1

PEOPLE V. PUGAY MEDIALDEA, J. / 1988

FACTS: The deceased Miranda, a 25-year old retardate, and the accused Pugay were friends. Miranda used
to run errands for Pugay and at times they slept together. On the evening of May 19, 1982, a town fiesta fair
was held in the public plaza of Rosario, Cavite. There were different kinds of ride and one was a ferris wheel.

Sometime after midnight of the same date, Eduardo Gabion was sitting in the ferris wheel and reading a comic
book with his friend Henry. Later, the accused Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived. These
persons appeared to be drunk as they were all happy and noisy. As the group saw the deceased walking
nearby, they started making fun of him. They made the deceased dance by tickling him with a piece of wood.

Not content with what they were doing with the deceased, the accused Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline
from under the engine of the ferns wheel and poured its contents on the body of the former. Gabion told Pugay
not to do so while the latter was already in the process of pouring the gasoline. Then, the accused Samson set
Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him.

The ferris wheel operator later arrived and doused with water the burning body of the deceased. Some people
around also poured sand on the burning body and others wrapped the same with rags to extinguish the flame.

The body of the deceased was still aflame when police officer Rolando Silangcruz and other police officers of
the Rosario Police Force arrived at the scene of the incident. Upon inquiring as to who were responsible for the
dastardly act, the persons around spontaneously pointed to Pugay and Samson as the authors thereof.

The deceased was later rushed to the Grace Hospital for treatment. In the meantime, the police officers
brought Gabion, the two accused and five other persons to the Rosario municipal building for interrogation.
Police officer Reynaldo Canlas took the written statements of Gabion and the two accused, after which Gabion
was released. The two accused remained in custody.

There is nothing in the records showing that there was previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and
intention between the two accused-appellants immediately before the commission of the crime. There was no
animosity between the deceased and the accused Pugay or Samson. Their meeting at the scene of the
incident was accidental. It is also clear that the accused Pugay and his group merely wanted to make fun of the
deceased.

ISSUES: 1. What is the criminal liability of accused Pugay?

2. WON the accused Samson has the intent to kill so as to qualify his criminal liability into murder.

HELD: 1. Pugay is only liable for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. Having taken the can from under
the engine of the ferris wheel and holding it before pouring its contents on the body of the deceased, this
accused knew that the can contained gasoline. The stinging smell of this flammable liquid could not have
escaped his notice even before pouring the same. Clearly, he failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to
avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be committed by his companions who at
the time were making fun of the deceased. The court agrees with the Solicitor General that the accused is only
guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence defined in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
2. There is entire absence of proof in the record that the accused Samson had some reason to kill the
deceased before the incident. On the contrary, there is adequate evidence showing that his act was merely a
part of their fun-making that evening. For the circumstance of treachery to exist, the attack must be deliberate
and the culprit employed means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make.

There can be no doubt that the accused Samson knew very well that the liquid poured on the body of the
deceased was gasoline and a flammable substance for he would not have committed the act of setting the
latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the benefit of doubt, it call be conceded that as part of their
fun-making he merely intended to set the deceased's clothes on fire.

His act, however, does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. Burning the clothes of the victim would cause
at the very least some kind of physical injuries on his person, a felony defined in the Revised Penal Code. If his
act resulted into a graver offense, as what took place in the instant case, he must be held responsible therefor.
Article 4 of the aforesaid code provides, inter alia, that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

As no sufficient evidence appears in the record establishing any qualifying circumstances, the accused
Samson is only guilty of the crime of homicide defined and penalized in Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended.

The court, however, credited in his favor the ordinary mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed as there is evidence of a fact from which such conclusion can be drawn.

People v Castillo (1946)

Facts:
Nena Tanalega Raymundo and Dr. Leon Castillo were accused of the crime of frustrated murder by poisoning
through reckless imprudence. It was alleged that Mr. Silvinio Belarmino presented for dispensation 1/3 formula
prescription of Dr. Antonio G. Sison at the Escudero Drug Store. Dr. Castillo and Nena mutually helped each
other prepare the said prescription but instead of mixing the required proportion of Spartein Sulphate, thru
carelessness and reckless imprudence, they mixed and compounded in the formula a toxic dose of Strychnine
Suplhate, which is a poisonous substance.
As a result of which, Belarmino, upon taking one capsule of the medicine on the very same day, was poisoned
and would have died, had it not been for causes independent of the will of the accused.
CFI ruled that they are guilty of frustrated homicide thru reckless imprudence.
Nena appealed that the CFI erred in holding that a frustrated felony can be committed thru reckless
imprudence.
CA found them guilty of slight physical injuries thru reckless imprudence.
It has been shown by the testimony of an expert witness that the intake of that poisonous substance was
sufficient to cause the death of Belarmino, if not for the fact that other two substances diminished the deadly
effect of strychnine sulphate as poision.

Issue: WON Castillo and Nena are guilty of frustrated homicide thru reckless imprudence.

Ruling: NO.
The offense of frustrated homicide requires the concurrence of the essential requisite of intent to kill, which is
incompatible with the charge of reckless imprudence, although a charge for physical injuries, serious or less
serious, thru reckless imprudence is legally proper under the law.
What the accused has committed is a violation of Sec. 2676 (General Violation of Pharmacy Law) in relation to
Sec. 751 (Responsibility for quality of drugs) of the Revised Administrative Code. The profession of pharmacy
demands care and skill; and druggists must exercise care of a specially high degree, the highest degree of
care known to practical men. In other words, druggist must exercise the highest practical degree of prudence
and vigilance, and the most exact and reliable safeguards consistent with the reasonable conduct of the
business, so that human life may not constantly be exposed to the danger flowing from the substitution of
deadly poisons for harmless medicines. Even though Nena is not a pharmacist but only a pharmacy-clerk, she
is still guilty.
The offenses penalized under the provisions of section 751 of the Revised Administrative Code, in connection
with the provisions of section 2676 thereof, may be committed not only by licensed druggists and pharmacists,
but also by any other person preparing any drug, chemical, medicine or poison, under any fraudulent name.

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 139576. September 2, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROGER or ROGELIO PUEDAN, appellant.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
By invoking the defense of surprising his spouse in the very act of sexual intercourse with the victim, the
accused admits authorship of the killing. Having waived his constitutional right to be presumed faultless, he
now bears the burden of proving his innocence. Furthermore, his flight negates his self-righteous proclamation
of being the victim of in flagrante adultery. Indeed, if what he claims is true, he should have reported the
incident to the authorities immediately, instead of hiding from them for over three years.
The Facts
Version of the Prosecution
“In the morning of February 21, 1995, Florencio Ilar, accompanied by his six-year old grandson, Reymark
Anthony Ilar, went to the house of Luceno Tulo to buy a piglet.
“Luceno Tulo was fashioning out a mortar (for pounding palay) near his house when Florencio and his
grandson arrived.
“Appellant Roger Puedan suddenly arrived and stabbed Florencio five (5) times, first in the abdomen, with a
sharp, pointed knife locally known as ‘plamingco’. Terrified of what he witnessed, Luceno fled towards the
house of his neighbor. Young Reymark ran back to his parents’ house and told his mother, Erlinda Ilar, what
transpired.
“Erlinda Ilar ran swiftly to Luceno’s place but Florencio was already dead when she arrived. Florencio was
bathed in his own blood and lying by the side of the rice paddy.
“The body of Florencio Ilar remained where it had fallen until the arrival of the police later that day.”[8]
(Citations omitted)
Version of the Defense
Appellant contends that he deserves acquittal, because the killing falls under the exceptional circumstance
referred to in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. He claims to have surprised his spouse whom he had
caught in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person. Appellant narrates his version of the
facts in the following manner:
“The defense had a different version of the incident that led to the death of Florencio Ilar. To lay the basis of
the questionable character of the deceased[,] [t]he defense presented the testimony of JENNEFER NADELA,
who claimed that she was once a househelp in the residence of the Ilars’. During her stay, which lasted only
from July 1 to July 30, 1992, the deceased used to fondle her private parts against her will. The deceased
likewise proposed an amorous relationship with her, in exchange for some money, which she declined.
“Corroborative of the testimony of Nadela, anent the character of the deceased, was the testimony of witness
VINESA QUINTERO. Quintero’s father and the deceased were drinking buddies. Sometime in December
1982, when she took her vacation at her parent’s house, her father and Florencio Ilar had a drinking session.
When the duo were through drinking, she washed the drinking glasses of their kitchen. Florencio Ilar,
however, followed her inside the kitchen and without warning embraced and kissed her. Ilar then proposed
that they go outside in exchange for some amount of money. She declined the proposition. The incident was
repeated during the next weekend when her father and Ilar had another drinking session. The witness likewise
averred that she heard one of Florencio Ilar’s daughter-in-law, Erlinda, confiding to her mother that Florencio
Ilar was a sex maniac, who was bent on molesting her.
“LEAH PUEDAN, the wife of the accused, admitted having an illicit relationship with the deceased, Florencio
Ilar. The illicit relationship had been going on for two years and was known in their barangay, except her
husband. On February 21, 1995, at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning, Florencio Ilar came to their house, while
she was breastfeeding her child, and was looking for her husband, Roger Puedan. When she retorted that
Roger was out putting the carabao in a shade, Florencio then suggested that they have a quick sexual
intercourse, and ordered her to remove her skirt and panty, while also undressing himself. While they were
having sex, Roger suddenly appeared and was stunned by what he saw. Roger then struck Florencio with his
bolo and the two men grappled with each other. She then gathered her young child and ran away from the
house.
“Accused ROGER PUEDAN, testifying on his behalf, averred that Florencio Ilar was one of the patrons in the
ricefields [where] he works. As such patron, Florencio usually [brought] him wine and ‘pulutan’ which they
partook at his house. On February 21, 1995, at around 8:00 o’clock in the morning, he brought his carabao to
a shade. Upon his return, he heard some noises emanating from their bedroom. His curiosity aroused, he
went inside the room and found the already undressed Florencio having sexual intercourse with his wife.
Shaken and dumbfounded by the revelation, he shouted invectives upon the copulating pair and found a bolo
to stab them. The first thrust was parried by Florencio, who grappled for the bolo and wrestled with him. As
they wrestled with each other, they fell to the ground, and his hand was freed from the grip of Florencio. He
then stabbed Florencio and hit him on the stomach. He then proceeded upstairs in search of his wife, who had
already fled.”[9] (Citations omitted)
Issues
Appellant argues that (1) Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code should be applied in his favor, and (2)
treachery should not be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
The Court’s Ruling
Exceptional Circumstance
By raising Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code as his defense, appellant admits that he killed the victim.
This provision reads as follows:
“ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. – 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. x x x”
By invoking this defense, appellant waives his right to the constitutional presumption of innocence and bears
the burden of proving the following:
“1. That a legally married person (or a parent) surprises his spouse (or his daughter, under 18 years of age
and living with him), in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person.
“2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical injury in
the act or immediately thereafter.
“3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.”[14]
To satisfy this burden, appellant must prove that he actually surprised his wife and Florencio in flagrante
delicto, and that he killed the man during or immediately thereafter. However, all that appellant established
was Florencio’s promiscuity, which was inconsequential to the killing. What is important is that his version of
the stabbing incident is diametrically opposed to the convincing accounts of Prosecution Witnesses Luceno
Tulo, Reymark Anthony Ilar, Erlinda Ilar and Policeman Inihao.
Appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses by alleging that Tulo was not at the crime scene
when the stabbing occurred. Without elaborating on the particulars that led to the incident, appellant claims
that Reymark and Erlinda merely underscored the fact that Florencio had been stabbed. Thus, appellant
argues that these witnesses were not able to contradict his defense.
Well-settled is the rule that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best
undertaken by the trial court, because it had the opportunity to observe them firsthand and to note their
demeanor and conduct on the witness stand. For this reason, its findings on such matters, absent any
arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and substance, are final and conclusive upon this
Court and will not to be disturbed on appeal.[15]
In this case, the RTC found the prosecution witnesses to be credible and convincing. It observed that Tulo,
Reymark and Erlinda were candid and straightforward in relating their versions of the stabbing incident. Tulo
narrated that he was outside his house fashioning a mortar when Florencio -- accompanied by his then
five-year-old grandson, Reymark -- arrived in order to buy a piglet. Standing about a meter away, Tulo
recounted that appellant suddenly appeared and stabbed Florencio on the abdomen with a knife.
Appellant further alleges that Erlinda, who was the first to arrive at the locus criminis, did not see Tulo
anywhere. This allegation, however, is consistent with the testimony of Tulo that he ran to his neighbor’s
house right after the first knife thrust.
Furthermore, the physical evidence shows that Florencio lay dead near Tulo’s -- not appellant’s -- house.
Erlinda testified that his body remained unmoved and untouched where it had fallen until the policemen
came.[23] In addition, SPO4 Antonio Inihao’s testimony on the attendant circumstances inspires belief. He
testified that the body lay 80 meters away from appellant’s house and only about 15 meters away from
Tulo’s.[24] This statement contradicts the claim of appellant that he and Florencio grappled outside the
former’s house, where the latter fell and was subsequently killed.
When found, the body of Florencio was fully clothed in a shirt and a pair of pants, all its buttons intact.[25] We
agree with the RTC that had the victim been caught by surprise while engaged in the sex act, he would not
have had the opportunity to put on his pants, parry the forthcoming bolo thrusts, and then grapple with
appellant.
Appellant’s Flight
Further eroding the defense of appellant is the fact that he immediately fled from the crime scene right after the
stabbing incident. He hid for about three years[26] until he was arrested by the authorities on March 16,
1998.[27] His flight betrays his defense, because he could have easily relayed his story to the proper
authorities, if he had indeed caught his wife and Florencio in flagrante delicto.
Through flight, one impedes the course of justice by avoiding arrest, detention, or the continuance of criminal
proceedings.[28] As with self-defense, the exceptional circumstance provided under Article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code may not prevail in the face of the flight of appellant from the crime scene and his failure to inform
the authorities of the incident.[29] Flight bespeaks guilt and gives credence to the version of the prosecution in
this case.[30]
Treachery
Similarly without merit is appellant’s contention that treachery did not attend the killing. For treachery to be
present, the means, methods or forms of execution should give the person attacked no opportunity for
self-defense or retaliation. And it must be proven that such means, methods or forms of execution were
deliberately and consciously adopted without danger to appellant.[31]
In the present case, the RTC correctly ruled that treachery attended the killing. Appellant came from nowhere
and suddenly stabbed the unsuspecting Florencio five (5) times. He deliberately and consciously adopted his
mode of attack by lunging at the victim with his knife without any warning whatsoever, giving the latter no
opportunity to defend himself.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE v BUENSUCESO
September 28, 1984
FACTS:
April 21, 1967—between 5-6pm, witness Apolonio Salvador saw Patrolman Rodolfo Aguilar & Pariseo Tayag
conversing as they were walking side by side, each resting his hand on the shoulder of the other, going
towards the municipal building.
Pat. Aguilar was trying to take the fan knife of Tayag, but could not take it because Tayag prevented him from
taking it. He didn’t want to the give knife because he was not making any trouble.
Aguilar told Tayag to go to the office of the chief of police. Tayag agreed
Inside,a heated argument took place between Pat. Aguilar & Tayag when the latter still refused to give his fan
knife.
Pat. Fidel de la Cruz came too, but when Tayag was about to leave the office, Chief of Police Adriano Canlas
arrived & asked what was going on.
Aguilar said that the two of them (Aguilar & Canlas) had been cursed by Tayag. But Tayag denied cursing the
2 & informed the chief that Aguilar was forcing him to give up his knife.
Tayag hurriedly left the office but he was followed by Pat. Aguilar, Mallari & De la Cruz. Since Mallari & Aguilar
were holding guns, the latter fired his upward.
Hearing the shot, Tayag turned about, retreated backwards until he reached the fence of the plaza, but when
Tayag was near the wooden fence about a knee high, Aguilar shot him above the knee.
So, Tayag ran towards his house but was followed by de la Cruz without a gun. However, Mallari & Aguilar
went to the waiting shed to intercept Tayag & took opposite sides of the road. Then there were several
successive gun shots, more or less nine in number.
After the commotion, Tayag was seen lying prostrate near the back of a jeep parked about 60 meters away
from the municipal building.
De la Cruz took the knife from Tayag & gave it to Pat. Jose Buensuceso, Pat. Izon & Pat. Joson were there
too.
Finding out that some police officers were involved, Sgt. Romualdo-Espiritu proceeded to the municipal
building and investigated on the crime.
The 4 police officers were charged of Murder, under Art 248 of the RPC.

ISSUE:
Was the conviction of Izon & Joson as co-principals in the crime of Murder correct?
Was the court correct in holding that although there was no conspiracy between the 4 police officers, they are
guilty of Murder under Art. 248 of RPC?
Though he claimed to have acted independently, Was there treachery on the part of Aguilar when he killed
Tayag?

SUPREME COURT:
YES TO ALL. THE COURT FOUND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BACKED UP BY THE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY
OF THE WITNESS.

All 4 of the police officers were seen by the witness Salvador to have been present at the crime scene at
armed with .38 calibre service revolvers.
The autopsy showed that Tayag died as a result of 4 gunshot wounds inflicted by .38 cal. Revolvers.
Specifically that the slug found from the knee of Tayag was from the Revolver of Buensuceco.
The on-the-spot inspection by Sgt. Espiritu right after the incident, he found that the service pistol of Aguilar
had been fired & had 3 empty shells & 3 live ammunitions left, and that of Buensuceso’s had been fired as well
& had 4 empty shells & 2 live ammunitions left.
The Ballistic examination proved that the empty shells of ammunition were from the guns of BUENSUCESO &
AGUILAR.
The Chemistry Reports on the paraffin tests of IZON and JOSON showed positive results. Therefore
confirming Salvador’s declaration that they were in the vicinity of the crime at the time it happened.
AGUILAR's plea of self-defense is evidently unmeritorious. AGUILAR followed the victim right after the latter
hurriedly left the office of the Chief of Police. If, as contended, the victim had thrust his knife at AGUILAR inside
the Municipal Building malting the former the unlawful aggressor, to be sure, the incident would have
happened there and then and not some 60 meters away from the building.
There is ample evidence establishing that AGUILAR, BUENSUCESO, IZON, and JOSON had fired their guns
at the victim hitting him on different parts of his body.
Although it has not been established as to which wound was inflicted by each accused the Court held that
where the victim died as a result of wounds received from several persons acting independently of each other,
but it has not been shown which wound was inflicted by each assailant, all of the assailants are liable for the
death of the victim.
The crime was qualified by TREACHERY hence it’s MURDER. Because:
The victim was already retreating backwards until he reached the fence of the town plaza when AGUILAR
fired his revolver at the former hitting him above the right knee.
Despite the fact that he was already hit & wounded, & possibly immobilized, he was still subjected to
successive shots as shown by the wounds that he had received, even at his back.
Evidently the means employed by the police tended directly & specially to insure the execution of the crime
without risk to themselves arising from any defense which the victim might have made.
Also, Tayag’s killing was aggravated by abuse of superior strength as shown by the number of assailants,
which was however, absorbed by treachery. No other circumstances modify the commission of the crime.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

People v. Pugay
November 17, 1988; J.Medialdea
Homicide through reckless imprudence
(Bon)
Facts:
Miranda (deceased) was a retardate and is a friend of the accused Pugay (accused).
During a town fiesta in a public plaza, Samson (another accused) and Pugay saw Gabion (a friend) in the ferris
wheel. The two with their companions were drunk. When they saw Miranda walking nearby, they made fun of
him by making him dance.
Not contented of what they were doing, Pugay grabbed a can of gasoline and poured such to Miranda. Gabion
tried to stop Pugay but the latter was already pouring the gasoline. Later, Samson lit Miranda making a human
torch out of him.
Miranda died although he was rushed to the hospital. Pugay in his statement admitted that he poured the
gasoline believing it was water and then Samson set him on fire. Samson on the other hand argued that Pugay
did pour the gasoline but he did not see who set Miranda on fire.
The trial court rendered that Pugay and Samson were guilty of the crime of murder and availing Pugay a
mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

Issue:
Did the trial Court erred in their decision?

Held:
Yes. The proper offense are Homicide through reckless imprudence for Pugay and Homicide for Samson.
Elements of Murder is that any person not falling in Art. 246 who kills another person through the enumerated
circumstances in Art. 248 (just see Art.248 for the 6 circumstances). On the other hand, homicide is committed
by a person who is not falling under the provision of Art.246, kills another without the attendance of the
circumstances enumerated in Art.249
For Pugay
He just committed homicide through reckless imprudence. First there was no attendant qualifying circumstance
found.
Pugay’s argument is untenable. The stench of gasoline could have not skipped his notice which shows his
negligence on his actions.
For Samson:
He just committed homicide since no qualifying circumstance was proven. The act was mearly for purpose of
making fun and thus treachery cannot be deduced from such. Giving him benefit of the doubt, Samson merely
intended to burn the clothes. However, although it was not what was intended, Article 4 applies where criminal
liability is still incurred although the wrongful act is different from what was intended for. Also, note that burning
clothes may cause physical injuries, a felony defined in the RPC.
Mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong may be given in his favour. Gabion testified
that the two (Pugay and Samson) were stunned when they saw the deceased burning. Likewise, there was an
absence of proof that accused has reason to kill the deceased before the incident.

Decision: Pugay is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence sentenced a range of 4 mo. of arresto
mayor as minimum to 4 y. and 2 mo. of prision correccional as maximum. Samson is guilty of Homicide
sentenced of 8 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

PEOPLE v. JULIAN CASTILLO

G.R. No. 131592-93. February 15, 2000

With the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on June 6, 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or
homicide is now considered, not as a separate crime, but merely a special aggravating circumstance. In the
case at bar, appellant JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO was charged with Murder and Illegal Possession of
Firearms.
The scene of the crime was the then on-going construction site of Gaisano Building in Lapaz, Iloilo City. On
November 14, 1995, at about 8 a.m., ROBERTO LUSTICA, a construction worker, was on the last rung of the
stairs on the third floor of the Gaisano building when he saw his co-worker ROGELIO ABAWAG being closely
pursued by accused JULIAN CASTILLO, a lead man in the same construction site. During the chase, the
accused pointed a gun at Abawag and shot him. Abawag, then about a half meter away from the accused, fell
on his knees beside a pile of hollow blocks.[3]

FRANKLIN ACASO, a mason working on the third floor of the Gaisano building, heard the first shot. Initially, he
did not pay attention to it as he thought that the sound came from one of their construction equipments.
Seconds later, he heard a second shot and a person screaming: "Ouch, that is enough!" When he looked
towards the direction of the sound, he saw the accused in front of Abawag, about a meter away, pointing a .38
caliber revolver at the latter. Abawag was then leaning on a pile of hollow blocks, pleading for mercy. The
accused shot Abawag a third time despite the latter's imploration. The accused then fled, leaving Abawag
lifeless.
The management of Gaisano reported the shooting incident to the police authorities who immediately rushed
to the scene of the crime. JUN LIM, alias "Akoy," brother-in-law of the victim and also a construction worker at
the Gaisano, volunteered to go with the police and assist them in locating the accused. yacats

The police, accompanied by Akoy, proceeded to Port San Pedro where they saw the accused on board a
vessel bound for Cebu. When they boarded the vessel, Akoy positively identified the accused to the police as
the assailant. The accused attempted to escape when the police identified themselves but the police caught up
with him. Upon inquiry, the accused denied complicity in the killing of Abawag. The police found in his
possession a .38 caliber handmade revolver, three (3) empty shells and three (3) live ammunitions. Further
inquiry revealed that the accused owned the gun but had no license to possess it. The police then took the
accused into custody and charged him for the murder of Abawag and for illegal possession of firearm.
HELD:

P.D. 1866, which codified the laws on illegal possession of firearms, was amended on June 6, 1997 by
Republic Act 8294. Aside from lowering the penalty for said crime, R.A. 8294 also provided that if homicide or
murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as a special
aggravating circumstance.This amendment has two (2) implications: first, the use of an unlicensed firearm in
the commission of homicide or murder shall not be treated as a separate offense, but merely as a special
aggravating circumstance; second, as only a single crime (homicide or murder with the aggravating
circumstance of illegal possession of firearm) is committed under the law, only one penalty shall be imposed
on the accused.

Two (2) requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: first, the existence of the subject
firearm, and second, the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the
corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. The onus probandi of establishing these
elements as alleged in the Information lies with the prosecution.

PEOPLE VS SALUFRANIA
BEL
FACTS:
Filomeno Salufrania was charged with the crime of parricide with intentional abortion
Pedro Salufrania, the son of the accused testified that at about 6pm off December 3, 1974, his father and his
mother Marciana Abuyo had a quarrel
During the said quarrel the accused box his pregnant wife on the stomache and strangled her to death. Pedro
saw blood ooze from the eyes and nose of his mother.
Pedro testified that after killing his mother, the accused used a hammock to cover the body of the deceased.
He further allege that the accused threatened to kill him and his sibling should he reveal the true cause of his
mother’s death
On the other hand, accused Filomeno Salufrania contends that his wife died of stomach pain and that he tried
native treatments to alleviate the pain.
The accused was convicted of the said crime and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.
He contends that the trial court failed to determine Pedro’s incompetence because he was only 13 years old
when he testified and only 11 years old when the offense was charged.
He further questions the competence of Dr. Dyquiangco as an expert witness since it was his first time to
conduct an autopsy on a cadaver which had been buried for about a week.

ISSUE: Did the trial court erred in its decision?

RULING
Yes. He should instead be convicted of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion

On Pedro’s competency as a witness:

The trial court determined Pedro’s competency before he was allowed to testify under oath
He has a strong sense of moral duty to tell the truth even though it should lead to his father’s conviction, this
shows that he fully appreciate the meaning of an oath
As to Pedro’s change of answer when asked whether he was threatened by his uncle to testify against his
father, it only shows that Pedro was confused with the question. Later on the affirmed his answer that he
wasn’t threatened at all.
His testimony remains unruffled. Even if there were some discrepancies, such are just minors and didn’t affect
his credibility as a witness.

On Dr. Dyquiangco’s competence

Although this was his first time to examine a cadaver that was buried for a week, he had, however, conducted
similar post-mortem examinations on 10 other occasions.

On Abortion:

There must be intent to cause the abortion to be guilty of intentional abortion; it cannot be merely incidental to
a killing
Accused intent to cause abortion has not been sufficiently established.
Mere boxing of the stomach taken together with the immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not sufficient
proof to show an intent to cause abortion.
The accused must have merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily to cause the abortion.
The accused is liable for the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion