Raranga were playing volleyball in the yard of the intermediate school in Sual, Pangasinan. Accused Doquena, intervened and catching the ball, tossed it to Ragohos hitting him on the stomach. For this act, Ragohos chased Doquina and slapped him on the nape. Doquena then assumed a threatening attitude which prompted Ragojos to struck him on the mouth with his fist. After that, Ragojos went back to play again. The accused was offended and looked for a stone and turned to his cousin to borrow his knife. Upon hearing this, and fearing that he might attack Ragojos, Rarang warned the cousing not to give it to Doquena. Doquena succeeded in
possessing the knife. He then challenged the deceased to punch him again but the latter refused. While Ragojos continued playing, the accused stabbed him in the chest.
Crime committed:Homicide
Contention of the State:The accused, at the time of the commission of the offense, was a 7th grade pupil one of the brightest in his school and was a captain of a company of the cadet corps. He was conscious of the nature and consequence of his act. The defense should not mistake lack of premeditation or lack of intent for acting without discernment.
Contention of the Accused:The accused – appellant, at the time of the commission of the
offense, was only 13 years old. The offense was done with no premeditation and so, without discernment. He should not be criminally liable
HELD: Ordered affirmed. The discernment that constitute an exception from criminal liability of a minor... is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, the appearance, the very attitude, the compartment and behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.
ACCIDENT PEOPLE V AGLIDAY, 376 SCRA 273
FACTS:The wife of the accused-appellant, Conchita Agliday, testified that at about 8:00 o‘clock in
the evening of February 25, 1999, while washing dishes, in the kitchen of their house, her son, Richard Agliday was shot with a shotgun by her husband-appellant Ricardo Agliday. As a result, her son fell on his belly while her husband-appellant ran away. Although shocked, Conchita was able to rush outside of the house to call for help. Richard was first brought to the Sto. Nino Hospital, then to the San Carlos General Hospital and finally, to the Region 1 Hospital in Dagupan city.
Crime committed:Parricide
Contention of the Accused:The court erred in its findings of facts which, had they been in accordance with the evidence adduced, will suffice to support a judgement of acquittal for the accused-appellant since what happened was mere accident.
RULING:Decision affirmed. On the first issue, the testimony that what had been told by Conchita that the shooting was accident – was contradicted by her own statements in open court that she was still in shock when the police officer conducted the preliminary investigation. Such statement taken, are held as inferior testimonies given in open court. Thus the court finds no ground in the case at bar to overturned the factual basis and findings of the trial court.The second issue, before the accused may be exempted from criminal liability be reason of Article 12 (4), the following elements must be present: 91) a person is performing lawful act; (2) with due care and; (3) he cause an injury to another by mere accident and; (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. For an act to be considered as exempting circumstances, the act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act.
U.S. v TANEDO, 15 PHIL. 196 FACTS:On January 26, 1909, Cecilio Tanedo, a land owner went with some workers to work on the dam of his land, carrying with him his shotgun and a few shells. Upon reaching the dam, the accused went on his way to hunt for wild chickens, meeting the victim, Feliciano Sanchez, his mother and his uncle. The accused went into the forest upon the recommendation of the deceased to continue his search for the elusive chickens. Upon seeing one, Tanedo shot one, but simultaneously, he heard a human dry out in pain. After seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tanedo run back to his works and asked one Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the body, which they did by putting it amidst the tall cogon grass and later burying it in an old well. Only one shot was heard that morning and chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were found at the scene of the crime. The lower court found the accused guilty of homicide. Crime committed:Homicide
Contention of the State:The uncle of the deceased testified that the boy and the accused invited each other mutually to hunt wild chickens.That the accused shot the deceased, Sanchez in the forest with premeditation, by planning to take the deceased to the forest, there to kill him so that no one could see it and to bury him secretly in order that the crime should remain unpunished. Concealment of the accused and denial.
Contention of the accused:Accused testified that he did not invite the deceased to go hunting with him neither did the deceased go with him. That the incident was an accident since only one shot was heard that morning and a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound.Prior relations between the accused and the victim had been normal.
HELD:There is no question that the accused was engage in the performance of a lawful act when the accident occurred. He was not negligent or at fault because the deceased was not in the direction at which the accused fired his gun. It was not foreseeable that the slug would recoil after hitting the chicken.Evidence of misadventure gives rise to an important issue in a prosecution for homicide, which must be submitted to the jury, and since a plea of misadventure is a denial of a criminal intent, which constitutes an essential element in criminal homicide, to warrant a conviction, it must be negated by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgement of conviction. The judgement of conviction then is reversed, the accused is acquitted and discharged of custody.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE / UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR “Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Factus”
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE This term is applied to such an interposition of human agency, as is, from its nature and power, absolutely uncontrollable; as the inroads of a hostile army
PEOPLE v BALDOGO, 396 SCRA 31 FACTS:Gonzalo Baldogo alias Baguio and Edgar Bemas alias Bunso were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho Family who resides within teh Penal Colony. On February 22, 1996, Baguio and Bunso killed Jorge, a fourteen year old boy and abducted Julie who was 12 years old then. They brought Julie up to the mountain. During their trek, Baguio and Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing and belongings from a trunk which was located under a tamarind tree. On February 28, 1996, Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands and there she asked for help.
Crime committed:Murder and kidnapping
Contention of the Accused:Baldogo claims that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by Bermas with death unless he did what Bermas ordered him to do. He claims that he was even protective of Julie. He insists that Julie was not a credible witness and her testimony is not reliable because she was merely coached into implicating him for the death of Jorge and her kidnapping and detention by Bermas.
HELD:The accused were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan when they committed the murder and kidnapping. Aggravating circumstances of evident
PEOPLE v DEL ROSARIO, 305 SCRA 740