1 ARTICLES 2-3 DIGESTS Topic: Topic: Introduction
De Joya vs. The Jail Warden of Baan!as Ciy and "on R#$en Galve% GR &o. '()*'+-') ,as Norma De Joya was convicted for violating BP22, te decision was released !arc 21, 1""#$ %e remained at large and was arre arrest sted ed Dece Decem& m&er er ', 2((2 2((2$$ )n Nove Novem& m&er er 21, 21, 2(((, 2(((, te te %upreme *ourt issued *ourt +dministrative *ircular No$ 122((( giving courts option to impose penalty over imprisonment$
-imiting ourselves to te
rmed$
Iss#e Norma De Joya contended tat er detention was illegal and tat +dministrative *ircular No 122((( ave erased te penalty of impr impris ison onme ment nt$$ Tis Tis case case also also rais raises es te te issu issue: e: +re +re +dministra +dministrative tive *irculars *irculars or Jurispruden Jurisprudence ce sources sources of *riminal *riminal -aw$
Topic: Topic: +rticle 2 of te ?evised ?evised Penal *ode
R#lin!
,as
No$ +dministrative *irculars *irculars or Jurisprudence are not sources of *riminal *riminal -aw$ Te courts courts are given te discretion discretion to coose coose wet eter er to impo impose se a pena penalt lty y of .ne .ne or a pena penalt lty y of imprisonment only or &ot .ne and imprisonment$ Terefore, te petition was dismissed due to lac/ of merit$
e appellant was convicted in te *ourt of 4irst Instance of a violation of section 1 of +ct No$ , as amended &y section 1 of +ct No$ 2#, and from te 3udgment 3udgment entered tereon appealed appealed to tis tis court, court, were were under under proper proper assignmen assignments ts of erro errorr e contends: 91; tat te complaint does not state facts su>cient to confer 3urisdiction upon te court8 92; tat under te evidence te trial court was witout 3urisdiction to ear and determine te case8 9'; tat +ct No$ as amended is in violation of certain provisions of te *onstitution of te 5nited %tates, and void as applied to te facts of tis case8 and 9@; tat te evidence is insu>cient to support te conviction$ 0N Bull was travelling wit cattles and did not o&serve proper care for te animals$
Topic: Topic: Introduction
/eo0le vs Gre!orio Sania!o GR &o '1(+* arh + ')22 ,as
4S vs. ".&. B#ll GR &o. (215 Jan#ary '( ')'5
0aving caused te deat of Por.rio Parondo, a &oy, &y stri/ing im wit an automo&ile tat e was driving, te erein appellant was was pros prosec ecut uted ed for for te te crim crime e of omi omici cide de &y rec/ rec/le less ss impr imprude udenc nce e and and was was sent senten ence ced d to one one year year and and one one day day imprisonment imprisonment$$ 0e was prosecuted prosecuted in conformity conformity wit +ct No$ 2 2 of te te Pili ilipp ppin ine e -egis egisla latu ture re and and tat tat te act act is unconstitutional and gave no 3urisdiction in tis case$
+ct +ct as passed passed &y te Pilippi Pilippine ne *ongre *ongress ss was was deemed deemed unconstitutional$
Iss#e
R#lin!
If +ct +ct 2 2 is unco uncons nsti titu tuti tion onal al and and does does te te Pil Pilip ippin pine e -egislature ave power to pass laws$
Te legislative power of te =overnment of te Pilippines is granted granted in general terms su&3ect to speci.c speci.c limitations$ limitations$ Te genera generall grant grant is not alone of power power to legisl legislate ate on certai certain n su&3ects, &ut to e6ercise te legislative power su&3ect to te restrictions stated$ It is true tat speci.c autority is conferred upon te Pilippine Pilippine =overnment =overnment relative relative to certain certain su&3ects su&3ects of legislation, and tat *ongress as itself legislated upon certain oter su&3ects$ Tese, owever, sould &e viewed simply as enactments on matters werein *ongress was fully informed and ready to act, and not as implying any restriction upon te local legislative autority in oter matters$ 9%ee )pinion of +tty$ =en$ =en$ of 5$ %$, +pri +prill 1, 1, 1"($ 1"($;; Ter Teref efor ore, e, +ct +ct is not not unconstitutional$
R#lin! 4or practical reasons, te procedure in criminal matters is not incorporated in te *onstitutions of te %tates, &ut is left in te and of te legislatures, so tat it falls witin te realm of pu&lic statutory law$ Tis power of te %tates of te Nort +merican 5nion was also granted to its territories suc as te Pilippin es: Te plenary legislative power wic *ongress possesses over te territories and possessions of te 5nited %tates may &e e6ercised e6ercised &y tat &ody itself, or, as is muc more often te case, it may &e delegated to a local agency, suc as a legislature, te organi7ation of wic proceeds upon muc te same lines as in te several %tates or in *ongress, wic is often ta/en as a model, and wose powers are limited &y te )rganic +ct8 &ut witin witin te scope of suc suc act is as complete complete autorit autority y to legislate, $ $ $ and in general, to legislate upon all su&3ects witin te police power of te territory$ territory$ 9' *yc$, 2(2(#$;
Iss#e
Te defendant was found gui lty, and sentenced to pay a .ne of two undred and .fty pesos, wit su&sidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay te costs$ Te sentence and 3udgment is a>rmed$ %o ordered$ ordered$
To0i Arile 2 of he Revised /enal Code
2 /eo0le vs Won! Chen! GR &o. L-'+)2* ,as Aong *eng *eng is accuse accused d of aving aving illegal illegally ly smo/e smo/ed d opium, opium, a&oard te mercant vessel wile te said vessel was ancored in !anila Bay two and a alf miles from te sores of te city$ city$
Iss#e Te point at issue is weter te courts of te Pilippines ave 3urisdiction over crime, li/e te one erein involved, committed a&oard mercant vessels ancored in our 3urisdiction waters$
R#lin! Tere are two fundamental rules on tis particular matter in connec connectio tion n wit wit Intern Internati ationa onall -aw8 -aw8 to wit, wit, te 4renc renc rule, rule, according to wic crimes committed a&oard a foreign mercant vessels sould not &e prosecuted in te courts of te country witin wose territorial 3urisdiction tey were committed, unless teir commission aects te peace and security of te territory8 and te Cnglis Cnglis rule, &ased &ased on te territor territorial ial princi principle ple and follow followed ed in te 5nited 5nited %tates %tates,, accor according ding to wic, wic, crimes crimes perpetrated under suc circumstances are in general tria&le in te courts of te country witin territory tey were committed$ )f tis two rule rules, s, it is te te last last one one tat tat o&tain o&tainss in tis tis 3urisdiction, &ecause at present te teories and 3urisprudence prevailing in te 5nited %tates on tis matter are autority in te Pilippines wic is now a territory of te 5nited %tates$ Ae ave seen tat te mere possession of opium a&oard a foreign vessel in transit was eld &y tis court not tria&le &y or courts, &ecause it &eing te primary o&3ect of our )pium -aw to protect te ina&itants of te Pilippines against te disastrous eects entailed &y te use of tis drug, its mere possession in suc a sip, witout &eing used in our territory, does not &eing a&ou a&outt in te te said said terr territ itor ory y tos tose e eec eects ts tat tat our our stat statut ute e contemplates avoiding$ 0ence suc a mere possession is not considered a distur&ance of te pu&lic order$ But to smo/e opium witin our territorial limits, even toug a&oard a foreign mercant sip, is certainly a &reac of te pu&lic order ere esta&lised, &ecause it causes suc drug to produce its pernicious eects witin our territory$ It seriously contravenes te purpose tat our -egislature as in mind in enacting te aforesaid repressive statute Te order appealed from is revo/ed and te cause ordered reman remanded ded to te court court of origin origin for furter furter proce proceedi edings ngs in accordance wit law, witout special .ndings as to costs$
To0i Arile 2 /eo0le vs Loo6 Cha7 GR &o (++1 ,as Te .rst complaint .led against te defendant, in te *ourt of 4irst Instance of *e&u, stated tat e carried, /ept, possessed and ad in is possessi possession on and control, control, " /ilogr /ilogramm ammes es of opium,E and tat e ad &een surprised in te act of selling 1,((( pesos wort prepared opium$E
Iss#e Te defense moved for a dismissal of te case, on te grounds tat te court ad no 3urisdiction to try te same and te facts concerned terein did not constitute a crime$ Te .scal, at te conclusion of is argument, as/ed tat te ma6imum penalty of te te law law &e impos imposed ed upon upon te te defe defend ndan ant, t, in view view of te te considera&le amount of opium sei7ed$
R#lin! Te court ruled tat it did not lac/ 3urisdi ction, inasmuc as te crime ad &een committed witin its district, on te warf of *e&u$ Te appeal aving &een eard, togeter wit te allegations made terein &y te parties, it is found: Tat, altoug te mere possession of a ting of proi&ited use in tese Islands, a&oard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of teir ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime tria&le &y te courts of tis countr country, y, on accoun accountt of suc suc vessel vessel &eing &eing consid consider ered ed as an e6tension of its own nationality, te same rule does not apply wen te article, wose use is proi&ited witin te Pilippine Islands, Islands, in te present case a can of opium, is landed from te vessel upon Pilippine soil, tus committing an open violation of te laws of te land, wit respect to wic, as it is a violation of te penal law in force at te place of te commission of te crime, only te court esta&lised in tat said place itself ad competent 3urisdiction, in te a&sence of an agreement under an international treaty$ Terefore, reducing te imprisonment and te .ne imposed to si6 monts monts and P1,(((, P1,(((, respe respecti ctivel vely, y, we a>rm a>rm in all oter oter respects te 3udgment appealed from, wit te costs of tis instance against te appellant$
4S vs Ah Sin! GR &o. '355( '355( 8o$er '5 ')'1 ')'1 ,as Tis is an appeal appeal from a 3udgment 3udgment of te *ourt of 4irst Instance of *e&u .nding te defendant guilty of a violation of section @ of +ct No$ 2'1 9te )pium -aw;, and sentencing im to two years imprisonment, to pay a .ne of P'(( or to suer su&sidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay te costs$ Te following facts are fully proven: Te defendant is a su&3ect of *ina employed as a .reman on te steamsip Shun Chang$ Te Shun Chang is a foreign steamer wic arrived at te port of *e&u on +pril 2, 1"1#, after a voyage direct from te port of %aigon$ Te defendant &ougt eigt cans of opium in %aigon, &rougt tem on &oard te steamsip Shun Chang, and ad tem in is possession during te trip from %aigon to *e&u$ Aen te steamer ancored in te port of *e&u on +pril 2, 1"1#, te autorities on ma/ing a searc found te eigt cans of opium a&ove mentioned idden in te ases &elow te &oiler of te steamerFs engine$ Te defendant confessed tat e was te owner of tis opium, and tat e ad purcased it in %aigon$ 0e did not confess, owever, as to is purpose in &uying te opium$ 0e did not say tat it was is intention to import te proi&ited
' drug into te Pilippine Islands$ No oter evidence direct or indirect, to sow tat te intention of te accused was to import illegally tis opium into te Pilippine Islands, was introduced$
Aeter Pilippines as 3urisdiction over te case$
Penal Penal *ode$ *ode$ Tey Tey were were senten sentenced ced Gto suer te penalt penalty y of imprisonment of twelve 912; years and one 91; day to seventeen 91#; 91#; year yearss and and four four 9@; 9@; mont monts s of reclusion reclusion temporal, temporal, to indemnify te eirs of te deceased victim in te amount of P@(,((($((, plus moral damages in te sum of P1@,((($(( and to pay te costs$ costs$GG 2 Te victim victim was -loyd -loyd PeLac PeLacer errad rada, a, @@, landowner, landowner, and a resident resident of Barangay Barangay +spera, %ara, Iloilo$ Iloilo$ *ustodio =on7ales was te only appellant in tis case$
R#lin!
Issue:
?esolving watever dou&t was e6ist as to te autority of te views 3ust
Aeter *ustudio =on7ales as criminal lia&ility$ Aen can a person incur criminal lia&ilityM
Iss#e
Te defendant and appellant, aving &een proved guilty &eyond a reasona&le dou&t as carged and te sentence of te trial court &eing witin te limits provided &y law, it results tat te 3udgment must &e a>rmed wit te costs of tis instance against te appellant$
ARTICLE 3-,EL8&IES /eo0le vs Gon%ales G.R. &o. +5192 arh ') '))5 ,as In a decision ' dated )cto&er '1, 1"@, te ?egional Trial *ourt of Iloilo, Iloilo, Branc Branc KIII KIII 9';, 9';, in *rimina *riminall *ase *ase No$ No$ 1'1, 1'1, entitled GPeople of te Pilippines vs$ 4austa =on7ales, +ugusto =on7al =on7ales, es, *ustod *ustodia ia =on7al =on7ales, es, *ustod *ustodio io =on7al =on7ales, es, Jr$, Jr$, Nerio Nerio =on7ales and ?ogelio -anida,G found all te accused, e6cept ?ogelio -anida wo eluded arrest and up to now as remain at large and not yet arrained, guilty &eyond reasona&le dou&t of te crime of murder as de.ned under +rticle 2@ of te ?evised
?uling: +fte +fterr a care carefu full revi review ew of te te evide evidenc nce e addu adduce ced d &y te te prosec prosecuti ution, on, we .nd te same same insu>c insu>cient ient to convi convict ct te appellant of te crime carged$ To To &egin wit, te investigation conducted &y te police autorities leave muc to &e desired$ Patrolman *enteno of te +3uy police force in is sworn statements 39 even gave te date of te commission of te crime as G!arc 21, 1"1$G !oreover, te s/etc s/etc 31 e made made of te te scen scene e is of littl little e elp elp$$ Aile Aile indicated tereon are te alleged various &lood stains and teir locations relative to te scene of te crime, tere was owever no indication as to teir
@ %. y any person performing an act #hich #ould be an o$ense agains againstt person persons s or proper property ty,, #ere #ere it not for the inherent inherent imposs impossibil ibility ity of its accomp accomplish lishmen mentt or on accoun accountt of the employment of inade&uate or ine$ectual means. !'mphasis supplied."
Tus, one of te means &y wic criminal lia&ility is incurred is troug te commission of a felony$ +rticle ' of te ?evised Penal Penal *ode, *ode, on te oter and, provi provides des ow felonies felonies are committed$ Art. (. )e*nition — Acts and omissions punishable by la# are felonies !delitos". +elonies +elonies are committed committed not only by means of deceit !dolo" but also by means of fault ! culpa". culpa". here is deceit #hen the act is performed #ith deliberate intentand and ther there e is faul faultt #hen #hen the the #ron #rongf gful ul act act resu result lts s from from imprudence, negligence, lac of foresight, or lac of sill. !'mphasis supplied."
Tus, te elements of felonies in general are: 91; tere must &e an act or omission8 omission8 92; te act or omission must &e punisa&le punisa&le under te ?evised Penal *ode8 and 9'; te act is performed or te omission incurred &y means of deceit or fault$ 0ere, wile te prosecution accuses, and te two lower courts &ot found, tat te appellant as committed a felony in te /illing of -loyd PeLacerrada, forsoot tere is paucity of proof as to wat act was performed &y te appellant$ It as &een said tat Gact,G as used in +rticle ' of te ?evised Penal *ode, must &e understood as Gany &odily movement tending to produce some eect in te e6ternal world$G *5 In tis instance, tere must terefore &e sown an GactG committed &y te appellant wic would ave inicted any arm to te &ody of te victim tat produced is deat$ Tis was not esta&lised & y te prosecution$ A0C?C4)?C, te Decision of te *ourt of +ppeals is ?CKC?%CD and %CT +%IDC and te appellant is ere&y +*O5ITTCD$ *osts de o*cio$
Topic Topic : +rticle '
/eo0le vs Ro:ana Silvesre and arin Aien%a GR &o. L3(1*+
ouses were destroyed &y te .re, 3ointly and severally, te amount set fort in te information, wit costs$
Iss#e Aeter ?omana %ilvestre is criminally lia&le 3ust &ecause se remained silent and did not report te crimeM
R#lin! 4or all te foregoing considerations, we are of te opinion and so old, tat: 91; !ere passive presence at te scene of anoterFs crime, crime, mere mere silenc silence e and failure failure to give give te alarm alarm,, witout witout evidence evidence of agreement or conspiracy conspiracy,, do not constitute constitute te coop cooper erat atio ion n rermed wit reference to te accusedappellant !artin !artin +tien7a, +tien7a, and reversed reversed wit referenc reference e to te accused appell appellant ant ?omana omana %ilves %ilvestr tre, e, wo is ere&y ere&y ac
Topic: Topic: !ista/e of 4act 4act vs !ista/e !ista/e of -aw
Die!o vs Casillo ,as Tis is an administrative complaint against Judge *astillo for allegedly allegedly /nowin /nowingly gly rende renderin ring g an un3ust un3ust 3udgme 3udgment nt in a criminal case and rendering 3udgment in gross ignorance of law$ -ucena -ucena Cscoto Cscoto was was accient grounds to &elieve tat er previous marriage to Jorge de Perio ad &een validly dissolved &y te divorce decree and tat se was legally free to contract te second marriage wit !anuel P$ Diego$
,as In rendering rendering te decision, decision, respondent respondent Judge reasoned, reasoned, !artin +tien7a and ?omana %ilvestre appeal to tis court from te 3udgment of te *ourt of 4irst Instance of Bulacan convicting tem upon te information of te crime of arson as follows: Te former as principal &y direct participation, sentenced to fourteen year years, s, eigt eigt mont monts s,, and and one one day day of cadena temporal temporal, in accordance wit paragrap 2 of article (, Penal *ode8 and te latter latter as accomp accomplic lice, e, senten sentenced ced to si6 years and one day of presidio mayor 8 and and &ot &ot are are furt furte err sente sentenc nced ed to te te accessories of te law, and to pay eac of te persons wose
tus: Aile it is true tat in our 3urisdiction te matrimonial &ond &etween Jorge de Perio and te accused are not yet annulled, it remains undisputed tat cessation of te same was decreed in te 4amily District *ourt of 0arris *ounty, Te6as, 2@# t Judicial District, eective 4e&ruary 1, 1"#$
Iss#e
*an -ucena Cscoto &e e6cused &ecause of te misinterpretation of te lawM Is tis case a mista/e of fact or a mista/e of lawM ?uling: In is commen comment, t, respon responden dentt Judge Judge stated stated:: Tat Tat te accused accused married !anuel P$ P$ Diego in te onest &elief tat se was free to do so &y virtue of te decree of divorce is a mista/e of fact$E Tis *ourt, in /eo /eople ple v. itdu itdu,H@ carefully carefully distinguised distinguised &etwee &etween n a mista/ mista/e e of fact, wic wic could could &e a &asis &asis for te defense of good fait in a &igamy case, from a mista/e of law, wic wic does does not e6cuse e6cuse a person person,, even even a lay person, person, from from lia&ility$ itdu eld tat even if te accused, wo ad o&tained a divorce under te !oammedan custom, onestly &elieved tat in contracting er second marriage se was not committing any violation of te law, and tat se ad no criminal intent, te same does not 3ustify er act$ Tis *ourt furter stated terein terein tat wit respect to te contention tat te accused acted in good fait in contracting te second marriage, &elieving tat se ad &een &een validl validly y divorc divorced ed from er .rst .rst us&an us&and, d, it is su>cient to say tat everyone is presumed to /now te law, and te fact tat one does not /now tat is act constitutes a violation of te law does not e6empt im from te conse
W"ERE,8RE , ?egio egional nal Trial rial *our *ourtt Judge Judge %ilve %ilveri rio o O$ *astillo *astillo is ere&y ere&y 4INCD in te amount of Ten Tousand Pesos 9P1(,(((; wit a %TC?N A+?NIN= tat a repetition of te same or similar acts will &e dealt wit more severely$ severely$
/eo0le vs Bindoy G.R. L- 3*99( ,as Te appellant was sentenced &y te *ourt of 4irst Instance of )ccidental !isamis to te penalty of twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, wit te accessories of law, to indemnify te eirs of te deceased in te amount of P1,(((, and to pay te costs$ Te crime carged against te accused is omicide, according to te following information: Tat on or a&out te t of !ay, 1"'(, i n te &arrio of *alu *aluno nod, d, muni munici cipa pali lity ty of Balia Baliang ngao ao,, Prov Provinc ince e of )ccide )ccidenta ntall !isami !isamis, s, te accuse accused d Donato Donato Bindoy Bindoy willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attac/ed and wit is &olo wounded wounded Cmigdio Cmigdio )mamdam, )mamdam, inicting upon te latter a serious wound in te cest wic caused is instant deat, in violation of article @(@ of te Penal *ode$
Te accused appealed from te 3udgment of te trial court, and is counsel in tis instance contends tat te court erred in .nding im guilty &eyond a reasona&le dou&t, and in convicting im of te crime of omicide$ Te record sows tat in te afternoon of !ay , 1"'(, a distur&ance arose in a tuba winesop in te &arrio mar/et of *aluno *alunod, d, munici municipal pality ity of Balian Baliangao gao,, Provi Province nce of )ccide )ccidenta ntall !isa !isami mis, s, star starte ted d &y some some of te te tubadrin/ers$ drin/ers$ Tere Tere were were 4austino Pacas 9alias +gaton;, +gaton;, and is wife called Ti&ay Ti&ay$ )ne Donato Bindoy, wo was also tere, oered some tuba to PacasF wife8 and as se refused to drin/ aving already done so, Bindoy treatened to in3ure er if se did not accept$ Tere ensued an intercange intercange of words words &etween &etween Ti&ay and Bindoy, Bindoy, and Pacas stepped in to defend is wife, attempting to ta/e away from Bindoy te &olo e carried$ Tis occasioned a distur&ance wic attracted attracted te attention attention of Cmigdio )mamdam, )mamdam, wo, wit is family, lived near te mar/et$ Cmigdio le ft is ouse to see wat was appening, wile Bindoy and Pacas were struggling for te &olo$ &olo$ In te course course of tis tis strugg struggle, le, Bindoy Bindoy succee succeeded ded in disengaging imself from Pacas, wrencing te &olo from te latterFs and towards te left &eind te accused, wit suc violence tat te point of te &olo reaced Cmigdio )mamdamFs cest, wo was ten &eind Bindoy$ Bindoy$
Iss#e Aeter Bindoy is criminally lia&le wen tere is no intent to /ill Cmigdio )mamdam$
R#lin! Te testimony of te witnesses for te prosecution tends to sow tat te accused sta&&ed )mamdam in te cest wit is &olo on tat occasion$ Te defendant, indeed, in is eort to free imself of Pacas, wo was endeavoring to wrenc is &olo from im, it )mamdam in te cest8 &ut, as we ave stated, tere is no evidence to sow tat e did so deli&erately and wit te intention intention of commit committin ting g a crime$ crime$ If, in is struggle struggle wit Pacas, te defendant ad attempted to wound is opponent, and instead of doing so, ad wounded )mamdam, e would ave ad to answer for is act, since woever willfully commits a felony or a misdemeanor incurs criminal lia&ility, altoug te wrongful act done &e dierent from tat wic e intended$ 9+rt$ 1 of te Penal *ode$; But, as we ave said, tis is not te case$ Te witness for te d efense, =audencio *enas, corro&orates te defendant to te eect tat Pacas and Bindoy were actually struggling for te possession of te &olo, and tat wen te latter let go, te former ad pulled so violently tat it ew towa toward rdss is is left left side side,, at te te very very mome moment nt wen wen Cmigd Cmigdio io )mamdam came up, wo was terefore it in te cest, witout DonatoFs seeing im, &ecause Cmigdio ad passed &eind im$ Te same witness adds tat e went to see )mamdam at is ome later, and as/ed im a&out is wound wen e replied: GI tin/ I sall die of tis wound$G +nd ten continued: GPlease loo/ after my wife wen I die: %ee tat se doesnFt starve,G adding furter: GTis wound was an accident$ Donato did not aim at me, nor I at im: It was a misap$G Te testimony of tis witness was not contradicted &y any re&uttal evidence adduced &y te .scal$ Ae ave searced te record in vain for te motive of tis /ind, wic, ad it e6isted, would ave greatly facilitated te solution of tis case$ +nd we deem it well to repeat wat tis court said in 5nited %tates vs$ *arlos 91 Pil$, @#;, to wit:
Te attention of prosecuting o>cers, and especially of provincial .scals, directed to te importance of de.nitely ascertaining and proving, wen possi&le, te motives wic actuated te commission of a crime under investigation$ In many criminal cases one of te most important aids in completing te proof of te commission of te crime &y te accused is te introduction of evidence disclosing te motives wic tempted te mind of te guilty person to indulge te criminal act$ In view of te evidence &efore us, we are of opinion and so old, tat te appellant is entitled to ac
ARTICLE * CRII&AL LIABILIT; In<#rio#s Res#l is !reaer han ha inended- 0raeor inenione: PP K%$ *+=)*), P0I- 2@ 4+*T%: +&out :'( on te nigt of July 2@, 1"'2 Qu -on and Qu Qee, fater and son, stopped to tal/ on te sidewal/$ Qu -on was standing near te outer edge of te sidewal/, wit is &ac/ to te street$ Aile tey were tal/ing, a man passed &ac/ and fort &eind Qu -on once or twice, and wen Qu Qee was a&out to ta/e leave of is fater, approaced Qu -on from &eind and suddenly and witout warning struc/ im wit is .st on te &ac/ part of te ead$ Qu -on fell &ac/wards$ 0is ead struc/ te aspalt pavement8 te lower part of is &ody fell on te sidewal/$ 0is assailants immediately ran away$ Qu Qee pursued &ut ten lost sigt of im$ Two oter *inese, *in %am and Qee 4ung, wo were wal/ing &y, saw te incident and 3oined im in te pursuit of Qu -onRs assailant$ Te wounded man was ta/en to te Pilippine =eneral 0ospital, were e died a&out midnigt$ + postmortem e6amination was made te ne6t day &y Dr$ +nastacia Killegas, wo found tat te deceased ad sustained a lacerated wound and fracture of te s/ull in te occipital region, and tat e ad died from cere&ral emorrage8 tat e ad tu&erculosis, toug not in an advanced stage, and a tumor in te left /idney$ 0C-D: In te .ft assignment of error it is contended tat te appellant if guilty at all, sould &e punised for sligt pysical in3uries only instead of murder$ Paragrap No$ 1 of article @ of te ?evised Penal *ode provide tat criminal lia&ility sall &e incurred &y any person committing a felony 9delito; altoug te wrongful act done &e dierent from tat wic e intended8 &ut in order tat a person may &e criminally lia&le for a felony dierent from tat wic e proposed to commit, it is indispensa&le tat te two following re
deat, does not relieve te illegal aggressor of criminal responsi&ility8 tat one is not relieved, under te law in tese Islands, from criminal lia&ility for te natural conse
PC)P-C K% N+T+-I) I--5%T?C =? N) - '2(# 4acts: Tat on or a&out June 2@, 1"2", in te municipality of Balayan, Province of Batangas, Pilippine Islands, te a&ovenamed defendant willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously dealt Juan !agsino a &low wit is closed .st in te rigt ypocondriac region, &ruising is liver and producing an internal emorrage resulting in te deat of said Juan !agsino$ Issue: Te victim already suered tu&erculosis and te cient cause of te deat remains te same$ 95$ %$ vs$ 4eni6, 11 Pil$ "; +nd te circumstance tat te defendant did not intend so grave an evil as te deat of te victim does not e6empt im from criminal lia&ility, since e deli&erately committed an act proi&ited &y law, &ut simply mitigates is guilt in accordance wit article ", No$ ', of te Penal *ode$ 95$ %$ vs$ %amea, 1 Pil$ 22#$;
# Te instant case comes under te provision of article @(@ of te Penal *ode providing te penalty of reclusion temporal, wic must &e imposed in its minimum degree in view of te mitigating circumstance 3ust mentioned, or twelve years and one day, reclusion temporal$ Terefore, te 3udgment appealed from must &e, as it is, ere&y a>rmed, wit costs against te appellant$1 %o ordered$
5% K%$ !+?+%I=+N, 2# P0I- 11
4+*T%: + .gt ensued &etween te accusedappellant, 4ilomeno !arasigan and one 4rancisco !endo7a$ +s a result of te .gt !endo7a received tree wounds, two in te cest and one in te left and, te latter &eing te most serious$ Te middle .nger of te left and was rendered useless$ Te accused asserts tat e sould ave a new trial upon te ground tat if e sould &e given anoter opportunity to present evidence e would &e a&le to sow &y a pysician, =regorio -im3oco, tat te .nger wic te court found to ave &een rendered useless &y te cut already descri&ed was not necessarily a useless mem&er, inasmuc as, if te accused would permit a surgical operation, te .nger could &e restored to its normal condition$ 0e also asserts tat e could demonstrate &y te pysician referred to tat it was not te middle .nger tat was disa&led &ut te tird .nger instead$ 0C-D: Ae do not regard te case made as su>cient to warrant a new trial$ It is immaterial for te purposes of tis case weter te .nger, te usefullness of wic was destroyed, was te middle .nger or te tird .nger$ +ll agree tat one of te .ngers of te left and was rendered useless &y te act of te accused$ It does not matter wic .nger it was$ Nor do we attac any importance to te contention tat te original condition of te .nger could &e restored &y a surgical operation to relieve te accused from te natural and ordinary results of is crime$ It was is voluntary act wic disa&led !endo7a and e must a&ide &y te conse
5% K%$ !)-DC%, =? N)$ @2122 4+*T%: Tere was a dance in a private ouse, and te deceased was te master of ceremonies at tat dance$ Te appellant insisted on dancing out of turn and was reproved &y te deceased$ +ppellant ten went to te porc of te ouse and wit is bolo &egan cutting down te decorations$ 0e descended into te yard of te ouse and callenged everyone to a .gt$ Not attracting su>cient attention, e &egan copping at te &am&oo trees and repeated is callenged for a .gt$ Te deceased, unarmed, started down te stairs, spea/ing to im in a friendly manner, and as deceased ad a&out reaced te ground, appellant struc/ at im wit is bolo, inicting a wound on is left arm$ +s deceased fell to te ground, appellant inicted a sligt wound in te &ac/ and ran away from te scene of action$ Te wound was seen and treated te ne6t morning &y te sanitary inspector of +&uyog, &ut te deceased remained in
