Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANGELES (LIMITATIONS)
129 SCRA 174 (1994)
Nature: Petition to review the order of the RTC of Caloocan
City, Angeles.
Facts: Anselmo and Marcelino Pesigan, both carabao dealers,
transported 26 carabaos and a calf from Sipocot Camarines Sur
to Batangas on April 2, 1982 with the necessary permits. In spite
of the permits, the carabaos were confiscated by Lt. Zenarosa
and Dr. Mirancda while passing Basud, Camarines Norte. The
confiscation was based on EO No. 626-A which provided that
no carabaos shall be transported from one province to another
and violation would result to confiscation of said animals and
distribution to deserving farmers. The carabaos were distributed
accordingly. The Pesigans filed for replevin and damages but
was dismissed by Judge Angeles for lack of merit.
Issue: W o N the Pesigans can be held liable for violating EO
626-A which was published on June 14, 1982.
At that time, appellant was taking his rest, but when he heard
that the walls of his house were being chiselled, he arose and
there he saw the fencing going on. If the fencing would go on,
appellant would be prevented from getting into his house and the
bodega of his ricemill. So he addressed the group, saying
-'Pare,if possible you stop destroying my house and if possible
we will talk it over - what is good,' addressing the deceased
Rubia, who is appellant's compadre. The deceased Fleischer,
however, answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.' Appellant
apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his gun and shot
Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards
the jeep, and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired
at Rubia, likewise hitting him. Both Fleischer and Rubia died as
a result of the. It appears, however, that this incident is
intertwined with the long drawn out legal battle between the
Fleischer and Co., Inc. of which deceased Fleischer was the
secretary-treasurer and deceased Rubia the assistant manager, on
the one hand, and the land settlers of Cotabato, among whom
was the appellant.
Issue: W o N Narvaez defense of property can be appreciated.
Held: The trial courts order of dismissal, reversed and set aside.
The executive order should not be enforced against the Pesigans
on April 2, 1982 because it is a penal regulation punished more
than two months later in the Official Gazette dated June 14,
1982. It became effective only 15 days thereafter.
The word laws in Art. 2 of Civil Code includes circulars and
regulations which prescribe penalties. Publication is necessary to
apprise the public of the contents of the regulations and make
the penalties binding on the persons affected by it.
2. TANADA VS. TUVERA (LIMITATIONS)
136 SCRA 27 (1985)
Nature and Facts: This is a case where the petitioners, Lorenzo
Taada, et al., seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondents,
Juan Tuvera (in his capacity as Exec Asst to the Pres), et al., to
publish and/or cause the publication in the official gazette of
various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general
orders, proclamation, executive orders, letter of implementation
and administrative orders
Issue: Whether or not these presidential decrees are already
enforceable and binding even before publication (contained
special provisions as to the date they are to take effect)
Held: The government, as a matter of policy, refrains form
prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the same shall have
been published in the official gazette or in some other
publication, even though some criminal laws provide that they
shall take effect immediately.
Without publication, the people have no means of knowing what
presidential decrees have actually been promulgated. Without
such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the
application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat.
3. PEOPLE VS. NARVAEZ (PROSPECTIVITY OF
CRIMINAL LAW AND SELF DEFENSE/DEFENSE OF
PROPERTY)
121 SCRA 389 (1983)
Nature: Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of South Cotabato, Branch I convicting the accused of murder.
Facts: At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, 1968,
Graciano Juan, Jesus Verano and Cesar Ibaez, together with the
two deceased Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were fencing
the land of George Fleischer, father of deceased Davis Fleischer.
This is located in the municipality of Maitum, South Cotabato.
At the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of
appellant Mamerto Narvaez.
head. The accused, together with another, barged into the room,
demanding the firearms of the victim. Before fleeing with the
victims .38 caliber gun, TEMBLOR filed tow more shots.
AND
Relay Station. Joels mother, who was at the scene of the crime,
rushed him to the hospital where he died a few hours later.
The defense set up by the accused consisted of denials.
