G.R. No.

151258 December 1, 2014

ARTEMIO VILLAREAL, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:

In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law signified their
intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). Hazing was pre-requisite in joining for which
Lenny was one of few who had undergone the process. After the initiation, Lenny’s condition worsened due to the
blows he received, the Aquilans rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was pronounced dead on arrival.

Consequently, a criminal case for homicide was filed against the 35 Aquilans. Four of the accused (Tecson, et. al.)
were found to be guilty of homicide by the trial court but was reduced to crime of slight physical injuries and
sentenced to 20 days of arresto menor by the Court of Appeals.  However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court by the
Office of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court ruled that they should be liable for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide instead.

In Motions for Clarification or Reconsideration, Tecson et. al. clarified the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court
to their criminal liability. According to Tecson et. al., they immediately applied for probation after the CA rendered its
decision lowering their criminal liability from the crime of homicide, which carries a non-probationable sentence, to
slight physical injuries, which carries a probationable sentence. Hence, they have already been discharged from their
criminal liability and the cases against them closed and terminated by virtue of their granted Applications for
Probation for which the terms therein are already been complied with.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the penalty imposed on Tecson et. al. should have corresponded to that for intentional felonies.

HELD:

 The CA’s ultimate conclusion that Tecson, Ama, Almeda, and Bantug were liable merely for slight physical injuries
grossly contradicts its own findings of fact. According to the court, the four accused "were found to have inflicted
more than the usual punishment undertaken during such initiation rites on the person of Villa." 99 It then adopted the
NBI medico-legal officer’s findings that the antecedent cause of Lenny Villa’s death was the "multiple traumatic
injuries" he suffered from the initiation rites. 100 Considering that the CA found that the "physical punishment heaped
on [Lenny Villa was] serious in nature," 101 it was patently erroneous for the court to limit the criminal liability to slight
physical injuries, which is a light felony.

Article 4(1) of the Revised Penal Code dictates that the perpetrator shall be liable for the consequences of an act, even
if its result is different from that intended. Thus, once a person is found to have committed an initial felonious act,
such as the unlawful infliction of physical injuries that results in the death of the victim, courts are required to
automatically apply the legal framework governing the destruction of life. This rule is mandatory, and not subject to
discretion.

The CA’s application of the legal framework governing physical injuries – punished under Articles 262 to 266 for
intentional felonies and Article 365 for culpable felonies – is therefore tantamount to a whimsical, capricious, and
abusive exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. According to the Revised Penal Code, the mandatory
and legally imposable penalty in case the victim dies should be based on the framework governing the destruction of
the life of a person, punished under Articles 246 to 261 for intentional felonies and Article 365 for culpable felonies,
and not under the aforementioned provisions. We emphasize that these two types of felonies are distinct from and
legally inconsistent with each other, in that the accused cannot be held criminally liable for physical injuries when
actual death occurs.102

WHEREFORE, the appealed finding petitioner Fidelito Dizon guilty of homicide is hereby MODIFIED and set aside
IN PART. The appealed finding Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent
Tecson guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries – is also MODIFIED and set aside in part. Instead, Fidelito
Dizon, Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent Tecson are found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide defined and penalized under Article 365 in
relation to Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code. 
 G.R. No. 182648, June 17, 2015

HERMAN MEDINA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS: on or about the 27th day of April, 2002 Henry Lim is a resident of Calao West, Santiago City,
Isabela, owner of a Sangyong Korando Jeep was involved in an accident that caused damage. He decided to
make his jeep repaired at the auto repair shop owned by Herman Medina, a mechanic. At the time the jeep
was delivered to Medina's shop, it was still in running condition and serviceable because the under chassis
was not affected and the motor engine, wheels, steering wheels and other parts were still functioning. The jeep
was still not repaired so, in the morning of September 4, 2002, Purita Lim , Lim's sister, instructed Danilo
Beltran , who also have an auto repair shop, to retrieve the jeep from Medina's shop. However, Beltran was
not able to get the jeep since some parts are missing. Upon inquiry, Medina told him that he took and installed
them on Lim's another vehicle, an Isuzu pick-up, which was also being repaired in the shop. Beltran went
back in the afternoon of the same day and was able to get the jeep, but without the missing parts. He reported
the incident to Purita. Later, the jeep was fully repaired and put back in good running condition.

