Scribd
Upload
123 views

Digestedcases 2

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on several cases involving claims of self-defense and insanity as defenses. In one case, the court found that self-defense did not apply when the aggressor was retreating. In another case, the court found that the defendant did not prove he was completely deprived of reason when killing his father to validly claim an insanity defense. In a third case, the court found no mistake was made in considering the aggravating circumstance of dwelling when imposing penalties for crimes committed in the mother-in-law's home.

Uploaded by

andek onibla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
123 views

Digestedcases 2

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled on several cases involving claims of self-defense and insanity as defenses. In one case, the court found that self-defense did not apply when the aggressor was retreating. In another case, the court found that the defendant did not prove he was completely deprived of reason when killing his father to validly claim an insanity defense. In a third case, the court found no mistake was made in considering the aggravating circumstance of dwelling when imposing penalties for crimes committed in the mother-in-law's home.

Uploaded by

andek onibla
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

People vs.

Julmain

May 30, 1949 (83 Phil 293)

FACTS:

On the 19th of January, 1947, in the seas between Zamboanga and Sulu Provinces while
the said accused were navigating on a vinta from Zamboanga City to Luuk, Province of Sulu, the
said accused with one Salip Minsolo, did then and there, attacked Moro Aye with a spear, ax
and paddle wounding him on his left breast and on the forehead both wounds being necessarily
mortal, and being the direct and immediate cause of death of Moro Aye, after which his dead
body was thrown overboard.

ISSUE: WON the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga was the court appropriate to handle the
case?

RULING: yes. Since the crime was committed in waters within the jurisdiction of the Court of
First Instance of Zamboanga, it is the proper court to try the case. And, even if the vinta in
question were licensed or registered, appearing that the first port of entry of the vinta was
Pangasaan, Basilan Island, under the jurisdiction of said court, there cannot be any dispute that
the case should be tried in Zamboanga.
G.R. No. 174483 March 31, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,


vs.
RAMON REGALARIO, MARCIANO REGALARIO, SOTERO REGALARIO, BIENVENIDO REGALARIO
and NOEL REGALARIO, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS:

Accused-appellants were charged with murder for killing Rolando Sevilla. In Ramon Regalario’s
defense, he contended that he was merely acting out of self-defense because Sevilla thrust and
fired his gun at him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ramon Regalario can validly use self defense to exempt him from
criminal liability

RULING: No. The settled rule in jurisprudence is that when unlawful aggression ceases,
the defender no longer has the right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.
Retaliation is not a justifying circumstance. Upon the cessation of the unlawful
aggression and the danger or risk to life and limb, the necessity for the person invoking
self-defense to attack his adversary ceases.If he persists in attacking his adversary, he
can no longer invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Self-defense does not
justify the unnecessary killing of an aggressor who is retreating from the fray.
G.R. No. 125849 January 20, 1999

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
WILFREDO BAÑEZ y CABAEL, alias "WILLY," accused-appellant.

MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:The accused-appellant Wilfredo C. Bañez was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
parricide for the killing of his father, Bernardo P. Bañez. A plea of insanity was made by the
defense in behalf of accused-appellant.

ISSUE: WON the accused-appellant validly claim insanity as a defense?

RULING: No. The Supreme Court of Spain held that in order that this exempting
circumstance may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of
reason; that there be no responsibility for his own acts; that he acts without the least
discernment: that there be a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there be
a total deprivation of freedom of the will. Accused-appellant must thus prove that he
was completely deprived of reason when he killed his father in order to be considered
exempt from criminal liability. However, this has not been shown in this case.
G.R. Nos. L-40367-69 August 22, 1985

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
PACITO STO. TOMAS, accused-appellant

FACTS: At about ten o'clock in the evening of May 23, 1967, tragedy struck at the residence of
the GRULLAS situated in the municipality of Donsol, Sorsogon. After the smoke of gun fire had
cleared, two (2) persons were found dead inside the house of the Grullas bathed in their own
blood, namely: SALVACION GRULLA, wife of the herein accused-appellant who lay prostrate on
the floor at the sala; and appellant's mother-in-law CONSOLACION BELMONTE VDA. DE GRULLA
who appeared seated motionless on a chair with her body reclining on a table. The third victim
NATIVIDAD GRULLA, younger sister of Salvacion, nearly escaped death but likewise suffered
gunshot wounds necessitating hospitalization for almost a month. Accussed-appellant was
convicted for PARRICIDE, MURDER, FRUSTRATED MURDER.

ISSUE: WON there was an erring when IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF DWELLING IN THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES?

RULING: There was no mistake.

There is no dispute that the place where the crimes herein involved were committed is
the house of Consolacion Grulla. It is there where she lives with her daughter, Natividad
Grulla (the other victim) and where Salvacion Grulla was temporarily staying in order to
escape from the brutalities of the appellant brought about by the latter's jealousy. The
fact that Salvacion's stay in the said place may be considered as a temporary sojourn
adds no validity to appellant's stance on this point. As we earlier held in People vs.
Galapia, 8 the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present when the appellant killed
his wife in the house occupied by her other than the conjugal home.

You might also like