ART 14.

3
People vs Montinola 360 SCRA 631 Facts of the case: On November 18, 1996, William Montinola boarded a passenger jeepney driven by Jesus Hibinioda bound for Libertad Plaza, Iloilo City. One of the passengers was Jose Eduardo Reteracion. All of a sudden, Montinola drew an unlicensed gun, .380 caliber pistol and asked Reteracion to hand over his money which was amounting to P67,500, or he would kill him. Montinola aimed the firearm at Reteracions neck and fired successive shots at him thereafter. As a result Reteracion slumped dead. Meanwhile, a police officer who heard the shot, approached the jeep and met Montinola carrying the gun he used in killing Reteracion. The policeman chased Montinola who ran away with his bloodstained jacket, thereby throwing some bundles of money. What was left and recovered from him was P48,200. The policeman and some bystanders picked up the money strewn on the way by the suspect. Another policeman finally caught up with Montinola, who was brought to the police station with his gun. Issue: Whether the use of an unlicensed firearm in the killing perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the robbery may be treated as a separate offense or as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide. Held: The court rendered a joint judgment finding Montinola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges filed against him sentencing him to reclusion perpetua for the robbery with homicide, and in the crime of illegal possession of firearm, he was spared the penalty of death. Third paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, provides that: If a homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Montinola contended that the use of an unlicensed firearm in the crime of murder or homicide should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance and not as a separate offense. Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, which are both indivisible penalties. Article 63 of the same Code provides that in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the greater penalty shall be applied when the commission of the deed is attended by one aggravating circumstance. If applied retroactively, the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, the imposable penalty would be death.

People v. Reyes, 427 SCRA 28 FACTS: Dr. Aurora Lagrada, a spinster of about 70 years old, lived alone in her 2 - st or y house. Ant onio Reyes house was about 4-5 meters away from the doctor's house. Reyes was a ble to gain entry into the house of Lagrada without the latter knowing. Armed with a bolo, Reyes stole one Rolex w ristwatch, 1 gold bracelet, 1 gold ring withbirt hstone of

Jade, 1 Pass Book f rom Lagrada. O n t he occasion of the said r obber y, Reyes st abbed Lagr a da several times in the different parts of her body directly causing her deat h. The t r ial court convict ed Reyes of robbery with homicide. HELD: To sustain a conviction of the accused for robber y wit h homi cide, t he pr osecution is burdened t oprove the essential elements of the crime. The accused must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing robber y, the homicide being committed either by reason o f o r o n o c c a s i o n o f t h e r o b b e r y . T h e h o m i c i d e m a y precede robbery or may occur thereafter. What is essential is that there is a nexus, an intrinsic connection between the robbery and the killing. The latter may be done prior to or sub sequent to t he f or mer. However, t he i ntent t o commit robbery must precede the taking of the victim's life. Furthermore, the constituted crimes of robbery and homicide must be consummated. A h o m i c i d e i s c o n s i d e r e d a s h a v i n g b e e n committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery when the motive of the offender in killing the victim is to deprive the latter of his property, to eliminate an obstacle to the crim e, t o pr ot ect his possessi on of the l oot , t o eliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended or to insure his escape from the scene of the crime. Appellant stated that he barged into the house of the victim to rob her, and that he stabbed the victim when she was about to shout and because he was dr unk. T he appel lant then t ook t he victi m's money and per sonal belongings and fled from the scene of the crime. The trial court correctly convict ed the appellant of robbery with homicide.

Mari vs Court of Appeals Facts: Petitioner Quirico Mari borrowed his 201 file from his superior Norma Capintoy on December 6, 1991 however when he returned the same, the complainant noticed that several papers were missing which includes official communications from the Civil Service Commission and the Regional Office Department of Agriculture and a copy of complaint by the Rural Bank of Digos against the petitioner. Upon instruction from

her superior, Norma Capintoy sent a memorandum to Quirico Mari urging him to explain why his 201 file was returned with missing documents.

Instead of acknowledging the memorandum, petitioner confronted his superior and angrily shouted at her, Putang ina, bull shit, bugo Banged a chair fron of the complainant and choked her.

On his defense, petitioner said that the 201 file which he borrowed did not contain any of the missing document. That Norma Capintoy provoked him to act as he did.

Complainant filed for a complaint on slander by deeds on January 7, 1992 subsequently amending the information on May 20, 1992 adding that the crime was aggravated by the fact that the offended party was a woman.

On September 22, 1994, the Municipal Trial Court of Digos finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of slander by deeds with one aggravating circumstance.

ON December 1, 1995 the RTC Br. 19 of Digos AFFIRMED the decision of the lower court.

ISSUE:

WON, CA and the Lower courts correctly appreciated and defined the aggravating circumstance of being a woman.

HELD:

While the amended information on the criminal complaint alleged that the crime was aggravated by the fact that the offended party is a woman, and the Municipal trial court found the attendance of such ordinary aggravating circumstance, it did not however state what an aggravating circumstance is as required. Nevertheless, being a woman is not by itself an aggravating circumstance. There was no finding that the evidence proved that the accused deliberately offended or insult the sex of the victim or showed disrespect on the womanhood of the victim. There was no proof of specific fact or circumstance, other than the victim is a woman that shows disregard of sex in order that it

may be considered as aggravating circumstance. As a result, he trial court erred in appreciating in favor of the prosecution one aggravating circumstance. Neither the regional trial court nor the court of appeals noticed the error.

The offense while considered as serious slander by deed was done in the heat of anger and was a reaction to a perceived provocation.

The SC SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals. With regards to the penalty imposed, instead it, opted to sentence the petitioner to pay the fine of Php 1, 000.00

People vs Taboga FACTS: Edralin Taborga was found guilty of the complex crime of Robbery with homicide and Arson by the Regional Trial Court of Cabugao , Ilocos Sur. As alleged, the accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously entered the house of victim Francisca Tugunon, with treachery and abuse of superior strength did there and then assault, attack and stabbed the septuagenarian widow, steal

three (3) finger rings, one (1) necklace with pendant, one (1) vial of perfume and four gantas of rice all of which belongs to the same victim. The information further alleges that the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide was committed with aggravating circumstances of disregard of the respect due the offended party with regards to her age and sex, that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party and that the crime was committed after an unlawful entry. Furthermore, the crime of arson was aggravated by the circumstance that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party and that the crime was committed after an unlawful entry

Accused raised the defense of denial and alibi.

Consequently, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death through lethal injection and reclusion perpetua for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide and Arson, respectively.

The accused appellant pursue an appeal for the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide but did not appeal the decision for the crime of Arson.

ISSUE:

WON, the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information are all correct.

HELD:

The Supreme Court modified the complex crime of robbery with homicide to homicide, robbery was not proven.

However, the aggravating circumstances as alleged remains. That the crime of homicide was committed in the victims dwelling and with disregards to her age and sex.

The circumstance of dwelling aggravates the felony when the crime was committed in the residence of the offended party when the latter did not give any provocation. It is considered an aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of the privacy that the law accords to the human abode. The commission of the crime in anothers abode shows worse perversity and

produces grave alarm.

The circumstance of disregard for the victims sex and age were not appreciated by the Supreme Court. It declares that in order that these two circumstances to be recognized it should be shown and proved that the malefactor deliberately intended to offend or insult the victim. In sum, killing a woman is not attended by aggravating circumstances if the offender did not manifest specific insult or disrespect for the sex and age of the victim. However, even if disregard of sex and age were not appreciated, the four other aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14 paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code as Amended can be considered singly or together.

The attendance of aggravating circumstance warrants the additional imposition of exemplary damages.

Pp.vs.colangui Facts: 1/1/98 2:00pm. Sleeping in the same room maricel and her 3 siblings, and alejandro(appelant), awoke to find out that appellant removed her pants and underwear. Appellant threatened her that he will kill her siblings if she refuses the appelants sexual desire. She tried to repel by moving her body and kicking him but appellant succeeded in having sexual congress. She knew that her bro. Noel witness the incident but pretended to be asleep. Sept26 she was again raped. After the incident alejandro stayed at b meg barracks. Issue: won aggravating circ. of dwelling be appreciated

Ruling: no. Maricel and alejandro being cousins and living under the same shelter at the time of the incident. There was no trespass to the sanctity of dwelling on the part of the appellant. Pp. vs melendres Facts: july23,92. Rodrigo and mardie with his two bro. Were resting in the house of pacifico who is the owner of the land they are cultivating, it was located at the middle of the farm. Around 9pm rodrigo and mardie was awaken by the barks of he dog, they peeped through the porch and saw 3 persons in the yard, these 3 proceeded to the house, pushed the main door which was not locked. Rodrigo and mardie jumped and hid at theback of the house, they peeped again and saw clearly who were the 3. The 3 named catalino, bernardino and teudolo. Went to syrel and exon who were then sleeping, the first two hacked syrel and twudolo hacked exon using bolo. RTC:double murder Issue: won treachery, superior strength and dwelling be appreciated Ruling: superior strength and night time absorbed by treachery. Dwelling is appreciated, though the victim is not the owner of the house. Dwelling may mean temporary dwelling.

People vs rios FACTS: (Angel Rios was convicted of murder. The crime was preceded by a heated argument. The accused left

and came back minutes after the altercation and stabbed victim at the latters terrace.) Ambrocio and Anacita

Benedicto owned a sari-sari store in their house in Bulacan. According to Anacita, at around 6:30 pm of February 7,

1996, appellant Angel Rios, a neighbor, hurled stones at their house. A few minutes later, and while the Benedicto

spouses were tending their store, appellant bought cigarettes. Ambrocio confronted appellant about the stoning

As the two engaged in a verbal tussle, Joselino Mesa and his fellow barangay tanods named Amorsolo Dayao,

Rivera and Espino who were roving the vicinity, chanced upon the disputants. Having heard the appellant shout

at Ambrocio, Mesa intervened and requested the two to part ways. He even escorted them to their respective

A few minutes later, Rios went back to the store. Just then, Anacita saw her husband go to the terrace of their

house. Rios suddenly approached Ambrocio and stabbed his right stomach. Anacita was only a meter away from

the antagonists; she was facing her husbands back while appellant was standing in front of Ambrocio. As Anacita

Mesa and his group saw Anacita weeping while Ambrocio was lying lifeless in the terrace of their house. Anacita

told the tanods that appellant had stabbed her husband. One of the tanods assisted Ambrocio but the latter

succumbed to death even before they could reach the hospital. The postmortem certificate of death shows that

Ambrocio died of "shock due to a stab wound at the chest around 3 cm. penetrating the right auricle (heart).

WON the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder despite insufficiency of

WON the existence of treachery as a qualifying circumstance be appreciated.

WON to consider the dwelling as a generic aggrevating circumstance

HELD: It was homicide and not murder. Treachery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Treachery may not

be appreciated where, as in this case, the attack against the victim cannot be categorized as unexpected and

unforeseen so as to deprive him the opportunity to defend himself. By the facts of the case, where the incident

of the victim berating the accused for throwing stones at his residence preceded the fatal assault, a possible

retaliation by the accused was not remote. In the testimony of the prosecution, it is unquestionable that Anacita

saw the stabbing incident but she could not describe exactly how it was commenced notwithstanding what

appears to be her conclusion that the stabbing was done in a "pakadyot" manner. This may perhaps be blamed

on the frailty of human memory but it does not obliterate the fact the she actually saw the stabbing incident. The

doubt as to its manner or mode of execution should therefore be resolved in favor of the appellant. Qualifying

and aggravating circumstances before being taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree

of the penalty to be imposed must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as that which establishes the

commission of the act charged as a criminal offense. Dwelling was correctly considered aggravating. The word

dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms part thereof.

PEOPLE VS PERRERAS

Accused-appellant perreras was found guilty of murder for the killing of Estanislao Salo and sentenced to death. According to the prosecution's witness (Leonardo) as soon as accusedappellant saw Estanislao, he rolled up his sleeves, drew a gun from his waist, and fired at Estanislao, hitting him on the head. Leonardo had a clear view of Estanislao sitting on a chair and watching TV when fired upon as he was only about ten (10) meters away from the shooter and the victim. Fearing for his life, Leonardo hid behind a chair. Perreras calimed that the court erred in giving weigh to the testimony of the witness stating some discrepancies to the testimony.

ISSUE: Whether or not Perreras is guilty of murder.

HELD: SC is found guilty of murder but modified the death sentence to reclusion perpetua.

RATIO: SC mentioned that minor discrepancies as long as corroborated by other witnesses cannot affect the credibility of such witness. Furthermore, the SC upheld the ruling of the lower court in appreciating the presence of treachery in the case stating that 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. For treachery to be considered, two (2) elements must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and, (b) the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. In this case, the victim was in the comforts of his own home, enjoying a televised basketball game. He was shot in the head from the back, with the gunman even having all the time in the world to roll up his sleeves and take careful aim. The victim was unaware of the attempt on his life, and was not in the position to defend himself. Clearly, treachery was present in this killing. In imposing the death penalty, the trial court ruled that the murder was aggravated by dwelling. SC agreed, but not to the imposition of the supreme penalty as shown hereunder. 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. Dwelling is considered aggravating primarily 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. Although accused-appellant was outside of the house when he fired, the victim was inside his house. 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 house, although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside. However, the death penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant in light of our recent rulings in People v. Arrojado and People v. Gano where Secs. 8 and 9 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure were given retroactive application where favorable to the accused. The Rules now require that every complaint or information state not only the qualifying but also the aggravating circumstances, otherwise the same cannot be properly appreciated. Since dwelling was not alleged in the Information, it cannot be considered to raise the penalty to death. Consequently, there being no more modifying circumstances to be appreciated, the penalty for this murder is reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Art. 63 in relation to Art. 248 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659.

PEOPLE VS TAO On November 6, 1997,Amy de Guzman was tending a Video Rental Shop owned by her employer and cousin, Ana Marinay. Thereupon, accused-appellant Alexander Tao, a relative of Anas husband Gerry Marinay arrived at said shop. Alexander Tao then asked Amy about the time when Gerry would be coming home, to which she replied, 10:00 p.m. He then asked about the time when Ana would be coming home and Amy replied that she did not know. Thereafter, but still on the same date, Alexander Tao kept on going in and out of the Video Shop, and on the last time that he went inside said shop, he jumped over the counter of the shop to where Amy was and seized the latter by placing one of his arms around Amy's neck, while his other hand held a knife which he poked at her neck. Terrified by the attack, Amy started shouting for help but Alexander Tao increased the volume of a karaoke which was on at the time to drown Amys cries for help. Alexander Tao then dragged Amy to the kitchen of the shop where, at knife point, he ordered the latter to undress and he thereafter started raping her. Tao became violent again and banged Amys head on the wall causing the latter to lose consciousness. When she regained consciousness she found herself and Tao inside the toilet of the shop and the latter again banged her head, this time on the toilet bowl, several times causing Amy to again lose consciousness. Thereafter, Tao went upstairs and looted the place of valuables belonging to Amys employer, Ana. Amy, herself lost her ring, bracelet and wristwatch during the incident in question. RTC, found Accused-Appellant Alexander Tao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling and imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death. ISSUE: whether or not the accused is guilty of robbery with rape and whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated.

HELD: SC modified the ruling of the RTC to two separate crimes of rape and robbery without the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. RATIO: The appellant cannot be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape because the asportation was conceived and carried out as an afterthought and only after the rape has been consummated. Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case because the rape was committed in the ground floor of a two-story structure, the lower floor being used as a video rental store and not as a private place of abode or residence. Dwelling aggravates a felony when the crime was committed in the residence of the offended party and the latter has not given any provocation. It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to human abode. The evidence shows that it consisted of two floors: the ground floor, which was being operated as a video rental shop, and the upper floor, which was used as a residence. It was in the video rental shop where the rape was committed. True, the victim was dragged to the kitchen and toilet but these two sections were adjacent to and formed parts of the store. Being a commercial shop that caters to the public, the video rental outlet was open to the public. As such, it is not attributed the sanctity of privacy that jurisprudence accords to residential abodes. Hence, dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSUE DELA TORRE, accused-appellant not belong to her. In People v. Parazo, this Court stressed that the dwelling contemplated in Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code does not necessarily mean 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. 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.

Facts:

Accused Jose dela Torre was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclision perpetua for the crime of Rape he committed to Marita Cordova.

Alleged in the Information, accused dela Torre, by means of violence and intimidation willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge with the victim Cordova against her will. The aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in the house of the offended party who did not give any provocation.

At around 8 oclock in the evening of November 5, 1989, while she was cooking at the kitchen of la fiesta farm, with her is her five children, accused appeared holding a knife and a bolo dragged her outside and brought her to a house under construction 200 meters away where he successfully forced the victim to have carnal knowledge with him while a knife is pointed on

her throat and her arms pinned at her back.

