c



 

 
Ô
 
 



’
  
   

plaintiff-appellee,
vs.


defendant-appellant.

O

º


—
sed Floro Rodil was fo
nd g
ilty, beyond reasonable do
bt, of the rime of m
rder
by the Cir
it Criminal Co
rt of Pasig, Rizal, for the death of Lt. G
illermo Masana of
the Philippine Constab
lary. — ordingly, he was senten ed to death, to indemnify the
heirs of the de eased in the amo
nt of P12,000.00, to pay the amo
nt of P10,000.00 as
moral damages and another P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the osts. 

The information alleges: 

That on or abo
t —pril 24, 1971, in the M
ni ipality of Indang, Provin e of Cavite,
Philippines, and within the j
risdi tion of this Honorable Co
rt, the above-named
a
sed, armed with a do
ble-bladed dagger, with evident premeditation and trea hery,
and with intent to kill, did, then and there, wilf
lly,
nlawf
lly, and felonio
sly, atta k and
stab PC Lt. G
illermo Masana while the latter was in the performan e of his offi ial
d
ties, infli ting
pon him stab wo
nds on the different parts of his body whi h dire tly
a
sed his death. 

Contrary to law 

From the eviden e add
ed by the prose
tion, We glean the following fa ts:

—t abo
t 1:00 o' lo k in the afternoon of —pril 24, 1971, the de eased, PC Lt. G
illermo
Masana together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Philippine Coast G
ard servi eman
Ri ardo Ligsa and Patrolman Felix Moji a of Indang, Cavite, was having l
n h inside a
resta
rant in front of the Indang market (pp. 2,3, t.s.n., O t. 30, 1971; pp. 10, 19, t.s.n.,
Nov. 22, 1971; p. 21, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972). While they were eating, they saw, thro
gh
the glass panel of the resta
rant, appellant o
tside the resta
rant blowing his whistle.
Their attention having been drawn to what appellant was doing, Lt. Masana then in
ivilian lothing, a ompanied by PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, went o
t of the resta
rant,
approa hed appellant and asked the latter, after Identifying himself as a PC offi er,
whether the g
n that was t
ked in his waist had a li ense. Instead of answering the
q
estion of Lt. Masana appellant moved one step ba kward and attempted to draw his
g
n. PC soldier Virgilio Fidel immediately grabbed appellant's g
n from appellant's waist
and gave it to Lt. Masana —fter that, Lt. Masana told the appellant to go inside the
resta
rant. PC soldier Virgilio Fidel followed. Lt. Masana and the appellant o
pied a
separate table abo
t one and one-half (1 1/2) meters from the table of Lt. Masana's
three ompanions ² Fidel, Ligsa and Moji a (p. 10, t.s.n., Nov. 22, 1971). —fter the two
were already seated, Lt. Masana pla ed appellant's g
n on the table. —fter that Lt.
Masana p
lled o
t a pie e of o
pon bond paper from his po ket and wrote thereon the
re eipt for the g
n, and after signing it, he asked appellant to o
ntersign the same, b
t
appellant ref
sed to do so. Instead, he asked Lt. Masana to ret
rn the g
n to him. Lt.
Masana reje ted appellant's plea, telling, the latter that they wo
ld talk the matter over
in the m
ni ipal b
ilding of Indang, Cavite. When Lt. Masana was abo
t to stand
p,
appellant s
ddenly p
lled o
t a do
ble-bladed dagger and with it he stabbed Lt.
Masana several times, on the hest and stoma h a
sing his death several ho
rs
thereafter (pp. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, t.s.n., O t. 30, 1971; pp. 10, 11, 12, t.s.n., Nov. 22, 1971). 

While the stabbing in ident was taking pla e, the three ompanions of Lt. Masana ²
PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Coast G
ard Ri ardo Ligsa and poli eman Felix Moji a ² who
were all seated at a separate table abo
t one and one-half (1 1/2) meters away from
that o
pied by the a
sed and Lt. Masana stood
p to assist Lt. Masana b
t Chief of
Poli e Primo Panaligan of Indang, Cavite, who happened to be taking his l
n h in the
same resta
rant, was q
i ker than any of them in going near the ombatants and
embra ed and/or grabbed the a
sed from behind, and thereafter wrested the dagger
from the a
sed-appellant. Immediately thereafter, the Chief of Poli e bro
ght the
a
sed to the m
ni ipal b
ilding of Indang, Cavite (p. 8, t.s.n., O t. 30, 1971; pp. 19-
20, t.s.n., Nov. 22, 1971; pp. 26, 28, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972), while the ompanions of Lt.
Masana bro
ght the latter to the V. L
na Hospital in Q
ezon City where he expired
several ho
rs later as a res
lt of the stab wo
nds infli ted by the a
sed (pp. 21, 22,
t.s.n., Nov. 22, 1971). Dr. Feli isimo del Rosario, Medi o-Legal Offi er of the —rmed
For es of the Philippines, ond
ted an a
topsy of the adaver of Lt. Masana and made
the following findings, whi h are embodied in his Report, Exhibits "D" and "D-1 " (pp. 88-
89, re .), and whi h reads as follows: 

Postmortem findings.

General: 

Fairly developed and no
rished male s
bje t in rigor mortis with postmortem lividity over
the dependent portions of the body. P
pils are dilated. Finger and toe tips are pale. There
is an exploratory laparotomy in ision at the abdomen, meas
ring 21 m. long, 3 m. left
of the anterior midline, with eighteen (18) stit hes applied. There are s
rgi al in isions at
the left and right abdomen, meas
ring 2 m. long, 9 m. from the anterior midline and 2
m. long, 6.5 m. from the anterior midline with two (2) stit hes applied and a r
bber
drain sti king o
t of ea h, respe tively. 

TRUNK: 

(1) Stab wo
nd, left hest, meas
ring 0.9 by 0.4 m., 5 m. from the anterior midline, 128
m. above the heel, 1 m. deep, dire ted posterior wards and slightly
pwards, passing
s
perfi ially between m
s les and tiss
es. 
 (2) Stab wo
nd, left hest, meas
ring 1.2 by 0.4 m., 9 m. from the anterior midline, 121
m. above the heel, 5.5. m. deep, dire ted posterior wards, downwards and to the left,
la erating the m
s les at the 4th inter ostal spa e.

(3) Stab wo
nd, abdomen, meas
ring 0.9 by 0.2 m. j
st left of the anterior midline, 96
m. above the heel 11 m. deep, dire ted posterior wards,
pwards and to the left,
perforating the greater
rvat
re of the stoma h and the gastri vessels, grazing the liver,
perforating the diaphragm and infero-medial border of the lower lobe of the right l
ng. 