te care of a local curandero$E Tis treatment failed to stop te emorrage, and te deceased died$ 0C-D: Te attorney de o*cio urges tat appellant did not intend to commit as serious a wound as was inicted &ut struc/ only in te dar/ and in selfdefense$ It is clear tat tere is no element of selfdefense in te case and tat appellant was te aggressor$ Aen one resorts to te use of a letal weapon and stri/es anoter wit te force tat must ave &een used in tis case, it must &e presumed tat e reali7es te natural conse
Dorine of /ro=i:ae Ca#se KD+ B+T+*-+N K%$ !CDIN+, 1(2 Pil 11 4+*T%: Tere were a&out eigteen passengers, including te driver and conductor$ Aile te &us was running witin te 3urisdiction of Imus, *avite, one of te front tires &urst and te veicle &egan to 7ig7ag until it fell into a canal or ditc on te rigt side of te road and turned turtle$ %ome of te passengers managed to leave te &us te &est way tey could, oters ad to &e elped or pulled out, wile four passengers could not get out of te overturned &us$ +fter alf an our, came a&out ten men, one of tem carrying a ligted torc made of &am&oo wit a wic/ on one end, evidently fueled wit petroleum$ Tese men presuma&ly approac te overturned &us, and almost immediately, a .erce .re started, &urning and all &ut consuming te &us, including te four passengers trapped inside it$ It would appear tat as te &us overturned, gasoline &egan to lea/, spreading over and permeating te &ody of te &us and te ground under and around it, and tat te ligted torc &rougt &y one of te men wo answered te call for elp set it on .re$ 0C-D: Tere is no cient intervening cause, produces te in3ury, and witout wic te result would not ave occurred$F It may &e tat ordinarily, wen a passenger &us overturns, and pins down a passenger, merely causing im pysical in3uries, if troug some event, une6pected and e6traordinary, te overturned &us is set on .re, say, &y ligtning, or if some igwaymen after looting te veicle sets it on .re, and te passenger is &urned to deat, one migt still contend tat te pro6imate cause of is deat was te .re and not te overturning of te veicle$ But i n te present case under te circumstances o&taining in te same, we do not esitate to old tat te pro6imate cause was te overturning of te &us, tis for te reason tat wen te veicle turned not only on its side &ut completely on its &ac/, te lea/ing of te gasoline from
te tan/ was not unnatural or une6pected8 tat te coming of te men wit a ligted torc was in response to te call for elp, made not only &y te passengers, &ut most pro&a&ly, &y te driver and te conductor temselves, and tat &ecause it was dar/ 9a&out 2:'( in te morning;, te rescuers ad to carry a ligt wit tem, and coming as tey did from a rural area were lanterns and asligts were not availa&le8 and wat was more natural tan tat said rescuers sould innocently approac te veicle to e6tend te aid and eect te rescue re
%eptem&er 2, 1""' .gt$ 4rom ten on, Tomelden was in and out of te ospital complaining of eadace, among oter pains, until is demise 12 days after te &low was made$ %igni.cantly, Dr$ +rellano opined tat te .st &low wic landed on TomeldenRs ead could ave sa/en is &rain wic caused te cere&ral concussion8 and tat te cause of te victimRs deat was Gcardiorespiratory arrest secondary to cere&ral concussion wit resultant cere&ral emorrage due to mauling incident$G Te com&ined eects of te testimonies of %ala7ar and Dr$ +rellano, &uttressed &y tat of ?osario wo related a&out er us&andRs post %eptem&er 2, 1""' severe ead pain, clearly esta&lis &eyond cavil te cause of TomeldenRs deat and wo was lia&le for it$ It was troug te direct accounts of te prosecution witnesses of te events tat transpired during te .sticu incident more speci.cally te landing of te Gluc/y puncG on te face of HTomelden, ta/en togeter wit te result of te medical e6aminations and autopsy report wic descri&ed te deat of te victim as Gcardiorespiratory arrest secondary to cere&ral concussion wit resultant cere&ral emorrage due to mauling incidentG tat we are convinced tat te Gluc/y puncG was te pro6imate cause of HTomeldenRs deat$ Te prosecution ad satisfactorily proven tat it was only after te incident tat transpired on %eptem&er 2, 1""' tat te victim was ospitali7ed on several occasions until e e6pired, twelve days later$ It is moreover of no conse
5?B+N) K%$ PP, =? N)$ 12#( %C=5?IT+N K%$ PP, =$?$ N)$ 1#2" 4+*T%: Te victim Brigido Tomelden and petitioner were at te compound of te -ingayen Aater District 9-IA+D; aving 3ust arrived from a picnic in te near&y town of Bugallon, Pangasinan, were, tey drun/ &eer in a restaurant wit some oter cowor/ers Aile inside te compound, te two ad a eated altercation in te course of wic Tomelden urled insulting remar/s at petitioner$ Te e6cange of words led to an e6cange of &lows$ *ooler eads succeeded in &rea/ing up te .gt, &ut only for a &rief moment as te protagonists refused to &e paci.ed and continued trowing .st &lows at eac oter$ Ten petitioner delivered a Gluc/y punc,G as descri&ed &y eyewitness )r3e %ala7ar, on TomeldenRs face, wic made Tomelden topple down$ Tomelden was on te verge of itting is ead on te ground ad teir companions not caugt im and prevented te fall$ Te &low, owever, caused TomeldenRs nose to &leed and rendered im unconscious$ Te deceased told is wife of te mauling incident$ Tereafter, te deceased was still a&le to go to wor/ owever, is complaints to is wife of severe pain in te ead, prompted im to &e admitted at te community ospital$ 4inally, Tomelden died on )cto&er 1(, 1""' due, per Dr$ +rellano, to Gcardiorespiratory arrest secondary to cere&ral concussion wit resultant cere&ral emorrage due to mauling incident$G Te defense presented petitioner wo denied aving any intention to /ill, asserting tat ypertension, for wic Tomelden was receiving treatment, was te cause of te latterRs deat$!oreover, te Tomelden only died 12 days later after te incident and was still a&le to report to wor/ engenders dou&t on te pro6imate cause of victimRs deat$ Petitioner, tus, contends tat e could only &e ad3udged guilty of pysical in3uries$ 0C-D: Te prosecution witness, %ala7ar, testi.ed a&out petitionerRs luc/y punc itting Tomelden rigt smac/ on te face$ +nd even if TomeldenRs ead did not it te ground as is cowor/ers averted tat actuality, tat punc gave im a &leeding nose and rendered im unconscious rigt after te
4+*T%: Petitioner was aving a drin/ing session wit is uncles -ucrecio %eguritan 9-ucrecio;, !elcor Panis and Balta7ar Panis in te ouse of !anuel dela *ru7 in Barangay Paradise, =on7aga, *agayan$ Petitioner, wo was seated &eside -ucrecio, claimed tat -ucrecioRs cara&ao entered is farm and destroyed is crops$ + eated discussion tereafter ensued, during wic petitioner punced -ucrecio twice as te latter was a&out to stand up$ PetitionerRs punces landed on -ucrecioRs rigt and left temple, causing im to fall faceup to te ground and it a ollow &loc/ wic was &eing used as an improvised stove$ -ucrecio lost consciousness &ut was revived wit te assistance of Balta7ar$ Tereafter, -ucrecio rode a tricycle and proceeded to is ouse$ 5pon is arrival, is wife noticed &lood on is foreead$ -ucrecio e6plained tat e was stoned, ten went directly to is room and slept$ +t around " oRcloc/ in te evening, -ucrecioRs wife and daugter noticed tat is comple6ion as dar/ened and foamy su&stance was coming out of is mout$ +ttempts were made to revive -ucrecio &ut to no avail$ 0e died tat same nigt$ NBI !edico-egal )>cer Dr$ +ntonio Kertido e6umed -ucrecioRs &ody and performed te autopsy$ Dr$ Kertido concluded tat -ucrecioRs cause of deat was traumatic ead in3ury$ # 0C-D: Petitioner disputes te conclusion tat te fracture on te rigt middle fossa of te s/ull, &eneat te area were a ematoma developed was due to te &low e delivered &ecause according to te testimony of Dr$ Kertido, te fracture may also &e caused &y one falling from a eigt$ Petitioner also maintains tat te punces e trew at -ucrecio ad noting to do wit te fatal ead in3uries te latter suered$ +ccording to im, -ucrecio sustained te ead in3uries wen e accidentally it te ollow &loc/ tat was used as an improvised stove, after falling
" from te opposite end of te &enc$ Petitioner insists tat -ucrecio died due to a fatal eart attac/$ Ae are not persuaded$ It is on record tat -ucrecio suered two e6ternal in3uries and one internal in3ury in is ead$ Te autopsy report sowed tat -ucrecio died of internal emorrage caused &y ead in3uries$ !elcorRs eyewitness account of te .st &lows delivered &y petitioner to -ucrecio and te manner &y wic te latter fell from te &enc and it is ead on te improvised stove is consistent wit te autopsy .ndings prepared and testi.ed to &y Dr$ Kertido$ Te testimony of Dr$ Kertido also ruled out petitionerRs contention tat -ucrecio died of a eart attac/$ +rt$ @ of te ?evised Penal *ode states tat *riminal lia&ility sall &e incurred &y any person committing a felony 9 delito; altoug te wrongful act done &e dierent from tat wic e intended$ Petitioner committed an unlawful act &y puncing -ucrecio, is uncle wo was muc older tan im, and even if e did not intend to cause te deat of -ucrecio, e must &e eld guilty &eyond reasona&le dou&t for /illing im pursuant to te a&ove
PP K%$ ?+4+C- !+?*), DC4CND+NT +PPC--+NT, =? N)%$ - 2'2@ 4+*T%: %imeon !arco, son of appellant ?afael, approaced *onstancio %a&el&ero and after as/ing im if e were te one wo &o6ed is 9%imeonFs; &roter te year &efore, &randised a unting /nife, wic caused *onstancio to run away$ Aile tus running, e passed &y appellant wo it im wit a cane causing im sligt pysical in3uries$ Aen %imeon was a&out to pursue *onstancio, te latterFs fater, Kicente, wo was in te crowd, gra&&ed %imeonFs and tat was olding te /nife$ Aen Kicente, owever, saw tat appellant, wo was olding a round cane and a unting /nife, was approacing tem, e souted to *onstancio and to is oter son Bien venido wo appeared in te scene to run away, wic tey did, as e imself released %imeon and ran away$ +ppellant followed Bienvenido and sta&&ed im, &ut te latter parried te &low wic caused in3uries to is left and$ Bienvenido tried to run farter &ut is feet got entangled wit some vines and e fell down$ Aereupon, Beltran, wo came from nowere, sta&&ed im near te anus, followed &y %imeon wo sta&&ed im on te left side of te &reast$ Tereafter, Bienvenido died$ )n te teory tat tere was o&vious conspiracy among appellants ?afael, %imoen, and Beltran, te trial court convicted tem of murder$ )nly ?afael appealed$ Te %upreme *ourt ruled tat te act of appellant sta&&ing te victim wic caused in3uries to te latterFs left and is separate from te fatal sta&s inicted &y is two coaccused, &ecause te e6istence of &ad &lood &etween te families of te deceased and te accused wic could ave esta&lised commonality of intent on te part of te tree accused was denied &y &ot parties$ !oreover, tere was no clear evidence connecting te act of appellant in trying to sta& te victim wic caused te latter in3uries on te left and, wit te fatal sta&s inicted &y is two oter coaccused$ 0C-D: +ppellant cannot &e eld lia&le for te deat of decedent under +rticle @91; of te ?evised Penal *ode. 0Article 4, paragraph 1, of the evised /enal Code provides that, 2 criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony !delito" although the #rongful act done be di$erent from that
#hich he intended.2 5nder tis provision, one wo commits an
intentional felony is responsi&le for all te conse
PP K%$ KI--+*)?T+, =? N)$ 1@12 4+*T%: !ende3a narrated tat on January 2', 2((2, se was tending er sari3sari store located at *@ ?oad, Bagum&ayan, Navotas$ Bot *ru7 and Killacorta were regular customers at !ende3aRs store$ +t around two oRcloc/ in te morning, wile *ru7 was ordering &read at !ende3aRs store, Killacorta suddenly appeared and, witout uttering a word, sta&&ed *ru7 on te left side of *ru7Rs &ody using a sarpened &am&oo stic/$ Te &am&oo stic/ &ro/e and was left in *ru7Rs &ody$ Immediately after te sta&&ing incident, Killacorta ed$ !ende3a gave case &ut failed to catc Killacorta$ Aen !ende3a returned to er store, se saw er neig&or +ron removing te &ro/en &am&oo stic/ from *ru7Rs &ody$ !ende3a and +ron ten &rougt *ru7 to Tondo !edical *enter$
Dr$ Belandres was 0ead of te Tetanus Department at te %an -a7aro 0ospital$ Aen *ru7 sustained te sta& wound on January 2', 2((2, e was ta/en to te Tondo !edical *enter, were e was treated as an outpatient$ *ru7 was only &rougt to te %an -a7aro 0ospital on 4e&ruary 1@, 2((2, were e died te following day, on 4e&ruary 1, 2((2$ Aile admitting tat e did not personally treat *ru7, Dr$ Belandres was a&le to determine, using *ru7Rs medical cart and diagnosis, tat *ru7 died of tetanus infection secondary to sta& wound$
0C-D: Tere is merit in te argument proered &y Killacorta tat in te event e is found to ave indeed sta&&ed *ru7, e sould only &e eld lia&le for sligt pysical in3uries for te sta& wound e inicted upon *ru7$ Te pro6imate cause of *ru7Rs deat is te tetanus infection, and not te sta& wound$
Pro6imate cause as &een de.ned as tat cause, wic, in natural and continuous secient intervening cause, produces te in3ury, and witout wic te result would not ave occurred$E
1( In tis case, immediately after e was sta&&ed &y Killacorta in te early morning of January 2', 2((2, *ru7 was rused to and treated as an outpatient at te Tondo !edical *enter$ )n 4e&ruary 1@, 2((2, *ru7 was admitted to te %an -a7aro 0ospital for symptoms of severe tetanus infection, were e died te following day, on 4e&ruary 1, 2((2$ Te prosecution did not present evidence of te emergency medical treatment *ru7 received at te Tondo !edical *enter, su&se
Tere are dou&ts in te instant case tat compel us to set aside te conviction of Killacorta for murder$ Tere ad &een an interval of 22 days &etween te date of te sta&&ing and te date wen *ru7 was rused to %an -a7aro 0ospital, e6i&iting symptoms of severe tetanus infection$ If *ru7 accient intervening cause later or &etween te time *ru7 was sta&&ed to te time of i s deat$
0owever, Killacorta is not totally witout criminal lia&ility$ Killacorta is guilty of sligt pysical for te sta& wound e inicted upon *ru7$
pysical dierences &etween te two and te wide gap &etween teir ages$ =rate immediately reported te matter to two &arangay tanods wen is passengers alig ted from te tricycle$ =rate and te tanods went after te two and saw te man dragging te &oy$ Noticing tat tey were &eing pursued, te man told Cnrico to run fast as teir pursuers migt &eead tem$ %omeow, te man managed to escape, leaving Cnrico &eind$ Cnrico was on is way ome in a passenger 3eep wen e met is parents, wo were riding in te ospital am&ulance and already loo/ing for im$ 2 +t a&out 1:@ in te afternoon of te same day, after CnricoFs return, +gra received an envelope containing a ransom note$ Te note demanded P1 million for te release of Cnrico and warned tat oterwise te &oy would &e /ill ed$ +gra tougt te andwriting in te note was familiar$ +fter comparing it wit some records in te ospital, e gave te note to te police, wic referred it to te NBI for e6amination$ 3 Te test sowed tat it ad &een written &y Dr$ %amson Tan$ * )n te oter and, Cnrico was sown a folder of pictures in te police station so e could identify te man wo ad detained im, and e pointed to te picture of Pa&lito Domasian$ Tan claims tat te lower court erred in not .nding tat te sending of te ransom note was an impossi&le crime wic e says is not punisa&le$ 0is reason is tat te second paragrap of +rticle @ of te ?evised Penal *ode provides tat criminal lia&ility sall &e incurred G&y any person performing an act wic would &e an oense against persons or property, were it not for te inerent impossi&ility of its accomplisment or on account of te employment of inade
I/8SSIBLE CRIES
PP K%$ D)!+%I+N, =? N)$ "'22 4+*T%: In te morning of !arc 11, 1"2, wile Cnrico was wal/ing wit a classmate, e was approaced &y a man wo re
Cven &efore te ransom note was received, te crime of /idnapping wit serious illegal detention ad already &een committed$ Te act cannot &e considered an impossi&le crime &ecause tere was no inerent impro&a&ility of its accomplisment or te employment of inade
INT)D K%$ PP, =? N)$ 1('11" 4+*T%: Petitioner togeter wit oter men, all armed wit .rearms, arrived at PalangpanganFs ouse$ Tereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tu&io and Daligdig .red at &edroom of Palangpangan$ It turned out, owever, tat Palangpangan was in anoter city and er ome was ten occupied &y er soninlaw and is family$ No one was in te room wen te accused .red te sots$ No one was it &y te gun .re$
11 +fter trial, te ?egional Trial *ourt convicted Intod of attempted murder$ Te *ourt of +ppeals a>rmed in toto te trial courtFs decision$ Tis petition rmed &y te *ourt of +ppeals, olding tat Petitioner was guilty of attempted murder$ Petitioner see/s from tis *ourt a modi.cation of te 3udgment &y olding im lia&le only for an impossi&le crime, 0C-D: +rticle @, paragrap 2 is an innovation of te ?evised Penal *ode$ Tis see/s to remedy te void in te )ld Penal *ode were: it was necessary tat te e6ecution of te act as &een commenced, tat te person conceiving te idea sould ave set a&out doing te deed, employing appropriate means in order tat is intent migt &ecome a reality, and .nally, tat te result or end contemplated sall ave &een pysically possi&le$ %o long as tese conditions were not present, te law and te courts did not old im criminally lia&le$ 5nder tis article, te act performed &y te oender cannot produce an oense against persons or property &ecause: 91; te commission of te oense is inerently impossi&le of accomplisment8 or 92; te means employed is eiter 9a; inade
impossi&ility$ bi debemos$
le5
non
distinguit
nec
nos
distinguere
Te factual situation in te case at &ar presents pysical impossi&ility wic rendered te intended crime impossi&le of accomplisment$ +nd under +rticle @, paragrap 2 of te ?evised Penal *ode, suc is su>cient to ma/e te act an impossi&le crime$
PP K%$ CN)J+, =? N)$ 1(2" %QN)P%I%: Te .ve appellants ere, all farmers and residents of Barangay *araudan, Janiuay, Iloilo, are related to eac oter$ Te victim, %iegfred =$ Insular, was a suspected commander of te GNew PeopleFs +rmyG 9NP+;$ Te provincial .scal .led an nformation for murder against erein appellants and teir tree companions wo remained atlarge$ Tey were arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty$ Te trial court rendered a decision .nding appellants erein guilty as carged$ Te trial court did not give credence to te claim of selfdefense and found conspiracy in committing te crime$ Te appellants .led tis appeal &efore te %upreme *ourt$ DICT In tis case, circumstances indu&ita&ly sowed tat appellants acted concertedly to /ill %iegfred$ 0ere, te %upreme *ourt found tat te trial court did not err in .nding tat conspiracy was present in tis case$ Bot te victim and te assailant /new eac oter and te victim gave no provocation in te attac/$ *learly te rmed wit modi.cation tat te award of actual damages was deleted$ +s an alternative defense, appellants present te teory tat even assuming tey participated in te /illing of %iegfred, tey sould only &e eld lia&le for te commission of an impossi&le crime under +rticle @, Par$ 2 of te ?evised Penal *ode, penali7ed under +rticle " tereof$ +ppellants teori7e tat te sots .red &y +rmada already resulted in te deat of te victim, and ence, teir su&se
ARTICLE 9 Ae:0ed ,r#sraed and Cons#::aed Sa!es
ATTE/TED STAGE Tis is not true in te Pilippines$ In our 3urisdiction, impossi&le crimes are recogni7ed$ Te impossi&ility of accomplising te criminal intent is not merely a defense, &ut an act penali7ed &y itself$ 4urtermore, te prase Ginerent impossi&ilityG tat is found in +rticle @92; of te ?evised Penal *ode ma/es no distinction &etween factual or pysical impossi&ility and legal
PP K%$ -+!+0+N=, =? N)$ -@''( 4+*T%: +t early dawn on !arc 2, 1"', policeman Jose Tomam&ing, wo was patrolling is &eat on Delgado and *? 4uentes streets of te *ity of Iloilo, caugt te accused in te act of ma/ing an opening wit an iron &ar on te wall of a store of ceap goods located on te last named street$ +t te time te
12 owner of te store, Tan Qu, was sleeping inside wit anoter *inaman$ Te accused ad only succeeded in &rea/ing one &oard and in unfastening anoter from te wall, wen te policeman sowed up, wo instantly arrested im and placed im under custody$ 0C-D: Tere is no dou&t in te case at &ar it was te intention of te accused to enter Tan QuRs store &y means of violence, passing troug te opening wic e as started to ma/e in te wall, in order to commit an oense wic, due to te arrival of policeman Tomam&ing did not develop &eyond te .rst steps of e6ecution$ But it is not su>cient, for te purpose of imposing penal sanction, tat an act o&3ectively performed constitute a mere &eginning of e6ecution8 it is necessary to esta&lis its unavoida&le connection, li/e te logical and natural relation of te cause and its eect, wit te deed wic, upon its consummation, will develop into one of te oenses de.ned and punised &y te *ode8 it is necessary to prove tat said &eginning of e6ecution, if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, witout &eing frustrated &y e6ternal o&stacles nor &y te voluntary desistance of te perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete oense$ Tus, in te case of ro&&ery, in order tat te simple act of entering &y means of force or violence anoter personRs dwelling may &e considered an attempt to commit tis oense, it must &e sown tat te oender clearly intended to ta/e possession, for te purpose of gain, of some personal property &elonging to anoter$ In te instant case, tere is noting in te record from wic suc purpose of te accused may reasona&ly &e inferred$ Te fact under consideration does not constitute attempted ro&&ery &ut attempted trespass to dwelling$
/E8/LE >S LI?ADA GR &8 '*3*9+-1' JA&4AR; 2* 2553 ,as +ccusedappellantH2 was carged wit four 9@; counts of
PP K%$ ?IKC?+ et$ al$ =? No$ 1'2 4+*T%: Te accused, all surnamed ?ivera, attac/ed and assaulted one ?u&en ?udil, itting im wit a piece of ollow &loc/ wile te latter went to a near&y store to &uy food togeter wit is daugter$ People wo saw te incident called for tem to stop$ Policemen arrived in te scene prompting te tree accused to ed to teir ouse$ ?u&en was rused to te ospital were te attending pysician declared tat te wounds sustained &y ?u&en were sligt and super.cial and would eal in a&out # days$ Te ?T* and te *+ convicted te accused of attempted murder$ +ccused, now petitioners, aver tat te prosecution ad failed to prove tat tey ad intention to /ill ?u&en$ Tey aver tat &ased on te testimony of te attending pysician, te victim did not sustained a fatal wound$ 0C-D: +s stated &y te attending pysician, appellants could ave /illed te victim ad te ollow &loc/ it is ead and ad te police not promptly intervened$ Aen a wound is not su>cient to cause deat, &ut intent to /ill is evident, te crime is attempted$ Intent to /ill was sown &y te fact tat te tree &roters elped eac oter maul te defenceless victim, and even if e ad already fallen to te ground8 tat one of tem proceeded to it te victim wit a ollow &loc/ ad not te police arrived$ Te accused commenced of te felony directly &y overt acts, &ut failed to perform all acts of e6ecution wic would produce te crime of murder &y reason of some causes oter tan teir own spontaneous desistance, tat is, ?u&en ?odil was a&le to run away and te timely response of te policemen$ 4urtermore, petitioners also draw attention to te fact tat te in3ury sustained &y victim was super.cial and tus not life treatening$ 0owever, te nature of te in3ury does not negate te intent to /ill$ +n essential element of murder and omicide, weter, consummated, frustrated or attempted, is intent of te oenders to /ill te victim immediately &efore or simultaneously wit te iniction of in3ury$ Intent to /ill is a speci.c intent wic te prosecution must prove &y direct or circumstantial evidence wile general criminal intent is presumed from te commission of a felony &y dolo$
Te last paragrap of +rticle of te ?evised Penal *ode reads: Tere is an attempt wen te oender commences te commission of a felony directly &y overt acts, and d oes not perform all te acts of e6ecution wic sould produce te felony &y reason of some cause or accident oter tan is own spontaneous desistance$E Te essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows: 1$ Te oender commences te commission of te felony directly &y overt acts8 2$ 0e does not perform all te acts of e6ecution wic should produce te felony8 '$ Te oenderRs act &e not stopped by his o#n spontaneous desistance-
@$ Te non3performance of all acts of e5ecution was due to cause or accident oter tan is spontaneous desistance$EH@( Te .rst re
1' Penal *ode as amended in relation to +rticle of te said *ode and is ere&y meted an indeterminate penalty of from si6 years of prision correccional in its ma6imum period, as minimum to ten years of prision mayor in its medium period, as ma6imum$ +ccusedappellant
+?+NCT+ K% *+ J5-Q '(, 1""( 4acts: In an Infor:aion @led $efore he Cir#i Cri:inal Co#r of anila 9h J#diial Disri on ay '* ')13 Eliseo Aranea Jr. y a#e herein 0eiioner Ben
Issue: %ould an accused wo admittedly sot te victim &ut is sown to ave inicted only a sligt wound &e eld accounta&le for te deat of te victim due to a fatal wound caused &y is co accusedM Principles +pplied: Te gunsot wound inicted &y petitioner +raneta, Jr$ was a sligt wound wic did not cause te deat of te victim nor materially contri&uted to it in order tat e may &e eld lia&le for omicide$ 10is lia&ility sould terefore &e limited to te sligt in3ury e caused$ 0owever, te fact tat p etitioner +raneta Jr$ inicted a gunsot wound on te victim sows te intent to /ill$ Te use of a gun .red at anoter certainly leads to no oter conclusion tan tat tere is intent to /ill$ 0e is terefore lia&le for te crime of attempted omicide and not merely for sligt pysical in3ury$
te mind of te person to wom it is directed$ Tat te victim, after te incident, cried wile relating to er classmates wat se perceived to &e a se6ual attac/ and te fact tat se .led a case for attempted rape proved &eyond reasona&le dou&t tat se was distur&ed, if not, distressed, &y te acts of te petitioner$
,R4STRATED STAGE 5% K%$ CD5+KC, =? N) -121 4+*T%: Te accused rused upon te girl, suddenly an struc/ er from &eind, in part at least, wit a sarp &olo$ + deadly weapon was used$ Te motive of te crime was tat te accused was incensed at te girl for te reason tat se ad teretofore carged im criminally &efore te local o>cials wit aving raped er and causing er pregnancy$ 0C-D: Te crime was frustrated, not attempted murder$ + felony is frustrated wen te oender performs all acts of e6ecution wic would produce te felony as a conse
?uling:
PP K%$ D+=!+N, et al =? N)$ -2'1''
*onsidering te mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender witout any oter attendant circumstances, petitioner +raneta, Jr$ is imposed te penalty of imprisonment for ten 91(; monts of prision correccional$ +ltoug, e is still guilty of attempted omicide$
4+*T%: )n te 2 nd of !ay, 1"2@, Clias !ag&ual, was attac/ed &y a crowed of persons and was nearly /illed$ Te motive of te crime was tat te persons wo ar&ored enmity against !ag&ual ad previously &een dispossessed of portions of te land &y 3udicial order$ !ag&ual managed to escape deat from is tormentors &y te use of feigning deat$
PP K%$ B+-C?)%, J?$ =? N)$ 1'('' %QN)P%I%: +&out 1:( in te morning of Decem&er 1', 1""1 in !anila, te accused ?enato Baleros Jr$, forcefully covered te face of !artina -ourdes T$ +l&ano wit a piece of clot soa/ed in cemical wit di77ying eects, and commenced te commission of rape &y lying on top of er wit te intention to ave carnal /nowledge wit e &ut was una&le to perform all acts of e6ecution &y reason of some cause or accident oter tan is own spontaneous desistance, said acts &eing committed against er will and consent to er damage and preudice$ Te petitioner argues, owever, tat te a&ove mentioned information, does not allege te complained act of covering te face of te victim wit a piece of clot soa/ed in cemical caused er annoyance, irritation, torment, distress and distur&ance$ 0C-D: !alice, compulsion, or restraint need not &e alleged in an information for un3ust ve6ation$ Te paramount
0C-D: Te murder sould &e regarded as frustrated &ecause te oenders performed all acts of e6ecution wic sould precede te felony as conse
K+-CNV5C-+ vs$ Pp, =? N)$ 1(1
1@ 4+*T%: Petitioner was seen outside te %uper %ale *lu& witin te %! *omple6 &y security guard, -oren7o -ago$ Petitioner was seen unloading cased of Tide detergent wit an accomplice$ Kalen7uela ten aled a ta6i, loaded te detergent inside and &oarded te same$ -ago proceeded to stop te ta6i and as/ed for te receipt of te mercandise$ Petitioner and accomplice was a&out to ee wen -argo .red a warning sot to alert is fellow security guards$ Kalen7uela and accomplice was ten appreended at te scene$ Te trial convicted te two wit consummated teft$ )nly Kalen7uela appealed to te *+ asserting tat e sould only & e convicted of frustrated teft$ *+ a>rmed decision of te trial court ence te present petition$ 0C-D: Kalen7uela invo/ed te DiLo and 4lores cases$ In &ot cases, te accused were convicted of frustrated teft, of wic it was eld te fact determinative of consummation is te a&ility of te tief to dispose freely of te articles stolen, even if it were more or less momentary$ 5nder +rticle '( of te ?P*, Teft is committed &y any person wo, wit intent to gain &ut witout violence against or intimidation of persons not force upon tings, sall ta/e personal property of anoter witout te latterRs consent$ ?eading te DiLo and 4lores cases, te a&ility of te oender to freely dispose of te property stolen is not a constitutive element of te crime of teft de.ned under +rticle '( of te ?P*$ In te present case, for te purpose of ascertaining weter teft is suscepti&le of commission in te frustrated stage, te
