People v Sto Tomas

FACTS: On the evening of May 23 1967, Salvacon Grulla, wife of herein appellant
Pacito Sto. Tomas and the appelants mother in law, Consolacion Grulla were found
dead inside the house of the Grullas. Pacito was convicted with the crime of
Parricide. In his defense, Pacito contends that the trial court erred in considering the
dwelling as an aggravating circumstance because the victims stay in the house of
Consolacion Grulla is only temporary hence, it may not be considered as her dwelling
ISSUE: WON the crime commited to a persons dwelling may be considered as
aaggravating even if the victims stay in the house is temporary:
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that it may be considered as an aggravating
circumstance due to the fact that it is where Consolacion Grulla was staying together
with the other victim, Natividad Grulla and Salvacion Grulla. The Court explained that
victim Salvacion Grulla considered this house as temporary sojourn in order to escape
the brutalities of the appellant brought by his jealousy. The Court further reiterated
that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present when the appellant killed his wife
in the house occupied by her other than the conjugal home. Hence, in the case at bar the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be considered.
People v Apduhan
FACTS: Respondent along with five other persons entered the house of the spouses Miano,shooting
Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton that killed both and took money amountingto Php 322.00
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling may be considered in
crimes of robbery.
HELD: It is a well settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or
intimidation of persons (U.S. v. Leyba, 8 Phil. 671; People v. Sebastian, 85 Phil. 602;
People v. Napili, 85 Phil. 521), like the offense at bar. The rationale behind this
pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be committed without the necessity of
transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent only in crimes which could be
committed in no other place than in the house of another, such as trespass and robbery in an
inhabited house (Aquino, Vol. I, p. 286). This Court in People v.Pinca (L-16595, Feb. 28,
1962), citing People v. Valdez (64 Phil. 860), ruled that the "circumstances (of dwelling and
scaling) were certainly not inherent in the crime committed, because, the crime being
robbery with violence or intimidation against persons (specifically, robbery with homicide)
the authors thereof could have committed it without the necessity of violating or scaling the
domicile of their victim." Cuello Calon opines that the commission of the crime in another's
dwelling shows greater perversity in the accused and produces greater alarm
PEOPLEvDISCALSOTA
FACTS:

ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation may

be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance
HELD: In this case the first 2 elements of evident premeditation is present which are:

(a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly
indicating that the accused has clung to his determination
However, the third element is not present (c) sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of his
act. The span of less than one hour could not have afforded the former full

opportunity for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime he

committed.The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal
act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection on the resolution to carry
out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment. Where no sufficient lapse of time is appreciable from the
determination to commit the crime until its execution, evident premeditation
cannot be appreciated.
PeoplevEscote
FACTS: SPO1 Jose Manio was on a bus on the way home when suddenly 6 guys boarderd the bus
including herein appellant. Suddenly, Escote, along with his friend Juan whipped out their guns and
announceaholdup.Theyletoffasingleshottosarethepassengers. The

felons then went to the

place Manio, Jr. was seated and demanded that he show them his
identification card and wallet. Manio, Jr. brought out his identification card.
They also asked for his gun and they said that this will also be the same gun
that will kil him. Manio pleaded for his life but was still shot by the felons
that caused the formers death. The felons were convicted of robbery with
homicide with an aggravating circumstance of treachery.
ISSUE:Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of treachery is present in this
case
HELD: The Court agrees with the trial court that treachery was attendant in the

commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following essential elements
are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the
particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
commission without risk of himself. Treachery may also be appreciated even if the
victim was warned of the danger to his life where he was defenseless and unable to

flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace. In the case at bar, the victim
suffered six wounds. When the victim was shot, he was defenseless. He was shot at
close range, thus insuring his death. The victim was on his way to rejoin his family
after a hard days work. Instead, he was mercilessly shot to death, leaving his family
in grief for his untimely demise. The killing is a grim example of the utter
inhumanity of man to his fellowmen.