On September 12, 2002, a criminal complaint5 for simple theft was filed by Purita, representing her brother. The City
Prosecutor found probable cause to indict Medina. In his arraignment, Medina pleaded not guilty. 7 No settlement,
stipulation or admission was made by the parties during the pre-trial. 8 During the trial proper, Beltran and Lim were
presented as witnesses for the prosecution, while Medina and a certain Angelina Tumamao, a former barangay
kagawad of Buenavista, Santiago City, testified for the defense. Eventually, the case was submitted for decision, but
without the formal offer of evidence by the defense.
March 31, 2005 , the Trial Court , found that Medina is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of Medina. The trial court was not convinced with Medina’s justification
that he installed the missing part of the jeep to the pick-up owned by Lim, at CA agreed with the lower court's findings
that Medina admitted that the jeep is more valuable than the pickup; that unlike the pick-up, the needed repairs on the
jeep is only minor in nature; that Medina failed to prove that the pick-up was completely repaired and was placed in
good running condition; and that he failed to prove that the pick-up is owned by Lim,and the CA said that his excuse
is so “lame and fishy”. The CA agreed to the lower court’s findings.

When his motion for reconsideration was denied, Medina filed a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred when it affirmed the conviction of petitioner despite the
fact that the prosecution only presented circumstantial evidence in their attempt to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor
force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent. As defined and penalized, the
elements of the crime are: (1) there was taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking
was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking was without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking was
accomplished without the use of violence against, or intimidation of persons or force, upon things.

The only requirement for a personal property to be the object of theft under the penal code is that it be capable of
appropriation. It need not be capable of "asportation," which is defined as "carrying away." Jurisprudence is settled
that to "take" under the theft provision of the penal code does not require asportation or carrying away.

To appropriate means to deprive the lawful owner of the thing. The word "take" in the Revised Penal Code includes
any act intended to transfer possession which may be committed through the use of the offenders' own hands, as well
as any mechanical device

In this case, Medina acknowledged without hesitation the taking of the jeep's alternator, starter, battery, and two tires
with magwheels, but he put up the defense that they were installed in the pick-up owned by Lim. With such
admission, the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove that the missing parts were indeed lawfully taken. Upon
perusal of the transcript of stenographic notes, the Court finds that Medina unsatisfactorily discharged the burden.
Even bearing in mind the testimony of Tumamao, he failed to substantiate, through the presentation of supporting
documentary evidence or corroborative testimony, the claims that: (1) Lim was the owner of the pick-up; (2) the
missing parts of the jeep were exactly the same items that were placed in the pick-up; (3) Lim consented, expressly or
impliedly, to the transfer of auto parts; and (4) Mendoza witnessed the removal of the spare parts from, the jeep and
their placement to the pick-up. Neither did Medina adduce any justifying or exempting circumstance to avoid
criminal liability

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals convicting
Herman Medina for the crime of simple theft, is hereby AFFIRMED.

Landmark Case: United States vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910 (Digested Case)

The events in this case happened in 1908, during the American regime, yet it is still quoted today as the
textbook example of a "mistake of fact". The accused was absolved of stabbing and killing the person trying
to enter his room. He thought it was a robber, but it was only his roommate.

US vs Ah Chong
G.R. No. L-5272
15 Phil 488
March 19, 1910

Petitioner: The United States

Respondent: Ah Chong

FACTS: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad elements. One evening, before going
to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he
was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out twice "Who is there?", but received no
answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, "If you
enter the room, I will kill you." But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been
placed the door and believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife, struck and fatally
wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate. Thereupon, he called to his employers and
rushed back int the room to secure the bandages to bind up the wound. Defendant was charged with
murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ah Chong may be held criminally responsible for murder in the case at bar.

HELD: The Court held that Ah Chong must be acquitted. 