In his defense, he admitted having carnal knowledge with the victim but it was consensual. That he and the victim has been having an affair.

Nevertheless, the trial court finds him GUILTY for the crime of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua

The Supreme Court SUSTAIN the decision of the lower court.

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 by appellant is her dwelling, albeit the same does

People v. Villanueva Facts:

At around 12 midnight, Marife Brabante was attending to her duties as cashier of the Highlander Store owned by her mother. She was assisted by Cheryl Dapiaoen and George Bautista. They were about to close the store when appellant, together with a certain Jerry, Teddy and an unidentified person, arrived. They occupied one of the tables and started drinking the liquor which they brought with them. Appellant then asked Marife if they could stay until 5:00 a.m. but Marife refused since they were unruly. When the group was about to leave, Cheryl asked appellant to pay the amount of P35 as cover charge. At this point, appellant became angry and threw two bottles of gin on the floor. Marifes brother, Orland, who was sleeping in one of the rooms of the store, was awakened by the noise. He went out and told appellant not to create trouble. But appellant shoved him and left with a warning that he would return to kill somebody. Appellant got on his tricycle and bumped the door of the store while his companions threw rocks at it. Meanwhile, Marifes other brother, Otoleo, got up from his bed and asked Cheryl to go with him to buy balut at the nearby Seven Star Store, which was only eight meters away from their store. After 30 minutes, appellant returned to Highlander Store with a knife. He walked past Marife and told her that she was not the one he was going to kill. Appellant went toward the Seven Star Store where Otoleo and Cheryl were then buying balut. Upon reaching the store, appellant suddenly stabbed Otoleo at the back. The victim turned to face appellant but the latter again stabbed him twice on the left armpit. Otoleo fell to the ground and appellant ran away. Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of nighttime attended the crime Held: The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated. At the outset, it should be noted that the circumstance of nighttime was not alleged in the information. And even if alleged, nighttime cannot properly be considered in this case because, although the crime was committed late at night, there was no evidence that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime, or that it was specially sought by the offender to ensure the commission thereof, or that the offender took advantage of it for impunity. The record does not show that appellant deliberately sought the cover of darkness when he assaulted Otoleo Brabante. The prosecution established no more than the simple fact that the crime was committed at night. People v. Ancheta Facts: The prosecution testified that victim Alfredo Roca was with Marjun Roca, Benita Roca, Febe Roca and daughter Virgilita Roca-Laureag in his hut. Later he noticed the arrival of an ownertype jeep from which Antos Dacanay, Edgardo "Liling" Areola, William Ancheta, Lito de la Cruz,

Ely Calacala and appellant Felipe "Boy" Ulep alighted. Alfredo saw Dacanay suddenly pull out a gun and shoot Marjun on the head, causing the latter to fall to the ground. Marjun was again shot, this time by Areola and Ancheta. Thereafter, Ulep, de la Cruz and Calacala started firing at Alfredos hut. Alfredo was not hit, however, because he was able to get out of the hut and dive into the irrigation canal in the nick of time. However, Benita and Febe were fatally hit by the initial volley of gunfire. Ancheta then hurled a grenade which exploded near the hut. When the group ran out of bullets, Alfredo saw the group load onto the trailer 35 sacks of palay. Alfredo owned the stolen palay. Ulep and his companions then boarded their jeep and left. The defense interposed the defense of alibi, that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Issue: Whether or not the crime was committed by a band. Held: The offense was proven to have been executed by a band. A crime is committed by a band when at least four armed malefactors act together in the commission thereof. In this case, all six accused were armed with guns which they used on their victims. Clearly, all the armed assailants, including appellant, took direct part in the execution of the robbery with homicide.

People v. Baroy Facts: Emeliza Bueno, a guest relations officer, went home home from work on board a tricycle. Suddenly two armed men later identified as accused Nacional and Baroy blocked the path being traversed by the tricycle. Then, they asked money from the driver and pulled Emeliza out from the tricycle. The tricycle driver however was able to escape but appellants succeeded in taking Emeliza to a vacant lot. Baroy took off her pants and underwear and pointing a chisel towards the victim succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her while Nacional served as a lookout. "After Baroy finished raping Emeliza, Nacional took turn in raping her. Afterwards, Nacional left leaving behind Baroy who raped Emeliza x x x for the second time.1wphi1.nt Both the accused denied the accusations. The trial court found appellants guilty of three (3) counts of qualified rape with the use of a deadly weapon as the qualifying circumstance the prescribed penalty for which is reclusion

perpetua to death. In imposing the maximum penalty of death, it considered the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and confederation. Issue: Whether or not the lower court correctly appreciated the existence of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances Held: It is worthy to note that confederation is not enumerated as an aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Like conspiracy which must be alleged in and not merely inferred from the information, confederation is but a mode of incurring criminal liability and may not be considered criminal in itself unless specifically provided by law. Nether may confederation be treated as an aggravating circumstance in the absence of any law defining or classifying it as such. Thus, the trial court erred in appreciating it for the purpose of imposing the maximum penalty. On the other hand, nighttime is considered an aggravating circumstance only when it is deliberately sought to prevent the accused from being recognized or to ensure their escape. There must be proof that this was intentionally sought to ensure the commission of the crime, and that appellants took advantage of it. In the instant case, the records reveal that they did not utilize the circumstance of nighttime to conceal their identities, as there was sufficient illumination at the scene of the crime that enabled both the tricycle driver and the victim to recognize them easily. Moreover, the fact that they committed the crime at nighttime did not at all facilitate it or ensure their escape, considering that they were immediately apprehended soon after. Clearly then, they did not specifically or purposely seek the cover of darkness, which was merely incidental, in the advancement of their criminal pursuit. Nocturnity is not aggravating when, other than the time, there is nothing on record or even in the testimonies of the witnesses from which it may be inferred that the accused particularly took advantage of the darkness of the night to facilitate their criminal design. Certainly, the mere fact that the offense was committed at night will not suffice to sustain a finding of nocturnity. Where rape is alleged and proven to have been committed with a deadly weapon and by two persons, it is held to be qualified rape (due to the use of such weapon) with the aggravating circumstance of superior strength (there being two rapists acting in concert). However, like nighttime and confederation, the use of superior strength was not alleged in the Information. Under the present Rules, aggravating circumstances must be alleged; otherwise, they cannot be appreciated.

People v Silva

(Silva and Sandangao were charged of murder and attempted murder) KEY Word: Headless Body Facts: On Sept 3, 1996 Manuel and Edmundo Ceriales together with other men were playing card games (tong-its) at the house of the former. Suddenly three men (Silva, Sandangao and Flores) arrived. One with an armalite ordered them to lie on their stomach and another asked Edmundo and Manuel to get out of the house. As soon as they were outside of the house, both brothers were tied. Thereafter, they walked towards the highway until they reached a coconut plantation. Edmundo was thereafter separated from Manuel. He was brought 20 meters away from Manuel by Sandangao. Then, Sandangao tied both his hands and feet and left him. Hence, Edmundo was able to escape by jumping away from where he was. He was able to untie his feet and hands and ran away as fast as he can until he reached the house of his godfather. The following day, they found the headless body of his brother Manuel whose feet were still tied. The defense of Sandangao is that he was ordered at gunpoint to accompany Silva and Flores at the house of Manuel and will be killed if he will not cooperate. The defense of Silva was alibi that he was at the house of his brother in Mandaluyong at the time of the crime. Edmundo was able to identify the three accused, Silva, Sandangao and Flores who were charged of Murder and Attempted Murder. Only Silva and Sandangao were tried and found guilty as charged by the RTC. Flores remains at large.

ART 14.6

Issue:

Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of treachery and nighttime are present?

Held: The killing of Manuel was characterized by treachery when there is (1) employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate and (2) deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. The suddenness of their arrival while the victims were playing games, ensured that the victims could be taken without difficulty to an isolated case and killed there. The fact that they arrived with an armalite gun, a bolo and a rope and a flashlight showed that they deliberately and consciously adopted the means of execution. The act of tying up both the hands and feet of the victims with a rope ensured the killing and deprived the victim of any chance to defend themselves. Nighttime is an aggravating circumstance when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; (2) it is taken advantage of him; and (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the immunity of the victims from capture. The accused-appelant took advantage of the darkness to successfully consummate their plans. The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they intended to commit the crime in darkness.

JUDGEMENT: Guilty of Murder and Attempted Murder (Penalty: Death). The 2 aggravating circumstances were appreciated (treachery and nighttime).

ART 14.6

People v Librando (Librando, Surdillas and Purisima were charged of Murder)

Witness: 8 year old Daughter (Aileen)

KEY Word:

FACTS: On Dec 11, 1996 Edwin Labandero and his daughter went to the market. On the way home, Edwin, Aileen and a relative Fernando traversed a hilly portion were they met Lirando, Larry and Eddie. Librando inquired from Edwin the whereabouts of Fernando and without any warning hit Edwin with a piece of wood. Edwin ran but was chased by Librando and the three of them took turn in hitting Edwin with a piece of wood until he fell and died. Although, it was already dark Aileen had no trouble identifying the three men because Edwin was carrying a lighted torch. While the three men took turns in hitting Edwin, Fernando took Aileen with him and ran to report the incident to the Baranggay Captain. On Dec 12, 1996, Librando voluntary surrendered while Larry and Eddie were invited for questioning and later arrested and detained. Aileen was able to positively identify the three accused as the killer of her father, Edwin. Librando accepted the full responsibility for the killing of Edwin and his defense was Incomplete Self-Defense; while the others claimed that they did not participate in the killing since they run and left Librando. The three were charged of Murder and were found guilty as charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited be considered just as one aggravating circumstance?

HELD: The trial court did not err in considering the nighttime and uninhabited place as just one aggravating circumstance. The aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place, and band concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule, although, they can be considered separately if their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.

JUDGMENT: Guilty of Murder (Reclusion Perpetua)

People vs. Comadre 431 SCRA 366, G.R. No. 153559, June 08, 2004 Facts That on August 06, 1995, deceased Robert Agbanlog, victims and witnesses Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were having a drinking spree on the terrace the house of Robert's father, Barangay Councilman Jaime Agbanlog. Jaime Agbanlog was seated on the banister of the terrace listening to the conversation of the companions of his sons. Robert and the others noticed appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano walking and stopped in front of the house. Antonio lobbed a hand grenade which fell on the roof of the terrace and a hand grenade exploded ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Appellants immediately fled by scaling the fence of a nearby school. Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Webb, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were hit by shrapnel and slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to San Jose General Hospital for medical treatment. However, Robert Agbanlog died before reaching the hospital.

Appellants denied the charges against them. Antonio Comadre claimed that on the night of August 06, 1995, he was with his own family watching television in the house of his father, Patricio, and his brother, Rogelio. George Comadre claimed that he was at home when it happened. Danilo Lozano declared that he was at home with his ten year-old son on the night of August 06, 1995. Danilo Lozano also added that he did not see Antonio and George that night and has not seen them for quite sometime, either before or after the incident. Appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano were charged with Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder.

Issues Whether or not conspiracy was present in the commission of the crime. Whether or not the killing by means of explosives qualifies the crime to murder

Held/Ruling There was no conspiracy. The undisputed facts show that when Antonio Comadre was in the act of throwing the hand grenade, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano merely looked on without uttering a single word of encouragement or performed any act to assist him. A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself. Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship. The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not have any participation in the commission of the crime and must therefore be set free. Their mere presence at the scene of the crime as well as their close relationship with Antonio are insufficient to establish conspiracy considering that they performed no positive act in furtherance of the crime. Neither was it proven that their act of running away with Antonio was an act of giving moral assistance to his criminal act. The ratiocination of the trial court that "their presence provided encouragement and sense of security to Antonio," is devoid of any factual basis. Such finding is not supported by the evidence on record and cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of conspiracy. There being no conspiracy, only Antonio Comadre must answer for the crime. Yes, the killing by means of explosives qualifies the crime to murder. It is significant to note that aside from treachery, the information alleges the use of explosive" as an aggravating circumstance. Since both attendant circumstances can qualify the killing to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court should determine which of the two circumstances will qualify the killing in this case. When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance. Not only does jurisprudence support this view but also, since the use of explosives is the principal mode of attack, reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense

instead of treachery which will then be relegated merely as a generic aggravating circumstance. Appellant Antonio Comadre is convicted of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. Appellants Gregorio Comadre and Danilo Lozano are acquitted for lack of evidence to establish conspiracy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People vs. Roxas 628 SCRA 378, G.R. No. 172604, August 17, 2010 Facts On January 12, 1994, around 3:00 p.m., Agnes Guirindola, while cruising along Panay Avenue, Quezon City, on board a red 1993 model Nissan Sentra sedan with plate number TKR-837, was suddenly flagged down by a man, Venancio Roxas, wearing a PNP reflectorized vest. The man signaled her to make a U-turn and Agnes complied. Agnes opened the right front window of the car and asked Roxas, Ano ang problema? Roxas replied, Miss, one way street po ito. Agnes explained to the man that she usually passed by the same street and it was only that day that she had been caught. Roxas told her that the street had been made a one-way street because a girl figured in an accident in the same street two days ago. Roxas then asked for Agnes' drivers license. After taking the drivers license, Roxas handed her a piece of paper which she was asked to sign. Agnes noticed that it was not the usual traffic citation ticket but, nevertheless, she pretended to sign the same by making a check thereon. Roxas asked her to open the door of the car so that he could show her the one-way sign and the other traffic aide at the corner of the street. Agnes let Roxas enter the car. Agnes asked Roxas where she could drop him. Roxas told Agnes to make a left turn from the corner of the street and that he will alight somewhere in Mother Ignacia. Agnes obliged and made a left turn and stopped the car. Thinking that Roxas was waiting for a bribe, Agnes took out her wallet, pulled a P50.00 bill and gave it to Roxas. After receiving the money, Roxas returned to Agnes her drivers license. Upon returning the drivers license to Agnes, Roxas immediately switched off the engine of the car and poked a gun at her saying Miss, kailangan ko ang kotse mo. After a while, Agnes heard a knock from outside the car. Agnes identified the second passenger as Roberto Gungon. Roxas drove the car while Gungon held Agnes on the shoulder with one hand, and her leg with the other. Along the way, Roxas stopped the car and went to a sari-sari store. Upon returning to the car, Roxas offered Agnes a bottle of soft drink and Skyflakes biscuit. Agnes refused so Roxas handed the softdrink to Gungon and told him: Mamaya painom mo sa kanya at pakainin mo siya. Gungon took the bottle of softdrink and tried to force Agnes to drink the contents thereof. Agnes refused because she saw tablets floating inside the bottle. Roxas resumed driving, while

Gungon held Agnes. Gungon again offered the softdrink to Agnes. When she refused, Gungon became mad and tightened his hold on Agnes, forcing her to drink it. Sensing that Gungon was already furious, Agnes took the softdrink. After Agnes drank it, Roxas told Gungon, Ipainom mo pa itong dalawang tablets dahil malaki sya, mahina iyong dalawa para sa kanya. Gungon took the tablets from Roxas and forced Agnes to swallow the same. Out of fear, Agnes took the tablets, but did not swallow them. She placed the tablets under her tongue. When Roxas and Gungon were not looking, she took her handkerchief and spat out the tablets into the handkerchief. Agnes felt dizzy and fell asleep. When Agnes woke up, she found out that her jewelries, as well as her pair of shoes, were already gone. Agnes also lost her wallet containing a check and cash.A gnes also noticed that there was already a third man sitting in front of the car beside Roxas who was still driving. She then asked them if she could relieve herself. Gungon led Agnes to a nearby grassy area and told her, O, dyan ka na lang umihi. After Agnes relieved herself, and as she was about to get up and return to the car, she saw white sparks at her right side and then she fell down. When she opened her eyes, she saw Roxas walking back towards the car with a gun in his hand. She did not see Gungon at that particular time. Then she lost consciousness. When Agnes regained consciousness, she was all alone. It was very dark. She followed a sparkling light that led her to a small house. Upon reaching the house, she seeked for help from the people therein. She lied down on the sofa. Only then did she notice that blood was profusely oozing from her face and there were holes in the left side of her neck and her right cheek. Agnes was then carried to a Fiera motor vehicle and brought to the Batangas Regional Hospital. The following day, the parents of Agnes and the rest of the family arrived at the hospital. Her parents immediately arranged for her transfer to the V. Luna General Hospital (now AFP Medical Center) in Quezon City. Upon transfer of Agnes to the V. Luna General Hospital, her parents immediately reported the incident to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila, which promptly conducted an investigation.

Issue Whether or not the crime was committed with treachery and evident premeditation.

