People v Talampas, GR No.

180219, November 23, 2011 In the nature of self-defense, the protagonists should be the accused
and the victim. The established circumstances indicated that such
did not happen here, for it was Talampas who had initiated the attack
Facts: only against Eduardo; and that Ernesto had not been a target of
Virgilio Talampas was accused with the crime of homicide Talampas' attack, he having only happened to be present at the
for the death of Ernesto Matic. It was alleged by the witness Jose scene of the attack. Neither Eduardo nor Ernesto had committed any
Sevillo, that while he, together with the brothers Ernesto and unlawful aggression against Talampas. Therefore, as Talampas was
Eduardo Matic, was repairing a tricycle in front of his house, not repelling any unlawful aggression from the victim, he cannot
Talampas passed by and stopped near them. Talampas then interpose self-defense as a justifying circumstance.
alighted from his bicycle, walked towards them and brought out a
revolver, and fired the same to Eduardo who took refuge behind
Ernesto. Talampas again fired his gun hitting Ernesto which caused
the latter’s death. On trial, Talampas interposed self-defense and
accident. He insisted that Eduardo was his enemy and not the victim
Ernesto. He claimed that Eduardo had hit him with a monkey
wrench, but he was able to parry the blow. On his version, he
claimed that while he and Eduardo was grappling with the wrench,
he noticed that Eduardo had a revolver so he tried to take control of
the same, which accidentally fired and hit Ernesto during the
struggle. The RTC found him guilty of the crime of homicide. On
appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Can one who initiates the attack against another interpose
self-defense as a justifying
circumstance?

HELD:
NO, one who initiates the attack against another cannot
interpose self-defense as a justifying circumstance.

