Victor took the identification card of the police officer
as well as his service gun and told him: "Pasensya ka
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. JUAN GONZALES
ESCOTE, JR. @ Jun Mantika of
Sta. Lucia, Angat, Bulacan and
VICTOR ACUYAN y OCHOVILLOS
@ Vic Arroyo of Sto. Niño,
Poblacion, Bustos,
Bulacan, accused-appellants.
The Facts
On September 28, 1996 at past midnight, Rodolfo
Cacatian, the regular driver of Five Star Passenger Bus
bearing Plate No. ABS-793, drove the bus from its
terminal at Pasay City to its destination in Bolinao,
Pangasinan. Also on board was Romulo Digap, the
regular conductor of the bus, as well as some
passengers. At Camachile, Balintawak, six passengers
boarded the bus, including Victor Acuyan and Juan
Gonzales Escote, Jr. who were wearing maong pants,
rubber shoes, hats and jackets. 2Juan seated himself
on the third seat near the aisle, in the middle row of
the passengers' seats, while Victor stood by the door
in the mid-portion of the bus beside Romulo. Another
passenger, SPO1 Jose C. Manio, Jr., a resident of
Angeles City, was seated at the rear portion of the bus
on his way home to Angeles City. Tucked on his waist
was his service gun bearing Serial Number 769806.
Every now and then, Rodolfo looked at the side view
mirror as well as the rear view and center mirrors
installed atop the driver's seat to monitor any
incoming and overtaking vehicles and to observe the
passengers of the bus.
The lights of the bus were on even as some of the
passengers slept. When the bus was travelling along
the highway in Plaridel, Bulacan, Juan and Victor
suddenly stood up, whipped out their handguns and
announced a holdup. Petrified, Rodolfo glanced at the
center mirror towards the passengers' seat and saw
Juan and Victor armed with handguns. Juan fired his
gun upward to awaken and scare off the passengers.
Victor followed suit and fired his gun upward. Juan
and Victor then accosted the passengers and divested
them of their money and valuables. Juan divested
Romulo of the fares he had collected from the
passengers. The felons then went to the place Manio,
Jr. was seated and demanded that he show them his
identification card and wallet. Manio, Jr. brought out
his identification card bearing No. 00898. 3 Juan and
na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin and
papatay sa iyo." The police officer pleaded for
mercy: "Pare maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya
ako." However, Victor and Juan ignored the plea of
the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right
ear, chest and right side of his body. Manio, Jr.
sustained six entrance wounds. He fell to the floor of
the bus. Victor and Juan then moved towards the
driver Rodolfo, seated themselves beside him and
ordered the latter to maintain the speed of the bus.
Rodolfo heard one of the felons saying: "Ganyan lang
ang pumatay ng tao. Parang pumapatay ng
manok." The other said: "Ayos na naman tayo pare.
Malaki-laki ito." Victor and Juan further told Rodolfo
that after they (Victor and Juan) shall have alighted
from the bus, he (Rodolfo) should continue driving
the bus and not report the incident along the way.
The robbers assured Rodolfo that if the latter will
follow their instructions, he will not be harmed. Victor
and Juan ordered Rodolfo to stop the bus along the
overpass in Mexico, Pampanga where they alighted
from the bus. The robbery was over in 25 minutes.
When the bus reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga,
Rodolfo and Romulo forthwith reported the incident
to the police authorities. The cadaver of SPO1 Manio,
Jr. was brought to the funeral parlor where Dr.
Alejandro D. Tolentino, the Municipal Health Officer
of Mabalacat, Pampanga, performed an autopsy on
the cadaver of the police officer. The doctor prepared
and signed an autopsy report detailing the wounds
sustained by the police officer and the cause of his
death:
Barely a month thereafter, or on October 25, 1996, at
about midnight, SPO3 Romeo Meneses, the team
leader of Alert Team No. 1 of Tarlac Police Station,
and PO3 Florante S. Ferrer were at the police
checkpoint along the national highway in Tarlac,
Tarlac. At the time, the Bambang-Concepcion bridge
was closed to traffic and the police officers were
tasked to divert traffic to the Sta. Rosa road.
Momentarily, a white colored taxi cab without any
plate number on its front fender came to view.
Meneses stopped the cab and asked the driver, who
turned out to be the accused Juan Gonzales Escote,
Jr., for his identification card. Juan told Meneses that
he was a policeman and handed over to Meneses the
identification card of SPO1 Manio, Jr. and the money
which Juan and Victor took from Manio, Jr. during the
heist on September 28, 1996. 8 Meneses became
suspicious when he noted that the identification card
had already expired on March 16, 1995. He asked
Juan if the latter had a new pay slip. Juan could not
produce any. He finally confessed to Meneses that he
was not a policeman. Meneses brought Juan to the
police station. When police officers frisked Juan for
any deadly weapon, they found five live bullets of a 9
millimeter firearm in his pocket. The police officers
confiscated the ammunition. In the course of the
investigation, Juan admitted to the police
investigators that he and Victor, alias Victor Arroyo,
staged the robbery on board Five Star Bus and are
responsible for the death of SPO1 Manio, Jr. in
Plaridel, Bulacan. Meneses and Ferrer executed their
joint affidavit of arrest of Juan. 9 Juan was
subsequently turned over to the Plaridel Police
Station where Romulo identified him through the
latter's picture as one of those who robbed the
passengers of the Five Star Bus with Plate No. ABS-
793 and killed SPO1 Manio, Jr. on September 28,
1996. In the course of their investigation, the Plaridel
Police Station Investigators learned that Victor was a
native of Laoang, Northern Samar. 10 On April 4,
1997, an Information charging Juan Gonzales Escote,
Jr. and Victor Acuyan with robbery with homicide was
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. The
Information reads:
The Verdict of the Trial Court
WHEREFORE, this Court finds
both accused, Juan Gonzales
Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of Robbery with Homicide as
penalized under Art. 294 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended
and hereby sentences both to
suffer the supreme penalty of
Death and to indemnify the heirs
of the late SPO1 Jose C. Manio,
Jr., the amount of P300,000.00 as
actual and moral damages and to
pay the Five Star Bus P6,000.00 as
actual damage.
The Court's Verdict
The Court agrees with the trial court that treachery
was attendant in the commission of the crime. There
is treachery when the following essential elements
are present,viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b)
the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the
particular means, methods or forms of attack
employed by him. 52 The essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any
chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
commission without risk of himself. Treachery may
also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of
the danger to his life where he was defenseless and
unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup
de grace. 53 In the case at bar, the victim suffered six
wounds, one on the mouth, another on the right ear,
one on the shoulder, another on the right breast, one
on the upper right cornea of the sternum and one
above the right iliac crest. Juan and Victor were
armed with handguns. They first disarmed SPO1
Manio, Jr. and then shot him even as he pleaded for
dear life. When the victim was shot, he was
defenseless. He was shot at close range, thus insuring
his death. The victim was on his way to rejoin his
family after a hard day's work. Instead, he was
mercilessly shot to death, leaving his family in grief for
his untimely demise. The killing is a grim example of
the utter inhumanity of man to his fellowmen.
ISSUES:
The issues that now come to fore are (1) whether or
not treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance
in robbery with homicide; and if in the affirmative,
(b) whether treachery may be appreciated against
Juan and Victor.
HELD:
On the first issue, we rule in the affirmative. This
Court has ruled over the years 54 that treachery is a
generic aggravating circumstance in the felony of
robbery with homicide, a special complex crime (un
delito especial complejo) and at the same time a
single and indivisible offense (uno solo
indivisible). 55 However, this Court in two cases has
held that robbery with homicide is a crime against
property and hence treachery which is appreciated
only to crimes against persons should not be
appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance. 56 It held in another case that
treachery is not appreciated in robbery with rape
precisely because robbery with rape is a crime against
property. 57 These rulings of the Court find support in
case law that in robbery with homicide or robbery
with rape, homicide or rape are merely incidents of
the robbery, with robbery being the main purpose
and object of the criminal. 58 Indeed, in People vs.
Cando, 59 two distinguished members of this Court
advocated a review of the doctrine that treachery is a
generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with
homicide. They opined that treachery is applicable
only to crimes against persons. After all, in People vs.
Bariquit, 60 this Court in aper curiam decision
promulgated in year 2000 declared that treachery is
applicable only to crimes against persons. However,
this Court held in People vs. Cando that treachery is a
generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with
homicide, citing its prior rulings that in robbery with
homicide, treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance when the victim of homicide is killed
with treachery. This Court opted not to apply its ruling
earlier that year in People vs. Bariquit.
Thus, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance
to robbery with homicide although said crime is
classified as a crime against property and a single and
indivisible crime. Treachery is not a qualifying
circumstance because as ruled by the Supreme Court
of Spain in its decision dated September 11, 1878,
the word "homicide" is used in its broadest and most
generic sense. 69
Article 62, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that in diminishing or increasing the penalty
for a crime, aggravating circumstances shall be taken
into account. However, aggravating circumstances
which in themselves constitute a crime specially
punishable by law or which are included by the law in
defining a crime and prescribing a penalty therefor
shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty. 70 Under paragraph 2 of the
law, the same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to
such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the
commission thereof.
Treachery is not an element of robbery with
homicide. Neither does it constitute a crime specially
punishable by law nor is it included by the law in
defining the crime of robbery with homicide and
prescribing the penalty therefor. Treachery is likewise
not inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide.
Hence, treachery should be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide
for the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime.
In fine, in the application of treachery as a generic
aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide,
the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide
which is a crime against persons and not at the
constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against
property. Treachery is applied to the constituent crime
of "homicide" and not to the constituent crime of
"robbery" of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide.
In sum then, treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance in robbery with homicide when the
victim of homicide is killed by treachery.
On the second issue, we also rule in the
affirmative. Article 62, paragraph 4 of the Revised
Penal Code which was taken from Article 80 of
the Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870, 73 provides
that circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of those persons only who had knowledge of
them at the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein. The circumstances attending the
commission of a crime either relate to the persons
participating in the crime or into its manner of
execution or to the means employed. The latter has a
direct bearing upon the criminal liability of all the
accused who have knowledge thereof at the time of
the commission of the crime or of their cooperation
thereon. 74Accordingly, the Spanish Supreme Court
held in its Sentencia dated December 17, 1875 that
where two or more persons perpetrate the crime of
robbery with homicide, the generic aggravating
circumstance of treachery shall be appreciated
against all of the felons who had knowledge of the
manner of the killing of victims of homicide, with the
ratiocination that:
Be that as it may, treachery cannot be appreciated
against Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the
same was not alleged in the Information as
mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedures which reads:
Although at the time the crime was committed,
generic aggravating circumstance need not be alleged
in the Information, however, the general rule had
been applied retroactively because if it is more
favorable to the accused. 76 Even if treachery is
proven but it is not alleged in the information,
treachery cannot aggravate the penalty for the crime.
There being no modifying circumstances in the
commission of the felony of robbery with homicide,
Juan and Victor should each be meted the penalty
of reclusion perpetua conformably with Article 63 of
the Revised Penal Code.
 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. REGANDO
VILLONEZ y PASCASIO, RUEL
SANTOS y LAPADA, JOHN DOE,
PETER DOE, ELMER DOE, and
ROY DOE, accused, vs. EDUARDO
N. SANTOS @ "EDDIE,"
REYNALDO N. SANTOS @ "REY,"
FERNANDO N. SANTOS @
"DEDE," EMERLITO N. SANTOS
@ "ELMER," and RUDY N.
SANTOS @ reasonable doubt of the crime of
"BUDDA," accused, REGANDO
VILLONEZ y PASCASIO,
EMERLITO N. SANTOS, and RUEL
SANTOS,accused-appellants.
FACTS:
Edgar Jimenez testified that on 3 May 1994, at around
9:00 p.m., while he was resting inside his store at
Hulo, Malabon, Metro Manila, a certain Tonton
informed him that his close friend GERARDO
LONGASA had a fistfight with one
"Rudy," alias "Dede," 9 at Liwayway Street, Baritan,
Malabon. Edgar proceeded to the area to mediate,
since LONGASA and Rudy were both his friends. Edgar
passed through Javier II Street in going to Liwayway
Street. At Javier II Street, a group of seven armed
men, including accused-appellants, attacked Edgar.
RUEL hit Edgar on his forehead and back with a bottle.
Edgar was able to escape from his attackers. While
fleeing, he ran past LONGASA, who seemed drunk.
When Edgar called LONGASA, the attackers were
already upon LONGASA. 10
While he was about eight arms' length away from
LONGASA, Edgar saw EMERLITO hit LONGASA with a
2 x 2 inches piece of wood. Simultaneously,
REGANDO and RUEL struck LONGASA with bottles.
Rudy Santos and Eddie Santos then stabbed
LONGASA seven and eight times, respectively, even
as two other persons named Rey and Budda held
LONGASA's arms. LONGASA fell to the ground. Edgar
saw all these because the scene of the incident was
illuminated by a big fluorescent lamp located about
three arms' length away. Edgar rushed to LONGASA's
house and reported the incident to the latter's
The trial court ruled against the presence of
treachery, since LONGASA was engaged in a fight with
the accused before the fatal attack and was,
therefore, sufficiently warned of the assault against
him. However, it appreciated against the accused the
qualifying aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of superior strength because of the
superior number of the accused, most of whom were
armed with weapons; while the victim was alone,
with his arms held behind him by two of the
assailants.
WHEREFORE, all considered, the
Court finds all the three (3)
accused GUILTY beyond
MURDER and sentences each of
them as follows:
ISSUE: WON AC of treachery is present.
