REVISED PENAL CODE

ARTICLE XIV CASE BRIEFS

Topic: Inundation, Fire, Poison, Explosion
PEOPLE VS. MALNGAN In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is required to ascertain the objective of the malefactor. Objective Burning of Edifice; death results Kill a particular person by means of fire Kill a person; fire to cover up killing Crime Arson (homicide is absorbed) Murder (Arson is absorbed) Homicide/Murder and Arson

PONENTE: Justice Chico-Nazario, 2006 FACTS: Accused Malngan was the housemaid of the Separa Family. One early morning, the tanods saw Malngan, with her head turning in different directions, hurriedly leaving the house of the Separas. She boarded the pedicab and ordered that she be brought to Balasan Street. Thirty minutes later, a fire gutted the Separa Residence. The fire resulted in the destruction of the Separa Residence and the other adjoining houses and the death of the Separa Family (six persons, four children). Upon the report of the pedicab driver who transported Malngan from the Separa residence, she was apprehended and brought to the Barangay Hall for investigation. Upon inspection, a disposable lighter was found in her bag. Thereafter, she confessed to the Barangay Captain that she burned her employers house because she had not been paid per salary for about a year and that she wanted to go home to her province but her employer told her to just ride a broomstick in going home. When asked how she burned the house, she said Naglukot ako ng maraming diyaryo, sinindihan ko ng disposable lighter at hinagis sa ibabaw ng lamesa sa loob ng bahay. RTC convicted Malngan of the crime of Arson with Multiple Homicide and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of death; hence, this automatic review by the court. RULING: In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated whether arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is required to ascertain the objective of the malefactor. Objective Burning of Edifice; death results Kill a particular person by means of fire Kill a person; fire to cover up killing Crime Arson (homicide is absorbed) Murder (Arson is absorbed) Homicide/Murder and Arson

In this case, Malngan intended to set the Separa residence on fire causing the death of the Separa family. Thus, she should be convicted of the crime of Arson with Homicide absorbed. The two categories of the crime of arson (1) Destructive arson and (2) Simple arson; the law defined Destructive arson as the malicious burning of structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military, government or commercial establishments by any person or group of person; While Simple arson as the maliciou s burning of the houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, mill s, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other industrial establishments. In this case, Malngan burned the two-storey residential house which resulted to the destruction of seven adjoining houses. Thus, she may be convicted of the crime of simple arson. PEOPLE VS. COMADRE PONENTE: PER CURIAM, 2004 FACTS: (1995) Deceased Robert Abanlog and company were having a drinking session at the house of the formers father when they noticed that petitioners A. & G. Comadre, and Lozano stopped in front of the house. A. Comadre suddenly lobbed a grenade which fell on the terrace, and exploded, killing Robert Abanlog while wounding the others. Meanwhile, the petitioners escaped by scaling the fence of a nearby school. RTC convicted A. & G. Comadre, and Lozano of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder. They were sentenced to suffer Death Penalty, and to indemnify the heirs of the decease, as well as those who were injured in the incident; hence the automatic review from this case. RULING:

REVISED PENAL CODE

ARTICLE XIV CASE BRIEFS
Topic: Treachery
PEOPLE VS. ESCOTE, JR. and ACUYAN

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 himself. There is treachery when these essential elements are present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim is killed by treachery; the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is crime against persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery. An aggravating circumstance which was not alleged in the information cannot be appreciated. PONENTE: Justice Callejo, Sr., 2003 FACTS: Accused Escote, Jr. and Acuyan as well as deceased SPO1 Manio, Jr were passengers of Five Star Bus bound to Pangasinan. While the bus was travelling, Escote and Acuyan suddenly stood up, whipped out their guns and announced a holdup. Escote fired his gun upward to awaken and scare off the passengers. Acuyan did the same. Then, they both accosted the passengers and divested them of their money and valuables. Then, they went to Manio and demand the latter to show his identification card and wallet. Then, they took his identification card and service gun and told him: Pasensya ka na pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin ang papatay sayo. Manio pleaded for mercy: Pare maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya ako. However, the felons ignored Manios plea and shot the latter who sustained six entrance wounds which caused his death. Then they moved towards the driver and ordered the latter to maintain the speed of the bus. The driver heard the felons conversation, one of them said Ganyan lang pumatay ng tao. Parang pumapatay ng manok. The other said: Ayos na naman tayo pare. Malaki-laki ito. The felons ordered the driver to stop the bus and they alighted. The robbery was over in 25 minutes. A month after, Escote was accosted by a policeman in Tarlac when he was caught using Manios identification card. He was brought to the police station where he finally confessed that he was not a policeman and he was caught with a firearm and five live ammunitions. In the course of the investigation, Escote admitted to the police that they staged the robbery on the Five Star Bus and are responsible for death of Manio. RTC convicted Escote and Acuyan of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced them to suffer Death Penalty; hence, this case is brought for automatic review. ISSUES:

W/N RTC erred in convicting Escote and Acuyan guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. RULING: The court affirmed the decision of RTC with modifications. Escote and Acuyan are found guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide; there being no modifying circumstances, they are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 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 himself. There is treachery when these essential elements are present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. In this case, the felons were armed with handguns. They first disarmed Manio and then shot him as he pleaded for his life. When the victim was shot, he was defenseless. He was shot at close range and suffered six wounds, thus insuring his death. Therefore, treachery may be appreciated in this case. Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim is killed by treachery; the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is crime against persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery. An aggravating circumstance which was not alleged in the information cannot be appreciated. Treachery cannot be appreciated in this case because the same was not alleged in the information as mandate by the law. PEOPLE VS. GONZALES, JR. Suddenness of the attack, the infliction of the wound from behind the victim, the vulnerable position of the victim at the time the attack was made or the fact that the victim was unarmed do not themselves render the attack treacherous. The determining factor on whether or not the commission of a crime is attended by treachery is not the resulting crime committed but the mode of attack employed in its execution. A single and continuous attack cannot be divided into stages to make it appear that treachery was involved. PONENTE: Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, 2001 FACTS: The families of complainant Andres and that of accused Gonzales were on their way to the exit of Loyola Memorial Park. While driving towards the exit the two vehicles almost collided if not for the timely break of Andres. Gonzales continued on driving along his way while Andres drove behind him and when he found the opportunity he cut off the formers path. Then, Andres got out of his vehicle and knocked on appellants car window and repeatedly cursed the appellant. Gonzales son Dio who was driving another car drove back and when he arrived at the scene he confronted Andres and the two had an altercation. Fearing that his son is in danger, Gonzales got his gun and got out of the car ready to shoot. Suddenly, his daughter approached and hugged him and in the process held his hand holding the gun.

Gonzales tried to free his hands; unfortunately, he lost his balance and the gun was accidentally fired. Andres wife was shot to death while his son and nephew were fatally wounded.

Kenneth and Kevin were treated for extraction of metallic fragments on their faces. They were discharged from the hospital six days later or on November 6, 1998. RTC convicted Gonzales, Jr. for the complex crime of Murder with Double Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder and sentenced him to suffer Death Penalty. RTC took judicial notice of the features of a automatic pistol in establishing treachery in this case. It held that a gun will not fire even if the bullet is loaded in its chamber if the hammer is uncocked; or even if cocked if the safety pin is engaged; or even if the safety pin is disengaged if the trigger will not be pressed. However, even if the gun is fired if it is not aimed and leveled to the target, the purpose of firing it shall not be achieved. Contrarily, once a gun is drawn against a person, the means methods and forms employed for its execution is already conceived. In this case, when Gonzales alighted with a drawn gun to protect his son and released all the safety measures of his gun as he fired and missed at Noel who was then unarmed, but instead hit Kevin Valdez, John Kenneth Andres and Feliber Andres which resulted to the death of the latter, demonstrate that the accused has executed the two (2) conditions to generate treachery enough to qualify the crime committed to murder. In his appeal, Gonzales submits that RTC erred when it found that treachery was present and when it presumed that there was treachery by taking judicial notice of the feature of the automatic pistol involved in this case. ISSUES: W/N RTC erred in appreciating Treachery in this case. RULING: The court modified RTCs decision from the complex crime of Murder with Double Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder to Homicide and Slight Physical Injuries. Suddenness of the attack, the infliction of the wound from behind the victim, the vulnerable position of the victim at the time the attack was made or the fact that the victim was unarmed do not themselves render the attack treacherous. This is of particular significance in a case of instantaneous attack made by Gonzales whereby he gained an advantageous position over the victim when the latter accidentally fell and was rendered defenseless. The means employed for the commission of the crime or the mode of attack must be shown to have consciously or deliberately adopted by the accused to insure the consummation of the crime and at the same time eliminate or reduce the risk of retaliation from the intended victim. The determining factor on whether or not the commission of a crime is attended by treachery is not the resulting crime committed but the mode of attack employed in its execution. Whether the attack succeeds against its intended victim or injures another or whether the crime is graver than intended is Immaterial, as long as it is shown that the attack is attended by treachery, the said qualifying circumstance may still be considered by the court. In Determining Treachery:

Not Resulting Crime But Mode of Attack

A single and continuous attack cannot be divided into stages to make it appear that treachery was involved. Contrary to RTCs contention, Gonzales testified that he loaded his gun before he left the house and it was ready to fire when he alighted his car. Thus, there was no time for him to reflect on the mode of attack since he just picked up his gun and alighted and shot at the FX a few seconds after Dino and Andres started shouting at each other. PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO For treachery to be appreciable such means, method or form should have been deliberately acted upon or consciously adopted by the offender. Such deliberate or conscious choice is held non-existent where the attack was the product of an impulse of the moment. Treachery could not be appreciated where the victim was forewarned and could have anticipated the aggression of the accused. Treachery requires that the mode of attack must have been thought by the offender and must have sprung from an unforeseen occurrence. PONENTE: Justice Ynares-Santiago, 2000 FACTS: Deceased Tuadles was a former professional basketball player while Accused Antonio is a former Chairman of the Games and Amusement Board. They were both members of the International Business Club (IBC) and often meets with other members to play cards in the gameroom of the club. One night, Tuadles and Antonio were playing pusoy dos at the club. They stopped playing at around 9:00 in the morning to eat breakfast. When it was time to collect the winnings from the loser, an argument arose. It is at this point where the prosecution and defense presented different scenarios. Prosecution claim that Antonio shot Tuadles without warning and at very close range. The defense, on the other hand, claims that after the heated altercation; a gun wrestle occurred between Antonio and Tuadles; thus, claiming that the firing of the gun which caused the latters death was an accident. Tuadles was hit on the forehead, right between the eyes, which caused his death. RTC found Antonio guilty of the crime murder qualified by treachery; hence, this appeal where Antonio contends that the trial court erred in holding that treachery was attendant in the commission of the offense charged. ISSUES: W/N RTC erred in finding that the killing of Tuadles was attended by Treachery. RULING: The court modified the RTCs decision by changing the conviction of Antonio for killing Tuadles from Murder to Homicide in view of the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

There was no treachery in this case For treachery to be appreciable such means, method or form should have been deliberately acted upon or consciously adopted by the offender. Such deliberate or conscious choice is held non-existent where the attack was the product of an impulse of the moment. Treachery could not be appreciated where the victim was forewarned and could have anticipated the aggression of the accused. Since the sudden shooting of Tuadles was preceded by a heated verbal altercation between him and Antonio then it cannot be concluded that shooting was committed with treachery. Treachery requires that the mode of attack must have been thought by the offender and must have sprung from an unforeseen occurrence. It is clear that Antonio did not set out or plan to kill Tuadles in the first place. His criminal act was an offshoot of their argument which neither of them had foreseen. Hence, there was no treachery because it requires that the mode of attach must have been thought of by the offender and must have sprung from an unforeseen occurrence. PEOPLE VS. TEEHANKEE, JR. It is settled rule that mere suddenness of attack on the victim would not, by itself, constitute treachery. PONENTE: Justice Puno, 1995 FACTS: Leino and Chapman took Hultman in her home in Campanilla Street, Dasmarias Village, Makati. Hultman asked Leino to stop along Mahogany Street, a block away from their house; because she did not want her parents to know that she went home late. Leino offered to walk with her while Chapman stayed in the car. While walking in the street, a Mitsubishi Lancer came up from behind them and stopped in the middle of the road. Accused Teehankee alighted from the car, approached them and asked Who are you? Show me your I.D. Chapman saw the incident. Suddenly, he came from behind of Leino and inquired what was going on. He asked accused: Why are you bothering us? Teehankee pushed Chapman pulled out a gun and fired at him. The latter crumpled on the sidewalk while being assisted by Leino. Hultman became hysterical and started screaming for help. She repeatedly shouted: Oh my God, hes got a gun. Hes gonna kill us. Will somebody help us? Accused pointed his gun to and from Leino and Hultman, warning the latter to shut up. Then, he ordered Leino to sit down in the sidewalk in which the latter obeyed. Hultman continued to be hysterical and circled around Teehankees car, trying to put some distance between them. The case lasted for a minute or two. Eventually, Teehankee caught Hultman and told her to shut up and sit down beside Leino. While two meters away in front of Leino and Hultman, accused for a moment turned his back from the two. He faced them again and shot Leino. The latter was hit on the upper jaw. Afterwards, he also shot Hultman. Both Leino and Hultman fell on the ground. Teehankee returned to his car and drove away. Chapman and Hultman died in the incident while Leino survived after a timely medical intervention.

