NOVICIO V. PEOPLE (CRIMINAL LAW)

On the first issue, Novicio invokes self-defense. Thus, it was incumbent upon his to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. for in invoking self-defense, the accused admits killing or seriously wounding the victim and accordingly, has the burden of justifying his act.

The requisites of SELF-DEFENSE are:

1. unlawful aggression;
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it; and
3. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

We have reviewed the records of the RTC and the CA and we find no justification to deviate from the findings and is conclusion that Novicio has not adequately discharged his burden of proving the elements of self-defense.

On the second issue, it is Novicio's postulation that the lone gunshot wound of victim does not establish intent to kill. However, the number of wounds inflicted is not the sole consideration in proving intent to kill.

An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated, frustrated, or attempted stage, is the INTENT TO KILL the victim of the offenders immediately before or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.

In Adame v. CA, a single gunshot wound was inflicted on the victim but this Court convicted the accused therein of crustrated homicide. It is worth stressing that Novicio used a gun in this case and if not for victim's act of shoving the table at him, Novicio could have fired a second shot.

Further, the nature and location of the wound should also be considered. By positive testimony of the doctor, the wound sustained by victim could cause death if left untreated. This Court has repeatedly held that if the victim's wound would normally cause death, then the last act necessary to produce homicide would have been performed and the death would have resulted were it not for the timely medical attention given to the victim.

Conviction, affirmed.

PEOPLE V. TUAZON (CRIMINAL, RAPE)

Article 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

1. by using force or intimidation;
2. xxx
3. when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Moreover, Tuazon shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Section2 thereof provides that the law shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment. Although the law makes no reference to persons convicted to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua such as Tuazon herein, the Court has consistently held that the Indeterminate Sentence Law likewise does not apply to persons sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim who submits against her will tot her rapist's lust because of fear for her life or personal safety. Because of victim's youthfulness, coupled with the act that offender is her stepfather, it was easy for her to believe that offender would make good his threat to kill her should she resist.

The Court has acknowledged in several cases that the hesitance of the victim in reporting the crime to the authorities is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge. This is especially true when the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm made by a person who exercises moral ascendancy over the victim.

PIL-EY V. PEOPLE (CRIMINAL)

Issue: WON based on the evidence on record, petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating provisions of PD 533, Anti-Cattle Rustling Law.

YES.
Conviction for cattle-rustling necessitates the concurrence of the following elements:

1. large cattle is taken;
2. it belongs to another;
3. the taking is done without the consent of the owner/raiser:
4. the taking is done by any means, method, or scheme;
5. the taking is accomplished with or without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.

Considering that the gravamen of the crime is the taking or killing or large cattle or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner or raiser, conviction for the same need only be supported by the fact of taking without the cattle owner's consent.

MONFORT III V. SALVATIERRA (CRIM)

PERJURY is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter.

Elements:

That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter;

1. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath;
2. That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE ASSERTION OF A FALSEHOOD; and
3. That the sworn statement or afidavit containing the falsity is required by law to be made for a legal purpose.

The third element of perjury requires that the accused had willfully and deliberately asseted a falsehood. A mere assertion of a false objective fact is not sufficient. It msut be deliberate and willful.

PAREDES V. CALILUNG (CRIM)

Estafa by means of deceit: Elements

1. That there must be

• false pretense;
• fraudulent act; or
• fraudulent means;

2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means be made or executed PRIOR TO OR SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE COMMISSION OF THE FRAUD;

3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, i.e., he was induce to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and

4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

The conduct of preliminary investigation (PI) for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is EXECUTIVE in nature. The main function of a government prosecutor during his conduct of PI is to determine the existence of probable cause and to file the corresponding information should he find it to be so.