People v Capalac
-
GR No. L38297 Date of Promulgation:
Oct 23, 1982
Ponente:
Fernando, CJ.
Petition:
Appeal from a decision of CFI of Iligan
Petitioners:
People of the Philippines
Respondents:
Mario Capalac
Facts : Moises Capalac, the brother of accused
Mario Capalac (a police officer), was stabbed by Jimmy Magaso. Following this
incident, in the cockpit of Iligan, Jimmy was trying to escape when he was
confronted by the Moises
brothers (Mario and Jesus 1) and 2 other companions 2
. The attempt of Jimmy to board a jeep was unsuccessful; he having alighted after
two shots were fired in succession. Knowing that he was completely at the mercy
of the two brothers, he raised his hands as a sign of surrender, but they were not
appeased. He was pistol-whipped by Mario, and after having fallen in the ground,
was
stabbed on the chest 3-4 times by Jesus
. He died on the way to the hospital. Mario was convicted of murder, as qualified
by
evident premeditation and treachery
. The lower Court also found that he took advantage of his position as a police
officer
. He was sentenced to death
. Mario appealed, thus this review.
Issues/Held: 1. WON there is an aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
public office/position
NO
2. WON there was a. Conspiracy - YES
b. Treachery
YES
c. Evident premeditation
NO
d. Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication
YES
Ratio:
1. The mere fact that appellant Mario is a member of the police force did not by
itself justify the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public
office/position. He acted like a brother (of Moises), instinctively reacting to what
was undoubtedly a vicious assault on his kin. He pistol-whipped the deceased
because he had a pistol with him. It came in handy and he acted accordingly. That
he was a policeman is of no relevance in assessing his criminal responsibility. 2.
a. There was conspiracy since the two brothers, as well as their 2 companions,
apparently had one purpose in mind, to avenge the stabbing of Moises. They all
acted in concert. b. There was treachery since the crime was committed to insure
that Jimmy would die. His situation was hopeless. Any defense he could have put
up would be futile and unavailing. There was also no risk to the aggressors since
two other companions assisted them. c.There is no evident premeditation. The
brothers were prompted by their desire to avenge Moises. They went after Jimmy,
assaulted him, and relied on the weapons
1 Jesus has already died and so he was not included as an accused in the
information filed.
2 The two companions were not named and were not included in the information.
that they carried. There was no evidence that they deliberately employed means
to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act. d. There is mitigating circumstance
of immediate vindication since the purpose of the crime was to vindicate the
stabbing of Moises by Jimmy.
Decision: Decision modified.
In lieu of mitigating circumstance of immeadiate vindication, penalty of death is
lowered to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor min to 17 years, 4 mos, and 1 day
of reclusion temporal max. Decision affirmed in all other aspects.
PEOPLE VS TIONGSON
FACTS: Rudy Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental
Mindoro, together with George de la Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where they were
detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide. While in the act of escaping,
the said Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the police force of
Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who was guarding the said accused, and PC
Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in Bulalacao, Oriental
Mindoro, who went in pursuit of them. ISSUE: WON there is an aggravating
circumstance of insult to public authority HELD: No aggravating circumstance of
insult to public authority The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were
committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities cannot also be
appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela were the very ones
against whom the crime were committed. Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable
Canela are not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority.
People vs. Magdueno
-On 15th day of October, 1980 the accused, conspiring and confederating together
and mutually helping one another, did there and then wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot one FERNANDO M. DILIG, inflicting upon the
latter mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of his death.
Committed with the aggravating circumstance of treachery, evident premeditation
that the crime was committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise; and
that the crime was committed in contempt with or with insult to authorities On
October 15, 1980, a few minutes past 8:00 o'clock in the morning, as soon as the
late Fiscal Fernando M. Dilig had placed himself at the driver's seat inside his jeep
parked near his house at the corner Roxas and D. Mendoza Streets, Puerto
Princesa City, all of a sudden, two successive gunshots burst into the air, as the
gunman coming from his left side aimed and poured said shots into his body,
inflicting two fatal wounds (Exhibit N) that instantaneously caused his death. Three
witnesses positively identified the assailant as accused Hermogenes Magdueo:
(1) Elena Adion Lim, while sitted (sic) at the gate of her fence, about 20 to 30
meters away from the house of Fiscal Dilig, saw the gunman coming from where
she heard two successive shots when he passed by her house, bringing a short
gun in his right hand and a clutch bag while hurriedly proceeding towards Liwanag
Street. On October 30, 1980, she identified accused Magdueno as the man she
saw that early morning of October 15, 1980; (2) Ernesto Mari Y Gonzales, a
security guard of the Malaria Eradication Service, this City, while on board a
tricycle, passing in front of the house of Fiscal Dilig, on his way home, likewise
heard the two gunshots coming from the direction of Fiscal Dilig's house, prompting
him to order the driver to stop. He described the gunman as wearing a white polo
shirt, blue pants and a hat, still holding the gun pointed at Fiscal Dilig. When the
gunman turned to his left side, Mari saw a scar on his left temple below his left
eyebrow. The man was still holding the gun in his right hand while walking in a
limping manner towards Mendoza Street. On the witness chamber, he positively
identified accused Hermogenes Magdueno as the gunman; (3) Cynthia Canto a
taxi dancer, residing at Jose Abad Santos, this City, while in front of the store of
Aling Charing near the house of Fiscal Dilig, waiting for a tricycle, saw the gunman
standing by for quite a time, then went nearer Fiscal Dilig who was then sitted (sic)
on the driver's seat of his jeep and fired two successive shots tothe latter, exiting
towards Mendoza Street. She could not be mistaken that accused Hermogenes
Magdueno was the gunman and when she came face to face with him at the
invitation of the police inPlaridel, Aborlan, Palawan, she readily Identified
Magdueo as the killer. Aggravating Circumstances: -increases the penalty 1)
Taking advantage of a public office 2) Insult to public authority 3) Disregard of rank,
age, or sex; dwelling 4) Abuse of confidence 5) Committed in the Palace of the
Chief Executive, etc., or place of Religious worship
PEOPLE VS. TAC-AN (the BRONX Gang)
Facts: In two criminal cases, the trial court found Renato Tac-An guilty of qualified
illegal possession of firearm and murder, imposing upon him the penalty of death
in both cases. Tac-An was a good friend and fellow Bronx Gang member of Francis
Escano III. They were both attending 3rd year high school in Divine World College
in Tagbilaran City. Tac-An was 18 years old while Escano was 15. Escano left the
gang after his mom told him to stop hanging out with Tac-An upon learning that
the latter had been carrying a gun around with him. From that point on, their
relationship soured. They got into a fist fight and derogatory graffitis against the
Bronx gang and Tac-An were written on the walls of the school saying. Tac-An
blamed Escano for this.
During an English class Tac-An got up from his chair and approached the teacher
to ask a question, leaving on his seat his scrapbook. When he returned to his chair
he found Escano sitting on his scrapbook. They got into a fist fight. After they were
seaparated, Tac-An sneaked out of the school, went home and got his gun. He
returned 15mins later during math class, under Mr. Pasilbas. Upon entering the
room he fired his gun and demanded for Escano. The students ran towards the
teacher for protection. As Escano was running towards the door, Tac-An shot him
on the head. The trial court found that the crime was aggravated with the
circumstance of contempt or insult to public authority.
Issue: W/N the crime was committed in contempt or with insult to public authority?
Held: Nope! A teacher or professor is not a public authority
Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1978 and
Presidential Decree No. 299, provides as follows:
Art. 152.Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority. Who shall be
deemed as such. In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles
of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual
or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission,
shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman
shall also be deemed a person in authority.
