ARTICLE 4: CRIMINAL LIABILITY

US v. Calixto Valdez

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appelle, vs. CALIXTO

TITLE: VALDEZ Y QUIRI, defendant-appellant.

GR NO. G.R. No. L-16486

DATE:
March 22, 192

PONENTE: STREET, J.

FACTS  On November 29, 1919 while the interisland steamer

Vigan was anchored in the Pasig river, a small boat
was sent out to raise its anchor
 The boat crew consisted of Calixto Valdez (accused)
and 6 other men others including Venancio
Gargantel (victim/deceased)
 Valdez was frustrated at how slowly the work was
being done and he started cursing at them.
 Gargantel objected stating that they would work
better and faster without the insults.
 Valdez saw this as insubordination and became
enraged, he drew out his big knife and threatened to
stab him.
 At the instant when the accused had attained to within
a few feet of Venancio, the latter, evidently believing
himself in great and immediate peril, threw himself
into the water and never resurfaced again.
 Two witnesses who were on the boat after Gargantel
leaped into the water said the accused threatened to
kill them if they said anything
 Gargantel was never found and presumed dead

ISSUE/S Whether or not Calixto Valdez is the trial court erred in

convicting him for Homicide of Gargantel – NO.

HELD Valdez and was properly convicted of homicide for the death
of Gargantel
 DISCUSSION Par. 1, Art 4- Criminal liability shall be incurred by any
person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
acct done be different from that which he intended.

Valdez approaching the victim with a big knife and

threatening to kill him compelled him to jump into the river in
sole obedience of self-preservation.

Although Valdez did not inflict any physical wound to the

victim using his knife, the death of the injured person was due
to the act f the accused.

“If a man creates in another man’s mind an immediate sense

of danger which causes such person to try to escape an in
doing so injuredd himself, the person who creates such state
of mind is responsible for the injuries which result.

NOTES This is applicable only for intentional felony – committed by

means of dolo or malice

ARTICLE 5: Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be

repressed but which are not covered by the law and in cases of excessive
penalties.

ARTICLE 6: Consummated, frustrated and attempted felonies.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

TITLE: vs. ANTONINO HERNANDEZ, defendant-appellant

GR NO. G.R. No. L-31770

DATE: December 5, 1929

PONENTE: AVANCEÑA, C.J.:

FACTS  On the night of February 3, 1929, Miguel Dayrit

 (offended party) and his children was about to sleep
when noticed that the thatched of his roof was on fire
 He immediately got up to fetch some water to
extinguish the fire
 He saw Hernandez (defendant-appellant) from his
window outside the house carrying a stick
 He cried for help and started to put out the fire, which
he succeeded -- a small part of his roof was burned
 Witnesses responded to his cries and on their met the
defendant on their way to the house
 The stick which Dayrit saw in the appellant’s
possession on that night was found leaning against the
house with the end burnt and a rag soaked in
petroleum -- one of the witness testified that he once
saw the accused using it to pick guava
 Dayrit and Hernandez had prior disagreements

ISSUES Whether or not Hernandez is liable for consummated arson –

YES.

Whether or not the penalty imposed is excessive – YES.

DISCUSSION Hernandez was correctly convicted of consummated arson –

the fact that a portion of the house was burned, no matter how
small the damage was, it is considered consummated

Hernandez was an 85yo man, and the damage done was very
minimal.
 The Attorney General recommends that pursuant to
Par2 of Art5, these facts be explained to the executive
for exercise of his clemency

NOTES Nature of Arson-

Consummation of the crime arson does not depend upon the

extent of the damage cause.

Frustrated Arson – There is a blaze/fire but no part of the house

was burned

Attempted arson – A person poured gas under the house and was
about to light the match but was caught

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its

execution and accomplishment is present
ARTICLE 6: Consummated --Theft

ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD, petitioner, vs.

TITLE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS
NACHURA, respondents

GR NO. G. R. No. 160188

DATE: June 21, 2007

PONENTE: TINGA, J.:

FACTS  On May 19, around 4PM, petitioner Valenzuela and

Calderon was seen outside the SuperSale Club, a
supermarket, by Lago (security guard)
 Lago saw petitioner wearing an RDU ID hauling a
push cart loaded with cases of Tide detergent
 Petitioner unloaded these detergent in an open space
where Calderon was waiting
 He then went back inside and after 5 mins, got out
with another cart loaded with detergents
 Petitioner hailed a taxi and Calderon loaded the
detergents into the cab
 On their way out of the parking space, Lago stopped
them asked for the receipts to which both ran and
Lago fired a warning shot
 Both of them were apprehended at the scene and the
stolen items were recovered
 They were charged with consummated theft by RTC
QC
 Petitioner appealed stating that he should only be
convicted of frustrated theft since at the time he was
apprehended, he was never placed in a position to
freely dispose of the stolen items, citing 2 decisions
rendered many years ago changing conviction if
consummated theft to frustrated theft only.

ISSUES Whether or not petitioner be charged only with frustrated

theft – NO.
 DISCUSSION The sole act of “unlawful taking” which is the deprivation of
one’s personal property is the element that produces the felony
in its consummated stage.
Without unlawful taking, the offense could only be attempted.

SC ruled that there is no theft cannot have a frustrated stage.

These cases do not enjoy the weight of stare decisis,

Theft can only be CONSUMMATED or ATTEMPTED

NOTES

ARTICLE 13: Mitigating Circumstances

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

TITLE: NICOLAS JAURIGUE and AVELINA JAURIGUE, defendants.
AVELINA JAURIGUE, appellant.

GR NO. C.A. No. 384

DATE: February 21, 1946

PONENTE: DE JOYA, J.:

FACTS  Amado Capina (deceased) had been courting Avelina

 Jaurige (defendant and appellant) in vain
 He once snatched snatched a handkerchief belonging to
Jaurige, with her nickname "Aveling," while it was being
washed by her cousin
 September 13, 1942 -- while avelina was feeding her dog
outside their house, Amado approached her anf professed his
love to her which the latter rejected
 He suddenly embraced, kissed her, and groped her breast to
which Avelina responded in a punch and kick
 Since then, she armed herself with a ling fan knife for
protection
 September 15,1942—at about midnight, Amado
climbed through Avelina’s window while she was
sleeping
 He felt her forehead – with clear intention of abusing
her
 She woke up screaming to which her parents came to
her rescue
 September 20, 1942, morning – Avelina received
information that Amado had been boasting of having
taken liberties with her person and that she even asked
him to elope and that she would kill herself if Amado
should not marry her
 September 20, 1942, evening – they attended church
 Amado saw and approach Avelina who was sitting on
one bench
 He placed his hand on the upper thigh of Avelina
 With the intention of punishing the hand of Amado, she
took out her long fan knife and stabbed Amado’s neck
causing his death just a few minutes after
 Her father approach her and asked why she did that to
which she replied that she can’t bear it anymore.
 Barrio Lieutenant approached her and she surrendered
herself to him saying “I place myself at your disposal.”
 He instructed Avelina and her father to return to their
house and wait for the authorities and they did as
they’re told
 Later that evening authorities arrived in their house.
Avelina immediately surrendered herself and the knife
she used
 She was convicted by the Court of the First Instance
with homicide

ISSUES (1) Whether or not the lower court erred in not holding that said
appellant had acted in the legitimate defense of her honor and that
she should be completely absolved of all criminal responsibility –
NO.
 (2) Whether or she is entitled to the mitigating circumstances that
(a) she did not have the intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that actually committed – YES

(b) she voluntarily surrendered to the agents of the authorities --

YES

(3) Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that the
commission of the alleged offense was attended by the aggravating
circumstance of having been committed in a sacred place – YES.

DISCUSSION (1) When Avelina stabbed Amado inside the church, it was
impossible for him to rape her because the place was
well lit and there were several people already. Her
means was excessive and therefore cannot be
completely exempt from criminal liability.
(2) A. The mitigating circumstance that the offender had
no intention to commit so grave a wrong as committed
should be considered in her favor. Her intention was
only to punish the wrong hand and she had no intention
of killing him.
B. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender should be considered in her favor. She
voluntarily surrendered to the authority – Bario
lieutenant and did as they were told.
(3) As to the aggravating circumstance that the killing was
done at a place of worship, it can be legally sustained
as there was no evidence that Avelina had murder in
heart when she entered the church.

NOTES The case of Avelina Jaurige can be considered as an incomplete

self-defense as there were 2 elements of self-defense present:
1. Unlawful aggression – hand placed on the upper thigh of
avelina
2. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending herself

However the missing element was the reasonable necessity of the

means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression. To
reiterate, the church was well lit and there were already some people
at that time thus rape cannot occur.

ARTICLE 13: Mitigating Circumstances

 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
TITLE: MORO MACBUL, defendant-appellant

GR NO. G.R. No. L-48976

DATE: October 11, 1943

PONENTE: OZOATE, J.:

FACTS  Moro Macbul (appellant) has been twice convicted of a

crime theft in November 1928
 14 years later, on March 9, 1943, he stole 2 sacks of
paper from the Provincial Government of Sulu and sold
it to feed his minor children
 He pleaded guilty for the said crime
 The mitigating facts considered in his favor was plea of
guilt (PAR.7) and circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to those above mentioned – extreme poverty
and necessity.

ISSUE/S Whether or not the trial court erred in considering recidivism

as an aggravating circumstance – YES.

DISCUSSION The trial court erred in its considering appellant as a habitual

delinquent at all, it appearing from the information that his
two previous convictions were more than ten years apart
which would mean that at the time of his trial now, he only has
one conviction to be considered.

NOTES Requisite of recidivism:

1. On trial for an offense
2. Convicted for another crime
3. 1st and 2nd offenses are embraced in the same title
4. Convicted of the new offense
 Recidivism can occur even after 10 yrs of gap

Habitual Delinquency
 A person within 10 yrs from his conviction/release for the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery,
theft, estafa or falsification is found guilty of the same
crime/s for a THIRD time or OFTENER
a