Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 635 views

    Case Digests in Criminal Law 1

    Uploaded by

    Rey Edward' Concepcion'
    These summaries describe several Philippine Supreme Court cases that discuss criminal liability and defenses of insanity. The first case rules that obedience to a superior does not exempt one from criminal liability unless the order was lawful. The second case finds a defendant not criminally liable for obeying orders from a superior in good faith. The third case does not provide facts or a ruling. The remaining cases discuss whether defendants in various crimes were exempt from liability due to claims of insanity, with rulings going both ways depending on the evidence provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digests in Criminal Law 1

    Uploaded by

    Rey Edward' Concepcion'
    635 views8 pages
    These summaries describe several Philippine Supreme Court cases that discuss criminal liability and defenses of insanity. The first case rules that obedience to a superior does not exempt one from criminal liability unless the order was lawful. The second case finds a defendant not criminally liable for obeying orders from a superior in good faith. The third case does not provide facts or a ruling. The remaining cases discuss whether defendants in various crimes were exempt from liability due to claims of insanity, with rulings going both ways depending on the evidence provided.

    Original Description:

    Case Digests in Criminal Law 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    These summaries describe several Philippine Supreme Court cases that discuss criminal liability and defenses of insanity. The first case rules that obedience to a superior does not exempt one from criminal liability unless the order was lawful. The second case finds a defendant not criminally liable for obeying orders from a superior in good faith. The third case does not provide facts or a ruling. The remaining cases discuss whether defendants in various crimes were exempt from liability due to claims of insanity, with rulings going both ways depending on the evidence provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    635 views8 pages

    Case Digests in Criminal Law 1

    Uploaded by

    Rey Edward' Concepcion'
    These summaries describe several Philippine Supreme Court cases that discuss criminal liability and defenses of insanity. The first case rules that obedience to a superior does not exempt one from criminal liability unless the order was lawful. The second case finds a defendant not criminally liable for obeying orders from a superior in good faith. The third case does not provide facts or a ruling. The remaining cases discuss whether defendants in various crimes were exempt from liability due to claims of insanity, with rulings going both ways depending on the evidence provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    People vs.

    Luciano Barroga y Salgado


    G.R. No. 31563 (1930)
    FACTS:
    Luciano prepared falsified documents with full knowledge of their falsity.
    Such documents were but according to data furnished by his immediate chief.
    Such acts were also in obedience to instructions to him.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Luciano is exempt from criminal liability for obedience of a
    superior?
    RULING:
    No. In order to exempt from guilt, obedience must be in compliance with a
    lawful order not opposed to a higher positive duty of a subaltern, and that the
    person commanding, act within the scope of his authority.

    People vs. Beronilla


    G.R. No. L-4445 (1955)
    FACTS:
    In 1944, Beronilla is a Military Mayor, and was authorized by Lt. Col.
    Arnold to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons accused of treason,
    espionage, or the aiding and abetting of the enemy. In addition, he received a list
    of puppet government officials of Abra, including Arsenio Borjal, and was
    instructed to investigate said persons and gather complaints against them.
    Aresnio Borjal is the Mayor of La Paz Abra. Beronilla placed Borjal under
    custody and asked the residents to file charges against him. The trial before the
    12-man jury end up convicting Borjal. That same day, Beronilla ordered the
    execution of Borjal.
    Jacinto was the executioner and Antonio was the grave digger. Beronilla
    reported this report to Col. Arnold.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Luciano is exempt from criminal liability for obedience of a
    superior?
    RULING:
    Yes. Beronilla acted upon orders of a superior officer that he could not
    question. Moreover, he obeyed in good faith. A crime is not committed if the
    mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent.

    Salvador Nassif vs. El Pueblo De Filipinas


    G.R. No. 47509 (1941)
    FACTS:
    ISSUE:
    RULING:

    U.S. vs. Guevarra


    G.R. No. 9265 (1914)
    FACTS:
    While Ignacia was starching clothes, Jose Guevarra slashed her with a bolo
    several times. She died after more than one month because of the wounds.
    Counsel for defense tried to prove that defendant was suffering from
    insanity when he committed the act. However, Miguela, mother of deceased,
    testified that Jose was sane for before the incident, he had spoken to her nicely.
    President of board of health Pilares was asked to examine Jose to know if
    he is insane. Althoungh he was seen swimming to his own urine while naked, and
    always shouting The big man, Pilares still found him to be sane and normal.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Jose is insane?
    RULING:
    No. Per testimony of the expert witness, he is not insane when he
    committed the crime. Thus, he is not exempt from criminal liability.