A person who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio
policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons
in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers,
professors and persons charged with the supervisionofpublic or duly recognized
private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance
of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance,shall be
deemed persons in authority.
Careful reading of the last paragraph of Article 152 will show that while a teacher
or professor of a public or recognized private school is deemed to be a "person in
authority," such teacher or professor is so deemed only for purposes of application
of Articles 148 (direct assault upon a person in authority), and 151 (resistance and
disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person) of the Revised
Penal Code. In marked contrast, the first paragraph of Article 152 does not identify
specific articles of the Revised Penal Code for the application of which any person
"directly vested with jurisdiction, etc." is deemed "a person in authority." Because
a penal statute is not to be given a longer reach and broader scope than is called
for by the ordinary meaning of the ordinary words used by such
statute, to the disadvantage of an accused, we do not believe that a teacher or
professor of a public or recognized private school may be regarded as a "public
authority" within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal
Code, the provision the trial court applied in the case at bar.
In addition, the SC also found no aggravating circumstance of evidence
premeditation for the simple reason that no sufficient evidence was presented to
prove that Tac-An had formed the intention and determination to take Escanos
life.
Similarly, the special aggravating circumstance of acting while under the influence
of Dangerous Drugs was also deleted because there was no medical proof
presented to show that Tac-An was high when he committed the crime.
So in the end, SC found no aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances.
PEOPLE v ARIZOBAL 341 SCRA 143
PROSECUTIONS CASE:Clementina Gimenez, wife of victim Laurencio, testified
that Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes and a third person wearing maskbarged into
their bedroom, ransacked their cabinet and scattered everything until they found
P8, 000among sheets of paper. They ordered Laurencio to go with them to Jimmy's
house. Laurencio went with them. Clementina heard a volley of shots. Her
grandchild could only mutter in fear, "Lolo is already dead!" Erlinda Gimenez, wife
of Jimmy, narrated that Jimmy with Francisco Gimenez arrived and informed her
that they had already bought a carabao. While he skinning a chicken for supper, 3
men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie face down. They tied Francisco
and Jimmy as they whipped the latter with an armalite rifle. The robbers proceeded
to ransack the household in search for valuables. They took around P1, 000and
told them to produce P100, 000 in exchange for Jimmy's life. The 3 masked men
then dragged Jimmy outside the house and together with Laurencio brought them
some 50 meters away while leaving behind Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes to
guard Francisco and Erlinda's son. Moments later she heard a burst of gunfire.The
masked men informed Erlinda that Jimmy and Laurencio had been killed for trying
to escape.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:DENIAL and ALIBI. Lignes testified that he
was at the house of Noli Hermosa, attending a house blessing and helped as cook
and food server. The occasion was attended by around 20 visitors.He said that he
did not know any Clarito Arizobal.
HELD:The robbery with killing was aggravated: By dwelling because the robbery
is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons. The trial court is
correct in appreciating dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Generally,
dwelling is considered inherent in the crimes which can only be committed in the
abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited place.
However, in robbery with homicide the authors thereof can commit the heinous
crime without transgressing the sanctity of the victim's domicile. In the case at bar,
the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the inviolability of the victims'
abode when they forced their way in, looted their houses, intimidated and coerced
their inhabitants into submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying their
hands before dragging them out of the house to be killed. The Decision of the RTC
finding ERLY LIGNES and CLARITO ARIZOBAL GUILTY of Robbery with
Homicide and imposing upon both of them the penalty of DEATH is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION.
PEOPLE v. DANIEL [86 SCRA 511 (1978)]
Nature: Appeal from judgment of CFI Baguio City, Belmonte.
FACTS: 13-yr old Margarita Paleng filed complaint against Amado Daniel alias
Amado Ato for the crime of rape.
On Sept 20, 1965, Margarita, a native of Mt Province, arrived in Baguio City from
Tublay in a Dangwa bus. She was then en route to her boarding house in Guisad
as she was a high school student at the Baguio Eastern High School. While she
was waiting inside the bus, the accused Daniel came and started molesting her by
inquiring her name and getting hold of her bag. She did not allow the latter and
instead called the attention of the bus driver and the conductor but was merely
shrugged by them. It seemed that they were also afraid of the accused. Despite
the rain, she left the bus and went to ride in a jeep parked some 100meters away.
The accused followed her and rode and sat beside her. When Margarita alighted
in Guisad, she was again followed by the accused. Reaching her boarding house,
she opened the door and was about to close it when the accused dashed in and
closed the door behind him. He pulled a dagger 8 inches long and threatened her
saying, If you will talk, I will kill you. Because of her fear, Margarita fell silent.
She was then forced to lie down w/ the accused placing a handkerchief in her
mouth and holding a dagger to her neck. Her attempts to flee was to no avail as
she was only 4 ft 8 inches tall & 95 lbs while Daniel was 5 ft 7 inches tall and
weighed 126 lbs. The accused was successful in having carnal knowledge of
Margarita. Thereafter she lost consciousness. When she recovered, Daniel had
already gone.
For his defense, Daniel asserts that he and Margarita have known each other since
1963 and this was in fact the 2nd time he had carnal knowledge of her. Also, he
alleges that he promised to marry Margarita and was actually surprised the she
filed the complaint against him. Medico-Legal report indicated that Margarita was
a virgin before the incident complained of.
HELD: The crime committed by Daniel is rape w/ the use of a deadly weapon w/
the aggravating circumstance of having been committed in the dwelling of the
offended party. Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding
house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a dwelling as the term
is used in Art 14 (3) RPC. It is not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns
the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-spacer,
the place is his home the sanctity of w/c the law seeks to protect and uphold.
The correct penalty is death pursuant to Aft 335 RPC. However, for lack of the
necessary number of votes, the penalty next lower in degree is to be applied.
Daniel is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to
indemnify Margarita Paleng by way or moral damages of PhP12K.
PEOPLE v APDUHAN (24 SCRA 798) August 30, 1968 G.R. No. L-19491
The circumstance of band is a qualifying circumstance only in robbery punished
by subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 of Article 294 and a generic aggravating circumstance
in robbery with homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, and lesiones graves resulting
in insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness. Hence, if robbery with homicide is
committed by a band, the indictable offense would still be "robbery with homicide"
under Article 294(1) and not robbery with homicide in band."
Facts: The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., alias
Junior, Rodulfo Huiso and Felipe Quimson of the crime of Robbery with Homicide,
committed as follows: That on or about the 23rd day of May, 1961, at about 7:00
o'clock in the evening, in the Municipality of Mabini, Province of Bohol, Philippines,
the above-named accused and five (5) other persons, all of them armed with
different unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons, conspiring,
confederating and helping one another, with intent of gain, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously enter, by means of violence, the dwelling house
of the spouses Honorato Miano and Antonia Miano, which was also the dwelling
house of their children, the spouses Geronimo Miano and Herminigilda de Miano;
and, once inside the said dwelling house, the above-named accused with their five
(5) other companions, did attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano and another
person by the name of Norberto Aton, who happened to be also in the said dwelling
house, thereby inflicting upon the said two (2) persons physical injuries which
caused their death; and thereafter the same accused and their five (5) other
companions, did take and carry way from said dwelling house cash money
amounting to Three Hundred Twenty-two Pesos (P322.00), Philippine Currency,
belonging to Honorato Miano and Geronimo Miano, Act committed contrary to the
provisions of Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code with the special
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band with the use of
unlicensed firearms (Art. 296, Rev. Penal Code), and other aggravating
circumstances, as follows: 1. That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the
offended parties without any provocation from the latter; 2. That nighttime was
purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime; and. 3. That advantage
was taken of superior strength, accused and their companions, who were fully
armed, being numerically superior to the offended parties who were unarmed and
defenceless. Issue: Whether or not dwelling was considered an aggravating
circumstance.
Held: YES. The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence
or intimidation of persons, 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. This Court in People vs.
Pinca, citing People vs. Valdez, 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
People vs. Mandolado [June 28, 1983]
Facts: Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano, draftees assigned with the Alpha
Company, 3rd Infantry Battalion, Second Infantry Division of the Philippine Army
stationed at Pikit, North Cotabato, were accused for the murder of Herminigildo
Tenorio and his driver Nolasco Mendoza in the afternoon of October 3, 1977 at
Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao qualified with the aggravating circumstances of
treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength.
In the morning of that date, Ortillano, Mandolado, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto
Simon, AFP trainees/draftees, were passengers of a bus bound for Midsayap,
North Cotabato. After reaching Midsayap, while still in uniform, they decided to
drink ESQ rum at the bus terminal.
Erinada and Simon decided to join the accused in going to Pikit, North Cotabato,
the home base of the accused. After an hour of drinking, Mandolado got drunk and
went inside the public market. When he returned, he grabbed his .30 caliber
machine gun and started firing. Companions tried to dissuade him but Mandolado
just wont stop.
Troubled enough, Erinada and Simon ran away, hailed and boarded a passing
Ford Fiera with some passengers on board. The accused followed and also
boarded the same vehicle. The soldiers forced the driver to bring them to the
Midsayap crossing.
On the way, Mandolado got his knife and tried to attack the driver. After appellants
alighted at said crossing, the Ford Fiera sped away. Mandolado fired his machine
gun at the speeding vehicle, hitting the back of the drivers sister who was also on
board.
At the said crossing, waiting for a ride, a privately owned jeep driven by Tenorio
passed by. The appellants shouted at the driver, to stop vehicle and allow them to
board it. While Mandolado and Ortillano were inside the jeep, they kept on firing
their guns. Tenorio remarked: If you will not stop firing your guns I will ram this
jeep into something.
When Mandolado learned that the jeep was bound for Cotabato City and not Pikit,
North Cotabato, he got so angry, cocked his gun and ordered the driver to stop.
While the jeep was coming to a full stop, Erinida and Simon got off the jeep and
ran towards their detachment camp which was just nearby. Then the killing
transpired. Mendoza and Tenorio were dead.
Issue: Whether or not the specific circumstance of abuse of confidence may be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
Held: NO. In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is
necessary that there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused
and one against whom the crime was committed and the accused made use of
such a relationship to commit the crime. (People v. Comendador). It is also
essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal
such as would give the accused undue advantage or make it easier for him to
commit the said crime. In the instant case, there is absolutely no showing of any
personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence might rest between the
victims and the assailants who had just met each other then. Thus, no confidence
and abuse thereof could have facilitated the commission of the crimes.
PEOPLE V. JOSE RODAS, SR. AND ARMANDO RODAS
Facts: The two accused-appellants here were charged together with 2 others who
pleaded guilty to homicide before the prosecution could rest its case.
Jose Rodas, Sr. with his 3 children, co-appellant Armando Rodas, Charlito Rodas
and Jose Rodas, Jr., were charged for murdering victim Titing Asenda.
Titing Asenda was at a dance near the presence of Alberto Asonda and Ernie
Anggot, the two eyewitnesses to the crime. The two eyewitnesses testified that
they saw the Rodas family suddenly surround Titing Asenda. Charlito stabbed
Titing in the back. Then Armando clubbed Titing with a chako [nunchucks] causing
him to fall. Then Jose Sr. handed Jose Jr. with a bolo which Jr. used to hack Titing
in the elbow.
The eyewitnesses tried to help Titing but Armando pointed a gun at them. The
Rodas Family left and when the eyewitnesses approached Titing he was already
dead.
The defense of Appellants Jose Sr. and Armando was alibi. That they were not
present in the dance and it was only Charlito and Jose Jr. who killed Titing, the two
who pleaded guilty.
Despite the alibi, the RTC convicted appellant Jose Sr. and Armando of murder
qualified by Treachery.
Issue: Appellants guilty of killing Titing? Aggravating Circumstances?
Held: SC finds Jose Sr. and Armando guilty of Murder, qualified by treachery.
Denial or Alibi cannot override the positive and credible testimony of two
eyewitness.
NOTE Justice Callejo assigned this case under Evident Premeditation but
because the SC had a short discussion on this, I think we should discuss other
circumstances considered by the Court.
A. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be
established:
(1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime;
(2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and
(3) sufficient lapse of time between decision and execution to allow the accused to
reflect upon the consequences of his act.
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the
criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. All the
SC said was that the prosecution failed to establish this circumstance.
B. 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, and without
the slightest provocation on the part of the victim.
Here, Titing was completely unaware that he was going to be attacked. He was
not forewarned of any danger to himself as there was no altercation or
disagreement between the accused and the victim. The suddenness of the attack,
the number of the accused and their use of weapons against the unarmed victim
prevent the possibility of any defense or retaliation by the victim. The fact that the
victim was already sprawled on the ground and still Jose Jr. hacked him with a
bolo clearly constitutes treachery.
C. Nocturnity cannot also be considered against the appellants. Nocturnity is
aggravating only when it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially
sought or taken advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity. The
essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, and not
merely the chronological onset of, nighttime. Although the offense was committed
at night, nocturnity does not become a modifying factor when the place is
adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the offenders
immunity from identification or capture. Here, the dance was adequately lighted
which led to the positive identification of the Rodas family.
D. Abuse of Superior attended the killing since there was glaring disparity of
strength between the victim and the four accused. The victim was unarmed while
the accused were armed with a hunting knife, chako and bolo. However, this is
absorbed in Treachery.
PEOPLE VS DAMASO
[G.R. No. L-30116] November 20, 1978
Facts:
Fausto Damaso, Victoriano Eugenio Lorenzo Alviar, and Bonifacio Espejo are
convicted of robbery with double homicide. On November 21, 1959, 9:00pm,
Donata Rebolledo and her son-in-law Victoriano de la Cruz heard their dogs
barking outside their house, and two armed men entered, pointed their weapons
at them, tied up Victoriano and covered him; they asked Donata for the
whereabouts of her daughter Catalina Sabado. Donata kept silent and blocked the
door leading to her daughter's room but was promptly pushed aside. She was
ordered to open an "aparador" from which they took jewelry, clothing, documents,
and cutting instruments. The two men brought Catalina Sabado down from the
house and then asked where they could find the other daughter Susana Sabado
who was then in her store nearby. Thereafter, Donata heard the men opening the
door to Susana's store, and Donata untied the hands of Victoriano and asked him
to go to the store to see if her daughters were there; both women could not be
found. It was only the following morning, in a sugar plantation, the women were
found already dead with wounds in several parts of their bodies. Contention of the
Accused: The accused contends that the crime was not attended by the
aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery and uninhabited place.
Issue:
Whether or not there was aggravating circumstance to aggravate criminal liability
Decision:
AC of band exists whenever more than three armed malefactors act together in
the commission of an offense. It was found that Damaso, Eugenio, Alviar, and
Gregorio were armed during the commission of the crime. In this case, the
presence of an armed band is to be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance (Art 14(6), RPC) inasmuch as the crime committed was that provided
for and penalized in Art 294(1) and not under Art 295, RPC. Treachery is present
if the victim is killed while bound in such a manner as to be deprived of the
opportunity to repel the attack or escape with any possibility of success. The fact
that the bodies of Catalina and Susana were found dead with their arms tied behind
their backs as well as the admission of Gregorio in his confession that he killed the
sisters while their arms were held by Eugenio and Damaso lead SC to believe the
offense was done under treacherous circumstances. The uninhabitedness of a
place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the
crime, but whether or not in the place of commission, there was reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving some help. Considering that the killing was done
during nighttime and the sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct the view
of neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victims to
receive any assistance. That the accused deliberately sought the solitude of the
place is clearly shown by the fact that they brought the victims to the sugarcane
field although they could have disposed of them right in the house of Donata
Rebolledo where they were found. Decision is affirmed; penalty is to be imposed
in its maximum period with three AC found by the trial court, to wit: commission by
a band, done with treachery, and in an uninhabited place. There is likewise the
additional aggravating circumstance that the robbery was committed in the
dwelling of the victim.
PEOPLE v BALDERA
April 24, 1950 | REYES
Plaintiff: People of PH | Defendants: Pedro Baldera, Miguel Blay, Jose Dela Cruz,
et al
TOPIC: Aggravating Circumstances Personal Circumstances of the Offender
RECIDIVISM
FACTS
Pedro Baldera was found guilty of robbery in band with homicide and serious and
less serious physical injuries. He was sentenced to death.
Dec 23, 1947, 4am: A Casa Manila bus left Batangas, bound for Manila. It was
held-up by a group of 5-6 men, one of them was Baldera.
Baldera, who was armed with a .45 caliber pistol, fired a shot, followed by a hail of
bullets from different directions. After firing had ceased, Baldera got on the bus
and took the passengers money, threatening them with his gun. He got off the bus
and ordered the bus to proceed.
The driver headed for the municipal building of San Juan and reported the incident
to the authorities. Wounded passengers were taken to the hospital. One passenger
died the following day.
Shortly after the commission of the crime, Baldera was arrested in Batangas for
theft of a radio. His features matched descriptions by the passengers.
He made a written confession, admitting his participation in the crime as the one
who, armed with a pistol, boarded the bus and though intimidation, took the
passengers money.
Later on, testifying in his own defense, he denied participation, claiming he spent
the night in a house of prostitution in Batangas, where he was employed by the
prostitutes for drawing water
4 people were prosecuted and tried for the crime. Case was dismissed for 2 of the
accused, but Baldera and Miguel Blay were found guilty.
- Baldera: death
- Blay: life imprisonment
ISSUES/HELD/RATIO
1. W/N Balderas confession is admissibleYES
Balderas Confession was allegedly made for him to be given protection from his
co-accused, and to use him as a government witness. But he later on said the
confession was taken through force and intimidation. The latter was not proved.
But his confession still stands. Where one of several codefendants turns state's
evidence on a promise of immunity, but later retracts and fails to keep his part of
the agreement, his confession made under such promise may then be used
against him.
2. W/N Balderas alibi standsNO
His prostitute alibi cannot stand against the clear and positive testimony of one of
the passengers, Ponciano Villena, who has not shown to have any motive for
falsely testifying against him.
3. W/N the following aggravating circumstances are present:
a. Crime committed is robbery in band and robbery was perpetrated by
attacking a vehicleYES
The fact that there were more than 3 armed men in the group that held up the bus
appears in Balderas own confession and is established by the uncontradicted
testimony of one of the government witnesses.
But this is immaterial because in the crime of robbery with homicide it is not
essential that the robbery be in band, but it may count as an aggravation in the
imposition of the penalty.
Even if it is not taken into account, there remains the other aggravating
circumstance that the robbery was perpetrated by attacking a vehicle, which is not
offset by any mitigating circumstance.
W/N the lower court erred in holding against the accused the circumstance of
recidivism by reason of his previous conviction for theftYES
b. RECIDIVISM by reason of Balderas previous conviction for theftNO
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime also punishable in the
RPC. (Art 14 RPC)
No recidivism because Balderas crime of theft was committed on or about
December 30, 1947 while the offense now charged took place 7 days before that
date.
SENTENCE REDUCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT
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 or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is
established by the facts.
Held: YES. Those facts establish the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation.
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 v. Ilaoa
Facts: Nestor de Loyola, Ruben and Rogelio Ilaoa were having a drinking spree
when Ruben and Nestor engaged in an argument. Nestor was then kicked and
mauled by Ruben and his brother Rodel and Julius Eliginio and Edwin Tapang.
Thereafter he was dragged to Rubens apartment. Ruben and Julius later
borrowed the tricycle of a certain Alex Villamil. Ruben was seen driving the tricycle
with a sack in the sidecar that looked like it contained a human body.
The decapitated body of Nestor de Loyola was found in a grassy portion at Tinio
St., Angeles City. Apart from the decapitation, the decease bore 43 stab wounds
in the chest as well as slight burns all over the body. The head was found 2 feet
away from the corpse (ihhhhhhh)
Defense: Ruben claims that the sack contained buntot ng pusa, a local term for
marijuana, not a human body, which he delivered to a designated place in Fields
Avenue as a favor to his compadre Nestor de Loyola whom he could not refuse.
Issue: Whether or not the crime was attended with cruelty
Held: NO. The fact that Nestors decapitated body bearing 43 stab wounds, 24 of
which were fatal, was found dumped in the street is not sufficient for a finding of
cruelty where there is no showing that Ruben, for his pleasure and satisfaction,
cause Nestor to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary
physical and moral pain. Number of wound alone is not the criterion for the
appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. Neither can it be inferred
from the mere fact that the victims body was dismembered.
PEOPLE V. EMPACIS
FACTS: At about 9pm, as vicitms Fidel Saromines and his wife Camila were about
to close their small store in Cebu, 2 men, Romualdo Langomez and Crisologo
Empacis, came and asked to buy some sardines and rice. After they finished
eating, Langomez announced a hold-up and ordered Fidel to give up his money.
The latter started to hand him PhP12K but suddenly decided to fight to keep it. A
struggle followed in the course of w/c Langomez stabbed Fidel about 3 times.
Empacis joined in and w/ his own knife also stabbed Fidel. At this time, gunshots
were heard outside the house (im guessing the gun shots were signals by the 3
other conspirators).
It was only when Peter, Fidels 13-yr old son, saw his father fighting for his life and
rushed to his fathers defense w/ a pinuti (a long bolo) striking Empacis and
inflicting 2 wounds on him did the 2 men flee. Fidel died from the fatal injuries, w/c
penetrated his lungs and heart. Empacis went to the clinic of Dr Eustaquio for the
treatment of his wounds inflicted by Peter. He told the doctor that he was assaulted
w/o warning by a young man near the Papan Market.
The next day, police officers went looking for a man who might have been treated
for wounds from a bladed weapon. They came to Dr Eustaquios clinic who told
them about Empacis. He was found at the public market where they arrested him.
He admitted going to the store of Fidel but denied having joined Langomez in his
attack. He asserts that he tried to stop him but the latter succeeded in stabbing
Fidel. He further alleges that he was brought by his neighbors to the clinic. The
other 2 men, who were accused of firing the gun from outside, denied any
participation in the crime. They were both absolved by the court. Langomez
disappeared & could not be found.
Several aggravating circumstances: 1. Dwelling of the offended party 2. Nighttime
3. Employment of craft and fraud. 4. Advantage being taken of superior strength
HELD:
1. CRAFT AND FRAUD was properly appreciated against Empacis. Both men
pretended to be bona fide customers of the victims store and on this pretext gained
entry into the latters store and later, into another part of his dwelling. In previous
cases, the Court held the presence of fraud or craft when one pretended to be
constabulary soldiers to gain entry into a residence to rob and kill the residents,
pretended to be needful of medical treatment only killing the owner of the house,
and pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way to enter into a house.
2. NIGHTTIME was also properly appreciated as nocturnity was deliberately and
purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime. Nighttime is not per se
aggravating unless shown that it was deliberately and purposely sought to facilate
or actually facilitated the commission of the crime. The lateness of the hour
prevented other customers from being there to defer the act or coming to the aid
of the victims.
3. SUPERIOR STRENGTH properly appreciated. To be deemed present, it doesnt
suffice to prove superiority in number on the part of the malefactors but that they
purposely employed excessive force, force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person attacked w/c was present in this case. Empacis &
his companion took advantage of their combined strength & their bladed weapons
to overcome their unarmed victim & assure the success of their felonious design
to take the money.
4. DWELLING also. The victim not having given provocation.
PEOPLE v. SANGALANG [58 SCRA 737 (1974)]
Nature: Appeal from CFI Tagaytay (wow!) judgment
June 9, 1968, 6 a.m.: Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut in Silang, Cavite
to gather tuba from a nearby coconut tree. His wife Flora Sarno was left inside the
hut. While on top of the tree, Cortez was struck by a valley of shots. He later on
fell to the ground at the base of the coconut tree. Flora went outside & was
supposed to help his husband but the five persons each armed w/a long firearm
fired at her too. She went back to the hut for cover but she was able to recognize
the 5 as Conrado Gonzales, Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel, Eleuterio Cuyom &
Laureano Sangalang. The latter was known to Flora & her bro Ricardo since
childhood. The five left after about 5mins & when she returned to her husband, he
was already dead.
Ricardo Sarno, Floras bro who lived nearby, heard the gunshots too.
He went out & saw Sangalang shooting Cortez w/a Garand carbine. He was
supposed to help Cortez but he was fired upon by the men too.
 Sarno & Flora executed sworn statements & based on these, a
complaint against the 5 offenders was filed. Only Sangalang was arrested. CFI
convicted him of murder & was sentenced to RP.
Defense: Sangalang claims that during that time, he was in Sampaloc,
Manila to borrow money from a certain Gatdula for the tuition fees of his children.
He likewise impugns the credibility of Mrs. Cortez & Ricardo.
Issues & Ratio:
1. WON Sangalangs alibi is admissible
NO. Discrepancies in the testimonies of Sarno & Mrs. Cortez are not
glaring and instead these strengthen their credibility & show that they did not
rehearse their testimonies.
Cortez & Sarno clearly & consistently testified that Sangalang was
among those who shot Ricardo. Their unwavering identification negates
Sangalangs alibi.
Although motive for killing was not proven, it was not shown either that
Cortez & Sarno were impelled by malicious desires to falsely incriminate
Sangalang.
2. WON the qualifying AC of treachery (alevosia) should be appreciated.
YES. When the crime happened, victim was on top of a coconut tree.
He was unarmed & defenseless. The assault was unexpected. He didnt give any
immediate provocation. Deliberate & surprise attack insured victims killing w/o any
risk to the offenders arising from any defense w/c the victim could have made.
Thus, offense is murder.
Treachery absorbs the AC of band.
Evident premeditation, though alleged, was not proven.
Held: CFI affirmed.
PEOPLE V. DEL CASTILLO
Facts:
About 6pm of November 25, 1962, Sedesias del Castillo SED, Castromayor,
Palencia and Patanao came from a drinking session in one Badong;s house in
Sara, Iloilo.
It was slightly raining, so del Castillo, Castromayor and Palencia, (not Patanao
though), sought shelter in the house of Nene Emak. There they saw Pedro del
Castillo, Sr. who also took refuge from the rain.
While waiting for the rain to stop a heated argument ensued between
Castromayor and Pedro del Castillo, Sr. PERDO SR which resulted in a fist fight.
Castromayor had the upper hand but came out with a torn shirt.
Sedesias del Castillo offered Castromayor his T- shirt following when the group
went home.
While walking, Sedesias del Castillo told them to stay on the side of the road as
a jeep (driven by Pedro del Castillo, Jr., JUNIOR (another character), his dad
PEDRO SR. was inside was well) was coming fast.
The jeep came swiftly, suddenly swerving and hit
SED, who was thrown about a meter away.
PEDRO SR, with a blunt instrument, jumped out and struck SED at the back of
the head. Then followed by
two more stab blows in the neck.
Realizing that the person he had assaulted was not
Castromayor, but SED, his first cousin, PEDRO SR
ran after Castromayor but failed to overtake him.
Meanwhile, JUNIOR (the son) upon realizing that he ran over his Uncle SED,
carried the latter in his jeep and brought him to Dr. Javellana, Rural Health
Physician who examined the victim and found him to have suffered injuries n the
neck and jaw, abrasions and contusions. The cause of death was determined
as due to shock.
Both PEDRO JR & SR. were charged with murder in
the Iloilo CFI, with penalties of reclusion perpetua
Their defense is denial and alibi.Though PEDRO SR admitted that he and
Castromayor met in the house of Emak where they had heated discussion about
inheritance. Castromayor, apparently, was irritated at PEDRO SRs intervention in
the discussion and, as a consequence, Castromayor boxed appellant-accused
in the head.
They grappled and PEDRO SR was able to hit back
Castromayor who fell on the floor. Castromayor accused SED of trying to take
sides with PEDRO SR, but SED explained that he was only trying to stop the fight.
Castromayor warned SED that time will come when he will pay for it.
Thereafter, PEDRO SR arrived home at about 7pm when he told his son,
JUNIOR, to dress up as they would go to the dance at the Sara Elementary School
with Mayor Ricardo Zerrudo.
With JUNIOR driving the jeep, they proceeded to the mayors house who boarded
the jeep and they all went to Sara Elementary School
About 9pm, PEDRO SR noticed a commotion in the street. He immediately
notified Mayor Zerrudo about it and together they went to the place of the
commotion and learned that something was going on inside the house of Jose del
Castillo.
They went inside and saw the body of SED lying on top of the table. Mayor
Zerrudo inquired from a peace officer which told him that Castromayor and SED
had a quarrel which resulted in the death of the latter.
Further, appellants argue that the theory of the prosecution is highly incredible in
that it was improbable for appellant not to have recognized his own cousin SED
and to have stabbed him TWICE on the neck after turning him over on his face.
Issue:
5. WON there was treachery? YES
6. WON nighttime can be applied? NO
7. WON there was conspiracy YES
8. WON use of a motor vehicle can be applied? YES
Held:
d) The Court ruled against the appellants, mainly because of the eyewitness
testimony of Virgilio Palencia. He testifies that he saw the jump drive by fast, driven
by JUNIOR, the jeep hitting SED. Also, Palencia testifies that he saw PEDRO SR
stab SED from behind, and a few moments after, that PEDRO SR ran after
Castromayor. Palencia even adds that after seeing this happen, he approached
JUNIOR and said, Why do you not pity Toto Decias (SED). To which JUNIOR
replied, Is that Toto Decias?. When Palencia said yes, JUNIOR asked for his help
to bring him to the poblacion doctor.
So clearly there was intent and an actus reus causing the death of SED due to the
treachery of PEDRO SR and JUNIOR. It all makes sense that when JUNIOR hit
SED, it is because Castromayor is wearing SEDs shirt, thus causing the mistake
in identity. It clearly showed the treachery of their act of killing Castromayor
supposedly.Considering that appellants employed means which tended directly to
especially ensure its commission without risk to themselves, the killing of the victim
was qualified by treachery which whenever present in the commission of the crime
should be taken into account whether or not the victim was or was not the same
person whom they have intended to kill.
e) The trial court erred in considering nighttime as a generic aggravating
circumstance since it is necessarily included or absorbed in the qualifying
circumstance of treachery.
f) There was conspiracy between appellantsto commit the crime as shown by the
circumstance that immediately, after Pedro Jr. had bumped the deceased with the
jeep he was driving, PEDRO SR jumped from the jeep and with a blunt instrument
stabbed his victim twice on the neck.
4. Under paragraph 20, Article 14 of the RPC, motor vehicle would be an
aggravating circumstance if the crime was committed by means thereof. There is
no question that in this case this aggravating circumstance should be appreciated
since the defendants used a jeep and it facilitated the commission of the crime.
Note: Though the proper penalty should be death, due to the lack of necessary
votes, the Court decided to have imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE v. ESCOTE
(robbery wit homicide is classified as a crime against property. Nevertheless,
treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in said crime if the victim of
homicide is killed treacherously)
Facts: At past midnight, Rodolfo Cacatian (regular driver of Five Star passenger
bus, hereinafter referred as the driver) drove the bus from Pasay City to
Pangasinan. Six additional passengers boarded the bus in Balintawak, including
Acuyan and Escote, who held up the bus (they had handguns) as they were
passing Bulacan. Both fired their guns upward and accosted the passengers,
divesting them of their money and valuables. Apparently, SPO1 Manio was aboard
the bus. When the felons went to him and asked for his wallet and ID. When they
found out his was a police officer and saw his service gun, they said: Pasensya
ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rinangpapataysayo. The police officer
pleaded for mercy: Pare maawa ka sa akin. May pamilyaako. But the two ignored
his plea and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and rights side of the body.
Manio sustained six entrance wounds. The bus driver was ordered to maintain the
speed of the bus. He heard one of them say Ganyanlangangpumatayngtao.
Parangpumapatayngmanok. The other said, Ayosnanamantayo pare. Malaki-
lakiito. They alighted from the bus and instructed the driver not to report the
incident (all in all, robbery was over in 25 mintues).
Naturally, the driver and conductor reported the incident to police. Barely a month
after at about midnight, a team of policemen were at a checkpoint along the
national highway in Tarlac. A white taxi cab without a plate was stopped and asked
the driver, who was Escote, for his ID. Escote said he was a policeman and handed
over the ID of SPO1 Manio and the money they had taken from the heist. The
police became suspicious because the ID had already expired. He asked Escote
if the latter had a new payslip. When Escote could not produce any, he finally
confessed he was not policeman and was brought to the station. He was frisked
and they found five bullets of a 9mm in his pocket. During investigation, Escote
admitted that he and Acuyan staged the robbery on the bus and killed Manio. The
RTC found both of them guilty for the crime of robbery with homicide and was
sentenced to death.
They are now before the SC, appealing among others, the propriety of the both the
conviction and the penalty. The highest penalty is meted out if there is an
aggravating circumstance.
Issues:Is the aggravating circumstance of treachery present? - YES (But how can
that be? Treachery is considered in crimes against persons and in this case,
robbery with homicide is a crime against property. see discussion below)
(NOTE on the anticlimactic decision: the SC said treachery cannot be considered
against the two because it was not alleged in the Information. Nyark.)
Ratio:
General Discussion on the Crime of Robbery with Homicide
To warrant the conviction of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons under Art. 294, the prosecution was able to prove the following elements:
1) taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a
person; 2) property taken belonged to another; 3) the taking is characterized by
intent to gain or animus lucrandi, and 4) on the occasion of the robbery or by
reason thereof, the crime of homicide was committed.
The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. In robbery with homicide,
so long as the intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before, during
or after the robbery. Even if the victim of robbery is other than the victim of the
homicide, there is only one single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.
All the crimes committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged
and integrated into a single and indivisible felony. All those who took part as
principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with
homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears they
endeavored to prevent it.
The Penalty of the RTC: Death (impliedly taking into account treachery)
Under Art. 63, par.1, the felons shall be meted out the supreme penalty of death
when the crime is committed with an aggravating circumstance absent any
mitigating. The RTC did not specify any aggravating circumstance in its decision.
However, it is evident from the facts contained in the body of the decision that it
imposed the death penalty on its finding that they shot Manio treacherously. Its
elements were 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, 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 to the aggressor. 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 this case, the victim was shot when he was defenseless, pleading for his life,
and at short range. This killing is a grim example of the utter inhumanity of man to
his fellowmen.
Treachery as an Aggravating Circumstance: Legal Basis
The SC has ruled over the years that treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance in the felony of robbery with homicide, a special complex crime and
at the same time a single and indivisible offense. However, in two cases, the SC
has held that robbery with homicide is a crime against property. Treachery is
appreciated only in crimes against persons and hence, should not be appreciated
as a generic aggravating circumstance. It held in another case that it is not
appreciated in robbery with rape precisely because it is a crime against property.
These ruling finds support in case law that in robbery with homicide and rape, the
latter are merely incidents of the robbery with robbery being the main purpose and
object of the criminal. But the SC ruled otherwise in the later case of People v.
Cando when it ruled that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in
robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed with treachery. The SC
opted not to apply its earlier rulings that same year (i.e. in People v. Bariquit).
Criminal law commentators are not in agreement as well. Aquino and Reyes said
it only applies to crimes against persons. But Regalado says that it can be
appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned.
Turning to Spanish Construction
It must be recalled that the 1850 Penal Code of Spain, amended by Penal Reform
Code of 1870, was applied in the Philippines. The Penal Code of 1887 in the
Philippines was amended by Act 3815 (RPC), which was enacted and published
in Spanish. In construing the Old and Revised Penal Code, the SC had accorded
respect and persuasive, if not conclusive, effect of the decision of the SC of Spain
in construing the 1850 Penal Code.
Art. 14, par. 16 on treachery is a reproduction of the 1850 Penal Code of Spain
with a slight difference. In the latter law, the words the persons are used whereas
in the RPC, the words the person are used. Going by the letter of the law,
treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons as enumerated in Title Eight
(Chapts. 1 and 2), Book II of the RPC. However, the SC of Spain has consistently
applied treachery to robbery with homicide, classified as a crime against property.
The ratio behind it is when robbery is coupled with crimes against persons, the
crime is not only an assault of the property but also of the victims themselves.
Treachery is not a qualifying circumstance because the SC of Spain said that the
word homicide is used in its broadest and most generic sense.
Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide. Neither is it a crime specially
punishable by law nor is it included by the law in defining the crime of
robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty. It is neither inherent in the said
crime. Hence, it should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance for
the imposition of the proper penalty. In applying this, the law looks at the
constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against persons and not at the
constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against property. The crime of
robbery with homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against property
or as a special complex and single and indivisible crime simply because treachery
is applied. Treachery only increased the penalty in accordance with Art. 63.
SCs Ruling on the Penalty
Despite the foregoing, treachery cannot be appreciated in this case because it was
not alleged in the Information, as mandated by Sec. 8, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure. Hence, reclusion perpetua only.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NICOLAS GUZMAN
G.R. No. 169246 January 26, 2007
FACTS: After attending a worship service at the Iglesia ni Kristo church in his
barangay, Michael proceeded home. While Michael was casually walking along
the corner of Sto. Nino Street and Mactan Street, appellant and his two
companions, who were drinking nearby, suddenly approached and surrounded
Michael. Appellant positioned himself at the back of Michael while his two
companions stood in front of Michael. In an instant, they grabbed the shoulders of
Michael and overpowered the latter. One of the appellant's companions, whom the
prosecution witnesses described as a male with long hair, drew out a knife and
repeatedly stabbed Michael on the stomach. Unsatisfied, the appellant's other
companion, whom the prosecution witnesses described as a male with flat top hair,
took the knife and stabbed Michael on the stomach. As the finale, appellant went
in front of Michael, took the knife and also stabbed Michael on the stomach. When
Michael fell on the ground, appellant kicked him at the body. Upon noticing that the
bloodied Michael was no longer moving, appellant and his two companions fled
the scene. The appellant was convicted by the trial court with the crime of murder.
On appeal, appellant contends that even if he were held liable for the death of
Michael, there was no treachery which will qualify the killing as murder. According
to him, there is no evidence to show that appellant and his two companions had
deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of attack to ensure its execution
without risk to themselves. The stabbing incident occurred in a place that was
properly lighted. There were many people in the area then walking in different
directions. He claims that if he and his two companions wanted to ensure that no
risk would come to them, then they could have chosen another time and place to
attack Michael.
ISSUE: Can treachery be properly appreciated in the instant case?
HELD: Yes. Treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack under the
circumstances that renders the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by
reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. It is an aggravating
circumstance that qualifies the killing of a person to murder. Article 14, paragraph
(16) of the Revised Penal Code states the concept and essential elements of
treachery as an aggravating circumstance. 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 which the offended party
might make.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, two essential elements/conditions are
required in order that treachery may be appreciated: (1) The employment of
means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety
from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, who has, thus no
opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; (2) deliberate or conscious choice of
means, methods or manner of execution. Further, it must always be alleged in the
information and proved in trial in order that it may be validly considered.
In the instant case, treachery was alleged in the Information against appellant.
Moreover, all the essential elements/conditions of treachery were established and
proven during the trial. The suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of
appellant and his two companions rendered Michael defenseless, vulnerable and
without means of escape. It appears that Michael was unarmed and alone at the
time of the attack. Further, he was merely seventeen years of age then. In such a
helpless situation, it was absolutely impossible for Michael to escape or to defend
himself against the assault of appellant and his two companions. Being young and
weak, Michael is certainly no match against adult persons like appellant and his
two companions. Michael was also outnumbered since he had three assailants
and was unarmed when he was stabbed to death. Appellant and his two
companions took advantage of their size, number, and weapon in killing Michael.
They also deliberately adopted means and methods in exacting the cruel death of
Michael by first surrounding him, then grabbing his shoulders and overpowering
him. Afterwards, each of them repeatedly stabbed Michael with a knife at the
stomach until the latter fell lifeless to the ground. The stab wounds sustained by
Michael proved to be fatal as they severely damaged the latter's large intestine.
The fact that the place where the incident occurred was lighted and many people
were walking then in different directions does not negate treachery. It should be
made clear that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on
an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his part. This is even
more true if the assailant is an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children, who
by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus,
when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.
People v. Jaime Jose, G.R. No. L-28232
Subject Matter: Conspiracy
Facts:
On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., Eduardo
Aquino and Rogelio Caal conspired together, confederated with and mutually
helped one another, then and there, to willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena Maggie dela Riva, 25 years old and
single, a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four
principal accused, by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon, have
carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will, and brought her to the
Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed the crime of Forcible Abduction
with Rape.
Having established the element of conspiracy, the trial court finds the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of forcible abduction with rape and
sentences each of them to the death penalty.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court made a proper ruling of the case considering the
element of conspiracy.
Held:
No, the trial courts ruling was not proper. The SC ruled that since the element of
conspiracy was present, where the act of one is the act of all, each of the accused
is also liable for the crime committed by each of the other persons who conspired
to commit the crime. The SC modified the judgment as follows: appellants Jaime
Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., and Eduardo Aquino are guilty of the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape and each and every one of them is likewise convicted
of three (3) other crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is
likewise convicted with four death penalties and to indemnify the victim of the sum
of P10,000 in each of the four crimes. The case against Rogelio Caal was
dismissed only in so far as the criminal liability is concerned due to his death in
prison prior to promulgation of judgment.

PEOPLE V SAYLAN
Memory aid: doggy-style rape
At 7 PM, accused accosted the victim Eutropia, a teacher, (while she was with her
kids) and forced her to have sex with him by poking her with an 8-inch... dagger.
(dirty mind!) He brought her to a creek and told her to undress. Her kids were left
in a junction which was 400 meters from the nearest house.
He had intercourse with her five times. 1st, missionary position. 2nd, standing up.
3rd, missionary. 4th, doggy-style (he bent her body downwards with her hands
and knees resting on the ground When the latter was already in this position,
appellant then placed himself behind her, inserted his penis into her vagina and
executed a push and pull movement in the dog's way of sexual intercourse.) 5th,
missionary.
Issue: Is rape via doggy-style an aggravating circumstance (ignominy)?
SC: Yes.
The Court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the
missionary position, i.e. male superior female inferior, but also "The same position
as 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 often been resorted to by couples in the act of
copulation. This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners
but not otherwise.
Other aggravating circumstances at issue:
Uninhabited place yes. The accused dragged the offended party, at the point of
a dagger, to the carabao trail, about 10 meters from the junction, but 40 to 50
meters below to better attain his purpose without interference, and to better secure
himself from detection and punishment. Even the junction where the two children
were left is already 400 meters from the nearest house. While there maybe
occasional passersby, this does not destroy its being an uninhabited place.
Superior strength No. Already absorbed in rape. Nocturnity No. no evidence
that it was sought to facilitate the crime.
Rank No. No deliberate intent to offend the rank.
People vs. Sultan GR. 132470; April 27, 2000 Second Division | Bellosillo J.
FACTS On June 2, 1997, around 9:00 in the evening, Juditha Bautista was on her
way home from visiting her cousin when she was accosted by the accused
Fernando Sultan. Fernando pointed a sharp instrument at her neck and told her
that this was a hold-up. Fearing for her life, she let him grab and bring her to his
house. Through intimidation and her fear for her life, she was robbed and twice
raped. After the second rape, he told her he loved her and in her effort to release
herself, she agreed to elope with him. Convinced, Fernando let her go home to
get her things. She then went to her cousin, Antonette and narrated everything that
happened. Antonette then called her brother SPO1 Bautista who advised Juditha
to continue with the elopement so that he and his companions could stage an
arrest. This went successful and Fernando was apprehended. On June 5, 1997,
Fernando was charged with the complex crime of robbery and rape but he merely
brushed this aside as simply sex between consenting adults. On June 5, 1998, the
trial court found him guilty on the charge against him and was sentenced to
reclusion perpetua as well as actual and moral damage. Fernando then appealed
to the Supreme Court, claiming that there is no convincing proof that he is guilty of
the crime charged.
ISSUES. HELD. RATIO DECIDENDI.
Whether or not a sole witness testimony could give Fernando guilty of the crimes
charged against him.
YES. Juditha s testimony about the robbery is evidence enough to sustain a
conviction since there is no finding of fault to assail her testimonys credibility. As
to rape, even if it was also only her testimony, it is held that credibility of witnesses
is accorded the highest respect and weight by the appellate courts. It is normally
sustained unless evidence proves otherwise, in which the case at bar, did not.
Whether or not there was consent to the sex. NO.
Lack of resistance despite lack of threat is not a basis for consent. There was
intimidation involved that was sufficient enough to make complainant (Judithat)
submit herself for fear of life and personal safety.
[MAIN]
Whether or not his penalty will increase due to the multitude of rape he committed
against her. NO.
Although it should be noted that there are different rulings on various similar cases
on whether or not additional rapes would appreciate the penalty, the Court realized
there was no law providing that additional rape (or homicide) will be considered as
aggravating circumstances.
Aggravating circumstances
are enumerated under Art. 14 of the RPC exclusively, so much that what is not on
the list is not considered aggravating. This is different compared to mitigating
circumstances enumerated under Art. 13 of the RPC where analogous cases may
be considered. Thus,
until a law is passed providing that additional rap is considered an aggravating
circumstance, the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the accused
(Fernando). No person may be brought with a penal laws terms if he is not clearly
made so by the statute.
RULING We find Fernando GUILTY of the special complex crime of robbery with
rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, to pay Juditha Php 50,000 for moral
damage, Php 5,180 for actual damages represented from the valuables taken from
her, Php 130 for the cash taken from her and Php 50,000 for civil indemnity.
PEOPLE VS LADJAALAM
FACTS: Ladjaalam was charged with 4 informations, one of them was for illegal
possession of firearms and another was for multiple attempted murder with direct
assault (for firing an M14 rifle to police men who were about to enter his house to
serve a search warrant). RTC found Ladjaalam guilty of direct assault with multiple
attempted homicide (not murder since no policeman was hit and injured) and
sentenced a separate offense of illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866, as
amended by RA 8294.
OSGs contentions: [Ladjaalam shouldnt be convicted of separate offense of
illegal possession]
RTC shouldnt have applied the new law (RA 8294) but PD 1866 (penalized
simple illegal possession of firearms even if another crime is committed at the
same time) because provision does not cover specific facts of the case since
another crime - direct assault with multiple unlawful homicides -- was committed.
Since there was no killing in this case, illegal possession cannot be deemed as
an aggravating circumstance under the third paragraph of the provision.
RTCs contentions:[Should be convicted of a separate offense]
Second paragraphs (see top) proviso (no other crime), refers only to homicide
or murder, in both of which illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating
circumstance.
In other words, if a crime other than murder or homicide is committed, a person
may still be convicted of illegal possession of firearms. In this case, the other crime
committed was direct assault with multiple attempted homicide; hence, the trial
court found appellant guilty of illegal possession of firearms.
ISSUE (topic): Whose contentions are correct [W/N illegal possession of firearms
is a separate offense when coupled with direct assault with multiple attempted
homicide] OR more specifically [W/N the proviso in the second paragraph
RATIO:
BOTH WRONG (eyng?)
A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the
commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal
possession of firearms. Hence, if the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal
possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a
separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was
committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession
of firearms. Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused
and the plain meaning of RA 8294s simple language is most favorable to
Lamjaalam. Since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or
murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating
circumstance.
OSGs contentions:
Crime was committed on September 24, 1997,
while RA 8294 took effect on July 6, 1997. Therefore, when crime was committed,
PD 1866s provision, which justified a conviction for illegal possession of firearms
separate from any other crime, was amended by RA 8294 which contained the
specific proviso that no other crime was committed.
The criminal case for homicide [was] not before the SC for consideration (not
those appealed)
RTCs contentions:
Limiting the proviso in the second paragraph to
only murder and homicide is not justified. If the intention of the law in the second
paragraph were to refer only to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said
so, as it did in the third
paragraph. Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither should the SC.
NOTE: SC knows that this ruling exonerates Ladjaalam from illegal possession of
an M-14 rifle, an offense which normally carries a penalty heavier than that for
direct assault. It even contemplated a situation where the accused may evade
conviction for illegal possession of firearms by using such weapons in committing
an even lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight physical injuries. But the
Courts do not have discretion to question the wisdom behind the language of RA
8294. The matter should be addressed to Congress.
ENDING: (in relation to topic) Ladjaalam charged with direct assault and multiple
attempted homicide with the use of a weapon lang (no separate offense nor
aggravating circumstance)
J. Panganibans opening statement:
Republic Act No. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, provided
that the person arrested committed no other crime. Furthermore, if the person is
held liable for murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating
circumstance, but not a separate offense. Hence, where an accused was convicted
of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M-14 rifle
at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant, he cannot be held
guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. Neither can such
unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault.
January 1995: She was at her other grandfathers house when the
accused came and tried to force her to go home. He kept on pulling her until they
reached a waiting shed where the accused smashed her to the concrete wall. This
explained all the bruises and abrasions in her body upon medical examination.
She only reported such incidents in January 1995 because she was
afraid Atop will kill her. She did not exactly tell the truth (in her sworn statement,
she only said that a finger was inserted) at first because Atop was still not
apprehended (he was hiding). When finally he was arrested, she requested the
fiscal to re-investigate and then told them what was really done to her.

Personal Opinion: Kalokohan yung law. (Thesis topic- able?) He was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and was sentenced to 2 terms
of reclusion perpetua and death. In the other rape incident (Dec. 31, 1994), he was
found not guilty for insufficiency of evidence.
CELINO v CA (526 SCRA 195) June 29, 2007 G.R. 170562

ISSUES/HELD/RATIO:
When the other offense is one of those enumerated under RA 8294, any
information for illegal possession of firearms should be quashed because the
illegal possession of firearm would have to be tried together with such other WON the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity is present: NO.
offense, either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide,
or absorbed as an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d
No evidence that the accused intentionally sought the darkness to do
etat and conversely, when
his dastardly acts.

the other offense involved is not one of those enumerated under RA 8294, then
WON relationship is present as an aggravating circumstance: NO.
the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should continue to be
prosecuted. The constitutional bar against double jeopardy will not apply since
these offenses are quite different from one another, with the first punished under There is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the two.
the Revised Penal Code and the second under a special law.
Scope of relationship:
FACTS: Two separate informations were filed before the RTC charging petitioner
with violation of the gunban and illegal possession of firearms. Petitioner filed a
o Spouse
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 o Ascendant
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
o Descendant
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. o Legitimate, natural or adopted sibling

ISSUE: Did the court err in denying the Motion to Quash? o Relative by affinity in the same degree (in-laws)

HELD: No. The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal Since he is only a common-law husband, Court said nope.
possession of firearms, provided that "no other crime was committed by the person
arrested." If the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to
WON the death penalty is rightfully applied: NO.
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. For rape, it can only be given if the victim is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree, or
the common law spouse of the parent.
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 And since in this, Atop was the common law spouse of the
offense, either considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, grandmother, still nope.
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 SCs excuse: penal laws are construed in favor of the accused
under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of firearm should
continue to be prosecuted.
(Because Atop was appealing that the RTC was wrong in finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt) WON he is: YES.
PEOPLE v ATOP

Recognized rule: testimonies of rape victims who are young and

G.R. 124303-05 | Feb. 10, 1998 | J. Panganiban immature are each worthy of full credence. In this case, she was 15 y/o.

FACTS: [And I quote] It is unthinkable that complainant, a young lady of fifteen

years, would allow her private parts to be examined and would withstand the rigors
The accused is the common law husband of the victims grandmother of a public trial -- along with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her
(Like WTF). own mortifying defilement -- if she was not in fact ravished.

Sometime in 1991, Regina Guafin (10) told her grandmother that his They said her tears and testimonies conveyed the hurt, the pain and
grandfather, Alejandro Atop (37), inserted his finger into her vagina. Aside from not the anguish she has suffered and lived with during all the years.
believing her, Trinidad (the grandmother) told her it was just a manifestation of
fatherly concern (I cant even.). WHEREFORE, SC affirms the decision of the RTC but modifies the penalties to 3
counts of reclusion perpetua.
Oct. 9, 1992 [1st rape]: As Regina (then 12 y/o) was approaching Atop,
he suddenly rushed towards her, removed her panty and inserted his male organ
into her vagina (well that escalated quickly). Aside from gagging her, he was also
carrying he knife so she couldnt do anything. This happened again sometime in
1993 [2nd rape] and on Dec. 26, 1994 [3rd rape]. Every time, she told her
grandmother but Trinidad wouldnt believe her.

Dec. 31, 1994 [4th rape]: She was molested in the presence of her aunt
and Atops two nieces. Regina and the two nieces kicked him so he stopped.