Case Digests

11/06/2015

PALAGANAS vs. PPL G.R. No. 165483 September 12, 2006

Facts: The petioner was sentenced by RTC and Affirmed by the CA for
the guilty of crime of Homicide and two counts of Frustrated Homicide. A
rumble, caused by the song my way at videoke bar resulted in the
shooting by the petitioner, who answer the call of help of his brother who
was involved in rumble incident. Petitioner invoked self-defense to justify his
shooting.
Issue: Whether or not self-defense is validly invoked.
Held: For a valid self-defense, primarily unlawful aggression must be existed.
In the case at bar no unlawful aggression that comes from the victim since
the throwing of stones to the accused does not puts in actual or imminent
peril the life, limb, or right of the accused. The accused has other options
other than shooting , either by running or taking cover or calling proper
authorities. The justification of self-defense is not correctly be appreciated.
As the burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove all the elements
of self-defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on
the weakness of the prosecution.
Presidential Decree No. 1866, [63] as amended by Republic Act No. 8294,
[64] which is a special law which states that if homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance generic.
Whereas, the used of unlicensed firearm that was alleged in the information
and must be proven during trial is considered special aggravating
circumstances and it cannot be offset by mitigating circumstance unlike
generic that it may be offset.
Generic aggravating circumstances are those that generally apply to all
crimes such as those mentioned in Article 14, paragraphs No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19 and 20, of the Revised Penal Code. It has the effect of
increasing the penalty for the crime to its maximum period, but it cannot
increase the same to the next higher degree. It must always be alleged and
charged in the information, and must be proven during the trial in order to
be appreciated. Moreover, it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
Temperate or moderate damages (P25,000) may be recovered when the
court finds that some pecuniary loss was suffered but its amount cannot be
proved with certainty.
gunshot wound sustained by Michael in his right shoulder was not fatal or
mortal since the treatment period for his wound was short and he was
discharged from the hospital on the same day he was admitted therein

People v. Jaurigue and Jaurigue

CA No. 384
Date of Promulgation: February 21, 1946
Ponente: De Joya, J.
Petition: appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Laguna
Petitioner/s: Avelina Jaurigue and Nicolas Jaurigue
Respondent/s: People of the Philippines
Facts:
Amado Capina (deceased) was courting Avelina Jaurigue
(defendant/appeallant) to no avail. On September 13, 1942 Amado
approached Avelina at her house and declared his love for her, which she
flatly refused. He then started embracing her, kissing her, and touching her
breasts. Avelina then slapped, punched and kicked him. She kept the matter
to herself and armed herself with a long fan knife whenever she went out,
for protection. September 15, at about midnight, Amado climbed up
Avelinas house and entered her room where she was sleeping. He felt her
forehead, evidently with the intention of abusing her. She woke up and
immediately screamed for help. Her parents rushed to her side. Amado then
came out under her bed where he was hiding, and kissed the Nicolas
Jaurigues hand, asking for forgiveness. Nicolas sent for the barrio
lieutenant, Casmiro Lozada, and Amados parents the following morning.
September 20, 1942 in the morning, Avelina received information that
Amado was falsely boasting that she wanted to elope with him and she
would take poison if he refused her. Later at 8:00pm September 20, Nicolas
Jaurigue went to the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists to attend
religious services and sat in front with Casimoro Lozada (barrio lieutenant).
Note, that the chapel was bright inside due to the electric lights. Avelina
arrived shortly after for religious services as well, and sat on the second to
the last bench nearest to the door. Amado was seated on the other side of
the chapel and when he spotted Avelina, he moved next to her. He then
proceeded in putting his hand on her upper right thigh. Avelina, offended,
pulled out her fan knife and with some resistance stabbed Amado at the
base of the neck creating a 4.5 inch deep wound. Nicolas from the front saw
what happened and rushed to the scene along with Casimoro Lozada. They
asked why she did it, she responded Father, I could not endure anymore,
kayo na po ang bahala sa akin. Amado died from the wound a few minutes
later. Casimoro Lozada adviced both Nicolas and Avelina to go home and
locked their doors in case Amados family wanted to retaliate. They did as
they were told, around 10pm the same night the police arrived to question
the defendant. Avelina complied with the authorities orders and took
responsibility of her actions.

Court of First Instance of Tayabas: Acquitted Nicolas Jaurigue, but

found Avelina Jaurigue guilty of homicide, sentencing her to an
inderterminate penalty ranging from 7 years, 4 months, and one day prision
mayor to 13 years, 9 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal. Also to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000 and to pay half of
costs.
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals for Southern Luzon on
June 10, 1944 on the basis that:
1) Court erred in not holding that the appellant acted in defense of
her honor
2) Court erred in not finding favor in mitigating circumstances
3) Court erred in holding aggravating circumstances (committing the
offense in a sacred place)
Issues:
WON Appellant acting in defense of her honor relieves criminal liability
What mitigating circumstances took place to favor the defendant.WON
Committing the offense in the chapel could be counted as an aggravating
circumstance.
Held/Ratio:
1) No, it is in the Courts view that a woman has the right to defend
her honor especially if she feels threatened by a potential attacker.
Womanhood is a value that must be protected and which the man should
respect. If there is possible rape, then the woman has every means to
prevent such aggression and defend herself. Although in the case of Avelina,
Amados action showed no evidence beyond doubt that it would lead to rape,
the fact that the situation was in a well lit chapel filled with people, the
defendant could have easily called for help. The defendants response was
excessive and cannot be cleared of all criminal liability. If the defendant
would have killed the victim when he climbed up her room, then the action
of stabbing him might be deem appropriate.
2) The mitigating circumstances in the defendants behavior are:
a) Immediately, voluntarily, and unconditionally surrendered to the
barrio lieutenant.
b) Acted in immediate vindication of the grave offense showed that
the action was based on passion and lost of self-control.
c) She claimed that she did not intend to kill Amado, just punish him
for his offense, which was proven by only inflicting a single wound.
3) No, there is no evidence to show that the defendant had murder in
her heart when she entered the chapel.
Decision:

Lower court decision is MODIFIED. Defendant is sentenced to an

indeterminate penalty ranging from 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor to
2 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision correcional. And to indemnify heirs
of deceased in the sum of P2,000 and to suffer subsidiary imprisonment (not
to exceed 1/3 of principal penalty) if in case of failure to pay the costs.
Notes:
The law prescribes penalty of reclusion temporal for crime of homicide.
The 3 mitigating circumstances in favor of the defendant reduces the penalty
by two degrees.
People v. Damaso
G.R. No. L-30116
Date of Promulgation: November 20, 1978
Ponente: Per Curiam
Petition: Automatic Review (Death Penalty, CFI of Tarlac)
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Fausto Damaso, Victoriano Eugenio alias Turing,
Estanislao Gregorio alias Islao, Lorenzo Alviar alias Oring and Bonifacio
Espejo alias Marcia
Facts:Fausto Damaso, Victoriano Eugenio Lorenzo Alviar, and Bonifacio
Espejo are convicted of robbery (of Donata Rebolledo) with double homicide
(of Catalina Sabado and Susana Sabado).
On November 21, 1959, 9:00 PM, at Barrio Bangar, Victoria
municipality, Tarlac, 2 men armed with guns forcibly entered the house of
Donata Rebolledo (with her son-in-law Victoriano de la Cruz at that time),
tied them and then took jewelry, clothing, documents, and cutting
instruments. Donata recognized Damaso during the crime, and she also
heard several voices downstairs. They also took Catalina Sabado from her
room, and they went to the nearby store of Susana Sabado (both were
daughters of Donata).
The police searched and found the two women dead the following
morning in a sugar plantation. They were tied and had several stab marks in
their bodies, and their necks were cut (found out later on to be a scythe).
Issues/Held:
WON there was Aggravating Circumstance of crime committed in an
uninhabited place, and by a band - YESWON there was treachery which is
also aggravating circumstance YES (different topic but might be asked)
Ratio:

Eugenio, Alviar, and Gregorio were armed during the commission of

the crime. By testimony of the other criminals, by the witnesses (robbery
victims), and by confession of Damaso himself, he had a firearm during the
crime (.22 paltik revolver or .30 springfield rifle, conflicting information from
witnesses, but the type of gun used was inconsequential). This now made
them 4 armed men, falling under the aggravating circumstance of more than
3 armed malefactors. Espejo had 2 stones, and whether this can be
considered as weapon or not has no effect since there are already 4 armed
men.
An uninhabited place is not about the distance to the nearest
house/person, but on whether or not the victims could seek help at that
moment in time. The crime was done during nighttime and the sugarcane in
the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby, so
the victims could never seek help. The respondents deliberately brought the
victims to the sugarcane because it was secluded; because they did not kill
them at Donatas house, when they couldve just done this.
(Different topic, but might be asked)
Treachery was present because the victims were killed while bound in
such a way that they had no opportunity to repel the attack or escape. The
bodies of Catalina and Susana were found dead with their arms tied behind
their backs so the crime was done under treacherous circumstances.
Decision:Lower Court judgment is affirmed.
People v. Arizobal
GR Nos. 135051-52
Date of Promulgation: Dec 14, 2000
Ponente: Per Curiam
Petition: Automatic review of a decision of lower court
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Clarito Arizobal (at large), Erly Lignes, and 2 other John
Does
Facts:One evening in 1994, witness Clementina was in her house
together with her husband Laurencio and their grandchild. They were
sleeping when her husband roused her from sleep and told her to open the
door because there were people outside. When she went to open it, three
armed men pointed their guns at her. She recognized the two as Clarito
Arizobal and Erly Lignes. She wasnt able to recognize the other one because
he was wearing a mask.
Clarito and Lignes barged into the masters bedroom and forcibly
opened the aparador. They ransacked the cabinet until they found P8k.
Before leaving, they ordered Laurencio to go with them to the other house
(where Jimmy, the son of Laurencio, lives). Against his will, Laurencio went
with them. Afterwards, Clementina and the grandchild heard gunshots.

In the next house, another witness, Erlinda (wife of Jimmy), has just
taken supper when Jimmy and a friend (Francisco) appeared. Jimmy
informed Erlinda that they already bought a carabao. Suddenly, three armed
men arrived and ordered them to lie face down. One of them pushed Erlinda
to the ground while the others tied Franciso and Jimmy as they whipped the
latter with an armalite. The robbers then took the liberty of consuming the
food and cigarettes from their sari-sari store. Finding that there was no
softdrink to complete their sancks, they ordered Erlinda to buy at the
neighboring store and not to alert anybody. After eating, they proceeded to
ransack Jimmys house. They demanded 100k in exchange of Jimmys life,
but the couple could not produce it. Erlinda offered to pay them with the
certificate of carabao purchase, but they refused and threw back the
document at her. Three armed men dragged Jimmy outside the house, and
together with Laurencio, brought them some 50 meters away. Moments
later, Erlinda hear a burst of gunfire.
During the trial, Erlys alibi was that at the time of the commission of
the crime, he was at the house of a neighbor. The Court did not find this
truthful and sufficient to overturn the testimony of witnesses Erlinda and
Clementina.
The lower court charged Clarito, Erly, Rogelio Gemino, and 2 other
John Does with robbery in band with homicide. They are sentenced to death.
This is a review of the decision.
Issues/Held:1. WON there was an aggravating circumstance of
disregard of dwelling YES 2. WON treachery was present NO3. WON
there was an aggravating circumstance of band NO4. WON there was an
aggravating circumstance of nighttime - NO
Ratio:
1. The Court held that the lower court was right in appreciating
dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Generally, dwelling is considered
inherent in the crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the
victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in an uninhabited place.
However, in robbery with homicide, the offenders can commit heinous crime
without transgressing the sanctity of the victims domicile.
In the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of
the inviolability of the victims abode when they forced their way in, looted
the houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into submission,
disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging them out
of the house to be killed.
2. Treachery cannot be appreciated in this case since the crime was
robbery with homicide. Such crime falls under crimes against property,
where treachery is not appreciated. Homicide is merely an incident of
robbery in this case.

3. While at least 5 offenders took part in the commission of the crime,

the evidence on record does not disclose that more than three persons
were armed, and robbery in band means more than three armed
malefactors united in the commission of robbery.
4. The aggravating circumstance of nighttime did not attend the
commission of the crime. The fact that the offense was committed at
9:30pm by is not, in itself, an aggravating circumstance. It was not
sufficiently proven that the offenders took advantage of the night to commit
the crimes since the houses were well-lit in the night. The moon also
provided sufficient lighting.
Decision: Decision affirmed.
People v. Garcia
G.R. No. L-30449
Date of Promulgation: October 31, 1979
Ponente: Abad Santos, J.
Petition: appeal
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Antonio Garcia Y Cabarse alias Tony Manok and
Reynaldo Arviso Rebelleza alias Rene Bisugo
Facts:This is an appeal from the decision of April 17, 1969 by the
Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal, which found the accused guilty of
murder and sentenced them to the death penalty. The legal verdict hinges
on the testimony of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, Mrs. Corazon
Dioquino Paterno, sister of the deceased, Apolonio Dioquino, Jr.
Corazon's husband informed her that he saw Apolonio engaged in a
drinking spree with his gang. Upon learning this information from her
husband, Corazon obtained permission to leave the house at 3:00 a.m. so
she could fetch her brother. At the time, she thought he was with his family
in Pampanga. She went to fetch him because she wanted him to escape the
untoward influence of his gang. She said in her sworn statement: "Dahil
itong si Junior ay meron na kaming nabalitaan na naaakay ng barkada niya
sa paggawa ng hindi mabuti."
On her way, Corazon saw her brother fleeing a group of about seven
persons, including the two accused, Antonio Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso. She
recognized the two accused because they were former gangmates of her
brother.
When she ventured to look from where she was hiding, about 20
meters away, she saw the group catch up with her brother. Some beat him
with pieces of wood, others boxed him. Immediately afterwards, the group
scampered away in different directions. Antonio was left behind. He was
sitting astride the prostrate figure of Apolonio, stabbing the latter in the back
with his long knife.

Issues/Held:WON aggravating circumstances are applicable in this

case YES
a. Main: Nocturnity, uninhabited place, or band
Ratio:
1. The alleged inconsistencies in Corazon's testimony which the
defense makes much of are not irreconcilable with the physical facts.
Corazon was testifying as an eyewitness to the traumatic incident by which
her brother met a violent death at the
hands of a mob.2. Defense also contends that Reynaldo Arviso is
innocent because there is no evidence of
his participation. However, the finding of Reynaldo's guilt stems from
his participation in the conspiracy to kill the deceased. Reynaldo and Antonio
were the leaders of the pack chasing Apolonio.
3. Conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense,
the defendants had the same criminal purpose and were united in its
execution. Those who are members of the band of malefactors by which a
murder is committed and are present at the time and place of the
commission of the crime, thus contributing by their presence to augment the
power of the band and to aid in the successful realization of the crime, are
guilty as principals even if they took no part in the material act of killing the
deceased.
4.
Whenagroupofsevenmen,moreorless,givechasetoasingleunarmedindividual
running for his life, and they overtake him and inflict wounds on his body by
means of shooting, stabbing, and hitting with pieces of wood, there is
conspiracy to kill.
5. There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance:
the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it
facilitates the commission of the offense; and the subjective test, under
which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the
offender. These two tests should be applied in the alternative.
In this case, the subjective test is not passed. Next, we apply the
objective test. A group of men were engaged in a drinking spree, in the
course of which one of them fled, chased by 7 others. The criminal assault
on the victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited by nocturnal cover, which
handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and encouraged impunity by
persuading the malefactors that it would be difficult to determine their
identity because of the darkness and the relative scarcity of people in the
streets. We find that nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated the
commission of the offense. Nocturnity enticed those with the lust to kill to
follow their impulses with the false courage born out of the belief that they
could not be readily identified.
Decision:

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo is hereby modified in

that the two accused, Antonio Garcia y Cabarse and Reynaldo Arviso y
Rebelleza, are sentenced to undergo an indeterminate imprisonment of 10
years as minimum to 18 years as maximum, but in all other respects
affirmed.
People v. Baldera
G.R. No. 2390
Date of Promulgation: April 24, 1950
Ponente: Reyes, J.
Petition: Appeal from a judgment of CFI of Batangas
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Pedro Baldera, Miguel Blay, Jose De La Cruz, and four
others
Facts:On December 23, 1947, 4am, a bus loaded with passengers left
Batangas bound for Manila. On the highway in the municipality of San Jose it
was helf up by a group of 5-6 men. One of the men was identified as Pedro
Baldero. He was armed with a .45 caliber pistol, during the robbery he fired
a single shot which was then followed by a hail of bullets from other sources
from various directions at the bus. Several passengers were injured,
including Jose Cabrera, Jose Pastor, and Francisco Mendoza. After the rain of
bullets, Pedro Baldero boarded the bus and threatened the passengers with
his gun. He was able to obtain a total of P127 before leaving the bus. The
bus then proceeded to its destination. Jose Cabrera died from his wounds
the following day, while Jose Pastor healed from a gunshot wound in his left
leg in 2 months, and Francsico Mendoza healed from a wound in his right
shoulder in 15 days.
Pedro Baldera was identified by one one of the passengers, named
Ponciana, who was able to get a good look at him during the robbery.
Balderas defence is one of alibi, he claims that during the time of the
incident he was at a prostitution house. The court dismisses this alibi and
finds credence in Poncianas testimony.
Baldero is convicted of robbery in band with homicide and serious and
less serious physical injuries and sentenced to death by the CFI of Batangas.
Issues/Held:WON the court erred in appreciating the accused the
circumstance of recidivism YES
Ratio:
Yes, the circumstance of recidivism, by reason of his previous
conviction of theft, should not have been appreciated. The crime that was
committed was on December 30, 1947, while the offense now charged took
place seven days before that.
Decision:

Decision MODIFIED. Accused-appellant is sentenced to life

imprisonment instead of death sentence. His indemnity payment to the heirs
of the deceased, Jose Cabrera, is increased to P6,000.
People v. Capalac
G.R. No. L38297
Date of Promulgation: Oct 23, 1982
Ponente: Fernando, CJ.
Petition: Appeal from a decision of CFI of Iligan
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Mario Capalac
Facts:Moises Capalac, the brother of accused Mario Capalac (a police
officer), was stabbed by Jimmy Magaso. Following this incident, in the
cockpit of Iligan, Jimmy was trying to escape when he was confronted by the
Moises brothers (Mario and Jesus [Jesus has already died and so he was not
included as an accused in the information filed.]) and 2 other companions
[The two companions were not named and were not included in the
information.]. The attempt of Jimmy to board a jeep was unsuccessful; he
having alighted after two shots were fired in succession. Knowing that he
was completely at the mercy of the two brothers, he raised his hands as a
sign of surrender, but they were not appeased. He was pistol-whipped by
Mario, and after having fallen in the ground, was stabbed on the chest 3-4
times by Jesus. He died on the way to the hospital.
Mario was convicted of murder, as qualified by evident premeditation
and treachery. The lower Court also found that he took advantage of his
position as a police officer. He was sentenced to death.
Mario appealed, thus this review.
Issues/Held:1. WON there is an aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of public
office/position NO
2. WON there was
a. Conspiracy - YES
b. Treachery YES
c. Evident premeditation NO
d. Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication YES
Ratio:

1. The mere fact that appellant Mario is a member of the police force
did not by itself justify the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
public office/position. He acted like a brother (of Moises), instinctively
reacting to what was undoubtedly a vicious assault on his kin. He pistolwhipped the deceased because he had a pistol with him. It came in handy
and he acted accordingly. That he was a policeman is of no relevance in
assessing his criminal responsibility.
2. a. There was conspiracy since the two brothers, as well as their 2
companions, apparently had one purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of
Moises. They all acted in concert.
b. There was treachery since the crime was committed to insure that
Jimmy would die. His situation was hopeless. Any defense he could have put
up would be futile and unavailing. There was also no risk to the aggressors
since two other companions assisted them.
c.There is no evident premeditation. The brothers were prompted by
their desire to avenge Moises. They went after Jimmy, assaulted him, and
relied on the weapons that they carried. There was no evidence that they
deliberately employed means to add ignominy to the natural effects of the
act.
d. There is mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication since the
purpose of the crime was to vindicate the stabbing of Moises by Jimmy.
Decision:Decision modified. In lieu of mitigating circumstance of
immeadiate vindication, penalty of death is lowered to 10 years and 1 day of
prision mayor min to 17 years, 4 mos, and 1 day of reclusion temporal max.
Decision affirmed in all other aspects.
People v. Gapasin
G.R. No. 73489
Date of Promulgation: April 25, 1994
Ponente: Quiason, J.
Petition: Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan,,
Isabela, Br. 16
Plaintiff-Appellees: People of the Philippines
Accused: Loreto Gapasin, Nicanor Saludares, Lorenza Soriano, Amor
Saludares, Frank Saludares, Bel Saludares, and Nick Saludares
Accused-Appellant: Loreto Gapasin
Facts:Gapasin was a member of the Phil. Constabulary. He was issued
a mission order to investigate a report regarding the presence of unidentified
armed men in Barrio San Jose, Roxas, Isabela. He was instructed by Sgt.
Dominador Ignacio to get in touch with Nicanor Saludares who may be able
to give him info on the identities of the persons with unlicensed firearms.
Nicanor then told him that a certain Jerry Calpito had an unlicensed firearm.

