Calmerin, Case Digests (Art 4)

THE UNITED STATES, petitioner, v. JAMES L.
BROBST, defendant
G.R. No. 4935
October 25, 1909
FACTS:
That on or about the 24th day of July, 1932, in the City of Manila, the said accused did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without any just cause therefor and with intent to kill and
treachery, assault and attack one Yu Lon by suddenly giving him a fist blow on the back part of the head,
under conditions which intended directly and especially to insure, the accomplishment of his purpose
without risk to himself arising from any defense the victim Yu Lon might make, thus causing him to fall
on the ground as a consequence of which he suffered a lacerated wound on the scalp and a fissured
fracture on the left occipital region, which were necessarily mortal and which caused the immediate
death of the said Yu Lon.
After hearing the evidence, Judge Luis P. Torres found the defendant guilty as charged, and
sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties of the law, to indemnify the
heirs of the deceased Yu Lon in the sum of P1,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs.
Appellant's attorney de oficio makes the following assignments of error:
1. The trial court erred in finding that the appellant the person who committed the assault on Yu Lon,
the victim to the crime charged in the information.
2. Assuming that the appellant is the person who committed the assault on Yu Lon (a fact which we
specifically deny), the trial court erred in finding that the appellant struck his supposed victim.
3. Assuming that the appellant is the person who committed the assault on Yu Lon, and that the
appellant did strike his supposed victim (facts which we specifically deny) the trial court erred in finding
that the blow was dealt from the victim's rear.
4. The trial court erred in finding that the identity of the appellant was fully established.
5. Assuming that the four preceding errors assigned are without merit, the trial court erred in convicting
the appellant of the crime of murder, under article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, instead of convicting
him of the crime of maltreatment, under article 266 of the said Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder.
RULING:
No. The judgement is reversed by the SC. The defendant declared not guilty and his discharge from
custody ordered. In determining a question of fact from circumstantial evidence, there are two general
rules to be observed: (1) The hypothesis of delinquency or guilt should flow naturally from the facts
proved, and be consistent with them all, (2) The evidence must be such as to exclude, to a moral
certainty, every hypothesis but that of his guilt of the offense imputed to him; or, in other words, the
facts proved must all be consistent with and point to his guilt not only, but they must be inconsistent
with his innocence.
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, v. MAXIMO MALLARI, defendant-appellant

G.R. No. 10037
December 23, 1914
FACTS:
On the morning of September 25, 1913, in the barrio of Batasan, municipality of Macabebe,
Province of Pampanga, before going to his work, the defendant Maximo Mallari went to the house of
the married couple, Vicente Sunga and Canuta Flores, and from the shed outside asked Vicente Sunga to
cure his wife of a sickness from which she had been suffering for several days, and which he thought was
due to enchantment on the part of the said Vicente. As the latter refused, averring that he was not a
wizard and that he had not caused the illness of defendant’s wife, the former became enraged and
insulted the said spouses. Threatening to kill them, he ascended the stairway carrying in his hand a thin,
sharp bolo. At his wife’s suggestion Vicente Sunga tried to get out to report the matter to the teniente of
the barrio, who lived at some paces from their house, but as he met the defendant on the stairway, he
immediately went back inside and jumped out of a window. He was straightway pursued by the
defendant and on arriving almost in front of the house of the teniente saw that the defendant was
following closely behind him. He therefore turned to face his pursuer and defend himself as well as he
could with his hands. Thereupon the defendant with a single slash of the bolo wounded Vicente Sunga in
the abdomen, so that his intestines protruded therefrom. In this condition the victim sat down,
endeavoring with his hands to keep his intestines from falling out, while his assailant took to flight. The
justice of the peace of Macabebe arrived on the scene a few moments later and in his presence the
wounded man declared that his assailant was Mallari, who had been in his house, and who had inflicted
the serious wound he had in the abdomen. As a consequence of this wound he died three days later.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of homicide under Article 404 of the Revised Penal
Code.
RULING:
No. In the syllabus of the decision rendered in the case of the United States v. Castellon (12 Phil. Rep.,
160) it is held "Notwithstanding the fact that hearsay evidence is not admissible at a trial, the
statements made by an individual who is seriously wounded, at a moment when he was dying being
convinced that there was no hope of recovery, constitute per se at least a grave, conclusive and decisive
indication of the culpability of the persons designated by the dying man, inasmuch as it must be
assumed that he, being in so precarious a condition, spoke truthfully, and that he was not induced by a
desire to tell a lie and to injure a innocent person."
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, v. DOMINGO BELBES, defendant

G.R. No. 124670
June 21, 2000
FACTS:
In the evening of February 16, 1990, Pat. Domingo Belbes and Pat. Jose Pabon were assigned to
maintain peace and order at the Junior and Senior Prom of Pili Barangay High School. Around 9:00 p.m.
while Teacher-In-Charge Mila Ulanca, Pat. Pabon and Belbes were watching the dance, two students
approached Mrs. Ulanca and said "Ma'am, it seems that there is somebody making trouble."
Pat. Belbes and Pat. Pabon, armed with an Armalite rifle and a .38 caliber revolver, respectively,
responded forthwith. Moments after the two police officers left, bursts of gunfire filled the air. Fernando
Bataller, a graduating student was hit on different parts of his body and died. The accused Pat. Belbes
stated that they acted in self-defense. The trial court convicted Pat. Belbes of murder and sentenced
him to reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
RULING:
No. The shooting was intentional. In this case, appellant intended to fire AT the victim, and in fact hit
ONLY the victim. Illustrations of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide are: (1) exhibiting a loaded
revolver to a friend, who was killed by the accidental discharge brought about by negligent handling; or
(2) discharging a firearm from the window of one's house and killing a neighbor who just at the moment
leaned over the balcony front; or (3) where the defendant, to stop a fist fight, fired his .45 caliber pistol
twice in the air, and, as the bout continued, he fired another shot at the ground, but the bullet
ricocheted and hit a bystander who died soon thereafter.

Calmerin, Case Digests (Art 4)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calmerin, Case Digests (Art 4)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calmerin, Case Digests (Art 4)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNITED STATES, petitioner, v. JAMES L.

Appellant's attorney de oficio makes the following assignments of error:

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, v. MAXIMO MALLARI, defendant-appellant

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, v. DOMINGO BELBES, defendant

You might also like