(4) Impa t abrasion, right s ap
lar region, meas
ring 2 by 0.2 m., 12 m. from the
posterior midline, 127 m. above the heel. 

UPPER EXTREMITIES: 

(5) In ised wo
nd, anterior aspe t of the distal third of the left arm, meas
ring 3 by 0.5
m., j
st medial to its anterior midline. 

(6) In ised wo
nd, posterior aspe t of the proximal phalange of the right index finger,
meas
ring 1 by 0.2 m., j
st medial to its posterior midline. 

Five h
ndred (500) . blood and blood lots a
m
lated in the thora i avity. 

There are fo
r (4) s
t
res applied at a la erated wo
nd at the greater
rvat
re of the
stoma h. 

There is nothing remarkable in the
naffe ted organs internally. 

REM—RKS: 

Ca
se of death is ardio-respiratory arrest d
e to severe sho k and intrathora i

hemorrhage as a res
lt of m
ltiple stab wo
nds of the body, perforating the stoma h,
gastri vessels, liver, diaphragm and lower lobe of the right l
ng. 

Claiming self-defense, the a
sed, on the other hand, maintains and relies on the
following fa ts: 

—t abo
t 1: 00 o' lo k in the afternoon of —pril 24, 1971, the a
sed and his wife were
in a resta
rant near the market pla e of Indang, Cavite, in order to take their l
n h.
They had j
st ome from Mandal
yong, Rizal where they reside (pp. 21, 22, t.s.n., De .
10, 1971). Inside the resta
rant, the a
sed saw three persons to his right, eating,
while to his left he saw a person whom he later learned to be Lt. G
illermo Masana
drinking beer alone. While the a
sed and his wife were waiting for the food to be
served, Lt. Masana approa hed him and asked him whether he was Floro Rodil and
whether he was a member of the —nti- Sm
ggling Unit. —fter re eiving an affirmative
answer, Lt. Masana invited the a
sed to join him in his table. The a
sed a epted
the invitation so the two moved over to the offi er's table where the de eased offered
beer to the a
sed who, however, ref
sed saying he was still h
ngry. In the o
rse of
their onversation, Lt. Masana told the a
sed not to report any matter abo
t
sm
ggling to the PC. The a
sed informed the offi er that he had not reported any
sm
ggling a tivity to the a
thorities. Lt. Masana then asked the a
sed for his
identifi ation ard as a member of the —nti-Sm
ggling Unit, whi h the latter did by
showing his ID ard, Exhibit " 1 ", bearing his pi t
re and indi ating that he was an
offi er of the —nti-Comm
nist Leag
e of the Philippines (pp. 62-68, t.s.n., De . 7, 1971). 

There
pon, Lt. Masana told the a
sed that the latter's ID was fake, and after the
a
sed insisted that it was gen
ine, Lt. Masana tried to take it away from the a
sed
when the latter was abo
t to p
t it ba k in his po ket. Be a
se of his ref
sal to give his
Id ard to Lt. Masana the latter got mad and, in an angry tone of voi e, demanded: "Will
yo
give it to me or not?" (P. 7 1, 0
). Still the a
sed ref
sed to s
rrender his ID to
Lt. Masana There
pon, the latter p
lled a g
n from his waist and hit the a
sed on the
head with its handle two (2) time Immediately, blood g
shed from his head and fa e.
When Lt. Masana was abo
t to hit the a
sed for the third time, the latter parried the
right hand of the offi er, p
lled his "pangsaksak" and stabbed the offi er two or three
times and then p
shed him away from him and ran o
t of the resta
rant (pp. 74,75,79,
0
). 

The a
sed went in the dire tion of the m
ni ipal b
ilding of Indang, Cavite, where he
intended to s
rrender to the a
thorities. B
t on his way, he met Primo Panaligan, the
Chief of Poli e of Indang, Cavite. The Chief of Poli e asked him why his head and fa e
were bloody and he answered that he was hit by Lt. Masana on the head with a g
n
(pp. 86, 89, t.s.n.,0
). If here
pon, the Chief of Poli e asked somebody to a ompany
the a
sed to the m
ni ipal b
ilding. —rriving there, one Vi tor, a poli eman of Indang,
Cavite, a ompanied him to Dr. R
ben O hoa, whose lini was j
st a ross the street
where the m
ni ipal b
ilding is lo ated (p. 9, t.s.n., 0
; p. 4, t.s.n., De . 15, 1971).
—fter he was given first aid treatment, he was bro
ght ba k by the Indang poli eman to
the m
ni ipal, b
ilding where he was detained for two days before he was pi ked
p by
the Philippine Constab
lary operatives and transferred to the 121th PC Headq
arters in
Tagaytay City (pp. 90-91, t.s.n., 0
; pp. 4, 39, 40, t.s.n., De . 10, 1971; p. 6, t.s.n.,
De . 15, 1971; p. 5, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972). 

—fter d
e trial, the o
rt árendered a de ision senten ing the a
sed as
heretofore stated. 

I

Self-defense is an affirmative allegation that m
st be proven by lear, s
ffi ient,

satisfa tory and onvin ing eviden e (People vs. Libed 14 SCR— 410, 413; People vs.
Mendoza, 13 SCR— 11, 17; People vs. Solaña, 6 SCR— 60, 65-66; People vs. Davis, 1
SCR— 473; 477; People vs. Paras, 80 Phil. 149; 152; People vs. Berio 59 Phil. 533;
536; People vs. Gimena, 59 Phil. 509, 514). Moreover, to prove j
stifi ation, the
a
sed m
st rely on the strength of his own eviden e and not on the weakness of that
of the prose
tion, for even if it were weak, it o
ld not be disbelieved after the a
sed
had admitted the killing (People vs. Llamera, 51 SCR— 48, 57; People vs. Talabo , 30
SCR— 87; People vs. Navarro, 25 SCR— 491; 496; People vs. Solaña, 6 SCR— 60, 65-
66; People vs. Espenilla, 62 Phil. 264, 270; People vs. —polinario, 58 Phil 586-588;
People vs. —nsoyon, 65 Phil. 7 7 2). The rationale for this j
rispr
den e is that, having
admitted the wo
nding or killing of the vi tim, the a
sed m
st be held riminally liable
for the rime
nless he establishes to the satisfa tion of the o
rt the fa t of legitimate
self-defense. 

In the ase at bar, the a
sed ontends that it was the de eased, Lt. G
illermo
Masana who ommitted
nlawf
l aggression when the latter hit him on his head with the
handle of his g
n after he ref
sed to s
rrender his (a
sed's) ID to him. 

This laim does not merit belief. 

The a
sed laims that after he ref
sed to give his ID to the de eased be a
se the
same was his and he also spent money for it, the latter hit him with the handle of his
(de eased's) g
n. WE annot per eive how this ref
sal of the a
sed o
ld have
provoked or enraged the de eased to the extent of initiating the aggression by drawing
his pistol and hitting the a
sed with its b
tt, knowing that the a
sed was no longer
armed after the latter's g
n had earlier been taken away from him. Besides, an agent of
a
thority, like the de eased, ordinarily is not a
thorized to
se for e, ex ept in an
extreme ase when he is atta ked, or s
bje t to a tive resistan e, and finds no other
way to omply with his d
ty or a
se himself to be obeyed by the offender.
F
rthermore, the re ords reveal an
nreb
tted fa t to the effe t that the de eased was

narmed when the in ident happened, he being then on leave. —s a matter of fa t, he
was then in ivilian lothing (pp. 29-30, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972). WE are, therefore, in lined
to believe that it was the a
sed who had every reason to be resentf
l of the de eased
and to be enraged after the de eased ref
sed to heed his plea that his g
n be ret
rned
him; be a
se he might be prose
ted for illegal possession of firearms. — ordingly,
We are onstrained to draw the ines apable on l
sion that it was the a
sed, not the
de eased, who initiated the aggression whi h ended in the fatal wo
nding of the
de eased res
lting in his death. 

The a
sed f
rther laims that he was hit twi e by the de eased before he parried the
third blow. This laim is belied by the re ord. D
ring the trial, the o
rt áasked the
a
sed to show the s ar prod
ed by the inj
ries infli ted by the de eased when he
ref
sed to give his ID th
s ² 
Co
rt 
Q Where is that s ar? 
(Witness showing his right side of the head to the Co
rt)" 

[pp. 86,88, t.s.n., De . 7, 1971]. 

Dr. R
ben O hoa who treated the inj
ries of the a
sed orroborated the foregoing
testimony in his medi al findings, Exhibit "3", whi h reads: 

Inj
ries: 

(1) la erated wo
nd 1/2 in h, parietal region.

 (2) la erated wo
nd, 1 1/2 in hes, rt ear lobe

(3) ont
sion, right mastoid area [Exh. "3"; p. 116, re ] .

The re ord reveals that the de eased was a right-handed person (pp. 76-77, t.s.n., De .
7, 1971). It also shows that before the stabbing in ident took pla e, the de eased and
the a
sed were fa ing ea h other. If that was the ase, and onsidering that the
de eased was, a ording to the a
sed, holding the g
n with his right hand, why was
the a
sed hit on the right side of his head and and on his right ear lobe WE find that
this parti
lar laim of the a
sed that it was the de eased who first hit him twi e with
the handle of his g
n before parrying the third blow and then stabbing the latter is
definitely belied not only by the lo ation of the s ar b
t also by the medi al finding of Dr.
O hoa aforeq
oted. Indeed, if the protagonists were fa ing ea h other, and it appearing
that they were both right- handed (p. 13, t.s.n., Nov. 22, 1971), the blow given by one, if
not parried by the other, wo
ld perfor e land on the left, and not on the right, side of the
body of the re ipient of the blow. WE, therefore, reje t s
h laim for being improbable,
the same being ontrary to the nat
ral o
rse of h
man behavior. 

The fa t of the matter, however, as testified to by state witness PC soldier Virgilio Fidel,
is that the vi tim parried with both hands the thr
st of the appellant with s
h for e that
appellant b
mped his head on the edge of the table a
sing blood to ooze from the
res
lting inj
ry on his head. 

When the a
sed allegedly met the Chief of Poli e of Indang, Cavite, on his way to the
m
ni ipal b
ilding from the s ene of the stabbing in ident p
rportedly to s
rrender to
the a
thorities, he laims that he told the Chief of Poli e that Lt. Masana hit him on his
head with the handle of his (Masana's) g
n. On his ret
rn from the lini of Dr. O hoa
where his inj
ries were treated, he was detained in the m
ni ipal b
ilding of Indang,
Cavite for two days before he was transferred to the Tagaytay PC Headq
arters. D
ring
all this time, he did not give any written statement, m
h less inform any PC or other
poli e agen y that he stabbed Lt. Masana in self-defense. It was only on J
ly 8, 1971.
after the lapse of more than two and one-half (2 1/2) months that he laimed self-
defense d
ring the preliminary investigation of the ase before the m
ni ipal j
dge of
Indang, Cavite (pp. 44, t.s.n., De . 10, 1971). If the a
sed had really a ted in self-
defense, he wo
ld s
rely have so informed the Chief of Poli e at the first opport
nity.
He only allegedly told the Chief of Poli e, who allegedly asked him why his head and
fa e were bloody, that Lt. Masana hit him with a g
n. He did not tell the Poli e Chief that
he was s
rrendering for stabbing the de eased in self-defense. This laim of the
a
sed made before the m
ni ipal j
dge of Indang, Cavite, on J
ly 8, 1971 aforesaid
onstit
tes an ex
lpatory statement made so long after the rime was ommitted on
—pril 24, 1971. S
h laim does not deserve reden e sin e the same is obvio
sly an
aftertho
ght, whi h annot overthrow the straightforward testimony of prose
tion
witnesses PC soldier Virgilio Fidel and Coast G
ard servi eman Ri ardo Ligsa both
disinterested and
nbiased witnesses, whose testimony as pea e offi ers, in the
absen e of any showing as to any motive that wo
ld impel them to distort the tr
th,
m
st be afforded f
ll faith and redit as a whole.
The fa t that the hief of poli e detained the a
sed that same day after he was
treated by Dr. O hoa, onfirms the testimony of the state witnesses that the poli e was
present d
ring the in ident between the appellant and the vi tim and that the poli e
hief embra ed appellant and grabbed the knife from appellant, whom he thereafter
bro
ght to the m
ni ipal b
ilding. 

II

Was the rime ommitted m
rder or homi ide merely or m
rder or homi ide omplexed
with assa
lt
pon an agent of a
thority? 

— ording to the Soli itor General, the rime ommitted was m
rder be a
se "it was
established by the prose
tion that d
ring the stabbing in ident, appellant s
ddenly and
witho
t giving the vi tim a han e to defend himself, stabbed the latter several times
with a dagger, infli ting
pon mortal wo
nds on the hest and stoma h. ...Needless to
say, s
h a s
dden and
nexpe ted atta k with a deadly weapon on an
narmed and

ns
spe ting vi tim, whi h made it impossible for the latter to flee or defend himself
before the fatal blow is delivered, is alevosia or trea hery" (p. 14, —ppellee's brief). 

In s
pport of his ontention, the Soli itor General ited the ases of 
  
  (28
Phil. 475);  á (43 O.G. No. 10, 4190). 

WE do not agree with the Soli itor General. —
á or trea hery is belied by the
following testimony of Virgilio Fidel, star witness for the prose
tion: 
COURT 
Q What is the tr
th? 
— The tr
th is that when I saw that Floro Rodil stabbed Lt. G
illermo Masana, Oáááá



 and his head (Rodil's head) b
mped on the edge of a table; that is why he s
stained an inj
ry
and blood oozed from his head (pp. 8-9, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972; emphasis s
pplied).

Then, on ross-examination, the same witness testified: 

—TTY. MUÑOZ 
Q Yo
said that Floro Rodil's head was b
mped on the edge of a table and yo
saw blood oozing
from his head, is that orre t? 
— Yes, sir. 
Q Who b
mped the head of Rodil on the table? 
— ·Oáááá


á 

áhe a identally b
mped his head on the table. 

Q Is it not a fa t that Floro Rodil is m
h bigger than Lt. Masana 
— Yes, sir. 
Q Yo
mean, by simple parrying, Floro Rodil was p
shed to the extent that he b
mped his head
on the table? 
 — @
 Oááá
á 

á


  

xxx xxx xxx

Q When the head of Rodil b
mped on the table, was Lt. Masana already stabbed? 
— It o
ld be that he was already stabbed oráá   

pp 30-31, 33, t.s.n., Jan. 20, 1972; emphasis s
pplied]. 

—fter a thoro
gh analysis of the aforeq
oted portions of the testimony of Virgilio Fidel,
one of the prose
tion witnesses, WE an only on l
de that the assailant and the
vi tim were indeed fa e to fa e when the stabbing took pla e. —s s
h the atta k was
not trea hero
s be a
se the vi tim was able to ward off the same with his hand. —s a
matter of fa t, the for e he
sed in warding off the atta k was so strong that the
a
sed b
mped his head on a table nearby, a
sing inj
ries to him whi h ne essitated
medi al treatment. In short, the atta k on the vi tim was made on the sp
r of the
moment. The s
ddenness of the atta k does not by itself s
ffi e to s
pport a finding of
trea hery (People vs. Torejas, et al., 43 SCR— 158, 167). Besides, the re ord failed to
show that the a
sed made any preparation to kill his vi tim so as to ins
re the
ommission of the rime, making it at the same time possible or hard for the vi tim to
defend himself or retaliate (People vs. Saez, 1 11 Phil. 546, 553, iting the ase of
People vs. T
maob, 83 Phil. 738). Neither does it show that the a
sed employed
means dire tly and spe ially tending to ins
re the killing witho
t risk to himself. On the
ontrary, it shows that the a
sed was easily within striking distan e of his three
ompanions, two of whom were poli e offi ers. F
rthermore, there was an alter ation
between the a
sed and the vi tim abo
t the onfis ation by the latter of the g
n
belonging to the former, and at the moment when the vi tim was abo
t to stand
p, the
a
sed drew a knife from his po ket and with it stabbed the vi tim in the hest. Clearly,
therefore, the impelling motive for the atta k by appellant on his vi tim was the latter's
performan e of offi ial d
ty, whi h the former resented. This kind of eviden e does not
learly show the presen e of trea hery in the ommission of the rime. —
á is not
to be pres
med, b
t m
st be proved as on l
sively as the a t whi h it q
alifies (People
vs. —bril, 51 Phil. 670, 675). This is so be a
se in the expli it lang
age of the Revised
Penal Code, á
á or trea hery exists when the offender ommits any of the rimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the exe
tion thereof whi h
tend dire tly and spe ially to ins
re its exe
tion, witho
t risk to himself arising from the
defense whi h the offended party might make [—rt. 14, par. 16, Revised Penal Code]. 

While the eviden e definitely demonstrated that appellant knew be a
se the vi tim, who
was in ivilian lothing, told him that he was an agent of a person in a
thority; he annot
be onvi ted of the omplex rime of homi ide with assa
lt
pon an agent of a person
in a
thority, for the simple reason that the information does not allege the fa t that the
a
sed then knew that, before or at the time of the assa
lt, the vi tim was an agent of
a person in a
thority. The information simply alleges that appellant did atta k and stab
PC Lt. G
illermo Masana while the latter was in the performan e of his offi ial d
ties,
..." S
h an allegation annot be an adeq
ate s
bstit
te for the essential averment to
j
stify a onvi tion of the omplex rime, whi h ne essarily req
ires the imposition of
the maxim
m period of the penalty pres ribed for the graver offense. Like a q
alifying
ir
mstan e, s
h knowledge m
st be expressly and spe ifi ally averred in the
information; otherwise, in the absen e of s
h allegation, the req
ired knowledge, like a
q
alifying ir
mstan e, altho
gh proven, wo
ld only be appre iated as a generi
aggravating ir
mstan e. —pplying this prin iple, the atta k on the vi tim, who was
known to the appellant as a pea e offi er, o
ld be onsidered only as aggravating,
being "in ontempt or with ins
lt to the p
bli a
thorities" (Par. 1, —rt. XIV of the Revised
Penal Code), or as an "ins
lt or in disregard of the respe t d
e the offended party on
a o
nt of his rank, ..." (par. 3, —rt. XIV, Revised Penal Code). 

It is essential that the a
sed m
st have knowledge that the person atta ked was a
person in a
thority or his agent in the exer ise of his d
ties, be a
se the a
sed m
st
have the intention to offend, inj
re, or assa
lt the offended party as a person in a
thority
or agent of a person in a
thority (People vs. Villaseñor 35 SCR— 460 [19701, People
vs. Rellin 72 Phil. 1038 [1947]; US vs. —lvear et al., 35 Phil. 626 [1916]). 

In the ase of People vs. Balbar (21 SCR— 1119, Nov. 29, 1967), it was held that fail
re
to
á in the information that the a
sed had knowledge that the person
atta ked was a person in a
thority does not render the information defe tive so long as
there are fa ts alleged therein from whi h it an be implied that the a
sed knew that
the person atta ked was a person in a
thority. Th
s, the information for Dire t —ssa
lt

pon a person in a
thority reads as follows: 

The
ndersigned —ssistant Provin ial Fis al a
ses Tib
r io Balbar of the rime of
—ssa
lt
pon a Person in —
thority, ommitted as follows: 

That on or abo
t the 29th day of —
g
st, 1960, in Barrio C
mba, M
ni ipality of Lian,
Provin e of Batangas, Philippines, and within the j
risdi tion of this Honorable Co
rt, the
abovenamed a
sed did then and there wilf
lly,
nlawf
lly and felonio
sly assa
lt Miss
Ester Gonzales, a p
bli s hool tea her in the s hool bonding of Lian, d
ly q
alified and
appointed as s
h and while in the performan e of her offi ial d
ties or on the o asion
therefor, by then and there p
lling his dagger, embra ed and kissed. and repeatedly
trying to embra e and kiss the said tea her, Miss Ester Gonzales. That the rime was
ommitted with the aggravating ir
mstan es of having ommitted it inside the s hool
b
ilding and d
ring s hool lasses. 