ARTICLE + C8&S/IRAC; C8&S/IRAC; A&D /R8/8SAL
PP K%$ +-CT+, CT +-, =? N)$ 1#"#( !arcelo, 4erdinand, ?ogelio, !arlo and Jovito, all surnamed +leta was carged for te murder of *elestino Duldulao y Qadao and 4erdinand +co&$ +ll a&ovenamed accuse clu& wit te use of ard o&3ects &ot te victims$ Te *ourt upolds te version of te prosecution: Aile te deceased +co&Rs moter, !arina, went to te community center, se eard a commotion on te yard of te appellants$ ?eturning ome, se told +co& of te
PP K%$ -)PCV, ?C=+-+D) +ND +?+=)N =? N)$ 1##'(2 4+*T%: +ppellant ?ogelio ?egalado wo was outside a tailoring sop, called out to victim, Cdencito *u and prompted im to come out of is moterRs &a/ery$ *u tereupon emerged from te &a/ery, put is arms around ?egaladoRs soulders and as/ed forgiveness$ ?egalado owever pused is arms aside, drew a curved /nife and sta&&ed *u on te left nipple$ +s *u ran towards Killalu7 %treet, ?egalado cased im and pic/ed up two pieces of .rewood along te way wit wic e it *u$ +ppellant Jaime -ope7 in te meantime surfaced from te &ac/ of te tailoring sop and also 3oined te case$ %oon appellant +ragon also surfaced from te &ac/ of te tailoring sop and 3oined te case$ Te tree caugt up wit *u$ +ragon &o6ed *u, causing te latter to fall$ 0e ten /ic/ed te victim$ -ope7 sta&&ed *u several times as ?egalado loo/ed on$ Aen *u was no longer moving, te tree appellants left$ 0C-D: +ppellantsR disclaimer of te presence of conspiracy fails$ Te evidence sows tat tey cooperated in a common design to /ill *u$ ?egalado initiated te /illing wen e sta&&ed *u on te cest, and te two oter appellants 3oined ?egalado in casing *u, wit ?egalado itting *u wit .rewood along te way$ Ten, wen te tree of tem ad cornered *u, +ragon &o6ed and /ic/ed *u ena&ling -ope7 to sta& im several times$ Tese indicates a conspiracy$
DIRECT /R88, 8, C8&S/IRAC; IS &8T RE4IRED PP vs$ P+B-) +!)DI+, accusedappellant, =? N)$ 1#'"1 4+*T%: ?omildo *eno testi.ed tat e along wit two friends were tal/ing and watcing television wen e eard a noise coming somewere &elow te * Bridge, located @(( meters away from teir ouse$ 0e also eard some&ody souted may away doon$E *urious, e and !ario went to te &ridge and saw .ve persons wom e identi.ed as te victim 94eli6 )landria BergaLo;, Pa&lo +modia, +rnold Partosa, =eorge Palacio and Damasio +modia$ 0e /new tese men as tey were neig&ors$ Illuminated &y ligt coming from a post, e saw te victim &eing eld in te rigt and &y Pa&lo, wile te oter and was eld &y +rnold$ =eorge was positioned at te victimRs &ac/ and clu&&ed te victim on te ead8 Damaso was in front of te victim and sta&&ed im tree times$ -uter *a&erte wo appened to &e passing &y te * &ridge at tat time, also saw wat appened$ 0e testi.ed tat e saw men .gting under te * &ridge wic was illuminated &y a ligt from a lamppost$ 0e saw Pa&lo, Damaso, =eorge and +rnold ganging up on te victim$ 0e saw Pa&lo olding te victimRs and wile Damaso was sta&&ing im$ 0e also a>rmed tat =eorge was positioned &eind te victim$ 0e personally /new &ot te victim and Pa&lo as tey ave &een neig&ors$ Bot eyewitnesses left te scene after te sta&&ing8 ?omildo was cased away &y =eorge and Damaso wile -uter went on ome immediately$ Te accusedappellant Pa&lo +modia invo/ed te defense of ali&i$ In is appeal, Pa&lo argues tat te trial court and te *+ erred in failing to give evidentiary weigt to is ali&i$ 0e alternatively argues tat granting tat e was part of DamasoRs group and tat te group /illed te victim, te prosecution failed to esta&lis te conspiracy among tem$ Tere was no evidence
1 adduced to esta&lis ow te incident tat led to te sta&&ing &egan$ 0C-D: +s an alternative argument, Pa&lo puts into issue te failure of te prosecutionRs evidence to esta&lis te conspiracy &etween im and is oter coaccused to ma/e im lia&le for murder$ 0e empasi7es tat te evidence, as testi.ed &y te eyewitnesses, only relate to events during and not prior to te assault and te sta&&ing of te victim$ 0e argues tat no evidence was adduced to sow tat te accused all agreed to /ill te victim$ *onspiracy e6ists wen two or more persons come to an agreement concerning te commission of a felony and decide to commit it$ It arises te very instant te plotters agrees, e6pressly or impliedly, to commit a felony and fortwit decide to pursue it$ It may &e proved &y direct or circumstantial evidence$ Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found8 circumstantial evidence is often resorted to in order to prove its e6istence$ +&sent of any direct proof as in te present case, conspiracy may &e deduced from te mode, metod, and manner te oense was perpetrated, or inferred from te acts of te accused temselves, wen suc acts point to a 3oint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest$ +n accused participates as a conspirator if e or se as performed some overt acts as a direct or indirect contri&ution in te e6ecution of te crime planned to &e committed$ Te overt act may consist of active participation in te actual commission of te crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to is co conspirators &y &eing present at te commission of te crime, or &y e6erting moral ascendancy over te oter coconspirators$ %tated oterwise, it is not essential tat tere &e proof of te previous agreement and decision to commit te crime, it is su>cient tat te malefactors acted in concert pursuant to te same o&3ective$ +ltoug tere was no evidence in te present case sowing a priot agreement of Pa&lo, +rnold, =eorge and Damaso, te following cain of events owever sow teir commonality of purpose in /illing te victim: .rst, te accused surrounded te victims on all sides8 Damaso at te front, =eorge at te victimRs rear8 wile Pa&lo and +rnold an/ed te victim on eac side8 second, Pa&lo ten wrested te rigt arm of te victim and restrained is movement8 wile +rnold did te same to te left arm of te victim8 tird, =eorge ten it te victimRs ead wit a piece of wood8 and fourt$ Damaso sta&&ed te victim tree times$
*erti.cate of ?egistration and )>cial ?eceipt issued &y te -T) in te name of Jose Biag$ Te accused voluntarily admitted tat te name in te papers is tat of te owner of te tricycle wom tey /illed and dumped along te +gadanan and =uillermo ?oad wen tey carnapped te tricycle$ Prosecution witness P(2 Ignacio testi.ed tat te accused told te police tat tey rented a tricyle from %antiago to +licia &ut tey proceeded to +ngadanan$ +nd upon arrival at te site, tey po/ed a /nife to te driver and te driver ran away$ Tey cased im and sta&&ed im$ 0C-D: *ircumstancial evidence is tat evidence wic proves a fact or series of facts from wic te facts in issue may &e esta&lised &y inference$ %uc evidence is founded on e6perience and o&served facts and coincidences esta&lising a connection &etween te /nown and te proven facts and te facts sougt to &e proved$ 0ence, to 3ustify a conviction &ased on circumstantial evidence, te com&ination of circumstances must &e interwoven in suc a way as to leave no reasona&le dou&t as to te guilt of te accused$ +n e6austive e6amination of te evidence presented sow tat te circumstantial evidence wen viewed as a wole esta&lises te guilt of -agat and Palalay &eyond reasona&le dou&t: 4irst, -agat and Palalay were found in possession of te tricycle, te same day tat, togeter wit its owner Biag, was reported missing$ %econd, -agat and Palalay were found at a palay & uying station, wit te stolen tricycle pac/ed wit te cavans of palay allegedly stolen$ Tird, -agat and Palalay wo were ten on &oard te tricycle 3umped and ran te moment tey saw te +licia PNP approacing tem$ 4ourt, -agat and Palalay could not e6plain to te police wy tey were in possession of BiagRs tricycle$ 4ift, Biags wallet and is tricycleRs registration papers were found in te tricycle upon its inspection$ %i6t, BiagRs &ody &ore ac/ wounds as evidenced &y te postmortem autopsy done on im, wile te tricycle ad &loodstains$ Te foregoing circumstantial evidence only leads to te conclusion tat -agat and Palalay conspired to /ill Biag in order to steal is tricycle$ Direct proof tat te two conspired is not essential as it may &e inferred from teir conduct &efore, during, and after teir commission of te crime tat tey acted wit a common purpose and design$ Te pieces of evidence presented &y te prosecution are consistent wit one anoter and te only rational proposition tat can &e drawn terefore is tat te accused are guilty of /illing Biag to carnap is tricycle$
PP vs$ -+=+T and P+-+-+Q, =? No$ 1#(@@
PP K%$ !5IT, P+N*0) J?$, 0C?!+N), DCO5I--), P+N*0), +ND 4+C??C?, =? N)$ 11(@'
4+*T%: Te accusedappellants were convicted of te crime of Ouali.ed *arnapping and te crime of 0omicide for te /illing of one Jose Biag, owner of te tricycle wic te accused appellants stole$ Prosecution witness %P)2 +rtur %alvador testi.ed tat e was on duty wit oter colleagues wen tey received a report from one Jimmy Cste&an tat te cavans of palay stolen from im were seen at te +lice Palay Buying %tation in a tricycle commandeered &y two unidenti.ed male persons$ Te police ten proceeded to verify te report$ +t te &uying station tey saw te tricycle descri&ed to tem wit te cavans of palay and te two accused$ Tey ten &rougt te two to te police station togeter wit te tricycle and its contents$ %alvador ten contended tat wen tey unloaded te contents of te tricycle, tey saw &loodstains inside and outside of te veicle$ Tey also found a wallet containing te tricycleRs
4+*T%: +ccused appellants were convicted wit te crime of /idnapping for ransom wit omicide and carnapping$ *onviction was esta&lised &y te direct testimony of 4aerrer and te witnesses of te prosecution, %eraspe and *ave7$ 4aerrer testi.ed on ow te group approaced and convinced im to let tem use is ouse to /eep te victim tey planned to /idnap$ Tey planned te crime in 4aerrerRs ouse and waited for te call from ?omeo to inform tem wen te victim was already at te construction site$ Te group received a call from ?omeo on Decem&er 2,1""# informing tem tat te victim was already at te construction site and so tey went tere to carry out teir plan$ +t te construction site, as testi.ed &y %eraspe and *ave7, !uit and te oter mem&ers of te group pointer teir guns at te victim and is companions and ordered tem to lie prostrate on te ground$ +fter getting te /eys to te
1 Pa3ero from %eraspe, tey forced te victim to &oard te veicle wit !uit driving it$ Tey immediately reported te /idnapping of te victim to te police and te /idnappers were intercepted$ Te /idnappers refused to surrendered and engaged te police in a soot out in wic te victim was among te casualties$ !uit was one of te two persons wo survived te soot out, &ut was appreended &y te police$ Panco Jr$ and Panco %r$ learned from te news tat te group engaged te police in a soot out and most of tem were /illed and tat !uit was arrested &y te police$ +fter investigation, te police were a&le to appreend appellants Panco Jr$, ?omeo and De
0C-D G*onspiracy e6ists wen two or more persons come to an agreement concerning te commission of a felony and decide to commit it$G In conspiracy, it is not necessary to adduce direct evidence of a previous agreement to commit a crime$ It Gmay &e sown troug circumstantial evidence, deduced from te mode and manner in wic te oense was perpetrated, or inferred from te acts of te accused temselves wen suc lead to a 3oint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest$G 2( Proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit te crime is not essential &ut te fact tat te malefactors acted in unison pursuant to te same o&3ective su>ces$ 0ere, wile tere is no proof of any previous agreement among appellants to commit te crime and wile it was esta&lised during trial tat Cddie alone sot *esario, te acts of all appellants &efore, during and after te incident esta&lis te e6istence of conspiracy to /ill *esario &eyond reasona&le dou&t$ 4irst, all of tem emerged at te same time from a &anana plantation &eside te rice.eld$ %econd, tey surprised *esario &y immediately surrounding im$ Tird, all of tem were armed at te time of te incident$ Cddie ad a sotgun concealed in a sac/, 4lorencio was armed wit a &olo, Clynor ad a &ow and arrow, wile Cric and 4ran/lin ad stones in teir ands$ 4ourt, Cric and 4ran/lin struc/ *esario wit stones moments &efore te sooting$ 4ift, Cddie immediately sot *esario at close range wile te latter was approacing te group of appellants upon &eing summoned &y 4lorencio$ %i6t, 4lorencio, 4ran/lin, Cric and Clynor stood 3ust a meter away from Cddie wen e sot *esario, &ut did not do anyting to stop or dissuade Cddie from te assault$ %event, after *esario was sot, all appellants departed from te scene of te crime togeter$ 5ndou&tedly, te acts of te assailants constitute proof of teir unanimity in design, intent and e6ecution$ 21 Tey Gperformed speci.c acts wit closeness and coordination as to unmista/a&ly indicate a common purpose and designG to ensure te deat of *esario$ Ae tus upold te lower courtsF .nding tat appellants conspired to commit te crime of murder against *esario$
0aving esta&lised conspiracy, appellantsF assertion tat eac of tem can only &e made lia&le for is own acts deserves no merit$ Cvidence as to wo among te appellants delivered te fatal &low is terefore no longer indispensa&le since in conspiracy, a person may &e convicted for te criminal act of anoter$ 2) In a conspiracy, te act of one is deemed te act of all$
PP vs$ +=+*C?, =? No$ 1###1 4+*T%: *esario was a farmer and owner of a rice.eld$ 0e was ten clearing a section of section of is farm and preparing te &eddings for te rice seedling intended for te coming planting season$ 4arm la&orers, were near&y in a separate section of te same rice.eld arvesting *esarioRs palay$ +ccording to prosecution witnesses and farm la&orers, =enesis and ?oden, it was at tat moment wile *esario was tending to is farm tat appellants suddenly emerged from a near&y &anana plantation and surrounded *esario$ Intimidated, *esarion retreated to were te oter farm la&orers were wor/ing$ 0owever, 4ran/lin +gacer set .re to te rice straw wic prompted te *esarion to return and save is seedlings$ +t tis point, 4ran/lin and Cric started trowing stones at im$ Tereafter, 4lorencio motioned for *esario to come closer upon wic te latter did$ Cric +gacer ten sot at *esario$ +lmost simultaneously, Clynor too/ aim at *esario wit is &ow and arrow$ Tereafter, a sort .rearm was trown from were appellants ran towards te direction of *esarioRs &ody$ +ppellants immediately left te scene of te crime$ In teir present appeal, appellants contend tat te ?T* erred in .nding tat conspiracy e6isted among te appellants in te /illing of *esario +gacer$
PP vs$ !+-IBI?+N, =? No$ 1#'(1 4+*T%: ?olando GBotongG !ali&iran and Beverly Ti&oTan were convicted of !urder and Parricide, respectively, and sentencing tem to suer te penalty of reclusion perpetua$ Te conviction arose from te deat of ?eynaldo Tan on 4e&ruary , 1""$ Te antecedents tat led to ?eynaldoFs deat, owever, go way &ac/ in te #(Fs wen ?eynaldo left is commonlaw wife, ?osalinda 4uer7as and teir two cildren, Jessie and ?eynalin, in Davao, and went to !anila to see/ greener pastures$ Aile in !anila, ?eynaldo met and ad a relationsip wit appellant$ Tey eventually married in 1"1$ ?eynaldo and appellant &egot tree cildren U ?enevie, Jag*arlo and Jay ?$ In 1"@, ?eynaldoFs and ?osalindaFs pats crossed again and tey resumed teir relationsip$ Tis led to te GsouringG of ?eynaldoFs relationsip wit appellant8 and in 1""1, ?eynaldo moved out of te con3ugal ouse and started living again wit ?osalinda, altoug ?eynaldo maintained support of and paternal ties wit is cildren$ )n tat fateful day of 4e&ruary , 1"", ?eynaldo and appellant were in =reenills wit teir cildren for teir usual %unday gallivant$ +fter .nising lunc at te Wimpura restaurant, te family separated at around 2:(( oFcloc/ in te afternoon to do some sopping$ -ater, tey regrouped and purcased groceries at 5nimart$ +t around @:(( oFcloc/ in te afternoon, te family stepped out of te sopping mall and
1# ?eynaldo proceeded to te par/ing lot to get is red 0onda +ccord, wile te rest of is family stayed &eind and waited$ Immediately tereafter, te family eard an e6plosion coming from te direction were ?eynaldo par/ed is car$ +ppellant and ?enevie got curious and proceeded to te par/ing lot$ Tere, tey saw te 0onda +ccord &urning, wit ?eynaldo lying &eside te driverFs seat, &urning, carred and &leeding profusely$ + ta6i driver named Clmer Paug 9Clmer; appeared and pulled ?eynaldo out of te car$ ?eynaldo was ten rused to te *ardinal %antos !edical 0ospital were e eventually died &ecause of te severe in3uries e sustained$ 3 Te underlying cause of is deat was !ultiple 4racture X !ultiple Kascular In3uries %econdary to Blast In3ury$ 0C-D: Te testimonies of prosecution witnesses Janet and )swaldo clearly lin/ appellant to te planning of te crime$ True, as intimated &y appellant, se may not ave &een at te scene of te crime at te time of te e6plosion8 &ut ten again, if se was, ten se would ave suered te same fate as ?eynaldo$ !oreover, te nature of te crime and te manner of its e6ecution, i$e$, via a &oo&y trap, does not demand te pysical presence of te perpetrator at te very time of its commission$ In fact, te very manner in wic it was carried out necessitated prior sceming and e6ecution for it to succeed$ Tus, appellantFs a&sence from te actual scene of te crime does not negate conspiracy wit ?olando in plotting te deat of er us&and$ + conspiracy e6ists even if not all te parties committed te same act, &ut te participants performed speci.c acts tat indicated unity of purpose in accomplising a criminal design$ !oreover, direct proof of previous agreement to commit an oense is not necessary to prove conspiracy U conspiracy may &e proven &y circumstantial evidence$ Te testimonies of Janet and )swaldo esta&lised te following set of circumstances wic, if ta/en collectively, sow te guilt of appellant: tat appellant and ?olando conspired, planned and agreed to /ill ?eynaldo using a grenade8 tat appellant duplicated te /ey to te red 0onda +ccord of ?eynaldo so tat ?olando could gain access to te car8 tat appellant tereafter gave te duplicate /ey to ?olando8 tat on 4e&ruary , 1"", appellant told )swaldo to follow te red 0onda +ccord of ?eynaldo until te latter par/ed te car8 tat appellant told )swaldo to tereafter pic/ up ?olando at Watipunan and &ring te latter to were ?eynaldo par/ed is red 0onda +ccord$ ?eynaldo died soon after due to in3uries e sustained from an e6plosion caused &y grenades planted in is car$ +noter nota&le fact is tat according to te e6pert opinion of Inspector %elverio Dollesin, *ief of te Bom& Disposal 5nit of te Castern Police District, te perpetrator ad information a&out te victimFs movements$ Dollesin also o&served tat te perpetrator /new is intended victim, since te grenade was speci.cally placed in &etween te driverFs seat and te front door$ Tat te perpetrator /new te victimFs movements was furter corro&orated &y te a>davits e6ecuted &y te Tan cildren, ?enevie 31 and Jag *arlo, 3+ attesting tat wile tey spent teir %undays wit teir fater, tis was te only time tat tey spent a %unday in =reenills$ )nly someone wo ad close personal contact wit ?eynaldo would /now is movements, were te car would &e par/ed, and tat e was te one wo usually drove te red 0onda +ccord, suc tat it was precisely positioned to ensure damage to te intended victim$
PP vs$ ?CQC%, +?N+-D) and 4-)?C%, accusedappellants =? N)$ 1#'((
4+*T%: Te Qao family is composed of Qao %an 9fater;, *ua )ng Ping %im 9moter;, ?o&ert and ?aymond 9cildren;, -enny 9daugterinlaw, wife of ?o&ert;, !attew and *arlene 9grandcildren;, and Jona +&agatnan and Josepine )rtea 9ousemaids;$ Te Qao family owns and operates a poultry farm in Barangay %anto *risto, %an Jose del !onte, Bulacan$ )n 1 July 1""", at a&out 11:(( p$m$, te Qao family, on &oard a !a7da !KP van, arrived at te teir poultry farm$ Qao %an aligted from te van to open te gate of te farm$ +t tis 3uncture, appellant ?eyes and a certain Juanito Pataray 9Pataray; approaced, po/ed teir guns at Qao %an, and dragged im inside te van$ +ppellant ?eyes and Pataray also &oarded te van$ Tereupon, appellants +rnaldo and 4lores, wit two male companions, all armed wit guns, arrived and immediately &oarded te van$ +ppell ant 4lores too/ te driverFs seat and drove te van$ +ppellants ?eyes and +rnaldo and teir coorts ten &lindfolded eac mem&er of te Qao family inside te van wit pac/aging tape$ +fter a&out '( minutes of traveling on te road, te van stopped$ Per order of appellants and teir coorts, *ua )ng Ping %im, ?o&ert, ?aymond and Jona +&agatnan 9+&agatnan; stepped out of te van wit appellants ?eyes and +rnaldo, Pataray and one of teir male companions$ +ppellant 4lores, wit te oter male companion, drove te van wit te remaining mem&ers of te Qao family inside te veicle$ -ater, te van stopped again$ +ppellant 4lores and is male companion told Qao %an to produce te amount of .ve million pesos as ransom in e6cange for te release of *ua )ng Ping %im, ?o&ert, ?aymond and +&agatnan$ Tereafter, appellant 4lores and is male companion left te van and ed8 wile Qao %an, -enny, !attew, *arlene and Josepine remained inside te van$ Qao %an ten drove te van towards te poultry farm and sougt te elp of relatives$ !eanwile, *ua )ng Ping %im, ?o&ert, ?aymond and +&agatnan were ta/en on foot &y appellants ?eyes and +rnaldo, Pataray and one male companion to a safeouse situated in te mountainous part of %an Jose Del !onte, Bulacan were tey spent te wole nigt$ )n te morning of te following day, te /idnappers tried to contact Qao %an regarding te ransom demanded, &ut te latter could not &e reaced$ Tus, appellants instructed +&agatnan to loo/ for Qao %an in te poultry farm$ 5pon arriving terein, +&agatnan searced for Qao %an, &ut te latter could not &e found$ +ppellants ?eyes and +rnaldo told +&agatnan to remind Qao %an a&out te ransom$ Tereafter, appellants ?eyes and +rnaldo and teir male companion left +&agatnan in te poultry farm and went &ac/ to te safeouse$ In te safeouse, appellants told ?o&ert tat tey would release im so e could elp +&agatnan in locating Qao %an$ +&andoned &y te appellants and upon arriving at te poultry farm, ?o&ert found Qao %an and informed im a&out te ransom demanded &y te appellants for te remaining eld victims$ + series of calls were made &etween Qao %an and te /idnappers in wic e was instructed to deliver te ransom and not tell te autorities$ 0owever, /idnappers did not sow up wen Qao %an delivered te ransom money$ )n 2' July 1""", te corpses of *ua )ng Ping %im and ?aymond were found at te -a !esa Dam, Novalices, Oue7on *ity$ Bot died of aspy6ia &y strangulation$ 0C-D: +propos te second assigned error, appellants contend tat te prosecution failed to prove tat tey conspired in /idnapping te Qao family$ 5nder +rticle of te ?evised Penal *ode, tere is conspiracy wen two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it$ *onspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in te e6ecution of te unlawful o&3ective among te accused$ Aen te accused &y teir acts aimed at te same o&3ect, one performing one part and te oter performing anoter part as to complete te crime, wit a view to te attainment of te same o&3ect, conspiracy e6ists$ +s can &e gleaned from te credi&le testimonies and sworn statements of +&agatnan, ?o&ert and Qao, appellant
1 ?eyes and Pataray approaced and po/ed teir guns at Qao %an, and tereafter dragged te latter into te van$ +ppellant 4lores ten too/ te driverFs seat and drove te van, wile eac mem&er of te Qao family was &lindfolded &y appellants ?eyes and +rnaldo and teir coorts inside te van$ Tereafter, appellant 4lores instructed Qao %an to produce te amount of P million as ransom money in e6cange for te release of *ua )ng Ping %im, ?o&ert, ?aymond and +&agatnan$ +ppellant ?eyes and appellant +rnaldo were among te /idnappers wo guarded +&agatnan, ?o&ert, *ua )ng Ping %im and ?aymond in te safeouse$ Tey also accompanied +&agatnan and ?o&ert in going to te poultry farm to searc for and remind Qao %an a&out te ransom demanded$ 4urter, appellants +rnaldo and 4lores narrated in teir respective e6tra3udicial confessions ow tey planned and e6ecuted te /idnapping of te Qao family$ Teir e6tra3udicial confessions also detailed te particular roleparticipation played &y eac of appellants and teir coorts in te /idnapping of te family$ *learly, te foregoing individual acts of appellants and teir coorts demonstrated teir unity of purpose and design in /i dnapping te Qao family for te purpose of e6torting ransom$
PP vs$ CK+N=C-I), =? No$ 1"(2 4+*T%: +ppellant Josep Cvangelio 9Josep;, accused Cdgar Cvangelio y =allo 9Cdgar;, +tilano +gaton y )&ico 9+tilano; and Noel !alpas y =arcia 9Noel; are carged wit te crime of ?o&&ery wit ?ape$ )n )cto&er ', 2((1, at :'( in te evening, wile +++, a 1# yearold ouseelper, was coo/ing in te /itcen of te ouse of BBB, four persons, suddenly &arged inside te ouse troug te open /itcen door$ %e was &rougt to te living room$ Tere, tey erded all te oter mem&ers of te ouseold and &ound teir ands and feet, and tereafter, placed mas/ing tapes over teir captivesF eyes$ Ait er eyes partially covered &y te tape, +++ was &rougt &y te appellant inside te comfort room and tereat, appellant and one of te ro&&ers stripped o +++Fs clotes and removed er panty$ +++ resisted and fougt &ac/ &ut tey slammed er ead twice against te concrete wall, causing er to lose consciousness$ Aen se regained er senses, appellant and te oter ro&&ers were already gone, and se found erself lying on te side on te oor of te comfort room wit er feet untied and er ands still tied &eind er &ac/$ %e saw er sorts and panty strewn at er side$ %e suered pain in er /nees, ead, stomac, and er vagina, wic was &leeding$ -ater on, +++ was freed from te comfort room &y te oter occupants of te ouse, wo were earlier freed$ Prosecution witness Cvelyn was in te living room wen te incident appened$ %e was tutoring er nieces wen te four men &arged inside te ouse$ 5pon te instruction of accused Cdgar, Cdelyn was divested of er earrings, &racelet, watc, and ring$ Tereafter, appellant tied er ands and feet, and &lindfolded er wit mas/ing tape$ %e was it on te ead wit a .rearm, causing a cut and er losing consciousness$ Aen se regained er senses, se found erself in te maidsF room$ %e eard accused Cdgar as/ er nieces were teir fater /ept teir pieces of 3ewelry and .rearm$ Aen er nieces told im tat te valua&les were /ept upstairs, accused Cdgar &rougt one of tem tere$ BBB came ome around #:(( in te evening and wen e entered te sliding door facing te garage, e saw te four
accused inside$ Aen e entered, e was immediately accosted and warned to /eep ce in te early evening of )cto&er ', 2((1$ 5pon arriving tereat, se tried to open te door &ut was not a&le to do so$ %e ten called out te names of er cildren, &ut no&ody responded$ %e peeped troug te window screen and saw people inside te ouse wit wom se did not recogni7e$ )ne of te accused ten po/ed a gun at er ead and told er to come inside$ %e ran away from teir ouse, and cried out for elp from te neig&ors$ Tey called te police$ %ortly tereafter, te policemen arrived$ Tey found te ouse in complete disarray, te ca&inets were forci&ly opened, ***Fs 3ewelry &o6 and er pieces of 3ewelry stolen, and te mem&ers of te ouseold traumati7ed$ +n inventory was ta/en of te stolen valua&les wic amounted to PP'',((($((, more or less$ %ome of te stolen items were later recovered from te ouse of accused Cdgar$ 0C-D: 4or a conviction of te crime of ro&&ery wit rape to stand, it must &e sown tat te rape was committed by reason or on the occasion of a ro&&ery and not te oter way around$ Tis special comple6 crime under +rticle 2"@ of te ?evised Penal *ode contemplates a situation were te original intent of te accused was to ta/e, wit intent to gain, personal property &elonging to anoter and rape is committed on te occasion tereof or as an accompanying crime$ 2) In te case at &ar, te original intent of te appellant and is coaccused was to ro& te victims and ++ + was raped on te occasion of te ro&&ery$ Te trial court also found te presence of conspiracy &etween te perpetrators$ 5nder +rticle of te ?evised Penal *ode, tere is conspiracy wen two or more persons come to an agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it$ It may &e inferred from te acts of te accused &efore, during or after te commission of te crime wic, wen ta/en togeter, would &e enoug to reveal a community of criminal design, as te proof of conspiracy is fre
1" In /eople v. Suyu, we ruled tat once conspiracy is esta&lised &etween several accused in te commission of te crime of ro&&ery, tey would all &e e