According to a prosecution witness, they were walking home after

attending a pamisa with Jerry Calpito behind him, when suddenly, Gapasin
shot Calpito with an armalite rifle, and when Calpito fell, Gapasin fired more
shots. Thereafter, Amor Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left
hand of Calpito. Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Calpitos wife while
Soriano fired his gun upwards. Saludares then warned that he would kill any
relative of Calpito who would come near him, so Calpitos wife and relatives
scampered away.
According to Gapasin, he acted in self-defense. He said that he was
advised to go to Capitos house and when he and Nicanor were in Capitos
yard, he asked him what was bulging in his waist. Instead of answering,
Capito drew his firearm and fired twice at Gapasin but missed because
Gapasin dropped to the ground simultaneously firing his armalite.
However, his claim of self-defense is belied by physical evidence since
it was proved that someone who was on his right side, not in front of him,
shot Calpito.
Gapasin and the others were convicted of murder, but only he and
Nicanor Saludares were arrested at first. Later on, the 3 Saludares and
Soriano were arrested. They all posted bail along with Nicanor and were
released. On the strength of LOI No. 947, which vested jurisdiction on the
Military Tribunals of all crimes against persons and property committed with
the use of unlicensed firearms, a motion was filed to transfer the case to the
Military tribunal and this was granted, so warrants of arrest for those who
were released were issued.
Gapasin, Soriano, Bel and Amor were rearrested, but Nick and Frank
remained at large. By virtue of General Order No. 69, the cases were
transferred back to the trial court. However, since Bel and Amor have
escaped, and since they couldnt be found, trial processed against Gapasin
and Soriano only. Both applied for bail but only Sorianos application was
granted. Gapasin tried 2 more times until he filed a motion that he be
transferred to the custody of his military commander which the appellate
court granted after the trial court denied it.
Gapasins appeal is hinged on his claim that the prosecution witnesses
were all relatives of the victim and thus, biased against him.
Issues/Held:WON Gapasin took advantage of his public position in
killing Calpito YES
Ratio:
The accused took advantage of his public position because as a
member of the Philippine Constabulary and he committed the crime with an
armalite rifle which was issued to him when he received his order.
Decision:
Affirmed trial courts decision

People v. Tiongson
G.R. Nos. L-35123-24
Date of Promulgation: July 25, 1984
Ponente: Concepcion, Jr., J.
Petition: mandatory review
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Rudy Tiongson
Facts:At about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of October 26, 1971, Rudy
Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro,
together with George de la Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where they were
detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide. While in the act of
escaping, Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the police
force of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who was guarding the accused, and PC
Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in Bulalacao,
Oriental Mindoro, who went in pursuit of them.
The trial court found him guilty of murder and gave him the death
penalty.
The death penalty having been imposed, the cases are now before the
Court for mandatory review.
Issues/Held:
1. WON aggravating circumstances are applicable in this case YESa.
Main: Aggravating circumstance of insult to public authority
Ratio:1. The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed
in contempt of or with
insult to the public authorities cannot be appreciated since Pat. Gelera
and PC Constable Canela were the ones against whom the crime were
committed. Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons in
authority, but merely agents of a person in authority.
2. Counsel of the defendant also contends that the evidence presented
by the prosecution does not warrant the finding that the killing of Pat.
Zosimo Gelera was qualified by treachery since no one saw directly saw the
killing of Pat. Gelera.
Pat. Nicandro Garcia of the Bulalacao police force
merely declared that he was in his house, about 15 meters away from the
municipal building when the accused Rudy Tiongson and his companions
escaped from prison, and he did not see the accused shoot Pat. Gelera.
Police Chief Edwardo Borwangga did not also see the
accused Rudy Tiongson shoot Pat. Gelera. He declared that Pat. Gelera was
already dead when he arrived at the municipal building in the afternoon of
October 26, 1971.

 PC Sgt. Teotimo Saway, who led the pursuit of the

escaped detainees, declared that he was in one of the, stores in front of the
Bulalacao municipal building, about 60 meters away, when he heard two (2)
gunshots coming from the direction of the municipal building, and Pat.
Gelera was already dead when he saw him.
The circumstances qualifying or aggravating the act of killing a human
being must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner, mere
presumptions or deductions from hypothetical facts not being sufficient to
consider them justified.
Since treachery, which would qualify the killing of Pat. Gelera and PC
Constable Canela to Murder, was not present, the crimes may only be
punished as Homicide.
Decision:
WHEREFORE, with the modification that the accused Rudy Tiongson
should be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from eight (8) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each homicide committed by
him, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED. The
indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is hereby increased to
P30,000.00 in each case.
People v. Magdueo
G.R. No. L-68699
Date of Promulgation: September 22, 1986
Ponente: Per Curiam
Petition: Automatic Review (Death Penalty, RTC of Palawan and Puerto
Princesa City)
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Hermogenes Magdueo
Facts:On October 15, 1980, a few minutes past 8:00 AM, Hermogenes
Magdueos murdered Fernando M. Dilig, City Fiscal of Puerto Princesa City.
This was done with a 9mm automatic pistol, with 2 fatal gunshots at left side
of body (neck and lumbar region). The victim has just seated on his jeep
near his house when the crime happened.
Others were also implicated (conspiring together): Apolinario Sison,
Teodorico Ramirez,
Alejandro Guevarra, Alfredo Guevarra, and Edgardo Casabay. But they
were acquitted for lack of evidence.
3 witnesses positively identified the killer. He was then charged in
lower court with the death penalty for the following: crime of Murder
qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and aggravated by price or
reward and by the crime being committed in contempt of/or with insult to
public authority.

Issues/Held:
WON the Aggravating Circumstance of Contempt or with Insult to
Public Authority can be used NO
Ratio:
For the issue of Insult to Public Authority, this was not considered since
there was no contempt or insult to Fernando Dilig (City Fiscal of Puerto
Princesa City, a Public Authority), because the crime was committed directly
to Fernando himself, not in contempt or insult to him.
For the main issues, there was premeditation and treachery, that the
killer was a recidivist (repeat offender/criminal), and that the crime was
committed for a reward (contract killer), as well as extra-judicial admission
of crime. Therefore, Magdueo was guilty as charged.
Decision:Lower Court judgment is affirmed.
People v. Collado
G.R. No. 88631
Date of Promulgation: April 30, 1991
Ponente: Medialdea, J.
Petition: Appeal from decision of the RTC of Sta. Cruz
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Fernando Collado, Crisanto Lara, Felix Collado, Romeo
Gloriani
Facts:The respondents were charged with and convicted of robbery
with homicide. On January 20, 1985 around 10am at the Barangay Mojon,
Municipality of Pila, Laguna the accused assaulted, robbed, and killed the
victim, Maria Regay, an old lady. Mario Marasigan, a witness to the event and
also the son-in-law of the deceased, was at a coconut plantation 40 meters
from the location of the incident. He climbed up a tall tree where he saw the
events took place.
Marasigan claims that he saw Crissanto Lara, his uncle, approach
Marian Regay and hit her in the head with a piece of wood 2.5 inche thick,
Marian Regay then fell to the ground. Romeo Gloriani then dragged Marian
Regay 5 meters to a coconut tree where he continuously stabbed her and
then he cut a cord tied to her waist where she kept her money. While this
was happening Felix and Fernando Collado was hiding at the end of the
pathway. Once Gloriani took possession of Regays money all four left
together following the same route. They took P5,070 and a Seiko watch
worth P500.
Marian Regays body was only found a day later, as seen from an
already decomposing state. Marasigan reported the incident only 15 days
later as he was bothered by his conscience.

Fernando Collado was apprehended at the Pacita Complez, San Pedro,

Laguna. He stated there were four responsible, Felix Collado, Crisanto Lara,
and Romeo Gloriana.
Crissanto Laras defense is one of alibi. He claims during the time of
the incident he was at the Laguna Provincial Hospital in Sta. Cruz where he
visited his nephew, he stayed at the hospital until 2pm. He spend the night
at the house of his nephews father. He then went to Pila, Laguna around
10am where he heard that Marian was missing. He also claims it would be
impossible for him to hold the piece of wood as stated in Marasigans
testimony, since his left hand is amputated and his other hand is pasmado.
Also he claims that Fernandos confession should be deemed invalid since
Fernando claimed to have been beaten during investigation.
The RTC found credence in Marasigans testimony and convicted the
four of robbery with homicide and sentenced them the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and the accessory penalties imposed by law, also to indemnify the
heirs of the victim in the amount of P30,000.
Crissanto Lara appeals the decision. He states that the court erred in
giving credence to Marasigans testimony and not giving giving credence to
the fact that his left arm was amputated.
Issues/Held:
1) WON the RTC should give credence to Marasigans testimony YES
2) WON Crissanto Laras condition proved that he was unable to
assault Marian Regay NO
3) WON the aggravating circumstance of disregarding rank, age, or
sex is applicable NO
Ratio:
1) Yes, the accused-appellant pointed out inconsistencies in
Marasigans testimony, such as Marasigan did not report incident right after,
or he did not help the victim while the incident took place. The Court
disagrees. It is obvious that the witness was caught by surprised during the
incident, which was why he did not help during the onset. Also the fact that
he did not report the incident right away since Crissanto Lara was his uncle,
the criminal being a family relative would have deterred the witness from
testifying right away. The discrepancies on minor details actually adds
credence to the testimony because it is expected in a spontaneous
testimony.

2) No, the fact that Marian Regay was hit in the head with a hard
object is corroborated by the physicians testimony, that there was a fracture
on her head when her body was examined. Also, it does not hold that Lara
could not hold a piece of wood as a weapon, since he is not left-handed (his
left hand was amputated) and that he was still able to work despite his
disability. The Court finds the accused-appellant capable of such act. Also in
regard to his alibi that he was in another town, the Court finds his alibi
weak, since the town was only 9 km from the location of the crime, it would
have taken 8-12 minutes to get there, since both places had access to the
road.
3) The aggravating circumstance of disregard of age and sex cannot
be considered when it comes to crimes against property. Robbery with
homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons.
Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery. The prosecution failed to show
clear evidence of premeditation, mainly the time when four accused
determined to commit the crime, an act that indicated the four accused
decided to commit the crime, and the lapse of sufficient length of time
between determination and execution.
Decision:
Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the civil
indemnity is increased to P50,000.
People v. Rodil
Facts: Accused Floro Rodil was charged under an Information that
states that on April 24, 1971, with the use of a bladed dagger, attacked and
stabbed to death Philippine Constabulary Lieutenant Guillermo Masana in
Indang, Cavite. The Information also alleges that Masana was in the
performance of his official duties when the accused attacked him.
April 24, 1971: Masana, the deceased, together with PC soldier Virgilio
Fidel, Philippine Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa and Patrolman Felix
Mojica of Indang, Cavite, was having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the
Indang market.
While inside, they saw accused outside through the glass window of
the restaurant. Rodil was blowing his whistle.
His attention drawn by what Rodil was doing, Masana, dressed in
civilian clothes, accompanied by Fidel, went out of the restaurant. He
introduced himself as a PC officer, and asked Rodil whether the gun tucked
on his waist had a license. Instead of answering the question, Rodil moved a
step backward and tried to draw his gun. Fidel immediately grabbed Rodils
gun and gave it to Masana.

The three went inside the restaurant. Masana and Rodil occupied a
separate table. Masana placed the gun on the table, pulled out a piece of
paper and wrote a receipt for the gun and signed it. He asked Rodil to
countersign it, but he refused. Rodil even asked Masana to return the gun to
him, and of course Masana did not grant his plea. As Masana was about to
stand up, Rodil pulled out a double-bladed dagger and stabbed Masana
several times, on the chest and the stomach which led to his death.
Indang Chief of Police Primo Panaligan was also inside the restaurant
taking his lunch and helped in wresting the dagger from Rodil.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not the specific circumstance of contempt of, or insult
to public authority can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
(2) Whether or not the specific circumstance of insult or disregard of
rank can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
Held:
(1) YES. In the case at bar, the aggravating circumstance of, or insult
to, public authority under paragraph 2, Article 14 of the RPC can be
appreciated. Evidence of prosecution clearly established that Indang Chief of
Police Primo Panaligan was present in the restaurant as he was having lunch
there too when the incident happened, which belies Rodils allegations that
he went to the municipal police station and reported the incident as selfdefense to the Chief. As a matter of fact, the chief of police was the one who
embraced or grabbed Rodil from behind, wrested the dagger from him and
subsequently brought him to the Indang municipal building. The chief of
police should be considered a public authority or a person in authority for he
is vested with jurisdiction and authority to maintain peace and order and is
specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the law
and municipal ordinances.

(2) YES. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be

appreciated because the victim identified himself as a PC officer to Rodil who
was merely a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and was therefore inferior
both in rank and social status to the victim. The difference in official and
social status between a PC lieutenant and a mere member of an antismuggling unit is patent. If Rodil was charged with the complex crime of
murder with assault against an agent of a person in authority and not merely
murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank may not be
appreciated because that circumstance will be absorbed into the charge of
assault against an agent of a person in authority. But in the case at bar, the
Information charges Rodil with murder only. Therefore, the aggravating
circumstance of disregard of rank may be appreciated in the imposition of
penalties.
EFFECT TO PENALTY IMPOSABLE: With two aggravating circumstances
and no mitigating circumstance, the appellant is condemned to suffer the
maximum period of reclusin temporal, the penalty prescribed for homicide.
People v. Pagal
Facts: Accused-appellants Pagal and Torcellino were charged with the
crime of robbery with homicide, with the generic aggravating circumstances
of nightime purposely sought to better accomplish their criminal design;
evident premeditation; in disregard of the respect due the offended party;
and with abuse of confidence, the accused being then employees of the
offended party. When the case was called for arraignment, the accused
entered a plea of guilty but they were allowed afterwards to prove the
mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon
an impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation. The RTC,
after considering the 4 aggravating circumstances and mitigating
circumstance of only plea of guilt, found them guilty of the crime charged,
sentencing them with the penalty of death. The case was elevated to the SC
by virtue of the mandatory review on account of the penalty of death
imposed on the accused.
Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in not appreciating in favor of the
accused the mitigating circumstances of (1) sufficient provocation and (2)
passion or obfuscation.

Held: NO, the RTC is correct. As a rule, two or more mitigating

circumstances arising from the same act cannot be considered as separate
and distinct circumstances but should be treated as one. Thus, in this case,
the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be considered
because the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation arose from
the same incident, which is the alleged maltreatment and/or ill-treatment
caused by the victims towards the accused-appellants.
As to the circumstance of passion and obfuscation, it cannot be treated
as mitigating if the crime involved was planned and calmly meditated before
its execution, such as in this case of robbery where the appellants are
expected to have carefully planned its execution. Thus, in People vs. Daos, a
case of robbery with homicide, this Court rejected the claim of the appellants
therein that passion and obfuscation should have been estimated in their
favor, because the death of the victim therein took place on the occasion of a
robbery, which, before its execution, had been planned and calmly meditated
by the appellants.
Finally, the maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to have
committed against them occurred much earlier than the date of the
commission of the crime. Provocation in order to be a mitigating
circumstance must be sufficient and immediately proceeding the act. We
hold that the trial court did not commit any error in not appreciating the said
mitigating circumstances in favor of the appellants.
People v. Mandolado
G.R. No. L-51304-05
Date of Promulgation: June 28, 1983
Ponente: Guerrero, J.
Petition: Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of
Cotabato, Br. 11 Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendants-Appellants: Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano
Facts: Mandolado and Ortillano, along with Simon and Erinada are
draftees and trainees of the AFP who were passengers of a bus. Being all in
uniform and armed, they got acquainted and decided to have a drinking
session at the bus terminal.
After an hour of drinking, Mandolado got drunk and got his gun and
started firing. Sensing trouble, Simon and Erinado ran and boarded a Ford
Fiera, and Mandolado and Ortillano followed. They forced the driver to bring
them to the Midsayap. When they were dropped off, Mandolado fired his .30
caliber machine gun at the Ford and hit the right side of the back of the
drivers sister.

Simon and Erinado then got on Tenorios jeep, with Mendoza on board.
Mandolado and Ortillano ran after the jeep and told the Tenorio to stop so
they could get on, firing their guns on the way. Upon learning that the jeep
was bound for Catabato and not PIkit where they wanted to go, Mandolado
got angry and cocked his gun and ordered Tenorio to stop. When the jeep
stopped, Simon and Erinado jumped off and ran to their camp. Mandolado
and Ortillano also got off but Mandolado fired his gun at the occupants of the
jeep. Ortillano also fired but fired downwards to the ground. This was when
Simon heard shots of a machine gun.
Mandolado and Ortillano arrived at their camp but did not report the
incident. The next morning, Sgt. Villanueva informed them that they were
suspects in the Tenorio and Mendoza killings. They were later then
apprehended before they could escape to Manila.
The defense contended that the circumstantial evidence does not show
that they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The only link of Mandolado
to the empty caliber .30 shells was the fact that they were fired from his gun
and his only link to the killings was his extra judicial confession (wherein he
admitted killing the 2 and Ortillano admitted being present and firing
downwards) but which they repudiate for being unlawfully taken under force
and duress. However, the court did not only base their judgment on the
confession, because they also considered that he fired his gun at the
terminal and at the Ford, that Simon heard shots while running to their
camp, that they attempted flight, and his own admission before the lower
court that it was accidental.
In the end, Simon and Erinada were acquitted, while Mandolado and
Ortillano were found guilty of murder qualified by treachery, with
aggravating circumstances of taking advantage of a public position, abuse of
confidence, and obvious ungratefulness.
Issues/Held:
WON these aggravating circumstance should be appreciated:
1. taking advantage of a public position NO
2. abuse of confidence NO
3. obvious ungratefulness NO
Ratio:
1. The mere fact that an army draftee who hitchhiked in a jeep fired
upon its occupants is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public
position in the commission of the crime.

2. This cannot be inferred from the mere fact that an army draftee
who was allowed on board a vehicle later on fired his gun at its occupants.
In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary
that there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and
one against whom the crime was committed and that the accused made use
of such a relationship to commit the crime. It is also essential that the
confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as
would give the accused some advantage to commit the crime. It is obvious
that the accused and the victims only met for the first time so there is no
personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence might rest
between them.
3. Similarly, there could be no obvious ungratefulness since the
requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to the criminal act are
lacking or nonexistent.
Decision:
Modified. Mandolado guilty of murder, and Ortillano as accessory, both
with mitigating circumstance of drunkenness.
US v. Manalinde
No. 5292
Date of Promulgation: August 28, 1909 Ponente: Torres, J.
Petition: review
Plaintiff: United States
Defendant: Moro Manalinde
Facts: The accused, provided himself with a kris, which he concealed in
banana leaves and upon having travelled day and a night from his house and
reaching the town, attacked from behind a Spaniard named Juan Igual, and
immediately after, he attacked a Chinaman named Choa, who was passing
nearby and was putting down his load infront of a store door. He had no
quarrels with the assaulted persons. Both victims died as a result.
Manalinde pleaded guilty and confessed that his wife died about one
hundred days before; that he was directed by Datto Mupuck to go
huramentado and to kill the two persons he would meet in the town; that if
he was successful in the matter, Mupuck would give him a pretty woman on
his return; that in order to carry out his intention to kill two persons in the
town of Cotobato.
Issues/Held:
WON the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is
established by the facts YES
Ratio: The facts establish the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation.
For evident premeditation to be present, The prosecution must prove:
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime

2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his

determination
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution
(to allow him to reflect on its consequences)
The three requisites of evident premeditation are illustrated by the
facts:
First requisite: On a certain date, Manalinde accepted the proposition
that he would turn huramentado and kill the first two persons he would meet
in the market place. On said date, the offender is said to have determined
the crime.
Second requisite: He undertook the journey to comply therewith and
provided himself with a weapon. The journey and the carrying of the weapon
are acts manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination to
commit the crime.
Third requisite: After the journey for a day and a night, he killed the
victims. One day and one night constitute a sufficient lapse of time for the
offender to realize the consequences of his contemplated act.
Decision:
Judgment affirmed. Accused guilty of murder.
People v. Ilaoa
GR No. 94308
Date of Promulgation: June 16, 1994
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Petition: Appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles
City, Br. 58 Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Ruben E. Ilaoa and Rogelio E. Ilaoa
Facts:
In the late evening of November 4, 1987, appellant Ruben Ilaloa was
engaged in a drinking session with the deceased Nestor de Loyola together
with several others. Ruben was heard arguing with Nestor. A few moments
later, Ruben mauled and kicked the deceased with the help of their drinking
companions just outside Rubens apartment. As the deceased cried Aray!
Aray! and Pare, bakit niyo ako ginaganito? Hirap na hirap na ako!
appellant dragged the deceased with the help of Julius Eliginio to the
apartment from where a mans cries were continuously heard later. The
following day, Ruben borrowed Alex Villamils tricycle on the pretext that a
neighbor was about to give birth and had to be rushed to the hospital.
However, he was seen driving the tricycle alone with a sack placed in the
sidecar. The sack looked as if it contained a human body. Then, an hour
later, the tricycle was returned with bloodstains on the floor. Rubens
girlfriend was also seen sweeping what appeared to be blood at the entrance
of their apartment.

Nestor de Loyolas decapitated body was found in the early morning of

November 5, 1987. The deceased bore 43 stab wounds in the chest, 24 of
which were fatal, as well as slight burns all over the body. The head was
found some two feet away from the corpse.
The RTC found Ruben and Rogelio, the brother of Ruben, guilty of
murder with the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of
superior strength and cruelty, and imposed upon them the penalty of life
imprisonment.
Issues/Held:
WON the finding of evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength
and cruelty are totally unwarranted - YES
Ratio:
Appellant Ruben Ilaoa claimed that the sack contained buntot ng pusa,
a local term for marijuana, not a human body, which he delivered to a
designated place as a favor to his compadre, Nestor de Loyola. In addition, it
was vomit discharged by his drinking companions that was being swept
clean by his girlfriend at the entrance of their apartment in the early
morning of November 5, 1987, not blood as the witnesses asseverated.
The Court found the version of the prosecution more persuasive than
the defense. The fact that appellant quarreled with the deceased, then
mauled and pulled him to the apartment where the latter was last seen
alive, in addition to borrowing a tricycle which was found with bloodstains
when returned, sufficiently point to Ruben as the culprit responsible for the
crime. Alex Villamil, the owner of the tricycle, had no reason to testify falsely
against him. The Court, however, held the appellant liable only for homicide,
not murder, on the ground that the qualifying circumstances in the
information namely, abuse of superior strength, cruelty and evident
premeditation were not sufficiently proved to be appreciated against the
appellant.
Abuse of superior strength cannot be considered because there was
no evidence whatsoever that appellant was physically superior to the
deceased and that the former took advantage of such strength to overcome
the latters resistance to consummate the offense.
Cruelty number of wounds alone is not the criterion for the
appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. Neither can it be
inferred from the mere fact that the victims dead body was dismembered.
Evident premeditation no proof to show that killing was the result of
meditation, calculation or resolution of the part of the appellant. On the
contrary, the evidence tends to show that the series of circumstances
constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no interval of time separating
them from calculation and meditation.

The Court also found Rogelio NOT guilty of murder. The lower court
relied solely on the testimony that Rogelio helped his brother drag Nestor
inside Rubens apartment where the deceased was last seen alive. To
warrant a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, three requisites
must concur:
1. there must be more than one circumstance
2. the circumstances from which the inferences are derived are proven
3. the combination of all the circumstance is such as to prove the guilt
of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt
The said dragging alone cannot be the basis of Rogelios conviction.
Decision:
Judgment of conviction against Ruben Ilaoa affirmed but for homicide
not murder. Accused- appellant Rogelio Ilaoa acquitted.
People v. Bibat
Nature: Appeal from RTC Manila decision
?
Oct 14, 1992, 1:30 p.m.: Gari Bibat stabbed to death Lloyd del
Rosario along G. Tuazon cor Ma. Cristina Sts., Sampaloc, Manila. Del Rosario
was then waiting for a ride to school.
?
Witness: Nona Avila Cinco, a laundry woman, was then at
Funeraria Gloria waiting for her bettor.
1.
She saw somebody talk to Bibat who told Bibat, Pare anduon
na. Siguraduhin mo lang na itumba mo na. Bibat then demonstrated how he
was going to perform the act.
2.
After some time, she then saw Bibat approach del Rosario &
took a pointed object from a notebook, then he stabbed victim in the left
chest twice. Bibat left but after hearing del Rosario shout for help, he
returned & stabbed him again. Bibat ran away & Avila left too.
?
Witness Florencio Castro testified that he saw Bibat w/4 others
inside the Gloria Memorial Homes. He saw one of them open a notebook
where a stainless knife was inserted.
?
Witness Rogelio Robles testified that Bibat frequented his place
in Sampaloc because of Tonton Montero. Montero is the president of
Samahang Ilocano Fraternity, a frat Bibat was part of. Montero told Robles
about a rumble in their school wherein somebody died & that Bibats group
planned to take revenge against del Rosario. He knew del Rosario by face &
he further testified that he knew Bibats group kept tusok & guns in his
house.

?
Bibat claimed that it was his moms birthday on that day &
that he was at home during that time reviewing for his final exams. He also
testified that he went to school for his finals where he stayed until 4:30 p.m.
He denied all allegations & he claims that he was merely implicated & he
didnt know anything about the incident.
?
Witnesses Marte Soriano & Lino Asuncion III, classmates of
Bibat, corroborated his claims.
?
RTC found Bibat guilty beyond reasonable doubt of crime of
murder.
ISSUES & RATIO:
1.
WON the prosecution witnesses are not credible.
?
NO. SC respects trial court findings unless theres clear proof
that it was reached arbitrarily or it overlooked some substantial facts/value
that might affect result.
?
Cincos failure to shout for help & delay in reporting incident is
acceptable considering that she must have been scared herself. It doesnt
affect her credibility if it is sufficiently reasoned out. Not impossible either for
her to remember details of the incident. Bibats camp theorized that Cinco
couldve not been taking bets for the PBA on the day of the incident w/c was
a Wed because PBA games were then held on Tues, Thurs & Sat. But she
couldve done so to maximize profit. Besides, such is immaterial in the case.
2.
WON defense of alibi should be appreciated.
?
NO. For alibi to be appreciated, there must be clear &
satisfactory proof that it was physically impossible for accused to be at the
crime scene at the time of commission.
?
Alibis of Bibat that he was at home & then in school at Arellano
University. These places are actually near the crime scene. He could very
well be present in the crime scene during commission. Besides, this claim is
unsubstantiated. He should have presented a class card or grading sheet to
prove that he did take the exam.
?
Positive identification of accused by witnesses is given more
weight than the negative & self-serving denials & alibis presented by Bibat.
3.
WON AC of evident premeditation should be appreciated.
?
YES. Requisites: time when offender determined/conceived to
commit crime, act manifestly indicating that culprit has clung to his
determination, & sufficient lapse of time bet determination & execution to
allow him to reflect upon consequences of his act.
?
Essence: execution of criml act is preceded by cool thought &
reflection upon resolution to carry out criml intent during space of time
sufficient to arrive at calm judgment.

?
Witnesses Robles & Cinco have testified to prove that 3
requisites were met. Bibat tried to contest Robles testimony. Robles testified
that he allowed Bibats group to hide guns & tusok in his house. Bibat claims
that it was not logical for someone in his rt frame of mind to allow anybody
to do that. But Robles explained that he was scared of Bibats group & he
wanted to protect his family thats why he allowed them to do so. Besides,
evident premeditation was clearly proven by Cincos testimony. She heard
Bibats group plan the killing at around 11:30 a.m. then they committed
crime at around 1:30 a.m. Thus, there was a sufficient lapse of time for
Bibat to reflect & such is proof that Bibat clung to his resolution to kill del
Rosario.
?
People vs. Dumdum: one hour was considered a sufficient
lapse of time.
HELD: Affirmed.
People v. Empacis
G.R. No. 95756
Date of Promulgation: May 14, 1993Ponente: Narvasa CJ.Petition:
Appeal from the decision of the RTC of Cebu City Br 14 Plaintiff-appellee:
People of the Philippines Accused-appellant: Crisologo Empacis
Facts:At about 9pm on Sept 16, 1986, as the victim Fidel Saromines
and his wife Camila, were about to close their small store located in their
house in Cebu, two men came and asked to buy some sardines and rice.
They were Romualso Langomez and Crisologo Empacis. Camilia served them
and they proceeded to make a meal of the rice and sardines.
After they finished eating, Romualdo told Fidel that he will buy
cigarettes. As Fidel was handing over the cigarettes, Romualdo announced a
"hold-up" and commanded Fidel to give up his money. As it happened, Fidel
then had P12,000.00 in his house, wrapped in cellophane. This he started to
give to Romualdo but as the latter was taking hold of the packet, Fidel
suddenly decided to fight to keep his money. A struggle followed in the
course of which Romualdo stabbed Fidel about three times. Crisologo joined
in and with his own knife also stabbed Fidel. At this time, gunshots were
heard outside of the house; and a neighbor of the Saromineses, Balbino
Bulak, recognized one of those doing the shooting as certain Carlito Antiga.
A voice was heard from below saying, "Stab him!" to which Langomez
replied, "I already stabbed (him)."

From his little sister's room, Fidel's thirteen-year old son, Peter, saw
his father fighting for his life with Romualdo and Crisologo Empacis. Heeding
his father's cry, "Peter, help me!" (Suportahe ko, Peter!), Peter took hold of a
"pinuti" (a long bolo), and rushed to his father's defense. He struck out at
Crisologo and inflicted two wounds on him, one at the right shoulder, and the
other, in the neck. Romualdo and Crisologo jumped out of the house and
fled, with the sound of Peter's defiant shout trailing them, "Come back, if
you are brave!"
Peter then turned to his wounded father, but found him already dead
from his injuries. The post- mortem examination conducted by Dr. Octavio
Ortiz, Rural Health Physician, disclosed four (4) stab wounds on the
deceased, all in the upper back. Two of these, which penetrated the lungs
and heart, were fatal.
Crisologo Empacis went to the clinic of Dr. Eustaquio Deiparine at the
poblacion for treatment of the wounds inflicted on him by Peter, arriving
there between 10 and 11 o'clock that same night. The doctor found
Crisologo's "so serious" as to require further treatment, even after they had
been sutured. Dr. Deiparine asked Crisologo how he had come by these
wounds. Crisologo said that at around 6 to 7 o'clock that evening, near the
Papan Market, he was assaulted without warning by a young man, who
injured him with a bolo.
Police officers came to the clinic the next day to inquire whether
anyone had needed treatment on the previous night, and Dr. Eustaquio
revealed what happened. They then arrested Empacis.
Lower court convicted Empacis and 4 others of robbery with homicide.
The Court also found four generic aggravating circumstances: dwelling,
nighttime, craft or fraud and superior strength.
Issues/Held:
WON the trial court erred appreciating the aggravating circumstance of
Craft or fraud NO
Nighttime and dwelling NO
Superior strength YES
Ratio:
The Court agrees with the lower court that the aggravating
circumstance of fraud must be appreciated. Empacis and Romualdo
pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim's store and on his pretext
gained entry into the latter's store and later, into another part of his
dwelling. This Court has held stratagems and ruses of this sort to constitute
the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft.

The Court also agrees that nighttime was properly appreciated as an

aggravating circumstance against the accused. To be sure, nighttime is not
per se aggravating. It must be shown that nocturnity was deliberately and
purposely sought to facilitate, or that it actually facilitated, the commission
of the crime. In the case at bar, the lateness of the hour no doubt precluded
the presence of other customers who could have deterred the felons, or
come to the aid of the victim. All things considered, there is adequate
showing that nocturnity was deliberately sought by the robbers and did in
reality facilitate the perpetration of the felony. Since the crime was also
committed in the dwelling of the victim, the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling is existent.
For the aggravating circumstance of superior strength to be deemed
present in a case, it does not suffice to prove superiority in number on the
part of the malefactors; it must appear that they purposely employed
excessive force, force out of proportion to the means of defense available to
the person attacked. In this case, the evidence shows that Empacis helped
his co-accused by also stabbing the victim; he and his companion took
advantage of their combined strength and their bladed weapons to overcome
their unarmed victim and assure the success of their felonious design to
make off with his money.
Decision:
Decision affirmed.
People v. Bigcas
G.R. No. L-51304-05
Date of Promulgation: July 20, 2992Ponente: Regalado, J.Petition:
Appeal from a decision of judgment of the RTC of Bohol, Tagbilaran City, Br.
4 Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the PhilippinesAccused-Appellants: Rodrigo
Bigcas y Amuncio and Quiliano Butron y Perocho
Facts:
Witnesses Rosito Doydoy and Jseus Calape both testified that they saw
3 people involved in a commotion. According the them, Butron striked
Ambrocio Palapar twice on the back with a piece of wood. Palapar then ran
and was chased by Bigcas who stabbed him twice with a bolo. Bigcas hit him
again on the right knee, and when he fell, Butron hit him twice with a piece
of wood on the right jaw and Bigcas stabbed him several times.

