Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Liability

People vs. Barcela

GR No. 208760
April 23, 2014
Facts;
One early morning in 2002, while AAA was lying on the floor sleeping, Accused Floro Buban
Barcela(Barcela) lifted her clothes and removed her shorts; that he inserted his penis into her vagina; that
he warned her not to tell the incident to anyone, otherwise, he would kill her.
BBB, who was older than AAA, also suffered the same horrible fate. On November 12, 2004 at
around 3:00 in the morning, while BBB was awakened when Barcela, who was then sleeping next to her,
lifted her skirt, removed her panty and, thereafter inserted his finger into her vagina; and that she suffered
pain during the insertion but could not shout for fear that Barcela would kill her.
The rape incident was reported by the victims grandmother and in order to protect herself, AAA
stayed at the Kanlungan Shelter.
The RTC found Barcela guilty as charged. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and ruled that
penile rape committed against AAA and sexual assault against BBB were qualified by the special qualifying
circumstances of minority and relationship between the offender and the offended party.
Issue:
Whether or not the crime committed by the accused Barcela is qualified rape
Ruling:
No, the crime committed is not qualified rape.
To sustain conviction for qualified rape, the following elements must concur: First, the victim is a
female over 12 years but under 18 years of age; second, the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim; and the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim either through force, threat or
intimidation; or when she was deprived of reasons or is otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent
machinations or grave abuse of authority.
In this case, the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were likewise not
present. In the case AAA, the prosecution proved that the latter was only 7 years old when the penile rape
was committed in 2002. In the crime of rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her
relationship with the offender is a special qualifying circumstance and raises the penalty to the supreme
penalty of death. However, the aforesaid qualifying circumstance could not be appreciated in this case.
AAA was under 12 years old when she was raped in 2002. The prosecution failed to prove the allegation in
the information that Barcela was the stepfather of AAA at the time of the commission of the crime. The best
evidence that can be used in this allegation is a valid marriage contract between Barcela and the mother of
the victim. No record shows that such marriage certificate was submitted in evidence of the prosecution.
The qualifying circumstance was not proved because there was no proof of the allegation that the accused-
appellant was the stepfather of the victim as the evidence shows that there was no valid marriage
certificate to prove the marriage between Barcela and the victims mother.
Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Liability
People vs. Matimay Watamama aka Akmad Salipada, Teng Midtimbang
GR No. 188710
June 2, 2014
Facts:
On October 26, 1998, Francisco Arobo Jr, Calim, and five other farmers were at the farm of
Samad. They were ploughing the unplanted area, while Samad was tending his corn plants. Arobo heard
gunfires nearby. He looked to the rear and saw the accused-appellants firing garand fires. Because of the
continuing gunfires, Arobo and the rest of their group take cover for their protection, while Samad ran
towards the nipa hut at the other side of the farm where his children were staying.

After the medical examination, it showed that Calim sustained multiple gunshot wounds in the
head, chestm right and left thighs, and right elbow.

RTC found appellant beyond reasonable doubt of the crime murder. Appellant filed an appeal
before the CA. the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC convicting the accused for the crime of murder in
view of the presence of treachery.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, rather than murder, as
the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish treachery

Ruling:

Yes, the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide, and not murder.

For the charge of murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove the following: first, the offender
killed the victim; and the killing was done through treachery.

There is treachery when the offender commits any crimes against persons by employing means,
methods or forms that tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to the offender arising
from the defense that the offended party might make. For treachery to be considered, it must present and
seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack.

In this case, Calim was unable to parry the attack, as he was caught unaware. Both Arobo and
Samad admitted that they did not see how the attacked commenced, and that it was the initial gunfire that
caught their attention. Thus, it cannot be said with certainty that the victim was engrossed in his farm work
when he was initially attacked. Neither can we conclusively say that there was no chance or opportunity for
Calim to defend himself from aggression.
Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Liability

People vs. Jenny Likiran alias Loloy

GR No. 201858
June 4, 2014
Facts:

On the night of March 19, 2000 in Barangay Bugca-on, Lantapon, Bukidon, prosecution witnesses
Dagangon, Mercado and Goloceno testified that on said night, Jerome Likiran(Jerome), accused-appellants
brother, punched Mercado on the mouth. Goloceno was about to assist Mercado when he saw that Jerome
was holding a hunting knife, so he backed off. Jerome approached the victim, Sareno, and shot him several
times. With Sareno fallen, the accused-appellant stab him on the back.Dagangon was able to bring Sareno
to the hospital, but Sareno was already dead at that point.

The accused-appellant denied any involvement in the crime. He admitted that he was at the dance,
but he did not go outside when the commotion happened, that he and Jerome stayed within the area near
the sound system machine was located.

The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty of the crime of murder as the prosecution was able to
establish the latters culpability.

The CA sustained the findings of the RTC as regards the identity of the accused-appellant as one
of the perpetrators of the crime.

Issue:

Whether or not the killing of Sareno was attended by Treachery, qualifying the crime to murder

Ruling:

No, the killing of Sareno was not attended by Treachery.

Treachery is appreciated as a qualifying circumstance when the following elements are shown: a)
the malefactor employed means, method, or manner of execution affording the person attacked no
opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and b) the means, method, or manner of execution was
deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. Treachery is not present when the killing is not
premeditated.

The witnesses in this case point that the shooting and stabbing of Sareno was a spur of the
moment incident, a result of the brawl that happened. The prosecution failed to show that the accused and
his brother deliberately planned the means by which they would harm Sareno. The evidences even showed
that Sareno was just an innocent bystander who, unfortunately become target of the accused-appellant and
Jeromes rampage.

The accused-appellant should be liable only for the lesser crime of Homicide.
Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Liability
Cirera vs. People
G.R. No. 181843
July 14, 2014
Facts:
On April 20, 2000, while Romeo Austria was playing a card game, Miguel Cirera arrived, asking
money from the former so that he could by liquor. Austria asked Miguel to keep quiet. Gerardo Naval
arrived and asked Austria to go home. There was an exchange of words between Gerardo and Miguel.
Austria then suddenly stood up because he felt that he was stabbed. He noticed that Miguel was armed
with a knife, this time chasing Gerardo.
Gerardo testified that Miguel got angry when he asked Austria to go home. He felt a hard blow that
hit his back after the exchange of words between him and Miguel. When he saw that Miguel was holding a
knife, he ran away. Miguel then chased Gerardo who fell on the ground. When Miguel was about to stab
him again, he hit Miguel with a bench and left him lying on the ground, unable to stand.
The RTC found Miguel Cicera guilty beyond Reasonable doubt of two counts of frustrated murder.
The RTC held that there was a qualifying circumstance of treachery when the crime was commited.
Dissatisfied, Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its decision, the CA affirmed the decision of the
Trial Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution failed to prove the treachery in the case, as a qualifying
circumstance
Ruling:
Yes, treachery, as a qualifying circumstance to sustain a conviction of frustrated murder rather than
a frustrated homicide, was not proven by the prosecution.
A finding of the existence of treachery must be based on clear and convincing evidence. Its
existence cannot be presumed. Any doubt as to its existence should be resolved in favor of the accused.
The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the sole basis of a finding of the existence of treachery. There
are two requisites of the existence of treachery, first is the means, method, or manner of execution
employed which will ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive act on the part of the victim, no
opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself; and deliberate conscious adoption of such means,
method, or manner of execution.
In the case at bar, no evidence was presented to show that petitioner consciously adopted or
reflected on the means, method, or form to secure his unfair advantage. The attack might have been done
on impulse or as a reaction to an actual imagined provocation offered by the victim.
Petitioner was not only dismissed by Austria when he approached him for money. There was also
an altercation between him and Naval. The provocation might have been enough to entice petitioner to
action and attack private complainants.
Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Liability

People vs. Amora

G.R. No. 190322
November 26, 2014
Facts:

On September 12, 2004, Anselmo, Aurelio and the victim Romeo were walking on their way to
Sampol Market. Maricris and her son was at their back Appellant suddenly rushed towards them and
stabbed Romeo twice. Romeo fell to the ground while the accused ran away from the scene. Romeo was
rushed to the hospital and later on, he was transferred to East Avenue Medical center where he died after
three days.

The RTC rendered its decision convicting appellant of the crime of murder. It was found that the
stabbing of Romeo was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery as it was sudden and
unexpected.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery

Ruling:

No, the RTC and CA correctly held that crime committed was murder under Article 248 of the RPC
by reason of the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

In order the qualifying circumstance of treachery to be appreciated, the following requisites must be
present; first, the employment of means of execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or retaliate; and the means of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.

The appellants sudden attack on Romeo amply demonstrates that treachery was not employed in
the commission of the crime. Records shows that appellant initially came from behind and then attacked
Romeo from the front. In any event, even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on
an unarmed victim who would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it, as in this case.

The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or
escape.
Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Liability
Fantastico vs, Malicse, Sr.
G.R. No. 190912
January 12, 2015
Facts:
On June 12, 1993, Elpidio Malicse, Sr. was outside of the house of his sister when he heard
Winston, his sisters son, throwing invectives at him. Elpidio confronted her sister but she also cursed him,
which prompted the former to slap the latter.
Elpidio was persuaded to go home by the Barangay Captain who tried to stop the commotion.
Thereafter, Elpidio went back to his sisters house to offer reconciliation. Upon reaching the house, he saw
his sisters son, Titus and her son-in-law, Gary. He asked the two where he can find their mother but they
answered using foul words. In his anger with the response of Titus and Gary, Elpidio kicked the door to
open it but he saw Salvador, his sisters elder son, behind the door holding a rattan stick. The latter hits
Elpidio on the latters head and another blow that hits Elpidio on his eyebrow. Elpidio was able to stop the
third attack and the two wrestled on the floor.
Gary hit Elpidio on the right side of his head with a toma-hack axe. Elpidio tried to defend himself
but was not able to do so. Elpidio pretended to be dead so that they will stop attacking him. Concerned
neighbors approached him and rushed him to the emergency room of the PGH.
A case for attempted Murder was filed against Salvador, Titus, Saligan, Iguiron, Tommy
Ballesteros, Eugune Surigao and Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva.
Durint the trial, one of the accused, Salvador Iguiron died. The trial court, in its decision, acquitted
Titus, Saligan Iguiron and Tomy Ballesteros but found Gary Fantastico and Rolando Villanueva guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for Attempted Murder. On an appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the said
decision.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution failed to prove the presence of treachery or any other qualifying
circumstances
Ruling:
No, the prosecution did not fail to prove the presence of treachery because prima facie, there was
no treachery.
There are two elements before a treachery can concur; first, the employment of means of
execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and the means
of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted.
In applying the two elements in the given facts, the incident was spontaneous, thus, the second
requisite of treachery is wanting. There is no treachery where the attack was not preconceived and
deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused because of
the provocative act of the victim. The incident negates the possibility that the petitioner consciously adopted
means to execute the crime committed.
Circumstances which Aggravate Criminal Liability
People vs. Matibag Y De aka Dani/Danilo
GR No. 206381
March 25, 2015
Facts:

Enrico Clar de Jesus Duhan, who just came from a meeting with the other officers of the
homeowners association of Twin Villa Subdivision, was walking along Iron Street in Brgy. Kumintang
Ibaba, Batangas City, Matibag confronted him. Matibag then pulled out his gun and shot Duhan, whose
face hits the pavement.

The RTC in its decision convicted Matibag with the crime of Murder. The RTC appreciated the
existence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery since the attack was sudden, unprovoked, and without
any warning on the victim who was unarmed and in a defenseless position. The CA agreed with the RTCs
findings.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC erred in appreciating the existence of the qualifying circumstance of
treachery

Ruling:

No, the RTC is correct when it appreciates the existence of the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.

Under Article 14 of the RPC, 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 ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.

In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that Matibag confronted Duhan punched and shot
him on the chest. The attack was sudden and unexpected that Duhan has no chance to defend himself.

Matibag was ready and destined to effect such dastardly act, considering that he had an axe to
grind when he confronted Duhan, coupled with the fact that he did so, armed with a loaded handgun.
Advantage of Public Position
People vs. Sumaoy
G.R.105961
October 22, 1996
Facts:

Accused-appellant was convicted for the killing on July 9, 1988 of Zandro Vargas, 16 years of age.
Four witnesses where presented by the prosecution: Wilbert Vargas, the deceased brother, Patricio
Jacobe, Jr Enriqueta Vargas and Dr. Jose Vargas.

In the version of the facts of Patricio Jacobe, Jr , he states that, when he was at the billiard hall, he
heard several gunshots. When he turned to find out where the sound came from, he saw the deceased
Zandro, running with his right arm bleeding. However, the deceased was overtaken by Sumaoy and
dragged him towards a waiting tricycle. Later that evening, Jacobe learned that Zandro was found dead in a
field.

On June 6, 1991, the RTC of Tagum, Davao, rendered its decision finding Sumaoy guilty of murder
qualified by treachery.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting Sumaoy with the crime of murder qualified by treachery

Ruling:

Yes, the RTC erred in convicting the accused-appellant with the crime of murder.

While the evidence in this case sufficiently establishes the guilt of the accused-appellant for the
killing of Zandro, the court thinks that he cannot be held liable for murder because of the absence of
evidence as to the manner of the actual killing. Where no particulars are known as to the manner in which
the aggression was made or how the act which resulted the death of the victim began and developed, it
cannot be established from mere suppositions that the accused perpetrated the killing with treachery.

Based from the testimony of Jacobe, Jr, the deceased was trying to flee from the accused-
appellant when the latter shot him, thus indicating that the victim had been forewarned of a greater injury
against him. The assault on the victim cannot be said to have been made in a sudden or unexpected
manner so as to justify a finding of treachery.