HELD:
YES. However, we do not share the assessment of the
trial court that there was no treachery in this case
because the victim had engaged in a fight previous to
the killing and was thus forewarned of an attack
against him. Treachery may still be appreciated even
when the victim was forewarned of danger to his
person. What is decisive is that the execution of the
attack made it impossible for the victim to defend
himself or to retaliate. 31 The overwhelming number
of the accused, their use of weapons against the
unarmed victim, and the fact that the victim's hands
were held behind him preclude the possibility of any
defense by the victim.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. NICOLAS GUZMAN
y BOCBOSILA, accused-
appellant.
FACTS:
After attending a worship service at
the Iglesia ni Kristo church in his barangay,
Michael proceeded home. While Michael was
casually walking along the corner of Sto. Nino
Street and Mactan Street, appellant and his two
companions, who were drinking nearby,
suddenly approached and surrounded Michael.
Appellant positioned himself at the back of
Michael while his two companions stood in front
of Michael. In an instant, they grabbed the
shoulders of Michael and overpowered the
 latter. One of the appellant's companions, whom
the prosecution witnesses described as a male
with long hair, drew out a knife and repeatedly
stabbed Michael on the stomach. Unsatisfied,
the appellant's other companion, whom the
prosecution witnesses described as a male with
flat top hair, took the knife and stabbed Michael
on the stomach. As the finale, appellant went in
front of Michael, took the knife and also stabbed
Michael on the stomach. When Michael fell on
the ground, appellant kicked him at the body.
Upon noticing that the bloodied Michael was no
longer moving, appellant and his two
companions fled the scene.
RTC: murder qualified by treachery
(reclusion perpetua to death)
CA: affirmed (reclusion perpetua only)
As to the fourth issue, appellant
contends that even if he were held liable for the
death of Michael, there was no treachery which
will qualify the killing as murder. According to
him, there is no evidence to show that appellant
and his two companions had deliberately and
consciously adopted their mode of attack to
ensure its execution without risk to themselves.
The stabbing incident occurred in a place that
was properly lighted. There were many people in
the area then walking in different directions. He
claims that if he and his two companions wanted
to ensure that no risk would come to them, then
they could have chosen another time and place
to attack Michael.
ISSUE: WON AC of treachery is present.
HELD:
YES. As viewed from the foregoing, the
suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of
appellant and his two companions rendered
Michael defenseless, vulnerable and without
means of escape. It appears that Michael was
unarmed and alone at the time of the attack.
Further, he was merely seventeen years of age
then. 38 In such a helpless situation, it was
absolutely impossible for Michael to escape or to
defend himself against the assault of appellant
and his two companions. Being young and weak,
Michael is certainly no match against adult
persons like appellant and his two companions.
Michael was also outnumbered since he had
three assailants, and, was unarmed when he was
stabbed to death. Appellant and his two
companions took advantage of their size,
number, and weapon in killing Michael. They
also deliberately adopted means and methods in
exacting the cruel death of Michael by first
surrounding him, then grabbing his shoulders
and overpowering him. Afterwards, each of them
repeatedly stabbed Michael with a knife at the
stomach until the latter fell lifeless to the ground.
The stab wounds sustained by Michael proved to
be fatal as they severely damaged the latter's
large intestine. 39
The fact that the place where the
incident occurred was lighted and many people
were walking then in different directions does
not negate treachery. It should be made clear
that the essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim
without the slightest provocation on his
part. 40 This is even more true if the assailant is
an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor
children, who by reason of their tender years,
cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus,
when an adult person illegally attacks a minor,
treachery exists. 41 As we earlier found, Michael
was peacefully walking and not provoking
anyone to a fight when he was stabbed to death
by appellant and his two companions. Further,
Michael was a minor at the time of his death
while appellant and his two companions were
adult persons.
IGNOMINY
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. JAIME JOSE Y
GOMEZ, ET AL., defendants.
JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, BASILIO
PINEDA, JR., alias"BOY,"
EDGARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO
and ROGELIO CAÑAL Y
SEVILLA, defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
So it was that at about 4:30 o'clock in the morning of
June 26, 1967, Magdalena "Maggie" de la Riva,
homeward bound from the ABS Studio on Roxas
Blvd., Pasay City, was driving her bantam car
accompanied by her maid Helen Calderon, who was
also at the front seat. Her house was at No. 48, 12th
Street, New Manila, Quezon City. She was already
near her destination when a Pontiac two-door
convertible car with four men aboard (later identified
as the four appellants) came abreast of her car and
tried to bump it. She stepped on her brakes to avoid
a collision, and then pressed on the gas and swerved
her car to the left, at which moment she was already
in front of her house gate; but because the driver of
the other car (Basilio Pineda, Jr.) also accelerated his
speed, the two cars almost collided for the second
time. This prompted Miss De la Riva, who was
justifiably annoyed, to ask: "Ano ba?" Forthwith,
Pineda stopped the car which he was driving, jumped
out of it and rushed towards her.
The girl became so frightened at this turn of events
that she tooted the horn of her car continuously.
Undaunted, Pineda opened the door of Miss De la
Riva's car and grabbed the lady's left arm. The girl
held on tenaciously to her car's steering wheel and,
together with her maid, started to scream. Her
strength, however, proved no match to that of
Pineda, who succeeded in pulling her out of her car.
Seeing her mistress' predicament, the maid jumped
out of the car and took hold of Miss De la Riva's right
arm in an effort to free her from Pineda's grip. The
latter, however, was able to drag Miss De la Riva
toward the Pontiac convertible car, whose motor was
all the while running.
When Miss De la Riva, who was being pulled by
Pineda, was very near the Pontiac car, the three men
inside started to assist their friend: one of them held
her by the neck, while the two others held her arms
and legs. All three were now pulling Miss De la Riva
inside the car. Before she was completely in,
appellant Pineda jumped unto the driver's seat and
sped away in the direction of Broadway Street. The
maid was left behind.
The complainant was made to sit between Jaime Jose
and Edgardo Aquino at the back seat; Basilio Pineda,
Jr. was at the wheel, while Rogelio Cañal was seated
beside him. Miss De la Riva entreated the appellants
to release her; but all she got in response were jeers,
abusive and impolite language, and threats that the
appellants would finish her with their Thompson and
throw acid at her face if she did not keep quiet. In the
meantime, the two men seated on each side of Miss
De la Riva started to get busy with her body: Jose put
one arm around the complainant and forced his lips
upon hers, while Aquino placed his arms on her thighs
and lifted her skirt. The girl tried to resist them. She
continuously implored her captors to release her,
telling them that she was the only breadwinner in the
family and that her mother was alone at home and
needed her company because her father was already
dead. Upon learning of the demise of Miss De la Riva's
father, Aquino remarked that the situation was much
better than he thought since no one could take
revenge against them. By now Miss De la Riva was
beginning to realize the futility of her pleas. She made
the sign of the cross and started to pray. The
appellants became angry and cursed her. Every now
and then Aquino would stand up and talk in whispers
with Pineda, after which the two would exchange
knowing glances with Cañal and Jose.
The car reached a dead-end street. Pineda turned the
car around and headed towards Victoria Street. Then
the car proceeded to Araneta Avenue, Sta. Mesa
Street, Shaw Boulevard, thence to Epifanio de los
Santos Avenue. When the car reached Makati, Aquino
took a handkerchief from his pocket and, with the
help of Jose, blindfolded Miss De la Riva. The latter
was told not to shout or else she would be stabbed or
shot with a Thompson. Not long after, the car came
to a stop at the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City. The
blindfolded lady was led out of the car to one of the
rooms on the second floor of the hotel.
Inside the room Miss De la Riva was made to sit on
bed. Her blindfold was removed. She saw Pineda and
Aquino standing in front of her, and Jose and Cañal
sitting beside her, all of them smiling meaningfully.
Pineda told the complainant: "Magburlesque ka para
sa amin." The other three expressed their approval
and ordered Miss De la Riva to disrobe. The
complainant ignored the command. One of the
appellants suggested putting off the light so that the
complainant would not be ashamed. The idea,
however, was rejected by the others, who said that it
would be more pleasurable for them if the light was
on. Miss De la Riva was told to remove her stockings,
in order, according to them, to make the proceedings
more exciting. Reluctantly, she did as directed, but so
slowly did she proceed with the assigned task that the
appellants cursed her and threatened her again with
the Thompson and the acid. They started pushing
Miss De la Riva around. One of them pulled down the
zipper of her dress; another unhooked her brassiere.
She held on tightly to her dress to prevent it from
being pulled down, but her efforts were in vain: her
dress, together with her brassiere, fell on the floor.
The complainant was now completely naked before
the four men, who were kneeling in front of her and
feasting their eyes on her private parts. This ordeal
lasted for about ten minutes, during which the
complainant, in all her nakedness, was asked twice or
thrice to turn around. Then Pineda picked up her
clothes and left the room with his other companions.
The complainant tried to look for a blanket with which
to cover herself, but she could not find one.
Very soon, Jose reentered the room and began
undressing himself. Miss De la Riva, who was sitting
on the bed trying to cover her bareness with her
hands, implored him to ask his friends to release her.
Instead of answering her, he pushed her backward
and pinned her down on the bed. Miss De la Riva and
Jose struggled against each other; and because the
complainant was putting up stiff resistance, Jose
cursed her and hit her several times on the stomach
and other parts of the body. The complainant crossed
her legs tightly, but her attacker was able to force
them open. Jose succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of the complainant. He then left the room.
The other three took their turns. Aquino entered the
room next. A struggle ensued between him and Miss
De la Riva, during which he hit her on different parts
of the body. Like Jose, Aquino succeeded in abusing
the complainant. The girl was now in a state of shock.
Aquino called the others into the room. They poured
water on her face and slapped her to revive her.
Afterwards, three or the accused left the room,
leaving Pineda and the complainant. After some
struggle during which Pineda hit her, the former
succeeded in forcing his carnal desire on the latter.
When the complainant went into a state of shock for
the second time, the three other men went into the
room, again poured water on the complainant's face
and slapped her several times. The complainant
heard them say that they had to revive her so she
would know what was happening. Jose, Aquino and
Pineda then left the room. It was now appellant
Cañal's turn. There was a struggle between him and
Miss De la Riva. Like the other three appellants before
him, he hit the complainant on different parts of the
body and succeeded in forcing his carnal lust on her.
After the appellants had been through with the sexual
carnage, they gave Miss De la Riva her clothes, told
her to get dressed and put on her stockings, and to
wash her face and comb her hair, to give the
impression that nothing had happened to her. They
told her to tell her mother that she was mistaken by
a group of men for a hostess, and that when the group
found out that she was a movie actress, she was
released without being harmed. She was warned not
to inform the police; for if she did and they were
apprehended, they would simply post bail and later
hunt her up and disfigure her face with acid. The
appellant then blindfolded Miss De la Riva again and
led her down from the hotel room. Because she was
stumbling, she had to be carried into the car. Inside
the car, appellant Jose held her head down on his lap,
and kept it in that position during the trip, to prevent
her from being seen by others.
Meanwhile, the four appellants were discussing the
question of where to drop Miss De la Riva. They finally
decided on a spot in front of the Free Press Building
not far from Epifanio de los Santos Avenue near
Channel 5 to make it appear, according to them, that
the complainant had just come from the studio.
Pineda asked Jose to alight and call a taxicab, but to
choose one which did not come from a well-known
company. Jose did as requested, letting several
taxicabs pass by before flagging a UBL taxicab. After
they warned again Miss De la Riva not to inform
anyone of what had happened to her, appellant Cañal
accompanied her to the taxicab. The time was a little
past 6:00 o'clock. When Miss De la Riva was already
inside the cab and alone with the driver, Miguel F.
Campos, she broke down and cried. She kept asking
the driver if a car was following them; and each time
the driver answered her in the negative.
It was 6:30 o'clock — or some two hours after the
abduction — when Miss De la Riva reached home. Her
mother, her brother-in-law Ben Suba, as well as
several PC officers, policemen and reporters, were at
the house. Upon seeing her mother, the complainant
ran toward her and said, "Mommy, Mommy, I have
been raped. All four of them raped me." The mother
brought her daughter upstairs. Upon her mother's
instruction, the complainant immediately took a bath
and a douche. The older woman also instructed her
daughter to douche herself two or three times daily
with a strong solution to prevent infection and
pregnancy. The family doctor, who was afterwards
summoned, treated the complainant for external
physical injuries. The doctor was not, however, told
about the sexual assaults. Neither was Pat. Pablo
Pascual, the police officer who had been sent by the
desk officer, Sgt. Dimla, to the De la Riva residence
when the latter received from a mobile patrol a
report of the snatching. When Miss De la Riva arrived
home from her harrowing experience, Pat. Pascual
attempted to question her, but Ben Suba requested
him to postpone the interrogation until she could be
ready for it. At that time, mother and daughter were
still undecided on what to do.
On the afternoon of June 28, 1967, the complainant's
family gathered to discuss what steps, if any, should
be taken. After some agonizing moments, a decision
was reached: the authorities had to be informed.
Thus, early on the morning of June 29, 1967, or on the
fourth day after the incident, Miss De la Riva,
accompanied by her lawyer, Atty. Regina O. Benitez,
and by some members of the family, went to the
Quezon City Police Department Headquarters, filed a
complaint and executed a statement (Exh. "B")
wherein she narrated the incident and gave
descriptions of the four men who abused her. In the
afternoon of the same day, the complainant
submitted herself to a medico-internal examination
by Dr. Ernesto Brion, NBI Chief Medico-Legal Officer.
During the physical examination of the complainant
by Dr. Brion on June 29, 1967, Pat. Pascual was also at
the NBI office. There he received a telephone call
from the police headquarters to the effect that one of
the suspects had been apprehended. That evening,
the complainant and Pat. Pascual proceeded to the
headquarters where Miss De la Riva identified
appellant Jaime Jose from among a group of persons
inside the Office of the Chief of Police of Quezon City
as one of the four men who abducted and raped her.
She executed another statement (Exh. "B-1") wherein
she made a formal identification of Jose and related
the role played by him.
"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the
accused Jaime Jose, Rogelio
Cañal, Eduardo Aquino and
Basilio Pineda, Jr. guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of
forcible abduction with rape as
described under Art. 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as emended,
and hereby sentences each of
them to the death penalty to be
executed at a date to be set and
in the manner provided for by
law; and each to indemnify the
complainant in the amount of ten
thousand pesos. On the ground
that the prosecution has failed to
establish a prima facie case
against the accomplices Wong
Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon y
Romero, and Jessie Guion y
Envoltario, the Motion to Dismiss
filed for and in their behalf is
hereby granted, and the case
dismissed against the
aforementioned accused.
ISSUE: WON AC of ignominy is present.
HELD:
YES. Nevertheless, to put matters in their proper
perspective and for the purpose of determining the
proper penalty to be imposed in each of the other
three crimes of simple rape, it behooves Us to make
a definite finding in this connection to the effect that
the commission of said crimes was attended with
the following aggravating circumstances: (a)
nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such
circumstance to facilitate the commission of these
crimes; (b) abuse of superior strength, the crime
having been committed by the four appellants in
conspiracy with one another (Cf. People vs. De
Guzman, et al., 51 Phil., 105, 113); (c) ignominy, since
the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit
to them her complete nakedness for about ten
minutes, before raping her, brought about a
circumstance which tended to make the effects of the
crime more humiliating; and (d) use of a motor
vehicle. With respect to appellants Jose, Aquino and
Cañal, none of these aggravating circumstances has
been offset by any mitigating circumstance. Appellant
Pineda should, however, be credited with the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, a
factor which does not in the least affect the nature of
the proper penalties to be imposed, for the reason
that there would still be three aggravating
circumstances remaining. As a result, appellants
should likewise be made to suffer the extreme,
penalty of death in each of these three simple crimes
of rape. (Art. 63, par. 2, Revised Penal Code.).
THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. MICHAEL J.
BUTLER, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
It appears from the records of the case that on August
7, 1975, at about 10:30 p.m., accused-appellant
Michael Butler and the victim, Enriquita Alipo alias
Gina Barrios were together at Colonial Restaurant in
Olongapo City. They were seen together by Lilia Paz,
an entertainer and friend of the victim, who claimed
to have had a small conversation with the accused,
and by one Rosemarie Juarez, also a friend of the
victim. At about 1:00 of the same evening, the
accused and the victim left the said restaurant, 1 after
the latter invited Rosemarie Juarez to come to her
house that night.
Emelita Pasco, the housemaid of the victim, testified
that, at about 11:30 p.m. or so of August 7, 1975, her
mistress (Gina Barrios) came home with the accused-
appellant. As soon as she opened the door for them,
the victim and accused-appellant immediately
entered the victim's bedroom. Shortly thereafter, the
victim left her bedroom holding an ID card and a piece
of paper, and on the piece of paper, the victim
purportedly wrote the following words: MICHAEL J.
BUTLER, 44252-8519 USS HANCOCK. Said words were
copied from the ID Card.
Pasco testified that the victim said she was copying
the name of the accused because she knew he would
not be going back to her. Then she rushed back to her
bedroom after instructing Pasco to wake her up the
following morning. 2 Before retiring, however, the
victim's friend, Rosemarie Juarez, came to the
former's house and after having a small conversation,
also left.
The following day, August 8, 1975, at about 4:00 a.m.,
Pasco rose to wake her mistress as instructed. She
knocked at the door. She found that the victim was
lying on her bed, facing downward, naked up to the
waist, with legs spread apart, with a broken figurine
beside her head. Immediately, Pasco called the
landlord and they called the authorities. 3
On the same day, officers of the Olongapo Police
Department informed the Naval Investigation
Services Resident Agency (NISRA) in Subic Bay that an
American Negro by the name of Michael J. Butler on
board the USS Hancock was a suspect in a murder
case. Jerry Witt and Timothy Watrous, both special
agents of NISRA, went on board USS Hancock. They
informed the legal officer that one of the crew
members was a suspect in a murder case. After being
located, the accused was brought to the legal office
of the ship. Witt identified himself, showed his
credentials and informed the accused that he was a
suspect in a murder case. Then Witt informed the
accused of his constitutional rights to remain silent
and right to counsel. Then the accused was searched,
handcuffed, and was brought to NISRA office.
Dr. Roxas later testified that anal intercourse was had
with the victim after her death as indicated by the
partly opened anus and the presence of spermatozoa
in it. He testified that the anus would have
automatically and completely closed had the
intercourse occurred, while the victim was still alive.
He also categorically testified that the victim died of
asphyxia due to suffocation when extreme pressure
was exerted on her head pushing it downward,
thereby pressing her nose and mouth against the
mattress. 6
TC: murder with aggravating circumstance of
treachery and outraging or scoffing at the corpse of
the deceased
ISSUE: WON AC of ignominy is resent.
HELD:
YES. While We reject the presence of treachery, We,
however, find and sustain the finding of the lower
court that the aggravating circumstance of outraging
or scoffing at the corpse of the deceased applies
against the accused since it is established that he
mocked or outraged at the person or corpse of his
victim by having an anal intercourse with her after she
was already dead. The fact that the muscles of the
anus did not close and also the presence of
spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by Dr.
Angeles Roxas, the medico-legal officer, and
confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report,
Exhibit "B-1", clearly established the coitus after
death. This act of the accused in having anal
intercourse with the woman after killing her is,
undoubtedly, an outrage at her corpse.
It is true as maintained by the defense that the
aggravating circumstance of outraging at the corpse
of the victim is not alleged in the information and that
the lower court found it had been proved but its
contention that the said aggravating circumstance
should not have been appreciated against the
accused is without merit. And this is so because the
role is that a generic aggravating circumstance not
alleged in the information may be proven during the
trial over the objection of the defense and may be
appreciated in imposing the penalty (People vs.
Martinez Godinez, 106 Phil. 597). Aggravating
circumstances not alleged in the information but
proven during the trial serve only to aid the court in
fixing the limits of the penalty but do not change the
character of the offense. (People vs. Collado, 60 Phil.
610, 614; People vs. Campo, 23 Phil. 368; People vs.
Vega, 31 Phil. 450; People vs. Domondon, 64 Phil.
729).
 THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. RAFAEL SAYLAN
alias PAEL, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
In the afternoon of January 23, 1971,
Eutropia A. Agno went to the public market in
Gingoog City to buy foodstuffs for her family and
thereafter, she proceeded to the store of her mother
to fetch her five-year old daughter Nilsonita (p. 4,
tsn., Id.). On their way home, Eutropia and Nilsonita
boarded a passenger jeepney and while inside the
vehicle she (Eutropia) noticed that the other
passengers were Rudy Gonzales, a grade I pupil of
the Malinao Elementary School, the appellant,
Rafael Saylan, and a couple whom she did not know
(pp. 5, 6, tsn., Id.). The jeepney went only as far as
Malinas citrus farm because the road to Barrio
Malinao was not passable by vehicles (p. 5, tsn., Id.).
It was almost 6:30 o'clock in the evening when the
jeepney arrived at the Malinas citrus farm and so all
the passengers alighted and had to walk all the way
to Barrio Malinao which was about three and a half
kilometers away (p. 5, tsn., Id.). After walking some
distance and upon reaching a junction, the couple
separated from the group and took the road leading
to their house while Eutropia's group took the
opposite road (p. 9, tsn., Id.). The appellant,
however, joined the group of Eutropia and when
they reached the place where the road was plain,
appellant who was then walking side by side with
Eutropia suddenly pulled out a dagger about eight
inches long and pointing it at the latter said, Do not
shout, Nang, I will kill you! (pp. 11, 12, tsn., Id.). At
this juncture, appellant placed his right arm around
the neck of Eutropia with the dagger pointed at her
left breast (p. 12, tsn., Id.), after which he dragged
Eutropia at some distance. When they reached the
junction of the trail for men and a trail for carabaos,
he ordered everybody to stop and told the children
(Nilsonita and Rudy Gonzales) to stay behind and
threatened to kill them if they persisted in following
them (pp. 17, 18, tsn., Id.). Thereafter, appellant
again dragged Eutropia by her hand and brought her
towards a creek near a coconut tree which was
about five meters away from where Nilsonita and
Rudy Gonzales were (pp. 14, 15, 16, tsn., Id.). The
appellant then ordered Eutropia to remove her
panty which she refused at first, but appellant
threatened to kill her, so she removed her panty
after which appellant ordered her to lie down (pp.
18, 19, tsn., Id.). Subsequently, appellant placed
himself on top of the victim and inserted his penis
into her vagina and succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her by moving his buttocks up and
down (pp. 20, 21, tsn., Id.).
"After the fifth intercourse, and after
satisfying his sexual lust, appellant asked Eutropia if
she will tell her husband what he did to her and the
latter answered, 'I will not tell" (p. 31, tsn., Id.). But
she only said this so that appellant would let her go
home (p. 33, tsn., Id.).
"Afterwards, Eutropia and appellant
returned to the place where the children were left
and upon arriving thereat, they found Nilsonita
(Eutropia's daughter) asleep with Rudy seated
dozing beside her (pp. 32, 33, tsn., Id.). Nilsonita who
was sleeping was carried by the appellant and then
they all proceeded to Malinao (pp. 33, 34, tsn., Id.).
"After walking some distance, Eutropia
saw the house of her friend "Ben" and upon
approaching the said house, she shouted, 'Ben, Ben,
please give me hot water' (p. 34, tsn., Id.). Upon
hearing her voice, Ben, who was still awake at the
time, opened the door of his house and allowed
Eutropia to come up (p. 34, tsn., Id.). Eutropia
immediately went upstairs and went straight to the
room of Ben as she was feeling very bad (p. 34, tsn.,
Id.). Appellant, who was then carrying Nilsonita, and
Rudy Gonzales, were also allowed to go upstairs (p.
35, tsn., Id.). Meanwhile, Eutropia requested Ben to
fetch her husband (p. 35, tsn., Id.).
"When Eutropia woke up between 9:00
and 10:00 o'clock that evening, her husband was
already there (p. 36, tsn., Id.). She then asked him
whether the appellant was still around, and in reply,
he told her that appellant had already left (p. 37,
tsn., Id.). Eutropia then told her husband that she
was raped by the appellant (p 37, tsn., Id.). Upon
learning of the dastardly act committed by the
appellant, he advised his wife to submit herself to a
medical examination (p. 37, tsn., Id.).
The appellant claims there was no ignominy because
"The studies of many experts in the matter have
shown that this 'position' is not novel and has
repeatedly and often been resorted to by couples in
the act of copulation." (Brief, p. 24.) This may well be
if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners
but not otherwise.
ISSUE: WON AC of ignominy is present.
HELD:
YES. The trial court held that there was ignominy
because the appellant used not only the missionary
position, i.e. male superior, female inferior, but also
"The same position as dogs do" i.e., entry from
behind.
The judgment of the trial court is in accordance with
the facts and the law but it cannot be affirmed
completely because of the lack of the necessary
number of votes.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
appellee, vs. FERNANDO
SULTAN y LATO, accused-
appellant.
FACTS:
The evidence for the prosecution was
based principally on the testimony of complaining
witness Juditha M. Bautista. According to her, on 2
June 1997 at 9:00 o’clock in the evening she was on
her way home from a visit to her cousin Cristina
Mansilongan in Novaliches, Quezon City; when she
passed the dark alley in her cousin's compound she
was accosted by someone, later identified as
accused-appellant Fernando L. Sultan, who
pointed a sharp instrument at her neck and
announcing it was a "hold-up." He grabbed her and
brought her to a house along the alley which turned
out to be his. Once inside the house, he made her
sit down. He offered her a drink; she refused it.
Then he started divesting her of her watch, ring,
earrings, and necklace the values of which are now
reflected in the Decision of the court a quo, and her
cash of P130.00. After taking her valuables, he
started kissing her on the lips and cheeks. As if to
discourage him from making further sexual
advances, she told him that she was married with
two (2) children but accused-appellant was not
dissuaded from pursuing his intentions. While
pointing an ice pick at her he ordered her to
undress. She acceded for fear that he would kill her
as she was under constant threat. After she had
completely undressed, accused-appellant ordered
her to lie down on the floor. He then kissed her
again from head down. Still she could not resist him
because of fear. He went on top of her, held her
two (2) hands on the level of her head, spread her
thighs and inserted his penis into her vagina. The
coital encounter lasted for ten (10) to fifteen (15)
minutes. 2
After satisfying his lust, he ordered her to
put on her bra and panty, tied her hands and went
out of the room to smoke. After ten (10) to fifteen
(15) minutes, he came back, untied her, and once
again with threat and intimidation sexually abused
her. Thereafter, he tied her hands to a protruding
piece of wood in the room and held her in his arms.
She cried. He told her that he loved her and that he
would answer for what he had done to her. They
talked until noon the following day without
sleeping. 3
In her effort to release herself from his
clutches she "agreed" to elope with him. Perhaps
convinced that she was going to run away with him,
he allowed her to go home at noon to get her
things. She was then staying with her cousin Nita
del Rosario, at No. 9 Sta. Eleuteria Street, Gulod,
Novaliches, Quezon City. He even accompanied her
to the highway to get a ride home. 4
When Juditha arrived home she saw her
sister Antonette in the house. She was not actually
residing there but went there only that day. Juditha
lost no time in narrating her harrowing experience
to her sister. Immediately Antonette called her
brother SPO1 Fernando M. Bautista who resides in
Bulacan. 5 SPO1 Bautista arrived at around 3:00 or
4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and was told about
what happened. 6 He then advised Juditha to go
back to the house of accused-appellant for the
"planned elopement" so that he and his two (2)
companions 7 could stage an arrest. 8
On their way to the house of accused-
appellant, Juditha rode in a passenger jeep with her
sister Antonette and cousin Nita while her brother
and his two (2) companions followed them on
board an XLT Van. Juditha alighted near the house
of accused-appellant while her companions waited
for her and accused-appellant along the highway.
When she arrived at accused-appellant's place, he
was already waiting for her outside the store
nearby. They went inside his house and came out
twenty (20) minutes later. They boarded a
passenger bus while SPO1 Bautista and his
companions trailed them. When the bus reached
the corner of Forest Hill Subdivision, Gulod,
Novaliches, it slowed down because of the traffic
thus making it easier for SPO1 Bautista and his
 companions to board the bus. Upon seeing her
brother and his companions, Juditha motioned to
them. They immediately approached accused-
appellant and boxed him before they could arrest
him. The other passengers of the bus joined in
hitting accused-appellant. This caused a
commotion in the bus. Some policemen who were
in the barangay hall across the street saw the
disturbance. They boarded the bus to find out what
happened. Then they assisted in facilitating the
arrest of accused-appellant and brought him to
the barangayhall. He was later on transferred to
the police headquarters for further interrogation.
Trial Court: special complex crime of robbery with
rape
In this appeal, accused-appellant submits
that there is no convincing proof that he is guilty of
the crime charged.
ISSUE: WON AC of ignominy is present.
HELD:
NO. The Information charges accused-
appellant with the special complex crime of
robbery with rape. The record shows that the
prosecution has established that he committed
both robbery and rape with the intent to take
personal property of another preceding the
rape. Under Art. 294, par. (1), of the Revised Penal
Code, ". . .[a]ny person guilty of robbery with the
use of violence against or intimidation of persons
shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death, . . . when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape . . ." Complaining witness
Juditha Bautista was raped twice on the occasion of
the robbery. In this regard, this Court had declared
in some cases that the additional rapes committed
on the same occasion of robbery would not
increase the penalty. 13 There were also cases,
however, where this Court ruled that the
multiplicity of rapes committed could be
appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. 14 Finally, in the recent case
of People v. Regala 15the Court held that the
additional rapes committed should not be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
despite a resultant "anomalous situation" wherein
robbery with rape would be on the same level as
robbery with multiple rapes in terms of
gravity. 16 The Court realized that there was no law
providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s
for that matter to be considered as aggravating
circumstance. It further observed that the
enumeration of aggravating circumstances under
Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive,
unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code which
enumerates the mitigating circumstances where
analogous circumstances may be considered,
hence, the remedy lies with the legislature.
Consequently, unless and until a law is passed
providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s
may be considered aggravating, the Court must
construe the penal law in favor of the offender as
no person may be brought within its terms if he is
not clearly made so by the statute. Under this view,
the additional rape committed by accused-
appellant is not considered an aggravating
circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. (2), of the
Revised Penal Code which provides that "(i)n all
cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties, the following
rules shall be observed in the application thereof . .
. 2. (w)hen there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in the commission of
the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied," the
lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed on accused-appellant.
USE OF ILLEGAL FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.
WALPAN LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL
alias "WARPAN", appellant.
The Facts
"After the briefing, more than thirty (30) policemen
headed by Police Superintendent Edwin Soledad
proceeded to the house of appellant and his wife at
Folio Hondo on board several police vehicles (TSN,
March 4, 1998, p. 32; April 22, 1998, p. 54). Before
they could reach appellant's house, three (3) persons
sitting at a nearby store ran towards the house
shouting, '[P]olice, raid, raid' (Ibid., March 3, 1998, pp.
41, 43-44; April 23, 1998, p. 4). When the policemen
were about ten (10) meters from the main gate of the
house, they were met by a rapid burst of gunfire
coming from the second floor of the house. There was
also gunfire at the back of the house (Ibid., March 5,
1998, pp. 14-16).
"SPO1 Mirasol, SPO2 Lacastesantos, PO3 Rivera, and
PO3 Dela Peña who were with the first group of
policemen saw appellant fire an M14 rifle towards
them. They all knew appellant. When they were fired
upon, the group, together with SPO2 Gaganting, PO3
Obut and Superintendent Soledad, sought cover at
the concrete fence to observe the movements at the
second floor of the house while other policemen
surrounded the house (Ibid., March 4, 1998, pp. 50-
51).
"In front of the house was an extension building
connected to the concrete fence (Ibid., pp. 45-46, 57-
59, 73-76). Gaganting, Mirasol, Lacastesantos,
Gregorio, and Obut entered the door of the extension
building. Gaganting opened the main (steel) gate of
the house. The other members of the team then
entered. Lacastesantos and Mirasol entered the
house through the main door and went inside the sala
of the ground floor while other policemen
surrounded the house. Two (2) old women were in
the sala together with a young girl and three (3)
children. One of the old women took the children to
the second floor while the young girl remained seated
at the corner (Ibid., pp. 19-21).
"Lacastesantos and Mirasol proceeded to the second
floor where they earlier saw appellant firing an M14
rifle at them through the window. While they were
going upstairs, appellant noticed their presence. He
went inside the bedroom and, after breaking and
removing the jalousies, jumped from the window to
the roof of a neighboring house. Seeing this, Mirasol
rushed downstairs and asked help from the other
members of the raiding team to arrest appellant.
Lacastesantos went to the second floor and shouted
to the policemen outside not to fire in the direction
of the second floor because there were children.
Mirasol and SPO1 Cesar Rabuya arrested appellant at
the back of his house after a brief chase (Ibid., pp. 21-
23).
"At the second floor, Lacastesantos saw an M14 rifle
(Exh. B-3) with magazine on top of the sofa at the sala
on the second floor (Ibid., p. 2-7). The rifle bore Serial
No. 1555225. He removed the magazine from the rifle
and the bullet inside the chamber of the rifle. He
counted seventeen (17) live ammunition inside the
magazine. He saw two (2) more M14 rifle magazines
on that sofa, one with twenty (20) live ammunition
(Exh. G-3) and another with twenty-one (21) live
ammunition (Exh. G-4). He likewise saw three (3) M16
rifle magazines (Exh. G-2) in a corner at the second
floor (TSN, March 5, 1998, pp. 23-32, 53-57).
"After Lacastesantos and Mirasol entered appellant's
house, Rivera, Dela Peña, Gregorio and Obut followed
and entered the house. After identifying themselves
as members of the PNP Anti-Vice/Narcotics Unit,
Obut presented to the old women a copy of the
search warrant. Dela Peña and Rivera then searched
appellant's room on the ground floor in the presence
of Punong Barangay Elhano (TSN, March 3, 1998, pp.
41-43). On top of a table was a pencil case (Exh. J) with
fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside (Exhs. J-1 to J-
50), each containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride or 'shabu'.
"Other items were found during the search, namely,
assorted coins in different denominations (Exh. W;
TSN, April 28, 1998, pp. 23-25), one (1) homemade .38
caliber revolver (Exh. B-2) with five (5) live
[ammunition], one (1) M79 single rifle with [a] pouch
containing five (5) empty shells of an M79 rifle (Exh.
B-4), and one (1) empty shell of an M14 rifle (TSN,
April 23, 1998, pp. 30-32).
"The records of the Regional Operation and Plans
Division of the PNP Firearm and Explosive Section
show that appellant 'had not applied/filed any
application for license to possess firearm and
ammunition or . . . been given authority to carry [a]
firearm outside of his residence' (Exh. X)" 14
The trial court convicted appellant of three crimes:
(1) maintenance of a drug den, (2) direct assault
with attempted homicide, and (3) illegal possession
of firearms. We will discuss each of these.
Citing People v. Jayson, 59 the OSG argues that the
foregoing provision does not cover the specific facts
of this case. Since another crime — direct assault with
multiple unlawful homicide — was committed,
appellant cannot be convicted of simple illegal
possession of firearms under the second paragraph of
the aforecited provision. Furthermore, since there
was no killing in this case, possession cannot be
deemed as an aggravating circumstance under the
third paragraph of the provision. Based on these
premises, the OSG concludes that the applicable law
is not RA 8294, but PD 1866 which, as worded prior
the new law, penalizes simple illegal possession of
firearms even if another crime is committed at the
same time. 60
Applying a different interpretation, the trial court
posits that appellant should be convicted of illegal
possession of firearms, in addition to direct assault
with multiple attempted homicide. It did not explain
its ruling, however. Considering that it could not have
been ignorant of the proviso 61 in the second
paragraph, it seemed to have construed "no other
crime" as referring only to homicide and murder, in
both of which illegal possession of firearms is an
aggravating circumstance. In other words, if a crime
other than murder or homicide is committed, a
person may still be convicted of illegal possession of
firearms. In this case, the other crime committed was
direct assault with multiple attempted homicide;
hence, the trial court found appellant guilty of illegal
possession of firearms.
ISSUE: WON there is an AC of use of illegal firearms.
HELD:
NO. We cannot accept either of these interpretations
because they ignore the plain language of the statute.
A simple reading thereof shows that if an unlicensed
firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there
can be no separate offense of simple illegal
possession of firearms. Hence, if the "other crime" is
murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms
becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a
separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple
attempted homicide was committed in this case,
appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal
possession of firearms.
Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in favor
of the accused. 62 In this case, the plain meaning
of RA 8294's simple language is most favorable to
herein appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is
justified, for the language of the new law
demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the
accused. 63 Accordingly, appellant cannot be
convicted of two separate offenses of illegal
possession of firearms and direct assault with
attempted homicide. Moreover, since the crime
committed was direct assault and not homicide or
murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be
deemed an aggravating circumstance.
Just as unacceptable is the interpretation of the trial
court. We find no justification for limiting
the proviso in the second paragraph to murder and
homicide. The law is clear: the accused can be
convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms,
provided that "no other crime was committed by the
person arrested." If the intention of the law in the
second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and
murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in
the third paragraph. Verily, where the law does not
distinguish, neither should we.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is
found guilty only of two offenses: (1) direct assault
and multiple attempted homicide with the use of a
weapon, for which he is sentenced to 2 years and 4
months to 6 years of prision correccional and (2)
maintaining a drug den, for which he was correctly
sentenced by the trial court to reclusion perpetua.
Costs against appellant.
ANGEL CELINO,
SR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, CEBU CITY, HON.
DELANO F. VILLARUZ, Presiding
Judge, Branch 16, Regional Trial
Court, Capiz, Roxas City, and
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS:
Criminal Case No. C-137-04
That on or about the 12th day of
May, 2004, in the City of Roxas,
Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly carry outside of
his residence an armalite rifle colt
M16 with serial number 3210606
with two (2) long magazines each
loaded with thirty (30) live
ammunitions of the same caliber
during the election period —
December 15, 2005 to June 9,
2004 — without first having
obtained the proper authority in
writing from the Commission on
Elections, Manila,
Philippines. DTCSHA
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. C-138-04
That on or about the 12th day of
May, 2004, in the City of Roxas,
Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly have in his
possession and control one (1)
armalite rifle colt M16 with serial
 number 3210606 with two (2) charged [i.e., violation of gun ban] . . . is not one of
long magazines each loaded with those enumerated under R.A. 8294 . . . ." 37 in
thirty (30) live ammunitions of consonance with the earlier pronouncement
the same caliber without first in Valdez 38 that "all pending cases involving illegal
having obtained the proper possession of firearm should continue to be
license or necessary permit to prosecuted and tried if no other crimes expressly
possess the said firearm. indicated in Republic Act No. 8294 are involved . . .
." 39
Prior to his arraignment in Criminal Case No. C-138-
04, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash 8 contending In sum, when the other offense involved is one of
that he "cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession those enumerated under R.A. 8294, any information
of firearms . . . if he was also charged of having for illegal possession of firearm should be quashed
committed another crime of [sic] violating the because the illegal possession of firearm would have
Comelec gun ban under the same set of facts . . . ." 9 to be tried together with such other offense, either
considered as an aggravating circumstance in murder
Motion to quash: DENIED or homicide, 40 or absorbed as an element of
ISSUE: WON the denial of Motion to Quash is valid. rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup
d'etat. 41 Conversely, when the other offense
HELD: involved is not one of those enumerated under R.A.
8294, then the separate case for illegal possession of
YES. The relevant provision of R.A. 8294 reads:
firearm should continue to be prosecuted.
Provided, however, That
no other crime was
committed by the
person arrested.
The law is indeed clear. The accused can be convicted
of illegal possession of firearms, provided no other
crime was committed by the person arrested. The
word "committed" taken in its ordinary sense, and in
light of the Constitutional presumption of
innocence, 32 necessarily implies a prior
determination of guilt by final conviction resulting
from successful prosecution or voluntary
admission. 33
Petitioner's reliance on Agote, Ladjaalam,
Evangelista, Garcia, Pangilinan, Almeida, and
Bernal is, therefore, misplaced. In each one of these
cases, the accused were exonerated of illegal
possession of firearms because of their
commission, as shown by their conviction, of some
other crime. 34 In the present case, however,
petitioner has only been accused of committing a
violation of the COMELEC gun ban. As accusation is
not synonymous with guilt, there is yet no showing
that petitioner did in fact commit the other crime
charged. 35 Consequently, the proviso does not yet
apply.
More applicable is Margarejo 36 where, as stated
earlier, this Court affirmed the denial of a motion to
quash an information for illegal possession of
firearm on the ground that "the other offense