of duty was met, however, the second element was not met wherein it
states that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty, for the reason that the accused can do other less harmful way of
apprehending the victim. Therefore, they were still convicted of the crime murder but with
mitigating circumstance for an incomplete justifying circumstance.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ELADIO C.
TANGAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 103613. February 23, 2001
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Facts:
This case arose from a road rage. It was when both parties pulled-over and had
exchanged expletives when Tangan, the defendant, went to his car and got his .38 caliber
handgun and shoot Generoso Miranda, the victim. Thereafter, Tangan and Manuel Miranda,
uncle of the victim, grappled for the possession of the gun which later got into a possession of
some person wherein the Manuel still had the possession in the end.

The defense version of the incident was that after the gun was taken by the accused from
his car, the Mirandas started to grapple for possession of the gun and during the grappling the
gun fell, and exploded hitting Generoso. Tangan ran away and got into a police patrol car when
Manuel arrived and told that the accused had just shot his nephew.

Generoso died along the way to the Hospital. Tangan was convicted for the crime
homicide and was privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense and the
ordinary mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party and
of passion and obfuscation were appreciated in his favor, however a petition for certiorari was
filed against Tangan by the OSG, wherein it prayed that the appellate court's judgment be
modified by convicting accused-appellant of homicide without appreciating in his favor any
mitigating circumstance.

Issue:
Whether or not Tangan acted in incomplete self-defense?

Decision:

Incomplete self-defense is not considered as a justifying act, but merely a mitigating

circumstance; hence, the burden of proving the crime charged in the information is not shifted to
the accused. In order that it may be successfully appreciated, however, it is necessary that a
majority of the requirements of self-defense be present, particularly the requisite of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. Unlawful aggression by itself or in combination with either
of the other two requisite suffices to establish incomplete self-defense. Absent the unlawful
aggression, there can never be self-defense, complete or incomplete, because if there is nothing
to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of defense will have no basis.

The element of unlawful aggression in self-defense must not come from the person
defending himself but from the victim.

A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient. The exchange of insulting

words and invectives between Tangan and Generoso Miranda, no matter how objectionable,
could not be considered as unlawful aggression, except when coupled with physical
assault. There being no lawful aggression on the part of either antagonists, the claim of
incomplete self-defense falls.
People vs Aquino
G.R. No. 128887
January 20, 2000
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.

Issue
Whether the accused can claim passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance for
the crime committed.

Facts
This incident happened when the accused, Edgardo Aquino, visit the house of the victim,
Esmeralda Lampera, to look for Valerio Lampera, the husband of the victim. Edgardo didnt
believe both the victim and her daughter, Roselyn Lampera, when they told him that Valerio was
not in their house but was in Olongapo. Thereafter, he tried to peep in the house of the victim
and start stabbing the family wherein, Esmeralda was the one only one who got stabbed. After
the incident, the purok leader was able to catch up with the accused and got hold of the murder
weapon from the accused for surrender to the Police authorities.

The accused however denied the story and as to him, the murder weapon was from the
purok leader and was confused as when the latter invited him to the police station, that he was
the one being detained for two months and was not investigated.

Edgardo was convicted by the lower courts for murder qualified by treachery, with this,
Edgardo appealed that there was no treachery as the stabbing spree was made at the spur of the
moment when he was enraged with passion and obfuscation or was under the influence of a
sudden attack of "temporary insanity."

Decision
The appellant cannot claim the defense of passion or obfuscation as a mitigating
circumstance for the crime committed. The rule is that, passion or obfuscation may constitute a
mitigating circumstance only when the same arose from lawful sentiments. In the case at bar, the
acts of Edgardo did not result from an impulse arising from lawful sentiments but from a spirit of
lawlessness. Therefore, denying the accused for its claim.
People vs Viernes
G.R. 136733-35
December 13, 2001
PANGANIBAN, J.

Issue
Whether the appellant be granted lesser offense due to voluntary surrender made to the
authorities

Facts
The crime happened in the house of the common-law-husband of the mother of the
victim, namely Eladio Viernes. The victim accused the appellant that he raped her three (3) times
and that the latest incident was evidenced by a medico-legal results.

The defendants version of the story was that he never raped the victim and it would be
impossible for him to have done the same to the victim in the alleged dates stated. Also, he
presented some evidence to support his claims.

The lower court sided with victim based on her clear, positive and steadfast testimony
corroborated by the medico legal examination conducted on her. The appellant was convicted for
the crime of rape. With this, one of the appellants plea was for a leniency to the decision on
account of his alleged voluntary surrender.

Decision
The appellant didnt voluntarily surrender. The act of surrender must be spontaneous,
accompanied by an acknowledgment of guilt, or an intention to save the authorities the trouble
and the expense that search and capture would require. In the case at bar, the appellants claim of
going to the police station to clear his name does not show any intent of appellant to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities. Therefore, the petition for leniency of the decision of the court
on account of his alleged voluntary surrender was denied.