GR 173791 April 7, 2009 Peoplevs Pablo Amodia Facts: The accused Pablo Amodia and three others (Damaso

Amodia, George Palacio and Arnold Partosa) ganged up upon the victim and stabbed him. Pablo and Arnold held the victims hands, George was behind the victim, while Damaso stabbed the victim. The victim died of three stab wounds. WON there was conspiracy WON there was abuse of superior strength 1. There was conspiracy between Pablo and the three other malefactors. Although there was no evidence in the present case showing a prior agreement among Pablo, Arnold, George, and Damaso, the following chain of events however show their commonality of purpose in killing the victim: first, the accused surrounded the victim on all sides: Damaso at the front, George at the victims rear, while Pablo and Arnold flanked the victim on each side; second, Pablo then wrested the right arm of the victim and restrained his movement, while Arnold did the same to the left arm of the victim; third, George then hit the victims head with a piece of wood; and fourth, Damaso stabbed the victim three times. Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony and forthwith decide to pursue it An accused participates as a conspirator if he or she has performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed.[101] The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators. 2. In the present case, we find that there was abuse of superior strength employed by Pablo, Arnold, George and Damaso in committing the killing. The evidence shows that the victim was unarmed when he was attacked. In the attack, two assailants held his arms on either side, while the other two, on the victims front and back, each armed with a knife and a piece of wood that they later used on the victim. There are no fixed and invariable rules in considering abuse of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense of the victim.[110] Superiority does not always mean numerical superiority. Abuse of superiority depends upon the relative strength of the aggressor vis--vis the victim.[111] Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the aggressors natural strength over that of the victim, considering the position of both, and the employment of the means to weaken the defense, although not annulling it.[112] The aggressor must have advantage of his natural strength to ensure the commission of the crime.[113]

People vs Alejo Magdaraog, GR 171735, April 16, 2009 Facts: Appellant grabbed the victims hair with his left hand and stabbed the victim Bagaporo with a bolo before walking away from the karaoke joint where the crime transpired. The police were then ordered to arrest him. According to SPO4 Sarto, he and his men met the appellant while traversing the lone footpath leading to his residence. Appellant surrendered himself and his bolo. Issues: 1. WON there was treachery. 2. WON the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated Held: 1. Treachery was correctly appreciated. Evidence established by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to kill, and did kill the victim, using means that deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate (i.e., grabbing the victim by the hair and stabbing him on the neck). 2 . For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the defense must prove that the offender had not actually been arrested; that he had surrendered himself to a person in authority; and that the surrender was spontaneous and voluntary. SPO4 Sarto testified that appellants residence could only be accessed through a footpath where they met appellant. Inasmuch as he was intercepted by the arresting officers there, appellant had no means of evading arrest. Therefore, his surrender was neither voluntary nor spontaneous. On the contrary, circumstances would point that he had no option but to yield to the authorities.

[G.R. No. 182918, June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE AND MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN Eulalia Garcia was tending her sari-sari store in La Union when the armed appellant and Lambert told her that they were going to kill the doctor. The two left when they saw the doctor pass by en route to the poultry farm. Ten minutes later, Garcia heard two gunshots coming from the direction of the poultry farm. In the poultry farm, after the doctor had given medicines and bread to his workers Manolong, Yaranon and Anasario, he went to another building. Said workers then heard gunfire coming from the victims direction and went down to investigate. On the way, they met the appellant and Lamberte, who threatened them with harm should they tell anyone that they (the appellant and Lamberte) were responsible for the killing of the victim. The appellant and Lamberte left. The appellant denied any participation in the killing of the victim, and pointed to Lamberte as the person solely responsible. He claimed that he merely accompanied Lamberte to the victims farm when the latter suddenly shot the victim. Issues: WON there is conspiracy; WON there is evident premeditation; WON there is treachery; WON the killings are murder. The prosecution has clearly proven that a conspiracy existed between appellant and Lamberte, who had the common design of killing the victim. Both were armed and both threatened workers Manolong, Yaranon and Anasario with harm should they tell anyone that they (accused)had killed the victim. It doesnt matter who actually shot the victim because of the conspiracy that existed. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all; each of the accused is equally guilty of the crime committed. The qualifying circumstance of treachery is present as the victim was shot at the back. The attack was deliberate, sudden and unexpected; it afforded the unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself. The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is not appreciated; there was no proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. In this case, there is little evidence when the accused first conceived of killing the victim and that they were afforded sufficient time to reflect on the consequences of their contemplated crime before its final execution. Moreover, the span of time (less than thirty minutes), from the time the accused showed their determination to kill the victim (when they told Garcia that they were going to kill the doctor) up to the time they shot the victim, could not have afforded them full opportunity for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime they committed.

Murder is killing qualified treachery, evident premeditation, among others, as per Art. 248 of the RPC. Its punishment is reclusion perpetua to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the felony, the proper imposable penalty on the appellant is reclusion perpetua.