Contrary to law. 

—nd the r
ling of the Co
rt was: 

Dire t assa
lt is ommitted 'by any person or persons who, witho
t a p
bli
prising, ...
shall atta k, employ for e, or serio
sly intimidate or resist any person in a
thority or any
of his agents, while engaged in the performan e of offi ial d
ties, or on o asion of s
h
performan e' (See —rt. 148, Revised Penal Code). 

By express provision of law (Com. — t No. 578, now part of —rti le 152 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Rep
bli — t No. 1978), "tea hers, professors, and persons
harged with the s
pervision of p
bli or d
ly re ognized private s hools, olleges and

niversities shall be deemed persons in a
thority, in applying the provisions of arti le
148." This spe ial lassifi ation is obvio
sly intended to give tea hers prote tion, dignity,
 and respe t while in the performan e of their offi ial d
ties. The lower o
rt, however,
dismissed the information on the gro
nd that there is no express allegation in the
information that the a
sed had knowledge that the person atta ked was a person in
a
thority. This is learly erroneo
s. 

Complainant was a tea her. The information s
ffi iently alleges that the a
sed knew
that fa t, sin e she was in her lassroom and engaged in the performan e of her d
ties.
He therefore knew that she was a person in a
thority, as she was so by spe ifi provision
of law. It matters not that s
h knowledge on his part is not expressly alleged,
omplainant's stat
s as a person in a
thority being a matter of law and not of fa t,
ignoran e thereof o
ld not ex
se non- omplian e on his part (—rti le 3, Civil Code).
This arti le applies to all kinds of domesti laws, whether ivil or penal (De L
na vs.
Linato , 74 Phil 15) and whether s
bstantive or remedial (Z
l
eta vs. Z
l
eta, 1 Phil.
254) for reasons of expedien y, poli y and ne essity. 

B
t, in the ase of   0

á (68 SCR— 305, Nov. 28, 1975),
the information for Dire t —ssa
lt reads: 

That on or abo
t the 17th day of Jan
ary, 1974, at Barrio Lang
yin, M
ni ipality of
Potillo, Provin e of Q
ezon, Philippines, and within the j
risdi tion of this Honorable
Co
rt, the above-named a
sed, Ernesto B
sto, Pa
lo Coralde, Dony Grande and Jose
—stjada ea h of whom was armed with a pie e of wood, ex ept Pa
lo Coraide onspiring
and onfederating together and m
t
ally helping one another, did then and there wilf
lly,

nlawf
lly and felonio
sly atta k, assa
lt, box and strike with said pie es of wood one
R
fino Camonias a o
n ilman of barrio Lang
yin of said m
ni ipality, d
ly ele ted and
q
alified as s
h while said o
n ilman was engaged in the a t
al performan e of his
d
ties. 

The trial o
rt dismissed the same on the gro
nd that: 

Of importan e in this ase is the la k of allegation in the omplaint or in the information

that the offended party was an agent of a person in a
thority and that s
h fa t was
known to the a
sed. The absen e of s
h allegation is fatal in this ase." 

The People appealed to this Co
rt thro
gh a petition for review on ertiorari. 

This Co
rt held that the fis al's proper o
rse of a tion is not a petition for review on
ertiorari b
t the refiling of a valid information against the a
sed, for the following
onsiderations: 

The Soli itor General in his omment of November 4, 1975 d
ly observed that '(I)t is
patent that the a q
ittal of the a
sed herein is not on the merits. There is want of
fa t
al finding
pon whi h their onvi tion or a q
ittal o
ld have been based.' 

It need only be observed that ontrary to the fis al's ontention, the

á
á



á

áá
á



ááá
áá!
!

á

 
áá!

 that of a barrio o
n ilman (and hen e the agent of a person in a
thority
nder
—rti le 152 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Rep
bli — t No. 1978) [See U.S.
vs. —lvear 35 Phil. 626; People vs. Rellin 77 Phil. 1038; Vol. 11, Padilla's Revised Penal
Code, 10th Ed., p. 225]. 
 What was held in  á á
21 SCR—, 119,1123, ited by the fis al is that it is
s
ffi ient that the information alleged that the a
sed !

 of a
thority, held
by the offended party, in that ase a p
bli s hool tea her, then engaged in the
performan e of her offi ial d
ties, and that it is not ne essary to allege f
rther that the
a
sed also knew that s
h position was that of a person in a
thority, sin e 'this is a
matter of law' th
s: 

Complainant was a tea her. The information s
ffi iently alleges that the
a
sed knew that fa t, sin e she was in her lassroom and engaged in
the performan e of her d
ties. He therefore knew that she was a person
in a
thority, as she was so by spe ifi provision of law. It matters not that
s
h knowledge on `his part is not expressly alleged, omplainant's
stat
s as a person in a
thority being a matter of law and not of fa t,
ignoran e whereof o
ld not ex
se non- omplian e on his part (—rti le
3, Civil Code). This arti le applies to all kinds of domesti laws, whether
ivil or penal (De L
na vs. Linato , 74 Phil. 15) and whether s
bstantive
or remedial (Z
l
eta vs. Z
l
eta, 1 Phil, 254) for reasons of expedien y,
poli y and ne essity.

Sin e the 'de ision' of a q
ittal was really a mere dismissal of the information for fail
re
to harge an offense and was not a de ision on the merits with fa t
al findings as per the
trial j
dge's own disavowal it is patent that the fis al's proper o
rse is not the present
petition b
t the refiling of a valid information against respondents-a
sed, as herein
indi ated. 

—CCORDINGLY, the petition is dismissed witho
t prej
di e to the refiling of a valid

information against respondents-a
sed as hereinabove indi ated (emphasis s
pplied). 

The r
ling in the aforementioned ase of   0, et ., 

á, applies
to the instant ase; be a
se the information in the former is strikingly similar to the
information in the latter and does not allege fa ts from whi h inferen e an be ded
ed
that the a
sed knew that the person assa
lted is a person, or an agent of a person, in
a
thority. 

The aggravating ir
mstan e of disregard of rank sho
ld be appre iated be a
se it is

obvio
s that the vi tim, PC. Lt. Masana Identified himself as a PC offi er to the a
sed
who is merely a member of the —nti-Sm
ggling Unit and therefore inferior both in rank
and so ial stat
s to the vi tim. 

The term "rank" sho
ld be given its plain, ordinary meaning, and as s
h, refers to a
high so ial position or standing as a grade in the armed for es (Webster's Third New
International Di tionary of the English Lang
age Unabridged, p. 1881); or to a graded
offi ial standing or so ial position or station (75 CJS 458); or to the order or pla e in
whi h said offi ers are pla ed in the army and navy in relation to others (En y lopedi
Law Di tionary, Third Edition, Walter —. Sh
maker and George Foster Longsdorf, p.
90); or to the designation or title of distin tion onferred
pon an offi er in order to fix his
relative position in referen e to other offi ers in matters of privileges, pre eden e, and
sometimes of ommand or by whi h to determine his pay and emol
ments as in the
ase of army staff offi ers (Bo
vier's Law Di tionary, Third Edition, p. 2804); or to a
grade or offi ial standing, relative position in ivil or so ial life, or in any s ale of
 omparison, stat
s, grade, in l
ding its grade, stat
s or s ale of omparison within a
position (Vol. 36, Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, p. 100). 

Th
s, rank aggravated the killing of a staff sergeant by his orporal (People vs. Mil 92
SCR— 89, 105-106, J
ly 30, 1979), the killing of the —ssistant Chief of Personnel
Transa tion of the Civil Servi e Commission by a lerk therein (People vs. Benito, 62
SCR— 351, 357-358, Feb. 13, 1975), the m
rder by a p
pil of his tea her (U.S. vs.
Cabling, 7 Phil. 469. 474; People vs. —ragon & Lopez, 107 Phil. 706, 709), the m
rder
of a m
ni ipal mayor (People vs. Lopez de Leon, et al., 69 Phil. 298), the m
rder -of a
ity hief of poli e by the hief of the se ret servi e division (People vs. Hollero 88 Phil.
167), assa
lt
pon a 66-year old Distri t J
dge of the Co
rt of First Instan e by a j
sti e
of the pea e (People vs. Torre arreori C— 52 OG 7644), the killing of a Spanish ons
l
by his s
bordinate ² a mere han ellor (People vs. Godinez, 106 Phil. 597, 606607),
and the killing of an army general (People vs. Torres, et al., L-4642, May 29, 1953). 

—s explained by Mr. J
sti e Mariano —lbert, then of the Co
rt of —ppeals, those
"generally onsidered of high station in life, on a o
nt of their rank (as well as age or
sex), deserve to be respe ted. Therefore, whenever there is a differen e in so ial
ondition between the offender and the offended party, this aggravating ir
mstan e
sometimes is present" (—lbert M.—. ² The Revised Penal Code —nnotated, 1946 Ed., p.
109). 

The differen e in offi ial or so ial stat
s between a P.C. lie
tenant and a mere member
of an anti-sm
ggling
nit, is patent. 

If the a
sed herein were harged with the omplex rime of m
rder with assa
lt
against an agent of a person in a
thority, and not merely m
rder, then the aggravating
ir
mstan e of disregard of rank or ontempt of or ins
lt to p
bli a
thority annot be
appre iated as aggravating be a
se either ir
mstan e is inherent in the harge of
assa
lt against a person in a
thority or an agent of a person in a
thority. B
t in the ase
at bar, the appellant is a
sed of m
rder only. Conseq
ently, either aggravating
ir
mstan e sho
ld be onsidered in the imposition of the penalty. 

Th
s, in the following ases where the harge was merely m
rder or fr
strated m
rder,
the aggravating ir
mstan e of disregard of rank was appre iated:

(1) 


á ² the appellant, a lerk in the Civil Servi e Commission,
was harged with and onvi ted of the m
rder of the assistant hief of the personnel
transa tion of the said Commission; 

(2)  @

á 

á" the appellants were harged with and onvi ted of
m
rder for the death of —rmy Col. Valentin Salgado and attempted m
rder for the
inj
ries infli ted on —rmy Gen. Mariano Castaneda; 
(3)   á

áá. ² appellants were a
sed and onvi ted of robbery
with homi ide for the killing of Distri t J
dge Ba
tista of the Co
rt of First Instan e of
Pampanga [90 Phil. 15, 34-35]; and 

(4)  #


á ² where the a
sed hief of the Se ret Division of the
Ba olod City Poli e Department was onvi ted of m
rder for the killing of the hief of
poli e. 

The aggravating ir
mstan e of ontempt of, or ins
lt to, p
bli a
thority
nder
paragraph 2 of —rti le 14 of the Revised Penal Code an likewise be appre iated in the
ase at bar. 

The eviden e of the prose
tion learly established that Chief of Poli e Primo
Panaligan of Indang was present as he was taking his l
n h in the same resta
rant
when the in ident o
rred. 

—s a matter of fa t, the said hief of poli e was the one who embra ed or grabbed the
a
sed from behind, wrested the dagger from him and thereafter bro
ght him to the
m
ni ipal b
ilding of Indang. —nd appellant admittedly knew him even then as the town
hief of poli e, altho
gh he now laims that he went to the m
ni ipal b
ilding to
s
rrender to the hief of poli e who was not allegedly in the resta
rant d
ring the
in ident. 

While it is tr
e that in the ases of 
 $

á. (19 Phil. 150, 157-158),
 

  (61 Phil. 307, 317), and   
 (21 SCR— 1403), this Co
rt
r
led that the term p
bli a
thority refers to a person in a
thority and that a PC
lie
tenant or town hief of poli e is not a  
á

 b
t merely an agent of a


á

; there is need of re-examining s
h a r
ling sin e it is not j
stified by
the employment of the term 
á

in aforesaid paragraph 2 of —rti le 14
instead of the term 

á

 whi h is spe ifi ally
sed in —rti les 148 and 152
of the Revised Penal Code. There is no extended reasoning of the do trine en
n iated
in the aforesaid three (3) ases why the phrase  
á

sho
ld omprehend
only persons in a
thority. The lawmaker o
ld have easily
tilized the term "persons in
a
thority" in the aforesaid paragraph 2 of —rti le 14 in m
h the same way that it
employed the said phrase in —rti les 148 and 1452. The lawmaker m
st have intended
a different meaning for the term 
á

whi h may however in l
de, b
t not
limited to

á

 

