FACTS:At around two o‘clock in the afternoon of January 27, 1997, Honey Fe Abella, 10 and her
friend Francis Rivera, 7, heard a child shout ―Tabang Ma‖ (Help Mother). The two children ran towards Carmen‘s house where the cry came out. There, they saw Sibunga, Nunez CArment and Falare torturing the boy Randy Luntayao by immersing his head in a drum of water. The boy was tied and his head was banged against the bench. Later, Carmen order Sibunga to get a knife and then, the former, slowly plunged the knife on the left side of the body of Randy.
Crime committed:Murder
Contention of the State:Killing a person with treachery is murder even if there is no intent to kill. When death occurs, it is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted. Contention of the accused: They are members of a cult and the bizarre ritual performed was consented to by the victim‘s parents. The boy is subject to a treatment to arrive the bad spirit from his body. Unfortunately, Randy died because of their reckless imprudence. Therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and not of murder.
HELD:The decision of RTC Cebu, Branch 14 is affirmed with modification. That the accused –
appellants are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. ii. IMPRUDENCE OR LACK OF SKILL
A lack of caution in practical affairs. Deficiency of action.
iii. NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF FORESIGHT
Negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risk of harm. Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause his injury, he can recover damages to compensate for his harm
PEOPLE VS. PUGAY, 167 SCRA 439 Facts:On or about May 19, 1982 at the town plaza at Rosario, Cavite, Pugay and Samson conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and assisting one another, with treachery and evident premeditation, taking advantage of their strength, and with the decided purpose to kill, poured gasoline to the body of Bayani Miranda and with the use of fire, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully and feloniously burn the whole body of the victim which cause his subsequent death to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the Bayani Miranda.
Crime committed:Murder
Contention of the State:The respective criminal liability of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed the deceased is individual and not collective and each of them is liable only for the act committed by him.
Contention of the Accused:The accused Pugay admitted that he poured a can of gasoline on the deceased believing that the contents thereof was water and then the accused Samson set the deceased on fire.
HELD:Both accused found guilty on the crime of murder. Accordingly, judgement is affirmed with modification in favor of the accused Pugay.
iv. CULPA DISTINGUISHED FROM DOLO
Article 3 classifies felonies into (1) intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies. An intentional felony is committed whenthe act is performed with deliberate intent, which must necessary be voluntary. In culpable felony, which is committed when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill, the act is also voluntary. The only difference between intentional felonies and culpable felonies is that, in the first, the offender acts with malice; wheras, in the second, the offender acts without malice
PEOPLE VS. BUAN, 22 SCRA 1383 FACTS:Buan was driving a passenger bus and allegedly because of his negligence and recklessness, the vehicle driven by him struck and collided with the passenger jeep of Sergio Lumidao, damaging said jeep, causing it to turn turtle, and injuring its passengers. Six of the passengers suffered slight physical injuries and three other riders came out with serious bodily injuries. A charge was filed against the accused – appellant, one for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, in the justice of the Peace of Court of Guiguinto, for which he is tried and acquitted on December 16, 1963.Prior to the acquittal, however, the provincial fiscal of Bulacan, filed in the Court of First Instance the information in the case for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence. Admittedly, both charges referred to the same highway collision. His counsel moved to quash the charges on the ground that he had already been acquitted of the same offense by the Justice of the Peace Court.
Crime Committed:Slight and serious physical injuries
Contention of the State:The accused should still be penalized for serious physical and damage to property through reckless imprudence.
Contention of the Accused:Reason and precedent both coincide, in that once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for the same act. For the essence of quasi-offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act, that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a the law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injuries result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence), remains one at the same and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions. HELD:The charge for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence could not be joined with accusations for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence because article 48 of the Revised Penal Code allows only the complexity of grave or less grave felonies.
TRANSFERRED INTENT – ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPH 1 (“El que de la cause del mal causado) Transferred intent is a doctrine used in criminal law when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead. Under the law, the individual causing the harm will be seen as having "intended" the act by means of the "transferred intent" doctrine.
i.
ABERRATIO ICTUSMistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another. The offender is still liable although the one he injured or killed is another person because it resulted from his felonious act.
PEOPLE VS. GUILLEN, 85 PHIL. 307 FACTS:Julio Guillen, although not affiliated with any political group had voted for the defeated candidate in the Presidential Election held in 1946. Manuel Roxas, the successful candidate, assumed the Office of the President of the Commonwealth and subsequently President of the Philippine Republic. According to Guillen, he became disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged failure to fulfill his promise. Instead of looking after the interest of the people, he approved the so-called parity measures, hence, he determined to assassinate Roxas.On the night of March 10, 1947, a meeting was held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda. Guillen had intended to use a revolver, for the accomplishment of his purpose, but lost. Thus, he used two hand grenades, one was put in a plant box and the other grenade was hurled in the platform.General Castaneda, notice the grenade and kicked it away from the platform but accidentally fell into group of persons. He seriously injured Simeon Valera who died the next day and also Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carilloa nd Emilio Maglalang.
Crime committed:Murder and multiple frustrated murder
Contention of the State:In view of the findings, Julio Guillen is not insane. He is an individual with a personality defect which psychiatry is termed as constitutional psychopathic inferiority. Contention of the accused:He stated that he performed the act voluntarily, that his purpose was to kill the President, but that it did not make any difference to him if there were some people around the President when he hurled the grenades because the killing of those who surrounded him was tantamount to killing the president. In other words, although it was not his main intention to kill people surrounding the President, he felt no compunction in killing them also in order to attain his main purpose of killing the President.
HELD:Julio Guillen is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime murder and multiple frustrated murder and sentenced to the penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Simeon Varcela in the sum of P2,000 and to pay costs.
ii. ERROR IN PERSONAE
Mistake in the identity of the victim. The offender is liable even if the victim turns out to be different from the intented victim.
PEOPLE VS. SABALONES, 294 SCRA 751 FACTS:Accused Beronga, Sabalones, Cabanero and Alegarbe were convicted of two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder of Glen Tiempo, Alfred Nardo, Rey Boto, Reogelio Presares and Nelson Tiempo. A shooting incident on June 1, 1985 in Manuela Compound, Talisay, Cebu which led to the death of the victims.
Crime committed:Two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder.
Contention of the State:The case is better characterized as error in personae or mistake in identity of the victims. Rather that aberration ictus, which means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow.
Contention of the accused:It was impossible to identify the shooters because the crime scene was dark.
HELD:Appeal is denied and the assailed is affirmed: The headlights of a car or jeep were sufficient light.
Alibis – requires the accused to be in other place and it is physically impossible to be present at its immediate vicinity.
iii. PRAETER INTENTIONEM
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. It takes place when the result of the felonius act is graver than what is intended. It is a mitigating circumstance. The offender is liable for the felony actually committed but the penalty shll be imposed in its minimum period.