PP K%$ B)WIN=), =? No$ 1#' 4+*T%: Te victim, Noli Pasion 9Pasion; and is wife, Clsa, pawnsop, wic formed part of is ouse and a series of apartments$ +ppellants were among te 1' construction wor/ers employed &y Pasion$ Aitness Kitalicio was spindrying is clotes inside is apartment wen Pasion came from te front door, passed &y im and went out of te &ac/ door$ + few minutes later, e eard a commotion from +partment No$ ' and eaded to said unit to cec/$ 0e peeped troug a screen door and saw Bo/ingco itting someting on te oor$ 5pon seeing Kitalicio, Bo/ingco proceeded attac/ed im wit a ammer in is and$ + struggle ensued and Kitalicio was it several times$ Kitalicio &it Bo/ingcoFs nec/ and managed to pus im away$ Bo/ingco tried to case Kitalicio &ut was eventually su&dued &y a cowor/er$ Kitalicio proceeded to is ouse and was told &y is wife tat Pasion was found dead in te /itcen of +partment No$ '$ Kitalicio went &ac/ said apartment and saw PasionFs &ody lying at on te /itcen oor$ Clsa testi.ed tat se was in te masterFs &edroom on te second oor of te ouse wen se eard &anging sounds and er us&andFs moans$ %e immediately got o te &ed and went down$ Before reacing te /itcen, te accusedappellant, *ol, &loc/ed er way$ Clsa as/ed im wy e was inside teir ouse &ut *ol suddenly ran towards er, sprayed tear gas on er eyes and po/ed a sarp o&3ect under er cin$ *ol ten instructed er to open te vault of te pawnsop &ut Clsa informed im tat se does not /now te com&ination loc/$ Clsa tried oering im money &ut *ol dragged er towards te &ac/ door &y olding er nec/ and pulling er &ac/ward$ Before tey reaced te door, Clsa saw Bo/ingco open te screen door and eard im tell *ol: 0tara, patay na siya.0 *ol immediately let er go and ran away wit Bo/ingco$ Clsa proceeded to +partment No$ ' were se saw er us&and lying on te oor$ 0C-D: Boc/ingco was convicted of 0omicide &y te lower court$ *ol, on te oter and, was carged as a coconspirator$ 0e contends tat to old im guilty as coconspirator, it must &e esta&lised tat e performed an overt act in furterance of te conspiracy$ +pplying %ection '(, ?ule 1'( of te ?ules of *ourt, *ol asserts tat Bo/ingcoFs uncounselled testimony tat appellants planned to /ill Pasion &ears no relevance considering te fact tat tere was no oter evidence wic will prove te conspiracy$ *ol also claims tat ClsaFs statements during trial, suc as te presence of *ol inside er ouse and is forcing er to open te vault of te pawnsop, as well as te alleged statement se eard from Bo/ingco 0ara, patay na siya,0 are not adermed &y te )%=$ Ae disagree$ In order to convict *ol as a principal &y direct participation in te case, it is necessary tat conspiracy &etween im and Bo/ingco &e proved$ *onspiracy e6ists wen two or more persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful act$ It may &e inferred
from te conduct of te accused &efore, during, and after te commission of te crime$ *onspiracy may &e deduced from te mode and manner in wic te oense was perpetrated or inferred from te acts of te accused evincing a 3oint or common purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest$ 5nity of purpose and unity in te e6ecution of te unlawful o&3ective are essential to esta&lis te e6istence of conspiracy$ +s a rule, conspiracy must &e esta&lised wit te same cient evidence to esta&lis te e6istence of conspiracy$ Terefore, te e6tra3udicial confession as no pro&ative value and is inadmissi&le in evidence against *ol$ Bo/ingcoFs 3udicial admission e6culpated *ol &ecause Bo/ingco admitted tat e only attac/ed Pasion after te latter it im in te ead$ +ll told, an accient evidence was adduced to implicate im$
2(
ARTICLE '2-CASES I&SA&IT; 8R IBECILIT; // >S. ABAL ,ACTS Te accused was convicted of parricide for te deat is wife, 4elicula$ In te morning of January 2(, 1"##, te &arangay captain found 4elicula Kicente+m&al, mortally wounded$ %e was su&secient evidence$ Te presumption of sanity was not overtrown$ 0e was not completely &ereft of reason or discernment and freedom of will wen e mortally wounded is wife$ 0e was not suering from any mental disease or defect$ Te fact tat immediately after te incident e tougt of surrendering to te lawenforcing autorities is incontesta&le proof tat e /new tat wat e ad done was wrong and tat e was going to &e punised for it$
// >S. BASC8S ,ACTS Te accused Donato Bascos was convicted of omicide for te deat Kictoriano ?omero$ Te proof for te prosecution esta&lised tat te accused was te one wo ad /illed Kictoriano ?omero, wile te latter was sleeping$ Te defense was tat of insanity$
"ELD Te wife of te accused and is cousin testi.ed tat te accused ad &een more or less continuously out of is mind for many years$ Te assistant district ealt o>cer, wo e6amined te accused and conducted an investigation, found tat te accused is a violent maniac, and tat from te information e ad received from te neig&ors of te accused, te latter ad &een insane for some time$ Te pysician e6pressed te opinion tat te accused was pro&a&ly insane wen Kictoriano ?omero was /illed$ Te total lac/ of motive of Bascos to /ill ?omero &ears out te assumption tat te former was insane$ Te *ourt is convinced tat te accused was a lunatic wen e committed te grave felony descri&ed in te record and tat consece$ *ourts sould &e careful to distinguis insanity in law from passion or eccentricity, mental wea/ness or mere depression resulting from pysical ailment$ Te %tate sould guard against sane murderers escaping punisment troug a general plea of insanity$ In te case at &ar, owever, we are not concerned wit connecting two or more attac/s of insanity to sow te continuance tereof during te intervening period or periods &ut wit te continuity of a particular and isolated attac/, &eginning wit te demonstration of symptoms tereof prior to te commission of te crime carged, and ending wit a positive d iagnosis of insanity immediately following te commission of te act complained of$ To prove motive and premeditation and, indirectly, mental normalcy of te accused at te time of te commission of te crime, te prosecution called on policeman D$ +$ wo testi.ed as to certain statements made to im &y te defendantappellant after is arrest$ + detective corro&orated te policemanFs testimony$ Tat suc /ind of evidence is not necessarily proof of te sanity of te accused during te commission of te oense$ C6pert .ndings concluded tat te accused is suering from a type of dementia praeco6 called manic depressive psycosis$ In te type of dementia praeco6 Gte crime is u sually preceded &y muc complaining and planning$ In tese people, omicidal attac/s are common, &ecause of delusions tat tey are &eing interfered wit se6ually or tat teir property is &eing ta/en$G Te *ourt is of te opinion tat te defendantappellant was demented at te time e perpetrated te serious oense carged in te information and tat conse
21 ,ACTS +ccusedappellant -i&ao was carged wit te crimes of rape and ro&&ery$ Te victim, 0onorata )ng, wile sleeping wit er daugters, was awa/ened &y a man armed wit a /nife standing &y er feet$ Te man already ad is pants and &riefs down on is /nees and e was pointing to er eld est daugter$ +larmed, 0onorata told te man not to touc er daugter$ Te man po/ed is /nife at er and told er to stand up and ten was made to lie down on te ad3acent sofa were e raped er$ +ll tis time, e ad is /nife at 0onorataFs nec/$ 0onorata noticed tat te man ree/ed of alcool$ +fterwards, 0onorataFs assailant stood up ten as/ed for money$ Te trial court convicted te accused of te crimes carged against im$ In accusedappellantFs last assignment of error, e claims tat te trial court erred in not ruling tat e is entitled to te e6empting circumstance of insanity$ "ELD 4or insanity to &e considered, Paragrap 1, +rticle 12 of te ?evised Penal *ode ren tat e learned a&out er deat$ 0e, owever, was not aware of te cause of er demise$ Te trial court convicted appellant as is evidence failed to refute te presumption of sanity at te time e committed te oense$ 0ence, te present appeal$ +ppellant insisted tat at te time e sta&&ed is wife, e was completely deprived of intelligence, ma/ing is criminal act involuntary$ 0e furter contended tat te fact tat e and is wife never engaged in a .gt prior to tat fateful day sould &e considered$ Te mar/ed cange in is &eavior wen e uncaracteristically rmed appellantFs conviction$ In te case at &ar, te appellant was diagnosed to &e suering from sci7oprenia wen e was committed to te N*!0 monts after e /illed is wife$ None of te witnesses presented &y te appellant declared tat e e6i&ited any of te myriad
symptoms associated wit sci7oprenia immediately &efore or simultaneous wit te sta&&ing incident$ To &e sure, te record is &ereft of even a single account of a&normal or &i7arre &eavior on te part of te appellant prior to tat fateful day$ +ltoug tere is a ig possi&ility tat te appellant was already suering from sci7oprenia at te time of te sta&&ing, te doctor wo diagnosed im also declared tat sci7oprenics ave lucid intervals during wic tey are capa&le of distinguising rigt from wrong$ 0ence te importance of adducing proof to sow tat te appellant was not in is lucid interval at te time e committed te oense$ +ltoug te appellant was diagnosed wit sci7oprenia a few monts after te sta&&ing incident, te evidence of insanity after te fact of commission of te oense may &e accorded weigt only if tere is also proof of a&normal &eavior immediately &efore or simultaneous to te commission of te crime$ Cvid ence on te alleged insanity must refer to te time preceding te act under prosecution or to te very moment of its e6ecution$ In te case at &ar, we .nd te evidence adduced &y te defense insu>cient to esta&lis is claim of insanity at te time e /illed is wife$ Te arguments advanced &y te appellant to prove is insanity are speculative and nonsecient reason to /ill a pregnant spouse &ecause 3urisprudence is replete wit cases were lives ad &een terminated for te imsiest reason$
// >S. 8/4RA& ,ACTS +ppellant +nacito )puran was carged wit two counts of murder for te deat of Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr$, and +llan Dacles$ Te accused invo/es te e6empting circumstance of insanity$ Te defense relied on testimonies of witness tat could sow te a&normal &eaviour of te accused as constituting insanity and te e6pert testimony of Dr$ Kerona wo diagnosed tat te accused was psycotic &efore and during te commission of te crime and even up to te present$ 0er diagnosis was tat +nacito was suering from sci7oprenia$ "ELD + careful scrutiny of te records, indicates tat +nacito failed to prove &y clear and convincing evidence te defense of insanity$ 4or one ting, it was only Bam&iFs personal perception tat tere was no reason or occasion for +nacito to wear Barong Tagalog$ Tested against te stringent criterion for insanity to &e e6empting, suc deportment of +nacito, is occasional silence, and is acts of lauging, tal/ing to imself, staring sarply, and sta&&ing is victims witin a 1minute interval are not su>cient proof tat e was insane immediately &efore or at te time e committed te crimes$ %uc unusual &eavior may &e considered as mere a&normality of te mental faculties, wic will not e6clude imputa&ility Insanity is evinced &y a deranged and perverted condition of te mental faculties wic is manifested in language and conduct$ 0owever, not every a&erration of te mind or mental de.ciency constitutes insanity$ +nacitoFs psyciatric istory li/ewise fails to meet te stringent yardstic/ esta&lised &y case law$ Aat it sows is tat +nacito was prescri&ed tora7ine and evadyne, and later an in3ecta&le medicine to remedy Gis lac/ of sleep and noisiness$G It was never sown tat tese drugs were for a mental illness tat deprived +nacito of reason$ 4urter, +nacito was 3ust an out patient at te N*!0, CK?!*, and %amar Provincial 0ospital$ Te records are li/ewise clear tat +nacito was not su&3ected to treatment from 1""1 until 1"""$ Aile ?emedios insisted tat te medicine prescri&ed for +nacito ran out of stoc/ allegedly in 1""(, tere was no proof tat +nacito needed te medicine during tat period$ !oreover, as found &y te trial court, te results of Dr$ KeronaFs e6aminations on +nacito were &ased on incomplete or insu>cient facts$ %e failed to demonstrate ow se arrived at er conclusions$ %e failed to sow er metod of testing$ 4urter, se did not ave +nacitoFs complete &eavioral and psyciatric istory$ Te most tat we can conclude is tat er .ndings refer to te period a fter te sta&&ing accident and, ence, would prove +nacitoFs mental condition only for said
22 time$ It could &e tat +nacito was insane at te time e was e6amined &y Dr$ Kerona$ !oreover, +nacito failed to raise insanity at te earliest opportunity$ 0e invo/ed te defense of insanity only after e ad already testi.ed on is defenses of ali&i and denial$ It as &een eld tat te invocation of denial and ali&i as defenses indicates tat te accused was in full control of is mental faculties$ 4urter, te trial 3udge o&served tat, during te earings, +nacito was attentive, well&eaved, and responsive to te
I&J4R; B; ERE ACCIDE&T WIT"84T ,A4LT 8R I&TE&TI8& 8, CA4SI&G IT // vs. GE&ITA ,ACTS Aile te victims ?eynaldo Tim&al and Jesus Bascon were loading .rewood in a truc/, appellant wo was drun/ and armed wit an !1@ rie, as/ed for a *ristmas gift$ 0e was told to come &ac/ &ecause tey were still loading .rewood$ +ppellant left te place$ Not long after, e returned and .red is gun at te victims$ +ppellant, relying on te e6empting circumstance of accident as is defense, presented a dierent version$ 0e testi.ed tat e was a mem&er of te *+4=5 ence, e was o>cially issued an !1@ rie$ )n te evening of te incident, wile on is way to is camp, e saw a truc/ par/ed at te rigt side of te road wit its rear ligts on$ Aile approacing te veicle, some&ody grasped is nec/$ +s a conse
// >S. AGLIDA; ,ACTS +ppellant was convicted of parricide for fatally sooting is own son wit a sotgun$ +ppel lant, owever, alleged tat e was cleaning is omemade sotgun wen te same accidentally went o and it is son$ Tus, e sould &e e6empted from criminal lia&ility under par$ @ of +rt$ 12 of te ?P*$ "ELD Te *ourt found no reason to reverse te ruling of te trial court$ Before te accused may &e e6empted from criminal lia&ility &y reason of +rticle 12 9paragrap @;, te following elements must concur: 91; a person is performing a l awful act 92; wit due care, and 9'; e causes an in3ury to anoter &y mere accident and 9@; witout any fault or intention of causing it$ 4or an accident to &ecome an e6empting circumstance, te act as to &e lawful$ Te act of .ring a sotgun at anoter is not a lawful act$ +n accident is an occurrence tat Gappens outside te sway of our will, and altoug it comes a&out troug some act of our will, lies &eyond te &ounds of umanly foreseea&le conseS. // ,ACTS Te version of te prosecution is as follows: Te deceased, was a suspect of a ro&&ery tat too/ place in te municipality$ 0e was arrested and tere&y detained$ Aile in detention, Bal&oa was directed &y te petitioner to come out of is cell, purportedly for tactical interrogation at te investigation room$ Aen petitioner and Bal&oa were near te in vestigation room, two gunsots were eard$ Aen te source of te sots was veri.ed, petitioner was seen still olding a $@ cali&er pistol, facing Bal&oa, wo was lying in a pool of &lood, a&out two feet away$ Te version of defense is as follows: Petitioner 9Pomoy; testi.ed tat e got Tomas Bal&oa from teir stoc/ade for tactical interrogation8 as e was already olding te door /no& of teir investigation room and a&out to open and enter it, all of a sudden e saw Tomas Bal&oa approac im and ta/e old or gra& te andle of is gun$ Te deceased was not a&le to ta/e actual old of te gun &ecause of is eorts in preventing im 9Bal&oa; from olding te andle of is gun$ Tomas Bal&oa was not a&le to ta/e actual old of te gun &ecause of is eorts in preventing im 9Bal&oa; from olding te andle of is gun$ 0is gun was already loaded in its cam&er and coc/ed wen e left is ouse, and it was loc/ed wen it .red8 during te grappling e used is left and to prevent Bal&oa from olding is gun, wile te victim used is rigt and in trying to reac te gun8 after te gun .red, tey were separated from eac oter and Bal&oa fell$ 4indings of te ?ural 0ealt Pysician wo conducted te autopsy on te cadaver of Tomas Bal&oa revealed tat te location of te wounds found on te &ody of te deceased did not support te assertion of petitioner tat tere ad &een a grappling for te gun$ Te tra3ectory of te wounds was frontto&ac/ &elying te allegation of petitioner tat e and te victim were side&yside eac oter wen te grappling ensued$ 4urtermore, a deformed slug in te poc/et of te 3ac/et of te victim$ Petitioner claims tat te sooting was a mere accident$ 0e also invo/es selfdefense as alternative$ "ELD In determining weter an GaccidentG attended te incident, courts must ta/e into account te dual standards of lac/ of intent to /ill and a&sence of fault or negligence$ Tis determination inevita&ly &rings to te fore te main
2' resolutely tried to twart tose attempts$ In te course of grappling for te gun, &ot ands of petitioner were fully engaged$ It would &e di>cult to imagine ow, under suc circumstances, petitioner would coolly and eectively &e a&le to release te safety loc/ of te gun and deli&erately aim and .re it at te victim$ It is undisputed tat &ot petitioner and te victim grappled for possession of te gun$ Te eyewitness account amply illustrated te logical conclusion tat could not &e dismissed: tat in te course of te scuYe, te safety loc/ could ave &een accidentally released and te sots accidentally .red$ )rdinarily, te location of gunsot wounds is indicative of te positions of te parties at te p recise moment wen te gun was .red$ Teir positions would in turn &e relevant to a determination of te e6istence of varia&les suc as treacery, aggression and so on$ In te p resent case, owever, te location of te wounds &ecomes inconsecer tat to fetc te victim for a routine interrogation$ Tus tere is te lawfull e6ercise of duty$ Petitioner cannot &e faulted for negligence eiter$ 0e e6ercised all te necessary precautions to prevent is service weapon from causing accidental arm as e ad /ept is service gun loc/ed wen e left is ouse8 e /ept it inside its olster at all times, especially witin te premises of is wor/ing area$ +t no instance during is testimony did te accused admit to any intent to cause in3ury to te deceased, muc less /ill im$ Te participation of petitioner, if any, in te victimFs deat was limited only to acts committed in te course of te lawful performance of is duties as an enforcer of te l aw$ Petitioner advanced selfdefense as an alternative$ =ranting arguendo tat e intentionally sot Bal&oa, e claims e did so to protect is life and lim& from real and immediate danger$ %elf defense is inconsistent wit te e6empting circumstance of accident, in wic tere is no intent to /ill$ )n te oter and, selfdefense necessarily contemplates a premeditated intent to /ill in order to defend on eself from imminent danger$ +pparently, te fatal sots in te instant case did not occur out of any conscious or premeditated eort to overpower, maim or /ill te victim for te purpose of selfdefense against any aggression8 rater, tey appeared to &e te spontaneous and accidental result of &ot partiesF attempts to possess te .rearm$
A&; /ERS8& W"8 ACTS 4&DER T"E C8/4LSI8& 8, A& IRRESISTIBLE ,8RCE // >S. L8RE&8 ,ACTS Custa
In te case at &ar, a perusal of te appellantsF statement of te ro&&eryrape incident as, summari7ed in teir 3oint &rief, sowed tat tey admitted teir participation in te commission of te crime of ro&&ery and rape against Clias !onge and is family on January #, 1"#$ 4urter esta&lised were facts inconsistent wit appellantFs claim of aving acted under te compulsion of an irresisti&le force andor under te impulse of an uncontrolla&le fear of e
A&; /ERS8& W"8 ACTS 4&DER T"E I/4LSE 8, A& 4&C8&TR8LLABLE ,EAR 8, A& E4AL 8R GREATER I&J4R; // >S. SALDAA ,ACTS 4ernando !orales and +rturo !alit, and teir coaccused Narciso %aldaLa and Clmer Csguerra were found guilty of te crime of /idnapping for ransom and imposing on tem te penalty of deat$ +ppellant 4ernando !orales similarly maintains tat e acted due to an uncontrolla&le fear of an e
2@ even if true, te fear tat appellants allegedly suered would not su>ce to e6empt tem from incurring criminal lia&ility$ !oreover, /idnap victim Jeerson Tan categorically testi.ed tat eac of te /idnappers acted of is own accord and tat no&ody commanded anyone$ Te trial court found JeersonFs testimony worty of credence$ Based on te evidence at and, we .nd no su>cient reason to distur& te trial courtFs assessment of te defense presented &y appellants$ Te crime of /idnapping is not committed on impulse$ It re
DISTI&CTI8& BETWEE& I&STIGATI8& A&D E&TRA/E&T // >S. >ALE&CIA ,ACTS +ccusedappellants were carged wit violation of %ection 1 of ?epu&lic +ct @2, oterwise /nown as te Dangerous Drugs +ct, for unlawfully selling or oering to sell '@$( grams of Psuedoepedrine 0ydrocloride wic is a regulated drug, after a &uy&ust operation was conducted &y police o>cers$ Te trial court convicted accused of te crime carged and sentenced eac of tem to deat$ "ELD In a>rming te conviction of appellants, te %upreme *ourt ruled tat a &uy&ust operation is a form of entrapment wic in recent years as &een accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of te Dangerous Drugs -aw$ It is commonly employed &y police o>cers as an eective way of appreending law oenders in te act of committing a crime$ In a &uy&ust operation, te idea to commit a crime originates from te oender, witout any&ody inducing or prodding im to commit te oense$ Its opposite is in stigation or inducement, werein te police or its agent lures te accused into committing te oense in order to prosecute im$ Instigation is deemed contrary to pu&lic policy and considered an a&solutory cause$ In tis case, appellants apparently ave, for some time, &een engaged in drug dealing$ Tey were in fact te su&3ect of a surveillance conducted &y te operatives of te PNP Narcotics =roup$ Te police engaged te services of a con.dential informant to lead tem to transact wit tem$ Te con.dential agent facilitated te meeting of appellants and te poseur &uyer$ 0ence, it was not te poli ce nor te con.dential agent wo induced appellants to commit a violation of te Dangerous Drugs -aw$ Tey were already violating te law and te police only used te &uy&ust operation to appreend tem in te act of unlawfully selling drugs$ Tis is certainly a legitimate entrapment operation and not instigation$ // >S. TI4 ,ACTS +ccused Ailliam )ng -i, *ing De !ing Z ?o&ert Tiu were carged wit violation of ?epu&lic +ct No$ @2 oterwise /nown as Te Dangerous Drugs +ct of 1"#2 for oering for sale "($( grams of !etyl +mpetamine 0ydrocloride, wic is a regulated drug$ Te prosecution, sougt to esta&lis a con.dential informant 9*I; of te %pecial )perations Division 9%)D;, PNP Narcotics =roup, reported to te *ief Inspector a&out te alleged ill icit drug activities of a certain Ailliam )ng and an unidenti.ed *inese male partner$ *ief Inspector 4erro decided to conduct a &uy&ust operation$ 0e constituted a team of eigt wit %P)1 =on7ales as poseur&uyer and te rest as &ac/up support$ +ccording to %P)1 =on7ales, te *I called up te alleged puser, placed an order for one /ilo of sa&u$ Te *I li/ewise agreed to meet wit is contact$ Te &oodle money was prepared$ Te team, togeter wit te *I, proceeded to te meeting place$ Te
*I rode wit %P)1 =on7ales$ Tey par/ed teir car along t %treet corner =ilmore +venue wile te rest of te team posted temselves at teir &ac/ and teir rigt side$ + little wile, accused )ng approaced teir car$ %P)1 =on7ales sowed im te sligtly opened plastic &ag containing te &oodle money$ %P)1 =on7ales ten demanded to see te sa&u$ +ccused )ng went out of te car and ten waved is rigt and to some&ody$ + green Toyota *orolla par/ed in front of teir car and a *ineseloo/ing male, later identi.ed as accused *ing De !ing Z ?o&ert Tiu aligted, approaced accused )ng and anded to im a giftwrapped pac/age$ +ccused )ng ten demanded for its payment$ %P)1 =on7ales gave to accused )ng te &oodle money$ Tereafter, te %P)1 =on7ales arrested accused )ng wile te *I and te &ac/up agents arrested accused De !ing$ +ccused foisted te defense of instigation wic is in sarp contrast to te claim of entrapment &y te prosecution$
"ELD + &uy&ust operation is a form of entrapment, wic in recent years as &een accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of te Dangerous Drugs -aw$ It is commonly employed &y police o>cers as an eective way of appreending law oenders in te act of committing a crime$ In a &uy&ust operation, te idea to commit a crime originates from te oender, witout any&ody inducing or prodding im to commit te oense$ Its opposite is instigation or inducement, werein te police or its agent lures te accused into committing te oense in order to prosecute im$ Instigation is deemed contrary to pu&lic policy and considered an a&solutory cause$ To determine weter tere was a valid entrapment or weter proper procedures were underta/en in eecting te &uy&ust operation, it is incum&ent upon te courts to ma/e sure tat te details of te operation are clearly and adecial duty &y law enforcement agents$ Tis presumption sould not &y itself prevail over te presumption of innocence and te constitutionally protected rigts of te individual$ 21 It is te duty of courts to p reserve te purity of teir own temple from te prostitution of te criminal law troug lawless enforcement$ *ourts sould not allow temselves to &e used as instruments of a&use and in3ustice lest innocent persons are made to suer te unusually severe penalties for drug oenses$ In te case at &ar, te prosecution evidence a&out te &uy&ust operation is incomplete$ Te con.dential informant wo ad sole /nowledge of ow te alleged illegal sale of sa&u started and ow it was perfected was not presented as a witness$ 0is testimony was given instead &y %P)1 =on7ales wo ad no personal /nowledge of te same$ )n tis score, %P)1 =on7alesF testimony is earsay and possesses no p ro&ative value unless it can &e sown tat te same falls witin te e6ception to te earsay rule$ To impart pro&ative value to tese earsay statements and convict te appellant solely on tis &asis would &e to render nugatory is constitutional rigt to confront te witness against im, in tis case te informant, and to e6amine im for is trutfulness$ +s te p rosecution failed to prove all te material details of te &uy&ust operation, its claim tat tere was a valid entrapment of te appell ants must fail$ +ppellants are ere&y ac
// >. LEGAS/I ,ACTS +ccusedappellant Nenita -egaspi -ucas was carged for violation of ?epu&lic +ct No$ "1 aving sold, delivered and give away to Police )>cer +rturo %an +ndres, a police poseur &uyer, one plastic sacet containing of sa&u, a dangerous drug$ + con.dential informant, approaced %an +ndres to report a&out te rampant incidence of drug a&use at *entennial Killage, Pasig *ity and a&out te drug puser wo was identi.ed as -egaspi$ + &uy&ust operation was tere&y conducted &y te !ayor %pecial +ction Team$ %an +ndres was to act as te poseur&uyer$ %an +ndres, togeter wit te in formant, proceeded to -egaspiFs ouse, wile te rest of te team strategically p laced temselves in te entrapment area$ 5pon seeing -egaspi, te informant introduced %an +ndres to er as a Gscorer$G -egaspi
2 as/ed tem ow muc tey wanted to Gscore,G to wic %an +ndres replied GP2(($(( panggamit lang$G +fterwards, %an +ndres gave -egaspi te &uy&ust money$ +s soon as %an +ndres got te sacet, e signalled is team tat te transaction was over$ -egaspi was tereafter arested$ -egaspi contends tat se was instigated to commit te crime, as se was not te one wo sougt out %an +ndres to sell im sa&u$ %e avers tat %an +ndresFs own testimony clearly sows tat e ad suggested te commission of te crime &y oering er P2(($(( for te purcase of sa&u$ -egaspi claims tat tis is supported &y er testimony werein se denied sell ing sa&u to %an +ndres or to anyone for tat matter$ Tis, se says, is con.rmed &y te fact tat se as no p olice or criminal record$
"ELD Cntrapment is sanctioned &y te law as a legitimate metod of appreending criminals$ Its purpose is to trap and capture law&rea/ers in te e6ecution of teir criminal plan$ Instigation, on te oter and, involves te inducement of te would&e accused into te commission of te oense$ In suc a case, te instigators &ecome coprincipals temselves$ Aere te criminal intent originates in te mind of te instigating person and te accused is lured into te commission of te oense carged in order to prosecute im, tere is instigation and no conviction may &e ad$ Aere, owever, te criminal intent originates in te mind of te accused and te criminal oense is completed, even after a person acted as a decoy for te state, or pu&lic o>cials furnised te accused an opportunity for te commission of te oense, or te accused was aided in te commission of te crime in order to secure te evidence necessary to prosecute im, tere is no instigation and te accused must &e convicted$ Instigation is recogni7ed as a valid defense tat can &e raised &y an accused$ To use tis as a defense, owever, te accused must prove wit su>cient evidence tat te government induced im to commit te oense$ -egaspi claims tat se was induced into committing te crime as carged, as se was te one approaced &y %an +ndres, wo was ten loo/ing to &uy sa&u$ Ae .nd, owever, tat -egaspiFs defense of instigation must fail$ In te case at &ar, te police o>cers, after receiving a report of drug tra>c/ing from teir con.dential informant, immediately setup a &uy&ust operation to test te veracity of te report and to arrest te malefactor if te report proved to &e true$ Te prosecution evidence positively sowed tat -egaspi agreed to sell P2(($(( wort of sa&u to % an +ndres, wo was ten posing as a &uyer$ -egaspi was never forced, coerced, or induced to source te proi&ited drug for %an +ndres$ In fact, %an +ndres did not even ave to as/ er if se could sell im sa&u$ -egaspi was merely informed tat e was also a GscorerG8 and as soon as se learned tat e was loo/ing to &uy, se immediately as/ed im ow muc e needed$ 5nder te circumstances, te police o>cers were not only autori7ed &ut were under an o&ligation to arrest -egaspi even witout an arrest warrant as te crime was committed in teir presence$ 4urtermore, wen -egaspi testi.ed in court, er defense was one of denial and not instigation$ Aile instigation is a positive defense, it parta/es of te nature of a confession and avoidance$ In instigation, te crime is actually performed &y te accused, e6cept tat te intent originates from te mind of te i nducer$ Tus, it is incompati&le wit te defense of denial, were te teory is tat te accused did not commit te oense at all$ Instigation and denial, terefore, cannot &e present concurrently$
Arile '3 '.
ALL RE4ISITES &ECESSAR; T8 J4STI,; 8R T8 EE/T ,R8 CRII&AL LIABILIT; ARE &8T ATTE&DA&T
PP K%$ -IB?+ND)
,ACTS )n teir way ome from te mar/et, Cdwin -a&andero, is year old daugter, +ileen, and a relative, 4ernando de los %antos, traversed a illy portion of te trail leading to Barangay
Puro/ !aisan wen tey met accusedappellants ?aelito -i&rando, -arry %urdillas and Cddie Purisima$ ?aelito in
"ELD +ccusedappellant ?aelito -i&rando claims tat e was GwaylaidG &y te deceased, Cdwin -a&andero, on is way ome$ 0e was forced to defend imself wen te deceased tried to it im wit a piece of wood &ut, unfortunately, in te process of defending imself from te &lows delivered &y te deceased, e accidentally /illed te latter$ Te *ourt, owever, is not inclined to consider te mitigating circumstance of incomplete self defense in ?aelito -i&randoFs favor$ To avail of te mitigating circumstance of incomplete self defense, tere must &e unlawful aggression on te part of te victim$ In te case at &ar, prosecution witness +ileen testi.ed tat it was in fact te said accusedappellant wo after in
2.
I&8RIT;
PP K$ +?P)N
,as +ccusedappellant 0enry +rpon y Juntilla guil ty &eyond reasona&le dou&t of one 91; count of statutory rape and seven 9#; counts of rape against te private complainant +++$ Te victim testi.ed tat se was &orn on Novem&er 1, 1"#$ In one afternoon in 1"", wen se was only eigt years old, se stated tat te accusedappellant raped er inside teir ouse$ +++ also testi.ed tat te accusedappellant raped er again in July 1""" for .ve times on dierent nigts +++ furter related tat te accusedappellant raped er again twice in +ugust 1""" at nigttime$ Te trial court and te *ourt of +ppeals sentenced te accused to deat penalty$ In te present case, te accusedappellant asserted tat te trial court failed to consider is minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance$ +s stated in is direct e6amination, te accusedappellant claimed tat e was &orn on 4e&ruary 2', 1"2, suc tat e was only 1' and 1# years old wen te incidents of rape allegedly occurred in 1"" and 1""", respectively$ "ELD +rticle ' of te ?P* provides tat rapes wen committed to a woman &elow 1 years of age is punisa&le &y deat and te oender is a relative &y consanguinity or a>nity witin te tird civil degree$ In te case at &ar, te victim was &elow 1 and te accused was a relative of te victim$ Noneteless, a reduction of te a&ove penalty is i n order$ In te instant case, te accusedappellant testi.ed tat e was &orn on 4e&ruary 2', 1"2 and tat e was only 1' years old wen te .rst incident of rape allegedly appened in 1""$ )ter tan is testimony, no oter evidence was presented to prove te date of is &irt$ 0owever, te records of tis case sow neiter any o&3ection to te said testimony on te part of te prosecution, nor any contrary evidence to dispute te same$ Tus, te ?T* and te *ourt of +ppeals sould ave appreciated te accused appellantFs minority in ascertaining te appropriate penalty$
2 +ltoug te acts of rape in tis case were committed &efore ?epu&lic +ct No$ "'@@ too/ eect on !ay 2(, 2((, provisions under te +ct is still appli ca&le to te case at &ar$ +ccordingly, for te .rst count of rape, wic was allegedly committed in 1"", te testimony of te accusedappellant su>ciently esta&lised tat e was only 1' years old at tat time$ In view of te failure of te prosecution to prove te e6act date and year of te .rst incident of rape, any dou&t terein Gsould &e resolved in favor of te accused, it &eing more &ene.cial to te latter$G Te *ourt, tus, e=e:0s te accused appellant from criminal lia&ility for te .rst count of rape pursuant to ?+ No$ "'@@$ Te accusedappellant, neverteless, remains civilly lia&le terefor$ 4or te second and tird counts of rape tat were committed in te year 1""", te accused appellant was already 1# years old$ Ae li/ewise .nd tat in te said instances, te accusedappellant acted wit discernment$ In tis case, te fact tat te accusedappellant acted wit discernment was satisfactorily esta&lised &y te testimony of +++, wic we ad already found to &e credi&le$ Kerily, +++ testi.ed tat se at .rst did not tell any&ody a&out te se6ual assault se suered at te ands of te accusedappellant &ecause te latter told er tat e would /ill er moter if se did so$ Tat te accusedappellant ad to treaten +++ in an eort to conceal is dastardly acts only proved tat e /new full well tat wat e did was wrong and tat e was aware of te conse
3.
8,,E&DER "AD &8 I&TE&TI8& T8 C8IT S8 GRA>E A WR8&G AS T"AT C8ITTED
5% K$ ?CQC%
,ACTS 4or sta&&ing +lfredo %enador from &eind, done in a sudden and une6pected manner wile te latter was sitting close to te ground and wile is attention was focused on te ongoing cara y cru8 game, Cl&ert *allet was convicted of te crime of murder and sentenced to suer te penalty of reclusion perpetua$ Te accused also claims tat is lia&ility sould &e mitigated &y te fact tat e ad no intention to commit so grave a wrong$ "ELD Te lac/ of GintentG to commit a wrong so grave is an internal state$ It is weiged &ased on te weapon used, te part of te &ody in3ured, te in3ury inicted and te manner it is inicted$ Te fact tat te accused used a "inc unting /nife in attac/ing te victim from &eind, witout giving im an opportunity to defend imself, clearly sows tat e intended to do wat e actually did, and e must &e eld responsi&le terefor, witout te &ene.t of tis mitigating circumstance$ 5?B+N) K$ PP
,ACTS Te victim Brigido Tomelden and petitioner were at te compound of te -ingayen Aater District 9-IA+D; aving 3ust arrived from a picnic in te near&y town were, tey drun/ &eer in a restaurant wit some oter cowor/ers Aile inside te compound, te two ad a eated altercation in te course of wic Tomelden urled insulting remar/s at petitioner$ Te e6cange of words led to an e6cange of &lows$ *ooler eads succeeded in &rea/ing up te .gt, &ut only for a &rief moment as te protagonists refused to &e paci.ed and continued trowing .st &lows at eac oter$ Ten petitioner delivered a Gluc/y punc,G as descri&ed &y eyewitness %ala7ar, on TomeldenRs face, wic made Tomelden topple down$ Tomelden was on te verge of itting is ead on te ground ad teir
companions not caugt im and prevented te fall$ Te &low, owever, caused TomeldenRs nose to &leed and rendered im unconscious$ Te deceased told is wife of te mauling incident$ Tereafter, te deceased was still a&le to go to wor/ owever, is complaints to is wife of severe pain in te ead, prompted im to &e admitted at te community ospital$ 4inally, Tomelden died on )cto&er 1(, 1""' due, per Dr$ +rellano, to Gcardio respiratory arrest secondary to cere&ral concussion wit resultant cere&ral emorrage due to mauling incident$G Ait te decision of te trial court and te *ourt of +ppeals convicting te accused of omicide, te petitioner now contends tat te trial *ourt and te *+ erred in not appreciating te mitigating circumstances te lac/ of intent to commit so grave a wrong in favor of te petitioner
"ELD Te mitigating circumstance tat petitioner ad no intention to commit so grave a wrong as tat committed sould also &e appreciated in is favor$ Aile intent to /ill may &e presumed from te fact of te deat of te victim, tis mitigating factor may still &e considered wen attendant facts and circumstances so warrant, as in te instant case$ *onsider: Petitioner tried to avoid te .gt, &eing very muc smaller tan Tomelden$ 0e tried to parry te &lows of Tomelden, al&eit e was a&le, during te scuYe, to connect a luc/y punc tat ended te .gt$ +nd l est it &e overloo/ed, petitioner elped carry is unconscious cowor/er to te o>ce of te -I A+DFs general manager$ %urely, suc gesture cannot reasona&ly &e e6pected from, and would &e un&ecoming of, one intending to commit so grave a wrong as /illing te victim$ + &are/nuc/le .gt as a means to p arry te callenge issued &y Tomelden was commensurate to te potential violence petitioner was facing$ It was 3ust unfortunate tat Tomelden died from tat luc/y punc, an eventuality tat could ave possi&ly &een averted ad e ad te .nancial means to get te proper medical attention$ Tus, it is clear tat te mitigating circumstance of Gno intention to commit so grave a wrong as tat committedG must also &e appreciated in favor of petitioner wile .nding im guilty of omicide$ Tat petitioner l anded a luc/y punc at TomeldenFs face wile teir cowor/ers were trying to separate tem is a compelling indicium tat e never intended so grave a wrong as to /ill te victim$ TI
/E&ALT; Ait no aggravating circumstance and two mitigating circumstances apprecia&le in favor of petitioner, we apply par$ of +rt$ @, ?P*, wic pertinently provides: Aen tere are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, te court sall impose te penalty ne6t lower to tat prescri&ed &y law, in te period tat it may deem applica&le, according to te num&er and nature of suc circumstances$ Te prescri&ed penalty for omicide under +rt$ 2@" of te ?P* is reclusion temporal or from 12 years and one day to 2( years$ Ait te appreciation of two mitigating circumstances of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as tat committed and of su>cient provocation from te victim, and te application of par$ of +rt$ @, ?P*, te imposa&le penalty would, tus, &e te ne6t lower penalty prescri&ed for omicide and tis sould &e prision mayor or from si6 years and one day to 12 years$
PP$ K%$ =)NV+-C%
2# ,ACTS Te veicles of te accused and te victimRs family almost collided at an intersection inside te memorial par/$ + eated e6cange of remar/s followed te near collision in wic case, te accusedappellant, was augmented &y te improvident use of a .rearm resulting to te deat of 4eli&er +ndres, wife of Noel +ndres and teir cildren, sustaining in3uries$ Te trial court found te accused guilty of te comple6 crime of murder and two counts of frustrated murder and accordingly sentenced im to deat$ "ELD Te plea for te appreciation of te mitigating circumstance of lac/ of intent to commit so grave a wrong is devoid of merit$ Tis mitigating circumstance is o&taining wen tere is a nota&le disparity &etween te means employed &y te accused to commit a wrong and te resulting crime committed$ Te intention of te accused at te time of te commission of te crime is manifested from te weapon used, te mode of attac/ employed and te in3ury sustained &y te victim$ Te appellantFs use of a gun, altoug not deli&erately sougt nor employed in te sooting, sould ave reasona&ly placed te appellant on guard of te possi&le consecient to produce te resulting crimes committed$ PP K$ CN?IO5CV
,ACTS Te accusedappelant *andido Cnrians in !anila wo would &eat up =ines so tat e would not interfere in te future wit te &usiness of te !allorca Transportation$ =ines was le ft unconscious upon te ground as is assailants ed$ +s e recovered consciousness, e called for elp, and is cries attracted te attention of is fater and oter wo came to is aid$ +fter e was mauled &y te ru>ans, =ines died from soc/ and loss of &lood$ "ELD 5pon te circumstances tat te wound made wit te /nife on te leg of te person assaulted was te primarily cause of deat and tat te autor of tis in3ury as not &een identi.ed, te attorney for te accused ciey plant teir defense, and in tis connection it is insisted tat te conspiracy to attac/ =ines contemplated only &eating im up and did not include te iniction of in3ury &y means of a cutting instrument$ %uc an +ct, so it is said, was not witin te scope of te agreement8 and it is insisted tat only te individual wo inicted te cut could &e eld responsi&le for te deat, if tat person were /nown$ It resulted, in tis view, tat none of te appellants can &e eld lia&le furter tan for te &ruises inicted &y means of te iron &ars$ Tese in3uries, so it is claimed, would in te natural course of events ave &een cura&le in a few days$ Te accused ad undou&tedly conspired to do grave personal in3ury to te deceased, and now tat te in3uries actually inicted ave resulted in deat, tey cannot escape from te legal eect of teir acts on te ground tat one of te wounds was inicted in a dierent way from tat wic ad &een intended$ Te crime committed in tis case was murder &ut all of te accused are entitled to te &ene.t of te mitigating circumstance tat te oender ad no intention to commit so grave a wrong$ Te estimation of tis circumstance was proper, and its allowance was not inconsistent wit te .nding tat te crime was murder$
PP K%$ P+JCN+D)
,ACTS: Cyewitnesses for te prosecution testi.ed tey saw appellant olding te now deceased *arlos Tapong &y te nec/$ +s te two were apparently wrestling wit eac oter, *arlito Pa3enado, appellantFs cousin, intervened and te two Pa3enados were a&le to trow Tapong to te ground$ *arlito Pa3enado eld Tapong &y te soulder and pinned im down to te ground, wile appellant eld im &y one leg$ +s tey tus eld *arlos Tapong elpless, appellant drew is gun and .red at im$ Tereupon, *arlito Pa3enado stood up and ran away, wile appellant remained at te scene of te crime until e
*.
S4,,ICIE&T /R8>8CATI8& 8R T"REAT 8, T"E 8,,E&DED /ART; IEDIATEL; /RECEDED T"E ACT
PP K%$ 5?B+N)
,ACTS 9see facts in // vs. A9 in no. (" "ELD TomeldenFs insulting remar/s di rected at petitioner and uttered immediately &efore te .st .gt constituted su>cient provocation$ Tis is not to mention oter irritating statements made &y te deceased wile tey were aving &eer in Bugallon$ Petitioner was te one provo/ed and callenged to a .st .gt$ PetitionerFs unre&utted testimony on te events immediately preceding te .sticu and earlier dovetails wit te testimony of %ala7ar$ In gist, petitioner testi.ed &eing, in te afternoon of %eptem&er 2, 1""', in te near&y town of Bugallon for a picnic$ 0e was wit Tomelden and several oters, including Dominador Navarro, *airperson of -IA+D$ +t a restaurant in Bugallon, te group ordered goatFs meat and dran/ &eer$ Aen it was time to depart, Navarro as/ed petitioner to inform Tomelden, ten seated in anoter ta&le, to prepare to leave$ Aen so informed, Tomelden insulted petitioner, telling te latter e ad no &usiness stopping im from furter drin/ing as e was paying for is sare of te &ill$ *astised, petitioner returned to is ta&le to report to Navarro$ +t tat time, petitioner saw tat Tomelden ad al ready consumed 1# &ottles of &eer$ In all, te group stayed at te picnic place for tree and a alf ours &efore returning to te -IA+D$ 5pon reacing te -IA+D compound, Tomelden allegedly slapped and urled insults at im, calling im GsipsipG 3ust to maintain is employment as NavarroFs tricycle driver$ Tomelden allegedly ten delivered several .st and /ic/ &lows at petitioner, a couple of wic it i m despite is evasive actions$ Petitioner maintained tat e only &o6ed te victim in retaliation, landing tat luc/y punc in te course of parrying te l atterFs &lows$ 0ence, tere is no ryme or reason wy te same mitigating circumstance sould not &e considered in favor of petitioner$
IEDIATE >I&DICATI8& 8, A GRA>E 8,,E&SE
2 PP K%$ P+?+N+
,ACTS Te deceased too/ part in said game were te appellant was designated to attend to te players$ + discussion ensued &etween im appellant and one -amay$ +s &ot raised teir voices, tey were admonised &y te deceased$ +s te appellant disregarded said admonition, te deceased slapped im and ordered im to leave te ouse$ Te following day, te deceased too/ part in anoter game of monte, tis time in anoter ouse$ +s e was a&out to leave te place in is car, te cauer, wo saw te appellant &eind te deceased in te attitude of sta&&ing im wit a dagger, souted to warn im of te danger$ Te deceased, loo/ing &eind, really saw te appellant a&out to sta& im$ Defending imself, e retreated until e fell on is &ac/ into a ditc two meters wide and 1$# meters deep$ Aitout lessening te aggression te appellant mounted astride of te deceased and continued to sta& im wit te dagger$ "ELD Te mitigating circumstance tat e ad acted in te immediate vindication of a grave oense committed against im a few ours &efore, wen e was slapped &y te deceased in te presence of many persons, must li/ewise &e ta/en into consideration$ +ltoug tis oense, wic engenders pertur&ation of mind, was not so immediate, tis court is of te opinion tat te inuence tereof, &y reason of its gravity and te circumstances under wic it was inicted, lasted until te moment te crime was committed$ PP K%$ KCNT5?+
,ACTS Aen appellant Kentura arrived in Negros )ccidental from !anila were e ad &een wor/ing as a security guard, e noticed tat is wife, Joanna, wo ad previously &een employed as a ouse elper of te Bocate3a spouses, was wearing a new ring$ Aen e confronted er, se said tat it came from Jaime 9te deceased; wo was courting er, and tat it was &ecause JaimeFs wife, +ileen, ad discovered teir illicit relationsip tat se ad &een dismissed from te Bocate3a ouseold$ Incensed at te revelation, e slapped is wife wereupon se left te con3ugal ome$ Tat same day, appellant 4lores visited is uncleappellant Kentura$ Te two spo/e at lengt and appellant 4lores, wo ad p reviously wor/ed for a day at te meat sop of te Bocate3a spouses, con.rmed tat Joanna and Jaime were aving an aair$ %ince appellant 4lores /new were te Bocate3a spouses lived, appellant Kentura as/ed im to go wit im to teir residence so e could confront Jaime a&out is aair wit Joanna$ +ppellants, armed wit an unlicensed revolver and a /nife, tus repaired to te Bocate3a residence were te /illing too/ place$ "ELD No mitigating circumstances are present in te case at &ar$ Aile te trial *ourt n oted tat appellants were apparently motivated &y teir &elief tat Joanna and Jaime were carrying on an illicit relationsip, it neverteless ruled out immediate vindication of a grave oense as mitigating circumstance$ Aile GimmediateG vindication sould &e construed as Gpro6imateG vindication in accordance wit te controlling %panis te6t of te ?evised Penal *ode, still tis mitigating circumstance cannot &e considered were su>cient time elapsed for te accused to regain is composure$ In tis case, appellant KenturaFs suspicions were aroused as early as 4e&ruary 1#, almost a wee/ &efore te sta&&ing incidents on 4e&ruary 2', wen e .rst confronted is wife a&out er ring$ !oreover, as previously noted, ten ours ad elapsed from te time appellants left !urcia, Negros )ccidental, weapons in and, to te time tey entered te Bocate3a residence in Bacolod *ity$ Aitin tat period appellant Kentura ad opportunity to cange
is clotes at a relativesF ouse in a neig&oring &arangay and &ot appellants were a&le to ta/e teir dinner at te Burgos !ar/et in Bacolod *ity$ Tey even waited tree ours outside te Bocate3a residence &efore carrying out teir plan$ Aitout cient time ad passed for appell antsF emotions to cool and for tem to recover teir e
9. /ASSI8& 8R 8B,4SCATI8& PP vs$ N)QN+Q
,ACTS + cara&ao &elonging to !artin Noynay was destroying sugar cane planted &y te deceased %ilvestre +rriesgado$ Te deceased caugt te cara&ao and too/ it to te ouse of !artin Noynay$ Te deceased was accompanied &y is son, Jose$ Aen tey reaced te ouse of !artin Noynay, tey found im and te appellant Buenaventura ?ui7$ Te deceased told Noynay tat is cara&ao ad destroyed te sugar cane and tat e ad to pay te damages$ Noynay replied tat e did not ave to p ay anyting &ecause is cara&ao was tied$ Te deceased ten told Noynay tat if e did n ot wis to pay, e would ta/e te cara&ao to te lieutenant of te barrio, and started to do so$ Tereupon Noynay gra&&ed a spear from te a7otea of i s ouse, and e and Buenaventura ?ui7 pursued te deceased$ Te deceased &egan to run, &ut e was over ta/en and sta&&ed &y te accused$ "ELD Te .nding tat te defendants acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to ave produced passion or o&fuscation was not 3usti.ed &y te evidence of record$ Te deceased, was clearly witin is rigt in wat e did$ Te defendants, witout any rational cause for provocation, pursued te deceased and deli&erately /illed im$ In order to &e entitled to tis mitigating circumstance, it must appear tat te o&fuscation of te accused arose from lawful sentiments$ Te fact tat an oense was committed in an uncontrolla&le &urst of passion sould not &e ta/en into consideration as an e6tenuating circumstance unless it appears tat it was p rovo/ed &y prior un3ust or improper acts$E PP K%$ -+Q%)N
,ACTS -ayson, ?agu& and 4ugoso admitted tat tey /illed =asang &ecause te latter urinated on teir coee cups a num&er of times$ =arces stated tat e /illed =asang &ecause te latter spat on im a wee/ &efore$ Te four plotted to /ill =asang a few days prior to te actual slaying$ In te early morning of tat apless day, te four accused, armed wit &laded weapons, entered te cell were te unsuspecting victim, prisoner ?egino =asang, was$ -ayson loc/ed te door of te room$ Aitout warning and acting in concert tey ten swiftly too/ turns in sta&&ing =asang$ "ELD Tree of te accused admitted tat tey ar&ored ill feeling against =asang &ecause te latter urinated on teir coee cups several times, all tese ta/ing place at least ten days &efore te actual slaying$ =asang spat on =arces a wee/ &efore te day of te /illing$ +ll of te accused plotted to /ill =asang a few days &efore January 1#, 1"@$ In te ligt of tese circumstances, it is evident tat su>cient time ad elapsed during wic te accused regained teir e
2" ,ACTS: Te defendantappellant Nonceto =ravino, a 2# year old farmer at te time te oenses were committed, ad &een courting Vosima Diag&el, a 2( year old student, for a&out a year$ In fact te two ad &een sweetearts until Vosima told te accusedappellant tat se did not wis to marry im &ecause er parents did not want im to &e VosimaFs us&and$ In te evening of June 1(, 1"", accusedappellant went to te ouse of te Diag&els$ 0e entered te ouse surreptitiously, &ut e was discovered or in is own words GI was noticed & y te parentsG wereupon e committed te crimes tat led to te deats of two persons and almost led to te deat of te tird victim$ Te accused was eld guilty of murder in te trial court$ "ELD +ccusedappellant argues tat e was in love wit Vosima and tat se reciprocated tis love8 tat for almost a year, tey were sweetearts8 tat e once as/ed er and in marriage8 tat te refusal caused te tragedy and tat tis tragedy was te product of legitimate passion and o&fuscation$ Tere is no merit in tis contention$
,ACTS Te accused, /illed te deceased, wo ad teretofore &een is &uerida 9concu&ine or lover; upon discovering er in ;agrante in carnal communication wit a mutual ac
To appreciate te mitigating circumstance of passion and o&fuscation, te following recient to produce suc condition of mind8 and 92; tat said act wic produces te o&fuscation was not far removed from te commission of te crime &y a considera&le lengt of time, during wic te perpetrator migt recover is normal ecient to sustain passion and o&fuscation$ +ccusedappellant was actuated more &y a spirit of lawlessness and revenge rater tan any sudden and legitimate impulse of natural and uncontrolla&le fury$ Passion and o&fuscation as aecting te mind and resulting in lac/ of reason and selfcontrol must originate from lawful sentiments$ Te %olicitor=eneral also correctly o&served tat te said act of +nita Diag&el in refusing te proposal of te accusedappellant to marry er daugter was far removed from te commission of te crimes$ Tere was more tan enoug time for accusedappellant to ave recovered is personal e
,ACTS 4or a&out .ve years, +ugustus 0ic/s and +gustinal %ola, a *ristian !oro woman, illicitly lived togeter, until after te trou&le arising &etween tem in 1"(#, +gustina
PP K%$ DC -+ *?5V
,ACTS: Te accused wounded %ilvestre Bautista at te moment wen te latter was getting into is veicle after a .gt &etween tem, in wic tey wrestled togeter witout using any weapon$ +fter tey were separated for te tird time, %ilvestre Bautista recovered is at, and 3ust as e was getting into is veicle *iriaco followed im up and wounded im in te rigt sacrolum&ar region, causing a lesion wic necessitated medical attendance for more tan eigt days$ "ELD Aere two individuals ave &een wrestling togeter and after &eing separated one of tem follows up te oter and wounds im on te &uttoc/ wit a pen/nife as e was entering a veicle, and witout te wounded party noticing i t until after e was so wounded, te aggressor can not claim in is favor tat te previous struggle produced in im entire loss of reason or selfcontrol, for te e6istence of suc e6citement as is inerent in all wo
,ACTS Petitioner contends tat te victim provo/ed im to a .t of anger wen te latter wo/e im up and trust a &olo at i m witout warning as petitioner opened te door$ !oreover, &y ac/ing and destroying te &am&oo wall of is ouse, and endangering te lives of is cildren, te victim also o&fuscated is tin/ing and reasoning processes$ "ELD Trusting is &olo at petitioner, treatening to /ill im, and ac/ing te &am&oo walls of is ouse are, in our view, su>cient provocation to enrage any man, or stir is rage and o&fuscate is tin/ing, more so wen te li ves of is wife and cildren are in danger$ Petitioner sta&&ed te victim as a result of tose provocations, and wile petitioner was still i n a .t of rage$ In our view, tere was su>cient provocation and te circumstance of passion or o&fuscation attended te commission of te oense$ But, we must stress tat provocation and passion or o&fuscation are not two separate mitigating circumstances$ Aellsettled is te rule tat if tese two circumstances are &ased on te same facts, tey sould &e treated togeter as one mitigating circumstance$ 4rom te facts esta&lised in tis case, it is clear tat &ot circumstances arose from te same set of facts aforementioned$ 0ence, tey sould not &e treated as two separate mitigating circumstances$
'( 1. >8L4&TAR; S4RRE&DER PP K%$ )B-I=+D)
,ACTS +ppellant +le3o )&ligado was carged wit murder in te ?T*$ Te defense presented %P)@ David %arto, police community o>cer of te PNP Bui station$ +ccording to %P)@ %arto, e and is fellow police o>cers were ordered to arrest appellant on !arc 1', 2((($ Tey met appellant wile traversing te lone footpat leading to i s residence$ +ppellant surrendered is person and te &olo$ Te *ourt of +ppeals a>rmed te guilt of te appellant &ut modi.ed te civil lia&ilities imposed &y te ?T*$ Because %P)@ %arto testi.ed tat appellant intimated a desire to surrender, te appellate court appreciated te mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender$ "ELD Tere was no voluntary surrender$ 4or tis mitigating circumstance to &e appreciated, te defense must prove tat: 9a;te oender ad not &een actually arrested8 9&;te oender surrendered imself to a person in autority8 9c;te surrender was spontaneous and voluntary$
In tis case, %P)@ %arto testi.ed tat app ellantRs residence could &e accessed only troug a footpat were tey met appellant$ Inasmuc as e was intercepted &y te arresting o>cers tere, appellant ad no means of evading arrest$ 0is surrender terefore was neiter voluntary nor spontaneous$ )n te contrary, te aforementioned circumstances revealed tat e ad no option &ut to yield to te autorities$
surrender of weapons as mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender$
"ELD %urrender of weapons is not analogous to voluntary surrender to a person in autority or is agent$ !oreover, in te case at &ar, tere is noting in te record to sow tat te surrender was made voluntarily or wit spontaneity$ In fact, te surrender of te weapons did not ta/e place were te incident too/ place &ut in Dormitory @* wic was occupied &y te appellants$ PP K%$ P+-)
,ACTS Ildefonso Palo and is &roter Pedro were carged for te murder of *andido *atapang, teir own &roterinlaw$ Te trial court sentenced eac of tem to life imprisonment$ Te defense invo/es te mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as te accused Ildefonso Palo anded te gun used in sooting te victim to te &arrio li eutenant upon te latterFs demand$ "ELD !urder was undou&tedly committed,
PP K%$ *)N*I--+D)
,ACTS Diosdado Pado was sot, sta&&ed and ac/ed &y Cdgar, Crlito and Dolores, all surnamed *oncillado, Deceased sustained a total of 2 wounds$ 0e instantly died from te &lows sustained$ Cdgar, one of te accused and appellant erein invo/ed selfdefense$ 0e admitted tat e was te one wo inicted all 2 in3uries and tat e acted in selfdefense after deceased suddenly appeared &efore im and callenged im to a .gt wile e was urinating near te fence of is ouse$ *ontrary to te prosecutionRs version, Cdgar testi.ed tat it was te deceased wo attac/ed .rst using a &olo itting accussed on te rigt cest$ =etting is surit from inside is ouse, e .red at te deceased wo continued on ac/ing im$ +ccussed was a&le to parry is &lows and gra& a &olo$ *oncillado and Diosdado continued e6canging &lows and after some time, te deceased turned is &ac/ on Cdgar$ Tin/ing tat Diosdado was already eeing, Cdgar went &ac/ to is ouse and eventually surrendered imself at te police station and ave is wound treated &y a Dr$ De Keyra$
PP K%$ KC?=C%
,ACTS Inmates of Dormitory B of te New Bili&id Prisons, all mem&ers of te %igue%igue %putni/ gang, were on teir way to Dormitory @D were tey were to &e transferred, wen te prisoners con.ned at Dormitory @*, mem&ers of te rival %igue %igue *ommando gang, suddenly &olted out and attac/ed tem wit improvised weapons, /illing tree of tem$ +ccused claimed
,ACTS +ccused -+grana and is n epew, %ala7ar were found guilty of te crime of murder &y te trial court, te former as principal and te latter as accomplice$ )nly -agrana appealed te decision of te lower court$ )n appeal, -agrana did not
'1 G+ surrender to &e voluntary must &e spontaneous, sowing te intent of te accused to su&mit imself unconditionally to te autorities, eiter 91; &ecause e ac/nowledges is guil t, or 92; &ecause e wises to save tem te trou&le and e6penses necessarily incurred in is searc and capture$G
a>rmative$ Te trial court deemed te case su&mitted for decision and rendered te assailed decision .nding te accused guilty of te crime carged against im and sentencing im to te penalty of deat$
PP v$ *?I%)%T)!)