RTC found Teehankee guilty of the crimes of Murder, qualified by treachery, for killing Chapman and Hultman and; Frustrated Murder, qualified by treachery, for shooting Leino. Petitioner claims that treachery was not present in the killing of Hultman and Chapman and shooting of Leino for it was not shown that the gunman consciously and deliberately adopted particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the crime. Petitioner asserts that mere suddenness of attack does not prove treachery. ISSUES: W/N RTC erred in finding that the killing of Chapman and Hultman and shooting of Leino was attended by Treachery. RULING: The court affirmed RTCs decision with modification. It modified the conviction of Teehankee for killing Chapman from Murder to Homicide in view of the absence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Evident premeditation correctly ruled out The shooting incident was merely a casual encounter or a chance of meeting on the street since the victims were unknown to petitioner and vice versa. Treachery not attendant in the killing of Chapman Concededly, Chapman was defenceless when he was shot by Teehankee. However, it was not proven that Teehankee consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack to insure the crimes accomplishment without risk to himself. It appears that he acted on the spur of the moment. Their meeting was by chance. They were strangers to each other. The time between the initial encounter and the shooting was short and unbroken. Thus, it was the result of a rash and impetuous impulse on the part of Teehankee rather than a deliberate act of will. It is settled rule that mere suddenness of attack on the victim would not, by itself, constitute treachery. Treachery attendant in the killing of Hultman and shooting of Leino While Leino and Hultman were seated, unarmed, and begged for mercy, the two were gunned down by Teehankee. Clearly, it shows that the latter placed his victims in a completely defenseless position before shooting them. There was an appreciable lapse of time between the killing of Chapman and the shooting of Leino and Hultman a period which Teehankee used to prepare for a mode of attack which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself. Thus, treachery was correctly appreciated.

REVISED PENAL CODE

ARTICLE XIV CASE BRIEFS
Topic: Means of a Motor Vehicle
PEOPLE VS. MALLARI Evidence shows that Mallari deliberately used his truck in pursuing Galang. Upon catching him, he hit him with the truck, as a result of which the latter died instantly. It is therefore clear that the truck was the means by Mallari to perpetrate the killing of Galang. PONENTE: Chief Justice Davide, Jr. 2003 FACTS: Deceased Galang admonished Mallari not to drive at high speed in front of his house. Mallari was in a fighting mood; thus, he challenged Galang to a fight but the latter just ignored it. To put an end to the argument Galang and his brothers apologized to Mallari. Apparently, Mallari was not appeased by the apology and continued to harbor ill-feelings against Galang. The former got a chance to vent his anger to the latter. While Galang was watching a basketball game, Mallari and his brothers, carrying bladed weapons, attempted to stab Galang but before they could do it the latter was able to run away. They chased Galang but they were unable to catch up with him. Instead of giving up on his evil design, Mallari went back to the basketball court, boarded his truck and resumed the pursuit of Galang. Upon catching the latter, he hit him with the truck which caused the latters death. RTC convicted Mallari with the crime of murder with means of a motor vehicle as a qualifying circumstance and sentenced to suffer death penalty; hence an automatic review by the Supreme Court. Mallari contends that the motor vehicle was merely incidental to the commission of the crime; thus, the crime should be downgraded from murder to homicide. ISSUES: W/N RTC erred in appreciating by means of a motor vehicle as a qualifying circumstance in this case. RULING: The court affirmed the decision of RTC with modification. It appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. As such, it reduced the penalty of Mallari from death sentence to reclusion perpetua. RTC correctly appreciated by means of a motor vehicle as a qualifying circumstance in this case. Evidence shows that Mallari deliberately used his truck in pursuing Galang. Upon catching him, he hit him with the truck, as a result of which the latter died instantly. It is therefore clear that the truck was the means by Mallari to perpetrate the killing of Galang.

Muoz Case does not apply. In this case, the motor vehicle was merely used in looking for the victim and in carrying the body to the place where it was dumped. The accused therein shot the victim, which caused the latters death. In this case, the truck itself was used to kill the victim by running over him. PEOPLE VS. ENGUITO The use of a motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder if the same was perpetrated by that means. PONENTE: Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, 2000 FACTS: Deceased Achumbre and Accused Enguito were co-employees and close friends. One morning while driving to Enguitos home from a drinking session, Achumbre suddenly stepped on the brakes and attempted to take over the vehicle driven by Enguito. The car stopped and the latter jumped out and ran towards his house with Achumbre pursuing him. The latter was able to catch up, mauled Enguito while saying, You are a Braggart. Achumbres blows made Enguito dizzy and when his mind was cleared, he noticed that Achumbre was gone but he left the car. Enguito allegedly drove the car in order to report the incident to the police authorities. While driving, he saw Achumbre as passenger in a motorela. He followed the motorela and bumped the latter allegedly with the intention of compelling Achumbre to surrender to the police; because of the bumping, the driver lost control of the motorela causing it to fall on its right side; thus causing injuries to the spouses Requerme. Meanwhile, Achumbre was able to jump out of the motorela and began to run towards the bridge. Enguito continued to pursue him and was able to hit Achumbre at the railing of the Marcos Bridge cutting his right leg. Thereafter, he ran over him thereby causing Achumbres death. Even though he saw a police mobile patrol car at the other side of the bridge, he continued on driving until he was more than one kilometer from the incident upon seeing that the police mobile patrol car was following him. RTC convicted Enguito with the crime of homicide with less physical injuries with the aggravating circumstance of by means of a motor vehicle. On appeal, CA modified RTCs decision from homicide with less physical injuries to murder with less physical injuries on the ground that by means of a motor vehicle was attendant as qualifying circumstance in the commission of the crime; hence, this instant appeal. Enguito contend that he did not intentionally choose the motor vehicle as a means of committing the offense and that the vehicle was the only available means to stop deceased from escaping. He further argues that it was his intention to apprehend and surrender the deceased to the police for mauling him but in the process, he killed the deceased. ISSUES: W/N CA erred in appreciating by means of a motor vehicle as a qualifying circumstance in this case. RULING: The court affirmed CAs decision. The use of a motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder if the same was perpetrated by that means.

