CRIMINAL LAW 1( Provisiions and Cases)

CRIMINAL LAW 1 Atty. Isagani G. Calderon GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Scope and Methodology: This course covering a Part of Book One of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), specially the preliminary Title and Title One (Articles 1-20). Daily Graded recitations, lectures, field observations and other written requirements may be prescribed in the course of the semester. Recitation is called and graded daily: absence when called for recitation merits an automatic grade of 5.0 that session. Grading: Passing grade for the grade is 75%. The final grade will be based on the following component items and their respective weights: Graded Recitation: 40% Midterm Examination:30% Final examination: 30%. Short quizzes and other requirements may be given in lieu of or in addition to daily graded recitation; these will be considered as part of recitation. Course Material: Primary course materials are the Revised Penal Code and Special Penal Law indicated in the outline. Secondary materials are commentaries and reviewers (no particular author is required). “Hate Evil. Love Good. Get justice” Amos 5:24

I.

COURSE OUTLINE CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION A. DEFINITION Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment. (12 Cyc. 129) B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES

1. SOURCES OF STATE AUTHORITY a. Constitution i. Section 5, Article II, 1987 Constitution The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. ii.Section 1, Article VI, 1987 Constitution The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. b. Revised Penal Code (RPC) The Revised Penal Code criminalizes a whole class of acts that are generally accepted as criminal, such as the taking of a life whether through murder or homicide, rape, robbery and theft, and treason.The Code also penalizes other acts which are considered criminal in the Philippines, such as adultery, concubinage, and abortion. The Code expressly defines the elements that each crime comprises, and the existence of all these elements have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure conviction. c. Special Criminal Laws Apart from the crimes penalized in the Revised Penal Code, several other pieces of criminal legislation have been passed, penalizing acts such as illegal possession and trafficking

Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 1

of dangerous drugs, money laundering, and illegal possession of firearms. These laws are called ―Special Penal Laws‖ and they form part of Philippine Criminal Laws. There are certain differences between crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code and Special Penal Laws. Violations of the crimes listed in the Revised Penal Code are referred to as mala in se, which literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or wrongful in itself. On the other hand, violations of Special Penal Laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum or an act that is wrong because it is prohibited. Thus, no criminal intent is needed in order to find a person liable for crimes punished under Special Penal Laws. As long as the act is committed, then it is punishable as a crime under law. Note, however, that not all violations of Special Penal Laws are mala prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita.There are some important distinctions between crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code and Special Penal Laws. One of them is that in crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the offender is considered. This is why liability would only arise when there is criminal intent or negligence in the commission of the punishable act. In crimes punished under Special Penal Laws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered; it is enough that the prohibited act was voluntarily done. d. Penal Provisions in Other Laws e. Local Ordinances Local ordinance is a law usually found in a municipal code. f. Jurisprudence The science of the law. By science here, is understood that connexion of truths which is founded on principles either evident in connexion of truths which is founded on principles either evident in themselves, or capable of demonstration; a collection of truths of the same themselves, or capable of demonstration; a collection of truths of the same kind, arranged in methodical order. In a more confined sense, jurisprudence kind, arranged in methodical order. In a more confined sense, jurisprudence is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and making a just application of them to all cases as they arise. In this sense, making a just application of them to all cases as they arise. In this sense, it is the habit of judging the same questions in the same manner, and by it is the habit of judging the same questions in the same manner, and by this course of judgments forming precedents.

2. LIMITATION TO STATE AUTHORITY a) DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the place to be search and the person or things to be seized‖ (Sec. 2, Article III) Section 1, Article III- No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. PEOPLE v CARLOS 78 Phil. 535 FACTS: Carlos, a Japanese spy, pointed with the Japanese Military Police the houses of Martin and Ladislao Mateo and Fermin Javier, consequently, houses were broken then the Mateo brothers and Javier were seized, arrested and torutured in Fort Santiago from which they were released after 6 days. Given reasons was that the Mateos refused to tell the whereabouts of their 2uerrilla brother, Marcelino and Javier himself a 2uerrilla according to the accused CRIME COMMITTED: Treason Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 2

CONTENTION OF THE STATE: Appellant was guilty of treason by the People‘s Court. The court created under the stress of emergency and necessity, and of special restricted jurisdiction, is not an arbitrary and it has no intentional discrimination. The People‘s court, contrary to the contention of the accused, does not work to deprive the right of individuals to equal protection to law. Contention of the accused: People‘s Court deprives person similarly situated of the equal protection of the law; People‘s court deny preliminary investigation; accused has limited right to appeal; lack of uniformity in ruling as special granting of release on bail. HELD: Judgment affirmed. The People‘s Court does not deprive the appellant of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Constitution. b) FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION SECTION 4, Article III, 1987 Constitution No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. BARNES v GLEN THEATRE 501 U.S. 560 FACTS: Two Indiana establishments wished to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment and individual dancers employed at those establishments wished to provide the same asserting that the laws prohibition against total nudity in public places violates the First Amendment. CRIME COMMITTED: Public Indecency CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Dance is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. Indiana‘s ban on nude dancing in not content – neutral and is not date, time, and place or manner restriction. Neither the statute is justified as a regulation of alcoholic beverages. HELD: The Court held that the nude dancing involved here was not expressive conduct. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling that the non-obscene nude dancing performed for entertainment is protected expression and that the statute, requiring the respondents to wear panties and G-strings was an improper infringement of that activity because its purpose was to prevent the message of eroticism and sexuality conveyed by the dancers. On Certiorari, US Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. c) FREEDOM OF RELIGION SECTION 5, Article III, 1987 Constitution No Law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION,DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE v SMITH, 494 U.S 872 FACTS: Two drug rehabilitation counselors, both members of the Native American Church were fired from their jobs because they had ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug for sacramental purposes. They applied for unemployment to the Employment Division of Oregon‘s Department of HR. Applications were denied. Contention of the State: The Free exercise of religion clause does not preclude Oregon from denying unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs because they used the drug whether or not such used was religiously inspected. Contention of the Accused:


Page 3

The sacramental use of small quantities of Peyote in Native American Church is comparable to the sacramental use of small quantities of alcohol HELD: The free exercise clause can ban the use of Peyote or can deny unemployment benefits for dismissal based on the use of the substance. ESTRADA v ESCRITOR 492 SCRA 1 FACTS: Alejandro Estrada filed a complaint against Escritor for living with a man who is not his husband and having borne a child within their live-in arrangement. Estrada wanted her to be removed from her job as a court interpreter. WHAT CRIME: Disgraceful and Immoral conduct CONTENTION OF THE STATE: Escritor should not be allowed to remain working in the Court for it may appear that the court tolerates her disgraceful and immoral conduct. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Escritor admitted that she has been living with a man who is not her husband even if her real husband is still alive but living with another woman. Her live-in arrangement with the man is in conformity with their religious beliefs as members of the Jehova‘s Witnesses and Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society. The said arrangement even had the approval of their Congregation. They already executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness after ten years of living together, which is permitted by their Congregation. HELD: The court was not able to rule over the case accurately so they remanded the complaint to the Office of Court Administrator and order the Solicitor General to intervene in the case. After mediation in the case, its decision was, Escritor cannot be penalized for engaging into a conjugal arrangement because she has a fundamental right to freedom of religion. d) SECTION 14 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. e) SECTION 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is provided, as shall enjoy the rights to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face and to have a compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf, however, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure appears unjustifiable. f) SECTION 18 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution No person shall be detained solely by reasons of his political beliefs and aspirations. g) SECTION 18 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. h) NO EXCESSIVE FINES NOR CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT SECTION 19 (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.


Page 4

PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 92 Phil. 906 FACTS: Having retailed a can of milk at ten centavos more than the ceiling price, Pablo Dela Cruz was sentenced, after trial, in the Court of First Instance in Manila, t imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of five thousand plus costs. He was also barred from engaging in wholesale and retail business for five years. WHAT CRIME: Overpricing CONTENTION OF THE STATE: Many of us do not regard such punishment unusual and cruel, remembering that National Policy against profiteering in the matter of foodstuffs affecting people‘s health, the need of stopping speculations in such essential and of safeguarding public welfare in times of food scarcity or similar stress. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: The Trial Judge erred: (a) in not holding that the charge was fabricated; (b) in imposing a punishment wholly disproportionate to the offense and therefore unconstitutional and in not invalidating R.A No. 509 in so far as it prescribed excessive penalties. HELD: The court decided to reduce the penalty to the imprisonment of six months and a fine of two thousand pesos. PEOPLE v ECHEGARAY 267 SCRA 682 FACTS: Sometime in April 1994, the accused raped his 10 year old daughter. During that time, R.A. No. 7659, commonly known as the death penalty law was already in effect. WHAT CRIME: Rape CONTENTION OF THE STATE: Punishment are cruel only when they involve torture and lingering death but the punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Death penalty is cruel, excessive, or unusual punishment in violation of the constitutional prescription against cruel and unusual punishment. HELD: The Motion for Reconsideration and Supplementation Motion for Reconsideration were denied for lack of merit. NO EXCESSIVE FINES NOR CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT FRED HARDEN v DIRECTOR OF PRISONER 81 Phil. 741 FACTS: The petitioner was imprisoned for more than six months for contempt by reason of non-compliance to court orders issued regarding the administration of conjugal partnership. Harden was restrained by the Court Order from transferring the properties and money in litigation to other countries since they are necessary during the proceeding. Still harden transferred money and properties to the banks in foreign countries and so Mrs. Harden moved for the court to direct Mr. Harden to return the subjects in litigations since these are necessary during the proceedings. Fred Harden‘s failure to comply with the court orders to return the properties prompted the contempt charge and the imprisonment for an indefinite time. CRIME COMMITTED: Contempt of Court CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: The Court has no jurisdiction over the case since the properties involved are in foreign countries and outside the Philippine Territory, thus, habeas corpus can be a ground for relief. The penalty of imprisonment for an indefinite period of time for a mere contempt


Page 5

of court is cruel, unjust and excessive since it can lead to reclusion perpetua, the usual charge for which is six months imprisonment. CONTENTION OF THE STATE: The punishment for incarceration for an indefinite period is neither cruel nor excessive since it does not involve torture or a lingering death. The accused can avoid imprisonment if he will only obey the court order, an act he is still capable of performing. The indefinite period is only a remedial measure by the court to coerce him to comply. HELD: Rule 64, Sec. 7, Imprisonment until order obeyed. When the contempt consists in the omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the accused to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of a Supreme Court until he performs it. i) SECTION 19 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution The employment of physical, psychological or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. J) SECTION 20, Article III, 1987 Constitution No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of poll tax k) BILL OF ATTAINDER Is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt. SECTION 22, Article III, 1987 Constitution No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. PEOPLE v FERRER 48 SCRA 382 FACTS:On March 5, 1970, Feliciano Co was accused feloniously for becoming an officer and ranking leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an outlawed and illegal group to overthrow the Government of the Philippines. On May 25, Milo tayag and his company were charged of the same. What Crime:Violation of Sec. 4 of the Anti-Subversion Act. Contention of the State:In many occasions in Tarlac, the accused persons were seen conducting meetings and delivered speeches enticing people to subversion which is an overt act an obvious subversion against the State. Contention of the Accused:On July 21, 1970, the accused moved to quash, impugning the validity of the statute on the grounds that (1) it is a bill of attainder; (2) it is vague; (3) in embraces more than one subject not expressed in the title thereof and (4) it denies him the equal protection of law. Held:Resolving the constitutional issue, the trial court, it its resolution of September 15, 1970, declared that it is a bill of attainder, however, upon the elevation of the solicitor general, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the anti-subversions Act. EX POST FACTO LAW An ex post facto law has been defined as one: a) Which make an action done before the passing of the law which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action; b) Which aggravates the crime or make it greater than what is committed; c) Which changes the punishment and inflicts greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; d) Which alters the legal rules of evidence and receive less or different than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict he offender.

SECTION 22, Article III, 1987 Constitution No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. US V DIAZ-CONDE 42 Phil. 766


Page 6

FACTS:On May 6, 1921, it was noted that a complaint was presented in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, charging the defendants with the violation of the Usury Law (Act No 2655). The case was brought on for trail and the judge found out that the defendants were guilty. Contention of the Accused:The contract upon which the alleged usurious interest collected was executed before Act No. 2655 was adopted; that at the time said contract was made (December 30, 1015), there was not Usury Law in the Philippines, that the said act did not become effective until the first day of May 1916; or four months and a half after the contract in question was executed, that the said law could have retroactive effect; the said law impairs the obligation of the contract and the opinion of the lower court should be revoke. Complaint should be dismissed and should be discharged from the custody of the law. Contention of the State:The lower court stated that at the time of the execution and delivery of said contract, there was no law in force in the Philippine Island punishing usury but, in as much as the defendants had collected a usurious rate of interest after the adoption of the usury law in the Philippines, they were guilty of violation of the said law and should be punished in accordance with its provisions. Held:The acts complained of by the defendant did not constitute a crime at the time they were committed, therefore, sentence of the lower court should be revoked; that the complaint be dismissed and the defendants be discharge from the custody of the law. RULE 115, RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE RIGHTS OF ACCUSED SECTION 1. Rights of accused at the trial.—In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: (a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his tail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on allsubsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel. (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him. (e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf. (h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a) ARTICLE 2, CIVIL CODE Laws must be passed after fifteen days following their completion either in the official Gazette or any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.

PESIGAN v ANGELES 129 SCRA 174 FACTS:Anselmo and Mardcelo Pesigan transported twenty six carabaos in the evening of April 2, 1982. These carabaos will be transported to Batangas. What crime:Violation of E.O. 625 which prohibits the transportation of carabaos.


Page 7

Contention of the State:The Pesigans violated executive order 625 which provides that henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose shall be transported from one place to another. Contention of the Accused:The Pesigans contented that the carabaos confiscated which allegedly values to P70, 000 plus P 92, 000 as moral damages shall be recovered. Held:Executive Order No. 625 should not be enforced against the accused because it is a penal regulation published 2 months after the commission of the crime. TANADA v TUVERA 136 SCRA 27 FACTS: Tanada and company seeks a Writ of Mandamus compelling respondents public officials to cause the publication in the official Gazzette of various Presidential Decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations and administrative orders invoking the people‘s right to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the principle that laws, to be valid mush be published in the official Gazzette. Crime Committed:Violation on the right of the people to be informed. Contention of the Accused:Petitioners have no legal personality to seek for the Writ and the publication is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the law provides for their own effectivity dates. Contention of the State:Since the subject of the petition concerns a public and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not to show any specific interest for the petition to be given due course and that the right sight in is a public right. Held:The court ordered the respondents to publish in the official Gazzette all unpublished presidential decrees, issuances which are of general applications, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect.

Article V, VISITING FORCES AGREEMENT (VFA) Article V Criminal Jurisdiction 1. Subject to the provisions of this article: (a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines. (b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States over United States personnel in the Philippines. 2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States. (b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines. (c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this article, an offense relating to security means: (1) Treason; (2) Sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense. 3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply: (a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of this Article. (b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to: (1) Offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and


Page 8

(2) Offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty. (c) The authorities of either government may request the authorities of the other government to waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case. (d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request. (e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, the commander will issue a certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at the highest levels may also present any information bearing on its validity. United States military authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases, and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken. (f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other government as soon as possible. (g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction. 4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall assist each other in the arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing them over to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this article. 5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of the arrest or detention of United States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction. Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military authorities of the arrest or detention of any United States personnel.

...Article V, Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) 6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so. 7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investigations into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and, in proper cases, the delivery of objects connected with an offense.


Page 9

8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this article and have been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in the Philippines. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities. 9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or prosecuted by Philippine authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled: (a) To a prompt and speedy trial; (b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them and to have reasonable time to prepare a defense; (c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross examine such witnesses; (d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses; (e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as nationals of the Philippines; (f) To have the services of a competent interpreter; (g) to communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by United States authorities, and to have such authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who have no role in the proceedings. 10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance. 11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts.

C. PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL LAW Identify Wrongful Behavior Prescribe Punishment DE JOYA V. JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, 417 SCRA 636 FACTS:The accused, knowing that she does not have funds in or credit with the Solid Bank still issue a check to Flow Catapang De Tenorio in the amount of P150,000, however, the check was dishonored by the bank for ground account closed. Despite of the honor and demand made by the bank or the direct payment to Flor Catapang De Tenorio, the acused failed to do so. Tenorio filed a case against De Joya. De Joya was found guilty of the violation of BP Bilang 22; she was sentence with imprisonment of 1 year and indemnity for the offended party. After 5 years, De Joya was arrested and detained. Crime Committed:Violation of BP Bilang 22


Page 10

Contention of the Petitioner:De Joya posits that SC Administrative Circular No 12-2000 deleted the penalty of imprisonment for violation of BP Bilang 22 and allows only the imposition of fine. The petitioner argued that her detention was illegal and she must be released from the Batangas City Jail. Contention of the People:A motion filed by the petitioner should be denied based on three grounds: (1) the decision of convicting the petitioner of violation of BP Bilang 22 is final and executor; (2) SC Circular should be applied respectively; (3) SC Circular does not amend BP Bilang 22 but encourages trial court judges to have uniform imposition of fine. Held:The petitioner‘s motion / petition is dismissed for lack of merit. a. Retribution The penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the offense. b. Prevention The State must punish the criminal to prevent or suppress the danger arising from the criminal acts of the offender. i. Deterrence Deter the accused from doing the same wrongful act.  

General Specific

ii. Incapacitation Impedes some right vested in the accused because of his wrongful act. iii.Rehabilitation Restore the victim to his former capacity or dignity.

D.CONSTRUCTION / INTERPRETATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES LIBERALITY IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSSED PEOPLE v GATCHALIAN 104 PHIL 664 PEOPLE v SULTAN 331 SCRA 216 FACTS:Complaining witness Juditha Bautistaa was on her way home when a certain Fernando Sultan pointed an ice pick on her, announcing it was hold-up. The accused grabbed Bautista on his house and get all her jewelries of the latter and a sum of P 130.00. After taking the valuable, Sultan raped Bautista two times using intimidation. Crime Committed: Special Complex Crime of Robbery and Rape Contention of the People: All elements of the crime of robbery as stated by Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code were present. Likewise, on the crime of rape, the used of intimidation was sufficient to make the complainant submit herself to him against her will for fear of life and personal safety. Contention of the Accused:For the crime of robbery, the testimony of the complaint should not be given weight and credence as no evidence was presented in the court to prove her claim. As to the rape, the requisite for or intimidation was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because consent to the sexual intercourse was given. HELD:Fernando Sultan was found guilty of the special complex of crime of robbery with rape, however, the additional rape committed was not considered aggravating circumstance because there is no law passed providing that the additional rape/s may be considered aggravating. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IF FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSSED PEOPLE v VALDEZ 304 SCRA 611 Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 11

FACTS: Rolando Valdez was convicted for the complex crime of multiple murders with double frustrated murder and illegal possession of firearms which is punishable by death penalty and the prison terms of reclusion perpetua, respectively. The crime was committed even before the enactment of Section 8294 which provides that the use of unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder should be taken as aggravating circumstances and not as a separate crime. Crime committed:Multiple murder with double frustrated murder and illegal possessions of firearms. Contention of the State: The use of unlicensed firearms cannot be considered as special aggravating circumstances. It will only raise the penalty from four reclusion perpetua to four fold death. Since the law aggravates the crime, it shall not be applied to the accused. Contention of the Accused:Republic Act 8294 should be applied prospectively; however, since the law is favorable to the accused, then the same shall have a retroactive application. RULING:The court modified the penalty from death to four sentence3s of reclusion perpetua for the crime of multiple murder and reclusion temporal for double frustrated murder. GO v DIMAGUIBA 460 SCRA 451 FACTS:Dimagiba was guilty of bouncing checks for thirteen counts and three months of imprisonment for each and indemnify P 1, 295, 000 with legal interest per annum from 1996 after the checks were dishonored by reason of ―account closed‖. Crime committed:Violation of Bouncing Law (Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22) Contention of the People:The Regional Trial Court invoked Vaca v. COA and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 which allegedly required the imposition of fine only instead of imprisonment for BP Bilang 22 violations, if the accused was not recidivist or habitual delinquent. Contention of the Accused:The Petition of habeas corpus was anchored on the Ruling of Vaca and SCAC No. 12-2000, which allegedly prescribed the imposition of a fine, not imprisonment, for conviction under BP Bilang 22. Respondent sought the retroactive effect of those rulings, thereby effectively challenging the penalty imposed on him for being excessive. RULING:Let this be remanded to MTCC of BC for the re-arrest of the respondent and the completion of his sentence.

EQUIPOSE DOCTRINE The rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation of such evidence calls for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused. Thus, the evidence for the prosecution must be heavier to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused. The constitutional basis of the rule is Bill of Rights which finds expressions in Sec. 1, par. (a), Rule 115 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended Bill of Rights, Sec. 1, par. (a) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Rule 115, 1985 Rules Criminal Procedure as amended RULE 115 - RIGHTS OF ACCUSED Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights: (a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. (b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. (c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it


Page 12

sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel. (d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice him. (e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself. (f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him. (g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf. (h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial. (i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

PEOLE v DINDO 349 SCRA 492 FACTS:Crestita Lao, with daughter, Nympha, and 2 Taiwanese nationals, Hwang Yu Chin-in and Chin Fu Hwang, boarded the tricycle being driven by Sukarno Dindo. Before they could proceed, 3 men boarded the same. After a few turns, Dindo stopped in front of the cemetery and the 3 men alighted. The man wearing a black jacket drew his gun and pointed it at Nympha and Chin Fu Hwang. Soon afterward, Nypmpha heard a gunshot; she looked behind her and saw the 3 men running away towards the cemetery. Nympha alighted from the tricycle and saw her mother lying on the ground with a gunshot on the upper left eyebrow. Dindo denied the charge against him. HELD: In the absence of any evidence that Sukarno Dindo conspired with the assailants, conspiracy cannot be attributed against him for, in criminal cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish its case with that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind, with evidence which stands or falls on its merits, and which cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Unless it discharges the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the latter need not even offer evidence in his behalf. Thus, when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, such as the case at bar, it is the policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence of the accused must be favored and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right. Sukarno Dindo is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

PEOLE v SAYANA 405 SCRA 243 FACTS:Albert Sayana forced himself upon the daughter of his common-law wife, Cheska Angelika de Dios, 11. Cheska recounted that appellant undressed her, laid on top of her, and made an up and down movement while he kissed her neck. She felt pain in her private part. Fear prevented Cheska from telling her mother about the incident as she had often witnessed how appellant would beat her mother.According to Cheska, appellant again violated her in the evening of October 4, 1998. HELD:We reverse the decision of the trial court. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had sexual contact with the alleged victim. This, the prosecution failed to do in this case. While the complainant testified that appellant forced her into sexual intercourse on two occasions, the physical evidence clouds her testimony. The report of Dr. Annabel Soliman, Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI shows that there were no signs of injury in complainant‘s genitalia. In a later examinationconducted by Dr. Manuel Aves a healed superficial hymenal laceration at 12:00 position was found. Dr. Aves explained that the location of the laceration excludes sexual intercourse as possible cause. We have held in several cases that the lone uncorroborated testimony of the complainant is sufficient to warrant a conviction, provided that such is credible, natural, convincing and


Page 13

consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. However, we have also held that the testimony of the complainant should not be received with precipitate credulity but with utmost caution Albert Sayana is ACQUITTED.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS OR BREADTH DOCTRINE OF PRO REO Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and consistent with presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal law.

STATE v METZGER 211 NEB. 593 Metzger lived in a garden-level apartment. A large window in the apartment faces a parking lot which is situated on the north side of the apartment building. Another resident while parking his car in a space directly in front of Metzger's apartment window, observed Metzger standing naked with his arms at his sides in his apartment window for a period of 5 seconds. The resident called the police and two officers arrived, testified that they observed Metzger standing in front of the window eating a bowl of cereal. They testified that Metzger was standing within a foot of the window and his nude body. The basic issue presented to us by this appeal is whether the ordinance, as drafted, is so vague as to be unconstitutional. We believe that it is. The ordinance in question makes it unlawful for anyone to commit any "indecent, immodest or filthy act." We know of no way in which the standards required of a criminal act can be met in those broad, general terms. There may be those few who believe persons of opposite sex holding hands in public are immodest, and certainly more who might believe that kissing in public is immodest. Such acts cannot constitute a crime. Certainly one could find many who would conclude that today's swimming attire found on many beaches or beside many pools is immodest. Yet, the fact that it is immodest does not thereby make it illegal, absent some requirement related to the health, safety, or welfare of the community. The dividing line between what is lawful and what is unlawful in terms of "indecent," "immodest," or "filthy" is simply too broad to satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process. Both lawful and unlawful acts can be embraced within such broad definitions. That cannot be permitted. One is not able to determine in advance what is lawful and what is unlawful. We therefore believe that § 9.52.100 of the Lincoln Municipal Code must be declared invalid. Reversed and dismissed. ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN 369 SCRA 394 WON Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague No. As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. The amended information itself closely tracks the language of law, indicating w/ reasonable certainty the various elements of the offense w/c the petitioner is alleged to have committed. We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or ambiguous that will confuse petitioner in his defense. Petitioner however bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition of the terms ―combination‖ and ―series‖ in the key phrase ―a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. These omissions, according to the petitioner, render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed of the nature


Page 14

and cause of the accusation against him, hence violative of his fundamental right to due process. A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used herein, or because of the employment of terms without defining them. A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence most necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects – it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible ―chilling effect‖ upon protected speech. The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of other may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. But in criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. HELD:PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court holds that RA 7080 otherwise known as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL. Consequently, the petition to declare the law unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of merit

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW A.GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW Section 11, Article VI, 1987 Constitution A senator or member of House of Representatives shall in all offenses punishable by not more than six years of imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the congress or in any committee thereof. Article 14, New Civil code of the Philippines ―Penal Laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who or sojourn in Philippine territory subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations‖.

Republic Act 7005 An act strengthening civilian supremacy over military by returning to the civil courts the jurisdiction over certain offenses involving members of the Armed forces of the Philippines, other persons subject to military law, and the members of the Philippine National Office, repealing for the purpose of certain presidential decrees.

Article V, VFA Article V Criminal Jurisdiction 1. Subject to the provisions of this article:


Page 15

(a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines. (b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States over United States personnel in the Philippines. 2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States. (b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines. (c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this article, an offense relating to security means: (1) treason; (2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense. 3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply: (a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of this Article. (b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to: (1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and (2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty. (c) The authorities of either government may request the authorities of the other government to waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case. (d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request. (e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, the commander will issue a certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at the highest levels may also present any


Page 16

information bearing on its validity. United States military authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States ...Article V, VFA military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases, and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken. (f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other government as soon as possible. (g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction. 4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall assist each other in the arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing them over to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this article. 5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of the arrest or detention of United States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction. Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military authorities of the arrest or detention of any United States personnel. 6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so. 7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary investigations into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and, in proper cases, the delivery of objects connected with an offense. 8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this article and have been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in the Philippines. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities. 9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or prosecuted by Philippine authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled: (a) To a prompt and speedy trial; (b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them


Page 17

and to have reasonable time to prepare a defense; (c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross examine such witnesses; (d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses; (e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as nationals of the Philippines; (f) To have the services of a competent interpreter; (g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by United States authorities, and to have such authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who have no role in the proceedings. 10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance. 11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts. US v SWEET, 1 Phil. 8 FACTS:Philip K. Sweet was employed by the United States military who committed an offense against a POW. His case is filed with the Court of First Instance, who is given orginial jurisdiction in all criminal cases for which a penalty of more than six months is imposed. He is now contending that the courts are without jurisdiction because he was acting in the course of his duty. Crime Committed:Offense by a military person upon a prisoner of war. Lack of jurisdiction to try the case. Contention of the People:In the United States Philippines Commission Act No. 136, Section 56 (6), CFI‘s are given original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which penalty of more than 6 months imprisonment or a fine exceeding S100 may be imposed because it violated the general penal provision.The Spanish Military Code, which exempts a military person from being tried before civil tribunals for offenses against POW‘s, in no longer in force and are not applicable to the United States Army.The fact that the act was done to execute his military superior‘s order and in line of duty, even if true, does not affect the right of the court to take jurisdiction but may only help by way of defense during the trial. Contention of the Accused:The appellant claims that Court of First Instance in Manila has no jurisdiction over this case since the offense was committed by a military person to a prisoner of war and is not an offense under the revised Penal Code. He also stated that according to the Spanish Military Code, military character sustained by the person charged at the time of its commission exempts him from the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil courts, and lastly, that the fact that the alleged offense was done in obedience to the order of military superiors. RULING:The Court of the First Instance has the jurisdiction over the case against Philippi K. Sweet even though he is a military person. SCHNECKENBURGER v MORAN 63 PHIL 249 FACTS:Schneckenburger, who is an honorary in consul in Uruguay at Manila, was subsequently charged in CFI – Manila with the crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to this saying that under the US and Philippine Constitution, the CFI has no jurisdiction to try him. After this objection was overruled, he filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent the CFI from taking cognizance of the criminal action filed against him. Aside from this, he contends that original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and consul is conferred exclusively upon Supreme Court of the Philippines.


Page 18

Crime committed:Falsification of a private document by an accredited consul in a country he works and resides. Contention of the People: That the case does not involved the question of diplomatic immunity. It is well established that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunity of an ambassador or minister but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. The question raise is about jurisdiction and contented that:  There is no merit that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America governs the case.  It remains to consider whether the original jurisdiction thus conferred upon this court by constitution over cases affecting Ambassadors either public ministers or consuls are exclusive.  The laws in force in the Philippines prior to the inauguration of the commentaries conferred upon the CFI original jurisdiction in all criminal cases to which a penalty of more than six months imprisonment or a fine exceeding S100 might be imposed such jurisdiction includes the trial of the criminal action brought against the consul for, as it was already indicated that consuls are not entitle to privileges and immunity. Contention of the Accused:Both the Constitution of the United States of America and the Philippines has no jurisdiction to try him. HELD:The CFI – Manila has no jurisdiction to try the petitioner.

LIANG v PEOPLE 232 SCRA 652 FACTS:Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). He was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation. Crime Committed:Two counts of grave oral defamation. Contention of the Petitioner:Petitioner believes that his is covered by immunity under the agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court. Contention of the Respondents:The DFA‘s determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. Under Sec. 45 of the agreement, the immunity mentioned is not absolute but subject to the exception that the acts were done in official capacity. Suffice is to say that preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Court. HELD:Petition is denied.

B.PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LAW Article 21, RPC Penalties that may be imposed- no felony shall be punishable by a penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission. Article 22, RPC Retroactive effect of Penal Laws- Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same Article 62, RPC Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.


Page 19

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant. 4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein. 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: (a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. Article 4, Civil Code Laws shall have no retroactive effects, unless the contrary is provided GUMABON v DIRECTOR OF PRISOND 37 SCRA 420 FACTS:Gumabon, after pleading guilty was sentenced of reclusion perpetua on May 5, 1953 for the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, robbery, arson, and kidnapping. Each petitioner has been imprisoned for more than 13 years by virtue of their conviction and is petitioning for habeas corpus. Crime committed:Complex crime of rebellion with multiple robbery. Contention of the petitioner:That they are being denied of equal protection of right if the plea would not be granted. The judicial decisions shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines. Whereby in People vs. Hernandez once promulgated calls for a retroactive effect under the explicit mandate of the Revised Penal Code as to the penal laws having such character even if at the time of their application, a final sentence has been rendered and the convict is serving the same. Contention of the State:Gumabon is not being deprived of equal protection of law. HELD:Petition for habeas corpus granted. The emphatic affirmation that is the only means benefitting the accused by retroactive character of a favorable decision, the petition having successfully sustained the burden of justifying their release and ordered be set at liberty. KAY VILLEGAS KAMI 35 SCRA 429 FACTS:Kay Villegas Kami Inc. claimed to be a duly recognized and existing non-stock, non-profit corporation created under the laws of the land and prayed for a determination of the validity of Sec. 8, R.A. 6132 and a declaration of petitioner‘s right and duties there under saying it violates due process, rights of association, freedom of expression and is an ex post facto law. Contention of the State:Penalty imposed is only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior thereto. Contention of the Accused: R.A. 6132 is unconstitutional for it violates due process, right of association, freedom of expression and is an ex post facto law.


Page 20

HELD:While it is time that Section 18 penalizes a violation of any provision of RA 6132 including Section 8 (a), the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior thereto. Petition denied. RA 6132 is not unconstitutional PEOPLE v RINGOR 320 SCRA 342 FACTS:Augusto Loreto Ringor, Jr., on the night of June 23, 1994 was seen entering People‘s Restaurant located at kalantiao Street, Baguio City. A witness Fely Batanes saw the accused approached the table of Marcelino Buslay Florida Jr. After the accused pulled the hair and poke a knife to the victim, he left the restaurant. However, few minutes later, he returned with a gun and shot Florida six times from behind. Ringor was caught in possession of an unlicensed firearm. He was found guilty. Crime committed:Murder qualified with treachery Contention of the people:The act of self defense was not proven since the elements of it were not established. And that, the aggravating circumstances of treachery qualified the crime to murder was clearly instituted. The use of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is simply considered as an aggravating but considering the time the accused perpetrated the offense, the unlicensed character was not yet an aggravating circumstances. Contention of the accused:The court made an error in convicting the accused for simple illegal possession of firearms and in the punishment rendered. Also, the conviction of the accused of murder and of the sentences rendered is not justifiable given by the fact that the charge of murder was not proven. HELD:The accused – appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE v LACSON GR No. 149453, October 7, 2003 FACTS:Soon after the announcement in 1995 that the Kuratong Baleleng Gang had been slain in a shootout with the police, 2 witnesses surfaced providing that testimony that the said slaying was a rub out. Murder charges were filed against 97 officers and personnel of ABRITEG. The case was transferred from SandiganBayan to RTC due to the failure to indicate offenses. Charges therein were committed in relation to or in discharge of the official functions of the respondent as required by RA 8249. The suspects filed individual motions to (1) make a judicial determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest; (2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants (3) dismiss the cases should the trial court find lack of probable cuase. The cases were dismissed. Murder charges were again filed in 2001 but the respondent invoked the right against double jeopardy, stating that Section 8, Rule 117 of the 2000 rules on criminal procedure bans the revival of murder cases against him; CA denied the petition. The new information charged as principals 34 people including respondents Lacson and his 25 other coaccused. The defendant filed for determination of probable cause and an outright dismissal in RTC. The CA considered the original cases to be provisionally dismissed and the new cases as mere revival. It was remanded to the RTC to determine if the accuses complied with the rule and the cases should be dismissed. In 2003, the petitioner asked that retroactive application of penal laws should also cover procedures and that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the accused. Crime committed:Murder Contention of the accused:Retroactive application of penal laws should also cover procedures and that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the accused. Petitioner asserts that Section 8 was meant to reach back in time to provide relief to the accused in line with the constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial. Contention of the state:Time bar provided in Section 8 RPC 117 should not be applied retroactively. Though procedures may be applied retroactively, it should not be if to do so would work injustice or would involve intricate process, problems of due process. Statues should be construed in light of the purposes to be achieved and the evils to be remedied. Held:The rule should be applied prospectively. The court upheld the petitioner‘s contention that while Section 8 secures the right of the accused. It should not preclude the equally important of the State to public justice.


Page 21

C.TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW Article 2, RPC o Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction against those who: o Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship. o Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency, note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Island. o Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. o While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions or o Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. Article 1, 1987 Constitution The National Territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago, with allthe island and waters embraced therein and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction consisting of the terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domain including the territorial sea, the seabed, subsoil, the insular shelves and all other submarine areas. The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimension, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

US v AH SINGH 36 PHIL 978 FACTS:The defendant is a subject of China employed as a fireman on a steamship. The steamship is a foreign steamer which arrived the port of Cebu on April 25, 1917, after a voyage direct from the port of Saigon. The defendant bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon, brought them on board the steamship and had them in his possession during the trip from Saigon to Cebu. When the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu, the authorities on making the search found the cans of opium hidden in the ashes below the boiler of the steamer's engine. The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in Saigon. He did not confess, however, as to his purpose in buying the opium. He did not say that it was his intention to import the prohibited drug. Issue: WON the crime of illegal importation of opium into the Philippine Islands has been proven? Held: Yes. It is the onus of the government to prove that the vessel from which the drug discharged came into Philippine waters from a foreign country with the drug on board. In this case, it is to be noted that §4 of Act No. 2381 begins, ―Any person who shall unlawfully import or bring any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands…‖ Import and bring should be construed as synonymous terms. The mere act of going into a port, without breaking bulk, is prima facie evidence of importation. The importation is not the making entry of goods at the customhouse, but merely the bringing them into the port, and the importation is complete before the entry to the customhouse. Moreover, possession for personal use is unlikely, judging from the size of the amount brought.

PEOPLE v WONG CHENG 46 PHIL 729 Appellee is accused of having illegally smoked opium, aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores of the city. The question that presents itself for our consideration is whether such ruling is erroneous or not; and it will or will not be erroneous according as said court has or has no jurisdiction over said offense. ISSUE: WON the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over crime, like the one herein involved, committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters.


Page 22

We have seen that the mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court not triable by or courts, because it being the primary object of our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of this drug, its mere possession in such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not being about in the said territory those effects that our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere possession is not considered a disturbance of the public order. But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute. The order appealed from is revoked and the cause ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with law, without special findings as to costs. US v LOOK CHOW 18 PHIL 573 Mere possession of opium on board a foreign vessel in transit in Philippine waters as such does not involve a breach of public order unless the opium is landed in our Philippine soil.

MIQUIBIAS v COMMANDING GENERAL 80 PHIL 267 FACTS:Miquibias is a Filipino citizen and civilian employee of the US army in the Philippin4es who had been charge of disposing in the Port of Manila Area of things belonging to the US army in violation of the 94th article of war of the US. He was arrested and a General Court Martial was appointed. He was found guilty. Crime committed:Violation of the 94th article of war of the US Contention of the US:The Philippines being a sovereign nation has jurisdiction overall offenses committed within its territory, but it may, by treaty or agreement, consent that the US shall exercise jurisdiction over certain offenses committed within said portions of territory. Contention of the accused:The Port of Manila where the offense was committed is not within US base for it is not named in annex A or B of the article 16 of the military base agreement and is merely part of the temporary quarters located within presented limits of the City of Manila. Moreover, extended installations and temporary quarters aren‘t considered to have the same jurisdictional capacity as permanent bases. HELD:The offense at bar is beyond the jurisdiction of military courts. General principles of felonies and criminal liabilities. Extraterritorial Application a. Article 2, RPC Article 2, RPC o Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction against those who: o Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship. o Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency, note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Island. o Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number. o While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions or o Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. b. Forgery Article 163, RPC


Page 23

Making and importing and uttering false coins. — Any person who makes, imports, or utters, false coins, in connivance with counterfeiters, or importers, shall suffer: 1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines of ten centavo denomination or above. 2. Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not to exceed P2,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coins be any of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines below ten-centavo denomination. 3. Prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be currency of a foreign country. (As amended by R.A. No. 4202, approved June 19, 1965). Article 166, RPC Forging treasury or bank notes on other documents payable to bearer; importing, and uttering such false or forged notes and documents. — The forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities payable to bearer and the importation and uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall be punished as follows: 1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the document which has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered, is an obligations or security of the United States or of the Philippines Islands.The word "obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States or of the Philippine Islands, and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued under any act of the Congress of the United States or of the Philippine Legislature. 2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered document is a circulating note issued by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same. 3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or counterfeited document was issued by a foreign government. 4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos, when the forged or altered document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized therefor. Article 169, RPC How forgery is committed. — The forgery referred to in this section may be committed by any of the following means: 1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument, payable to bearer or order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true genuine document. 2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. c. Public Officers Article 171, RPC Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;


Page 24

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons. Article 210-213, RPC Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift. If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification.chan robles virtual law library The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985). Art. 211. Indirect bribery. — The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985). Art. 212. Corruption of public officials. — The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the preceding articles. Art. 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any public officer who: 1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the Government; 2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty or any of the following acts or omissions: (a) Demanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authorized by law. (b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially. (c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law. When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied.


Page 25

Article 216-221, RPC Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon a public officer who directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene. This provisions is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or estate. Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. — Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer: 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos. 2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos. 3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos. 4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to the total value of the property embezzled. The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. (As amended by RA 1060). Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. — Any public officer, whether in the service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the Insular Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both. Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. — Any public officer who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from the Insular Auditor showing that his accounts have been finally settled, shall be punished by arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos or both. Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. — Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification. If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied. Art. 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. — Any public officer under obligation to make payment from Government funds in his possession, who shall fail to make


Page 26

such payment, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine from 5 to 25 per cent of the sum which he failed to pay. This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration, shall refuse to make such delivery. The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it shall not less than 50 pesos. d. National Security Article 114-122, RPC Art. 114. Treason. — Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos.No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court.Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippine Islands, who commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos. (As amended by E.O. No. 44, May 31, 1945). Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; Penalty. — The conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime of treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not exceeding P5,000 pesos. Art. 116. Misprision of treason. — Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason. Art. 117. Espionage. — The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who: 1. Without authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine Archipelago; or 2. Being in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information referred to in the preceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation. The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or employee. Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee, and that of prision mayor upon any private individual, who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts provokes or gives occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippine Islands or exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property. Art. 119. Violation of neutrality. — The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone who, on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality. Art. 120. Correspondence with hostile country. — Any person who in time of war, shall have correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be punished: 1. By prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the Government; 2. By prision mayor, if such correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional signs; and 3. By reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful to the enemy. If the offender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal to death.


Page 27

Art. 121. Flight to enemy country. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who, owing allegiance to the Government, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority. Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers. The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas. e. RA 9372 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372 AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Short Title. This Act shall henceforth be known as the â€œHuman Security Act of 2007.â€• SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is declared a policy of the State to protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations. In the implementation of the policy stated above, the State shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the constitution. The State recognizes that the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach, comprising political, economic, diplomatic, military, and legal means duly taking into account the root causes of terrorism without acknowledging these as justifications for terrorist and/or criminal activities. Such measures shall include conflict management and post-conflict peace-building, addressing the roots of conflict by building state capacity and promoting equitable economic development. Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a curtailment, restriction or diminution of constitutionally recognized powers of the executive branch of the government. It is to be understood, however, that the exercise of the constitutionally recognized powers of the executive department of the government shall not prejudice respect for human rights which shall be absolute and protected at all times. SEC. 3. Terrorism. Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code: 1. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters); 2. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection); 3. Article 134-a (Coup dâ€˜Etat), including acts committed by private persons; 4. Article 248 (Murder); 5. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention); 6. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction, Or under 1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson); 2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990); 3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968); 4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law); 5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and, 6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives) thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without


Page 28

the benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FELONIES AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY (“Actus not facit reum, nisi mens sit rea) A. DEFINITION OF FELONY Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonie4s. Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is a deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. And there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of skill and lack of foresight.

B. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY 1. PHYSICAL ELEMENTS (ACTUS REUS) ACT By act must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually produced, as possibility of its production is sufficient. But the act must be one which is defined by the RPC as constituting a felony; or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an external act which has a direct connection with the felony intented to be committed. POWEL v TEXAS 392 US 514 Facts:The appellant was arrested, charged with and convicted for violation of Texas Penal Code, Article 477 or being intoxicated in a public place. Crime committed:Violation of Texas Penal Code, Article 477 / public intoxication. Contention of the appellant:It is cruel and unusual to punish a person who is not morally blameworthy (since Powell is an alcoholic). The punishment goes beyond the eight amendment‘s limits on the use of criminal sanctions. The ruling would create confusion and uncertainty in area of criminal law where our understanding is not complete. Contention of the state:Although the appellant is a chronic alcoholic, in that case, he appears in public under a compulsion symptomatic of his disease, it cannot be defense to the charge. According to a principal testimony by a psychiatrist, the appellant as a chronic alcoholic was subject to a very strong compulsion but which is not completely overpowering. Powell should be convicted for being in public place while drunk and not for being a chronic alcoholic. Held:The judgment is affirmed. Powel is not convicted. The court‘s majority distinguished the case from the earlier case, Robinson vs. California, which ruled that drug addiction alone as a disease could not be criminalized. OMISSION In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty.

Article 4,RPC Criminal liability shall be incurred: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.


Page 29

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or properties, where it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

2. MENTAL ELEMENT (MENS REA) As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness. Deliberate intent (dolo) The word deceit in the second paragragh of article 3 is not the proper translation of the word dolo. Dolus is equivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an injury to another. When the offender, in performing an act or in incurring an omission, has the intention to do an injury to the person, property, or right of another, such offenderacts with malice. If the act or omission is punished by RPC, he is liable for intentional felony. i. ELEMENTS FREEDOM When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool. Freedom is the state of being free to do acts. INTELLIGENCE Without this power necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no crime can exist; knowledge and understanding of an act done. INTENT Intent to commit the act with malice is presumed and the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act; purpose of doing an act.

ii. GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INTENT GENERAL INTENT Unlike offenses that require a Specific Intent, it is not necessary that the accused intend the precise harm or result. It is sufficient if the person meant to do the act that caused the harm or result. For example, Battery is a general intent offense. If a defendant commits a battery that results in harm to the victim, it does not matter if the defendant did not intend the harm. SPECIFIC INTENT The term specific intent is to designate a special state of mind that is required, along with a physical act, to constitute certain crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually interpreted to mean intentionally or knowingly. PEOPLE v PUNO 219 SCRA 85 FACTS:Driver of Maria Socorro‘s husband took the place of the driver of Maria Socorro. Together with another man, they conspired to get money from the victim by carrying her away and ordering her to withdraw money from the bank. After getting the money from Maria Socorro, they released the victim. Crime committed:Robbery Contention of the State:That the accused conspiring together, confederating with and mutually and feloniously kidnapped and carry away one Maria Del Socorro for the purpose of extorting ransom to the victim. Contention of the Accused:The accused contend that the court erred in (1) convicting them under PD No. 523 since they were not expressly charged and apply in Section 4 and 5, Rule 120 since they were not proven. HELD:The accused were guilty of robbery but not kidnapping. They were sentence to supper imprisonment and fine of P 27, 000.00


Page 30

iii. MISTAKE OF FACT An error that is not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person committing the error but rather consists of an unconscious ignorance of a past or present material event or circumstance or a belief in the present existence of a material event that does not exist or a belief in the past existence of a material event that did not exist. Mistake of fact can be a factor in reducing or eliminating civil liability or criminal culpability. A mistake of fact is of little consequence unless it is born of unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness. A person cannot escape civil or criminal liability for intentional mistakes. US v AH CHONG 15 PHIL 488 FACTS:Ah Chong was a cook in Fort Mckinley, Rizal. On the night of August 14, 1908, before going to bed, he locked himself in this room by placing a chair against the dood. After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He sat up from his bed and called out again ―who is there ― but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and said ―if you enter the room, I will kill you‖, but at the precise moment, he was struck by the chair that he placed against the door and believing that we was attacked, he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate, Pascual Gualberto. Crime Committed:Homicide Contention of the State:Any such mistake of fact showing the act committed to have proceeded from not sort of evil in the mind necessarily relieves the defendant from criminal liability, provided always there is no faulty or negligence on his part. Contention of the Accused:The defendant admitted that he killed his roommate but insisted that he struck the final blow without any intend to do a wrongful act, in the exercise of his lawful right of self-defense. HELD:The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be reversed and the defendant acquitted of the crime with which he is charged and his bail bond is exonerated.

iv. MALUM PROHIBITUM - exception to the requirement of mens rea Latin meaning "wrong due to being prohibited," which refers to crimes made so by statute, compared to crimes based on obvious violations of society's standards which are defined as "malum in se." PADILLA v DIZON 158 SCRA 127 FACTS:Pasay RTC Judge Dizon acquitted Lo Chi Fai who was arrested for violating CB circular No. 960, Section 6 which provides that no one is allowed to take out foreign exchange in any form unless authorized by the Central Bank or international agreements. Tourist / none residents can only bring out amount equal to amount they brought in. if you bring out an amount greater that three thousand dollars, you need to declare. Punishable by reclusion temporal or greater than or equal to fifty thousand pesos. Lo Chi was caught with 380 pieces of different currencies totaling to 355, 349.57 dollars and was able to show only tow Central Bank declaration. Acquitted based on (1) no intent; (2) money belong to him and associates coming from abroad. Crime committed:Violation of CB Circular No 960 by Lo Chi Fai Gross incompetence and ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct by the judge. Contention of the state:The respondents ought to know that the proof of malice or deliberate intent is not essential in offenses punishable by / under special laws which are mala prohibita. Contention of the accused: A judge cannot be held to account or answer, criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by him in good faith. HELD:The court finds the respondent guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and efficiency consistent with the responsibility of the Supreme Court for the proper, just administration of justice and for the attainment of the maintenance of people‘s faith in judiciary.All leaves and retirement benefits and privileges to which he may be entitles are hereby forfeited with prejudice to his being reinstated in any branch of government service, including government owned and or controlled agencies or corporations.


Page 31

MAGNO v CA 210 SCRA 475 FACTS:Magno was trying to put up a car repair shop but he was lacking proper equipment. He approached Corazon Teng, the Vice President of Marcos and at the same time distributor of the said equipment. The latter referred him to Joey Gomez, vice president of LS Finance to provide him credit facilities. Magno had no money to pay the warranty deposit of P 29, 700 so he ask Joey Gomez to find a third party to lend him money. Unknowingly, the third party was Corazon Teng. With a three (3) % interest. When the equipment were delivered, Magno issued a post dated check and gave it to Gomez and unknown to the petitioner, gave it to Corazon Teng. When the check matured, Magno requested Gomez no to deposit the check as he was no longer banking with the Pacific Bank. To replace the first check, Magno issued other post dated checks. Four (4) of the checks were held by Corazon Teng, on the request of Magno as they were not covered with sufficient funds. When Magno was unable to pay LS Finance the monthly rentals, thus, it pulled out the garage equipment. Magno found out that Corazon Teng was the one who advance the warranty deposit. He then promised Teng that he would pay her but the payments never came. When the four checks were deposited, they were returned for the reason of account closed. Crime Committed:Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 Contention of the State:For all the intents and purposes, the law was devised to safeguard the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account users. It did not intent to shelter or favor nor encourage users of the system to enrich themselves through manipulation and circumvention of the noble purpose and objective of the law. Contention of the accused:The transaction remained a lease.Petitioner did not even know that the checks he issued were turned over to Corazon Teng and was kept from his knowledge on her instruction. HELD: Petitioner is acquitted of the crime charged. Knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon issuance, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or would have dishonored for the same reason. GRIFFIN v CA 379 SCRA 94 FACTS:Geoffrey Griffin, president of Lincoln Gerard In., was found guilty of violation of BP 22 on two (2) counts. He was sentenced to six () months imprisonment on each count. Two years prior to the case filed against Griffin, Phelps Dodge, the company to whom Griffin to pay for Lincoln Gerard‘s rent, foreclosed and auctioned the properties and earned an amount enough to pay for the two unfunded checks. Griffin files a petition for review on certiorari on the Court of Appeal‘s decision. Crime committed:Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 Contention of the State:The assurance of insufficiency of funds on said date was made by Griffin to Phelps Dodge through the note on the voucher attached to the checks and that assurance was final and irrevocable whether it be post dated or not. His conviction is constitutional since the payment through auction sale was done after five days from the notice of dishonor of the checks, provided under BP 22 and should not be extinguished Griffin‘s criminal liability. Contention of the accused:Griffin points out that Phelps Dodge was made aware of the insufficiency of funds of the check during that time through a note on the voucher attached to the checks. Good faith on his part negates any intent of putting worthless checks in circulation. His conviction is unconstitutional since he is being punished for failing to pay on obligation when it fell due and not because of the unfunded checks be issued. He also asserts that the payment made through the auction sale and foreclosure done by Phelps Dodge extinguish his criminal liability since it produced enough money to pay the amount of two unfunded checks. HELD:Petition of Griffin was granted. ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYAN 369 SCRA 394 FACTS:Estrada was found guilty of violation of RA 7080, otherwise known as the Plunder Law. One of the issues of the case is whether or not Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a crime malum prohibitum, and if so, whether it is within the power of the congress of the Philippines to classify it. Crime committed:Plunder


Page 32

Contention of the State:No, it is malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent, because it constitutive crimes are mala in se. The elements of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed willfully, unlawfully and criminally. Thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of petitioner. Contention of the accused:Estrada contended that the statute eliminates the requirement of mens rea and that is the reason why he claims the statute to be void. However, RA No. 7659 declares that plunder is a heinous crime. Thus, it implies that it is malum in se. For when the acts are inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in special law. RULING:The court holds that RA 7080 or the Plunder Law as amended by RA 759 is constitutional.

v. DISTINGUISHED FROM MOTIVE MOTIVE In law, especially criminal law, a motive is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. Motive in itself is seldom an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with. INTENT DISTINGUISHED FROM MOTIVE The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated. "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime. PEOPLE v TEMBLOR 161 SCRA 623 Facts:On December 30, 1980, Temblor went to Julius Cagampang‘s house in Agusan del Norte to buy cigarettes. While opening a pack of cigarettes, Cagampang was shot. The accused with another person, Anecito Ellevera demanded Cagampang‘s wife to bring out his husband‘s firearms. The accused fired two shots at the fallen victim. Victoria, gave a suitcase to Temblor who then took the .38 caliber which was inside and fled. In August 1981, Temblor, an NPA, surrendered after hiding in the mountains of Agusan Del Norte. In November 1981, he was arrested by the police at the public market and detained him at the municipal jail. On June 1982, the accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of P12, 000.00 Crime committed:Murder Contention of the State:The accuses‘ alibi was unacceptable because it was self-serving and uncorroborated. It cannot overrule positive identification it was merely 15 – 20 minutes away from the crime scene and his father was at work at the time of murder of Julius Cagampang. It has proven that he had motive in killing Cagampang: he had knowledge that Cagampang possessed a firearm; this motive is enough to kill him as part of the NPA‘s ―agaw-armas‖ campaign of killings perpetrated by NPA for the purpose of acquiring more firearms. Contention of the accused:The appeal of the accused alleges that the court erred in finding that he was positively identified by the prosecution witness as the killer and in rejecting his defense of alibi. RULING:The judgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects except as to the civil indemnity payable to the heirs of Julius Cagampang which is increased to P 30, 000.00

PEOPLE v HASSAN 157 SCRA 21 FACTS:Usman Hassan, a 15 years old lad of Samal Tribe in Zamboanga City was convicted of murder of Pichel. Pichel was stabbed t death at fruit paradise while sitting at his read Honda motorcycle, waiting for friend Jose Samson who was buying fruits. Crime committed:Murder


Page 33

Contention of the State:Motive is not essential in order to arrive at a conviction, because after all. Motive is a state of mind, procedurally, however, for purpose of complying with a requirement that a judgment of guilty must stem from proof beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of motive on the part of the accused plays a pivotal role towards his acquittal especially when there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit. Contention of the accused:Considering that the accused is a minor, he was exempted from criminal liability. HELD:The decision was reverse and the accused Usman Hassan is acquitted of the crime charged, and his release from confinement is ordered. PEOPLE v DELIM JAN., 29 ,2003 Facts:Arlon de Leon and Ronald de Leon were convicted for murder of Modesto Delim, a resident of Sison, Pangasinan. Modesto is the adopted child of Marlon‘s father. Marlon, Manual and Robers are brothers and de Leon and Ronald are their nephews. Around 6:30 pm on January 28, 1999, Modesto and family were preparing to eat dinner when Marlon, Robert and Ronald arrived. Marlon posed a gun while the other 2 grabbed, tied and gagged Modesto. They herded him out the house and went to the direction of Paldit. Leon and Manuel guarded Rita and Randy until 7 AM and told them to stay put. They searched for Modesto for 3 days and reported to the Police after 3 days from the incident. Randy, with relatives found Modesto in the housing project in Paldit under bushes. He was dead due to gunshot would on the head. Crime committed:Murder Contention of the Accused:They claimed that they were in another place and it is possible to go to the crime scene. Contention of the state:There was a proven intention to kill the victim. With the accused are knives and handguns. The victim suffered gunshot wounds and 9 stab wounds (defensive) and with the pieces of circumstantial evidence as to the testimony of Rita and Randy. HELD:Conviction with modification, instead of holding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention defined and penalized under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code.

CONSTRUCTIVE INTENT (CULPA) Culpa is a Latin or Spanish word meaning guilt or fault. Article 3, RPC Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. Article 365, RPC Imprudence and negligence. — Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed. Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed. When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be less than twentyfive pesos.


Page 34

A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony. In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four. The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable: 1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may deem proper to apply. 2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place. Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be in this hand to give. i. ELEMENTS: PEOPLE v CARMEN 355 SCRA 267 FACTS:At around two o‘clock in the afternoon of January 27, 1997, Honey Fe Abella, 10 and her friend Francis Rivera, 7, heard a child shout ―Tabang Ma‖ (Help Mother). The two children ran towards Carmen‘s house where the cry came out. There, they saw Sibunga, Nunez CArment and Falare torturing the boy Randy Luntayao by immersing his head in a drum of water. The boy was tied and his head was banged against the bench. Later, Carmen order Sibunga to get a knife and then, the former, slowly plunged the knife on the left side of the body of Randy. Crime committed:Murder Contention of the State:Killing a person with treachery is murder even if there is no intent to kill. When death occurs, it is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted. Contention of the accused: They are members of a cult and the bizarre ritual performed was consented to by the victim‘s parents. The boy is subject to a treatment to arrive the bad spirit from his body. Unfortunately, Randy died because of their reckless imprudence. Therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and not of murder. HELD:The decision of RTC Cebu, Branch 14 is affirmed with modification. That the accused – appellants are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. ii. IMPRUDENCE OR LACK OF SKILL A lack of caution in practical affairs. Deficiency of action. iii. NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF FORESIGHT Negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risk of harm. Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause his injury, he can recover damages to compensate for his harm PEOPLE VS. PUGAY, 167 SCRA 439 Facts:On or about May 19, 1982 at the town plaza at Rosario, Cavite, Pugay and Samson conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and assisting one another, with treachery and evident premeditation, taking advantage of their strength, and with the decided purpose to kill, poured gasoline to the body of Bayani Miranda and with the use of fire, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully and feloniously burn the whole body of the victim which cause his subsequent death to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the Bayani Miranda.


Page 35

Crime committed:Murder Contention of the State:The respective criminal liability of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed the deceased is individual and not collective and each of them is liable only for the act committed by him. Contention of the Accused:The accused Pugay admitted that he poured a can of gasoline on the deceased believing that the contents thereof was water and then the accused Samson set the deceased on fire. HELD:Both accused found guilty on the crime of murder. Accordingly, judgement is affirmed with modification in favor of the accused Pugay. iv. CULPA DISTINGUISHED FROM DOLO Article 3 classifies felonies into (1) intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies. An intentional felony is committed whenthe act is performed with deliberate intent, which must necessary be voluntary. In culpable felony, which is committed when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill, the act is also voluntary. The only difference between intentional felonies and culpable felonies is that, in the first, the offender acts with malice; wheras, in the second, the offender acts without malice PEOPLE VS. BUAN, 22 SCRA 1383 FACTS:Buan was driving a passenger bus and allegedly because of his negligence and recklessness, the vehicle driven by him struck and collided with the passenger jeep of Sergio Lumidao, damaging said jeep, causing it to turn turtle, and injuring its passengers. Six of the passengers suffered slight physical injuries and three other riders came out with serious bodily injuries. A charge was filed against the accused – appellant, one for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, in the justice of the Peace of Court of Guiguinto, for which he is tried and acquitted on December 16, 1963.Prior to the acquittal, however, the provincial fiscal of Bulacan, filed in the Court of First Instance the information in the case for serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence. Admittedly, both charges referred to the same highway collision. His counsel moved to quash the charges on the ground that he had already been acquitted of the same offense by the Justice of the Peace Court. Crime Committed:Slight and serious physical injuries Contention of the State:The accused should still be penalized for serious physical and damage to property through reckless imprudence. Contention of the Accused:Reason and precedent both coincide, in that once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for the same act. For the essence of quasi-offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act, that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a the law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injuries result should affect one person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence), remains one at the same and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions. HELD:The charge for slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence could not be joined with accusations for serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence because article 48 of the Revised Penal Code allows only the complexity of grave or less grave felonies. TRANSFERRED INTENT – ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPH 1 (“El que de la cause del mal causado) Transferred intent is a doctrine used in criminal law when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead. Under the law, the individual causing the harm will be seen as having "intended" the act by means of the "transferred intent" doctrine.

i. ABERRATIO ICTUS Mistake in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another. The offender is still liable although the one he injured or killed is another person because it resulted from his felonious act. Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 36

PEOPLE VS. GUILLEN, 85 PHIL. 307 FACTS:Julio Guillen, although not affiliated with any political group had voted for the defeated candidate in the Presidential Election held in 1946. Manuel Roxas, the successful candidate, assumed the Office of the President of the Commonwealth and subsequently President of the Philippine Republic. According to Guillen, he became disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged failure to fulfill his promise. Instead of looking after the interest of the people, he approved the so-called parity measures, hence, he determined to assassinate Roxas.On the night of March 10, 1947, a meeting was held by the Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda. Guillen had intended to use a revolver, for the accomplishment of his purpose, but lost. Thus, he used two hand grenades, one was put in a plant box and the other grenade was hurled in the platform.General Castaneda, notice the grenade and kicked it away from the platform but accidentally fell into group of persons. He seriously injured Simeon Valera who died the next day and also Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carilloa nd Emilio Maglalang. Crime committed:Murder and multiple frustrated murder Contention of the State:In view of the findings, Julio Guillen is not insane. He is an individual with a personality defect which psychiatry is termed as constitutional psychopathic inferiority. Contention of the accused:He stated that he performed the act voluntarily, that his purpose was to kill the President, but that it did not make any difference to him if there were some people around the President when he hurled the grenades because the killing of those who surrounded him was tantamount to killing the president. In other words, although it was not his main intention to kill people surrounding the President, he felt no compunction in killing them also in order to attain his main purpose of killing the President. HELD:Julio Guillen is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime murder and multiple frustrated murder and sentenced to the penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Simeon Varcela in the sum of P2,000 and to pay costs. ii. ERROR IN PERSONAE Mistake in the identity of the victim. The offender is liable even if the victim turns out to be different from the intented victim. PEOPLE VS. SABALONES, 294 SCRA 751 FACTS:Accused Beronga, Sabalones, Cabanero and Alegarbe were convicted of two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder of Glen Tiempo, Alfred Nardo, Rey Boto, Reogelio Presares and Nelson Tiempo. A shooting incident on June 1, 1985 in Manuela Compound, Talisay, Cebu which led to the death of the victims. Crime committed:Two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder. Contention of the State:The case is better characterized as error in personae or mistake in identity of the victims. Rather that aberration ictus, which means mistake in the blow, characterized by aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the blow. Contention of the accused:It was impossible to identify the shooters because the crime scene was dark. HELD:Appeal is denied and the assailed is affirmed: The headlights of a car or jeep were sufficient light. Alibis – requires the accused to be in other place and it is physically impossible to be present at its immediate vicinity.

iii. PRAETER INTENTIONEM Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. It takes place when the result of the felonius act is graver than what is intended. It is a mitigating circumstance. The offender is liable for the felony actually committed but the penalty shll be imposed in its minimum period.

