People vs Cupino

GR No. 125688

Facts:

On August 16, 1989, at more or less 9:45 in the evening, Gromyko Valiente had an
altercation with accused Galos and a fist fight ensued when appellant Cupino and
Dejoras arrived. Outnumbered, Valiente ran and was pursued. The deceased was
stabbed twice by Galos when his attention was diverted. The bolo left embedded in
Valiente's stomach was pulled out by Cupino. Appellant Dejoras tried to grab the bolo
but unfortunately took hold of the blade cutting his hand. He then let go andrun.
Thereafter, Cupino stabbed the wounded victim. No witness for the prosecution testified
as to the participation of Dejoras in the assault except thatDejoras joined Galos and
Cupino when they approached the victim and he later tried to prevent Cupino from
stabbing the victim. Nonetheless, the trial court rendered judgment finding all the
accused, who acted in conspiracy, guilty of murder.

Issue:

Whether or not there was conspiracy in the case?

Held:

It is axiomatic that the prosecution must establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
Conspiracy is not a harmless sinnuendo to be taken lightly or accepted at every turn. It is
a legal concept that imputes culpability under specific circumstances. As such, it must be
established as clearly as any element of the crime. The quantum of evidence to be
satisfied is, we repeat, beyond reasonable doubt. The above testimony clearly
demonstrates the conspiracy between Ramon Galos and Appellant Ignacio Cupino.
Clearly, by the consonance of their deeds, both assailants conspired to kill Valliente.
 People vs. Factao

G.R. No. 125966. January 13, 2004

Appellee: People of the Philippines

Appellants: Juan Factao alias “Boyet”, Francis Labroda alias “Abet,” and Tirso
Servidad

Ponente: J. Tinga

FACTS:

Appellants Juan Factao, Albert Labroda, and Tirso Servidad were found guilty of murder
for killing Fernando Sardoma by inflicting gunshot wound on the vital part of the his
body. Evidence for the prosecution presented the following:

1) In the evening of August 23, 1991, Vicente Manolos, who was then in a kamalig near
the seashore with Eduardo Sardoma, Rolando Nierves, Noel Serrano, and Fernando
Sardoma, felt the urge to defecate. As he relieved himself outside beside the boat, he
saw Factao, armed with a garand rifle, and Labroda approach the hut. Factao then
aimed his gun at a hole in the hut’s bamboo wall and fired.

2) That same night, Jose Manuel Sermona saw Factao, Labroda, and Servidad walking
towards the kamalig of the victim and witnessed the shooting.

3) Eduardo Sardoma, upon hearing the explosion immediately went outside, met
Servidad and espied Factao and Labroda running from the scene.

Factao and Labrado claimed that at the time of the incident they were celebrating the
latter’s birthday and learned about the tragedy only the following day. On the other hand,
Servidad claimed that he was with Barangay Captain Faustino Nierves that evening,
who then instructed him to investigate when they heard an explosion from the direction
of the seashore.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was conspiracy.

HELD:

Yes. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There was no direct evidence to
show that Factao and Labroda agreed to commit the crime. Nonetheless, their acts
immediately before and after the shooting evince a commonality in design sufficient to
make them co-principals to the killing. The testimonies of the witnesses adequately
established conspiracy between Factao and Labroda.
However, the Servidad’s participation in the crime was not established. The mere
presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a co-conspirator. The
prosecution failed to offer evidence that Servidad performed any act from which his
conspiracy to the crime may be deduced. Thus, he was acquitted.
 People of the Philippines vs. Quindoy and Ventura

People of the Philippines, appellee vs.

Felix Ventura y Quindoy and Arante Flores y Ventura, appellants

G.R. Nos. 148145-46

July 5, 2004

FACTS:

This case is filed as a petition of the trial court’s decision in convicting herein
appellants, Felix Ventura and Arante Flores guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in
Criminal Case No. 00-20692 and Attempted Murder in Criminal Case No. 00-20693.