Held/Ruling Yes. The evidence likewise reveal, undoubtedly, the commission of frustrated murder as

qualified by the circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. The medical findings show that had it not been due to the timely and proper medical attention given to the victim, the gunshot wound sustained by the victim would have been fatal. Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself, arising from the defense which the offended party might make. As narrated by Agnes, she could not have been aware that she would be attacked by appellant. In the darkness of the night while she just finished relieving herself and still trying to get up, she was shot by appellant in the head with a gun. There was no opportunity for her to defend herself, since appellant, suddenly and without provocation, shot her as she was about to get up. 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. Moreover, the requisites of evident premeditation was likewise duly established in this case, to wit: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The prosecution's evidence particularly the testimony of Agnes demonstrated that Gungon and Roxas had indeed planned to kill her from the time they took the car. Thus, from the foregoing, it is evident that the commission of the killing, albeit frustrated, was formed from the moment the accused took the victim in Quezon City until she was ultimately executed in other place. The lapse of time satisfies the last requisite for the appreciation of evident premeditation as there was sufficient time for meditation and reflection before the commission of the crime yet appellant proceeded with the same.
PEOPLE vs. DANTE NUEVA

FACTS: Alfonso Bacar Jr., eyewitness for the prosecution, narrated that that at around 10:00 in the evening of December 29, 2000, while he was standing outside the Great Taste Bakery, he saw a person coming being chased by another (John Doe). Upon reaching 4th Avenue, the person being chased passed in front of the appellant and Porpirio Maribuhok, who were then standing near the corner of 4th Avenue. At that point, the appellant held the victims left hand and led him to the other side of

the road. Porpirio took a piece of wood and hit the victim on the head, causing the latter to fall to his knees. The appellant continued to box the victim until John Doe came. John Doe immediately stabbed the victim at the back. The appellant, who was then at the victims front, then pulled out a knife and likewise stabbed the victim. Afterwards, the three accused ran towards M.H. Del Pilar Street. The victim stood up, but, after taking two (2) steps, fell to the ground. Thereafter, an unidentified person came and brought the victim to a hospital on board a van

According to Dr. Lagat, the Medico-Legal Officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, who conducted an autopsy on the remains of the victim; the victim suffered three (3) stab wounds, eight (8) incise wounds, and several abrasions in different parts of his body. Of the three stab wounds, two (2) were fatal, both of them at the chest.

PO2 Safuentes of the Mobile Patrol Division, stated that he was one of the police officers who apprehended the appellant. he and his five (5) companions went to serve the arrest warrant on the appellants house, but unfortunately, he was not in his house at the time. they chanced upon the accused who, on seeing them, turned his back and ran. PO1 Chu fired two (2) warning shots, causing the appellant to stop. PO2 Safuentes showed him (appellant) then the corresponding warrant of arrest and then brought him to the hospital for mandatory physical examination.

G.R. No. 173248

ISSUE: WON, the abuse of superior strength be considered as a qualifying circumstance.

HELD: Yes, the SC held that the crime of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength is penalized under Article 248 of the RPC. While treachery and evident premeditation were not adequately proven,

in the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the commission of the felony, the courts a quo correctly sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 (2) of the RPC.

People of the Philippines vs. Ventura

G.R. Nos. 148145-46

FACTS:

On February 23, 2000, around 2:00am, while the victims were all asleep in their room, appellants stealthily gained entry through the kitchen door. The two then went to the victims unlocked room and there killed Aileen Bocateja in defense of his husband, and seriously wounded Jaime Bocateja using the bladed weapon Arante was carrying. Ventura, on the other hand, was armed with a .38 Caliber Homemade Revolver. The two then fled from the victims house but was later on apprehended by the Philippine National Police.

During the interview conducted, it was learned that, according to Ventura, on February 17, 2000, her wife, Johanna, confessed that she and Jaime Bocateja were having an affair. Five days later, when Venturas nephew, Flores, came to visit his uncle, appellant Ventura asked Flores to go with him to Bocatejas residence so he could confront Jaime about his affair with Johanna. The two then went to the said house and arrived there at 11pm but was not able to get in until 2:00 am.

In its decision, the trial court found both Ventura and Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder as alleged in Criminal Information No. 00-20693 with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, dwelling, nighttime and the breaking of door to gain entrance to the house

and with no mitigating circumstance, and for the crime of Murder as alleged in Criminal Information No. 00-20692 qualified by abuse of superior strength. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime and by the breaking of a door are present in the commission of the crime. There is no mitigating circumstance.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not superior strength be considered as a qualifying circumstance 2. Whether or not evident premeditation be considered as a qualifying circumstance 3. Whether or not breaking of door and nocturnity be considered as aggravating circumstances in both cases. 4. Whether or not Death be the penalty

RULINGS: 1. This Court in a very long line of cases has consistently 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. By deliberately employing a deadly weapon against Aileen, appellant Flores clearly took advantage of the superiority which his strength, sex and weapon gave him over his unarmed victim. 2. The trial court, did not consider evident premeditation as having aggravated the killing of Aileen since she was not the intended victim of appellants' conspiracy. Upon further scrutiny, however, this Court finds that this aggravating circumstance should have been appreciated in connection with Aileen's murder. Jurisprudence is to the effect that evident premeditation may be considered as present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed, if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who may help him put a violent resistance.

3. In determining appellants' criminal liability, the trial court appreciated the generic aggravating

circumstances of dwelling, nighttime and breaking of door in connection with both crimes. Dwelling is considered aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to human abode. Thus, it has been said that the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows greater perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm. Here, dwelling was correctly appreciated since the crimes were committed in the place of abode of the victims who had not given immediate provocation.

In determining nocturnity, two tests are employed in the alternative: (1) the objective test, under which nighttime is aggravating because the darkness facilitated the commission of the offense; and (2) the subjective test, under which nighttime is aggravating because the darkness was purposely sought by the offender.90 Applying these tests to the established factual circumstances, this Court concludes that nocturnity was correctly appreciated in connection with both crimes.

4. It is to be noted that the appreciation by the trial court of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime, despite the non-allegation thereof in the Information, resulted in the imposition of the supreme penalty of death upon accused-appellant. The accused must thence be afforded every opportunity to present his defense on an aggravating circumstance that would spell the difference between life and death in order for the Court to properly 'exercise extreme caution in reviewing the parties' evidence. This, the accused can do only if he is appraised of the aggravating circumstance raising the penalty imposable upon him to death. Such aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information, otherwise the Court cannot appreciate it. Consequently, we hold that due to their nonallegation in the Information for rape filed against accused-appellant, the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling cannot be considered in raising the penalty imposable upon accused-appellant from reclusion perpetua to death

People vs. Campomanes

Facts:

At around 10:30 in the evening, a security guard (Aureada) in the Rizal Park, saw the accused appellant (Campomanes) a park photographer chasing the victim, alkonga who is also a park photographer. The accused-appellant caught the victim and grabbed its collar, causing both of them to lose their balance and fall on the ground which is about 3 meters away from Aureada. The security guard herein whistled but the two instead of stopping, they began grappling for alkongas camera. Suddenly, Rosita another photographer, appeared very angry, and brought out a balisong or fan knife pointing the same direction of the victim. The security guard fired a warning shot but his riffle misfired. Seeing what the Rosita will do, the security guard took his mobile and called the park security patrol. Then he saw, Rosita stabbing Alkonga while Campomanes holding the hand of the victim.

When prosecuted the two were convicted of beyond reasonable doubt of a crime murder and sentencing them to suffer reclusion perpetua.

Issue: whether or not the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation can be appreciated?

Held:

Evident premeditation may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance after the following requisites are sufficiently established: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[32] It is true that where conspiracy is directly established, with proof of the attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time and means of executing the crime, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted. [33]However, where no such evidence exists, and where conspiracy is merely inferred from the acts of the accused in the perpetration of the crime, as in the case at bar, the above requisites of evident premeditation need to be established.[34] A careful perusal of the records of this case shows that evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven, and thus, may not be appreciated.

People vs. Uganap

Facts:

The lone eyewitness, Samuel Arang, also a cousin of the victim, testified that at around 8:30 in the evening of January 6, 1990, he was walking home when he stopped near the house of Salvador Uganap, one of the accused, to light a cigarette. He peeped through a hole in the wall of the house and saw the five accused gathered together --- Felix Uganap had a .38 revolver tucked to his waist, while Nonoy Panday held a pistolized carbine. The room was illuminated by a lamp. Upon seeing that they were armed, Samuel Arang moved away from the house and

hid behind a coconut tree. The accused left Salvador Uganaps house and went to the victims house, which was about 30 meters away from where the witness was.[5] Samuel Arang stated that he saw Salvador Uganap kick the door of Pedro Arangs house; seconds later, Pedro opened the door, carrying with him a kerosene lamp. Immediately, Felix Uganap shot him. Pedro shouted for help, calling on his Tio Pelagio (the eyewitnesss father). Upon seeing the shooting, Samuel Arang fled to his house where he told his father of what he saw. As they were afraid, they did not attempt to rescue the victim but waited until the next morning to attend to the body.

The trial court also took into consideration the testimony of Nolly Luchavez, who identified all the accused as members of a religious vigilante group called Ituman. Luchavez was himself recruited into the group when he was only 14 years old. Accused-appellant Felix Uganap was the groups designated field commander, and carried the alias Commander Matador. Accused Nonoy Panday was also a commander. Luchavez left the group after five years, in 1990, disillusioned that the group which he thought had good objectives turned out to be nothing more than a gang of hired killers.

When prosecuted they are convicted beyond reasonable doubt of a crime of Murder.

Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation can be appreciated in this case?

Held:

the elements of evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the criminal act itself before it can be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. These elements are: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that they clung to their determination to commit the crime; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of their act.The essence, therefore, of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.

All the elements of evident premeditation are met in this case. As early as December 18, 1989, the conspirators had determined to kill Pedro Arang. On December 24, 1989, they met to set their heinous plan into effect but they had to postpone it because Pedro left for another town to visit his wife. Still they clung to their resolve as they simply postponed the execution to January 6, 1990. All these demonstrate that the criminal intent had been harbored in dark reflection and calculation for more than two weeks, where the malefactors had every opportunity to abandon it but did not do so.

People vs. Dimalig

Facts:

At around 3:45 in the afternoon of October 3, 1993, Josephine Sevillana called up Arlene, who was on duty as a saleslady, to confirm their agreement to meet that afternoon. Arlene, sounding fearful, asked Josephine to go to Northmall, revealing that accused Dimailig had previously threatened to kill her.

At around 5:00 in the afternoon, Josephine arrived at the Northmall. As she made her way to the gift shop, she noticed accused Dimailig standing in front of the Fuji Film Store beside the shop. Josephine entered the gift shop and found Arlene alone inside. She did not see Arlene talk to accused Dimailig outside.

At around 5:30 p.m., Arlene and Josephine prepared to close the gift shop. Then, Arlene asked Josephine to accompany her to the comfort room which was around five to six meters from the shop. They were walking towards the comfort room when, suddenly, accused Dimailig appeared. He pulled Arlene away from Josephine. Then, he stabbed Arlenes chest with a balisong several times. Arlene fell to the ground.

People milling around the mall started gathering around accused Dimailig. Moments later, several persons began to maul him.

Josephine and some salesladies brought Arlene to the Manila Central University Hospital (MCU), but Arlene was pronounced dead on arrival.

When prosecuted Restituto Dimailig was convicted beyond reasonable doubt of a crime murder

Issue: whether or not aggravating circumstances evident premeditation can be appreciated in this case?

Held:

the trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation against accused-appellant. In evident premeditation, there must be proof of the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time, between the determination and execution, to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.[32] Evident premeditation is based on overt acts. There must be a demonstration by overt acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest.

In this case, the trial court found accused-appellants threat to the victim as an overt act manifesting evident premeditation. However, Josephine Sevillana admitted in court that she was

not able to confirm the threat made by accused-appellant as she did not hear any word uttered by him when she arrived at the Northmall and her sister did not tell her anything when she arrived at the gift shop. An expression of hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to commit a crime; there must be a demonstration of outward acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest. Evident premeditation must be based on external acts which are evident, not merely suspected, and which indicate deliberate planning. Thus, evident premeditation may not be appreciated against accused-appellant.

People vs. Amodia

Facts:

At about 3am, Richard Roda, an assistant manager of Nognog Videoke Restaurant in Quezon City, while he is about to invite customers outside of said restaurant, saw seven men mauling someone. He noticed that the three of the attackers are their regular customers namely Amodia, Lo-oc, and Marino. Lo-oc held the shoulders of the victim while Amodia and Marino took turns in beating the victim. One of the companions of the accused upon seeing Roda, threatened to kill him. As the victim had fallen unto the ground, Roda approached the victim and saw blood oozing from the latters head. When one of the maulers was about to give another blow, Roda was able to prevent it by saying Hindi na kayo naawa. The accused appellants then entered the restaurant and drank one bottle of beer each. Roda did not

immediately report the incident for the reason that the accused appellants threatened him and lingered around the vicinity. The victim, later identified as Jaime Bartina was brought to the hospital but subsequently expired around 5pm in the afternoon.

RTC: Accused appellants were charged of murder.

CA: Affirmed the Decision of the RTC and held that the killing was qualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Issue:

WON the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was sufficiently proved.

Ruling:

No. To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength. There must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked. When the victim fell, the prosecution witness (Roda) was able to hold him, preventing accused-appellants from further hurting him. Then accused-appellants simply turned away. To be sure, had accused-appellants really intended to use their superior strength to kill the victim, they would have finished off the victim, and probably even the lone prosecution eyewitness.

CA decision was modified to HOMICIDE. Considering that Johbert Amodia was still a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, he is entitled to a privilege mitigating circumstance of one degree lower. Hence, the penalty for the crime committed by Johbert Amodia is prision mayor.

ART 14.14 Craft, Fraud, and Disguise

People vs. LABUGUEN

Facts:

In the early morning of October 27, 1994, appellant went to the house of the victim (Bonifacio Angeles) to convince him to purchase the cows offered for sale. The victim agreed to see the cows, bringing along with him - P40, 000.00. The victim and the appellant rode on the motorcycle of the victim with the latter as the driver. At past 8:00 in the morning, prosecution witness Romeo Bariza saw the victim and appellant riding on a motorcycle. At about 10:00 of the same day, the victim and the appellant were seen sitting on top of an irrigation canal at Barangay Ramona, Angadanan, Isabela. Around 10:30 in the morning of October 27, 1994, appellant was seen alone on the motorcycle of the victim, speeding away from Barangay Ramona. Between 11:00 to 12:00 noon of October 27, 1994, appellant rode a minibus leaving the motorcycle of the victim on the shoulder of the road. The bus conductor noticed that the right side of appellant's jacket and pants were soaked with blood, and there were two inches-

thick of one hundred peso bills tucked in the breast pocket of appellant's jacket. Between 1:00 to 2:00 in the afternoon of the same day, the dead body of the victim with gunshot and stab wounds was found by the residents of Barangay Ramona, 150 meters from the irrigation canal.

RTC: Appellant Vivencio Labuguen is guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide. Reclusion Perpetua.

The case was brought to the SC for automatic review.

Issue:

Whether or not the court has correctly appreciated the employment of generic aggravating circumstance of fraud and craft in the commission of the crime even if not alleged in the information

Ruling

Though not alleged in the Information, the generic aggravating circumstances of fraud and craft were properly appreciated by the trial court. Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the offender. When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present. By saying that he would accompany the victim to see the cows which the latter intended to buy, appellant was able to lure the victim to go with him.

Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Robbery with Homicide is reclusion

perpetua to death. Applying Article 63 of the same Code, the impossable penalty under the premises is death in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of craft and fraud and the absence of any mitigating circumstance. Decision of RTC Affirmed.

ART 14.15 People vs. Amodia

Facts:

At about 3am, Richard Roda, an assistant manager of Nognog Videoke Restaurant in Quezon City, while he is about to invite customers outside of said restaurant, saw seven men mauling someone. He noticed that the three of the attackers are their regular customers namely Amodia, Lo-oc, and Marino. Lo-oc held the shoulders of the victim while Amodia and Marino took turns in beating the victim. One of the companions of the accused upon seeing Roda, threatened to kill him. As the victim had fallen unto the ground, Roda approached the victim and saw blood oozing from the latters head. When one of the maulers was about to give another blow, Roda was able to prevent it by saying Hindi na kayo naawa. The accused appellants then entered the restaurant and drank one bottle of beer each. Roda did not immediately report the incident for the reason that the accused appellants threatened him and lingered around the vicinity. The victim, later identified as Jaime Bartina was brought to the hospital but subsequently expired around 5pm in the afternoon.

RTC: Accused appellants were charged of murder.

CA: Affirmed the Decision of the RTC and held that the killing was qualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

Issue:

WON the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was sufficiently proved.

Ruling:

No. To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength. There must be clear proof that the assailants purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the defense available to the person attacked. When the victim fell, the prosecution witness (Roda) was able to hold him, preventing accused-appellants from further hurting him. Then accused-appellants simply turned away. To be sure, had accused-appellants really intended to use their superior strength to kill the victim, they would have finished off the victim, and probably even the lone prosecution eyewitness.