)n appeal, Dalacat wa6es lyrical on te lower courtFs imposition of te penalty of deat upon im on te &asis of is plea of guilty sans is full compreension of its sense and su&stance$ 0e &emoans te trial courtFs failure to p ropound su>cient
,ACTS Cugenio *risostomo was convicted of te crime of murder in te trial court$ +ccused assigns te error tat te lower court failed to appreciate is plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance$
"ELD Based on %ec$ ', ?ule 11 of te ?evised ?ules on *riminal Procedure, tere are tree conditions tat te trial court sould /owtow to in order to forestall te entry of an improvident plea of guilty &y te accused:
"ELD 0e cannot &e credited wit te mi tigating circumstance of a plea of guilty to a lesser oense of te carge of omicide as invo/ed under te si6t assigned error$ Te re
1$Te court must conduct a searhin! in#iry into te voluntariness and full compreension H&y te accused of te conse
/LEA 8, G4ILT;
In te present case te appellant oered to enter a plea of guilty to te lesser oense of omicide only after some evidence of te prosecution ad &een presented$ 0e reiterated is oer after te prosecution rested its case$ Tis is certainly not mitigating$ PP K$ )?TIV
,ACTS +ppellant was carged wit murder and frustrated murder$ 5pon arraignment, e pleaded not guilty$ +fter two witnesses for te prosecution ad testi.ed, appellant manifested is willingness to plead guilty to te lesser oenses of omicide and frustrated omicide$ *onse
,ACTS +ppellant Dalacat was arraigned and wit te assistance of is counsel, e pleaded n ot guilty$ +t te ensuing trial, te prosecution presented its two witnesses$ %ortly after te prosecutionFs tird witness was sworn in, appellant canged is tune and is counsel manifested in open court a&out appellantFs desire to cange is plea to guilty$ +ppellant was re arraigned and to te carge of ro&&ery wit omicide in a Band, e pleaded guilty$ Te trial court set anoter earing to assess appellantFs compreension of is plea and in
2$Te court must recient, for more often tan not, an accused pleads guilty upon &ad advice or &ecause e opes for a lenient treatment or a ligter penalty$ -i/e te .rst re
+. T"E 8,,E&DER IS DEA, D4B BLI&D 8R S4,,ERI&G ,R8 S8E /";SICAL DE,ECT PP K$ 4?+N*I%*)
,ACTS: +ccusedappellants ?icardo, ?eynaldo, and Teodoro, all surnamed 4rancisco, and +ntonio %ioco were convicted &y te
'2 ?egional Trial *ourt of !ala&on of te crimes of murder and frustrated murder$ Te accusedappellants fault te ?T* for not appreciating as mitigating circumstances accused ?I*+?D)Fs pysical disa&ility$
"ELD: +fter a careful assessment of te esta&lised facts, we .nd tat tese circumstances cannot &e appreciated in teir favor$ Te limp allegedly suered &y ?I*+?D) as not &een sown to restrict is means of action, defense or communication wit is fellow &eings as re
,ACTS ?ogelio Deopante was convicted of te crime of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Accused3appellant stabbed one )ante )eopante #ith a fan3nife.
grappled wit eac oter and &ot fell on te ground$ +ppellant was a&le to assume te dominant position and as Dante lay at on is &ac/ te former proceeded to sta& te latter twice wit is fan /nife$ Immediately tereafter, appellant stood up and ed te scene leaving Dante mortally wounded$ +ppellant assigns te error tat te ?T* as failed to appreciate te mitigating circumstance of pysical defect as attendant to te crime, appellant aving only one and$
wife for te reason tat e often saw er in te company of is &roter Vacarias$
"ELD Te appeal is &ased merely on te teory tat te appellant is an im&ecile and terefore e6empt from criminal lia&ility under article 12 of te ?evised Penal *ode$ 0is counsel presented te testimony of two guards of te provincial 3ail were +&elardo was con.ned to te eect tat is conduct tere was rater strange and tat e &eaved li/e an insane person$ In order to &e appreciated, im&ecility or in sanity at te time of te commission of te act sould a&solutely deprive a person of intelligence or freedom of will, &ecause mere a&normality of is mental faculties does not e6clude imputa&ility$ +fter a careful study of te record, we are convinced tat te appellant is not an im&ecile$ +s to te strange &eaviour of te accused during is con.nement, assuming tat it was not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may &e attri&uted eiter to is &eing fee&leminded or eccentric, or to a mor&id mental condition produced &y remorse at aving /illed is wife$ fact tat te accused is fee&leminded warrants te .nding in is favor of te mitigating circumstance provided for in eiter paragrap or paragrap " of article 1' of te ?evised Penal *ode, namely, tat te accused is Gsuering some pysical defect wic tus restricts is means of action, defense or communication wit is fellow &eings,G or suc illness Gas would diminis te e6ercise of is will power$G To tis we may add te mitigating circumstance in paragrap of te same article, U tat of aving acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to ave produced passion or o&fuscation$ Te accused evidently /illed is wife in a .t of 3ealousy$
"ELD Te fact tat appellant suers from a pysical defect, a severed left and, does not mean tat e sould automatically &e credited wit te mitigating circumstance contained in paragrap , +rticle 1' of te ?evised Penal *ode$ In order for tis condition to &e appreciated, it must &e sown tat suc pysical defect limited is means to act, defend imself or communicate wit is fellow &eings to suc an e6tent tat e did not ave complete freedom of action, conse
/E&ALT; Te penalty applica&le for p arricide under article 2@ of te ?evised Penal *ode is composed only of two indivisi&le penalties, to wit, reclusion perpetua to deat$ +ltoug te commission of te act is attended & y some mitigating circumstance witout any aggravating circumstance to oset tem, article ' of te said code is te one applica&le and must &e applied were te lesse penalty sould &e applied$ +rticle @ is not applica&le as i t refers to te application of penalties wic contain tree periods weter it &e a single divisi&le penalty or composed of tree dierent penalties, eac one of wic forms a period in accordance wit te provisions of articles # and ##, wic is not true in te present case were te penalty applica&le for parricide is composed only of two indivisi&le penalties$ +ppellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua$
+t tis point, one migt wonder ow a oneanded attac/er can open a fan /nife and grapple wit and overcome is twoanded prey$ Tis was answered &y te testimony of ?enato !olina wo revealed tat at te time te accused closed in for te /ill, is balisong was already open and ready for use in is &ac/ poc/et, and tat e ad already drawn te same even during te case$ 0ence, at te time te accusedappellant cased te victim, te former already ad te balisong in and$ *learly, te fact tat e ad only one and in no way limited is freedom of action to commit te crime$
'5. A&AL8G84S CIRC4STA&CES
). ILL&ESS 8, T"E 8,,E&DER PP K$ 4)?!I=CNC%
,ACTS Te accused, witout any previous
PP K$ KCNT5?+
,ACTS In te midst of teir merriment, petitionerFs wife arrived and started an argument wit im$ Te argument turned violent and is wife lunged at im wit a cair, &ut e was a&le to parry te &low$ Te scene was witnessed &y is neig&ors wo were ne6t door playing 0panya.0 Tey &egan lauging at im and petitioner felt umiliated as a result$ Because of is annoyance, petitioner said e /ic/ed te 0panya0 ta&le$ Tis incensed is neig&ors and a melee erupted wit tree of is nig&ors ganging up on im$ Petitioners said e received a &eating, &ut e was a&le to run ome$ )nce ome, te enraged petitioner got old of a /nife$ 0e soon went out of te assailants were e went &erse/ and /illed one of is assailants$ "ELD Passion and o&fuscation e6ist wen 91; tere is an act, &ot unlawful and su>cient to produce suc a condition of te mind, and 92; te said act wic produced te o&fuscation was not far removed from te commission of te crime &y a considera&le lengt of time, during wic te perpetrator migt recover is normal e
'' legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason$ In tis case it was esta&lised tat petitioner and is wife ad a violent altercation and tat petitioner was mauled &y is neig&ors after e /ic/ed some of tem for lauging at im$ Tese events and circumstances prior to te /illing of +lfredo =on7ales could ave caused unusual out&ursts of passion and emotion on petitionerFs part$ Tese resulted in te tragic sta&&ing of te victim tus entitling petitioner to te mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and o&fuscation$
/E&ALT; 5nder +rticle 2@" of te ?evised Penal *ode, te imposa&le penalty for omicide is reclusion temporal, wose duration in its entirety is from 12 years and 1 day to 2( years$ %ince tere is one mitigating circumstance, under +rticle @ of te ?evised Penal *ode, te penalty sould &e imposed in its minimum period, or from 12 years and 1 day to 1@ years and monts of imprisonment$
was ten dragged to te &anana plantation were se was raped &y te accused$ 0C-D: Ae agree wit accusedappellant tat te trial court erred in appreciating te aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nigttime, and unina&ited place in order to 3ustify te imposition of te deat penalty$ Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily &ecause of te sanctity of privacy te law accords to te uman a&ode$ 0owever, in te present case, ?osalyn was not raped terein$ +ltoug se was a&ducted terefrom, accused appellant was not carged wit forci&le a&duction wit rape &ut only wit rape$ *onsidering tat se was not raped in er ome, dwelling cannot &e appreciated$
&IG"TTIE Arile '* DWELLI&G PP K%$ +-*+-+ 4+*T%: +&out midnigt, is wife, wo was sleeping witin te ouse, was awa/ed &y te noise produced &y a &low$ %e got up, loo/ed out, and saw at te foot of te staircase of te ouse, te accused Kalentine +lcala upon Cugenio ?u&ion, olding te latter &y te nec/, wile te appellant, Paulo +lcala, wo ad a clu& in is and, eld te /nees of te deceased$ 0C-D: Te foot of te staircase of a ouse is considered an integral part tereof for te purposes of te aggravating circumstance of te crime &eing committed in te dwelling of te oended part of te ouse, said circumstance must &e ta/en into consideration$ PP K%$DCO5I[+ +ppellantFs attorney contends tat te fact tat te deceased was /illed in is own dwelling sould not constitute an aggravating circumstance in te present case, &ecause tat fact or circumstance was li/ewise inerent in te
PP K%$ %I-K+ By and of itself, nigttime is not an aggravating circumstance, owever, it &ecomes aggravating only wen: 91; it i s especially sougt &y te oender8 or 92; i t is ta/en advantage of &y im8 or 9'; it facilitates te commission of te crime &y ensuring te oenderFs immunity from capture$ 33 In tis case, te trial court correctly appreciated nigttime as aggravating considering tat nigttime facilitated te a&duction of te *eriales &roters, te /illing of !anuel *eriales and te attempt to /ill Cdmundo *eriales$ Cvidence sows tat accusedappellants too/ advantage of te dar/ness to successfully consummate teir plans$ Te fact tat tey &rougt wit tem a asligt clearly sows tat tey intended to commit te crime in dar/ness PP K%$ *+?I[) Te records reveal tat te crime was committed during nigttime$ Tis circumstance is considered aggravating only wen it facilitated te commission of te crime, or was especially sougt or ta/en advantage of &y te accused for te purpose of impunity$ Te essence of tis aggravating circumstance is teobscuridad aorded &y, and not merely te cronological onset of, nigttime$ +ltoug te oense was committed at nigt, nocturnity does not &ecome a modifying factor wen te place is ade
BA&D PP K%$ !+=D+!IT Te aggravating circumstance of &and was properly appreciated &y te trial court$ +n oense is committed en cuadrilla wen more tan tree armed malefactors sall ave acted togeter in te commission tereof$ In te present case, tere were seven armed conspirators involved in te commission of te composite crime$ PP K%$ DIN+!-IN= Te trial court correctly appreciated &and as an aggravating circumstance$ Aenever more tan tree armed malefactors sall ave acted togeter in te commission of an oense, it sall &e deemed to ave &een committed &y a &and$ +ll four accusedappellants were armed, tree wit long .rearms and
'@ te oter wit a sort one$ Tey al l too/ part in te commission of te ro&&ery wit omicide, po/ing teir guns at teir victimsF eads, tying tem up, ransac/ing te ouse, and /illing te two victims$
strengt of te parties$ It is considered wenever tere is a notorious ine
PP K%$ -)V+N) Ae .nd tat te oenses were not committed &y a &and$ + crime is deemed to ave &een committed &y a &and or en cuadrilla wen more tan tree armed malefactors ta/e part in its commission$ Te four armed persons contemplated in tis circumstance must all &e principals &y direct participation wo acted togeter in te e6ecution of te acts constituting te crime$ Te *ode does not de.ne or re
AID 8, ARED E& PP K%$ -)V+N) Tere was also no evidence presented to sow tat te oenses were committed wit te aid of armed men$ +id of armed men or persons aording immunity re
AB4SE 8, S4/ERI8R STRE>" PP K%$ D?CA +ntonio *ordial, Jr$, was wal/ing towards an eatery$ %uddenly, appellants Drew and ?amos, wit te 11 oter accused waylaid im$ Drew was armed wit a 2G 6 2G piece of wood wit wic e clu&&ed te unarmed *ordial$ ?amos ten struc/ im on te &ac/ of is ead wit a lead pipe, followed &y several &lows on te &ody$ Te victim fell$ +s e lay prostrate on te ground, te oters 3oined in &eating im wit &lows and /ic/s$ +ppellants and teir coaccused ten ed$ 4or te
+s eld in /eople vs. cumen, an attac/ &y a man wit a deadly weapon upon an unarmed woman constitutes te circumstance of a&use of tat superiority wic is se6 and te weapon used in te act aorded im, and from wic te woman was una&le to defend erself$ Te disparity in age &etween te assailant and te victim, aged 2" and ", respectively, indicates pysical superiority on appellantFs part over te deceased$ It d id not matter tat appellant was Gdar/G wit a Gslim &ody &uildG or Gmedyo mataba$G Aat mattered was tat te malefactor was male and armed wit a letal weapon tat e used to slay te victim$ Tus, a&use of superior strengt was present in te commission of te crime$ But sould it &e considered as
PP K%$ KCNT5?+ Ait respect to te deat of +ileen, te trial court found &ot appellants guilty of murder 0" inches tall $ 7is #eapon #as a 14 inch dagger $ Aileen ocate?a @stood only about *ve !=2B0" feet tall $ he disparity of their strength is enormous$ () 9Cmpasis supplied;
To ta/e advantage of superior strengt means to purposely use e6cessive force out of proportion to te means of defense availa&le to te person attac/ed$ 95 Te appreciation of tis aggravating circumstance depends on te age, si7e and strengt of te parties, and is considered wenever tere is a notorious ine
' against appellant 4lores8 and 92; te prosecution failed to sow tat appellant 4lores deli&erately too/ advantage of te disparity in teir si7e and se6 in order to facilitate te commission of te crime$ 5nli/e in treacery, were te victim is not given te opportunity to defend imself or repel te aggression, ta/ing advantage of superior strengt does not mean tat te victim was completely defenseless$ +&use of superiority is determined &y te e6cess of te aggressorFs natural strengt over tat of te victim, considering te momentary position of &ot and te employment of means wea/ening te defense, although not annulling it $ 0ence, te fact tat +ileen attempted to fend o te attac/ on er and er us&and &y trowing near&y o&3ects, suc as an electric cord, at appellant 4lores does not automatically negate te possi&ility tat te latter was a&le to ta/e advantage of is superior strengt$ )n te contrary, tis *ourt in a very long line of cases as consistently eld tat an attac/ made &y a man wit a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes te circumstance of a&use of tat superiority wic is se6 and te weapon used in te act aorded im, and from wic te woman was una&le to defend erself$ By deli&erately employing a deadly weapon against +ileen, appellant 4lores clearly too/ advantage of te superiority wic is strengt, se6 and weapon gave im over is unarmed victim$
E>IDE&T /REEDITATI8& PP K%$ 0I-+?I) Weyword: Aite %irt It is to &e noted tat te lower court, in .nding te appellant guilty of murder, cient lapse of time &etween te decision to commit te crime and te e6ecution tereof to allow te accused to reect upon te consecient to arrive at a calm 3udgment$ In te case at &ar, tere is no
sowing tat te /illing of +tin was te product of cool tougt and reection$ Tere is a&solutely no sowing ow and wen te plan was atced or ow muc time elapsed &efore te crime was carried out$ )n te contrary, wat appears very muc evident is tat e was /i lled on te occasion of an altercation wit accusedappellant in te latterFs rented room$ %u>ce it to state tat witout suc evidence, mere presumptions and inferences, no matter ow logical and pro&a&le, will not su>ce$ In oter words, te evidence falls sort of proving evident premeditation$ cDT%0C PP K%$ *)N*I--+D) Weywords: 2 wounds Cvident premeditation Grecient lapse of time &etween te decision and te e6ecution, allowing te accused to reect upon te consecient$ Cvident premeditation may not &e appreciated were tere is no proof as to ow and wen te plan to /ill was atced or te time tat elapsed &efore it was carried out$ Te premeditation must &e evident and not merely suspected$G In te instant case, te testimony of -oren7o aving &een properly discredited &y te *+, te prosecution as no evidence to sow ow te attac/ was commenced or ow it was perpetrated$ Tere is also no evidence to s ow tat Cdgar decided to /ill Diosdado and as clung to suc determination even after a su>cient time as elapsed$ *onsecient to arrive at a calm 3udgment$ 23 4or it to &e appreciated, te following must &e proven &eyond reasona&le dou&t: 91; te time wen te accused d etermined to commit te crime8 92; an act manifestly indicating tat te accused clung to is determination8 and 9'; su>cient l apse of time &etween suc determination and e6ecution to allow im to reect upon te circumstances of is act$ 2* )n te oter and, to appreciate treacery, two 92; conditions must &e present, namely, 9a; te employment of means of e6ecution tat gives te person attac/ed no opportunity to defend imself or to retaliate, and 9&; te means of e6ecution were deli&erately or consciously adopted$ 2( Te *+, terefore, did not err wen it ruled tat te /illing of te victim was neiter attended &y evident premeditation nor treacery, tus: 0I Te element of evident premeditation is manifested &y te careful planning and
' preparation underta/en &y te oender prior to te commission of te crime$ A 0er#sal of he evidene on reord sho7s ha he aleraion $e7een a00ellan D#avis and Dane Lar!ado Sr. oo6 0lae a aro#nd 355 oFlo6 in he afernoon of ay 2 2553 and he ha6in! iniden oo6 0lae a aro#nd (35 in he afernoon of he sa:e day$ To te mind of te *ourt, he la0se of i:e $e7een he deision and he e=e#ion is no s#ien o allo7 a00ellan o f#lly reHe #0on he onse#enes of his a and o eeively and eienly 0re0are and 0lan his aions 0rior o he o::ission of he ri:e$ +ltoug it may &e argued tat tere was some /ind of premeditation on te part of appellant Duavis, it was not proved to &e evident$ Tis *ourt furter .nds tat te
TREAC"ER;
PP K%$ %I*+D
Tere is treacery wen one commits any of te crimes against persons &y employing means, metods or forms in te e6ecution tereof witout ris/ to oneself arising from te defense wic te oended party migt ma/e$ 0ere, te accusedappellants attac/ed te victim from &eind in a swift, deli&erate and une6pected manner$ Aitout warning and witout ris/ to temselves, tey trew a dynamite at i m and sot im even as e ad already fallen to te ground$ Te attac/ was tus treacerous, aording te victim no opportunity to resist or escape or defend imself$
PP K%$ Q+N%)N Bot te trial court and te *+ correctly appreciated te
treacery wen te oender commits any of te crimes against persons, employing means, metods, or forms in te e6ecution, wic tend directly and specially to insure i ts e6ecution, witout ris/ to te oender arising from te defense wic te oended party migt ma/e$ Te essence of treacery is tat te attac/ comes witout a warning and in a swift, deli&erate, and une6pected manner, aording te apless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no cance to resist or escape$ 4or treacery to &e considered, two elements must concur: 91; te employment of means of e6ecution tat gives te persons attac/ed no opportunity to defend temselves or retaliate8 and 92; te means of e6ecution were deli&erately or consciously adopted$G ** Te prosecution esta&lised tat appellant suddenly sta&&ed te victim from &eind tere&y giving im no opportunity to resist te attac/ or defend imself$ +s correctly o&served &y te appellate court: %CcT0+ It is apparent tat tere was treacery in te /illing of H!agan$ +s surely testi.ed &y H=alfo, Happellant followed te unsuspecting victim wen e was going ome and tereafter, deli&erately sta&&ed im in te &ac/ wic resulted in te falling of H!agan to te ground and rendering im defenseless to HappellantFs furter attac/s$ Kerily, Happellant employed means wic insured te /illing of H!agan and suc means assured im from te ris/ of H!aganFs defense ad e made any$ It must also &e noted tat H!agan was sta&&ed four times in te &ac/ and two of tese wounds were te pro6imate cause of is deat$ %ta&&ing from &eind is a good indi cation of treacery$ PP$ K%$ +BD5--+0 Treacery and evident premeditation, te circumstances alleged in te informations, cannot &e appreciated to
'# In tese cases, te circumstances sowing ow te victims were sta&&ed reveal tat tey ad no opportunity to defend temselves$ Tey were unarmed and unsuspecting, as tey were 3ust singing and drin/ing wen accusedappellant sta&&ed tem$ +s properly o&served &y te trial court, te swift and une6pected attac/ &y te accused rendered tem elpless$ Tere was also no provocation on teir part to 3ustify te ire of appellant$ Treacery tus
PP K%$ +=+*C?