    U.S. vs. Vaquilar


    G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9475 (1914)
    FACTS:
    Evaristo Vaquilar was charged of parricide for killing his wife and
    daughter. The morning before the incident, Evaristo felt pains in his head and
    stomach, his eyes were very big, red, and his sight is penetrating. Several
    witnesses testified that he seemed to be crazy. He often said the words: What
    kind of people are you to me; what are you doing to me; you are beast!
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Evaristo is insane?
    RULING:
    No. Crazy is not synonymous to insane, unsound mind, lunatic, or idiot.
    Crazy as contemplated in the testimonies is that of having an unnatural trait i.e.
    out of the ordinary. Insanity is not a presumption, and should be proven beyond
    reasonable doubt.

    People vs. Donato Bascos


    G.R. No. L-19605 (1922)
    FACTS:
    Donato Bascos killed Victoriano Romero while the latter is sleeping. The
    wife of the accused and his cousin testified that Donato had been continuously
    out of his mind for years. Dr. Gonzalo Montemayor found the accused to be a
    violent maniac.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Donato is insane?
    RULING:
    Yes. The testimony of the wife and his cousin was corroborated by an
    expert witness. Insanity in this case was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    People vs. Crispino Mancao and Ciriaco Aguilar


    G.R. No. 26361 (1927)
    FACTS:
    Roberto Villela refused to surrender the lands belonging to the intestate
    estate of the deceased Hilaria Dejan, which were in his possession. While
    Crispino is harvesting corns from said lands, he was confronted by Roberto
    unarmed, but the former carried a stick and a bolo. Crispin assaulted Berto.
    Roberto took a bolo and attempted to strike Crispino. When Crispino got
    wounded, he grabed the bolo from Roberto and attacked the latter. The two fell
    down, and Berto pinned Crispin. Ciriaco Aguilar told Roberto What have you
    done to him? Ciriaco tried to hit Roberto with a bolo, but he hit Crispin. Ciriaco
    is an epileptic, and as alleged in the defense, he is deprived of his reason.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Ciriaco should be exempt from criminal liability?
    RULING:
    No. Even if Ciriaco is an epileptic, therefore susceptible to nervous attacks
    that may momentarily deprive him of his mental facilities and lead him to
    unconsciously attempt to take his own life and lives of others, it has not been
    shown that he was under the influence of an epileptic fit before, during, and
    immediately after the aggression.

    People vs. Juan N. Jimena


    G.R. No. 33877 (1931)
    FACTS:
    Juan Gimena suspected Crispina, his wife of having illicit relations with
    Apolinar Sereno (Apo) because she gave Apo P2.70. Juan attacked Crispina with
    a bolo, but was stopped by Gregorio. Crispina died.
    In defense, Juan claimed that he was in a state of somnambulism.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Juan should be exempt from criminal liability?
    RULING:
    No. Dr. Gomez did not find Juan to be in a state of somnambulism.
    Moreover, granting that he was so suffering from such, somnambulism does not
    constitute a defense other than that embraced in a plea of insanity.
    [Somnambulism is an abnormal condition of sleep in which motor acts (as
    walking) are performed.]

    People vs. Valentin Doquea


    G.R. No. 46539 (1939)
    FACTS:
    Juan Ragojos and Epifanio Rarag (Epi) were playing volleyball in their
    school. Valentin (Val), a 7th grade pupil, joined them, but he hit Juan with the
    ball in the stomach. Juan chased, slapped, and punched Val on the face. Juan
    returned to Epi and played, and Val took a knife. Val stabbed Juan to death.
    Val is one of the brightest in school and always obtained excellent remarks.
    Thus, the trial court is convinced that Val committed the act with discernment.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Val committed the act with discernment?
    RULING:
    Yes. Discernment pertains to mental capacity to understand the difference
    between right and wrong. Such capacity should be determined by taking into
    consideration all the facts, circumstances, appearance, attitude, comportment
    and behavior of the minor.

    You might also like