Under the de ided ases, a m
ni ipal mayor, barrio aptain, barrio lie
tenant or
barangay aptain is a person in a
thority or a p
bli a
thority. Even a p
bli s hool
tea her is now onsidered a person in a
thority
nder C— 578 amending —rti le 152 of
the Revised Penal Code (Sar ep
des vs. People, 90 Phil 228). So is the town m
ni ipal
health offi er (People vs. Q
ebral et al., 73 Phil 640), as well as a n
rse, a m
ni ipal
o
n ilor or an agent of the B
rea
of Internal Reven
e (People vs. Yosoya, C—-GR
No. 8522-R, May 26, 1955; People vs. Reyes, et al O.G.S. 11 p. 24). 
The hief of poli e sho
ld therefore be onsidered a p
bli a
thority or a person in
a
thority; for he is vested with j
risdi tion or a
thority to maintain pea e and order and
is spe ifi ally d
ty bo
nd to prose
te and to apprehend violators of the laws and
m
ni ipal ordinan es, more than the aforementioned offi ials who annot prose
te and
who are not even enjoined to arrest malefa tors altho
gh spe ifi ally mentioned as
persons in a
thority by the de ided ases and by —rti le 152 of the Revised Penal Code
as amended by R.—. 1978 of J
ne 22, 1957. The town hief of poli e heads and
s
pervises the entire poli e for e in the m
ni ipality as well as exer ises his a
thority
over the entire territory of the m
ni ipality, whi h is patently greater than and in l
des
the s hool premises or the town lini or barrio, to whi h small area the a
thority or
j
risdi tion of the tea her, n
rse, or barrio lie
tenant, respe tively, is limited.

With two aggravating ir
mstan es and no mitigating ir
mstan e, the appellant

sho
ld therefore be ondemned to s
ffer the maxim
m period of


áthe
penalty pres ribed for homi ide. 

WHEREFORE, H—VING BEEN FOUND GUILTY BEYOND RE—SON—BLE DOUBT OF

HOMICIDE —GGR—V—TED BY CONTEMPT FOR OR INSULT TO — PUBLIC
—UTHORITY OR DISREG—RD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED P—RTY ON
—CCOUNT OF HIS R—NK, —PPELL—NT FLORO RODIL IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO
SUFFER —N INDETERMIN—TE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT R—NGING FROM 12
YE—RS OF RECLUSION TEMPOR—L —S M—XIMUM. 

THUS MODIFIED, THE JUDGMENT —PPE—LED FROM IS HEREBY —FFIRMED IN

—LL OTHER RESPECTS. 

—
 
%


áá&


%% 



á % 


 





 !"!"#



 
º  on
rring: 

I on
r with the j
dgment's imposition of the maxim
m penalty for homi ide, altho
gh I
join Mme. J
sti e Herrera's partial dissent insofar as she holds that the aggravating
ir
mstan e of ontempt of or ins
lt to the p
bli a
thorities may not be appre iated.
However, disregard of rank was properly appre iated as a generi aggravating
ir
mstan e, and hen e the maxim
m penalty for homi ide is properly imposed in the
absen e of any mitigating ir
mstan e.
á

% 


O$


º dissenting: 

I believe that neither the aggravating ir
mstan e of ontempt of, or ins
lt to the p
bli
a
thorities
nder —rti le 14, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, nor that of ins
lt or
disregard of the respe t d
e to the offended party on a o
nt of his rank
nder —rti le
14, par. 3 of the same Code, is appli able to the present ase. 

1. For the ir
mstan e of ontempt of, or with ins
lt to, p
bli a
thorities to be
onsidered aggravating, it is essential (a) that the rime is ommitted in the presen e of
a p
bli a
thority, not a mere agent of the a
thorities (People vs. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307
[19351; People vs. Verzo, et al 21 SCR— 1403 [1967]; and (b) that the p
bli a
thority is
engaged in the exer ise of his f
n tions and is not the person against whom the rime
is ommitted (People vs. Siojo, iting U.S. vs. Rodrig
ez, 19 Phil. 150 [191]; De ision of
the S
preme Co
rt of Spain dated Jan
ary 24, 1881, 1 Viada 310), nor the one inj
red
by the ommission of the offense (People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568 [1947]). 

In this ase, Lt. G
illermo Masana of the Philippine Constab
lary is not a p
bli
a
thority nor a person in a
thority as these terms are defined by —rti le 152, par. 1 of
the Revised Penal Code for he is not dire tly vested with j
risdi tion, that is, power or
a
thority to govern and exe
te the laws or to hear and de ide a a
se; he is a mere
agent of a person in a
thority as defined by —rti le 152, par. 2 of the Revised Penal
Code, he being a member of the Philippine Constab
lary whi h is a government military
agen y in harge of the maintenan e of p
bli order and the prote tion and se
rity of
fife and property. In fa t, the De ision itself alls him an agent of a person in a
thority
(p. 13).

—nd even if Lt. Masana were a person in a
thority, this aggravating ir
mstan e
annot be taken into a o
nt be a
se it is he himself who is the offended party (People
vs. Siojo, 
á). 

2. Neither an the se ond ir
mstan e, that of disregard of the respe t d
e to rank, be
made to apply. It is not the existen e alone of rank of the offended party that determines
the presen e of this aggravating ir
mstan e. There m
st be a differen e in the so ial
ondition of the offender and the offended party. 

El on epto de dignidad en s
aspe ts general no esta onstit
ido solo por el ara ter de
a
thoridad solo por la f
n ion p
bli a o argo q
e desempene el ofendido sino tambien
pro la diferen ia de ondi ion so ial entre la vi tims y el ofensor ... (C
ello Calon,
Dere ho Penal De imoter era edi ion Tomo I, p. 554). 

Where the offender and the offended party are of the same rank, this aggravating
ir
mstan e does not apply. 

Las personas onstit
idas en dignidad, y q
e por esta razon mere en mayor respeto,
son las q
e generalmente se onsideran por todo el m
ndo omo s
periores o mas
 elevadas q
e el q
e omets el delito: tales son los sa erdotes y las —
toridades respe to
de los parti
lares, los maestros on rela ion a s
s dis ip
los, los g
ardadores respe to
de s
s p
pilos, et . Siempre, p
es, q
e hay diferen ia de ondi ion so ial entre el
ofensor y el ofendido, on
rrira la agravante de este n
mero, mas no
ando hay
ig
aldad —si p
es, si
n Sa erdote o
n Magistrado al
mnian a otro Sa erdote o
Magistrado respe tivamente, no existira la ir
nstan ia de agrava ion q
e
omentamos. (Viada Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870, Tomo II, p. 316). 

The provision ontemplates s
h a different in rank as that of a á

where the
offender is a p
pil (U.S. vs. Cabiling, 7 Phil. 469 [1907]) (altho
gh a tea her is now
onsidered a person in a
thority); a % where the offender is a private itizen
(People vs. Valeriano, et al., 90 Phil. 15 [1951]); a &
á of the Philippine —rmy where
the offender is a private itizen (People vs. Torres, et al., L- 4642, May 29, 1953); a


, a s
perior of the a
sed, who was hief of a division of the se ret
poli e (People vs. Hollero 88 Phil. 167 [1951]); a
á!


áof the Civil Servi e
Commission where the offender is a lerk thereat (People vs. Benito, 74 SCR— 271
[1976]); a  who was killed by a han ellor in the Cons
late, who is a s
bordinate
(People vs. Martinez Godinez, 106 Phil 597 [1959]). 

In the ase at bar, the differen e in the so ial ondition and rank of the vi tim, a
Lie
tenant in the Philippine Constab
lary, and that of the a
sed, who is a member of
an anti-sm
ggling
nit and an offi er of the —nti-Comm
nist Leag
e of the Philippines,
is not of s
h a degree as to j
stify onsideration of disrespe t of rank d
e to the
offended party as an aggravating ir
mstan e. 

In the absen e of the two aggravating ir
mstan es dis
ssed above or of any
mitigating ir
mstan e, the penalty imposable is


á in its medi
m
period, and the a
sed sho
ld be senten ed to an indeterminate term of imprisonment
ranging from ten (10) years of 


á
 as minim
m, to seventeen (17) years of



á as maxim
m. 

— á
áá' á

%% 






 !"!"#

 
º  on
rring: 

I on
r with the j
dgment's imposition of the maxim
m penalty for homi ide, altho
gh I
join Mme. J
sti e Herrera's partial dissent insofar as she holds that the aggravating
ir
mstan e of ontempt of or ins
lt to the p
bli a
thorities may not be appre iated.
However, disregard of rank was properly appre iated as a generi aggravating
ir
mstan e, and hen e the maxim
m penalty for homi ide is properly imposed in the
absen e of any mitigating ir
mstan e. 
á

% 


O$


º dissenting: 

I believe that neither the aggravating ir
mstan e of ontempt of, or ins
lt to the p
bli
a
thorities
nder —rti le 14, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, nor that of ins
lt or
disregard of the respe t d
e to the offended party on a o
nt of his rank
nder —rti le
14, par. 3 of the same Code, is appli able to the present ase. 

1. For the ir
mstan e of ontempt of, or with ins
lt to, p
bli a
thorities to be
onsidered aggravating, it is essential (a) that the rime is ommitted in the presen e of
a p
bli a
thority, not a mere agent of the a
thorities (People vs. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307
[19351; People vs. Verzo, et al 21 SCR— 1403 [1967]; and (b) that the p
bli a
thority is
engaged in the exer ise of his f
n tions and is not the person against whom the rime
is ommitted (People vs. Siojo, iting U.S. vs. Rodrig
ez, 19 Phil. 150 [191]; De ision of
the S
preme Co
rt of Spain dated Jan
ary 24, 1881, 1 Viada 310), nor the one inj
red
by the ommission of the offense (People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil. 568 [1947]). 

In this ase, Lt. G
illermo Masana of the Philippine Constab
lary is not a p
bli
a
thority nor a person in a
thority as these terms are defined by —rti le 152, par. 1 of
the Revised Penal Code for he is not dire tly vested with j
risdi tion, that is, power or
a
thority to govern and exe
te the laws or to hear and de ide a a
se; he is a mere
agent of a person in a
thority as defined by —rti le 152, par. 2 of the Revised Penal
Code, he being a member of the Philippine Constab
lary whi h is a government military
agen y in harge of the maintenan e of p
bli order and the prote tion and se
rity of
fife and property. In fa t, the De ision itself alls him an agent of a person in a
thority
(p. 13).

—nd even if Lt. Masana were a person in a
thority, this aggravating ir
mstan e
annot be taken into a o
nt be a
se it is he himself who is the offended party (People
vs. Siojo, 
á). 

2. Neither an the se ond ir
mstan e, that of disregard of the respe t d
e to rank, be
made to apply. It is not the existen e alone of rank of the offended party that determines
the presen e of this aggravating ir
mstan e. There m
st be a differen e in the so ial
ondition of the offender and the offended party. 

El on epto de dignidad en s
aspe ts general no esta onstit
ido solo por el ara ter de
a
thoridad solo por la f
n ion p
bli a o argo q
e desempene el ofendido sino tambien
pro la diferen ia de ondi ion so ial entre la vi tims y el ofensor ... (C
ello Calon,
Dere ho Penal De imoter era edi ion Tomo I, p. 554). 

Where the offender and the offended party are of the same rank, this aggravating
ir
mstan e does not apply. 

Las personas onstit
idas en dignidad, y q
e por esta razon mere en mayor respeto,
son las q
e generalmente se onsideran por todo el m
ndo omo s
periores o mas
 elevadas q
e el q
e omets el delito: tales son los sa erdotes y las —
toridades respe to
de los parti
lares, los maestros on rela ion a s
s dis ip
los, los g
ardadores respe to
de s
s p
pilos, et . Siempre, p
es, q
e hay diferen ia de ondi ion so ial entre el
ofensor y el ofendido, on
rrira la agravante de este n
mero, mas no
ando hay
ig
aldad —si p
es, si
n Sa erdote o
n Magistrado al
mnian a otro Sa erdote o
Magistrado respe tivamente, no existira la ir
nstan ia de agrava ion q
e
omentamos. (Viada Codigo Penal Reformado de 1870, Tomo II, p. 316). 

The provision ontemplates s
h a different in rank as that of a á

where the
offender is a p
pil (U.S. vs. Cabiling, 7 Phil. 469 [1907]) (altho
gh a tea her is now
onsidered a person in a
thority); a % where the offender is a private itizen
(People vs. Valeriano, et al., 90 Phil. 15 [1951]); a &
á of the Philippine —rmy where
the offender is a private itizen (People vs. Torres, et al., L- 4642, May 29, 1953); a


, a s
perior of the a
sed, who was hief of a division of the se ret
poli e (People vs. Hollero 88 Phil. 167 [1951]); a
á!


áof the Civil Servi e
Commission where the offender is a lerk thereat (People vs. Benito, 74 SCR— 271
[1976]); a  who was killed by a han ellor in the Cons
late, who is a s
bordinate
(People vs. Martinez Godinez, 106 Phil 597 [1959]). 

In the ase at bar, the differen e in the so ial ondition and rank of the vi tim, a
Lie
tenant in the Philippine Constab
lary, and that of the a
sed, who is a member of
an anti-sm
ggling
nit and an offi er of the —nti-Comm
nist Leag
e of the Philippines,
is not of s
h a degree as to j
stify onsideration of disrespe t of rank d
e to the
offended party as an aggravating ir
mstan e. 

In the absen e of the two aggravating ir
mstan es dis
ssed above or of any
mitigating ir
mstan e, the penalty imposable is


á in its medi
m
period, and the a
sed sho
ld be senten ed to an indeterminate term of imprisonment
ranging from ten (10) years of 


á
 as minim
m, to seventeen (17) years of



á as maxim
m.

— á
áá' á

%%