PEOPLE VS ESPINA 361 SCRA 701

FACTS: In the afternoon of September 30,

1992, the members of an association locally
known as the ripa-ripa went to the house of
Eufornia Pagas in Bohol for their scheduled
contribution to fund
intended for a wedding celebration. Among
present thereat were Romeo Bulicatin, Rogelio
Espina and Samsung Abuloc who were having a
drinking spree and playing cards. Romeo
Bulcatin asked Espina to buy 3 bottles of Kalafu
wine which he acceded. After they have
emptied their wines, Bulcatin then asked Espina
to buy another 3 bottles again which the he
refused to obey. Romeo Bulcatin then
proceeded to where Espina was playing card
and without warning, urinated on the latter and
clipped him under his arms. Espina went home
to avoid in any altercation.
At around 9:00 p.m. in the same evening, while
they were still having a drinking spree at the
store of Eurofina Pagas, accused-appellant was
outside saying Borgs, get out because I have
something to say.
Three of them went down and at the juncture,
when Romeo Bulcatin was still at the stairway,
Espina shot him at the back and was chased
after receiving another 2 shots.
Issue: WON the mitigating circumstance of
immediate vindication is present?
HELD: Accused is Guilty of the crime of murder,
having his sentenced lowered to an
Indeterminate penalty of 8 years to 17 years,
four months and one day.
The court correctly appreciated the mitigating
circumstance of having acted in immediate
vindication of grave offense. The accused was
urinated by the victim in front of the guests. The
act of the victim, which undoubtedly insulted and
humiliated the accused, came within the purview
of a grave offense.
Thus, this mitigating circumstance should be
appreciated in favour of the accused

PEOPLE, vs.EPIFANIO DIOKNO and ROMAN

DIOKNO,
FACTS:

At around 7 in the morning, in January, 1935,

Salome Diokno asked her lover, Yu Hiong, to
take her with him. In the afternoon on
the same day, the couple took an automobile
and headed for Pagbilao, where one of Salomes
cousins lived. The relative was not a home, so
the couple went to San Pablo, Laguna. They
stayed at the house of one Antonio Layco.
After a day or two, Epifanio[1], father of Salome,
was informed by his son, Roman, through a
telegraph that Salome was missing. The two
very worried men began a search, and then
learned of their stay at Laguna.
They proceeded to the house of one Antonio
Layco, and immediately saw Yu Hiong
descending the steps of the house. The ran up
to him and caught him. Yu Hiong sank to his
knees; begging for forgiveness. But the
Dioknos, understandably raging over their girls
abduction, inflicted a total of five stab wounds on
Yu Hiong with their balisongs[2]. Epifanio
wouldve killed Yu Hiong on the spot, were it not
for the timely intervention of Roman, who said:
Enough, father!
Antonio Layco saw the barely conscious Yu
Hiong , called the police[3], and the two men
were apprehended . They were found guilty of
murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by
the court of First Instance of Laguna.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Dioknos are entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of
vindication of a grave offense
2. Whether or not the Dioknos are entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation
3. Whether or not the Dioknos are entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender
HELD:
1. Yes, the Dioknos are guilty only of
HOMICIDE.
There was no aggravating circumstances
attendant to the commission of the killing.
Forevident premeditation to be appreciated, the
intention to kill must be manifest and it must
have been planned in the mind of the offender
and carefully meditated. It is not enough that it
arose at the moment of the aggression. For this
reason, it is imperative to determine when the
offender decided to commit the crime.

1. Yes. While the mitigating circumstance

of immediate vindication can be
considered, for the following reasons:
1. Although what the law requires is that
the vindication for the grave offense be
done proximately to the later, the case
at hand dealt with a continuing
offense. Note that the whereabouts of
their beloved Salome were unknown to
them, prior to their discovery of Laycos
house in Laguna three days later. In the
course of the three days, the men were
subjected to mental and emotional
tortures that lasted until the men came
face to face with Yu Hiong. Therefore,
there was no interruption between the
offense against the honor of the Dioknos
and the vindication. They therefore had
nosufficient time to recover their
serenity, they constantly suffered from
the wrong.
2. The determination of the gravity of a
offense so as to somewhat deserve
vindication may be ascertained form the
following:
People vs Adlawan
GR No L-45629 March 1949
Facts:
This is a review of the sentence of death and
ne of P20,000.00 imposed upon appellant
Cucufate Adlawan by the Peoples Court
wherein Adlawan was charged with treason but
convicted of the complex crime of treason with
murder, robbery and rape .Appellant Adlawan
pleaded guilty to a complaint against charged
against him. Saidcomplaint states that during the
year 1943 to 1945, Adlawan adhered to the
enemy, the Empire of Japan and its Imperial
Japanese forces, with treasonable intent to give
aid and comfort to said enemy by going out on
numerous patrol in company with Japanese
forces in search of guerilla and other elements
resisting the enemy of the Philippines. In the
course of doing so, Adlawan also committed
murder, torture, robbery, and rape.
Ruling: The Peoples Court convicted Adlawan
guilty of thecomplex crime of treason with
murder, robbery and rape. He is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of death and ne
ofP20,000.00.Upon review before the
Supreme Court Adlawan assails the conviction
and the lower court should have appreciated