On February 23, 2000, around 2:00am, while the victims were all asleep in their
room, appellants stealthily gained entry through the kitchen door. The two then went to
the victims’ unlocked room and there killed Aileen Bocateja in defense of his husband,
and seriously wounded Jaime Bocateja using the bladed weapon Arante was carrying.
Ventura, on the other hand, was armed with a .38 Caliber Homemade Revolver. The two
then fled from the victims’ house but was later on apprehended by the Philippine
National Police.

During the interview conducted, it was learned that, according to Ventura, on

February 17, 2000, her wife, Johanna, confessed that she and Jaime Bocateja were
having an affair. Five days later, when Ventura’s nephew, Flores, came to visit his uncle,
appellant Ventura asked Flores to go with him to Bocateja’s residence so he could
confront Jaime about his affair with Johanna. The two then went to the said house and
arrived there at 11pm but was not able to get in until 2:00 am.

In its decision, the trial court found both Ventura and Flores guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder as alleged in Criminal Information No. 00-20693
with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, dwelling, nighttime and the
breaking of door to gain entrance to the house and with no mitigating circumstance, and
for the crime of Murder as alleged in Criminal Information No. 00-20692 qualified by
abuse of superior strength. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime and by
the breaking of a door are present in the commission of the crime. There is no mitigating
circumstance.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not superior strength be considered as a qualifying circumstance in

Criminal Case No. 00-20892.
2. Whether or not evident premeditation be considered as a qualifying circumstance in
Criminal Case No. 00-20893.

3. Whether or not breaking of door and nocturnity be considered as aggravating

circumstances in both cases.

4. Whether or not Death be the penalty in Criminal Case No. 00-20893.

RULINGS:

1. This Court in a very long line of cases has consistently held that an attack made by a
man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the
circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act
afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. By deliberately
employing a deadly weapon against Aileen, appellant Flores clearly took advantage of
the superiority which his strength, sex and weapon gave him over his unarmed victim.

2. The trial court, did not consider evident premeditation as having aggravated the killing
of Aileen since she was not the intended victim of appellants' conspiracy. Upon further
scrutiny, however, this Court finds that this aggravating circumstance should have been
appreciated in connection with Aileen's murder. Jurisprudence is to the effect that
evident premeditation may be considered as present, even if a person other than the
intended victim was killed, if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not
only the intended victim but also anyone who may help him put a violent resistance.

3. In determining appellants' criminal liability, the trial court appreciated the generic
aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime and breaking of door in connection with
both crimes. Dwelling is considered aggravating because of the sanctity of privacy that
the law accords to human abode. Thus, it has been said that the commission of the
crime in another's dwelling shows greater perversity in the accused and produces
greater alarm. Here, dwelling was correctly appreciated since the crimes were
committed in the place of abode of the victims who had not given immediate
provocation.

In determining nocturnity, two tests are employed in the alternative: (1) the
objective test, under which nighttime is aggravating because the darkness facilitated the
commission of the offense; and (2) the subjective test, under which nighttime is
aggravating because the darkness was purposely sought by the offender.90 Applying
these tests to the established factual circumstances, this Court concludes that nocturnity
was correctly appreciated in connection with both crimes.

4. It is to be noted that the appreciation by the trial court of the aggravating

circumstances of dwelling and nighttime, despite the non-allegation thereof in the
Information, resulted in the imposition of the supreme penalty of death upon accused-
appellant. The accused must thence be afforded every opportunity to present his
defense on an aggravating circumstance that would spell the difference between life and
death in order for the Court to properly 'exercise extreme caution in reviewing the
parties' evidence. This, the accused can do only if he is appraised of the aggravating
circumstance raising the penalty imposable upon him to death. Such aggravating
circumstance must be alleged in the information, otherwise the Court cannot appreciate
it. Consequently, we hold that due to their non-allegation in the Information for rape filed
against accused-appellant, the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling
cannot be considered in raising the penalty imposable upon accused-appellant from
reclusion perpetua to death.