Abuse of Public Position

Fortuna v. People (G.R. No. 135784)

Facts:

On July 21, 1992, siblings Diosdada Montecillo and Mario Montecillo
were standing at the corner of Mabini and Harrison Streets. A mobile patrol
car stopped in front of them and a policeman alighted. The policeman frisked
Mario and took Marios belt. He motioned Mario to enter the car. Mario
obeyed and was followed by Diosdada. While inside the car, the policemen
told Mario that he would be brought to the Bicutan police station where he
would be interrogated, mauled and heckled for carrying a deadly weapon.
They told the Montecillos that the bailbond for carrying a deadly weapon was
P12,000. The Montecillos were asked how much they had and then
Diosdada was asked to alight from the car. The driver followed her, took
P1,500 from her wallet and instructed her to tell the others that she only had
P3,500. Inside the car, they were told to put all her money on the box. The
Montecillos were told to get off at Harrison Plaza. From there, they went
home. The 3 policemen, Fortuna, Garcia, and Pablo, were charged with
robbery and were found guilty of having conspired in committing the crime
with intimidation of persons.

Issue:

Whether or not abuse of public position should be taken as an
aggravating circumstance by the mere fact that the accused were police
officers?

Decision:

The Supreme Courted held that the lower courts failed to appreciate
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position.
Being police officers, it placed them in a position terrify the Montecillos to
surrender their money as bail. It was on the account of their authority that
convinced the Montecillos that they had committed a crime and that they
would be taken to the police station. Had they not been police officers, they
would have not convinced the Montecillos into giving them their money.







People vs. Rodil [November 20, 1981]

Facts: Accused Floro Rodil was charged under an Information that states
that on April 24, 1971, with the use of a bladed dagger, attacked and stabbed
to death Philippine Constabulary Lieutenant Guillermo Masana in Indang,
Cavite. The Information also alleges that Masana was in the performance of
his official duties when the accused attacked him.

April 24, 1971: Masana, the deceased, together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel,
Philippine Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa and Patrolman Felix
Mojica of Indang, Cavite, was having lunch inside a restaurant in front of the
Indang market.

While inside, they saw accused outside through the glass window of the
restaurant. Rodil was blowing his whistle.

His attention drawn by what Rodil was doing, Masana, dressed in civilian
clothes, accompanied by Fidel, went out of the restaurant. He introduced
himself as a PC officer, and asked Rodil whether the gun tucked on his waist
had a license. Instead of answering thequestion, Rodil moved a step
backward and tried to draw his gun. Fidel immediately grabbed Rodils gun
and gave it to Masana.

The three went inside the restaurant. Masana and Rodil occupied a separate
table. Masana placed the gun on the table, pulled out a piece of paper and
wrote a receipt for the gun and signed it. He asked Rodil to countersign it, but
he refused. Rodil even asked Masana to return the gun to him, and of course
Masana did not grant his plea. As Masana was about to stand up, Rodil
pulled out a double-bladed dagger and stabbed Masana several times, on
the chest and the stomach which led to his death.

Indang Chief of Police Primo Panaligan was also inside the restaurant taking
his lunch and helped in wresting the dagger from Rodil.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not the specific circumstance of contempt of, or insult
to public authority can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance

(2) Whether or not the specific circumstance of insult or disregard of rank can
be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance

Held:
(1) YES. In the case at bar, the aggravating circumstance of, or insult
to, public authority under paragraph 2, Article 14 of the RPC can be
appreciated. Evidence of prosecution clearly established that Indang Chief of
Police Primo Panaligan was present in the restaurant as he was having lunch
there too when the incident happened, which belies Rodils allegations that
he went to the municipal police station and reported the incident as self-
defense to the Chief. As a matter of fact, the chief of police was the one who
embraced or grabbed Rodil from behind, wrested the dagger from him and
subsequently brought him to the Indang municipal building. The chief of
police should be considered a public authority or a person in authority for he
is vested with jurisdiction and authority to maintain peace and order and is
specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the
law and municipal ordinances.

(2) YES. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be
appreciated because the victim identified himself as a PC officer to Rodil who
was merely a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and was therefore inferior
both in rank and social status to the victim. The difference in official
and social status between a PC lieutenant and a mere member of an anti-
smuggling unit is patent. If Rodil was charged with the complex crime
of murder with assault against an agent of a person in authority and not
merely murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank may
not be appreciated because that circumstance will be absorbed into the
charge of assault against an agent of a person in authority. But in the case at
bar, the Information charges Rodil with murder only. Therefore, the
aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank may be appreciated in the
imposition of penalties.

EFFECT TO PENALTY IMPOSABLE: With two aggravating circumstances
and no mitigating circumstance, the appellant is condemned to suffer the
maximum period of reclusin temporal, the penalty prescribed for homicide.

People v. Jeronico Lobino (October 28, 1999)

Appellant was convicted for murdering his common-law wife. He contends
he would not stab her without any apparent reasons, and that he attacked
her because he could no longer stand her going home late at night and her
sarcastic remarks whenever her attention was called to what she was doing.
He contends he should have been credited with the mitigating circumstance
of passion and obfuscation.

Held:
The Court disagrees. The requisites of passion and obfuscation are:
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a
condition of mind;
2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed
from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time
during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.
It has been held that there is passional obfuscation when the crime was
committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust
or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome
reason. The obfuscation must originate from lawful feelings. 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,
because the cause of this condition of mind must necessarily have preceded
the commission of the offense.

PEOPLE V. ARIZALA (October 20, 1999)

Accused stabbed to death Sgt. Cara.

Issue: W/N accused is guilty of murder? Yes.
W/N there was self-defense? Yes.

HELD:
Even if deceased hurled incentives at him and moved as if to draw
something from his waist, we are unable to establish a finding of unlawful
aggression on the victim's part. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual,
sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude and the accused must present proof of
positively strong act of real aggression. Though deceased was in uniform,
the latter did not have a firearm or a holster for the same, and none was
retrieved from the scene of the crime.

Deceased was killed with treachery. Not only was it not proven that there
was provocation on the part of the hapless victim but the attack at the back of
the victim was made in such a manner that would make it difficult for the
deceased to offer an effective defense against his aggressor.