People vs Lovedioro

People vs Lovedioro
G.R. No. 112235
November 29, 1995

Facts:

Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along Burgos St., away from the Daraga, Albay Public Market
when a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled a .45 caliber gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the policeman's
right ear and fired. The man who shot Lucilo had three other companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen
policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After taking the latter's gun, the man and his companions boarded a
tricycle and fled.

The incident was witnessed from a distance of about nine meters by Nestor Armenta, a 25 year old welder from Pilar,
Sorsogon, who claimed that he knew both the victim and the man who fired the fatal shot. Armenta identified the man
who fired at the deceased as Elias Lovedioro y Castro, his nephew (appellant's father was his first cousin) and
alleged that he knew the victim from the fact that the latter was a resident of Bagumbayan.

Lucilo died on the same day of massive blood loss from multiple gunshot wounds on the face, the chest, and other
parts of the body. On autopsy, the municipal health officer established the cause of death as hypovolemic shock.

Issue:

Whether or not accused-appellant committed Rebellion under Art. 134 and 135 or Murder under Article 248 of the
RPC?

Held:

The court finds the accused ELIAS LOVEDIORO guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal, acting in conspiracy
with his co-accused who are still at large, of the crime of murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with all the accessories
provided by law; to pay the heirs of the deceased SPO3 Jesus Lucilo through the widow, Mrs. Remeline Lucilo, the
amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos representing the civil indemnity for death; to pay the said widow the
sum of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos representing reasonable moral damages; and to pay the said widow the
sum of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Eight (P18,588.00) Pesos, representing actual damages, without
subsidiary imprisonment however, in case of insolvency on the part of the said accused.

In his appeal, appellant cites the testimony of the prosecution's principal witness, Nestor Armenta, as supporting his
claim that he should have been charged with the crime of rebellion, not murder. In his Brief, he asseverates that
Armenta, a police informer, identified him as a member of the New People's Army.

However, the appellant's claim regarding the political color attending the commission of the crime being a matter of
defense, its viability depends on his sole and unsupported testimony. Finally, treachery was adequately proved in the
court below. The attack delivered by appellant was sudden, and without warning of any kind. 41 The killing having
been qualified by treachery, the crime committed is murder under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. In the absence
of any mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion
perpetua together with all the accessories provided by law. The trial court's decision dated September 14, 1993,
sentencing the accused of Murder is hereby AFFIRMED.

Espuelas vs People
Espuelas vs People
G.R. No. L-2990
December 17, 1951

Facts:

On June 9 and June 24, 1947, both dates inclusive, in the town of Tagbilaran, Bohol, Oscar Espuelas y Mendoza had
his picture taken, making it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope suspended form the
limb of the tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merely standing on a barrel. After securing copies of his
photograph, Espuelas sent copies of same to Free Press, the Evening News, the Bisayas, Lamdang of general
circulation and other local periodicals in the Province of Bohol but also throughout the Philippines and abroad, for
their publication with a suicide note or letter, wherein he made to appear that it was written by a fictitious suicide,
Alberto Reveniera and addressed to the latter's supposed wife translation of which letter or note, stating his dismay
and administration of President Roxas, pointing out the situation in Central Luzon and Leyte, and directing his wife his
dear wife to write to President Truman and Churchill of US and tell them that in the Philippines the government is
infested with many Hitlers and Mussolinis.

Issue:

Whether the accused is liable of seditious libel under Art. 142 of the RPC against the Government of the Philippines?

Held:

Yes. The accused must therefore be found guilty as charged. And there being no question as to the legality of the
penalty imposed on him, the decision will be affirmed with costs.

Analyzed for meaning and weighed in its consequences, the article written bybthe accused, cannot fail to impress
thinking persons that it seeks to sow the seeds of sedition and strife. The infuriating language is not a sincere effort to
persuade, what with the writer's simulated suicide and false claim to martyrdom and what with is failure to
particularize. When the use irritating language centers not on persuading the readers but on creating disturbances,
the rationable of free speech cannot apply and the speaker or writer is removed from the protection of the
constitutional guaranty.