Had the facts been as Ah Chong believed them to be, he would have been justified in killing the intrude.
Par. 1, Art XI of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that in order for the act to be justified, the
requisites must be present.

Requisites (Honest Mistake of Fact): 

1) Unlawful agression on the part of the victim
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression
3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

If the victim was really a robber, forcing his way into the room of Ah Chong, there would have been
unlawful aggression, there would have been a necessity on the part of Ah Chong to defend himself
and/or his home and the knife would have been a reasonable means to prevent or repel such aggression. 

The act done by Ah Chong was merely an act done due to Honest Mistake of Fact. The Court acquits Ah
Chong.

Criminal Case Digest: People vs Oanis, 74 Phil 257 G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943
People vs Oanis, 74 Phil 257
G.R. No. L-47722 July 27, 1943
Criminal Case Digest:
Digested Cases

Facts: As a group taking the route to Rizal street, Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis and his co-accused Corporal
Alberto Galanta were under instructions to arrest Anselmo Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if
overpowered, to get him dead or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they  went into a room and on seeing a man
sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers, without
first making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be a peaceful and innocent citizen,
Serapio Tecson who upon autopsy, multiple gunshot wounds were found on his body which caused his death.

The defendants alleged and appealed that in the honest performance of their official duties, they acted in innocent
mistake of fact.

Issue: Whether or not Chief of Police Oanis and Corporal Galanta were guilty of murder.

Ruling: New Rules of Court, Rule 109, Section 2 paragraph 2 provides, No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall
be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for
his detention. As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed by both was murder with the qualifying
circumstance of alevosia. Even if it were true that the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused would not be
justified in
killing him while the latter was sleeping. In apprehending even the most notorious criminal, the law does not permit
the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers of the law who are
trying 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ARMANDO GEMOYA, and RONILO TIONKO, accused-appellant.
G. R. No. 132633 October 4, 2000

FACTS: The neighborhood of Barrio Malagamot, Panacan, Davao City were awakened by a commotion. Armando
Gemoya and Candelario Aliazar, together with their relatives, Ronilo and Rolly Tionko, went towards the house of
Irene Lantapon. They were armed with pipe, wood, and an improvised bow and arrow locally called “Indian Pana”.
Addressing a group of people who were huddled together, Ronilo stopped and demanded an explanation for what
happened to his brother-in-law. They replied that nothing to him and advised them to go home. Ronilo ignored them
and the four went to the house of the Alferezes. They saw Wilfredo Alferez standing by the road waiting for a taxi.
The four rushed at him. Ronilo beat him with a cylindrical wood, Rolly with a pipe, while Candelario held his arms
behind him. Armando aimed his “Indian pana” at Wilfredo and the latter was hit on his left chest. Edgardo and his
daughter, Rosalie Jimenez rushed to his aid. But Rosalie was hit on the left ear by Armando. Then the four ran away.
Wilfredo was brought to the hospital but he died upon arrival. Rosalie, on the other hand, was declared out of danger.
The RTC found Armando and Ronilo guilty of murder and frustrated homicide.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting Armando and Ronilo of the crime of frustrated
homicide for the wounding of Jimenez?

RULING: Yes. The hitting of Rosalie was accidental as the second “Indian pana” was meant for Wilfredo. The intent
to kill Rosalie is absent. However, they are still liable for the consequences of their felonious act. Mistake in the
identity of the victim, which may either be “error in personae” (mistake of the person), or “aberratio ictus (mistake in
the blow), is neither exempting nor mitigating. They cannot therefore escape the criminal liability resulting from the
injury suffered by Rosalie.
NOTE: Gemoya is entitled to the mitigating of voluntary surrender.

