Garcia vs CA and People
Facts:
 Accused were Fidelino Garcia, Leopoldo Garcia, and Wilfredo Garcia
 All were charged with murder
 Witnesses were police officers – Francisco Rollera, Pobeda, and Roadilla
 Victim was Paulino Rodolfo y Olgena
 Rollera testimony: Wilfredo and Leopoldo were ganging on Olgena.
Leopoldo held the victim, Fidelino hit him with an empty bottle, and
Wilfredo stabbed the victim with a fan knife that got stuck in Olgena’s
body. Olgena managed to free himself from Leopoldo, took the knife out
of his body and stabbed Fidelino in the stomach. Rollera fired warning
shots. Olgena retreated to a store, Wilfredo in pursuit. Inside the store,
Olgena stabbed Wilfredo twice in the neck and stomach. They called for
police help.
 Medico-legal certificate stated that COD was cerebral hemmorhage
 RTC convicted them of homicide. Accused Fidelino appealed.
Issues:
 WON there was conspiracy
 Error in conviction because evidence does not establish culpability as
principal, co-conspirator, or accomplice
Holding:
 No conspiracy because the information doesn’t satisfy the requirement
that conspiracy be conveyed in “appropriate language”. Conspiracy must
be alleged, and not merely inferred. There must be a particular statement
in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet mentioning a definite act
constituting conspiracy. Indictment for conspiracy is sufficient if: (1)
follows the words of the statue creating the offense and reasonable
informs the accused of the offense he is charged with; (2) contains a
sufficient statement of an overt act to effect the object of conspiracy; (3)
alleges both conspiracy and contemplated crime in the language of the
statue defining them.
 Evidence is insufficient to support conviction. Upon cross-examination, it
was established that, contrary to the prosecution’s side, Fidelino was still
approaching when Olgena was stabbed and managed to get loose. It was
then that Olgena attacked Fidelino. Prosecution’s evidence also doesn’t
establish a direct link between Fidelino’s act of hitting Olgena and any
injury sustained, much less the cause of death. It is unclear whether
Fidelino even succeeded in hitting Olgena with the bottle.
Aurea Monteverde vs People
Facts
 Charged with estafa through falsification of commercial document
 Monteverde is a Brgy Chairman. In connection with that, she received 44,
800 Php from PAGCOR. The amount was spent for lighting, cleanliness,
and beautification programs of the barangay. To liquidate, she submitted
financial statements with copies of sales invoices/receipts to PAGCOR.
According to the Sandiganbayan (SBN), the receipt submitted by
Monteverde contained 11 items, when the duplicate original, verified
with the hardware store (Sanford) manager, contained only 3 items.
Defense witnesses presented a Barangay Tanod who attested to the
installation of lighting in the playgrounds of the barangay, he having
helped the accused’s husband in installing the same.
 Sandiganbayan acquitted her of estafa, there being no evidence that the
funds were misappropriated or converted. Neither was there proof that
accused was required to account for the money received. She was,
however, convicted of falsification, even absent proof that it was
Monteverde who had caused the falsification, relying on the presumption
that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, a person who is found in
possession of a forged document, and who uses it, is the forger.
Issues
 WON what was committed was a complex crime.
 WON indictment for falsification can still be made despite exoneration
from estafa.
 WON there is reasonable doubt.
Held
 There is no complex crime. Complex crimes arise when (1) there is a
commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies that must both (or
all) be the result of a single act; or (2) one offence is necessary to the
commission of the other(s). The alleged falsification was committed with
the intention to conceal, and not to commit, the alleged
malversation/estafa. The accused should have objected to the charging of
more than one offense in the information. Failure to do so, however,
allows the trial court to convict of as many offenses as are charged and
proven.
 No proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is proof that two sets of sales
invoices were used. There are also material discrepancies between the
supposed duplicate original copy of the sales invoice from Sanford and
the sales invoice presented by the accused: (1) discrepancy in the typeset;
(2) name of the printing press in one and absence in the other; and (3)
 BIR permit in one and none in the other. Because of the above
differences, prosecution cannot be deemed to have presented an original,
of which the invoice presented by the accused is a falsification.
 Acquitted on reasonable doubt.