his mitigating circumstances of voluntary

surrender, that he is a witness utilised by the
CIC and that he saved many civilian lives from
the Japanese forces. He further states that the
lower court erred in appreciating the
ggravating circumstances treachery,murder,
abuse of superiority and unnecessary cruelty.
The Supreme Court modied the decision of the
lower court to the extent that the penalty to be
imposed is reclusion perpetua and ne of
P20,000.00
US vs Hicks
Facts. Defendant was present while codefendant fatally shot another person and left
the crime scene with co-defendant after the
shooting. Defendant did not render assistance in
actually completing the crime, but merely acted
in the capacity of a witness. There was
testimony from witnesses further away that
Defendant took off his own hat and told the
victim to take off your hat and die like a man
immediately before his co-defendant fired his
gun.
Issue. Is a person an accomplice to the crime of
murder merely by his presence at the crime
scene when the killing takes place, though he
does not render assistance in completing the
crime and there is no evidence of a prior
agreement to render assistance?
Held. No. Judgment reversed.
The trial court was in error in charging the jury
that Defendant qualified as an accomplice to the
murder even if he did not render any assistance
in the act because his assistance may merely
have been unnecessary at the time. In the
absence of evidence that co-defendants
conspired to aid one another in killing the victim,
which aid ultimately proved unnecessary,
Defendants mere presence at the crime scene
cannot alone confer on him the status and
criminal responsibility, of an accomplice.
Defendants statement to victim prior to the
shooting was too ambiguous to infer a prior
conspiracy between co-defendants to kill the
victim.

US v De la Cruz
FACTS:
1. Defendant (De la Cruz), in the heat of
passion, killed his querida when he
caught her red-handed in carnal
communication with a mutual
acquaintance.
3. Trial court found defendant guilty of
homicidewithout any extenuating
circumstances present. Defendant was
sentenced to 14 years 8 months1 day of
reculsion temporal (medium degree of
penalty prescribed by the code).

ISSUES: WoN there is an

extenuating/mitigating circumstance present
Ruling:
YES. There is an extenuating
circumstancepresent in the case. The Court
is of the opinion that the defendant acted
upon an impulse sopowerful as naturally to
have produced passion and obfuscation
when he caught his querida in carnal
communication with a mutual acquaintance.
A man who kills a woman (his lover) for having
caught her in her underclothes with another man
and afterwards shoots himself inflicting a serious
wound should be responsible for the act but with
extenuating circumstance considered because
he acted as such due to strong emotion which
impelled him to perform the criminal act. The
situation presents a sufficient impulse in the
natural and ordinary course to produce the
violent passion and obfuscation which the law
regards as a special reason for extenuation.
People vs Javier
311 scra 250
Facts:
Eduardo is husband of victim Florentina. Married
in 1854. 47 years of marriage. 10 children. On
June 15 Consolacion heard her mother saying
Your father is going to kill me. Her sister, Alma
is weeping and told her that their parents are
quarrelling. They went to the house of their

brother Manuel and when they came back they

saw their mother dead. And their father has a
wounded stomach. He admitted hacking his wife
and stabbed himself afterwards.
He was brought to the hospital. SPO1
Racho, desk investigator, said that when they
went to see the crime scene Manuel told him
thatEduardo pleaded guilty and surrendered the
bolo. Eduardo said the he havent slept for a
month and his mind was completely blank when
he killed his wife. Trial Court rejected his claim of
insanity and sentenced him to death for
parricide.
In this appeal, accused-appellant alleged that
the trial court erred in imposing the death
penalty, considering the presence of two
mitigating circumstances of illness of the
offender and passion and obfuscation
Eduardo does not question the rejection of
insanity as his defensebut he says he was
suffering from lost of sleep for a prolonged
period of time. He also has suspicion that his
wife is having an illicit relationship, aggravated
with his illness, goaded him to commit the
crime.
Issue: Whether or not there is a mitigating
circumstance of illness and passion and
obfuscation
Held: None.
FOR ILLNESS:
For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the
offender to be appreciated, the law requires the
presence of the following requisites: (1) illness
must diminish the exercise of the will-power of
the offender; and (2) such illness should not
deprive the offender of consciousness of his
acts.
The defense failed to show medical evidence
and
since
he
remembered
the
vital
circumstances surrounding the ghastly incident,
from the time of the killing up to the time he was
brought to the hospital, it shows that he was in
full control of his mental faculties
AS FOR PASSION:
In order to be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of passion and to obfuscation, the

