Mitigating Circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do NOT entirely free the actor

r from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty (Reyes, Book One, 2012, p. 261).

When you came a cross when you hear the mitigating circumstances Lesser penalty for a crime committed.

People vs. Fallorina, 424 SCRA 655, G.R. No. 137347 March 4, 2004

Same; Same; Same; Voluntary Surrender; Surrender is said to be voluntary when it is done by the accused spontaneously and
made in such a manner that it shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because
he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
The trial court did not, however, err in ruling that the appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. Surrender is said to be voluntary when it is done by the accused spontaneously and made in such a manner that it
shows the intent of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he
wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. People vs. Fallorina, 424 SCRA 655,
G.R. No. 137347 March 4, 2004

Killing of minor, The surrender was not voluntary. The accused only surrender after the killing and he went into hiding. The
accused invoke voluntary surrender into order to reduce the penalty

Treachery; The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest
provocation on his part; When an adult person illegally attacks a child, treachery exists.The essence of treachery is the sudden
and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his part. Nonetheless, Vincent was an
eleven-year-old boy. He could not possibly put up a defense against the appellant, a police officer who was armed with a gun.
It is not so much as to put emphasis on the age of the victim, rather it is more of a description of the young victims state of
helplessness. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. When an adult person
illegally attacks a child, treachery exists.

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.

What is the rational why the Voluntary surrender is mitigating circumstance?

Under ARTCLE 248 - Art. 248. Murder. The penalty for murder is RP to DEATH.

Right? And

If there is a mitigating circumstance and there is no other aggravating circumstance.

Is there an aggravating circumstance on this case PEOPLE vs FALLORINO YES TREACHERY this makes the crime murder
qualified by Treachery.

Was there any OTHER AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE PRESENT.

Is there mitigating circumstance. Although he surrender it was not appreciated by the CoURT because it was not done
SPONTANEOUS. If the surrender is voluntary. Then he will be given the benefit of mitigating circumstance.

If that was the case there is a voluntary surrender which is mitigating circumstance and no other aggravating circumstance. Since
the penalty prescribe by law is Death to RP. What is now the penalty to be imposed? A : RP

ARTICLE 63 Rules in application of indivisible penalty

Is RP an indivisible penalty ? YES

Is death penalty an indivisible penalty ? YES

Meaning if there are TWO an indivisible penalty and there is a mitigating circumstance then the lesser of the two penalties will
be imposed which is RP

AS I say a while ago if there is a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

TAKE NOTE: when ever a victim is a minor. Do not think anymore. ALWAYS KILLING IS DONE WITH TREACHERY.

As provided in jurisprudence. A MINOR can NEVER INTERPOSE A DEFENSE against the attacking adult offender.

There was also an aggravating circumstance that was appreciate by the lower court. What is that?

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A PUBLIC POSITION. Because the offender was a police. Was this sustain by the supreme court NO. In
short the meeting and the killing of the policeman with the minor was incidental to. It was casual meeting meaning the accused
did not purposively go to the victim and took advantage of this position as policeman in order to kill the victim.

Going to my first question awhile ago. What do you mean by mitigating circumstance.

1. The accused was criminally liable but because of the MC then offender deserve a reduction of the penalty. Offender
less perversity or less criminality. This is the essence of Mc

What are the two kinds of MC and their distinction:

Kinds of mitigating circumstances:

ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGED MITIGATING

CIRCUMSTANCES
Can be offset by a generic
aggravating circumstance
Penalty is lowered to the
minimum period of the
penalty described
Not considered when
what is prescribed is a
single indivisible penalty
CIRCUMSTANCES
Cannot be offset by any
aggravating circumstance
Penalty is lowered by one
or two degrees
Always considered whether
the penalty imposable is
divisible or indivisible

How about if there is 2 indivisible penalty? Will the MC affects the imposition of the penalty?

The LESSER PENALTY WILL BE IMPOSED. Which I mention I while ago in the penalty prescribe by law is RP DEATH and there is
an ordinary mitigating circumstance the effect is? LESSER PENALTY

How many are the MC under article 13? Do you know? Or you do not know? 10

Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances Article 13, par.1

offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. Article 13, par.2
No intention to commit so grave a wrong (or Praeter Intentionem) Article 13, par.3
Sufficient Provocation Article 13, par.4
Vindication of grave offense Article 13, par.5 Its does not include 4th degree relative but on relative by affinity. Grave offense
this is not means as felonies.
Passion and Obfuscation Article 13, par.6 lawful sentiments
Voluntary surrender and confession of guilt Article 13, par.7
Physical defect of offenderArticle 13, par.8
Illness of the offender Article 13, par. 9
Similar or analogous circumstances Article 13, par. 10

Can you give me an example of PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES?

TAKE NOTE: What is divisible penalty This are penalty that has period Minimum medium and maximum.

Reclusion temporal,
Prision mayor.
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor
Arresto menor
INDIVISIBLE PENALTY

DEATH
RP

EXAMPLE
HOMICIDE ART 249 PENALTY IS RT (Minimum, medium and maximum.)

MC AC
1. Voluntary surrender No AC

What is the imposable penalty ? A: ARTICLE 64 paragraph 3 MINIMUM PERIOD

MC AC
1. Voluntary surrender 1. Dwelling
What is the penalty imposed? This will be OFFSET so neither mc or AC then medium period.

Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms
a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the
following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither (not the one or the other) aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty
prescribed by law in its medium period. WALANG MC AT AC = MEDIUM
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum
period. MC LANG = MINIMIUM PERIOD
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum
period. AC LANG MAXIMUM
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against
the other according to their relative weight. MC + AC = OFFSET = MEDIUM PERIOD mag apply ung paragraph number 1 -
neither(not the one or the other) aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in
its medium period
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature
of such circumstances. MC + MC or MC + MC + MC + MC AND NO AC - next lower penalty to that prescribed by law
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than
that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. 1 AC or MULTIPLE AC = not greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its
maximum period
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.

MURDER ART 248 Death to RP INDIVISIBLE PENALTY. RP REMAINS TO BE INDIVISIBLE PENALTY

Article 63 - Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible
penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the deed.

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in
the application thereof:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
ONE AC - greater penalty

2. When there are neither (not the one or the other) mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. - NO MC + NO AC LESSER PENALTY

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some (unspecified number) mitigating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. 1 MC or MULTIPLE MC LESSER PENALTY
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow
them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in
accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation. = MC + AC = OFFSET if as if there is not
circumstance - single indivisible penalty,

The effect of ordinary mitigating circumstance is to LOWER PENALTY ON ITS MINIMUM PERIOD in cases of divisible penalty.

Or

It shall result in the imposition of the LESSER PENALTY in case of two or more indivisible penalty.

IMMEDIATELY:

IF there are two or more ORDINARY MC and there is NO AC = if the penalty involve is a divisible penalty. The penalty will be
lowered by ONE DEGREE. Why ? A: Because the 2 or more Ordinary MC partake of the nature or those are converted in a Priviledge
MC. Therefor the penalty will be lowered by ONE DEGREE

EXAMPLE:

1. Voluntary surrender 1. DWELLING

2. Plea of guilty
3. Passion or
obfuscation

So madaming MC will this be converted to as privileged MC? No because as provided in the law there should be absolutely no
AC. Offsetting the MC from AC does not implied that there is not AC on the case. As provided in the jurisprudence, there should
be NO AC FROM THE VERY BEGINNING and it does not caused by the offset. There should be no AC from the very act.

Privilege Mitigating Circumstance.

-It will lower the penalty by a DEGREE

EX. Offender 15 yr and 1 day but acting with discernment? Is he criminally liable? Yes, criminally liable because he acted with
discernment.

Offender is 17 years old committed a homicide acting with discernment

Another effect if Offender acted with discernment ? A : Privileged mitigating circumstance

Under art 80 TAKE note: Art. 80. Suspension of sentence of minor delinquents.

THERE ARE ONLY TWO PRIVILEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER ARTICLE 13.
1. 13 paragraph 1
2. The first part of paragraph 2 when the offender is under 18 (over 15 and under 18 acting with discernment)
Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances Article 13, par.1
offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. Article 13, par.2

in such a case under article 68 number 2

Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. When the offender is a minor under eighteen years
and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules
shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having
declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than
that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed, but always in the proper period.

Ano ang one degree lower ng RT san mo hahanapin yan. In short Im now telling you the graduated of penalties. Article 71 -
SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua 20Yrs & 1 day to 40YRS
3. Reclusion temporal 12Yrs & 1 day to 20 yrs
4. Prision mayor, DURATION article 76 6yrs AND 1 DAY TO 12yrs
5. Prision correccional 6 mons and 1 day to 6 yrs
6. Arresto mayor - 1 mon and 1 day to 6 mon
7. Destierro - 6 mons and 1 day to 6 yrs
8. Arresto menor 1 to 30 days
9. Public censure,
10. Fine

SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.

Rules on graduated penalties are found on ART 61

Balik na tau sa example so x offender and penalty nya is PRision mayor.

Kung meron dalawang ORDINARY MITIGATING ANUNG IMPOSABLE PENALTY? Is it prison mayor min or prison correctional
maximum period?
A: prision mayor minimum period because they are only ordinary mitigating circumstance

Im telling you this because I want to correlate this to ISLAW

Act No. 4103 ung sentence in accused meron maximum term and minimum term.

Anu ung penalty para sa minimum term ? you go one DEGREE lower to the prescribe penalty

DISCRETION The court has discretion within which to impose the penalty in the minimum term.

IS LAW applies to RPC and SPECIAL CRIMINAL LAW.

The purposes of this law are the following:
1.) Promote the prisoner's reformation by allowing him to serve sentence under a parole officer
2.) Decongest the jails by allowing prisoners to be admitted into parole
3.) Allow the government to save money on maintaining the jails
4.) Prevent the prisoners' economic usefulness from going to waste.

What is the importance of having minimum term? THEY CAN APPLY FOR PAROL
Whats the meaning of PAROL Once the accused has already served the minimum TERM he is eligible to be granted of PAROL,
he will serve the remaining of the maximum term outside of JAIL NA. once the accused has complied to his PAROL CONDITION
he will be discharge. HE IS NOW A FREE MAN.
Kung nag violate ng condition he will then be return to prison and will SERVE THE REMAINDER OF THIS SENTENCE of the maximum
term

PROBATION : What do you have in mind when you say probation?

1. Penalty was not exceeding to 6 year. LESS GRAVE FELONY
2. Accused is Convicted, Execution (serve sentence)
BUT BECAUSE OF PROBATION THE EXECUTION OF SENTENCE IS SUSPENDED.

If your granted of probation. Hindi ka papasok ng kulungan.

In probation. You will have terms and conditions.
If you violated on the terms and conditions on the probation. You will serve the whole maximum period. Hindi ma miminus.
Where as in PAROL ung remainder lang ang isserve mo.

SIMPLE RAPE 266 Paragraph 1 RP (maximum term) Can we apply ISLAW If the penalty is INDIVISIBLE PENALTY? A: NO

The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory in all cases, EXCEPT if the accused will fall in any of the following exceptions:

1. if sentenced with a penalty of death or life imprisonment

2. if convicted of treason, conspiracy, proposal to commit treason
3. if convicted of misprision of treason, sedition, rebellion or espionage
4. if convicted of piracy
5. if the offender is a habitual delinquent
6. those who escaped from prison or evaded sentence
7. those who violated the terms of conditional pardon of the chief executive
8. where the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year (important!)
9. if convicted by final judgement at the time of the effectivity of Act No. 4103
10. if penalized with suspension or distierro

If accused fall in any of the foregoing exceptions. DO NOT APPLY ISLAW! RP / DEATH / LIFE IMPRISONMENT NO ISLAW.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENJAMIN ONG y KHO, and BIENVENIDO QUINTOS y SUMALJAG,
defendants-appellants.

Criminal law; Kidnapping; Circumstances negating allegation of kidnapping for ransom.The following circumstances negate the
allegation of kidnapping for ransom: a) vehement denial thereof by the accused; b) non-production in court of the alleged ransom
note; c) unreliability of extrajudicial statement adverting to the ransom because of maltreatment of witness; d) inconsistency in
the testimonies respecting the drawing up of the ransom note; and, finally, e) the fact that the body of the victim was buried
along with many precious articles in his person.

Same; Same; Kidnapping is not present where the detention of the victim was only incident to his intended murder.It seems
clear that the weight of authority is in favor of the proposition that where the victim was taken from one place to another, solely
for the purpose of killing him and not for detaining him for any length of time or for the purpose of obtaining ransom for his
release, the crime committed is murder, and not the complex crime of kidnapping with murder. This ruling is entirely consistent
with the law. Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes a person who shall kidnap or detain another, and the penalty becomes
capital where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person.

Same; Aggravating circumstances; Treachery; There is treachery where victim was tied and gagged before being stabbed.
Treachery (alevosia) qualified the killing to murder. Undisputed facts show that Henry Chuas hands were tied and his mouth was
gagged with a flannel cloth before he was stabbed twice with an icepick and buried in a shallow grave near a creek. These facts
portray well that the tied hands of the victim rendered him defenseless and helpless thereby allowing the accused to commit the
crime without risk at all to their person.

Same; Conspiracy; Treachery may be taken against the other conspirators although they did not take part in the stabbing.The
accused, however, were quick to insist that treachery should not be taken against them because they did not do the actual
stabbing (which was done by Fernando Tan). Easily, the weakness of this claim can be discerned. Conspiracy, connivance and
unity of purpose and intention among the accused were present throughout in the execution of this crime. The four participated
in the planning and execution of the crime and were at the scene in all its stages. They cannot escape the consequence of any of
their acts even if they deviated in some detail from what they originally thought of. Conspiracy implies concert and design and
not participation in every detail of execution. Thus, treachery should be considered against all persons participating or
cooperating in the perpetration of the crime.

Same; Aggravating circumstances; Nighttime; When nighttime is not absorbed by the aggravating circumstance of treachery.
Inasmuch as the treachery consisted in the fact that the victims hands were tied at the time they were beaten, the circumstance
of nighttime is not absorbed in treachery, but can be perceived distinctly therefrom, since the treachery rests upon an
independent factual basis. A special case therefore is present to which the rule that nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not
apply.
Same; Same; Uninhabited place; Taking of victim in an abandoned subdivision is aggravating.The purposive selection of an
uninhabited place (despoblado) is likewise clear from the evidence. The killing was done in Barrio Makatipo, Novaliches, Caloocan
City, an isolated place that resembled that of an abandoned subdivision. The place was ideal not merely for burying the victim
but also for killing him for it was a place where the possibility of the victim receiving some help from third persons was completely
absent. The accused sought the solitude of the place in order to better attain their purpose without interference, and to secure
themselves against detection and punishment.

Same; Same; Abuse of confidence; Abuse of confidence is not present where there is no special relation of confidence between
the accused and the victim.Nowhere in the records does it appear that Henry Chua reposed confidence upon the person of
Benjamin Ong. If any, Henry Chua was simply not afraid of Benjamin Ong, having told and bragged to the latter about his violent
exploits in the past and threatened him with bodily harm in case of failure to pay. He knew that he was far stronger than Benjamin
Ong in terms of influence and money. He thought that Benjamin Ong would fear him. The fact that Henry Chua invited Ong for
nightclubbing that fatal evening and accommodated him in his car on their way home from the nightclub does not mean that
Henry Chua had confidence in him. There was no special relation of confidence between them. He knew that Benjamin owed him
a substantial amount and that its settlement had long been overdue which fact irritated him very much. Benjamin Ong and Henry
Chua were together that night in the nightclub as well as in the car not because of said confidence. It was simply because Benjamin
Ong had some accounts to settle with him.

Same; Same; Motor vehicle; Case at bar, use of motor vehicle aggravates the commission of the crime of murder.The Biscayne
car of Benjamin Ong was used in trailing the victims Mustang car from Wigwam Nightclub up to the time that it was overtaken
and blocked. It carried the victim on the way to the scene of the killing; it contained at its baggage compartment the pick and
shovel used in digging the grave; it was the fast means of fleeing and absconding from the scene. Again, the motor vehicle
facilitated the stark happening. It has been held that the use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said vehicle
was used in transporting the victim and the accused.

Same; Same; Cruelty; Cruelty is not present where the accused did not intend the victim to suffer.Cruelty (ensanamiento), as
an aggravating circumstance, cannot be considered here. The brief of the Acting Solicitor General agrees with that of the accused
in denying the attendance of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance. Indeed, as it appears from the record, the group intended
merely to kill the victim, bury him, and flee from the locale of the fearful crime. For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the
accused enjoyed and delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain
in the consummation of the criminal act.

Same; Same; Evident premeditation; Circumstances showing attendance of evident premeditation.Concededly, the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation (premeditation conocida) attended the commission of the crime. What else can better
portray this circumstance than the frequent meetings of the four accused at the Barrio Fiesta Restaurant in order to discuss, lay
out the plan, and secure the different paraphernalia consisting of the rope, icepick, flannel cloth, flashlight and shovel. Added to
this is the careful selection of an ideal site for the grissly happening. Similarly, the plan to go to Taipeh and Hongkong
immediately after the incident pictures the presence of evident premeditation. The accused meditated and tenaciously persisted
in the accomplishment of the crime and were not prompted merely by the impulse of the moment.

Same; Same; Mitigating circumstances; Plea of guilty; Plea of guilty considered mitigating although accused disputes some of the
aggravating circumstances alleged in the information.Although the confession was qualified and introduction of evidence
became necessary, the qualification did not deny the defendants guilt and, what is more, was subsequently fully justified. It was
not the defendants fault that aggravating circumstances were erroneously alleged in the information and mitigating
circumstances omitted therefrom. If such qualification could deprive the accused of the benefit of plea of guilty, then the
prosecution could nullify this mitigating circumstance by counteracting it with unfounded allegations of aggravating
circumstances.

Same; Aggravating circumstances; Passion and obfuscation; Case at bar, circumstances showing attendance of passion and
obfuscation.We hold that the accused Benjamin Ong is likewise entitled to the mitigating circumstance that is analogous to
passion and obfuscation (Art. 13, par. 10, Revised Penal Code), based on the following facts stated in his brief:
a) Henry Chua and his companions went to the office of Benjamin Ong. In a loud voice, with angry gestures, and in the presence
of his subordinates and fellow employees, Henry Chua demanded payment, and threatened bodily harm to him and his family.
b) Henry Chua went as far as to threaten the life of Benjamin Ong unless his obligation to Chua was paid. If you treasure your
life you better pay first.
c) Because of this incident, he, Benjamin Ong, was humiliated.
d) His brother-in-law, Chua Pak, told him that he was holding a very responsible position in the company and so he should not be
involved in any scandal.
e) He was discredited and degraded in front of my brother-inlaw. He was so embarrassed, he finally tendered his resignation
from the company.
f) Because of the threat of Henry Chua, the accused tried to get money from all sources but he was not successful. The allotted
time was so short. To relieve him of the pressure brought to bear upon him to pay his gambling debt, he even thought of
embezzling money belonging to the company in which he worked.
g) Because of his inability to raise money to be paid to Henry Chua, he became deeply depressed. He felt: I was being turned
into a criminal.
h) He begged Henry Chua to give him more time to raise the money. Nagmamakaawa na ako sa kanya. This was the night before
Henry Chua was killed. If Henry Chua had granted him time the whole plan to kill Henry Chua might not materialize. But Henry
Chua, while not relenting, but perhaps in utter contempt and disdain of Benjamin Ong instead decided to transfer from Amihan
to Wigwam because he wanted to be entertained by a hostess.

Barredo, J.: Concurring and Dissenting.

Criminal law; Kidnapping; Circumstances negating the commission of kidnapping for ransom.The following rule out the
possibility that there was any element of ransom in the taking of Chua to the place of his killing: (1) The evidence of the
prosecution that such an idea was in the mind of Ong days before April 24, 1971 is utterly incredible, being unnatural and contrary
to human experience and official comportment of the most simple minded policeman; (2) the non-production of the alleged
ransom note has not been explained at all; (3) indisputably, no demand was ever made upon anyone for the payment of any
ransom; and (4) the trial court found, and this finding is firmly borne by the evidence presented by both parties at the hearing,
that Ong evidently paid no heed to the supposed preparation or copying and signing of the alleged ransom note, as on the spot
he resolutely, impatiently and curtly directed his co-accused, Patayin na iyan, without regard to the alleged ransom note, which,
to be sure, does not appear to have been talked about then by the accused at all.
Same; Aggravating circumstances; Uninhabited place; Abandoned subdivision is not an uninhabited place.In the case at bar,
the scene of the crime, according to the prosecution, is an abandoned subdivision. To start with, that expression by itself already
negates the idea of a place where there are no houses at all, a considerable distance from town. A subdivision is designed as a
place for habitation and to refer to it as abandoned is often an exaggeration, unless the exact import of the word is explained. It
is true, in testifying about the reenactment, one of the NBI investigators, Enrique Lacanilao, mentioned that there were no houses
there. But such a casual statement does not convince me of its accuracy and positiveness, to warrant the finding that the
aggravating circumstance in question may be held to legally exist. Even the fact that Ong did mention in his confession that he
considered the place ideal because it was abandoned and uninhabited is not to my mind indicative enough that said
appellants use of the term uninhabited is precisely what the law connotes. Besides, if precision of language is to be taken into
account, Ong did not refer to the place as ideal for killing Chua, but, to quote him exactly, to bury him. The pictures taken
during the reenactment which, in the words of His Honor, shows trees, lush vegetation and thick cogon grasses hide the place,
cannot be conclusive, taken as they have been about five months after the happening at issue. In any event, considering that the
appreciation or non-appreciation of this aggravating circumstance, which notably was not alleged in the information, could spell
the difference between the imposition of either reclusion perpetua or death upon the accused herein, I would rather give
appellant the benefit of my doubt by making the finding that would not make the consequence of any mistake of mine in
connection therewith irretrievable.

Same; Same; Nighttime is not aggravating where it is not especially sought.Similarly, I am not sufficiently persuaded that the
trial court properly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of nocturnidad. Earlier, I have punctualized the circumstance clearly
established in the record that it was the victim, Henry Chua, who specified the place and the time of Ongs meeting with him at
Amihan on that fateful night of April 23, 1971. This point is to my mind important because nocturnity is not necessarily an
aggravating circumstance, and the same should be taken into consideration according to the circumstances surrounding the
commission of the crime. Where it is not evident that the defendants had purposely sought the nighttime to perpetrate the crime,
nocturnity cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Same; Same; Same; Nighttime is not aggravating where accused did not consider its advantage in the commission of the crime.
Withal, following a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain (of February 28, 1884), this Court held in United States vs. Baguio, 14
Phil. 240, that the appreciation of nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance (lies) in the discretion of the court. I believe that
the change I have referred to above in the phraseology of the pertinent provision of our penal code has not deprived the Supreme
Court of that discretion, particularly where the question of whether the death penalty should be imposed or not hinges on the
opinion of the Court as to the presence or absence of such aggravating circumstance. For my part, therefore, after mature
reflection and deliberation in the light of the somehow unsettled construction of the specific pertinent penal provision, I feel
there is ample ground to hold, as I do hold, that the extant circumstances of the killing here in question do not warrant the
conclusion that nighttime should be appreciated as having aggravated the crime committed by the accused, for the simple reason
that the record is bare of any indication that the accused ever considered the advantage of nighttime in the commission of the
offense in question.

Same; Mitigating circumstances; Plea of guilty; Plea of guilty to lesser offense, although rejected, may be considered
mitigating.In the case at bar, the Court is confronted with a situation in which the appellant offered to plead guilty to
precisely the lesser offense which he had confessed to from the start of the NBI investigation before his arraignment. That offer
was rejected by the fiscal, who, we must presume, was already in possession of all the evidence which he eventually presented
to the court, and which the court has found as not warranting at all the graver charge of kidnapping for ransom with murder.
Under these circumstances, I concur in the main opinion that the plea of guilty may be regarded as mitigating.

Same; Same; Immediate vindication of grave offense; Case at bar, when act of the accused is an immediate vindication of a grave
offense committed by the offended party.Then there were the veiled threats conveyed to Ong by Ko King Pin that Chua was
not a man to be provoked to anger, which Ong could not ignore, what with Chuas own words, If you treasure your life, you
better pay first, and that he would turn over Ongs bouncing check to other people who will not be courteous anymore. Not
every man is given the equanimity and calmness needed to withstand all these without breaking down inwardly and feeling
oppressively aggrieved. Under these circumstances, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the urge in the feeling of appellant
to kill his tormentor was less than purely voluntary, which diminution is the basis of the mitigating circumstance contemplated
in Article 13(5) of the Revised Penal Code. (Reyes, Criminal Law, Vol. I, p. 250.)

Same; Same; Plea of guilty; Extrajudicial confessions of accused to be analogously considered as pleas of guilty.There is an
additional circumstance which to me is important in measuring criminal responsibility of the appellants in this case. I refer to
the peculiarity that were it not for the disclosures made by them in their confessions and during the reenactment, the
prosecution would have had no basis whatsoever for its attempt, which the Court has frustrated by this decision, to make them
answer for the graver offense of kidnapping for ransom with murder accompanied by the string of aggravating circumstances
listed in the information. One cannot easily commiserate with killers, but considerations of human dignity and fairness demand
that they are not made to undergo any punishment more than the facts, the law and justice warrant. And the law is inclined
to be more liberal to those who after committing any offense evince by their conduct some signs of remorse and resignation
to accept the penalties that they deserve, by admitting their guilt. But in the present case, appellant Ong has gone further. He
did not only confess he and co-accused killed the victim, he freely told his investigators exactly what happened to its last details,
thereby making himself subject to the charge of aggravating circumstances, no other evidence of the government could have
supported, considering how and where the offense was committed and the difficulty of securing witnesses for the State to
testify thereon. As I have said earlier, without the help of the appellants, this would have been no more than a case of murder.
In view of this consideration, I believe it would only be consonant with existing rules in the appreciation of mitigating
circumstances that appellant Ong be credited with an additional mitigating circumstance analogous to the plea of guilty.

Same; Accomplice; One who only accompanied the other accused in their crime is guilty as an accomplice.As regards the case
of appellant Quintos, I am struck by the evidence that at the last moment he refused to do what he was assigned to dostab the
victim. In other words, he did not carry out to its ultimate conclusion the criminal design he had in common with his co-accused.
Indeed, in my review of the record I have not discerned any clear evidence of the specific participation of this appellant in the
commission of the offense in question. In the brief of the Solicitor General, the only imputation to Quintos is that he held the
flashlight while Tan was making Chua prepare a ransom note and that Quintos held the legs of the victim when his dead body
was dumped into the previously chosen hole for his burial. And there is a hint in the record to the effect that Quintos had his feet
on top of Chua when the latter was being taken to the place of killing. As to the alleged preparation of a ransom note, I have
already demonstrated, it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is also the holding in the main opinion. As to the
other acts attributed to him, I am not satisfied of their conclusiveness. And having in mind the undisputed desistance of this
appellant, I would say that his responsibility as principal does not satisfy my conscience. I hold him guilty only as accomplice
because his act of accompanying the other accused was an act of cooperation short of direct participation. People vs. Ong, 62
SCRA 174, No. L-34497 January 30, 1975

Voluntary surrender and confession of guilt Article 13, par.7

Requisites of voluntary surrender:

a. Offender had NOT been actually arrested;
b. Offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latters agent; and,
c. Surrender was voluntary, i.e. spontaneous and must show the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental to his search
and capture.
Requisites for plea of guilty:
a. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
b. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the court competent that is to try the case; and
c. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.

Plea of guilty the accused was entitled to the MC since he was already admitting to the correct crime. It was not the fault of the
accused but rather than the prosecution.

Under article 13: There are 10 mitigating C - Similar or analogous circumstances Article 13, par. 10

Under article 14 Aggravating circumstance ILAN 21

Is there similar provision in article 14 NONE. Those circumstances are exclusive.

PEOPLE VS REGALA - G.R. No. 130508. April 5, 2000.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO REGALA y ABRIOL, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Robbery with Rape; Witnesses; The Supreme Court has held that wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight and
starlight may, in proper situations, be sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on this
ground unmeritorious.The Court gives its approbation to the finding of the trial court that the evidence was sufficient to clearly
establish the identity of Armando Regala as the person who, with two companions, committed the crime of robbery accompanied
by rape on the night of September 11, 1995, Nerissa Tagala positively identified Armando Regala because at the time-he was
counting the money on her bed, the other companion of the accused beamed the flashlight towards the money and there was a
reflection on the face of Regala. Although the three intruders were wearing masks when they entered the house, they removed
their masks later. Our cases have held that wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight and starlight may, in proper situations, be
sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on this ground unmeritorious.

Same; Same; It simply would be unnatural for a young and innocent girl to concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination
of her private parts and thereafter subject herself to a public trial or ridicule if she was not, in fact, a victim of rape and deeply
motivated by a sincere desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.Dr. Conchita Ulandays testimony does not support
the contention of accused-appellant that Nerissa voluntarily submitted to the sexual advances of Regala. The admission of Dr.
Ulanday that her findings point to the fact that Nerissa either voluntarily or was forced into sexual act does not prove that
Nerissa voluntarily submitted to the sexual act. Dr. Ulanday testified that there was suggested evidence of penetration as shown
by the two lacerations at 4 oclock and at 7 oclock which were fresh wounds. That the act was involuntary was clearly established
by the fact that Nerissa was hogtied when she was sexually attacked. As correctly pointed out by appellee, Nerissa was a 16-year
old barrio lass, not exposed to the ways of the world and was not shown to have any ill-motive to falsely implicate accused-
appellant, who was a stranger. And as repeatedly pronounced by this Court, it simply would be unnatural for a young and innocent
girl to concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts and thereafter subject herself to a public trial or
ridicule if she was not, in fact, a victim of rape and deeply motivated by a sincere desire to have the culprit apprehended and
punished.

Same; Same; Aggravating Circumstances; There is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s committed on the
occasion of the robbery should be considered as aggravating circumstance; A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the
offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.It should be noted that
there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The
enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration
in Article 13 of the same code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is a specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing
for analogous circumstances. It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of
the robbery) would result in an anomalous situation where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one
rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is
liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute. In view of the foregoing, the additional rape committed by herein accused-appellant should not be considered as
aggravating. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper. People vs. Regala, 329 SCRA 707, G.R. No.
130508 April 5, 2000

G.R. No. 93752. July 15, 1992.*

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LAROY BUENAFLOR y TUAZON alias Larry, defendant-appellant.
Criminal Law; Imbecility a defense.Imbecility, like insanity, is a defense which pertains to the mental condition of a person.
Our caselaw projects the same standards in respect of both insanity and imbecility, that is, that the insanity or imbecility must
constitute complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act, or total deprivation of freedom of the will. The
above quoted medical evidence that was admitted into the record in the case at bar does not show complete deprivation (nor
even substantial deprivation) of intelligence on the part of appellant Buenaflor and he, accordingly, cannot be deemed
exempted from criminal liability for the rape of Isabella Federis. His behavior on the night he raped Isabella showed that he
was quite conscious of his acts and aware of the moral quality thereof.

Same; Impaired mental faculty only mitigating.At the same time, we believe, however, that the medical evidence of record
does show that appellant Buenaflors mental faculties were to some extent retarded or impaired in their development, which
impairment or retardation reflects a diminished level of responsibility for his criminal acts. Article 13 (9) of the Revised Penal
Code.

Same; Intoxication is an alternative circumstance.The ordinary rule is that intoxication may be considered either as aggravating
or as mitigating, depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. Intoxication has the effect of
decreasing the penalty, if the intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the contemplated crime; upon the
other hand, when intoxication is habitual or intentional, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance. The person pleading
intoxication must present proof that he had taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient
to produce the effect of blurring his reason; and at the same time, he must prove that not only was intoxication not habitual but
also that his imbibing the alcoholic drink was not intended to fortify his resolve to commit the crime.

Same; Penalty; One mitigating circumstance does not qualify to lower an indivisible penalty by one degree.At any rate, the
appreciation of a mitigating circumstance in favor of appellant Buenaflor would not have the effect of reducing the penalty of
reclusion perpetua imposed upon him by the trial court. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code prescribes that in all cases in which
the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, [such penalty] shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating
circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. Reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible penalty. People vs.
Buenaflor, 211 SCRA 492, G.R. No. 93752 July 15, 1992

G.R. No. 120988. August 11, 1997.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSEMARIE DE LA CRUZ y NIEVA, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Kidnapping; In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the latters liberty,
in any manner, needs to be established by indubitable proof.In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to
deprive the victim of the latters liberty, in any manner, needs to be established by indubitable proof (People vs. Puno, 219 SCRA
85 [1993]). The acts held by the trial court, and maintained by the People, as consummating the crime of kidnapping in this case
are those when accused-appellant held the victims hand and refused to let go when the victim asked to go over to her neighbor,
who by then already saw what was happening. This happened for only a very brief span of time and the evidentiary record shows
that there were a good number of people present at that time, that a guard was stationed at the gate, and that there was at least
a teacher nearby. The child could have just as easily shouted for help. While it does not take much to scare the wits out of a small
child like Whiazel, under the attendant circumstances, we cannot say with certainty that she was indeed deprived of her liberty.
It must further be noted that up to that brief moment when Cecilia saw them, and the child asked to be let go, the victim had
gone with accused-appellant voluntarily. Without any further act reinforcing the inference that the victim may have been denied
her liberty, even taking cognizance of her minority, the Court hesitates to find that kidnapping in the case at bar was
consummated. While it is a well-entrenched rule that factual findings of trial courts, especially when they concern the
appreciation of testimony of witnesses, are accorded great respect, by exception, when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts, as we perceive in the case at bar, the Court may choose to substitute its own findings (People vs. Padua,
215 SCRA 266 [1992]).

Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The attempted phase of a felony is defined as when the offender commences the commission
of a felony, directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause of accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.To our mind, the felony committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention of a minor in the attempted stage only. The attempted phase of a felony is defined as when the offender
commences the commission of a felony, directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance (Article 6, Revised Penal
Code). The overt act must be an external one which has direct connection with the felony, it being necessary to prove that said
beginning of execution, if carried to its complete termination following its natural course without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the offender, will logically and necessarily ripen to a concrete offense (Padilla.
Criminal Law: Revised Penal Code Annotated, vol. I, 1987 ed., p. 141 citing People vs. Lamahang, 61 Phil. 703).

Same; Same; Damages; It is error to grant moral damages in spite of the absence of any evidence on record that the victim
suffered sleepless nights, serious anxiety, fright, or similar injury.Nevertheless, we believe that the trial court erred in granting
moral damages in the amount of P50,000 despite the absence of any evidence on record that the victim suffered sleepless nights,
serious anxiety, fright, or similar injury. All that the record reveals is that the victim cried when they were at the guidance
counselors office, nothing more. Inasmuch as moral damages are granted not to enrich, but rather to compensate the victim for
the injury suffered (Bautista vs. Mangaldan Rural Bank, Inc., 230 SCRA 16 [1994]), proof of moral suffering must be introduced,
failing in which, such an award is not proper (People vs. Manero, Jr., et al., 218 SCRA 85 [1993]). People vs. De la Cruz, 277 SCRA
173, G.R. No. 120988 August 11, 1997

Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances:

1. Generic applies to all crimes and can be offset by mitigating circumstances; but if NOT offset, would affect only the
maximum of the penalty prescribed.
a. Advantage taken of public position;
b. Contempt of or with insult to the public authorities;
c. Crime committed in the dwelling of the offended party;
d. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness;
e. Crime is committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged
their duties or place of worship;
f. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band;
g. Recidivism;
h. Habituality;
i. Craft, fraud or disguise;
j. Crime is committed after an unlawful entry;
k. Means of commission of the crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken;
l. Crime be committed with the aid of persons under 15 years of age.

2. Specific applies only to particular crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances.
a. With insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex
b. Abuse of superior strength or means be employed to weaken the defense;
c. Treachery in crimes against persons;
d. Ignominy in crimes against chastity;
e. Cruelty in crimes against persons

3. Qualifying those that changes the nature of the crime to a graver one, or brings about penalty next higher in degree and
cannot be offset by mitigating circumstance.
a. Treachery ;
b. Evident premeditation;
c. Art. 248 eumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances which qualify the killing of person to murder.

Qualifying aggravating circumstances in relation with Special Laws

Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act

Any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm under any or combination of the following conditions:
(a) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;
(b) Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit the target such as thermal weapon sight (TWS)
and the like;
(c) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
(d) Accompanied with an extra barrel; and
(e) Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts (Section 28, RA 10591).

The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special
laws.
Note: If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or
attempted coup d etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or
attempted coup d etat.

If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be considered as a distinct
and separate offense (Section 29, Ibid).

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the
Revised Penal Code shall be applicable (Section 25, RA 9165).

Immunity from Prosecution and Punishment this is given to any person who:
(a) has violated Sections 7 (Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort), 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs), 12 (Possession
of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs), 14 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings), 15 (Use of Dangerous
Drugs), and 19 (Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of this Act;

(b) voluntarily gives information about any violation of Sections 4 (Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals), 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals), 6 (Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort), 8 (Manufacture of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals), 10 (Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus, and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals), 13 (Possession
of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings), and 16 (Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous
Drugs or are Sources Thereof), Article II of this Act as well as any violation of the offenses mentioned if committed by a drug
syndicate, or any information leading to the whereabouts, identities and arrest of all or any of the members thereof; and

(c) who willingly testifies against such persons as described above

(d) that the person may plead or prove the giving of such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution: Provided, That
the following conditions concur:
(i) The information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the persons described above;
(ii) Such information and testimony are not yet in the possession of the State;
(iii) Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its material points;
(iv) the informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, except when there is no
other direct evidence available for the State other than the information and testimony of said informant or witness; and
(v) The informant or witness shall strictly and faithfully comply without delay, any condition or undertaking, reduced into
writing, lawfully imposed by the State as further consideration for the grant of immunity from prosecution and
punishment

Provided, further, That this immunity may be enjoyed by such informant or witness who does not appear to be most guilty for
the offense with reference to which his/her information or testimony were given: Provided, finally, That there is no direct
evidence available for the State except for the information and testimony of the said informant or witness (Section 33, Ibid).

Applicability of the Revised Penal Code

General Rule: Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No.
3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act

Exception: In the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to
death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death (Section 98, Ibid). By virtue of Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code,
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to RA 9165.

4. Inherent those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime (Article 62, par. 2, RPC), therefore not
considered in increasing the penalty to be imposed
a. Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage;
b. Abuse of public office in bribery;
c. Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry into a house in robbery with the use of force upon things;
 d. Fraud in estafa;
e. Deceit in simple seduction;
f. Ignominy in rape

5. Special those which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty of the offense and cannot be offset by mitigating
circumstances
a. Complex crimes (Article 48, RPC);
b. Use of unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder;
c. Taking advantage of public position and membership in an organized/syndicated crime group (Article 62, par. 1[a], RPC);
d. Error in personae (Article 49, RPC);
e. Quasirecidivism (Article 160, RPC)

Generic Aggravating Qualifying Aggravating

As to its effect
Increases the penalty Gives the crime its proper
which should be imposed and exclusive name and
upon the accused to the places the author thereof in
maximum period but such a situation as to
without exceeding the deserve no other penalty
limit prescribed by law than that specially
described by law for said
crime
As to whether it can be offset by a mitigating circumstance
May be offset by an Cannot be offset by a
ordinary mitigating mitigating circumstance
circumstance since it is not since it is considered an
an ingredient of the crime ingredient of the crime

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, ET AL., defendants. JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ,BASILIO
PINEDA,JR., alias BOY, EDGARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO and ROGELIO CAAL Y SEVILLA, defendants-appellants.

Remedial law; Evidence; Forcible abduction; When evidence is clear and overwhelming.The evidence is clear and overwhelming
that all the appellants participated in the forcible abduction. Miss De la Riva declared on the witness stand, as well as in her sworn
statements, that they helped one another in dragging her into the car against her will; that she did not know them personally;
that while inside the car, Jose and Aquino, between whom she was seated, toyed with her body, the former forcing his lips on
hers, and the latter touching her thighs and raising her skirt; that meaningful and knowing glances were in the meanwhile being
exchanged among the four; and that all of them later took turns in ravishing her at the Swanky Hotel. This testimony, whose
evidenciary weight has not in the least been overthrown by the defense, more than suffices to establish the crimes charged in
the amended complaint. In the light thereof, appellants protestation that they were not motivated by lewd designs must be
rejected as absolutely without factual basis.

Same; Same; Rape; Absence of spermatozoa.The absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the
important consideration being, not the emission of semen, but penetration.

Same; Same; When self injuries are disproved by evidences.It is difficult to imagine that any sane woman, who is single and
earning as much as Miss De la Riva did, would inflict injuries on her genital organ by puncturing the same with a sharply-pointed
instrument in order to strike back at four strangers who allegedly would not pay her the sum of P900.00 due her for a striptease
act. Besides, Dr. Brion testified that the insertion of such an instrument in the genital organ would not result in the kind of injuries
he found in the mucosa of the cervix.

Same; Same; Res gestae; When victim confided to her mother immediately the incident upon arrival.Other evidence and
considerations exist which indubitably establish the commission of successive rapes by the four appellants. Upon Miss De la Rivas
arrival at her house in the morning of June 26, 1967, she immediately told her mother, Mommy, Mommy, I have been raped. All
four of them raped me. This utterance, which is part of the res gestae, commands strong probative value, considering that it
was made by the complainant to her mother who, in cases of this nature, was the most logical person in whom a daughter would
confide the truth. x x x Equally important is complainants public disclosure of her tragedy, which led to the examination of her
private parts and lay her open to risks of future public ridicule and diminution of popularity and earnings as a movie actress.
Same; Same; Extrajudicial statements; When extrajudicial statements were taken in the presence of several people and
subscribed and sworn to before the City Fiscal of Quezon City. We are not convinced that the statements were involuntarily
given, or that the details recited therein were concocted by the authorities. The statements were given in the presence of several
people and subscribed and sworn to before the City Fiscal of Quezon City, to whom neither of the aforesaid appellants intimated
the use of inordinate methods by the police. They are replete with details which could hardly be known to the police; and although
it is suggested that the authorities could have secured such details from their various informers, no evidence at all was presented
to establish the truth of such allegation.

Same; Criminal procedure; Constitutional law; Article III, Section 1, paragraph 17 of the Constitution, Rule 112, Section 11, Rule
113, Section 18 and Rule 115, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, construed.The provision of the Constitution of the Philippines in
point is Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 1, par. 17 of which provides: In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall x x x enjoy
the right to be heard by himself and counsel x x x. While the said provision is identical to that in the Constitution of the United
States, in this jurisdiction the term criminal prosecutions was interpreted by this Court, in U.S. vs. Beecham, 23 Phil. 258 (1912),
in connection with a similar provision in the Philippine Bill of Rights (Section 5 of Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) to mean
proceedings before the trial court from arraignment to rendition of the judgment. Implementing the said constitutional
provisions, We have provided in Section 1, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court that In all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall be
entitled x x x (b) to be present and defend in person and by attorney at every stage of the proceedings, that is, from the
arraignment to the promulgation of the judgment. The only instances where an accused is entitled to counsel before
arraignment, if he so requests, are during the second stage of the preliminary investigation (Rule 112, Section 11) and after the
arrest (Rule 113, Section 18). The rule in the United States need not be unquestionably adhered to in this jurisdiction, not only
because it has no binding effect here, but also because in interpreting a provision of the Constitution the meaning attached
thereto at the time of the adoption thereof should be considered. And even there the said rule is not yet quite settled, as can be
deduced from the absence of unanimity in the voting by the members of the United States Supreme Court in all the three above-
cited cases.

Criminal law; Plea of guilty; Plea of guilty is mitigating and constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the
information; When the presence of the accused in court is not necessary.Pineda contends that because the charge against him
and his co-appellants is a capital offense and the amended complaint cited aggravating circumstances, which, if proved, would
raise the penalty to death, it was the duty of the court to insist on his presence during all stages of the trial. The contention is
untenable. While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the
information, including the aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is capital, for the admission (plea of
guilty) covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime. Because of the aforesaid
legal effect of Pinedas plea of guilty, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to receive his evidence, much less to require his
presence in court.

Same; Penalty; Imposition of four death penalty.The Supreme Court is of the opinion that in view of the existence of conspiracy
among the accused arid of its finding as regards the nature and number of crimes committed, as well as of the presence of
aggravating circumstances, four death penalties should be imposed in the premises.

Same; When statements during the trial do not constitute a claim of ownership over the car used in the commission of the crime;
Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code construed. Considering that the car in question is registered in the name of Mrs. Dolores
Gomez, who, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, must be considered as the lawful owner thereof; that the only
basis of the court a quo in concluding that the said car belongs to appellant Jose were the latters statements during the trial of
the criminal case to that effect; that the said statements were not, however, intended to be, nor could constitute, a claim of
ownership over the car adverse to his mother, but were made simply in answer to questions propounded in court for the sole
purpose of establishing the identity of the defendant who furnished the car used by the appellants in the commission of the
crime; that the chattel mortgage on the car and its assignment in favor of the intervenor were made several months before the
date of the commission of the crimes charged, which circumstance forecloses the possibility of collusion to prevent the State
from confiscating the car; that the final judgment in the replevin case can only be executed by delivering the possession of the
car to the intervenor for foreclosure of the chattel mortgage; and that Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code bars the confiscation
and forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the commission of the crime if such be the property of a third person not liable
for the offense, it is the sense of this Court that the order of the court below for the confiscation of the car in question should
be set aside and that the said car should be ordered delivered to the intervenor for foreclosure as decreed in the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Manila in the replevin case. People vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450, No. L-28232 February 6, 1971

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH

following aggravating circumstances:
(a) nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes;
(b) abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another (Cf. People
vs. De Guzman, et al., 51 Phil., 105, 113);
(c) ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about ten minutes,
before raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating; and moral
suffering.
(d) use of a motor vehicle.

Abuse of Superior Strength or Means taken to Weaken the Defense Article 14, par.15

ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE

To deliberately use excessive force that is out of proportion The offender employs means that materially weakens the
to the means for selfdefense available to the person resisting power of the offended party
attacked (People vs. Lobrigas, et al, GR No. 147649,
December 17, 2002)

Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the
crime

Cruelty Article 14, par.21

Requisites:
a. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong; and
b. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.

Cruelty there is cruelty when the offender enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing his
unnecessary and prolonged physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.

People vs syland RAPE IN DOG STYLE POSITION IGNOMINY.

Nighttime / Nocturnity (Obscuridad) is the period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn. Nights are from
sunset to sunrise (Article 13, Civil Code).

Note: Nocturnity or nighttime, by and of itself, is not an aggravating circumstance. It becomes so only when it is especially sought
by the offender, or taken advantage by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to ensure his immunity from capture. If
there was no proof that nighttime was deliberately sought by the accused in committing the crime, said circumstance should be
disallowed (People vs. Pasiliao, GR No. 9815253).

Tests for the Appreciation of Nocturnity

The objective test that nocturnity facilitated the commission of the crime and the subjective test that it was purposely sought
by appellants in order to afford impunity.

It is error to accept nocturnity as aggravating for during the incident the moon was shining brightly. The light was bright enough
to see what was going on and to recognize the assailants. It, therefore does not qualify as an aggravating circumstance under
either the subjective or objective tests (People vs. Bigcas, GR No. 94534, July 2, 1992).

Nighttime is aggravating if the offender selected the hour of the night when neighbors and occupants of the house were sleeping
to gain entry into the victims residence when the victim was killed despite the fact that it was brightly lit (People vs. Demate, GR
No. 132310, January 20, 2004).

Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. Every penalty imposed for the commission
of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was
committed.

Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be property
of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
4 DEATH PENALTY each - Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall
serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit.

Recidivism Article 14, par.9

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 embraced in the same title of this Code (People vs. Lagarto, GR No. 65833, May 6, 1991).

Requisites:
a. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
b. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
c. That both first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC; and
d. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

KeLAN NAG FIFINAL UNG JUDGEMENT Rule 112 in rules of court. When the period of the appeal is already expired.

APPEAL AND PROBATION IS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AS REMEDY FROM ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. one excludes the other.

In recidivism, it is sufficient that the succeeding offense be committed after the commission of the preceding offense provided
that at the time of his trial for the second offense, the accused had already been convicted of the first offense.

Even if the accused was granted a pardon for the first offense, but he commits another felony embraced in the same title of the
RPC, the first conviction is still counted to make him a recidivist since pardon does NOT obliterate the fact of his prior conviction
(US vs. Sotelo, GR No. 9791, October 3, 1914; People vs. Lacao, Sr., GR No. 95320, September 4, 1991).

The rule is different in case of amnesty which theoretically considers the previous transgression as NOT punishable.

Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened between the first and second felonies (People
vs. Jaranilla, GR No. L28547, February 22, 1974).

If both offenses were committed on the same date, they shall be considered as only one, hence, they cannot be separately
counted in order to constitute recidivism. Also, judgments of conviction handed on the same day shall be considered as only one
conviction (Galang vs. People, GR No. L45698, December 18, 1937).

Four forms of Repetition

Recidivism (par. 9, Article When a person, on
14) Generic Aggravating separate occasions, Is
Circumstance convicted of two offenses
embraced in the same title
in the RPC
Reitaracion or Habituality Where the offender has
(par. 10, Article 14) been previously punished
Generic Aggravating for an offense to which the
Circumstance law attaches an equal or
greater penalty or for two
crimes to which it attaches
a lighter penalty
Multirecidivism or When a person within a
Habitual delinquency (par. period of ten (10) years
5, Article 62) from the date of his release
Extraordinary Aggravating or last conviction of the
Circumstance crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa or
falsification, is found guilty
of the said crimes a third
time or oftener
 Quasirecidivism (Article
160) Special Aggravating
Circumstance
When a person commits
felony before beginning to
serve or while serving
sentence on a previous
conviction for a felony

Reiteracion or Habituality Article 14, par.10

Requisites:
a. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
b. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or
more offenses to which the law attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and
c. That he is convicted of the new offense.

Note: An offender can be a recidivist and a habitual delinquent at the same time if he was convicted for a third time for the crimes
of estafa, robbery and theft which are all within Title 10 or for serious and less serious physical injuries which are within Title 8
(Boado, 2012, p. 182).

No. L-20183. June 30, 1966.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. EDUARDO BERDIDA Y INGUITO, ET AL., defendants. EDUARDO
BERDIDA Y INGUITO, LORETO SABERON Y CASAS, VICENTE ABERAS Y CORDERO and JESUS FELICIA Y BALIDBID, defendants and
appellants.

Evidence; Alibi; Finding of trial court.The defense of alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on credibility, which depends much on
the credibility of the witnesses who seek to establish it. In this respect the relative weight which the trial judge assigns to the
testimony of the witnesses must, unless patently and clearly inconsistent with the evidence on record, be accepted.

Same; When defense of alibi is worthless.The defense of alibi is worthless in the face of positive identification by prosecution
witnesses, pointing to the accused as participants in the crime. (People vs. Tansiangco, L-19448, February 28, 1964; People vs.
Riveral, L-14077, March 31, 1964).

Aggravating circumstances; When nighttime was not absorbed in treachery.There was treachery in that the victims hands
were tied at the time they were beaten. Since the treachery rests upon an independent factual basis, the circumstance of
nighttime is not absorbed therein, but can be perceived distinctly therefrom. A special case therefore is present to which the rule
that nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not apply (See People vs. John Doe, G.R. No. L-2463, March 31, 1950; 2 Viada, Codigo
Penal, 274275).

Same; Evident premeditation.The victims were told at the start, when they were taken captives, that they had done something
wrong, that they were the ones who stabbed and killed a certain person, and that for this reason they were to go with the group.
The victims were then taken to a spot where they were ordered to dig their graves. The assailants were previously armed with
deadly weapons, and their assault was a concerted and group action. The period between about 10 oclock in the evening, when
the victims were apprehended, to about 1 oclock the following morning, was sufficient for the offenders to meditate and reflect
on the consequences of their act. Hence, the circumstance of evident premeditation was present. (People vs. Lopez, 69 Phil. 298;
People vs. Lozada, 70 Phil. 525).

Murder; Indemnity.The indemnity to the heirs of the deceased in a murder case should be increased to P6,000. (People vs.
Hernandez, 91 Phil 334).

Appeal; Appellate jurisdiction over murder and attempted murder.Although the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over
an attempted murder arising on the same occasion as the murder, nevertheless, where the murder case was reviewed
automatically because the death penalty was imposed, the Supreme Court will not review the judgment in the attempted murder
case if no appeal was interposed against it. People vs. Berdida, et al., 17 SCRA 520, No. L-20183 June 30, 1966

TREACHERY ABSORB NIGHTTIME AS A RULE.

RA 10707 If the penalty is not probationable and the accused filed an appeal and the penalty is reduced?
Under the old rule. NO
Under this new law. PWDE NA.
BUT
If he makes further appeal. MEANING PROBATIONABLE NA tapos nag APPEAL PA ULIT. UN NA cya DQ for Probation.

IF the penalty becomes probationable after an appeal pwde pa din cya mag apply for PROBATION. BUT BUT BUT
If ung penalty nya is probationable na in the first place at nag appeal cya pa tpos na deny ng appeal saka pa cya mag pprobation
dun na cya DQ

G.R. No. 182748. December 13, 2011.*

ARNEL COLINARES, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Criminal Law; Self-defense; Evidence; Where the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of showing that he was legally
justified in killing the victim or inflicting injury to him.When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the burden of showing
that he was legally justified in killing the victim or inflicting injury to him. The accused must establish the elements of self-defense
by clear and convincing evidence. When successful, the otherwise felonious deed would be excused, mainly predicated on the
lack of criminal intent of the accused.

Same; Same; Requisites of Self-defense; Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or an
imminent danger of such attack; A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not enough; the victim must attack the accused
with actual physical force or with a weapon.In homicide, whether consummated, frustrated, or attempted, self-defense
requires (1) that the person whom the offender killed or injured committed unlawful aggression; (2) that the offender employed
means that is reasonably necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that the person defending himself did
not act with sufficient provocation. If the victim did not commit unlawful aggression against the accused, the latter has nothing
to prevent or repel and the other two requisites of self-defense would have no basis for being appreciated. Unlawful aggression
contemplates an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or an imminent danger of such attack. A mere threatening or intimidating
attitude is not enough. The victim must attack the accused with actual physical force or with a weapon.

Same; Attempted or Frustrated Homicide; The main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is the accuseds intent to take
his victims life; The intent to kill is often inferred from, among other things, the means the offender used and the nature, location
and number of wounds he inflicted on his victims.The main element of attempted or frustrated homicide is the accuseds intent
to take his victims life. The prosecution has to prove this clearly and convincingly to exclude every possible doubt regarding
homicidal intent. And the intent to kill is often inferred from, among other things, the means the offender used and the nature,
location, and number of wounds he inflicted on his victim.

Same; Same; When the accused intended to kill his victims as a shown by his use of a deadly weapon and the wounds he inflicted
but the victim did not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide, if the
victims wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide.The Court is inclined, however, to
hold Arnel guilty only of attempted, not frustrated, homicide. In Palaganas v. People, 501 SCRA 533 (2006), we ruled that when
the accused intended to kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly weapon and the wounds he inflicted, but the victim did
not die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. If the victims wounds are
not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder or attempted homicide.

Same; The Probation Law; The Probation Law, said the Court in Francisco, requires that an accused must not have appealed his
conviction before he can avail himself of probation.The Probation Law, said the Court in Francisco, requires that an accused
must not have appealed his conviction before he can avail himself of probation. This requirement outlaws the element of
speculation on the part of the accusedto wager on the result of his appealthat when his conviction is finally affirmed on
appeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at hand, and the service of his sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an
escape hatch thus rendering nugatory the appellate courts affirmance of his conviction.

Same; Same; The Courts finding that Arnel was guilty not of frustrated homicide but only of attempted homicide is an original
conviction that for the first time imposes on him a probationable penalty.In a real sense, the Courts finding that Arnel was
guilty, not of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is an original conviction that for the first time imposes on him
a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from the start, it would have found him guilty of the correct offense and
imposed on him the right penalty of two years and four months maximum. This would have afforded Arnel the right to apply for
probation.

PERALTA, J., Dissenting and Concurring Opinion:

Criminal Law; Probation Law; Probation is not a right granted to a convicted offender; the Probation Law is not a penal law for it
to be liberally construed to favor the accused.Probation is not a right granted to a convicted offender. Probation is a special
privilege granted by the State to a penitent qualified offender, who does not possess the disqualifications under Section 9 of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 968, otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976. Likewise, the Probation Law is not a penal law
for it to be liberally construed to favor the accused.

Same; Same; Wisdom Behind the Enactment of Our Own Probation Law.In this jurisdiction, the wisdom behind the enactment
of our own Probation Law, as outlined in the said law, reads: (a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by
providing him with individualized treatment; (b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might
be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and (c) prevent the commission of offenses.

Same; Same; Originally, P.D. No. 968 allowed the filing of an application for probation even if an appeal had been perfected by
the convicted offender under Section 4; With the subsequent amendment of Section 4 of P.D. No. 968 by P.D. No. 1990, the
application for the probation is no longer allowed if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Originally, P.D. No. 968 allowed the filing of an application for probation even if an appeal had been perfected by the convicted
offender under Section 4, x x x. Thereafter, the filing of an application for probation pending appeal was still allowed when Section
4 of P.D. No. 968 was amended by P.D. No. 1257. However, with the subsequent amendment of Section 4 of P.D. No. 968 by P.D.
No. 1990, the application for probation is no longer allowed if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of
conviction.

Same; Same; Section 4 of the Probation Law was amended to put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgment of conviction
even if the sentence is probationable, for the purpose of securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused
fails in his bid.In Sable v. People, 584 SCRA 619 (2009), the Court stated that [Section 4 of] the Probation Law was amended
to put a stop to the practice of appealing from judgments of conviction even if the sentence is probationable, for the purpose of
securing an acquittal and applying for the probation only if the accused fails in his bid. Thus, probation should be availed of at
the first opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated; who manifest spontaneity, contrition and
remorse.

Same; Same; Section 4 of the Probation Law provides that the application for probation must be filed with the trial court within
the 15-day period for perfecting an appeal.Section 4 of the Probation Law provides that the application for probation must be
filed with the trial court within the 15-day period for perfecting an appeal. The need to file it within such period is intended to
encourage offenders, who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, to avail themselves of probation at the first opportunity.
If the application for probation is filed beyond the 15-day period, then the judgment becomes final and executory and the lower
court can no longer act on the application for probation. On the other hand, if a notice of appeal is perfected, the trial court that
rendered the judgment of conviction is divested of any jurisdiction to act on the case, except the execution of the judgment when
it has become final and executory.

Same; Same; Prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies because the law is
unmistakable about it.In view of the provision in Section 4 of the Probation Law that no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction, prevailing jurisprudence treats
appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies because the law is unmistakable about it.

Same; Same; Recommended grounds where an accused may be allowed to apply for probation even if he has filed a notice of
appeal.In this regard, an accused may be allowed to apply for probation even if he has filed a notice of appeal, provided that
his appeal is limited to the following grounds: 1. When the appeal is merely intended for the correction of the penalty imposed
by the lower court, which when corrected would entitle the accused to apply for probation; and 2. When the appeal is merely
intended to review the crime for which the accused was convicted and that the accused should only be liable to the lesser offense
which is necessarily included in the crime for which he was originally convicted and the proper penalty imposable is within the
probationable period.

Same; Same; Under the recommended grounds for appeal, the purpose of the appeal is not to question the judgment of
conviction but to question only the propriety of the sentence particularly the penalty imposed as the accused intends to apply
for probation.An appeal from the judgment of conviction involves a review of the merits of the case and the determination of
whether or not the accused is entitled to acquittal. However, under the recommended grounds for appeal which were
enumerated earlier, the purpose of the appeal is not to question the judgment of conviction, but to question only the propriety
of the sentence, particularly the penalty imposed, as the accused intends to apply for probation. If the appellate court finds it
proper to modify the sentence, and the penalty finally imposed by the appellate court is within the probationable period, the
accused should be allowed to apply for probation after the case is remanded to the trial court for execution.

Same; Same; Instances where Probation should not be Granted to the Accused.On the other hand, probation should not be
granted to the accused in the following instances: 1. When the accused is convicted by the trial court of a crime where the penalty
imposed is within the probationable period or a fine, and the accused files a notice of appeal; and 2. When the accused files a
notice of appeal which puts the merits of his conviction in issue, even if there is an alternative prayer for the correction of the
penalty imposed by the trial court or for a conviction to a lesser crime, which is necessarily included in the crime in which he was
convicted where the penalty is within the probationable period.

VILLARAMA, JR., J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:

Criminal Law; Self-defense; The rule that if the accused appeals his conviction solely to reduce the penalty, such penalty already
probationable, and appellate court grants his appeal he may still apply for probation, had already been abandoned.With the
enactment of P.D. No. 968 (Probation Law of 1976), this Court held that the rule that if the accused appeals his conviction solely
to reduce the penalty, such penalty already probationable, and the appellate court grants his appeal he may still apply for
probation, had already been abandoned. We explained that the intention of the new law is to make appeal and probation
mutually exclusive remedies. Thus, where the penalty imposed by the trial court is not probationable, and the appellate court
modifies the penalty by reducing it to within the probationable limit, the same prohibition should still apply and he is not entitled
to avail of probation.

Same; Same; The Courts grant of relief to herein accused whose sentence was reduced by this court to within the probationable
limit, with a declaration that accused may now apply for probation, would diminish the seriousness of that privilege because in
questioning his conviction accused never admitted this guilt; it is of no moment that the trial courts conviction of petitioner for
frustrated homicide is now corrected by this Court to only attempted homicide.And in prohibiting the trial court from
entertaining an application for probation if the accused has perfected his appeal, the State ensures that the accused takes
seriously the privilege or clemency extended to him, that at the very least he disavows criminal tendencies. Consequently, this
Courts grant of relief to herein accused whose sentence was reduced by this Court to within the probationable limit, with a
declaration that accused may now apply for probation, would diminish the seriousness of that privilege because in questioning
his conviction accused never admitted his guilt. It is of no moment that the trial courts conviction of petitioner for frustrated
homicide is now corrected by this Court to only attempted homicide. Petitioners physical assault on the victim with intent to kill
is unlawful or criminal regardless of whether the stage of commission was frustrated or attempted only. Allowing the petitioner
the right to apply for probation under the reduced penalty glosses over the fact that accuseds availment of appeal with such
expectation amounts to the same thing: speculation and opportunism on the part of the accused in violation of the rule that
appeal and probation are mutually exclusive remedies. Colinares vs. People, 662 SCRA 266, G.R. No. 182748 December 13, 2011

G.R. No. 108747. April 6, 1995.*

PABLO C. FRANCISCO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HONORABLE MAXIMO C. CONTRERAS, respondents.

Criminal Procedure; Probation Law; Probation should be availed of at the first opportunity by convicts who are willing to be
reformed and rehabilitated who manifest spontaneity, contrition and remorse.The law expressly requires that an accused must
not have appealed his conviction before he can avail of probation. This outlaws the element of speculation on the part of the
accusedto wager on the result of his appealthat when his conviction is finally affirmed on appeal, the moment of truth well-
nigh at hand, and the service of his sentence inevitable, he now applies for probation as an escape hatch thus rendering
nugatory the appellate courts affirmance of his conviction. Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first opportunity
by convicts who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, who manifest spontaneity, contrition and remorse.

Same; Same; Probation is a mere privilege, not a right.Probation is a mere privilege, not a right. Its benefits cannot extend to
those not expressly included. Probation is not a right of an accused, but rather an act of grace and clemency or immunity
conferred by the state which may be granted by the court to a seemingly deserving defendant who thereby escapes the extreme
rigors of the penalty imposed by law for the offense of which he stands convicted. It is a special prerogative granted by law to a
person or group of persons not enjoyed by others or by all.

Same; Same; The grant of probation rests solely upon the discretion of the court which is to be exercised primarily for the benefit
of organized society, and only incidentally for the benefit of the accused.Accordingly, the grant of probation rests solely upon
the discretion of the court which is to be exercised primarily for the benefit of organized society, and only incidentally for the
benefit of the accused. The Probation Law should not therefore be permitted to divest the state or its government of any of the
latters prerogatives, rights or remedies, unless the intention of the legislature to this end is clearly expressed, and no person
should benefit from the terms of the law who is not clearly within them.

Same; Same; An appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if the appeal is taken solely to reduce the penalty
is simply contrary to the clear and express mandate of Sec. 4 of the Probation Law.Therefore, that an appeal should not bar
the accused from applying for probation if the appeal is taken solely to reduce the penalty is simply contrary to the clear and
express mandate of Sec. 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, which opens with a negative clause, no application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.

Same; Same; The multiple prison terms are distinct from each other and if none of the terms exceeds the limit set out in the
Probation Law, i.e., not more than six (6) years, then he is entitled to probation, unless he is otherwise specifically disqualified.
At the outset, the penalties imposed by the MeTC were already probationable. Hence, there was no need to appeal if only to
reduce the penalties to within the probationable period. Multiple prison terms imposed against an accused found guilty of several
offenses in one decision are not, and should not be, added up. And, the sum of the multiple prison terms imposed against an
applicant should not be determinative of his eligibility for, nay his disqualification from, probation. The multiple prison terms are
distinct from each other, and if none of the terms exceeds the limit set out in the Probation Law, i.e., not more than six (6) years,
then he is entitled to probation, unless he is otherwise specifically disqualified. The number of offenses is immaterial as long as
all the penalties imposed, taken separately, are within the probationable period. For, Sec. 9, par. (a), P.D. 968, as amended, uses
the word maximum, not total, when it says that [t]he benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those x x x x sentenced to
serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years. Evidently, the law does not intend to sum up the penalties
imposed but to take each penalty separately and distinctly with the others.

Same; Same; The basis of the disqualification is principally the gravity of the offense committed and the concomitant degree of
penalty imposed.Fixing the cut-off point at a maximum term of six (6) years imprisonment for probation is based on the
assumption that those sentenced to higher penalties pose too great a risk to society, not just because of their demonstrated
capability for serious wrongdoing but because of the gravity and serious consequences of the offense they might further commit.
The Probation Law, as amended, disqualifies only those who have been convicted of grave felonies as defined in Art. 9 in relation
to Art. 25 of The Revised Penal Code, and not necessarily those who have been convicted of multiple offenses in a single
proceeding who are deemed to be less perverse. Hence, the basis of the disqualification is principally the gravity of the offense
committed and the concomitant degree of penalty imposed. Those sentenced to a maximum term not exceeding six (6) years are
not generally considered callous, hard core criminals, and thus may avail of probation.

Same; Same; The law considers appeal and probation mutually exclusive remedies.In fine, considering that the multiple prison
terms should not be summed up but taken separately as the totality of all the penalties is not the test, petitioner should have
immediately filed an application for probation as he was already qualified after being convicted by the MeTC, if indeed thereafter
he felt humbled, was ready to unconditionally accept the verdict of the court and admit his liability. Consequently, in appealing
the Decision of the MeTC to the RTC, petitioner lost his right to probation. For, plainly, the law considers appeal and probation
mutually exclusive remedies. Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384, G.R. No. 108747 April 6, 1995

QUASI RECIDIVIST
THE SECOND CRIME SHOULD BE A felony while serving or beginning to server
If she/he was convicted in special law not QUASI RECIDIVIST

Evident Premeditation Article 14, par.13

Requisites:
a. The time when the offender is determined to commit the crime;
b. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
c. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act
and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will (People vs. Lagarto, GR No. 65833, May 6, 1991)

PEOPLE VS CORTEZ
G.R. No. 137050. July 11, 2001.*
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GEORGE CORTES y ORTEGA, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Murder; Aggravating Circumstances; Evident Premeditation; Court agrees with the accused that the prosecution
did not prove the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation; Elements of.We agree with the accused that the
prosecution did not prove the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. The prosecution failed to establish the
following elements of this aggravating circumstance: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act
manifestly indicating that the accused clung to that determination; and (c) a lapse of time between the determination and the
execution sufficient to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of the act.

Same; Same; Same; Cruelty; For cruelty to be appreciated against the accused, it must be shown that the accused, for his pleasure
and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain.As
to the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, although the accused stabbed the victim several times, the same could not be
considered as cruelty because there was no showing that it was intended to prolong the suffering of the victim. For cruelty to
be appreciated against the accused, it must be shown that the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to
suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain.

Same; Same; Same; Nighttime; Aggravating Circumstance of Nighttime Not Specifically Sought in the Commission of the Crime;
Instances When Nighttime Becomes an Aggravating Circumstance.As to the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, the same
could not be considered for the simple reason that it was not specifically sought in the commission of the crime. Nighttime
becomes an aggravating circumstance only when (1) it is specially sought by the offender; (2) the offender takes advantage of it;
or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by insuring the offenders immunity from identification or capture. In the case
at bar, no evidence suggests that accused purposely sought the cover of darkness to perpetrate the crime, or to conceal his
identity.

Same; Same; Same; Abuse of Superior Strength; Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery, so that it cannot be
appreciated separately as another aggravating circumstance.The trial court erred in further appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery, so that it cannot be appreciated
separately as another aggravating circumstance. Here, treachery qualified the offense to murder.

Same; Same; Same; Mitigating Circumstances; Intoxication; Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the penalty, if it is not
habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the contemplated crimeon the other hand, when it is habitual or intentional, it
is considered an aggravating circumstance.Ordinarily, intoxication may be considered either aggravating or mitigating,
depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the penalty,
if it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the contemplated crime; on the other hand, when it is habitual or
intentional, it is considered an aggravating circumstance, A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof
of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of
obfuscating reason. At the same time, that person must show proof of not being a habitual drinker and not taking the alcoholic
drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime. People vs. Cortes, 361 SCRA 80, G.R. No. 137050 July 11,
2001

Alternative Circumstances
A. Relationship
B. Intoxication;
C. Degree of Instruction and Education

Article. 17. Principals

Principals by direct participation Article 17, par. 1

Requisites:
a. That they participated in the criminal resolution
b. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end

Principals by inducement Article 17, par. 2

Requisites:
a. That the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
b. That such inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor

Principals by indispensable cooperation Article 17, par. 3

Requisites:
a. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and
b. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which it would not have been
accomplished.
KUNG MAY CONSPIRCY WAG MO NA ALAMIN KUNG CNU PRINCIPAL OR ACCOMPLICE KASI LAHAT CLA PRINCIPAL

G.R. No. 132895. March 10, 2004.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ELIZABETH CASTILLO and EVANGELINE PADAYHAG, appellants.

Criminal Law; Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention; Elements.To sustain a conviction for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must establish the following: (1) the offender is a private
individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the victim of his liberty; (3) the act of kidnapping or
detention is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or
detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are
inflicted on the victim or threats to kill are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public officer.

Same; Same; Words and Phrases; No amount of perceived injustice can serve as justification for any person to retaliate through
the commission of another crime; Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured
person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity; Even if an employee had a right to demand payment of her unpaid
wages, the money she actually demanded and eventually received after she took her employers child is still ransom.Castillo
asserts that the victims parents did not pay her wages when she worked as a maid of the victims family. She claims that it was
this injustice, her educational level and her ignorance of the law, which impelled her to take Rocky. She faults the trial court for
refusing to consider this. Castillo is mistaken. Whether or not her employer failed to pay her salary is irrelevant. No amount of
perceived injustice can serve as justification for any person to retaliate through the commission of another crime. The trial court
was therefore correct in disregarding Castillos claim that Rockys parents committed injustice on her. Castillos claim of injustice
cannot justify in any way her demand for ransom. Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption
of a captured person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity. Thus, even if she had a right to demand payment of
her unpaid wages, the money she actually demanded and eventually received, is still ransom.

Same; Same; Penalties; The penalty for kidnapping for ransom is the singular and indivisible penalty of death, barring the
application of any alternative, mitigating or aggravating circumstance.Castillos reliance on her low educational level is similarly
unavailing. The penalty for kidnapping for ransom is the singular and indivisible penalty of death. This bars the application of any
alternative, mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

Same; Same; Witnesses; The police officers inability to explain how two simple maids managed to give 5 carloads of police officers
the slip severely discredits their account of what happened.Mr. Cebrero admitted that he was unable to identify his son Rockys
abductors. De Lena and Iglesias, the police officers who did the stake-out during the pay-off, testified that the two women
suddenly disappeared after retrieving the plastic bag containing the ransom. The police officers inability to explain how two
simple maids managed to give 5 carloads of police officers the slip severely discredits their account of what happened that day.

Same; Same; For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or treated him harshly;
Leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of
detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty.Castillo also points out that Rocky came along freely with them, was not
harmed, and was even cared for during his detention. This argument is pointless. The essence of kidnapping is deprivation of
liberty. For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or treated him harshly. Where
the victim in a kidnapping case is a minor, it becomes even more irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained the victim.
Leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of
detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty. For under such a situation, the childs freedom remains at the mercy and
control of the abductor.

Same; Same; Custodial Investigations; Extrajudical Confessions; After claiming to have been tortured into making her sworn
statement, logic would have it that the accused should have debunked the contents of that statement through her testimony in
court but she instead freely and voluntarily recounted events as she narrated them in her sworn statement.With the evidence
of Castillos own testimony established, the prosecutions witnesses did little more than corroborate what Castillo herself had
admitted. Since Castillo admitted in open court that she instructed Padayhag to fetch Rocky even without the parents permission,
we find her explanations futile. Her allegations of torture and of signing a sworn statement without counsel are useless. After
claiming to have been tortured into making her sworn statement, logic would have it that Castillo should have debunked the
contents of that statement through her testimony. Instead, she freely and voluntarily recounted events as she narrated them in
her sworn statement. Moreover, there is no allegation that the trial court decided her guilt based on her sworn statement. The
trial court based its decision on the testimonies of all the witnesses, including Castillos.

Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Appeals; An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question including
those not raised by the parties.The same cannot be said of Padayhag. Our review of the evidence on record shows that the
prosecution failed to prove Padayhags guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We reiterate the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case
opens the entire case for review on any question including those not raised by the parties. This becomes even more imperative
in cases where the penalty imposed is death.

Same; Same; Conspiracy; To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy, there must be a sufficient and unbroken chain
of events that directly and definitely links the accused to the commission of the crime without any space for baseless suppositions
or frenzied theories to filter through; Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors which must concur(1) singularity
of intent, and, (2) unity in execution of an unlawful objective.There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag
acted in concert with Castillo to commit the same criminal act. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy, there
must be a sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and definitely links the accused to the commission of the crime
without any space for baseless suppositions or frenzied theories to filter through. Indeed, conspiracy must be proven as clearly
as the commission of the crime itself. Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors: (1) singularity of intent; and (2)
unity in execution of an unlawful objective. The two must concur. Performance of an act that contributes to the goal of another
is not enough. The act must be motivated by the same unlawful intent. Neither joint nor simultaneous action is per se sufficient
indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to have been motivated by a common design. Padayhags act of fetching Rocky is not
conclusive proof of her complicity with Castillos plan, a plan Padayhag did not even know. Both appellants testified that Padayhag
met Castillo only because Castillo told Padayhag that Padayhags boyfriend was sick. It was precisely on the pretext that they
were to visit Padayhags boyfriend that the two met. When they met, Padayhag realized that Castillo had deceived her.

Same; Same; Same; A co-accuseds straightforward and wide-eyed admission of facts that incriminate her demonstrates a level
of honesty that can only be found in those who do not know the art of deceit; To impose criminal liability, the law requires that
there be intentional participation in the criminal act, not the unwitting cooperation of a deceived individual.Padayhags
confusion in the way she answered the questions propounded to her only highlights the fact that she was not aware of Castillos
plans and was vulnerable to the latters manipulation. Her straightforward and wide-eyed admission of facts that incriminate her
demonstrate a level of honesty that can only be found in those who do not know the art of deceit. Far from a cold and calculating
mind, Padayhag strikes us as one whose innocence often leaves her at the mercy of her more worldly peers. It is clear that she
acted with the full belief that Castillo was doing nothing wrong. Whatever moved her to do what Castillo asked of her is up for
speculation. What matters is that her motivation in fetching Rocky was not to kidnap the boy. To impose criminal liability, the
law requires that there be intentional participation in the criminal act, not the unwitting cooperation of a deceived individual.

Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; The testimonies of two police officers suffer from their failure to explain how they suddenly lost
track of the two women who took the ransom in front of their very eyes.In its brief the prosecution itself cites that any inquiry
as to the liability of an individual as a conspirator should focus on all acts before, during and after the commission of the crime.
We have done precisely that, and it is precisely why we rule for her innocence. After her stroll with Castillo and Rocky, she left
when Castillo brought the boy to her sisters house in Caloocan. She never visited nor contacted Castillo afterwards. She remained
at her house and refused to go with Castillo when the latter suddenly tried to coax her to go to Dipolog. None of the money used
as ransom was found in her possession. Her involvement in the pay-off was never established. The testimony of two prosecution
witnesses, Sgt. De Lena and Sgt. Iglesias, claiming that Padayhag was with Castillo when the latter picked up the ransom in
Obando, is contradicted by Castillos admission in open court that she brought along a certain Mila and not Padayhag. In
addition, the testimonies of these two police officers suffer from their failure to explain how they suddenly lost track of the two
women who took the ransom in front of their very eyes.

Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Innocence; In the absence of conspiracy, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction; The presumption
of innocence stands as a fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal law.All these circumstances illustrate the
absence of any hint of conspiracy. We also find that the, prosecution failed to prove Padayhags guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In People v. Gonzales we held: In the absence of conspiracy, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. Every person accused has the
right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence stands as a
fundamental principle of both constitutional and criminal law. Thus, the prosecution has the burden of proving every single fact
establishing guilt. Every vestige of doubt having a rational basis must be removed. The defense of the accused, even if weak, is
no reason to convict. Within this framework, the prosecution must prove its case beyond any hint of uncertainty. The defense
need not even speak at all. The presumption of innocence is more than sufficient.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The presumption of innocence imposes a rule of evidence, a degree of proof that demands no less
than total compli-ance.A criminal conviction must stand on the strength of the evidence presented by the prosecution, and not
on the weakness of the defense of the accused. The prosecution should have done more to establish Paday-hags guilt. Instead,
the prosecution left a lot of room for other possible scenarios besides her guilt. This is a fatal error. The presumption of innocence
imposes a rule of evidence, a degree of proof that demands no less than total compliance. As we explained in United States v.
Reyes: The presumption of innocence can be overborne only by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which means proof, to
the satisfaction of the court and keeping in mind the presumption of innocence, as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except
that which it is given to support. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong, that the fact
charged is more likely true than the contrary. It must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certaintya
certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it. (Emphasis supplied)

Same; Same; Same; Same; Presumption of Regularity; The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, by itself,
cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.We find Padayhags explanation sufficiently supported by
circumstances aside from Castillos testimony. Padayhags acts before, during and after the crime all point to the conclusion that
she was no more than an unwitting tool of Castillo. Castillo misled her into a meeting. Castillo again misled her into fetching
Rocky. Castillo never met or contacted her after the day of Rockys abduction. Castillo also testified that she did not bring
Padayhag along with her when she went to Obando on the day that coincided with the pay-off. The only circumstance linking
Padayhag to that event is the shaky account of two police officers who admitted that their quarry inexplicably disappeared before
their very eyes. Even the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, by itself, cannot prevail over the
constitutional presumption of innocence. Nothing links Padayhag to the demand for ransom. She never received any part of the
ransom, precisely because she did not even know it existed. People vs. Castillo, 425 SCRA 136, G.R. No. 132895 March 10, 2004

G.R. No. 132324. September 28, 1999.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORLITO TAN @ NORLY and JOSE TAN, accused-appellants.

Criminal Law; Murder; Evidence; Credibility of Witnesses; Because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor
and conduct of the witnesses while testifying on the stand, its conclusions and findings on their credibility are entitled to great
weight on appeal and should not be changed except for strong and valid rea-sons.Well-rooted is the rule that factual findings
of the trial judge who tried the case and heard the witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal, unless there are circumstances
of weight and substance which have been overlooked and which, if properly considered, might affect the result of the case.
Because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while testifying on the stand,
its conclusions and findings on their credibility are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be changed except for strong
and valid reasons.

Same; Same; Same; It is within the sound discretion of a trial judge to allow a party that has rested its case to introduce rebuttal
evidence.Neither can the presentation of Ofelia Olos as a rebuttal witness be deemed irregular. Considering that the appellants
claimed self-defense only after the prosecution had rested its case, the latter, after being allowed by the trial court, exercised its
prerogative to present Olos, so that she could testify that the attack on her husband was sudden and unexpected. Furthermore,
it is within the sound discretion of a trial judge to allow a party that has rested its case to introduce rebuttal evidence.

Same; Same; Same; Motive; Motive is not important when there is no doubt about the identity of the perpetrator of the crime.
The inconsistencies pointed out by the appellants refer to their alleged motive for killing the victim, the distance of the witnesses
from the locus criminis and the location of the wounds inflicted. However, motive is not important when there is no doubt about
the identity of the perpetrator of the crime, as in the present case.

Same; Same; Same; Minor lapses manifest truthfulness and candor and erase suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.In any case,
the inconsistencies cited by the appellants are not substantial enough to impair the credibility of these witnesses. Rather, such
minor lapses manifest truthfulness and candor and erase suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.

Same; Same; Same; Self-Defense; When the accused invoke self-defense, the burden of proof is shifted to them to prove that the
killing was justified and that they incurred no criminal liability therefor.When the accused invoke self-defense, the burden of
proof is shifted to them to prove that the killing was justified and that they incurred no criminal liability therefor. They must rely
on the strength of their own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if the latter is weak, it could
not be disbelieved after their open admission of responsibility for the killing. In the present case, it is incumbent upon Appellant
Norly Tan to prove self-defense. Thus, he must prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, that the means
employed to prevent it were reasonable, and that there was lack of sufficient provocation on his part. However, he failed to
discharge this burden.

Same; Same; Same; Qualifying Circumstance; Treachery; The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without
the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked.The trial court correctly ruled that the killing was attended by
treachery; hence, the crime was murder. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person attacked. Treachery is present 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 arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In the case at bar, the attack on Magdalino Olos was
treacherous, because he was caught off guard and was therefore unable to defend himself, as testified to by the prosecution
witnesses and as indicated by the wounds inflicted on him.

Same; Same; Same; Conspiracy; Accomplices; Court agrees with the court a quo that the prosecution was not able to establish
conspiracy in the killing of the victim; Definition of Accomplices.We agree with the court a quo that the prosecution was not
able to establish conspiracy in the killing of the victim; thus, Appellant Jose Tan is guilty only as an accomplice. x x x The Revised
Penal Code defines accomplices as those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Absent a conspiracy, the responsibility of the accused is individual, not collective, and each is to be
punished only for his separate acts.In the present case, the prosecution was not able to prove that Jose Tan conspired with his
brother to commit the murder. Neither was it shown that he had prior knowledge of the latters criminal intent. Absent a
conspiracy, the responsibility of the accused is individual, not collective, and each is to be punished only for his separate acts.
People vs. Tan, 315 SCRA 375, G.R. No. 132324 September 28, 1999

Two classes of accessories are contemplated in paragraph 3 of Article 19

1. Public officers who harbor, conceal, or assist in the escape of the principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse of his
pubic functions

Requisites:
a. The accessory is a public officer
b. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal
c. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions
d. The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony

2. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime guilty of treason, parricide, murder
or an attempt against the life of the President, or who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime

Requisites:
a. That the accessory is a private person
b. That he harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the author of the crime
c. That the crime committed by the principal is either: (a) treason, (b) parricide, (c) murder, (d) an attempt against the life
of the President, or (e) that the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime Thus, if a person was previously punished three times for
less serious physical injuries and now commits estafa, the one who helps in his escape is liable as an accessory although
the accessory is a private individual

But the accessory must have knowledge of the principal being habitually guilty of some other crime, because the law
says saw.