PEOPLE v ALBUQUERQUE, 59 PHIL. 150


Page 37

FACTS:Albuquerque was found guilty of homicide against Manuel Osma. He was sentence to 8 years and 1 day imprisonment and ordered to indemnify the heir of the deceased in the sum of P 1, 000. Appellant went to the victim‘s workplace to compel him to marry his daughter or at least give support to her daughter since Osma is the father of the child. It led to a heated argument when Osma refused to do so. Appellant brought out his pen knife to wound Osma‘s face but eventually killing him when the blow landed on the base of neck. Crime committed:Homicide Contention of the State:Appellants‘ contention of acting in self-defense cannot be entered since he provoked and commenced the aggression when he brought out and started shipping his knife. Contention of the Accused:Lack of intention to cause such a grave injury, his voluntary surrender and act of passion should be considered mitigating circumstances. The fatal blow was due to his lack of control. HELD:Judgment modified. Sentenced to indeterminate penalty of one year of prision correctional to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor.

C.LIABILITY FOR INCOMPLETE ELEMENTS Impossible Crime RPC, Article 4 (2) By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or properties, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on the account of employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. INTOD v COURT OF APPEALS, 215 SCRA 52 FACTS:Mr. Sulpicio Intod and company wanted Bernardina Palangpangan killed because of land dispute in Katugunan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Oriental. The guide of Mr. Intod, Mr. Salvador Mandaya, was threatened by the former that if he will not show the house of Palangpangan, they will also kill him. At 10:00 in the evening of February 4, 1979, the petitioner and aids to the crime accompanied by the guide, Mr. Mandaya arrived at the house of Palangpangan. There and then, the room of the target was pointed by Mandaya. Thereafter, the petitioner and companions fired at said room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another city and on one was in the room. Crime committed:Attempted murder Contention of the State: The accused is liable for impossible crimes and not for attempted murder. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible. Under Article 4 (2) of the RPC, such is sufficient to make the act and impossible crime. Factual impossibility incurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor or beyond control prevent consummations of intended crime. Contention of the Accused:Intod is seeking from the CA a modification of the judgment by holding him liable for an impossible crime citing Article 4 (2) of the RPC. He contends that Palangpangan‘s absence from her room on that night, he and his companion riddled it with bullet made the crime inherently impossible. HELD:Petition was granted. PEOPLE VS. SALADINO, 89 PHIL. 807 FACTS:Lourdes Relevo is a niece of the accused-appelant Conrado Saladino. Her mother and Condrado‘s wife were sisters. Lourdes, 13 years old was sent by her parents to Manila to live with Conrado and Rosita in Pasig City in order for her to have her education. Rosita was a factory worker while Conrado is a money changer is a bus terminal. In September 1995 at about 10 0‘clock in the evening, while Lourdes was lying on her mattress resting and feeling sick, Conrado woke her up and ask her to transfer to the bed as she might catch cold. Rosita was already dressed up because she was works in the 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM shift. Conrado


Page 38

accompanied Rosita to the jeepney stop and returned to their room about 15 minutes later. He laid down beside Lourdes and 25 minutes after, he started fondling her breasts, he poked a kitchen knife at her waist and threatened to kill her if she shouted. He dropped the knife and pinned down Lourdes‘s hands to her belly, removed her shorts and panty with his hands. He then removed his own shorts and underwear, went on top of Lourdes and inserted his penis inside her vagina. Lourdes struggled and Conrado‘s penis slipped out several times but he reinserted it every time and resumed his movements. Lourdes confided the sexual assault to Rosita but did not believe her and even said that her husband is not capable of doing such act.The sexual assault was repeated on December 17, 1996 and again on January 2, 1997. Finally, Lourdes gathered enough courage and told her mother about the sexual abuses, which prompted Elena to fetch her and take her home to Batangas. Elena had Lourdes examined by a doctor, who confirmed that she was no longer virgin, hence, they filed a case with the Pasig City Prosecutors Office. Crime committed:Rape and attempted rape Contention of the State:The court observed that Conrado appeared to be evasive, answered questions in low voice which was hardly audible. It also pointed out that Conrado appeared uncertain when he admitted that he touched her breasts, kissed the lips and private parts of the complainant and laid on top of her. This led the court to conclude that the accused was not unjustly accused of a serious crime since it is very unlikely for a young girl like Lourdes to falsely accuse his uncle of a heinous crime, undergo medical examination of her private parts, subject herself to the humiliation of a public trial and tarnish her family‘s honor and reputation. Contention of the Accused:On the night of the alleged first rape, he was drunk. After taking his wife to the jeepney stop, he went back to his room where she saw Lourdes lying on bed and laid beside her. Also, Lourdes was fully aware of what was happening yet did not show any reaction.The accused also testified that the reason they left the old house was because they did not have privacy and that Lourdes was seducing him. Lourdes would get angry every time he refused to insert his penis into her vagina. HELD:Conrado Saladino, is found guilty of three counts of simple rape and sentence to supper the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. He is also ordered to pay private complainant P50, 000 for civil indemnity, another P 50, 000 for moral damages and P 30, 000 for exemplary damages. Also, guilty of attempted rape and sentence to 10 months and 20 days to 8 years, 4 months and 10 days and another P 15, 000 for moral damages.

UNCOMPLETED CRIMES ATTEMPTED FELONIES ARTICLE 6, RPC Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. PEOPLE v CAMPUHAN, MARCH 30, 2000 Facts:On April 25, 1996, Maria Corazon Pamintuan, mother of four year old Crysthel Pamintuan wnet down from the second floor of their house prepare Milo chocolate for her daughter. Primo Campuhan was a helper of Conrado Plata Jr., brother of Corazon. Corazon heard one of her daughters cry ―ayoko, ayoko‖. She rush upstairs and saw Primo inside the room of her children kneeling before Crysthel whose pajama and panty were already removed while his short pants were down to his knees. According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis into Crysthel‘s vagina. Corazon called help from her neighbor and her brother Conrado responded and accosted the accused, Primo. Crime committed:Attempted rape


Page 39

Contention of the Accused:Campuhan maintained his innocence and assailed the charge as a mere scheme of Crysthels mother who allegedly harbored ill will against him for refusal to ran an errand for her. HELD: The accused was found guilty of attempted rape and sentence to an indeterminate prison term of 8 years, 4 months and 10 days of prision mayor to 14 years, 10 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal. Although the absence of complete penetration of the hymen does not negate the possibilities of contact, the court clarified that there was no medical basis to hold that there was sexual contact between the accused and the victim. PEOPLE VS LOPEZ, 312 SCRA 684 FACTS:Federico Lopez was accused of killing Rogelio Saldera and Rodolfo Padapat and frustrated murder of Mario Seldera. On their way home on November 15, 1991 at around 9 pm, they were met by Lopez and another guy. They were trailed beside Manila River. Lopez had a shotgun and shot the three. Thinking they were dead, he left. Mario survived and identified Lopez. Crime committed:Murder Contention of the State:Mario is a credible witness and memory of the massacre is deeply etched in his memory thus he remembered even minute details. Natural reaction to remember assailants and how the crime is committed. Shotgun would were verified. Mario was also well – adjusted to lighting since he‘sbeen waling for some time when they were attacked. He was identified not by name but by knowledge of who the accused was who frequented his place before. HELD:Alibi is weak. His alleged location was near enough to the crime scene. Thus, not impossible to reach it. Each shot should be considered as one act thus liable for three separate crimes, complex crime (RPC 48) only when one act results to different felonies PEOPLE v LIZADA, GR NO. 143468 – 71 FACTS:On the following dates, August 1993, November 5, 1998, October 22, 1998 and September 1998, Freddie Lizada, with lewd designs, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force, violence and intimidation upon the person of a certain Amalia Orillosa y Agos, embracing, kissing and touching her private parts, thereafter removing her skirt and panty, placing himself on top of her and trying to insert his penis into her vagina and succeeded in having carnal knowledge against her will and consent. Crime committed:Four counts of qualified Contention of the Accused:The prosecution failed to adduce the requisite quantum of evidence that he raped the private complainant precisely on September 15, 1998 and October 22, 1998. Moreover, the medical findings show that the hymen of the private complainant was intact and its orifice was so small as to preclude a complete penetration by an average size adult male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury. HELD:The decision of the RTC Manila was set aside. Another judgment is rendered as follows:  Criminal case # 99-171390, accused – appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape.  Criminal case # 99-171391, accused – appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted rape.  Criminal case #s 99-171392 & 99-171393, accused – appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on two counts of simple rape. PEOPLE v CABALLERO, 400 SCRA 424 FACTS: Armando, Robito and Marciano, Jr. Caballero, were having a drinking spree in the house of their brother Ricardo. Eugene Tayactac and Arnold Barcuma arrived in the sari-sari store of Wilma Broce. Arnold proceeded to the house of Susana Broce, Eugene‘s girlfriend, for a chat. As Eugene walked by the gate of the Mondragon Compound, Armando suddenly grabbed Eugene towards the compound. Eugene resisted. Spontaneously, Ricardo, Marciano, Jr. and Robito joined Armando and assaulted Eugene. Armando took the wooden pole supporting the clothesline and hit Eugene with it. The latter tried to parry the blows of the Caballero brothers, to no avail. In the process, Eugene was stabbed three times. As Eugene was being assaulted, Myrna returned to the window of her house and saw the Caballero brothers assaulting Eugene. Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 40

Arnold saw the commotion and rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. However, Ricardo accosted Arnold and stabbed the latter on the left side of his body. Robito, Marciano, Jr. and Armando ganged up on Arnold. Two of them stabbed Arnold on his forearm. Arnold fled for his life and hid under the house of a neighbor.For his part, Leonilo rushed from his house to where the commotion was. He was, however, met by Robito who stabbed him on the chest. Wounded, Leonilo retreated and pleaded to his uncle Lucio Broce for help. HELD:In case of an attempted crime, the offender never passes the subjective phase in the commission of the crime. The offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts of execution which should produce the crime. He is stopped short of that point by some cause apart from his voluntary desistance. On the other hand, a crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should result in the consummation of the crime. The offender has passed the subjective phase in the commission of the crime. Subjectively, the crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while passing through the subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to consummate the crime. However, the crime is not consummated by reason of the intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender. In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring medical intervention or attendance. It cannot be denied that the appellants had the intention to kill Arnold. The appellants performed all the acts of execution but the crime was not consummated because of the timely medical intervention. Treachery attended the stabbing of Arnold because he was unarmed and the attack on him was swift and sudden. He had no means and there was no time for him to defend himself. In sum, the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder.

FRUSTRATED FELONIES PEOPLE v MISION, 194 SCRA 432 FACTS:On the evening of October 24, 1978, at Esperanza, Masbate, the accused, Luis Mision, with intent to kill, premeditated and with treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with a bladed instrument Meroy Dagonoy, hitting the latter on the left shoulder and Luciana Dagonoy, also hitting her on the chest, thereby inflicting wound which cause the death of said Luciana Dagonoy. Several days after performing all the acts of execution which would have produce the crime of murder, as a consequence but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is by the timely and able medical attendance rendered to Meroy Dagonoy which prevented his death. Crime committed:Murder (Luciana Dagonoy) and frustrated murder (Meroy Dagonoy) Contention of the State:Two offense imputed to the appellant cannot be treated as a single offense because the manner in which he committed prevented him from constituting a complex crime under either of the way by which multiple offenses may be complex under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The assault on Meroy Dagonoy constituted frustrated murder, here relatively quick recovery being the result of prompt medical attention which prevented the infection in the wound. Contention of the Accused:The trial court erred in giving due weight and credit to the highly improbable testimonies of the witness and giving every ounce of benefit to the prosecution and in not resolving even a gram of doubt to the accused. HELD:The decision of the trial court dated August 26, 1981 is modified by holding the accused, Luis Mision guilty of two separate crimes of murder and frustrated murder

D.LIABILITY FOR CRIMES WITH COMPLETE ELEMENTS ARTICLE 6, RPC Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would


Page 41

produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. RELATE TO ARTICLES 134 AND 134 – A, RPC ARTICLE 134 Rebellion or insurrection – how it is committed? The crime of rebellion and insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against teh Government for the purpose of removing allegiance to said government or its laws. The territory of the Republic of the Philippines or nay part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces or depriving the chief executive or legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. Article 134 – A Coup d „etat – how committed The crime of coup d ‗etat is a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communication, networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out any where in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public office or employment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power.

PEOPLE v ORITA, 184 SCRA 105 FACTS:At around 1:30 in the morning of March 20, 1983 inside a boarding house at Victoria St., Poblacion, Borongan, Eastern Samar, Ceilito Orita, with threats and intimidations succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Cristina S. Abayan against her will and without her consent. Crime committed:Frustrated rape Contention of the State:In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and from that moment also, all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed all act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consumed. Contention of the Accused:The trial court erred in disregarding the substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the trial court erred in declaring that the crime of frustrated rape was committed by the accused. HELD: The accused Ceilito Orita is hereby found guildty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

PEOPLE v SANCHEZ, 250 SCRA 14 FACTS:Gladys Magpayao, is a nine year old girl and studying at the Holy Child Catholic School in Tondo, Manila. Her mother was a manicurist while her father was an overseas worker in Saudi Arabia. Gladys has a sister, Maritess, who at the time of incident was 20 years old and five brothers of whom the youngest was then two years old. Gladys and her family lived in an apartment on Carmen Planas St., Tondo, Manila.In the evening of December 14, 1989, Gladys was left alone in their apartment, her mother and younger brothers have gone to another apartment for a manicure service. While Gladys was lying in bed, the accused-appellant Ponciano Sanches, 25 years of age, entered her room. When she asked why he was there, Sanches grabbed her hand, covered her mouth. He then unzipped his pants, removed Glady‘s shorts and underwear and succeeded in inserting his penis into Glady‘s private part. With her mouth covered, Gladys was not able to scream. After Ponciano had left, Gladys didn‘t tell


Page 42

anyone about the incident, afraid that ther mother would get angry and hit her if she learned about it. On December 21, 1989, while Gladys was again alone watching TV, Ponciano, again forced her to have sex and threatened her not to report the incident. On January 2, 1990, while disposing the waste of her younger brother in the toilet, Ponciano entered and pinned Gladys against the wall, unzipped his pants and in half-kneeling position, satisfied his sexual desire. Again, she kept it with herself. But on March 22, 1990, she was seen by Maritess, slap the accused-appellant. When she was asked by her sister why she slapped Ponciano, it was then that she told her ordeal. Crime committed:Three counts of statutory rape Contention of the State:When an allegedly victim of rape says that she was violated, she says in effect all necessary to show that rape has been committed on her and as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. In the case at bar, however, Gladys Magpayo detailed how she has been sexually abused by Ponciano Sanches and not merely states that she had experience such thing. Contention of the Accused:Ponciano Sanches claimed that he was falsely charged by Gladys mother, Gloria, because he knew about Gloria‘s alleged illicit relations with Macario De Guzman, the owner of the apartment. HELD:The accused – appellant was found guilty of three counts of statutory rape and sentencing him to three counts of reclusion perpetua and to pay Gladys P 50, 000. PEOPLE v SALVILLA, 184 SCRA 671 FACTS: On 12 April 1986, a robbery was staged by the four accused at the New Iloilo Lumber Yard at about noon time. The plan was hatched about two days before. The accused were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade. When they entered the establishment, they met Rodita Hablero an employee thereat who was on her way out for her meal break and announced to her that it was a hold-up. She was made to go back to the office and there Appellant Salvilla pointed his gun at the owner, Severino Choco, and his two daughters, Mary and Mimie the latter being a minor 15 years of age, and told the former that all they needed was money. Hearing this, Severino told his daughter, Mary, to get a paper bag wherein he placed P20,000.00 cash (P5,000.00, according to the defense) and handed it to Appellant. Thereafter, Severino pleaded with the four accused to leave the premises as they already had the money but they paid no heed. Instead, accused Simplicio Canasares took the wallet and wristwatch of Severino after which the latter, his two daughters, and Rodita, were herded to the office and kept there as hostages. At about 2:00 o'clock of the same day, the hostages were allowed to eat. The four accused also took turns eating while the others stood guard. Then, Appellant told Severino to produce P100,000.00 so he and the other hostages could be released. Severino answered that he could not do so because it was a Saturday and the banks were closed. Contention of the Accused 1. The lower court erred in holding that the crime charged was consummated and in not holding that the same was merely attempted. 2. The lower court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender." Contention of the State: The State established a "taking" sufficient to support a conviction of robbery even though the perpetrators were interrupted by police and so did not pick up the money offered by the victim, where the defendant and an accomplice, armed with a knife and a club respectively, had demanded the money from the female clerk of a convenience store, and the clerk had complied with their instructions and placed money from the register in a paper bag and then placed the bag on the counter in front of the two men; these actions brought the money within the dominion and control of defendant and completed the taking. "Severance of the goods from the possession of the owner and absolute control of the property by the taker, even for an instant, constitutes asportation (Adams vs. Commonwealth, 154 SW 381; State vs. Murray, 280 SW 2d 809; Mason vs. Commonwealth, 105 SE 2d 149) [Emphasis supplied]. Held:Accused-appellant, Bienvenido Salvilla, found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE v DALISAY, 408 SCRA 375


Page 43

WHAT HAPPENED:On April 6, 1954, the complainants Angelina Maghibon, 19 years old, and Angelita Sinag, 16, of barrio Jibon and Kumalaskas respectively, of the town of Nabas, Capiz, boarded the "S.S. General del Pilar" bound for Capiz. The young girls, who had worked for three years as housemaids in Manila, were going home with their savings, Angelina during that period having been able to save P110.0 and Angelita, P206. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the following day, the ship arrived at the port of New Washington, Capiz. At the dock, the two girls saw an old acquaintance, Josefino G. Selfaison, and boarded the passenger bound for the town of truck he was driving, which was Nabas. The truck started its journey at about 5 o'clock and passed through several towns picking up and letting out passengers along the way. At barrio Ondoy, municipality of lbajay, Selfaison stopped the truck, got off and went to his house. After a short while, he returned accompanied by four men who accommodated themselves on top of the truck. The two complainants wanted to be taken to their respective barrios, but Selfaison informed them that they would have to pay an additional fare of P5 each. The girls agreed, giving him the money, and Selfaison saw them extract the money from bundles of paper bills hidden in the garments over their breasts. At a mountainous and isolated place, Selfaison suddenly stopped the truck. He and the other men then alighted and went to the rear of the truck. After a while, they returned and forced the girls to go down. Josefino G. Selfaison, Amrafil Dalisay, Reynaldo Bautista and Domingo Ureta pulled Angelita Sinag to one side of the truck, while Bernardo Bautista, Nemesio Dalisay, Arsenio Amacio and Domingo Salde dragged Angelina Maghibon to the other side. The men then took turns in raping Angelina and Angelita. Crime committed:Rape Contention of the Accused: At the trial of the case the appellants put up the defense of alibi. Contention of the State The defense of alibi interposed by the appellants cannot be allowed to prevail over the testimony of the offended parties, who positively identified them as four of their assailants Held:Accused are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Josefino G. Selfaison was well known to the complainants because they had previously ridden in his truck when they went to New Washington in 1951 where they boarded a ship for Manila. They were not personally acquainted with Nemesio Dalisay and Bernardo Bautista, but these two accused as the conductor were constantly seen by them during the whole trip. With respect to Domingo Ureta, the two girls were able to recollect his features and recognize him as one of the four men who boarded the truck at barrio Ondoy. It is a natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to know the identity of their assailants and the manner in which the crime was committed creates a lasting impression which cannot easily be erased in their memory. PEOPLE v NEGUIA, 412 SCRA 628 FACTS:On or about January 23, 1999, in the Municipality of Oton, Province of Iloilo, John Nequia with grave abuse of confidence, he, being the stepfather of the victim, with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in having carnal knowledge of MARY GHEL P. GUANCO, a 13 year-old minor, against her will and/or consent. Crime committed: Rape Contention of the Accused: The court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of consummated rape despite uncertainty of its commission. Contention of the State: Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. – Rape is committed: 2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph I hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person‘s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. Rape is consummated by the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis:


Page 44

Held:Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 23, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that appellant John Nequia is ordered to pay the victim Mary Ghel Guanco P75,000 as civil indemnity, P75,000 as moral damages, and P25,000 as exemplary damages. Three Justices of the Court maintain their position that Republic Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional, and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar. LIGHT FELONIES PUNISHABLE ONLY WHEN CONSUMATEDArticle 7,RPC When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.chan robles virtual law library Article 9 (3), RPC Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Art.. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided. A.COMMON LIABLITY FOR CONSPIRATORS ARTICLE 8, RPC Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor. IMPLIED CONSPIRACY A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It is fundamental for conspiracy to exist that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective. Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy. Since by its nature, conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy it can rarely be proved by direct evidence. Consequently, the presence of the concurrence of minds which is involved in conspiracy, may be inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together apparently indicate that they are merely parts of some complete whole. If it is prove that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. That would be termed an implied conspiracy. PEOPLE v LIAD, 355 SCRA 11 WHAT HAPPENED:On or about the 28th day of February, 1996, in Quezon City, accusedappellants Edgar Liad and Jun Valderama, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault, attack and employ personal violence upon the person of Lydia Cuenca. The accused flagged down the victim‘s vehicle but when the latter refused to open her car, accused armed with handguns fired two successive shots at the windshield, hitting the said victim, causing her to sustain serious and mortal wounds which was the immediate cause of her untimely death; immediately thereafter, accused boarded the said vehicle and upon reaching Ilang-Ilang St., Brgy. Batasan Hills, this City, abandoned the said car after which they took, robbed and carried away cash money in the amount of P15,090.00 and valuable items all valued in the amount of P170,000.00 belonging to victim in the total amount of P185,090.00. Crime committed: Robbery with homicide. Contention of the Accused: The court erred in ruling that both accused-appellants were co-conspirators of deceased ―Baeng‖ and Felix Fortaleza. Contention of the State:


Page 45

The Court finds the existence of a conspiracy between accused-appellants and the deceased Liberato Quintoa, also known as ―Baeng.‖ In conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime. The following circumstances immediately before, during and after the robbery indubitably show that the perpetrators were one in their purpose to rob Lydia Cuenca: (1) Three (3) men blocked the Tamaraw FX and banged on the door; (2) One of the men shot the door of the vehicle, hitting Lydia Cuenca; (3) Another also fired his gun but hit Manuel Cuenca‘s car instead; (4) One man smashed the FX‘s window to gain entry to the FX; (5) The three men then rode the vehicle to Ilang-Ilang Street; and (6) Thereafter, all of them alighted the FX and fled in the same direction to the Trans-World Compound. Held:Accused-appellants Edgardo Liad and Jun Valderama are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Homicide and are sentenced to each suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellants are ordered to pay in solidum the heirs of the deceased Lydia Cuenca the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for her death, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P305,265.00 as funeral and burial expenses. PEOPLE v GONZALES – FLORES, 356 SCRA 460 WHAT HAPPENED:On August 6, 1994, at around 1:00 p.m., complainant Felixberto Leongson, Jr. chanced upon his neighbours, Cloyd Malgapo, Jojo Bumatay, and accused-appellant, who were talking in front of his house at 68-C East Riverside, Bgy. Paltok, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City. Complainant was asked by accused-appellant if he was interested to work as a seaman in Miami, Florida, United States of America. He replied that he was interested to work abroad but he had doubts regarding his qualification for the job. Accused-appellant assured him that this is not a problem because she could fix his application. All he had to do was pay P45,000.00 as processing fee. The amount was paid in three (3) instalments, however, complainant was never given the opportunity to work as a seaman. Crime committed: Illegal recruitment and estafa Contention of the Accused: The lower court erred in holding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution taken in the light of the un-rebutted evidence of the accused on very materials points. Accused-appellant claims that she herself was a victim of illegal recruitment and that she simply told complainants about job opportunities abroad. Contention of the State:  Accused-appellant had no license or authority to engage in any recruitment activities.  Art. 13 (b) of the Labor Code defines ―recruitment and placement‖ as referring to any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not HELD: The accused if found guilty for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa in three (3) counts having been proved beyond reasonable doubt PEOPLE v DE LEON, 350 SCRA 11 WHAT HAPPENED:On or about the 13th day of June 1996 in the afternoon, in barangay Lomboy, Municipality of Binmaley, province of Pangasinan, Billy, Leopoldo and Dominador De Leon conspired, confederate and mutually helping one another, armed with a bladed instrument, with treachery and used of superior strength and intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab Ignacio Jimenez. Victim suffered multiple stab wound chest and hacked wound head with fracture which injuries directly caused his death. Crime committed:Murder Contention of the Accused: Accused-appellants claimed that the court erred in giving credence to the witnesses and further claiming that they were somewhere else when the crime committed. Contention of the State:


Page 46

In the case at bar, the evidence on record shows that during the stabbing, accused Leopoldo de Leon held the victim while his brothers Billy and Dominador stabbed him several times in the different parts of his body. The combined strength of the three accused is more superior than the strength of the deceased who was much older than the accused. The stabbing is qualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength, hence the killing is murder. HELD:Appellants Leopoldo de Leon and Dominador de Leon were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with modification that appellants are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, only the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto and P50,000.00 as moral damages, to the heirs of the victim, Ignacio Jimenez. The award of P15,000.00, as actual damages, is deleted for lack of proof thereof. PEOPLE v ELIJORDE, 306 SCRA 188 FACTS:Elijorde and Punzalan were charge for the death of Eric Hierro. An altercation began when Hierro told Menesses not to touch him cause his clothes will get dirty. A fist fight ensued and Hierro hid in the house of his friend. Thirty minutes after the incident, Hierro went outside of the house where he hid together with Visbal and the latter‘s wife to go home. As they walked home, Visbal noticed the accused Elijorde, Punzalan and Menesses waiting for them. As Hierro and company drew near the three, Punzalan kicked Hierro at the back, Visbal tried to retaliate by punching Punzalan on teh face but was held back by his wife. Hierro ran away and pursued by Elijorde. Elijorde stabbed the Hierro at the back and when Hierro fell down, Elijorde place himself on top of the victim who was then raising his arms defensively and pleading ―maawa na kayo, huwag nyo akong patayin‖ ―wala akong kasalanan sa inyo‖. Despite the pleading, Elijorde stabbed him with a knife on the chest of Hierro and fled. Crime committed:Murder Issue:Whether or not Punzalan is liable as conspirator HELD:Punzalan is not liable as conspirator, and he was acquitted, while Elijorde wa found quilty. The court cannot assert with moral certainty that Punzalan is guilty of murder to convict him as principal by direct participation in the instant case, it is necessary that conspiracy between him and his co-accused Elijorde be proved. That is precisely wanting in the present case. Conspiracy must be proven as the crime itself through clear and convincing evidence, not merely by conjecture. To hold the accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed on overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity, hence, conspiracy exist in a situation where at the time the malefactors were committing the crime, there action impliedly showed unity or purpose among them, a concrete effort to bring about the death of the victim. PEOPLE v SANCHEZ, 308 SCRA 264 FACTS:Jun Notarte and Reynold Yambot entered the victim‘s office and announce a hold-up. After emptying the victim‘s drawer, Notarter and Yambot took and shoved him into the backseat of the car where other accused-appellant were waiting. The victim was detained in 10 days. The accused demanded ransom from the victim‘s wife in exchange of her husbands‘ freedom. Crime committed:Murder Issue:Whether conspiracy exists HELD:To prove conspiracy, the following requisites must concur: Two or more persons came to any agreement.Agreement concerned the commission of the crime. Execution of felony was decided upon.In the case at bar, concurrence of the abovementioned conspiracy requisites made the accused liable for such. PEOPLE v DE VERA, 312 SCRA 640 FACTS:On June 8, 1992, at around 12:00 AM, Kenneth Florendo, together with Edwin De Vera, Roderick Garcia, and Elmer Castro, drove to Filinvest, Quezon City to dropped by the house of Frederick Capulong. Kenneth and Elmer went to see Frederick while Roderick was left in the car. Later, Kenneth had a heated conversation with Frederick and later, Kenneth shot Frederick with a .32 caliber. Issue:Whether or not there was a conspiracy in the commission of the crime.


Page 47

HELD:No, the prosecution failed to established conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Mere presence does not amount to conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere surmise or conjectures. Cacao testified that he saw appellant De Vera in the car, where an altercation latter occurred. Thereafter, he saw Florendo drag out of the vehicle an apparently disabled Capulong and shoot the victim in the head moments later. Cacao‘s testimony contains nothing. PEOPLE V ASUELA, 376 SCRA 51 FACTS:On September 7, 1997, the accused – appellant, Marcos Asuela, JUanito Asuela, Alberto Asuela, Roger Asuela, Teofilo Capacillo, Jun Jun Asuela and Miguel Asuela ganged up on Wilfredo Villanueva, their neighbour at Valleyvievo Subdivision, Gulod Malaya, San Mateo, Rizal. Using kitchen knife, lead pipe and before stabbing the victim, he was tear-gassed rendering him helpless while his family member helplessly watched their father killed with fatal blow. After all the accused had finished their intention of killing the victim, the son, Anthony Villanueva tried to help his father who was already fatally stabbed with a kitchen knife and clubbed with a lead pipe. Someone, however, hit him at the back when he heard someone from among the accused telling ―hayan pa isa‖. He was also stabbed and hit with a lead pipe and fell down only to manage and ran away when his brother, Mark Villanueva, tried to pacify them. Some of the accused chased him but he was already far away. Contention of the Accused:Appellants content that the trial court erred in according full faith and credence to the testimonies of prosecution witness, Anthony Villanueva, Hayen and Magdalena – all surnamed Villanueva. Other appellants denied their participation. Some used self-defense and aggression on the part of the victim. HELD:The Supreme Court was not persuaded and convinced on their claims of self-defense as if self-serving and are misplaced because there is unlawful aggression. Wherefore, appeal is partly granted. Requisites of unlawful aggression: Actual assault Threatened / impending assault Assault must have danger towards his lime or life

PEOPLE v HAMTON, 395 SCRA 156 Arthur Pangilian, Arnolf Lopez and Reynalso Yambot were found guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom and illegal possession of firearms and imposing upon each of them the supreme penalty of death and a prison term of 6 yrs and 1 day to 8 yrs. On the other hand, Antonio Hamton was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to an ―indeterminate penalty of from 4 yrs of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor. Issue: WON appellants are guilty of illegal possession of firearms  NO. Appellants were charged with and convicted of the crime of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention (Art. 267, RPC). The court agreed with the TC that they were guilty of kidnapping for ransom.  However, they cannot be held liable for illegal possession of firearms since there was another crime—kidnapping for ransom—which they were committing at the same time.  Interpreting Sec. 1, P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, the SC has consistenly ruled that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms.  Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. Since the plain meaning of RA 8294‘s simple language is most favorable to herein appellant, no other interpretation is justified. Accordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of 2 separate offenses of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide.  Moreover, since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that ―no other crime was committed by the person arrested.‖ The law does not distinguish or refer only to homicide and murder.  Hence, the Court set aside judgment convicting them of illegal possession of firearms. 


Page 48

PEOPLE v BALDOGO, 396 SCRA 31 FACTS:Gonzalo Baldogo alias Baguio and Edgar Bemas alias Bunso were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho Family who resides within teh Penal Colony. On February 22, 1996, Baguio and Bunso killed Jorge, a fourteen year old boy and abducted Julie who was 12 years old then. They brought Julie up to the mountain. During their trek, Baguio and Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing and belongings from a trunk which was located under a tamarind tree. On February 28, 1996, Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands and there she asked for help. Crime committed:Murder and kidnapping Contention of the Accused:Baldogo claims that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by Bermas with death unless he did what Bermas ordered him to do. He claims that he was even protective of Julie. He insists that Julie was not a credible witness and her testimony is not reliable because she was merely coached into implicating him for the death of Jorge and her kidnapping and detention by Bermas. HELD:The accused were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan when they committed the murder and kidnapping. Aggravating circumstances of evident

PEOPLE v ABUT, 401 SCRA 498 FACTS: Maricar and Edgar and Rosie and Al took a stroll at the Park. The 2 couples sat on the concrete benches facing each other. After a few minutes, Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie arrived. Rosie had been the girlfriend of Winchester before she became the girlfriend of Al.Winchester told Maricar that he wanted to get acquainted with Edgar. Edgar introduced himself to Winchester. Winchester shook hands with Edgar. Winchester yanked his hand and immediately boxed Edgar. Ritchie struck the 2 bottles on the table and hit Edgar with the broken bottles. The 3 continued their assault on the victim and stabbed him. Edgar pleaded to his attackers to stop assaulting him telling them that he had sustained so many stab wounds already. Edgar stood up and staggered only to fall down near one of the cemented benches in the park about 10 meters from the table. Gregmar and Winchester denied assaulting and stabbing Edgar. They claimed that it was Ritchie alone who stabbed and killed the victim. HELD:A conspiracy exist when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish conspiracy, direct evidence is not required. It is not even essential that there be proof of the agreement to commit the felony. Proof of concerted action of the accused before, during and after the crime which demonstrates their unity of design and objective is sufficient. This Court had consistently ruled that conspiracy may be inferred when by their acts, two or more persons proceed towards the accomplishment of the same felonious objective, with each doing his act, so that their acts though seemingly independent were in fact connected, showing a closeness of former association and concurrence of sentiment. To hold one as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy it must be shown that he performed an overt act in pursuance of or furtherance of the conspiracy, although the acts performed might have been distinct and separate. This overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. In this case, the evidence on record indubitably shows that after introducing himself to the victim, appellant Winchester pulled the hand of the victim and boxed him. Ritchie broke two bottles of beer and hit the victim with the broken bottles. The appellants and Ritchie ganged up and assaulted the victim. Not content, they stabbed the victim repeatedly. Maricar narrated how the appellants and Ritchie by their collective acts killed the victim PEOPLE v PAGALASAN, 404 SCRA 275 What happened: On September 4, 1994, at 11:00 p.m., the spouses and their children were in the master‘s bedroom watching television. The couple‘s housemaid, Julita Sarno, was in the kitchen. She heard knocks on the kitchen door. Thinking that it was Ferdinand, she opened the door. Four men, about 5‘5‖ to 5‘6‖ tall, each armed with handguns, two of whom were holding hand grenades, barged into the kitchen. The four intruders wore bonnets over their faces. With them was Ferdinand, whose hands were tied behind his back. On orders of the intruders, she knocked


Page 49

on the bedroom door. When George‘s daughter opened the door, three of the masked men barged into the room, while the fourth masked man remained in the sala of the house. The three masked men shouted to George and Desiree: ―Walang mangyayari sa inyo basta ibigay ninyo ang kailangan namin.‖ They ransacked the house, getting cash and valuables. The masked men gave Desiree a handwritten note, and dragged George and Christopher Neal Lim out of the bedroom through the sala to the garage, where George‘s Nissan car was parked for the night. George saw Ferdinand in the sala with his hands tied behind his back. One of the masked men ordered George to hand over the key to his vehicle, to board the car and occupy the back seat along with Christopher. Father and son did as they were told. Two of the masked men positioned themselves on either side of George and Christopher. The third man drove the car, while the fourth sat on the passenger‘s seat beside the driver. Crime committed: Kidnapping Contention of the accused: The trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the crime of kidnapping Contention of the State: The collective, concerted and synchronized acts of the appellant and his cohorts before, during and after the kidnapping constitute indubitable proof that the appellant and his three companions conspired with each other to attain a common objective: to kidnap George and Christopher and detain them illegally. The appellant was a principal by direct participation in the kidnapping of the two victims. Held: The decision of the RTC of General Santos City, is affirmed with modifications. Michael Pagalasan alias ―Mike‖ is found guilty of kidnapping under Article 267, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Appellant Michael Pagalasan alias ―Mike‖ is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight illegal detention under Article 268 of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from nine years and four months of prision mayor in its medium period as minimum to sixteen years and five months of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maximum. The said appellant is ordered to pay to Spouses George and Desiree Lim the total amount of P150,000 as moral damages; and P50,000 as exemplary damages in the two cases.

PEOPLE v TILOS, 349 SCRA WHAT HAPPENED:On or about 7:00 in the evening of April 1, 1994, at Poblacion, Ayungon, Negros Oriental, Geralyn Narciso, the 12-year old daughter of the victim, was on her way to a neighbour‘s house to watch a betamax movie when she came upon accused-appellant inflicting fist blows on her father. From a distance of about 15 meters, she saw accused-appellant holding the victim by the nape with his right hand, and boxing him on the abdomen with his left hand. Geralyn called to her mother, Florida Narciso, for help and the latter arrived and pulled the victim away from accused-appellant. While Florida was hugging the victim, accused Mateo Mahinay came from behind them and struck the victim three times: on the left eye, the right eye, and the nape. The victim fell to the ground. Florida sought the help of two bystanders, Mercy Siquijod and Paniong Agustino, in bringing the victim home. Teotimo Narciso died two days later. Crime committed: Murder aggravated by disrespect of age. Contention of the accused: Accused-appellant claimed that it was Mateo Mahinay, his co-accused as the perpetrators of the blows on the head that killed the victim that he should be charge with maltreatment only. Contention of the State: The attendance of abuse of superior strength and disregard of respect due to age merit the imposition of arresto menor, the punishment for slight physical injuries under Article 266, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, to its maximum duration of thirty (30) days HELD: Judgment appealed from is reversed, accused-appellant is found guilty of slight physical injuries and sentenced to suffer the penalty of thirty (30) days of arresto menor. The award of Fifty


Page 50

Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity to the heirs of deceased victim Teotimo Narciso is withdrawn. PEOPLE v HILARIO, 354 SCRA 354 FACTS:For being at the wrong place at the wrong time, Carlos Reyes, the victim in this case, lost his life. One quiet evening, while relaxing with his friend in front of a store, he was subjected to a treacherous assault by two brothers and their cumpadre. It turned out the three mistakenly bent their terror on him - - - the one they really planned to kill was his friend. The two brothers charged with committing this dastardly act were Rodolfo Hilario y Martinez and Rodrigo Hilario y Martinez. Their cumpadre, however, remains unidentified. Crime committed: Crime of murder Contention of the accused: Testimony of the witness is fabricated. Contention of the State: All three accused were present at the scene of the commission of the crime; accused Rodrigo Hilario was the one who furnished the weapons, a bolo and a foot-long ice pick and acted as a look-out; their cumpadre suddenly stabbed Carlos Reyes with the ice pick, simultaneously saying, ‗Ito ba?‘, revealing a previous agreement to stab the victim. Rodolfo Hilario, standing one-arm length from the victim, acted as a ―back-up‖ man, and uttered, ‗Walang makikialam!‘ After the stabbing, all of them ran away together.‖ Thus, all their acts tend to manifest a common purpose and devise. The familiar rule in conspiracy is that ―when two or more persons agree or conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible, when the conspiracy is proven, for all the acts of the others, done in furtherance of the conspiracy, hence all the three accused are liable as principals. HELD:Accused-appellant is guilty of murder qualified by treachery. He is further sentenced to pay jointly and severally with his co-accused the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the victim Carlos Reyes, and P30,000.00 for actual funeral expenses, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. PEOPLE v BIONG, 372 SCRA 34 FACTS:On three occasions, particularly on February 12, 1998, July 1998 and again on August 12, 1998, accused Genaro Biong, raped her daughter who was then 13 years old, Dina Biong, with the use of threat and intimidation (knife). Crime committed: Crime of rape. Contention of the accused: The complaint was fabricated and filed by his daughter since the his father-in-law of Biong has a grudge against him (Biong) because he refused to live with his in-laws. His father-in-law wanted to take custody of his daughter. Contention of the State: When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime. No young woman would recklessly accuse her own father of so grave a crime, unless she has been truly aggrieved. When her testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, it must be given full faith and credit. In a rape case, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. HELD:Genaro Biong was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape and is sentenced to reclusionperpetua, not death. LIABILITY PEOPLE v CABALLERO, 400 SCRA 424 FACTS: In the afternoon of August 3, 1994, Armando, Robito and Marciano, Jr., all surnamed Caballero, were having a drinking spree in the house of their brother Ricardo in the Mondragon Compound. At about 7:00 p.m. of said date, Eugene Tayactac and Arnold Barcuma arrived in the sari-sari store of Wilma Broce which was across the Mondragon Compound. Eugene had dinner in the store while Arnold proceeded to the house of Susana Broce, Eugene‘s girlfriend, for a chat. Momentarily, Armando arrived in the store and asked Eugene in an angry tone: ―Gene


Page 51

mopalit ka?‖ (Gene, will you buy?). Eugene replied: ―What is this all about? We don‘t have any quarrel between us.‖ Armando left the store but stood by the gate of the barbed-wired fence of the Mondragon Compound. His brothers Ricardo, Robito and Marciano, Jr. joined him. Ricardo and Robito were armed with knives. When Wilma told Eugene that she was closing the store already, he stood up and left the store on his way to Susana‘s house. At that time, Myrna Bawin, who was standing by the window of their house saw her brother Eugene going out of the store and proceeding to the house of Susana. She called out to him and advised him to go home. As Eugene walked by the gate of the Mondragon Compound, Armando suddenly grabbed Eugene towards the compound. Eugene resisted. Spontaneously, Ricardo, Marciano, Jr. and Robito joined Armando and assaulted Eugene. Armando took the wooden pole supporting the clothesline and hit Eugene with it. The latter tried to parry the blows of the Caballero brothers, to no avail. In the process, Eugene was stabbed three times. . Crime committed: Murder with aggravated by abuse of superior strength. Contention of the accused: They claim that at the time of the incident they were in the San Carlos Hospital for the treatment of the injuries of appellant Marciano, Jr. Contention of the State: Accused-appellants conspired to kill Eugene and assault Arnold. HELD:Accused-appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubts. PEOPLE v GIVERA, 349 SCRA 513 FACTS:On the 2nd day of May, 1993, in Quezon City, said accused, Cesar Givera, together with Epefanio Geralde and Arturo Geralde, stabbed with a knife a certain Eusebio Arrivas, hitting him on the different parts of his body, and striking him with a piece of stone on the head, thereby inflicting upon him serious wounds which causes his death. Crime committed: Murder Contention of the Accused: Accused-appellant claimed that at the time of the incident, he was having a drink in his cousin's house, some 30 meters away from the victim's house. On the other hand, Maximo Givera and Arturo Gayon were in the victim's house also having drinks. Accused-appellant said he was fetched by his cousin, Recto Gardon, because Maximo and the victim Eusebio Gardon were having an altercation. He went to pacify the protagonists and then led the victim to his house. Without his knowledge, however, Eusebio went back and again engaged Maximo in a fist fight, as a result of which the victim Eusebio was knocked down. Accused-appellant said he was going to help the victim get up, but he saw the victim's son, Ronilo Gardon, coming with a bolo. He, therefore, ran away and left the victim behind. Contention of the State: The deceased was unarmed when he was stabbed by on Maximo Givera and boxed and kicked by accused Cesar Givera and two other accused. Accused Givera and Epifanio Gayon taunted and provoked the deceased by throwing stones at him and then lured him to run after them towards the bridge where the other accused were lying in wait ready to pounce on the deceased without risk to themselves as the deceased was then defenseless." HELD:Accused-appellant Cesar Garote, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua andin addition to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity, accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay to the heirs of Eusebio Gardon amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.

PEOPLE v REYES, 399 SCRA 528 FACTS:PO1 Eduardo Molato was on his way home on board a passenger jeepney. When he alighted at the jeep, he saw the victim being held up by 2 persons. The one in font visibly took his wristwatch while the other one stabbed him at the back. He fired one warning shot which caused the three to run. He chased them but when he saw the victim to the nearest hospital. PO1 Molato continued chasing the suspects but they are already gone. The incident happened so


Page 52

swiftly but PO1 Molato had a good look at the face of the one who stabbed the victim as he was about 8 – 10 meters away from them. Crime committed:Robbery with homicide Contention of the Accused:Accused – appellant denies the charge against him and insist that he was merely mistaken for accused Arnel Cergantes who had the same protruding lips as he and he had share a commonalities as ―buboy nguso‖. Issue:Was the accused have direct participation in the commission of the crime? HELD:No. Only conspiracy was clearly manifested due to the concerted efforts of the accusedappellant and his cohorts. They were seen together by PO1 Molato at the unholy hour at 2:50 AM forcibly taking the wristwatch of the victim and thereafter stabbing him at the back. Their simultaneous acts indicate a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose. Conspiracy is evident and all the perpetrators be liable as principals. In the case at bar, 2 nd requisite of principals by direct participation is not present.

PEOPLE v ALMAZAN, 349 SCRA 281 FACTS:Loreto Apolinar was mercilessly shot twice by accused that cause his untimely demised. Crime committed: Murder qualified by treachery Contention of the Accused: Defense of alibi Contention of the State: We agree with the trial court and the CA that under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the appellant is guilty of murder qualified by treachery. The crime was committed before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659; hence, the crime was punishable by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. HELD:Appeal is dismissed. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with modification PEOPLE v PATANO, 399 SCRA 90 FACTS:Vicente Uy was kidnapped / detained in exchange for a P10, 000, 000 ransom but was later reduced to P 5, 000, 000. Crime committed: Kidnapping for ranson Contention of the Accused: There was no positive identification of the accused in the commission of the crime since he was at the crime scene just for a swim with friends. Contention of the State: Though the kidnapping for ransom has been proven, appellants‘ participation therein had not been adequately proven beyond reasonable doubt. HELD: Decision of the Lower Court is reversed and set aside. PEOPLE v GONZALES, 357 SCRA 460 FACTS:Because of not observing ethics in driving, a woman was shot dead and 2 boys are wounded due to gun shot. This happened in the afternoon of October 31, 1998 at about 2:30 p.m. Crime committed: Murder and double frustrated murder Contention of the Accused:He was provoked by the husband of the deceased and there was lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. HELD:The decision of the trial court was modified. The accused-appellant is found of guilty of homicide for the death of Feliber Andreas. For the physical injuries committed against Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez, the appellant is sentence to 20 days of arresto menor. PEOPLE v NATIVIDAD, 411 SCRA 587


Page 53

FACTS:During a drinking spree attended by the accused, 2 gunshots were heard after which, the victim shouted, ―may tama ako‖. Crime committed: Murder Issue:WON there was conspiracy in the commission of the crime. Contention of the State: The evidence of the prosecution on the matter of conspiracy falls short of the requirement A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. HELD:Decision of the RTC of San Pablo City is reversed and set aside. Appellants Felipe Natividad and Carmelito Natividad are acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, and ordered released from prison. EXTENT OF LIABILITY PEOPLE v ESCOTE, 400 SCRA 603 FACTS: On September 28, 1996, at past midnight, Rodolfo Cacaton, the driver of Five Star passenger bus drove the bus from its terminal to its destination. At Camachile, Balintawak, six passengers boarded the bus including accused Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote Jr. Boarded also in the bus was SPO1 Jose C. Mani Jr. Juan and Victor suddenly stop up, whipped out their guns and announce hold up. Juan and Victor fired their guns upward to awaken and scare their passengers then they divested them of their money and valuables. Then they went to the place of Mario Jr and demanded to show them his ID. The accused took his ID and wallet as well as his service gun, and told him, ―pasensya ka na pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo ang papatay sa iyo‖. The police pleaded for mercy, however, Victo and Juan ignored the plea of the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body. Crime committed:Robbery with homicide HELD:There is treachery in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following elements are present: At the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself. The accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means / methods or forms of attach employed by him. When the victim was shot, he was defenceless, he was shot at a close range, thus, insuring his death. The victim was on his way to rejoin his leaving his family in grief for his untimely demise. The killing is a grim example of the utter inhumanity to his fellowmen. PEOPLE v BINARAO, 414, SCRA 177 th FACTS: On the 16 day of November, 1991 at about 6:30 o‘clock in the evening, accused – appellants dragged a certain Emma Clapis to an uninhabited house where they took turns in raping her. CRIME COMMITTED:Rape CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:Defense of alibi CONTENTION OF THE STATE: The essence of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will. Accused - appellants failed to show that the victim consented to have sexual intercourse with them. On the contrary, the evidence showed that the carnal acts were against her will. HELD:The decision of the RTC is modified. (a) appellants are individually sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the three counts of rape; (b) appellants are each hereby ordered to pay the complainant jointly and solidarily the amount of P50,000 for each count of rape or a total of P150,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 for each count of rape or a total of P150,000 as moral damages. PEOPLE v VICENTE 372 SCRA 765 FACTS:The remark ―Pare, nakakarami na yata kayo, ah." made by an innocent person would cost him his life. CRIME COMMITTED:Murder CONTENTION OF THE STATE:There is conspiracy among the accused – appellants in the commission of the crime. HELD:Rey Ballera Bersabal is found guilty of murder while carmelito Vicente and Carlos Bersabal are guilty of slight physical injuries.


Page 54

PEOPLE v PABILLARE, 418 SCRA 104 FACTS:ON or about the 10 day of March, 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the accused, kidnap one GURMAIL SINGH along NIA Road, corner East Avenue, this city, and thereafter brought him to a warehouse somewhere in Quezon City and finally to JOLLIBEE Food Plaza located along Del Monte cor. Roosevelt Avenue, SFDM, this city, for the purpose of extorting money in the amount of P20,000.00, CRIME COMMITTED:Kidnapping ISSUE:WON there was conspiracy between appellant and his co-accused in the commission of the offense. HELD:The decision of the RTC Quezon City sentencing appellants Conrado Caada and Eduardo Pabillare to death for kidnapping for ransom is affirmed with modification. Three (3) Justices of the Court maintain their position that R.A. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar. th

PEOPLE V BISDA, 406 SCRA 454 FACTS:On or about the 3rd of September 1998, in the City of Marikina, the accused-appellants knowingly kidnap, detain and deprive Angela Michelle Soriano, for the purpose of extorting ransom from her family. CRIME COMMITTED: Kidnapping CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:Angela voluntarily went with them and there was no proof of conspiracy among the accused. CONTENTION OF THE STATE:The aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle under Article 14, paragraph 20 of the Revised Penal Code was attendant in the commission of the crime. HELD: The Decision of the RTC of Marikina City, is affirmed with modification. Accused apellants, Alma Bisda and Generosa ―Jenny Rose‖ Basilan, are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping for ransom under paragraph 4 and the last paragraph of Article 267, of the Revised Penal Code. Three Justices of the Court maintain their position that Rep. Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional, and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

B.LIABILITY FOR MULTIPLE, COMPLEX AND CONTINUING CRIMES Article 9, RPC Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned Article. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided. Article 25, RPC The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in the following: Scale Capital punishment: Afflictive penalties:

PRINCIPAL PENALTIES Death. Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute,


Page 55

disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prision mayor. Correctional penalties:

Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro.

Light penalties:

Penalties Common to the three preceding classes :

Arresto menor, Public censure

Fine and BOND to keep peace

ACCESSORY PENALTIES Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling. Civil interdiction, Indemnification, Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense, Payment of costs.

Article 48, RPC Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. PEOPLE v SANCHEZ, 313, SCRA 254 FACTS:State witness Vivencio, malabanan, team leader of the group of policemen went to Bishop Compound in Calauan, Laguna, as part of security force of Mayor Antonio Sanches. After a while, accused Ding Repadillas arrive and asked for Mayor Sanchez. Peradillas informed Mayor Sanchez that there would be a birthday party that night at Dr. Virvilio Velecina‘s house in Lanot, Calauan, Laguna near the abode of Peradillas. Peradillas assured the Mayor that Nelson Penalosa will be present. Penalosa is a political leader of Dr. Velecina who is the political opponent of Mayor Sanchez for the mayoralty seat of Calauan, Laguna. Mayor Sanchez then replied ―Bahala na kayo mga anak, ayusin na ang ninyo ang trabaho‖, then left the premises.Peradillas immediately called Corcolon and Aveion and relayed the message – ―ayos na ang pag-uusap at humanap na lang ng sasakyan‖. All the accused including malabanana, understood is as an order to kill Nelson Penalosa. At around 7 in the evening, Malabanan and the three accused boarded the car and went to Marpori Poulty farm in Barngay Lanoot near Dr. Velecina‘s house. Peradillas informed the occupants of the car that Nelson Penalosa jeep was leaving the Velecina compound. Accused Averian immediately drove the car to the front of Peradilla‘s house and the latter hooped in the car‘s back seatAs the car overtook the jeep, Peradillas and Corcolon fired at Penalosa‘s jeep using M-16 and baby armalites, executed in authomatic firing mode. There were 3 burst of gunfire, based on the sketch prepared by Malabanan, illustrating the relative position of the car and Nelson‘s jeep. Rickson Penalosa, son of Nelson Penalosa, fell from the jeep, however, the jeep continued running in a zig zag position until it overturned in front of Irais farm. After the shooting, the accused proceeded to the house of Mayor Sanchez in Bai, Laguna and reported to him that Penalosa was already dead. Together with his superior, SPO4 Lanorio and photographer Romeo Alcantara, poliman Daniel Escares went to the crime scene, saw the body of Nelson Penalosa slumped at the driver seat of the owner type jeep.


Page 56

Crime committed:Complex crime of double murder Contention of the State:Malabanan positively identified the accused as perpetrators. He testified in categorical, straightforward and spontaneous and frank manner. The apparent inconsistencies do not affect witness Malabanan‘s credibility. Jurisprudence reaches that delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the credibility of the witness, especially where there is a sufficient explanation for it. It was natural for malabanan to keep silent during he time because he was a co-conspirator and Sanchez, being a mayor, is a powerful man. Alibi and denial are worthless in the face of positive testimony of the witness showing the involvement of each accused. Contention of the Accused:Sanchez and Averion appealed that the inconsistencies between Malabanan‘s testimony and the autopsy results seriously affect his credibility as witness. Malabanan has sufficient motive to implicate Sanchez and Corcolon in the killings due to the threats of Sanchez. Malabanan‘s delay in reporting and involvement of the accused in the crime casts doubts on his credibility. HELD:Decision modified. Sanchez and Averion found guilty beyong reasonable doubt of double murder and sentenced to 2 penalties of reclusion perpetual and to indemnify the heirs of the victim. In conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. What is important is that the participants. Presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him co-conspirators.

PEOPLE v HERNANDEZ, 99 PHIL. 515 FACTS:On January 20, 1952, the Congress of Labor Organizations (CLO) headquarters was raided. Writer Amado Hernandez, himself a labor leader was arrested for rebellious activities with the CLO. Upon his arrest, he was charged in teh criminal information of ―Rebellion with Murder‖, Arson and Robbery. Hernandez asked for bail with the court where his case was pending was denied because the nature of his offense. Crime committed:Rebellion Contention of the State:The government, headed by General Ambrosio Padilla, argued that the gravity of the crime committed required the denial of the bail. Moreover, the complex crime charged by the government against Hernandez has been successfully imposed with other arrested communist leaders. Contention of the Accused:Rebellion cannot be considered as complex crime because under the Revised Penal Code, rebellion is charged as a singer offense and that it cannot be made into a complex crime. HELD:Rebellion cannot be considered as complex crime, like murder and arson. As basis, the court cited several cases convicting the defendant of simple rebellion although they killed several persons. PEOPLE v DUCAY, 225 PHIL 1 FACTS:At about 5 in the morning of October 12, 1986, Lina Labos was sleeping in the sala at the second floor of the house together with her husband Manuel Labos and their six-month old daughter, Maria Cristina Labos, when she was awaken by the pounding of the door on the first floor leading to the sala. Moments later, Santos Ducay and his son Edgardo Ducay appeared in the sala. Santos was carrying a long firearm while Edgardo held a calibre 45 pistol. The two started firing at manuedl who was already standing albeit half asleep. Then, they shoot her mother in law Pacita Labos. Both Manuel and Pacita were killed. The accused also shot her, Maria Cristina and Edwin Labos, her brother in law, who was then coming out of the bedroom. He was hit in the stomach and gall bladder while Maria Cristina wa hit in the leg, left thgigh and abdomen. The accused then turned their backs and one of them uttered ―ubos and lahi‖. She was able to identify the tow accused who are her former neighbours, the police came and brought the wounded to Jose Reyes Memorial Medical Center. The medical attendance prevented the death of Lina labos, Edwin Labos and Maria Cristina Labos. Crime committed:Complex crime of double murder and multiple frustrated murder. Contention of the State:In this case, l there are as many crimes committed as there are victims. The trial court correctly ruled that there was no complex crime considering that the trigger of the gun used in committing the acts complained of was pressed in several instances and not in single shot.


Page 57

Contention of the Accused:Appellant attacks the credibility of the prosecution witness. Lina and Edwin labons and alleges that heir identification of the appellant is vague and highly dubious. As to Lina Labos, that appellant maintains that she gave her statement only on October 14, 1986 or two days after the occurrence of the incident. She thus had sufficient time to concoct a story and implicate the appellant and Edgardo after she had talked with Edwin and Jose Labos. HELD:Appellant is guilty of two crimes of murder and three crimes of frustrated murder and indemnify of P 50, 000 for each crime. C.LIABILITY UNDER SPECIAL LAWS Article 10, RPC Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary. PADILLA v DIZON, 158 SCRA 127 FACTS:Pasay RTC Judge Dizon acquitted Lo Chi Fai who was arrested for violating CB circular No. 960, Section 6 which provides that no one is allowed to take out foreign exchange in any form unless authorized by the Central Bank or international agreements. Tourist / none residents can only bring out amount equal to amount they brought in. if you bring out an amount greater that three thousand dollars, you need to declare. Punishable by reclusion temporal or greater than or equal to fifty thousand pesos. Lo Chi was caught with 380 pieces of different currencies totaling to 355, 349.57 dollars and was able to show only tow Central Bank declaration. Acquitted based on (1) no intent; (2) money belong to him and associates coming from abroad. Crime committed:Violation of CB Circular No 960 by Lo Chi Fai Gross incompetence and ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct by the judge. Contention of the state: The respondents ought to know that the proof of malice or deliberate intent is not essential in offenses punishable by / under special laws which are mala prohibita. Contention of the accused: A judge cannot be held to account or answer, criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by him in good faith. HELD:The court finds the respondent guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and efficiency consistent with the responsibility of the Supreme Court for the proper, just administration of justice and for the attainment of the maintenance of people‘s faith in judiciary.All leaves and retirement benefits and privileges to which he may be entitles are hereby forfeited with prejudice to his being reinstated in any branch of government service, including government owned and or controlled agencies or corporations. PADILLA VS. CA, 269 SCRA 402 FACTS:Padilla fired in a hit and run accident on October 26, 1992. He was later on apprehended with the help of civilian witness. Upon arrest, the following were found in his possession.357 caliber revolver with 6 live ammunition, M-16 baby armalite magazine with ammo, 380 pietro beretta with 8 ammo and 6 live double action ammo of 38 caliber revolver Padilla claimed papers of gun were at home. His arrest for hit and run incident modified to include grounds of illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866 by the RTC of Angeles City. He was convicted and sentence to an intermediate penalty from 17 years, 4 months, 1 day of reclusion temporal to 21 years of reclusion perpetua as maximum. The Court of Appeals confirmed decision and cancelled bail bond. RTC of Angeles was directed to issue order of arrest. Motion for reconsideration was denied by court of appeals. Padilla filed lots of other petitions and al of a sudden, the Solicitor General made a complete turn-around and filed manifestation in lieu of comment praying for acquittal. Crime committed:Illegal possession of fire arms Contention of the State:Courts are bound to apply the governing law at the time of the commission of the offense for it is a rule that laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. Court cannot be faulted in applying Presidential Decree 1866.


Page 58

Contention of the Accused:Simple illegal possession of fire arms constitutes excessive and a cruel punishment. Previous law on illegal possession should have been applied since the reason for penalty imposed under PD 1866 no longer exists. HELD:The decision of the CA sustaining petitioner‘s conviction by the lower court of the crime of simple illegal possession of fire arms and ammunitions is affirmed except that petitioners intermediate penalty is modified. PEOPLE v SIMON, 234 SCRA 555 FACTS:On October 22, 1988, in Pampanga, Martin Simon was convicted of violating RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972 through a NARCOM posser-buyer. It was appealed for reversal alleging it was a frame-up and evidence was inadmissible. Crime committed:Violation of Dangerous Drug Act of 1972 HELD:Conviction is modified. There was overlapping error in the law. Thus, Supremen Court had to harmonize conflicting provision for degrees of draduation.Degrees applied depending on quantity then apply mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Least penalty should be prision correctional so as not to depreciate seriousness of crime. Justified in applying RPC provisions because law adopted penalties under RPC in their technical terms t thus signification and effects will also apply. Special Acts Punished by Special Laws o Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 Illegal possession and trafficking of dangerous drugs o Republic Act No. 9160 (The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001) o PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1745 o Republic Act No. 8294, o Presidential Decree No. 1866 Illegal possession of firearms

D.CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Justifying

circumstances. —

The

following

do

not

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES ARTICLE II, RPC incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur; First. Unlawful aggression. Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein. 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first andsecond requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present; First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.


Page 59

SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OR RELATIVES AND STRANGERS; DEFENSE OF PROPERTY; DEFENSE OF REPUTATION ELEMENTS PEOPLE v NARVAEZ, 121 SCRA 389 FACTS: At about 2:30 PM on August 22, 1968, Davis Fleischer, Flaviano Rubia and three other men were fencing the land of George Fleischer, father of Davis, in Maitum, South Cotabato. They were also chiseling the house of Mamerto Narvaez, who was sleeping in his house. Narvaez awoke and asked to talk to Fleischer from his window. Fleischer said, ―No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.‖ Narvaez shot him with a shotgun from the window, then shot Rubia who was running towards his jeep where a gun was located. Both died. Narvaez voluntarily surrendered and claimed defense of his person and of his rights. The Court of First Instance of South Cotabato convicted him of murder qualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in convicting the defendant despite the fact that he was acting in defense of his person and of his rights. HELD: Yes, defense of one‘s person or rights is a justifying circumstance, but three prerequisites must be present. Unlawful aggression due to the utterance of Fleischer and the invasion of Narvaez‘s property was clear. The pending case regarding ownership was decided only over a year after the incident, and even then, Fleischer had given Narvaez until the end of the year to leave the land. Lack of sufficient provocation was clear because Narvaez was asleep in his house, then asked Fleischer to stop so they could talk. Firing a shotgun from a window, however, was a disproportionate means of resistance. Narvaez was thus guilty of two counts of homicide with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense under Article 13 of the RPC. Treachery could not be held because the shooting was not a sudden, unprovoked attack. PEOPLE v GENEBLAZO, 371 SCRA 573 FACTS:While Alex Obien and Dominga Opalsa were walking along Quezon Street, Calauag, Quezon, bound for home, Maximino Geneblazo and around six unknown companions stoned them. Obien and Opalsa retaliated by also throwing stones at Geneblazo and company. However, upon seeing that Geneblazo was about to draw his knife, they ran away. Maximino Geneblazo caught up with Domingo Opalsa and stabbed the latter twice – the first stab landed on the left side of the body in the area of the armpit, while the second landed on the left side of the face. CRIME COMMITTED: Murder CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Self – defense CONTENTION OF THE STATE: Accused – appellant committed unlawful aggression and not the victim. HELD:Accused – appellant committed homicide, not murder. PEOPLE v RUBISO, 399 SCRA 267 FACTS: On November 6, 1992, while Hubines, the victim was busy putting a bolt on a rice thresher and was in a squatting position, accused-appellant approached him from behind. Appellant‘s left hand was wrapped with a towel. As appellant walked closer to Hubines, he unwrapped his hand revealing a handgun of unknown caliber, and shot Hubines. CRIME COMMITTED:Murder CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Self defense CONTENTION OF THE STATE: Lacks the three (3) elements of self defense:(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed by the person being attacked to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.