following elements should concur: (1) there

should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such condition of mind; and (2) 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 moral equanimity.
Elements were not proved, he even said that he
was not jealous of his wife.
In this case, the information for parricide against
accused-appellant
did
not
allege
any
aggravating circumstance. Nor did the evidence
show that the prosecution was able to prove any
aggravating
circumstance.
Likewise,
no
mitigating circumstance is appreciated by this
Court in favor of the accused-appellant. Thus, in
the absence of any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance for the accused-appellant, the
lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed.
People vs Narvasa
Ponente: Panganiban
Nature: Appeal from Alaminos, Pangasinan RTC
decision.
Facts:
On Feb. 6, 1992, Laderas and Nagal (both
councilmen of Quinaoayanan, Bani,
Pangasinan) acting on report that there were
missing carabaos, goats, and pigs went to Sitio
Bugtong, Bani and Sitio Patar, Agno where they
patrolled the area.The two chanced upon the
appellants, 3 of the 5being armed. Orania was
holding a .30 caliber carbine, Mateo Narvasa
with an M-16, and Felicisimo Narvasa holding an
M-14. The two were familiar with the models of
the guns as they were the same models used by
policemen.At first, Laderas and Nagal did not
mind the gang, but when they came across
SPO3 Camba andPO2 Navora (who were also
investigating the same thing), they decided to
track down the goons.They were near the
house of appellant Felicisimo Narvasa when
they were met with a volley of gunshots. SPO3
Camba was hit and later on died.The goons
were later apprehended and testedpositive for
gunpowder burns.Appellants version: Laderas
group shot Narvasas son. Orania claims he
knew nothing and denied participation in the
shooting.The trial court found that in appellants

acted inconspiracy in the killing of Camba. The

homicidewas not taken into account as a
separate crime.The crime they were convicted of
was aggravatedillegal possession of firearms.
The trial court alsoheld that though the
unlicensed firearms were notpresented in court,
pursuant to People vs. Ferrera,the appellant
could still be convicted of IPOF.
People vs Ladjaalam
136149-51, September 19, 2000

FACTS:
Four Informations were filed against appellant
Walpan Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), three of
which he was found guilty, to wit: 1) maintaining
a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article III,
of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972); 2) illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition in violation of Presidential Decree
No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act. No.
8294; and 3) direct assault with multiple
attempted homicide. The following information
was provided by the prosecution:
1) In the afternoon of September 24, 1997, more
than thirty (30) policemen proceeded to the
house of appellant and his wife to serve the
search warrant when they were met by a volley
of gunfire coming from the second floor of the
said house. They saw that it was the appellant
who fired the M14 rifle towards them.
2) After gaining entrance, two of the police
officers proceeded to the second floor where
they earlier saw appellant firing the rifle. As he
noticed their presence, the appellant jumped
from the window to the roof of a neighboring
house. He was subsequently arrested at the
back of his house after a brief chase.
3) Several firearms and ammunitions were
recovered from appellants house. Also found
was a pencil case with fifty (50) folded aluminum
foils inside, each containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
4) A paraffin test was conducted and the casts
taken both hands of the appellant yielded
positive
for
gunpowder
nitrates.
5) Records show that appellant had not filed any

application for license to possess firearm and

ammunition, nor has he been given authority to
carry firearms.
ISSUE:
Whether or not such use of an unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
HELD:
No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides
that any person who shall unlawfully possess
any firearm or ammunition shall be penalized,
unless no other crime was committed.
Furthermore, if 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. Since the crime
committed was direct assault and not homicide
or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot
be deemed an aggravating circumstance.

ANGEL CELINO, SR. vs. CA

G.R. No. 170562 June 29, 2007
FACTS: Two separate informations were filed
before the RTC charging petitioner with violation
of the gunban and illegal possession of firearms.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash contending
that he "cannot be prosecuted for illegal
possession of firearms (R.A. 8294) . . . if he was
also charged of having committed another crime
of [sic] violating the Comelec gun ban under the
same set of facts. The trial court denied the
motion to quash on the ground that "the other
offense charged . . . is not one of those
enumerated under R.A. 8294 . . . ." The denial
was affirmed on appeal. Hence this petition,
where petitioner contends that the mere filing of
an information for gun ban violation against him
necessarily bars his prosecution for illegal
possession of firearms.