PEOPLE vs. SABALONES

FACTS:
On June 1, 1985 at 11:45 PM, respondents including Rolusape Sabalones, armed with firearms, attacked
and ambushed individuals riding in two vehicles resulting to the death of two persons and injury to three
others.
According to a witness presented, Sabalones was implicated in the killing of Nabing Velez because of the
slapping incident involving her father-in-law, Federico Sabalones, Sr. and Nabing Velez, which took place
prior to the death of Junior Sabalones (whose wake was during time of the commission of the crime).
The conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the appellants killed the wrong persons was
based on the extrajudicial statement of Appellant Beronga and the testimony of Jennifer Binghoy. These
pieces of evidence sufficiently show that appellants believed that they were suspected of having killed the
recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they expected his group to retaliate against them.
The Trial Court observed that “they went to their grisly destination amidst the dark and positioned
themselves in defense of his turf against the invasion of a revengeful gang of supporters of the recently slain
Nabing Velez.”
ISSUE: W/N the case is „one of aberratio ictus‟
HELD:
NO. The case is not one of aberration ictus but one of error in personae or mistake in identity, as observed
by the OSG.
Transferred intent is used when a defendant intends to harm one victim, but then unintentionally harms a
second victim instead. In this case, the defendant's intent transfers from the intended victim to the actual
victim and can be used to satisfy the mens rea element of the crime that the defendant is being charged
with. The transferred intentdoctrine is only used for completed crimes, and is not used for attempted crimes.
Aberratio ictus means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to
imprecision of the blow. In the case at bar, the appellants opened fire because they mistook the vehicles to
be carrying the avenging men of Nabing Velez. The fact that they were mistaken does not diminish their
culpability. The Court has held that “mistake in identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when the
accused zeroes in on his intended victim.”

Subject: Criminal Law 1- Aberratio Ictus (Accidental Harm)

Ponente: Justice Jose P. Perez

Doctrine: One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may naturally or
logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. The rationale of the rule is found in the doctrine, ‘el
que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado’, or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused.

FACTS: In March of 2007 in Nueva Ecija, Rolly Adriano, with his three others, overtook a policecar and Honda CRV.
With intent to killd, treachery, and abuse of superior stregth, willfully shot Danilo Cabiedes, the driver of CRV,
resulting from his instant death.

The shooting incident caused a bystander, Ofelia Bulanan, to be hit by a stray bullet and eventually die.

Two policemen was able to trace the car used in the incident and ended up arresting Adriano. RTC found accused
ROLLY ADRIANO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder, as charged, for the death of Danilo Cabiedes, and also
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide, as charged, for the death of Ofelia Bulana.

CA affrimed the decision of RTC.

ISSUES: (1) WON Adriano is responsible for the death of Bulanan.

(2) WON treachery can be appreciated in aberratio ictus?

ADVERTISEMENT
REPORT THIS AD

RULING: (1) YES. Evidently, Adriano’s original intent was to kill Cabiedes. However, during the commission of the
crime of murder, a stray bullet hit and killed Bulanan. Adriano is responsible for the consequences of his act of
shooting Cabiedes. This is the import of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. As held in People v. Herrera citing
People v. Ural:

Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act be different from that
which is intended. One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for all the consequences which may
naturally or logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not. The rationale of the rule is found in the
doctrine, ‘el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado‘, or he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
the evil caused.

(2) YES. The accused was convicted of two separate counts of murder: for the killing of two victims, Emerita, the
intended victim, and Ireneo, the victim killed by a stray bullet. The Court, due to the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of treachery, qualified both killings to murder. The material facts in Flora are similar in the case at bar.
Thus, we follow the Flora doctrine.

Case Digest: Jacinto vs. People G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009

FACTS:

Petitioner, Gemma Jacinto was an employee of Megafoam International, received a check amounting to Pho 10, 000
as payment of Baby Aquino to her purchase to Megafoam. However, instead of delivering it to Megafoam, she
deposited it to her bank account. The check was later discovered to be unfunded. Both RTC and CA ruled that the
petitioner was guilty of qualified theft. Petitioner filed a petition for review of certiorari to SC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is correctly convicted for the crime of Qualified Theft.

RULING:

NO. Petitioner is guilty of committing an impossible crime of theft only. The requisites of an impossible crime are: (1)
that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil intent;
and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the means employed was either inadequate or
ineffectual. Petitioner’s evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega
Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced, she would
have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the extraneous
circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from
being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check
was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check.