Page 60

HELD:Guilty of the crime of murder. PEOPLE v BATES, 400 SCRA 95 FACTS:On November 28, 1995 at around 2:00 in the afternoon, Edgar and Simon Fuentes and Jose Boholot left Barangay Esperanza, Ormoc City to deliver copra to a certain Fely Rodado at Barangay Gren Valley, Ormoc City. After the delivery, the three men headed back to Barangay Esperanza. While they were along the way, leading to the house of Carlito Bates, the latter suddenly emerged from the thick banana plantation surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Hose Boholot who was then walking ahead of his companions. Jose grabbed Carlito‘s hand and try to wrest possession of the firearm. The gun fired hitting Carlito who immediately fell to the ground. At that instant, Marcelo Bates and his son, brother and nephew of Carlito, respectively emerged from the banana plantation, each holding a bolo. They immediately hacked Jose several times. Marcelo then returned to Simon and Edgar and shouted, ―huwes de kutsilyo‖, upon hearing the same, Simon and Edgar ran. Crime committed:Murder HELD:Passion may not be properly appreciated in favour of the appellant. To be considered as mitigating circumstances, passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger and resentment. In the case at bar, Marcelo was infuriated upon seeing his brother Carlito shot by Jose, however, a distinction must be made between the first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the second that the former hacked the latter. When Marcelo hacked Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carliot, and if appellant refrained from doing anything else after that, he could have validly invoked the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, but when, upon seeing his brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back to Jose, who by then was already lying dead n the ground and hardly moving, hacking Jose again was a clear case of someone aching out of danger in the spirit of revenge. PEOPLE v CARATAO, 403 SCRA 482 FACTS:By not giving additional rice vale by the victim, Edgardo Bulawin to the accused, the former was stabbed to death. CRIME COMMITTED: Murder: CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Self defense CONTENTION OF THE STATE: There was aggression committed by the appellant hence the claim for self defense has no merit. HELD:Accused-appellant is guilty of homicide PEOPLE v VICENTE, 405 SCRA 40 FACTS:On May 30, 1998, at 8:30 o‘ clock in the evening, while appellant was having supper in his house at Gueguesangen, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, his brothers-in-law, Anoy and Sonny, quarrelled. Anoy was abrasively scolding Sonny for smoking and gambling. This caused the latter to howl at the top of his voice. The victim, then Chairman of the Sangguniang Kabataan, responded to Sonny‘s unusual cry. He entered appellant‘s house and suddenly pushed Anoy, causing him to fall to the floor. Appellant pacified the victim saying, ―don’t mind them because they are brothers and Anoy is only advising Sonny.‖ The victim felt insulted by such remark and he went home and got a steel pipe. Upon his return, he hit appellant at his upper left arm but appellant was able to seize the steel pipe from the victim, prompting the latter to retreat and go home. After the incident, while the appellant were talking outside their house, the victim passed by. He approached a certain Kagawad Fernandez and invited him to go to the dance hall. Then he tapped appellant‘s right shoulder, causing him to be pushed a little bit backward. Without any warning, the victim pulled out a knife and tried to stab appellant, shouting, ―I will see to it that I will kill you tonight.‖ Appellant held the victim‘s wrist and they grappled for the possession of the knife. While the knife was pointed at the victim, appellant accidentally stabbed him. CRIME COMMITTED:Murder CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Self defense CONTENTION OF THE STATE:


Page 61

Treachery is present since the suddenness of the attack deprived the victim of the opportunity to repel it or defend his person. HELD:Accused – appellant is guilty of murder PEOPLE v ESCARLOS, 410 SCRA 92 FACTS:Around 9 o‘clock in the evening of July 1, 2000, Antonio Balisacan went to the residence of Jaime Ulep in Domampot, Asingan, Pangasinan to attend a benefit dance which was near the place. In the benefit dance was his son Crisanto Balisacan, who attended the dance with his friends. Crisanto stood beside the emcee, Ceasario Escarlos, appellant‘s brother. While Ceasario was calling the victim, Antonio Balisacan, to come to the stage as he was a kagawad, Crisanto heard the people at his back shout. Five (5) to six (6) meters at his back, he saw appellant stab his father, Antonio, several times. Crisanto was momentarily shocked that he was not able to react. When appellant fled, Crisanto came to his senses and ran to Antonio. Antonio was still alive so he brought him to the hospital where he died a few minutes after arrival. CRIME COMMITTED: Murder CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Self defense CONTENTION OF THE STATE: The assault did not come as a surprise, as it was preceded by a heated exchange of words between the two parties who had a history of animosity. The alleged drawing of a knife by the victim could not have placed the life of appellant in imminent danger. The former might have done it only to threaten or intimidate the latter. HELD:Accused-appellant is found guilty of homicide PEOPLE v RETUBADO, 417 SCRA 393 FACTS:Accused-appellant boxed his son, who was then less than a year in age that caused his untimely death. CRIME COMMITTED: Parricide CONTENTION OF TEH ACCUSED: Insanity CONTENTION OF THE STATE: There was abuse of superior strength by the accused over the defenseless child. HELD:Judgement of the lower court is affirmed. PEOPLE v RUGAS FACTS:Accused-appellant, without provocation, stabbed Herberto Rafol while he is conversing with a certain Perla Perez in the street. CRIME COMMITTED: Frustrated homicide CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Self defense CONTENTION OF THE STATE: The appellant and not the victim was the unlawful aggressor. HELD:Guilty of frustrated homicide BURDEN OF PROOF UNIDAD v CA, 399 SCRA 27 FACTS: Accused-appellant, who was a policeman shot Irenio Vargas that cause his death. The victim was poking a gun and was ordered by the accused to refrain from doing so, however, he pulled the trigger hence was shot by the accused. CRIME COMMITTED: Murder CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: He was just repelling an attack by the victim / self defense HELD:


Page 62

Decision of the lower court is affirmed, with modification on the penalty to be imposed. PEOPLE v ANNIBONG, 403 SCRA 92 FACTS: On February 13, 1998, around 2:00 P.M., Cpl. Obngayan arrived at the Philippine Army detachment in Brgy. Doña Loreta, Pudtol, Apayao where he was then the commanding officer. Still perspiring and thirsty from an operation in Centro, Pudtol, Apayao, Cpl. Obngayan hurriedly proceeded to the camp‘s kitchen for a drink. Incensed that all of the water containers were empty, Obngayan confronted appellant whose duty was to maintain the camp‘s kitchen. He gave appellant a jab in the abdomen, then slowly walked away towards his bunker. Infuriated, appellant without warning, picked up his M-14 armalite rifle and strafed the former on the back. Obngayan sprawled bloodied on the ground. Shortly after, appellant took the garand rifle of Artemio Tallong, and unleashed another barrage of gunshots. Obngayan died instantaneously with his brain splattered and an eye fallen on the ground. CRIME COMMITTED: Murder ISSUE:whether there was unlawful aggression on the part of Cpl. Obngayan; (2) whether the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation; and (3) whether the imposition of the death penalty on appellant is appropriate. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:Self defense CONTENTION OF THE STATE:In legitimate self-defense the aggression must still be existing or continuing when the person making the defense attacks or injures the aggressor. Thus when the unlawful aggression ceases to exist, the one making the defense has no more right to kill the former aggressor.‖ HELD:The decision of the RTC of Apayao is affirmed with modification. Accused – appellant is declared guilty of murder‘ STATE OF NECESSITY (AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL)

PEOPLE v RICOHERMOSO, 56 SCRA 431 FACTS:Geminio de Leon owned a parcel of land in Barrio Tagbacan, Silangan, Catanuan Quezon which the defendant Ricohermoso cultivated as kaingin. Aoubt 9:00 AM of January 1965, Geminiano De Leon with his 30 yera old common law wife Fabiana Rosales and 24 year old son Marianito de Leon and one Rizal Rosales saw Ricohermoso and Geminiano asked for his share of the palay harvested. Ricohermoso told him to go to his house and get the palay. At 2:00 in the afternoon, Geminiano and his family went to the house of Ricohermoso and when he ask for the palay, the latter refused to get the palay. Ricohermoso got his bolo and stabbed Geminiano on the neck. When Geminano fell down in the ground, Severo Padernal hacked him on the back with an axe. On the other hand,. Juan Padernal embraced Marianito de Leon from behind with his right arm locked around Marianitor‘s neck and his left pressing Marianito‘s left forearm. They rolled downhill and Marianito passed out. When he regained his consciousness, he saw his father wounded and dead. Crime committed:Murder and attempted murder Contention of the State: Juan Padernal conspired with Ricohermoso and his father Severo Padernal in killing Geminiano de Leon. Paragraph 4, Article II of the RPC does not seen from this case considering that there is a close relationship between Ricohermoso, Severo and Juan Padernal. The withdrawal of the appeal of Severio Padernal strengthened the case for the appellee and rendered inoperative of the appellants version of the case. Contention of the Accused: Juan Padernal invoked the justifying circumstances of avoidance of greater evil or injury in preventing Marianito de Leon from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal. HELD: The judgement of the lower court as to the appellant Juan Padernal is affirmed with cost against him. The act of Juan padernal in preventing Marianito from shooting Ricohermoso and Severo was designed to ensure the killing of GEniniano. He was not avoiding any evil. His role was to weaken to defense. His reliance on the justifying circumstances in erroneous.

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXISTENCE OF RIGHT PEOPLE v DELIMA, 46 PHIL 738


Page 63

FACTS:Lorenzo Napoleon escaped from jail and he was found by police officer Felipe Delima in the house of Jorge Alegria. Armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance, Delima ordered Napoleon to surrender but he answered with the stroke of his lance. The police officer dodged it, freed his revolver but did not hit Napoleon. The criminal tried to escaped, not throwing his weapon, the policeman shot him dead. Delima was tried and convicted for homicide. Crime committed:Homicide HELD:The Supreme Court ruled that Delima must be acquitted. The court held that the killing was done in the performance of a duty. Napoleon was under obligation to surrender and his obedience is being demanded. His disobedience with a weapon compelled Delima to kill him. The action of the police officer was justified by the circumstances. PEOPLE v OANIS, 74 PHIL. 257 FACTS:Chief of Police Oanis and his co-accused Corporal Gellanta were under instructions to arrest one Balagtas, a notorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. Proceeding to the suspected house, they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, simultaneously fired with their revolvers without first making any reasonable inquiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecson and not the wanted criminal. Crime committed: Murder Contention of the State:Even if the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused will not be justified in killing him while the latter is sleeping. The law does not permit the captor to kill him. It is only when the fugitive from justice is determined to fight the officers of the law who are trying to capture him that the killing would be justified. Contention of the Accused:They only acted in the performance of their duty and that their acts should be justified. HELD:The appellant were declared guilty of murder with mitigating circumstances according to the Revised Penal Code, Article 69. PEOPLE v LAGATA, 83 PHIL. 150 FACTS:Ignacio lagata was in-charge of six prisoners assigned to clean the Capitol. Instantly, he discovered that one of the prisoners had escaped. The accused asked the remaining prisoners to help in locating Lagata. Whereupon, the accused decided to aim his gun at those who are fleeing until one of them was hurt and another was killed. Crime committed:Murder and serious physical injuries. HELD:Based on the testimonies of the witnesses, the court is convince that the killing of Abria was not in the performance of duty of the jail officer since the victim was shot when he (Abria) is only three (3) meters away from the guard.

OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDER TABUENA v SANDIGANBAYAN, 268 SCRA 332 FACTS:In a Presidential Memorandum dated jauanry 6, 1986, President Marcos allegedly commanded Petitiner Tabuena, in his capacity as General Manager of the Manila International Airport Authority ―to pay immediately the Philippine National Construction through the presidents‘ office‖ the sum of P 55, Million in cash as partial payments of MIAA account with said company mentioned in the Memorandum of Minister Robert Ongpin of the Trade and Industry to this Office dated January 7, 1985. Tabuena withdraw the sum of P 55, 000 on 3 separate occasions and delivered them to Gimenez, Marcs private secretary. It is without dispute that Tabuena did not follow the normal procedures in withdrawal and delivery of the money. Crime committed:Malversation by negligence Contention of the State:There was no standing obligation in favour of the PNCC at the time of disbursement of P 55,000, 000. PNCC sad themselves that they don‘t receive the P 55, 000, 000 Contention of the Accused: The petitioners contend that they only acted in good faith and that they were merely complying with the Presidents‘ memo. Tabuena had no other choice but to follow this superiors order, knowing that the President also exercises control over governmental agencies like the MIAA and PNCC. He also did not have the luxury of time to observe all auditing


Page 64

procedures of disbursement since the memo enjoined immediate compliance. Tabuena also claims that he was of the belief that MIAA indeed has outstanding obligations to PNCC. Peralta shared the same belief and so heeded Tabuena‘s request for help being his superior. HELD:Petitioners acquitted. It does not follow that all similarly accused will necessary be acquitted upon reliance on this case as precedent. PEOPLE v TULIN, 364 SCRA 10 BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME PEOPLE v GENOSA, 419 SCRA 537 FACTS:On November 15, 1995, Ben Genosa and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight after receiving their salary. They each had two bottles of beer before heading home. When Ben arrived at the Genosa‘s rented house, he found out that appellant had gone looking for him. Marivic and Ben quarrel as they usually do whenever Ben is drunk. Ben dragged his wife towards the drawer and threatened to kill her with a blade. The appellant smasher her husband‘s arm and immediately went inside their children‘s room, she got the gun inside the drawer and shoot her husband. Crime committed:Parricide Contention of the State:The accused is guilty of parricide. The court reckons that crucial to the Battered Woman Syndrome defense is the state of mind of battered woman at the time of the offense. She must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believe in the need to kill him in order to save her life. Contention of the accused:Marivic Genosa invokes self defense and / or defense her unborn child in claiming self-defense, the appellant raises the novel theory of the battered woman syndrome. HELD:Convicting the appellant is affirmed, however, there being two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances attending her commission of the offense, her penalty is reduced to 6 six years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

RA 9262 AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Short Title.- This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004". SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy.- It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security. Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination Against Women, Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments of which the Philippines is a party. SECTION 3. Definition of Terms.- As used in this Act, (a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts: A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;


Page 65

B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited to: a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of the victim's body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the abuser; b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or coercion; c) Prostituting the woman or child. C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to RA 9262 witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children. D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following: 1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code; 2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in common; 3. destroying household property; 4. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely controlling the conjugal money or properties. (b) "Battery" refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress. (c) "Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. (d) "Stalking" refers to an intentional act committed by a person who, knowingly and without lawful justification follows the woman or her child or places the woman or her child under surveillance directly or indirectly or a combination thereof. (e) "Dating relationship" refers to a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context is not a dating relationship. (f) "Sexual relations" refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child. (g) "Safe place or shelter" refers to any home or institution maintained or managed by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or by any other agency or voluntary organization accredited by the DSWD for the purposes of this Act or any other suitable place the resident of which is willing temporarily to receive the victim. (h) "Children" refers to those below eighteen (18) years of age or older but are incapable of taking care of themselves as defined under Republic Act No. 7610. As used in this Act, it includes the biological children of the victim and other children under her care. SECTION 4. Construction.- This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children. SECTION 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.- The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:


Page 66

(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child; (b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm; (c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm; (d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm; (e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct: (1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to her/his family; (2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's children insufficient financial support; (3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right; (4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity or controlling the victim's own mon4ey or properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties; (f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions; (g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual activity which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his immediate family; (h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts: (1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private places; (2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child; (3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against her/his will; (4) Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman or her child; and RA 9262 (5) Engaging in any form of harassment or violence; (i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children. SECTION 6. Penalties.- The crime of violence against women and their children, under Section 5 hereof shall be punished according to the following rules: (a) Acts falling under Section 5(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated parricide or murder or homicide shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. If these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the Revised Penal Code; those constituting serious physical injuries shall have the penalty of prison mayor; those constituting less serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision correccional; and those constituting slight physical injuries shall be punished by arresto mayor. Acts falling under Section 5(b) shall be punished by imprisonment of two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty for the consummated crime as specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no case be lower than arresto mayor. (b) Acts falling under Section 5(c) and 5(d) shall be punished by arresto mayor; (c) Acts falling under Section 5(e) shall be punished by prision correccional; (d) Acts falling under Section 5(f) shall be punished by arresto mayor; (e) Acts falling under Section 5(g) shall be punished by prision mayor;


Page 67

(f) Acts falling under Section 5(h) and Section 5(i) shall be punished by prision mayor. If the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the presence of her child, the penalty to be applied shall be the maximum period of penalty prescribed in the section. In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court. SECTION 7. Venue.- The Regional Trial Court designated as a Family Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of violence against women and their children under this law. In the absence of such court in the place where the offense was committed, the case shall be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements was committed at the option of the compliant. SECTION 8. Protection Orders.- A protection order is an order issued under this act for the purpose of preventing further acts of violence against a woman or her child specified in Section 5 of this Act and granting other necessary relief. The relief granted under a protection order serve the purpose of safeguarding the victim from further harm, minimizing any disruption in the victim's daily life, and facilitating the opportunity and ability of the victim to independently regain control over her life. The provisions of the protection order shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies. The protection orders that may be issued under this Act are the barangay protection order (BPO), temporary protection order (TPO) and permanent protection order (PPO). The protection orders that may be issued under this Act shall include any, some or all of the following reliefs: (a) Prohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing, personally or through another, any of the acts mentioned in Section 5 of this Act; (b) Prohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with the petitioner, directly or indirectly; (c) Removal and exclusion of the respondent from the residence of the petitioner, regardless of ownership of the residence, either temporarily for the purpose of protecting the petitioner, or permanently where no property rights are violated, and if respondent must remove personal effects from the residence, the court shall direct a law enforcement agent to accompany the respondent has gathered his things and escort respondent from the residence; (d) Directing the respondent to stay away from petitioner and designated family or household member at a distance specified by the court, and to stay away from the residence, school, place of employment, or any specified place frequented by the petitioner and any designated family or household member; (e) Directing lawful possession and use by petitioner of an automobile and other essential personal effects, regardless of ownership, and directing the appropriate law enforcement officer to accompany the petitioner to the residence of the parties to ensure that the petitioner is safely restored to the possession of the automobile and other essential personal effects, or to supervise the petitioner's or respondent's removal of personal belongings; (f) Granting a temporary or permanent custody of a child/children to the petitioner; (g) Directing the respondent to provide support to the woman and/or her child if entitled to legal support. Notwithstanding other laws to the contrary, the court shall order an appropriate percentage of the income or salary of the respondent to be withheld regularly by the respondent's employer for the same to be automatically remitted directly to the woman. Failure to remit and/or withhold or any delay in the remittance of support to the woman and/or her child without justifiable cause shall render the respondent or his employer liable for indirect contempt of court; (h) Prohibition of the respondent from any use or possession of any firearm or deadly weapon and order him to surrender the same to the court for appropriate disposition by the court, including revocation of license and disqualification to apply for any license to use or possess a firearm. If the offender is a law enforcement agent, the court shall order the offender to surrender his firearm and shall direct the appropriate authority to investigate on the offender and take appropriate action on matter;


Page 68

(i) Restitution for actual damages caused by the violence inflicted, including, but not limited to, property damage, medical expenses, childcare expenses and loss of income; RA 9262 (j) Directing the DSWD or any appropriate agency to provide petitioner may need; and (k) Provision of such other forms of relief as the court deems necessary to protect and provide for the safety of the petitioner and any designated family or household member, provided petitioner and any designated family or household member consents to such relief. Any of the reliefs provided under this section shall be granted even in the absence of a decree of legal separation or annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. The issuance of a BPO or the pendency of an application for BPO shall not preclude a petitioner from applying for, or the court from granting a TPO or PPO. SECTION 9. Who may file Petition for Protection Orders. – A petition for protection order may be filed by any of the following: (a) the offended party; (b) parents or guardians of the offended party; (c) ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; (d) officers or social workers of the DSWD or social workers of local government units (LGUs); (e) police officers, preferably those in charge of women and children's desks; (f) Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad; (g) lawyer, counselor, therapist or healthcare provider of the petitioner; (h) At least two (2) concerned responsible citizens of the city or municipality where the violence against women and their children occurred and who has personal knowledge of the offense committed. SECTION 10. Where to Apply for a Protection Order. – Applications for BPOs shall follow the rules on venue under Section 409 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its implementing rules and regulations. An application for a TPO or PPO may be filed in the regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court with territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner: Provided, however, That if a family court exists in the place of residence of the petitioner, the application shall be filed with that court. SECTION 11. How to Apply for a Protection Order. – The application for a protection order must be in writing, signed and verified under oath by the applicant. It may be filed as an independent action or as incidental relief in any civil or criminal case the subject matter or issues thereof partakes of a violence as described in this Act. A standard protection order application form, written in English with translation to the major local languages, shall be made available to facilitate applications for protections order, and shall contain, among other, the following information: (a) names and addresses of petitioner and respondent; (b) description of relationships between petitioner and respondent; (c) a statement of the circumstances of the abuse; (d) description of the reliefs requested by petitioner as specified in Section 8 herein; (e) request for counsel and reasons for such; (f) request for waiver of application fees until hearing; and (g) an attestation that there is no pending application for a protection order in another court. If the applicants is not the victim, the application must be accompanied by an affidavit of the applicant attesting to (a) the circumstances of the abuse suffered by the victim and (b) the circumstances of consent given by the victim for the filling of the application. When disclosure of the address of the victim will pose danger to her life, it shall be so stated in the application. In such a case, the applicant shall attest that the victim is residing in the municipality or city over which court has territorial jurisdiction, and shall provide a mailing address for purpose of service processing. An application for protection order filed with a court shall be considered an application for both a TPO and PPO.


Page 69

Barangay officials and court personnel shall assist applicants in the preparation of the application. Law enforcement agents shall also extend assistance in the application for protection orders in cases brought to their attention. SECTION 12. Enforceability of Protection Orders. – All TPOs and PPOs issued under this Act shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines and a violation thereof shall be punishable with a fine ranging from Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and/or imprisonment of six (6) months. SECTION 13. Legal Representation of Petitioners for Protection Order. – If the woman or her child requests in the applications for a protection order for the appointment of counsel because of lack of economic means to hire a counsel de parte, the court shall immediately direct the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) to represent the petitioner in the hearing on the application. If the PAO determines that the applicant can afford to hire the services of a counsel de parte, it shall facilitate the legal representation of the petitioner by a counsel de parte. The lack of access to family or conjugal resources by the applicant, such as when the same are controlled by the perpetrator, shall qualify the petitioner to legal representation by the PAO. However, a private counsel offering free legal service is not barred from representing the petitioner. SECTION 14. Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs); Who May Issue and How. - Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs) refer to the protection order issued by the Punong Barangay ordering the perpetrator to desist from committing acts under Section 5 (a) and (b) of this Act. A Punong Barangay who receives applications for a BPO shall issue the protection order to the applicant on the date of filing after ex parte determination of the basis of the application. If the Punong Barangay is unavailable to act on the application for a BPO, the application shall be acted upon by any available Barangay Kagawad. If the BPO is issued by a Barangay Kagawad the order must be accompanied by an attestation by the Barangay Kagawad that the Punong Barangay was unavailable at the time for the issuance of the BPO. BPOs shall be effective for fifteen (15) days. Immediately after the issuance of an ex parte BPO, the Punong Barangay or Barangay Kagawad shall personally serve a copy of the same on the respondent, or direct any barangay official to effect is personal service. The parties may be accompanied by a non-lawyer advocate in any proceeding before the Punong Barangay. RA 9262 SECTION 15. Temporary Protection Orders. – Temporary Protection Orders (TPOs) refers to the protection order issued by the court on the date of filing of the application after ex parte determination that such order should be issued. A court may grant in a TPO any, some or all of the reliefs mentioned in this Act and shall be effective for thirty (30) days. The court shall schedule a hearing on the issuance of a PPO prior to or on the date of the expiration of the TPO. The court shall order the immediate personal service of the TPO on the respondent by the court sheriff who may obtain the assistance of law enforcement agents for the service. The TPO shall include notice of the date of the hearing on the merits of the issuance of a PPO. SECTION 16. Permanent Protection Orders. – Permanent Protection Order (PPO) refers to protection order issued by the court after notice and hearing. Respondents non-appearance despite proper notice, or his lack of a lawyer, or the nonavailability of his lawyer shall not be a ground for rescheduling or postponing the hearing on the merits of the issuance of a PPO. If the respondents appears without counsel on the date of the hearing on the PPO, the court shall appoint a lawyer for the respondent and immediately proceed with the hearing. In case the respondent fails to appear despite proper notice, the court shall allow ex parte presentation of the evidence by the applicant and render judgment on the basis of the evidence presented. The court shall allow the introduction of any history of abusive conduct of a respondent even if the same was not directed against the applicant or the person for whom the applicant is made. The court shall, to the extent possible, conduct the hearing on the merits of the issuance of a PPO in one (1) day. Where the court is unable to conduct the hearing within one (1) day and the TPO issued is due to expire, the court shall continuously extend or renew the TPO for a period of thirty (30) days at each particular time until final judgment is issued. The extended or renewed TPO may be modified by the court as may be necessary or applicable to address the needs of the applicant.


Page 70

The court may grant any, some or all of the reliefs specified in Section 8 hereof in a PPO. A PPO shall be effective until revoked by a court upon application of the person in whose favor the order was issued. The court shall ensure immediate personal service of the PPO on respondent. The court shall not deny the issuance of protection order on the basis of the lapse of time between the act of violence and the filing of the application. Regardless of the conviction or acquittal of the respondent, the Court must determine whether or not the PPO shall become final. Even in a dismissal, a PPO shall be granted as long as there is no clear showing that the act from which the order might arise did not exist. SECTION 17. Notice of Sanction in Protection Orders. – The following statement must be printed in bold-faced type or in capital letters on the protection order issued by the Punong Barangay or court: "VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW." SECTION 18. Mandatory Period For Acting on Applications For Protection Orders – Failure to act on an application for a protection order within the reglementary period specified in the previous section without justifiable cause shall render the official or judge administratively liable. SECTION 19. Legal Separation Cases. – In cases of legal separation, where violence as specified in this Act is alleged, Article 58 of the Family Code shall not apply. The court shall proceed on the main case and other incidents of the case as soon as possible. The hearing on any application for a protection order filed by the petitioner must be conducted within the mandatory period specified in this Act. SECTION 20. Priority of Application for a Protection Order. – Ex parte and adversarial hearings to determine the basis of applications for a protection order under this Act shall have priority over all other proceedings. Barangay officials and the courts shall schedule and conduct hearings on applications for a protection order under this Act above all other business and, if necessary, suspend other proceedings in order to hear applications for a protection order. SECTION 21. Violation of Protection Orders. – A complaint for a violation of a BPO issued under this Act must be filed directly with any municipal trial court, metropolitan trial court, or municipal circuit trial court that has territorial jurisdiction over the barangay that issued the BPO. Violation of a BPO shall be punishable by imprisonment of thirty (30) days without prejudice to any other criminal or civil action that the offended party may file for any of the acts committed. A judgement of violation of a BPO ma be appealed according to the Rules of Court. During trial and upon judgment, the trial court may motu proprio issue a protection order as it deems necessary without need of an application. Violation of any provision of a TPO or PPO issued under this Act shall constitute contempt of court punishable under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, without prejudice to any other criminal or civil action that the offended party may file for any of the acts committed. SECTION 22. Applicability of Protection Orders to Criminal Cases. – The foregoing provisions on protection orders shall be applicable in impliedly instituted with the criminal actions involving violence against women and their children. SECTION 23. Bond to Keep the Peace. – The Court may order any person against whom a protection order is issued to give a bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit the violence sought to be prevented. Should the respondent fail to give the bond as required, he shall be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six (6) months, if he shall have been prosecuted for acts punishable under Section 5(a) to 5(f) and not exceeding thirty (30) days, if for acts punishable under Section 5(g) to 5(I). The protection orders referred to in this section are the TPOs and the PPOs issued only by the courts. SECTION 24. Prescriptive Period. – Acts falling under Sections 5(a) to 5(f) shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. Acts falling under Sections 5(g) to 5(I) shall prescribe in ten (10) years. SECTION 25. Public Crime. – Violence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense which may be prosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citizen having personal knowledge of the circumstances involving the commission of the crime. RA 9262 SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. – Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.


Page 71

In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/ psychologists. SECTION 27. Prohibited Defense. – Being under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering substance shall not be a defense under this Act. SECTION 28. Custody of children. – The woman victim of violence shall be entitled to the custody and support of her child/children. Children below seven (7) years old older but with mental or physical disabilities shall automatically be given to the mother, with right to support, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise. A victim who is suffering from battered woman syndrome shall not be disqualified from having custody of her children. In no case shall custody of minor children be given to the perpetrator of a woman who is suffering from Battered woman syndrome. SECTION 29. Duties of Prosecutors/Court Personnel. – Prosecutors and court personnel should observe the following duties when dealing with victims under this Act: a) communicate with the victim in a language understood by the woman or her child; and b) inform the victim of her/his rights including legal remedies available and procedure, and privileges for indigent litigants. SECTION 30. Duties of Barangay Officials and Law Enforcers. – Barangay officials and law enforcers shall have the following duties: (a) respond immediately to a call for help or request for assistance or protection of the victim by entering the necessary whether or not a protection order has been issued and ensure the safety of the victim/s; (b) confiscate any deadly weapon in the possession of the perpetrator or within plain view; (c) transport or escort the victim/s to a safe place of their choice or to a clinic or hospital; (d) assist the victim in removing personal belongs from the house; (e) assist the barangay officials and other government officers and employees who respond to a call for help; (f) ensure the enforcement of the Protection Orders issued by the Punong Barangy or the courts; (g) arrest the suspected perpetrator wiithout a warrant when any of the acts of violence defined by this Act is occurring, or when he/she has personal knowledge that any act of abuse has just been committed, and there is imminent danger to the life or limb of the victim as defined in this Act; and (h) immediately report the call for assessment or assistance of the DSWD, social Welfare Department of LGUs or accredited non-government organizations (NGOs). Any barangay official or law enforcer who fails to report the incident shall be liable for a fine not exceeding Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) or whenever applicable criminal, civil or administrative liability. SECTION 31. Healthcare Provider Response to Abuse – Any healthcare provider, including, but not limited to, an attending physician, nurse, clinician, barangay health worker, therapist or counselor who suspects abuse or has been informed by the victim of violence shall: (a) properly document any of the victim's physical, emotional or psychological injuries; (b) properly record any of victim's suspicions, observations and circumstances of the examination or visit; (c) automatically provide the victim free of charge a medical certificate concerning the examination or visit; (d) safeguard the records and make them available to the victim upon request at actual cost; and (e) provide the victim immediate and adequate notice of rights and remedies provided under this Act, and services available to them. SECTION 32. Duties of Other Government Agencies and LGUs – Other government agencies and LGUs shall establish programs such as, but not limited to, education and information campaign and seminars or symposia on the nature, causes, incidence and consequences of such violence particularly towards educating the public on its social impacts. It shall be the duty of the concerned government agencies and LGU's to ensure the sustained education and training of their officers and personnel on the prevention of violence against women and their children under the Act.


Page 72

SECTION 33. Prohibited Acts. – A Punong Barangay, Barangay Kagawad or the court hearing an application for a protection order shall not order, direct, force or in any way unduly influence he applicant for a protection order to compromise or abandon any of the reliefs sought in the application for protection under this Act. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act of 1997 and Sections 410, 411, 412 and 413 of the Local Government Code of 1991 shall not apply in proceedings where relief is sought under this Act. Failure to comply with this Section shall render the official or judge administratively liable. SECTION 34. Persons Intervening Exempt from Liability. – In every case of violence against women and their children as herein defined, any person, private individual or police authority or barangay official who, acting in accordance with law, responds or intervenes without using violence or restraint greater than necessary to ensure the safety of the victim, shall not be liable for any criminal, civil or administrative liability resulting therefrom. SECTION 35. Rights of Victims. – In addition to their rights under existing laws, victims of violence against women and their children shall have the following rights: (a) to be treated with respect and dignity; (b) to avail of legal assistance form the PAO of the Department of Justice (DOJ) or any public legal assistance office; (c) To be entitled to support services form the DSWD and LGUs' (d) To be entitled to all legal remedies and support as provided for under the Family Code; and RA 9262 (e) To be informed of their rights and the services available to them including their right to apply for a protection order. SECTION 36. Damages. – Any victim of violence under this Act shall be entitled to actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages. SECTION 37. Hold Departure Order. – The court shall expedite the process of issuance of a hold departure order in cases prosecuted under this Act. SECTION 38. Exemption from Payment of Docket Fee and Other Expenses. – If the victim is an indigent or there is an immediate necessity due to imminent danger or threat of danger to act on an application for a protection order, the court shall accept the application without payment of the filing fee and other fees and of transcript of stenographic notes. SECTION 39. Inter-Agency Council on Violence Against Women and Their Children (IACVAWC). In pursuance of the abovementioned policy, there is hereby established an Inter-Agency Council on Violence Against Women and their children, hereinafter known as the Council, which shall be composed of the following agencies: (a) Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD); (b) National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW); (c) Civil Service Commission (CSC); (d) Commission on Human rights (CHR) (e) Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC); (f) Department of Justice (DOJ); (g) Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG); (h) Philippine National Police (PNP); (i) Department of Health (DOH); (j) Department of Education (DepEd); (k) Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE); and (l) National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). These agencies are tasked to formulate programs and projects to eliminate VAW based on their mandates as well as develop capability programs for their employees to become more sensitive to the needs of their clients. The Council will also serve as the monitoring body as regards to VAW initiatives. The Council members may designate their duly authorized representative who shall have a rank not lower than an assistant secretary or its equivalent. These representatives shall attend Council meetings in their behalf, and shall receive emoluments as may be determined by the Council in accordance with existing budget and accounting rules and regulations.


Page 73

SECTION 40. Mandatory Programs and Services for Victims. – The DSWD, and LGU's shall provide the victims temporary shelters, provide counseling, psycho-social services and /or, recovery, rehabilitation programs and livelihood assistance. The DOH shall provide medical assistance to victims. SECTION 41. Counseling and Treatment of Offenders. – The DSWD shall provide rehabilitative counseling and treatment to perpetrators towards learning constructive ways of coping with anger and emotional outbursts and reforming their ways. When necessary, the offender shall be ordered by the Court to submit to psychiatric treatment or confinement. SECTION 42. Training of Persons Involved in Responding to Violence Against Women and their Children Cases. –All agencies involved in responding to violence against women and their children cases shall be required to undergo education and training to acquaint them with: a. the nature, extend and causes of violence against women and their children; b. the legal rights of, and remedies available to, victims of violence against women and their children; c. the services and facilities available to victims or survivors; d. the legal duties imposed on police officers to make arrest and to offer protection and assistance; and e. techniques for handling incidents of violence against women and their children that minimize the likelihood of injury to the officer and promote the safety of the victim or survivor. The PNP, in coordination with LGU's shall establish an education and training program for police officers and barangay officials to enable them to properly handle cases of violence against women and their children. SECTION 43. Entitled to Leave. – Victims under this Act shall be entitled to take a paid leave of absence up to ten (10) days in addition to other paid leaves under the Labor Code and Civil Service Rules and Regulations, extendible when the necessity arises as specified in the protection order. Any employer who shall prejudice the right of the person under this section shall be penalized in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code and Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Likewise, an employer who shall prejudice any person for assisting a co-employee who is a victim under this Act shall likewise be liable for discrimination. SECTION 44. Confidentiality. – All records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children including those in the barangay shall be confidential and all public officers and employees and public or private clinics to hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim. Whoever publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name, address, telephone number, school, business address, employer, or other identifying information of a victim or an immediate family member, without the latter's consent, shall be liable to the contempt power of the court. Any person who violates this provision shall suffer the penalty of one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand pesos (P500,000.00). SECTION 45. Funding – The amount necessary to implement the provisions of this Act shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA). The Gender and Development (GAD) Budget of the mandated agencies and LGU's shall be used to implement services for victim of violence against women and their children. RA 9262 SECTION 46. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – Within six (6) months from the approval of this Act, the DOJ, the NCRFW, the DSWD, the DILG, the DOH, and the PNP, and three (3) representatives from NGOs to be identified by the NCRFW, shall promulgate the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of this Act. SECTION 47. Suppletory Application – For purposes of this Act, the Revised Penal Code and other applicable laws, shall have suppletory application. SECTION 48. Separability Clause. – If any section or provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 49. Repealing Clause – All laws, Presidential decrees, executive orders and rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.


Page 74

SECTION 50. Effectivity – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date of its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES ARTICLE 12,RPC Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability: 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court. 2. A person under nine years of age. 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code. When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80. 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause. INSANITY AND IMBECILITY INSANITY Mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mental deficiency due to age or injury. If a complaint is made to law enforcement, to the district attorney, or to medical personnel that a person is evidencing psychotic behavior, he/she may be confined to a medical facility long enough (typically 72 hours) to be examined by psychiatrists who submit written reports to the local superior/county/district court. A hearing is then held before a judge, with the person in question entitled to legal representation, to determine if she/he should be placed in an institution or special facility. The person may request a trial to determine sanity. The original hearings are often routine with the psychiatric findings accepted by the judge. In criminal cases, a plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity," will require a trial on the issue of the defendant's insanity (or sanity) at the time the crime was committed. In these cases the defendant usually claims "temporary insanity" (crazy then, but okay now). The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is whether the accused knew "the difference between right and wrong". Most states require more sophisticated tests based on psychiatric and/or psychological testimony evaluated by a jury of laypersons or a judge without psychiatric training. A claim by a criminal defendant of his insanity at the time of trial requires a separate hearing to determine if a defendant is sufficiently sane to understand the nature of a trial and participate in his/her own defense. If found to be insane, the defendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial held only if sanity returns. Sex offenders may be found to be sane for all purposes except the compulsive dangerous and/or antisocial behavior. They are usually sentenced to special facilities for sex offenders, supposedly with counseling available. However, there are often maximum terms related to the type of crime, so that parole and release may occur with no proof of cure of the compulsive desire to commit sex crimes IMBECILITY


Page 75

Imbecility is that feebleness mind which, without depriving the person entirely of the use of his reason, leaves only the faculty of conceiving ideas the most common, in which relate almost always to his physical wants and habits. Imbecility of mind is (a term) hardly capable of exact or comprehensive definition. It is generally applied to a lack of normal mentality not so complete or absolute as exists in the condition we called idiocy but greater and more marked than in cases in which in normal parlance we apply the milder term feeble-mindedness. PEOPLE v ESTRADA, 333 SCRA 699 FACTS:During the Sacrament of Confirmation at the Saint John‘s Cathedral in Dagupan City, Mr. Roberto Estrada walks towards the center of the altar and sat at the Bishop‘s chair. The church security guard, Rogelio Mararac went near him, telling him to vacate the chair, however, Estrada just stared at Mararac. Mararac then grabbed his night stick and used it to tap the hand of Estrada. No response still by Estrada when Mararac repeatedly tapped the hand of Estrada. On the 3rd tap, Estrada suddenly drew a knife from his back then stabbed Mararac hitting his left throat. Mararac was seriously wounded and died after few minutes upon the arrival at the hospital. Estrada was arrested and jailed. Crime committed:Murder Contention of the State:The basis of criminal liability is human free will; man, therefore should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears impaired.If the accused was found insane, he shall be acquitted but the courts shall order his confinement in the hospital or asylum for treatment until he may be release without danger. Contention of the Accused:The lower court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime charge despite clear and convincing evidence on record, supporting his plea of insanity. Medical records showed that the accused was confined at the psychiatric ward of BGH due to his violent behaviour and the warden of the jail testified of his unusual behaviour which made his inmates uncomfortable. PEOPLE v VILLA JR., 331 SCRA 142 FACTS:In the morning of June 22, 1991, Dionito Fernandez was cutting grass in his yard in New Cabalan, Olongapo City when Rodolfo Villa Jr., a member of the CAFGU and neighbour of Fernandez, suddenly came out of his house with M-1 Garand Rifle and shot Dionito from behind, killing him instantly. Ronald and Shiela Fernandez, children of Dionito, rushed to their father‘s rescue after hearing the gunshot. The accused fired at them fatally hitting Ronald who was embracing his father and mortally wounding Shiela on the thigh and stomach. Crime committed:Multiple murder Contention of the State:Insanity exists when there is complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act or that there is total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormalities of mental faculties are not enough especially when offender has not lost consciousness or his acts. The following circumstances clearly and unmistakeably negate a complete absence of intelligence on his part. Contention of the Accused:Insanity or psychosis classified as schizophrenia based on experience on battlefield. HELD:Court affirms decision. The court finds it incredible for a supposedly deranged person to remember vividly and give such a lucid and detailed account of the incident. There is vast difference between a genuinely insane person and one who was worked himself up into such frenzy of anger that he fails to use reason or good judgment on what he does. Insanity is defense by way of confession and avoidance and as such, the quantum of evidence required to prove that is clear and convincing evidence. PEOPLE V MADARANG, 332 SCRA 99 FACTS:on September 3, 1993 at about 5:00 PM, Fernando Madarang and Lilia, his wife had a squabble. Madarang was jealous of another man and was accusing Lilia of infidelity. In the heat of the fight and in the presence of their children, the accused stabbed Lilia, resulting in her ultimate demise, who was then pregnant with their eight child and was about to give birth. Crime committed:Parricide Contention of the Accused:That the accused had no recollection of the stabbing incident. His behaviour at the time of the stabbing proved he was then afflicted with schizophrenia. There was


Page 76

also high possibility that the accused was already suffering from insanity prior to his commission of the crime, according to Dr. Tibayan‘s opinion.The fact that he and his wife was never engaged in a fight prior to the fateful day should be considered. HELD:Madarang‘s repentant attitude claiming lack of knowledge on the incident, the evidence does not prove unstable mental condition but a mere general denial.Although schizophrenia was diagnosed a few months after the stabbing incident, the evidence of insanity may be accorded weight only if there‘s proof of abnormal behaviour immediately before or simultaneous to the commission of the crime.Madarang was convicted, he admits committing the crime though he claims not guilty for reason of insanity; he failed to established by convincing evidence his alleged insanity at the time he killed his wife. PEOPLE v TABUGOCA, 285 SCRA 312 FACTS:On August 29, 191, when Jacqueline and her sisters were sleeping in their house at 10:00 in the evening, she was roused by her father and ask her to scratch his back. While doing so, he told her to stay and wait for a while. Accused suddenly removed her shorts and underwear and made her lie down beside him. She could only cry at this point. He then entered his manhood inside his daughter. He then warned her not to tell anyone. Jacqueline was 12 years old then at the time of the crime. Jinky on the other hand was molested by her father on the morning of December 9, 1994. She was cleaning in their house when her father approached her and then took of his clothes. He ordered her daughter to remove her clothes and to lie on the floor. When he entered her, she complained and told her father that she was in pain. He told her that it was normal because it was her first time to experience sex. He did not persist and told her that they would just continue the following day. Dawn of December 10, 1994, he attempted to molest her child but this time, however, Jinky resisted. He then left her alone. Later on the same day, Jinky told her grandmother what happened the day before. Upon hearing her sister‘s story, Jacqueline also disclosed to her grandmother her experience with her father 2 years ago. Upon learning of the incidents, they immediately went to the police and the municipal health officer for a physical examination. Crime committed:Rape Contention of the State: Insanity may be taken as exempting circumstances, there must be complete depreciation of intelligence in the commission of the act of that the accused acted without the least discernment. They did not present any expert witness, any psychiatric evaluation report or any psychological findings or evidence regarding his mental condition at the time of the commission of the offenses. Chastisement is not strong enough to make daughters of Filipino family invent a charge that would only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their family. Contention of the Accused:The accused raised the defense that he is completely unaware of what transpired on those 2 occasions as he was very drunk. He learned to drink liquor after his wife died on August 28, 1991, that he claims exemption from criminal liability on the ground of insanity. HELD:Judgement is affirmed. Tabugoca is guilty of two counts of rape, imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua in the first case and death in the second. PEOPLE v GENOSA, 341 SCRA 493 FACTS:On November 15, 1995, Ben Genosa and Arturo Basobas went to a cockfight after receiving their salary. They each had two bottles of beer before heading home. When Ben arrived at the Genosa‘s rented house, he found out that appellant had gone looking for him. Marivic and Ben quarrel as they usually do whenever Ben is drunk. Ben dragged his wife towards the drawer and threatened to kill her with a blade. The appellant smasher her husband‘s arm and immediately went inside their children‘s room, she got the gun inside the drawer and shoot her husband. Crime committed:Parricide Contention of the State:The accused is guilty of parricide. The court reckons that crucial to the Battered Woman Syndrome defense is the state of mind of battered woman at the time of the offense. She must have actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believe in the need to kill him in order to save her life.


Page 77

Contention of the accused:Marivic Genosa invokes self defense and / or in defense of her unborn child in claiming self-defense, the appellant raises the novel theory of the battered woman syndrome. HELD:Convicting the appellant is affirmed, however, there being two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances attending her commission of the offense, her penalty is reduced to 6 six years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.

MINORITY The state or condition of a minor; infancy. RA 9344 (Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice System) PRINCIPLES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SEC. 5. Rights of the Child in Conflict with the Law. - Every child in conflict with the law shall have the following rights, including but not limited to: (a) the right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) the right not to be imposed a sentence of capital punishment or life imprisonment, without the possibility of release; (c) the right not to be deprived, unlawfully or arbitrarily, of his/her liberty; detention or imprisonment being a disposition of last resort, and which shall be for the shortest appropriate period of time; (d) the right to be treated with humanity and respect, for the inherent dignity of the person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of a person of his/her age. In particular, a child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adult offenders at all times. No child shall be detained together with adult offenders. He/She shall be conveyed separately to or from court. He/She shall await hearing of his/her own case in a separate holding area. A child in conflict with the law shall have the right to maintain contact with his/her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances; (e) the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his/her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on such action; (f) the right to bail and recognizance, in appropriate cases; (g) the right to testify as a witness in hid/her own behalf under the rule on examination of a child witness; (h) the right to have his/her privacy respected fully at all stages of the proceedings; (i) the right to diversion if he/she is qualified and voluntarily avails of the same; (j) the right to be imposed a judgment in proportion to the gravity of the offense where his/her best interest, the rights of the victim and the needs of society are all taken into consideration by the court, under the principle of restorative justice; (k) the right to have restrictions on his/her personal liberty limited to the minimum, and where discretion is given by law to the judge to determine whether to impose fine or imprisonment, the imposition of fine being preferred as the more appropriate penalty; (I) in general, the right to automatic suspension of sentence; (m) the right to probation as an alternative to imprisonment, if qualified under the Probation Law; (n) the right to be free from liability for perjury, concealment or misrepresentation; and (o) other rights as provided for under existing laws, rules and regulations. The State further adopts the provisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice or "Beijing Rules", United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency or the "Riyadh Guidelines", and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Liberty. SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.


Page 78

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. SEC. 7. Determination ofAge. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority. He/She shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older. The age of a child may be determined from the child's birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. In the absence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be resolved in his/her favor. Any person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior to the filing of the information in any appropriate court may file a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age before the Family Court which shall decide the case within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all interested parties. If a case has been fiied against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the appropriate court, the person shall file a motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case is pending. Pending hearing on the said motion, proceedings on the main case shall be suspended. In all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges and other government officials concerned shall exert all efforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law. PEOPLE v ESTEPANO, 307 SCRA 707 FACTS:On the evening of April 16, 1991, Enrique Balinas, Florencio Tayco, and Lopita Guadid were on their way home. While on the way home, they met Dominador Estepano. Gaudia started talking to the latter, whole Tayco and Balinas stood nearby. Suddenly, Rodrigo Estepano appeared and without any provocation stabbed Balinas in the stomach with a bolo. Ruben, Rodney, Dante and Rene all surnamed Estepano, followed the attack and hacked Balinas. Ruben was armed with a cane cutter, while the others were armed with a bolo. Dante was never apaprehended. During the trial, Rodrigo died. After the trial, Dominador was acquitted on the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court found only Ruben, Rodney and Rene guilty and were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of Balinas in the amount of P 100, 000 for moral damages and P 9, 500 for actual damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of solvency. Crime committed: Murder Contention of the State:With respect to the appellant Rene Estepano, the records show that he was only 13 years of age at the time the crime was committed. Under Article 12 of the RPC, a person over 9 years of age and under 15 is exempt from criminal liability unless it is shown that he acted with discernment. Records shows that prosecution failed to prove that Rene acted with discernment, what was only established wahs his presence and his supposed participation in the killing. HELD:The decision appealed from is modified. Accused – appellants Ruben, Estepano and Rodney Estepano are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Accused – appellant Rene Estepano is acquitted on the absence of proof that he acted with discernment. Consequently, his immediate release from confinement is ordered unless he is detained for some other lawful cause. PEOPLE v DOQUENA, 68 PHIL. 580 FACTS:On the afternoon of November 19, 1938, Juan Ragojos, the deceased and Epifanio Raranga were playing volleyball in the yard of the intermediate school in Sual, Pangasinan. Accused Doquena, intervened and catching the ball, tossed it to Ragohos hitting him on the stomach. For this act, Ragohos chased Doquina and slapped him on the nape. Doquena then assumed a threatening attitude which prompted Ragojos to struck him on the mouth with his fist. After that, Ragojos went back to play again. The accused was offended and looked for a stone and turned to his cousin to borrow his knife. Upon hearing this, and fearing that he might attack Ragojos, Rarang warned the cousing not to give it to Doquena. Doquena succeeded in


Page 79

possessing the knife. He then challenged the deceased to punch him again but the latter refused. While Ragojos continued playing, the accused stabbed him in the chest. Crime committed:Homicide Contention of the State:The accused, at the time of the commission of the offense, was a 7 th grade pupil one of the brightest in his school and was a captain of a company of the cadet corps. He was conscious of the nature and consequence of his act. The defense should not mistake lack of premeditation or lack of intent for acting without discernment. Contention of the Accused:The accused – appellant, at the time of the commission of the offense, was only 13 years old. The offense was done with no premeditation and so, without discernment. He should not be criminally liable HELD: Ordered affirmed. The discernment that constitute an exception from criminal liability of a minor... is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, the appearance, the very attitude, the compartment and behaviour of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial. ACCIDENT PEOPLE V AGLIDAY, 376 SCRA 273 FACTS:The wife of the accused-appellant, Conchita Agliday, testified that at about 8:00 o‘clock in the evening of February 25, 1999, while washing dishes, in the kitchen of their house, her son, Richard Agliday was shot with a shotgun by her husband-appellant Ricardo Agliday. As a result, her son fell on his belly while her husband-appellant ran away. Although shocked, Conchita was able to rush outside of the house to call for help. Richard was first brought to the Sto. Nino Hospital, then to the San Carlos General Hospital and finally, to the Region 1 Hospital in Dagupan city. Crime committed:Parricide Contention of the Accused:The court erred in its findings of facts which, had they been in accordance with the evidence adduced, will suffice to support a judgement of acquittal for the accused-appellant since what happened was mere accident. RULING:Decision affirmed. On the first issue, the testimony that what had been told by Conchita that the shooting was accident – was contradicted by her own statements in open court that she was still in shock when the police officer conducted the preliminary investigation. Such statement taken, are held as inferior testimonies given in open court. Thus the court finds no ground in the case at bar to overturned the factual basis and findings of the trial court.The second issue, before the accused may be exempted from criminal liability be reason of Article 12 (4), the following elements must be present: 91) a person is performing lawful act; (2) with due care and; (3) he cause an injury to another by mere accident and; (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. For an act to be considered as exempting circumstances, the act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act.

U.S. v TANEDO, 15 PHIL. 196 FACTS:On January 26, 1909, Cecilio Tanedo, a land owner went with some workers to work on the dam of his land, carrying with him his shotgun and a few shells. Upon reaching the dam, the accused went on his way to hunt for wild chickens, meeting the victim, Feliciano Sanchez, his mother and his uncle. The accused went into the forest upon the recommendation of the deceased to continue his search for the elusive chickens. Upon seeing one, Tanedo shot one, but simultaneously, he heard a human dry out in pain. After seeing that Sanchez was wounded, Tanedo run back to his works and asked one Bernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the body, which they did by putting it amidst the tall cogon grass and later burying it in an old well. Only one shot was heard that morning and chicken was killed by a gunshot wound. Chicken feathers were found at the scene of the crime. The lower court found the accused guilty of homicide. Crime committed:Homicide Contention of the State:The uncle of the deceased testified that the boy and the accused invited each other mutually to hunt wild chickens.That the accused shot the deceased, Sanchez in the forest with premeditation, by planning to take the deceased to the forest, there to kill him so that no one could see it and to bury him secretly in order that the crime should remain unpunished. Concealment of the accused and denial.


Page 80

Contention of the accused:Accused testified that he did not invite the deceased to go hunting with him neither did the deceased go with him. That the incident was an accident since only one shot was heard that morning and a chicken was killed by a gunshot wound.Prior relations between the accused and the victim had been normal. HELD:There is no question that the accused was engage in the performance of a lawful act when the accident occurred. He was not negligent or at fault because the deceased was not in the direction at which the accused fired his gun. It was not foreseeable that the slug would recoil after hitting the chicken.Evidence of misadventure gives rise to an important issue in a prosecution for homicide, which must be submitted to the jury, and since a plea of misadventure is a denial of a criminal intent, which constitutes an essential element in criminal homicide, to warrant a conviction, it must be negated by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgement of conviction. The judgement of conviction then is reversed, the accused is acquitted and discharged of custody.

IRRESISTIBLE FORCE / UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR “Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Factus” IRRESISTIBLE FORCE This term is applied to such an interposition of human agency, as is, from its nature and power, absolutely uncontrollable; as the inroads of a hostile army PEOPLE v BALDOGO, 396 SCRA 31 FACTS:Gonzalo Baldogo alias Baguio and Edgar Bemas alias Bunso were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho Family who resides within teh Penal Colony. On February 22, 1996, Baguio and Bunso killed Jorge, a fourteen year old boy and abducted Julie who was 12 years old then. They brought Julie up to the mountain. During their trek, Baguio and Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing and belongings from a trunk which was located under a tamarind tree. On February 28, 1996, Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands and there she asked for help. Crime committed:Murder and kidnapping Contention of the Accused:Baldogo claims that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by Bermas with death unless he did what Bermas ordered him to do. He claims that he was even protective of Julie. He insists that Julie was not a credible witness and her testimony is not reliable because she was merely coached into implicating him for the death of Jorge and her kidnapping and detention by Bermas. HELD:The accused were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan when they committed the murder and kidnapping. Aggravating circumstances of evident PEOPLE v DEL ROSARIO, 305 SCRA 740 FACTS: At around 5:30 PM, Joselito Del Rosario was hired for P 120 by a certain Boy Santos, his co-accused. Their original agreement wa that he would drive him to a cockpit, however, despite their earlier agreement, Boy directed him to proceed to the market place to fetch Jun Marquez and Dodong Bisaya which Del Rosario acceded. Subsequently, he was asked to proceed and stop at ther corner of Burgos and General Luna St. where Bisaya was waiting. Crime Committed:Robbery with homicide Contention of the State: The trial court ruled that his fear was merely speculative and remote, hence it could not be considered uncontrollable and that a gun pointed at him did not constitute irresistible force because it fall short of the test. Contention of the Accused:That he must be exempted from criminal liability because he acted under the compulsion of irresistible force. He was threatened by Boy that he must not leave, or else, he will be shot to death. HELD: The conviction of Del Rosario must be set aside. His claim for exemptioin from criminal liability under Article 12 (5) of the RPC as he acted under the compulsion of irresistible force must be sustained. He was then unarmed and unable to protect himself when he tried to leave and during the perpetration of the robbery and killing, and was only forced to help them escape after. PEOPLE v LISING, 285 SCRA 595 FACTS: In March 1990, Rodolfo Manalili who is a businessman asked Felimon Garcia, his town mate, if he knew somebody who could allegedly affect the arrest of Roberto Herrera, the suspect,


Page 81

in the killing of his brother, Delfin Manalili. On April 21, 1990, Garcia called up Manalili and informed him that he already contracted a policeman to help him. On April 22, 1990, Garcia introduced Roberto Lising, Enrico Dizon and another man to Manlili. During the meeting, Manalili offered them to pay P50, 000 for the job. On April 23 – 24, Lising‘s group met with Vic Lisbod and conducted a surveillance on the Castanos residence In the hope of seeing Herrera. Failing to do so, the group was asked to return on the next day. On April 25, the group saw a man and a woman who happened to be Conchise Bernabe, 26 years old and a new graduate of UP College of law and Beebom Castanos, 22 years old and a graduating student of the UP College of Mass Communication, leave the Castanos residence in a green box type lancer car. The group followed the lancer car with Lising, Dizon and Mango riding in a clack car and Lisbog and Garcia in a motorcycle. The lancer car stopped at Dayrit‘s ham and Burger House on Timog Circle. Alighting from the car, they were accosted by Dizon and Manga. On Hune 21, two security guards told the CAPCOM that their friends Raul Morales and Jun Medrano, both employees of Roberto Lising, informed them that Lising killed a man and a woman in the warehouseOn June 25, the body of Cochise was exhumed and the cause of death was multiple stab wounds. Crime committed:Double murder and kidnapping Contention of the State:To be exempt from criminal liability, a person invoking irresistible force or uncontrollable fear must show that the force exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument who acted not only without will but against his will. The compulsion must be of same character as to leave the accused no opportunity for self-defense in equal combat or for escape. Contention of the Accused:Felimon Garcia prays that his liability be mitigated on grounds of lack of intent or motive, acts made under the compulsion of an irresistible force and voluntary surrender, which is considered would make him merely accomplice to the crime. HELD: The decision of the lower court finding the accused Rodolfo Manalili, Roberto Lising, Felimon Garcia, Robin Manga and Enrico Dizon, guilty of beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of double murder, including their civil liability is hereby affirmed in toto and the decision of the lower court finding the accused Roberto Lising, Enrico Dizon and Robin Manga guilty of the crime of slight illegal detention aggravated by teh use of motor vehicle is hereby modified, and that the said accused are hereby declared guilty of the crime of kidnapping and hereby sentence to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua

PEOPLE V FRONDA, 222 SCRA 71 FACTS: Brothers Edwin and Esminio Balaan were taken by 7 armed men in fatigue uniforms with long fire arms, suspected to be NPA members. Accompanied by the accused Rudy Fronda and Blaan. The armed men tied the hands of the deceased at their back lying face down in the front of the house of Ferminio. They all proceeded towards Sitio Tulog passing through the rice fields. Three years later, the bodies or remains of the Balaan brothers were exhumed. After which the remains were brought to the house of Freddie Arevalo, a relative of the deceased where they were laid in state for the wake. The RTC declared Fronda guilty as a principal by indispensible cooperation. The appellant says that he was only taken by teh armed men as pointer and interposes the exempting circumstances under Article 12 (6) claiming that all his acts were performed under the impulse of uncontrollable fear and to save his life. Crime committed:Double murder Contention of the State:Fronda cannot claim exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear. Fear, in order to be valid should be based on a real, imminent and reasonable fear for one‘s life or limb. In this case, the records indicated that the appellant was seen being handed by and receiving from one of the armed men a hunting knife. Also, as aforesaid, appellant was not able to explain his failure to report the incident to the authorities for more than three years. In order that the circumstances of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to escape or self-defense in equal combat. Contention of the Accused:The appellant contended that he was only taken by the armed men as pointer and interposes the exempting circumstances under Article 12 (6) of the RPC claiming that all his acts were performed under the impulse or uncontrollable fear and to save his life. HELD: Based on these circumstances, it was hold that the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the appellant cannot be regarded as having been under the impulse of uncontrollable fear.


Page 82

INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSE U.S. v VINCENTILLO, 19 PHIL. 118 FACTS: Isidro Vincentillo, a municipal president thus has the authority to make arrest of the complaining witness as well as all the usual powers of a police officer for the making of arrest without warrant, was found guilty in the court below of the crime ―illegal and arbitrary detention‖ of the complaining witness for a period of three days, and sentenced to pay a fine of 625 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay cost of the trial. Crime committed:Illegal and arbitrary detention Contention of the State:Isidro Vincentillo, with no legal authority, detained the complaining witness for a period of three days without having him brought before the proper judicial authority for the investigation and trial of the charge on which he was arrested. Contention of the Accused:The arrested man was brought before a justice of the peace as soon as practicable after his arrest. It was true that three days was expanded in doing due to the fact that at the time of the arrest, neither the local justice of the peace nor his auxillary were in the municipality. Thus, the arrested man was brought to one of the adjoining municipality which took them a long journey by boat, however, they failed to secure a trial on the first occasion being due to the fact that the written complaint, which was entrusted to the policeman in charge of the prisoner, was either lost or stolen. HELD:There is nothing in the record upon which to base the finding that defendant caused the arrest and subsequent detention of the prisoner otherwise than in the due performance of his official duties; and there can be no doubt of his lawfully authority in the premises. The trial judge pays great stress upon the trivial nature of the offense for which the arrest was made, but keeping in mind the fact that there was no judicial officer in the remote community where the incident occurred at the time of the arrest, and no certainty of the early return of the absent justice of the peace, or his auxillary. The judgement of the lower court convicting and sentencing the defendant must be reversed and he is hereby acquitted of the offense with which he is charged, with cost in both instances de oficio. PEOPLE v BANDIAN, 63 PHIL. 530 FACTS: One morning, Valentine Aguilar saw his neighbour, Josefina Bandian, got to a ticket apparently to respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later, Bandian emerged from the thicket with her clothes stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly showing of not being able to support herself. Rushing to her aid, he brought her to his house and placed her on the bed. He called on Adriano Comcom to help them, where Comcom saw the body of a new born baby near a path adjoining the thicket where the appellant had gone a few moments before. She claimed that it was hers. Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her own house and brought her child into the thicket to kill it. The trial court gave the credit to his opinion. Crime Committed: Infanticide and abandonment of a minor Contention of the Accused: Apparently, Bandian was not aware of their childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was unable, due to her debility or dizziness which cause may be considered as lawful or insuperable cause to constitute mitigating circumstances, to take her child from the thicket to pee. She caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in the same place and later abandoning it not because of imprudence or any other reason that she was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she could not blame herself because it all happened by mere accident, with no fault or intention of causing it. HELD: Bandian is not guilty of infanticide. Infanticide and abandonment, to be punishable, must be committed wilfully or consciously, or at least, it must be the result of voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. The evidence does not show that the appellant, in causing her child‘s death in one way or another did so wilfully, consciously or imprudently. Bandian‘s act can be considered lawful or insuperable. Thus, having the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances in her favour, she is acquitted of the crime that she had been accused of. C.OTHER EXCULPATORY CAUSES


Page 83

INSTIGATION People v. LUA CHU and UY SE TIENG [56 PHIL. 44 (1931)] NATURE:An Appeal was made by Uy Se Tieng & Lua Chu & made 10 assignments of errors made by the TC in its judgment. FACTS: On Nov. 1929, Uy Se Tieng, was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium coming from Hongkong, who represented agents of the real Owners of Shipments of Opium containing 3,252 tins. He collaborated w/ Samson & Natividad of the Customs by paying them an amount of P6K for the opium to be released safely from Customs. On Dec. 1929, upon arrival of the Shipment of Opium in the ports of Cebu, Uy Se Tieng informed Samson that the former consult the real owners on how to proceed the payment of P6K & will come over to Samson house on Dec. 17, 1929 to inform the decision of the owners. On the same day Samson informed the Constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo & the Provincial Fiscal requesting a stenographer to take down the conversation between Samson & Uy Se Teung.On the night of Dec. 17, 1929, Capt. Buencosejo and a stenographer named Jumapao from a law firm and hid themselves behind the curtains in the house of Samson to witness the conversation between Samson, Uy Se Teung and Lua Chu. Captain Buencosejo & Jumapao noted the ff. important facts: 1. Uy Se Teung informed Samson that Lua Chu was one of the owners of the Opium. 2. Lua Chu informed Samson that aside from him, there were co-owners named Tan and another located in Amoy. 3. Lua Chu promised to pay the P6,000 upon delivery of the opium from the warehouse of Uy Se Tieng. 4. A Customs Collector had a conversation before when Samson was on vacation in Europe, with Lua Chu and agreed on the business of shipping the Opium. The following morning Uy Se Tieng and companion, Uy Ay presented papers to Samson & Captain Buencosejo showed up & caught them in the act & arrested the two Chinese. The Constabulary then arrested Lua Chu & confiscated P50K worth of Opium (3,252 tins). ISSUES: Held: Juan Samson induced the defendants to import the opium.

Trial judge refusal of exclusion of Juan Samson in the witness stand eventhough he was already dismissed from the Customs secret service In accepting the transcript taken down by Jumapao as the true & correct conversation between Juan Samson & Uy Se Tieng

1. A public official shall be involved in the crime if:  He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain  Does not take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind.  He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary steps seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders. 2. Even though Juan Samson smoothed the way for the introduction of the prohibited drugs, the ff should be noted that held Samson not guilty for the crime:  The accused have already planned and actually ordered the opium without the consent or participation of Juan Samson.  Did not help the accused to successfully implement there plan rather, Samson assured the seizure of the imported drug and the arrest of the smugglers. Not one of the means prescribed in section 342 of the Code of Civil Procedures

1. The transcript contains certain admissions made by the defendants. 2. Stenographer attested that it was faithfully taken down. 3. Corroborated by statement of Juan Statement in the court. INSTIGATION


Page 84

ARANETA V CA [142 SCRA 532 (1986)] NATURE: Petition to review the decision of CA. FACTS: Complainant Gertrudes Yoyongco is the widow of Antonio Yoyongco, an employee of NIA. She approached the appellant, Atty Aquilina Araneta, a hearing officer of the Workmen‘s Compensation Unit at Cabanatuan City, to inquire about the procedure for filing a claim for death compensation. Learning the reqirements, Yoyongco prepared the forms and filed them at the Unit. When she went again to follow up on the status of the application, she was told by the appellant that she had to pay PhP100 so that her claim would be acted upon. She told the officer that she had no money then but if she would process her claim, Yoyongco would give her the PhP100 upon approval. To this, Atty Araneta refused and said that on previous occasions certain claimants made similar promises but they failed to live up to them. Yoyongco then went to her bro-in-law, Col. Yoyongco (hala ka), the Chief of Criminal Investigation Service, Phil Constabulary, and informed him the demand of the appellant. The Col then gave her 2 PhP50 bills and instructed her to go to Col Laureaga. The latter concocted a plan to entrap the appellant. The 2 PhP50 bills were marked w/ notations ―CC-NE-1‖ and ―CCNE-2‖, photographed and dusted w/ ultra-violet powder. The complainant went to the officer along w/ CIC Balcos who pretended to be her nephew. She again requested the officer to process her claim but was again asked if she already had P100. In answer, Yoyongco brought out the 2 P50 bills & handed them to the appellant. As she took hold of the money, CIC Balcos grabbed her hand & arrested her. In the PC headquarters, Atty Araneta‘s hands were examined for the presence of UV powder & result was positive. Appellant contends that the bills, w/c she never accepted, were rubbed against her hand and dress. HELD: There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when the accused was induced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the crim intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime came from him. In instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. Wherefore, appellant is guilty of the crime of bribery, a violation of Sec 3 RA No 3019 known as the ―Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.‖ Considering though that this case was pending since 1971 and she is a mother of four and the amount involved is only PhP100, it is recommended that petitioner be granted either executive clemency or the privilege of probation if she is qualified. Decision affirmed. Entrapment 1. The practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions 2. It is a scheme or technique ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by being in the actual crime scene. 3. The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if he have done the following: a. He does not induce a person to commit a crime for personal gain or is not involved in the planning of the crime. b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind. Instigation:This is the involvement of a law officer in the crime itself in the following manners: a. He induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain b. Doesn‘t take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime & to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind. He obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does take the necessary steps seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders

INSTIGATION


Page 85

CABRERA v PAJARES [142 SCRA 127 919860] Cabrera is the defendant in a civil case w/c Pajares was trying. The case filed by Cabrera's dad & half-siblings for the annulment of the sale made to Cabrera of 28 ha. of land in Camarines Sur. Cabrera was advised by his counsel to accommodate any request for money from the judge so that latter won't give him a hard time  Sept. 1984: Pajares intimated that he needed money & so Cabrera gave him P1k.  After 2 mos/before Christmas of 84: Pajares & Cabrera met in front of the Naga Hall of Justice & the Pajares told Cabrera that he needed money again. This time, Cabrera asked the assistance of the NBI in entrapping Pajares. He submitted 10 P100 bills for marking to be used in the entrapment. Such bills were marked w/orange flourescent crayon & dusted w/orange flourescent crayon by the NBI. A female agent bet 35 & 40 yrs old was sent to Naga to take part in the operations.  Jan. 22, 1985, 8:15 a.m. Cabrera told the judge that he decided not to settle the case but instead he filed a MFR appointing a surveyor to delineate a portion of the land in dispute for his halfsiblings in settlement. Then Pajares asked ―O ano ngayon ang atin.‖ Cabrera then got the envelope w/the marked money & gave it Pajares. Cabrera then rushed out of the chamber on the pretext that he forgot the keys in the car as a signal to the other NBI agents. As soon as they got in, Somera pointed out where the money was. It was inserted between the pages of a diary on the judge‘s table. Photos were taken. NBI Forensic Chemist Vallado established that the envelope & the money in it were those marked by the NBI. Pajares & his diary were both found positive of orange fluorescent powder. (so that‘s how they do it! Hehehe.)  Pajares‘ defense: he took the money thinking that it was for the surveyor. (yeah, yeah!) And he claims that when he realized it was for the surveyor, he threw it back to Cabrera telling him, ―Bakit mo sa kin yan ibibigay? Ikaw na ang magbigay niyan kay Surveyor Palaypayon.‖ He further claims that the envelope fell on the open pages of his diary & that‘s where the NBI agents found it. Issues & Ratio: 1. WON Pajares accepted the money knowing that it was given to him by reason of his office.  YES. Surveyor‘s fee was P2k & it would have been paid by Cabrera & the plaintiffs equally at P500 each & not by Cabrera alone. Besides, Pajares had no reason to believe that the money was Cabrera‘s share of the surveyor‘s fees. His claim that a survey plan was needed for the final disposition of the case has no basis either because the plaintiffs were seeking the annulment of the sale, thus a survey was not necessary.  Evidence shows that judge did not really try to return the envelope to Cabrera but instead, he placed it between the pages of his diary. Such evidence is based on: INSTIGATION ..CABRERA v PAJARES [142 SCRA 127 919860] o Somera‘s testimony & affidavit. o Photos showing that the envelope was placed between the pages of the judge‘s diary. A hand was shown in one of the photographs & was identified as that of NBI agent Artemio Sacaguing. Sacaguing confirmed this claiming that he was in the act of picking the diary from the table. o Testimony of Manuel Tobias, chief agent of NBI sub-office in Legaspi o Melquiades Volante, Pajares‘ branch clerk of court, corroborated Pajares‘ statement claiming that the judge did try to return the envelope to Cabrera. However, he issued another affidavit repudiating his first testimony. He claims that he was just pressured by Pajares to testify & that he did not really see the incident. o Constancio Elquiero, a janitor, corroborates Pajares‘ statement. However, the testimonies of the 3 law enforcement agents should be given more credence since they‘re presumed to have acted in the reg performance of their duties. o Photos appear to have been taken as soon as the agents got into the judge‘s chamber. Even the judge himself complained that as soon as the agents barged into his office, they began to take pictures. This rules out the possibility that the agents were responsible for putting the envelope in his diary. The photos look like snapshots rather than formal pictures.


Page 86

 The plan to entrap the judge was cleared w/Exec. Judge Hon. Juan Llaguno before whom Cabrera swore to his statement. Not likely for a judge to approve a frame-up of a colleague. Not likely either for NBI Regional Dir. Epimaco Velasco to authorize a frame-up considering that according to Pajares himself, Velasco is his close friend.  There was a discussion about how the envelope was folded, etc. But it‘s probable that the judge unfolded it when it was handed to him.  Pajares claims that he was outraged by the frame-up & that he protested. But the photos of his arrest show that he was smiling. He claims it was in derision (mockery, scorn) & that he‘s jolly by nature. But a smile is not a normal reaction to express outrage. (I don‘t quite understand why this should be mentioned. So what if he was smiling?) 2. Whether this was an entrapment or instigation operation.  ENTRAPMENT. Instigation & entrapment distinguished: o Instigation: officers of the law/their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense w/c he otherwise wouldn‘t commit & has no intention of committing. Accused cannot be held liable. It‘s a trap for unwary innocent. o Entrapment: criminal intent/design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused & law enforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of the crime, the accused cannot justify his conduct. Trap for the unwary criminal.  Instigation is not actually an issue since Pajares claims that this was a frame-up. However, this claim has no basis as proven by the evidence presented. 3. WON Pajares is guilty of acts unbecoming of a judge.  NO. GUILTY ONLY OF INDIRECT BRIBERY. Evidence only shows that he accepted the money & that he knew it was being given to him by reason of his office as per the investigation conducted by Investigating Justice Mendoza. Unfortunate since the Court has always stressed that members of the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but must at all times conduct themselves in such manner as to be beyond reproach & suspicion. For the judge to return the people‘s regard of him as an intermediary of justice between 2 conflicting parties, he must be the first to abide by the law & weave an example for the others to follow. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of law. But Mendoza‘s recommendation of merely suspending the judge for 2 yrs & 4 mos as the proper administrative penalty by virtue of Pajares‘ serious misconduct prejudicial to the judiciary & public interest cannot be upheld.  Court approves Mendoza‘s recommendation to acquit Pajares for lack of evidence of the 2 nd charge of having committed acts unbecoming of a member of the judiciary. Held: Pajares dismissed from the service w/forfeiture of all retirement benefits & pay & w/prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the gov‘t or any of its agencies or instrumentalities. Clerk of Court ordered to return the ten marked P100.00 bills to Cabrera.

INSTIGATION PEOPLE v DORIA (301 SCRA 668) FACTS: Two civilian informants informed the PNP Narcom that one ―Jun was engaged in illegal drug activities and the Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrenst ―Jun‖ in a buy-bust operation.  On the day of entrapment, PO3 Manlangit handed ―Jun‖ the marked bills and ―Jun‖ instructed PO3 Manlangit to wait for him while he got the marijuana from his associate.  When they met up, ―Jun‖ gave PO3 something wrapped in plastic upon which PO3 arrested ―Jun‖. They frisked Jun but did not find the marked bills on him. ―Jun‖ revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named ―neneth‖  They wen to Neneth‘s house. PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dinin table and noticed something wrapped in plastic inside the box.  Suspicious, PO3 entered the house and took hold of the box and found that it ha 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.  Simultaneously, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from Neneth. The policemen arrested Neneth and took both her and Jun, together with the coz, its contents and the marked bill and turned them over to the investigator at headquarters,  Jun was then learned to be Florencio Doria while Neneth is Violata Gaddao.


Page 87

They were both convicted feloniously selling, administering and giving away to another 11 plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops, in violation of R.A 6425, as amended by RA 7659 ISSUE: WON Violeta Gaddao is liable.  Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused & partakes the nature of a confession & avoidance.  American federal courts and state courts usually use the ―subjective‖ or ―origin of intent‖ test laid down in Sorrells v. U.S. to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused‘s predisposition to commit the offense is charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents.  Another test is the objective test where the test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agenst was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense.  The objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly & adequately shown. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validty of the defense of inducement.  In the case at bar, Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest uner Sec. 5a of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the TC, there was no occasion at all for Gaddao to flee from the policement to justify her arrest in ―hot pursuit‖  Neither could her arrest ne justified under second instance of ―personal knowledge‖ in Rule 113 as this must be based upon probable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds for suspicion. Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged indentification made by her co-accused. PO3 Manlangt, however, declared in his direct examination that appellant Doria named his co-accused in response to his query as to where the marked money was. Doria did not point to Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he lfet the marked bills. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gaddao conspired with Doria in pushing drugs, If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of the acts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.  Furthermore, the fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao‘s house does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.  The prosecution thus had failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with Doria in the sale of the said drug. Thus, Gaddao is acquitted 

EFFECT OF PARDON RPC, Article 23 Effect of pardon by the offended party. - A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES RPC, Art. 6 (3) Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — (3)There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance. RPC, Art. 7 When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property. RPC, Art. 16 Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories.


Page 88

The following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices. RPC, Art. 20 Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article. RPC, Art. 247 Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article. RPC, Art. 280 Qualified trespass to dwelling. — Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos. The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open.

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES RPC, Art. 332 . Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons: 1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line. 2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and 3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together. The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime. RPC, Art. 344 Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.


Page 89

In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.

PEOPLE v OYANIB [354 SCRA 196 (2001)] FACTS: Manolito & Tita Oyanib were legally married. Years thereafter they separated. Tita had affairs w/ other men. Manolito reminded her that they were still legally married, but Tita still continued with her affairs.  One day, Manolito came to see Tita to inform her of a meeting w/ their son‘s school regarding their son‘s failed subject. He then came upon Tita and his paramour, Jesus Esquierdo, having sex w/ the latter on top of the other w/ his pants down to his knees.  Upon seeing him, Jesus kicked Manolito in the check and Manolito immediately stabbed Jesus. Tita left the room, got a Tanduay bottle and hit Manolita with it in the head. Tital then stabbed Manolito in the arm with the broken Tanduay bottle. This angered Manolito and he stabbed Tita as well.  Thereupon, Edgardo, owner of the house where Tita was staying entered the room. Manolito hid but later gave himself up.  He was found guilty of homicide and parricide and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 6 month, 1 day to 6 yrs of prision correccional as minimum to 6 yrs 1 day to 8 yrs of prision mayor as maximum and to pay P50K civil indemnity and costs for the death of Jesus and to reclusion perpetua, to pay P50K and costs for the death of his wife Tita.  He appealed, admitting the killings but arguing that he killed them both under the exceptional circumstance provided in A247 RPC Issue: WON he‘s entitled to the exceptional privilege under RPC A247  YES. He invoked Art. 247, RPC as an absolutory and an exempting cause. ―An absolutory cause is present where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.‖  Having admitted the killing, it is inucumbent upon accused to prove the exempting circumstanbces to the satisfaction of the court in order to be relived of any criminal liability.  RPC A247 prescribes the ff essential elements for such defense: o That a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; o That he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter; and o That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.  Accused must prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise, his defense would be untenable.  The death caused must be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infideltity. Simply put, the killing of the husband of his ide must concur with her flagrant adultery  The Court finds the accused to have acted within the circumstances contempleated in Art. 247, RPC  The law imposes very stringent requirements before affording offended spouse the opportunity to avail himself of RPC A247.  The vindication of a Man‘s honor is justified because of the scandal an unfaithful wife creates; the law is strict on this, authorizing as it does, a man to chastise her, even with death. But killing the errant spouse as a purification is so sever that it can only be justified when the unfaithful spouse is caught in flagrante delicto, & it must be resorted to only w/ great caution so much so that the law requires that it be inflicted only during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter (People v. Wagas)  Court thus sentenced Manolito to 2 yrs & 4 mos of destierro and shall not be permitted to enter or be w/in a 100 km radius from Iligan City. ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASE OF EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT RPC, Art. 5


Page 90

Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation. In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense. PEOPLE v VENERACION [249 SCRA 244 (1995)] FACTS: Aug 2, 1994 - cadaver of a young girl identified as Angel Alquiza was seen floating along Del Pan St. near the corner of Lavesares St., Binondo, Manila. She was wrapped in a sack & yellow table cloth tied with a nylon cord with both feet & left hand protruding from it was seen floating along.  Abundio Lagunday, a.k.a. Jr. Jeofrey and Henry Lagarto y Petilla were later charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide in an Information dated August 8, 1994 filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, National Capital Judicial Region  Trial Court - rendered a decisionon January 31, 1995 finding the defendants Henry Lagarto y Petilla and Ernesto Cordero y Maristela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentenced both accused with the "penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessories provided for by law."  February 8, 1995 – City Prosecutor of Manila filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying that the Decision be "modified in that the penalty of death be imposed" against respondents Lagarto and Cordero, in place of the original penalty (reclusion perpetua). Feb. 10, 1995 the motion was denied by the court. ISSUE: WON the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to impose the mandatory penalty of death under RA 7659, after finding the accused guilty of the crime of Rape with Homicide.  YES. No question on the guilt of the accused.  A government of laws, not of men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought "to protect and enforce it without fear or favor,"resist encroachments by governments, political parties,or even the interference of their own personal beliefs.  The RTC judge found the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and homicide. Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation. 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. Under the law the penalty imposable for the crime of rape with homicide is NOT reclusion perpetua but Death. The law provides that when by reason or on the occasion of rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death


Page 91

A court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself provides for the sentence of death as a penalty in specific & well-defined instances. People vs. Limaco - as long as that penalty remains in the statute books, and as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition in certain cases, it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law regardless of their private opinions. It is a well settled rule that the courts are not concerned w/ the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws. Rules of Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge should impose the proper penalty and civil liability provided for by the law on the accused.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES RPC, Art. 13 Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances; 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant. 2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act. 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution; 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings. 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.chan robles virtual law library 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION/EXEMPTION PEOPLE v JAURIGUE [C.A. No. 384 (Feb. 21, 1946)] Nicolas and Avelina Jaurigue were prosecuted for the crime of murder, of which Nicolas was acquitted, but defendant Avelina was found guilty of homicide. FACTS: Avelina and the deceased Amado Capina lived in the same barrio ; that for some time prior to the stabbing, Amado had been courting her in vain. On Sept.13, Amado suddenly embraced and kissed Avelina and touched her breasts, Avelina slapped Amado, gave him fist blows and kicked him. Since then, she armed herself with a long fan knife for self-protection. On Sept.15, about midnight, Amado climbed up the room of Avelina. He felt her forehead, evidently with the intention of abusing her. She immediately screamed for help, which awakened her parents and brought them to her side. Amado came out from where he had hidden under a bed in Avelina's room and kissed the hand of Nicolas, her father, asking for forgiveness. In the morning of Sept. 20, Avelina received information that Amado had been falsely boasting in the neighbourhood of having taken liberties with her person and that she had even asked him to elope with her and that if he should not marry her, she would take poison; and that Avelina again received information of Amado's bragging at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that same day. At about 8 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Nicolas went to the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists to attend religious services, and sat on the front bench . Avelina entered


Page 92

the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father and sat on the bench next to the last one nearest the door. Amado was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon observing the presence of Avelina , Amado went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat by her right side, and, without saying a word, Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. On observing this highly improper and offensive conduct of Amado, Avelina , conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife, which she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of punishing Amado's offending hand. Amado seized Avelina's right hand, but she quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck. ISSUE: Whether or not Avelina should be completely absolved from any criminal liability. HELD: If Avelina had killed Amado, when the latter climbed up her bedroom late at night and undoubtedly for the purpose of raping her, as indicated by his previous acts and conduct, instead of merely shouting for help, she could have been perfectly justified in killing him. When Capina sat by the side of Avelina, near the door of the chapel and placed his hand on the upper portion of her right thigh, without her consent, the chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there were already several people, including her own father and the barrio lieutenant, and under the circumstances, there was and there could be no possibility of her being raped. And when she gave Amado a thrust at the base of the left side of his neck causing his death, the means employed by her in the defense of her honor was evidently excessive; and therefore, she cannot be legally declared completely exempt from criminal liability. But the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to the barrio lieutenant and that she had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her a few moments before, and upon such provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation, or temporary loss of reason and self-control, should be considered as mitigating circumstances. Avelina claims that she had not intended to kill, as shown by the fact that she inflicted upon him only one single wound. And this is another mitigating. The claim of the prosecution that the offense was committed by Avelina with the aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a place dedicated to religious worship, cannot be legally sustained; as there is no evidence to show that the defendant and appellant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal night. Avelina is not a criminal by nature. She happened to kill under the greatest provocation. In the mind of the court, Avelina committed the crime of homicide, with no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at least three mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in her favor; she is entitled to a reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon her. And considering the circumstances of the instant case, Avelina should be accorded the most liberal consideration possible under the law. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION/EXEMPTION PEOPLE v NARVAEZ [121 SCRA 389 (1983)] FACTS: Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of murder (qualified by treachery) of David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia. On August 22, 1968, Narvaez shot Fleischer and Rubia during the time the two were constructing a fence that would prevent Narvaez from getting into his house and rice mill. The defendant was taking a nap when he heard sounds of construction and found fence being made. He addressed the group and asked them to stop destroying his house and asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer responded with "No, gadamit, proceed, go ahead." Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his shotgun. He also shot Rubia who was running towards the jeep where the deceased's gun was placed. Prior to the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved in a legal battle with the defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. At the time of the shooting, the civil case was still pending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of property to Fleisher and Co. to be annulled). At time of the shooting, defendant had leased his property from Fleisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25, defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. He was given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months after letter. Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property. CFI ruled that Narvaez was guilty. Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary


Page 93

surrender. For both murders, CFI sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs, and to pay for moral damages. ISSUES: 1. WON CFI erred in convicting defendant-appellant despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person. No. The courts concurred that the fencing and chiselling of the walls of the house of the defendant was indeed a form of aggression on the part of the victim. However, this aggression was not done on the person of the victim but rather on his rights to property. On the first issue, the courts did not err. However, in consideration of the violation of property rights, the courts referred to Art. 30 of the civil code recognizing the right of owners to close and fence their land. Although is not in dispute, the victim was not in the position to subscribe to the article because his ownership of the land being awarded by the government was still pending, therefore putting ownership into question. It‘s accepted that victim was the original aggressor. 2. WON the court erred in convicting defendant-appellant although he acted in defense of his rights. Yes. However, the argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC enumerates these requisites:  Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there was unlawful aggression towards appellant's property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months and he should have left him in peace before time was up, instead of chiseling Narvaez's house and putting up fence. A536 of the CC also provides that possession may not be acquired through force or intimidation; while Art. 539 provides that every possessor has the right to be respected in his possession  Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack. In case, killing was disproportionate to attack.  Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. Here, there was no provocation at all since he was asleep Since not all requisites present, defendant is credited w/ the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to A13(6) RPC. These mitigating circumstances are: voluntary surrender & passion & obfuscation (read p. 405 explanation) Crime is homicide (2 counts) not murder because treachery is not applicable on account of provocation by the deceased. Also, assault wasn‘t deliberately chosen with view to kill since slayer acted instantaneously. There was also no direct evidence of planning or preparation to kill. Judgment: Defendant guilty of homicide but w/ mitigating circumstances and extenuating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OF AGE RA 9344 RA 9344 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE SYSTEM, CREATING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE COUNCIL UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws. PEOPLE v BERNARDO & JOEL CORTEZANO [G.R. No. 123140 2003]


Page 94

PROSECUTION‟S CASE: Sometime in March 1990, Lourney Cortezano and her 3 children spend their vacation in the house of her parents-in-law in Camarines Sur. By mid-April, Lourney returned to Caloocan City, leaving her children in the care of her parents-in-law.On May 6, Joel and Bernardo ordered their niece Leah,8, to sleep in their parents‘ room. Leah protested because it was hot in that room. Joel threatened to whip her if she refused. Leah had no choice; she went to the room and slept. Leah suddenly awoke when she sensed pressure on her arms and legs. When she opened her eyes, she saw her uncles Joel and Bernardo; they were holding her hands and feet as she was being undressed. Leah struggled but was easily overpowered by her uncles. She threatened to shout, but she was told that nobody would hear her. Joel and Bernardo wet her vagina with their saliva. Bernardo then held her hands as Joel mounted her. Joel inserted his penis into her vagina, while Bernardo stood by the window to serve as a lookout. Leah felt something slippery inside her vagina. After Joel dismounted, Bernardo went on top of Leah and inserted his penis into her vagina. It was Joel‘s turn to stand by the window as a lookout. Leah once more felt something slippery in her vagina. Joel and Bernardo ordered Boyet to rape Leah and threatened to box him if he refused. Joel and Bernardo laughed as Boyet was having his turn with Leah. Joel and Bernardo then called Leah Lou and Lionel into the room, letting them see their sister naked.Joel and Bernardo threatened to kill her and the members of the family if she told anyone about what happened to her. Petrified, Leah did not reveal to her grandparents what happened to her. After that first harrowing incident, Joel and Bernardo subjected her to sexual abuse daily. After every sexual intercourse they had with Leah, Joel and Bernardo would threaten to kill her and her family if she told anyone what they had been doing to her. Sometime in March 1993, Lionel and Leah Lou once again stayed with their grandparents in Brgy. Azucena On May 27, 1994, Lourney learned from Boyet Orcine that her daughter Leah had been sexually abused by Joel and Bernardo way back in 1990. Boyet told Lourney that Leah Lou had suffered the same fate as Leah.Lourney immediately contacted a certain Mrs. Monares, a social worker at the DSWD of Pili, Camarines Sur, and inquired whether the information relayed to her by Boyet Orcine could be true. Mrs. Monares advised Lourney to ask Leah herself. Lourney left Pili and arrived in Caloocan City on June 1, 1994. She asked Leah if she recalled anything that happened to her while on vacation in Sipocot in 1990. Leah told her mother that Joel and Bernardo had whipped her and she did not want to return to Sipocot. When Lourney asked her daughter, the latter replied that Joel and Bernardo had raped her. The Case for the Accused: Bernardo was born on January 22, 1978. He denied the charges. He testified that on March 28, 1990, he arrived in Bagadiong, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, to help his cousin, Reoval, to plow and harrow his rice field and plant palay. Barangay Bagadiong was adjacent to Busak, and one would take 4 ½ hours by carabao to traverse Busak from Bagadiong. However, many jeepneys and buses plying the Busak-Sipocot route. He returned to Sipocot on April 5, 1993. He met his sister-in-law Lourney only in 1994, when she charged him with the rape of Leah Lou. Joel testified that he was born on November 1, 1976. He and his mother arrived in Manila on May 6, 1990 and stayed in the house of his aunt Concordia in Manila. On May 9, 1990, he went to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) for treatment of leukaemia and stayed there for three days. Joel stayed in the hospital for one week. Every now and then, he returned to the hospital for check-ups for a month. In August 1990, Joel‘s mother fetched& returned him to Camarines Sur. The VERDICT: Bernardo and Joel Cortezano are guilty of rape. Bernardo failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to have been in Sipocot on May 6 and June 10, 1990. Bernardo even testified that it was possible for him to have returned to Sipocot if he wanted to, as there were passenger jeepneys and buses plying the route four times a day.He even failed to present his cousin Alvin Reoval to corroborate his testimony.Joel likewise failed to substantiate his alibi. He failed to prove that he was treated at the PGH and was confined thereat on May 6 and June 10, 1990. When asked to produce any certification to prove his claim, he failed to produce any, on his incredible claim that the person releasing the certification was very busy and could not issue a certification. This was belied by the certifications issued by the PGH he was never confined in the said hospital. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG


Page 95

PEOPLE v REGATO [127SCRA 287 (1984)] FACTS: Regato, Salceda, & Ramirez arrived together at the residence of Victor Flores and pretended to buy cigarettes. When Felicisima Flores opened the door, they went inside the house and demanded of Victo to bring out their money. When he refused, Ramirez and Regato maltreated him, while Salceda went inside the bedroom and ransacked the trunk where the money was kept. Ramirez then inquired whether he found the money and Salceda answered in the affirmative. Ramirez called Victor a liar and the latter called them robbers to which Ramirez responded by shooting Victor. The two (Ramirez remained at large) were convicted and found guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. HELD: There is no merit in the contention that there was lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. Intention is a mental process & is an internal state of mind. The intention must be judged by the action, conduct and external acts of the accused. What men do is the best index of their intention. In the case at bar, the aforesaid mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated considering that the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the result that they actually made—the death of the victim. With respect to night-time and craft, it is obvious that the crime was committed at night. Craft involves intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused. Shouting from the outside that they wanted to buy cigs, they induced the inmates to open the door for them. For lack of necessary votes, the death penalty cannot be imposed, thus the penalty is modified to reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE v PUGAY 167 [SCRA 439 [G.R. No. 74324 (1988)] FACTS: The deceased Bayani Miranda, a 25-year old retardate, and Pugay were friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay. On May 19, 1982, a town fiesta fair was held in the public plaza of Rosario, Cavite. There were different kinds of ride and one was a ferris wheel. Sometime after, Gabion was sitting in the ferris wheel and reading a comic book with his friend Henry. Later, Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived. These persons appeared to be drunk as they were all happy and noisy. As the group saw the deceased walking nearby, they started making fun of him. They made the deceased dance by tickling him with a piece of wood.Not content with what they were doing,Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline from under the engine of the ferris wheel and poured its contents on the body of the former. Gabion told Pugay not to do so while latter was already in the process of pouring the gasoline. Then, the accused Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. HELD: As no sufficient evidence appears in the record establishing any qualifying circumstances, the accused Samson is only guilty of the crime of homicide defined and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. We are disposed to credit in his favor the ordinary mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as there is evidence of a fact from which such conclusion can be drawn. The eyewitness Gabion testified that the accused Pugay and Samson were stunned when they noticed the deceased burning. The proper penalty that the accused Samson must suffer is an indeterminate one ranging from eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed with the modifications.

NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG PEOPLE v GONZALES 359 SCRA 352 FACTS: On Oct 31, 1998 , Inocencio Gonzalez‘ and Noel Andres‘ vehicle almost collided in Loyola Memorial Park. Noel was able to timely step on the brakes. Gonzales continued driving while Noel drove behind the appellant‘s vehicle for some time and cut him off when he found the opportunity to do so. Noel got out of his vehicle and knocked on the appellant‘s car window. This is as far as their versions of the incident coincide. The prosecution‘s version of the incident is that Noel Andres calmly told the appellant to be careful with his driving and informed him that he is with his family and to this Gonzalez allegedly


Page 96

replied, ―Accidents are accidents, what‘s your problem.‖ Andres stated that he saw the appellant turning red in anger so he decided to go back to his vehicle when he was blocked by the appellant‘s son who said, ―Anong problema mo sa erpat ko.‖ Andres testified that he felt threatened and so he immediately boarded his vehicle, sat at the driver‘s seat, closed the door, and partially opened the car window just wide enough to talk back to appellant‘s son, Dino. Suddenly, one of his passengers said ―Binaril kami‖. He turned to his wife Feliber Andres and saw her bloodied and unconscious. Kenneth and Kevin were also wounded. Andres admitted in court that he and Dino were shouting at each other so that he did not hear the shot. The defense‘s version of the incident is Andresgot out of his vehicle, stood beside the appellant‘s car window, and repeatedly cursed the appellant, ―Putang ina mo, ang tanda-tanda mo na hindi ka pa marunong magmaneho. Ang bobo-bobo mo.‖ The appellant stayed inside his car and allegedly replied, ―Pasensiya ka na hindi kita nakita, nasilaw ako. Aksidente lang.‖ When Dino arrived at the scene he confronted Andres and the two had an altercation. Both Dino and the appellant stated that Andres remained outside his vehicle during the altercation with Dino. When Andres suddenly reached for something inside his vehicle, Dino froze on the spot where he stood. This prompted the appellant to get his gun from the glove compartment and feeling that his son was threatened he got out of his car ready to shoot. When he saw that Andres did not have a weapon he put down his hand holding the gun. This is when the appellant‘s daughter Trisha who was riding in Dino‘s car arrived at the sceneand pushed the appellant away. She hugged her father and in the process held his hand holding the gun. The appellant tried to free his hand and with Trisha‘s substantial body weight pushing against him the appellant lost his balance and the gun accidentally fired. Gonzales stated that he did not know he shot somebody until the complainant‘s sister-in-law, got out of the vehicle carrying a bloodied small boy. HELD: Gonzales is found guilty of homicide for the death of Feliber and for each count of the slight physical injuries committed against Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez. The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, passion and obfuscation, incomplete defense of a relative and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, pleaded by the defense, were not convincingly proved and none can be considered in the imposition of penalties. The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. Noel‘s act of shouting at the appellant‘s son, who was then a nurse and of legal age, is not sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation as it is claimed by the accused. Besides, the appellant‘s son, Dino was shouting back at Noel Andres. It was not a case wherein the appellant‘s son appeared helpless and oppressed that the appellant lost his reason and shot at the FX of Noel. The same holds true for the appellant‘s claim of provocation on the part of Noel Andres. Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong committed and that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. The sufficiency of provocation varies according to the circumstances of the case. The aggressive behavior of Noel towards the appellant and his son may be demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient provocation to shoot at the complainant‘s vehicle. The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative is also unmeritorious since the act of Andres in cursing and shouting at the appellant and his son do not amount to an unlawful aggression against them, Dino Gonzalez. Finally, the plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is likewise devoid of merit. This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notable disparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attack employed and the injury sustained by the victim. Gonzalez‘ use of a gun, although not deliberately sought nor employed in the shooting, should have reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the possible consequences of his act. The use of a gun is sufficient to produce the resulting crimes committed. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG PEOPLE v CANETE 410 SCRA 544 FACTS:On May 24, 1997, Leonaldo Tumayao, Joel Quimod and Lilio Tundag were on their way home after attending a wedding party. Tumayao was walking ahead of Tundag and Quimod. As they passed by the houses of the accused, Quimod and Tundag heard successive gunshots. Quimod and Tundag immediately looked in the direction where the bursts of gunfire were coming from and saw Ruben, Alfredo, Sergio, Sotero and Trinidad Canete shooting at Tumayao who


Page 97

slumped to the ground. Apparently not satisfied, all the accused approached the fallen Tumayao and continued shooting him. On order of his father Sotero, Alfredo shot Tumayao in the head.Quimod, who was 10 meters behind the victim, ran and hid behind the bushes. As soon as the accused left, Quimod went home and narrated the incident to Tumayao‘s wife.On the other hand, Tundag, who was behind Tumayao, saw Ruben fire his gun at the victim. Tundag attempted to come to the aid of Tumayao but the latter shouted at him to flee. Thus, he ran back to the wedding party while hearing more gunshots. At the wedding party, Tundag informed the people about the ambush. Thereafter, he went back to the crime scene where he saw Tumayao‘s lifeless body on the road. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: On May 23, 1997, Ruben‘s wife, Teresita, was in Lanipga, Consolacion, Cebu, to help prepare food for the wedding of her husband‘s cousin. She stayed there overnight. At the wedding reception the following morning, Leonaldo Tumayao, alias Eduardo or Edit, approached Ruben who was then looking for a cold soft drink. Tumayao said ―Here is something cold,‖ and suddenly punched Ruben. Teresita summoned her husband and asked him to go home with her. The latter acquiesced. Before they left, however, Teresita saw Tundag give Tumayao what looked like a .45 caliber pistol.Seconds later, Tumayao, together with Quimod, Tundag and the latter‘s son followed Ruben to his house on a motorcycle or habalhabal. Tumayao alighted and thereafter shouted ―This is now a combat‖ while firing a gun.Hearing the gunshots, Teresita brought her children to the safety of a neighbor‘s house. As she went back for her other child, Teresita saw her husband Ruben standing beside a coconut tree. Tumayao stood in front of the house of Alfredo who was shouting at him not to throw stones as he might hit the children. At that point, Ruben shot Tumayao with a pugakhang, an improvised shotgun. Tumayao slumped to the ground. HELD: Trinidad Cañete and Alfredo Cañete are found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of Alfredo and the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense conceded in favor of all the appellants. Saving the authorities the trouble and expense for his search and capture, and freely placing himself at their disposal, Alfredo should be given the favor of a mitigated penalty for his voluntary surrender. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, being personal however, can only be appreciated in favor of appellant Alfredo. It must be recalled that, immediately prior to the incident, Tumayao punched Ruben in the presence of many people at the wedding party. Although the incident did not immediately precede the killing, its impact, by reason of its seriousness and the circumstances under which it was inflicted, festered till the commission of the crime. The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense must, therefore, be appreciated in favor of the appellants. All told, we are convinced that appellants Alfredo and Trinidad are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder which carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. Since the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and immediate vindication of a grave offense were present in this case, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed by the trial court.

SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT PEOPLE v PAGAL [79 SCRA 570 (1977)] FACTS: That on Dec 26, 1969, in the City of Manila, PEDRO PAGAL and JOSE TORCELINO took away from the ; Gau Guan, cash amounting to P1,281.00; that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away the said amount, the accused, stabbed him with an ice pick and clubbing him with an iron pipe on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of Gau Guan death . The generic aggravating circumstances of (1) night time purposely sought to better accomplish their criminal design; (2) evident premeditation; (3) in disregard of the respect due the offended party; and (4) with abuse of confidence, the accused being then employees of the offended party.


Page 98

The counsel for the accused informed said court of their intention to enter a plea of guilty provided that they be allowed afterwards to prove the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation. HELD: Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino are found guilty of beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide. The appellants assail the trial court in not appreciating in their favor the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation, and passion or obfuscation. Their contention is devoid of merit. Firstly, since the alleged provocation which caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident, that is, the alleged maltreatment and/or ill treatment of the appellants by the deceased, these two mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as two distinct and separate circumstances but should be treated as one. Secondly, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which — as in the case at bar — is planned and calmly meditated before its execution. Thus, this Court rejected the claim of the appellants that passion and obfuscation should have been estimated in their favor, because the death of the victim took place on the occasion of a robbery, which, before its execution, had been planned and calmly meditated by the appellants. Thirdly, the maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to have committed against them occurred much earlier than the date of the commission of the crime. Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. We hold that the trial court did not commit any error in not appreciating the said mitigating circumstances in favor of the appellants. Finally, the appellants claim that the trial court erred in considering the aggravating circumstances of night time, evident premeditation, and disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank and age. Although the trial court correctly considered the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity because the same was purposely and deliberately sought by the appellants to facilitate the commission of the crime, nevertheless, We disagree with its conclusion that evident premeditation and disregard of the respect due the offended party were present in the commission of the crime. Evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery. However, in the crime of robbery with homicide, if there is evident premeditation to kill besides stealing, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance. In other words, evident premeditation will only be aggravating in a complex crime of robbery with homicide if it is proved that the plan is not only to rob, but also to kill. In the case at bar, a perusal of the written statements of the appellants before the police investigators show that then original plan was only to rob, and that, they killed the deceased only when the latter refused to open the "kaha de yero", and fought with them. The trial court erred in taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex. It is not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal. The trial court erred in taking into account this aggravating circumstance.

SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT US v MALABANAN Phil. 262 FACTS: Shortly before 6 AM on Nov 8, 1906, Felino Malaran, a prisoner and assistant jailer, reported to the foreman Pedro Pimentel that Esteban Malabanan had taken some bread out of a tin can that was in the jail; Malabanan being resentful at this and also because he had received a severe blow with a cane from the said assistant jailer, attacked the latter after breakfast with a small knife, and wounded him in the chest, the right arm, and in the back. Raymundo Enriquez, another assistant jailer, upon seeing what was taking place, tried to separate them and prevent the accused from further attacking Malaran, but he did so with such bad luck that he also was wounded with the knife in the right side near the abdomen, and in consequence of said wound Raymundo Enriquez died of peritonitis and hemorrhage of the spleen eleven days thereafter. Quintin de Lemos, another assistant jailer, who also tried to stop Malabanan, was wounded in the


Page 99

chin. Foreman Paulino Canlas, upon becoming aware of what was going on, ordered the opening of the door of the department where detachment No. 6 of the prisoners was confined, and Malabanan upon seeing him come in tried to attack him; thereupon Canlas took hold of a stick to defend himself and to take away from Malabanan the knife he held, which, like the hand and the clothes of the accused, was covered with blood. As soon as the accused was disarmed Canlas blew his whistle to call the inspector, who on his arrival at the place where the fight had taken place ordered the three wounded men to the hospital and the aggressor locked up in the cell. It was ascertained from the accused that the knife had been found by him among the bamboo kept within the department of the detachment, and it was recognized by him when the same was exhibited. Dr. Edwin C. Shattuck, the prison surgeon, in a sworn declaration, stated that Raymundo Enriquez died eleven days after entering the hospital in consequence of a dagger wound received in the left side and abdominal cavity, affecting the spleen, death being the result of subsequent peritonitis and hemorrhage. Felino Malaran had eight wounds, the most serious of which were on his left shoulder, left wrist, breast, and right hip. Quintin de Lemos had only a wound in the chin. HELD: The facts stated above, duly proven by the testimony of eyewitnesses, constitute the crime of homicide, defined and punished by article 404 of the Penal Code, no qualifying circumstance being present in the fact that the accused inflicted on the assistant jailer Raymundo Enriquez a serious wound in the right side near the abdomen from which he died a few days later, to determine that a more serious classification should be made of the crime, and a heavier penalty imposed. The accused pleaded not guilty, and notwithstanding the allegations he made in his defense and his denial that the knife held by him with which he inflicted the mortal wound which caused the death of Raymundo Enriquez belonged to him, there is no question as to his responsibility as the convicted author of the violent death of Raymundo Enriquez, who, as has been seen, did not give the accused any reason for attacking him but merely approached while the latter was attacking Felino Malaran in order to separate them and prevent the accused from continuing his assault on Malaran, for fear a homicide might ensue, to which pacific intervention Malabanan responded with a cut in the right side near the abdomen of the unfortunate Enriquez with the knife with which the accused was provided, as shown in the proceedings. In the commission of this homicide there is no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance to be considered, and as to whether or not the accused was illtreated or provoked prior to his assaulting jailer Malaran, a question which will be considered in the case for lesiones graves, such a circumstance can not be dealt with in the present proceedings instituted by reason of the violent death of Raymundo Enriquez, who was seriously wounded simply because he intervened for the purpose of separating Malabanan, the aggressor, from Malaran, his victim; therefore, the proper penalty should be imposed in its medium degree. In view of the foregoing considerations it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, provided, however, that Esteban Malabanan shall be sentenced to the penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, to suffer the accessory penalties of article 59 of the code, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE PEOPLE v ESPINA 361 SCRA 701 Facts: On Sept. 30, 1992, the members of an association, Ripa-ripa, went to the house of Eufronia Pagas for a meeting. Present were Romeo Bulicatin, Rogelio Espina, Samson Abuloc who were having a drinking spree and playing a card game. When Espina arrived, Romeo asked 3 bottles of "kulafu" wine from him and he acceded. At around 4:00, Romeo again demanded another bottle of "kulafu" wine from Espina but this time, the latter refused to give in. Romeo then proceeded to where Espina was playing cards and without any warning, urinated on the latter and clipped him under his (Romeo) arms. Espina got angry, turned away and went home. Later on in the evening, they heard Espina calling Romeo from outside, saying, "Borgs, get out because I have something to say." The trio came down from the house. Rogelio went down first, followed by Samson and Romeo. When Rogelio reached the ground, Espina told him to drop down while Samson also dropped himself to the ground when he saw Espina about to draw his firearm. At


Page 100

that juncture, Romeo was still at the stairway and when he turned his back towards Espina, the latter shot him, hitting him at the back. Romeo ran away but he was chased by Espina who fired two (2) more shots at him. Samson saw Romeo outside the house asking for help. Romeo was brought to the hospital where he died. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Witness Espina declared that in the afternoon of Sept. 30, 1992, he was in the house of Pagas, having a drinking spree with Romeo and Samson, while his brother, ESpina, was playing cards. At around 3:00 o'clock p.m., he saw Bulicatin approach Espina and forthwith urinated on him. Bulicatin grabbed Espina under his arms but the latter was able to extricate himself from the hold of Bulicatin and ran away. Rogelio wanted to follow Espina but was prevailed upon by Bulicatin to stay. They then continued their drinking spree until 9:00 o'clock p.m. When they were about to go home, Rogelio heard somebody calling Bulicatin, saying - "Get out, Borgs, as I have something to tell you." According to Rogelio, he is certain that the voice was not that of Espina. When they decided to go home, he was the first one to go downstairs, followed by Samson, and then by Bulicatin. Upon reaching the ground, Rogelio heard a gunshot and immediately scampered away without looking back to see who was shot. He claimed that it was only two days after the incident that he came to know who the victim of the shooting incident was. He added that from the house of Pagas, he directly went home where he was told by his mother that Espina was stabbed and was brought to the hospital. HELD: Romeo Espina is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder. In Eufronia's affidavit, she declared that after Rogelio,Samson and the deceased went out of her house; she heard three gunshots but bothered not to go outside because of fear. Evidently, Eufronia is not an eyewitness and her testimony would not do much for the prosecution. At any rate, it is the prosecution's prerogative to determine who should be presented as witnesses on the basis of its own assessment of their necessity. Hence, its choice of witnesses cannot be successfully challenged by accused-appellant. Neither do we find improbable the testimony of Samson that he recognized the voice of accused-appellant. Being a friend and a second cousin of Espina, he is expected to be familiar with his voice. So also, we find no reason to doubt the testimony of Abuloc that he was able to identify the pistol used by Espina as well as witnessed the stabbing of the victim at the back. Not only was Abuloc only three to four meters away from accused-appellant, the prosecution was likewise able to establish that the moonlight illuminating the locus criminis afforded the witness a clear view of the shooting incident. The Court has previously held that the light from the stars or the moon, an oven, or a wick lamp or gasera can give ample illumination to enable a person to identify or recognize another.Under the circumstances, Abuloc could not have failed to recognize Espina who is not only his "barkada" but a second cousin as well. The trial court erred in treating alevosia merely as a generic aggravating circumstance, more so in offsetting the same by the generic mitigating circumstance of having committed the crime in immediate vindication of a grave offense. The treachery employed by Espina in shooting the victim is actually a circumstance that qualified the killing to murder. Such being the case, treachery cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance.The trial court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense. As the evidence on record show, Espina was urinated on by the victim in front of the guests. The act of the victim, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated Espina, came within the purview of a "grave offense.Thus, this mitigating circumstance should be appreciated in favor of Espina. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE PEOPLE v BENITO 74 SCRA 271 FACTS: Alberto Benito, a former employee of the Civil Service Commission, suspended for "DISHONESTY". After 2 months, he was reinstated but was criminally charged for QUALIFIED THEFT, MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS, ESTAFA and FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS and administratively charged for "DISHONESTY" culminating in his dismissal from the Civil Service. According to Benito, those criminal and administrative charges filed against him were allegedly instigated and contrived by the victim, Pedro Moncayo, Jr and since the time of his dismissal, he was allegedly jobless. On Dec. 11, 1969, Benito went to the Civil Service and requested Moncayo to help him in his cases but the former allegedly uttered to the suspect "UMALIS KA NGA DIYAN and when they met again, Moncayo allegedly remarked in the presence of many people, "NAGIISTAMBAY PALA DITO ANG MAGNANAKAW". Benito,


Page 101

humiliated and incensed, left. At about 5:25 p.m. of that same day, Benito who was armed with an unlicensed black revolver waited for the victim outside the Civil Service compound. The victim showed up and drove his car. Benito followed him and when Moncayo‘s car was at a full stop due to heavy traffic, Benito without any warning or provocation, suddenly and treacherously shot the victim 8 times on the head and different parts of the body. Benito was sentenced to death by the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila after he pleaded guilty to the charge of murder for having shot, with a .22 caliber revolver, Moncayo, Jr. The killing was qualified by treachery and aggravated by premeditation and disregard of rank. It was mitigated by plea of guilty. Benito filed a motion for reconsideration. He contends that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense and that the aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank should not be appreciated against him. ISSUE: Whether or not Benito is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of offense. HELD:Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense. — Benito contends that Moncayo insulted him when he (Moncayo) remarked that a thief was loitering in the premises of the Civil Service Commission. Benito argues that that remark "was tantamount to kicking a man already down and to rubbing salt into a raw wound" and that, as it was made publicly and in a loud voice, he was exposed to ridicule in the presence of his officemates.Benito attached to his motion a copy of the decision of Judge Jose C. Colayco , acquitting him of the charge of malversation. The Solicitor General argues that the defamatory remark imputed to Moncayo cannot give rise to the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense because it was not specifically directed at Benito. According to Benito's testimony (not consistent with his confession), he saw Moncayo 3 hours later or at 2 PM in the afternoon and inquired from him about his case and Moncayo said that he had already submitted his report and he could not do anything more about Benito's case (. As already stated, the assassination was perpetrated at around 5 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. Assuming that Moncayo's remark was directed at Benito, we see no justification under the circumstances recited above for changing our prior opinion that the mitigating circumstance of "haber ejecutado el hecho en vindicacion proxima de una ofensa grave, causada al autor del delito," cannot be appreciated in Benito's favor. As aptly stated by the ponente, Justice Esguerra, Benito "had more than sufficient time to suppress his emotion over said remark if he ever did resent it." The 6-hour interval between the alleged grave offense committed by Moncayo against Benito and the assassination was more than sufficient to enable Benito to recover his serenity. But instead of using that time to regain his composure, he evolved the plan of liquidating Moncayo after office hours. Benito literally ambushed Moncayo just a few minutes after the victim had left the office. He acted with treachery and evident premeditation in perpetrating the cold-blooded murder. The facts of the case strongly suggest that what really impelled Benito to assassinate Moncayo was not the latter's alleged defamatory remark that the Civil Service Commission compound was a hangout for a thief or for thieves but the refusal of Moncayo to change his report so as to favor Benito. Benito did not act primarily to vindicate an alleged grave offense to himself but mainly to chastise Moncayo for having exposed the alleged anomalies or defraudation committed by Benito and for obstinately refusing to change his report.

IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE PEOPLE v PARANA [63 Phil 331 (1937)] Facts: Parana was convicted of the crime of murder with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. The aggravating circumstances that the appellant is a recidivist and that there was treachery must be taken into consideration. Are mitigating circumstances attendant? Held: The fact that the accused was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many persons a few hours before the former killed the latter, was considered a mitigating circumstance that the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense. Although the grave offense (slapping of the accused by the deceased), which engendered perturbation of mind, was not so immediate, it was held that the influence thereof, by reason of its gravity and the circumstances


Page 102

under which it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was committed. The other mitigating circumstance that the appellant had voluntarily surrendered himself to the agents of the authorities must be considered. Cases of voluntary surrender. Surrender is not mitigating when defendant was in fact arrested. But where a person, after committing the offense and having opportunity to escape, voluntarily waited for the agents of the authorities and voluntarily gave himself up, he is entitled to the benefit of this circumstance, even if he was placed under arrest by a policeman then and there. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION PEOPLE v RABANILLO [307 SCRA 613 (1999)] Facts: Rabanillo & the deceased Morales were drinking w/ their friends. One friend started a water fight game & Rabanillo joined the fun, accidentally dousing Morales w/ water. Morales reprimanded him because water got into his ear & they argued which led into a fistfight. They were pacified & ushered to their respective houses. The prosecution‘s version of the events was given credit by the court which claimed that after 30 minutes after, while Morales & some friends were having a conversation in the terrace of the house of Morales, Rabanillo went out his house w/ a 1-meter samurai & hacked Morales who died that same day. Held: There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance the penalty is the medium period of that prescribed by law for that offense. Accused is found guilty of homicide. For passion & obfuscation to be mitigating, the same must originate from lawful feelings. From the version of the facts by the prosecution, clearly the assault was made in a fit of anger. The turmoil & unreason that would naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not be confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person injured or offended to such a degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control. The excitement w/c is inherent in all persons who quarrel & come to blows doesn‘t constitute obfuscation. Moreover, the act producing obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have regained his normal equanimity. In this case, 30 minutes intervened between the fight and the killing. Having been actuated more by the spirit of revenge or anger than of a sudden impulse of natural or uncontrollable fury, passion and obfuscation cannot be appreciated. To be mitigating, the accused‘s state of intoxication should be proved or established by sufficient evidence. It should be such an intoxication that would diminish or impair the exercise of his willpower or the capacity to know the injustice of his act. The accused merely testified that he joined his friends de Guzman and Soriano in a drinking session, but only for a short time. The fact that he was able to resume his routine work thereafter, belie his claim that he was heavily drunk at the time he attacked the victim. The regularity of Rabanillo‘s alcohol intake could even have increased his tolerance for alcohol to such an extent that he could not easily get drunk. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION PEOPLE v GERMINA [290 SCRA 146 (1998)] Facts: The appellant went to the house of the victim. A heated conversation took place between victim‘s relatives and appellant concerning a quarrel between the accuser‘s brother and victim. When the victim arrived, appellant drew his gun. Victim‘s relatives scampered to safety and victim tries to run but tripped. When the appellant caught up with him, the appellant shot him at the nape. Appellant was convicted of murder because of the presence of treachery, the victim, having been shot at the back. Held: The mere fact that the victim was shot at the back while attempting to run away from his assailant would not per se qualify the crime to murder. If murder was his bent, he wouldn‘t have gone to the house of the victim not would he engage the victim‘s relatives to a heated argument. Thus, the crime is not attended by treachery (aleviosa). Moreover, passion cannot co-exist with treachery because in passion, the offender loses his control and reason while in treachery, the means employed are consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and self-control could not deliberately employ a particular means, method or form of attack in the execution of the crime. Thus, without treachery, the mitigating circumstance of passion as well as voluntary surrender may be appreciated. PEOPLE v GELAVER 223 SCRA 310


Page 103

Gelaver armed with a knife assaulted and stabbed VICTORIA GELAVER, his lawfully wedded wif, wounding her on the different parts of her body and as a result, Victoria died instantly.Randy Mamon testified that he heard shouts coming from the house of Tessie Lampedario .He saw Gelaver and a woman having a heated argument. Gelaver held the neck of the victim, dragged her and with a knife on his right hand, stabbed the latter 3 times on the breast. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Gelaver testified that Victoria abandoned her family to live with her paramour. Gelaver testifiedthat his daughter informed him that his wife and paramour were living at a house near the Church, Gelaver immediately repaired to that place. Upon entering the house, he saw his wife and her paramour having sexual intercourse. Gelaver‘s version of the killing was that when his wife saw him, she pushed her paramour aside. Her paramour took a knife and attacked Gelaver. The latter was able to wrest possession of the knife and then used it against the paramour, who evaded the thrust and it was the victim who received the stab. As to why he continued to stab his wife, appellant said that his mind had been "dimmed" or overpowered by passion and obfuscation by the sight of his wife having carnal act with her paramour. HELD: Gelaver contention is bereft of merit. Implicit in this exceptional circumstance is that the death caused must be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity. In this case, Gelaver wants this Court to believe that he caught his wife and her paramour in sexual intercourse. However, his testimony is tainted with inconsistencies which lead us to believe otherwise. Appellant's failure to inform the police that he killed his wife when he saw her having sexual intercourse with her paramour, devastated in one fell swoop whatever credibility could possibly be accorded to his version of the incident. Appellant's claim that on the day prior to his killing of the victim, his daughter had confided to him that her mother was living with a paramour at the house in front of the Sto. Niño Catholic Church was belied by Sheryl herself.The trial court was correct in finding the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities. Appellant, immediately after committing the offense, voluntarily placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities.However, the trial court erred in finding the presence of the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation "as a result of his (appellant's) wife leaving their home and their children." Before this circumstance may be taken into consideration, it is necessary to establish the existence of an unlawful act sufficient to produce such a condition of mind. The act producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have recovered his equanimity.The crime was committed almost a year after the victim had abandoned the conjugal dwelling. Judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION PEOPLE v IGNAS 412 SCRA 311 June Ignas was found guilty of murder aggravated especially by the use of an unlicensed firearm by the lower court. OnMarch 10, 1996, at Trading Post, La Trinidad, Benguet without any authority of law or without any lawful permit have in his possession, control and custody a Cal..38 hand gun and 2 ammunitions, which firearm and ammunitions were used by the Ignas in unlawfully killing NEMESIO LOPATE, the paramour of his wife Wilma Grace.According to Annie Bayanes, she was at the unloading area, when suddenly 2 gunshots shattered the quiet evening . She testified that she saw a person falling to the ground.Another person who tucked a handgun into his waistband and casually walked away. She immediately recognized the shooter as Ignas. Marlon Manis testified he saw that the fallen victim was Lopate, whom he said he had known since Grade 2 and saw Ignas hastily walking away from the scene. Contention of the accused: Defense of alibi. Sometime during the last week of February 1996, he entered into a partnership with Ben Anoma, to operate a bakery in Nueva Vizcaya. When Anoma proposed a business arrangement, he immediately seized the opportunity. On March 8, 1996, he and Anoma then transferred his equipment to Anoma‘s bakery in Kayapa, and said that he never left Kayapa since his arrival. Anoma corroborated appellant‘s alibi. Anoma declared that they immediately commenced their operations and on the evening of March 10, 1996, he and appellant baked bread at his bakery in Kayapa until 11:00 p.m., when they rested for the night.


Page 104

HELD: Ignas is found GUILTY of the crime of HOMICIDE. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance. Crime and its PunishmentAs appellant can only be convicted of homicide. Our task now is to determine whether there are aggravating or mitigating circumstances.The appreciation of special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm in the present case is without merit.The prosecution failed to adduce the necessary quantum of proof.Coming now to the obverse side of the case, is the appellant entitled to benefit from any mitigating circumstance?Appellant firstly contends that assuming without admitting that he is guilty, the lower court should have considered at least the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense as well as that of passion and obfuscation. Appellant points out that the victim‘s act of maintaining an adulterous relationship with appellant‘s wife constituted a grave offense to his honor, not to mention the shame, anguish, and anxiety. Even the mere sight of the victim must have triggered an uncontrollable emotional outburst on appellant‘s part, so that even a chance meeting caused in him an irresistible impulse powerful enough to overcome all reason and restraint. Secondly, appellant points out that the trial court failed to consider his voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.The Solicitor General counters that there was literally no ―immediate vindication‖ to speak of in this case. Appellant had sufficient time to recover his serenity following the discovery of his wife‘s infidelity. Nor could passion and obfuscation be appreciated in appellant‘s favor because the killing was not proximate to the time of the offense. This interval between the revelation of his wife‘s adultery and the fatal shooting was ample and sufficient for reason and self-control to reassert themselves in appellant‘s mind. As to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the OSG stresses that his supposed surrender at Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya was actually due to the efforts of law enforcers who came looking for him. There he did not resist, but lack of resistance alone is not tantamount to voluntary surrender, which denotes a positive act and not merely passive conduct.

PEOPLE v BATES 400 SCRA 95 FACTS:Edgar, Simon Fuentes and Jose Boholst were along the house of Carlito Bates, who suddenly emerged from the thick banana plantation, aiming his firearm at Boholst. Jose tried to wrest possession of the firearm. While the two were grappling, the gun fired, hitting Carlito who immediately fell to the ground. At that instant, Marcelo Bates and his son Marcelo Jr., emerged from the banana plantation, each brandishing a bolo. They immediately attacked Jose hacking him several times. Jose fell to the ground and rolled but Marcelo and his son kept on hacking him. Marcelo, then, turned to Simon and Edgar and shouted "huwes de kutsilyo". Simon and Edgar ran.Upon being informed by that Jose was waylaid, the wife of Jose went to the place of incident reportedly happened which is less than a hundred meters from their house. There, she saw Marcelo and his son Marcelo, Jr. hacking Jose who was lying face up. She pleaded for them to stop but they did not listen. She did not see Carlito. She went home fearing for her life, thinking that Marcelo and his son might turn their ire on her. Contention of the ACCUSED: Ponciano was sent by Barangay Sano to get a chicken from Marcelo‘ house. While they were trying to catch a chicken, they noticed Boholst, Edgar, and Fuentes approach the house of Carlito Bates, 20 meters away from Marcelo‘s house. Thereafter, they saw Jose drag Carlito out of the latter‘s house while both were arguing and grappling. Marcelo immediately ran towards Jose and Carlito but when Marcelo was about to approach them, Jose shot Carlito with a gun. Edgar and Simon ran away. Upon seeing Carlito fall to the ground, Marcelo attacked Jose but the latter also fired a shot at him. Marcelo was able to duck and avoid being shot. Jose was about to shoot Marcelo a 2nd time but the latter retaliated by hacking Jose with a bolo hitting him on his neck and causing him to fall to the ground. Marcelo then went to the aid of his brother Carlito but upon seeing that he was already dead, he went back to where Jose was lying and again hacked him. Ponciano picked up the gun used by Jose and surrendered it to Barangay Captain Sano. Marcelo also surrendered himself to the said barangay captain. During the whole incident Marcelo Bates, Jr. was not present. ISSUE: WON THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING PASSION AND OBFUSCATION AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.


Page 105

Passion and obfuscation may not be properly appreciated in favor of appellant. To be considered as a mitigating circumstance, passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger and resentment. In the present case, clearly, Marcelo was infuriated upon seeing his brother, Carlito, shot by Jose. However, a distinction must be made between the first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the second time that the former hacked the latter. When Marcelo hacked Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlito, and if appellant refrained from doing anything else after that, he could have validly invoked the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. But when, upon seeing his brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back to Jose, who by then was already prostrate on the ground and hardly moving, hacking Jose again was a clear case of someone acting out of anger in the spirit of revenge.

PASSION OR OBFUSCATION DANAFRATE v PEOPLE 412 SCRA 357 PROSECUTION‟S VERSION: Reynaldo Francia saw Miguel Danofrata engage in a slugging match with his wife, Leonor. She struck Miguel with a plastic chair, while he punched her. Miguel ran home but shortly afterwards, he rushed outside again, kicking the neighbors he encountered. In turn, without further ado, 3 of the neighbours whom he had treated so uncivilly ganged up on him and mauled him, causing petitioner to run home anew.Miguel armed himself with a knife and went back to the place where he had received a mauling. He proceeded to the house of Mario Gonzales, the father of Alfredo Loloy Gonzales. Miguel challenged Mario to a fight. At this juncture, Miguel spotted Alfredo, who was on his way home. Without warning, petitioner stabbed Alfredo in the chest fatally. Horrified, Francia called the police. Miguel fled. Benjamin Bautista, who was then on his way to to buy medicine, saw the Miguel fleeing CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: He narrated that on Oct 9, 1994; he was withVergel Gaspar and Jojo Tambio having a drinking spree at his house when Miguel‘s wife arrived and started an argument which turned violent and his wife lunged at him with a chair, but he was able to parry the blow. The scene was witnessed by his neighbors playing panya. They began laughing at him and petitioner felt humiliated. Because of his annoyance, petitioner said he kicked the panya table. This incensed his neighbors and a melee erupted with 3 of his neighbors ganging up on him. Miguel said he received a beating, but he was able to run home and got hold of a knife. He proceeded to the house of Mario Gonzales, where he saw 2 of his neighbors who mauled him, Sonny and Dingdong talking with Mario. Upon seeing 2 of his assailants, petitioner said he went berserk. He shouted Akala ninyo natatakot ako sa inyo. Mario whipped out a gun and pointed it at him, prompting petitioner to seek cover. Suddenly, he was struck from behind by Rey with a length of lead pipe, while Alfredo Gonzales stabbed him from the back with a knife.According to petitioner, although he was himself badly injured and bleeding, he ran away from the scene of the fracas, but found himself being chased by his tormentors. He heard a gunshot and Mang Mario yelling, Habulin nyo, habulin nyo, hold-upper yan . Miguel ran and sat on a rock to rest and examines his injuries. He heard another gunshot from behind him. He saw Mario handing the gun he was holding to another person. Petitioner then crawled into a canal to hide. He was still there when Redentor Tiburcio came up holding a gun. On seeing him, Tiburcio said, Patay na si Loloy,then shot at him but missed. Petitioner then ran away to seek refuge. Petitioner stated that despite his injuries, he did not bother to report the incident to the police. Nor did he file any charges against Mang Mario and other neighbors because, petitioner said, he was only a lowly paid driver who had neither the time nor the money to pursue a legal case. ISSUE:But was the appellate court correct in sustaining the trial courts finding that the petitioner was entitled to a mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and obfuscation? HELD:Passion and obfuscation exist when (1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of the mind, and (2) the said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. There is passion and obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. In this case it was established that petitioner and his wife had a violent altercation and that petitioner was mauled by his neighbors after he kicked some of them for laughing at him. These events and


Page 106

circumstances prior to the killing of Alfredo Gonzales could have caused unusual outbursts of passion and emotion on petitioner‘s part. These resulted in the tragic stabbing of the victim thus entitling petitioner to the mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and obfuscation. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER PEOPLE v MALLARI SCRA 404 SCRA 170 PROSECUTION‘S CASE: Liza Galang testified that on July 7, 1996her common-law husband Joseph admonished Rufino and his brothers Ino and Felix Mallari not to drive fast while passing by Josephs house. Rufino and his brothers, who were then hot-tempered, challenged Joseph to a fight. The latter just ignored the challenge; and, instead he and his own brothers Radi and Manny asked apology from Rufino.Later that afternoon, while Joseph and Liza were watching a basketball game at the barangay basketball court, Rufino and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed weapons, arrived and attempted to stab Joseph; but Joseph was able to run away. When they were not able to catch up with him, Rufino boarded and drove the truck parked near the basketball court and continued chasing Joseph until the truck ran over the latter, which caused his instantaneous death.Edgar Bawar, while Joseph was watching a basketball game, Rufino and his brothers Ino and Felix, who were carrying bladed weapons, arrived and chased Joseph. Joseph ran away, and Rufino pursued him with the truck. Upon catching up with him, Rufino bumped Joseph, as a result of which the latter died on the spot. Dr. Erwin Escal testified that the cause of death of Joseph, was crushing injury on the head secondary to vehicular accident CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:Rufino testified while he was driving a truck at a speed of80 KPH, with his wife Myrna seated on the passenger side, he saw Joseph on the road about 4 meters away from him. Rufino, who was then on his way to the garage to park the truck, blew thrice the horn. But Joseph went to the middle of the road and threw stones, which went through the windshield and hit Rufino on the chest. As a result thereof, Rufino lost control of the truck, and ran over Joseph. Because of fear, Rufino did not alight from the truck; instead, he proceeded to the municipal hall of Sta. Rosa, Laguna, where he surrendered and was immediately detained.Myrna Mallari testified that prior to the incident in question, she saw Joseph at the basketball court. He was apparently drunk and was carrying a balisong. Much to her consternation, he gave a dagger look. Myrna reacted by simply crying and going inside her house. She corroborated Rufinos testimony that while Rufino was driving the truck, Joseph threw stones, which went through the windshield and hit the chest of Rufino. As a result of which, Rufino had chest pains and vomited blood while in detention. ISSUE: WON THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. In the present case, the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery, which were alleged in the information, were not proved. What was proved was the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender through the testimonies of Rufino and Myrna, which were not rebutted by the prosecution.We have held that for voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offender had not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.A surrender is considered voluntary if it is spontaneous and shows the intention of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities because he either acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save the government the trouble and expense necessarily included for his search and capture. All these requisites are present in this case. The appealed decision of the RTC convicting appellant RUFINO MALLARI of the crime of murder is hereby AFFIRMED with the following modifications: 1. The penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua; 2. The award of exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000 is reduced to P25,000, and the awards of actual and moral damages are reduced toP9,200 and P50,000, respectively; and


Page 107

3. Appellant Rufino Mallari y Ilag is further ordered to pay the heirs of Joseph Galang an indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER PEOPLE v VICENTE 405 SCRA 40 CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: On May 30, 1998, while Vicente was having supper, his brothers-in-law, Anoy and Sonny, quarreled. Anoy was abrasively scolding Sonny for smoking and gambling. This caused the latter to howl at the top of his voice. The victim,Manuel C. Quinto Jr, then Chairman of SK, responded to Sonnys unusual cry. He entered appellant‘s house and suddenly pushed Anoy, causing him to fall to the floor. Vicente pacified the victim saying, dont mind them because they are brothers and Anoy is only advising Sonny. The victim felt insulted by such remark and said, Is that it? I am insulted. I regret coming here. Thus, he went home and got a steel pipe. Upon his return, he hit appellant at his upper left armand shouted at him, You are shit, vulva of your mother, I will kill you today.But appellant was able to seize the steel pipe from the victim, prompting the latter to retreat and go home.Present during the squabble were appellants wife Linda and sister Hilda. Linda advised appellant not to mind the victim, while Hilda called Kagawad Elias Fernandez. Appellant reported to the latter the unpleasant incident. While they were talking outside the house,the victim passed by. He approached Kagawad Fernandez and invited him to go to the dance hall.Then he tapped appellants right shoulder,causing him to be pushed a little bit backward. Without any warning, the victim pulled out a knife and tried to stab appellant, shouting, I will see to it that I will kill you tonight. Appellant held the victims wrist and they grappled for the possession of the knife.While the knife was pointed at the victim, appellant accidentally stabbed him.Vicente surrendered to Kagawad Fernandez who, in turn, brought him to the police station. PROSECUTION‟s CASE:Ronald Terte narrated that he was in the house of the victim, there being a barrio fiesta. They heard unusual cries from the neighborhood. So they proceeded to appellant‘s house and found that his brothers-in-law, Anoy and Sonny, were quarrelling.The victim tried to pacify Anoy. This infuriated appellant, thus, he drew a rambo knife and aimed it at the victim. Threatened, he and Ronald immediately went home.Thereafter, appellant followed the victim to his house and challenged him to a fight. The victim could only answer back, If you want we will rent a box ring and we will fight. At around 9:45 o clock in the evening, the victim and Terte returned to the house of appellant as the former intended to talk to him. On their way, they saw appellant conversing with Kagawad Fernandez. The victim greetedKagawad Fernandez who inquired, Are we going to the dance hall?The victim answered yes. Then as a gesture of reconciliation, he extended his hand to appellant. However, appellant suddenly drew a knife and stabbed the victim in the chest. The victim uttered, Pare, I was hit. Ronald immediately brought him to the hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival.Jose Noe, Sr., 64, testified that he saw appellant and Kagawad Fernandez engaged in a serious conversation. He heard appellant saying, he would kill the victim. At that time, the victim and his companion passed by. Upon seeing Kagawad Fernandez, the victim greeted him, Kagawad, you are here. Kagawad Fernandez then answered yes. Then the victim advised appellant to forget what had happened.At this point, appellant abruptly drew his knife and stabbed the victim in the chest. ISSUE: The court should have appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Significantly, the trial court should have appreciated in favor of appellant the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. For voluntary surrender to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) he surrenders himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. Here, appellant, after the commission of the crime, immediately placed himself in the disposition of Kagawad Fernandez who, in turn, brought him to the police station. Under Section 388 of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160),for purposes of the Revised Penal Code, Kagawad Fernandez is a person in authority. Clearly, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is present here.


Page 108

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER PEOPLE v OCO 412 SCRA 190 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Surviving victim Herminigildo Damuag on Nov 24, 1997, he was driving his motorcycle with Alden Abiabi riding with him at the back. When they reached Pica Lumber, a white car overtook their motorcycle and blocked their path, forcing him to slow down. Another motorcycle, with 2 riders on it, appeared behind the first motorcycle. From a distance of 23meters, 1 of the riders of the second motorcycle suddenly fired 2 shots in close succession. Damuag attempted to look at the tires of his motorcycle, thinking that they have exploded. Suddenly, Abiabi pushed him with his body. Abiabi fell from the motorcycle and slumped on the pavement face down. The white car sped away. As Damuag was trying to control his motorcycle, he noticed another motorcycle (third motorcycle) passed by from behind him. His motorcycle zigzagged towards the gutter. Damuag was thrown off and hit the ground. He stood up and realized that he was hit at the right side of his body. He then heard a burst of gunfire from behind. Oco was at the back of the third motorcycle, fired his gun at him but missed. Damuag was able to run. However, the third motorcycle chased him. Upon reaching the vicinity of Five Brothers restaurant, Damuag stopped because he could not pass anymore. From a distance of about 4-5 meters, Oco again fired 2 more shots at Damuag.Damuag was rushed to the Hospital. He survived the attack due to the timely medical attention given to him. Abiabi did not survive the ambush. He sustained 8 gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body. The prosecution theorized that the shooting incident was drug-related. The late Abiabi was a known anti-drug advocate while the Oco was a suspected drug lord. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Oco claimed that on Nov 24, 1997, he played mahjong from 3-9 pm. At around 9 pm, he went home and went out to look for his 5- year old son. Not able to find his son, Oco proceeded to Sambagan to meet Boy Misa.. Oco also passed by the Our Lady of Lourdes Chapel and noticed the door opened so he went in to look at the clothes of the Virgin for he intended to change the Virgin‘s clothes for the forthcoming fiesta celebration. Upon entering the chapel, the appellant saw a group of women who informed him that the scheduled meeting was postponed. Oco was seated at the cement floor for a few minutes when he heard an ―unusual burst.‖ He did not bother to investigate the origin or nature of the ―unusual burst.‖ He asked some people inside the chapel if they had seen Boy Misa but none of them did. He went out of the chapel, proceeded to a store across the chapel, and inquired from a group of persons milling around the store the whereabouts of Misa. The appellant proceeded home and went to bed. His son and daughter soon arrived and slept with him. A few minutes later, his wife, along with his sister-in-law and some neighbors, awakened him and told him that his kumpadre and good friend, Abiabi, was shot, he was shocked upon learning the information because the victim had no known enemy.The appellant was thus surprised when he learned that he was implicated in the shooting of Alden. He and Abiabi were good neighbors and friends and he had no motive to kill the victim. ISSUE: The appreciation of VOLUNTARY SURRENDER as a mitigating circumstance. HELD:The presence of the aggravating circumstance of the use of motor vehicle would have raised the penalty to death if not for the presence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which the trial court failed to appreciate. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following requisites should be present: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter‘s agent; and (3) the surrender was voluntary. Further, the surrender must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities. All these requisites have been complied with in the case at bar.Immediately upon learning theissuance warrant of arrest, and without having been served on him, Oco voluntarily surrendered himself. Oco‘s testimony as to the circumstances of his voluntary surrender was never rebutted. He Like any other common criminal, the appellant could have opted to go on hiding. But he chose to surrender himself to the authorities and face the allegations levelled against him. True, he did not


Page 109

admit his complicity to the crimes charged against him but he nonetheless spared the government of time and expense. For this, he should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER PEOPLE V MAGALLANES [G.R. No. 114265. July 8, 1997] Facts: On Sept 29, 1991, GREGORIO MAGALLANES trekked the road to the cockpit with cockfighting afficionados, Romualdo Cempron and Danilo Salpucial. They passed by Virgilio Tapales who was drinking in the store. Tapales approached Cempron and conversed with him briefly. For some unknown reason, Tapales then directed his attention to Magallanes. Tapales held the appellant by his shirt, slapped him and strangled his neck. But seeing a knife tucked in Tapales waist, the appellant pulled out the knife and slashed at Tapales to loosen his grip. The appellant succeeded in wounding the face and neck of Tapales who let go of the appellant and fled for his life. Insatiated, the appellant pursued Tapales and when the latter fell, the appellant stabbed him several more times before uttering the following words: you are already dead in that case. With that, the appellant stood up and rode on the motorcycle being driven by Danilo Salpucial. Later, the appellant surrendered to the police authorities .For the death of Tapales, the appellant and Salpucial were charged as principal and accessory, respectively, of the crime of murder allegedly committed.During arraignment, the appellant expressed his willingness to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide with the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender; Salpucial, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. The prosecution refused to lower the charge from murder to homicide. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:Magallanes invokes the justifying circumstance of selfdefense in his favor, and contends, in the alternative, that he should be convicted of the crime of homicide only and not murder. ISSUE: WON THE KILLING OF TAPALES BY THE APPELANT IS JUSTIFIED BY SELFDEFENSE or WON,in the alternative, that he should be convicted of the crime of homicide only and not murder. HELD:In the claim of self-defense, although it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused admits committing the crime but only in defense of oneself.The appellant asseverates that he was justified in stabbing Tapales as he was merely defending himself from the formers unlawful and unprovoked aggression. But the prosecution witnesses are one in testifying that it was the appellant who pursued the already wounded Tapales, and inflicted more stab wounds including a fatal blow to his neck. Of the 7 wounds, 5 were located in the neck area suggesting that the appellant struck with resolve to cause serious if not mortal damage to Tapales. There certainly was no necessity to inflict such wounds upon Tapales especially in view of the fact that the latter was not even armed. The appellants theory of self-defense is therefore overthrown by the hard reality that the alleged aggressorsustained 7 stab wounds in the hands of the appellant while failing to inflict upon the appellant even a minor injury.As an alternative defense, the appellant asseverates that the killing of Tapales was not attended by treachery which would qualify it to murder; hence, he should have been convicted of the crime of homicide only. Treachery cannot also be presumed from the mere suddenness of the attack or from the fact that the victim was stabbed with his back towards the appellant. This is particularly true in the instant case where Tapales initiated the unlawful aggression against the appellant and should therefore have been forewarned of the possibility of retaliation from him. Although Tapales sustained 7 stab wounds, some of them located at his back, we cannot infer from this physical evidence alone that treachery was initially present in the case at bar. And it is a fundamental rule of long standing that for treachery to be appreciated, that circumstance must be present at the inception of the attack, and if absent and the attack is continuous, treachery if present at a subsequent stage is not to be considered. Moreover, a careful scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the trial court had erroneously failed to appreciate in mitigation of the appellants‘ penalty the circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty. Felix Estillore, a member of the PNP, testified that the


Page 110

appellant surrendered after the stabbing incident.The fact that the appellant chose to surrender to the police authorities of Inabanga and not Sagbayan where the crime happened is not to be taken against him. He fled Sagbayan not to hide from the police authorities but to evade retaliation from the relatives of the deceased. Besides, the law does not require that the perpetrator of an offense to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, must give himself up to the authorities in the municipality where the offense was committed. All that the law requires is for the offender to surrender to the authorities to save the government the trouble and the expense of looking for him in order to arrest him. Magallanes is guilty of homicide only with the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty in his favour.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER PEOPLE v PINCA 31 SCRA 270 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Evidence for the prosecution disclosed that on Jan 16, 1995, Gerry Abenir after disembarking from a passenger bus together with a friend entered the Madona's Bakeshop. Upon entering, Gerry Abenir saw Joel Pinca who made a remark that somebody splashed him with liquor and that if it were not for the presence of the shop owner, he would have inflicted injuries to the person responsible. At about 7 pm Gerry and the accused rode on a passenger motorcycle driven by Wilfredo Lumantas on their way home. When they were about to reach Gerry's place, they passed by the victim, Conrado Angcahan walking on the road in an unsteady manner. The motorcycle stopped and both Gerry and the accused disembarked. The accused told Gerry that he would wait for the victim for he was the person who splashed on him liquor earlier in the afternoon. The accused got a piece of wood, waited for the victim and once near, the accused suddenly and without warning, struck the victim hitting the latter on the head rendering the victim unconscious and deprived of a chance to defend himself. Abenir, who was gripped with fear, ran away towards his house and never reported the matter to the police. The next day he reported the incident but police officer Victor Llano arrived and made an inquiry for the incident of which he (Gerry) obliged. After receiving the report, police officer Llano together with Abenir proceeded to the house of the accused. The accused denied any participation. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED: Pinca declared that Abenir together with a friend entered Madona's Bake Shop and ordered beer and then offered to drink with them. While drinking, Angcahan approached Abenir and asked for cigarettes. Abenir refused to give the victim causing the latter to murmur and went away. At about 7pm, the accused and Abenir rode on a passenger motorcycle driven by Lumantas and proceeded to their home. While on their way, they passed by the victim and Gerry remarked that Angcahan was the one who asked him cigarette. The motorcycle stopped and both Gerry Abenir and the accused disembarked. Gerry Abenir called the victim and once the victim got near to Gerry, the two boxed each other. Gerry ran and got a piece of wood and used it in hitting the victim. The victim fell to the ground despite defending himself using his forearm. While the victim was on the ground, Abenir struck the latter hitting the head. He was told by Gerry not to talk. The following morning, police officer Llano arrived at his residence together with Gerry Abenir. Because Gerry made signs not to talk, the accused did not give information to the police. After the police investigation, he proceeded to Tagbilaran City to fetch his wife. While in Tagbilaran City, he received information that the police were looking for him. He presented himself to the police and he was placed in jail. ISSUES:Attendance of Modifying Circumstances. Voluntary Surrender For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested, (2) the offender surrendered to a person in authority, and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[31] If the only reason for the supposed surrender is to ensure the safety of the accused whose arrest is inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous and hence not voluntary. According to appellant himself, when the police came to his house the morning after the incident, he completely denied any knowledge of the murder incident. He learned that he was a


Page 111

suspect when he was in Tagbilaran City later that morning to fetch his wife, who told him that the police had come looking for him at her place of work. It was only when he got back to Balilihan, Bohol that he proceeded to the police station "to clear his name." But being the prime suspect, he was instead incarcerated. Appellant's actions after the incident are not marks of voluntary surrender. Denying to the police any personal knowledge of the crime, he even tried to distance himself from the place of the incident by going to Tagbilaran City. It was only when he learned that he had become a suspect and that the police were looking for him even in Tagbilaran that he finally went to the police station, but only "to clear his name." Such acts do not show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities. The Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED; with the MODIFICATION that Pinca shall serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua, not death VOLUNTARY SURRENDER PEOPLE v AMAGUIN 299 SCRA 266 The coup de main on the Oro brood sent 2 brothers to the mortuary and a third to medical care. The bloodbath resulted in the brothers Willie, Gildo and Celso, all surnamed Amaguin, being charged with the murder of the Oro brothers Pacifico and Diosdado. Willie and Gildo went through trial while Celso to this date remains a fugitive. The culpability of the Amaguin brothers was recounted by Hernando Oro, a younger brother of Pacifico and Diosdado. Hernando narrated that in the afternoon of 24 May 1977, he and his brothers Diosdado and Danilo, Rafael Candelaria, and Sergio Argonzola were invited by Pacifico to the latter's house for a small gathering to celebrate the town fiesta. In the afternoon, after partaking of the meager preparations put together by Pacifico, he (Hernando) and his companions decided to leave. They were accompanied by their host to the plaza where they could get a ride. On their way, Pacifico was called by accused: "Pare, come here." Pacifico answered: "Pare, not yet because I have to conduct my guests first." Immediately, Celso, with a butcher's knife in hand, rushed towards Pacifico. Gildo, Celso's younger brother, with a knife tucked to his waist, followed with a slingshot known as"Indian target". While Gildo aimed the dart from his slingshot at Danilo, which hit the latter on the chest, Celso hacked Pacifico. Gildo then stabbed Diosdado with a knife. Thereafter, Willie, the eldest of the Amaguin brothers, appeared with a handgun and successively shot the brothers Pacifico, Diosdado and the fleeing Danilo. Diosdado, own kneeling, gasping for breath and pleading for his life, was again shot by Willie who next fired anew at Pacifico. Meanwhile, Gildo and Celso repeatedly stabbed Pacifico who already lying prostrate and defenseless.

QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY; RULE FOR APPRECIATION THEREOF. — While we have already ruled that even a frontal attack can be treacherous, as when it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed, here, it appears that the aggressors did not employ means tending directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from the defense which the offended parties might make. It must be noted that the assailants attacked a group of six (6) individuals who could have been armed. It is highly probable that at least one of those attacked could offer resistance and could put the lives of the aggressors in danger, as what indeed happened when accused-appellant Gildo Amaguin and his cousin Danny suffered injuries as a result of the fight which, from all indications, ended in a freefor-all. That Pacifico sustained 15 stab wounds and a gunshot wound, and Diosdado, ten stab wounds and a bullet wounds, does not necessarily mean that treachery attended the killings. As already adverted to, for treachery to be appreciated, the offender must employ means, methods, or forms in the commission of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Here, there is serious doubt. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH; APPRECIATED IN CASE AT BAR. — In Crim. Case No. 8041, where Willie mortally shot Diosdado, he should be liable for homicide. And, since Diosdado was already on bended knees and pleading for his life


Page 112

when fatally shot, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, although not alleged in the information but proven during the trial, may be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. In Crim. Case No. 8042, where Willie shot Pacifico while lying prostrate already with numerous fatal stab wounds, Willie should be liable for frustrated homicide it appearing that the gunshot wound was not fatal although his intent to kill was evident. Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER; ELEMENTS; PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — We agree with accused-appellants' view that voluntary surrender should be appreciated in their favor. While it may have taken both Willie and Gildo a week before turning themselves in, the fact is, they voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities before arrest could be effected. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and, (c) the surrender must be voluntary. All these requisites appear to have attended their surrender.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER LUCES v PEOPLE 295 SCRA 524 NATURE:Petition for review seeking to annul the decision finding Joel Luces guilty of homicide. Petitioner was originally charged with Murder. PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Dante Reginio revealed that on Nov 11, 1997, Dante Reginio, Nelson Magbanua, and the victim, Clemente Dela Gracia, were on their way to the house of Didoy Elican. As they were walking along the road they met Luces who collared the victim, saying, ―Get it if you will not get it tonight, I will kill you.‖Luces immediately stabbed the victim on the chest with a ―Batangueño‖ knife. The place was illuminated by a street light 3 to 4 arm‘s length away from the petitioner, enabling Reginio to easily recognize the latter who happened to be his barangay mate. The victim was rushed to the hospital while the petitioner fled from the crime scene. On cross-examination, Dante Reginio was confronted with an affidavit of desistance dated November 14, 1997 allegedly executed by him and Nelson Magbanua stating, among others, that: Long after the incident happened and after we have executed a sworn statement before the office of the PNP of Patnongon sometime in November of 1997, we have come to realize that after a thorough recollection and reflection of what had happened during the incident, that the person who stab[bed] to death Clemente Dela Gracia in the evening of November 11, 1997, at Brgy. La Rioja, Patnongon, Antique, was not Joel Luces but it might be some other persons because it was already quite dark in the evening and we [were] a little bit far from the scene of the incident.[10] CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED: The defense evidence consisted of denial and alibi. Luces declared that at he was in San Jose, Antique, waiting for the arrival of his wife from Iloilo City. When his wife arrived at 7 pm., they left for Brgy. La Rioja, Patnongon, and reached home at about 7:30 pm. The following day, his friend told him that he was the suspect in the killing of Clemente Dela Gracia. For fear that he might be incarcerated, he went into hiding, but his mother convinced him to surrender to the police station of San Jose Antique. On November 25, 1997, he finally surrendered to the authorities and denied authorship of the crime. ISSUE: WON Luces should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. HELD:Anent the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating the same in favor of the petitioner. To benefit an accused, the following requisites must be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not actually been arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself


Page 113

unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.[29] Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance. In People v. Viernes, we held that going to the police station to clear one‘s name does not show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.In the case at bar, petitioner surrendered to the authorities in order to disclaim responsibility for the killing of the victim. This hardly shows any repentance or acknowledgment of the crime on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, at the time petitioner surrendered, there was already a pending warrant of arrest against him. His arrest by that time was imminent. Hence, he should not be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 23581, finding petitioner Joel Luces guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, is AFFIRMED.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER PEOPLE v BASITE412 SCRA 558 FACTS: On 1 Sept 1996Sonia Pa-ay, a polio victim, was walking, when she met Eddie Basite. They passed by each other. Moments later, Basite pulled out a knife from his waistband, thrust it at her neck and threatened to stab her. He ordered her to lie down and out of fear she obeyed. Basite undressed Sonia, placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement. When he was through with the sexual assault, he warned her not to relate the incident to anyone or else he would stab her. Upon seeing that the accused had laid down his knife beside her head while he was putting on his clothes, Sonia grabbed the knife and stabbed him on the left shoulder. Wounded, the accused ran away.Sonia tried to put on her clothes, but losing her balance she rolled down the cliff and lost consciousness. When she recovered, she could not find her bearings in her weakened state. She made her way up the mountain by the light of the moon. She passed by a house where she was offered camote to eat. Sonia met her uncle Nazario and other relatives on the way and she narrated her ordeal to them. Together with some companions they proceeded to the Police Station to report the incident and to file a complaint. They saw Eddie alighting from a yellow Ford Fiera.Nazario approached the accused and held him by the shoulder and told him to go with them tothe Police station. Eddie pushed Nazario‘s arm and ran away. Nazario and his companions caught him.Gilbert Sacla, testified that he saw Nazario and his companions run after the accused.Since he was then the Barangay Captain, Gilbert called a stop to the commotion. He learned that Eddie was being accused of having molested Sonia. Gilbert brought Eddie to the police station. The accused went with him willingly. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:The accused denied having raped Sonia. He presented 2 witnesses, Lidot Lacbao and Dr. Ronald Bandonill. Lidot Lacbao recalled that he received complainant Sonia Pa-ay in his home and offered her camote to eat. The girl was limping. She had scratches on her arms and legs and her clothes were muddy. The girl told him that she had slept in the forest and that she met a man who accosted her but that she stabbed him. Lidot asked her if she had been raped. She replied that she had not been raped since she stabbed the man and if she did not, he would have done something to her. Bandonill of the NBI-CAR, as an expert witness to dispute the findings of prosecution witness Dr. Raper. Based on Dr. Rapers findings that there was no bleeding or scratches inside the genitalia and that the injuries were only outside the genital area and on the upper and lower extremities of Sonia, Dr. Bandonill opined that there was no insertion into the vagina and there was no physical contact or sexual intercourse. Otherwise, the genital area would have shown signs of trauma such as inflammation, redness, swelling and even bleeding if the hymen was the type that was easily lacerated. Dr. Bandonill added that the Medico-Legal Certificate issued by Dr. Raper was incomplete and incomprehensive and not compatible with standard Medico-Legal Reports of the NBI in rape cases. ISSUE: WON Basite‟s surrender was voluntary. HELD:


Page 114

A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. If none of these two (2) reasons impelled the accused to surrender, because his surrender was obviously motivated more by an intention to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous. Basite‘s conduct after the commission of the offense, of running away after having been stabbed by private complainant and of fleeing from complainants relatives when they tried to bring him to the authorities, do not show voluntary surrender as contemplated under the law. It appears that Basite willingly went to the police authorities with Gilbert Sacla only to escape the wrath of private complainant‘s relatives who were pursuing him and who appeared to be thirsting for his blood. In the instant case, the guilt of accused-appellant Eddie Basite has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.Paragraph 1 of Art. 335 of The Revised Penal Code punishes with reclusion perpetua an accused who has carnal knowledge of a woman with the use of force or intimidation. The use of a deadly weapon, which would otherwise have qualified the crime, is not alleged in the Information, hence even if proved, may not be appreciated against accusedappellant. The assailed Decision of the court a quo finding BASITE guilty of simple rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to pay complaining witness Sonia Pa-ay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages is AFFIRMED. PLEA OF GUILT PEOPLE v ALMENDRAS 372 SCRA 737 NATURE: Automatic review. PROSECUTION‟S CASE:The victim's daughter, Diana Manidlangan,9, testified that she saw 3 or 4 persons took her mother Criselda. Diana identified 2 of them as Alex Opsimar and Alfredo Almendras. She recognized the face of another but she did not know his name. Opsimar smelled of Tanduay. 2 of the men dragged Criselda to the road, seven to ten meters from the house, while appellant stood by a coconut tree.Criselda was dragged to the road and she also ordered Diana to go to sleep. Diana obeyed her mother's command and went to bed. She did not tell her brothers or sisters about the incident that had just transpired for they were already asleep. She did not hear any more cries from her mother.When Diana awoke the next day, Elena, her stepfather's niece, informed her that her mother was dead. Diana immediately went near the coconut tree where appellant had stood earlier that morning. She found her dead mother lying on her back. Diana saw wounds on her mother's neck and on the head, just above the ear. An examination reveals that the deceased suffered 17 wounds. After having presented the testimonies of Dr. Perez and Diana Manidlangan but before the offer of the testimony of the other witnesses for the prosecution, the accused changed his plea to "not guilty." He likewise invoked three mitigating circumstances, namely, voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, and passion and obfuscation. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:The accused testified that he was at the house of his uncle, Leoncio Almendras to confront him. Leoncio was the younger brother of the accused's late father. The accused claimed that Leoncio, without permission, opened the tomb of his (the accused's) father, put aside the bones and replaced them with the remains of his (Leoncio's) wife. His uncle left the bones of the accused's father on the ground. The accused discovered this alleged desecration of his father's remains when he went to the cemetery and found the bones outside the tomb. The accused told his uncle, "Tay, just return the bones of my father into the tomb." Leoncio promised to return the bones.On June 4, 1996, the accused went to his uncle's house to talk to him again about it but Leoncio immediately boxed the accused, hitting him on the face. The accused fell. Someone advanced towards him with a piece of wood about three inches long and about one-and-a-half inch in diameter. Thinking that it was his uncle, the accused immediately stood up and, several times, stabbed the person approaching him. As the person fell, the accused suddenly realized that he hit not his uncle Leoncio but Leoncio's common-law wife, Criselda.The accused ran to his cornfield in Tibal-og and stayed there for "quite some time." Later, he went home to their "bukid" in Malabog, Davao City and surrendered to his brother, who brought him to Peñaplata.The defense presented the accused's brother, a former CAFGU


Page 115

member and presently a civilian volunteer, to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. ISSUES: WON the plea of guilty is to be appreciated in Almendras favour. HELD:Although the information alleged the foregoing aggravating qualifying and generic circumstances, appellant, by merely pleading guilty, did not admit to the presence of these circumstances. The plea of guilty of an accused cannot stand in place of the evidence that must be presented and is called for by Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. Trial courts should not assume that a plea of guilty includes an admission of the attending circumstances alleged in the information as they are required to demand that the prosecution should prove the exact liability of the accused. The belated plea of guilt cannot be appreciated in his favor. To effectively alleviate the criminal liability of an accused, a plea of guilty must be made at the first opportunity, indicating repentance on the part of the accused. In determining the timeliness of a plea of guilty, nothing could be more explicit than the provisions of the Revised Penal Code requiring that the offender voluntarily confess his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. It is well settled that a plea of guilty made after arraignment and after trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance. In this case, appellant pleaded guilty only after the prosecution had already presented two witnesses. Almendras is found guilty of HOMICIDE. PLEA OF GUILT PEOPLE v CRISOSTOMO 160 SCRA 47 FACTS: While Crisostomo was passing near the house of Geronimo, he met the latter & invited him to have a drink in the place of a friend. Geronimo declined the offer. Suddenly Crisostomo rushed towards Romeo who was then standing near a store facing the street w/ his back towards Crisostomo & shot him at a distance of 1 meter. HELD: The allegation of the appellant that he was drunk when he committed the offense is selfserving and uncorroborated. Besides, appellant admitted that at that time he was only dizzy, and that he was on the way to another drinking spree. Obviously he had not drunk enough. He remembers the details of the shooting, the time it started and ended, how much wine he imbibed and the persons who were with him. He realized the gravity of the offense he committed so he fled and hid from the authorities. He sought sanctuary in the chapel of Sto. Rosario, boarded a tricycle going to the poblacion and took a La Mallorca bus to Manila. All these are acts of a man whose mental capacity has not been impaired. As the fifth assigned error appellant argues that he should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender stating that although he hid himself from the authorities for 10 days, he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities thereafter upon the advice of his parents. The requisites of voluntary surrender are: (a) that the offender had not actually been arrested; (b) that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (c) that the surrender was voluntary. The testimony of the appellant is not disputed by the prosecution that while in hiding, upon the advise of his parents, he voluntarily surrendered on January 4, 1968, so he was detained in the municipal jail of Hagonoy. The Court agrees that the appellant is entitled to this mitigating circumstance. However, he cannot be credited with the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty to a lesser offense of the charge of homicide as invoked under the sixth assigned error. The requisites of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty are: 1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; 2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and


Page 116

3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. In the present case the appellant offered to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide only after some evidence of the prosecution had been presented. He reiterated his offer after the prosecution rested its case. This is certainly not mitigating. PEOPLE v DANIELA 401 SCRA 519 FACTS: Manuel Daniela, armed with a .38 caliber gun entered the bedroom of Ronito Enero and Maria Fe. He poked the said gun on Maria Fe. She woke up and attempted to stand up but Manuel ordered her to lie down. Manuel ordered Jose Baylosis to tie her hands and put a tape on her mouth. On orders of Manuel, Jose woke up Leo and brought him to the room. Jose tied the hands of Leo behind his back. Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace, rings and earrings. They ransacked the room but failed to find money. Julifer woke up but Manuel and Jose threatened to kill her if she shouted. The two tied Julifer‘s hands at her back. Manuel threatened to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Maria Fe, her family and their househelps if she refused to surrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the money from her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and Jose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito with it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed the latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different parts of his body. Ronito could only groan like a dying pig. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took the latter‘s wristwatch and ring. Manuel then untied Julifer removed her clothes and panties and then raped her. She could do nothing but cry. Manuel and Jose stayed in the house until 4:00 a.m. Before they left, Manuel and Jose told Maria Fe that they were acting on orders of Rolando Pedrejas, Joel Colejara, Grace Pabulacion and Juliet Capuno CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Manuel admitted having killed Ronito. He however claimed that he stabbed Ronito in self-defense and in defense of Jose. He also said that he, Potot, Ronito and Jojo, the younger brother of Maria Fe, had been engaged in robberies in. Sometime in September 1995, the four robbed a person of P50,000. However, Manuel failed to get his share of the loot while Ronito, Jojo and Potot got theirs. Manuel was bitter. He later learned in December 1995 that Ronito and Maria Fe had left Davao City and settled in Cebu City. On March 26, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in Cebu City to contact Ronito and to get his share of the loot. Manuel met Ronito on March 29, 1996 at the jai-alai. Ronito told Manuel to visit him where they can talk. Manuel agreed. In the evening on March 30, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in the house of Ronito. Manuel wanted to get his share of the loot from Ronito. Manuel, Jose and Ronito had a drinking spree. However, at about two o‘clock at dawn, the next morning, Manuel and Ronito had an altercation when Manuel demanded that Ronito give him his share of the loot. Ronito was peeved and told Manuel that he had long given him his share through a friend. Ronito whipped out a knife and stabbed Manuel. The latter tried to wrest the knife from Ronito but failed. However, Jose grappled with Ronito and managed to wrest possession of the knife. Jose then gave the knife to Manuel who stabbed Ronito with it. Manuel denied raping Julifer, and divesting Ronito and Maria Fe of their valuables. Jose did not anymore testify HELD:The appellants are not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guiltyon the finding of the Court that the plea of guilty of the appellants was improvidently made. Besides, when the appellants changed their plea, the prosecution had already commenced presenting its evidence. Decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. PEOPLE vIBAÑEZ [G.R. Nos. 133923-24. July 30, 2003] FACTS:Felix Olanda, in his early eighties, and wife Rosario, 72 were soundly asleep when Felix suddenly felt somebody hack him. Felix recognized appellant who used to reside in the house of their neighbor. He went to the main door of their house and asked for help. He saw his wife already dead. Earlier on the same date, appellant went to the house of Juanito Sarmiento. Sarmiento saw appellant with scratches on his legs, knees and arms. Ibañez told him that he escaped from his Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 117

employer who is a palay dealer and asked for money in order to go to Umangan. Sarmiento gave himP20.00. On October 20, 1996, Sarmiento reported the incident to the police. When he was shown the items recovered from the crime scene – bolo, maong pants, t-shirt, and belt – he recognized them to be those of appellant. Atty. Gavino Villanueva assisted appellant in the execution of the extrajudicial confession of his guilt to the commission of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder. ISSUE: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT AND INTOXICATION IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED. HELD: Appellant‘s plea of guilty to the two charges against him must be taken into consideration in imposing the proper penalty on him. Under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, a plea of guilty on arraignment is a mitigating circumstance. To effectively alleviate the criminal liability of an accused, a plea of guilty must be made at the first opportunity, indicating repentance on the part of the accused.Article 13(7) requires that the offender voluntarily confesses his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. A plea of guilty made after arraignment and after trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance.In this case, appellant pleaded guilty upon being arraigned and before the prosecution had presented witnesses. Thus, the trial court erred in not taking said mitigating circumstance in favor of appellant. Juanito Ibañez GUILTY of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS:

PHYSICAL DEFECT AND ILLNESS PEOPLE v JAVIER 311 SCRA 576 Dec 1954: Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier was married to Florentina Laceste. They begot 10 children. On June ‘96, after 41 yrs of marriage, Javier admitted killing his wife.  Testimonies of SPO1 Rotelio Pacho, a desk investigator, and Consolacion Javier Panit & Alma Javier, daughters of the sps: o Between 2–3am, Consolacion, who lived 10-15m. away, heard her mom shouting, ―your father is going to kill me!‖ (translated from local dialect). She ran outside & met her sister Alma who was weeping & informed her of their parents‘ quarrel. Together, they went to their brother Manuel‘s house, about 70-80m. away from their parents‘ house. o Upon reaching the latter, Manuel, who entered first, found the lifeless body of his mother in their bedroom and his father, wounded in the abdomen. o Their father, Eduardo, confessed to son Manuel that he killed his wife and thereafter stabbed himself..  In his appeal, Javier claims he killed his wife because he was suffering from insomnia for a month and at the time of the killing, his mind went totally blank and he did not know what he was doing. He claims that he was insane then. Issues and Ratio: 1. WON Javier can claim mitigating circumstances of illness and of passion and obfuscation No to both. On illness, since Javier has already admitted to the killing, it is incumbent upon him to prove the claimed mitigating circumstance. OSG found no sufficient evidence or medical finding to support his claim. For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the ff requisites:  Illness must diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender, and  Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. For the circumstance of passion and obfuscation of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the ff requisites:  There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind, and  Such act w/c produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time; during w/c the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity.


Page 118

The defense never presented any medical record of the accused nor was a psychiatrist presented to validate the defense of insanity. None of the elements-requisites were proved to be present & in his testimony, Javier even stated that he was not jealous of his wife. Equally important, the defense, during the trial, never alleged the above-claimed mitigating circumstances of illness & passion & obfuscation, thus weakening the case of accused-appellant. The alleged mitigating circumstances are mere afterthought to whittle (to shape) down his criminal liability. PEOPLE v PARAZO [GR 121176 July 8, 1999] FACTS: Marlon Parazo was convicted for rape and frustrated homicide.Parazo filed a motion for reconsideration which alleged that Parazo was not provided with a sign language expert. If the allegation should be proven the judgement of conviction should be set aside. On February 10, 1998 the court resolved to grant the urgent omnibus motion  To hold in abeyance consideration of his motion pending his medical examination  To allow a supplemental motion for reconsideration after his medical examination  To submit the appellant for examination by a physician of the Supreme Court. Issue: WON the judgment of conviction should be set aside HELD: Yes. Appellant was examined by Beatriz O. Cruz (SC Medical Services Psychologist). The result of her examination was that Mr. Parazo’s intelligence function based on the Goodenough is gauged on the mild to moderate degree of mental retardation with an estimated IQ of 60. His mental age on the other hand, is equivalent to 7 yrs & 9 months.Problem of Marlon Parazo is the severe defect or deafness. The presence of an organic disorder cannot be determined because of the latter‘s inability to communicate. However, some degree of mental retardation was gathered with the use of ‗Paper & Pencil Test.‘ Testimonies of the people who have known Marlon Parazo since childhood corroborated the testimonies of the medical experts. The mother of Parazo, barangay chairman, school teacher stated that the appellant was deaf and mute. Based on the collateral information gathered from persons who have known the patient since childhood, together with the result of the diagnostic test at UP-PGH and evidenced by the psychological report, it is now established that Marlon Parazo is suffering from (1) Profound Hearing Loss, left ear; (2) Severe Hearing Loss, right ear (3) Mental Retardation, Mild. Records show that Parazo was tried without the benefit of a sign language expert and he was only assisted by a person who has been known to him since 1983. People v. Crisologo – absence of an interpreter in sign language who could have conveyed to the accused, a deaf mute, the full facts of the offense with which he was charged and who could also have communicated the accused‘s version of the circumstances which led to his implication in the crime, deprived the accused of a full and fair trial and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Not even the accused’s final plea of not guilty can excuse these inherently unjust circumstances. The absence of a qualified interpreter in sign language and of any other means, whether in writing or otherwise, to inform the accused of the charges against him denied the accused his fundamental right of due process of law. The accuracy and fairness of the factual process by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined was not safeguarded. The accused could not be said to have enjoyed the right to be heard by himself and counsel, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in the proceedings where his life and liberty were at stake. PEOPLE v FORMIGONES, supra FACTS: Abelardo was living on his farmhis wife, Julia Agricola & their 5 children. From there they transferred in the house of his half-brother, Zacarias Formigones in the same municipality to find employment as harvesters of palay. After a month, Julia was sitting at the head of the stairs of the house when Abelardo, w/o previous quarrel or provocation whatsoever, took his bolo from the wall of the house & stabbed his wife Julia, in the back, the blade penetrating the right lung & causing a severe hemorrhage resulting in her death. Abelardo then took his dead wife & laid her on the floor of the living room & then lay down beside her. In this position, he was found by the people who came in response to the shouts made by his eldest daughter, Irene Formigones.The motive was admittedly that of jealousy because according to his statement, he used to have quarrels with his wife for reason that he often saw her in the company of his brother, Zacarias; that he suspected the 2 were maintaining illicit relations because he noticed that his wife had become indifferent to


Page 119

him. During the preliminary investigation, the accused pleaded guilty. At the case in the CFI, he also pleaded guilty but didn‘t testify. His counsel presented the testimony of 2 guards of the provincial jail where Abelardo was confined to the effect that his conduct was rather strange & that he behaved like an insane person, at times he would remain silent, walk around stark naked, refuse to take a bath & wash his clothes etc... The appeal is based merely on the theory that the appellant is an IMBECILE & therefore exempt from criminal liability under RPC A12. ISSUE: WON Abelardo is an imbecile at the time of the commission of the crime, thus exempted from criminal liability Held: No. He is not an imbecile. According Dr. Francisco Gomes, although he was feebleminded, he is not an imbecile as he could still distinguish between right & wrong & even feel remorse. In order that a person could be regarded as an imbecile w/in the meaning of RPC A12 so as to be exempt from criminal liability, he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment & freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. (Note that definition is same as insanity). As to the strange behavior of the accused during his confinement, assuming it was not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to his being feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having killed his wife. A man who could feel the pangs of jealousy & take violent measures to the extent of killing his wife, who he suspected of being unfaithful to him, in the belief that in doing so, he was vindicating his honor, could hardly be regarded as an imbecile. WON the suspicions were justified, is of little or no importance. The fact is that he believed her faithless. Furthermore, in his written statement, he readily admitted that he killed his wife, & at the trial he made no effort to deny of repudiate said written statements, thus saving the government all the trouble & expense of catching him & securing his conviction.But 2 mitigating circumstances are present: passion or obfuscation (having killed his wife in a jealous rage) & feeblemindedness.

OTHER RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES PEOPLE v MACBUL 74 Phil 436 Appellant pleaded guilty to information for theft of two sacks of papers valued at P10 belong to the Provincial Government of Sulu; it being also alleged that he was a habitual delinquent, having been twice convicted of the same crime. The trial court found two mitigating circumstances: plea of guilty and extreme poverty and necessity; but it took into account the aggravating circumstance of recidivism in imposing the principal as well as the additional penalty. The trial court considered extreme poverty and necessity as a mitigating circumstance falling within No. 10 of article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, which authorizes the court to consider in favor of an accused "any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned." The trial court predicates such consideration upon its finding that the accused, on account of extreme poverty and of the economic difficulties brought about by the present cataclysm, was forced to pilfer the two sacks of papers mentioned in the information from the Customhouse Building, which he sold for P2.50, in order to be able to buy something to eat for various minor children of his. (The stolen goods were subsequently recovered.) The Solicitor General interposes no objection to the consideration of such circumstance as mitigating under No. 10 of article 13. We give it our stamp of approval, recognizing the immanent principle that the right to life is more sacred than a mere property right. That is not to encourage or even countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat the keen and pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life. PEOPLE v VELASQUEZ 72 PHIL 98 La presente causa entrana solo una cuestion de derecho. De ahi que el Hon. Tribunal de Apelaciones la haya certificado a esta Superioridad. Dicha cuestion es esta: Con vista de los hechos admitidos por el apelante, se le puede o no hallar culpable del delito de malversacion de fondos publicos, previsto y castigado por el articulo 227 del Codigo Penal Revisado? De la sentencia apelada del Juzgado inferior se desprenden los hechos siguientes.


Page 120

Hacia el periodo comprendido desde el 9 de septiembre de 1937 hasta el 6 de diciembre de 1938, el apelante era un funcionario publico, que desempenaba el cargo de cajero auxiliar en la tesoreria provincial de Pangasinan, haciendo oficina en el municipio de Lingayen de la misma provincia. En dicho periodo de tiempo, el apelante, en su capacidad de cajero auxiliar de la tesoreria provincial de Pangasinan, recibio en el municipio de Lingayen, de las tesorerias municipales de Malasiqui, Tayug, Binalonan, San Quintin, Rosales y Manaoag, varias cantidades de dinero, que ascendian a la suma total de P1,701.26, sin que se haya expedido recibo alguno por las mencionadas cantidades. Estas eran fondos de la "Red Cross", la "Anti-Tuberculosa" y los "Boy Scouts". El 6 de diciembre de 1938, los auditores delegados, Sres. Blas Giron y Pedro Velasco, al hacer el examen y arqueo de los fondos bajo la custodia del apelante, en la capacidad arriba indicada, hallaron un deficit de P1,701.26, que el apelante no pudo explicar. Por lo que este, en varias ocasiones, desde el 9 de diciembre de 1938 hasta el 30 de enero de 1939, estuvo pagando a la tesoreria provincial de Pangasinan la cantidad defraudada. En alzada, el apelante sostiene que las cantidades por el malversadas no eran fondos publicos, por lo que no se le puede hallar culpable del delito querellado. Habiendo admitido que el habia recibido las cantidades en cuestion, en el desempeno de su cargo oficial de varias tesorerias municipales de dicha provincia, las cantidades mencionadas son fondos publicos, por los que debe responder, de acuerdo con el articulo 609 del Codigo Administrativo Revisado, que dispone: ART. 609. Disposicion de fondos recaudados por funcionarios publicos. - Excepto como de otro modo se dispone especialmente, se debe dar cuenta de todos los fondos recibidos oficialmente por un funcionario publico en cualquier capacidad o en cualquier ocasion, como fondos del Gobierno. Este Tribunal ya ha decidido repetidas veces que cuando un funcionario publico recibe algun dinero, para su custodia, este adquiere los caracteres de fondos publicos (R.G. No. 44363, diciembre 17, 1937; People vs. Castro, R.G. No. 41747, agosto 30, 1935; People vs. Sibulo, R.G. No. 40714; agosto 7, 1939). Con vista de estas decisiones, es evidente que el apelante, al recibir la cantidad de P1,701.26, que eran fondos de la "Red Cross", la "Anti-Tuberculosa" y los "Boy Scouts", se hizo responsable de dicha suma. Al no poder, pues, dar explicacion satisfactoria de la falta del dinero, cuando se efectuaron el examen y arqueo de sus libros por los auditores, se ha hecho reo del delito de malversacion de fondos publicos, alegado en la querella fiscal. Estamos con el Hon. Procurador General en que ha lugar a estimar la devolucion hecha por el apelante de la cantidad defraudada como circunstancia atenuante especial sin ninguna agravante que la compense. Esto asi, procede condenar al apelante a sufrir en su grado minimo la pena senalada por la ley. Con la unica modificacion, por tanto, de que se entendera el apelante condenando a sufrir una pena indeterminada de seis meses y un dia a cuatro anos, dos meses y un dia de prision correccional, confirmamos la sentencia apelada, en todas sus demas partes, con las costas al apelante. Asi se ordena. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARTICLE 14, RPC Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances: 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities. 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation. 4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness. 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. 6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense. Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.


Page 121

8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity. 9. That the accused is a recidivist. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code. 10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin. 13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation. 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed. 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken. 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438). 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commissions. PLACE OF COMMISSION PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, OR IN THE PLACE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP PEOPLE v JAURIGUE, supra FACTS: Avelina and the deceased Amado Capina lived in the same barrio; that for some time prior to the stabbing, Amado had been courting her in vain. On Sept.13, Amado suddenly embraced and kissed Avelina and touched her breasts, Avelina slapped Amado, gave him fist blows and kicked him. Since then, she armed herself with a long fan knife for self-protection. On Sept.15, about midnight, Amado climbed up the room of Avelina. He felt her forehead, evidently with the intention of abusing her. She immediately screamed for help, which awakened her parents and brought them to her side. Amado came out from where he had hidden under a bed in Avelina's room and kissed the hand of Nicolas, her father, asking for forgiveness. In the morning of Sept. 20, Avelina received information that Amado had been falsely boasting in the neighbourhood of having taken liberties with her person and that she had even asked him to elope with her and that if he should not marry her, she would take poison; and that Avelina again received information of Amado's bragging at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that same day. At about 8 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Nicolas went to the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists to attend religious services, and sat on the front bench . Avelina entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father and sat on the bench next to the last one nearest the door. Amado was seated on the other side of the chapel. Upon observing the presence of Avelina , Amado went to the bench on which Avelina was sitting and sat by her right side, and, without saying a word, Amado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. On observing this highly improper and offensive conduct of Amado, Avelina, conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out with her right hand the fan knife, which she had in a pocket of her dress, with the intention of punishing Amado's offending hand. Amado


Page 122

seized Avelina's right hand, but she quickly grabbed the knife with her left hand and stabbed Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck. HELD:The claim of the prosecution that the offense was committed by Avelina with the aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a place dedicated to religious worship, cannot be legally sustained; as there is no evidence to show that the defendant and appellant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal night. Avelina is not a criminal by nature. She happened to kill under the greatest provocation. In the mind of the court, Avelina committed the crime of homicide, with no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at least three mitigating circumstances of a qualified character to be considered in her favor; she is entitled to a reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon her. And considering the circumstances of the instant case, Avelina should be accorded the most liberal consideration possible under the law. UNINHABITED PLACE PEOPLE v DAMASO 86 SCRA 370 NATURE: Automatic review. PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Donata Rebolledo and Victoriano de la Cruz heard the barkings of dogs outside their house. 2 men armed with guns, entered, pointed their weapons at them and asked Donata for the wereabouts of her daughter Catalina. Donata was ordered to open an "aparador" from which the two men took valuables. They could hear the movements and voices of 3-4 other persons beneath the house. The 2 men brought Catalina down from the house and then asked where they could find Susana .Thereafter, Donata heard the men opening the door to Susana's store. After several minutes, feeling that the intruders had left, Donata untied the hands of Victoriano and asked him to go to the store to see if her daughters were there. Donata sent Victoriano to the barrio lieutenant to report the incident.The following morning the two women were found already dead with wounds in several parts of their bodies. They were found in a sugar plantation 100 meters from Donata's house. The deaths were caused by profuse hemorrhage due to a fatal, big, wide, gaping and deep lacerated wound. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:Damaso stated that he was with his co-accused Gregorio, Eugenio, Alviar and Espejo on the night the Sabado sisters were killed; that he never went into the house of Donata Rebolledo as Eugenio and Gregorio were the ones who did; that it was Gregorio and Eugenio who actually did the killing while he, Alviar and Espejo merely stood by; that the victims were stabbed and their throats cut with a reaping knife (pangapas or lait); that the killing was motivated by the failure of the older woman (Catalina) to pay for a carabao bought from Gregorio; and that on that evening, Gregorio, Eugenio, Alviar and Espejo were carrying caliber .45 pistols while he was unarmed. ISSUE:WON the trial court erred in its appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery and uninhabited place. Anent the circumstances of uninhabited place, counsel disclaims its existence by pointing to the proximity of the sugarcane field where the victims were killed to the national highway as well as to certain houses in the barrio. The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place of commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and the sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victims to receive any assistance. That the accused deliberately sought the solitude of the place is clearly shown by the fact that they brought the victims to the sugarcane field although they could have disposed of them right in the house of Donata Rebolledo where they were found. Thus, in People v. Saguing, the Court considered the crime as having been committed in an uninhabited place because the killing was done in a secluded place at the foot of a hill, forested, and uninhabited. The trial court considered separately the three circumstances of armed band, treachery and uninhabited place where under other situations one may be considered absorbed or inherent in the other. There is ample justification for this. The elements of each circumstance subsist


Page 123

independently and can be distinctly perceived thereby revealing a greater degree of perversity on the part of the accused. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, We hereby affirm in toto the decision of the trial court in the two cases. PEOPLE v CODERES 130 SCRA 134 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Testimony of Rosie de Villa, victim,16 : She and Shirley de Lara were eating having come from the Jade East Night Club where she worked as an agogo dancer. On their way out of the canteen, they met the 3 accused, 1 named Jose Coderes, who offered to bring her home. When Rosie refused the offer, the 3 hailed a taxicab and Julius Clark forced her inside the cab. The three accused joined her inside the taxicab. Inside the vehicle, she was boxed on the stomach by Jose Coderes. Rosie asked the accused to bring her to Reno Hotel where she lived, but upon reaching the hotel the taxicab did not stop and instead the vehicle speeded away towards the Tourist Spot. Rosie did not shout for help on the way because her mouth was covered by Basilio Clark. When they reached the Tourist Spot, Julius Clark dragged her out of the taxicab. The two other accused also alighted from the vehicle. Then the driver drove the vehicle away with the unidentified passenger. After the taxicab left Basilio Clark threw Rosie down face up on the ground, and despite her screams, he placed himself horizontally on top of her and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her with the assistance of Julius Clark, who held her legs, and of Jose Coderes, who held her hands. After Basilio Clark has finished with her, one of the accused boxed her and then Jose Coderes also raped her, aided in the dastardly act by Julius, who held her hands, and Basillo who held her legs. After Coderes was through, Julius Clark took his turn and while he was having sexual intercourse with her, Basilio held her two legs and Coderes took hold of her hands. Just then a man whom she came to know later as Jose Dumlao, Jr. arrived at the scene and he fired a shot. Julius and Coderes stood up and attempted to escape but Dumlao fired at them, stopping them on their way up. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Jose Coderes staunchly denied having ravished the offended party.He and his co-accused saw Rosie de Villa dead-drunk lying on a wooden catwalk behind the Saulog Canteen. ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in considering against them the aggravating circumstances of "uninhabited place." The law provides that there are three (3) elements to be taken into account before the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and uninhabited place may be considered, to wit: (a) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or (b) When especially sought for by the offender; or (c) When offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity. Appellants also strongly vociferate against the trial court's considering "uninhabited place" as an aggravating circumstance in the commission of the alleged crime. They contend that there is more than sufficient evidence and based on the testimony itself for the prosecution that the Tourist Spot or the place where the alleged rape was committed is not uninhabited because of the following facts established and uncontradicted: (1) There are houses within the 50 meter radius from the Tourist Spot.chanrobles virtual law library (2) Place where crime was allegedly committed only 4 meters from road and is continuously illuminated by cars oncoming from Subic and Olongapo City. (3) There were plenty of cars passing through during time of alleged crime.chanrobles virtual law library (4) Prosecution witness admits he was able to flag down a jeepney to call for a police right away. This is established by the fact that alleged crime was at 2:30 a.m. and testimony that at 3:00 a.m. parties were already at the Olongapo Police Station. The decision is modified by eliminating or disregarding the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place and in their place instead considers and takes into account the aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle. The case against Julius Clark who, according to the records, died at the NBP Hospital in Muntinlupa during the pendency of this automatic


Page 124

review on July 17, 1979, is considered dismissed insofar as his criminal liability is concerned but his civil liability shall be taken from his estate. In all other respects, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

DWELLING PEOPLE v DE LA TORRE 373 SCRA 104 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Marita Cordova, 35, was a cook at the La Fiesta Farm.Paulino, her husband and dela Torre were also workers of the same farm.Anthony Inocenciotestified that Paulino went to see him at his farm. Paulino asked for his assistance because the accused, then armed with a knife and bolo, was causing trouble and commotion at the La Fiesta Farm of Mr. Alindada. Anthony responded to Paulino's call for help. Upon arriving at the La Fiesta Farm, he learned that the accused forcibly took the shoes and money of Mr. Alindada's workers. Marita and her children asked Anthony whether they could stay in his farm. He obliged and they all proceeded there. Upon reaching the farm, Marita told Anthony that she was raped by the accused that night.As to how the rape was committed, Marita testified that she was cooking at the with her 5 children when suddenly, the accused, holding a knife and a bolo, dragged her outside and brought her towards a house under construction about 200 meters away.Marita's children tried to follow but they desisted when the accused threatened them. While going to the said house, Marita and the accused met Joel Villasis and Johnny Dizon, also workers in the farm. Marita asked for their help but they did nothing because they were afraid of the accused. The accused pinned her arms at her back, pulled down his pants, took off her panty and placed himself on top of her.While he was raping her, she was unable to resist because the knife was pointed at her throat. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED Dela Torre never denied having sexual contact with Marita that night of. He claimed, however, that she was his mistress and that the carnal incident between them was consensual. He courted Marita, who then told him that she would be willing to be his mistress if he would give her permanent support. Since then, their sexual affair became frequent until September, 1989 when Marita was recruited to work at La Fiesta Farm. Accused further narrated that at about 1:00 in the afternoon of November 5, 1989, he and Marita talked at the kitchen of La Fiesta Farm. They agreed to meet about 8:00 in the evening in the nearby house under construction. He arrived first at the place and, shortly thereafter, she followed. There, they had sexual intercourse on the ground using "sawali" as mat. ISSUE:The appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. HELD:The Information alleges the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling in the commission of the offense. This should have been appreciated by the court a quo. It appears from the records that the kitchen at the La Fiesta Farm where Marita was dragged from her "dwelling," albeit the same does not belong to her. In People v. Parazo,this Court stressed that the "dwelling" contemplated in Article 14(3) of the RPC does not necessarily mean that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bedspacer, the place is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect. The fact that the crime was consummated in the nearby house is also immaterial. Marita was forcibly taken by appellant from her dwelling house (kitchen) and then raped her. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his house although the offense was not completed therein. PEOPLE v ALMOGUERA 415 SCRA 647 NATURE: Automatic review. The crime involved is despicable because innocent lives of 3 young children were callously taken. This gruesome incident shocked the quiet barangay of Pia, San Jacinto,Masbate. PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Florentino and Lily Julaton went to the polling precinct to cast their votes in the barangay elections. Before leaving, they instructed their 3 children, Gina, 14 years old, Lyn, 8 years old and Rey, 7 years old, to watch their store and prevent strangers from entering their house.Jessie Genova, Jr was about 30 meters away from the Julatons house,when


Page 125

he heard Dante Aton shouting and inviting him to smoke cigarettes. As he was approaching the house, he noticed thatAton was hiding his right hand behind the door while his left hand was holding a cigarette. Near the door were the bodies of 2 dead children, Gina and Rey. When Aton uttered here he comes,Almoguerra immediately went down the stairs holding assorted coins at his right hand and a bladed knife then forced Genova, Jr to accept the loose coins. Frightened, he received the coins, placed them inside his pocket and ran away. At the moment, he heard them shouting if you tell somebody, we will kill you and your family. He and his fatherGenova, Sr., accompanied the Julatons in bringing the dead tothe Hospital.Upon their return to barangay Pia, he gave the loose coins amounting to P30.75 to his father and told him about the incident.Meanwhile, upon being informed of the incident by Sonny Amor, spouses Julaton immediately returned home.Along the way, they saw Almoguerra on the upper part of the hill near their house.Arriving there, they found all their children dead. They also found that their wooden chest or baul was forcibly opened and that their cash of P15, 000.00 and some loose change were missing. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Josefina went to the polling precinct to cast her .Her husband, Bienvenido, and her children, Charlie, Jerry, Darwin, andRodelyn, were still asleep. After casting her vote she heard that Florentino Julatons children were killed.She then proceeded to their residence .She saw the dead bodies. After informing her family and children about the incident, her husband and their son, Charlie, went to the Julatons house where they stayed for 30 minutes because the latter had a fevercaused by a boil. On July 4, 1994, he was arrested and detained. He admitted that while he was in detention at the Matiporon provincial jail, he escaped with a certain Donggoy and thereafter committed another crime of robbery. HELD:The circumstance of killing was aggravated by treachery and dwelling. Dwelling is present in this case as aggravating circumstance because robbery could not be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home.The aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling have been alleged in the Information and proved by the prosecution by strong and convincing evidenceThe aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present here. Appellants‘ deliberate intrusion in the privacy of the Julatons domicile shows perversity.In People vs. Feliciano, dwelling is considered aggravating in robbery with homicide because this kind of robbery cannot be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the house. PEOPLE v DALANON 237 SCRA 607 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:OLIVER Cervantes testified he saw Sgt. Hermes Dalanon, SalvadorAlbao, Godelio Monsales armed with long guns. Albao ordered Cervantes at gun point to lie face down. Rodrigo asked Dalanon if they had committed any wrong but Albao replied with a kick. Albao sought Felicidad and her 2 daughters, Rebecca and Sheila.Albao demanded money from Felicidad but in vain. Albao was infuriated. He struck Felicidad on the head with a bolo.Dalanon started to sexually molest Rebecca.Disappointed that the Rejusos had no money, Albao brought Rodrigo downstairs. Cervantes heard Rodrigo's painful moan. Upon the instigation of Dalanon, Felicidad was also taken downstairs by Monsales. Cervantes then heard "chopping sounds." It was the turn of Cervantes to be brought down. He saw Rodrigo and Felicidad Rejuso sprawled dead. Sensing that Albao and Monsales were some 2meters away from him, he ran away. They pursued him and fired at him. He hid among the tall grasses. His pursuers missed him in the darkness of the evening.He waited until 2 AM and rushed to the house of Bonifacio Cañares. Bonifacio and Cervantes went to the house of the Barangay Captain Cornelio Carles. Then they went to the Police station. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:DALANONalleged that he along with Godelio Monsales, and Nicolas Cervantes escorted Engr. Jaime Bravo, Mrs. Bella Dalanon Panes Bravo, and Benjie to Rancho Bravo in Asid. They arrived there in the evening. They party then left at 2 AM for Bacolod. They sent-off the Bravo family to the Masbate Airport .Exhausted by the trip, he returned to the bunkhouse to rest. He was surprised when he was implicated in the killings of the Rejuso family. More so, when he was made to join the police line-up. HELD:We affirm the conviction of Dalanon. Aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the crime:Dwelling or moradawas present because the principal crime took place in the house of the victims, although the killings were committed outside thereof. The accused showed greater perversity in their deliberate


Page 126

invasion of the tranquility of the Rejuso's domicile. The Crime Scene Sketch also revealed that human blood stains were found in the bedroom of Rebecca. DWELLING PEOPLE v ARIZOBAL 341 SCRA 143 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Clementina Gimenez, wife of victim Laurencio, testified that Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes and a third person wearing maskbarged into their bedroom, ransacked their cabinet and scattered everything until they found P8, 000among sheets of paper. They ordered Laurencio to go with them to Jimmy's house. Laurencio went with them. Clementina heard a volley of shots. Her grandchild could only mutter in fear, "Lolo is already dead!" Erlinda Gimenez, wife of Jimmy, narrated that Jimmy with Francisco Gimenez arrived and informed her that they had already bought a carabao. While he skinning a chicken for supper, 3 men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie face down. They tied Francisco and Jimmy as they whipped the latter with an armalite rifle. The robbers proceeded to ransack the household in search for valuables. They took around P1, 000and told them to produce P100, 000 in exchange for Jimmy's life. The 3 masked men then dragged Jimmy outside the house and together with Laurencio brought them some 50 meters away while leaving behind Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes to guard Francisco and Erlinda's son. Moments later she heard a burst of gunfire.The masked men informed Erlinda that Jimmy and Laurencio had been killed for trying to escape. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:DENIAL and ALIBI. Lignes testified that he was at the house of Noli Hermosa, attending a house blessing and helped as cook and food server. The occasion was attended by around 20 visitors.He said that he did not know any Clarito Arizobal. HELD:The robbery with killing was aggravated: By dwelling because the robbery is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons. The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Generally, dwelling is considered inherent in the crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited place. However, in robbery with homicide the authors thereof can commit the heinous crime without transgressing the sanctity of the victim's domicile. In the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the inviolability of the victims' abode when they forced their way in, looted their houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging them out of the house to be killed. The Decision of the RTC finding ERLY LIGNES and CLARITO ARIZOBAL GUILTY of Robbery with Homicide and imposing upon both of them the penalty of DEATH is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION.

PEOPLE v DANIELA 401 SCRA 519 FACTS: Manuel Daniela, armed with a .38 caliber gun entered the bedroom of Ronito Enero and Maria Fe. He poked the said gun on Maria Fe. She woke up and attempted to stand up but Manuel ordered her to lie down. Manuel ordered Jose Baylosis to tie her hands and put a tape on her mouth. On orders of Manuel, Jose woke up Leo and brought him to the room. Jose tied the hands of Leo behind his back. Jose and Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her necklace, rings and earrings. They ransacked the room but failed to find money. Julifer woke up but Manuel and Jose threatened to kill her if she shouted. The two tied Julifer‘s hands at her back. Manuel threatened to explode the grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Maria Fe, her family and their househelps if she refused to surrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the money from her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and Jose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito with it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed the latter several times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different parts of his body. Ronito could only groan like a dying pig. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took the latter‘s wristwatch and ring. Manuel then untied Julifer removed her clothes and panties and then raped her. She could do nothing but cry. Manuel and Jose stayed in the house until 4:00 a.m. Before they left, Manuel and Jose told Maria Fe that they were acting on orders of Rolando Pedrejas, Joel Colejara, Grace Pabulacion and Juliet Capuno


Page 127

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Manuel admitted having killed Ronito. He however claimed that he stabbed Ronito in self-defense and in defense of Jose. He also said that he, Potot, Ronito and Jojo, the younger brother of Maria Fe, had been engaged in robberies in. Sometime in September 1995, the four robbed a person of P50,000. However, Manuel failed to get his share of the loot while Ronito, Jojo and Potot got theirs. Manuel was bitter. He later learned in December 1995 that Ronito and Maria Fe had left Davao City and settled in Cebu City. On March 26, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in Cebu City to contact Ronito and to get his share of the loot. Manuel met Ronito on March 29, 1996 at the jai-alai. Ronito told Manuel to visit him where they can talk. Manuel agreed. In the evening on March 30, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in the house of Ronito. Manuel wanted to get his share of the loot from Ronito. Manuel, Jose and Ronito had a drinking spree. However, at about two o‘clock at dawn, the next morning, Manuel and Ronito had an altercation when Manuel demanded that Ronito give him his share of the loot. Ronito was peeved and told Manuel that he had long given him his share through a friend. Ronito whipped out a knife and stabbed Manuel. The latter tried to wrest the knife from Ronito but failed. However, Jose grappled with Ronito and managed to wrest possession of the knife. Jose then gave the knife to Manuel who stabbed Ronito with it. Manuel denied raping Julifer, and divesting Ronito and Maria Fe of their valuables. Jose did not anymore testify HELD:Dwelling is not aggravating in this case as it was not alleged in the amended information The trial court sentenced both appellants to death on its finding that the robbery with homicide was aggravated by nighttime and dwelling. It appreciated the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the appellants.The trial court correctly appreciated dwelling as an aggravating circumstance against the appellants. There was no provocation on the part of Ronito and Maria Fe. The crime was committed in their dwelling. This Court held that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another‘s house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. However, dwelling is not aggravating in this case as it was not alleged in the amended information. Under Section 9, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the informationand proved otherwise, even if proved but not alleged in the information, the same shall not be considered by the Court in the imposition of the proper penalty on the accused. Although the rule took effect only on December 1, 2000, however, the same may be applied retroactively.

PEOPLE v DE LOS SANTOS G.R. No. 134525 FACTS: Joy L. Cayabyab, 10, testified that while she was defecating inside the comfort room of their house she heard somebody knock and Alfredo Delos Santos entered. Alfredo locked the door and removed his trousers then he embraced and kissed her and put her on his lap. Her legs were spread apart between the legs of the accused then the accused inserted his organ into her vagina. She said she felt pain.The accused told her not to tell her mother what happened, and then he put on his shorts and left the victim inside the comfort room. Later, she went to her sister, Joan, 8, and told her what happened. Joan who told her parents what happened. De Los Santos deniedthe allegation. HELD:It cannot be ignored that the appellant committed rape with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling as the crime was committed within the house of the victim. Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to the human abode.However,because of the failure to state such circumstance in the complaint, the same, though proven, cannot be appreciated. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took provides that aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged in the information, otherwise they cannot be considered against the accused even if they were proven during the trial. Being favorable to the accused, this rule has to be applied retroactively to this case.


Page 128

DWELLING PEOPLE v BAGSIT 409 SCRA 350 Richard Sisonsaw Angelito Bagsit pointing a gun at his father Pepito who was closing the front door of their house. Not for long, Richard heard a gunshot and almost simultaneously saw his father falling to the cement floor. Richard further testified that Angelito, a second cousin of his mother, used to frequent their house. He could not say what motivated Angelito to kill his father but as far as he knew, his father had no quarrel with the appellant before the shooting incident. Bagsit averred thathe became drunk after a drinking bout with Dante Bagsit and Marcos Barte who hired him earlier that morning to take care of his piggery. He spent the night leaning on a fence by the house of one Felix Agdon. When he finally arrived home at around five oclock the following morning his wife told him about the shooting of Pepito. HELD:Dwelling, also alleged in the amended Information, is aggravating. The triggerman showed greater perversity when, although outside the house, he attacked his victim inside the latters own house when he could have very well committed the crime without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the victims home. He who goes to anothers house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense - it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own abode, although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside. The Decision of the trial court finding appellant Bagsit guilty of murder qualified by treachery, with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm and the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and imposing on him the supreme penalty of DEATH, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION.

TIME OF COMMISSION NIGHTTIME PEOPLE v DESALISA 229 SCRA 35 FACTS: Emmanuel Desalisa, 22, lived with his wife, Norma, 18, who was then 5 mos pregnant and their 2-yr old daughter in a small nipa. The whole neighborhood consists of 3 houses. The other 2 houses are about 150 meters away: the house of his parents-in-law and the house of Carlito Dichoso. The view of the houses is obstructed by the many fruit trees and shrubs prevalent in the area.On Oct 9, 1983, Vicente Dionedatestified that he went to the house of the accused only to find plates scattered on the floor, the kettle w/ cooked rice untouched, and the other rope holding the hammock missing. He went out of the house and noticed the couple‘s pig to be hungry. He thought of feeding it when he saw the back of the body of his daughter hanging from a branch of the jackfruit tree. Her neck was suspended about 4 inches above the ground. Her neck was tied w/ the missing rope of the hammock. Accused-appellant often manhandled his daughter because he suspected her of having a paramour and that the baby in her womb was not his. Desalisa invokes the defense of denial. HELD: The accused has the opportunity to commit the crime. The house where they lived is up a hill and isolated. The whole neighborhood consists only of 3 houses. No one can go up the hill to visit w/o being known to the neighbor. Moreover, the motive of jealousy is evident for what can be more humiliating to a man aside from a wife being unfaithful to be refused entry to one‘s very home? Although the accused did not flee after the crime, there is no case law holding that nonflight is conclusive of proof of innocence. The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can not be appreciated against accused-appellant absent any proof as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out. Neither may the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be appreciated against him because there is no proof that it was purposely sought or taken advantage of or that it facilitated the commission of the crime. However, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is present. The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but WON there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help in the place of


Page 129

commission. Considering that the killing was done during nighttime and many fruit trees and shrubs obstructed the view of the neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victim to receive any assistance.

NIGHTTIME PEOPLE v AVENDANO396 SCRA 309 FACTS:JEFFRE CASTILLO, 8, son of the victim Remedios and brother of the victim Melvin stated that he saw appellant in their house, looking for his plow. After dinner, he, his mother and brother went to sleep, they had an overnight lamp which was turned on. He was suddenly awakened when he heard a commotion. He heard his mother shout, "Dikong, tulungan mo kami." When he heard the kalambugan he immediately eased his way to where they kept their pillows and tried to hide.He saw through his blanket that the person had come up: "Naaninag ko po sa kumot yung tao. That was when he distinctly heard his Kuya Melvin say, "Kuya Willie, tama, na, tama na!" That was just before Melvin was killed.Jeffre recalled that he recognized the cough of his Kuya Willie. He recognized it because appellant frequented their house. Jeffre fell asleep and was awakened by persistent knocking on their door. He opened the door to find his Ate Annie, Ate Norma and Ate Ann looking for his mother. He then told his Ate Annie that Willerie Avendaño killed both his mother Remedios and his Kuya Melvin. HELD:The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and unlawful entry. Of the three, only nighttime was properly alleged in the information. As to nighttime, this circumstance is considered aggravating only when (1) it was especially sought by the offender; or (2) the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from identification or capture. In this case, the prosecution did not adduce evidence that the appellant deliberately sought the cover of the night to commit the offense. The mere fact that the killing was committed at night would not suffice to sustain nocturnity for, by, and of itself.Aggravating circumstances must be established with the same quantum of proof as fully as the crime itself, and any doubt as to their existence must be resolved in favor of appellant. WILLERIE AVENDAÑO is found GUILTY of two counts of homicide. PEOPLE v CALOZA 396 SCRA 329 FACTS:Dionisio Bulaclac asked Allan Bulaclac to come to his farm the following day to help him till the land. Allan agreed. At about 5:00 a.m. on July 6, 1997, Allan left their place and proceeded to Dionisio's farm. When Allan was about a hundred meters away from Dionisio's hut, he noticed Rafael at a distance of 10 meters coming from the direction of the hut of Dionisio.Allan noticed bloodstains on the clothes of Rafael. Allan was perplexed when Rafael tried to evade him as they met.Allan peeped through the window and was horrified to see his brother's feet as well as blood under the bed. Allan immediately rushed home and reported the incident to his parents. Rafael denied the charge. He testified that he and two co-workers were having a drinking spree. They asked Dionisio to give them a duck or chicken for their pulutan. Dionisio refused. The two companions of Rafael tarried and conversed in their native dialect and thereafter returned to Dionisio's hut. Rafael heard a commotion coming from inside the hut of Dionisio. When he looked toward the direction of the hut, Rafael, who was about 7 to 10 meters away therefrom, saw his two Visayan companions kill Dionisio, Edna and Mark Joseph, and exit from the hut. Dondon was carrying a crowbar (bareta de kabra). Rafael was so petrified that he did not even try to help the victims. Dondon then threw the crowbar (bareta de kabra) at Rafael and threatened him with the words, "Putang ina mo papatayin ka rin namin." However, the crowbar landed near the feet of Rafael. Afraid for his life, Rafael immediately fled the scene HELD:The Court does not agree with the ruling of the trial court that nighttime was attendant in the commission of the crime. While it was established, as admitted by Rafael himself, that the victims were killed between the hours of 2-3 a.m., the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that Rafael took advantage of the darkness of the night to successfully consummate his dastardly acts. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. It becomes aggravating only


Page 130

when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from capture. Rafael Caloza Jr. is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. NIGHTTIME PEOPLE v OCO 412 SCRA 190 Surviving victim Herminigildo Damuag on Nov 24, 1997, he was driving his motorcycle with Alden Abiabi riding with him at the back. When they reached Pica Lumber, a white car overtook their motorcycle and blocked their path, forcing him to slow down. Another motorcycle, with 2 riders on it, appeared behind the first motorcycle. From a distance of 2-3meters, 1 of the riders of the second motorcycle suddenly fired 2 shots in close succession. Damuag attempted to look at the tires of his motorcycle, thinking that they have exploded. Suddenly, Abiabi pushed him with his body. Abiabi fell from the motorcycle and slumped on the pavement face down. The white car sped away. As Damuag was trying to control his motorcycle, he noticed another motorcycle (third motorcycle) passed by from behind him. His motorcycle zigzagged towards the gutter. Damuag was thrown off and hit the ground. He stood up and realized that he was hit at the right side of his body. He then heard a burst of gunfire from behind. Oco was at the back of the third motorcycle, fired his gun at him but missed. Damuag was able to run. However, the third motorcycle chased him. Upon reaching the vicinity of Five Brothers restaurant, Damuag stopped because he could not pass anymore. From a distance of about 4-5 meters, Oco again fired 2 more shots at Damuag.Damuag was rushed to the Hospital. He survived the attack due to the timely medical attention given to him. Abiabi did not survive the ambush. He sustained 8 gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body. The prosecution theorized that the shooting incident was drug-related. The late Abiabi was a known anti-drug advocate while the Oco was a suspected drug lord. HELD:We do not agree with the trial court, in its appreciation of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. This circumstance is considered aggravating only when it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity. The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the ―obscuridad‖ afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime. Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not become a modifying factor when the place is adequately lighted, and thus could no longer insure the offender‘s immunity from identification or capture. In this case at bar, a lamp post illuminated the scene of the crime. PEOPLE v MACTAL 401 SCRA 612 FACTS:Appellant and the deceased were married, beset by frequent violent quarrels due to appellant‘s drinking, gambling and womanizing. On the night of the incident, Romeo Rivera heard the couple arguing but he did not mind them as he was used to their arguments.At around midnight, appellant went to Rivera‘s house to check whether his wife Evelyn was there. Rivera, his wife and appellant conversed in the former‘s garage for about 30 min, with the Rivera couple suggesting places where appellant should look for his wife. At around 1:00 a.m., Alfred Young, passing by appellant‘s house, he saw Evelyn seated on a wooden chair in front of the window of the house. She appeared lifeless because her head was "hanging." Appellant was about an arm‘s length away from Evelyn. At about the same time, Romeo Adayo, who was walking home, saw appellant. The latter was about 20 steps away from him, carrying the body of his wife Evelyn over his right shoulder. Appellant was walking very fast towards a dark street. The body of Evelyn was discovered by a neighbor at around 5:00 a.m., 15 meters away from her house. HELD:Nighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance where no evidence was presented showing that nocturnity was especially sought by the accused nor taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to insure his immunity from captive. Here, there is no evidence showing that appellant purposely sought the cover of darkness to insure the commission of the crime Besides the aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the information and cannot therefore justify the death penalty. Section 8, Rule 11013 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now requires that any aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information for it to be


Page 131

appreciated in the imposition of the penalty. Since the rule is favorable to the accused, it can be given retroactive effect, consistent with the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence. The decision of the Trail Court is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION.

ON THE OCCASSION OF A CALAMITY PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER RECIVIDISM PEOLPLE v BALDERA 86 PHIL 189 FACTS:The evidence shows Casa Manila bus loaded with passenger left Batangas bound for Manila. On the highway in barrio Calansayan, same province, it was held up by a group of 5-6 armed men. One is identified as Pedro Baldera, armed with a .45 caliber pistol, fired a shot, and this was followed by a hail of bullets coming from different directions. As a result, several passengers, among them Jose Cabrera, Jose Pastor and Francisco Mendoza, were wounded. Appellant got on the bus and, threatening the passengers with his gun, took P90 from Jose Pastor and P34 from Ponciana Villena. Another passenger named Francisco Mendoza was also relieved of his P3. Appellant then alighted and ordered the bus to proceed, whereupon the driver headed for the municipal building of San Jose and there reported the incident to the authorities. Testifying in his own defense, appellant denies participation in the crime charged, declaring that he passed the night in question in a house of prostitution in Batangas, where he was employed by the prostitutes for drawing water. But this alibi is without corroboration and can not stand up against the clear and positive testimony of Ponciano Villena. who has not shown to have any motive for falsely testifying against him. HELD:The lower court did, however, err in appreciating against the accused the circumstance of recidivism by reason of his previous conviction for theft, it appearing that crime was committed on or about December 30, 1947 while the offense now charged took place seven days before that date. In conclusion, we find appellant guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and serious and less serious physical injuries with two aggravating circumstances. But there being no sufficient vote to impose the extreme penalty, appellant can be sentenced to life imprisonment only. Wherefore, reducing appellant's sentence to life imprisonment but increasing the indemnity to be paid by him to the heirs of the deceased Jose Cabrera to P6,000, the judgement below as so modified is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

REITERATION OR HABITUALITY RPC, Art 62 (5) Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules: 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: (a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods; (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.

RPC, Art 160


Page 132

Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. — Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.chan robles virtual law libraryAny convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency. REITERATION OR HABITUALITY PEOPLE v GAORANA 289 SCRA 652 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Marivel Fuentes, private complainant, was instructed by Rowena Sanchez, common-law wife of appellant, to go to her house which was about 20 meters away.When Marivel arrived in she saw appellant and Rowena lying down. Rowena bade her to come in and Rowena left the house. Appellant approachedMarivel, covered her mouth and pointed a hunting knife to her neck. Appellant made her lie down on the floor and he put himself on top ofMarivel and had intercourse with her. After about 5 min, Rowena came back and saw appellant still on top of Marivel. Appellant instructed Rowena to step out of the room. The second incident of rape occurred at around 3:00 o'clock in the morning of March 6, 1991.Marivel was sleeping in the sala when she was awakened by the kisses of appellant. Appellant had a knife which scaredMarivel. Again appellant had intercourse with her. Mariveldid not shout because she was afraid of appellant who was a prisoner and had already killed somebody. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Appellant interposes the defense of alibi and denial. Ruling of the Trial Court: Quasi-Recidivism Was Not Established The two Informations alleged that both instances of rape were attended by the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The trial court made no express ruling that appellant was a quasi-recidivist, and rightly so. During the trial, the prosecution manifested that appellant had been convicted was serving sentence for the crime of homicide.However, the prosecution failed or neglected to present in evidence the record of appellant's previous conviction. Quasirecidivism, like recidivism andreiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused. The fact that appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had been rendered against him.

PEOPLE v BALDOGO GR 129126-07 FACTS:Gonzalo Baldogo alias "Baguio" & Edgar Bermas alias "Bunso" were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho family who resides w/in the Penal Colony On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge (14 y.o.) & abducted Julie (12 y.o.). They brought Julie up to the mountains. During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was located under a Tamarind tree.Feb. 28, 1996 – Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands & there she asked for help from NicodemusBaguio/Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Baguio contends that while he was preparing for sleep he was approached by Bunso who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bunso warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be killed. Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. HELD:Quasi-recidivism is alleged in both Informations. Appellant is alleged to have committed murder and kidnapping while serving sentence in the penal colony by final judgment for the crime of homicide. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance.The prosecution is burdened to prove the said circumstance by the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. In the present case, to prove quasi-recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment convicting accused-appellant of homicide and to prove that the said


Page 133

judgment had become final and executory. In this case, the prosecution adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of homicide by the RTC of Baguio. The excerpt of the prison record of appellant is not the best evidence to prove the judgment of the RTC and to prove that said judgment had become final and executory. Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence which is inadmissible absent proof that the original of the judgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution. The barefaced fact that accusedappellant was detained in the penal colony does prove the fact that final judgment for homicide has been rendered against him.

PRICE, PROMISE OR REWARD MEANS OF COMMISSION TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC OFFICE RPC, Art 19 (3) Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:chan robles virtual law library 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. PEOPLE v SUMAOY G.R. No. 105961 FACTS:Patricio Jacobe, Jr. testified that he saw the deceased Zandro Vargas talking toPacifico Sumaoy. 3 other men were with them.He was startled by the sound of a gunshot. He saw Vargas run but he was overtaken and dragged towards a waiting tricycle. Sumaoy and 3 other men then boarded the tricycle taking Vargas with them. Jacobe allegedly heard one of accused-appellant's companion say that they were taking Zandro to the hospital. Later that evening Jacobe learned that Zandro was found dead in a kangkong field. Accused-appellant denies participation in the killing of Zandro Vargas. He claims that the whole day of July 9, 1988 he was on duty as an enlisted personnel of the 1103rd Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) in Tagum, Davao. Sumaoyidentified a document signed by Technical Sergeant Ricardo Go called "Duty Detail" showing that accused-appellant was on duty from 8:00 a.m. of July 9, 1988 to 8:00 a.m. of July 10, 1988. Ricardo Go, Technical Sergeant, Philippine Constabulary, corroborated the accused-appellant's alibi. HELD: Sumaoydefense of alibi is of no moment. Not only was accused-appellant positively identified as the person who had shot and taken Vargas to an undisclosed placed. It is also settled that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. The trial court also erred in finding the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position in the commission of the offense. This circumstance requires that the accused, as a public officer, used the influence or reputation of his position for the purpose of committing the crime. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, then there is no abuse of public position. In the case before us, no evidence was adduced to show that the killing of Zandro Vargas was in any way facilitated by the accused-appellant's public position. It was not even shown whether the accused-appellant wore his uniform or used his service firearm when he committed the crime. Pacifico Sumaoy is guilty of homicide.


Page 134

PEOPLE v CAPALAC 117 SCRA 874 FACTS:Mario Capalac was convicted of murder for the death of Jimmy Mag-aso committed with evident premeditation and treachery with the accused taking advantage of his position as a police officer and employing means which added ignominy to the natural effects of his fact. The similar charge against his brother, Jesus, who, together with him attacked the victim after the latter had stabbed their brother Moises, was dismissed as he had died in the meanwhile.In praying for the reversal of the judgment, appellant averred that the lower court erred in appreciating conspiracy, and the qualifying as well as the aggravating circumstances, all to his disadvantage.The Supreme Court held that the lower court correctly held that the crime was one of murder, the qualifying circumstance of treachery being present. Appellant was assisted by three others; the victim was unable to put up any defense as his hands were raised in surrender; he was pistol-whipped and lying prostrate on the ground when he was stabbed; and there was no risk at all to the aggressors. Conspiracy was attendant to the commission of the crime as indicated by the manner by which the appellant, his brother and 2 other companions attacked the victim. Their purpose was to avenge the stabbing of Moises Capalac and this common purpose impelled them to act in concert to perpetuate their objective. The Supreme Court however held that the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, of means being employed or circumstances brought about to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act, and of the crime being committed with the offender taking advantage of his official position were not duly proved. The criminal act, evidently made in the heat of anger, did not call for a finding that there was evident premeditation. Appellant and his brother, who were prompted by their desire to avenge their brother, assaulted the victim relying on the weapons they carried with them cannot be said to have deliberately employed means to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act as all they were interested in was that there be retribution for what was done to their brother. The fact that appellant was a member of the police force did not of itself justify that the aggravating circumstance of advantage being taken by the offender of his public Position be considered as present. He acted instinctively to aid his brother who was assaulted and he did not purposely rely on his being a policeman to commit the act. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OFFICIAL POSITION; NOT PRESENT WHERE APPELLANT DID NOT PURPOSELY RELY ON HIS BEING A POLICEMAN TO COMMIT THE ACT. — The mere fact that appellant Mario Capalac is a member of the police force certainly did not of itself justify the aggravating circumstance of advantage being taken by the offender of his public position be considered as present. He acted like a brother, instinctively reacting to what was undoubtedly a vicious assault on his kin that could cause the death of a loved one. It would be an affront to reason to state that at a time like that and reacting as he did, he purposely relied on his being a policeman to commit the act. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he had his pistol with him. It came in handy and he acted accordingly. That he was a policeman of no relevance in assessing his criminal responsibility. PEOPLE v GAPASIN 231 SCRA 728 FACTS: CIC LORETO GAPASIN, PC NICANOR SALUDARES, LORENZO SORIANO, AMOR SALUDARES, FRANK SALUDARES, BEL SALUDARES, and NICK SALUDARES, attack and shoot Jerry Calpito, with an Armalite rifle duly issued to the accused PC soldier, inflicting multiple gunshot wounds on the body of the latter, stepped and kicked the victim several times, causing his instantaneous death due to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds. That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of (1) ignominy, the accused having stepped and kicked the body of the deceased; (2) abuse of superior strength, and (3) taking advantage of public position, with respect to the accused CIC Loreto Gapasin who is a PC soldier. HELD:The trial court properly appreciated taking advantage of public position as an aggravating circumstance. Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an armalite which was issued to him when he received the mission order (People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1 [1951]).


Page 135

Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant's favor but this is offset by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position. Therefore, only the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation may be appreciated against appellant. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY PEOPLE v TIONGSON 130 SCRA 614 FACTS: On Oct 26, 1971, Rudy Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail, together with George de la Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where they were detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide. While in the act of escaping, Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the police force who was guarding the said accused, and PC Constable Aurelio Canela, who went in pursuit of them. HELD:We also agree with the parties that the aggravating circumstances of (1) evident premeditation, (2) in contempt of or with insult to public authorities, (3) uninhabited place, and (4) abuse of superior strength were not present in the commission of the crimes. The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crimes were committed. Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority. Rudy Tiongson should be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each homicide committed by him, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED. PEOPLE v MAGBUENO 144 SCRA 210 Fiscal Fernando M. Dilig had placed himself at the driver's seat inside his jeep parked near his house,all of a sudden, two successive gunshots `burst into the air, as the gunman coming from his left side aimed and poured said shots into his body, inflicting two fatal wounds that instantaneously caused his death. INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY; NOT APPLICABLE WHEN COMMITTED AGAINST PUBLIC AUTHORITY HIMSELF. — The aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to public authority does not seem to be borne by the records. For this aggravating circumstance to be considered it must not only be shown that the crime was committed in the presence of the public authority but also that the crime was not committed against the public authority himself. (U.S. v. Rodriguez, 19 Phil. 150; People v. Rizal, 103 SCRA 282). In the instant case Fiscal Dilig, the public authority involved in the crime, was the victim. Hence, the lower court erred in including commission of the crime with insult to public authority as an aggravating circumstance. DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX PEOPLE v LAPAZ G.R. No. 68898 FACTS:Eulalia Cabunag, a 70-year old woman who was living alone, was beaten to death by 3 men. Johnson Barleso used to stay in the house of Eulalia Cabunag, as his common-law wife was the niece of the latter. They transferred to the house of Aurelio Gaudicos, when Eulalia called Barleso a thief in the presence of many people. Apparently, Barleso resented the remark. Barleso proposed to Cristoto in the presence of Paulino that they kill Eulalia. Cristoto agreed. He asked Paulino to buy a bottle of "kulafu" wine which he drank to embolden himself. Cristoto carried a rounded piece of wood , while Barleso also carried another piece of wood and a bolo. The three then entered the house. Barleso and Cristoto proceeded to the sala where they helped one another in beating the victim with the pieces of wood they brought with them until the latter slumped on the floor.The victim suddenly shouted for help even as she was already lying on the floor. Frightened, the 3 panicked and jumped one after the other through the same opening through which they entered the house


Page 136

HELD:While it may be true that nighttime is absorbed in the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex and age cannot be similarly absorbed. Treachery refers to the manner of the commission of the crime. Disregard of sex and age pertains to the relationship of the victim, who is a 70-year old woman, and the appellant who is young man, 27 years old, at the time of the commission of the offense. DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX PEOPLE v DALANON 237 SCRA 607 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:OLIVER Cervantes testified he saw Sgt. Hermes Dalanon, SalvadorAlbao, Godelio Monsales armed with long guns. Albao ordered Cervantes at gun point to lie face down. Rodrigo asked Dalanon if they had committed any wrong but Albao replied with a kick. Albao sought Felicidad and her 2 daughters, Rebecca and Sheila. Albao demanded money from Felicidad but in vain. Albao was infuriated. He struck Felicidad on the head with a bolo.Dalanon started to sexually molest Rebecca.Disappointed that the Rejusos had no money, Albao brought Rodrigo downstairs. Cervantes heard Rodrigo's painful moan. Upon the instigation of Dalanon, Felicidad was also taken downstairs by Monsales. Cervantes then heard "chopping sounds." It was the turn of Cervantes to be brought down. He saw Rodrigo and Felicidad Rejuso sprawled dead. Sensing that Albao and Monsales were some 2 meters away from him, he ran away. They pursued him and fired at him. He hid among the tall grasses. His pursuers missed him in the darkness of the evening.He waited until 2 AM and rushed to the house of Bonifacio Cañares. Bonifacio and Cervantes went to the house of the Barangay Captain Cornelio Carles. Then they went to the Police station. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:DALANONalleged that he along with Godelio Monsales, and Nicolas Cervantes escorted Engr. Jaime Bravo, Mrs. Bella Dalanon Panes Bravo, and Benjie to Rancho Bravo in Asid. They arrived there in the evening. They party then left at 2 AM for Bacolod. They sent-off the Bravo family to the Masbate Airport .Exhausted by the trip, he returned to the bunkhouse to rest. He was surprised when he was implicated in the killings of the Rejuso family. More so, when he was made to join the police line-up. HELD:We affirm the conviction of Dalanon. Crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of rape, dwelling, band, treachery and craft Rape was established. Prior to Cervantes' escape, he saw accused-appellant fondling the breast of Rebecca. The Physical and Medical Examination Report of Rebecca showed that there was a fresh deep and incomplete laceration of the hymen corresponding to a 6:00 o'clock position. It concluded that there was penetration of her private organ. The Crime Scene Sketch also revealed that human blood stains were found in the bedroom of Rebecca. PEOPLE v BANEZ 301 SCRA 422 FACTS:  Wilfredo Bañez was found by the RTC to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide for the killing of his father, Bernardo, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death.  Accused was living in his parents' house. One day, his sisters, Elvira Bañez-Bustamante and Emelinda Bañez-Antiado came to the house because their father complained that the accused made trouble whenever drunk.  They were discussing the plan for putting up the accused in another house or sleeping quarters. Afterwards, the accused, who looked drunk because he was red in the face, ran into the kitchen, got 2 knives, went into his father's room & stabbed him. Elvira tried to take away the knives but he lunged at her & stabbed her. Emelinda also tried to stop him. He chased her while Elvira locked herself in their father's room. After the accused had left, she rushed their father to the hospital but he was already dead.  The accused entered a plea of insanity.  Elvira testified that the accused had been staying in their father's house for 4 years after the accused separated from his wife; that he was confined at the Bicutan Rehabilitation Center for addiction to gasoline and was discharged; that he was also treated at the Baguio General


Page 137

Hospital for addiction to gasoline, and; that he had not shown any indication that he was crazy. Dr. Gerona III of the NCMH (National Center for Mental Health) testified that accused was admitted to the NCMH 20 days after the crime; that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia, described as a mental disorder characterized by thought disturbances, hallucination, suspiciousness, and deterioration in areas of work, social relations and self-care; that schizophrenia can be caused by use of substances (inhaling gasoline and alcoholism); that he could not say whether the accused was insane at the time he committed the crime.  Marina Gabel-Banez, mother of the accused, testified that he had been confined for more than a year at the Bicutan Rehab Center; that he was also treated at the Baguio General Hospital; that after killing his father, he was confined at the Mandaluyong Mental Hospital for treatment; that his wife left him and he blamed his in-laws for his marital troubles; that he resorted to gasoline to forget his problems, &; that he was not a drunkard.  The trial court found him guilty of parricide with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling and habitual intoxication and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death Issues: WON there exists the aggravating circumstances of intoxication and dwelling in the commission of crime  No. Dwelling cannot be considered aggravating because accused and his father were living in the same house where the crime was committed. The rationale for considering dwelling as an aggravating circumstance is the violation by the offender of the sanctity of the home of the victim by trespassing therein to commit the crime. The reason is entirely absent in this case. Regarding the aggravating circumstance of intoxication, it has not been shown that it is habitual or intentional as required by RPC A15. Even assuming that the accused was drunk at the time he committed the crime, it wasn‘t shown that he is a habitual and excessive drinker or that he intentionally got drunk. Neither can intoxication be mitigating because there is no showing that he accused was so drunk that his will power was impaired or that he couldn‘t comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts. PEOPLE v PARAISO 319 SCRA 422 Facts: Roland Paraiso was found guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death. Confederating with John Doe he entered the house of Lolita Alipio Tigley, and stole several items and on the occasion thereof, with intent to kill, dragged Tigley inside a room, and thereafter assaulted, attacked and stabbed the latter on the different parts of the body which caused her death shortly thereafter. Issues: 1. WON Paraiso was guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Yes. The essential elements of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide (Art. 249, RPC) are: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and, (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. The evidence for the prosecution showed that appellant and his companion, with a gun and a knife, took possession of personal properties belonging to the victim, with intent to gain, and on the occasion thereof, the victim was killed. 2. WON aggravating circumstances were rightly appreciated No. Dwelling and abuse of superior strength may be appreciated but not disregard of respect due the offended party on account of her sex. Dwelling. Dwelling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation or if the victim was killed inside his house. Here, robbery was committed in the house of the victim without provocation on her part. In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily because of


Page 138

the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. Abuse of superior strength. While abuse of superior strength may be considered when there is an inequality of comparative force between the victim and the aggressor, there must, nonetheless, be a situation of strength notoriously selected and made use of by the latter in the commission of the crime. What should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Abuse of strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party. Here, the victim was totally helpless in the face of two (2) perpetrators who were armed with a gun and a knife. Disregard of respect due to sex. However, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due to the victim by reason of her sex cannot be appreciated. This aggravating circumstance can be considered only in crimes against persons and honor. The special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is a crime against property not against persons. Moreover, nothing appears in the record that appellant deliberately intended to offend or insult the age or sex of the offended party. Moreover, such an aggravating circumstance would be absorbed by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. PEOPLE v ARIZOBAL 341 SCRA 143 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Clementina Gimenez, wife of victim Laurencio, testified that Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes and a third person wearing maskbarged into their bedroom, ransacked their cabinet and scattered everything until they found P8, 000 among sheets of paper. They ordered Laurencio to go with them to Jimmy's house. Laurencio went with them. Clementina heard a volley of shots. Her grandchild could only mutter in fear, "Lolo is already dead!" Erlinda Gimenez, wife of Jimmy, narrated that Jimmy with Francisco Gimenez arrived and informed her that they had already bought a carabao. While he skinning a chicken for supper, 3 men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie face down. They tied Francisco and Jimmy as they whipped the latter with an armalite rifle. The robbers proceeded to ransack the household in search for valuables. They took around P1, 000and told them to produce P100, 000 in exchange for Jimmy's life. The 3 masked men then dragged Jimmy outside the house and together with Laurencio brought them some 50 meters away while leaving behind Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes to guard Francisco and Erlinda's son. Moments later she heard a burst of gunfire. The masked men informed Erlinda that Jimmy and Laurencio had been killed for trying to escape. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:DENIAL and ALIBI. Lignes testified that he was at the house of Noli Hermosa, attending a house blessing and helped as cook and food server. The occasion was attended by around 20 visitors.He said that he did not know any Clarito Arizobal. HELD: The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Generally, dwelling is considered inherent in the crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited place. However, in robbery with homicide the authors thereof can commit the heinous crime without transgressing the sanctity of the victim's domicile.In the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the inviolability of the victims' abode when they forced their way in, looted their houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging them out of the house to be killed. PEOPLE v BAJAR 414 SCRA 494 FACTS:Ana Bajar Rabor visited her parents in their house, her mother Lolita, suggested that since her father was very drunk, she should sleep at the house of her maternal grandfather, the victim Aquilio, 100 meters away. Alejandro, who was still obviously very drunk, inquiring whether his wife was in the house.Aquilio answered that his wife was in their (Alejandro‘s) house. Alejandro accused Aquilio of lying and of hiding his daughter. Ana heard a sound and saw that Alejandro was carrying a bolo and approaching her grandfather. She saw her father hack her grandfather, who was lying on the bed. She got up, ran towards the sala, and saw her father still hacking his grandfather. While he was being stabbed and attacked, Aquilio stood up to embrace


Page 139

his son-in-law. Ana shouted for help as she held down the hand which her father used to wield the bolo. Alejandro testified that on the date and time in question, he left his two daughters, Ana and Alma, and his two grandchildren, Mary Joy and Ann-Ann, at his house. He proceeded to his father-in-law‘s house to look for his wife. Upon arrival, he greeted Aquilio with respect: ―Pa, good evening.‖ The latter replied that Lolita was not there and invited him (Alejandro) to go up and see for himself. Alejandro went up, and not finding his wife, said: ―She is not here Pa.‖ Aquilio angrily retorted: ―Everytime you are drunk you come here to ask me.‖ Aquilio then suddenly clubbed Alejandro on the head with a 2 x 3 coco lumber he saw near the door.Alejandro then touched his head, and saw blood on his hand. He felt dizzy. Seeing that Aquilio was about to attack him again, he drew out his hunting knife and defended himself by moving his hand from the right to left. He felt he hit something before he lost consciousness. HELD:We affirm Alejandro‘s conviction. Anent the generic aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of age, it is considered present when the offended person, by reason of his age, could be the father of the offender. This is obvious in this case. Not only was Aquilio, by reason of his age, considered old enough to be the father of Alejandro (who incidentally declared in open court that he was 58 years old), he was also the latter‘s father-in-law. The presence of this aggravating circumstance by reason of their age difference is, therefore, reinforced by their actual relationship by affinity. Further, it is ingrained in Philippine culture that those advanced in age are respected especially in the provinces. Suffice it is to say that the alternative circumstance of relationship was correctly appreciated, the victim being the father-in-law of the appellant.

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE PEOPLE v MANDOLADO 123 SCRA 133 FACTS:Julian Ortillano and Martin Mandolado, appellants, as well as Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon, were on a bus bound for Midsayap, North Cotabato. All 4 were trainees/draftees of AFP  They alighted at the bus terminal in Midsayap. Being all in uniform, armed & belonging to the same military outfit, they got acquainted & decided to drink ESQ rum, at the said bus terminal.  After drinking for about an hour, Mandolado got drunk and went inside the public market. Subsequently, he returned, grabbed his .30 caliber machine gun and started firing. His companions tried to dissuade him but he nonetheless continued firing his gun.  Sensing trouble, Conrado and Anacleto ran away, hailed and boarded a passing Ford Fiera with some passengers on board. Appellants followed and boarded also the vehicle and forced the driver of the Ford Fiera to bring them to the Midsayap crossing. All the while, Mandolado was harassing the driver and firing his gun.  They for off at the Midsayap crossing and waited for a ride. When Herminigildo Tenorio, driving a privately owned jeep where Nolasco Mendoza was on board, passed by the 4 boarded the jeep. The whole time, Mandolado was still causing trouble and firing his gun.  Upon learning that the jeep was bound for Cotabato City and not Pikit, North Cotabato, appellant Mandolado got angry, "cocked" his gun and ordered the driver to stop. While the jeep was coming to a full stop, Conrado and Anacleto immediately jumped off the jeep and ran towards their detachment camp.  Appellants also got off the jeep but then Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at and hit the occupants of the jeep. Appellant Ortillano likewise, fired his armalite, not at the occupants of said jeep but downwards hitting the ground.  Then they ran away from the scene and boarded another vehicle and went in so many places until they were apprehended.  Mandolado was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength while Ortillano was penalized by imprisonment for being an accessory WON the abuse of superior strength may be appreciated.


Page 140

 NO. Although the SC appreciated the presence of treachery, it did not appreciate aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and the use of superior strength. While it may be true that a soldier in the AFP is deemed as one who holds public position, there is no persuasive showing that herein appellants being draftees of the Army, in full military uniform and carrying their high-powered firearms, facilitated the commission of the crimes they were charged.  It may be conceded that as draftees, the accused could easily hitch hike with private vehicles, as in the case of the deceased Tenorio's owner-type jeep, but there is no evidence that when they stopped the jeep the accused already intended to shoot the occupants of the vehicle.  People v. Pantoja: There is nothing to show that the appellant took advantage of his being a sergeant in the Philippine Army in order to commit the crimes. The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had an army rifle at the time is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crimes ...  There could be no abuse of confidence as evidence on record showed lack of confidence by the victims to the appellants, that this confidence was abused, and that the abuse of the confidence facilitated commission of crimes.  In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that "there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and one against whom the crime was committed and the accused made use of such a relationship to commit the crime."  It is also essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give that accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the crime; that such confidence was a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence  In the instant case, there is absolutely no showing of any personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence might rest between the victims and the assailants who had just met each other then. Consequently, no confidence and abuse thereof could have facilitated the crimes.  Similarly, there could have been no obvious ungratefulness in the commission of the crime for the simple reason that the requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to the criminal act and the breach thereof as contemplated under Art. 14(4) RPC are manifestly lacking or non-existent. In all likelihood, the accused Army men in their uniforms and holding their high-powered firearms cowed the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun point which certainly is no source of gratefulness or appreciation. Held: Mandolado is guilty of murder qualified by treachery while Ortillano is convicted as an accomplice to the crime of murder

AID OF ARMED MEN Basis: It is based on the means and ways of committing the crime. Requisites: 1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly. 2. 2. That the accussed availed himself of their aid relied upon them when the crime was committed. INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON The basis of this aggravating circumstance has reference to the time of the commission of the crime. The reason for the existence of this circumstance is found in the debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them. EVIDENT PREMIDATATION PEOPLE v SUMALPONG 284 SCRA 464 Nature: Appeal from a decision of RTC Cotabato City (1998)


Page 141

FACTS: On Jan 12, 1994, 8PM, Arola Dilangalen & Mohammad Managuili escorted home their friend, Jukaris Buan, to Nayon Shariff Kabunsuan on a service owned by 1 Nong Fred. After dropping off their friend. The 3 went on their way home. Dilangalen & Managuili asked to be dropped off at 4J Pizza House along Notre Dame Avenue to eat. After w/c, while waiting for a tricycle to take them home, they saw 4 men near an electric post 5 meters away from the 4J Pizza Hse entrance. W/o warning, the 4 men suddenly & simultaneously stabbed them. Arola Dilangalen died of hemmorhage & antecedent multiple wounds while Managuili, who sustained stab wounds on his right anterior-axillary line, was still rushed to the ER. He was confined for 2nts. On Jan 14 ‘94, Police Officer Tayong brought before him 5 persons including appellant Gerry Sumalpong for identification purposes. He was positively identified by Managuili as 1 of the assailants. Dilangalen‘s mother testified that they spent PhP70K for the burial of her son & for other Muslim ceremonies for the dead. Two of the 4 men remain at large. Only Sumalpong and Fernando were convicted w/ the crimes of murder and frustrated murder. For their defense, both gave their defense of alibi. Fernando said he was working then from 7-10pm at his employer‘s shop, making balusters (railings), taking only 10 min breaks for lunch and supper. He denied previously knowing the accused. However, his employer testified that in making balusters, they had to wait for 4 hrs from the time they poured mixed cement into the molding till it hardened. During this wait, Fernando would usually go home to eat and sleep and one would just wake him up when his services were again needed. Sumalpong, on the other hand, claimed that he was a home reading in the evening of Jan 12. This was attested to by his father. The court held that their defenses were of no merit. The residence of Fernando was just a few minutes ride from the scene of the crime. And it was unusual for Sumalpong, a college student, to be at home and asleep at such an early time in the evening. Moreover, both were positively identified by victim Managuili as those who attacked them. The court found the presence of treachery in the sudden and simultaneous attack against the victims who were unarmed and unsuspecting. It also believed that there was conspiracy among the accused. But w/o explanation, it found that evident premeditation aggravated the crime. Thus, it imposed upon both the penalty of death for the fatal stabbing of Dilangalen and reclusion temporal maximum for the wounding of Managuili, w/ damages. Both appeal that in the clear absence of any generic aggravating circumstance attending the murder, appellants may be sentenced only to reclusion perpetua, not death. HELD:Evident premeditation and even voluntary surrender were wrongly appreciated by the trial court. The court re premeditacion conocida did not make any ratiocination or analysis as to how or why it was appreciated. For evident premeditation to aggravate a crime, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the ff elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; & (3) sufficient laps of time between determination & execution, to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The SolGen correctly observed that these requisites were not duly established by the prosecution. Absent any clear and convincing evidence of evident premeditation or other aggr/mit circumstances, the penalty imposable for the murder of Dilangalen is reclusion perpetua (A63 (2) RPC). PEOPLE v BIBAT 290 SCRA 27 FACTS:Oct 14, 1992, 1:30 p.m.: Gari Bibat stabbed to death Lloyd del Rosario along G. Tuazon cor Ma. Cristina Sts., Sampaloc, Manila. Del Rosario was then waiting for a ride to school.  Witness: Nona Avila Cinco, a laundry woman, was then at Funeraria Gloria waiting for her bettor. 1. She saw somebody talk to Bibat who told Bibat, ―Pare anduon na. Siguraduhin mo lang na itumba mo na.‖ Bibat then demonstrated how he was going to perform the act. 2. After some time, she then saw Bibat approach del Rosario & took a pointed object from a notebook, then he stabbed victim in the left chest twice. Bibat left but after hearing del Rosario shout for help, he returned & stabbed him again. Bibat ran away & Avila left too.  Witness Florencio Castro testified that he saw Bibat w/4 others inside the Gloria Memorial Homes. He saw one of them open a notebook where a stainless knife was inserted.


Page 142

Witness Rogelio Robles testified that Bibat frequented his place in Sampaloc because of Tonton Montero. Montero is the president of Samahang Ilocano Fraternity, a frat Bibat was part of. Montero told Robles about a rumble in their school wherein somebody died & that Bibat‘s group planned to take revenge against del Rosario. He knew del Rosario by face & he further testified that he knew Bibat‘s group kept tusok & guns in his house. Bibat claimed that it was his mom‘s birthday on that day & that he was at home during that time reviewing for his final exams. He also testified that he went to school for his finals where he stayed until 4:30 p.m. He denied all allegations & he claims that he was merely implicated & he didn‘t know anything about the incident.  Witnesses Marte Soriano & Lino Asuncion III, classmates of Bibat, corroborated his claims.  RTC found Bibat guilty beyond reasonable doubt of crime of murder. ISSUES & RATIO: WON AC of evident premeditation should be appreciated.  YES. Requisites: time when offender determined/conceived to commit crime, act manifestly indicating that culprit has clung to his determination, & sufficient lapse of time bet determination & execution to allow him to reflect upon consequences of his act.  Essence: execution of crim‘l act is preceded by cool thought & reflection upon resolution to carry out crim‘l intent during space of time sufficient to arrive at calm judgment.  Witnesses Robles & Cinco have testified to prove that 3 requisites were met. Bibat tried to contest Robles‘ testimony. Robles testified that he allowed Bibat‘s group to hide guns & tusok in his house. Bibat claims that it was not logical for someone in his rt frame of mind to allow anybody to do that. But Robles explained that he was scared of Bibat‘s group & he wanted to protect his family that‘s why he allowed them to do so. Besides, evident premeditation was clearly proven by Cinco‘s testimony. She heard Bibat‘s group plan the killing at around 11:30 a.m. then they committed crime at around 1:30 a.m. Thus, there was a sufficient lapse of time for Bibat to reflect & such is proof that Bibat clung to his resolution to kill del Rosario.  People vs. Dumdum: one hour was considered a sufficient lapse of time. HELD: Affirmed. PEOPLE v JULIANDA 370 SCRA 448 FACTS: Gertrudes Casalo testified that she saw Teofilo Coralde riding a carabao while his brother Ferdinand was walking behind him.She saw that their way was suddenly blocked by the brothers Jesus, Jr., Jimmy, and Nolito Julianda.Jimmy and Nolito tried to hack Teofilo so the latter alighted from the carabao and ran away. Both Teofilo and Ferdinand entered the store of a certain Arlene Cabrillas.Approximately 20 people surrounded the store, 4 of whom she recognized: the 3 Julianda brothers — and Samson Guerrero.From a distance of 10 meters she saw Nolito pull the hand of Teofilo and drag him towards the road. Nolito hacked the back of Teofilo. Despite this, Teofilo was able to run and cross the road before he fell down. Jimmy likewise hacked Teofilo while Jesus hit Teofilo with a stone.Ferdinand Coralde went out of the store. He was met by Samson Guerrero who smashed his nose with a stone. Then the group ganged up on him. He was already down, when the group left him.Ferdinand, upon regaining consciousness, got up and ran away, leaving his brother Teofilo behind. Jesus Julianda, Jr. and Samson Guerrero denied any participation in the murder and attempted murder charges against them. Jesus Julianda, Jr. claimed that he was in his house the whole day while Samson Guerrero claimed that he was just pacifying the quarrel between Ferdinand Coralde and Jimmy Julianda. HELD:The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery. Since no evidence was adduced showing when the accused hatched the murderous plan and the interval of time therefrom to its commission we find that this case is not attended by the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.Settled is the rule that when it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered. EVIDENT PREMIDATATION PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 398 SCRA 415 FACTS: Salvador de la Cruz, Tamano and Boy Negro knocked on the door of the house of Florencio Antonio, , Ferdinand Pearanda, saw Florencio fleeing for dear life, chased by


Page 143

Tamano,Salvador and Boy Negro. Tamano stabbed him at the back. Bading and Boy Negro took turns in stabbing Florencio. Residents in the neighborhood saw the incident and shouted at Tamano, Bading and Boy Negro. CAUSE OF DEATH:Multiple stab wounds For his defense, Salvador denied having stabbed the victim. He admitted that he was present when Florencio was stabbed. He, however, insisted that Tamano and Boy Negro helped each other in fighting with and stabbing Florencio. Salvador claimed that when Tamano told him that he just had an altercation with Florencio, he (Salvador) suggested that Tamano and Florencio settle their differences. He even offered to act as mediator since Florencio was the godson of Salvadors father. HELD:Crime Committed By Accused-Appellant The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder on its finding that treachery and evident premeditation attended the killing of Florencio. The Court does not agree with the trial court. Case law has it that treachery must be proved with the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself. Treachery cannot be presumed; nor can it be based on mere surmises or speculations. In case of doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of the accused Evident premeditation was not attendant because the prosecution failed to prove the elements thereof, namely: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequence of his act. Salvador de la Cruzis guilty only of homicide. PEOPLE v BALDOGO 396 SCRA 31 FACTS: Gonzalo Baldogo alias "Baguio" & Edgar Bermas alias "Bunso" were serving sentence in the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the Camacho family who resides w/in the Penal Colony. On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge (14 y.o.) & abducted Julie (12 y.o.). They brought Julie up to the mountains.  During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to retrieve their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was located under a Tamarind tree.  Feb. 28, 1996 – Baguio left Julie in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands & there she asked for help from Nicodemus  Baguio/Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Baguio contends that while he was preparing for sleep he was approached by Bunso who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bunso warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be killed.  Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-appellant asserted that he wanted to bring Julie back to her parents after Bermas had left them and to surrender but accusedappellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him. Issues:WON the qualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can be appreciated.  To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the ff. requisites a. Time when offender determined to commit the crime; b. An act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and c. Sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.  Evident premeditation must be proved with certainty as the crime itself  It cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he actually commits it.  The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his determination to commit the crime. The law doesn‘t prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it.


Page 144

 Barefaced fact that accused-appellant and Bermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about a kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute clear evidence that they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie. It is possible that they hid their clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the colony. – Insufficient evidence for evident premeditation. PEOPLE v DELADA 399 SCRA 538 FACTS: Danny Paredes discovered that his pedicab was missing. Cerna told him that Rogelio Delada, Jr., took his pedicab.Later, Paredes saw Delada aboard the pedicab. He accosted him and said, "Ang, why did you steal my trisikad?" Appellant answered, "Ngano, palag ka?" Paredes attempted to punch appellant but the latter was able to dodge the blow and run towards the public market. While Paredes was talking with Cerna and Quipanes, Quipanes saw Delada thrust a knife into the side of Paredes‘ waist. Quipanes boarded Paredes on a motorela which brought him to the hospital. Appellant interposed self-defense to justify the killing of the victim, Paredes. He claimed that Paredes entrusted the pedicab to him. He asked for Paredes‘ permission to use the pedicab. He was surprised when the victim confronted him for using the pedicab. He surmised that the latter was intoxicated. The victim allegedly boxed him for no reason, hitting him on the right side of the face. When he saw Paredes scrambling for an umbrella tube with which to strike him, he then got a knife from inside the shoe repair shop. HELD: The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation did not attend the killing. The prosecution was not able to show: (a) the time when accused-appellant decided to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused-appellant had clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and its execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act. Rogelio Delada Jr. is guilty of murder. PEOPLE v APOSAGA 414 SCRA 69 FACTS:Jeffrey Alipoon, Marlon Tad-y, Wilbert Vasquez, and Medel Sigueza were drinking whiskey. Siqueza invited Aposaga to join them but appellant angrily declined, saying.The group started on their way home when Apozaga carrying an axe in his right hand and a long pointed instrument in his left, shouted at Sigueza to come near him. Moments later, Alipoon heard a thud as the two men grappled to wrest control of the weapons held by appellant. Sigueza ran, appellant also ran in the same direction. Siqueza wasfound in a pool of blood, lying face up Siqueza‘s version: Siqueza walking towards Farmer‘s market Medel Sigueza, Jeffrey Alipoon, Marlon Tad-y and Vasquez. The deceased stabbed Siqueza. Appellant asked the deceased what was his fault but the deceased stabbed him again. Siqueza was able to parry the blow and push the deceased. Tad-y and Alipoon then held appellant‘s shoulders but he elbowed one of them and boxed the other with his right hand. The deceased again tried to stab appellant but the latter was able to hold the hand of the deceased. When Alipoon tried to stab appellant, the latter parried the blow causing Alipoon to stab the deceased instead. Appellant then pushed the deceased and ran home. HELD:The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during an interval of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.There must be evidence showing that the accused meditated and reflected on his intention between the time when the crime was conceived by him and the time it was actually perpetrated. The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected. There is nothing in appellant‘s query, ―What position would you prefer if you were to die?‖ which would clearly indicate that he already conceived of a plan to kill the deceased. It must be noted that the query was directed to Mugat and the name of the deceased was never mentioned during their conversation. Moreover, even if appellant and the deceased had an argument a month before the night of the stabbing incident, it is settled that mere existence of ill feelings or grudges between the parties is not sufficient to sustain a conclusion of premeditated killing. Since


Page 145

the time as to when appellant hatched his plan to kill the deceased has not been established by the prosecution, it cannot also be deduced as to whether a sufficient interval of time had elapsed from the moment appellant conceived of his plan to kill the deceased up to the time of the execution of thereof to allow appellant to reflect on the consequences of his act. Consequently, evident premeditation cannot be considered to exist. To repeat: It is not sufficient that there is premeditation; it must be evident. Satur Aposaga is guilty of murder. PEOPLE v GIALOLO 414 SCRA 59 FACTS:Desiderio Baculi, while urinating, heard a voice coming from the house of Federico Gialolo. He peeped through and saw the 3 appellants, together with Jose Platon. The victim was held close Federico and Oscar Makabenta. Federico embraced the victim‘s left side with both arms, while Oscar embraced the victim‘s right side below the waist also with both his arms. Marcos Gialolo was at the back of Jose. He pulled Jose‘s hair with his left hand and then slashed his neck with a scythe.They then left Jose who zigzagged towards a nearby coconut tree by the side of the road, where he eventually fell. The defense offered a different story. Federico and his wife were awakened by the noise from the residence of Fidel Bagares some150 meters away from their house. They did not go out because they had been previously threatened by Fidel Bagares, and they knew that it was Fidel Bagares‘ birthday. The spouses went back to sleep. Oscar Makabenta has a similar story. He testified that he was asleep at his residence. Marcos‘ story had the same tune. He testified that he was with his wife and children HELD:Appellants‘ alibi is not worth a damaged nickel. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was some place else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. In the instant case, the crime was committed at barangay Bulod, Barugo, Leyte near appellant Federico‘s house. All three appellants were within the immediate vicinity of the place of the crime. The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation against the appellants. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be present: (a) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that he has adhered to such determination; and (c) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequence of his act.[30] In the case at bar, no proof was presented to show any of these elements. Nor can the aggravating circumstance of superior strength be appreciated against the appellants. This circumstance was not alleged in the Information and hence cannot be the subject of proof during the trial Marcos Gialolo, Federico Gialolo and Oscar Makabenta are guilty of murder.

CRAFT, FRAUD, DISGUISE PEOPLE v MARQUEZ 117 SCRA 165 FACTS: Lower court found Francisco Forneste & Samuel Jacobo guilty of the crime of robbery w/ rape. Renato Marquez died during trial.  Nov. 16, 1966 – accused pretended to be PC soldiers that were looking for contraband. Francisca Marquez said that there was no contraband in their house. The men ordered her to open up otherwise they‘ll shoot. She opened the window & Renato Marquez forced himself him. The door to the house was then opened & his companions were able to enter the house.  The accused demanded the money and other valuable items of the occupants of the house. Leticia (daughter 13 year old) & Rufina (household help) was also raped.  During the initial investigation Rufina and Leticia did not name names of their aggressors but instead they described them. Francisca pointed out secretly to the PC that the accused were the perpetrators of the crime ISSUES: WON the accused were identified beyond reasonable doubt that they were the perpetrators of the robbery.  YES. Silence of the complaining witnesses on the identity of the accused immediately after the incident was explained by the ordeal that they just suffered at the hands of the accused.


Page 146

The accused were positively identified by the victims and it was not shown that witness have an improper motive or were biased against them,  Experience has shown that witnesses are reluctant to divulge the identity of their assailants except to propere authorities or until they feel safe enough from any probable harm. WON the AC of nighttime, unlawful entry, dwelling of the offended parties, disguise (pretending to be PC officers) & utter disregard due to victim‟s age & sex can be appreciated.  YES. Properly alleged in the information and was proven by the prosecution. 

PEOPLE v EMPACIS 222 SCRA 59 FACTS:Fidel Saromines and his wife Camila were about to close their small store when Romualdo Langomez and Crisologo Empacis, came and asked to buy some sardines and rice. Afterwhich, Langomez told Fidel to sell him some cigarettes. He then announced a hold-up and ordered Fidel to give up his money. The latter started to hand him PhP12K but suddenly decided to fight to keep it. A struggle followed in the course of w/c Langomez stabbed Fidel. Empacis also stabbed Fidel. At this time, gunshots were heard outside the house. It was only when Peter, Fidel‘s 13-yr old son, rushed to his father‘s defense w/ a long bolo striking Empacis and inflicting 2 wounds on him did the 2 men flee. Fidel died from the fatal injuries. Empacis went to the clinic of for the treatment of his wounds. The next day; police officers went looking for a man who might have been treated for wounds from a bladed weapon. They came to Dr Eustaquio‘s clinic who told them about Empacis. He was found at the public market taking breakfast & there they arrested him. He denied having joined Langomez in his attack. He asserts that he tried to stop him but the latter succeeded in stabbing Fidel. The other 2 men, who were accused of firing the gun from outside, denied any participation in the crime. They were both absolved by the court. Langomez disappeared & could not be found. HELD: The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud was properly appreciated against Empacis. Both men pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim‘s store and on this pretext gained entry into the latter‘s store and later, into another part of his dwelling. In previous cases, the Court held the presence of fraud or craft when one pretended to be constabulary soldiers to gain entry into a residence to rob and kill the residents, pretended to be needful of medical treatment only killing the owner of the house, and pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way to enter into a house. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH PEOPLE v PADILLA 233 SCRA 46 FACTS: Sgt. Felix Padilla was a member of the Philippine Air Force. He was charge w/ a crime of murder qualified by treachery, evident premeditation & taking advantage of his public position for fatal shooting on May 5, 1981 of his comrade-in-arms Pfc. Ontunca. 2 AC were alleged to have attended the commission of the offense: aid or armed men & abuse of superior strength.  TC convicted Padilla of murder qualified by treachery w/ the generic AC of taking advantage of his public position but at the same time MC of sufficient provocation in favour of the accused.  Prosecution Witness Pat. Omega – Together with Maj. De la Cruz they were just across the street (15 meters) and from where they stood they could see clearly the side view of the accused & the victim facing each other. Ontuca begged for his life & said that he was not going to fight with him. The accused showed no mercy and squeezed the trigger pumping a single bullet into the head of his victim who was just some 3-4 meters from him. The accused backtracked & then returned to the fallen policeman & tauntingly kicked him saying, ―Are You Still Alive?‖  Version of Padilla – the victim was shot at the head by unidentified men. He contends that he was at a distance struggling with a woman at the time that Ontunca was hit. ISSUES: WON AC of abuse of superior strength can be appreciated  YES. Properly alleged.  Abuse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon w/c is out of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.


Page 147



Accused was armed w/ a powerful pistol w/c he purposely used, gaining him an advantage to his victim who only had a piece of plywood to cover himself after he was disarmed.

WON the accused abused his public position.  NO. Public official must use his influence, prestige, & ascendancy w/c his office gives him in realizing his purpose  Could not be said that the accused purposely used or took advantage of his position or rank in killing the victim because he could have committed the crime just the same by using another weapon not necessarily his service firearm PEOPLE v LOBINGAS 394 SCRA 170 FACTS:Felix Taylaran was a farmhand of Castor Guden, he asked for permission not to work for it was raining and he had to go to the store of Teodorico Mante. Felix returned to Guden‘s house with bruises on his face and injuries all over his body. He told Castor that he was mauled by Frank Lobrigas, Marlito Lobrigas and Teodorico Mante at the store. Felix spent the night in Castor‘s house and left the following morning to go to the seaside house of Lorie Aguilar to heal his wounds in the saltwater. However, Felix Taylaran died. Lobrigas denied the accusation and alleged that he was asleep at the time the incident took place. HELD: We do not agree with the trial court that the crime committed was murder qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. To appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactors to take advantage of their greater number. They must have notoriously selected and made use of superior strength in the commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the person attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the offenders‘ deliberate intent to do so. There was no clear indication in this case that the accused-appellant and his companions purposely used their joint efforts to consummate the crime. Frank Lobrigas is GUILTY of Homicide for the death of Felix Taylaran. PEOPLE v CASITAS 397 SCRA 382 Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be proven as clearly as the crime itself. In any event, even if they are established beyond reasonable doubt, they cannot be appreciated unless they are alleged in the information. FACTS:Version of the Prosecution Jose Casitas, Jr was at the store of Romeo Briones, near the house of Mario Chan where Haide Marbella was working as caretaker. Casitas and Romeo were able to converse for about 20 minutes. During their conversation, appellant showed Romeo the 3 25-centavo coins which he had and said, this venture of mine is being taken on a chance.Romeo never noticed when appellant left his store. Meanwhile, Corazon Goyena saw Haide sprawled on the kitchen floor lying face down and bloodied. Surprised, Corazon ran outside and asked for help from Romeo.On the other side of the house Nemesio CapizsawCasitas jumped over the fence, his shirt was bloodied and very red and the edge of his pants was red. Version of the Defense Casitasinvokes denial and alibi as defenses. Gerondina Casitas testified that Jose Casitas, Jr. was preparing and packing his clothes because he was busy going to Manila. But before going to Manila, he will [pass] by Legaspi City where he will get the money she borrowed from Angelo Orenze. HELD:The RTC qualified the killing to murder by appreciating the circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Settled is the rule that such circumstance is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, superior strength is advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime.Under the facts, no one actually saw how the killing was perpetrated. No evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, was presented to establish that there had been inequality of strength between the appellant and the victim, or that the former had purposely or consciously taken advantage of


Page 148

superior strength in committing the crime. Thus, the RTC erroneously relied on mere suppositions on the manner of the killing and improvidently concluded that there was abuse of superior strength despite the lacuna of evidence thereof. Casitasis GUILTY of HOMICIDE. PEOPLE v ALIBEN 398 SCRA 255 FACTS: Romeo Barsaga testified he saw 3 persons hitting Juanito Bongon, Sr. on the head with pieces of wood and a bolo. He recognized the the assailants as Bonifacio Aliben, Ronnie Nicolas and Diosdado Nicolas. Barsaga watched the incident for about 4 minutes. While Aliben was hacking the victim, Diosdado Nicolas and Ronnie Nicolas were at the back of the victim. Barsaga further testified that he got scared after witnessing the incident, so he returned to the house of the victim Ronnie Nicolas testified that he was inside their house watching the group of Victorino Bernal, Allan Cabiles, Generoso San Jose and Edgar Florendo play tong-its (a game of cards). Dante Nicolas, Junior Nicolas, Bobby Quiñones and Ponciano Alcantara were also playing tong-its inside their house. Bonifacio Aliben, Diosdado Nicolas and Junior Godoy were watching this other group play.While Ronnie was watching the game, somebody threw small stones with soil at the place and Victorio was hit on the forehead. Ronnie looked for the person who threw the stones and found Bongon, Sr. hiding behind a coconut tree. Bongon, Sr. stabbed Ronnie 3 times, but he wasnot hit. Ronnie was able to get hold of a piece of wood and hit Bongon, Sr., on the left temple causing Bongon, Sr. to fall down. Ronnie lost control of himself and did not know if he continued hitting Bongon, Sr. HELD:Taking advantage of superior strength We agree with the trial court that the killing was attended by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength which was alleged in the Information. Superiority in number does not necessarily amount to the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength.It is necessary to show that the aggressors cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from their superiority in strength. There must be proof of the relative physical strength of the aggressors and the assaulted party or proof that the accused simultaneously assaulted the deceased. The circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties.It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the offense. Ronnie Nicolas, Diosdado Nicolas and Bonifacio Aliben areGUILTY ofmurder. PEOPLE v ROLLON 410 SCRA 295 FACTS:Ariel Rollon &Edgar Perez on their way home saw Jose Rafol for no apparent reason, Edgar boxed Jose.Josetried to retaliate, Ariel moved in to aid his friend. Thomas Rios intervened and pacified the protagonists. Jose‘s son, Dixon, arrived and punched Edgar who fell to the ground. Ariel fled to call for reinforcements. Ariel, on board a tricycle driven by Errol Rollon, armed with a bolo; with them were Eddie Lachica and Salvador Romano, armed with guns. After the tricycle pulled over, Errol immediately alighted and boxed Jose. Fisticuffs ensued. Jose‘s other son, Dicky, arrived, pacified Errol and his father and brought the latter home.Errol broke a bottle of gin on the pavement. Errol and his companions pursued Jose and Dicky to their house and pelted it. Errol and his group retreated. When Ariel saw Kapitan Tito Royo, he attempted to hack the latter with his bolo, but the bolo hit the wooden pole which Filjun used to strike Tito. Tito managed to evade the blow, and dove under the table. He then fled to his house. A commotion ensued. Felipe and his sons Errol and Ariel, with Eddie Lachica, Salvador Romano, Danilo Perez and Francisco Rabino, all boarded the tricycle and went after Tito. As they reached the gate of Tito‘s house, they chanced upon Alejandro and Melchor. Errol blocked Alejandro and Melchor‘s way. Ariel vented his ire on Alejandro and hacked the latter on his left arm. Alejandro retaliated and boxed Ariel, who fell to the ground. Errol then joined the fray, but was held at bay by Alejandro. Eddie suddenly shot Alejandro, who fell prostrate to the ground. In the meantime, Melchor could not help his brother because Francisco had his gun aimed at the latter. Errol then shot Alejandro


Page 149

two more times on the head and on his body. Ariel, for his part, then hacked the hapless Alejandro with his bolo. Melchor somehow managed to sneak out without being noticed and ran for dear life to the house of Thomas Rios. When Melchor was already inside the house, he heard someone shout, (Kill him!).‖ Melchor heard another gunshot. He peeped through a hole and saw the dead body of his brother, Alejandro, being run over by the tricycle driven by Errol. Melchor could only watch in horror and grief. Ariel&Erroldenied the charge. HELD:We agree with the trial court that the appellant is guilty of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by abuse of superior strength as alleged in the Information. To take advantage of superior strength is to purposely use excessive force, out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. In the case at bar, there was a clear and gross disparity of strength between the unarmed victim and the four armed assailants – three of whom were armed with firearms. The victim gave no provocation and was in fact already backing off when he was attacked. PEOPLE v HUGO 410 SCRA 62 FACTS:Joel Talon and Lolito Villamar on their way home were met by Ernesto, Lorenzo, and Rudy. Ernesto came face to face with Remegio. Suddenly, Ernesto hacked Remegio twice with a bolo causing the latter to fall to the ground. Ernesto quickly ran away, and his bolo slipped from his hand. Remegio then told Joel to run after Ernesto. Joel promptly gave a chase. Remegio stood up to follow them. Lorenzo and Rudy also chased Remegio and Joel. Joel decided to turn back. Standing approximately 10 meters from Remegio, Joel saw Lorenzo and Rudy hack Remegio with a bolo on the back of his head, causing Remegio to fall to the ground. Joel witnessed Lorenzo deliver another blow at Remegio's neck. Rudy hacked Remegio at the mouth and forehand. Lorenzo and Rudy fled. Ernesto voluntarily surrendered to the police station. Rudy testified that he was in Pasig City at the time the crime in question was committed. Lorenzo‘s alibi is thathe was working at the ricefields in Barangay Moging, San Nicolas, Pangasinan HELD: The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated. The records are bereft of any information with respect to the physical condition of both Ernesto and Remegio. For the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength to be appreciated, the age, size, and strength of the parties must be considered. There must be a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, giving the latter a superiority of strength which is taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.And even assuming arguendo that it existed, abuse of superior strength should not be appreciated separately, for it is absorbed in treachery. LORENZO HUGO and RUDY HUGO are ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt; ERNESTO HUGO is found guilty of murder. PEOPLE v ROXAS 410 SCRA 451 FACTS:Joelyn B. Maceda and Lorna Maceda Puno were security guardsand when on duty, the sisters were issued caliber .38 service firearms that they were not, however, allowed to bring home.Joelyn saw Lorna coming home carrying a brown bag. From a distance of 4-5 meters, Joelyn could see Lorna running away fromRoger Roxas. Appellant, apparently drunk, had no clothes from waist up, was wearing shorts and carrying a gun. When Joelyn asked the pale and trembling Lorna why she was running, the latter replied, ―Lyn, Lyn, enter, close the door, a man is following me!‖ Joelyn promptly closed the door but appellant was able to kick it open. Joelyn was pushed aside. Appellant grabbed Lorna‘s baghurled the bag to the floor. Appellant then shot Lorna with a caliber .45 gun with its muzzle just two feet away from Lorna‘s face. Joelyn held her sister. Lorna was still alive. A neighbor responded to Joelyn‘s cries for help. Lorna was brought to the hospital. HELD: In asseverating that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not proven at the trial, appellant would premise his argument on the contention that the victim used teargas to immobilize him. There was, however, no convincing proof that the victim had indeed


Page 150

used teargas onRoxas. The hospital record presented that appellant was treated for eye irritation and for abrasions on his right hand,was not attested to by any supposed attending physician.The trial court described Roxas as being a ―big hulk of a man,‖ 5‘7‖ in height, and ―muscularly bulky.‖ At the witness stand, when Joelyn stood to identify appellant, the prosecutor noted for the record that appellant was ―very much taller than the witness‖ who stood at 5‘3‖ in height. According to Joelyn, Lorna was only about 5‘5‖ in height, a fact that the defense did not dispute. The case could bring to mind People v. Quesada. In that case, the Court, noting that the appellant was a ―robust, middle-aged man‖ while the deceased was a woman of about 22 years of age, appreciated the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength when the malefactor stabbed the deceased ―while she was trying to escape from his grasp, and unable to repel the attack.‖ In this instance, Lorna was 27 years old trying to escape from appellant, an armed ―hulk of a man,‖ 5‘7‖ in height, and around 33 years of age,when she was senselessly shot at close range. Still in another case, this Court said: ―In several cases, we have held that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. This is the exact scenario in this case.‖ PO3 Roger Roxas is guilty of murder. PEOPLE v GREGORIO 412 SCRA 90 FACTS:Henry Ginez and Pablo Bihasa testified that they saw the victim, Juanito Regacho standing in front of a store. A tricycle pulled up and Juancho Osorio alighted. He drew a gun and fired at Juanito, but the latter was able to parry Juanchos hand. Juanito then ran to the alley towards his house.Juancho then pointed the gun at the bystanders who scampered and hide.Mateo Gregorio came out from a nearby alley and fired his gun in the air. He approached appellant Osorio and asked, Nasaan na? Both appellants followed the victim to the alley. Gunshots were heard.Ignacio Lopea, Jr. declared that earlier that day, Alberto Gregorio and the victim had a heated altercation after they came from a mahjongan on the day the crime happened. He heard Alberto challenge the victim,Kung gusto mo, tapusin na natin ito. The victim died in front of the door of his house Mateo Gregorio narrated that on the night of the crime, he was on his way home after getting the gun which somebody pawned to him. He admitted that he fired said gun in the air because Ignacio, Sr., brother-in-law of the victim, was meddling in a heated altercation between the victim and Alberto Gregorio. He saw the victim run away and afterwards he heard gunshots. He saw the gunman board a tricycle. HELD: Appellants cannot be convicted of murder. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength were not sufficiently established by the prosecution. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. It must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that this qualifying circumstance was consciously sought by the assailants. The actual killing of the victim occurred in an alley and was no longer seen by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, there is no way of determining whether the elements of treachery and abuse of superior strength were met.Undisputedly, there was no testimony as to how the attack was initiated in the case at bar. In the same way that there was nothing in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses for the prosecution which would prove that appellants pondered upon the mode or method to insure the killing.Superiority in numbers is not necessarily superiority in strength. Although the two appellants used guns to kill the unarmed victim, nonetheless, the prosecution failed to establish that there was indeed a deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength. The crime committed by appellants is homicide.

BAND PEOPLE v POLORES 230 SCRA 279


Page 151

Band (en cuadrilla) consists of at least 4 armed persons organized with the intention of carrying out an unlawful design. Band is inherent in brigandage but not in robbery. (PEOPLE v POLORES 230 SCRA 279) The requisite four armed persons contemplated in this circumstance must all be principals by direct participation who acted together in the execution of the acts constituting the crime. If one of them was a principal by inducement, there would be no cuadrilla but the aggravating circumstance of having acted with the aid armed men may be considered against the inducer if the other two acted as his accomplice. This aggravating circumstance is inherent in BRIGANDAGE. This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance os abuse of superior strength. This aggravating circumstance is not applicable in crimes against chastity. PEOPLE v BUAYABAN 400 SCRA 48 FACTS:Paulino Buayaban, Larry Betache, Marciano Toñacao, Yoyong Buayaban and Pedro Tumulak, all armed, entered the house of Dioscoro Abonales. Pedro Tumulak and Paulino Buayaban immediately poked their guns at Rolando Verdida who with his fiancee Elizabeth Abonales. Yoyong kicked Dioscoro in the face and when the latter stood up, Marciano shot him in the neck. Dioscoro died instantly.Larry Betache went outside the house and stood guard at the door holding a knife. Pedro then went to the kitchen, grabbed the right arm of Josefa Abonales and asked her where the money was. Frightened, Josefa quickly went to the room, followed by Marciano while Pedro returned to where Elizabeth and Rolando were lying down in order to watch over them. Marciano threatened Josefa with death if she refused to surrender the money. Josefa took the money amounting to P30, 000 from the wooden chest, placed it inside a pillow case and she handed it to Marciano. Somebody forcibly took the wallet of Rolando. While escaping, the malefactors bumped into Artemio Abonales. Artemio was on his way to Dioscoro‘s house to investigate the gunshots he heard. Paulino pointed the gun at Artemio and pulled the trigger but the gun did not fire. Pedro Tumulak put up the defense of alibi and denial. HELD: In the present case, we cannot treat the ordinary aggravating circumstance of band because it was not alleged in the information. Though it is an ordinary aggravating circumstance, the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedurerequire that even generic aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information. In this case, we cannot properly appreciate the ordinary aggravating circumstance of band in the commission of the crime since there was no allegation in the information that "more than three armed malefactors acted together in the commission of the crime." All things considered, we find Pedro Tumulak guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.

TREACHERY PEOPLE v VERCHEZ 233 SCRA 174 Version of the Prosecution:  Aug 15, 1985 – Raul Castaneda & Lt. Marcelo Garbo of the Special Operations Groups (SOG) of the Central Organized Crime Task Force of the Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police led a team of gov‘t agents in conducting a surveillance operations on a house reported to be the hideout of a gang of suspected bank robbers.  They stopped a car the came out from the subdivision. The driver was Balane and he was asked by the police officers to accompany them to where his companions where staying.  When the 1st car approached the house they were met w/ heavy volley of gunfire. Norcio died while Noora & Pagsanjan were injured.  Men inside the house eventually surrendered.


Page 152





Accused were assisted by Atty. De la Rosa when they executed their sworn statements. Verchez, Aldave and Balane admitted being involved in several bank heist and Verchez also admitted that he fired the first shot at the policemen. The firearms of the accused were unregistered and unlicensed.

Version of the Defense:  Verchez invited Balane on August 15, 1994 to visited his brother. They were joined by Aldave, While they were waiting for the brother of Verchez, Balane went out to buy cigarettes and pulutan. His car was blocked and the occupants of the other car pointed their firearms at him. They dragged him out of the car, handcuffed and blindfolded him.  Verchez saw several cars stop outside the house and he heard a gunshot. Verchez and Aldave got loaded firearms from the rooms and fired back.  They contended that they were forced into signing a prepared statement confessing their illegal activities, including having engaged the police officers in a fire fight. Issues: WON treachery was sufficiently established.  NO. Two conditions must concur o Employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate o Said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted  Lawmen were prepared for any resistance that may be possibly be put up  Norcio was killed and Noora was wounded during and not before the gun battle  There is no showing that the appellants deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of attack.  No showing that they planned to ambush the lawmen, much less that they knew the lawmen were coming. Appellants were caught by surprise by lawmen; hence, acting on the spur of the moment, they fired back. PEOPLE v CASTILLO 289 SCRA 213 FACTS: Around 1AM on May 5, 1993, Eulogio Velasco, flr manager of Cola Pubhouse along EDSA, was sitting outside the pub while talking w/ his co-worker. Soon, their customer Tony Dometita came out of the pub and informed him that he‘ll be on his way home. However, when he was about an arm‘s length from Eulogio, appellant Robert Castillo came out from nowhere and suddenly and w/o warning stabbed Tony w/ a fan knife on his left chest. As Tony pleaded for help, appellant stabbed him once more, hitting him on the left hand. Eulogio placed a chair between the two to stop Castillo from further attacking Tony.  Tony ran away but appellant pursued him. Eulogio came to know later that Tony had died. His body was found outside the fence of Iglesia ni Cristo, EDSA. Medico-legal officer testified that the proximate cause of Tony‘s death was the stab wound on his chest.  Appellant Robert Castillo claims that decedent Tony was attacked by 2 malefactors as testified by one Edilberto Marcelino, a tricycle driver, who saw men ganging up on Tony by the compound of Iglesia ni Cristo.  TC did not appreciate Castillo‘s defense of alibi and held that the killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength, the accused having surprised and attacked w/ a deadly weapon. And although treachery was present, it also held that this was absorbed by abuse of superior strength.  Appellant contends that the TC showed its prejudice against him by asking questions that were well w/in the prosecution to explore and ask. HELD: The killing was qualified by treachery. Treachery is committed when 2 conditions concur: (1) means, methods and forms of execution employed left the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) that such means, methods, and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused w/o danger to his person. These requisites were evidently present when the accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed the victim just as he was bidding goodbye to his friend. The action rendered it difficult for the victim to defend himself. The presence of ―defense wounds‖ does not negate treachery


Page 153

because the first stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted on the chest and hence, rendered Tony defenseless. PEOPLE v DACIBAR G.R. No. 111286 FACTS:Welda and Jose Bacalangco were sitting behind their bed when suddenly there was an explosion followed by the sounds of footsteps. Welda saw Warlito Dicon coming out from under their house, stooping and carrying a long firearm. Following him was appellant Ramil Dacibar who was carrying a bolo. Seeing her husband shot, Welda shouted to her children that their father was shot. Riza also heard the gunshot and saw Dicon holding a long firearm and Ramil Dacibar holding a bolo emerging from under their house. Realizing the predicament of her father, Riza together with her sister, shouted for help. Riza's uncle came to help. He carried the victim with the intention of bringing the latter to the hospital. However the victim died. Warlito Dicon testified that he was at his house at the time the victim was killed. HELD:In the case at bar, it was established that Dicon had a dispute with the victim over the killing and eating of the formers' dog, as a result of which Dicon verbally threatened the victim with vengeance. The victim was later shot and killed, on which occasion both appellants were seen leaving the scene of the crime carrying a firearm and a bolo, emerging from under the victim's house. We agree that treachery attended the commission of the crime. Treachery is present when the shooting was unexpected and sudden, giving the unarmed victim no chance whatsoever to defend himself.57 The two conditions for treachery to be present are (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him.In the case at bar, the victim had absolutely no idea that he was going to be shot as he went to bed, from under his own house at that. He was not in a position to defend himself, being unaware and unexpectant of an attempt on his life, in the particular manner purposely adopted by appellants. Clearly, he was killed in a treacherous manner. The circumstance of treachery, however, absorbs the aggravating circumstances of superior strength and nighttime.

PEOPLE v CANDO 334 SCRA 331 FACTS:Cando and Rapcing, were employed as candlemakers at a factory, the victim, Luis D. Remoriata, was the caretakerin said factory.Vargas, Rapcing, Nonoy Sayson&Candowere having a drinking session at a canteen in front of the factory. Cando came angry because he was unable to get his salary from the secretary, nor was he able to get a loan of P100.00 from the caretaker. Cando already had previous misunderstandings with the caretaker, so this time; he threatened to kill the caretaker. Vargas, Rapcing, and Cando, armed with two knives and carrying a shoulder bag, proceeded to the victim‘s room. Cando picked a piece of lead pipe and told Vargas to pull open the door where the victim‘s mosquito net was attached. When Vargas pulled open the door, the mosquito net snapped and Cando struck the victim on the head with the lead pipe. The victim awakened and Cando demanded money from him. When the victim replied that he had no money, Cando struck him again with the lead pipe. Blood oozed from the victim‘s head. Cando repeatedly hit him with the lead pipe until he became unconscious. Cando placed the victim‘s radio cassette in his bag. He went upstairs to get more items and the keys of the Cimarron van. Cando and Rapcing pushed the van outside. Once they were out of hearing range, Vargas gunned the motor and the two clambered into the van. Vargas readily admitted his participation and pinpointed appellants Cando and Rapcing as his coperpetrators. ISSUE:WON the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of the offense? HELD:There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party


Page 154

might make.The conditions which must concur before treachery can be appreciated are: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) that said means of execution be deliberately and consciously adopted.The essence of treachery lies in the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the offended party.The killing of the sleeping victim herein was attended by treachery since he was in no position to flee or defend himself.The presence of treachery, though, should not result in qualifying the offense to murder, for the correct rule is that when it obtains in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, such treachery is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance, robbery with homicide being a case of a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the Revised Penal Code. ROGER CANDO, ARNEL VARGAS, and WILBERTO RAPCING are guilty of the crime of Robbery withHomicide. PEOPLE v ARIZOBAL 341 SCRA 143 PROSECUTION‟S CASE:Clementina Gimenez, wife of victim Laurencio, testified that Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes and a third person wearing maskbarged into their bedroom, ransacked their cabinet and scattered everything until they found P8, 000 among sheets of paper. They ordered Laurencio to go with them to Jimmy's house. Laurencio went with them. Clementina heard a volley of shots. Her grandchild could only mutter in fear, "Lolo is already dead!" Erlinda Gimenez, wife of Jimmy, narrated that Jimmy with Francisco Gimenez arrived and informed her that they had already bought a carabao. While he skinning a chicken for supper, 3 men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie face down. They tied Francisco and Jimmy as they whipped the latter with an armalite rifle. The robbers proceeded to ransack the household in search for valuables. They took around P1, 000and told them to produce P100, 000 in exchange for Jimmy's life. The 3 masked men then dragged Jimmy outside the house and together with Laurencio brought them some 50 meters away while leaving behind Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes to guard Francisco and Erlinda's son. Moments later she heard a burst of gunfire. The masked men informed Erlinda that Jimmy and Laurencio had been killed for trying to escape. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:DENIAL and ALIBI. Lignes testified that he was at the house of Noli Hermosa, attending a house blessing and helped as cook and food server. The occasion was attended by around 20 visitors.He said that he did not know any Clarito Arizobal. HELD: Treachery was incorrectly considered by the trial court. The accused stand charged with, tried and convicted of robbery with homicide. This special complex crime is primarily classified in this jurisdiction as a crime against property, and not against persons, homicide being merely an incident of robbery with the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminals. As such, treachery cannot be validly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of The Revised Penal Code.This is completely a reversal of the previous jurisprudence on the matter decided in a litany of cases before People v. Bariquit. PEOPLE v MAZO 367 SCRA 462 FACTS: Rommel Abrenica and Rafael Morada, Jr., were having a drink in the "Rendezvous,‖ whenan altercation between them and the Dennis Mazo occurred. Rommel was jealous of the accused whose alleged girlfriend Rommel also fancied. While talking to the girl, the accused approached them and said, "oh, what?" They responded by asking him, "what?" Rommel described the accused‘s attitude as "brave as if he was threatening them."Rommel and Rafael rode Rommel‘s motorcycle. They passed the group of Dennis Mazo. Somebody called, "Pssst," and Rommel stopped the vehicle. Rafael alighted and approached Dennis and his companions to ask who called them. Dennis and Rafael walked towards each other, Dennis holding his back pocket. Suddenly, Dennis, who wielded a knife on his right hand, stabbed Rafael about eight inches below the left nipple.Rommel remained seated on his motorcycle allowing him to witness the incident. Rafael was able to parry another of Dennis‘ thrusts and then run. Rafael cushioned his fall with his hands and was able to roll on his back. He raised his feet and his hands to shield himself from Dennis‘ stabbing thrusts. Thereafter, Dennis fled . Dennis Mazo invoked self-defense.


Page 155

HELD:Treachery did not attend the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.Its essence lies in the attack which comes without warning, and is swift, deliberate and unexpected, and affords the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. Here, the trial court found that treachery was present both at the initial and final stages of the attack. First, the victim approached appellant unarmed without any inkling that he would be stabbed by appellant. It bears noting, however, that an altercation in the Rendezvous had just recently ensued between appellant on the one hand and the victim and Rommel Abrenica on the other. There was an exchange of words with the victim mocking appellant‘s long hair. In their subsequent encounter, the victim by his lonesome audaciously approached appellant and his three companions. It cannot be said, therefore, that the victim had not been forewarned of the danger he faced when he approached appellant. There could be no treachery when the victim was placed on guard, such as when a heated argument preceded the attack, or when the victim was standing face to face with his assailants and the initial assault could not have been unforeseen.Moreover– In treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted. This means that the accused must make some preparation to kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. The mode of attack, therefore, must be planned by the offender, and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. The meeting between appellant‘s group and the victim was merely by chance and it could not be said that the mode of attack could have been planned. A killing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous. The trial court also held that there was treachery when appellant continued to stab the victim when the latter fell and was crawling on his back. This conclusion is erroneous. It is true that appellant took advantage of the victim‘s unfortunate fall to finish him off but there is no showing that appellant had consciously adopted, prepared or planned to use the victim‘s sudden, hapless position to his advantage. Dennis Mazo is GUILTY of Homicide. PEOPLE v MANTES 368 SCRA 661 FACTS:Efren Mantes and Danilo Flores tookElicazar Napili from his house, armed with guns and bolos, tolm him that he was being summoned by the barangay captain. Cowed by their arms, Elicazar went with the two. Thirty minutes after,Elizabeth went to the barangay captain to inquire as to the whereabouts of her husband. She was told that her husband was not summoned. Violeta Latagan testified that while she and her husband Abelardo and their child were resting inside their house, three persons sought shelter from the rain. Minutes later, she heard them quarrelling. She saw Mantes and Flores hacking at Elicazar Napili. Elicazar managed to force his way inside Violeta‘s house. Grabbing her child, Violeta and her husband fled the scene, but not before she was hacked in the left buttock by Flores. Since Elicazar had not yet returned, the the barangay captain and Elizabeth proceeded to the house of Efren Mantes‘ father to look for Efren. There, they found Mantes already awake, wearing a bloodied T-shirt and with wounds on his hands and back. When asked the reason therefor, Efren told the group that he had been in a drinking spree that night and that a fight had ensued thereat. Told to escort the group to the place of the drinking spree and fight, Mantes led the group to the hut of Nicanor Malabanan. The group unearthed the lifeless body of Elicazar Napili wrapped in a transparent plastic sheet. The testimony of Rogelio Manabat and Julio de Salit, who were members of the group which went to the house of Efren Mantes‘ father and later discovered Elicazar‘s cadaver, corroborated the testimony of the barangay captain. Mantes narrated that he, Elicazar Napili& Bernardo were invited by Abelardo to a drinking spree.Bernardo and Elicazar got into an argument, which ultimately led to Bernardo dealing fist blows to Elicazar. Mantes was suddenly hacked with a bolo by Abelardo, prompting him to run and hide in the bushes nearby. From his vantage point, Mantes saw Elicazar wrest the bolo from Abelardo and chase the latter into the house. It was inside the house where Violeta was hacked by Elicazar. Abelardo managed to hit Elicazar on the arm with a piece of wood, causing him to Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 156

drop the bolo. Abelardo then took hold of the bolo and hacked Elicazar in the neck. With Elicazar down, Abelardo and his wife left their house only to return minutes later. They then rolled Elicazar‘s body to the creek nearby. Danilo Flores invoked alibi as defense. HELD: This Court finds appellants guilty only of homicide, not murder, the qualifying circumstance of treachery not having been proven as conclusively as the killing itself. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The elements of treachery are: (i) the means of execution employed gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (ii) the methods of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted (People vs. Cirilo, G.R. No. 134245, December 1, 2000). These two conditions are clearly wanting in the case at bar. Although Elicazar was unarmed at the time he was attacked with bolos by appellants, such circumstance alone does not satisfy the legal requirements of treachery. In People vs. Valles (167 SCRA 103 [1997]), we declared that the mere fact that the victim had no weapon with which he could have defended himself is not sufficient to prove the existence of the first element of treachery, for settled is the rule that treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, the essence of treachery is the sudden, unexpected, and unforeseen attack on the person of the victim, without the slightest provocation on the part of the latter. In the instant case, Elicazar was already alerted to the fact that appellants meant him harm. According to his wife‘s testimony, Elicazar was already pleading for his life with appellants when they took him away. They even hacked at his wife when the latter tried to follow them. All these circumstances point to the fact that Elicazar was already forewarned of the danger to his life. In People vs. Lopez (249 SCRA 610 [1995]), we declared that "there is no treachery were the victim was aware of the danger on his life, when he chose to be courageous instead of cautious, courting obvious danger which, when it came, cannot be defined as sudden, unexpected, and unforeseen." Violeta Latagan‘s testimony is no less enlightening. Violeta testified that she heard appellants and Elicazar quarreling prior to the attack on the latter, and that during the attack the latter even tried to escape. The fact that there was a quarrel prior to the attack proves that there was no treachery, and it is also all too obvious that Elicazar was well-aware of the danger to his life as shown in his attempt to escape, albeit unsuccessfully, from his assailants. PEOPLE v COSTALES 373 SCRA 269 Jessie Molina recalled that she and her sisters Donabel and Erlinda together with their parents Miguel and Crispina had prepare for the night. Jessie and Erlinda had just watched tv when 2 persons suddenly barged into their house passing through the door kept ajar by sacks of palay and strangled her father Miguel. Jessie readily recognized Fernando "Ando" Costales, poked a gun at the head of her father and shot him once in cold blood. Thereafter Fernando Ramirez sprayed on their faces what she described as "something hot and pungent," and with his firearm pumped a bullet on her mother's chest.Both Jessie and Erlinda affirmed that they were familiar with the 2 accused because, like the rest of the family, they were members of the "Baro a Cristiano" also known as Lamplighter, of which Costales and F Ramirez were the high priests in their respective areas. According to Jessie, her parents decided to quit the brotherhood because Ramirez warned them not to sever their ties with the sect if they did not want any harm to befall them. In fact, according to her, a month earlier Ramirez even threatened her sister Erlinda with bodily harm. Fernando Costales: alibi. HELD: We yield to the trial court's finding of treachery. Without doubt, treachery has been established by the prosecution evidence which showed that Fernando Costales and his confederate Fernando Ramirez swiftly and unexpectedly barged into the Marcelo residence in the middle of the night, shot Miguel Marcelo to death as well as his wife Crispina who almost lost her life, and sprayed a substance which temporarily blinded the other occupants of the house. The suddenness of the attack gave the victims no opportunity whatsoever to resist or parry the assault thereby ensuring the accomplishment of their dastardly deed without risk to themselves. Since the attack on the victims was synchronal, sudden and unexpected, treachery must be properly appreciated. Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 157

Fernando "Ando" Costales is guilty of murder and attempted murder. PEOPLE v LOPEZ 395 SCRA 210 Richard Lanzanas, 11-year-old son of the victim, Mauricio Lanzanas, testified that while he was standing near the barangay hall he heard two gunshots. He saw his father inside the sash factory, lying on the ground face up. The trigger man, Felix Lopez, shot his father twice more and then got the latter‘s two handheld radios. Richard remained motionless but, after regaining his composure, rushed home and met his mother along the way. He told his mother about his father‘s fate. She tried to catch up with the appellant but failed. On the charge of murder, we agree with the trial court that treachery was duly established considering that the appellant, in shooting victim Mauricio Lanzanas, employed means and methods which directly and specially ensured its execution without risk to himself arising from the possible defense the victim might have made. As appellant was approaching the sash factory, the victim was totally unaware of the former‘s criminal intent. The victim even greeted the appellant with a nod before he was shot twice by the latter with an armalite rifle, a high-powered weapon. Subsequently, the appellant again shot the helpless victim who was already lying prostrate on the ground. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. Felix J. Lopez is guilty of murder. PEOPLE v ALFON 399 SCRA 64 FACTS: Vicente Eusebio testified that he saw the victim walking from the opposite direction being followed by Expedito Alfon. Alfon came from behind the unsuspecting victim, and suddenly stabbed the latter twice with a knife known as balisong 29. The victim was hit on the left portion of his ribs and on the right side of his chest. As he fell on the ground face down, appellant ran away towards the seashore. Eusebio shouted for help, and immediately, Manuel Rayoso, Jesus Arranza, and Agripino Lazado responded. They carried the victim to a motorboat and brought him to a doctor in Poblacion, Caramoan. Unfortunately, Tomas Alferez did not survive.

Expedito Alfon, on the other hand, interposed the defense of denial. He narrated that in the afternoon of February 18, 1993, he was on his way home from his sister‘s house. HELD:The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack.This criterion applies, whether the attack is frontal or from behind. Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. The fact that the location of the fatal stab wound is in front does not in itself negate treachery. In the case at bar, it was established that appellant came from behind, went towards the right of the victim, and suddenly stabbed the victim‘s chest while holding the latter‘s left shoulder. Evidence shows that, first, at the time of attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, as he was unarmed and totally unsuspecting when appellant suddenly held and stabbed him; and second, appellant consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means of attack, as he was seen surreptitiously following the victim with a balisong tucked under his waist. Clearly therefore, treachery attended the crime. Expedito Alfon is guilty of murder

PEOPLE v ESCOTE 400 SCRA 67 FACTS: At Camachile, Balintawak, six passengers boarded the bus, including Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. Juan seated himself on the third seat near the aisle, in the middle row of the passengers‘ seats, while Victor stood by the door in the mid-portion of the bus beside Romulo. Another passenger is SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr. When the bus was travelling along Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor suddenly stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a holdup. Petrified, Rodolfo glanced at the center mirror towards the passengers‘ seat and saw Juan and Victor armed with handguns. Juan fired his gun upward to awaken and


Page 158

scare off the passengers. Juan and Victor then accosted the passengers and divested them of their money and valuables. Juan divested Romulo of the fares he had collected from the passengers. The felons then went to the place Manio, Jr. was seated and demanded that he show them his identification card and wallet. Juan and Victor took the identification card of the police officer as well as his service gun. The police officer pleaded for mercy. Victor and Juan ignored the plea of the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body. Manio, Jr. sustained six entrance wounds. He fell to the floor of the bus. Victor and Juan then moved towards the driver Rodolfo, seated themselves beside him and ordered the latter to maintain the speed of the bus. Rodolfo heard one of the felons saying: ―Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng tao. Parang pumapatay ng manok. SPO3 Romeo Meneses and PO3 Florante S. Ferrer were at the police checkpoint along the national highway when a white taxi cab without any plate number came to view. Meneses stopped the cab and asked the driver, who turned out to be the accused Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr., for his identification card. Juan told Meneses that he was a policeman and handed over to Meneses the identification card of SPO1 Manio, Jr. which Juan and Victor took from Manio, Jr. during the heist. Meneses became suspicious when he noted that the identification card had already expired. He asked Juan if the latter had a new pay slip. Juan could not produce any. He finally confessed to Meneses that he was not a policeman. Juan admitted to the police investigators that he and Victor Arroyo, staged the robbery on board Five Star Bus and are responsible for the death of SPO1 Manio, Jr. Victor denied the charge and interposed the defense of alibi HELD:In the case at bar, the victim suffered six wounds He was shot at close range, thus insuring his death. The issues that now come to fore are (1) whether or not treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide; and if in the affirmative, (b) whether treachery may be appreciated against Juan and Victor. On the first issue, we rule in the affirmative. This Court has ruled over the years that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in the felony of robbery with homicide, a special complex crime and at the same time a single and indivisible offense. However, this Court in two cases has held that robbery with homicide is a crime against property and hence treachery which is appreciated only to crimes against persons should not be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. It held in another case that treachery is not appreciated in robbery with rape precisely because robbery with rape is a crime against property.These rulings of the Court find support in case law that in robbery with homicide or robbery with rape, homicide or rape are merely incidents of the robbery, with robbery being the main purpose and object of the criminal.Indeed, in People vs. Cando, two distinguished members of this Court advocated a review of the doctrine that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide. They opined that treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. After all, in People vs. Bariquit, this Court in a per curiam decision promulgated in year 2000 declared that treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. However, this Court held in People vs. Cando that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, citing its prior rulings that in robbery with homicide, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance when the victim of homicide is killed with treachery. This Court opted not to apply its ruling earlier that year in People vs. Bariquit. Thus, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified as a crime against property and a single and indivisible crime. Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance because as ruled by the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision dated September 11, 1878, the word ―homicide‖ is used in its broadest and most generic sense. In sum then, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed by treachery. Be that as it may, treachery cannot be appreciated against Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the same was not alleged in the Information. PEOPLE v CARAIG 400 SCRA 67


Page 159

FACTS: Edmundo Diaz, Roberto Raagas, Melencio Castro Jr., and Placido Agustin were leaving the beerhouse when Caraig confronted them whether they were military men.A rumble suddenly ensued between his group and Caraig. It was a brief scuffle. Caraig then ran back to the Beerhouse. Edmundo and his companions rode on a taxi. They were chased, however, by car which eventually blocked the taxi, Caraig, Laxamana, and Laomoc alighted from the car. They simultaneously fired upon Edmundo and his companions. While the hail of bullets went on, Edmundo played dead. He then heard somebody utter: "Pare, tama na yan. Patay na lahat ang mga iyan." When the car left, he asked the people who gathered around the scene to bring him to a hospital, where he underwent treatment for eighteen days. Caraig denied that he was one of the assailants HELD:We agree with the OSG and the trial court on the finding of treachery. There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.Two elements must therefore concur: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and the (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.The attack upon the victims in these cases was attended by treachery. Per Danilo Javier‘s testimony, the taxi on which the victims were riding was moving slowly away from the beerhouse when Caraig and his co-assailants pursued it and then blocked its path. The interception took place at less than 100 meters away from the beerhouse. Since the victims were inside the taxi, they had no chance to fight back or defend themselves. The number of the victims‘ individual wounds and their relative positions when found dead by the police emphasized further the essence of treachery. The means, method, and form of the attack in this case were, therefore, consciously adopted and effectively forestalled the victims from employing a defense against their attackers. DONATO CARAIG is found guilty of 3 counts of murder and of frustrated murder. PEOPLE v ABUT 401 SCRA 498 FACTS:Maricar and Edgar and Rosie and Al took a stroll at the Park. The 2 couples sat on the concrete benches facing each other. After a few minutes, Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie arrived.Rosie had been the girlfriend of Winchester before she became the girlfriend of Al.Winchester told Maricar that he wanted to get acquainted with Edgar. Edgar introduced himself to Winchester. Winchester shook hands with Edgar. Winchester yanked his hand and immediately boxed Edgar. Ritchie struck the 2 bottles on the table and hit Edgar with the broken bottles. The 3 continued their assault on the victim and stabbed him. Edgar pleaded to his attackers to stop assaulting him telling them that he had sustained so many stab wounds already. Edgar stood up and staggered only to fall down near one of the cemented benches in the park about 10 meters from the table. Gregmar and Winchester denied assaulting and stabbing Edgar. They claimed that it was Ritchie alone who stabbed and killed the victim. HELD:The trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. However, the trial court erred in appreciating treachery against the appellants. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the mode or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the appellants when they stabbed the victim. Appellant Winchester first boxed the victim. The appellants and Ritchie then mauled and kicked the victim. There is no evidence that at the outset, they had decided to stab and kill the victim. It was only at the late stage of the assault that the appellants and Ritchie stabbed the victim. The Court believes that after ganging up on and mauling the victim, the appellants, at the spur-of-the moment, decided to stab the victim. Thus, the subjective element of treachery was not present


Page 160

Winchester Abut and Gregmar Baliga are guilty of murderqualified by abuse of superior strength. PEOPLE v ESCARLOS 410 SCRA 463 FACTS:Antonio Balisacan went to attend a benefit dance, his son Crisanto, also attended with his friends. Crisanto stood beside the emcee, Escarlos. While Ceasario was calling the victim, Antonio Balisacan, to come to the the stage, Crisantosaw appellant stab his father, Antonio, several times. Crisanto was momentarily shocked that he was not able to react. Antonio was still alive so he brought him to Hospital where he expired a few minutes after arrival. Accused TIMOTEO ESCARLOS was invited to buy lechon during the benefit dance.While Antonio who was then drunk, passed in front and told him, ‗You are here again to create trouble.‘ Accused was offended so he answered back saying ‗Why do you say that to me when I am not doing any trouble here.‘ Antonio Balisacan told him, ‗OKINNAM KETDI‘ and without warning boxed him. Timoteo was hit on the forehead. He intended to box back but he noticed that the victim was pulling out a kitchen knife, so for fear of his life, he grabbed the weapon from Antonio Balisacan and used the knife in stabbing the latter who was hit at the side below the left armpit. He stabbed the victim thrice. HELD:The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim, thus depriving the latter of any real chance to put up a defense, and thereby ensuring the commission of the attack without risk to the aggressor. There is no treachery when the assault is preceded by a heated exchange of words between the accused and the victim; or when the victim is aware of the hostility of the assailant towards the former.In the instant case, the verbal and physical squabble prior to the attack proves that there was no treachery, and that the victim was aware of the imminent danger to his life.Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish that appellant had deliberately adopted a treacherous mode of attack for the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to fight or retreat.Certainly, the victim knew that his scuffle with appellant could eventually turn into a violent physical clash. The existence of a struggle before the fatal blows were inflicted on the victim clearly shows that he was forewarned of the impending attack, and that he was afforded the opportunity to put up a defense.Indeed, a killing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous. Moreover, any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused. ESCARLOS is guilty of homicide. PEOPLE v DE LA CRUZ 416 SCRA 24 IGNOMINY PEOPLE v JOSE 37 SCRA 450 FACTS: June 26, 1967 – Magdalena de la Riva was abducted outside her own by Jaime Jose, Edgardo Aquino, Basilio Pineda and Rogelio Canal. They brought Maggie to Swanky Hotel. Jose, Aquino, Pineda and Canal took turns raping Maggie.  They decided to leave her on a spot in front of the Free Press Building not far from Epifanio de los Santos Avenue near Channel 5 to make it appear, according to them, that the complainant had just come from the studio.  They threatened that she would be doused with acid if she would inform anyone of the incident.  When she was inside the cab and alone with the driver, Miguel F. Campos, she broke down and cried. She kept asking the driver if a car was following them; and each time the driver answered her in the negative  When she reached home she informed her mother of the incident  Appellant Canal and Pineda executed swore to separate statements on the day of their arrest 1. Cañal confirmed the information previously given by Jose that the four of them waited for Miss De la Riva to come down from the ABS Studio, and that they had planned to abduct and rape her. Appellant Cañal admitted that all four of them participated in the commission of the crime, but he would make it appear that insofar as he was concerned the complainant yielded her body to him on condition that he would release her


Page 161

2. Pineda executed a statement stating that he and his other three companions wept to the ABS Studio, and that, on learning that Miss De la Riva was there, they made plans to wait for her and to follow her. He admitted that his group followed her car and snatched her and took her to the Swanky Hotel. He would make it appear, however, that the complainant voluntarily acceded to having sexual intercourse with him.  Jose, Aquino, Canal pleaded not guilty while Pineda pleaded guilty. Issues WON aggravating circumstances were present.  YES. Nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes  Abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another (Cf. People vs. De Guzman, et al., 51 Phil., 105, 113)  Ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating  use of a motor vehicle.

PEOPLE v BUTLER 120 SCRA 281 FACTS:Emelita Pasco, the housemaid of the victim Enriquita Alipo, testified that her mistress came home with Butler. They immediately entered the victim's bedroom. Thereafter, the victim left her bedroom holding an ID card and a piece of paper, and on the piece of paper, the victim wrote the following words: MICHAEL J. BUTLER, 44252-8519 USS HANCOCK. Pasco testified that the victim said she was copying the name of the accused because she knew he would not be going back to her. Then she rushed back to her bedroom after instructing Pasco to wake her up the following morning. 2 Before retiring, however, the victim's friend, Rosemarie Juarez, came to the former's house and after having a small conversation, also left. The following day Pasco rose to wake her mistress as instructed. She knocked at the door. She found that the victim was lying on her bed, facing downward, naked up to the waist, with legs spread apart, with a broken figurine beside her head HELD: We find and sustain the finding of the lower court that the aggravating circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the deceased applies against the accused since it is established that he mocked or outraged at the person or corpse of his victim by having an anal intercourse with her after she was already dead. The fact that the muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by Dr. Angeles Roxas and clearly established the coitus after death. This act of the accused in having anal intercourse with the woman after killing her is, undoubtedly, an outrage at her corpse. PEOPLE v SAYLAN 130 SCRA 159 FACTS:Eutropia A. Agno, a married woman and a teacher and her five-year old daughter Nilsonita boarded a jeepney and while inside the vehicle she noticed that the other passengers were Rudy Gonzales, Rafael Saylan, and a couple whom she did not know. It was almost 6:30 pm when the jeepney arrived at the Malinas and so all the passengers alighted and had to walk. The couple separated from the group and appellant joined the group of Eutropia and suddenly pulled out a dagger and pointing it at Eutropiaand dragged Eutropia at some distance. He ordered everybody to stop and told the children to stay behind and threatened to kill them if they follow them.Thereafter, 5 meters away from where Nilsonita and Rudy were Saylan ordered to lie down. Subsequently, appellant placed himself on top of the victim and inserted his penis into her vagina and succeeded in having sexual intercourse. Second intercourse happened.A third time,in the dog's way of sexual intercourse. Saylan did not deny having had sexual intercourse with Mrs. Agno; in fact he admitted that he copulated with her for 3 successive times. HELD:The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. male superior, female inferior, but also "The same position as dogs do"


Page 162

i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there was ignominy because "The studies of many experts in the matter have shown that this 'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in the act of copulation." This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners but not otherwise. Saylan is guilty of rape and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE v SIAO 327 SCRA 231 FACTS: Rene Siao in his residence ordered Reylan Gimena, his family‘s 17yr old houseboy, to pull Estrella Raymundo, their 14yr old housemaid, to the women‘s quarters. Once inside, appellant Siao pushed her to the wooden bed and asked her to choose one among a pistol, candle or a bottle of sprite. Appellant lit the candle and dropped the melting candle on her chest. Estrella was made to lie down on her back on the bed w/ her head hanging over one end. Appellant then poured sprite into her nostrils as she was made to spread her arms w/ his gun pointed to her face. Appellant Siao then tied her feet and hands w/ an electric cord or wire as she was made to lie face down on the bed. As Siao pointed his pistol at her, he ordered Estrella to undress and commanded her to take the initiative on Gimena. Not understanding what he meant, appellant motioned to her poking the gun at her temple. Gimena was then ordered to remove his shorts. He did not do so but only let his penis out. Appellant Siao spread the arms of Estrella and made her lie down spread-eagled. She felt dizzy and shouted for help twice. Siao then ordered Gimena to rape Estrella. At first, Gimena refused because he has a sister. However, Siao said that if they would not obey, he would kill both of them.  Both Gimena and Estrella were forced and intimidated at gunpoint by Siao to have carnal knowledge of each other. They performed the sexual act because they were afraid they would be killed. Siao commanded Gimena to rape Estrella in 3 diff positions (i.e. missionary position, side-by-side and dog position as narrated vividly in the case), pointing the handgun at them the whole time. Thereafter, Siao warned them, ―If you will tell the police, I will kill your mothers.‖  Appellant Siao, for his defense, denies the whole event. He asserts that she retaliated through this accusation because Estrella herself was accused of stealing many of his family‘s personal effects.  TC held Rene Siao guilty as principal by induction of rape and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and indemnification of PhP50K. Gimena was acquitted for having acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal, if not greater injury. HELD: SC respected TC‘s finding of facts and found any inconsistencies in the witnesses‘ testimonies inconsequential considering that they referred to trivial matters w/c have nothing to do w/ the essential fact of the commission of rape, that is carnal knowledge through force and intimidation. Ergo, even if it was pointed out that in all 3 positions, Gimena ejaculated 3x in a span of less than 30 mins, w/c does not conform to common experience, rape was still present from the evidence because rape is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. Penetration, however slight, and not ejaculation, is what constitutes rape. Moreover, even if the house was occupied by many people at the time of the crime, rape was still committed because lust is no respecter of time and place. And Estrella‘s and Gimena‘s decision not to flee proves only the fear and intimidation that they were under because Siao was after all their ―amo‖ or employer who threatened to kill them or their family if they did not succumb to his demands. The governing law is Art 335 RPC as amended by RA 7659 w/c imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, if committed w/ the use of a deadly weapon. The TC overlooked and did not take into account the aggr circumstance of ignominy and sentenced accused-appellant to the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. It has been held that where the accused in committing the rape used not only the missionary position i.e. male superior, female inferior but also the dog position as dogs do, i.e. entry from behind, as was proven in the case, the aggr circumstance of ignominy attended the commission thereof. However, the use of a deadly weapon serves to increase the penalty as opposed to a generic aggr circumstance w/c only affects the period of the penalty. This nonetheless should be alleged in the information, because of the accused‘s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Considering that the complaint failed to allege the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty to be reckoned w/ in determining the penalty for rape would be reclusion perpetua, as prescribed for simple rape. Simple rape is punishable by the single indivisible


Page 163

penalty of reclusion perpetua, w/c must be applied regardless of any mit/aggr circumstance w/c may have attended the commission of the deed. Hence, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the TC is correct. UNLAWFUL ENTRY PEOPLE v BAELLO 224 SCRA 218 FACTS: Brgy. Capt. Eustaquio Borja awoke to find out that the front door of his house was open & that their TV set in the sala was missing. He & his wife went to the 2 nd floor & found their daughter, Veronica Baello dead. She was stabbed to death. Borja reported the incident to the authorities & they later on discovered that some more items were missing in their house. Lost items amount to about P50k.  Suspects: John Baello, also known as Totong along with one Jerry who‘s still at large. Why? TV set discovered in the house of Baello‘s bro-in-law, Eugenio Tagifa. Tagifa executed a sworn statement testifying that it was Baello who brought the TV to their house. Baello was captured later on & he admitted that he took part in the commission of the crime. His testimony was taken in the presence of PAO lawyer Atty. Generoso since he couldn‘t afford his own counsel. He admitted that they passed through the window of the house‘s 2 nd floor however; he claimed that he only got the TV set & he didn‘t know what items Gerry took from the house. He further claimed that Gerry was responsible for Veronica‘s death since he was the one who stayed on the 2nd floor of the house.  He later on claimed that he was mauled & that his lawyer didn‘t really help/defend him. According to him, Atty. Generoso simply stared at him & that the lawyer asked Baello to sign a typewritten statement w/the promise that he‘ll be released later on. Baello‘s mother attested to the fact that her son had contusions caused allegedly by one Gabriel, Eustaquio‘s nephew, who was in jail too.  RTC found Baello guilty.& sentenced him to RP (reclusion perpetua) w/indemnity of P50k & ordered to pay P50k as repatriation for the stolen items. ISSUES & RATIO: WON the AC of unlawful entry should be appreciated.  YES. They entered the Borja residence through the second floor window w/c is not intended for ingress.  NOCTURNITY also appreciated (AC) since the crime was committed in the darkness & they took advantage of such circumstance to accomplish the crime. HELD:Conviction affirmed.

PEOPLE v UYCOQUE 246 SCRA 768 FACTS:Lucas and his wife, Francisca Flores heard someone knocking, Lucas opened the door. Suddenly, someone grabbed Lucas and forced him out of the house. Francisca heard volley of gunshots. Francisca found Lucas lying prostrate on the ground. He had been shot. Francisca saw Jose Villanueva and 2 other suspects surrounding her fallen husband. Instinctively, Francisca embraced Lucas. Irked, accused-appellant shoved her aside and in the process Lucas was released from her hold. Thereafter, she sought help from her neighbors. Accused-appellant and his cohorts‘ fled. Accused-appellant‘s contention is that he shot Lucas in self-defense. Jose Villanueva is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of "Murder". Carlo Uycoque is hereby acquitted of the said charge for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the (said) accused beyond reasonable doubt. HELD:We affirm the judgment of conviction. There is alevosia since the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim defenseless in the hands of his assailants and ensuring the accomplishment of the assailants' evil purpose. We quote with approval the findings of the trial court, thus: The Court is convinced that the accused killed Lucas Flores with treachery. Villanueva and his cohorts pretended to be visitors, knocked on the door to the house of Lucas Flores and, when the latter went to open the door, the accused and his cohorts then pulled Lucas Flores out of the door and shot him to death. Lucas Flores sustained no less than 7 gunshot wounds. The incident


Page 164

was so sudden and unexpected. Lucas Flores was not thus able to defend himself and (sic) against the unforeseen assault on him. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling also attended the commission of the crime even if the victim was killed outside his residence. A person's abode is regarded as a sanctuary which should be respected by everybody. Here, while the victim was resting in the comfort of his home, accused-appellant and his cohort(s) forcibly led him (the victim) out of his house shortly before he was shot to death. At that point, the aggression had begun, although it ended outside the victim's house.An act performed cannot be divided or its unity be broken up, when the offender began the aggression in the dwelling of the offended party and ended it in the street or outside said dwelling. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his house and killed just beside his abode although the offense was not completed therein. BREAKING A WALL, DOOR, ETC PEOPLE v ASTUDILLO 401 SCRA 723 FACTS: Clarence, Crisanto and Hilario Astudillo, went to house of Alberto Damian. Clarence greeted Alberto and asked the victim, Silvestre Aquino, to go with him. Silvestre acceded and the two walked towards Floras‘ Store, where they were later joined by Crisanto and Hilario. While at the store, Crisanto and Silvestre had an argument.Manuel Bareng and Eduardo Bata, 12 and 11 years of age, saw Clarence stab Silvestre with a bolo while Crisanto and Hilario held him by the wrists. Clarence delivered several stab blows at the back and on the chest of the victim until the latter fell to the ground. Thereafter, the three appellants fled on board a tricycle.Silvestre was rushed to the Municipal Health Office of Bangued, Abra, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Clarence said Silvestre struck him on the head and arm with an empty one-liter softdrink bottle.Hilario arrived and tried to pacify Silvestre but the latter attacked him. As he retreated, he saw a knife which he then swung at the victim. Silvestre was hit but continued to attack him. Left with no choice, Hilario stabbed Silvestre 2 or 3 times. When the latter collapsed to the ground, Hilario rushed to the succor of his elder brother, Clarence HELD: In order that treachery may be considered, the following requisites must concur: (1) the employment of means, method or manner of execution which would ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) the means, method, or manner of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.[36] Here, it is clear that treachery qualified the killing of the deceased to murder, considering that the appellants deliberately restrained the victim so as to enable one of them to successfully deliver the stab blows without giving the latter a chance to defend himself or to retaliate. Astudillo @ ―Anteng‖ or ―Enteng‖, and Hilario Astudillo @ ―Boda‖, are guilty of murder. PEOPLE v OCO 412 SCRA 190 FACTS:Surviving victim Herminigildo Damuag on Nov 24, 1997, he was driving his motorcycle with Alden Abiabi riding with him at the back. When they reached Pica Lumber, a white car overtook their motorcycle and blocked their path, forcing him to slow down. Another motorcycle, with 2 riders on it, appeared behind the first motorcycle. From a distance of 2-3meters, 1 of the riders of the second motorcycle suddenly fired 2 shots in close succession. Damuag attempted to look at the tires of his motorcycle, thinking that they have exploded. Suddenly, Abiabi pushed him with his body. Abiabi fell from the motorcycle and slumped on the pavement face down. The white car sped away. As Damuag was trying to control his motorcycle, he noticed another motorcycle (third motorcycle) passed by from behind him. His motorcycle zigzagged towards the gutter. Damuag was thrown off and hit the ground. He stood up and realized that he was hit at the right side of his body. He then heard a burst of gunfire from behind. Oco was at the back of the third motorcycle, fired his gun at him but missed. Damuag was able to run. However, the third motorcycle chased him. Upon reaching the vicinity of Five Brothers restaurant, Damuag stopped because he could not pass anymore. From a distance of about 4-5 meters, Oco again fired 2 more shots at Damuag.Damuag was rushed to the Hospital. He survived the attack due to the timely medical attention given to him. Abiabi did not survive the ambush. He sustained 8 gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body. The prosecution theorized that the shooting


Page 165

incident was drug-related. The late Abiabi was a known anti-drug advocate while the Oco was a suspected drug lord. HELD:We agree with the trial court that treachery attended the killing of Abiabi and the wounding of Damuag. There is treachery ―when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might take.‖[92] For treachery to exist, two conditions must be found: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him.[93] In the case at bar, the motorcycle driven by Damuag (first motorcycle) was suddenly blocked by a white Tamaraw FX. Without any warning, the backrider of the second motorcycle, coming from behind, suddenly fired successive shots at Damuag and Abiabi. While Abiabi was helplessly laid at the pavement face down due to the wounds he sustained, appellant mercilessly shot at him. On the other hand, Damuag, already wounded, tried to escape but appellant pursued him and shot at him three more times. The unexpected and sudden attack on the victims, rendering them unable and unprepared to defend themselves, such suddenness having been meant to ensure the safety of the gunman as well as the success of the attack clearly constitutes alevosia.

WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15, OR WITH MOTOR VEHICLES PEOPLE v ONG (JANUARY 30, 1975) FACTS: Benjamin Ong used to play mahjong with Henry Chua, Ko King Pin, Go Bon Kim and Marcelo Tanlimco. He lost substantially that at one time, it amounted to as much as P150, 000.00. He suspected that he lost in unfair games and was completely cheated by Henry Chua and the latter's companions, who made things worse by pressing him to pay his gambling debt with a threat of bodily harm upon his person and that of his family. The deceased and his companions embarrassed Ong, incident after incident, especially when they went time and again to Benjamin Ong's office at the Acme Shoes. Ong sought the assistance of Fernando Tan, Baldomero Ambrosia and Bienvenido Quintos. The 4 met and finalized their plan to liquidate Chua. The group, riding in Benjamin Ong's Biscayne car, then went to the Amihan Nightclub .Ong and Chuamet there and had a couple of drinks. The duo left t and rode in Henry's car. Fernando Tan, Bienvenido Quintos and Baldomero Ambrosio riding in Ong's car, followed the couple, they made a turn towards a dirt road. When they reached a dark and secluded place, Benjamin Ong urged Chua to stop the car in order to urinate, to which the latter obliged. It was at this time that the Biscayne car arrived and Fernando Tan and Baldomero Ambrosio alighted with a flashlight and pretended to be policemen. Fernando Tan poked his gun at Chua and pulled him down from his car with Ambrosio giving him help. They then guided and forced him inside the rear part of the Biscayne. He was made to lie, face up. His hands were tied and his mouth gagged with a flannel cloth. Fernando Tan and Bienvenido Quintos then rested their feet on him. Baldomero Ambrosio drove the Biscayne while Benjamin Ong drove the Mustang and followed them from behind.The group reached a deserted place and it was here that Henry Chua was stabbed twice with an icepick and buried there with all his belongings with him consisting of a Piaget watch, lighter, wallet containing P50 bills, driver's license, diner's card, etc. HELD:Aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle in the commission of the crime. The Biscayne car of Benjamin Ong was used in trailing the victim's car from Wigwam Nightclub up to the time that it was overtaken and blocked. It carried the victim on the way to the scene of the killing, it contained at its baggage compartment the pick and shovel used in digging the grave; it was the fast means of fleeing and absconding from the scene. Again, the motor vehicle facilitated the stark happening. It has been held that the use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said vehicle was used in transporting the victim and the accused.