intention of the law in the second paragraph

were to refer only to homicide and murder, it
should have expressly said so. As accusation is
not synonymous with guilt, there is yet no
showing that petitioner did in fact commit the
other crime charged. Consequently, the proviso
does not yet apply.
In sum, when the other offense involved is one
of those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any
information for illegal possession of firearm
should be quashed because the illegal
possession of firearm would have to be tried
together with such other offense, either
considered as an aggravating circumstance in
murder or homicide, or absorbed as an element
of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted
coup d'etat. Conversely, when the other offense
involved is not one of those enumerated under
R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal
possession of firearm should continue to be
prosecuted.
People v Rodil (1981) case digest
G.R. No. L-35156
November 20, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee,
vs.
FLORO RODIL defendant-appellant.
MAKASIAR, J.:
FACTS:
Accused Floro Rodil was found guilty for the
death of Lt. Guillermo Masana of the Philippine
Constabulary. The accused, armed with a
double-bladed dagger, with evident
premeditation and treachery, and with intent to
kill, did, attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo
Masana while the latter was in the performance
of his official duties, which directly caused his
death.
ISSUE:

ISSUE: Did the court err in denying the Motion

to Quash?

Whether or not the crime of murder can be

complexed with assault upon agent of authority.

HELD: No. The law is clear: the accused can be

convicted of simple illegal possession of
firearms, provided that "no other crime was
committed by the person arrested." If the

HELD:
Yes. The Solicitor General claims the crime
committed was murder because "it was

established by the prosecution that during the

stabbing incident, appellant suddenly and
without giving the victim a chance to defend
himself, stabbed the latter several times with a
dagger, inflicting. The suddenness of the attack
does not by itself suffice to support a finding of
treachery , the record failed to show that the
accused made any preparation to kill his victim
so as to insure the commission of the crime.
Clearly, therefore, the impelling motive for the
attack by appellant on his victim was the latter's
performance of official duty, which the former
resented. This kind of evidence does not clearly
show the presence of treachery in the
commission of the crime.

to Articles 148and 151 of the RPC. With respect

to the crime committed, they are not covered

The aggravating circumstance of disregard of

rank should be appreciated because it is
obvious that the victim. Identified himself as a
PC officer to the accused who is merely a
member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and
therefore inferior both in rank and social status
to the victim. If the accused herein were 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 or contempt of
or insult to public authority cannot be
appreciated as aggravating because either
circumstance is inherent in the charge of assault
against a person in authority or an agent of a
person in authority.

Appellant went to the GRULLAs residence to

take his wife and children with him to Legaspi
City.
Appellants mother -in-law intervened in saying
that her daughter (appellants wife) could not go
with him. And appellants wife also refused.
Thereafter, appellant shot the victims. In the
conviction of said appellant, the trial court took
into account the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling in the imposition of penalties.

People vs Tac-an
GR no 76338-39February 26, 1990
Facts: he accused and deceased were
former gangmembers.
Unfortunately,
their
relationship turned sour when the deceased left
the gang. During their mass class in school, the
accused shot his former friend the deceased.
The deceased was able to dodge some bullets
but was eventually hit. When accused left the
room, a teacher asked him for help because a
student was shot and was still alive. Accused
then came back and shot the deceased in his
chest resulting in his death.
Issue: Whether or not the aggravating
circumstance of insult to public authority may be
appreciated.
Held: No, it cannot. The SC held that teachers
of public or recognized private school are
deemed to be persons in authority with respect

EOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. PACITO

STO. TOMASDOCTRINE
FACTS:
Appellant Pacito Sto. Tomas was convicted of
the crimes of parricide (death of his wife
Salvacion Grulla), murder (for the death of his
mother-in-law Consolacion Grulla), and
frustrated murder (for the fatal shooting of his
sister-in-law Natividad Grulla) against
the persons of the victims.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in

taking into consideration said aggravating
circumstance.
HELD:
NO. Anent appellants submission
that the trial court erred in considering dwelling
as an aggravating circumstance, we find the
same bereft of any legal support. There is no
dispute that the place where the crimes herein
involved were committed is the house of
Consolacion Grulla. It is there where she lives
with her daughter, NatividadGrulla (the other
victim) and where Salvacion Grulla was
temporarily staying in order to escape from the
brutalities of the appellant
brought about by the latters jealousy. The fact
that Salvacions stay in t
he said place may be consideredas a temporary
sojourn adds no validity to
appellants stance on this point.
As we earlier held in People v. Galapia, the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present
when the appellant killed his wife in the house
occupied by her other than the conjugal home.
Similarly, in another case, dwelling is
aggravating where the offended party was raped
in a boardinghouse rented by her.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