CA decision was modified to HOMICIDE. Considering that Johbert Amodia was still a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, he is entitled to a privilege mitigating circumstance of one degree lower. Hence, the penalty for the crime committed by Johbert Amodia is prision mayor.

People vs. Ambrocio (433 SCRA 67) Rowena Gallego G.R. No. 140267, 29 June 2004

Facts: At around 1:30 p.m. of February 24, 1998, a certain Roger Domingo reported that he found coconut lumber which could have been felled without permit, in a construction site in Sitio Nasunog, Dalipdip, Altavas, Aklan. As barangay captain of Dalipdip, part of Masangyas duties was to issue permits to cut coco lumber. He investigated the report and instructed Elienito Gervacio, a member of the Lupong Tagapamayapa, to verify Domingos report and to wait for him at Sitio Nasunog.

At around 2:00 p.m., Masangya recalled, he was accompanied by the victim, Roberto Sanchez, to Sitio Nasunog. There they saw the pile of coconut lumber beside the road near the construction site. He noticed that in the house under construction, there was a drinking spree going on amongst the five accused Carlito Francisco, Joseph Andrade, Benigno Ambrocio, and his sons Ben and Benny. They alighted from the motorcycle. Ben Ambrocio walked towards the two until Ben was six meters away from them with only the construction sites bamboo fence separating them. He heard Ben ask, What are you doing there, captain? He noticed that Ben and his companions were already drunk. He replied, Who are you to question me? I am the barangay captain

here. Upon hearing this reply, the other four accused came down from the house, and all five jumped over the fence. With their bolos drawn, the five approached them. Sanchez suggested that they talk things over calmly, saying, We will just talk peacefully. Without warning, Ben suddenly hacked Sanchez at the back.

Masangya testified that at that point, he shouted to the victim, Berto, you run away. He himself sped off, but Benigno Ambrocio, Francisco and Andrade pursued him. They failed to overtake him. Sanchez, however, was not so lucky. Before he could run away, he suffered another blow. This time Benny Ambrocio struck him at the back with his bolo. The victim fell. All the five accused then gathered around Sanchez and continued hacking him to death. Afterwards, they carried his body to the area where it was later found.

Masangya added that he witnessed the entire incident while he hid behind a thicket. Soon thereafter, at around 4:00 p.m., he reported the incident to the Altavas police. There he saw Joseph Andrade who also

reported the incident. Initially, Masangya only implicated the Ambrocios. He included Andrade and Francisco in a supplemental report made one day after the killing.

The Trial Court convicted Ben, Benigno Ambrocio and Joseph Andrade of the crime of MURDER qualified by

treachery and abuse of superior strength.

Issue: Whether or not treachery and abuse of superior strength qualifies the killing to murder?

Held: It was established that when Masangya and Sanchez arrived at the scene of the crime, they had a heated argument or exchange of words with appellant Ben Ambrocio, who was holding a bolo. Ben was six meters away from Sanchez, the victim. Said heated exchange prompted the appellants and co-accused to jump over the fence. They promptly surrounded Masangya and Sanchez. Noteworthy, this incident took place in broad daylight. The victim Sanchez could not have missed the import of what was happening: the bolo held by the appellants and co-accused meant danger to his life. Like Masangya, Sanchez had an opportunity to escape from the tension-filled situation. Unfortunately, unlike Masangya, he did not succeed to run away. Nevertheless, where a killing is preceded by an argument or quarrel, treachery can no longer be appreciated, as the victim could be said to have been forewarned and could anticipate aggression from the assailants.

But while we agree that treachery might not have attended the killing of Sanchez, we rule that there was abuse of superior strength that should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance on the part of appellants. Abuse of

superior strength is present when the aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.

Superiority in number does not necessarily amount to the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength. But in this case, it has been shown that the aggressors cooperated in such a way as to secure the advantage of their numerical strength and advantage. There is proof of the relative numerical strength of the aggressors and the assaulted, a ratio of 5 to 2. There is also proof that the aggressors simultaneously assaulted the deceased. When all five accused, armed with bolos, joined forces to attack and pursue Sanchez and Masangya, in a concerted effort, they definitely abused their superiority in number and in arms. Since this aggravating circumstance was alleged in the information and duly proved, it qualifies properly the killing to murder.

The penalty for murder, under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death. For appellants Benigno L. Ambrocio, Sr., and Joseph Andrade, since no aggravating and no mitigating circumstances were proved, the applicable provision is Art. 63, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. As for appellant Ben Ambrocio, we find in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, to which Art. 63, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code applies. On all of them, the imposition of the penalty of reclusion

perpetua is appropriate under the circumstances.

As to damages, the award by the trial court of P50,000 as civil indemnity to the heirs of the victim is correct and should be sustained. In addition, considering the wound inflicted on the victim that caused his death, and the anguish suffered by the victims heirs, moral damages in the amount of P50,000 should also be awarded.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 5228, finding appellants BEN G. AMBROCIO, BENIGNO L. AMBROCIO, SR., and JOSEPH P. ANDRADE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder, imposing on each the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all its accessories is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants are ORDERED jointly and severally, to pay the heirs of the victim, Roberto Sanchez, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000 as moral damages.

People v. Calpito (416 SCRA 491) Rowena Gallego G.R. No. 123298, November 27, 2003

Facts: The prosecution presented its sole witness in the person of Israel Montilla, the grandson of the victim Florentina Villas. In his testimony, he narrated that at around 2:00 a.m. of November 21, 1990, he was

sleeping in the sala of the victims residence when he was awakened by the victims shout for help. He then rushed to the victims bedroom which was just 2 meters away from the sofa on which he slept. By the doorway, he met

appellant who was holding a fan knife in his right hand and the victims shoulder bag in his left. He grappled with appellant, who suddenly stabbed him on his left upper arm. While Montilla searched for something with which he could defend himself, appellant rushed out of the house through the kitchen door, the lock of which the latter had destroyed. Montilla looked inside the bedroom and saw his grandmother on the bed lying in a pool of blood, with stab wounds all over her body.

Montilla further declared that no other person was inside the bedroom when the incident happened. He was able to recognize appellant because of the fluorescent light. He testified that he could not be mistaken regarding the assailants identity, since he had long known appellant, who resided near the victims house. He also stated that appellant, in his haste, left a flashlight and a cap which had the latters name written on its inside portion. He added that he had known appellant to be a drug user, and that at the time of the incident, the latter appeared to be under the influence of drugs.

The court a quo finding the charge of Robbery with Homicide unsubstantiated by evidence, convicted appellant of

the crime of murder.

Appellant, thereafter, filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the trial court erred in convicting him of Murder instead of Homicide and in failing to apply the mitigating circumstance of minority.

The court denied the motion and affirmed appellants conviction for murder.

Issue: Whether or not the abuse of superior strength qualified the killing to murder?

Decision: Yes. A perusal of the facts of the case readily reveals that abuse of superior strength attended the crime.

The information alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength. Although the assailed decision did not discuss which of these qualified the killing to murder, a perusal of the facts of the case readily reveals that abuse of superior strength attended the crime. In several cases, this Court has ruled that this circumstance 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 the latter selected or took advantage of in the commission of the crime. In

a recent case, it was held that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes an abuse of the aggressors superior strength. The circumstance must apply with more reason in the present case, where the abuse of superior strength is evident from the notorious disparity between the relative strength of the victim, a 74-year-old unarmed woman, and the assailant, a young man armed with a knife.

With respect to treachery, this Court holds that it cannot be considered in the present case. This circumstance cannot be appreciated where the prosecution only proved the events after the attack happened, but not the manner the attack commenced or how the act which resulted in the victims death unfolded. It must be noted that in this case, the prosecutions lone witness only accounted for what transpired after the stabbing, as he did not see the actual attack on the victim.

Given the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the court a quo therefore correctly convicted appellant for Murder.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo finding appellant Francisco L. Calpito alias Francis guilty of Murder is AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATIONS that he is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 10 years of prision mayor medium as MINIMUM, to 12 years of prision mayor maximum as MAXIMUM and that, in addition

to the civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000, he is further ordered to pay the heirs of the victim P25,000 as exemplary damages and P25,000 as temperate damages.

Barcelon v. People Abuse of superior strength

FACTS: appellant Antonio Barcelon was seen sitting on the bench fronting the residence of Dr. Nicasia Amador. Appellant was restless and palinga-linga. Later, appellant went inside the Amadors house. Inside, while Isabel Medino was cooking in the kitchen she heard Dr. Amador shouting. She then ran to the sala and saw appellant strangling and stabbing Dr. Amador. Dr. Amador shouted SAKLOLO!, by that time Barcelon left the house holding a knife. Dr. Amador then came out holding her bleeding left arm. She asked for help. She was brought by her neighbors to the hospital, though she reached the hospital still alive, she died due to a coughing episode, became pale and gasped for breath. Her blood pressure went down. Meanwhile, concerned neighbors pursued appellant. The police authorities caught up with appellant. RTC convicted him of crime of Murder.

ISSUE: WON abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the crime.

RULING: Yes. To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force, out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The aggravating circumstance of abuse 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 crime. In finding that abuse of superior strength attended the killing, the trial court observed that such abuse is obvious, considering the blatant inequality of strength and age between the victim and the appellant as well as the degree of force and weapon used by him. The OSG points out that there was abuse because at the time the crime was committed, the victim was a 69year-old woman and appellant was only 29 years old.

Appellant avers that the mere fact that the victim was a woman does not by itself establish that there was abuse of superior strength. For appellant says he is a short person with a small body, hence, it cannot be concluded that there was notorious disparity of strength between him and the victim. This finds no merit. As held in People vs. Ocumen, an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon

an unarmed 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.

The disparity in age between the assailant and the victim, aged 29 and 69, respectively, indicates physical superiority on appellants part over the deceased. It did not matter that appellants physical attributes, what mattered was that the malefactor was male and armed with a lethal weapon that he used to slay the victim. Thus, abuse of superior strength was present in the commission of the crime.

Jamon v. People Abuse of superior strength.

FACTS: Pilar Evangelista Tacla, a widow married Jimmy Ponce Jamon, a widower, with children of his own. They lived with her daughter, Victoria, in the latters house. One morning, Pilar had a heated altercation with appellant, that she wants to Pilar move out of Victorias house and to transfer to their own house in to spare her daughters from the shame and hassle of the couples constant fights over appellants addiction to women, gambling, and booze. Appellant warned Pilar that once they moved out, she could never set foot in her daughters house again, he even added in a threatening manner that

if Pilar came back to Victorias house, he would beat her up. These threatening words uttered alarmed

Victoria, who was then cooking in the adjoining room. Victoria ordered her stepfather out of the house, then gathered appellants clothes on the bed and yelled, Take all your clothes! Appellant got his pistol which was hidden inside the cut-out pages of a telephone directory on a nearby table and fired it in the air. Pilar and Victoria were transfixed. Appellant pointed the revolver at Victoria and announced, I am going to shoot! where Pilar embraced her daughter and was about to bring her out of the room when appellant fired, hitting Victoria at the chest and causing her to fall bloodied on the floor. Afterwards, appellant reloaded the gun and while pointed the muzzle of the gun at Pilar. But the gun jammed and did not fire. Appellant quickly fled the scene, leaving mother and daughter in an embrace, which turned out to be their last. In the hospital, Victoria was declared dead on arrival.

ISSUE: WON whether the killing was attended by abuse of superior strength .

RULING: Yes. Abuse of superiority is present whenever there is inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the

aggressor and selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. In the present case, the victim was a woman with a smaller build. She was unarmed. Appellant was a fifty-oneyearold male, in the prime of his life, and armed with a deadly weapon. The killing indubitably constitutes an instance of abuse of superior strength, hence the offense is qualified to murder, and not merely homicide.

Sison vs. People Facts: A rally was scheduled to be held at the Luneta by the Marcos loyalists. Earlier, they applied for a permit to hold the rally but their application was denied by the authorities. Despite this setback, three thousand of them gathered at the Rizal Monument of the Luneta at 2:30 in the afternoon of the scheduled day. Deputy Superintendent of the Western Police District, arrived and asked the leaders for their permit. No permit could be produced. Hethereupon gave them ten minutes to disperse. The loyalist leaders asked for thirty minutes but this was refused. Atty. Lozano turned towards his group and said "Gulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators." Atty. Nuega added "Sige, sige gulpihin ninyo!" The police then pushed the crowd, and used tear gas and truncheons to disperse them. The loyalists scampered away but some of them fought back and threw stones at the police. Eventually, the crowd fled towards Maria Orosa Street and the situation later stabilized. 1 At about 4:00 p.m., a small group of loyalists converged at the Chinese Garden, Phase III of the Luneta. There, they saw Annie Ferrer, a popular movie starlet and supporter of President Marcos, jogging around the fountain. They approached her and informed her of their dispersal and Annie Ferrer angrily ordered them "Gulpihin ninyo and mga Cory hecklers!" Then she continued jogging around the fountain chanting "Marcos pa rin, Marcos pa rin, Pabalikin si Marcos, Pabalikin si Marcos, Bugbugin ang mga nakadilaw!" The loyalists replied "Bugbugin!" A few minutes later, Annie Ferrer was arrested by the police. Somebody then shouted "Kailangang gumanti, tayo ngayon!" A commotion ensued and Renato Banculo, a cigarette vendor, saw the loyalists attacking persons in yellow, the color of the "Coryistas." Renato took off his yellow shirt. He then saw a man wearing a yellow t-shirt being chased by a group of persons shouting "Iyan, habulin iyan. Cory iyan!" The man in the yellow t-shirt was Salcedo and

his pursuers appeared to be Marcos loyalists. They caught Salcedo and boxed and kicked and mauled him. Salcedo tried to extricate himself from the group but they again pounced on him and pummelled him with fist blows and kicks hitting him on various parts of his body. Banculo saw Ranulfo Sumilang, an electrician at the Luneta, rush to Salcedo's aid. Sumilang tried to pacify the maulers so he could extricate Salcedo from them. But the maulers pursued Salcedo unrelentingly, boxing him with stones in their fists. Somebody gave Sumilang a loyalist tag which Sumilang showed to Salcedo's attackers. They backed off for a while and Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo away from them. But accused Raul Billosos emerged from behind Sumilang as another man boxed Salcedo on the head. Accused Richard de los Santos also boxed Salcedo twice on the head and kicked him even as he was already fallen. Salcedo tried to stand but accused Joel Tan boxed him on the left side of his head and ear. Accused Nilo Pacadar punched Salcedo on his nape, shouting: "Iyan, Cory Iyan. Patayin!" Sumilang tried to pacify Pacadar but the latter lunged at the victim again. Accused Joselito Tamayo boxed Salcedo on the left jaw and kicked him as he once more fell. Banculo saw accused Romeo Sison trip Salcedo and kick him on the head, and when he tried to stand, Sison repeatedly boxed him. Sumilang saw accused Gerry Neri approach the victim but did not notice what he did. 7 Salcedo somehow managed to get away from his attackers and wipe off the blood from his face. He sat on some cement steps 8 and then tried to flee towards Roxas boulevard to the sanctuary of the Rizal Monument but accused Joel Tan and Nilo Pacadar pursued him, mauling Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for his life exclaiming "Maawa na kayo sa akin. Tulungan ninyo ako." He cried: "Pulis, pulis. Wala bang pulis?" 9 The mauling resumed at the Rizal Monument and continued along Roxas Boulevard until Salcedo collapsed and lost consciousness. Sumilang flagged down a van and with the help of a traffic officer, brought Salcedo to the Medical Center Manila but he was refused admission. So they took him to the Philippine General Hospital where he died upon arrival.

Held: As the lower courts found, the victim's assailants were numerous by as much as fifty in number 65 and were armed with stones with which they hit the victim. They took advantage of their superior strength and excessive force and frustrated any attempt by Salcedo to escape and free himself. They followed Salcedo from the Chinese Garden to the Rizal Monument several meters away and hit him mercilessly even when he was already fallen on the ground. There was a time when Salcedo was able to get up, prop himself against the pavement and wipe off the blood from his face. But his attackers continued to pursue him relentlessly. Salcedo could not defend himself nor could he find means to defend himself. Sumilang tried to save him from his assailants but they continued beating him, hitting Sumilang in the process. Salcedo

pleaded for mercy but they ignored his pleas until he finally lost consciousness. The deliberate and prolonged use of superior strength on a defenseless victim qualifies the killing to murder.

