Deceit (DOLO) Elements marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the
Manuel v. People – DOLO by BIGAMY absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by
G.R. No. 165842 November 29, 2005 means of a judgment rendered in the proper
Lesson: Felony, Bigamy, Judicial Declaration of proceedings.
Presumptive Death, malice, good faith as a valid defense o The reason why bigamy is considered a felony is to
· Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea preserve and ensure the juridical tie of marriage
Laws Applicable: Art. 3 par 2 RPC, Art. 349 RPC, Art. 41 established by law.
FC o Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code has made the
dissolution of marriage dependent not only upon the
FACTS: personal belief of parties, but upon certain objective
· July 28, 1975: Eduardo married Rubylus Gaña before facts easily capable of accurate judicial cognizance,
Msgr. Feliciano Santos in Makati namely, a judgment of the presumptive death of the
o Rubylus was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter absent spouse
imprisoned · For the accused to be held guilty of bigamy, the
o Eduardo only visited 3 times and never saw her again prosecution is burdened to prove the felony:
· January 1996: Eduardo met Tina B. Gandalera, 21 year o (a) he/she has been legally married; and
old computer secretarial student, in Dagupan City while o (b) he/she contracts a subsequent marriage without the
she looked for a friend during her 2 days stay former marriage having been lawfully dissolved.
· Later, Eduardo visited Tina, they went to a motel § The felony is consummated on the celebration of the
together and he proposed marriage and introduced her second marriage or subsequent marriage
to his parents who assures that he is single · Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code
· April 22, 1996: Eduardo married Tina before Judge provides that there is deceit when the act is performed
Antonio C. Reyes, the Presiding Judge of the RTC of with deliberate intent
Baguio City and they were able to build a home after o Malice -a mental state or condition prompting the doing
· 1999: Eduardo only visited their home twice or thrice a of an overt act WITHOUT legal excuse or justification
year and whenever jobless Tina would ask for money, he from which another suffers injury
would slap her o When the act or omission defined by law as a felony is
· January 2001: Eduardo packed his things and left and proved to have been done or committed by the accused,
stopped giving financial support the law presumes it to have been intentional
· August 2001: Tina through inquiries from the National o For one to be criminally liable for a felony by dolo, there
Statistics Office (NSO) in Manila and was embarrassed must be a confluence of both an evil act and an evil
and humiliated to learn that Eduardo was previously intent.
married § Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
· Eduardo claimed that he did NOT know that he had to · GR: mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a
go to court to seek for the nullification of his first valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such
marriage before marrying Tina defense negates malice or criminal intent.
· RTC: Eduardo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of · EX: ignorance of the law is not an excuse because
bigamy and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of everyone is presumed to know the law.
from 6 years and 10 months, as minimum, to 10 years, o Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
as maximum and P200,000.00 by way of moral damages, · burden of the petitioner to prove his defense that when
plus costs of suit he married he was of the well-grounded belief that his
o Eduardo’s belief, that his first marriage had been first wife was already dead, as he had not heard from
dissolved because of his first wife’s 20-year absence, her for more than 20 years since 1975
even if true, did not exculpate him from liability for o failed to discharge his burden since no judicial declaration
bigamy as proof
· Eduardo appealed to the CA contending that he did so · Article 41 of the Family Code amended the rules on
in good faith and without any malicious intent whereas presumptive death on Articles 390 and 391 of the Civil
under Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, there must be Code which states that before the spouse present may
malice for one to be criminally liable for a felony contract a subsequent marriage, he or she must
· CA: affirming the decision of the RTC stating that Article institute summary proceedings for the declaration of the
41 of the Family Code should apply that there should presumptive death of the absentee spouse, without
have been a judicial declaration of Gaña’s presumptive prejudice to the effect of the reappearance of the
death as the absent spouse and modified minimum to 2 absentee spouse.
years and four months · moral damages may be awarded under Article 2219 in
relation to Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code for
ISSUE: W/N Eduardo is guilty of Bigamy, a felony by dolo being against public policy as they undermine and
(deceit). subvert the family as a social institution, good morals
and the interest and general welfare of society
HELD: YES. petition is DENIED. CA affirmed
Case of People of the Guevarra vs. Almodovar
· Art. 349. Bigamy. – The penalty of prision mayor shall CULPA (intelligence) accidental hit by child
be imposed upon any person who shall contract a G.R.No. 75256 26January1989
second or subsequent marriage before the former
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Petitioner John Philip Guevarra, petitioned the court On the night of September 1992, the victim, Samson
for a special civil action for certiorari against the Hon. Sayam, was drinking beer at the store owned by Terry
Judge Ignacio Almodovar of the city court of Legaspi. Cabrillos in Negros Occidental. Sgt. Wennie Tampioc,
The petitioner, then 11 years old was target shooting Aaron Flores, Sulpecio Silpao and Edgar Villeran were at
with his best friend Teodoro Amine, Jr. and three other the same store drinking beer.
children in the backyard in the morning of
29October1984. Unfortunately, Teodoro was hit by a Sayam joined the four accused at their table. Sometime
pellet on the left collar bone, w/c then caused his death. later, all the accused and the victim left the store and
walked towards the direction of the military detachment
ISSUE OF THE CASE: headquarters. After the accused left the store with
Samson Sayam, witnesses heard a single gunshot
Can an 11- year old boy be charged w/ the crime of followed by rapid firing coming from the direction of the
homicide thru reckless imprudence? detachment headquarters. That was the last time
Samson Sayam was seen, and despite diligent efforts of
- Intent and discernment are two different concepts. Sayam's mother and relatives, he has not been found.
Intent means: a determination to do certain things; an
aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge The trial court gave credence to the prosecution's
as is essential to such intent. Discernment means: the evidence that Samson Sayam was seen being forcibly
mental capacity to understand the difference between dragged out of the store and pulled towards the
right and wrong direction of the detachment headquarters by accused
- While they (intent and discernment) are products of Aaron Flores, Sulpecio Silpao and Edgar Villeran. Since
mental processes w/in a person; intent refers to the Samson Sayam had not been seen nor heard from since
desired of one’s act (active) while discernment refers to then, the trial court held that the three accused were
the moral significance that a person ascribes to an act responsible for the former's disappearance. With regard
(passive) to Wennie Tampioc, the trial court found that he left the
- Minors 9yrs to 15yrs are presumed to be without store ahead of the three co-accused and, thus, had
criminal capacity; but this presumption may be rebutted nothing to do with the disappearance of Samson
if it could be proven that they were capable of Sayam.
appreciating the nature and criminality of the act, that
is, that (they) acted w/ discernment Two (2) separate appeals were brought before us.
- Discernment is embraced w/in the concept of Accused-appellant Sulpecio Silpao raised that the Trial
intelligence w/c is one of the elements of a culpable court erred in convicting him of Kidnapping and Serious
felony, thus it is important that a minor 9yrs to below 15 Illegal Detention since he’s an official. On the other
yrs of age to have acted w/ discernment to show that he hand, accused-appellants Aaron Flores and Edgar
acted w/ intelligence thus being liable for the offense Villeran interposed a joint appeal based on the sole
under Art 365 of the R.PC error that the circumstantial evidence used was
insufficient.
HELD:
PETITION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT AND THE TRO Issue: W/N the accused-appelants are guilty of
EFFECTIVE 17SEPTEMBER1986 IS LIFTED. LET IT BE Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
REMANDED TO THE LOWER COURT FOR TRIAL ON THE
MERITS. NO COSTS. Ruling: No.
People v. Rey Ratio:
Rey – murder .45 caliber pistol RTC
Mrs. Pagayunan had no water so asked kids Babette and The crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention is
Nicolas to get from Saturnino Rey. defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised
Babette was talking to Rey’s son, then while Nic was Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
waiting for water to get filled, got shot twice by Rey.
Babette and Roban saw. Nic died before reaching Clearly, accused-appellants cannot be charged with or
hospital. convicted of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Patrolmen Balera and Villareal investigated and saw Detention, since the first element of the said crime is
empty shell from Rey’s room. that the offender must be a private individual. In the
Guilty, reclusion perpetua, P30K indemnity, P50K moral case at bar, accused-appellants were members of the
damages local CAFGU at the time the alleged crime was
CRIMINAL INTENT: committed. The CAFGU was created pursuant to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Executive Order No. 264 for the purpose of
AARON FLORES @ "RONITO", SULPECIO SILPAO y complementing the operations of the regular force
ORTEGA @ "SULPING" and EDGAR VILLERAN y formations in a locality.
