CASE TITLE FACTS ISSUE RULING

People vs. Luague and Wife Natividad in the house with 3 children.
Husband Wenceslao gone to grind corn several km away.
Alcansare Paulino Disuadido came and began to make love to her.
November 7, 1935 Natividad can’t dissuade Paulino and drew and opened a knife and threatening
her with death. In preparing to lie with her, Paulino leave the knife to the
62 SCRA 504 floor and Natividad and stabbed him in the abdomen. Paulino ran away by
jumping through the window.
WON Natividad is Yes, The attempt to rape a woman constitutes an aggression sufficient to put her in
a state of self defense inasmuch as a woman’s honor cannot be esteemed as a right
exempted from criminal as precious, if not more, than her very existence; and it is evident that a woman
liability. who, thus imperiled, wounds, nay kills the offender, should be afforded exemption
from criminal liability. Witness devoid probability. ACQUITTED both accused.

People vs. Dela Cruz In a narrow part of a trail that was dark, after going to a wake, a man suddenly WON Remedios de la Cruz Yes, Whether she did in fact cried for help, as claimed by her, or failed to do so
threw his arms around her from behind, caught hold of her breasts and kissed her, because of the suddenness with which the deceased grabbed her and the fright that
March 30, 1935 and seized her in her private parts; she tried to free herself, but he held her and is exempted from criminal which it naturally caused, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case,
61 SCRA 344 tried to throw her down; that when she felt weak and could do nothing more liability. she is exempt from criminal liability in the defense of her honor. ACQUITTED.
against the strength of the man, she got a knife from her pocket, opened it,
Mistake of fact
and stabbed him in defense of her honor. Man did not say anything, she asked
but he did not answer. She cried for help but no one answered. She scarcely
recognized the face because of darkness. She desisted as soon as he released
her. (Illiterate barrio girl, unable to write her name, 18 years old)

People vs. Jaurigue and Jaurigue Avelina Jaurigue cannot endure anymore what the deceased Amado Capina was
doing to her. (Courting her and stalking) One morning, inside a chapel, the
February 21, 1946 deceased Amado noticed Avelina and went to the bench where Avelina was sitting,
76 SCRA 174 he placed his hand on the upper right thigh of the defendant and Avelina
pulled with her right hand the fan knife she always brought with her. Amado
seized her right hand but she quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand
and stabbed Amado in the left side of his neck, 4 and a half inches deep, which
was necessarily mortal. He died a few minutes later.
WON Avelina Jaurigue is No, she is not exempted from criminal liability because the said chapel was lighted
with electric lights, her father is inside and there were important people
exempted from criminal accompanying her. Under the circumstances, there was and there could be no
liability. possibility of her being raped. The means employed by her in defense on her
honor is evidently excessive. She committed the crime of HOMICIDE. Arresto
Mayor minimm, Prision correctional maximum.
 No reasonable means employed.
 Consider the location and other circumstances.

United States vs. Bumanglag Rafael Bumanglag missed 40 bundles of palay which were kept in his
granary, he found them in an enclosed field at a distance of about 100
December 23, 1909 meters from his granary. For ascertaining who had done it, he left the palay
14 SCRA 644 and that night accompanied by 2 others, he waited for the person who
might get it and it turned out to be Guillermo Ribis, attempted to carry
it away with him. The 3 assaulted the presumed thief with with sticks
and cutting and stabbing weapons. He fell down and died instantly.
WON the accused acted in No, based on the codefendants, during the fight with the deceased Ribis, they only
beat the latter with sticks, because he unsheathed the bolo he carried but according
self-defense prior to an to the health officer and municipal president of Laoag, the bolo worn by the
unlawful aggression. deceased was in its sheath and hanging from his waist; therefore it can’t be
concluded that the deceased even intended to assault his murderers, it is not
reasonable to believe that, before falling to the ground in a dying condition he
succeeded in sheathing his bolo.

United States vs. Esmedia There was a dispute between the family of Ciriaco Abando and Gregorio Esmedia, WON the 2 accused acted Yes, Under Art. 8, par. 5 of the RPC any person who, in defending his father against
father of the 2 accused relative to the ownership of land. There was a quarrel an unlawful attack, while he still honestly believes to be in great danger, causes
October 21, 1910 between Gregorio and Santiago. The 2 accused arrived on the scene about the time in defense of an death of the attacking party, is exempt from criminal liability. The 2 accused are
17 SCRA 260 the fight between Santiago and Gregorio was terminating, and on seeing their immediate relative and exempt for criminal liability for causing death of Santiago Abando but not for
father, Gregorio, lying in the mud and water; fatally wounded and dying, and
honesty believing that Santiago, who was standing at the time, would inflict other
exempted from criminal Ciriaco Abando – RECLUSION TEMPORAL.
wounds upon their father, they, in his defense, immediately killed Santiago. liability.
Ty vs. People Ty’s mother and sister was confined but not at the same time. Ty signed the the
“Acknowledgement of Responsibility receipt” for the admission of the patients. It
September 27, 2004 amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note and post dated checks
439 SCRA 220 but dishonored because of insufficiency of funds. Demand letters were sent but the
obligation remained unpaid. The defense of Ty was that she issued the checks
because of “an uncontrollable fear or greater injury.” She was allegedly forced to
issue the checks because the hospital would not release her mother unless the bills
were paid at debasing treatment.
People vs. Beronilla, et Appellant Beronilla was appointed Military Mayor operating as guerilla unit in Abra. He
received a copy of a memorandum authorizing them to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try
al. persons accused of treason, espionage and aiding the enemy.” Arsenio Borjal returned to La
February 28, 1955 Paz and Beronilla, pursuant to his instructions, placed Borjal under custody. In no time
charges of espionage, aiding the enemy and abuse of abuse of authority were filed against
96 SCRA 566 Borjal. A 12-man jury was appointed by Beronilla and he was found guilty on all counts and
imposed upon him death penalty. Beronilla ordered the execution of Borjal and immediately
after the execution he reported it to Col. Arnold who, in reply request to withhold it.
People vs. Bonoan Celestino Bonoan met the now deceased Carlos Guison on Avenida Rizal near a
barber shop. Francisco Beech, who was in the barbershop, heard the defendant
February 17, 1937 say in Tagalog, “I will kill you.” Beech turned around and saw the accused
64 SCRA 87 withdrawing his right hand, which held a knife, from the side of Guison who
said, also in Tagalog, “I will pay you.” But Bonoan replied saying that he would
kill him and then stabbed him thrice on the left side. He died two days later.
People vs. Ambal Honorato Ambal and Felicula Ambal, 50 years married when by quarrels and
bickerings which were exacerbated by the fact that the wife sometimes did not stay
100 SCRA 325 in the conjugal abode and chose to spend the night in the poblacion of Mambajao.
The couple had eight children.The immediate provocation for the assault was a
quarrel induced by Felicula's failure to buy medicine for Ambal who was afflicted
with influenza. The two engaged in a heated alteration. Felicula told her husband
that it would be better if he were dead ("Mas maayo ka pang mamatay").He went to
the barangay captain and informed that he killed his wife. After making that oral
confession, Ambal took a pedicab, went to the municipal hall and surrendered to a
policeman.During the trial, he pleaded not guilty and, thru his counsel de oficio, the
defense of Ambal was insanity. Dr. Balbas stated during trial: Before the
commission of the crime, he was normal. After the commission of the crime, normal,
but during the commission of the crime, that is what we call “Psychosis” due to
short frustration tolerance.
WON Ty is justified because of
Uncontrollable Fear.
WON the accused men who
executed Arsenio Borjal are
exempted from criminal liability
and acted in order of a superior.
WON Celestino Bonoan is
exempted from criminal liability.
WON Celestino Bonoan proven
insane in the time of the
commission of the crime.
WON Honorato Ambal can use the
defense of insanity as a exempting
circumstance.
1. Voluntary will
2. 2 TESTS
Right or wrong test – capacity to
determine what is right and
wrong (Phil)
Irresistible impulse – lost of
mental will to resist.
No, Ty is guilty. For this exempting circumstance to be invoked successfully the
following must concur: 1) existence of an uncontrollable fear; 2) fear must be
real and imminent and 3) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal
to that committed. In the case, Ty’s fear was not real and imminent. Her fear
that her mother’s health might deteriorate due to the “inhumane
treatment of the hospital or that her mother might commit suicide is
speculative and not the uncontrollable fear contemplated by the law. The
evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or anticipated hence, this
defense is not applicable.
Yes, where the accused acted upon orders of superior officers
that they, as military subordinates, could not question, and
obeyed in good faith , without being aware of their illegality,
without any fault or negligence on their part, the act is not
accompanied by criminal intent.
Letter - Jury is illegal
Yes, he is exempted through the exempting circumstance of insanity.
Based on the evidence presented by the defense, he has been confined
in the insane department of the San Lazaro Hospital in April 1922 and
January 1926, suffering from dementia praecox. All persons suffering
from dementia praecox are clearly to be regarded as having a disease
to a degree that disqualifies them for legal responsibility for their
actions. The date when the time was committed, the defendant and
appellant had an attack of insomnia which is one of the symptoms of
dementia praecox. The defendant was arrested and taken to the police
station and although attempts were made by detectives to secure a
statement from him he was sent to the Psychopathic Hospital the day
following the commission of the crime. The crime dementia praecox is
usually preceded by much complaining and planning. In these
people, homicidal attacks are common, because of delusions that their
property is being taken. Defendant is DEMENTED at the time he
perpetrated the serious offense. ACQUITTED.
No, The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence
of proof to the contrary (US vs. Martinez, 34 Phil 305). The law always
presumes all acts to be voluntary. It is improper to presume that acts were
executed unconsciously. In order that insanity may be taken as an exempting
circumstance, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence in the
commission of the act or that the accused acted without the least discernment.
The alleged insanity of Ambal was not substantiated by any sufficient
evidence. The presumption of sanity was not overthrown. He was not
completely bereft of reason or discernment and freedom of will when he
mortally wounded his wife. He was not suffering from any mental disease
or defect. The fact that immediately after the incident he thought of
surrendering to the law-enforcing authorities is incontestable proof that
he knew that what he had done was wrong and that he was going to be
punished for it. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not
exclude imputability. GUILTY OF PARRICIDE.
People vs. Puno Urge to kill the mambabarang because he will die if he doesn’t kill the
mambabarang. He would like to go to jail rather die.
Able to social with other people.

People vs. Dungo

People vs. Yam-id

People vs. Valledor

People vs. Belonio
People vs. Taneo Potenciano Taneo and his wife lived in his parent's house in Dolores, Ormoc. On WON defendant acted while in a
January 16, 1932, a fiesta was being celebrated in the said barrio and guests were dream.
entertained in the house, among them were Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao. Early
that afternoon, Potenciano went to sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got
up, left the room bolo in hand and, upon meeting his wife who tried to stop
him, wounded her in the abdomen. He also attacked Fred and Luis and tried
to attack his father, after which, he wounded himself. Potenciano's wife,
who was 7 months pregnant at that time, died five days later as a result of
the wound.
The defendant stated that when he fell asleep, he dreamed that Collantes was
trying to stab him with a bolo while Abadila held his feet. That's why he got up
and it seemed to him that his enemies were inviting him to come down; he armed
himself with a bolo and left the room. At the door, he met his wife who seemed
to say to him that she was wounded. Then, he fancied seeing his wife really
wounded and in desperation wounded himself. As his enemies seemed to
multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way.
People vs. Doquena Juan Ragojos and Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of their school in Sual,
Pangasinan. Valentin Doquena, the accused, intercepted the ball, and threw it a Ragojos, who was
hit in the stomach. Miffed, Ragojos chased Doquena, and upon catching him, slapped Doquena on
the nape, and punched him in the face. After doing this, Ragojos went back to Rarang to resume
playing volleyball. Insulted, Doquena looked for something to throw at Ragojos, finding
none, he got his cousin's (Romualdo Cocal) knife, and confronted Ragojos. Ragojo's denied
Doquena's request for a fight and resumed playing. Doquena stabbed the unaware Ragojos
in the chest, thereby killing the latter. The court held that in committing the act, the accused
acted with discernment and was conscious of the nature and consequences of his acts,
therefore his defense that he was a minor was untenable (given that the Doquena was a
7th grade pupil, one of the brightest in his class, and was an officer in the CAT
program), and thus convicted him of the crime of homicide. The court ordered him to be sent to
the Training School for Boys until he reaches the age of majority. Thus, the appeal by the accused,
stating that to determine whether or not there was discernment on the part of the minor, the
following must be taken into consideration:
a) The facts and circumstances which gave rise to the act committed.
b) The state of mind at the time the crime was committed
c) The time he had at his disposal
d) The degree of reasoning of the minor
Yes. The defendant acted while in a dream & his acts, therefore,
weren’t voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability.
The apparent lack of motive for committing a criminal act does
not necessarily mean that there are none, but that simply they are
not known to us. Although an extreme moral perversion may lead
a man to commit a crime without a real motive but just for the
sake of committing it. In the case at hand, the court found not only
lack of motives for the defendant to voluntarily commit the acts
complained of (read: he loved his wife dearly, he tried to attack
his father in whose house the lived and the guests whom he
invited), but also motives for not committing the acts.
WON Valentin Doquena acted Yes, the accused acted with discernment. Accused mistakes the
discernment for premeditation, or at least for lack of intention, as
with discernment.
a mitigating circumstance. However, the DISCERNMENT that
constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability
of a minor under 15 years but over nine, who commits an act
prohibited by law, is his MENTAL CAPACITY to understand the
difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be
known and should be determined by taking into consideration all
the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case,
the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment
and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the
commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.
Jose vs. People

Narvaez Narvaez was awakened by a noise of Fleischer building a fence.

Narvaez shot Fleischer because he was threatened.
Unlawful aggression against his property but it is incomplete self-defense
because there is no aggression against his life.

Worcester vs. Worcester acting on defense in the crime of libel. WON there is self-defense. Attack on the person and
Ocampo Once a person is cast to him, attaches to a person reputation.
and will do necessary means employed to Person may answer back as self
prevent and repel it. defense but should be a fair
answer and not libelous.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. Since the act is accordance with law, therefore no criminal liability.
2. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is no self-defense.
3. Mere push is not self-defense.
4. If you accepted a challenge against a duel, once you agreed to a fight both of them are at fault. Both are aggressors.
5. Unlawful aggression stops, when the attacker fleds.
6. Check the place, weapon used, consider the details. All the facts matter.
7. Sufficient provocation, must be enough to stir one into a defense.
8. BWS – 2 INCIDENTS OR MORE.
IMPRINTED DANGER IN THE MIND OF THE WIFE.
9. No crime committed therefore civil liability is except is state of necessity of the person benefited.