People vs. Aviles Facts: The evidence for the prosecution shows that on 19 June 2002 at around 7:30 p.m., Novelito Contapay (Contapay) was driving his passenger jeep along Alexander Street, Poblacion, Urdaneta City, at less than ten kilometers per hour due to heavy traffic in front of Magic Mall. His lone passenger, the deceased Danilo Arenas, was seated beside him. Arenas suddenly shouted apaya. Contapay turned his head and saw Christopher Aviles stabbing Arenas. Aviles upper body was already inside the jeep with one foot on the running board. Contapay halted the jeep and tried to help Arenas by holding the hand of Aviles, but the latter stabbed Contapay on his left knee. Contapay pushed Aviles who ran away. Contapay alighted from the jeepney, but he was not able to chase Aviles because of his bleeding left knee. Contapay noticed that Arenas was already unconscious, and he brought the latter to the Urdaneta Sacred Heart Hospital. Arenas died. Held: Although Contapay testified that he turned around immediately when the deceased shouted Apaya, he did not testify as to how the attack was initiated. Also, considering that he was driving the jeepney when Arenas was attacked, he could not even have known how the attack was initiated. For treachery to be appreciated, it must be present at the inception of the attack. If the attack is continuous and treachery was present only at a subsequent stage and not at the inception of the attack, it cannot be considered. Rather than being an expression of surprise at the presence of Aviles as held by the Court of Appeals, the shout Apaya or Apay aya, when translated as Bakit ba, connotes confusion as to why the person to whom it is spoken is acting the way he is acting. This implies the lapse of several moments between the commencement of the attack and Arenas shouting. Qualifying circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself. It cannot be considered on the strength of evidence which merely tends to show that the victim was probably surprised to see the assailant trying to get inside the jeepney. Arenas shout can be interpreted in different ways.

As no qualifying circumstance attended the killing, Christopher Aviles can only be convicted of homicide.

ART 14.16

People vs. Francisco Facts: On October 24, 2001, at around 8:50 p.m., Joseph, Christopher, and Napoleon were at the wake of one Sulpicio Go in San Juan, Virac, Catanduanes. While they were watching a game of pai-cue, the victim, Ramil, was sitting nearby on a parked motorcycle talking to someone. Appellant then appeared from behind and started stabbing Ramil using a knife. Ramil pleaded with appellant to stop, saying: Tama na PRINCE magadan na ako. (That is enough PRINCE, I will die.) When Christopher heard the commotion and saw his brother Ramil being assaulted, he went to Ramil and told appellant: Tama na PRINCE magadan na ang tugang ko. (That is enough PRINCE, my brother will die.) Efren Francisco, father of appellant, told appellant to stop the assault and embraced Ramil, but appellant relentlessly continued stabbing Ramil. Fearing for his brothers life, Christopher grabbed a plastic chair and hit the back of appellant, who got more enraged and turned upon Christopher, stabbing him five times in the arm. Christopher ran away with appellant chasing him until he was able to ride a tricycle which rushed him to the hospital. In the emergency room, Christopher was given medical attention and was stunned to eventually see the lifeless body of Ramil on a stretcher. Dr. Olfindo made the post-mortem examination on the victim. The result showed that Ramil suffered a total of 16 wounds in various parts of the body, 13 of which were stab wounds. Ramil died of cardiac arrest secondary to cardiac tamponade, secondary to multiple stab wounds in the chest and abdomen.

Held: Treachery proved in qualifying the killing. To be liable for murder, the prosecution must prove that: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances

mentioned in Art. 248; and (4) the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.[29] The prosecution competently proved the guilt of appellant and his precise degree of culpability. First, it was established that Ramil was killed. Second, appellant was the one who stabbed Ramil resulting in the latters death. Third, the killing was attended by treachery. And fourth, the killing is neither parricide nor infanticide. Aside from the testimonies of Joseph, Christopher, and Napoleon, who positively identified appellant as the one who stabbed Ramil, Dr. Olfindo corroborates the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses that the death of Ramil was caused by the stab wounds he suffered.

People v. Daleba

G.R. No. 168100

FACTS:

March 18, 1997: Renato Angeles and Mateo Daleba, Jr., barkers in a bus terminal in Pasay City, quarreled over the division of their earnings. Edwin Bernarte intervened and pacified them. Renato walked away and headed to his house near the terminal. While, Daleba joined Bernartes group who had just taken their lunch nearby. Suddenly, Daleba ran after Renato, pulled a knife from his waistline, held Renatos shoulder by his left hand, slashed Renato on the right forearm and stabbed him at the back, above the right side of the waistline. Renato died that evening from the stab wound. Appellant, who had gone to his home province in Camarines Sur, was arrested four years after the stabbing incident Prosecution presented 2 witness who witnessed the quarrel and stabbing Daleba invoked self-defense

o he went to the Pasay City bus terminal and once inside, Renato suddenly grabbed his neck, dragged him to the back of the terminal, and, using his right hand which also held a knife, repeatedly boxed him in the face. Once he was able to free himself from Renatos hold, he grabbed a knife lying at a nearby table and stabbed Renato with it. Renato had earlier assaulted him at around 9:00 a.m. of the same day. RTC: Murder qualified by treachery and evident premeditation Daleba appealed that RTC erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery since the quarrel which preceded the killing must have put Renato onguard CA: affirmed RTC because of the interval of time between the quarrel and stabbing

ISSUE: W/N there was treachery

HELD: YES. CA affirmed with modification.

By invoking self-defense, he effectively admitted committing the acts leading to Renatos death under circumstances justifying its commission. If, indeed, Renato suddenly attacked him inside a bus terminal in broad daylight by grabbing him by the neck and dragging him towards the back of the terminal, the ensuing commotion would have attracted the attention of the people around them. Yet, he couldnt explain why there was no rescue.

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 that the offended party might make This circumstance will be appreciated if o (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself Renato was walking away o (2) the offender consciously adopted the form of attack he employed Stabbed from behind

People v. Piliin

G.R. No. 172966 February 8, 2007

FACTS: November 19, 1997 7:20 pm: Rodrigo, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna, arrived at the gate of his house in Siniloan, Laguna, driving his owner-type jeep. His wife, Norma Zayenis went out to open the gate. As he was about to park, Piliin suddenly approached him, poked his gun, and fired at him, hitting the left side of his neck. Rodrigo fell unconscious and the man quickly ran away Rodrigo was brought to 2 hospitals in Laguna, but was refused admission so he was brought to St. Lukes Hospital in Quezon City, where he fell into coma and succumbed to a gunshot wound. The police received a tip from an informant that 3 persons were involved in the shooting

incident, 2 of whom acted as lookouts. Piliin was invited for questioning in connection with a carnapped tricycle. He later confessed to the killing of Rodrigo and implicated Yu and Caballes as his co-perpetrators. He also identified the house at Libis ng Nayon Resort, Laguna where the firearm used was kept . The police proceeded to the resort and apprehended Yu and Caballes who were sleeping inside a room and also recovered a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson on the bedside. Paraffin test on Piliin was positive for gun powder nitrates. Norma positively identified Piliin as the one who shot her husband Piliins Alibi: November 19, 1997 7:15 p.m, he was at the peryahan in Bgy. San Miguel, Mabitac, Laguna and went home at 10:00 pm. At 11:00 pm, his grandfather asked him to go to the barangay hall to answer the questions of the police about . When he returned home, the police went to his house at 2:00 a.m. and brought him to the Municipal hall. At 5:30 am, he was transferred to the detention cell in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. 3 hours after, he was brought to the provincial hospital for examination. When he returned to the detention cell, he was then asked to sign a document. He was mauled and forced to sign the document. Yus alibi: His shift as a lifeguard of a resort owned by Tirso dela Cruz on ended November 19, 1997 7:00 pm so he ate dinner and went to sleep. At 5:00 am, he was arrested on charge of carnapping. Upon reaching the Sta. Cruz police station, he was asked to sign a document in exchange for his release. After signing, the policemen informed him that he was a suspect in the murder of Rodrigo. He was brought to the hospital for examination and brought back to his detention cell. Caballes Alibi: He and his brother, Alvin, slept at Yus house. Upon waking up on November 20, 1997, he saw Alvin being invited by the police officers for questioningso

he volunteered to accompany Alvin. While in the precinct, he was asked to write his name on a blank sheet of paper. Then together with Yu, he was brought to the hospital and then transferred to the detention cell in Sta. Cruz. RTC: Piliin guilty for murder. Yu and Caballes were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. Extrajudicial confessions were inadmissible on the ground that they were not adequately informed of their constitutional right to engage a counsel of their own choice. Appreciated the qualifying and aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and nighttime in sentencing appellant to the penalty of death for the crime of murder. CA: Affirmed RTC but ruled out the aggravating circumstance of nighttime Piliin argues that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of treachery because Norma was in the act of opening the gate for her husband when the latter was shot. She lacked knowledge of the attending circumstances prior to the shooting incident.

ISSUE: W/N there is treachery HELD: YES. CA Affirmed. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in their execution, without risk to himself arising from the defenses which the offended party might make. To establish treachery, 2 elements must concur: o (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself He suddenly appeared and shot him without any warning so Rodrigo had no opportunity to repel it or defend himself o (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed

 weapon used and the nature of the injury inflicted, which pertained to the lone gunshot fatally wounding Rodrigo, established that Piliin deliberately and consciously adopted the particular mode of attack to ensure the commission of the offense with impunity 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 Norma witnessed the incident from its inception up to its consummation

G.R. No. 145002 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PFC FLORO MALEJANA, AccusedAppellant

As to the events that transpired on July 28, 1990, Madrid narrated that around 7:15 p.m., while he was seated in front of his jeep parked at the side of the road at Marisfoque, Pilar, Sorsogon in the company of Roces, Sy, Andrade, Bernarda Sy, Jose Belmonte and Ernesto Francisco, he saw appellant at about 30 meters away heading towards their direction. Upon reaching their group, appellant asked them where Roces was. When he noticed Roces who was sitting at a distance of 1 meter beside Madrid, appellant brandished an armalite rifle and fired a shot into the air. Then he pointed the barrel of the gun at Roces and fired five (5) times, hitting Roces thrice. After the victim fell to the ground, appellant left the scene of the incident and went to his house about 150 meters away. Madrid and his other companions tried to assist Roces but discovered that the latter was already dead, presumably from the gunshot wounds that were inflicted upon him by appellant.

The statement of Madrid was corroborated by the testimonies of Antonio Sy and Samuel

Andrade who both confirmed that, on the day in question, appellant approached their group looking for Roces and after locating him, fired his armalite rifle once in the air and then at least five times at the victim.

The prosecution also presented Domingo Luvidioro who testified that, as property custodian of the PNP, he issued to appellant an M-16 armalite rifle with 260 rounds of live ammunition. When the firearm was returned to him on July 30, 1990, only 230 rounds of live ammunition were returned.

On February 16, 1993, appellant filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayers for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, to nullify the trial courts Order dated November 3, 1992 which admitted into evidence Exhibits F to J as well as the Order dated December 22, 1992 denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed the petition in a Decision dated 24 August 1993. Aggrieved, appellant filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari. This Court dismissed the petition for having been filed out of time.

On June 1, 1995, the trial court rendered its decision as follows:

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds accused Floro Malejana guilty beyond doubt of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 Revised Penal Code, without mitigating or aggravating circumstances present, hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and one day of

reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum and to indemnify the heirs of Janus Roces P50,000.00 for his death.[17]

ISSUE: Whether or not the credibility and relative weight of evidence adduced by the parties with respect to the surrounding circumstances of the killing

Held: After a thorough review of the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court.

The defense hinges its case upon the testimony of ballistics expert De Vera to impugn the conviction of appellant and particularly to support the assertion that the bullets that killed the victim came from a .45 caliber gun and not from an M-16 armalite rifle similar to the one issued to appellant as member of the PNP. Based on the foregoing, it is contended that the substance of De Veras testimony sufficiently disproved and discredited the testimonies of Madrid, Sy and Andrade which were alleged to be mere fabrications.

The argument by the defense that the lower court did not take into consideration the testimony of De Vera as a whole is untenable and completely belied by the records of the case.

In the present case, the factor that De Vera used as the basis of his initial statement that a .45 caliber gun was used in the shooting, namely the nature and character of the wounds sustained by the victim, did not take into account the distance and relative position of appellant. Thus, when these points were raised during crossexamination, De Vera no longer categorically ruled out the possibility that an armalite rifle was used. On this score, it must be remembered that the character of a gunshot wound depends upon the kind of shot, the distance from the body and the gun, and the velocity with which the shot strikes the body.[26] Thus, the trial court was acting well within its discretion in not lending full-faith and credence to the testimony of De Vera which, on its face, is inconclusive as to the point being made, that is, that an

armalite rifle could not have possibly been used in the killing of Roces.

In contrast, appellants alibi and denials have not been proven by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. It bears stressing that alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is facile to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and is generally rejected. For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time. In this case, appellant admits that on the night in question, he approached the victim and the latter allegedly attempted to strike him. In response thereto, appellant allegedly fired a warning shot in the air then left after reprimanding the group. However, this defense cannot prevail over the positive identification of

appellant as the author of the crime by no less than three credible witnesses.

Passion and obfuscation similarly cannot be appreciated in favor of appellant. To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (1) There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) the act that 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. The bare assertion that the victim and appellant had an argument does not provide justifiable basis for applying to him this mitigating circumstance. The cause that produced the passion and obfuscation has not been established nor proven by clear and convincing evidence.

Finally, this Court agrees that treachery attended the slaying of Roces. This qualifying circumstance can be appreciated when the killing was sudden and unexpected and the victim is not in a position to defend himself. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the

aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor. The existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success of the assault, for treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. Thus, 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.

To reiterate, treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person. Neither does the fact that other people were present during the shooting negate the attendance of treachery. The suddenness of the attack prevented the victims unarmed companions from coming to his aid.

As modified by the Court of Appeals, finding appellant Floro Malejana guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED. Appellant is likewise ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000 for his death.

Andrada vs People

Date: March 4, 2005 Petitioner: Peter Andrada Respondent: People of the Philippines Nature: This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA which chargedthe

petitioner with frustrated murder.Ponente: Sandoval-Guttierez

Facts: On September 24, 1986 at about 1:15 am, Sgt Sumabong, Sgt Gaces and Cpl Aresinio Ugerio were eating at the Marlows Restaurant in Baguio City. When Cpl Ugerio talked to a woman who passed by their table, petitioner Peter Andrada, approached him and scolded him. Sgt. Sumabong advised Andrada to pay his bills and go home as he was apparently drunk. As Sumabong was paying the bills, he heard Ugerio moan in pain. He then saw Andrada hacking Ugerio with a bolo. Sumabong approached them but Andrada ran away. Andrada was then arrested in a waiting shed at the corner of Camdas Road and Magsaysay Ave. Andrada invoked self defense claiming that Ugerio and Sumabong slapped his face and pointed their guns to his head. He also said that he ran away to his house in Camdas Subd. He checked to see if his mother was around to accompany him to surrender, but nobody was home. On his way to surrender, he saw his mother with a policeman. They proceeded to the police station in Magsaysay Ave where Andrada surrendered. The RTC however ruled against Andrada. Issue: WON the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender can be invoked by Andrada. Held:No Ratio:Evidences showed that Andrada, after attacking the victim, ran away. However, he was apprehended by the policemen who were in the waiting shed. For voluntary surrender to be accepted as a mitigating circumstance, it should be spontaneous and it must show that Andrada has the real interest to surrender unconditionally to the police authorities. In this case however, surrender was not spontaneous.

people vs parreno

facts:

Thirty-year-old Anthony Cruz was the eleventh child in a family of twelve. He resided with his elder sister, Zenaida Santos Cruz, at No. 32-D Katarungan St., Caniogan, Pasig City. He was an electrical engineering graduate,[5] still single and was working as a cashier in a Mr. Quickie Repair Shop owned by his sister Zenaida. Anthony Cruz was receiving P6,000.00 as compensation,[6] and usually worked from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.[7] Twenty-year-old Simplicio Genova, Jr. and nineteen-year-old Frederick Sabangan were Anthonys neighbors and gangmates. At around 12:30 a.m. of November 2, 1997, Simplicio and Frederick were with Anthony and two of their other friends, Agripino Santos and Ricardo Deocareza. They wanted to buy food from a nearby store. As they were walking in front of the Rizal High School in Katarungan Street, they saw six persons on the other side of the street. Appellants Parreno and Quindo were in front, while the four other members of the group were right behind them. Appellant Quindo then challenged them to a fight.[8] Unsure if they were only speaking in jest, Frederick, Anthony and Simplicio looked at the six men before them, but did not recognize the latter. One of the men had a slingshot (tirador).[9] Anthony said, Pabayaan na lang natin, while Simplicio told the group, Hindi kami lalaban.[10] They turned and started to walk away, but when they saw that two male persons had started running after them, they also ran. Anthony and Simplicio ran ahead of their friends, towards an alley in Katarungan Street. Agripino followed. When Anthony noticed that Frederick and Ricardo had been left behind, he told Simplicio and Agripino to go back to where their two other companions were.[11] Anthony had then gone a little further ahead. Suddenly, Anthony was cornered by two persons. Outside an alley in Katarungan Street, four others also appeared from the nearby Rizal High School. Anthony was surrounded. Three of the men ran towards the school, while three others remained: appellant Parreno who was then wearing a white shirt, appellant Quindo who had on a blue shirt, and another who was wearing a red jacket.[12] The three circled upon Anthony who was facing the man in the red jacket. Appellant Parreno, who was then standing behind Anthony, suddenly stabbed the latter with his right hand. Simplicio, who was about ten meters away from the scene, saw all this, but in his shock, failed to recognize what weapon appellant Parreno used to stab his friend. [13] The three culprits fled from the scene, and ran towards the direction of the Rizal High School.[14] In the meantime, Agripino, Ricardo and Frederick had re-traced their steps and turned back, taking a right turn going towards the other alley. Frederick then saw his wounded friend,

as the three culprits were fleeing from the scene. Anthony slowly approached him and Simplicio and murmured, Pare, may tama ako.[15] Simplicio informed Anthonys elder brother of the incident. Simplicio, Agripino, Ricardo and Frederick then immediately boarded an owner-type vehicle and brought the wounded Anthony to the provincial hospital. Anthony died shortly after being wheeled into the emergency room.