Accused-appellant Javier Mirabete insisted on his claim that he
was merely watching a volleyball game when the shooting
happened. He denied being a member of the NPA or any rebel
organization. He likewise denied the existence of a plot and a
conspiracy to kill the Lagasons. Accused-appellants claimed that
he was a mere farmer, already 69 years old and had barely
finished third grade in school. According to him, his advanced
age made it impossible for him to join the NPA at the time of the
incident. He contended that the testimonies of the witnesses
identifying him with the group that killed the Lagasons were
unreliable and hearsay because both witnesses never knew him.
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellants contention is with
merit
Held: The decision appealed from was affirmed insofar as the
criminal liability of accused-appellant was concerned.
Evidence proved beyond doubt that accused-appellant
was a civilian member of the CPP-NPA and was part of the
group that deliberately planned the killing of the Lagasons. The
events that led to the victims deaths also showed that the group
members deliberately planned, plotted and premeditated their
victims deaths. Evident premeditation exists when the
execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent.
There must be, between the reflection and execution of the
crimes, a space of time sufficient for the offender to arrive at a
calm judgment.
It was also held that the prosecution had clearly and
convincingly established the existence of a conspiracy in the
planning and execution of the crimes. Conspiracy arises at the
very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit
the felony and forthwith to actually pursue it. It hardly matters
that the accused-appellant was not actually present at the
specific place of the shooting. He was at the waiting shed but
this was for the purpose of providing security to those who
carried out the shooting. The waiting shed was located along the
way to the Lagasons house, strategically at the entrance to and
exit from it. A conspiracy, once established, makes each of the
conspirators liable for the acts of the others. All conspirators are
liable as co-principals regardless of the extent of their
participation because in the contemplation of law, the act of one
is the act of all.
14. PEOPLE VS. TRINIDAD
169 SCRA 51 (1989)
Nature: APPEAL from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court
of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, Br. 7, convicting the accused of
two counts of murder and frustrated murder.
Facts: The deceased victim, Lolito Soriano, was a fish dealer
based in Davao City. His helpers were Ricardo Tan, a driver,
and the other deceased victim Marcial Laroa. On 19 January
1983, using a Ford Fiera, they arrived at Butuan City to sell fish.
In the morning of 20 January 1983 Soriano together with Laroa
and a helper of one Samuel Comendador left for Buenavista.
Tan was left behind in Butuan but followed to later in the
morning.
While at Buenavista, accused Emeliano Trinidad, a member of
the Integrated National Police, assigned at Nasipit Police
Station, and residing at Baan, Butuan City, asked for a ride to
Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, which is on the way to Davao City.
He was in uniform and had two firearms, a carbine, and the
other, a side-arm .38 caliber revolver. The four left Butuan on 20
January 1983 at about 5:20 P.M. bound for Davao City. Tan was
driving, seated to his right were Soriano, then Laroa and the
accused. When they reached the stretch between El Rio and
Afga, the police advised them to drive slowly because,
according to him, the place was dangerous. All of a sudden, Tan
heard two gunshots. Soriano and Laroa slumped dead. He did
not actually see the shooting of Laroa but he witnessed the
shooting of Soriano, having been alerted by the sound of the first
gunfire. Both were hit on the head. The accused had used his
carbine in killing the two victims.
Ricardo hurriedly got off the Fiera, ran towards the direction of
Butuan City and hid himself in the bushes. He heard a shot
Rationale: (a) Art. 247 of the RPC apply in the instant case.
There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her
paramour, the vacuum in this case, in the act of illicit copulation,
as, a result of which he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of
passionate outburst. Article 247 prescribes the following
elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse
in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person,
and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case.
The trail court, in convicting the accused-appellant of murder,
therefore erred.
(b) Article 247, or the exceptional
circumstances mentioned therein, amount to an exempting
circumstances mentioned therein, amount to an exempting
circumstance, for even where death or serious physical injuries
is inflicted, the penalty is so greatly lowered as to result to no
punishment at all. (c) Article 247 of the Revised Penal code does
not define and provide for specific crime, but grants a privilege
or benefit to the accused for the killing of another or the
infliction of serious physical injuries under the circumstances.
