PERTINENT CASES- CRIM 1 MIDTERMS
AAA v BBB (confusing, akala ko ba kapag sa ganito
wala dapat jurisdiction PH courts?)
TOPIC: Territoriality
ISSUE: May Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction
over an offense constituting psychological violence
under VAWC, committed through infidelity, when the
alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring
outside the country?
HELD: The place where the crime was committed
determines not only the venue of the place of action
but is an essential element of jurisdiction/ however,
if evidence adduced during the trial shows that the
offense was committed somewhere else, the court
should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.
Even if the alleged extramarital affair causing the
offended wife mental and emotional anguish is
committed abroad, the same does not place a
prosecution under VAWC absolutely beyond the
reach of Philippine courts.
Gumabon v Director of Bureau of Prisons
TOPIC: Prospectivity
FACTS: Petitioners have been sentenced to reclusion
perpetua for the complex crime of rebellion with
multiple murder, robbery, arson and kidnapping.
Each of the petitioners have been imprisoned for
more than 13 years. They now invoke the doctrine
laid down in People v Hernandez (handed down after
convictions became final) which negated such
complex crime. In people v Hernandez the SC ruled
that there is no complex crime of rebellion with
murder et al and being that Hernandez served more
than the maximum penalty that could have been
served against him, he is entitled to freedom.
ISSUE: WON the case constitutes a penal judgment
given a retroactive effect?
HELD: Yes. The Civil Code provides that judicial
decisions applying or interpreting the Constitution
forms part of our legal system. Therefore, judicial
decisions favorable to the accused must be applied
retroactively. Petitioners even raised their
constitutional right to equal protection, given that
Hernandez et al has been convicted for the same
offense as they have, though their sentences were
lighter.
US v Ah Chong
Topic: Mistake of Fact
ISSUE: Whether or not defendant was guilty of
murder?
HELD: No. He is not guilty because the circumstances
constituted a mistake of fact therefore cancelling the
presumption of intent.
Requisites of Mistake of Fact:
1) Had the facts been as the defendant thought
they were, his act would have been lawful
If the deceased were really a robber, his act
would have been a lawful act of self-defense
2) There was no negligence on the part of the
defendant
The fact that he called out “Who is there”
without an answer, it was very dark and that
robbery was rampant in the area cancelled
out negligence.
3) The intent of the defendant was lawful
His intent was self-defense
IMPORTANT NOTES:
 It must be given emphasis that he was
acquitted NOT because of self-defense but
because of mistake of fact
 This is a very unique and perfect case. No
other case has been held to be a mistake of
fact because emphasis has to be given on the
requisite that THERE MUST BE NO
NEGLIGENCE. If negligence cannot be ruled
out, it would result to a felony through culpa.
 Also, it has to be differentiated from mistake
of law. “Had the facts been as the defendant
thought they were, his act would have been
lawful” is different from “not knowing the
law.” The latter constitutes mistake of law,
which does not result to the acquittal of the
defendant because ignorance of the law
excuses no one from compliance thereof.
People v Delim
TOPIC: Conclusive presumption of death
FACTS: Accused-appellants Marlon, Ronald and Leon,
together with Manuel alias Bong and Robert, all
surnamed Delim, were indicted for murder of
Modesto Manalo Bantas, who was adopted by the
father of the accused. On January 23, 1999, Modesto
was forcibly taken by defendants who were armed
from his home; Marlon poked his gun at Modesto
while Robert and Ronald simultaneously grabbed and
hog-tied the victim; Rita and Randy (his wife and son)
being warned not to leave the house. His body was
discovered 4 days later by Randy and his relatives.
The accused were found guilty for murder
NOTE: If the victim dies because of a deliberate act of
the malefactor, intent to kill is conclusively
presumed.
People v Borinaga
TOPIC: Frustrated v Attempted
FACTS: Mooney was seated with his back against the
window when Borinaga stuck him with a knife.
However, the knife only hit the chair and not Mooney,
but as a result Mooney fell from the chair uninjured.
Borinaga ran away towards the market place. Before
this occurred, Borinaga had been heard to tell his
companion ”I will stab this Mooney, who is an
American brute.” Roughly 10 minutes after the attack,
Borinaga returned to stab Mooney again but failed
because he was scared away by the two who were on
guard.
ISSUE: WON the Borinaga should be charged with
FRUSTRATED murder?
HELD: Yes. What differentiates frustrated from
attempted stage is the author’s performance of all
acts of execution. In the case of Borinaga, nothing
remained to be done to accomplish the work. The
cause resulting in the failure of the attack arose by
reason of forces independent of the will of the
perpetrator. Objectively, no mortal wound was dealt
to the victim. But subjectively, in the mind of the
perpetrator, he dealt a mortal wound thereby
completing all acts of execution, making him guilty of
frustrated murder.
People v Nierra
TOPIC: Accomplice in a Conspiracy
NOTES:
Doblen’s role: introduced Misa (killer) to the Nierra
spouse and delivering the murder weapon to Misa
Rojas’ role: lookout and received fifty pesos for his
work
In spite of the conspiracy established, Doblen and
Rojas were held guilty as accomplices. It is true that
in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all but in
some exceptional situations, having the community of
design with the principal does not prevent a
malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice if
his role in the perpetuation of the homicide or
murder was, relatively speaking, A MINOR OF
CHARACTER.
Ivler v San Pedro
TOPIC: Reckless Imprudence (As a crime and with
regard to complex crimes)
FACTS: Following a vehicular collision Ivler was
charged with (1) Reckless Imprudence resulting in
slight physical injuries and (2) Reckless Imprudence
resulting in homicide and damage to property. He
was convicted to the former after pleading guilty and
penalized. Ivler raised his constitutional right against
double jeopardy saying that reckless imprudence
should be taken as a crime.
ISSUES:
1. WON reckless imprudence is a single crime?
2. WON reckless imprudence can be complexed?
HELD:
1. Yes. Reckless Imprudence is a single crime its
consequences on persons and property are
material only to determine the penalty.
Reckless imprudence is a quasi-offense
wherein what you are penalizing is the state
of mind and not its consequences.
2. No. Article 48 does not apply to acts penalized
under article 365 of the RPC. Article 48 is a
procedural device while Article 365 is a
substantive rule penalizing not an act but the
mental attitude. There shall be no splitting of
charges under Article 365, and only one
information
People v Gonzales
TOPIC: Complex crimes (Light felonies can’t be
complexed)
FACTS: Due to a road incident, an altercation arose.
Gonzales got his gun and his daughter tried to stop
him but he fell and allegedly accidentally fired the
gun and shot the left back window of the car hitting
Andres’ wife, son and nephew. The wife of Andres
died a day after giving birth to her baby, while the
two kids who were injured were released from the
hospital after six days.
ISSUE: WON Article 48 of RPC will apply?
HELD: No. Considering that the offenses committed
by the act of the appellant of firing a single shot are
one count of homicide, a grave felony, and two counts
of slight physical injuries, a light felony, the rules on
the imposition of penalties for complex crimes, which
requires two or more grave and/or less grave
felonies will not apply.
NOTES: It was given emphasis by Judge Boom that
what is special in this case is the difference of intent
between results of a single act. He said that the initial
intent was not to kill but simply intent to harm
therefore Gonzales was only charged of physical
injuries for the nephews. However, due to the death
of the Andres’ wife a conclusive presumption of
intent to kill was observed which resulted to
Gonzales being charged of homicide.
Nizurtado v Sandiganbayan
Topic: Penalties for Complex Crimes
NOTES: The RPC can only supplement special PENAL
laws. Therefore, it could not supplement mere
procedural laws.
The case at hand, the special penal law on
prescription, a procedural law, cannot be
supplemented by the RPC. A separate special law has
already been made for the prescription of other
special laws.
People v Pugay
TOPIC: Conspiracy
NOTES: One person pored the gasoline over the
victim, and another one lit the victim on fire. Court
ruled that there was no conspiracy and that they
should be held liable individually, not collectively.
Because the one that poured the gasoline only
intended to shame the victim and not light him on
fire.

FACTS: Nizurtado was a public officer who falsified

Resolution No. 17 and made it appear that the
Barangay Council met and settled with having “T-
shirt manufacturing” as its livelihood project, when in
truth, no such meeting was held. Instead, the
Barangay Council previously approved the creation of
a “barangay service center.” Because of this he was
able to encash P10,000

ISSUE: What is the penalty for the complex crime of

malversation of public funds through falsification of
public documents

HELD: For complex crimes, the penalty for the most

serious of crimes shall be imposed at its maximum
period.
Penalties:
 Malversation of public funds when the
amount exceeds 6000 but does not exceed
12,000: prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its minimum period;
in addition, the offender shall be sentenced to
suffer perpetual special disqualification and
to pay a fine equal to the amount malversed.
 Falsification: prision mayor and a fine of
5,000
The former being more severe than the latter is then
applicable for a prescribed penalty to be imposed in
its maximum. (dapat ba I take note na rin yung sa
mitigating circumstances? Huhu)

Romualdez v Marcelo