PP K%$ -)PCV
GTere is treacery wen te oender commits any of te crimes against te person, employing means, metods or forms in te e6ecution tereof wic tend directly and specially to insure its e6ecution, witout ris/ to imself arising from any defense wic te oended party migt ma/e$G 3' Two conditions must concur for treacery to &e appreciated$ 4irst, is te employment of means of e6ecution tat gives te person attac/ed no opportunity to defend imself or to retaliate$ %econd, te means of e6ecution was deli&erate or consciously adopted$ 32 GTe essence of treacery is te sudden attac/ &y an aggressor witout te sligtest provocation on te part of te victim, depriving te latter of any real cance to defend imself, tere&y ensuring te commission of te crime witout ris/ to te aggressor$G 33
Te essence of treacery is a deli&erate and sudden attac/ tat renders te victim una&le and unprepared to defend imself &y reason of te suddenness and severity of te attac/$ 2' In te case at &ar, *u was caugt oguard wen, after e was as/ing forgiveness from ?egalado, te latter suddenly drew a curved /nife and sta&&ed and pursued te following victim$ +nd once ?egalado and is coappellants cornered *u, +ragon /ic/ed and punced im wile -ope7 sta&&ed i m several times to tus preclude *ua \ from defending imsel f$
PP K$ DC-+ PC[+ Te ?T* also correctly ruled tat treacery attended te /illing, tus: It is undisputed tat te gunsot wound sustained &y te victim was located at te le ft &ac/ portion of te cest and e as no oter in3uries apart from tis wound$ Tus, it is evident tat te victim was sot from &eind, wit is &ac/ towards te assailant$ It as many times &een eld tat treacery e6ists wen te defenseless victim was sot from &eind and tat tis sows tat accused ad employed means of attac/ wic oered no ris/ to imself from any defensive or retaliatory act wic te victim migt ave ta/en$ It is clear, terefore, tat te victim as not even tougt tat e will &e sot &y te accused wile scooping wit a laddle !sic" rice inside te pot$ +ccused employed deli&erately te /ind of attac/ wic oered no ris/ to imself wat te victim migt do$ Treacery was employed &y te accused &ecause e sougt te cover of dar/ness to sot !sic" te victim to avoid is recognition$ +ccused li/ewise sot te victim wile e was &eind te railings of te /itcen and it would &e ard for te victim to retaliate even if e ad te /nowledge tat e could &e sot &y te accused$ Ait all tese circumstances attendant to te instant case no dou&t could &e entertained &y tis court tat te accused sot te victim treacerously$ %a+c0C Nigttime, owever, as aggravating circumstance is a&sor&ed &y treacery$ *3 Te essence of treacery is te sudden and une6pected attac/ &y te aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving te latter of any real cance to defend imself, tere&y ensuring i ts commission witout ris/ to te aggressor, and witout te sligtest provocation on te part of te victim$ ** In tis case, te victim was unarmed8 and was attac/ed from &eind and at close range$ Te assailant furter id &eind te window to mas/ is presence and identity$
Ae are also unimpressed wit appellantsF contention tat &ot te trial and appellate courts erred in ruling tat treacery
In tis case, treacery is evident from te same circumstances we ave already discussed a&ove$ 4rom te facts, *esario could not ave &een aware tat e would &e surrounded, attac/ed and /illed &y te appell ants wo were all related to im$ 0e could not ave also &een aware tat Cddie ad a sotgun concealed in a sac/ &ecause if e was, e would not ave casually approaced 4lorencio wen te latter summoned im$ 5nfortunately, wile *esario was advancing towards 4lorencio, Cddie sot im at close range witout any warning watsoever$ Cvidently, te crime was committed in a manner tat tere was no opportunity for *esario to defend imself$ +lso, te mode of attac/ did not spring from te une6pected turn of events &ut was clearly tougt of &y te appellants$ 0ence, it no longer matters tat te assault was frontal since its swiftness and une6pectedness deprived *esario of a cance to repel it or oer any resistance in defense of is person$ 3* +ppellantsF contention tat treacery was not alleged wit certainty in te Information is also devoid of merit$ In /eople v. Dillacorta 3( te *ourt appreciated treacery as an aggravating circumstance, it aving &een alleged in te Information and proved during trial tat te G$ $ $ accused, armed wit a sarpened &am&oo stic/, wit intent to /ill , treacery and evident premeditation, did ten and tere willfully and feloniously attac/, assault and sta& wit te said weapon one D+NI-) %+-K+D)? *?5V $ $ $ $G %imilarly, we old tat treacery was su>ciently alleged in te Information PP K%$ !+NIN=DIN= Tere is treacery wen Gte oender commits any of te crimes against persons, employing means, metods, or forms in te e6ecution, wic tend directly and specially to insure its e6ecution, witout ris/ to te oender arising from te defense wic te oended party migt ma/e$G 3) Tese means or metods are made in te form of a swift, deli&erate and une6pected attac/, witout any warning and aording te victim, wic is usually unarmed and unsuspecting, no cance at all to resist or escape te impending attac/$ *5
' In tis case, it is undisputed tat it was accusedappellant wo sta&&ed and /illed te victim, wic is neiter a crime of parricide nor infanticide$ Ae are, terefore, left wit te i ssue of weter tere was treacery in te attac/$ =oing over te records of te case, Ae are convinced tat, indeed, treacery was employed and present in te sta&&ing &y accusedappellant of te victim, wic led to te latterFs ultimate deat$
&e ta/en into account even if te victim of te attac/ was not te person wom te accused intended to /ill$
4rom te testimonies of +ladino and ?ommel, it cannot &e gainsaid tat accusedappellant witout any warning or suspicion, and ta/ing advantage of te circumstances, immediately attac/ed te victim$ Te victim did not ave any suspicion tat could ave alerted im of te impending attac/$ +s clearly demonstrated in te trial court, te attac/ was swift and une6pected, even to te eyewitnesses, +ladino and ?ommel$ Ae, terefore, agree wit te ?T*Fs ruling and .nding, and Ae .nd no reason to veer away from tem$
Te circumstance of ignominy was not present &ecause no means were employed nor did any circumstances surround te act tending to ma/e te eects of te crime more umiliating$ Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to te moral order, wic adds disagree and o&lo
IG&8I&; PP K%$ +B+I=+?
PP K%$ =5CK+??+ PP K%$ +*+Q+ It is settled tat aggravating
Neiter sould te aggravating circumstance of ignominy &e appreciated, de.ned as Ga circumstance pertaining to te moral order wic adds disgrace and o&lo
In te case at &ar, treacery was alleged i n te information and all its elements were duly esta&lised &y te prosecution$ Inspector Barte was sitting inside te 3eep wen appellant suddenly appeared and approaced im$ +ppellant as/ed Inspector Barte if e was G!a3or BarteG$ 0owever, &efore Inspector Barte could respond or utter a word, appellant
Arile '( Case Di!ess
-Relaionshi0/0 v. Calon!#i ,ACTS +ccusedappellant was guilty of twocounts of rape$ +ccusedappellant and te victim were .rst cousins$ "ELD relationsip is not aggravating &ecause te relationsip &etween !arinel and te appellant as .rst cousins is not witin te concept contemplated in +rticle 1 of te ?evised Penal *ode$
PP K%$ T?INID+D Te crime committed was murder wit te
// v. Ca0areda ,ACTS +ccussedappellant was guilty of four counts of rape$ Te victim was te stepgranddaugter of te accused$ "ELD Te alternative aggravating circumstance of relationsip under +rticle 1 of te ?evised Penal *ode cannot &e considered
'" in te instant case considering tat te relationsip &etween a stepgrandniece and er stepgrandfater is not one of te relatives speci.cally enumerated terein
is reclusion perpetua &y virtue of +rticle 2 + of te ?evised Penal *ode$
/0 v. 8rillosa
-Ino=iaion-
,ACTS +ccusedappellant was found guilty of acts of lasciviousness and two counts of rape$ +ccused was te fater of te victim$ // v. Bor$on "ELD Te alternative circumstance of relationsip under +rticle 1 of te ?evised Penal *ode sould &e appreciated against appellant$ In crimes of castity suc as acts of lasciviousness, relationsip is considered as aggravating$ Inasmuc as it was e6pressly alleged in te information and duly proven during trial tat te oended party is te daugter of appellant, relationsip, terefore, aggravated te crime of acts of lasciviousness$ Penalty: 5nder +rticle '' of te ?evised Penal *ode, te crime of acts of lasciviousness is punised &y prision correccional$ +pplying te Indeterminate %entence -aw and appreciating relationsip as an aggravating circumstance, appellant could &e sentenced to suer an indeterminate prison term of si6 monts of arresto mayor , as minimum, to si6 years of prision correccional, as ma6imum, and to pay te victim P'(,((($(( as moral damages$
// v. Glodo ,ACTS +ppellant was found guilty of rape &y te trial court$ Te victim was appellantRs own daugter$ "ELD Te Information alleges tat !aricel was only 1 years old at te time te crime was committed and tat se is te daugter of appellant$ 0owever, te prosecution merely presented te oral testimony and sworn statement of !aricel$ It failed to present independent evidence proving te age of te victim and er relationsip wit appellant so as to warrant te imposition of deat penalty$ In /eople vs$ Dia?edor , we eld: he minority of the victim and the o$ender2s relationship to the victim, #hich constitute only one special &ualifying circumstance, must be alleged in the Enformation and proved #ith certainty. ecent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to ?ustify the imposition of the penalty of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution #itnesses and the absence of denial by the accused . . . he prosecution has the burden of proving all the elements of a crime, including the &ualifying circumstances, especially in death penalty cases.
Tus, for failure of te prosecution to present independent evidence to prove te age of victim !aricel and er relationsip wit appellant, te trial court erred in considering te special
,ACTS +ppellant was in front of te ouse of a certain +ling Pet Pingol aving conversation wit one Jaime Tali&angan and *ristina David, appellantRs neice$ Te appellant ree/ed of li
// v. In!!o ,ACTS +ccused &ougt a &ottle of &eer from te store of te deceasedRs fater$ Te elper tried to give im is cange &ut te accused refused saying tat e wanted te original amount &ac/$ 0eated words were e6canged &etween accused and te elper$ +fterwards, te victim arrived and oered to give te accused is cange$ Te accused, owever, refused and an argument &etween accused and deceased ensued$ Aile appellant and te deceased were tus arguing, appellant suddenly rused to te deceased$ Aen e was already near er, e loosened is &elt and removed it from is waist$ ?osemarie ?einante conse
@( was rused to te ospital were se was pronounced dead on arrival$ Te trial court found te evidence for te prosecution credi&le and su>cient to convict appellant of murder &eyond reasona&le dou&t$
"ELD Ae .nd te alternative circumstance of into6ication in e6istent$ Into6ication to &e aggravating must ave &een te source of &ravado tat propelled te accused to commit te crime$ +s we ave previously eld:
Te general rule is tat into6ication may &e considered eiter as aggravating or mitigating, depending upon te circumstances attending te commission of te crime$ Into6ication is mitigating and terefore as te eect of decreasing te penalty if te into6ication is not a&itual or attendant to te plan to commit te contemplated crime$ )n te oter and, wen i nto6ication is a&itual or done intentionally to em&olden te malefactor and facilitate te plan to commit te crime, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance$
ur penal la#s do not loo indly on habitual drunards, or if the accused already resolved to commit the crime, then got into5icated so as to fortify that resolve #ith false courage dictated by li&uor, his liability should be aggravated. Although there is no hard and fast rule on the amount of li&uor that the accused imbibed on that occasion, but the test is that it must have suFced to a$ect his mental faculties, to the e5tent of blurring his reason and depriving him of self3 control.
In te instant case, accusedappellantFs into6ication cannot &e considered aggravating &ecause tere was no sowing tat it was a&itual or intentional$ +s testi.ed to &y prosecution witness 4eli6 Bernal, teir group drin/ lice to prove tat accusedappellant was a a&itual drun/ard$ Nor sould suc statement &e ta/en against te accusedappellant$ 5ndenia&ly, accusedappellant was a mere visitor at tat time$ 0e came to Bangued to attend a earing and from tere went to Barangay Dangdangla, Bangued to visit is relatives$
0ere, appellantFs degree of into6ication was not proved wit certainty$ 0e ad allegedly &een drin/ing tuba earlier tat day, and e did &uy a &ottle of &eer at te store of te victimFs in laws$ But tese facts are not su>cient to esta&lis tat i ndeed appellant was into6icated at te time e committed te crime, muc less tat e sougt into6ication to fortify is resolve in committing it$ +&sent clear and convincing proof as to appellantFs state of into6ication, we are una&le to agree tat te alternative circumstance of into6ication was present to aggravate te oense$
4urter, te prosecution failed to prove tat accusedappellant got drun/ on te day te murder occurred for te purpose of committing te same$ Neiter did accusedappellant initiate te drin/ing spree$ 0e merely acceded to te invitation of te victim to 3oin is group in teir drin/ing spree$ Tus, in te a&sence of clear and convincing proof tat te into6ication was a&itual or intentional on te part of accusedappellant, it is improper to consider te same as an aggravating circumstance$
In any event, into6ication as well as disregard of se6 were not alleged in te information, ence, tese may not &e considered to aggravate te crime for te imposition of a iger penalty, weter &y degrees or periods$ Tis is pursuant to te amendments made to te ?evised ?ules of *ourt, particularly to%ec$ of ?ule 11( of te ?evised ?ules of *riminal Procedure$
// v. Bernal ,ACTS +ccusedappellant was found guilty &y te trial court of te crime of murder for wic e was sentenced to deat, violation of te gun &an and illegal possession of .rearm and ammunition for wic e was sentenced to suer indeterminate prison terms$ +ppellant togeter wit deceased and a group of men, were on &oard a tricycle on teir way to te Benedisco pu& ouse$ 5pon reacing te pu& ouse, te d eceased, Pedrito, invited te group to go inside to dance$ Pedrito, ?ey and te appellant, +rnel, went inside wile 4eli6 and 4ernando were left outside$ -ater, 4ernando went inside to loo/ for te tree and found tem asleep$ 0e &rougt eac to te tricycle were 4eli6 was waiting to &ring tem ome$ 4ernando .rst fetced te deceased and ten te accused$ 5pon fetcing ?ey, e eard a gunsot and upon returning to te tricycle, e saw app ellant olding a gun$ 0e eard anoter gunsot$ It turned out te accused ad sot Pedrito$ 4ernando and te appellant grappled wit te gun were at tat point, policemen arrived$ "ELD +ccusedappellant argues tat te trial court committed an error wen it imposed te deat penalty on im on account of te alternative aggravating circumstance of a&itual drun/enness$ 0e claims tat te prosecution was not a&le to prove te same at te trial, muc less tat e intentionally got drun/ to commit te crime$ Ae agree$
But is into6ication cannot li/ewise &e considered mitigating &ecause accusedappellant failed to sow tat is i nto6ication impaired is will power or is capacity to understand te wrongful nature of is acts$ Te person pleading into6ication must prove tat e too/ suc
-La6 of Insr#ion// v. an!san ,ACTS Te defendant appealed from te 3udgment of te *ourt of 4irst Instance of !anila .nding im guilty of te crime of murder and sentencing im to reclusion perpetua$ Te information against im alleged tat te said accused attac/ Demetria 4errer, a girl 1@ years of age, sta&&ing er from &eind wit a /nife and inicting upon er various wounds in dierent parts of te &ody wic produced er instantaneous deat$ "ELD +s to te mitigating circumstances, it is not proper to consider lac/ of instruction in favor of te defendant, inasmuc as e admitted tat e ad studied in te .rst grade in a pu&lic elementary scool$ -ac/ of instruction cannot apply to one wo as studied in te .rst grade in a pu&lic scool, &ut only to im wo really as not received any instruction 9art$ 1, .rst paragrap, ?evised Penal *ode;$
@1
Arile '1-/rini0als Indiaors of ons0iray // >. SICAD ,ACTS +ccusedappellant, !elcor %icad went to is parentsF ouse to attend to is ailing moter wo suered a stro/e$ Present in te ouse were is coaccused, namely, Jimmy +sturias, ?udy %icad and *amelo -o&aton$ Te deceased, ?o&erto +sturias, %r$, !elcorFs cousin, also arrived$ !elcor oered ?o&erto a &ottle of &eer, &ut e refused$ Tis resulted in a ver&al clas and an e6cange of .st &lows &etween tem$ ?o&erto .nally left, wile !elcor returned to te &edside of is moter wo, sortly tereafter, died$ -ater tat evening, ?o&erto +sturias, %r$ was found dead near is .sing &anca$ Te victimFs 11year old son, and Jimmy +sturias pointed to accusedappellants ?udy %icad, *amelo -o&aton, !elcor %icad, and te latterFs employees, Pa
"ELD Tere is conspiracy wen two or more persons come to an agreement concerning te commission of a felony and decide to commit it$ +s a rule, conspiracy must &e proved as convincingly and indu&ita&ly as te crime itself$ It is not necessary, owever, tat conspiracy &e proved &y direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit te crime$ *onspiracy may &e deduced from te mode and manner in wic te oense was perpetrated or in ferred from te acts of te accused wic sow a 3oint or common purpose and design, a concerted action and a community of interest among te accused$ Tis *ourt olds tat te trial court did not err wen it found tat conspiracy e6ists in tis case$ Aile tere is no direct evidence to sow tat accusedappellants agreed to commit te crime, owever, teir acts and te attendant circumstances surrounding te commission of te crime disclose a common design tat would ma/e all of tem coprincipals in te crime committed$ +s sown &y te records, accusedappellants Pa
Te contention of !elcor %icad and Jonny =uiLe7, wo acted as loo/outs, tat teir mere presence in te scene of te crime did not ma/e tem coconspirators does not persuade us$ )ne wo participates in te material e6ecution of te crime &y standing guard or lending moral support to te actual perpetrators tereof is criminally responsi&le to te same e6tent as te latter$ In a conspiracy, it is not necessary to sow tat all te conspirators actually it and /illed te victim$ Indeed, te accusedappellantsF syncronous presence at te place was not a mere coincidence &ut was in pursuance of a design to /ill ?o&erto +sturias, %r$, wit wom !elcor %icad ad a previous .gt$ Tere &eing conspiracy among te accusedappellants, tey are lia&le as coprincipals regardless of te manner and e6tent of teir participation since, in point of law, te act of one is te act of all$ Te trial courtFs appreciation of te aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot &e sustained$ Proof of conspiracy does not imply te e6istence of evident premeditation$ Te rule is tat evident premeditation may not &e ta/en into account were, as ere, conspiracy is not &ased on direct proof &ut is inferred from te acts of te accused in te perpetration of te crime$ Te *ourt sustains te trial courtFs .nding tat te accused appellants are guilty of murder,
// vs. RE;ES ,ACTS Te Qao family is composed of Qao %an 9fater;, *ua )ng Ping %im 9moter;, ?o&ert and ?aymond 9cildren;, -enny 9daugterinlaw, wife of ?o&ert;, !attew and *arlene 9grandcildren;, and Jona +&agatnan and Josepine )rtea 9ousemaids;$ Te Qao family owns and operates a poultry farm in Barangay %anto *risto, %an Jose del !onte, Bulacan$ )n 1 July 1""", at a&out 11:(( p$m$, te Qao family, on &oard a !a7da !KP van, arrived at te teir poultry farm$ Qao %an aligted from te van to open te gate of te farm$ +t tis 3uncture, appellant ?eyes and a certain Juanito Pataray 9Pataray; approaced, po/ed teir guns at Qao %an, and dragged im inside te van$ +ppellant ?eyes and Pataray also &oarded te van$ Tereupon, appellants +rnaldo and 4lores, wit two male companions, all armed wit guns, arrived and immediately &oarded te van$ +ppell ant 4lores too/ te driverFs seat and drove te van$ +ppellants ?eyes and +rnaldo and teir coorts ten &lindfolded eac mem&er of te Qao family inside te van wit pac/aging tape$ +fter a&out '( minutes of traveling on te road, te van stopped$ Per order of appellants and teir coorts, *ua )ng Ping %im, ?o&ert, ?aymond and Jona +&agatnan 9+&agatnan; stepped out of te van wit appellants ?eyes and +rnaldo, Pataray and one of teir male companions$ +ppellant 4lores, wit te oter male companion, drove te van wit te remaining mem&ers of te Qao family inside te veicle$ -ater, te van stopped again$ +ppellant 4lores and is male companion told Qao %an to produce te amount of .ve million pesos as ransom in e6cange for te release of *ua )ng Ping %im, ?o&ert, ?aymond and +&agatnan$ Tereafter, appellant 4lores and is male companion left te van and ed8 wile Qao %an, -enny, !attew, *arlene and Josepine remained inside te van$ Qao %an ten drove te van towards te poultry farm and sougt te elp of relatives$ !eanwile, *ua )ng Ping %im, ?o&ert, ?aymond and +&agatnan were ta/en on foot &y appellants ?eyes and +rnaldo,
@2 Pataray and one male companion to a safeouse situated in te mountainous part of %an Jose Del !onte, Bulacan were tey spent te wole nigt$ )n te morning of te following day, te /idnappers tried to contact Qao %an regarding te ransom demanded, &ut te latter could not &e reaced$ Tus, appellants instructed +&agatnan to loo/ for Qao %an in te poultry farm$ 5pon arriving terein, +&agatnan searced for Qao %an, &ut te latter could not &e found$ +ppellants ?eyes and +rnaldo told +&agatnan to remind Qao %an a&out te ransom$ Tereafter, appellants ?eyes and +rnaldo and teir male companion left +&agatnan in te poultry farm and went &ac/ to te safeouse$ In te safeouse, appellants told ?o&ert tat tey would release im so e could elp +&agatnan in locating Qao %an$ +&andoned &y te appellants and upon arriving at te poultry farm, ?o&ert found Qao %an and informed im a&out te ransom demanded &y te appellants for te remaining eld victims$ + series of calls were made &etween Qao %an and te /idnappers in wic e was instructed to deliver te ransom and not tell te autorities$ 0owever, /idnappers did not sow up wen Qao %an delivered te ransom money$ )n 2' July 1""", te corpses of *ua )ng Ping %im and ?aymond were found at te -a !esa Dam, Novalices, Oue7on *ity$ Bot died of aspy6ia &y strangulation$
"ELD +propos te second assigned error, appellants contend tat te prosecution failed to prove tat tey conspired in /idnapping te Qao family$ 5nder +rticle of te ?evised Penal *ode, tere is conspiracy wen two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it$ *onspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in te e6ecution of te unlawful o&3ective among te accused$ Aen te accused &y teir acts aimed at te same o&3ect, one performing one part and te oter performing anoter part as to complete te crime, wit a view to te attainment of te same o&3ect, conspiracy e6ists$ +s can &e gleaned from te credi&le testimonies and sworn statements of +&agatnan, ?o&ert and Qao, appellant ?eyes and Pataray approaced and po/ed teir guns at Qao %an, and tereafter dragged te latter into te van$ +ppellant 4lores ten too/ te driverFs seat and drove te van, wile eac mem&er of te Qao family was &lindfolded &y appellants ?eyes and +rnaldo and teir coorts inside te van$ Tereafter, appellant 4lores instructed Qao %an to produce te amount of P million as ransom money in e6cange for te release of *ua )ng Ping %im, ?o&ert, ?aymond and +&agatnan$ +ppellant ?eyes and appellant +rnaldo were among te /idnappers wo guarded +&agatnan, ?o&ert, *ua )ng Ping %im and ?aymond in te safeouse$ Tey also accompanied +&agatnan and ?o&ert in going to te poultry farm to searc for and remind Qao %an a&out te ransom demanded$ 4urter, appellants +rnaldo and 4lores narrated in teir respective e6tra3udicial confessions ow tey planned and e6ecuted te /idnapping of te Qao family$ Teir e6tra3udicial confessions also detailed te particular roleparticipation played &y eac of appellants and teir coorts in te /idnapping of te family$ *learly, te foregoing individual acts of appellants and teir coorts demonstrated teir unity of purpose and design in /i dnapping te Qao family for te purpose of e6torting ransom$
// >S. ALETA ET AL ,ACTS !arcelo, 4erdinand, ?ogelio, !arlo and Jovito, all surnamed +leta was carged for te murder of *elestino Duldulao y Qadao and 4erdinand +co&$ +ll a&ovenamed accuse clu& wit te use of ard o&3ects &ot te victims$ Te *ourt upolds te version of te prosecution: Aile te deceased +co&Rs moter, !arina, went to te community center, se eard a commotion on te yard of te appellants$ ?eturning ome, se told +co& of te
compound$ 5pon following er son, !arina witnessed ?ogelio stri/ing +co& wit a piece of wood, causing te latter to fall$ %e tereafter saw ?ogelio stri/ing Duldulao causing te latterRs eyes to pop out$ ?ogelio ten ran towards te family ouse wereupon !arina eard gunsots$ Jovito, !arlo and 4erdinand continued to it tem$ Aen ?ogelio emerged from te ouse, e got anoter piece of wood and clu&&ed te victims$
"ELD *onspiracy was present during te attac/$ Aen two or more persons aim teir acts towards te accomplisment of te same unlawful o&3ect, eac doing a part of teir acts, toug apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, conspiracy may &e inferred$ +nd were tere is conspiracy, te act of one is deemed te act of all$
// vs. /ABL8 A8DIA ,ACTS ?omildo *eno testi.ed tat e along wit two friends were tal/ing and watcing television wen e eard a noise coming somewere &elow te * Bridge, located @(( meters away from teir ouse$ 0e also eard some&ody souted may away doon$E *urious, e and !ario went to te &ridge and saw .ve persons wom e identi.ed as te victim 94eli6 )landria BergaLo;, Pa&lo +modia, +rnold Partosa, =eorge Palacio and Damasio +modia$ 0e /new tese men as tey were neig&ors$ Illuminated &y ligt coming from a post, e saw te victim &eing eld in te rigt and &y Pa&lo, wile te oter and was eld &y +rnold$ =eorge was positioned at te victimRs &ac/ and clu&&ed te victim on te ead8 Damaso was in front of te victim and sta&&ed im tree times$ -uter *a&erte wo appened to &e passing &y te * &ridge at tat time, also saw wat appened$ 0e testi.ed tat e saw men .gting under te * &ridge wic was illuminated &y a ligt from a lamppost$ 0e saw Pa&lo, Damaso, =eorge and +rnold ganging up on te victim$ 0e saw Pa&lo olding te victimRs and wile Damaso was sta&&ing im$ 0e also a>rmed tat =eorge was positioned &eind te victim$ 0e personally /new &ot te victim and Pa&lo as tey ave &een neig&ors$ Bot eyewitnesses left te scene after te sta&&ing8 ?omildo was cased away &y =eorge and Damaso wile -uter went on ome immediately$ Te accusedappellant Pa&lo +modia invo/ed te defense of ali&i$ In is appeal, Pa&lo argues tat te trial court and te *+ erred in failing to give evidentiary weigt to is ali&i$ 0e alternatively argues tat granting tat e was part of DamasoRs group and tat te group /illed te victim, te prosecution failed to esta&lis te conspiracy among tem$ Tere was no evidence adduced to esta&lis ow te incident tat led to te sta&&ing &egan$
"ELD +s an alternative argument, Pa&lo puts into issue te failure of te prosecutionRs evidence to esta&lis te conspiracy &etween im and is oter coaccused to ma/e im lia&le for murder$ 0e empasi7es tat te evidence, as testi.ed &y te eyewitnesses, only relate to events during and not prior to te assault and te sta&&ing of te victim$ 0e argues tat no evidence was adduced to sow tat te accused all agreed to /ill te victim$ *onspiracy e6ists wen two or more persons come to an agreement concerning te commission of a felony and decide to commit it$ It arises te very instant te plotters agrees, e6pressly or impliedly, to commit a felony and fortwit decide to pursue it$ It may &e proved &y direct or circumstantial
@' evidence$ Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found8 circumstantial evidence is often resorted to in order to prove its e6istence$ +&sent of any direct proof as in te present case, conspiracy may &e deduced from te mode, metod, and manner te oense was perpetrated, or inferred from te acts of te accused temselves, wen suc acts point to a 3oint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest$ +n accused participates as a conspirator if e or se as performed some overt acts as a direct or indirect contri&ution in te e6ecution of te crime planned to &e committed$ Te overt act may consist of active participation in te actual commission of te crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to is co conspirators &y &eing present at te commission of te crime, or &y e6erting moral ascendancy over te oter coconspirators$ %tated oterwise, it is not essential tat tere &e proof of te previous agreement and decision to commit te crime, it is su>cient tat te malefactors acted in concert pursuant to te same o&3ective$ +ltoug tere was no evidence in te present case sowing a prior agreement of Pa&lo, +rnold, =eorge and Damaso, te following cain of events owever sow teir commonality of purpose in /illing te victim: .rst, te accused surrounded te victims on all sides8 Damaso at te front, =eorge at te victimRs rear8 wile Pa&lo and +rnold an/ed te victim on eac side8 second, Pa&lo ten wrested te rigt arm of te victim and restrained is movement8 wile +rnold did te same to te left arm of te victim8 tird, =eorge ten it te victimRs ead wit a piece of wood8 and fourt, Damaso sta&&ed te victim tree times$
// >S. REGALARI8 ,ACTS +ccusedappellants, all surnamed ?egalario, are &arangay o>cials and related to one anoter$ +ppellants %otero and Bienvenido ?egalario were seen stri/ing ?olando %evilla several times wit teir nigtstic/s$ Te &lows caused %evilla to fall down in a sitting position &ut after a sort wile e was a&le to get up$ 0e ran away in te direction of te ouse of appellant !ariano ?egalario, te &arangay captain$ Bienvenido and %otero ?egalario cased %evilla$ Aen %evilla was already near !arcianoFs ouse, e was waylaid & y appellant ?amon ?egalario and at tis point, !arciano ?egalario and is son Noel ?egalario came out of teir ouse . Noel was carrying a seveninc /nife$ Te .ve appellants caugt te victim in front of !arcianoFs ouse$ +rmed wit teir nigtstic/s, tey too/ turns in itting te victim until e slumped to te ground face down$ In tat position, %evilla was &o6ed &y !arciano in te 3aw$ +fter a wile, wen %evilla was no longer moving, !arciano .rst ordered te oters to /ill te victim and to tie im up$ 5pon earing te order, Bienvenido, wit te elp of %otero, tied te nec/, ands and feet of te victim wit a nylon rope used &y farmers for tying cara&ao$ Te rest of te group 3ust stood &y watcing$ "ELD Te *ourt agrees wit te .ndings of te lower courts as to te presence of conspiracy$ *onspiracy e6ists wen two or more persons come to an agreement concerning te commission of a felony and decide to commit it$ Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found$ Te agreement to commit a crime, owever, may &e deduced from te mode and manner of te commission of te oense or inferred from acts tat point to a 3oint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of intent$ It does not matter wo inicted te mortal wound, as te act of one is te act of all, and eac incurs te same criminal lia&ility$ Ae
#hich the victim could escape and ensured the achievement of their plan to ill olando Sevilla even as the latter already fell to the ground. Accused3appellant Marciano hit the victim on his ?a# and later, ordered his co3accused to ill and tie the victim. pon hearing Marciano2s instruction, ienvenido egalario tied olando2s nec, hands and feet #ith a rope. he collective act of the accused3appellants is suFcient to mae them co3principals to the illing.