ISSUE: WoN

HELD:

RTC decision: Wherefore, the Court finds accused Ricson Parreno and Delbert Quindo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity, P25,000.00 as actual damages and COSTS of suit.

SC: Wherefore, the Court finds accused Ricson Parreno and Delbert Quindo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and hereby sentences them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as indemnity, P25,000.00 as actual damages and COSTS of suit.

VELASCO vs PEOPLE facts:

Geraldine A. Hernandez, widow of the victim Enrique S. Hernandez, was presented as the lone witness by the prosecution. Geraldine testified that she and her husband, Enrique, owned a farm in Sitio Pacot, Brgy. Kalawakan, Doa Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan. On March 29, 2002, at around 6:00 p.m., while they were walking around their garden, they saw appellants and Francisco, all armed with jungle bolos, removing the wire fence that enclosed their farm. Enrique approached the three men who were uphill while she stayed behind at a distance of about 10 meters. He then asked them why they were removing the wire fence. Dolorico replied that they would not allow the wire fence to remain there. Upon hearing this, Enrique turned his back and moved away from them. Dolorico suddenly hacked Enrique on his nape. Enrique fell face down. Then Gary hit

him on his right thigh, waist and left hand, while Francisco stabbed him three times at the back.[5] Geraldine added that she hid amid the trees and tall grasses. After assaulting her husband, the three men looked for her. Unable to find her, they fled. She then hurriedly went home and called her brother and son who accompanied her back to the crime scene. Thereafter, they returned home while her father reported the incident to the police authorities. The police authorities put up a checkpoint, leading to Doloricos arrest that night. They recovered Enriques body only at around 2:00 a.m. of the following day.[6]

Issue:

HELD:

WHEREFORE, this Court finds the herein accused, Dolorico Guillera and Gary Guillera, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder under Article 248 of the Revised [P]enal Code as amended and hereby sentences both accused to a prison term of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay jointly and severally the heirs of the late Enrique Hernandez the following sums of money, to wit: 1. P60,000.00 as civil liability; 2. P50,000.00 as moral damages; and 3. P70,000.00 as actual damages. The case against Francisco Guillera is hereby ARCHIVED. From: NABRAL MANSUL. sorry i dont have the issues...

People vs. Magbanua (G.R. No. 133004) Facts:

On June 12, 1992, Narciso Balucos was gathering his copra on a bridge. Helping him were the victim and Narciso Rellin. Appellant, together with his more than ten companions, later approached and congratulated Balucos for having been chosen as Purok Leader. Shortly

thereafter, appellant talked with hostility to the victim concerning the "killing in Lacson, Davao City," a case which involved appellant and the victims cousins. Suddenly, appellant pulled out a handgun from his waist and fired a shot at the creek. Seconds after, while face to face with each other, appellant shot the victim twice in the face, first at the left cheek, then at the forehead. Balucos recalled that the muzzle of the gun was only about five inches away from the face of the victim, who was then standing an arms length away from appellant. He further narrated that after the gunshots, he and Rellin ran away out of fear for their lives.

Finding the testimonies of the eyewitnesses worthy of belief, the court a quo convicted appellant of the crime charged. It dismissed the medico-legals contradictory findings as unreliable and appellants version as incredible. It also ruled that the crime was attended by treachery, which qualified the killing to murder.

Issue: Whether or not treachery attended the commission of the offense.

Held:

Time and again, the Court has stated that treachery cannot be presumed; it must be proven as conclusively as the killing itself. It is present when two elements concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods, forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means, method or forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his person. In the present case, the first element was sufficiently shown by the suddenness of the

attack, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself. The prosecution established that appellant, while conversing with the victim, suddenly pulled out a concealed gun from his waist, shot at the creek and, seconds after, shot the victim at the face. While it may be true that, as the defense points out, appellant talked to the victim with hostility shortly before the shooting, there was no evidence that the confrontation was heated or intense, or that appellant was provoked to shoot the victim. It must be noted, however, that mere suddenness of the attack would not, by itself, constitute treachery. There is a further need to prove that appellant consciously and deliberately adopted the mode of attack to insure execution without risk to himself. The circumstances surrounding the case negate the presence of this second element. It was established that the shooting occurred in broad daylight, in an open area, with more than ten people around. The victim then was in the company of two of his friends, who could have come to his aid at anytime. Verily, if appellant wanted to insure that no risk would come to him, he could have chosen another time and place to shoot the victim. For failure of the prosecution to prove treachery or any other circumstance that would qualify the killing to murder, the Court finds that appellant should only be held liable for homicide.

People of the Philippines vs Escarlos (GR No. 148912)

Facts:

Around 9 oclock in the evening of July 1, 2000, Antonio Balisacan went to the residence

of Jaime Ulep to attend a benefit dance which was near the place. In the benefit dance was his son, Crisanto Balisacan, who stood beside the emcee, Ceasario Escarlos (appelants brother). While Ceasario was calling the Antonio to come to the stage as he was a kagawad, he heard people at his back shout Ay! 5 to 6 meters at his back with the place illuminated by a 50 to 100 watts bulb, he saw appellant stab his father several times. According to an NBI medico-legal officer, he died because of hypovalmic shock or massive blood loss.

Appellants version of the Story:

On the night of July 1, 2000, accused Timoteo Escarlos together with friends and others who were at the yard of Jaime watching a benefit dance.

While thereat, victim, who was then drunk, passed in front of the accused 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. Victim told him, OKINNAM KETDI (Vulva of your mother) and without warning boxed him. Accused was hit on the forehead, which left a scar above his right eyebrow. Accused was about to box back but he noticed that the victim was pulling a kitchen knife 10 inch long from his left side, so he grabbed the weapon and used it in stabbing the latter who was hit at the side below the left armpit. He stabbed him twice and when the victim fell down, he was able to hit him for the third time.

Issues:

1. 2. 3. 4.

WoN there is sufficiency of the prosecutions evidence WoN there is viability of self defense WoN there is appreciation of treachery as a qualifying as a qualifying circumstance WoN there is propriety of the penalty and the damages imposed by the trial court

Ruling:

Yes. The assailed decision of Murder is Modified. Appellant is held guilty of homicide and sentenced to 8 years and 1 day of prison mayor medium, as minimum and to 14 years, 8 mos and 1 day of reclusion temporal medium as maximum. He shall also pay the heirs of the victim the amounts of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P28,650 as actual damages, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. The grant of marl and exemplary damages is deleted. No costs

People v Gutierrez Facts:

Venus Ramos went to see her sister Analiza de la Cruz in her house in the family

compound Venus' other sister, Lorelie de la Cruz, lived next door with their cousin, accused Manuel Gutierrez, in the family's two (2)-storey ancestral home. At around 2:30 in the afternoon while Venus was watching television she heard some noise coming from the second floor of the old family home. She rushed there but

was immediately greeted upstairs with a gruesome scenario. Her sister Lorelie was being stabbed mercilessly from behind by their cousin Manuel Gutierrez. Venus retreated and dashed downstairs where she met her sister Analiza. Upon learning of the incident, Analiza rushed back to her house next door. Venus ran towards the gate of the compound in an effort to seek help from the neighbors. When she looked back she chanced upon the accused also stabbing her cousin Rializa Trabel. The accused next turned his ire on Rializa's mother, Lilian Trabel, whom he struck on the ear with a kitchen knife although the latter was able to evade further harm by seeking refuge inside her house. Lilian survived the attack, but Rializa and Lorelie died even before they could receive medical attention. Accused Manuel Gutierrez was arrested a few hours after the carnage and was accordingly charged with double murder for the death of Lorelie dela Cruz and Rializa Trabel and with attempted murder for the wounding of Lilian Trabel. The accused initially entered a plea of "Not Guilty" but after the prosecution had presented its first witness, he changed his plea to "Guilty." Lilian Trabel narrated in between sobs how her daughter Rializa was stabbed to death by the accused Manuel Gutierrez. She said that Rializa was roused from her sleep upon hearing some noise from a neighbor's house and then darted through her main door. She followed Rializa but as they were about to step out of the house they were met by the accused who was already in a belligerent mood. Without saying a word the accused suddenly stabbed Rializa who could only shout"Jojo, huwag!" Thereupon, the accused turned his wrath on her and stabbed her on the head with a kitchen knife. Then she ran back to her house and locked the door for safety. Once inside, she kept calling out for her daughter Rializa but she did not get any response. Thereafter, accused Manuel Gutierrez was convicted of two (2) counts of murder and one (1) count of serious physical injuries. The court a quo appreciated the presence of treachery as Lorelie was assaulted from behind with the accused holding on to her hair. These cases were elevated to us on automatic review in view of the penalty of death imposed twice upon the accused by the court a quo.

ISSUE: WON treachery is present Held:

To sustain a finding of treachery, two (2) conditions must be established: (a) the means,

method and form of execution employed by the accused gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and, (b) such means, method or form of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused to eliminate or diminish the risk to his person from any defense which the party attacked might

offer.[4] Treachery may not simply be deduced from presumptions as it is necessary that its elements be fully established as the crime itself. In the instant case, however, we are not prepared to rule that treachery attended the killing of Lorelie de la Cruz. As borne out by the records, prosecution witness Venus Ramos did not actually see how the stabbing began, how it developed, and how the unfortunate victim succumbed to death on the second floor of the ancestral house. Venus witnessed only a portion of the assault, so that she would be unable to paint an accurate picture of the killing. We have consistently ruled that absent any particulars as to the manner with which the aggression was commenced, or how the act that resulted in the death of the victim unfolded, treachery cannot be appreciated.[5] Thus, no matter how truthful the suppositions offered by Venus appear, they do not, as they cannot produce the effect of aggravating the liability of the accused. Treachery likewise was not attendant in the killing of Rializa. The attendant circumstances indicate that the attack on Rializa was the result of a rash and impetuous impulse rather than of a deliberate, conscious and willful act. People v Ilo Facts:
Amadeo(prosec witness) declared that on July 23, 1997, at about 10:00 p.m., he and

appellant had a drinking spree in the latters house.[3] Moments later, appellant and his live-in partner Virginia had a heated argument. Appellant kicked her several times.[4] Amadeo tried to pacify appellant but to no avail. Appellant rushed to the kitchen, got hold of an old frying pan and struck Virginia with it. She fell on the floor. Amadeo tried to placate his friend but was rebuffed anew. Appellant got hold of a stone used as tripod[5] in cooking and smashed Virginias head with it. Amadeo rushed to her aid and wiped off the blood oozing from her head. Amadeo wanted to seek police assistance but was afraid to venture into the neighborhood late at night. He and appellant continued their drinking spree until 4:00 a.m. when Amadeo left and went home. Amadeo also testified that on two occasions during the trial, appellant asked him not to testify for the prosecution lest Amadeo land in jail for perjury but Amadeo opted to testify. When asked by the public prosecutor to point to Virginias assailant, Amadeo pointed to the appellant.
SPO1 Teresito Porteza of the Tinambac Police Station declared that he conducted an

investigation of the death of Virginia during which Amadeo identified appellant as her assailant. Appellant was arrested and jailed. The policeman later proceeded to the house of appellant and conducted an ocular inspection thereof. The place was topsyturvy. The policemen noticed a broken frying pan and a stone inside the

house. Porteza then entered in the police blotter[7] his investigation report on the incident. Appellant testified in his behalf. He denied having killed the victim. He further declared that at about 10:00 p.m. on July 23, 1997, he arrived home after a days work of fishing. He averred that he caught Amadeo on top of Virginia, while both were completely naked. Appellant was flabbergasted. He was about to hit Amadeo with a bolo but the latter dashed out of the window and fled into the darkness of the night. Amadeo, however, returned and picked-up four stones the size of a fist and hurled the same through the window of the house of appellant. One of the stones hit Virginia. On September 28, 1999, the trial court rendered a decision finding the appellant guilty of Murder The trial court gave credence and full probative weight to the collective testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution in tandem with the physical violence and declared that the killing by appellant of the victim was qualified by treachery. The court, likewise, disallowed abuse of superior strength as a separate modifying circumstance since the same was necessarily included in treachery. issue: WON the killing is attended by treachery Held: yes.
To constitute treachery, two conditions must be present, namely: (1) the employment

of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or to retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. The Court held that treachery cannot be appreciated if the assailant did not make any preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the killing or to make it impossible or difficult for the victim to defend herself. The prosecution must prove that the killing was premeditated or that the assailant chose a method or mode of attack directly and especially to facilitate and insure the killing without danger to himself.[14] The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.[15] There is no treachery where the attack is neither sudden nor preconceived and deliberately adopted but just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the offender.[16] To establish treachery, the evidence must show that the offender made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend himself.[17] The mode of attack must be planned by the offender and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.[18] There is no treachery when the killing results

from a verbal altercation between the victim and the assailant such that the victim was forewarned of the impending danger. [19
The prosecution failed to discharge its burden.

The only evidence of the prosecution to prove treachery is that while appellant and Amadeo were having their drinking spree, a heated argument ensued between appellant and Virginia. Appellant boxed and kicked her several times, hit her head with a frying pan from the kitchen, causing Virginia to fall on the floor and struck her with a stone used as a tripod. There is no indubitable showing that appellant planned the attack which was so sudden and unexpected. The attack by appellant on the victim was preceded by a heated argument between them. Indeed, Amadeo admitted that he knew of no cause for appellant to inflict injuries on her. The prosecution failed to adduce evidence as to the relative positions of appellant vis--vis the victim. Taking into account the sequential continuity and rapidity of the events resulting in the death of Virginia, it cannot be gainsaid that appellant made preparations to kill Virginia and adopted a mode of attack as to make it impossible or difficult for her to defend herself. That Virginia was prostrate on the ground when she was hit on the head by appellant with a frying pan and a stone does not constitute treachery.

People vs Samson

FACTS:

John dexter tuazon daylag (John) is the prosecution principal witness he is 19 and a resident of N. De leon street, La huerte, Paranaque city. Sol Homicillada the victim was john close friend they would often meet at N. de leon street at nighttime at the evening of august 27, 1994 around 8:00pm john left his house and played guitar with his friends at N. De leon street. Later Sol Arrived and joined the group. Around 12:00 sol and john left to play darts at 3:00 in the morning of august 28 1994 at which 2 person suddenly arrived from behind and fired 2 gun shots. They were not hit. Sol tried to run and in the process shoved john causing him to bump against one of the gunmen. Both gunman pointed their guns at sol one of them fired at sol hitting him at the left side of the back which caused him to fall. Then the

gunman approached sol and fired at close range 3 to 4 more shots at the head.

John identified the person who fired successive shots at sol as Renato Samson a barangay tanod in their place at the time of the incident he was wearing white T-shirt and green short as well as a blue scarf on his head. John saw his face because of the light coming from the Flourescent lamp. The companion Marcelo anaig also a barangay tanod both were armed with a .38 caliber gun. John went to the house of jhun orjales out of fear until he arrived at Camp Ricardo Papa in Taguig, bicutan where he executed a sworn statement

On August 31, 1994 a police operative team was dispatched accompanied by john when confronted the accused willingly went with them to camp Ricardo papa for investigation.

Accused in his defence merely denied the charge by saying that he does not know the victim nor Marcelo aniag. Nonetheless he knows John because of having a quarrel sometime in april of 1994 resulting in a fist fight giving john a black eye.

ISSUE:

W/N the court erred in relying mainly in the testimony of john as basis for the conviction of the accused despite the inconsistencies.

W/N the court erred in appreciating the circumstance of treachery against accused which qualified the killing to murder.

HELD:

No, the court is not wrong in relying in the testimony of john because it was positively shown in the testimony of John that the accused Samson was the one who fired multiple shots at sol causing his death. Johns testimony also corroborate with the findings of the medico legal officer and the NBI senior ballistician.

The court is also not wrong in appreciating the circumstance of treachery because the 2 requisites of treachery are present (a) employment of the means of execution that gives the person attacked no

opportunity to defend or retaliate (b) deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. Because in the instant case appellant and aniag were both armed and unexpectedly fired 2 shots behind the victim and john both unarmed. Caught by surprise the victim ran 3 to 4 meter away from appellant but fell when he was shot in a helpless state the appellant approached him and fired several more shots. To ensure the attack aniag had his gun pointed at the victim ready to shoot if necessary. Evidently the victim was deprived of an opportunity to defend himself.Clearly there is treachery.

NOTE: there was also the presence of evident premeditation although it cannot be appreciated because there was no evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the execution of the criminal act was preceded by planning and preparation.

Pp v. Continente Facts: At around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, the car of U.S. Col. James N. Rowe, Deputy Commander, Joint U. S. Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG for brevity), was ambushed. Col. James Rowe, was on board his gray Mitsubishi Galant car which was being driven by Joaquin Vinuya; and that they were on their way to the JUSMAG Compound gunmen who were on board an old model Toyota Corolla car suddenly fired at his car, thereby killing Col. Rowe and seriously wounding

his driver, Joaquin Vinuya. The car that was used by the gunmen was followed by a Mitsubishi Lancer car when it sped away from the site of the ambush. Issue: Whether or not treachery attended the case Held: The shooting of Col. James Rowe and his driver, Joaquin Vinuya, was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make. The evidence clearly shows that the mode of execution was deliberately adopted by the perpetrators to ensure the commission of the crime without the least danger unto themselves arising from the possible resistance of their victims. Appellant Itaas and his companions, who were all armed with powerful firearms, waited for the car of Col. Rowe which was being driven by Joaquin Vinuya at the corner of Timog Avenue and Tomas Morato Street in Quezon City. Without any warning, appellant Itaas and his companions suddenly fired at the said car upon reaching the said place. Hence, the crime committed for the killing of Col. James Rowe during the said ambush is murder.

PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO

Issue: On November 1, 1996; Alberto Antonio (Accused), Arnulfo Tuadles (Victim), and a certain Danny Debdani, had agreed to meet into a club to play poker, but Debdani, however failed to appear. So Antonio & Tuadles decided to play pusoy dos, a game for 2 players only. When it came to tally the score and to collect the winnings from the loser, an argument arose and resulted into the fatal shooting of the victim Arnulfo Tuadles of a single shot wound right between the eyes, inflicted with a .9 mm caliber Beretta pistol. It is at the point where the prosecution and the defense presented TWO VERY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

The PROSECUTION alleged and sought to prove that in the course of an argument, without warning or cause, Antonio pulled his gun from behind his back and shot Tuadles from a very close range, thus employing treacherous means to accomplish the nefarious deed. The pivotal evidence presented by the prosecution was the testimony of one Jose Jimmy T. Bobis, a security guard who testified as to how the shooting of Tuadles occurred.

The DEFENSE came from the testimony of the accused Antonio himself, who testified that their argument was caused by the Tuadles refusal to pay Antonios winning. In the middle of a heated altercation, Tuadles suddenly grabbed Antonios gun from atop a sidetable. Fearing for his life, Antonio claimed that he reached for Tuadles hand and they grappled for possession of the gun. As they wrestled, a single shot roared, Tuadles fell face down to the floor and claimed that he act was a form of a self-defense.

Issue: Whether or not the crime of murder will be qualified by Treachery?

Ruling: The evidence proves the deliberateness of the attack made by Antonio. The attack was done with swiftness. It was motivated by the failure of Tuadles to follow an agreement on the pusoy game. The deliberateness of the attack is also shown by the fact that Tuadless forehead, between the eyes and caused his immediate death. Clearly, Antonio chose to shoot Tuadles at a vital

part of his body. The heated altercation however is not well established by the evidence, eyewitness Bobis revealed that he initially heard the two teasing each other, and late developed into an argument, which is not a heated altercation.

PEOLPLE VS. TEMPLO

Facts: On September 11, 1988, Alexander Reyes was shot twice in the chest with a .38 caliber gun and died as a result. During the police investigation of the case, two witnesses, namely, Jovita Constantino and Anicia Abogade, identified Antonio Templo as responsible for killing the victim, were they were the laters employees. Templo was issued a warrant for his arrest, however he evaded the arrest and fled to the United States of America named as Richard Barba, but was deported to the Philippines to answer the charge for murder outside his sisters office at Queens, New York. The two witnesses had the same testimonies that the accused Templo who was in board an owner-type jeep with his 13 year old daughter Maria Antoinette Templo. Reyes, they said, appeared smiling at Templo. The victims right hand was apparently tapping the accuseds shoulder while the left hand was holding of the left side of the jeep. Templo was holding a short firearm and followed Reyes to the passenger jeepney whose driver ran away. Reyes also dismounted and attempted to escape, but the appellant poked his gun at Reyes, and the victim was already pleading, that he gives up. The accuseds daughter kept on telling his father to stop it.

Issue: Whether or not the crime of Homicide will be qualified by

Treachery?

Ruling: We rule that treachery did not attend the commission of the crime. The trial court appreciated treachery due to the fact that the perpetrator shot the victim allegedly in an unexpected and sudden manner. It appears to be no sufficient evidence on record to prove that appellant deliberately has a plan to kill Reyes. In fact the meeting was accidental as appellant was accompanied by his daughter at the time of the shooting incident. No witnesses were presented to give an account on how the appellant and Reyes met. When Abogade and Constantino arrived at the intersection, appellant was already talking to Reyes and they did not hear the conversation between the two of them and on the other hand the accused testified that the victim blocked the path of his vehicle, prompting him to stop his jeep. Appellant may have been provoked by the victim during the subsequent verbal exchanges that ensued between them. It appears, however, that appellant did not plan to kill Reyes beforehand. Charge of homicide only.

Pp. v. Teehankee Facts: In 1991, Jussi Olavi Leino was taking Maureen Hultman to her home at Campanilla Street, Dasmarinas Village, Makati. Roland John Chapman went with them. When they entered the village, Maureen asked Leino to stop about a block away from her house, as she wanted to walk the rest of the way for she did not want her parents to know that she was going home that late. Leino offered to walk with her while Chapman stayed in the car and listened to the radio.

While Leino and Maureen were walking, a light-colored Mitsubishi box-type Lancer car, driven by accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr., came up from behind them and stopped on the middle of the road. Accused alighted from his car, approached them, and asked: Who are you? (Show me your) I.D. When Leino handed his I.D., the accused grabbed and pocketed the I.D., without bothering to look at it. Chapman saw the incident. He stepped down on the sidewalk and asked accused: Why are you bothering us? Accused pushed Chapman, dug into his shirt, pulled out a gun and fired at him. Chapman felt his upper body, staggered for a moment, and asked: Why did you shoot me? Chapman crumpled on the sidewalk. Leino knelt beside Chapman to assist him but accused ordered him to get up and leave Chapman alone. Accused then turned his ire on Leino. He pointed gun at him and asked: Do you want a trouble? Leino said no and took a step backward. The shooting initially shocked Maureen. When she came to her senses, she became hysterical and started screaming for help. She repeatedly shouted: Oh, my God, hes got a gun. Hes gonna kill us. Will somebody help us? All the while, accused was pointing his gun to and from Leino to Maureen, warning the latter to shut up. Accused ordered Leino to sit down on the sidewalk. Leino obeyed and made no attempt to move away. Accused stood 2-3 meters away from him. Maureen continued to be hysterical. She could not stay still. She strayed to the side of accuseds car. Accused tried but failed to grab her. Maureen circled around accuseds car, trying to put some distance between them. The short chase lasted for a minute or two. Eventually, accused caught Maureen and repeatedly enjoined her to shut up and sit down beside Leino. Maureen finally sat beside Leino on the sidewalk. For a moment, the accused turned his back from the two. He faced them again and shot Leino. Leino was hit on the upper jaw, fell backwards on the sidewalk, but did not lose consciousness. Leino heard another shot and saw Maureen fall beside him. He lifted his head to see what was happening and saw accused return to his car and drive away. Leino struggled to his knees and shouted for help. He noticed at least 3 people who saw the incident. As a result of the incident, 3 separate criminal cases were filed against accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr. Initially, he was charged with: MURDER for the killing of ROLAND CHAPMAN, and two (2) FRUSTRATED MURDER for the shooting and wounding of JUSSI LEINO and MAUREEN HULTMAN. When Hultman subsequently died after 97 days of confinement at the hospital and during the course of the trial, the Information for Frustrated Murder was amended to MURDER.

The defense: Accused relied on the defense of denial and alibi. Accused claimed that during the shooting incident, he was not anywhere near the scene of the crime, but in his house in Pasig. Accused averred that he only came to know the 3 victims in the Dasmarinas shooting when he read the newspaper reports about it. Accused admitted ownership of a box-type, silver metallic gray Mitsubishi Lancer, with plate number PDW 566. He, however, claimed that said car ceased to be in good running condition after its involvement in an accident. Until the day of the shooting, his Lancer car had been parked in the garage of his mothers house in Dasmarinas Village. He has not used this car since then. Accused conceded that although the car was not in good running condition, it could still be used.

Issue: WON the aggravating circumstance of treachery is present? Ruling: The accused claims that treachery was not present in the killing of Hultman and Chapman, and the wounding of Leino for it was not shown that the gunman consciously and deliberately adopted particular means, methods and forms in the execution of the crime. The accused asserts that mere suddenness of attack does not prove treachery. The 3 Informations charged the accused with having committed the crimes with treachery and evident premeditation. Evident premeditation was correctly ruled out by the trial court for, admittedly, the shooting incident was merely a casual encounter or a chance meeting on the street since the victims were unknown to the accused and vice-versa. It, however, appreciated the presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. On the other hand, the prosecution failed to prove treachery in the killing of Chapman. Prosecution witness Leino established the sequence of events leading to the shooting. He testified that for no apparent reason, the accused suddenly alighted from his car and accosted him and Maureen Hultman who were then walking along the sidewalk. Appellant questioned who they were and demanded for an I.D. After Leino handed him his I.D., Chapman appeared from behind Leino and asked what was going on. Chapman then stepped down on the sidewalk and inquired from appellant what was wrong. There and then, the

accused pushed Chapman, pulled a gun from inside his shirt, and shot him. The gun attack was unexpected. Why did you shoot me? was all Chapman could utter. Concededly, the shooting of Chapman was carried out swiftly and left him with no chance to defend himself. Even then, there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack to insure the accomplishment of his criminal design without risk to himself. The accused acted on the spur of the moment. Their meeting was by chance. They were strangers to each other. The time between the initial encounter and the shooting was short and unbroken. The shooting of Chapman was thus the result of a rash and impetuous impulse on the part of the accused rather than a deliberate act of will. Mere suddenness of the attack on the victim would not, by itself, constitute treachery. Hence, absent any qualifying circumstance, the accused should only be held liable for Homicide for the shooting and killing of Chapman. As to the wounding of Leino and the killing of Hultman, treachery clearly attended the commission of the crimes. The evidence shows that after shooting Chapman in cold blood, the accused ordered Leino to sit on the pavement. Maureen became hysterical and wandered to the side of appellants car. When the accused went after her, Maureen moved around his car and tried to put some distance between them. After a minute or two, the accused got to Maureen and ordered her to sit beside Leino on the pavement. While seated, unarmed and begging for mercy, the two were gunned down by the accused . Clearly, the accused purposely placed his two victims in a completely defenseless position before shooting them. There was an appreciable lapse of time between the killing of Chapman and the shooting of Leino and Hultman a period which the accused used to prepare for a mode of attack which ensured the execution of the crime without risk to himself.

ART. 14.17 Pp v. Cachola Facts: Jessie was about to leave their house to watch cartoons in his uncles house next door when two armed men suddenly entered the front door of their house. The two ordered Jessie to drop to the floor, and then hit him in the back with the butt of a long gun. Without much ado, the intruders shot to death Jessies uncle, Victorino V. Lolarga, who was then in the living room. Jessie forthwith crawled and hid under a bed, from where he saw the feet of a third man who had also entered the house. The men entered the kitchen and continued shooting. When the rampage was over and after the malefactors had already departed, Jessie came out of his hiding

place and proceeded to the kitchen. There he saw his mother, Carmelita Barnachea; his brother Felix Barnachea, Jr.; and his cousin Rubenson Abance - all slaughtered. Meanwhile, Jessies eldest brother, Robert E. Barnachea, was in his uncles house watching television with his aunt and young cousins when he sensed a commotion outside. When Robert went out to see what was transpiring, he saw armed men running towards their house. One of them turned and pointed a gun at him, prompting him to scamper away and hide at the back of his uncles house. From where he was hiding, he noticed a stainless jeep, with blue rim and marking fruits and vegetables dealer, parked in front of the fence of their house. Standing behind the jeep were three armed men wearing bonnets, with only their nose and eyes exposed. In the next instant, he heard gunshots and then saw men running from his house. The men hurriedly boarded the jeep and left the place. The jeep did not go unnoticed by the neighbors. Russel Tamba was with some friends in front of Rodas Store, around 100 meters away from the Barnachea residence, when the jeep passed by very slowly going towards the Barnachea residence. According to him, the jeep had a marking El Shaddai in front, aside from the marking fruits and vegetables dealer on the sides. Francisco Andrada was also talking with some people in front of the Calumbaya Barangay Hall, only five meters away from Rodas Store, when he noticed that jeep, with the El Shaddai marking, pass by. Not long after, both heard gunshots and later saw the jeep pass by again, this time running very fast. The incident was immediately reported to the police, and the description of the El Shaddai jeep used by the malefactors was relayed through radio to the police stations in the province of La Union. At around 7:45 p.m., the jeep was intercepted at a checkpoint set up in the highway by the police force in Aringay, La Union. On board were the eight appellants. No firearms were found in the vehicle. The jeep and the eight appellants were thereafter brought to the Aringay police station and then turned over to the Bauang police. When the Chief of Police of Bauang Benjamin M. Lusad was informed of the apprehension of the eight appellants, he went to the Barnachea residence, where he came to know that Jessie was an eyewitness. He invited Jessie to ride with him to pick up the suspects. While Lusad was supervising the boarding of the suspects into the vehicle, Jessie was in another police vehicle with PO3 Juan Casern, Jr., to see whether he could recognize any one of the eight men. Jessie pointed to Dominador Cachola and Ernesto Amay as the two armed men who entered his house and killed his relatives. During the police line-up at the Bauang Police Station, Jessie again identified Cachola and Amay as the assailants. The next day, when the police conducted the third confirmatory investigation, which was to present Jessie with photographs of the

suspects, Jessie identified the two for the third time. Issue: WON the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation are attendant? WON the aggravating circumstance of ignominy can be appreciated? WON the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present? Ruling: The information alleges the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. There is no doubt that the killings were done with treachery, considering that the assailants suddenly barged in and immediately went on a shooting rampage. We have time and again ruled that when the attack is sudden and unexpected, there is treachery. The presence of even this single qualifying circumstance is sufficient to qualify the killing to murder. As to the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation, we find the same lacking, for there is no evidence of planning or preparation to kill, much less of the time when the plot was conceived. It may not be amiss to mention that the death certificate of Victorino Lolarga reveals that his penis was excised. One may wonder whether such circumstance amounted to ignominy that can aggravate the offense. For ignominy to be appreciated, it is required that the offense be committed in a manner that tends to make its effect more humiliating, thus adding to the victims moral suffering. Where the victim was already dead when his body or a part thereof was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken against the accused. In this case, the information states that Victorinos sexual organ was severed after he was shot and there is no allegation that it was done to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. We cannot, therefore, consider ignominy as an aggravating circumstance. However, as regards Carmelita and Felix, Jr., we appreciate the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, since it was alleged in the information and proved during the trial that they were killed inside their house. Appellants Cachola and Amay, therefore, violated the sanctity of the said victims home.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67, is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as DOMINADOR CACHOLA y SALAZAR and ERNESTO AMAY y PASCUA are found GUILTY of four counts of murder in Criminal Cases Nos. 2323-26 and sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death in Criminal Cases Nos. 2324 and 2325. The said decision is, however, MODIFIED in that they are (1) sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, instead of death, in Criminal Cases Nos. 2323 and 2326; and (2) ordered to pay, jointly and severall. The assailed decision is REVERSED insofar as appellants NESTOR MARQUEZ y MANUEL, BENJAMIN LAEGEN y CAMADO, RODOLFO SAGUN y JIMENEZ, RODEMIR GUERZO y LATAOAN, MELLKE IGNACIO y SALVADOR, and NELSON C. ECHABARIA are concerned, and another one is hereby rendered acquitting them of the crimes charged.

