apparently to respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later, Bandian emerged from the thicket with her clothes stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly showing of not being able to support herself. Rushing to her aid, he brought her to his house and placed her on the bed. He called on Adriano Comcom to help them, where Comcom saw the body of a new born baby near a path adjoining the thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments before. She claimed that it was hers. Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her own house and brought her child into the thicket to kill it. The trial court gave the credit to his opinion.
Crime Committed: Infanticide and abandonment of a minor
Contention of the Accused: Apparently, Bandian was not aware of their childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was unable, due to her debility or dizziness which cause may be considered as lawful or insuperable cause to constitute mitigating circumstances, to take her child from the thicket to pee. She caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in the same place and later abandoning it not because of imprudence or any other reason that she was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she could not blame herself because it all happened by mere accident, with no fault or intention of causing it.
HELD: Bandian is not guilty of infanticide. Infanticide and abandonment, to be punishable, must be committed wilfully or consciously, or at least, it must be the result of voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. The evidence does not show that the appellant, in causing her child‘s death in one way or another did so wilfully, consciously or imprudently. Bandian‘s act can be considered lawful or insuperable. Thus, having the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances in her favour, she is acquitted of the crime that she had been accused of.
INSTIGATION People v. LUA CHU and UY SE TIENG [56 PHIL. 44 (1931)] NATURE:An Appeal was made by Uy Se Tieng & Lua Chu & made 10 assignments of errors made by the TC in its judgment.
FACTS: On Nov. 1929, Uy Se Tieng, was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium coming from Hongkong, who represented agents of the real Owners of Shipments of Opium containing 3,252 tins. He collaborated w/ Samson & Natividad of the Customs by paying them an amount of P6K for the opium to be released safely from Customs. On Dec. 1929, upon arrival of the Shipment of Opium in the ports of Cebu, Uy Se Tieng informed Samson that the former consult the real owners on how to proceed the payment of P6K & will come over to Samson house on Dec. 17, 1929 to inform the decision of the owners. On the same day Samson informed the Constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo & the Provincial Fiscal requesting a stenographer to take down the conversation between Samson & Uy Se Teung.On the night of Dec. 17, 1929, Capt. Buencosejo and a stenographer named Jumapao from a law firm and hid themselves behind the curtains in the house of Samson to witness the conversation between Samson, Uy Se Teung and Lua Chu.
Captain Buencosejo & Jumapao noted the ff. important facts:
1. Uy Se Teung informed Samson that Lua Chu was one of the owners of the Opium.
2. Lua Chu informed Samson that aside from him, there were co-owners named Tan and another located in Amoy.
3. Lua Chu promised to pay the P6,000 upon delivery of the opium from the warehouse of Uy Se Tieng.
4. A Customs Collector had a conversation before when Samson was on vacation in Europe, with Lua Chu and agreed on the business of shipping the Opium.
The following morning Uy Se Tieng and companion, Uy Ay presented papers to Samson & Captain Buencosejo showed up & caught them in the act & arrested the two Chinese. The Constabulary then arrested Lua Chu & confiscated P50K worth of Opium (3,252 tins).
ISSUES: Held: Juan Samson induced the
defendants to import the opium.
1. A public official shall be involved in the crime if:
He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain
Does not take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.
He obtained the profits in mind even through
afterwards does take the necessary steps seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders. 2. Even though Juan Samson smoothed the way for the
introduction of the prohibited drugs, the ff should be noted that held Samson not guilty for the crime:
The accused have already planned and actually ordered the opium without the consent or participation of Juan Samson.
Did not help the accused to successfully implement there plan rather, Samson assured the seizure of the imported drug and the arrest of the smugglers. Trial judge refusal of exclusion of
Juan Samson in the witness stand eventhough he was already
dismissed from the Customs secret service
Not one of the means prescribed in section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedures
In accepting the transcript taken down by Jumapao as the true & correct conversation between Juan Samson & Uy Se Tieng
1. The transcript contains certain admissions made by the defendants.
2. Stenographer attested that it was faithfully taken down. 3. Corroborated by statement of Juan Statement in the
court.
ARANETA V CA [142 SCRA 532 (1986)]