Page 166

Benjamin Ong and Bienvenido Quintos are guilty of the crime of murder with the attendant qualifying circumstance of treachery, and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of motor vehicle. PEOPLE v ASTUDILLO 401 SCRA 723 FACTS: Clarence, Crisanto and Hilario Astudillo, went to house of Alberto Damian. Clarence greeted Alberto and asked the victim, Silvestre Aquino, to go with him. Silvestre acceded and the two walked towards Floras‘ Store, where they were later joined by Crisanto and Hilario. While at the store, Crisanto and Silvestre had an argument.Manuel Bareng and Eduardo Bata, 12 and 11 years of age, saw Clarence stab Silvestre with a bolo while Crisanto and Hilario held him by the wrists. Clarence delivered several stab blows at the back and on the chest of the victim until the latter fell to the ground. Thereafter, the three appellants fled on board a tricycle.Silvestre was rushed to the Municipal Health Office of Bangued, Abra, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Clarence said Silvestre struck him on the head and arm with an empty one-liter softdrink bottle.Hilario arrived and tried to pacify Silvestre but the latter attacked him. As he retreated, he saw a knife which he then swung at the victim. Silvestre was hit but continued to attack him. Left with no choice, Hilario stabbed Silvestre 2 or 3 times. When the latter collapsed to the ground, Hilario rushed to the succor of his elder brother, Clarence HELD : As regards the generic aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle, the trial court erred in appreciating the same inasmuch as the prosecution failed to show that the tricycle was deliberately used by the appellants to facilitate the commission of the crime or that the crime could not have been committed without it. The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating where the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult. Clarence Astudillo, Crisanto Astudillo @ ―Anteng‖ or ―Enteng‖, and Hilario Astudillo @ ―Boda‖, are guilty of the crime of murder . CRUELTY PEOPLE v ILAOA 233 SCRA 231 FACTS:A decapitated body of a man was found in a grassy portion at Tinio St., Angeles City. He was later identified as Nestor de Loyola thru his voter‘s identification.  Apart from the decapitation, the decease bore 43 stab wounds in the chest as well as slight burns all over the body.  The head was found 2 feet away from the corpse (nice!yech!)  5 persons were charged for the crime although Ruben and Rogelio Ilaoa were the only ones who stood trial and the two were found guilty of murder attended by evident premeditation, abuse of superios strength and cruelty.  Circumstancial evidence established that Nestor was drinking with the two, and later Ruben and Nestor were engaged in an argument. Nestor was then kicked and mauled by Ruben and his brother Rodel and Julius Eliginio and Edwin Tapang. Thereafter he was dragged to Ruben‘s apartment. Ruben and Julius later borrowed the tricycle of a certain Alex Villamil. Ruben was seen driving the tricycle with a sack in the sidecar that looked like it contained a human body. Alex noted bloodstains on the tricycle‘s floor. Blood was found in Ruben‘s shirt and shoes and hair near his right forehead was found partly burned. Susan Ocampo, Ruben‘s live-in partner was likewise seen sweeping what appeared to be blood at the entrance of their apartment. ISSUE:WON crime was attended with cruelty  NO. The fact that Nestor‘s decapitated body bearing 43 stab wounds, 24 of which were fatal, was found dumped in the street is not sufficient for a finding of cruelty where there is no showing that Ruben, for his pleasure and satisfaction, cause Nestor to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain.  Number of wound alone is not the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance Neither can it be inferred from the mere fact that the victim‘s body was dismembered

PEOPLE v ALLAN 245 SCRA 549


Page 167

FACTS: Joseph Salinas, thirteen-year old son of the victim Roberto Salinas, testified that after they had gone fishing, Roberto decided to have a bottle of beer at a store. Joseph Proceeded to go home. Fe Gutierrez instructed Joseph to fetch his father. Joseph saw Robert and Demetrio stabbing his father while the other two men restrained his hands. An unidentified person, Arthur Doe, stabbed the middleback part of the victim. Roberto was slumped prostrate against the wall; he was shot at the left temple by a person who has not, as yet, been apprehended. Robert and Demetrio interposed the defense of alibi. Robert testified that he had gone fishing and came home only the following morning. Demetrio claimed that he stayed overnight in Barrio Malimpec. HELD:The Court is not convinced that cruelty had been sufficiently shown on the basis of this finding alone. Cruelty cannot be appreciated in the absence of any showing that appellants, for their pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The mere fact that wounds in excess of what was indispensably necessary to cause death were found in the body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty and with the intention of deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or aggravating the sufferings of the victim. Robert Alban and Demetrio Alban are guilty of murder. PEOPLE v SIBONGA 404 SCRA 10 FACTS: Juan Veranio was the leader of the ―Greenan,‖ an aggrupation of civilians, who tasked themselves to preserve peace and order in the community. Isugan, Vicente and Henry proceeded to the house of Juan Veranio who, when informed of Vicente‘s problem, agreed to arrest Gaudioso. Juan Veranio woke up Gaudioso saying. Juan Veranio demanded to know from Gaudioso why he boxed Julia. Gaudioso replied that he did so because of his anger, and that he was drunk. Juan Veranio right then and there declared that Gaudioso was at fault. He told Gaudioso that he would have to be brought to the municipal building. He also told Isugan to go with the men so that if Gaudioso would sustain injuries, Isugan would declare that Gaudioso had fought back. Isugan agreed. When they were about three kilometers away, the group stopped. Cristitoto Mariñas suddenly stabbed Gaudioso on his right side. Eufrecino Sibonga, for his part, stabbed the victim at the back. The rest of the men took turns in stabbing the victim. Isugan was afraid to help. He might also be killed if he intervened for the victim. He opted to keep silent. Isugan then heard a gunshot. The Greenan members carried the body of the victim to a nearby precipice. When the accused and appellants returned, accused Juan Veranio told Isugan: ―We dropped the dead body to the precipice because this is our law (sic) if somebody fights back.‖The group then dispersed HELD: The Court agrees with the appellants‘ contention that the trial court erred in ruling that cruelty attended the commission of the crime when the victim was thrown into the precipice. The trial court premised its ruling on its finding that when the appellants and their co-accused threw the victim into the precipice, he was still alive. Cruelty in the commission of a felony is appreciated when the wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission. There is no cruelty when the other wrong is done after the victim is already dead. The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the victim‘s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. In this case, the evidence of the prosecution as gleaned from the testimony of Gaudioso Isugan quoting accused Juan Veranio is that when the accused and appellants threw the victim into the precipice, the latter was already dead. PEOPLE v SOLAMILLO 404 SCRA 211 FACTS:The victim owned the Liberty Bakery and Grocery; hisemployees were appellant Julian Solamillo, Edgardo Ebarle and Eddie Trumata, who lived together in the bakery.Edgardo Ebarle, Eddie Trumata and appellants were at the bakery. Aleli Guiroy, the victim‘s daughter, saw them when she arrived.The next morning, Aleli returned to the bakery but was unable to open the doors. She sought help from her uncle, Lorenzo Guiroy who, in turn, asked Warlito Gonoz to accompany her back to the bakery. When Warlito peeped through a window, he saw the victim


Page 168

lying on the floor. Immediately, they reported the matter to the police.PO3 Celso Tan Sanchez arrived and found the victims dead body, a wooden stool, a bolo and a piece of bakawan (firewood), all with blood. The table drawers were open and the bakery was in disarray.Aleli informed PO3 Sanchez that her fathers P20, 000.00, wallet and Seiko watch were missing. HELD: The trial court erred in appreciating against appellants the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed: (a) by a band; (b) with evident premeditation; (c) with deliberate cruelty; and (d) with treachery. The trial court held that the crime was committed with deliberate cruelty considering that the victim suffered 21 hack and stab-wounds, contusions and abrasions on the different parts of his body. The number of wounds is not the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. The mere fact that wounds in excess of what is necessary to cause death were inflicted upon the body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty.It is necessary to show that the accused intentionally and deliberately increased the victim's suffering. In this case, there is no evidence showing appellants intent to commit such cruelty. Dukduk Solamillo and Julian Solamillo are found GUILTY of the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES RPC, Art. 15 Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender. The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender. The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

RELATIONSHIP PEOPLE v ATOP286 SCRA 157 FACTS:Regina Guafin, told the court that she is a granddaughter of Trinidad Mejos and that the accused Alejandro Atop is the common law husband of said Trinidad Atop  Her mother is a daughter of Trinidad Atop and lives in Pangasinan. She is an illegitimate child and she does not even know her father. Since her early childhood she stayed with her grandmother Trinidad Atop and the accused. Sometime in 1991 when she was already 10 years of age the accused started having lustful desire on her. The accused then inserted his finger into her vagina. She told her grandmother about this but her grandmother did not believe her. She was then told by her grandmother, Trinidad Mejos, that what her grandfather did to her was just a manifestation of fatherly concern. She continued staying with her grandmother and her common law husband Alejandro Atop.  Oct. 9, 1992 – Atop had carnal knowledge of Regina. Regina informed her grandmother but her grandmother refused to believe her.  Regina reported the incidents of rape that happened in 1992, 1993, and 1994 only in January 1995. She said that she was afraid to report the incident because Ali threatened to kill her. Ali denied the accusations of Regina and imputed ill motive upon her aunts, who were the daughters of his live in partner. Issues: 1. WON the circumstance of relationship as aggravating can be appreciated.  Scope of Relationship


Page 169





 

o Spouse o Ascendant o Descendant o Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister o Relative by affinity in the same degree Relationship by affinity refers to a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. Relatives by affinity are those commonly referred to as in-laws, stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like. Relatives by consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under the second, third and fourth enumeration above. The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relations. There is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the modifying circumstance of relationship cannot be considered against him

INTOXICATION PEOPLE vIBAÑEZ [G.R. Nos. 133923-24. July 30, 2003] FACTS:Felix Olanda, in his early eighties, and wife Rosario, 72 were soundly asleep when Felix suddenly felt somebody hack him. Felix recognized appellant who used to reside in the house of their neighbor. He went to the main door of their house and asked for help. He saw his wife already dead. Earlier on the same date, appellant went to the house of Juanito Sarmiento. Sarmiento saw appellant with scratches on his legs, knees and arms. Ibañez told him that he escaped from his employer who is a palay dealer and asked for money in order to go to Umangan. Sarmiento gave himP20.00. On October 20, 1996, Sarmiento reported the incident to the police. When he was shown the items recovered from the crime scene – bolo, maong pants, t-shirt, and belt – he recognized them to be those of appellant. Atty. Gavino Villanueva assisted appellant in the execution of the extrajudicial confession of his guilt to the commission of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder. ISSUE: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER, VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT AND INTOXICATION IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED. HELD: Intoxication as a generic mitigating circumstance. Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, intoxication is mitigating when it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. To be mitigating, the accused‘s state of intoxication must be proved.In the case at bar, appellant merely alleged that when the offenses were committed, he was so drunk. However, his self-serving statement in the extrajudicial confession was not corroborated by other evidence. The defense did not present evidence neither was it elicited on cross-examination of Juanito Sarmiento who testified that appellant went to see him between 3:00 and 4:00 in the morning on the date of incident. Thus, appellant‘s bare assertion of intoxication is devoid of any probative value. Juanito Ibañez GUILTY of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS: PEOPLE v BAJAR 414 SCRA 494 FACTS:Ana Bajar Rabor visited her parents in their house, her mother Lolita, suggested that since her father was very drunk, she should sleep at the house of her maternal grandfather, the victim Aquilio, 100 meters away. Alejandro, who was still obviously very drunk, inquiring whether his wife was in the house.Aquilio answered that his wife was in their (Alejandro‘s) house. Alejandro accused Aquilio of lying and of hiding his daughter. Ana heard a sound and saw that


Page 170

Alejandro was carrying a bolo and approaching her grandfather. She saw her father hack her grandfather, who was lying on the bed. She got up, ran towards the sala, and saw her father still hacking his grandfather. While he was being stabbed and attacked, Aquilio stood up to embrace his son-in-law. Ana shouted for help as she held down the hand which her father used to wield the bolo. Alejandro testified that on the date and time in question, he left his two daughters, Ana and Alma, and his two grandchildren, Mary Joy and Ann-Ann, at his house. He proceeded to his father-inlaw‘s house to look for his wife. Upon arrival, he greeted Aquilio with respect: ―Pa, good evening.‖ The latter replied that Lolita was not there and invited him (Alejandro) to go up and see for himself. Alejandro went up, and not finding his wife, said: ―She is not here Pa.‖ Aquilio angrily retorted: ―Everytime you are drunk you come here to ask me.‖ Aquilio then suddenly clubbed Alejandro on the head with a 2 x 3 coco lumber he saw near the door.Alejandro then touched his head, and saw blood on his hand. He felt dizzy. Seeing that Aquilio was about to attack him again, he drew out his hunting knife and defended himself by moving his hand from the right to left. He felt he hit something before he lost consciousness. HELD:We affirm Alejandro‘s conviction. With regard to the alternative circumstance of intoxication, which the trial court treated as aggravating, we find that it has not been shown to be habitual or intentional as required by Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. Lolita testified ―that her husband would drink liquor once a week but was not a frequent drinker.‖ She also admitted that on that fateful day, there was a fiesta celebration at Barangay Mambayaan. As Alejandro insists, it was but natural for him to drink liquor during fiesta celebrations. In the absence of clear and positive proof that Alejandro‘s intoxication was habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime, it is improper to consider the same as an aggravating circumstance. Neither can intoxication be considered mitigating in the instant case, there being no proof that the appellant was so drunk that his will-power was impaired or that he could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts. PEOPLE v MOSENDE 371 SCRA 446 FACTS:Leticia Zabala Sapupo saw Cayetano ―Tano‖Mosende, leaning on the fence, just arms away from where she stood. The vicinity was sufficiently illuminated from neighboring houses and a nearby construction site. Mosende was unaware of being watched because she by then had the lights in the house turned off. "Tano‖ was known in the neighborhood of closely-knit urban dwellers as being a habitual drunkard and troublemaker when inebriated. Leticia saw Mosende walk towards the mango tree where Enrique Sefriuto, popularly called by neighbors as ―Andrew,‖ was lying face up on a nearby bench. Moments later, Andrew stood up and walked some distance away to urinate. Mosende also rose, entered the yard and positioned himself behind Andrew while the latter was relieving himself. When Andrew faced ―Tano,‖ the latter, without warning, stabbed the unsuspecting victim twice at the left portion of the abdomen. Leticia sprung to call for help. Relatives immediately brought him to the hospital but the young man died. HELD:The court a quo, in considering the aggravating circumstance of intoxication, gave much weight to the testimony that appellant was so identified as a habitual drunkard. While Leticia Sapupo testified to having seen Mosende drinking an alcoholic beverage at a store earlier the afternoon of the incident, nothing would show that he was in any state of intoxication or in drunken condition when the dastardly deed was being committed. Cayetano Mosende is guilty of murder. PEOPLE V RENEJANE 158 SCRA 446 FACTS: On Nov 1, 1981, at 11PM, Laborte and Maraasin were invited to the house of Beniano to partake of some food and drinks. After a considerable length of time, Paulino Laborte stabbed policeman Mario de Jesus. It was followed by another stabbing done by Beniano Renejane. Likewise, the police officer‘s companion, Regino Maraasin was also stabbed by Rodolfo Ripdos. It was alleged that previously, in Oct, the police officer apprehended Renejane for illegal possession of marijuana and that Maraasin was suspected of having been the informer. Renejane, as his motive, must have harbored a grudge against the comrades.


Page 171

HELD: Denials made and alibi advanced by the appellant cannot prevail over their positive identification. Furthermore, Renejane had a motive in the killing. Intoxication is aggravating if it is habitual or intention. The fact that the accused drank liquor prior to the commission of the crime did not necessarily qualify such action as an aggr circumstance. The affair was an ordinary drinking party. Neither can this be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the absence of proof that the intake of alcoholic drinks was of such quantity as to blur the appellant‘s reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control. This has been strengthened by the fact that treachery has been established. Therefore, the means of execution employed were deliberately or consciously adopted. Moreover, the aggr circumstance of the act being in disregard of rank is appreciable in the case at bar. Wherefore, judgment appealed from is affirmed. Penalty modified from reclusion perpetua to reclusion temporal in its max period to reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE v CAMANO 115 SCRA 688 FACTS: Feb. 17, 1970 bet. 4 & 5 p.m. in Nato, Sagnay, Camarines Sur: Camano, after drinking liquor, stabbed Godofredo Pascua w/a bolo while the latter was walking along the barrio street almost in front of the store of one Socorro Buates. Pascua sustained 2 mortal wounds w/c caused his death. Afterwards, Camano went to the seashore of the barrio where he found Mariano Buenaflor leaning at the gate of the fence of his house in a kneeling position w/both arms on top of the fence & his head stooping down. Camano then hacked Buenaflor w/the same bolo sustaining 8 wounds w/c caused latter‘s death. No proof of any altercation between the accused & victims prior to the incidents.  3 yrs before the incident, the victims had a misunderstanding w/the accused. Camano asked for Pascua to tow his fishing boat w/the motorboat owned by Buenaflor but the two refused to do so. Camano resented such refusal. Even if they were seen drinking together later on, the friendly attitude was more artificial than real. Camano refused to associate w/the 2 & a neighbor‘s attempt to reconcile the 3 was repeatedly refused. And in instances when Camano was drunk, he‘d even challenge Buenaflor to a fight & announce his evil intention to kill them.  Prosecution: Camano surrendered upon demand of the peace officers. He admitted that he owned the bolo used in the killing & such was hidden under the table of his house. Patrolman Baluyot found the bolo at the place indicated by Camano. The bolo was still stained w/human blood. He likewise admitted that killed Pascua & Buenaflor in self-defense but he refused to sign his statement. He was charged w/murder attended by evident premeditation & treachery.  Defense: Camano claims that he went fishing early morning of Feb. 17. Buenaflor, upon seeing that he had a big catch, demanded a percentage for the fishery commission. Camano refused to pay & saw Buenaflor called him hard headed. He went home afterwards. After dinner, he prepared to go out to sea again. While standing in the yard of his house, he saw Buenaflor & Pascua having a drinking session w/a group of men at the score of Socorro Buates. He claims that the Buenaflor‘s group approached him & w/o any provocation, Pascua boxed him. Buenaflor punched him also. He claims that when Pascua was about to bolo him, he was able to grab the bolo from Pascua. Pascua then fell on the ground & the rest of the group ran away except for Buenaflor who approached him. Buenaflor was also armed w/a bolo w/c prompted Camano to bolo him. Buenaflor ran away once he was wounded but Camano ran after him claiming that former had a gun at home w/c he might use to shoot Camano later on. Thus, he hacked Buenaflor to death. He denies killing Pascua & claims that the fight was due to a heated argument & their drunkenness. Issues & Ratio: WON the alternative circumstance of intoxication should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.  NO. IT‘S MITIGATING. Camano‘s counsel claims that there was no proof of accused‘s intoxication at the time of the killing other than Payago‘s testimony that he saw Camano drinking in his house about 30 meters away. No police report/doctor‘s certification was presented either. Furthermore, there‘s no proof that accused purposefully got drunk to facilitate the commission of the offense. If intoxication should be appreciated it should be


Page 172

used as mitigating circumstance since it diminished his capacity to know the injustice of his acts & comprehend fully the consequence of his acts.  Mitigating if accidental, not habitual or intentional & not subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It must be indubitably proven.  Aggravating if habitual or intentional. Habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. Habit should be actual & confirmed. Not necessarily a daily occurrence but it must lessen the individual‘s resistance to evil thought & undermine will power making its victim a potential evildoer.  No proof that Camano was a habitual drinker although he used to get drunk every now & then. Even Pagayo‘s testimony does not establish the habitual drinking of Camano. The intoxication not being habitual & since accused was in a state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the crime, intoxication should be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. Held: Camano is guilty of murder. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION PEOPLE v GALIGAO GR 140961 FACTS: Dorivie Galigao, 12, testified that sometime in the night of February 1996, her sisters Deborrah and Daisy, together with their brother Dexter, were sleeping in their house. Their mother, Lourdes Calderon-Galigao, had left for Manila. Dorivie was roused from her sleep when she felt someone taking off her panties. She woke up and saw that it was her father, Bobby Galigao. Her father raped her.After satisfying his lust, accused-appellant went to the bathroom to wash himself. She put on her panties and went back to sleep. Meanwhile, accused-appellant went to his room. Dorivie revealed that prior to the incident; her father had raped her several times beginning when she was 9.Dorivie also narrated how Deborrah and Daisy were ravished by her father. At one time, she saw accused-appellant crawling towards Deborrah and lay under the blanket beside her. Dorivie, who was only one meter away, noticed that there was movement underneath the covers. Dorivie further testified that she saw her father rape Daisy, her eldest sister. However, she did not do anything for fear that accused-appellant will kill her. As in Deborah‘s case, Dorivie was only a meter away when she witnessed Daisy‘s sexual abuse in the hands of their father. Galigao admitted having raped Daisy, but claimed he did so to get back at her mother who left him for a man with whom she already had a child. He denied having raped Dorivie and Deborrah and argued that the charges against him were filed at the instigation of his wife. HELD:ART. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of Death Penalty Cases. – The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. The Court acknowledged that circumstances could exist to warrant an exercise of such forbearance. In People v. Santos, the Court considered the acts of the deceased victim, a former municipal mayor, in clearing and working on the land claimed by the Ilongots which could have been seen by the accused as an act of oppression and abuse of authority which he felt morally bound to forestall, as well as the limited schooling of the accused, as justification to reduce the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua. In People v. De la Cruz, the Court took into account in lowering the penalty to reclusion perpetua on the accused most of whom were already death row convicts, the deplorable sub-human conditions of the National Penitentiary where the crime was committed. In People v. Marcos, the failure of appellant to realize the gravity of his offense was held to justify the reduction of the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Where, as in the abovementioned Santos case, accused-appellant’s limited schooling was taken into consideration to reduce his penalty to reclusion perpetua, we can do no less herein considering that accusedappellant is an unlettered fisherman. Criminal Cases Nos. C-4974 and C-497: Galigao is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. C-4976.


Page 173

IV. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE ARTICLE 16, RPC Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: 1. Principals. 2. Accomplices. 3. Accessories. The following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices. A.PRINCIPALS ARTICLE 17, RPC Principals. — The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished. DIRECT PARTICIPATION PEOPLE v NUNAG 173 SCRA 274 FACTS: Complainant, Lorenza Lopez, then about 15.5 y.o., declared that in the 2 nd wk of May 1978, at 730PM, while she was watch a TV program in the house of her neighbor, Laxamana, she saw the accused Mario Nunag, 1 of her neighbors, coming towards her. Nunag, staggering & drunk, came to her & asked her to go w/ him. Because she refused, Nunag held her by the hand & poked a knife at her stomach & threatened to kill her. Nunag placed something in her mouth & led her to a nearby ricefield, about 15m. away from Laxamana‘s house. Very soon thereafter, the accused was joined by 4 others, whom she knew also. After conspiring in whispers, Mandap & Salangsang held her hands while Carpio & Manalili held her feet & forced her to lie on the ground. Nunag undressed her & had sexual intercourse w/ her. After him, Mandap followed. She lost consciousness & only regained it while Manalili was abusing her. The 5 accused left w/ a threat that they would kill her & her family. After the incident, the complainant missed her menstruation period whenit became due and noticed that her stomach was getting bigger. Yet she didn‘t tell anybody until her family noticed. In Oct 1978, she gave birth prematurely to female twins who died after baptism. Accused Nunag admitted having sexual intercourse w/ Lopez but denied the charge of rape. He asserted that it was while he was sleeping when she came on to him and they went to the ricefield to relieve their lasciviousness. She asked money after the act and he gave her PhP4.00 and went home. Accused Salangsang offers the same testimony but asserts that he gave Lopez P2 instead. Accused Manalili also contends that it was Lopez who came on to her but he refused to give her money. It was only Carpio & Mandap who denied having sexual intercourse w/ her. HELD: CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF EACH ACCUSED IN CASE AT BAR — Each of the 5 accusedappellants must be found guilty of 3 distinct and separate crimes of rape, the first three, namely, Mario Nunag, Arnel Mandap and Diosdado Manalili, by direct act and participationand the other two, namely, Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang, in the absence of conclusive proof that they had sexual intercourse with complainant, by indispensable cooperation, since they aided the three (3) accused in having sexual intercourse with the complainant.

PEOPLE v DORIA 301 SCRA 668 FACTS: Two civilian informants informed the PNP Narcom that one ―Jun was engaged in illegal drug activities and the Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrenst ―Jun‖ in a buy-bust operation.


Page 174











 

On the day of entrapment, PO3 Manlangit handed ―Jun‖ the marked bills and ―Jun‖ instructed PO3 Manlangit to wait for him while he got the marijuana from his associate. When they met up, ―Jun‖ gave PO3 something wrapped in plastic upon which PO3 arrested ―Jun‖. They frisked Jun but did not find the marked bills on him. ―Jun‖ revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named ―neneth‖ They wen to Neneth‘s house. PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dinin table and noticed something wrapped in plastic inside the box. Suspicious, PO3 entered the house and took hold of the box and found that it ha 10 bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. Simultaneously, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from Neneth. The policemen arrested Neneth and took both her and Jun, together with the coz, its contents and the marked bill and turned them over to the investigator at headquarters, Jun was then learned to be Florencio Doria while Neneth is Violata Gaddao. They were both convicted feloniously selling, administering and giving away to another 11 plastic bags of suspected marijuana fruiting tops, in violation of R.A 6425, as amended by RA 7659

Issue: WON Violeta Gaddao is liable  Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused & partakes the nature of a confession & avoidance.  American federal courts and state courts usually use the ―subjective‖ or ―origin of intent‖ test laid down in Sorrells v. U.S. to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused‘s predisposition to commit the offense is charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents.  Another test is the objective test where the test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agenst was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense.  The objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly & adequately shown. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validty of the defense of inducement.  In the case at bar, Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest uner Sec. 5a of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the TC, there was no occasion at all for Gaddao to flee from the policement to justify her arrest in ―hot pursuit‖  Neither could her arrest ne justified under second instance of ―personal knowledge‖ in Rule 113 as this must be based upon probable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds for suspicion. Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged indentification made by her co-accused. PO3 Manlangt, however, declared in his direct examination that appellant Doria named his co-accused in response to his query as to where the marked money was. Doria did not point to Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he lfet the marked bills. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Gaddao conspired with Doria in pushing drugs, If there is no showing that the person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, knowledge of the acts implicating the person arrested to the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally objectionable.  Furthermore, the fact that the box containing about 6 kilos of marijuana was found in Gaddao‘s house does not justify a finding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.  The prosecution thus had failed to prove that Gaddao conspired with Doria in the sale of the said drug. Thus, Gaddao is acquitted PEOPLE v REYES 399 SCRA 528 FACTS: PO1 Eduardo C. Molato alighted at the corner of Lapu-lapu Street when he saw the victim being held up by two persons. The one in front of the victim forcibly took his wristwatch while the other one stabbed him at the back. He fired one warning shot which caused the three to run towards Phase I, Lapu-lapu Avenue. He chased them but when he saw the victim, he hailed a tricycle and asked the driver to bring the victim to the nearest hospital. He continued chasing the suspects up to Phase II until he reached Agora, but the suspects were gone. The


Page 175

incident happened swiftly but PO1 Molato had a good look at the face of the one who stabbed the victim as he was about 8 to 10 meters away from them. Accused-appellant denies the charge against him and insists that he was merely mistaken for accused Arnel Cergontes who had the same protruding lips as he had and with whom he shares a common alias as ―Buboy Nguso.‖ HELD: In the case at bar, conspiracy was clearly manifested in the concerted efforts of the accused-appellant and his cohort. They were seen together by PO1 Molato at the unholy hour of 2:50 a.m. forcibly taking the wristwatch of the victim and thereafter stabbing him at the back. Their simultaneous acts indicate a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals. Danilo Reyes is guilty of Robbery with Homicide.

BY INDUCTION POPLE v YAMSON-DUMANCAS 320 SCRA 584 FACTS:Jeanette Yanson Dumancas was swindled in a fake gold bar transaction losing P352,000 to Danilo Lumangyao and Rufino Gargar, Jr.  On Aug. 5, 1992 10:30 AM Mario Lamis, Dominador Geroche, Rolando Fernandez, Jaime Gargallano, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody Delgado, Moises Grandeza were planning to abduct Lumangyao & Gargar Jr. because they swindled the Dumancas family. Col Nicolas Torres was also informed of the plan of the group.  On August 6, 1992, Jeannette investigated the two abducted and told the group of Geroche to take care of the two.  On Aug 7, 1992, Gargallano shot Gargar while Geroche shot Lumangyao. Then the 2 bodies were buried by Pecha & Hilado.  The RTC found the following guilty of: o Principals by Induction: Jeanette Yanson Dumancas o Principals by Induction and by Direct Participation and/or Indispensable Cooperation: Police Col. Nicolas M. Torres o Principals by Participation: Police Inspector Adonis C. Abeto Police Officer Mario Lamis Y Fernandez, Dominador Geroche Y Mahusay, Jaime Gargallano, Rolando R. Fernandez, Edwin Divinagracia, Teody Delgado o Principals by Participation: Cesar Pecha & Edgar Hilado Issues: 1. WON Charles Dumancas and Jeannette Yanson Dumancas can be considered principals by induction?  NO. Jeanette Yanson Dumancas is not guilty as principals by induction because there are not other evidence that can prove the she‘s guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  Article 17. Principals – The following are considered principals: 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the acts. 2. Those who directly force or induce other to commit it; 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.  There are 2 ways of directly forcing another to commit a crime, namely: (1) by using irresistible force or (2) by causing uncontrollable fear. Likewise there are two ways of inducing another to commit a crime, namely: (1) by giving a price or offering reward or promise and (2) by using works of command. All of the factors aren‘t admissible to Jeanette. The only evidence that may be considered is the word ―to take care of the two‖ w/c may constitute words of command. Evidenced should the Jeanette meant the ―to take care of the two‖ is to allow the law to its course upon cross examination of Moises


Page 176

Grandeza. This also raises some doubt of what the interpretation of the phrase. Thus it cannot be concluded since it cannot be concluded that there is command to kill the victims beyond reasonable by the vague phase itself. 2. WON Police Inspector Adonis Abeto can be considered principals by participation?  NO. Police Inspector Adonis Abeto participation was to serve a search warrant on Helen Tortocio‘s residence (person which Gargar and Lumangyao told the police officers where the money might have gone) and that subsequently interrogated Gargar and Lumangyao. 3. WON Police Col Nicolas M. Torres can be considered principals by induction?  NO. Police Col Nicolas M. Torres should have been criminally liable but since his death the criminal liability is extinguished but the civil liability still subsists. 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. CC A1157 enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: (a) Law, (b) Contracts, (c) Quasi-contracts, and (d) Quasi-delicts  Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to §1, 1985 RCP 111, as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator of the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon w/c the same is based as explained above.  Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file a separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action & prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably w/ provisions of CC A1155, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on possible privation of right by prescription.

PEOPLE v BOLIVAR 317 SCRA 577 FACTS: On Feb 14, 1987, at around 9 PM, Damaso Suelan came home along w/ Rolly Brendia aboard a tricycle from the town of Barotac to Brgy Vista Alegre. After they alighted from the vehicle, they passed by the store of Rodney Balaito to buy some cigarettes. They were then invited by the storeowner to drink a bottle of beer to w/c the 2 obliged. After much drinking, the moved out to drink beer at the small hut situated at the back of the store. There they joined the group accused Renato Balbon, Gracian Bolivar, Joel Soberano and Cresenciano Canaguran. While the group inside the hut was still drinking, a certain Quirino arrived carrying w/ him a .12 gauge pistolized firearm w/c he handed to Canaguran. Then the group accused asked permission to go home. At around 1130PM, while there was still a group drinking, a shot burst & a spray of pellets hit Damaso, Jr. on the shoulder & on the right forearm, while 4 shots were targeted to & hit Hugo Callao resulting to his death. The injured Damaso, Jr. looked for a tricycle for Callao. He passed through the main gate of the storeowner‘s compound & saw 4 persons running away from the place where the shot came from. He identified the 4 to be the group of Bolivar that previously asked permission to go home. RTC found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of murder w/ frustrated murder. The case of Graciano Bolivar who died of cardio-respiratory arrest in 1993 is dismissed. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal and civil liability. HELD: Witness Rodolfo Panaga testifies that he saw Barrion and Canaguran talking but apparently, the subject of such discussion was not the killing of Callao. Hence, the testimony of the witness is not conclusive to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Barrion was a principal by


Page 177

inducement of the crime. The fact that he would ―take care‖ of the problem, as overheard by the witness, is ambiguous & doesn‘t necessarily lead to the conclusion that he plotted to kill Callao. Principals are those who directly force or induce others to commit an offense. One is induced to commit a crime either by a command (precepto) or for a consideration (pacto), or by any other similar act w/c constitutes the real and moving cause of the crime and w/c was done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was sufficient for that purpose. The inducement exists whenever the act performed by the physical author of the crime is determined by the influence of the inducer over the mind of him who commits the act whatever the source of such influence. In the case at bar, only the testimony of the witness is offered and no evidence of force, fear, price, promise or reward exerted over or offered to Canaguran by Barrion that impelled him to kill Callao was presented. Moreover, from the examination of evidence, there is nothing to show that a conspiracy in fact existed among the accused-appellants. The factors given (Such factors include drinking together in the night of the crime, seen running away together from the scene of the crime after the shots were fired) are circumstantial in nature, w/c even taken collectively, do not reasonably lead to proof BRD that a conspiracy existed. Wherefore, RTC ruling reversed. The accused-appellants are acquitted based on reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 97 SCRA 385 FACTS:Agapito de la Cruz was found guilty as principal by inducement of the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, and sentencing him to death.  The facts are such that Agapito met up w/ Mohamad Sagap Salip, Alih Itum and a certain Asmad and proposed to them the killing of Antonio Yu & the kidnapping of the Antonio‘s younger bro Yu Chi Chong, for ransom. Agapito happened to be the oversser of Antonio‘s rubber & coconut land for no less than 10 yrs  He gave them instructions as to how and where to locate the Yu brothers at a given time and how they were to ambush the brothers. (But he didn‘t directly participate in actual crime)  But Antonio had to go somewhere and so the younger Yu went with Isabelo Mancenido to Isabela (Isabelo Isabela hehe.. funny..). The younger Yu was ambushed as instructed but when Yu Chi Chong tried to escape by striking Angih with a piece of wood, Angih got so pissed he shot Yu several times, killing him.  The gun shots alerted the villagers so the kidnappers fled. When the villagers left after seeing the body (they said they‘ll come back in the morning with police in tow), the kidnappers took the body and threw it in the ocean.  Antonio testified and provided the possible motive for Agapito to commit such crime. Agapito was assigned manager and administrator of the farm but when the younger Yu came back, Agapito was demoted to overseer. Further, profits were higher with Yu as manager and Antonio became stricter with Agapito. Agapito was convicted as mastermind or principal by inducement Issue: WON Agapito should be convicted as mastermind or principal by inducement in the absence of the elements of conspiracy to the crime charged.  NO. The requisites necessary in order that a person may be convicted as a principal by inducement are: o That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and o That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor  The foregoing requisites are indubitable present in this case  Jamas Jumaidi & Oyong Asidin, 2 discharged witnesses, testified that Asmad & Amil contected them to go to Basilan to do a job for Agapito.  When the group was brought face to face with him, he lost no time in lating down the strategy for the killing of Antonio Yu and the kidnapping of Yu Chi Chong for ransom.  It was he who knew when the truck of the intended victims would go to Latawan to load the copra to be delivered to Isabela.


Page 178











He knew the route the truck would take & the approximate time that it was to pass by. He even selected the ambush place. Clearly, he had positive resolution to procure the commission of the crime. He, too, presented the strongest kind of temptation, a pecuniary gain in the form of ransom, w/c was the determining factor of the commission of the crime by his co-accused. W/o him, the crime would not have been conceived, much less committed. Clearly, he was a principal by induction, with collective criminal responsibility with the material executors. One is induced to commit a crime either by a commans (precepto) or for a consideration (pacto), or by any other similar act w/c constitutes the real and moving cause of the crime & w/c was done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act & was sufficient for that purpose. The person who gives promises, or offers the consideration & the one who actually commits the crime by reason of such promise, remuneration or reward are both principals. The inducer need not take part in the commission of the offense. 1 who induces another to commit a crime is guilty as principal even though he might have taken no part in its material execution.

BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION PEOPLE v MALUENDA 288 SCRA 225 FACTS:Raul Mondaga, Maluenda and alias 'Alex'. Mondaga kidnapped Engr. Miguel E. Resus upon orders of a certain Father Simon, an alleged NPA Commander. Before that the trio solicit money and medicines from Engr. Miguel E. Resus and his wife, Dr. Bernardita B. Resus. The next day Mondaga arrived at the residence of the Resus couple. Engr. Resus then drove Mondaga to Andanan. Upon reaching Alegria, Mondaga ordered Engr. Resus that he had to go with them. Against his will, Engr. Resus went with the three. Upon reaching a hut, Mondaga told him that he had forgotten something and had to go back and that Engr. Resus had to stay there. So Engr. Resus, Maluenda, Alex and Gil Bueno passed the night in the farmhut. Mondaga demanded, at first, 300,000 from Dr Resus then lowered it down to 200,000 then 100,000 for the release of her husband. Mondaga, Maluenda and Legarto were later arrested by the police." Appellant Legarto, the Resus couple's former part-time driver, denies any criminal involvement in the kidnapping. He avows that he participated only in the delivery of the ransom money at the insistence of Dr. Resus herself. HELD:Although the trial court did not pass upon conspiracy as a source of Legarto's culpability, we deem it proper to do so, since it was alleged in the Information. In theory, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Once established, the act of one becomes the act of all. Further, conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly as the commission of the offense itself, although direct proof is not essential. Prior agreement or assent to the crime is usually inferred from the acts of the accused showing concerted action, common design and objective, actual cooperation, concurrence of sentiments, or community of interest. In most cases, like the one at bar, proof of conspiracy is frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances only. But such proof must always be established by evidence that satisfies the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In Legarto's case, conspiracy was not at all established by the prosecution. The familiarity between Legarto and Mondaga is insufficient proof, as conspiracy transcends companionship.Moreover, Mondaga's act of meeting Legarto on the road to Andanan does not show conspiracy, because a merely casual or unintended meeting, like passive presence, is not proof of conspiracy. Similarly insufficient as circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy were Mondaga's demand for the use of Legarto's motorcycle, Legarto's collecting the ransom money and delivering part of it, and Legarto's failure to testify against Mondaga due to either refusal or neglect. We stress that conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and conjectures. Without an allegation of any overt act showing community with the kidnappers, inferences do not adequately establish participation in a criminal conspiracy. Legarto's Criminal Liability Despite its belief that Legarto was not a co-principal or a co- conspirator, this Court cannot completely free him from criminal liability. Established by the prosecution are the following: (1) he reported the "loss" of the motorcycle to the police authorities despite the fact that it had been


Page 179

given to Mondaga as part of the ransom; (2) he had received P36,000 for it; (3) he paid the balance of the purchase price of the motorcycle with the said money; and (4) he claimed, regained and retained its possession.Legarto may not have had a direct hand in the kidnapping, but he received part of the ransom and used it to pay off his arrears in his motorcycle loan. Thus, having knowledge of the kidnapping for ransom and without having directly participated therein, he took part in the crime subsequent to its commission by profiting from its effects. He may not be the devil with the face of an angel that the trial court described, but he is definitely not a saint. He is criminally liable as an accessory to the crime of kidnapping for ransom. The assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED as regards Maluenda, but MODIFIED as regards Legarto. Legarto is hereby found GUILTY as an ACCESSORY. PEOPLE v MONTEALEGRE 161 SCRA 700 FACTS:Edmundo Abadilla was eating in a resto when he detected the smell of marijuana smoke coming from a nearby table.  Intending to call a policeman, he quietly went outside and saw Pfc. Renato Camantigue. Camantigue joined Abadilla in the resto and they both smelled the marijuana smoke from the table of Vicente Capalad and Napoleon Montealegre.  Camantigue collared the 2 & said ―Nagmamarijuana kayo, ano?‖ He forced them up, holding 1 in each hand but Capalad pulled out a knife & started stabbing Camantigue at the back. Camantigue let go of Montealegre to get his gun but Montealegre restrained Camantigue‘s hand to prevent the latter from defending himself.  They grappled & fell on the floor. Capalac fled and Camantigue pursued him firing some shots. Then he stopped and asked to be brought to a hospital. Capalac was found slumped in the street, with a bullet to his chest. Both he and Camantigue died the next day. Montealegre on the other hand, escaped through the confusion. He was later apprehended. Issue: WON Montealegre was rightly considered a co-principal for having corroborated with Capalad in the killing of the police officer.  YES. The two acted in concert, with Capalad actually stabbing Camantigue 7 times and Montealegre holding on to victim‘s hands to prevent him from drawing the pistol and defending himseld, as Abadilla had testified.  While it is true that Montealegre did not himself commit the act of stabbing, he was nonetheless equally guilty thereof for having prevented Camantigue for resisting the attack against him.  Montealegre was a principal by indispensable cooperation under A17 (3), RPC. The requisites of this provision o Participating in the criminal resolution, i.e., there‘s either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose & intention immediately before the commission of the crime charged; & o Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act w/o w/c it would not have been accomplished.  But although there was no evidence of prior agreement between Capalad & Montealegre, their subsequent acts should prove the presence of such conspiracy. The Court has consistently upheld such view in previous cases (People v. Laganson, People v. Cercano, People v. Garcia Cabarse, Dacanay v. People)  Montealegre was correctly convicted of the complex crime of murder, qualified by treachery, w/ assault upon a person of authority. ACCOMPLICES RPC, Art 18 Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. ABEJUELA vPEOPLE 200 SCRA 806 FACTS: Benjamin Abejuela had a savings deposit with Banco Filipino. Sometime in May 1978, Abejuela was befriended by Glicerio Balo, Jr., an employee of Banco Filipino. Balo became the godfather of Abejuela's daughter. Moreover, Balo offered Abejuela financial assistance in the latter's welding business, claiming that he was expecting a large sum of money out of the insurance policy of his late father.


Page 180

On Aug 3, 1978, Balo went to Abejuela's welding shop to borrow the latter's passbook. Abejuela was surprised and thought that it was not possible for Balo to use his passbook. Balo showed Abejuela some checks purporting to be the proceeds of his father's insurance policy. He wanted to deposit the checks in Abejuela's account. Abejuela then suggested that Balo open his own account. Balo explained that he was prohibited from opening an account with Banco Filipino since he was employed with that bank as a savings bookkeeper. Balo assured Abejuela that there was nothing wrong in allowing him to use his passbook and even reassured Abejuela that he would accompany him to the bank to make the deposit. Accepting Balo's explanations and assurances Abejuela entrusted his passbook to Balo. On August 8,1978, Balo returned Abejuela's passbook where a deposit in the amount of P20,000.00 was already reflected. Once again, Balo assured Abejuela that there was nothing wrong with the deposit and stated that he just deposited one of his checks. On the same day Balo requested Abejuela to withdraw money from his account. Again with assurances from Balo, Abejuela reluctantly agreed. He withdrew the amount of P15, 000 which he gave to Balo. Balo's practice of depositing and withdrawing money using Abejuela's passbook continued for quite some time. In the meantime, Abejuela borrowed P20, 000 from Balo, payable within 90 days. But feeling apprehensive over Balo's constant use of his passbook, Abejuela decided to pay his loan. Abejuela also closed his account with Banco Filipino. Thereafter, the bank discovered a discrepancy between the interest reconciliation balance and the subsidiary ledger balance. The bank could not locate the posting reconciliation and the proof reconciliation. He also notice that the account of Abejuela reflected 4 large deposits on various dates but the deposits slips could not be located. After further examination, the bank was convinced that the irregularities were caused by Balo. They concluded that Balo was able to manipulate the ledger, by posting the fictitious deposits after banking hours when the posting machine was already closed and cleared by the bank accountant. The bank officials confronted Balo, who feigned ignorance and initially denied the accusations, but later admitted having posted the false deposits. Abejuela was also implicated because he was the owner of the passbook used by Balo in accomplishing his fraudulent scheme. HELD: On reasonable doubt, Abejuela is ACQUITTED. However, the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the RTC against Abejuela‘s and Balo‘s properties to satisfy their civil obligation made permanent by the said court stands. We are inclined to believe that petitioner Abejuela was completely unaware of the malevolent scheme of Balo. From Balo's own admissions, it was he who deceived Abejuela through sweet talk, assurances, drinking sprees and parties and cajoled him into giving in to his requests. Furthermore, during that time, nobody would have questioned Balo's source of money and since he had a perfect alibi, i.e. the insurance proceeds of his later father. When Balo showed Abejuela some checks purporting to be his father's insurance proceeds, Abejuela was hoodwinked into believing that Balo indeed had money. Balo's request to borrow Abejuela's passbook in order to facilitate the encashment of the checks seemed reasonable enough, considering that they were close friends and "compadres", Abejuela's acquiescence to Balo's overtures is understandable. Furthermore, the court takes judicial notice of the practice of banks in allowing anybody to deposit in an account even without the owner's passbook, as long as the account number is known. Thus, even without Abejuela's passbook, the false deposits could still have been posted by Balo in the savings account ledger of Abejuela. More often than not, it is the ledger which is more accurate and up-to-date. In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution clearly points at Balo as the one who had posted the bogus deposits in Abejuela's ledger. He was also the one who wisely manipulated Abejuela in order that the fictitious deposits could be placed at his disposal. Thus, when Balo requested Abejuela to withdraw the amount he had earlier placed in the latter's account; Abejuela had no choice but to give in. He actually believed that the money was really owned by Balo and he did not want Balo to think that he was interested in it. Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Abejuela had knowledge of the fraudulent scheme of Balo. The most that could be attributed to Abejuela was his negligence in lending his passbook and his utter gullibility. PEOPLE v ELIJORDE [306 SCRA 188 (1999)] FACTS: Hierro, Benjamin Visbal and Rodel Contemplado were drinking in the house of the latter. Sometime later, Hierro and Visbal went out to buy mango at a nearby sari-sari store. Elijorde, Punzalan and Edwin Menes were at the time in front of the store. As Menes approached


Page 181

Hierro the latter warned Menes, "Don't touch me, my clothes will get dirty." Suddenly Menes punched Hierro on the face, followed by Elijorde who also boxed Hierro on the face, and Punzalan who kicked Hierro at the back. Hierro and Visbal ran for their lives. They sought shelter at Contemplado's house. After some minutes, Hierro went out of the house to go home together with Visbal and the latter's wife. Visbal noticed the Elijorde, Punzalan and Menes waiting for them. As Hierro and company drew near, Punzalan kicked Hierro at the back for the second time. Visbal tried to retaliate by punching Punzalan on the face but was held back by his wife. Hierro ran away pursued by Elijorde. They were followed by Visbal. Elijorde stabbed Hierro at the back. When Hierro fell down, Elijorde placed himself on top of Hierro who was now raising his arms defensively and pleading, "Maawa na kayo, huwag ninyo akong patayin, wala akong kasalanan sa inyo." Despite the pleas of Hierro for mercy, Elijorde stabbed him with a knife on the chest and then fled. Visbal and his wife brought Hierro to the hospital where he died soon after. Only Elijorde and Punzalan were arrested,charged and tried for the murder of Hierro qualified by treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, Menes remained at large. ISSUES: WON Punzalan is guilty of murder by reason of conspiracy with Elijorde or only as an accomplice. HELD: The Decision of the court is MODIFIED. ELIJORDE is GUILTY of MURDER and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua. PUNZALAN is ACQUITTED. ELIJORDE is solely held responsible for the payment to the heirs of Hierro. With respect to Punzalan, the Court cannot assert with moral certainty that he is guilty of murder. To convict him as a principal by direct participation in the instant case, it is necessary that conspiracy between him and his co-accused Elijorde be proved. The only involvement of Punzalan was kicking Hierro at the back before Hierro was pursued and stabbed by Elijorde. After kicking Hierro, Punzalan remained where he was and did not cooperate with Elijorde in pursuing Hierro to ensure that the latter would be killed. There is no other evidence to show unity of purpose and design between Punzalan and Elijorde in the execution of the killing, which is essential to establish conspiracy. His act of kicking Hierro prior to the actual stabbing by Elijorde does not of itself demonstrate concurrence of wills or unity of purpose and action. For it is possible that the accused Punzalan had no knowledge of the common design. The mere kicking does not necessarily prove intention to kill. The evidence does not show that Punzalan knew that Elijorde had a knife and that he intended to use it to stab the victim. Neither canPunzalan be considered an accomplice in the crime of murder. The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered which cannot exist without previous cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed. It is therefore required in order to be liable either as a principal by indispensable cooperation or as an accomplice that the accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation. There is nothing on record to show that Punzalan knew that Elijorde was going to stab Hierro, thus creating serious doubt on Punzalan's criminal intent. In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and that each of the participants is liable only for his own acts. Consequently, Punzalan must be absolved from all responsibility for the killing of Hierro PEOPLE v DE VERA [312 SCRA 640 (1999)] FACTS: The prosecution presented an eyewitness Bernardino Cacao. On June 8, 1992, Cacao saw a car passing by, driven by victim Frederick Capulong together with 4 other passengers. He knew the victim by name who was a resident of the subdivision. He recognized and identified 2 of the passengers as Kenneth Florendo and Roderick Garcia, both familiar in the subdivision.Cacao did not at first notice anything unusual inside the car while it passed by him, but then he heard unintelligible voices coming from the car as it was cruising around a circular road whose entrance and exit were through the same point. Moments later, he saw the victim dragged out of the car by Florendo and brought to a grassy place. Florendo was holding a gun. Upon reaching the grassy spot, Florendo aimed and fired the gun at Capulong, hitting him between the eyes. After the shooting, Florendo and his companions fled in different directions. While testifying in court, Cacao identified Garcia and pointed to De Vera as among the companions of Florendo


Page 182

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED: De Vera claims that he had no part in the killing, and that it was Florendo who had shot the victim ISSUES: 1. WON Prosecution evidence is sufficient to find De Vera guilty of murder by reason of conspiracy. 2. When is a lookout deemed an accomplice and when a conspirator? What is the distinction between the two? HELD: The appeal is partially GRANTED. De Vera is CONVICTED as an accomplice, not as a principal, in the crime of murder. 1. It is axiomatic that the prosecution must establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The bare testimony of Cacao fails to do so. Cacao testified that he saw De Vera in the car, where an altercation later occurred and saw Florendo drag out of the vehicle Capulong and shoot the victim in the head. Cacao's testimony contains nothing that could inculpate De Vera. Aside from the fact that he was inside the car, no other act was imputed to him. Mere presence does not amount to conspiracy. As the Court has repeatedly stated, criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere surmises or conjectures. Clearly, Cacao's testimony does not establish De Vera‘s culpability. De Vera is an accomplice, not a conspirator 2. De Vera had acted as a lookout. He was there in order to aid and abet the commission of the crime. These facts, however, did not make him a conspirator; only an accomplice. The distinction between the 2 concepts needs to be underscored. Once conspiracy is proven, the liability is collective and not individual. In the case of an accomplice, the liability is 1 degree lower than that of a principal. Conspirators and accomplices have 1 thing in common: they know and agree with the criminal design. Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution. Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed; accomplices merely concur in it. De Vera knew that Florendo had intended to kill Capulong at the time, and he cooperated with the latter. But he himself did not participate in the decision to kill Capulong; that decision was made by Florendo and the others. He joined them that afternoon after the decision to kill had already been agreed upon; he was there because "nagkahiyaan na." Significantly, the plan to kill could have been accomplished without him. It should be noted further that he alone was unarmed that afternoon. Florendo and Garcia had guns, and Castro had a baseball bat.

PEOPLE v SUNGA 399 SCRA 624 FACTS:On July 12, 1994, the mutilated body of Jocelyn Tan, a high school was found at a coffee plantation. The hunt for the possible killers of Jocelyn was swift, several arrests having been made in a span of days. Accused in the Information were Sunga, Lansang, Pascua, Jr., and Octac as principals, and Locil Cui alias Ginalyn Cuyos as accomplice. STATE WITNESS ACCOUNT: On June 29, 1994, Locil boarded a tricycle in Puerto Princesa City. Already on board was a lesbian who invited Locil for a joy ride.Upon instruction, the tricycle driver, Sunga repaired to the Mendoza Park.At Park, the lesbian alighted and spoke to Jocelyn. The lesbian, together with Jocelyn, then joined Locil aboard the tricycle which was already driven by Pascua vice Sunga who had in the meantime left. Still aboard the tricycle, the 4 of them proceeded to and a forested area, Jocelyn was dragged to a nearby "buho" clumps. There, Jocelyn was made to lie down. As she lay face up with both her hands held by Sunga and Pascua, Lansang stripped naked, placed himself on top of Jocelyn, inserted his penis into her.After Lansang, Sunga took turn to have sexual intercourse with Jocelyn, Pascua subsequently had carnal knowledge of Jocelyn who all along struggled against her malefactors.After Pascua satisfied his lust, Sunga, with a sharp bladed weapon, stabbed the abdomen of the motionless Jocelyn, drawing her to rise to a sitting position and clutch her abdomen. Sunga then passed on the bladed weapon to Lansang who smashed Jocelyn‘s head with an irregularly shaped stone, causing her to fall to the ground lifeless. Locil witnessed everything CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: All the accused proffered alibi. Sunga denied having anything to do with the rape and killing of Jocelyn. He branded as false the testimony of Locil


Page 183

whom he claimed is a prostitute and a pimp and was always seen loitering at Mendoza Park. While he acknowledged knowing Octac and Pascua, he denied being in their company on June 29, 1994 or in Lansang‘s. ISSUES: Whether the guilt of appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. HELD: It is undisputed that at the start of the trial, the prosecution did not have direct evidence, testimonial or otherwise, to establish the culpability of the accused.Based on Locil‘s sworn statement, and she was the only person who saw what happened to Jocelyn. Her testimony was thus indispensable. That she did not appear to be the most guilty among the accused and that she had not been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude were shown, as was the susceptibility of material corroboration of her testimony at the time of her discharge in view of the other evidence in the hands of the prosecution. The rule in this jurisdiction is that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his coaccused cannot, by itself and without corroboration, be regarded as proof to a moral certainty that the latter committed or participated in the commission of the crime. The testimony must be substantially corroborated in its material points by unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances and must be to such an extent that its trustworthiness becomes manifest. Was Locil‘s testimony corroborated in its material points by the prosecution‘s other evidence? If in the affirmative, was the corroborative evidence unimpeachable testimony and strong circumstances to such an extent that Locil‘s trustworthiness becomes manifest? The sole, uncorroborated testimony of an accused who turned state witness may suffice to convict his co-accused if it is given unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner and is full of details which by their nature could not have been the result of deliberate afterthought; otherwise, it needs corroboration the presence or lack of which may ultimately decide the cause of the prosecution and the fate of the accused.

PEOPLE v PILOLA 405 SCRA 134 FACTS:Elisa Rolan was inside their store waiting for her husband to arrive. Joselito Capa and Julian Azul, Jr. were drinking beer. Edmar Aguilos and Odilon Lagliba arrived at the store. Joselito and Julian invited them to join their drinking spree, and although already inebriated, the 2 newcomers obliged. In the course of their drinking, the conversation turned into a heated argument. Edmar nettled Julian, and the latter was peeved. An altercation between the two ensued. Elisa pacified the protagonists and advised them to go home as she was already going to close up. Edmar and Odilon left the store. Joselito and Julian were also about to leave, when Edmar and Odilon returned, blocking their way. Edmar took off his eyeglasses and punched Julian in the face. Elisa shouted: ―Tama na. Tama na.‖ Edmar and Julian ignored her and traded fist blows until they reached Aling Sotera‘s store at the end of the street, about twelve to fifteen meters away from Elisa‘s store. For his part, Odilon positioned himself on top of a pile of hollow blocks and watched as Edmar and Julian swapped punches. Joselito tried to placate the protagonists to no avail. Joselito‘s intervention apparently did not sit well with Odilon. He pulled out his knife with his right hand and stepped down from his perch. He placed his left arm around Joselito‘s neck, and stabbed the latter. Ronnie and the appellant, who were across the street, saw their gangmate Odilon stabbing the victim and decided to join the fray. They pulled out their knives, rushed to the scene and stabbed Joselito. Elisa could not tell how many times the victim was stabbed or what parts of his body were hit by whom. The victim fell in the canal. Odilon and the appellant fled, while Ronnie went after Julian and tried to stab him. Julian ran for dear life. When he noticed that Ronnie was no longer running after him, Julian stopped at E. Rodriguez Road and looked back. He saw Ronnie pick up a piece of hollow block and with it bashed Joselito‘s head. Not content, Ronnie got a piece of broken bottle and struck Joselito once more. Ronnie then fled from the scene. Joselito died on the spot. Elisa rushed to Joselito‘s house and informed his wife and brother of the incident. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:The appellant denied stabbing the victim and interposed the defense of alibi HELD:


Page 184

To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur: (a) the community of criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) the performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. Accomplices come to know about the criminal resolution of the principal by direct participation after the principal has reached the decision to commit the felony and only then does the accomplice agree to cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct participation and cooperate in its accomplishment. However, where one cooperates in the commission of the crime by performing overt acts which by themselves are acts of execution, he is a principal by direct participation, and not merely an accomplice. In this case, Odilon all by himself initially decided to stab the victim. The appellant and Ronnie were on the side of the street. However, while Odilon was stabbing the victim, the appellant and Ronnie agreed to join in; they rushed to the scene and also stabbed the victim with their respective knives. The three men simultaneously stabbed the hapless victim. Odilon and the appellant fled from the scene together, while Ronnie went after Julian. When he failed to overtake and collar Julian, Ronnie returned to where Joselito fell and hit him with a hollow block and a broken bottle. Ronnie then hurriedly left. All the overt acts of Odilon, Ronnie and the appellant before, during, and after the stabbing incident indubitably show that they conspired to kill the victim. All things considered, we rule that Ronnie and the appellant conspired with Odilon to kill the victim; hence, all of them are criminally liable for the latter‘s death. The appellant is not merely an accomplice but is a principal by direct participation. Even assuming that the appellant did not conspire with Ronnie and Odilon to kill the victim, the appellant is nevertheless criminally liable as a principal by direct participation. The stab wounds inflicted by him cooperated in bringing about and accelerated the death of the victim or contributed materially.

C. ACCESSORIES RPC, Art. 19 Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:chan robles virtual law library 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime. 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery. 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. RPC, Art. 20 Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.

PD 1612 PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612 ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979 Section 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. If the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or association, the president or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or should have known the commission of the offense shall be liable. PD 1829


Page 185

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829 PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts: (a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats; (b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; (c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction; (d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes; (e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts; (f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases; (g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender; (h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases; (i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court. If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed.

PEOPLE v TALINGDAN [84 SCRA 19 (1978)] FACTS: Bernardo Bagabag was murdered in his own house in Abra on June 24, 1967 by Talingdan, Tobias, Berras, Bides and Teresa Domogma, his alleged wife [whom cannot be charged with parricide because no certificate or proof of marriage could be presented by the prosecution]. The murder was witnessed by Corazon [12], the eldest child of Bernardo and Teresa. She testified to the crime committed by the accused-appellants. Story: Prior to the violent incident, Bernardo and Teresa have had several conflicts in their married life. She would often withdraw from their house. The longest even for more than 3 weeks. It was suspected that Teresa is having an illicit affair with Talingdan, a policeman who lives nearby. Two days before the crime, Teresa was slapped several times by Bernardo after a violent quarrel. She sought the help of Talingdan who challenged Bernardo to come down, but the latter refused. Then, Talingdan left after shouting "If I will find you someday, I will kill you." Two days before the commission of the crime, Corazon overheard her mother‘s meeting with the other


Page 186

accused-appellants about their plot to kill her father as one of them said, ―Shall he elude a bullet?‖ Corazon was then driven away by her mother saying, ―You tell your father that we will kill him.‖ On the night of the murder, Corazon was cooking food for supper when she saw her mother talking with the other accused-appellants in their ―batalan‖ armed with long guns. After a while, Teresa went inside the room to put her baby to sleep. After eating supper alone, Corazon told her father about the persons outside but he ignored her. He went to the kitchen and sat on the floor near the door then he was fired. Talingdan and Tobias fired their guns again. Bides threatened to kill Corazon if she would ask for help. Corazon confessed to her father‘s relatives the identities of the murderers during his burial. The trial court found them guilty of the offense and so the five accused appealed to their conviction. Crime Committed: Murder Contention of the Accused: According to Teresa, there was no illicit affair between her and Talingdan. She loved her husband. Contrary to the testimony of Corazon, they never quarreled nor did the former maltreat her. She never left home for so long. And she was cooking for supper, and not Corazon, on the night of the murder. She contends that her in-laws used her daughter to testify against her because they don‘t want Teresa from the start. She even added that Bernardo had some enemies during his lifetime. Talingdan said that he escorted the Mayor as a bodyguard, while the other three accused also claimed that they were at a certain Mrs. Bayongan‘s house during the night of the murder. Contention of the People: The sworn statement of the 13-year old Corazon was true. She knew the accused because they live nearby their place. Besides, the accused-appellants testimonies are indefensible and futile. Moreover, her mother claimed to have no suspect in mind during the investigation in their house although she was in conspiracy with the other four accused. Ruling: The court affirmed the decision held by the trial court with costs. There are two aggravating circumstances present, treachery and evident premeditation, with no mitigating circumstances to offset the accused-appellants. Talingdan, Tobias, Berras, and Bides are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and are sentenced to DEATH to be executed in accordance with law. Teresa Domogma is guilty as accessory to the same murder, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 5 years prision correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum, with the accessory penalties of the law. What about Teresa‟s conviction? Teresa was more or less passive in her attitude regarding her co-appellants' conspiracy, known to her. After Bernardo was killed, she became active in her cooperation with them. These subsequent acts of her constitute "concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in the crime" which makes her liable as an accessory --- paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code. PEOPLE v CUI [314 SCRA 153 (1999)] Facts: In the evening of Dec 5, 1990, some 10 armed robbers raided the compound of Johnny and Rose Lim on Cebu City. The Lims, their 3 children, and the employees of the family-owned business, William's Educational Supply, were able to see the faces of the leader Wilfredo alias "Toto" Garcia and two of his men, Mawe Garcia and a certain Edgar. The other robbers could not be identified as they had flour sacks over their heads.The robbers‘ carted away cash and jewelries worth P20, 000.00. They also blindfolded and forcibly abducted 17 year old Stephanie, the youngest daughter of the Lims. They demanded a ransom of P1, 000,000.00 for her release. Johnny Lim turned over to Garcia the ransom amount in the afternoon of the next day at an arranged meeting place. Stephanie, in turn, was released to her father. Initially, the Lims kept the crime a secret. But on the third day, they reported the kidnapping to the PNP Cebu Metropolitan District Command. They conducted an investigation and Johnny identified the suspects from around 90 photographs, Lim picked that of Garcia. The identification of Garcia gave MIST a valuable lead. Garcia was known as the leader of a group of armed robbers called the Baong Gang. The gang's base of operation was pinpointed at Quiot, Pardo, Cebu. When the police learned from Lim that his house guard, Eduardo Basingan, hailed from barangay, they decided to interrogate him .Basingan's interrogation broke the case wide open. He identified Toto, Mawe and Edgar as the 3 who did not wear masks, Sadam and Rey as the 2 who held him and the Lims at gunpoint, and Tata Garcia, Yul Alvarez, a certain Benjie, a certain Leos and a certain Laring as the look-outs who stayed outside the Lim compound. He named Toto Garcia as the chief plotter of the crime at bar, and revealed that his neighbor and close family friends, the


Page 187

spouses Leonilo and Beverly Cui, participated in the plan. Basingan said he was asked to join the plot and was assured that he would not be under suspicion because he would be placed at gun point together with the other members of the Lim household when the crime is committed. However, he refused to join the plot during the Dec 2, 1990 meeting of the group at the residence of the Cuis in Quiot, Pardo. ISSUE: WON Obeso and Sarte are principally liable or not liable at all. WON the Cuis are criminally liable as accomplices or accessories. HELD: There is no question that Basingan escaped and never testified in court to affirm his accusation against the Cuis, Obeso and Sarte. Thus, the trial court committed reversible error in admitting and giving weight to Basingan‘s the sworn statements. Undeniably, they are hearsay for any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay by nature if its probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witnesses but on the knowledge of some other person who was never presented on the witness stand. Conviction cannot be based on hearsay evidence In the case at bar, the alleged conspiracy among the accused was not priorly established by independent evidence. Nor was it was shown that the extra-judicial statements of Basingan were made while they were engaged in carrying out the conspiracy. In fine, the extra-judicial statements of Basingan cannot be used against the Cuis, Obese and Sarte without doing violence against their constitutional right to confront Basingan and to cross-examine him. We hold that on the basis of other evidence on record, the Cuis are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of being accessories, not accomplices. As accessories to the consummated crime of kidnapping for ransom, the penalty imposable upon Leonilo and Beverly Cui is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law. Finally, while we affirm the conviction of the Cui spouses, we acquit Obeso and Sarte. The only evidence linking Obeso and Sarte to the kidnapping of Stephanie Lim is Basingan's sworn statements that a certain Leos and a certain Laring were among the lookouts who stood as guards outside the house of the Lims while Toto Garcia and his group were inside. Basingan's sworn statements are hearsay, hence, inadmissible in evidence against his co-accused because he escaped before he could take the witness stand. Except for Basingan who could not even give the real names of Obeso and Sarte and just referred to them as Leos and Laring, respectively, no one really knew them. And significantly, no prosecution witness identified them, not even Stephanie Lim. She never saw any of them during the robbery or in the house where she was detained. Obeso and Sarte interposed the defense of alibi. They asseverated that in late November, 1990, they left the house they were renting in Linao, Minglanilla, Cebu and went to Banilad, Bacong, Dumaguete City where the parents of Sarte reside. It was there, in March 1991, that they were arrested.The prosecution never rebutted the claim of live-in partners Obeso and Sarte that they were in Bacong, Dumaguete City as early as November, 1990. No direct evidence has been proffered by the prosecution to place Obeso and Sarte at the scene of the crime. Their alibi has to be given credence. (RTC decision: Eduardo Basingan, Bienvenido Nacario, Luis Obeso, Hilaria Sarte, as principals for the crime of KIDNAPPING WITH RANSOM. Leonilo Cui and Beverly Cui being accomplices)

PEOPLE v ORTEGA 276 SCRA 166 FACTS:On Oct 17, 1992 Ortega and Garcia attacked, assaulted and stabbed repeatedly with a pointed weapon on the different parts of the body ANDRE MAR MASANGKAY , inflicting serious physical injuries which directly caused his death. Diosdado Quitlong testified that on Oct15, 1992, he, Masangkay, Ariel Caranto, Romeo Ortega, Roberto San Andres were having a drinking spree in the compound near the house of Benjamin Ortega. While they were drinking, Ortega and Garcia who were drunk arrived and joined them. Masangkay answered the call of nature and went to the back of the house. Ortega followed him and later they heard Masangkay yelled ―Huwag, tulungan ninyo ako!‖. He and Caranto ran towards the back of the house and saw Ortega on top of Masangkay who was lying down in a canal with his face up and stabbing the latter with a long bladed weapon. Caranto ran and fetched Benjamin Ortega, Sr. Quitlong went to Romeo to pacify his brother Benjamin, Jr. Romeo went to the place of the stabbing and together with Benjamin Jr. and Garcia lifted Masangkay from the


Page 188

canal and dropped the latter inside the well. Romeo , Benjamin Jr. and Garcia then dropped stones to the body of Masangkay inside the well. Romeo warned Quitlong not to tell anybody of what he saw. Quitlong‘s conscience bothered him and he told his mother what he witnessed. He went to the residence of Col. Leonardo Orig and reported the matter. CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Garcia testified that in the morning of Oct 15, he and his wife, Maritess, brought their feverish daughter to the Polo Emergency Hosp. He left the hospital at 7 am and went to work. After office hours, he and Ortega, Jr. passed by the canteen at their place of work. En route to heading home, they chanced on Quitlong and Masangkay, who invited them to join their own drinking spree. Garcia's wife came and asked him to go home because their daughter was still sick. Garcia went home and attended to his sick daughter. Maritess corroborated the testimony of her husband. Ortega, Jr. likewise corroborated the testimony of Garcia. According to him, between 11 and 12 pm, Masangkay left the drinking session. 30 minutes after Masangkay left, he also left the drinking place to urinate. He went behind the house where he saw Masangkay peeping through the room of his sister Raquel. He ignored Masangkay and continued urinating.Masangkay approached him and asked where his sister was. He answered that he did not know. Masangkay allegedly boxed him in the mouth, an attack that induced bleeding and caused him to fall on his back. When he was about to stand up, Masangkay drew a knife and stabbed him, hitting him on the left arm, immobilizing him. Masangkay then gripped his neck with his left arm and threatened to kill him. Quitlong came and, to avoid being stabbed, grabbed Masangkay's right hand which was holding the knife. Quitlong was able to wrest the knife from Masangkay and, with it, he stabbed Masangkay 10 times successively, in the left chest and in the middle of the stomach. When the stabbing started, Ortega moved to the left side of Masangkay to avoid being hit. Quitlong chased Masangkay who ran towards the direction of the well. Thereafter, Ortega went home and treated his injured left armpit and lips. ISSUE: What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of Appellants Ortega and Garcia? Ortega is guilty only of homicide. Garcia deserves acquittal. Murder or Homicide Abuse of superior strength requires deliberate intent on the part of the accused to take advantage of such superiority. In this light, it is necessary to evaluate not only the physical condition and weapon of the protagonists but also the various incidents of the event. Quitlong mentioned nothing about Ortega‘s availment of force excessively out of proportion. It should be noted that Masangkay was a 6-footer, whereas Ortega, Jr. was only 5 feet and 5 inches tall. Nothing in the testimony and circumstances can be interpreted as abuse of superior strength. Hence, Ortega is liable only for homicide, not murder. Liability of Garcia In spite of the evidence showing that Garcia could be held liable as principal, there are 2 legal obstacles barring his conviction, even as an accessory. 1. The Information Garcia (and Ortega) ―attack[ing], assault[ing], and stab[bing] MASANGKAY. The prosecution's evidence itself shows that Garcia had nothing to do with the stabbing. His responsibility relates only to the attempted concealment of the crime and the resulting drowning of Masangkay. The hornbook doctrine in our jurisdiction is that an accused cannot be convicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. By parity of reasoning, Garcia cannot be convicted of homicide through drowning in an information that charges murder by means of stabbing. 2. Although the prosecution was able to prove that Garcia assisted in "concealing . . . the body of the crime . . . in order to prevent its discovery," he can neither be convicted as an accessory after the fact defined under Art 19, par. 2, of the RPC. The records show that Garcia is a brother-in-law of Ortega, the latter's sister, Maritess, being his wife. Such relationship exempts Appellant Garcia from criminal liability as provided by Garcia, being a covered relative by affinity of Ortega, Jr., is legally entitled to the aforequoted exempting provision of the Revised Penal Code. This Court is thus mandated by law to acquit him.


Page 189

“Crime is contagious. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law to himself.” – Justice Louis Brandeis


Page 190

CRIMINAL LAW 1( Provisiions and Cases)

Recommend Documents