People v. siao

Facts: Joy Raymundo and private complainant Estrella Raymundo are cousins. They worked as house maids of appellants family. Reylan Gimena was also a helper of appellants family. Estrella was then a 14-year old "probinsiyana" from Palompon, Leyte.

One evening, houseboy Gimena pulled Estrella into the room of women. Once inside appellant pushed her to the wooden bed. Appellant pointed a pistol colored white at gimena and the face of estrella.

Appellant asked Estrella to choose one among a pistol, candle or a bottle of sprite. Estrella chose first the candle, Appellant lighted the candle and dropped the melting candle on her chest. Estrella chose a bottle of sprite because she was afraid of the pistol, then the appelant poured the sprite on her nosetrills. After such he told appelant to undress herself while pointing the gun at her. Then ordered Gimena to take off his

pants and let estrella suck his penis. Gimena refused. Gimena did not remove his shorts but let his penis out. While appellant was pointing the gun at them, he ordered Gimena to have sexual intercourse with Estrella. Gimena was hesitant at first but because he was afraid, he followed the orders of appealant. The sexual intercourse was done three times on different positions ( 1. Missionary, 2. Side by side, 3. Doggy style). Gimena was refusing everytime the appealant ordered him to do it again because he was already tired but still complied because of fear. Apealant told them not to tell to the police otherwise they will be killed.

Complainant and her cousin asked for a leave and they were granted. While on their way, they met and old man who helped them to report the matter to the police.

RTC & ca ruled in favor of complainant estrella.

Held: appellant Siao was convicted of rape with aggravating circumstance of ignominy. 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 like the crime itself in the instant case, the aggravating circumstance of ignominy attended the commission thereof.

People v. bumidang

Facts: at around 2:00 a.m. while father and daughter, namely, Melencio and Gloria Imbat, were already asleep in their house, the accused Baliwang Bumidang y Baohan

aged 19 years and half-naked, loudly called Melencio Imbat and asked the latter to open the door. . Accused Bumidang entered and asked the old man to bring him upstairs. Bumidang got a spear at the side of his (Melencio's) bed. Pointing the weapon at him in a threatening manner, the accused ordered him to lie in a prone position which he obeyed because he was afraid. Then Bumidang asked the room of his unmarried daughter, Gloria, aged 56. Melencio, 80 years old, pointed the room of his daughter which was in the same room but separated by an aparador. Bumidang went to Gloria's room, still carrying the spear. Suddenly, Gloria screamed for help, but the octogenarian remained in a prone position as Bumidang threatened to kill him if he would help his daughter. Bumidang, a betel nut-chewing man, approached Gloria and poked the spear at her. She recognized him because he was lighting the room with a flashlight. The accused ordered her to stand up and removed her pajama, with the panty going along with it. Bumidang then removed his shortpants and became completely naked. He used the flashlight to examine her genital and continued raping her while his father helplessly watched while her daughter was being raped.

Held: accused was convicted of rape with the following aggravating circumstance:

1. dwelling.[14] There was a clear violation of the sanctity of the victim's place of abode when Gloria, who apparently did not gave any provocation, was raped in her own house. Dwelling is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.[15]

2. Nighttime (not present) is an aggravating circumstance[16] when (1) it

is especially sought by the offender; (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.[17] In this case, other than the fact that the crime was committed at about 2:00 o'clock in the morning, nothing on the record suggests that BALIWANG deliberately availed himself or took advantage of nighttime nor proved that BALIWANG used the darkness to facilitate his evil design or to conceal his identity.

3.ignominy[18] shall be taken into account if means are employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the offense; or if the crime was committed in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her moral suffering.[19] It was established that BALIWANG used the flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the presence of

Gloria's old father. These facts clearly show that BALIWANG deliberately wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral sufferings. Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed,[20] or of her husband,[21] or was made to exhibit to the rapists her complete nakedness before they raped her.[22]

ART 14.20 People vs mallari

FACTS: That on or about July 7, 1996, in the Municipality of Sta. Rosa, Province of Laguna at around 4:00 p.m.,

her 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

The defense had a different story. Rufino testified that on 7 July 1996 at around 6:30 p.m., while he was driving a

truck at a speed of eighty kilometers per hour, with his wife Myrna seated on the passenger side, he saw Joseph

on the road about four 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.

WON the incident which killed Joseph Galang was done by Rufino with criminal intent and malice

WON to consider the use of a motor vehicle as a qualifying circumstance in the imposition of death

WON to appreciate the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender

The evidence shows that Rufino deliberately used his truck in pursuing Joseph. Upon catching up with him, Rufino

hit him with the truck, as a result of which Joseph died instantly. It is therefore clear that the truck was the means

The case of People v. Muoz cited by Rufino finds no application to the present case. In the said case, the police

patrol jeep was merely used by the accused therein in looking for the victim and in carrying the body of the victim

to the place where it was dumped. The accused therein shot the victim, which caused the latters death. In the

present case, the truck itself was used to kill the victim by running over him.

Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who kills another by means of a motor vehicle is guilty of

murder. Thus, the use of motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder. The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua

to death. Since the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, we shall apply Article 63(3) of the Revised

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating

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.

In view of the absence of an aggravating circumstance and the presence of one mitigating circumstance, reclusion

perpetua, not death, should be the penalty to be imposed on Rufino.

People vs Enguito

FACTS: On or about September 22, 1991, Felipe Requerme was driving a motorela, together with his wife Rosita

and another passenger, Engr. Wilfredo Achumbre, who is the deceased in this case. The deceased was picked up

by them on their way home and requested them to bring him to his house. While on their way, a white vehicle,

which was later on identified as a Ceres Kia automobile bearing Plate No. 722, intentionally hit and pushed the

motorela that they were riding and violently kept pushing it causing it to turn around facing the direction from

where it came from and fell on its right side. Rosita testified that while she was struggling out of the motorela she

noticed that the white vehicle went up the elevated catwalk or pathway pursuing Achumbre who was hit when he

was already at the railing (barandilla). Then she observed that the white vehicle drove away without even caring

to see what happened to them. The spouses/victims were brought to the police station while the Achumbre was

brought to the hospital who was declared dead on arrival. It was later on found out upon investigation that said

incident was predicated on the earlier fight which transpired between Achumbre and the driver of the motor

vehicle, Thadeos Enguito, the accused in this case. As a result of the death of Achumbre, his wife filed a criminal

complaint against the accused. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty with the crime of Homicide with Less

Serious Physical Injuries, taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle which

was alleged in the information. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter modified the crime to Murder due

to the aggravating circumstance. The accused went to the Supreme Court imputing error on the decision of the

Court of Appeals with respect to the declaration of the crime of Murder against him on the ground that he did

not intentionally choose the motor vehicle he was driving as a means of committing the offense, and that at most,

the vehicle was the only available means to stop the deceased from escaping. He argued that it was his intention

to apprehend and surrender the deceased to the police for his previous act of mauling him but in the process, he

ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle should be considered in this case?

HELD: The indictment against accused-appellant is murder attended by the use of motor vehicle. The use of a

motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder if the same was perpetrated by means thereof. Appellant's claim that

he merely used the motor vehicle, Kia Ceres van, to stop the victim from escaping is belied by his actuations. By

his own admission, he testified that there was a police mobile patrol near the crossing. Accused-appellant could

have easily sought the assistance of the police instead of taking the law into his own hands. Moreover, accused-

appellant already noticed the deceased trying to jump out of the motorela but he still continued his pursuit. He

did not stop the vehicle after hitting the deceased who was hit when Achumbre was at the railing of the Marcos

bridge. Accused-appellant further used the vehicle in his attempt to escape. He was already more than one

kilometer away from the place of the incident that he stopped his vehicle upon seeing the police mobile patrol

Appellant contends that he should have been convicted of the crime of homicide with two (2) mitigating

circumstances of acting in passion and voluntary surrender; and had the charge been homicide he could have

pleaded guilty. We find that these mitigating circumstances cannot be appreciated in his favor. Accused-appellant

was allegedly "still very angry" while he was following, bumping and pushing the motorela which was in front of

him. He was previously mauled by the deceased and he was allegedly rendered unconscious by the blows inflicted

on him. When he regained consciousness, he claims that he wanted to look for a policeman to report that he was

mauled. Clearly, accused-appellant's state of mind after he was mauled and before he crushed Achumbre to death

was such that he was still able to act reasonably. In fact, he admitted having seen a police mobile patrol nearby

but instead, he chose to resort to the dastardly act which resulted in the death of Achumbre and in the injuries of

the spouses Requerme. For passion to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, facts must be proved to show

causes sufficient to produce loss of self-control and to overcome reason. The turmoil and unreason which 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 mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated. Evidence shows that accused-appellant

was further pursued by the police. Appellant himself testified that he stopped his vehicle just after the police

mobile stopped but admitted having "stopped farther than the police mobile". SPO3 Catiil further testified that

appellant did not surrender but only stopped his vehicle when its right tire was already flat. His testimony was

corroborated by PO3Makiling who was patrolling the portion of Marcos Bridge. He testified that he saw the vehicle

being driven by accused-appellant already destroyed and the right portion of the vehicle a little bit lower as it was

running flat. Clearly, accused-appellant could have eluded arrest but his situation became futile when his vehicle

The foregoing notwithstanding, the existence or non-existence of a mitigating circumstance in the case at bar

will not affect the penalty to be imposed pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime committed

by accused-appellant is the complex crime of murder with less serious physical injuries. Under Article 48 of the

Revised Penal Code, the penalty for a complex crime shall be the maximum period of the penalty for the most

serious crime. The crime was committed in 1992 where the penalty for the crime of murder, which is the most

serious crime, was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code.

The death penalty being the maximum period of the penalty for murder should be imposed for the complex crime

of murder with less serious physical injuries considering that under Article63, an indivisible penalty cannot be

affected by the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. And, consonant with the ruling in People

vs. Muoz that Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution did not change the period of the penalty for

murder except only insofar as it prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua,

the Court of Appeals was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

ART 14.21

Simangan vs people FACTS: On February 10, 1980 at about 8 pm, Simangan and four other men wearing fatigues knocked on the door

of the store owned by Ernesto and Sofronia. The couple was having dinner with their daughter Lorna. Simangan

asked Ernesto to guide them on the road as they were not familiar. Ernesto agreed, he then ordered his house

boy Romeo to accompany him in guiding the group of Simangan. The next morning, Romeo reported to Sofronia

that Ernesto is dead. Ernesto was found near a creek, he sustained 10 stab wounds.

The petitioner denied any involvement in the killing of Ernesto. He testified that on the day that Ernesto was

killed, he was in his boarding house in Tuguegarao. The petitioner also denied knowing Loreto Bergado, claiming

that he only met the latter at the provincial jail. He had not been to Barangay Maasin, Solana. The accused Loreto

Bergado also denied killing Ernesto. He testified that he did not know Ernesto and the latters wife, Sofronia. On

February 10, 1980, he was in his house at Nangalasauan, Amulung, Cagayan.

ISSUE: Whether or not Simangan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide.

HELD: Yes. The testimonies of Romeo and Sofronia are credible. Thus, Simangans conviction is affirmed. It is

found that Simangan stabbed Ernesto 10 times, three of which were fatal. But the number of stab wounds does

not qualify as an aggravating circumstance against Simangan for it must be proven that Simangan

intended to exacerbate the suffering of Ernesto. Night time is also not appreciated as it was included in

the original information. Such circumstances were not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule

People vs Guerrero 389 SCRA 389 Facts: Orlando Pablo Guerrero, together with his father Orlando Dino Guerrero, Sr., was accused of beheading and cutting off the penis of Ernesto Ocampo, which caused his death thereafter. Based on the testimony of the widow of the victim, Nancy Ocampo, Pablo Guerreros mother Rosa, together with his sisters Ana, Rina and Nora Guerrero, all worked at one time or another as household help for Nancys parents-in-law. According to her, she caught her husband Ernesto and Nora Guerrero embracing each other near the kitchen of their house. As a result, Nora and her family were asked to leave the employ of the Ocampos, for the purpose of putting an end to the illicit relationship between Ernesto and Nora. But Nancy believed that her husband and Nora continued to see each other. Nancy went to see Dino, asking him to tell Nora to stop seeing her husband, or to send her far away to cut the relationship. So Nora was sent to Manila, then to Laguna, but Ernesto would always follow Nora. Dino apparently told Nancy that if ever he will see her husband, he would kill him. As their conversation was ongoing, Pablo was on the

porch of the house. When Ernesto was told by Nancy about the threat, he replied that the Guerreros could not do that to him due to the goodness they have done to the Guerrero family. Then, one day while Pablo was sleeping he was awaken when Ernesto, his godfather kicked the door of their house looking for Nora. A heated discussion ensued, ending with Pablo killing Ernesto with the knife that he drew from his waist. Issues: The following issues call for resolution: (1) Did the trial court err in ruling against appellants claim that he acted in self-defense? (2) Did it also err in appreciating the circumstance of cruelty and scoffing at or outraging the victims corpse? (3) Did it err further in imposing on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua with actual and moral damages? Held: The court found that there was cruelty as well as outraging or scoffing at the corpse, thus, qualifying the crime to murder. As established by the testimony of witnesses, appellant first severed the victims head before his penis was cut-off. This being the sequence of events, cruelty has to be ruled out for it connotes an act of deliberately and sadistically augmenting the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering. As testified by the doctor, and reflected in her medical certificate, Ernesto in fact died as a result of his head being severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the act constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was perpetrated when the victim was already dead. What now remains to be considered is whether the act of cutting-off the victims penis constitutes the qualifying circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. Appellant strongly takes exception to this finding. He states that this circumstance was not properly alleged with specificity in the information, thereby violating the right of the accused to be informed. Appellant contends that beheading and/or cutting-off the penis were merely mentioned in the information as the cause of death but not as a qualifying circumstance. While the information did not allege this qualifying circumstance in the exact words of the law, outraging the dead and scoffing at the victims corpse are nevertheless deducible from the recital in the information. The sequence of events as attack, assault, club, beheaded and cut the penis of the victim, Ernesto Ocampo alleged in the information points to the outrage committed on the dead.

People vs Guerrero 389 SCRA 389 Facts: Orlando Pablo Guerrero, together with his father Orlando Dino Guerrero, Sr., was accused of beheading and cutting off the penis of Ernesto Ocampo, which caused his death thereafter. Based on the testimony of the widow of the victim, Nancy Ocampo, Pablo Guerreros mother Rosa, together with his sisters Ana, Rina and Nora Guerrero, all worked at one time or another as household help for Nancys parents-in-law. According to her, she caught her husband Ernesto and Nora Guerrero embracing each other near the kitchen of their house. As a result, Nora and her family were asked to leave the employ of the Ocampos, for the purpose of putting an end to the illicit relationship between Ernesto and Nora. But Nancy believed that her husband and Nora continued to see each other. Nancy went to see Dino, asking him to tell Nora to stop seeing her husband, or to send her far away to cut the relationship. So Nora was sent to Manila, then to Laguna, but Ernesto would always follow Nora. Dino apparently told Nancy that if ever he will see her husband, he would kill him. As their conversation was ongoing, Pablo was on the porch of the house. When Ernesto was told by Nancy about the threat, he replied that the Guerreros could not do that to him due to the goodness they have done to the Guerrero family. Then, one day while Pablo was sleeping he was awaken when Ernesto, his godfather kicked the door of their house looking

for Nora. A heated discussion ensued, ending with Pablo killing Ernesto with the knife that he drew from his waist. Issues: The following issues call for resolution: (1) Did the trial court err in ruling against appellants claim that he acted in self-defense? (2) Did it also err in appreciating the circumstance of cruelty and scoffing at or outraging the victims corpse? (3) Did it err further in imposing on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua with actual and moral damages? Held: The court found that there was cruelty as well as outraging or scoffing at the corpse, thus, qualifying the crime to murder. As established by the testimony of witnesses, appellant first severed the victims head before his penis was cut-off. This being the sequence of events, cruelty has to be ruled out for it connotes an act of deliberately and sadistically augmenting the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering. As testified by the doctor, and reflected in her medical certificate, Ernesto in fact died as a result of his head being severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the act constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was perpetrated when the victim was already dead. What now remains to be considered is whether the act of cutting-off the victims penis constitutes the qualifying circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. Appellant strongly takes exception to this finding. He states that this circumstance was not properly alleged with specificity in the information, thereby violating the right of the accused to be informed. Appellant contends that beheading and/or cutting-off the penis were merely mentioned in the information as the cause of death but not as a qualifying circumstance. While the information did not allege this qualifying circumstance in the exact words of the law, outraging the dead and scoffing at the victims corpse are nevertheless deducible from the recital in the information. The sequence of events as attack, assault, club, beheaded and cut the penis of the victim, Ernesto Ocampo alleged in the information points to the outrage committed on the dead.