MAGBANUA, accused-appellants.
Since it is settled that accused-appellants are public
Facts: officers, the question that remains to be resolved is
whether or not the evidence adduced before the trial (2) voluntary surrender
court proved that Samson Sayam was arbitrarily
(3) lack of intention to commit so grave a wron as the
detained by accused-appellants.
one actually committed
A careful review of the records of the instant case shows The Solicitor General admits that the mitigating
no evidence sufficient to prove that Samson Sayam was circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender
detained arbitrarily by accused-appellants. While the have been proven, but denies that the mitigating
prosecution witnesses testified that accused-appellants circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a
were seen walking with Samson Sayam toward the wrong as the one actually committed was similarly
direction of the detachment headquarters, there is no established.
shred of evidence that he was actually confined there or Issue: Whether or not the lack of intention to commit so
anywhere else. The fact that Samson Sayam has not grave a wrong as that committed can be appreciated as
been seen or heard from since he was last seen with a mitigating circumstance
accused-appellants does not prove that he was detained
and deprived of his liberty. Held: NO. At the time of the commission of the crime,
appellant was 32 years of age, while his victim was 25
For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a years his senior; his victim resisted his attempt to rape
conviction, there must be at least two proven her by biting and scratching him; to subdue her,
circumstances which in complete sequence leads to no appellant boxed her and then "held her on the neck and
other logical conclusion than that of the guilt of the pressed it down" while she was lying on her back and he
accused. It is admitted that Samson Sayam was seen was on top of her. These acts, the court believes, were
drinking with accused-appellants on that fateful night. reasonably sufficient to produce the result that they
However, the circumstances that there was a heated actually produced — the death of appellant's victim.
argument among them, and that the accused-appellants Consequently, what we said in People vs. Yu, would
held and pulled Samson Sayam to the road and brought seem to apply: The lack of intention to commit so grave
him towards the direction of the detachment a wrong as that committed cannot be appreciated in
headquarters was not sufficiently proven by material or favor of an accused who employed brute force.
relevant testimony. The penalty of death being an indivisible penalty, it has
to be imposed regardless of the presence of mitigating
Moreover, the circumstance that gunshots were heard circumstances, especially in a case like the present
on that night have no relevancy to the case. Even if it where, according to the evidence of record, the crime
were, it cannot be concluded that the gunshots came was committed with the aggravating circumstances of
from the direction of the detachment headquarters. nighttime and abuse of superior strength.
That Samson Sayam was never seen or heard from again
cannot be the basis for the trial court to render INTENT v. MOTIVE
judgment convicting the accused-appellants. In fact, it
has no bearing in this case because it is not one of the People v. Martinez
elements of the crime of arbitrary detention. Police officers were tipped by jeepney driver that there
Consequently, only one relevant circumstance was was an on going pot session at house of one of the
proved, i.e., that accused-appellants were the last respondents. Respondents arrested at house during pot
persons seen with Samson Sayam. However, said session without arrest warrant. Not lawful because no
circumstance does not necessarily prove that they probable cause. Found Fonzales, Martinez, Dizon, and R.
feloniously abducted him, then arbitrarily detained him. Martinez, with items such as shabu, alum foil.
Since the pieces of circumstantial evidence do not fulfill People v. Aquino
the test of moral certainty that is sufficient to support a 1987 nigh Armando Frias of Integrated National Police of
judgment or conviction, the Court must acquit the Urbiztondo Pangasinan got report that thtere was a
accused. victim of Dr Padian. SO he went then found Carmelita
Morado with bleeding head, raped and struck with
PEOPLE V. AMIT stone by Juanito Aquino. Brought to hospital, then died.
Facts: Marcelo Amit was charged in the court with the
complex crime of rape with homicide described and
penalized in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended to which he pleaded guilty.
The trial court rendered judgment, sentencing Amit to
suffer the supreme penalty of death
Appellant claims that the penalty of death imposed
upon him should be reduced to reclusion perpetua in
view of the presence of three mitigating circumstance
(1) plea of guilty