APOLONIO APDUHAN, JR. alias JUNIOR, ET
AL.
G.R. No. L-19491

August 30, 1968

CASTRO, J.:
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 amounting to
Php 322.00 belonging to Geronimo Miano.
Respondent pleaded not guilty initially and later
after advise from counsel Tirol, pleaded guilty.
Judge Hipolito Alo informed respondent that the
penalty imposed might be death and respondent
insisted on pleading guilty with the condition that
he be sentenced to life imprisonment instead of
death.
Respondent then desisted from his plea of guilt
and having made it on record, counsel Tirol
conferred with him and later manifested that
respondent will enter the plea of guiltywith the
trial courts ascertainment that he was not forced
into pleading guilty. The mitigating
circumstances alleged by respondent were 1)
intoxication that was not
corroborated; 2) voluntary plea of guilty; and 3)
Lack of intent to commit a grave so wrong that
was withdrawn after prosecution withdrew the
fourth aggravating circumstance abuse of
superior strength. The aggravating
circumstances alleged by the prosecution were
1) band; 2) dwelling; 3) nighttime; and 4) abuse
of superior strength that was withdrawn.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents voluntary plea of
guilty is spontaneous and insistent.

guilty. Respondent then desisted from the plea

of guilt and stated his plea of not guilty
made in record, going back to plea of guilty only
after conferring with his counsel. The virtue of
Judge Alo's efforts in ascertaining whether
Apduhan pleaded guilty with full
knowledge of the significance and
consequences of his act, recommends itself to
all trial judges who must refrain from accepting
with alacrity an accused's plea of guilty, for
while justice demands a speedy administration,
judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in
seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty
he understands fully the meaning of his plea and
the import of an inevitable conviction. For failure
to secure the required number of votes, the
penalty of death cannot be legally imposed. The
penalty next lower in degree - reclusion
perpetua - should consequently be imposed on
the accused.
People vs Garcia
GR L-30449, Oct. 31, 1979

Facts: In 1993, Carlos Garcia, Patricio Botero,

and Luisa Miraples were accused of illegal
recruitment. It was alleged that they represented
themselves as the incorporators and officers of
Ricorn Philippine International Shipping Lines,
Inc.; that Ricorn is a recruitment agency for
seamen; that Garcia is the president, Botero is
the vice-president, and Miraples (now at large) is
the treasurer. It was later discovered that Ricorn
was never registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) and that it was
never authorized to recruit by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Agency (POEA). Botero
and Garcia were convicted. Botero appealed.
In his defense, Botero averred that he was not
an incorporator; that he was merely an
employee of Ricorn in charge of following up on
their documents.

Ratio Decidendi:
No. Respondents initial plea was not one of
guilty and changed it with the
condition that he be sentenced to life
imprisonment and not death since he will plead

ISSUE: Whether or not Botero is a mere

employee of Ricorn.
HELD: No. It was proven by evidence that he
was introduced to the applicants as the vice
president of Ricorn. When he was receiving

applicants, he was receiving them behind a desk

which has a nameplate representing his name
and his position as VP of Ricorn.
But Ricorn was never incorporated? How will
this affect his liability in the crime illegal
recruitment?
Under the law, if the offender is a corporation,
partnership, association or entity, the penalty
shall be imposed upon the officer or officers of
the corporation, partnership, association or
entity responsible for violation. In this case, even
if Ricorn was not incorporated, Botero and his
cohorts are estopped from denying liability as
corporate officers of Ricorn. Section 25 of the
Corporation Code provides that All persons who
assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be
without authority to do so shall be liable as
general partners for all the debts, liabilities and
damages incurred or arising as a result thereof:
Provided, however, That when any such
ostensible corporation is sued on any
transaction entered by it as a corporation or on
any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be
allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate
personality.

US vs Manalinde
14 Phil. 77

Facts: The accused, Manalinde, who pleaded

guilty confessed that his wife died about one
hundred days before; that he was directed by
Datto Mupuck to go huramentado and to kill the
two persons he would meet in the town; that if
he was successful in the matter, Mupuck would
give him a pretty woman on his return; that in
order to carry out his intention to kill two persons
in the town of Cotobato, he provided himself with
a kris, which he concealed in banana leaves;
that he traveled for a day and a night from his
home; that upon reaching the town, he attacked
from behind a Spaniard named Igual, and
immediately after, he attacked a Chinaman
named Choa, who was close by; and that he

had no quarrel with the assaulted persons. Both

victims
died
as
a
result.
Issue: Whether
circumstance of
established
Held: YES.
aggravating
premeditation.

or not
evident
by

the aggravating
premeditation is
the
facts.

