Case Digest: Amado Alvarado Garcia vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 171951                28 August 2009

FACTS:

The Fozes were having a drinking spree at their apartment when Chy asked them to quiet down to which Garcia commented that Chy was being arrogant and that one day he would lay a hand on him.  Two days later, the group decided to drink at a store owned by Chy’s sister, Esquibel.  Chy was about to come out of his house and upon being summoned, Garcia suddenly punched him.  Chy continued to parry the blows and when he found an opportunity to escape, he ran home and phoned his wife to call the police regarding the mauling.  He also complained of difficulty in breathing.  He was found later unconscious on the kitchen floor, salivating. 

Cause of death is heart attack to which Garcia appeals that the injuries he caused were not as violent in nature as to have caused the death of Chy.  Garcia pleaded not guilty to the crime of homicide.  The autopsy doctor confirms that the boxing and the striking of the bottle beer on the victim could not have caused any direct physical effect to cause the heart attack if the victim’s heart is healthy.  What could have caused said heart attack is the victims emotions concerning the violence inflicted upon him. 

ISSUE:  
Whether the circumstance of having no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed should be appreciated

RULING:

The circumstance that the petitioner did not intend so grave an evil as the death of the victim does not exempt him from criminal liability.  Since he deliberately committed an act prohibited by law, said condition simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with Article 13(3) of the Revised Penal Code.  Nevertheless, said circumstance must be appreciated in favour of the petitioner.  The fact that the physical injuries he inflicted on the victim could not have naturally and logically caused the actual death of the victim, if the latter’s heart is in good condition. 

Considering this mitigating circumstance, imposable penalty should be in the minimum period, that is, reclusion temporal in its minimum period.  Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the trial court properly imposed upon petitioner an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

Case Digest: Dante O. Casibang vs. Honorable Narciso A. Aquino

20 August 1979

FACTS:

Yu was proclaimed on November 1971 as the elected mayor of Rosales, Pangasinan.  Casibang, his only rival, filed a protest against election on the grounds of rampant vote buying, anomalies and irregularities and others. During the proceedings of this case, the 1973 Constitution came into effect.  Respondent Yu moved to dismiss the election protest of the petitioner on the ground that the trial court had lost jurisdiction over the same in view of the effectivity of the new Constitution and the new parliamentary form of government.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Section 9, Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution rendered the protest moot and academic; and
2. Whether Section 2, Article XI thereof entrusted to the National Assembly the revamp of the entire local government structure.

RULING:

1. As stated in Santos vs. Castaneda, “the constitutional grant of privilege to continue in office, made by the new Constitution for the benefit of persons who were incumbent officials or employees of the Government when the new Constitution took effect, cannot be fairly construed as indiscriminately encompassing every person who at the time happened to be performing the duties of an elective office, albeit under protest or contest" and that "subject to the constraints specifically mentioned in Section 9, Article XVII of the Transitory Provisions, it neither was, nor could have been the intention of the framers of our new fundamental law to disregard and shunt aside the statutory right of a candidate for elective position who, within the time-frame prescribed in the Election Code of 1971, commenced proceedings beamed mainly at the proper determination in a judicial forum of a proclaimed candidate-elect's right to the contested office.”
2. Section 2 of Article XI does not stigmatize the issue in that electoral protest case with a political color. For simply, that section allocated unto the National Assembly the power to enact a local government code "which may not thereafter be amended except by a majority of all its Members, defining a more responsive and accountable local government allocating among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and providing for their qualifications, election and removal, term, salaries, powers, functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units" but "... any change in the existing form of local government shall not take effect until ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose."