People vs. Noel T. Sales GR.

No 177218

Facts:
On September 19, 2002, brothers Noemar and Junior, then nine and eight
years old, respectively, left their home to attend the fluvial procession of Our
Lady of Peñafrancia without the permission of their parents. They did not
return home that night. When their mother, Maria Litan Sales (Maria),
looked for them the next day, she found them in the nearby Barangay of
Magsaysay. Afraid of their father’s rage, Noemar and Junior initially refused
to return home but their mother prevailed upon them. When the two kids
reached home a furious appellant confronted them. Appellant then whipped
them with a stick which was later broken so that he brought his kids outside
their house. With Noemar’s and Junior’s hands and feet tied to a coconut
tree, appellant continued beating them with a thick piece of wood.
The trial court charged the accused guilty of parricide and slight physical
injuries.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crimes charged.
Rulings:
Yes. All the elements of the crime of parricide is present in this case.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed
by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant,
or the legitimate spouse of accused.

In the case at bench, there is overwhelming evidence to prove the first

When the beating finally stopped, the three walked back to the house,
Noemar collapsed and lost consciousness. Maria then told appellant to call a
quack doctor. He left and returned with one, who told them that they have to
bring Noemar to a hospital. Appellant thus proceeded to take the
unconscious Noemar to the junction and waited for a vehicle to take them to
a hospital. As there was no vehicle and because another quack doctor they
met at the junction told them that Noemar is already dead, appellant brought
his son back to their house.
Appellant denied that his son died from his beating since no parent could kill
his or her child. He claimed that Noemar died as a result of difficulty in
breathing. In fact, he never complained of the whipping done to
him. Besides, appellant recalled that Noemar was brought to a hospital more
than a year before September 2002 and diagnosed with having a weak heart.
element, that is, a person was killed. There is likewise no doubt as to the
existence of the second element that the appellant killed the deceased. It is
sufficiently established by the positive testimonies of Maria and Junior. As
to the third element, appellant himself admitted that the deceased is his
child.
As to the charge of Physical injuries, the victim himself, Junior testified that
he, together with his brother Noemar, were beaten by their father, herein
appellant, while they were tied to a coconut tree. He recalled to have been
hit on his right eye and right leg and to have been examined by a physician
thereafter. Maria corroborated her son’s testimony.

On the other hand, Maria testified that Noemar suffered from epilepsy.
Whenever he suffers from epileptic seizures, Noemar froths and passes out.
But he would regain consciousness after 15 minutes. His seizures normally
occur whenever he gets hungry or when scolded.
People vs. Dela Cruz G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010
Murder -- Qualified by Treachery
Facts:
In an Information filed on August 11, 2003, accused-appellant Leozar Dela
Cruz y Balobal was indicted for the crime of murder of Vincent Pimentel
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon arraignment, he pleaded
not guilty to the charge.
On September 5, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision, finding Leozar guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder attended by treachery and sentencing
him to reclusion perpetua. On February 27, 2008, the CA rendered the
appealed decision, affirming the findings of the RTC and the conviction of
Leozar but modifying the award of damages.
and was not in a position to defend himself. Clearly, treachery was present in
this killing.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender
arising from the defense which the offended party might make. 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. For treachery to be
considered, two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of
execution that gives the persons attacked no opportunity to defend
themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted.

Accused raises the same assignment of errors as in his Brief, to wit: first, that
the courts a quo erred in appreciating the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of treachery; and second, that the courts a quo gravely erred in
convicting him of murder instead of homicide.

Issue:

Was there treachery?

Ruling:

Yes. The fact that Leozar and Vincent did not quarrel prior to the killing is
indicative of the treachery employed by Leozar. After Vincent paid Leozar
some money, he left and went inside the alley. When Vincent came back to
Mockingbird St. from the alley, Leozar deliberately employed means with
treachery affording Vincent no opportunity to defend himself, i.e., Leozar
draped his arm around Vincent and slash/slit his neck using a 24-inch bladed
samurai. The fatal neck wound caused Vincent’s death, described in his death
certificate as "hemorrhagic shock secondary to an incised wound of the
neck." All told, the victim was unaware of the imminent attempt on his life,
PEOPLE v ABARCA persons injured. He was not also committing a crime when he was firing his
gun at Koh – it being under Art. 247. Abarca was however negligent because
Against Persons – Article 247 – Death Inflicted Under Exceptional he did not exercise all precaution to make sure no one else will be hurt. As
Circumstances such, he shall be liable for less serious physical injuries through simple
One day in 1984, Francisco Abarca, through a peephole, caught his wife negligence for the injuries suffered by the two other persons who were in the
adjacent room when the incident happened.
having sexual intercourse with one Khingsley Paul Koh inside the Abarca
residence. The two also caught Abarca looking at them and so Koh grabbed
his pistol and thereafter Abarca fled. One hour later, Abarca, armed with an
armalite, went to the gambling place where Koh usually stays and then and
there shot Koh multiple times. Koh died instantaneously. However, two more
persons were shot in the adjacent room. These two other persons survived
due to timely medical intervention.

Eventually after trial, Abarca was convicted of the complex crime of murder
with frustrated double murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not the judgment of conviction is correct.

HELD: No. Abarca is entitled to the provisions of Article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code which provides:

Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or
both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them
any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married
person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case.

Even though one hour had already lapsed from the time Abarca caught his
wife with Koh and the time he killed Koh, the killing was still the direct by-
product of Abarca’s rage. Therefore, Abarca is not liable for the death of
Koh.

However, Abarca is still liable for the injuries he caused to the two other
persons he shot in the adjacent room but his liability shall not be for
frustrated murder. In the first place, Abarca has no intent to kill the other two