Those facts
circumstance

establish the
of
evident

The three requisites of evident premeditation are

illustrated
by
the
facts:
First requisite: On a certain date, Manalinde
accepted the proposition that he would turn
hurmentado and kill the first two persons he
would meet in the market place. On said date,
the offender is said to have determined the
crime.
Second requisite: He undertook the journey to
comply therewith and provided himself with a
weapon. The journey and the carrying of the
weapon are acts manifestly indicating that the
offender clung to his determination to commit the
crime.
Third requisite: After the journey for a day and a
night, he killed the victims. One day and one
night constitute a sufficient lapse of time for the
offender to realize the consequences of his
contemplated act.
People vs Discalsota
G.R. No. 136892.April 11, 2002
FACTS: Herbert, along with his friends Jenny,
Pedro and Rowell visited del Rosario. While
inside del Rosario's house, a group of men
started shouting at them from the outside asking
them to get out and threatening to kill them.
They called the police for help. Four tanods
came and escorted the four teenagers outside of
the house. The group threatening them were still
outside the house when they came out. Upon
reaching the main road, they boarded a pedicab.
The pedicab had not yet left when Rowell saw
someone running towards them. The four
jumped out of the pedicab. The man managed to
overtake Herbert and thrusted his knife on
Herbert's back. Discalsota was positively
identified as the assailant.
ISSUE: WON the crime committed was attended
withevident premeditation.

HELD: NO. For evident premeditation to be

appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as the
evidence of the crime itself of the following
elements thereof, viz
: (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) sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and execution to
allow himself to reflect upon the consequences
of his act. In this case, the first two elements of
evident
premeditation are present. As found by the RTC,
the time appellant determined to commit the
crime was when he started shouting at the victim
and the
latters companions:
You, there, get out and we will kill you
By staying outside the house and following the
victims companions when they came out, he
manifestly indicated that he clung to his
determination. As for the third element, the
prosecution evidence shows that appellant
started shouting
outside Mrs. del Rosarios house at 3:30 p.m.
Whenthe victims group left the house, it was
not yet dark;
it was only past four oclock in the afternoon.
The police received information on the stabbing
incident at 4:30p.m. on the same day. It took les
s than an hour from the time appellant evinced
desire to commit the crime, as manifested by his
shouts outside the house, up to the time he
stabbed the victim. 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.
Where no sufficient lapse of time is appreciable
from the determination to commit the crime until
its execution, evident premeditation cannot
be appreciated
United States vs. Jose I. Baluyot
G.R. No. L-14476November 6, 1919
At the general election Conrado Lerma was
elected governor of the Province of Bataan. One
of his competitors upon this occasion was the
accused, Jose I. Baluyot, who came out third in
the race
Sometime in August 1918, Baluyot went to see
Governor Lerma in his office at the provincial

building. Baluyot entered the governor's office

the latter was sitting behind his desk. Baluyot
approached the desk and upon reaching a
position directly in front of the governor spoke
certain words which were heard, though not
distinctly, by persons in the recorder's office The
first shot was fired within a few seconds after
Baluyot entered the governor's office
Thebullet entered in the frontal region of the
right shoulder blade of Governor Lerma and
inflicted a wound of minor importance, passing
through the aforesaid part of the body and
penetrating the backof the chair in which the
governor was sitting. The governor immediately
arose and desiring to make good his escape,
started to run and Baluyot again fired. The ball
struck Governor Lerma in the region of the right
shoulder blade
The firing of the second shot was seen
by Antonino Aranjuez. The governor at this
moment had his right hand raised to his already
wounded shoulder and was running in a
direction away from his assailant. Immediately
upon seeing this shot fired, Aranjuez, instead of
intervening to save the governor, as would have
been becoming, turned and fled to obtain
succor. After the second shot was fired,
Governor Lerma continued his flight along the
corridor andtook refuge in a closet at the end of
the corridor. Once within, he shut the door and
placed himself in a position to obstruct the
entrance of his pursuer, who vainly attempted to
open the door. The governor then began to call
aloud forhelp, and Baluyot, judging the position
of the governor's head from the direction of the
sound thus emitted, fired his revolver in the
direction indicated. The bullet passed through
the panel of the door and struck Governor
Lerma in the forward part of the head. This
wound was necessarily fatal. Baluyot opened
the door and the body of Governor Lerma shot
forward out of the closet, as if in an attitude to
embrace the slayer, who drew backwards, and
the body fell prone on the floor. Death ensued in
about two or three hours. Upon the arrival of the
Constabulary, Baluyot surrendered without
resistance.
Issue: Whether or not Treachery can be
appreciated.
Held
YES The offense committed in this case
exhibits features markedly similar to those which

characterized the crime which was the subject of

prosecution in United States vs Gil; and the
offense here committed was properly qualified
by the trial judge as murder, in which was
present the qualifying circumstance of
al e v o s i a
People vs Escote
G.R. No. 140756April 4, 2003
Facts:
The accused Juan Gonzales Escote Jr. together
with Victor Acuyan boarded a bus. One of the
passengers in the said bus is SPO1 Jose Manio
Jr. who was seated at the rear portion of the bus
and on his way home to Angeles City. When the
bus was travelling along the highway the
accused suddenly stood up and announced a
hold up. They fired their gun upward. The two
then accosted the passengers and divested
them of their money and valuables. Then, the
two went to Manio. They took his ID as well as
his service gun. They shot him. Manio sustained
six entrance wounds. The robbery was over in
25 minutes. The accused were convicted of the
crime of robbery with homicide.
Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of
treachery is present.
Held:
Yes. There is treachery when the following
essential elements are present (1) at the time of
the attack, the victim was not in a position to
defend himself and (2) the accused consciously
and deliberately adopted the particular means
and methods or form of attacks 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 insuring
its commission without risk to himself. In this
case, the accused were armed with hand guns.
They first disarmed the deceased and then shot
him. When the victim was shot he was
defenseless. Treachery is applied in the
constituent crime of homicide
PEOPLE vs. CARATAOG.R. No. 126281June
10, 2003
FACTS:

Witness Martin Sugala, a rice dispatching

checker employed with Nasipit Agusan
LumberCompany (NALCO) at Nasipit, Agusan
del Norte, testified that at around 4:00 p.m.,
appellant and his wife entered the commissary
canteen of NALCO.
Appellants wife approached Sugala and told
him that her husband was angry. Sugala asked
appellant about this. Appellant replied, saying
that he was not given additional rice vale by the
victim
Edgardo "Tado" Bulawin, NALCOs rice vale
issuer.
After checking that there was extra rice
available, Sugala assured appellant that he
would give him an additional 25 kilos. Shortly
thereafter, Sugala saw the victim walk out of the
canteen. Sensing that appellant was about to
rush to the victim, the witness restrained him
and said, "Do not do anything harsh because we
are all brothers here, anyway I am giving you[an]
additional 25 kilos of rice." He placed his arm
around appellant and accompanied him to the
issuing area for the additional rice. Upon
reaching the issuing area, he first checked the
rice being issued to two employees. After this,
he noticed thatappellant was no longer near him.
Through the canteens screened windows, he
next saw appellant standing one meter behind
the victim, who was then already astride his
motorbike. About 5 meters from Sugalas
position, the victims motorbike was facing
towards the exit gate, with its engine already
running. At that moment, he saw appellant
attack the victim from behind. When Sugala saw
that Sergio Caratao was already about 1 meter
away from the back of victim Edgardo Bulawin,
he shouted to him saying "Bay, your rice is
ready."
ISSUE: Whether the accused committed murder
by treachery
HELD:
NO. Treachery is present when two conditions
concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods
and forms of execution employed gave the
person attacked no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means,
methods and forms of execution were
deliberately and consciously adopted by the
accused without danger to his person. In the
case at bar, the first element was established by
the fact that appellant suddenly attacked from

behind the unsuspecting and unarmed victim

who was then astride his
motorcycle. However, we find the prosecutions
evidence insufficient to sustain the finding of the
presence of the second element, namely, that
appellant deliberately adopted the mode of
attack.
PEOPLE VS EMELITO SITCHONG.R. No.
134362.February 27, 2002
DOCTRINE:Killing of minor children who, by
reason oftheir tender years, could not be
expected to put up a defense, is treacherous.

the only one caught while his other codefendants are still at large, was convicted for
robbery with homicide, through separate trial for
expeditious reasons, by the RTC of
Cabanatauan City for stealing 30 cavans of
palay worth php 4,500belonging to Alfredo Roca
and in the process killing Afredos Family in the
process: Marjune Roca, Benita Roca, Febe
Roca.
ISSUE: Whether or not Treachery may be
appreciated in the case of Robbery with
Homicide.
HELD:

Sithcon killed Mark Anthony Fernandez, a 2year

old boy, and his son with a common law wife. He
beat him up with a piece of wood, belt and
hammer, and also banged the head of the boy
against the wooden wall. Mark Anthony was
rushed to the hospital and was pronounced
dead on arrival. Sitchon surrendered and
pleaded guilty. The trial court convicted him of
murder with treachery and evident
premeditation.
ISSUE: Whether the crime is attended with
treachery.
HELD:YES. The killing in this case was attended
by treachery. 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
especially to insure its execution without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. It is beyond dispute
that the killing of minor children who, by reason
of their tender years, could not be expected to
put up a defense, Is treacherous. HE WAS
FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER.
PEOPLE, vs. WILLIAM ANCHETA,EDGARDO
AREOLA, ANTOS DACANAY, LITO DE
LACRUZ, FELIPE ULEP @ BOY ULEP AND
ELY CALCALAG.R. No. 143935June 4, 2004
FACTS: Alfredo Roca was in his farm during
lunchtime about to take his lunch with his family
when an owner-type jeepney arrived with
multiple men alighting and then suddenly out of
nowhere pulled their guns and started to open
fire at him and his family. That even a hand
grenade was toss in the volley of bullets.
Defendant Felipe BOY Ulep, being

Yes. treachery is a generic aggravating

circumstance in robbery with homicide when the
victim of homicide is killed by treachery. There
was treachery as the events narrated by the
eyewitnesses pointed to the fact that the victims
could not have possibly been aware that they
would be attacked by appellant and his
companions. There was no opportunity for the
victims to defend themselves as the assailants,
suddenly and without provocation, almost
simultaneously fired their guns at them. The
essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpectedattack without the slightest
provocation on the partof the person attacked
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
v
ROLANDO ALFANTA yALOG.R. No.
125633December 9, 1999
FACTS:
On August 26, 1995 at around 12:00 o'clock
midnight, while asleep in the residence of a
friend, Rolando Alfanta, whom Nita Fernandez,
had not seen before, suddenly entered the
house where she was sleeping, pulled her and
boxed her jaw and put his hand on her mouth,
and told her that if she will not obey him, he will
kill her. She was forced to climb a fence.
Because of fear, as he was holding abolo, she
followed. Alfanta instructed her to go tot he
vacant house and she was told to undress, she
did because of fear. Thereafter, he molested her.
She was instructed to lie down and he then
inserted his genitals to her vagina. After that,
she was told to lie face down, she complied.
Thereafter, he inserted his penis to her anus.
After inserting his penis, he instructed her to turn
around face up, he inserted his fingers to her
private part. Then after all these acts, he told her

to lie beside him as he was going to take a rest.

Noticing that Alfanta was already sleeping, she
suddenly took the bolo and hacked him several
times. She went to the police station to report
the incident.
ISSUE: Whether or not nighttime and ignominy
be appreciated as aggravating circumstances
HELD: Yes. The silence and darkness of the
night has been taken advantage by the accused
in facilitating the commission of the crime by
insuring the offender's immunity from capture
and by ensuring his impunity from his illegal
acts. There was ignominy because the appellant
used not only the missionary position, i.e. male
superior, female inferior, but also the same
positionas dogs do i.e., entry from behind. The
appellant claims there was no ignominy because
The studies of many experts in the matter have
shown that this position is not novel and has
repeatedly and oftenbeen resorted to by couples
in the act of copulation.(Brief, p. 24.) This may
well be if the sexual act is performed by
consenting partners but not otherwise(People v.
Saylan). The means employed added ignominy
to the natural effects of the act as it added
disgrace to the injury caused by the crime.
People vs. Dizon
GR No. 13480226 October 2001
FACTS:
On July 7, 1997, around 9:30 p.m., complainant
Arlie Rosalin, then a 21-year old engineering
student from Dinalupihan, Bataan, alighted from
a bus as it stopped by a small bridge along
EDSA just before Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon
City. Seconds later, she heard someone

call out"Miss " and when she turned her head

around, shefound appellant, Renato
Dizon behind her. Appellant suddenly seized
her, pointing a fan knife to the side of her neck,
and announced a holdup. He then told her to
face the railing of the bridge and asked for her
wallet and jewelry. Terrified, private complainant
complied.
After appellant stripped her of her valuables,
appellant instructed private complainant to walk
with him along EDSA and pretend that they were
a couple. Private complainant could not ask for
anyone's help because, all the while, appellant
had his arm around her and a knife pressed to
her side. Scared as she was, however, private
complainant would furtively look at appellant's
face whenever they passed a lighted place,
vowing to herself that should she ever be able to
escape, she would remember him and have him
arrested.
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating
circumstance of cruelty be applied in this case.
HELD: Yes. Indeed, the term "cruelty" often
conjures bloody and gory images which are
conspicuously absent in this case. However, as
correctly pointed out by the trial court,
"the appreciation of cruelty, as an aggravating
circumstance, is relative. It depends upon the
crime committed. As long as the wrong done in
the commission of the offense is deliberately
augmented and that such wrong is not essential
for the accomplishment of the ultimate purpose
of the offender, the same could be considered as
aggravating. The nature of the wrong or the
number thereof is immaterial.".