Butron and Bigcas claimed a different story. According the them, they
were drinking at a store when Ambrocio Palapar arrived already drunk and
drank tuba with them. Palapar requested for more drinks, but Quillano
Butron refused for he had no more money, and so Palapar got angry and
challenged him to fight. He then grabbed the knife from the Butrons waist
and challenged everybody to fight. Someone reported this to the police, and
Ponciano Butron responded and told Palapar to go home ahead of Butron
and Bigcas. Butron then went home and later, Bigcas saw him already
wounded, after which he brought him to the hospital. According to Butron,
he saw Palapar standing in the middle of the road on his way home. Palapar
then suddenly stabbed him with a bolo, which he wrestled from him and
then stabbed Palapar.
The accused were found guilty of murder by the trial court, so they
filed an appeal claiming self- defense.
Issues/Held:
1. WON there was treachery NO2. WON Butron acted in self-defense
NO3. WON there was conspiracy YES4. WON these aggravating
circumstances should be appreciated:
a. nocturnity NOb. abuse of superior strength NO
Ratio:
1. There is no evidence that in the commission of the crime they
deliberately adopted means, methods, or forms considered in law as
treacherous.
2. The burden of proof is shifted to the accused. Butron must show
that the requisites for self-defense were present. Physical evidence also belie
his claim.
3. There was conspiracy because there were 2 eyewitnesses who
testified that hey acted in a concerted manner in killing the victim.
Therefore, Bigcas is liable as well.
4. No for both:
The prosecution witness even testified that the moon was shining
brightly enough to see what was going on and recognize the assailants.
Nocturnity neither facilitated the commission of the crime nor was it
purposely sought to afford impunity.
It is not sufficient that there be superiority in number or strength; it is
necessary that the accused must have cooperated and intended to use or
secure advantage from such superior strength testimony insufficient. The
prosecution has fallen short of proof that appellants had specifically
contrived or deliberately intended to take advantage of superior strength in a
projected assault against the victim. This should be proved conclusively.
Decision:

Modified. Guilty of homicide (not murder, since treachery and abuse of

superior strength cannot be used against them and neither can nocturnity be
appreciated) with mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
People v. Sangalang
G.R. No. L-32914
Date of Promulgation: August 30, 1974 Ponente: Aquino, J.Petition:
appealPetitioners: People of the Philippines Respondents: Laureano
Sangalang
Facts:The testimonies of the two prosecution eyewitnesses disclose
that at around six o'clock in the morning of June 9, 1968 Ricardo Cortez left
his nipa hut to gather tuba from a coconut tree nearby. Flora Sarno, his wife,
was left inside. While he was on top of the tree gathering tuba, he was
struck by a volley of shots. He fell to the ground at the base of the coconut
tree.
His wife Flora heard three successive shot coming south of the hut.
She went outside the hut. From a distance of about twenty-five meters, she
saw five men, each armed with a long firearm, firing at her husband. She
recognized Laureano Sangalang as one of the five armed men.
Ricardo Sarno, Floras brother, was inside his own nipa hut. He was
drinking coffee when he heard several shots. He came out and saw his
brother-in-law being shot by Laureano Sangalang, Eleuterio Cuyom, Perino
Canuel, Irineo Canuel and Conrado Gonzales. His sister Flora was trying to
approach her husband but she had to flee to her hut when Sangalang and
his companions fired at her. He wanted to join her but he was likewise fired
upon by the five men. So, he retired and took refuge in his own hut.
The necropsy report shows that Cortez sustained twenty-three gunshot
wounds on the different parts of the body, fourteen of which were entrancewounds, and nine were exit-wounds.
The Court of First Instance of Cavite, Tagaytay City Branch, rendered a
judgment convicting Sangalang of murder.
Issues/Held:WON there was treachery YES
Ratio:The qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia) was duly
established. The victim was shot while he was gathering tuba on top of a
coconut tree. He was unarmed and defenseless. He was not expecting to be
assaulted. He did not give any immediate provocation. The deliberate,
surprise attack shows that Sangalang and his companions employed a mode
of execution which insured the killing without any risk to them arising from
any defense which the victim could have made.
Decision:
The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on
Sangalang (Arts. 64[1] and 248, Revised Penal Code).

Finding no error in its judgment, the same is affirmed with costs

against the appellant.
People v. San Pedro
G.R. No. L-44274
Date of Promulgation: January 22, 1980Ponente: Per CuriamPetition:
Automatic Review (Death Penalty, CFI of Laguna) Petitioner: People of the
PhilippinesRespondent: Luisito San Pedro and Artemio Banasihan
Facts:On June 2, 1970 between the barrios of Masaya and Paciano
Rizal Municipality of Bay, Laguna,
Felimon Rivera (a jeepney driver) was killed. He died of profuse
hemorrhage due to 23 lacerated and stab wounds and multiple abrasions
found on the different parts of the body.
4 days prior to the date of crime, Luisito, Artemio, and others planned
to steal the jeep of the victim. They then rented Rivera's jeep to haul
coconuts (with him as driver), where they proceeded to Brgy. Puypuy in Bay,
Laguna. They were joined by Salvador Litan and Rodrigo Esguerra. At
Esguerra's signal, Litan hit Rivera at the nape with a water pipe. Rivera
jumped out of the jeep but was chased by San Pedro and Litan who stabbed
him at the back several times with a dagger.
Esguerra then drove the jeep and the group proceeded to Makati,
Rizal, where he was joined by Nelson Piso and Antonio Borja. The jeep was
sold for Php 2,000.00 at Cavite. Piso then went to Los Baos after 4 days
and gave San Pedro, Litan and Banasihan Php 50.00 each.
On June 11, 1971, police caught Rodrigo Esguerra (after some period
of investigation), he then admitted his participation and named his
companions (in writing). Artemio Banasihan was apprehended in 1972, and
is the appellant in this case for the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Issues/Held:WON the aggravating circumstance of Craft can be
joined as one with Treachery. - NO WON the aggravating circumstances
could be offset by the mitigating circumstance of Lack of Instruction. - NO
Ratio:
Treachery is when the victim did not have any chance to defend
himself at the time of the crime, while Craft is intellectual trickery to lure
the victim. There was treachery because the criminals attacked the victim in
surprise and he was unarmed. There was craft because the criminals tricked
the victim to bring them (and the jeep) to a secluded area. Therefore these
two aggravating circumstances are separate for this case and cannot be
combined into one.

With the presence of two aggravating circumstances, the single

mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction will not make any difference.
Besides, the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction cannot be
considered because even if Artemio claims that he cannot read and write, he
can still commit the crime because he does not lack intelligence (proven also
by his answering of questions during the trial).
Decision:Lower Court judgment is affirmed.
Opinions:
Concur (Separate): Aquino, J.The aggravating circumstance of
uninhabited place should also be considered since the criminals used the
victim's jeep to bring him to an uninhabited place where he was killed with
impunity.
People v. Castillo
Nature: Appeal from a decision of RTC of Quezon City
?
Around 1AM on May 5, 1993, Eulogio Velasco, flr manager of
Cola Pubhouse along EDSA, was sitting outside the pub while talking w/ his
co-worker. Soon, their customer Tony Dometita came out of the pub and
informed him that hell be on his way home. However, when he was about
an arms length from Eulogio, appellant Robert Castillo came out from
nowhere and suddenly and w/o warning stabbed Tony w/ a fan knife on his
left chest. As Tony pleaded for help, appellant stabbed him once more,
hitting him on the left hand. Eulogio placed a chair between the two to stop
Castillo from further attacking Tony.
?
Tony ran away but appellant pursued him. Eulogio came to
know later that Tony had died. His body was found outside the fence of
Iglesia ni Cristo, EDSA. Medico-legal officer testified that the proximate
cause of Tonys death was the stab wound on his chest.
?
Appellant Robert Castillo claims that decedent Tony was
attacked by 2 malefactors as testified by one Edilberto Marcelino, a tricycle
driver, who saw men ganging up on Tony by the compound of Iglesia ni
Cristo.
?
TC did not appreciate Castillos defense of alibi and held that
the killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength, the accused having
surprised and attacked w/ a deadly weapon. And although treachery was
present, it also held that this was absorbed by abuse of superior strength.
?
Appellant contends that the TC showed its prejudice against
him by asking questions that were well w/in the prosecution to explore and
ask.

HELD: Appellant Castillo is guilty of murder for the death of Antonio

Dometita. The allegation of bias & prejudice isnt well-taken. It is a judges
prerogative & duty to ask clarificatory question to ferret out the truth. The
propriety of a judges queries is determined not necessarily by their quantity
but by their quality & in any event, by the test of whether the defendant was
prejudiced by such questioning.
The prosecution was unable to prove the aggr circumstance of evident
premeditation. However, SC held that the killing was not qualified by abuse
of superior strength, contrary to TCs ruling. The prosecution did not
demonstrate that there was a marked difference in the stature and build of
the victim and the appellant w/c would have precluded an appropriate
defense from the victim.
However, the killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery is
committed when 2 conditions concur: (1) means, methods and forms of
execution employed left the person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate, and (2) that such means, methods, and forms of
execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused w/o
danger to his person. These requisites were evidently present when the
accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed the
victim just as he was bidding goodbye to his friend. The action rendered it
difficult for the victim to defend himself. The presence of defense wounds
does not negate treachery because the first stab, fatal as it was, was
inflicted on the chest and hence, rendered Tony defenseless.
Appeal denied, assailed decision affirmed. Award of indemnity to the
heirs of Castillo in the amount of PhP50K.
PEOPLE v. ESCOTE
(robbery wit homicide is classified as a crime against property.
Nevertheless, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in said crime
if the victim of homicide is killed treacherously)

Facts: At past midnight, Rodolfo Cacatian (regular driver of Five Star

passenger bus, hereinafter referred as the driver) drove the bus from Pasay
City to Pangasinan. Six additional passengers boarded the bus in Balintawak,
including Acuyan and Escote, who held up the bus (they had handguns) as
they were passing Bulacan. Both fired their guns upward and accosted the
passengers, divesting them of their money and valuables. Apparently, SPO1
Manio was aboard the bus. When the felons went to him and asked for his
wallet and ID. When they found out his was a police officer and saw his
service gun, they said: Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo
rinangpapataysayo. The police officer pleaded for mercy: Pare maawa ka
sa akin. May pamilyaako. But the two ignored his plea and shot him on the
mouth, right ear, chest and rights side of the body. Manio sustained six
entrance wounds. The bus driver was ordered to maintain the speed of the
bus. He heard one of them say Ganyanlangangpumatayngtao.
Parangpumapatayngmanok. The other said, Ayosnanamantayo pare.
Malaki-lakiito. They alighted from the bus and instructed the driver not to
report the incident (all in all, robbery was over in 25 mintues).
Naturally, the driver and conductor reported the incident to police.
Barely a month after at about midnight, a team of policemen were at a
checkpoint along the national highway in Tarlac. A white taxi cab without a
plate was stopped and asked the driver, who was Escote, for his ID. Escote
said he was a policeman and handed over the ID of SPO1 Manio and the
money they had taken from the heist. The police became suspicious because
the ID had already expired. He asked Escote if the latter had a new payslip.
When Escote could not produce any, he finally confessed he was not
policeman and was brought to the station. He was frisked and they found
five bullets of a 9mm in his pocket. During investigation, Escote admitted
that he and Acuyan staged the robbery on the bus and killed Manio. The RTC
found both of them guilty for the crime of robbery with homicide and was
sentenced to death.
They are now before the SC, appealing among others, the propriety of
the both the conviction and the penalty. The highest penalty is meted out if
there is an aggravating circumstance.
Issues:Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present? - YES
(But how can that be? Treachery is considered in crimes against persons and
in this case, robbery with homicide is a crime against property. see
discussion below)
(NOTE on the anticlimactic decision: the SC said treachery cannot be
considered against the two because it was not alleged in the Information.
Nyark.)
Ratio:General Discussion on the Crime of Robbery with Homicide

To warrant the conviction of robbery with violence against or

intimidation of persons under Art. 294, the prosecution was able to prove
the following elements: 1) taking of personal property with the use of
violence or intimidation against a person; 2) property taken belonged to
another; 3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi,
and 4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of
homicide was committed.
The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. In robbery
with homicide, so long as the intention of the felons was to rob, the killing
may occur before, during or after the robbery. Even if the victim of robbery
is other than the victim of the homicide, there is only one single and
indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. All the crimes committed on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged and integrated into a single
and indivisible felony. All those who took part as principals in the robbery will
also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did
not take part in the homicide, unless it appears they endeavored to prevent
it.
The Penalty of the RTC: Death (impliedly taking into account
treachery)
Under Art. 63, par.1, the felons shall be meted out the supreme
penalty of death when the crime is committed with an aggravating
circumstance absent any mitigating. The RTC did not specify any aggravating
circumstance in its decision. However, it is evident from the facts contained
in the body of the decision that it imposed the death penalty on its finding
that they shot Manio treacherously. Its elements were present: 1) at the
time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and 2)
the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is
the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby
ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor. Treachery may also be
appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to his life where he
was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de
grace. In this case, the victim was shot when he was defenseless, pleading
for his life, and at short range. This killing is a grim example of the utter
inhumanity of man to his fellowmen.
Treachery as an Aggravating Circumstance: Legal Basis

The SC has ruled over the years that treachery is a generic

aggravating circumstance in the felony of robbery with homicide, a special
complex crime and at the same time a single and indivisible offense.
However, in two cases, the SC has held that robbery with homicide is a crime
against property. Treachery is appreciated only in crimes against persons
and hence, should not be appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance. It held in another case that it is not appreciated in robbery
with rape precisely because it is a crime against property. These ruling finds
support in case law that in robbery with homicide and rape, the latter are
merely incidents of the robbery with robbery being the main purpose and
object of the criminal. But the SC ruled otherwise in the later case of People
v. Cando when it ruled that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance
in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed with
treachery. The SC opted not to apply its earlier rulings that same year (i.e.
in People v. Bariquit).
Criminal law commentators are not in agreement as well. Aquino and
Reyes said it only applies to crimes against persons. But Regalado says that
it can be appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned.
Turning to Spanish ConstructionIt must be recalled that the 1850 Penal
Code of Spain, amended by Penal Reform Code of 1870, was applied in the
Philippines. The Penal Code of 1887 in the Philippines was amended by Act
3815 (RPC), which was enacted and published in Spanish. In construing the
Old and Revised Penal Code, the SC had accorded respect and persuasive, if
not conclusive, effect of the decision of the SC of Spain in construing the
1850 Penal Code.
Art. 14, par. 16 on treachery is a reproduction of the 1850 Penal Code
of Spain with a slight difference. In the latter law, the words the persons
are used whereas in the RPC, the words the person are used. Going by the
letter of the law, treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons as
enumerated in Title Eight (Chapts. 1 and 2), Book II of the RPC. However,
the SC of Spain has consistently applied treachery to robbery with homicide,
classified as a crime against property. The ratio behind it is when robbery is
coupled with crimes against persons, the crime is not only an assault of the
property but also of the victims themselves. Treachery is not a qualifying
circumstance because the SC of Spain said that the word homicide is used
in its broadest and most generic sense.

Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide. Neither is it a

crime specially punishable by law nor is it included by the law in defining the
crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty. It is neither
inherent in the said crime. Hence, it should be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance for the imposition of the proper penalty. In
applying this, the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a
crime against persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery which is a
crime against property. The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its
classification as a crime against property or as a special complex and single
and indivisible crime simply because treachery is applied. Treachery only
increased the penalty in accordance with Art. 63.
SCs Ruling on the Penalty
Despite the foregoing, treachery cannot be appreciated in this case
because it was not alleged in the Information, as mandated by Sec. 8, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Hence, reclusion perpetua
only.
People v Villonez**
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NICOLAS GUZMAN
G.R. No. 169246 January 26, 2007

FACTS: After attending a worship service at the Iglesia ni Kristo church

in his barangay, Michael proceeded home. While Michael was casually
walking along the corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, appellant
and his two companions, who were drinking nearby, suddenly approached
and surrounded Michael. Appellant positioned himself at the back of Michael
while his two companions stood in front of Michael. In an instant, they
grabbed the shoulders of Michael and overpowered the latter. One of the
appellant's companions, whom the prosecution witnesses described as a
male with long hair, drew out a knife and repeatedly stabbed Michael on the
stomach. Unsatisfied, the appellant's other companion, whom the
prosecution witnesses described as a male with flat top hair, took the knife
and stabbed Michael on the stomach. As the finale, appellant went in front of
Michael, took the knife and also stabbed Michael on the stomach. When
Michael fell on the ground, appellant kicked him at the body. Upon noticing
that the bloodied Michael was no longer moving, appellant and his two
companions fled the scene. The appellant was convicted by the trial court
with the crime of murder. On appeal, appellant contends that even if he were
held liable for the death of Michael, there was no treachery which will qualify
the killing as murder. According to him, there is no evidence to show that
appellant and his two companions had deliberately and consciously adopted
their mode of attack to ensure its execution without risk to themselves. The
stabbing incident occurred in a place that was properly lighted. There were
many people in the area then walking in different directions. He claims that
if he and his two companions wanted to ensure that no risk would come to
them, then they could have chosen another time and place to attack
Michael.
ISSUE: Can treachery be properly appreciated in the instant case?
HELD: Yes. Treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack under the
circumstances that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend
himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. It is an
aggravating circumstance that qualifies the killing of a person to murder.
Article 14, paragraph (16) of the Revised Penal Code states the concept and
essential elements of treachery as an aggravating circumstance. There is
treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make.

As can be gleaned from the foregoing, two essential

elements/conditions are required in order that treachery may be
appreciated: (1) The employment of means, methods or manner of
execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any retaliatory act on
the part of the offended party, who has, thus no opportunity for self-defense
or retaliation; (2) deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or
manner of execution. Further, it must always be alleged in the information
and proved in trial in order that it may be validly considered.
In the instant case, treachery was alleged in the Information against
appellant. Moreover, all the essential elements/conditions of treachery were
established and proven during the trial. The suddenness and unexpectedness
of the attack of appellant and his two companions rendered Michael
defenseless, vulnerable and without means of escape. It appears that
Michael was unarmed and alone at the time of the attack. Further, he was
merely seventeen years of age then. In such a helpless situation, it was
absolutely impossible for Michael to escape or to defend himself against the
assault of appellant and his two companions. Being young and weak, Michael
is certainly no match against adult persons like appellant and his two
companions. Michael was also outnumbered since he had three assailants
and was unarmed when he was stabbed to death. Appellant and his two
companions took advantage of their size, number, and weapon in killing
Michael. They also deliberately adopted means and methods in exacting the
cruel death of Michael by first surrounding him, then grabbing his shoulders
and overpowering him. Afterwards, each of them repeatedly stabbed Michael
with a knife at the stomach until the latter fell lifeless to the ground. The
stab wounds sustained by Michael proved to be fatal as they severely
damaged the latter's large intestine.
The fact that the place where the incident occurred was lighted and
many people were walking then in different directions does not negate
treachery. It should be made clear that the essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the
slightest provocation on his part. This is even more true if the assailant is an
adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their tender
years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus, when an adult person
illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.
People v. Torrefiel
No. 659-R
Date of Promulgation: November 29, 1947Ponente: Labrador, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines Defendant-Appellant: Oscar
Torrefiel and Leon Ormeo

Facts:The ff facts are undisputed: December 17, 1942, 5:00 p.m.

Torrefiel and Ormeo were on their way to the USSAFE headquarters in
the mountains. They passed by Eadys residence and talked to him, who was
at the balcony to ask for khaki clothes. Eady replied that he had none except
what he had on. Ceferina Cordero came to the balcony and inquired about
their mission. She then scolded Torrefiel and Ormeo because all their
belongings have been looted by USSAFE soldiers. Torrefiel threatened her
with slapping and brought out his revolver. Eady interfered and both He and
Cordero were charged by the 2 soldiers with being fifth columnists as they
refused to give aid to them. Subsequently, they were taken to the USSAFE
headquarters.
Torrefiel took charge of Eady and Ormeo took charge of Cordero. Their
hands were free but were blindfolded. Cordero called to Eady every now and
then to know if he was following. After a while Eadydid not respond anymore
so they stopped to wait for them. Torrefiel had taken the wrong way so he
went back to a guardhouse and left Eady there. He tried to find a way to
overtake Ormeo and Corderobut was unsuccessful. At the guardhouse, he
discovers Eady had escaped. Torrefiel followed a different route enabling him
to find Ormeo and Cordero. Ormeo rushed back to the guardhouse upon
discovering that Eady had escaped; Cordero was left with Torrefiel.
Thereafter, the soldiers desisted from bringing Cordero to their
headquarters and returned her to their house. A servant informed Cordero
that Eady had gone away. Upon Eadys return, Cordero informed him that
she was abused by Torrefiel.
Ceferina Corderos testimony:
As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed her and carried her
to a log and laid her on it and raped her. Torrefiel began to unbutton his
pants and wound cogon leaves around his genitals. It was visible to Cordero
as her blindfold had fallen down a little. Pressing her neck so she would
remain silent, Torrefiel proceeded to have intercourse with her. Ormeo, upon
returning, took advantage of Corderos not being able to stand up
immediately, also had sex with her.
Both appellants are found guilty by the CFI of rape with the
aggravating circumstance that the crime was perpetuated at night. Assailing
Corderos testimony, Torrefiel contends that it is inconsistent, contradictory
and highly improbable and incredible.
Issues/Held:
WON Ceferinas testimony, as a complaining witness, is credible?
Ratio:
The court sees no incongruity between the affidavit and testimony of
complainants. The testimony sufficiently proves Torrefiels guilt.
Cordero recognized Torrefiel by his voice even though she was
blindfolded.

They talked when they were in the house before Cordero and Eady
were taken away by the appellants.
Her blindfold had fallen down a little
Corderos use of pants and subsequently, overall in describing what
the offending party was wearing merit no inconsistency
Both for men and women, an overall is a pair of pants w/ the
addition of a breast covering and shoulder straps
She heard the noise produced as Torrefiel put down his pants
Exertion of force or violence is implied in the term rape.Pushing down
the victim proves force. Although for Ormeo, use of force may still be
doubted. Cordero was not hostile towards him after crime.
As to the aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the
crime:
Night time NO. Not considered. The meeting of the appellant w/ the
victim was entirely unexpected and started early in the afternoon.Having
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its
commissions YES. The desire to rape was formed suddenly when the
opportunity presented itself. Also, the manner by which the offending party
wound his genital organ w/ cogon grass thereby augmenting the wrong done
by increasing its pain and by adding ignominy thereto.
Decision:
Judgment modified.
Notes:Art 14. Aggravating circumstances. The following are
aggravating circumstances:
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its
commissions.
People v. Jose
G.R. No. L-28232
Date of Promulgation: February 6, 1971Ponente: Per CuriamPetition:
Appeal from and automatic review of a decision of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal Petitioners: People of the PhilippinesRespondents: Jaime Jose Y
Gomez et. al
Facts:The four accused grabbed the victim, Magdalena de Riva, from
her car while she was driving after she had been forced to stop to avoid
colliding with their car. They drove her to a hotel; on the way they jeered at
her and used abusive and impolite language and threats, and molested her
despite her pleas.

At the hotel, they made her disrobe and forced her to turn around
twice or thrice and exhibit herself for around 10 minutes. They then had
carnal knowledge with her in turns, and in her struggles they hit her on
different parts of the body. When she went into shock, they poured water on
her face and slapped her several times, saying that they had to revive her so
that she would know what was happening. All the while when each man was
struggling with her, the other three were just outside the room, threatening
the complainant and telling her to give in.
They later released her after making her clean herself up, and
threatened her so that she would not report it. She later reported the
matter. The TC found them guilty of forcible abduction with rape. One of the
appellants made a contention about requiring his presence at trial due to the
crime charged being a capital offense and the citation of aggravating
circumstances.
Issues/Held:WON ignominy was present in the instant case YES
Ratio:
Since the penalty for forcible rape with abduction is already death, its
unnecessary to examine the aggravating circumstances, but the Court still
discussed them for the sake of perspective and determination of proper
penalty in the other threes crimes of simple rape. Among them was
ignominy.
Ignominy was appreciated since they forced the complainant to exhibit
her complete nakedness to them for about ten minutes before raping her. It
brought about a circumstance which tended to make the crimes effects even
more humiliating.
Decision:
Judgment modified. Appellants Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., and
Edgardo P. Aquino are pronounced guilty of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with tape, and each and every one of them is likewise convicted of
three (3) other crimes of rape.
People v. Butler
G.R. No. L-50257
Date of Promulgation: Jan 27, 1983Ponente: GuerreroPetition:
Automatic Review of the judgment of CFI of Zambales Plaintiff-appellee:
People of the Philippines Accused-appellant: Michael Butler

Facts:On August 7, 1975, at about 10:30 pm, accused-appellant

Michael Butler and the victim, Enriquita Alipo alias Gina Barrios were
together at Colonial Restaurant in Olongapo City. They were seen together
by Lilia Paz, and entertainer and friend of the victim, who claimed to have
had a small conversation with the accused, and by one Rosemarie Juarez,
also a friend of the victim. At about 1:00 of the same evening, the accused
and the victim left the said restaurant, after the latter invited Rosemarie
Juarez to come to her house that night.
Emelita Pasco, the housemaid of the victim, testified that, at about
11:30 p.m. or so of August 7, 1975, her mistress (Gina Barrios) came home
with the accused-appellant. As soon as she opened the door for them, the
victim and accused-appellant immediately entered the victim's bedroom.
Shortly thereafter, the victim left her bedroom holding an Id card and a piece
of paper, and on the piece of paper, the victim purportedly wrote the
following words: MICHAEL J. BUTLER, 44252-8519 USS HANCOCK. Said
words were copied from the ID Card.
Pasco testified that the victim said she was copying the name of the
accused because she knew he would not be going back to her. Then she
rushed back to her bedroom after instructing Pasco to wake her up the
following morning. Before retiring, however, the victim's friend, Rosemarie
Juarez, came to the former's house and after having a small conversation,
also left.
The following day, at about 4:00 a.m., Pasco rose to wake her mistress
as instructed. She knocked at the door. She found that the victim was lying
on her bed, facing downward, naked up to the waist, with legs spread apart,
with a broken figurine beside her head. Immediately, Pasco called the
landlord and they called the authorities.
The authorities proceeded to investigate and question the accused
Butler. Upon interrogation, he admitted being with the victim the night
before, and having intercourse with her. According to him, he did not really
know the girl. He just met her that afternoon in the tailor shop. After they
talked, they went to her house and the girl asked for money. He gave him 27
pesos and then he went to sleep. Early in the morning, when he woke up,
they again had intercourse. After that, he decided to go back to the base.
However, when he was dressing, he found that his watch was gone as well
as a P5 note. He asked the girl, and she replied that the watch was in the
other girl (in the next room). They then fought and wrestled, and Butler
used a figurine to hit the head of the girl. He then went to the other room,
got the watch, and left.
Butler was charged with the crime of murder qualified by the
aggravating circumstances of treachery, and scoffing at the corpse of the
decease.

According to the lower court, there was an aggravating circumstance

of treachery because according to Dr Roxas, who examined the body of the
victim, anal intercourse was had after her death as indicated by the partly
opened anus and the presence of spermatozoa in it. He testified that the
anus would have automatically and completely closed had the intercourse
occurred while the victim was still alive.
Issues/Held:
WON there is a mitigating circumstance of ignominy (scoffing at the
corpse) YES
WON the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of
the witnesses NO
WON the trial court erred in admitting the evidence the alleged
extrajudicial admission of the accused and admitting it against him NO
WON the trial court erred in denying the accused the benefits of Sec
192 of PD 603 before its amendment by PD 1179 NO
WON the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of
murder qualified by superior strength YES
WON treachery was present NO
Ratio:
There is an aggravating circumstance of ignominy since it was
established that Butler mocked or outraged at the person or corpse of his
victim by having an anal intercourse with her after she was already dead.
The fact that the muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of
spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by Dr. Angeles Roxas, the
medico-legal officer, and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report,
clearly established the coitus after death. This act of the accused in having
anal intercourse with the woman after killing her is, undoubtedly, an outrage
at her corpse. It is true as maintained by the defense that the aggravating
circumstance of outraging at the corpse of the victim is not alleged in the
information and that the lower court found it had been proved but its
contention that the said aggravating circumstance should not have been
appreciated against the accused is without merit. And this is so because the
rule is that a generic aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information
may be proven during the trial over the objection of the defense and may be
appreciated in imposing the penalty.
The Court ruled that the lower court did not err in giving credence to
the testimony of the 3 prosecution witnesses. They positively saw Butler and
the victim together on the day before the crime.
The extrajudicial admission was obtained from the accused through
legal means. The protocol and procedure were properly observed by the
investigators. Butler was informed of his constitutional rights.

The accused was 17 years old at the time of the crime. However, he
declared that he was 18 years of age as evidenced by the certification issued
by Vice Consul Anolin of the Consul General of the Philippines in New York.
The accused did not make anyserious effort to invoke PD 603 and further,
since the accused was found guilty of a capital offense, the suspension of
sentence and commitment of the accused to custody of any institution
recommended by Dept of Social Welfare cannot be carried out.
There was an abuse of superior strength attending the commission of
the crime. It is not only the notorious advantage of height that the accused
had over his hapless victim, he being 6 feet tall and weighing 155 lbs. while
the girl was only 4 ft 11 inches tall, but also fits strength which he wielded in
striking her with the figurine on the head and in shoving her head and
pressing her mouth and nose against the bed mattress, which pressure must
have been very strong and powerful to suffocate her to death and without
risk to himself in any manner or mode whatsoever that she may have taken
to defend herself or retaliate since she was already struck and helpless on
the bed, that convinced us to find and rule that the crime committed is
murder with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
The evidence on record is not sufficient to show clearly and prove
distinctly that treachery attended the commission of the crime since there
was no eyewitness account of the killing. The extra-judicial confession of the
accused merely stated, thus: "I thought she was going to do something
dangerous to me so I grabbed her, and we started wrestling on the bed. She
grabbed me by the throat and I picked up a statue of Jesus Christ that was
sitting on the bedside stand and I hit her in the head. She fell flat on her
face." Although the figurine was found broken beside her head, the medical
report, however, do not show any injury or fracture of the skull and no
sign of intracranial hemorrhage.
Decision:
Petition dismissed. Butler is discharged in light of the favorable
recommendation of the Supervising Social Worker of the Ministry of Social
Services that Butler has behaved and comported himself in the best manner
during the span of his rehabilitation.
PEOPLE V SAYLAN
Memory aid: doggy-style rape
At 7 PM, accused accosted the victim Eutropia, a teacher, (while she
was with her kids) and forced her to have sex with him by poking her with
an 8-inch... dagger. (dirty mind!) He brought her to a creek and told her to
undress. Her kids were left in a junction which was 400 meters from the
nearest house.

He had intercourse with her five times. 1st, missionary position. 2nd,
standing up. 3rd, missionary. 4th, doggy-style (he bent her body
downwards with her hands and knees resting on the ground When the latter
was already in this position, appellant then placed himself behind her,
inserted his penis into her vagina and executed a push and pull movement in
the dog's way of sexual intercourse.) 5th, missionary.
Issue: Is rape via doggy-style an aggravating circumstance
(ignominy)?
SC: Yes.The Court held that there was ignominy because the appellant
used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior female inferior, but
also "The same position as dogs do" i.e., entry from behind. The appellant
claims there was no ignominy because "The studies of many experts in the
matter have shown that this 'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and
often been resorted to by couples in the act of copulation. This may well be
if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but not otherwise.
Other aggravating circumstances at issue:Uninhabited place yes. The
accused dragged the offended party, at the point of a dagger, to the carabao
trail, about 10 meters from the junction, but 40 to 50 meters below to better
attain his purpose without interference, and to better secure himself from
detection and punishment. Even the junction where the two children were
left is already 400 meters from the nearest house. While there maybe
occasional passersby, this does not destroy its being an uninhabited place.
Superior strength No. Already absorbed in rape. Nocturnity No. no
evidence that it was sought to facilitate the crime.Rank No. No deliberate
intent to offend the rank.
People v. Sultan
Facts: At around nine in the evening, Juditha was on her way home. In
passing a dark alley, however, she was accosted by an assailant (by the
name of Sultan) who announced that it was a hold up and forced her to
come home with him. Her valuables were taken from her and she was
ordered to undress. After which, Sultan ordered her to lie down and
commenced violating her sexually by means of holding her hands above her
head and inserting his penis into her vagina. After the initial coital encounter,
he took a short break and proceeded once again with threat and intimidation
to sexually abuse her. He said that he loved her afterwards and offered to
elope. In her effort to free herself from him, she agreed. The next day she
told her sister who consequently informed their brother who was a
policeman. He suggested that Juditha pretend to elope so that he could
arrest the assailant with the help of his two companions later on. They were
able to do this while Juditha and the accused were inside a bus during heavy
traffic. He was tried and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery
with rape. He appeals to the SC.

Issue: Whether or not the testimony of the victim can be considered

credible on the basis of the alleged robbery and rape.
Held: Yes. Regarding the robbery: while there may have been no effort
on the part of the victim to retrieve her personal belongings after the threat
had passed, her failure to do so does not necessarily dispute the commission
of the robbery.
Article 293 of the RPC provides that: Any person who, with intent to
gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, or using force upon anything,
shall be guilty of robbery.
All the necessary elements for the execution and accomplishment of
the crime were present: (1) personal property belonging to another; (2)
unlawful taking; (3) intent to gain; and (4) violence or intimidation.
Regarding the rape- the accused alleges that the requisite
force/intimidation was not proved and there was some form of consent
because the victim did not put up enough resistance. The court answered
that though force may not have been employed by the assailant, intimidation
was vividly present in the fear that it produced within the victim. With fear
instilled in Judithas mind, failure to put up resistance does not mean
consent so as to make her a willing participant in the sexual confrontation
that transpired.
Article 294, par. 1 of the RPC condemns a person to reclusion perpetua
to death when robbery shall have been committed with rape. In the present
case, the victim was raped TWICE but since additional rapes committed do
not count as aggravating circumstances1 (People v. Regala), the court must
construe the penal law to be in favor of the offender. Unless a law is passed
providing that additional rape/s or homicide/s may be considered
aggravating, this will always be the case because:
Article 63, par. 2 of the same Code explicitly states that when the law
prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, when there are
neither mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the
deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.