*onsidering te foregoing, as well as te manner in wic te attac/ against ?olando was carried out, and te testimonies of te prosecution witnesses positively identifying te accused appellants as te assailants, we concur in te rulings of te *+, a>rming tose of te trial court, in 9a; disregarding ?amon ?egalarioFs declaration tat e attac/ed te victim in self defense and 9&; olding tat all te accusedappellants acted in concert and /illed ?olando$
// vs. ALIBIRA& ,ACTS ?olando GBotongG !ali&iran and Beverly Ti&oTan were convicted of !urder and Parricide, respectively, and sentencing tem to suer te penalty of reclusion perpetua$ Te conviction arose from te deat of ?eynaldo Tan on 4e&ruary , 1""$ Te antecedents tat led to ?eynaldoFs deat, owever, go way &ac/ in te #(Fs wen ?eynaldo left is commonlaw wife, ?osalinda 4uer7as and teir two cildren, Jessie and ?eynalin, in Davao, and went to !anila to see/ greener pastures$ Aile in !anila, ?eynaldo met and ad a relationsip wit appellant$ Tey eventually married in 1"1$ ?eynaldo and appellant &egot tree cildren U ?enevie, Jag*arlo and Jay ?$ In 1"@, ?eynaldoFs and ?osalindaFs pats crossed again and tey resumed teir relationsip$ Tis led to te GsouringG of ?eynaldoFs relationsip wit appellant8 and in 1""1, ?eynaldo moved out of te con3ugal ouse and started living again wit ?osalinda, altoug ?eynaldo maintained support of and paternal ties wit is cildren$ )n tat fateful day of 4e&ruary , 1"", ?eynaldo and appellant were in =reenills wit teir cildren for teir usual %unday gallivant$ +fter .nising lunc at te Wimpura restaurant, te family separated at around 2:(( oFcloc/ in te afternoon to do some sopping$ -ater, tey regrouped and purcased groceries at 5nimart$ +t around @:(( oFcloc/ in te afternoon, te family stepped out of te sopping mall and ?eynaldo proceeded to te par/ing lot to get is red 0onda +ccord, wile te rest of is family stayed &eind and waited$ Immediately tereafter, te family eard an e6plosion coming from te direction were ?eynaldo par/ed is car$ +ppellant and ?enevie got curious and proceeded to te par/ing lot$ Tere, tey saw te 0onda +ccord &urning, wit ?eynaldo lying &eside te driverFs seat, &urning, carred and &leeding profusely$ + ta6i driver named Clmer Paug 9Clmer; appeared and pulled ?eynaldo out of te car$ ?eynaldo was ten rused to te *ardinal %antos !edical 0ospital were e eventually died & ecause of te severe in3uries e sustained$ Te underlying cause of is deat was !ultiple 4racture X !ultiple Kascular In3uries %econdary to Blast In3ury$ "ELD Te testimonies of prosecution witnesses Janet and )swaldo clearly lin/ appellant to te planning of te crime$ True, as intimated &y appellant, se may not ave &een at te scene of te crime at te time of te e6plosion8 &ut ten again, if se was, ten se would ave suered te same fate as ?eynaldo$ !oreover, te nature of te crime and te manner of its e6ecution, i$e$, via a &oo&y trap, does not demand te pysical presence of te perpetrator at te very time of its commission$ In fact, te very manner in wic it was carried out necessitated prior sceming and e6ecution for it to succeed$ Tus, appellantFs a&sence from te actual scene of te crime does not negate conspiracy wit ?olando in plotting te deat of er us&and$ + conspiracy e6ists even if not all te parties committed te same act, &ut te participants performed speci.c acts tat indicated unity of purpose in accomplising a criminal design$ !oreover, direct proof of previous agreement to commit an oense is not necessary to prove conspiracy U conspiracy may &e proven &y circumstantial evidence$
@@
Te testimonies of Janet and )swaldo esta&lised te following set of circumstances wic, if ta/en collectively, sow te guilt of appellant: tat appellant and ?olando conspired, planned and agreed to /ill ?eynaldo using a grenade8 tat appellant duplicated te /ey to te red 0onda +ccord of ?eynaldo so tat ?olando could gain access to te car8 tat appellant tereafter gave te duplicate /ey to ?olando8 tat on 4e&ruary , 1"", appellant told )swaldo to follow te red 0onda +ccord of ?eynaldo until te latter par/ed te car8 tat appellant told )swaldo to tereafter pic/ up ?olando at Watipunan and &ring te latter to were ?eynaldo par/ed is red 0onda +ccord$ ?eynaldo died soon after due to in3uries e sustained from an e6plosion caused &y grenades planted in is car$ +noter nota&le fact is tat according to te e6pert opinion of Inspector %elverio Dollesin, *ief of te Bom& Disposal 5nit of te Castern Police District, te perpetrator ad information a&out te victimFs movements$ Dollesin also o&served tat te perpetrator /new is intended victim, since te grenade was speci.cally placed in &etween te driverFs seat and te front door$ Tat te perpetrator /new te victimFs movements was furter corro&orated &y te a>davits e6ecuted &y te Tan cildren, ?enevie and Jag *arlo, attesting tat wile tey spent teir %undays wit teir fater, tis was te only time tat tey spent a %unday in =reenills$ )nly someone wo ad close personal contact wit ?eynaldo would /now is movements, were te car would &e par/ed, and tat e was te one wo usually drove te red 0onda +ccord, suc tat it was precisely positioned to ensure damage to te intended victim$
Where here is no ons0iray
// vs. GE&S8LA ,ACTS ?u.no =ensola was te driver, wile 4idelina Tan and 4elicisimo Tan were te conductors, of a passenger truc/$ Tey suspected !iguel =ayanilo of aving punctured te tires of te truc/ wile it was par/ed in front of is carinderia. Passengers overeard 4idelina Tan mutter to erself, o&viously referring to someone se did not name: G0e does not appear &ecause I will /ill im$G + day later, !iguel =ayanilo was crossing te street from te pu&lic mar/et in te direction of is carinderia wit ?u.no =ensola, olding in is rigt and a stone as &ig as a manFs .st, following closely &eind$ +t tis time, 4elicisimo and 4idelina Tan were standing in te middle of te street +fter !iguel =ayanilo ad crossed te middle of te street near te two, 4idelina Tan souted, G?u.no, stri/e i m$G 5pon earing te sout !iguel loo/ed &ac/ and ?u.no suddenly struc/ im on te left face wit te stone$ 4elicisimo ten struc/ !iguel wit a piece of iron on te &ac/ of te ead causing serious wounds and fracture of te s/ull$ Not content wit te two &lows already given, 4idelina struc/ !iguel wit anoter piece of iron on te left foreead causing serious wounds and fracture of te s/ull$ !iguel fell to te ground near te canal along te side of te street$ ?u.no =ensola immediately left for is ouse situated on =on7ales %t$ 4elicisimo and 4idelina o&served te prostrate &ody for a few seconds until 4idelina muttered: G0e is already dead$G Te two ten left te scene of te crime$ Te lower court found te tree defendants guilty as principals of te crime of murder$ "ELD -et us now consider te criminal lia&ility of te tree appellants$ Te lower court found tem guilty as principals of
te crime of murder on te assumption tat tere was conspiracy among tem$ Ae do not agree, for te following reasons: 91; 4idelina TanFs intention revealed &y te words se muttered to erself, G0e does not appear &ecause I will /il l im,G was not sared &y 4elicisimo Tan wo /ept silent$ %ilence is not a circumstance indicating participation in te same criminal design$ Ait respect to ?u.no =ensola, e was not even in te truc/ at te time 92; Aen !iguel =ayanilo was crossing =erona %t$, it was only ?u.no =ensola wo followed closely &eind 4idelina Tan and 4elicisimo Tan were in te middle of te street$ Te words souted &y 4idelina Tan, G?u.no, stri/e im,G were meant as a command and did not sow previous concert of criminal design$ 9'; Te &lows given wit pieces of iron on te &ac/ of te ead and on te foreead &y 4elicisimo and 4idelina after ?u.no ad struc/ wit a piece of stone te left face of !iguel, do not in and &y temselves sow previous concert of criminal design$ Particularly wen it is considered tat ?u.no immediately left tereafter wile 4elicisimo and 4idelina remained for a few seconds o&serving te prostrate &ody of !iguel until 4idelina muttered, G0e is already dead$G In te a&sence of conspiracy, te lia&ility of te tree appellants is individual, tat is, eac appellant is lia&le only for is own act$ +ppellant ?u.no =ensola is lia&le only for te lacerated wounds inicted &y im on te left face of !iguel =ayanilo$ Is appellant 4idelina Tan also lia&le for te oense considering tat se gave te command G?u.no, stri/e imGM Te second class of principals, according to +rticle 1# of te ?evised Penal *ode, comprises Gtose wo directly force or induce oters to commit it 9te act;$G Tose wo directly induce oters to commit te act are called Gprincipals &y inducementG or Gprincipals &y induction,G from te %panis Gautores por inducci]n$G Te word GinducementG comprises, in te opinion of Kiada and te %upreme *ourt of %pain, reward, promise of reward, command, and pacto$ Ait respect to command, it must &e te moving cause of te oense$ In te case at &ar, te command souted &y 4idelina, G?u.no, stri/e im,G was not te moving cause of te act of ?u.no =ensola$ Te evidence sows tat ?u.no would ave committed te act of is own volition, even witout said words of command$
// >S. /ADR8&ES ,ACTS Te victim was at te !=? 4amily Disco and ?estaurant, cele&rating is &irtday$ Biare arrived tereafter and a&out ten minutes later, +le6 Padrones appeared$ It seems tat te two ad &een old ac
@ !eanwile, -oren7o %ison signed a andwritten statement in is ospital &ed to te %uralla police accusing Padrones of aving inicted one sta& wound on im$ 0e also implicated Biare and carged im wit sta&&ing im once$ 0e later on e6pired due to respiratory failure and internal &leeding$ Te star witness for te prosecution, -laneta, testi.ed tat e was involved in tat &rawl tat e was one of tose wo ganged up on Padrones$ 0e testi.ed tat as e &eat up Padrones, te latter slipped out a /nife and so did Biare$ 0e allegedly retreated wereupon, saw Padrones &ury is /nife on %ison$ Dr$ Kelas
"ELD Te trial 3udge portrays te accusedappellantsF Gcance meetingG as an eort Gto esta&lis no conspiracy &etween tem too/ place$G Aat e, te trial 3udge, loses sigt of is te fact tat te accused were not called upon to discredit te prosecutionFs teory of conspiracy$ It was te prosecutionFs duty to esta&lis te e6istence of wat te prosecution alleged to &e conspiracy$ Te trial 3udge also e6presses dou&ts weter or not te accused, Josep Biare, indeed 3ust minded is own &usiness wile te %isons ganged up on is coaccused$ GAould one permit is friend molested,G e in
/rini0al $y Ind#ion // >S. ;A&S8&-D4A&CAS ,ACTS )f te 1' accused carged wit Widnapping for ?ansom wit !urder of one ?u.no =argar, Jr$, ' accused were ac
" were convicted as principals and 1 accused was convicted as accessory$ )n appeal, te %upreme *ourt ac
"ELD )n te case of accusedappellant Jeanette Qanson Dumancas, te information carged er of te crime of /idnapping for ransom wit murder as principal &y induction togeter wit er us&and, *arles, wo was found &y te trial court not guilty of te crime$ Aat te *ourt now as to e6amine is weter or not su>cient evidence was adduced &y te prosecution to prove &eyond reasona&le dou&t tat Jeanette indeed performed any of te following acts: 9a; directly forcing te /illers to commit te crime, or 9&; directly inducing tem to commit te crime$ Tere are 2 ways of directly forcing anoter to commit a crime, namely: 9i; &y using irresistible force, or 9ii; &y causing uncontrollable fear $ 5pon review of te testimony of all te witnesses of te prosecution, we .nd noting to conclude tat Jeanette used irresisti&le force or caused uncontrolla&le fear upon te oter accusedappellants$ 4rom te factual .ndings of te trial court, it is patent tat te plan to a&duct and licient &asis to convict Jeanette as principal &y inducement$ pr-In order tat a person may &e convicted as principal &y inducement, te following must &e present: 91; te inducement &e made wit te intention of procuring te commission of te crime, and 92; suc inducement &e te determining cause of te commission &y te material e6ecutor$ To constitute inducement, tere must e6ist on te part of te inducer te most positive resolution and te most persistent eort to secure te commission of te crime, togeter wit te presentation to te person induced of te very strongest /ind of temptation to commit te crime$
@ By te foregoing standards, te remar/ of Jeanette to Gta/e care of te twoG does not constitute te command re
/rini0al $y Indis0ensi$le Coo0eraion // >S. CARIAGA ,ACTS Te victim Crnesto de =u7man, %r$ con.ded to is &roter, Bal&ino de =u7man, tat appellants *osme and Nestor *arriaga were gra&&ing is land and tat tey treatened to /ill im$ Crnesto &ecame te o&3ect of teir ire since e started to improve te river as a source of liveliood$ )n one occasion, te appellants *arriaga &roters told Crnesto not to continue wor/ing te area or else someting migt appen to im and is family$ +ppellant Ben Palis accused Crnesto of informing te police tat te *arriaga &roters owned guns$ )n te nigt of Decem&er ', 1"'', accusedappellants proceeded to te ouse of te victim$ Te wife of te accused testi.ed tat se ten saw appellants *osme and Nestor, eac olding a bolo, and Palis, standing &y te door, wit &ot ands placed at is &ac/$ Nestor and *osme went directly to were Crnesto was sleeping and immediately &egan ac/ing im$ Bot te wife and te son of te victim escaped from te ouse for fear$ +s tey were escaping, tey eard a veicle approacing$ Tin/ing tat te /illers migt ave &oarded te same, tey id among te tall grasses$ Aen tey peeped, tey saw te tree appellants in te front seat of a &lue passenger 3eepney$ +fter te veicle passed, te two continued to run until tey reaced te poblacion$
"ELD: *onspiracy aving &een esta&lised, te *ourt deems it necessary to distinguis te nature of te participation of appellants Nestor, *osme and Palis$ in te commission of a crime &y two or more persons, tose wo ta/e direct participation are principals &y direct participation8 tose wo directly force or induce oters to commit te crime are principals &y induction8 wile tose wo cooperate in te commission of te crime &y anoter act witout wic te commission of te oense would not ave &een accomplised are principals &y indispensa&le cooperation under paragrap ' of +rticle 1#$ In te present case, it is clear tat appellants Nestor and *osme are principals &y direct participation$ Bot of tem wit te same purpose and design ac/ed Crnesto repeatedly to /ill te victim$ Te
/enalies /E8/LE >S. L4CAS ,ACTS In te decision in tis case, te 4irst Division touced on te nature of te penalty of reclusion perpetua in te ligt of %ection 21 of ?$+$ No$ #" wic amended +rticle 2# of te ?evised Penal *ode &y speci.cally .6ing te duration of reclusion perpetua at twenty 92(; years and one 91; day to forty 9@(; years$ It opined tat since no corresponding amendment to +rticle # of te ?evised Penal *ode was made, te said law as not made e6plicit an intention to convert reclusion perpetua into a divisi&le penalty$ Neverteless, it applied +rticle of te ?evised Penal *ode and stated: G+ccordingly, te time included in te penalty of reclusion perpetua 9twenty H2( years and one H1 day to forty H@( years; can &e divided into tree e
@# minimumU2( years and 1 day to 2 years and monts
/DEA >. BR8DETT mediumU2 years, monts and 1 day to '' years and @ monts ma6imumU'@ years, @ monts and 1 day to @( years$ Ta/ing into account te presence of te aggravating circumstance of relationsip in *riminal *ase No$ O"11@, te accused may .nally &e sentenced to tirty four 9'@; years, from 9@; monts and one 91; day of reclusion perpetua$G In a motion for clari.cation seasona&ly .led &y te appellee on 2 June 1""@ wic was not opposed &y te accusedappellant in is comment, te appellee as/s te *ourt to correct te duration of te ma6imum period of reclusion perpetua from tirtyfour 9'@; years, four 9@; monts and one 91; day to forty 9@(; years, as stated in te decision, to tirtytree 9''; years, four 9@; monts and one 91; day to forty 9@(; years$
"ELD +fter deli&erating on te motion and ree6amining te legislative istory of ?$+$ No$ #", te *ourt concludes tat altoug %ection 1# of ?$+ No$ #" as .6ed te duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty 92(; years and one 91; day to forty 9@(; years, tere was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classi.cation as an indivisi&le penalty$ HIf reclusion perpetua was reclassi.ed as a divisi&le penalty, ten +rticle ' of te ?evised Penal *ode would lose its reason and &asis for e6istence$ To illustrate, te .rst paragrap of %ection 2( of te amended ?$+$ No$ @2 provides for te penalty of reclusion perpetua to deat wenever te dangerous drugs involved are of any of te
,ACTS ?icard Brodett and Jorge Josep were carged wit a violation of %ection , in relation to %ection 2 9&;, of ?epu&lic +ct No$ "1 oterwise /nown as te Dangerous Drugs +ct in te ?egional Trial *ourt in !untinlupa *ity$ -i/ewise, te )>ce of te *ity Prosecutor of !untinlupa *ity8 .led anoter information carging only Brodett wit a violation of %ection 11 of ?$+$ No$ "1$ Brodett
.led a Motion to eturn 9on3)rug 'vidence. 0e averred tat during is arrest, PDC+ ad sei7ed several personal nondrug eects from im, including a 2((@ 0onda +ccord car wit license plate no$ P418 and tat PDC+ refused to return is personal eects despite repeated demands for teir return$ Te )>ce of te *ity Prosecutor o&3ected to te return of te car &ecause it appeared to &e te instrument in te commission of te violation of %ection of ?$+$ No$ "1 due to its &eing te veicle used in te transaction of te sale of dangerous drugs$ Te ?T* directed te release of te car$ PDC+ contend tat BrodettRs Motion to eturn 9on3)rug 'vidence did not intimate or allege tat te car ad &elonged to a tird person8 and tat even if te car ad &elonged to !s$ Brodett, a tird person, er ownersip did not ipso facto autori7e its release, &ecause se was under te o&ligation to prove to te ?T* tat se ad no /nowledge of te commission of te crime$
"ELD It is undisputed tat te ownersip of te con.scated car &elonged to !s$ Brodett, wo was not carged eiter in connection wit te illegal possession and sale of illegal drugs involving Brodett and Josep tat were te su&3ect of te criminal proceedings in te ?T*, or even in any oter criminal proceedings$ Te *ourt agrees wit te .nding of te *+ tat: + careful reading of te a&ove provision and sows tat on@saion forfei#re in drugrelated cases pertains to Gall te 0roeeds and 0ro0eries derived from te unlawful act, including &ut not limited to, :oney and oher asses o&tained tere&y, and he insr#:ens or ools wit wic te particular unlawful act was they are the committed unless property of a third person not liable for the unlawful act.G %imply put, he
la7 e=e:0s fro: he ees of on@saion and forfei#re any 0ro0ery ha is o7ned $y a hird 0erson 7ho is no lia$le for he #nla7f#l a$ 0ere, it is &eyond dispute tat te "onda Aord su&3ect of tis petition is o7ned $y and re!isered in he na:e of yra
@ S. Brode no a#sed Rihard Brode$ +lso, it does not appear from te records of te case tat said !yra %$ Brodett as &een carged of any crime, more particularly, in te su&3ect cases of possession and sale of dangerous drugs$ +pplying %ection 2( of te law to te dispute at &ar, Ae terefore see no cogent reason wy te su&3ect 0onda +ccord may not &e e6empted from con.scation and forfeiture$ Cven PDC+ as itself pointed out, tat te te6t of %ection 2( of ?$+$ No$ "1 relevant to te con.scation and forfeiture of te proceeds or instruments of te unlawful act is similar to tat of +rticle @ of te evised /enal Code, wic provides tat %uc proceeds and instruments or tools sall &e con.scated and forfeited in favor of te =overnment, #nless hey $e he 0ro0ery of a hird 0erson no lia$le for he oense, &ut tose articles wic are not su&3ect of lawful commerce sall &e destroyed$E To &ar te forfeiture of te tools and instruments &elonging to a tird person, terefore, tere must &e an indictment carging suc tird person eiter as a principal, accessory, or accomplice$ -ess tan tat will not su>ce to prevent te return of te tools and instruments to te tird person, for a mere suspicion of tat personFs participation is not su>cient ground for te court to order te forfeiture of te goods sei7ed$ 0owever, te *ourt also agrees wit PDC+ and te )>ce of te *ity Prosecutor tat te release was premature: Ae note tat te ?T* granted accused BrodettFs Motion to eturn 9on3)rug 'vidence on Novem&er @, 2((" wen te criminal proceedings were still going on, and te trial was yet to &e completed$ )rdering te release of te car at that point of te proceedings was premature, considering tat te tird paragrap of %ection 2(, supra, e6pressly for&ids te disposition, alienation, or transfer of any property, or income derived terefrom, tat as &een con.scated from te accused carged under ?$+$ No$ "1 during the pendency of the proceedings in the egional rial Court. %ection 2( furter e6pressly re
Ae rule tat encefort te ?egional Trial *ourts sall comply strictly wit te provisions of %ection 2( of ?$+$ No$ "1, and sould not release articles, weter drugs or nondrugs, for te duration of te trial and &efore te rendition of te 3udgment, even if owned &y a tird person wo is not lia&le for te unlawful act$
// >S. ATE8 ,ACTS +ccusedappellant was convicted of ten counts rape$ Te trial court imposed te p enalty of deat$ "ELD Aile te 4undamental -aw rerm te penalty of deat, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it could ten render 3udgment imposing te corresponding penalty as te circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering 3udgment and elevate te entire records of te case to te %upreme *ourt for its .nal disposition$ Procedural matters, .rst and foremost, fall more s
/E8/LE >. DE L8S SA&T8S ,ACTS Te accused was carged wit te crimes of !ultiple !urder, !ultiple 4rustrated !urder, and !ultiple +ttempted !urder in an information .led wit te ?egional Trial *ourt of *agayan de )ro *ity for aving run over wit a veicle, several mem&ers of te Pilippine National Police 9PNP; wo were undergoing an Gendurance runG as part of te %pecial *ounter Insurgency )peration 5nit Training$
@" "ELD *onsidering tat te incident was not a product of a malicious intent &ut rater te result of a single act of rec/less driving, =-CNN sould &e eld guilty of te comple6 crime of rec/less imprudence resulting in multiple omicide wit serious pysical in3uries and less serious pysical in3uries$ +rticle @ of te ?evised Penal *ode provides tat wen te single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or wen an oense is a necessary means for committing te oter, te penalty for te most serious crime sall &e imposed, te same to &e applied in its ma6imum period$ %ince +rticle @ spea/s of felonies, it is applica&le to crimes troug negligence in view of te de.nition of felonies in +rticle ' as Gacts or omissions punisa&le &y lawG committed eiter &y means of deceit 9dolo; or fault 9culpa;$ Te sligt pysical in3uries caused &y =-CNN to te ten oter victims troug rec/less imprudence, would, ad tey &een intentional, ave constituted ligt felonies$ Being ligt felonies, wic are not covered &y +rticle @, tey sould &e treated and punised as separate oenses$ %eparate informations sould ave, terefore, &een .led$ It must &e noted tat only one information 9for multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder; was .led wit te trial court$ 0owever, noting appears in te record tat =-CNN o&3ected to te multiplicity of te information in a motion to
5nder te Indeterminate %entence -aw, =-CNN may &e sentenced to suer an i ndeterminate penalty wose minimum is witin te range of te penalty ne6t lower in degree to tat prescri&ed for te oense, and wose ma6imum is tat wic could properly &e imposed ta/ing into account te modifying circumstances$ 0ence, for te comple6 crime of rec/less imprudence resulting in multiple omicide wit serious pysical in3uries and less serious pysical in3uries,
// >S. CELI&8 ,ACTS Two separate informations were .led &efore te ?egional Trial *ourt of ?o6as *ity carging petitioner wit violation of %ection 2 9a; of *)!C-C* ?esolution No$ @@ 9gun &an;, and %ection 1, Paragrap 2 of ?epu&lic +ct No$ 9?$+$; 2"@ 9illegal possession of .rearm;$ 5pon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to te gun &an violation carge$ Prior to is arraignment, petitioner .led a !otion to Ouas contending tat e Gcannot &e prosecuted for illegal possession of .rearms $ $ $ if e was also carged of aving committed anoter crime of violating te *omelec gun &an under te same set of facts$ Petitioner, citing Agote v. 6oren8o, /eople v. 6ad?aalam, and oter similar cases, 2( contends tat te mere .ling of an information for gun &an violation against im necessarily &ars is prosecution for illegal possession of .rearm$ Te trial court denied te !otion to Ouas ence te present petition$
"ELD Te accused can &e convicted of illegal possession of .rearms, provided no oter crime was committed &y te person arrested$ PetitionerFs reliance on Agote, 6ad?aalam, 'vangelista, arcia, /angilinan, Almeida, and ernal iscmisplaced$ In eac one of tese cases, te accused were e6onerated of illegal possession of .rearms &ecause of teir commission, as sown &y teir conviction, of some oter crime$ In te present case, owever, petitioner as only &een accused of committing a violation of te *)!C-C* gun &an$ +s accusation is not synonymous wit guilt, tere is yet no sowing tat petitioner did in fact commit te oter crime carged$ In sum, wen te oter oense involved is one of tose enumerated under ?$+$ 2"@, any information for illegal possession of .rearm sould &e
