CASE DIGEST: CRIMINAL LAW

TOPIC: “Act” as used in Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code; There must be shown an “act”
committed by appellant which would have inflicted any harm to the body of the
victim that produced his death.

While the prosecution accuses and the two lower courts both found that the appellant
has committed a felony in the killing of Lloyd, there was however, lack of proof as
to what act was performed by the appellant.

It has been said that “act” as used in Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, must be
understood as “any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external
world.”

In this instance, there must be therefore be shown an “act” committed by the

appellant which would have inflicted any harm to the body of the victim that
produced his death.

Yet, even Huntoria admitted quite candidly that he did not see who stabbed or
hacked the victim. Thus, this principal witness did not say, because he could not,
whether the appellant indeed hacked or stabbed the victim.

This lack of specificity then makes the case fall short of the test laid down by Article
3 of the Revised Penal Code previously discussed.

CASE: People v. Custodio Gonzales

DOCKET No: G.R. 80762, March 19, 1990

FACTS:

In a previous decision in the Regional Trial Court, the Court found the accused-appellants
Gonzales et al. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder as defined under Article 248 of
the Revised Penal Code.

Through their counsel, all the accused filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s decision.
However, during the pendency of appeal, all accused-appellants except Custodio Gonzales Sr.
withdrew their appeal and chose instead to pursue their respective applications for parole before the
then Ministry now Department of Justice Parole Division.

Thus, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on Gonzales’ appeal. It modified the appealed
decision in that the lone appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and indemnification of the heirs
of Lloyd in the amount of P30,000.00.

***
 CASE DIGEST: CRIMINAL LAW

The antecedent facts show that:

At around 9pm on February 1981, the barangay captain of Barangay Tipacla Iloilo was awakened
from his sleep by the spouses Augusto and Fausta Gonzales. Augusto informed Paja that his wife had
just killed their landlord Lloyd Penacerrada and thus would like to surrender to the authorities. Seeing
Augusto still holding the knife allegedly used in the killing and Fausta with her dress smeared in blood,
Paja immediately ordered his nephew to take the spouses to the police authorities at their municipal
hall.

Thus, an investigation was made behind the killing, and two days after the said incident, Augusto
appeared before the police station and voluntarily surrendered for detention and protective custody for
“having been involved” in the killing of Lloyd. He requested that he be taken in the same headquarters
where his wife Fausta was detained.

During arraignment, the spouses entered a plea of ‘not guilty’. Before trial however, Huntoria,
who claimed to have witnessed the killing, presented himself to Nanie Penacerrada—the victim’s
widow, and volunteered to testify for the prosecution.

***

A reinvestigation was therefore conducted, and the prosecution’s case rested on Huntoria’s
alleged eyewitness account of the incident, who alleges to have seen the incident.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Huntoria’s testimony and found lone accused-appellant Custodio
Gonzales guilty, who, among all the accused-appellants, did not seek for parole before the Department
of Justice.

***

ISSUE: On appeal, the issue raised in this case was whether or not Custodio Gonzales is guilty of
murder, based on Hustoria’s account where the prosecution’s case rested.

COURT RULING:

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s stand is insufficient to convict Custodio
Gonzales guilty of the crime charged.

1. The investigation conducted by the police authorities leave much to be desired. During
investigation, there were conflicts as to where the scene of the crime was. While the sketch
indicated are the alleged various blood stains and their locations relative to the scenes of the
crime, there was however no indication as to their quantity. Considering there were two
versions where the killing was carried out, the extent of blood stains found would have
provided a definite clue as to which version was more credible.

2. The police also failed to state the reason of Augusto Gonzales’ surrender. Further, Augusto
never mentioned the participation of other persons in the killing of the victim.
 CASE DIGEST: CRIMINAL LAW

3. Furthermore, the autopsy report would show that the killing would have been caused by two
or more bladed instrument, but opined that one bladed instrument is still possible. And insofar
as Dr. Rojas’ testimony was concerned, while Huntoria admitted that he saw six persons
taking turns in killing the victim, he however could not determine who among the six accused
did the stabbing and what particular weapon was used.

Considering the abovesaid facts, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides how criminal
liability is incurred:

a.) By any person committing a felony (delitos) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended,
b.) By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were
it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishments or on account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Further, Article 3 defines how felony is committed—which is either by means of deceit (dolo) or
by means of fault (culpa). Thus there is deceit when the act performed is by deliberate intent, while
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of
skill.

In this case, while the prosecution accuses and the two lower courts both found that the appellant
has committed felony in Lloyd’s death, there is paucity of proof as to what act was performed by the
appellant.

Yet, Huntoria, as earlier emphasized, admitted candidly that he failed to see who stabbed or
hacked the victim. In fact, he does not even know what specific act was performed in the killing. This
lack of specificity then makes the case fall short of the test laid down by Article 3 of the Revised Penal
Code.

Moreover, Huntoria’s credibility as witness is tarnished by the fact that he only came out eight
months since he allegedly saw the incident. He also failed to explain satisfactorily the reason for his
long delay in revealing what he allegedly witnessed.