Punishment consequently is not inflicted upon the accused. He is
banished, but that is intended for his protection. (d) The next
question refers to the liability of the accused-appellant for the
physical injuries suffered by Lina Amparado and Arnold
Amparado who were caught in the crossfire as the accusedappellant shot the victim. The Solicitor General recommends a
finding of double frustrated murder against the accusedappellant and being the more severe offense, proposes the
imposition of reclusion perpetua in its maximum periods
pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. This where we
disagree. The accused-appellant did not have the intent to kill
the Amparado couple. Although as a rule, one committing as
offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, that rule
presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony. Here, the
accused-appellant was not committing murder when he
discharges his rifle upon the deceased. Inflicting death under
exceptional circumstances is not murder.
18. PEOPLE VS. ABAGON
161 SCRA 255 (1988)
Nature: This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC, which
found the accused guilty of the crime murder.
Issue: Accused-appellant, thru their counsel, raise the following
assignments of error: (i) The Honorable Regional Trial Court
erred in finding that the prosecutions evidence consisting of the
testimony of its witnesses sufficiently established the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt of the accused for the killing of ones
Celis Lupango, which killing was qualified to murder by
treachery, (ii) The Honorable Regional Trial Court erred in
holding that the defense of alibi on the part of the accused Mateo
Abagon and of self-defense on the part of Abner Ongonion will
no lie, (iii) The Honorable Trial court erred in declaring that
conspiracy had been sufficiently established, and (iv) The
Honorable Regional Trial Court erred in finding both accused
guilty of the crime of murder considering that their guilt were
not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts: (1) About 6:00 oclock in the afternoon of April 17,
1981, at Barangay Pinamarubuhan, Mobo, Masbate, while the
herein victim Celis Lupango and companions Isabelo Radaza,
Jr., Benjamin Bergado and Nilo Lalaguna were inside the store
of Corazon Cana to celebrate the birthday of Isabelo Radaza, Jr.,
two persons, later identified as Mateo Abagon and Abner
Ongonion, entered and stabbed Celis Lupango. First to enter was
Abner Ongonion, followed closely behind Mateo Abagon, and
with a six-inches double bladed knife stabbed Celis Lupango
three or four times. Mateo Abagon, in turn, with a seven-inch
knife also stabbed Celis Lupango several times.
(2) After Celis Lupango fell to the ground the two accused left.
At this point Terisito Lupango, brother of Celis Lupango,
arrived and he carried Celis Lupango, with the help of Benjamin
Bergado and Nilo Lalaguna whom he found inside the store,
outside the store intending to bring him to the hospital. Outside
the store, the waiting Abner Ongonion, who was with Mateo
Abagon, Julio Ongonion, Alejandro Ongonion, Romulo
Barruga, Antonio Danao and Arnel Onarosa, he drew his firearm
and fire two shots at them. Upon being fire at, Benjamin
discern if such witnesses are telling the truth or not (People vs.
Ramilo, 147 SCRA 102). (iii) Ongonions claim of self-defense
is likewise negated by the physical evidence and other
circumstances, such as his failure to present the knife upon
surrender, his failure to tell the police authorities that he killed
the deceased in self-defense and the absence of any injury on the
body of Ongonion while the deceased suffered eleven wounds
when, according to the appellant, there was supposedly a
struggle that tool place. For self-defense to prosper, the
following elements should have been proven by appellant: (a)
unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of provocation on
the part of the one defending himself. On the contrary, all the
evidence on record shows that not one of the elements of selfdefense is present. (iv) Appellant Abagaons defense on the
other hand, is alibi, an inherently weak defense especially when
it can be proved that it was not physically impossible for him to
be at the scene of the crime. In order to be given full faith and
credit, alibi must not leave any room for doubt as to its
plausibility and veracity. The appellant at the time of the crime
was allegedly in a place which approximately only 100 meters
away from the scene of the crime, renders his defense of alibi
not credible. (v) More important, Abagon and his companion
were positively identifies by eyewitnesses Bergado and
Lalaguna. The records show that the appellants took turns at
stabbing the victim inside and outside the store. The presence
and location of the eleven stab wounds, as testified by Dr.