If it be argued that the article does not discredit the entire governmental structure but only President Roxas and his
men, the reply is that article 142 punishes not only all libels against the Government but also "libels against any of the
duly constituted authorities thereof." The "Roxas people" in the Government obviously refer of least to the President,
his Cabinet and the majority of legislators to whom the adjectives dirty, Hitlers and Mussolinis were naturally directed.
On this score alone the conviction could be upheld.

Regarding the publication, it suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or riots and tends to stir up people against the
constituted authorities, or to provoke violence from opposition who may seek to silence the writer. Which is the sum
and substance of the offense under consideration.

The essence of seditious libel may be said to its immediate tendency to stir up general discontent to the pitch of
illegal courses; that is to say to induce people to resort to illegal methods other than those provided by the
Constitution, in order to repress the evils which press upon their minds.

People vs Dasig
People vs Dasig
G.R. No. 100231
April 28, 1993

Facts:

Appellants Rodrigo Dasig, Edwin Nuez and 6 others were charged together of shooting Redempto Manatad, a
police officer, as he died while performing duties. Upon arraignment, appellant and Edwin Nues entered a plea of
"not guilty." However, after the prosecution had presented its first witness, accused Nues changed his plea of "not
guilty" to "guilty." Hence, the lower court held in abeyance the promulgation of a judgment against said accused until
the prosecution had finished presenting its evidence. While trial was still ongoing, Nuez died on March 10, 1989,
thereby extinguishing his criminal liability.

At about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Pfc. Catamora noticed eight (8) persons, one of whom he identified as Edwin
Nuez, acting suspiciously. He noticed one of them giving instructions to two of the men to approach Pfc. Manatad.
On August 16, 1987, two teams of police officers were tasked to conduct surveillance on a suspected safehouse of
members of the sparrow unit located in Peace Valley, Cebu City. Upon reaching the place, the group saw Rodrigo
Dasig and Edwin Nues trying to escape. The team of Capt. Antonio Gorre captured Nues and confiscated a .45
caliber revolver with 3 magazines and ammunitions, while the group of Sgt. Ronald Arnejo pursued Dasig, who threw
a grenade at his pursuers, but was shot on his left upper arm and subsequently apprehended while a .38 caliber
revolver with 17 live ammunitions were confiscated from him. Thereafter, Dasig was brought to the hospital for
treatment, while Nues was turned over to the Metrodiscom for investigation. Dasig confessed that he and the group
of Edwin Nues killed Pfc. Manatad. He likewise admitted that he and Nues were members of the sparrow unit and
the their aliases were "Armand" and "Mabi," respectively.

The extra-judicial confession of appellant was signed by him on every page thereof with the first page containing a
certification likewise signed by him. However, Dasig contends that the procedure by which his extra-judicial
confession was taken was legally defective, and contrary to his Constitutional rights. He further contends that
assuming he conspired in the killing of Pfc. Manatad, he should be convicted at most of simple rebellion and not
murder with direct assault. Appellant also claims that the custodial interrogation was done while he was still very sick
and consequently, he could not have fully appreciated the wisdom of admitting such a serious offense.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused-appellant is liable for extra-judicial killing of the deceased and participated in the act of
rebellion?

Held:

Yes. Accused Rogelio Dasig is found guilty of participating in an act of rebellion beyond reasonable doubt and is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor, and to pay the heirs of Pfc.
Redempto Manatad, P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.

As to the proper imposable penalty, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to persons convicted of
rebellion (Sec. 2, R.A. 4203), contrary to the insinuation of the Solicitor General. Article 135 of the Revised Penal
Code imposes the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding P20,000.00 to any person who promotes,
maintains, or heads a rebellion. However, in the case at bar, there is no evidence to prove that appellant Dasig
headed the crime committed. As a matter of fact he was not specifically pinpointed by Pfc. Catamora as the person
giving instructions to the group which attacked Pfc. Manatad.

Appellant merely participated in committing the act, or just executed the command of an unknown leader. Hence, he
should be made to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor. For the resulting death,
appellant is likewise ordered to pay the heirs of Pfc. Manatad FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as civil
indemnity.