Rujjeric Palaganas vs People
Facts:
 Victims are brothers Servillano, Melton, and Michael Ferrer
 Accused are Rujjeric and Ferdinand Palaganas
 The Ferrer brothers were having a drinking spree at their house to
celebrate the arrival of their brother Melton. Thereafter, they proceeded
to a karaoke bar. Later, three persons – Jaime Palaganas, Ferdinand
Palaganas, and Virgilio Bautista – arrived. The two groups were the only
customers. When Jaime Palaganas began to sing, Melton, who also knew
the song, sang along. Jaime resented this and went over to their table
where he struck Servillano with the microphone. Virgilio Bautista had left
the place. Ferdinand went out of the bar. Michael was going to follow
him, but was persuaded otherwise by Servillano. Later, Servillano noticed
that hs wristwatch was missing and went outside the bar to look for it.
There they saw Ferdinand pointing them out and telling his companion to
shoot them. Servillano was hit at the left side of the abdomen, Melton at
the head, and Michael at the shoulder. When Servillano noticed that
Melton was no longer moving, he told Michael “Bato, bato.” Michael then
pelted Ferdinand and his companion with stones.
 Defense contends that Melton provoked them by singing along in a
mocking manner. In the fight that ensued, Ferdinand ran to the house of
his brother Rujjeric to seek for help. On the way to the bar, they were
stoned by the Ferrer brothers. To defend themselves, he shot at the
Ferrer brothers.
 Melton died, Servillano was shot through the abdomen, urinary bladder,
and rectum bullet sacral region and would have died were it not for
timely medical attention.
 Rujjeric convicted by the trial court of 2 counts frustrated homicide and 1
count homicide, with the use of unlicensed firearm.
 Ferdinand acquitted for failure of prosecution to prove conspiracy and
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue
 WON the defense of self-defense is tenable
Held
 Self-defense is untenable. (1) The Ferrer brothers were not unlawful
aggressors, it having been shown that they were merely standing,
unarmed, in front of the bar when Rujjeric and Ferdinand arrived and the
former began firing his gun; (2) assuming that there was unlawful
aggression, there was no reasonable necessity of means employed to
prevent it. There was no actual or imminent danger to petitioner and his
brother when the Ferrer brothers began throwing stones because they
could have run away or taken cover.
 The nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly
and remittingly considered important indicia to disprove a plea of self-
defense.
 SC modified finding of trial court: one count homicide, one count
frustrated homicide, and one count attempted homicide. Gunshot wound
of Michael was not considered frustrated homicide since the treatment
duration would only be for six to eight days and was neither fatal nor
mortal.
 Use of unlicensed firearm to commit crimes should be considered as a
special aggravating and not merely generic aggravating circumstance. (PD
1866 as amended by RA 8294, which made it a special aggravating instead
of merely generic aggravating). RA 8294 is applicable because it took
effect before the commission of the crimes.
 Voluntary surrender was single mitigating circumstance, but cannot be
appreciated because of the special aggravating circumstance.
 (1) attempted homicide – arresto mayor to prision correccional
maximum; (2) frustrated homicide – prision correccional to prision mayor
maximum; (3) prision mayor to reclusion temporal maximum
People vs Brodet
Facts, Holding
 Accused were Ronald Dulay, Reynald de Guzman, and Robert Brodett
 Victim was Dr. April Duque
 Convicted of murder by RTC
 Pangasinan police were alerted to the presence of a burning corpse on
the spillway of Laoac, Alcala, along the national highway. The corpse was
later identified as that of Dr. April Duque. A ring and a wristwatch taken
from the corpse were identified as belonging to Dr. April Duque by her
mother and clinic assistant.
 Dulay was alleged to be Duque’s new boyfriend, while Brodett was her
live-in-partner of nine years as well as the father of her son Giobert.
 Prosecution relied on the testimony of Duque’s 5-year-old son Giobert
who said that his father killed his mother, hitting her head with a hammer
 and stabbing her (on the neck). The same was corroborated by medico-
legal report.
 CA affirmed, found killing qualified by treachery, and a generic
aggravating circumstance of scoffing at the corpse. Abuse of superior
strength absorbed in treachery. Dwelling not appreciated because both
perpetrator and victim lived in the same house. Disrespect on sex not
considered absent showing of a deliberate intention to insult or disregard
sex of the victim.
 Findings of CA affirmed by SC. Attack my man with a deadly weapon upon
an unarmed and defenceless woman constitutes abuse of superior
strength.
 Because of prohibition of death penalty, sentence commuted to reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole. Moral damages reduced from
1million to 50,000; civil indemnity raised to 75,000 (raised if commission
attended by circumstances warranting imposition of death penalty) and
exemplary damages of 25,000 awarded because of the aggravating
circumstance.
People vs Faustino del Mundo
Facts
 Victim is Marciano Miranda, barrio captain.
 Seven men, led by one Macalino (alias Commander Berting), all armed,
went looking for Miranda. They eventually found him near a brook and
brought him, handcuffed, and delivered him to Commander Joe Bombay,
Commander Mike, and two other persons. The following day, they drove
him to Angeles city and parked the jeepney used near a bamboo grove.
Miranda was interrogated by del Mundo. He wanted to know why
Miranda was on fighting the Huk’s candidate for Congressman. Upon
Miranda’s continued denial, del Mundo boxed him and also threatened to
kill him. He then directed one of his companions to bind Miranda and to
bring him near the grave dug by his other companions. Miranda was told
to say his prayers. While doing so, Licup, on signal given by del Mundo,
struck Miranda, causing him to fall into the grave. They then covered the
grave and all perpetrators left.
 More than six months later, acting on an information, the exhumation
was supervised by Constabulary soldiers. Two corpses were found. One of
them was Miranda, identified by his wife and brother through the clothes,
the absence of six molars, and reddish hair.
 A Constabulary investigator filed a complaint for kidnapping and serious
illegal detention that was later amended to include del Mundo, who was
supposed to be the second highest officer of the Huks. Del Mundo was
convicted of kidnapping with murder, together with Pangilinan,
Macasaquit, and Cabrera. Macalino and Meneses were acquitted, and
Salas died during the pendency of the case. Only del Mundo appealed.
Issue
 WON the defense contention of no intention to deprive Miranda of his
liberty and of no premeditated plan to kill should be appreciated.
Held
 There was conspiracy to kill, and the kidnapping used as a means towards
that end. Indicia are the deprivation of liberty for several hours, the
bringing to another place, the preparation of his grave while he was being
interrogated, and the fatal blow that caused him to fall into the grave. It
may also be inferred from the surrounding circumstances that del Mundo
was the mastermind.
 Killing is murder because [of treachery] – Miranda’s hands were tied
when he was mortally assaulted. Appreciated also is evident
premeditation.
 Still, even without appreciating premeditation, the graver penalty of
death should still be imposed for the complex crime of kidnapping with
murder because the penalty for kidnapping is more serious than that for
murder. However, the same cannot be imposed because accused is
presently 78 years old.
People vs Arnulfo Fernandez
Facts:
 Fernandez convicted of raping his first-degree cousin. He was 20 at the
time and she was 13.
 Fernandez and AAA’s father were drinking. Fernandez gave the father
money to buy more wine. After he had left, Fernandez then went upstairs
where AAA and her younger siblings were sleeping, covered her mouth,
and raped her. AAA could not overpower Fernandez. Fernandez
afterwards resumed drinking with AAA’s father. After Fernandez left,
AAA’s father found out that she was raped by Fernandez. The incident
was reported to the Brgy Captain.
 Submitted in evidence was AAA’s blanket with bloodstains and male
discharge.
 Appellant voluntarily surrendered after one week. He contended that he
and AAA were sweethearts, that they have had sexual intercourse since
two years prior to the incident. He also claimed that AAA was a sex
 maniac and that she initiated the sexual intercourse on the night of the
incident.
Held
 Untenable. Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
who is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.
 AAA initiated sexual intercourse – not possible because appellant himself
testified that he went upstairs to where he knew AAA was sleeping with
her siblings. She could not have intiated the sexual intercourse if she were
asleep.
 Sweetheart theory – unbelievable because at the time he alleged the
start of their relationship, AAA would have only been 11 years old.
Furthermore, medical testimony found that lacerations in the hymen
were fresh, indicating that it was probably the victim’s first sexual
experience.
 Relationship not aggravating because (Article 15) the same covers only
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted
brothers or sisters, and relatives by affinity in the same degree. No
aggravating circumstance considered.
 Reclusion perpetua still imposed because of Article 63: where penalty is
single and indivisible, the same should be imposed regardless of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
People vs Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo
Facts
 Robbery with homicide. Victims were employees at a gasoline station:
Eduardo zulueta, Fortunato Lacambra, Julieta Amistoso, and Edralin
Macahis. Macahis was the security guard, shot dead.
 A vehicle went to the gasoline station and after being attended, the
occupants therein alighted and announced a hold-up. Lacambra was
ordered to liie down, Zulueta was led to the car wash station at gunpoint
and robbed, and four other members of the goup went to the casher’s
office. The same four shot Macahis and took his service firearm. After
hearing successive gunshots, Zulueta saw the accused leave the place.
They boarded the same vehicle and proceeded towards San Mateo, Rizal.
The following day, Zulueta identified appellant de leon as one of the
robbers who poked a gun at him.
 Appellant claimed that was at his aunt’s place on the day of the crime,
and that he hitched a ride with one Christian Gersalia, who was a relative.
When he was supposed to alight, however, he was disallowed. He fell
asleep and the next thing he knew, he had woken up in the gasoline
station and his companions were staging a hold-up. He claimed to have
never left the vehicle.
 The trial court imposed four death penalties for four counts of robbery
with homicide.
Issues
 WON there was proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with
homicide.
 WON conspiracy should be appreciated.
 WON the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm
has been properly alleged and should be appreciated.
Held
 In robbery with homicide, the original intent is to commit robbery, which
should precede the homicide. The homicide may occur before, during, or
after the robbery. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide
through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. That the death should
supervene by accident is immaterial, or that the homicide victim is other
than the robbery victim, or that other crimes are committed by reason or
on occasion of the crime. Once homicide is committed by or on occasion
of the robbery, the felony becomes robbery with homicide.
 When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable
as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide,
although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly
appears that they endeavored to prevent the same.43
 If a robber tries to prevent the commission of homicide after the
commission of the robbery, he is guilty only of robbery and not of robbery
with homicide. All those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide
are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all profited and gained
from the robbery. One who joins a criminal conspiracy adopts the
criminal designs of his co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the
conspiracy once it has materialized.44
 The prosecution was able to prove an implied conspiracy. It is done when
two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object, each doing a part such that their combined acts
are connected and cooperative and indicate a closeness of personal
association and a concurrence of sentiment. Such conspiracy may be
inferred through no actual meeting amongst them to concert is proved.
  Defense of denial not appreciated. To exculpate oneself, one must
perform an overt act to dissociate or to detach himself from the
conspiracy to commit the felony and to prevent the commission thereof.
Mere inaction not enough. His negative testimony cannot stand against
the positive one of the prosecution witnesses.
 Use of unlicensed firearm is special aggravating. Existence of firearm can
be established by mere testimony, even without the presentation of the
firearm. However, in the present case, the use thereof was not
adequately proven. Prosecution failed to present evidence to prove that
appellant did not have a license to carry a firearm.
 Temperate damages should be paid when actual damages (esp. For
expenses like funeral expenses) are not proved for absence of receipts,
and when actual damages proved are less than 25,000.
People vs Arnulfo Quilaton, Patricio Quiyo, Diding Mamalingping, Avelino Ahao y
Latimbang, Hildo Buacon y Empong
Facts
 Trial court convicted Ahao, Buacon, and Quilaton guilty of the murder of
Pio de Juan and Arturo Laos, and the frustrated murder of Jerry de Juan,
Arnel Laus, and Carlito Taping.
 Diding Mamalimping and Patricio Quiyo died during the pendency of the
proceedings.
 Only Quilaton appealed.
 Spouses Erlinda and Carlito Taping were sleeping at the sala of the second
floor of Erlinda’s father’s house. Arturo Laus (the father),Arnel Laus, Gerry
de Juan, Pio de Juan, and all of the accused were sleeping downstairs.
Buacon, Quilaton, Ahao, Pio, and Mamalingping were labourers in Laus’s
rubber plantation.
 Erlinda awoke when she was struck by an axe. She woke her husband up,
took a flashlight, and with it saw her husband push Buacon and
Malalingping. Buacon hacked Carlito, who then pushed him and
Mamalingping down. Both fell down the stairs. Below, Quiyo then handed
a firearm to Buacon, who went upstairs and shot Carlito. Thereafter, he
gave the gun back to Quiyo. Buacon, Quiyo, and Mamalingping then ran
out of the house. When the spouses proceeded downstairs, they saw
Arturo Laus and Pio de Juan both dead. Arnel and Gerry de Juan were
wounded. Carlito saw Quilaton come out from under the bed.
Issues
 WON evidence was sufficient to find Quilaton guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.
 WON there was conspiracy and whether Quilaton was a part of it.
Held
 Evidence insufficient to indict Quilaton. Testimony from Carlito Taping and
his wife clearly indicate that they did not see Quilaton take part in the
offence. In fact, they only saw him when they went down the stairs after
the incident, where Quilaton came out from under the bed. Also, Carlito
subsequently declared in an affidavit that he did not see or notice
Quilaton’s participation and that Quilaton, in fact, accompanied and
assisted them to the hospital.
 Testimony of the other accused also failed to implicate Quilaton. As it
turned out, Buacon and Ahao were threatened by Mamalinging and
Quiyo to go along with their plan to kill Arturo Laus and Carlito Taping.
Quiyo and Mamalingping killed Arturo Laus, and Quiyo hacked Pio de
Juan. Buacon then struck and also shot Carlito Taping.
 Quilaton’s testimony, however, showed that he did indeed hit Jerry de
Juan because he thought de Juan was one of the “bad people”. There is
no conspiracy between him and the other accused.
PO3 Benito Sombilon vs People
Facts
 A 15-year-old minor was investigated for a complaint for theft of a
necklace. She alleged that appellant took her inside a room and locked it.
He pointed a gun at her, barrel against her forehead, and pushed her with
it violently enough that her head banged against the wall. When she still
denied taking the necklace, he took an electric wire, plugged it, and
electrocuted her fingers with the end of the wire. She was asked the
same question, which she persistently denied. Eventually, she was asked
whether she was a woman. Appellant also told her that he was likewise
single. He then proceeded to touch her body, including her breasts, belly,
and private parts. When they left the room, appellant announced that she
had admitted to stealing the necklace.
 AAA’s mother brought her to the hospital, where she was given
tranquilizer. She later revealed what happened to her. The Medical
certificate diagnose slight physical injuries.
 Appellant charged with acts of lasciviousness.
 RTC convicted, with aggravating circumstance of acts of lasciviousness. CA
sustained, but increased the RTC maximum of 5 years 4 months 21 days
of prision correccional to maximum of 6 years prision correccional.
Issues
  WON accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
 WON the aggravating circumstance of advantage of public position should
be appreciated
Held
 Not simply unjust vexation as appellant would contend. His acts clearly
pointed to one of a lewd nature. Furthermore, in acts of lasciviousness, it
is not necessary that the intimidation be irresistible. It is enough that
some compulsion equivalent to intimidations subdues the free exercise by
the offended party of her will. Contention also that the locus crimini
(police station) makes commission of the act unlikely is untenable.
“Lust...is no respecter of either place or time.”
 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 110 Sections 8 and 9, effective
December 1, 2000, provides that qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be expressly and specifically alleged in complaint or
information to be considered by the trial court in its judgment. However,
the court, in People vs Buayaban, gave the provision retroactive effect
because it benefited the accused. The same must be done in the present
case, which was committed in 1998.
 ISLAW: prision correccional for acts of lasciviousness. No aggravating or
mitigating – imposed in medium period. Final sentence: arresto mayor to
prision correccional medium.
 Exemplary damages should be paid when the commission was attended
by one or more aggravating circumstances. However, a provision to the
same effect in the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure should not be given
retroactive effect because it would violate the rights of the private
offended party, which has already become vested. In the present case,
exemplary damages should be paid. Moral damages assumed in acts of
lasciviousness.
People vs Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon
Facts
 Victim is accused’s wife, Magdalena de los Santos
 Convicted of parricide
 Magdalena wanted to sell the conjugal home because she wanted the
family to transfer to the house of her parents. Jaime refused because he
did not want to leave the house they were currenly residing at and also
had many improvements thereon. One day he left to work in the farm,
and upon his return discovered his wife and their three-month-old baby
gone. When he looked for them, he saw them at a trail 200 metres from
their home, his wife bringing the child and a bundle of clothes. He
pleaded with his wife to return home but she refused. When he
attempted to take the child from her, she threw it to the ground. Thus
angered, he used a piece of wood nearby to hit his wife until she fell to
the ground with severe chest pains. Realizing what he had done, he
brought her and the infant home, and tried to alleviate her pains. She still
died.
 He voluntarily surrendered and also brought with him the piece of wood
used to bear this wife. During the trial, he first pleaded not guilty, but
when the case was called for trial changed his plea to a guilty one.
 The lower court found three mitigating circumstances: voluntary
surrender, plea of guilty, and acting upon an impulse so powerful so as to
produce passion and obfuscation. He was imposed the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The trial court recommended executive clemency
after service of the minimum of the medium penalty of prision mayor.
 Accused appealed.
Issue
 WON to apply Article 49, which prescribes the proper penalty where the
crime committed is different from that intended. He contended that he
should have been imposed the penalty of reclusion temporal for the
offense intended: qualified physical injuries.
 WON appellant is entitled to the benefits of ISLAW
Held
 Article 4 and not Article 49 should be applicable. Article 4: criminal
liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act be different from that which he intended and that the
accused is liable for all the consequences of his felonious acts. Article 49
is applicable only to cases where the crime committed is different from
that intended and the felony befalls a different person.
 Not entitled to ISLAW. Can only hope for commutation of sentence to
qualify for parole.

People vs Artemio Elloraba, Arturo Manaog, and Zosimo Miranda
Facts
 Charge for murder.
 Victim is Dominador Galvez.
 Witnesses are Antonio Ladan, who was passing by, Marcelino Ngoho, the
victim’s brother-in-law, who was travelling along the road of the scene of
the crime when it happened, and Letitia Galvez, the victim’s wife.
 Antonio saw Elloraba shoot Dominador while the latter’s back was
turned. When Dominador fell to the ground, he and Letitia saw Manaog
turn Dominador face up and, armed with a small bolo, stabbed him.
Mirando followed suit. The three then fled the scene.
 Ngoho was, at the time of the shooting, on his motorcycle. He saw
Elloraba shoot Dominador from behind, saw Manaog turn the falled body
face up and stab it. Ngoho thereafter turned his motorcycle around and
did not see Miranda stab Dominador.
Issues
 WON there was irreconcilable differences between the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses – two saw Miranda partake of the commission,
while one did not.
 WON abuse of superior strength and conspiracy should be appreciated.
Held
 There is no inconsistency. Ladan and Letitia saw the entire thing while
Ngoho, who turned around before Miranda could strike the victim, saw
only a part of the events.
 Conspiracy was alleged in the information was a way of increasing
criminal liability. There is conspiracy in the present case, the acts of the
accused all showing concert to achieve a common purpose – the killing of
Dominador.
 Treachery is also appreciated. The victim was unarmed, shot from behind,
and stabbed when he was lying down, defenceless. Abuse of superior
strength is absorbed in treachery.
People vs Diego Opero y Co Sipag
Facts
 Security guards discovered the body when they tried to return a little girl
they saw loitering in the second floor of the building to the room where
she was said to reside.
 Robbery with homicide.
 Victim was Liew Soon Ping. Hands and feet were tied. Towel was tied
around mouth. COD was asphyxiation by suffocation with an impacted
bolus and compression of the neck with a broad clothing around the
neck.
 Police inquired around the vicinity and were able to name three suspects:
Diego Opero, Milagros Villegas, Asteria Avila, and a fourth unidentified
suspect. They were tracked to Samar and Leyte. Lacsinto (who admitted
and narrated the incident) and the three other suspects were
apprehended and brought to Manila. Opero likewise confessed his
involvement and said that it was Lacsinto who subdued the victim by
assaulting her, tying her up, stabbing her, and stuffing her mouth with a
piece of pandesal. Avila denied being a party thereto. The incident was
re-enacted, Opero and Lacsinto playing their respective parts.
 Diego Opero was imposed the death sentence for robbery with homicide;
Lacsinto and Villegas did not appeal their conviction for a lesser penalty,
and Avila was acquitted.
Issues
 WON Opero’s contention that he should only be liable for robbery
because of lack of intention to kill the victim is tenable.
 WON Article 49 is applicable in connection with the above issue.
Held
 Untenable. It has been repeatedly held that when direct and intimate
connection exists between the robbery and the killing, regardless of
which of the two precedes the other, or whether they are committed at
the same time, the crime committed is the special complex crime is
robbery with homicide. When death supervenes by reason or on occasion
of the robbery, it is immaterial that the occurrence of death was by mere
accident. What is important and decisive is that death results by reason
or on occasion of the robbery.
 If the circumstances indicate no intent to kill, the mitigating circumstance
of not having intended to commit so grave so wrong may be appreciated
(Article 13). Article 49 applies only when the crime befalls a person
different from the intended victim.
 One mitigating: no intention to commit so grave a wrong. Two
aggravating: abuse of superior strength and dwelling. After offsetting,
there is still one aggravating left. The higher penalty of reclusion penalty
to death should be imposed. Death penalty imposed by the lower court
therefore affirmed.