Quemi also indicate that the same were inflicted by more than
one person. (vi) The assailants acted in concerted efforts with
community of criminal purpose to ensure the death of the victim
is indicative of conspiracy between them. Conspiracy is
established by concerted action It may be noted that even if
conspiracy had not been established, the liability of the two
appellants would not change for each inflicted on his own,
multiple stabbing blows on the victim resulting in mortal
injuries. They acted as principals by direct participation. (vii)
Treachery was likewise proven by the evidence presented. The
attack was immediate, sudden and unexpected. Treachery exists
when the offender commits any crime against person, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution, without risk to him
arising from any defense which the offended party might make.
19. PEOPLE VS. IGNACIO
G.R. NO. 134563 (FEB. 2000)
Nature: Appeal on the May 18, 1998 decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Masbate, Masbate, convicting Eulogio Ignacio of
murder
Facts: On January 11, 1997 (morning) in Barangay Divisoria,
Municipality of Dimasalang, Masbate, Jessie Lacson and Edwin
Velasco were gathering shells from the seashore. They got
thirsty, went to the fishpond and get coconuts or butong. The
fishpond is owned by Cielo Cortes alias Malagring. Eulogio
Ignacio, Loloy, is the caretaker, which stays at the house
inside the fishpond. Jessie then got 1 coconut, walked ahead of
Edwin in going to the dike, to break open the coconut. Eulogio
saw Jessie as Jessie reached the dike, he did not see Edwin
walking behind Jessie. |Eulogio asked Jessie to put down the
young coconut. Jessie did. Eulogio fired his homemade shotgun
at Jessie hitting the left portion of his breast. Eulogio was meters
away fro, Jessie. Edwin was meters away. Eulogio cranked his
homemade shotgun aimed it at Edwin but did not fire. Edwin
went to Jessies parents, then to Carlit Alcove, the Baraga
Tanned. Carlit asked Eulogio to surrender which he did.
Version of the Defense: Eulogio acted on the defense of
property. On January 9, 1997, he was informed by his neighbor,
Gil Aristotles regarding a theft incident in the fishpond. On
January 11, 1997, he saw Jessie and Edwin coming out of his
house carrying a basket his house was filled with 28 crabs.
Upon seeing Eulogio, Jessie and Edwin fled. He ordered them to
stop; they did not, so he fired his gun (without intention to kill
them). He then reported incident to Kalawao Gil Aristotles.
Ruling: There was no legal reason for him to shoot the victim,
an unarmed minor; killing was qualified as murder because of
the presence of treachery.
Issue:
voluntary
surrender
Mitigating Circumstance:
1. offender has not been actually arrested
2. offender surrender himself to a person
of authority
3. surrender is voluntary
=No mitigating circumstance he forced to give himself up
Main issue: Whether Eulogio acted in unlawful defense of the
landowners property.
Held: Appeal is denied, assailed decision is affirmed.
20. PEOPLE VS. RICOHERMOSO
56 SCRA 431 (1974)
Nature: Severo Padernal and Juan Padernal appealed from the
decision of the Circuit Criminal Court at Lucena City,
convicting them of murder, sentencing each of them to reclusion
perpetua and ordering them to pay solitarily the sum of twelve
thousand pesos to the heirs pf Geminiano de Leon ad to pay the
costs (Criminal Case No. CCC-IX-37- Quezon or 1922-CFIGumaca).
In the same decision they were convicted of lesions levees. Each
one was sentences to suffer the penalty of fifteen (15 days of
arresto manor and to pay the costs. Rosendo Perpean, Rito
Monterey and Macario Monterey were acquitted (Criminal Case
No. CCC-IX-38- Quezon or 1923-CFI-Gumaca).
Issue: The only issue in this appeal, which concerns Juan
Padernal, is whether he conspired with Ricohermoso and Severo
Padernal to kill Geminiano de Leon.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
Issue:
1.
2.
3.
Held:
1.
2.
11
3.
12
Court said that the trial court was wrong with this decision and
since the accused did not object of charging two counts of rape
in one information. The trial court failed to consider that the
accused did not object to the validity of the information or raise
the issue of duplicity of offense since the information does not
charge him with more than one offense or occasion of rape.
Decision: WHEREFORE, the decision of the RTC Branch 81.
Quezon City is set aside and another one is rendered finding
accused appellant Joseph Pambid guilty of one count of rape,
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
order him to pay Maricon P50, 000 as civil indemnity and the
same amount on moral damages.
25. PEOPLE VS. DOQUENA
68 PHIL 580 (1939)
Nature: Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan which held that the accused acted with discernment
in committing the act imputed to him and ordered him sent to
the Training School for Boys to remain therein until he reaches
the age of majority.
Facts: Between 1 and 2 oclock in the afternoon, Juan Ragojos
and Epifanio Rarang were playing volleyball in the yard of the
intermediate school. Valentin, who was also playing there
intervened and catching the ball, tossed it to Juan Ragojos
hitting him in the stomach. For his act, Juan chased Valentin
upon overtaking him slapped him on the nape. Valentin then
turned against Juan with a threatening attitude, so Juan struck
him on the mouth with his fist. Juan then returned and continued
playing with Epifanio. Valentin was offended and looked around
for a stone to attack Juan. He found none so he approached a
cousin named Romualdo Cecal to lend him his knife.Valentin
approached Juan and challenged the latter to give him another
blow with his fist to which Juan answered that he did not want
to because he was bigger than Valentin. Juan ignored Valentin
and continued playing. Valentin then stabbed him in the chest
Issue: Whether or not Valentin acted with discernment
Held: Decision is affirmed.
Points to Ponder:
at them telling them not to rise off if they wanted to live. Loreno
then brought Beata to the other rooms to get other contents.
Then the man in the dark sweater returned and took Cristina and
also raped her in one of the rooms. Moreover, Loreno entered
the room and embraced her trying to kiss her and touch her
private parts.
The lower court found Loreno guilty of robbery with
double rape sentencing him to life imprisonment. Jimmy
Marantal was found guilty of robbery sentencing him to prison
correccional as minimum of prison mayor.
Issue: Whether or not the accused Loreno and Marantal were
acting on irresistible force or uncontrollable fear
Held: All facts demonstrated the voluntary participation and
conspiracy of the appellants. All the conspirators are liable as
co-principals regardless of the extend character of their
participation because in the contemplation of law, the act of one
is the act of all. Decision of the court is modified. Jimmy
Marantal is sentenced to life imprisonment as well.
27. PEOPLE VS. FORONDA
222 SCRA 71 (1993)
Nature:A review on the appealed decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cagayan finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for the crime of murder against the brothers Esminio and
Edwin Balaan.
Facts: At about 6:00am, June 11, 1986, the deceased Balaan
brothers were taken by 7 armed men in fatigue with long
firearms suspected to be NPA members, accompanied by the
accused Rudy Fronda and Roderick Padua from the house of one
Ferminio Balaan, at Brgy. Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan. Rudy
Fronda and Roderick Padua were residents of the same
places.The armed men tied the hands of the deceased at their
backs, in front of their house.The armed men together with
Fronda and Padua proceeded towards sitio Cataratan, Allacapan,
Cagayan passing through the rice fields (taking along with them
the Balaan brothers).
Trial court found Fronda guilty as a principal by indispensable
cooperation.
(Testimony of Rudy Fronda)
On the night of June 10, 1986, he was taken by the NPA from
his house, accompanied by Robert Peralta, alias Ka Jun and
Roderick Padua, to look for the Balaan brothers.
There were around 9 NPAs with them. They found the Balaan
brothers at the house of Ferminio Balaan, a brother.
They tied their wrists/hands and brought them to the mountains
of Sitio Tulong, Cataratan, Allacapan, Cagayan.
After that, the NPA instructed them to go home, but the in
afternoon of the same day, Robert Peralta, alias Ka Jun sent
Elmer Martinez, Orlando Gonzales, George Peralta, and Librado
Duran to get him and further he was ordered to get a spade and a
crowbar. They were ordered to dig a hole in the mountain, one
kilometer away from his house.
Appellant interposes the exempting circumstance of
uncontrollable fear (Art 12 [6] RPC) claiming that all his acts
were performed under the impulse of uncontrollable fear and to
save his life.
Issue: W o N the accused-appellants acts make him liable for a
principal by indispensable cooperation.
Held: Decision modified. Accused-appellant could only be
convicted as an accomplice of the crime. No incontrovertible
proof was adduced by the prosecution supporting the conclusion
that the appellant agreed with the members of the armed group
to kill the Balaan brothers. Undoubtedly, even without
appellants participation, the assailants could have easily located
the Balaan brothers through the assistance of Roderick Padua.
Taking account the numbers of the assailants alone, it is
apparent that the armed men could have nevertheless committed
the crime easily without the appellant abetting the commission
thereof. As aforesaid to be considered principal by indispensable
cooperation, there must be direct participation in the criminal
design by another act without which the crime could have not
been committed.
13
14
RATIONALE:
15
16
17
Torrero conducted the group on their way out and upon his
return; accused Muit requested him to take a seat.
The accused then confronted Rodolfo Torrero why the latter
always visits his wife even during nighttime and why he often
invites her out. Torrero replied that being the barangay zone
auditor, he had to confer with the accused's wife on barangay
matters as the latter was the barangay zone president. The
accused then asked why Torrero even gave food and money to
his (accused's) children if he had no bad intention at all on his
wife. Torrero's wife answered that they did it out of pity because
there were times when they would see the accused's children in
need of food and money. The accused, however, angrily stood
up and countered, "Why should you give when your husband
had also a family to support? To avoid any trouble, the
deceased Torrero likewise stood up and said, 'If that is the way
we talked about this will end to nothing, so it is better that I
should leave', and he proceeded to move out of the house.
When Torrero was already outside the house of the accused and
while walking along the pathway, the accused followed him and
on reaching the door the accused shouted, "Wait because we
have not yet finished". At that instant, the accused raised his left
hand towards Torrero and with his right hand; he pulled out his .
45 caliber pistol and aimed it at the deceased. Angrily, he fired
his gun at Torrero who was just 3 meters away, hitting the
latter at the lower left side below the nape. On being hit by the
bullet, Torrero spun from his left to the right, with his two hands
inclined to the right, his face writhing in pain, his left elbow
raised parallel to his armpit and his right hand placed on his
breast.
Upon hearing the gunshot, witness Gubatan immediately
grabbed and held the accused from behind with an embrace, and
said, "Manoy Delfin, why are you like that? But as soon as
Gubatan embraced the accused from behind, a second shot was
fired, this time hitting the elevated left hand of Torrero, with the
bullet penetrating through the breast. Consequently, Torrero fell
on his knees, bent forward with face downward and body in a
prone position his left elbow supporting him on his left lap while
his right hand extended to the ground. Witness Gubatan on the
other hand tightened his grip around the accused as he tried to
wrestle with him.
The wife of Torrero, who was shocked by the first shot
thereupon rushed towards her fallen husband. But the accused
on seeing Mrs. Torrero rushed towards the deceased, aimed his
gun at her. Fortunately, witness Gubatan quickly grabbed the
right forearm of the accused that held the gun and jerked it
upward so that the third shot was fired towards the sky, thus
missing its target Id). Witness Gubatan then said, "Manoy Delfin
that is enough". Gubatan thereafter moved the accused away and
brought him near a coconut tree. Mrs. Torrero, on the other
hand, hugged her husband and cried for help, even as blood was
oozing out from the deceased's body and mouth. Shortly
thereafter, Torrero died.
Near the coconut tree, the accused tried to free himself from the
hold of Gubatan. He even pointed his gun at Gubatan and said,
"Set me free Benny or I will shoot you. When Gubatan could
no longer hold the accused as the latter kept on struggling, he let
him go and said, "Alright Kuya Delfin, shoot me, after all I have
no fault". Slowly, the accused put down his arm, his eyes at
static condition. He (appellant) then started to move away, and
as he did, he made a short last look at his victim, after which, he
continued on his way. After the incident, the accused proceeded
to the PC detachment to surrender himself and his gun.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused can involve passion and
obfuscation as mitigating circumstance?
HELD: Modifying the judgment appealed from, the accused
Delfin Muit, is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of eight (8) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal,
as maximum, with the judgment being affirmed in an other
respects.
RATIONALE:
During the trial the accused involved passion and
obfuscation as mitigating circumstance. There can be no
question that the accused was driven strongly buy jealousy
because of rumors regarding the amorous relationship between
his wife and the victim. The feeling of resentment resulting from
18
19
20
21
(P. 4, id.). When the jeep started to go, the accused also rode and
sat beside her
"When the jeep reached Guisad, she alighted on the road but she
still had to negotiate a distance of ten meters The accused also
alighted and again he tried to carry her bag Although he was not
allowed to carry her bag, he was adamant in following her
"Reaching her boarding house, she opened the door and was
about to close it when the accused dashed in and closed the door
behind him When she entered her room, the accused went in,
pulled a dagger eight inches long and threatened her and then
raped her.
Issue: W/N renting a bedspace in a boarding house constitute
for all and purposes a dwelling.
Held: The judgment of conviction of Amado Daniel for the
crime of rape as charged is affirmed.
Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a
boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes
a "dwelling" as the term is used in Article 14(3), Revised Penal
Code. It is not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns the
place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee a boarder or a
bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which the law
seeks to protect and uphold.
44. PEOPLE VS. MANDOLADO
123 SCRA 128 (1983)
Nature: Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Cotabato convicting Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano
of murder qualified with aggravating circumstances of treachery,
evident premeditation and abuse of confidence/obvious
ungratefulness.
Facts: Sometime in October 1977, four draftees of third infantry
Batallion were passengers of a bus bound for Midsayap
Cotabato City. Arriving at the terminal, they decided to drink
ESQ rum where Martin after going inside the market and fired
his caliber machine gun. They then boarded a car and forced the
driver to bring them to Midsayap Crossing and in the way,
Herminigildo got his knife and tried to attack the driver. After
they alighted from the jeep, the accused started firing his gun
and hit the occupants of the jeep while Julian fired his armalite
downwards in order to show that they were fighting with some
MILF rebels.
Issue: W/N abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness
can be inferred from the mere fact that an army draftee who was
allowed on board a vehicle later on fired his gun at its
occupants.
Held. Decision is modified as to penalty but affirmed in all other
respects.
There is merit in appellants' contention that there could be no
abuse of confidence as the evidence on record showed the lack
of confidence by the victims to the appellants, that this
confidence was abused, and that the abuse of the confidence
facilitated the commission of the 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." (People
vs. Comendador, 100 SCRA 155, 172). 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 (People vs. Hanasan, 29
SCRA 534). 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
22
23
three times. Crisologo joined in and with his own knife also
stabbed Fidel. At this time, gunshots were heard outside of the
house; and a neighbor of the Saromineses, Balbino Bulak,
recognized one of those doing the shooting as certain Carlito
Antiga. 8 A voice was heard from below saying, "Stab him!" 9 to
which Langomez replied, "I already stabbed (him)."
From his little sister's room, Fidel's thirteen-year old
son, Peter, saw his father fighting for his life with Romualdo and
Crisologo Empacis. Heeding his father's cry for help, Peter took
hold of a "pinuti" (a long bolo), and struck inflicting wounds on
the latters shoulder and neck. The two accused jumped out of
the house and fled. Peter then turned to his wounded father, but
found him already dead from his injuries.
Crisologo Empacis repaired to the clinic of Dr.
Eustaquio Deiparine at the poblacion of Sibonga, Cebu, for
treatment of the wounds inflicted on him by Peter, arriving there
between 10 and 11 o'clock that same night. Dr. Deiparine asked
Crisologo how he had come by these wounds. Crisologo said
that at around 6 to 7 o'clock that evening, near the Papan
Market, he was assaulted without warning by a young man, who
injured him with a bolo.
