Skip to main content

JESTER MABUNOT v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST


JESTER MABUNOT v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 204659, September 19, 2016

REYES, J.:


TOPICS: MALA IN SE IN SPECIAL LAWS

                 INTENT IN MALA IN SE


FACTS:

William a classmate of the petitioner threw an object that hit the latter's back.  Petitioner, who was a 19 year old and was under the influence of alcohol reacted by boxing William.  Petitioner went outside the classroom, Dennis, another classmate followed him and a fist fight ensued between the two.  Private respondent Shiva a 14 year old and also a classmate of the respondent tried to pacify them, she was  shoved by the petitioner leaving her with a broken rib.  Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. 7610.

Petitioner argued that since and he and Dennis were exchanging punches, he could not have made a deliberate design to injure Shiva.  Without intent to harm Shiva; otherwise, no crime is committed.

ISSUE:

Whether intent is necessary in violation of a Special Penal Law.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that when the act complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law.  Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise no crime is committed.

The petitioner was convicted of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610, a special law.  However, physical abuse of a child is inherently wrong, rendering material the existence of a criminal intent on the part of the offender.

In the petitioner's case, criminal intent is not wanting.  Even if the Court were to consider petitioner's claim that he had no design to harm Shiva, when he swang his arms, he was not performing a lawful act.  He clearly intended to injure another person.  However, it was not Dennis but Shiva, who ended up with a fractured rib.  Nonetheless, the petitioner cannot escape liability for his error.  Indeed, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.


Read Full text; Jester Mabunot v. People (full text) - ChanRobles

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAW SCHOOL ADVICE - HOW TO MAKE A CASE DIGEST : A DETAILED GUIDE ON MAKING A CASE DIGEST

DISCLAIMER:  This entry may look familiar since this is from my other blog, "LAW STUDENT'S COFFEE TABLE" however, I made some minor adjustments and improvements so that you can make an organized, effective, and understandable case digest. Let us start with the basics.  How do you digest a case? Some students and not just law students who have law subjects are often asked by their professors as a requirement for their class to digest cases that are normally assigned by your professors either for your next meeting or for the whole semester.  For someone who does not know how to digest a case, this can be a laborious task as some cases may be as long as reading a whole book.  What are these cases assigned to you by your professors? These are the cases decided by the Supreme Court containing the story of the case and the application of the principles and theories that are discussed under the law.  These cases were assigned to you simply because they are related to t...
Post a Comment
Read more

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

EVANGELINE LADONGA v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: TOPICS: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF B.P 22                       SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE                       CONSPIRACY FACTS: Spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga was a regular customers of Alfredo Oculam's pawnshop.  Ladonga spouses obtained several loans from Oculam which were guaranteed by several check.  The said checks bounced for the reason of "Closed Account".  Spouses Ladonga failed to redeem the checks despite repeated demand thus three (3) criminal cases for conspiracy to commit violation of B.P. 22. RTC found spouses Ladonga guilty for violation of B.P. 22.  On appeal, Evangeline argued that conspiracy RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for conspiring with her husband as the principle of conspiracy is inapp...
Post a Comment
Read more

ARNOLD JAMES YSIDORO v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

  ARNOLD JAMES YSIDORO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012 ABAD, J.: TOPICS: MALA PROHIBITA IN REVISED PENAL CODE                     TECHNICAL MALVERSATION FACTS: Mayor Arnold James Ysidoro of Leyte was accused of the crime technical malversation for approving the release and signed the withdrawal slip for four (4) sacks of rice and two (2) boxes of sardines worth P3,396 from the Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP) which is devoted to the ration of food to malnourished children to Core Shelter Assistance Program (CSAP). The goods were to be given to the workers of the construction for the calamity victims as there was a stoppage of work as the workers had to find food for their families. ISSUE: Whether Ysidoro committed the crime of Technical Malversation. Whether the crime of Technical Malversation is considered mala in se or mala prohibita. HELD: Yes Ysidoro committed the crime of Technical Malversation. The ele...
Post a Comment
Read more