The elements of the plea of self-defense are: (a) unlawful aggression

on the part of the victim;
(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal
the unlawful aggression;
and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused in
defending himself.
 People v Flora, GR No. 125909, June 23, 2000
Facts:
On the evening of January 9, 1993, a dance party was held
to celebrate the birthday of Jeng-jeng Malubago in Sitio Silab,
Barangay Longos, Kalayaan, Laguna. Appellant Hermogenes Flora,
allegedly a suitor of Jeng-jeng Malubago, attended the party with his
brother and co-appellant Edwin Flora, alias "Boboy". Also in
attendance were Rosalie Roma, then a high school student; her
mother, Emerita Roma, and her aunt, Flor Espinas. Ireneo Gallarte,
a neighbor of the Romas, was there too.
The dancing went on past midnight but at about 1:30, violence
erupted. On signal by Edwin Flora, Hermogenes Flora fired his .38
caliber revolver twice. The first shot grazed the right shoulder of Flor
Espinas, then hit Emerita Roma, below her shoulder. The second
shot hit Ireneo Gallarte who slumped onto the floor. Rosalie, was
shocked and could only utter, "​si Bodoy, ​si Bodoy", referring to
Hermogenes Flora. Edwin Flora approached her and, poking a knife
at her neck, threatened to kill her before he and his brother,
Hermogenes, fled the scene.
The victims of the gunfire were transported to the Rural
Health Unit in Longos, Kalayaan, Laguna, where Emerita and Ireneo
died.
Early that same morning of January 10, 1993, the police
arrested Edwin Flora at his rented house in Barangay Bagumbayan,
Paete, Laguna. Hermogenes Flora, after learning of the arrest of his
brother, proceeded first to the house of his aunt, Erlinda Pangan, in
Pangil, Laguna but later that day, he fled to his hometown in Pipian,
San Fernando, Camarines Sur.
The autopsy conducted by the medico-legal officer, Dr.
Ricardo R. Yambot, Jr., revealed the following fatal wounds
sustained by the deceased:
On February 26, 1993, Prosecution Attorney Joselito D.R.
Obejas filed three separate informations charging appellants as
follows:
That on or about January 10, 1993, at around 1:30 o’clock in
the morning thereof, in Sitio Silab, Barangay Longos, municipality of
Kalayaan, province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court,
1. Accused Hermogenes Flora conspiring and confederating
with accused Edwin Flora , and mutually helping one another, while
conveniently armed then with a caliber .38 handgun, with intent to
kill, by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did then
and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
shoot with the said firearm one EMERITA ROMA y DELOS REYES,
thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds on her chest which
caused her immediate death, to the damage and prejudice of her
surviving heirs.
2. Accused HERMOGENES FLORA conspiring and
confederating with accused Erwin [Edwin] Flora, and mutually
helping one another, while conveniently armed then with a caliber
.38 handgun, with intent to kill, by means of treachery and with
evident premeditation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot with the said firearm one
IRENEO GALLARTE y VALERA, thereby inflicting upon the latter
gunshot wounds on his chest which caused his immediate death, to
the damage and prejudice of his surviving heirs.
3. Accused Hermogenes Flora, conspiring and confederating
with accused Erwin [Edwin] Flora, and mutually helping one another,
while conveniently armed then with a caliber .38 handgun, with intent
to kill, by means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and
shoot with the said firearm one FLOR ESPINAS y ROMA, hitting the
latter on her shoulder, and inflicting upon her injuries which,
ordinarily, would have caused her death, thus, accused performed all
the acts of execution which could have produced the crime of Murder
as a consequence but which, nevertheless did not produce it by
reason of a cause independent of their will, that is, by the timely and
able medical attendance given the said Flor Espinas y Roma, which
prevented her death, to her damage and prejudice."
During arraignment, both appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial
thereafter ensued. Resolving jointly Criminal Cases Nos. SC-4810,
SC-4811 and SC-4812, the trial court convicted both appellants for
the murder of Emerita Roma and Ireneo Gallarte, and the attempted
murder of Flor Espinas.
ISSUE: and no one else. For acts done outside the contemplation of the
conspirators only the actual perpetrators are liable. And the rule has
W/N the trial court erred in convicting the two always been that co-conspirators are liable only for acts done
accused-appellants despite the failure of the prosecution to morally pursuant to the conspiracy. For other acts done outside the
ascertain their identities and guilt for the crimes charged. contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary
and logical consequence of the intended crime, only the actual
HELD: perpetrators are liable.
When Hermogenes Flora suddenly shot Emerita and Ireneo, Therefore, Appellants Hermogenes Flora and Edwin Flora
both were helpless to defend themselves. Their deaths were are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the MURDER of
murders, not simply homicides since the acts were qualified by Ireneo Gallarte. Hermogenes Flora is found GUILTY beyond
treachery. Thus, we are compelled to conclude that appellant reasonable doubt of the MURDER of Emerita Roma and the
Hermogenes Flora is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double ATTEMPTED MURDER of Flor Espinas. Appellant Edwin Flora is
murder for the deaths of Emerita Roma and Ireneo Gallarte, and ACQUITTED of the murder of Emerita Roma and the attempted
guilty of attempted murder of Flor Espinas. murder of Flor Espinas.
Edwin Flora, equally guilty as his brother, in conspiracy between
appellants for murder of Ireneo Gallarte. For conspiracy to exist, it is
not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period
prior to the occurrence. It is sufficient that at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused and co-accused had the
same purpose and were united in execution.
Edwin Flora demonstrated not mere passive presence at the
scene of the crime. He stayed beside his brother Hermogenes, right
behind the victims while the dance party drifted late into the night till
the early hours of the morning the following day. All the while, he and
his brother gazed ominously at Ireneo Gallarte, like hawks waiting for
their prey. And then Edwin’s flick of that lighted cigarette to the
ground signaled Hermogenes to commence shooting at the hapless
victims. If ever Edwin appeared acquiescent during the carnage, it
was because no similar weapon was available for him. And he fled
from the crime scene together with his brother but not after violently
neutralizing any obstacle on their way. While getting away, Edwin
grabbed Rosalie Roma and poked a knife at her neck when the latter
hysterically shouted "si Bodoy, Si Bodoy," in allusion to Hermogenes
Flora, whom she saw as the gunwielder. All told, Edwin, by his
conduct, demonstrated unity of purpose and design with his brother
Hermogenes in committing the crimes charged. He is thus liable as
co-conspirator.However, we cannot find Edwin Flora similarly
responsible for the death of Emerita Roma and the injury of Flor
Espinas. The evidence only shows conspiracy to kill Ireneo Gallarte
 People v Opero, 105 SCRA 40
Facts:
Automatic review of the death sentence imposed on Roberto
Opero for the crime of Robbery with homicide. At about 04:00am of
April 27, 1978, Salvador Oliver and Demetrio Barcing both security
guards assigned to the House International Hotel, in Ongpin street,
Binondo, Manila checked room 314 of the said hotel and found Liew
Soon Ping dead while bound and gagged. Room 314 was
ransacked and the personal belongings were thrown all around. After
rushing back from Cebu, Dr. Hong the husband of the victim made
an inventory of the things found missing in his residence, valued at
30,221 pesos. The Samar P.C. arrested the suspects in the case,
and turned them over to Sgt. Yanguiling in manila. During the
autopsy of the body of the victim, it was found out that the cause of
death was asphyxiation by suffocation.
of the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to commit so
grave a wrong as that comitted, there still remains one aggravating
circumstance to consider, after either one of the two aggravating
circumstances present, that of superior strength and dwelling, is
offset by the mitigating circumstance aforesaid. The higher of the
imposable penalty for the crime committed, which is reclusion
perpetua to death, should therefore be the proper penalty to be
imposed on appellant. 'This is the penalty of death as imposed by the
lower court.
JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED
APPELANT OPERO IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE​.

When a homicide results from a robbery, all those who took part in
the robbery are all guilty of Robbery with homicide, unless proof is
presentedthat the accused tried to prevent the killing.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not Roberto Opero and others liable for the
death of the victim, when the intent was for robbery ​only

HELD:

No. As stated earlier, what may be appreciated in appellant's favor is

only the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed. The different felony from that
intended, be falls someone different from the intended victim, as
when the person intended to be killed is a stranger to the offender,
but the person actually killed is the offender's father, thereby making
the intended felony which is homicide different from the crime
actually committed which is parricide. Notwithstanding the presence
People v Pugay, GR 743245, Nov 17,1988

Facts:
Pugay and Samson were charged of murder of their friend
Miranda ( a retardate). One evening during a town fiesta, Pugay and
Samson along with other companions who were drunk made fun of
Bayani Miranda. Pugay took a can of gasoline which he had
mistaken as water and poured it to Miranda. Samson, not knowing
too that the water was a real gasoline set Miranda on fire making a
human torch out of him.

Issue:
Whether or not Pugay and Samson can invoke the defense
of the lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as a mitigating
circumstance.

Held:
Yes. The court was disposed to credit in his favor the
ordinary mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong. The eyewitness Gabion testified that the accused Pugay and
Samson were stunned when they noticed the deceased burning .
The Court modified the charge of murder to a lower charge. Pugay,
having failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid
every undesirable consequence that may be committed by his
companion from the making of fun of the deceased is convicted only
of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and Samson, granted
that he never intended to commit so grave a wrong, is convicted only
of homicide.