The next day police officers went to Dr. Deiparines
clinic and asked for information regarding a man who might
have been treated for hacking wounds. They were directed to the
public market where Empacis was and he was arrested.
24
Issue: Whether or not craft, fraud or disguise was used for the
commission of the crime
Held: Judgment affirmed, modification in costs. The
aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud was properly
appreciated against Empacis. He and Romualdo pretended to be
bona fide customers of the victim's store and on his pretext
gained entry into the latter's store and later, into another part of
his dwelling.
The SC has held stratagems and ruses of this sort to constitute
the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g.: where the
accused a) pretended to be constaabulary soldiers and by that
ploy gained entry into the residence of their prey whom they
thereafter robbed and killed.
52. PEOPLE VS. RUELLAN (SUPERIOR STRENGTH)
231 SCRA 650 (1994)
25
26
died instantaneously.
After hacking and stabbing to death Godofredo Pascua, the
accused proceeded to the seashore of the barrio, and on finding
Mariano Buenaflor leaning at the gate of the fence of his house,
in a kneeling position, with both arms on top of the fence, and
his head stooping down hacked the latter with the same bolo,
first on the head, and after the victim fell and rolled to the
ground, after said blow, he continued hacking him, until he lay
prostrate on the ground, face up, when the accused gave him a
final thrust of the bolo at the left side of the chest causing instant
death.
The trial court found the accused guilty of two counts of
murder with the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation and intoxication.
Issued: Can intoxication be an aggravating circumstance to the
case?
Held: The judgment is modified because of attending mitigating
circumstance of intoxication.
It is respectfully submitted that there was no proof that
the accused was intoxicated at the time of the killing other than
the bare testimony of Payago that from his house he allegedly
saw the accused drinking in his house which is about 30 meters
away. The prosecution did not present any police report or
doctor's certification that accused was found to be intoxicated at
the time of the killing. Moreover, it was not shown by
competent evidence that accused purposely became drunk to
facilitate the commission of the offense.
"If at all, intoxication should be properly appreciated as a
mitigating circumstance because it affected accused mental
faculties such that it diminished his capacity to know the
injustice of his acts and to comprehend fully the consequences
of his acts."14
There is merit in the contention. Drunkenness or intoxication is
mitigating if accidental, not habitual nor intentional, that is, not
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It is aggravating if
habitual or intentional.1 To be mitigating, it must be indubitably
proved.1 A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by
excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual
and confirmed. It is unnecessary that it be a matter of daily
occurrence. It lessens individual resistance to evil thought and
undermines will-power making its victim a potential evildoer.1
The records of these cases do not show that the appellant was
given to excessive use of intoxicating drinks although he used to
get drunk every now and then.
58. ATTY. AQUILINA R. ARANETA VS. COURT OF
APPEALS
NATURE: A petition to review the decision of the then Court of
Appeals finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of
bribery.
FACTS: Gertrudes Yoyongco is a widow of Antonio, an
employee of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA).
When Antonio died, she approached the appellant, a hearing
officer of the Workmens Compensation Unit, to inquire on the
procedure for filing a claim for death compensation, which upon
learning prepared and filed them. After a few days, she went
back to ask about the status of her claim. When she saw the
appellant, she was told she needed to pay P100 for her claim to
be acted upon. She then complained to her brother-in-law, Col.
Yoyongco. The former then instructed Carlito Carlos to entrap
the accused. Two 50 peso bills were dusted with ultra-violet
powder. The two, with Balos, then went to the appellant, with
Carlos posting as the nephew of the widow. When the appellant
asked for the money, Balos grabbed Araneta and arrested her.
ISSUE: W o N it is entrapment or instigation.
Held: Decision of the lower court affirmed. Petition dismissed
for lack of merit.
The petitioner confuses entrapment with instigation.
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
27
and the other two, namely Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang,
by indispensable cooperation.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36