Enguitos claim that he merely used the motor vehicle to stop the victim from escaping is belied by his actuations. He admitted that there was a police mobile patrol near the crossing. He could have easily sought the assistance of the police instead of taking the law into his hands. Moreover, he already noticed Achumbre trying to jump out of the motorela but he still continued his pursuit. Then, he did not stop the vehicle after hitting the deceased who was hit when Achumbre was at the railing of Marcos Bridge. Further, he used the vehicle in his attempt to escape. He was already more than one kilometer away from the place of the incident when he stopped his vehicle upon seeing the police mobile patrol car which was following him.

REVISED PENAL CODE

ARTICLE XIV CASE BRIEFS
Topic: Cruelty
PEOPLE VS. WHISENHUNT Mere decapitation of the victims head constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim, thus qualifying the killing to murder. One of the qualifying circumstances of murder under Article 248, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code is outraging or scoffing at (the) person or corpse of the victim. PONENTE: Justice Ynares-Santiago, 2001 FACTS: Deceased Elsa and Accused Whisenhunt were lovers; both married but were estranged from their respective spouses. They met at Apex Motor Corporation where Whisenhunt was the manager while Elsa was the assistant personnel manager. The latter resigned to avoid the rumors about her illicit affair with the former. However, it appeared that the two continued their affair after Elsa resigned from the company. Demetrio was a company employee who was assigned as Whisenhunts driver. While the former was watching television in servants quarter of Whisenhunts condominium, the latter suddenly approached him. Whisenhunt asked how long he wanted to work for him. The latter answered forever and expressed his full trust in him. Upon hearing this, Whisenhunt shed tears and embraced him. Then, he confessed to Demetrio that Elsa died while sleeping Bangungot. Demetrio suggested that Elsas body be autopsied but Whisenhunt said that he already beheaded her. After that, the two went to Greenhills and bought a big bag. When they returned to the Condominium, Whisenhunt asked Demetrio to help him wrap the body in the black garbage bags. Demetrio followed and placed the dismembered parts of Elsas body from the bathroom to three separate garbage bags. Then, they packed all the garbage bags in the bag which they bought. Then, they loaded it in the trunk of Whisenhunts car and boarded the same. Then, they went south to Laguna. While driving, Whisenhunt ordered Demetrio to turn into a narrow road. Somewhere along that road, the former ordered the latter to stop. Then, they alighted from the car and disposed in the side of the road the garbage bags which contained Elsas dismembered remains. Then, they returned the empty bag in the trunk, boarded the car and drove to Bataan. While in Bataan on the way to Whisenhunts house, the latter ordered Demetrio to make different stops. During those stops, Whisenhunt disposed of Elsas belongings: two in the river and one in a grassy lot. Whisenhunt and Demetrio spent the night on the formers house; the following day they left and went back to Manila. In Manila, Demetrio asked Whisenhunt if he can get off since he wanted to go home to Fairview. Before Demetrio left, Whisenhunt told him, You and your family can go to a vacation. I will give you Money. Then, he handed Demetrio some money for his transportation going to Fairview.

When Demetrio got home, he immediately told his family what happened. Then, he and his wife went to Fiscal Diaz and reported the incident. RTC convicted Whisenhunt of the crime of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua; hence, this instant appeal. RULING: Court affirmed RTCs decision. Mere decapitation of the victims head constitutes outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim, thus qualifying the killing to murder. In People vs .Carmina the court held that even if treachery was not present in this case, the crime would still be murder because of the dismemberment of the dead body. One of the qualifying circumstances of murder under Article 248, par. 6, of the Revised Penal Code is outraging or scoffing at (the) person or corpse of the victim. Thus, trial court was correct in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder, qualified by outraging and scoffing at the victims person or corpse. This circumstance was both alleged in the information and proved during the trial.

REVISED PENAL CODE

ARTICLE XVII CASE BRIEFS
Topic: Principals
PEOPLE VS. YANSON-DUMANCAS There are two ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime, namely: (a) by giving a price, or offering, reward or promise; and (b) by using words of command; Court finds no evidence to show that Dumancas offered any price, reward or promise to the rest of accused appellants should they abduct and later kill the victims in this case. Requisites before a person may be convicted as principal by inducement; What constitutes inducement In order that a person may be convicted as principal by inducement, the following must be present: (1) the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and (2) such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor. If the evidence is susceptible to two interpretations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted. PONENTE: Justice Melo, 1999 FACTS: Petitioner Dumancas was swindled in a fake gold bar transaction losing to deceased Lumangyao and Gargar. A few months after, accused police inspector Lamis, together with the other policemen, brought out a plan to abduct Lumangyao and Gargar because they swindled the Dumancas. After which, they went to Col. Torres at PNP Headquarters where the latter ordered them to bring and hide Lumangyao and Gargar at a Motel. The following day, the police group found their target, handcuffed them and brought them to Dumancas office. Dumancas asked them the whereabouts of the money they swindled from her and the two answered that it was already spent. Then, Dumancas ordered a policeman to take care of the two. Then, the two was brought to a motel where Abeto and other policemen investigated them and asked the whereabouts of the gold bar. The two replied that it was with Tortocion. The two were transported into different motels and in one of them Dumancas reiterated her order to take care of them. The following morning Abeto and some policemen, with search warrant, searched the residence of Tortocion for the gold dust and gold bar but the search was futile. Meanwhile, it was already planned that Lumangyao and Gargar will be killed by midnight. By midnight, the group transported the two to certain place, handcuffed and blindfolded them and ordered them to sit on the side of the road. After that, Gargar was shot at the back of the head while Lumangyao at his right lower jaw with a .45 caliber pistol. The two bodies were transported and given to Pecha and Hilado who buried them in the shallow grave they dug.

RTC convicted Dumancas, Abeto and the other members of the group guilty as principals with Pecha as accessory. The former group was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the murder of Lumangyao and Gargar; hence, this instant appeal. RULING: The court acquitted Dumancas and Abeto. On Dumancas Acquittal: There are two ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime, namely: (a) by giving a price, or offering, reward or promise; and (b) by using words of command; Court finds no evidence to show that Dumancas offered any price, reward or promise to the rest of accused appellants should they abduct and later kill the victims in this case. No money ever came from Jeanette Dumancas herself. RTCs contention that the money delivered by Yanson to the group was with the knowledge and approval of Dumancas is completely baseless. Requisites before a person may be convicted as principal by inducement; What constitutes inducement In order that a person may be convicted as principal by inducement, the following must be present: (1) the inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and (2) such inducement be the determining cause of the commission by the material executor. To constitute inducement, there must exist on the part of the inducer the most positive resolution and the most persistent effort to secure the commission of the crime, together with the presentation to the person induced of the very strongest kind of temptation to commit the crime. The remark of Jeanette to take care of the two does not constitute the command required by law to justify a finding that she is guilty as principal by inducement. In this case, while the expression was imprudent and the results of it grave, Dumancas would not be guilty of the crime committed. If the evidence is susceptible to two interpretations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted. It was testified in the court that When Danilo Lumangyao made that answer that the money was not around and Jeanette Dumancas said whats the use, the money is now nowhere to be found as four months have already transpired, Dumancas told Doming: Doming, bring these two to the PC or police and I will call Atty. Geocadin so that proper cases could be filed against them? Thus, even the veracity of the allegation that Jeanette uttered the words: take care of the two is put to some reasonable doubt by the prosecution witness himself. The remark, if made at all, cannot by any stretch of the imagination, be basis for the conviction of Jeanette. On Abetos Acquittal: Abetos only participation was to serve the search warrant on Helen Tortocions residence and the subsequent interrogation of the two victims at the Hacienda Motel. He was never part of the conspiracy to abduct and liquidate the two victims. Officer Abeto, on the two occasions cannot give rise, to without proof of previous agreement, a conspiracy. Thus, being present at the scene of the crime is not by itself sufficient to establish conspiracy, as already averted to previously. So does mere companionship.

REVISED PENAL CODE

ARTICLE XVIII CASE BRIEFS
Topic: Accomplices
PEOPLE VS. GARCIA Conspiracy exists when: (1) Two or more persons come to an AGREEMENT concerning the commission of a felony; and (2) DECIDE to commit it. Proof need not rest on direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of the parties before, during and after the crimes commission showing a common understanding between them relative to its commission. Conspirator and Accomplice distinguished: Conspirator knew criminal intention decides to commit crime authors of crime Accomplice knew intention after the decision and agrees to cooperate in the execution assents to plan and cooperate instruments who perform non-essential acts to the perpetration of the crime

Doubt: Principal or Accomplice? the milder form of an Accomplice is assumed. Having a community of design with the principals does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice. Principal = community of design + act is essential to the crime. PONENTE: Per Curiam, 2002 FACTS: Atty. Tioleco was kidnapped by accused Garcia and Vallers group; was illegally detained and ransomed for 2 million pesos. However, the offenders accepted Tiolecos sister offer of seventy thousand pesos as the only money she was able to raise in two days. The first drop-off was unsuccessful. In the second drop-off, the police was able caught up and arrested Garcia after he got the money from Tiolecos sister. Garcia revealed that Atty. Tioleco is detained in a compound in Fairview. Upon learning this, the police posted near the compound went to rescue the victim. Upon entering the compound, they saw Rogel and Lariba in the living room. The two ran towards a room and tried to grab guns but were prevented by the police. Valler arrived in the compound but he became suspicious and fled. However, the police caught up and arrested him. RTC convicted Garcia, Valler, Rogel and Lariba with kidnapping for ransom and were sentenced to death. RULING: The court modified RTCs decision and declared Garcia and Valler as principals of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention while Rogel and Lariba as accomplices.

Valler and Garcia are principals by direct participation and co-conspirators in the kidnapping for ransom of Atty. Tioleco. Their acts in coordinating the abduction, collection of ransom and detention of their victim indubitably prove such conspiracy. Rogel and Lariba are mere accomplices. Court held that Rogel and Lariba were merely guarding the house for the purpose of either helping the other accused-appellants in facilitating the commission of the crime or repelling any attempt to rescue the victim. Thus, they cooperated in the execution of the offense by aiding the execution of the crime but without any indispensible act for its accomplishment; hence, they are mere accomplices. GARCIA VS. CA Principals vs. Accomplices Prior knowledge of a criminal design does not make an accused a co-conspirator Conspiracy should be proven beyond reasonable doubt; otherwise, the milder form of an Accomplice is assumed. Having a community of design with the principals does not prevent a malefactor from community of design. An accomplice performs non-essential acts to the perpetration of the crime. PONENTE: Justice Kapunan, 2000 FACTS: Deceased Leao was on the side of the street when suddenly a pedicab driven by Reneng Palayok ran over the formers foot and continued on its way. Angered, Leao ran after the pedicab and said abusive language to Reneng Palayok; thus, the two exchanged abusive languages to one another. When Leao has overtaken the pedicab, he saw Reneng Palayok drawing a gun; instinctively, he ran towards his uncle Bernardos house while Reneng Palayok turned to another street. The former reported the incident to his uncle and the latter decided to report the same to the police. Together with Corpuz they walked towards the police station. When they were in the intersection near Reneng Palayoks house, they saw Reneng Palayok, Garcia, Jr. and Lugo holding guns pointed at Bernardo; but with Garcia, Jr. and Lugo looking around as if acting as look-outs. Instinctively, Bernardo ran towards them but was shot in the neck area and fell down. Corpuz and Leao ran towards Bernardo to help him. The three offenders also walked towards Bernardo. Reneng Palayok shot Leao in the head, spared Corpuz and they fled. Leao died while Bernardo survived from the fatal wound. RTC convicted Garcia, Jr. with the crimes of Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. CA denied his appeal; hence, this instant petition. RULING: The court modified CAs decision and declared that Garcia, Jr. should only be held as an accomplice and not as a conspirator in the crimes of Frustrated Homicide and Homicide. The mere fact that an accused had prior knowledge of the criminal design of the principal perpetrator and aided the latter in consummating the crime does not automatically make him a co-conspirator. Garcia, Jr.s participation as a lookout is not essential in the consummation of the crime; he should only be held as an accomplice.

REVISED PENAL CODE

PD1612 CASE BRIEFS
Topic: Anti-Fencing Law
FRANCISCO VS. PEOPLE Elements of Fencing: (C KID) 1. Robbery/Theft committed 2. Accused dealt with an object of value derived from theft or robbery. 3. Accused knew or should have known that the object was stolen. 4. Intent to gain. PONENTE: Justice Callejo, Sr., 2004 FACTS: Pacita stole jewelries from her employer Jovita. Then, she asked her brother, Macario, to help her sell the jewelries; thus, her brother brought her to petitioner Francsicos buy-and-sell shop. The latter agreed to purchase all the jewelries for P50 000.00. A few months after, Jovita discovered that her jewelries were missing. She suspected that her helper Pacita stole it for she has access to the room where the jewelries were. Thus, she filed a complaint for theft against Pacita. During investigation, Pacita admitted that she stole the jewelries and sold them to petitioner Francisco. Meanwhile, Jovita convinced her worker Macario to testify against Francisco, assuring him that he would not be prosecuted for violation of PD1612. In view of these events, petitioner was charged with violation of PD1612 known as the Anti-Fencing Law in the RTC. Meanwhile, Pacita was found guilty for the crime of theft in the RTC. A few months after, RTC convicted Francisco of violating PD1612. CA denied his appeal; hence, this petition for review. ISSUE/S: W/N the lower courts erred in finding Francisco guilty of violating PD1612. RULING: The court granted this petition and acquitted Francisco. Elements of Fencing: 1. Robbery/Theft committed 2. Accused dealt with an object of value derived from theft or robbery. 3. Accused knew or should have known that the object was stolen. 4. Intent to gain.

Pacitas RTC conviction of theft not final and executory; First element not satisfied. Pacitas conviction does not constitute proof against petitioner. There is no showing that the decision was already final and executory when RTC rendered its decision in this case. Pacitas testimony is inadmissible in evidence while Macarios testimony is dubious thus barren of probative weight. Second element not satisfied. Pacitas testimony inadmissible in evidence Parties to a case are bound by a judgment of the trial court; strangers to a case are not bound by the judgment of said case. Francisco did not have a chance to cross-examine Pacitas testimony since the prosecution did not present her. Thus, he was deprived of his constitutional right to confront and crossexamine a witness against him. Even though Pacita pointed him as the buyer of the stolen jewelries; the truthfulness of this allegation was not proven. Macarios testimony dubious During trial, Macario gave inconsistent details about the sale of the stolen jewelries to Francisco. His statement with regard to the date of sale, amount of money transacted, number of jewelries sold and companion during the sale were inconsistent. Francisco never knew the jewelries were stolen; Prosecution failed to show the market price of jewelries by failing to present receipts. In effect, they failed to establish that Francisco should have known that the jewelries were stolen. Third element not satisfied. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner knew that the jewelries were stolen; even, Macario did not knew. Prosecution cannot validly argue that Francisco should have known that the jewelries were stolen based on Jovitas testimony that the same amounts to P650 000.00 even if he has been a long-time appraiser of jewelries; because, the prosecution failed to present evidence to prove the value of said articles. The value of jewellery is not a matter of public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable determination. Absent receipts or any other competent evidence beside Jovitas testimony, court cannot award reparation for the stolen jewelry.

TAN VS. PEOPLE Elements of Fencing: 1. Robbery/Theft committed 2. Accused dealt with an object of value derived from theft or robbery. 3. Accused knew or should have known that the object was stolen. 4. Intent to gain. PONENTE: Justice Pardo, 1999 FACTS: Mendez stole welding rods, propellers, boat spare parts and brass screws valued at P48 000.00 from his employer Lim. Mendez was arrested; admitted that he stole the missing articles; asked for forgiveness and pointed petitioner Tan as buyer of stolen articles for P13 000.00. Lim did not file a case against Mendez but charged Tan with violation of PD1612 a.k.a. the Anti-Fencing Law in the RTC. RTC and CA convicted Tan of the charge and the latter rejected his motion for reconsideration; hence, this instant appeal. ISSUE/S: W/N the lower courts erred in finding Tan guilty of violating PD 1612. RULING: The court granted this petition and acquitted Tan. Elements of Fencing: 1. Robbery/Theft committed 2. Accused dealt with an object of value derived from theft or robbery. 3. Accused knew or should have known that the object was stolen. 4. Intent to gain. Lim reported no loss; thus, it is uncertain that a crime of theft was committed. First element not satisfied. Lim never reported theft or even loss to the police. She admitted that she forgave Mendez after the latter confessed to the unlawful taking of the items and did not prosecute him. No reported loss = Commission of the crime of theft not certain. Theft was not proven because Lim did not complain to the public authorities to the felonious taking of her property. Extra-judicial confession of Mendez, inadmissible in evidence; second element not satisfied. Since there Mendez was not assisted by a counsel during his extra-judicial confession then the same is inadmissible in evidence and may not be used against petitioner. No evidence to show that Tan knew or should have known that the articles sold to him were stolen. Third element not satisfied. State cannot ascertain the awareness of the accused thus it must determine such knowledge from the latters overt acts. And given two states of cognition, court assumes the one which sustains constitutional presumption of innocence.