People v.

Sanchez
Facts: The crime of rape with homicide was charged against Mayor Antonio Sanchez, Medialdea, Ama,
Brion, Luis, Rogelio, and Kawit for the act they committed on June 28, 1993 which led to the death of
Eileen and Allan. The facts were based on the witnesses Centeno and Malabanan. In June 1993, the
accused Medialdea together with Centeno who was then driving an ambulance fetched witness Malabanan
on the pretext that they will apprehend the notorious gun runner and drug pusher, Tisoy. They also picked
up Ama and Luis and the rest of the accused, afterwhich, they headed to Los Banos. It was only then,
when Luis informed them that their real purpose was to take Eileen who was then desired by the Mayor.
After roaming around, they went to the Agrix complex and there, they saw and approached Eileen and
Allan inside the tamaraw van and forcibly took and brought them to Erais farm which was owned by the
Mayor. They informed the Mayor that they already brought him Eileen as their gift to the Mayor. The
accused even informed the Mayor that they will going to kill Allan afterwards. Eileen was brought to the
Mayors room and Allan was beaten up by Luis, Boy, Ama and Medialdea. After the deed of the Mayor,
he informed the men that they can do whatever they want to Eileen as he is already done with her.
Thereafter, Allan and Eileen were then loaded in the van. Allan was dragged from the van, shot and
lifeless. Whereas, Eileen after being raped by was shot to death and was left inside the Tamaraw van.
After the incident, Centeno drove the men to their respective homes.
On the following day the accused went to the crime scene and made it appear that they were conduction
an investigation. Being the major suspects, the accused had their alibi to tell and put the blame on Kit
Alqueza the son of General Alqueza. All of the defendants, denied the accusations and instead pointed
their fingers to Kit and other people, all of them told the court that they were doing something on the day
the incident happened. The defense, questioned the credibility of the statements of the witnesses, whose
narrations served as principal basis for the trial courts rendition of a guilty verdict

Issue: WON the defendants are guilty of rape with homicide

Held: The court affirmed the decision of the trial court. As to the credibility of the witnesses the court
find them credible as it was not shown that they had something against the accused to give the court false
statements. Furthermore, the changed of statement of Centeno was found to be understandable as it was
because of his fear that if he testified against the Mayor, his familys life would be in danger. Whereas, the
appellants relied on the defense of alibi and the witnesses they presented cannot be given weight as the
witnesses were family members. Moreover, the defendants alibis were weak. The statements of the
appellants were inconsistent with that of Centenos as they refer to trivial details which do not touch upon
the wherefores of the crime committed. It was even supported by the missing belt loop from the pair of
white shorts worn by Eileen on the night of the crime which was recovered from Erais farm another is the
empty bullet shell recovered at the site where Allans body was found and it was revealed that the bullets
were the same as those registered under the name of Luis, the same bullet was found inside Eileens body.
The autopsy of Eileens body even strengthened the guilt of the defendants. Due to the meritorious
evidence coupled with the testimonies of the witnesses, the court rendered the appellants guilty of 7
counts of rape with homicide.

People v. Mallari
Facts: Rufino Mallari was charged of murder for the act he committed sometime in July 1996 against
Joseph Galang, who according to the witnesses maliciously killed Joseph because of his grudge against
the deceased, when the deceased told Mallari not to drive fast while passing the formers house. That later
that afternoon, while Joseph and Liza were watching a basketball game at the brgy basketball court,
Rufino and his brothers who were carrying bladed weapons attempted to stab Joseph but he was able to
run away. Rufino then, boarded and drive the truck parked near the court and chased Joseph until the latter
was ran over causing his death.
The appellant, supported by his wife, argued that while he was driving a truck at a speed of 80km/h he
saw Joseph on the road 4m away from him, that he blew the horn but Joseph threw stones which hit
Rufinos chest which made him lost control of the truck and ran over Joseph. Because of fear, Rufino went
straight to Sta. Rosa municipal hall where he surrendered and was immediately detained.
The trial court convicted Rufino of murder appreciating the qualifying circumstance of use of motor
vehicle. Mallari argued that his conviction should only be homicide because of the mitigating
circumstance.

ISSUE: WON Mallari is guilty of murder

HELD: The court affirmed the decision of RTC. The court finds no issue regarding the credibility of the
witnesses as to the death of Galang that the deceased was hit by the truck which was driven by Rufino.
That Rufino intentionally ran over Joseph because of the statement of Joseph that which was badly taken
by Mallari, that because of Mallaris failure to stab Joseph in the brgy court, he then resorted chasing
Joseph using the track and intentionally ran over him.
The testimonies of Liza and Edgar who were present at the time of the incident were consistent with their
respective sworn statements. While, Rufino and Myrnas testimonies were inconsistent with one another.
(Myrna: Rufino was driving at slow pace; Rufino: told the court that he was driving 80km/h). Rufinos
statements were also inconsistent as he first told the court that he saw Joseph walking in a zigzag manner,
was drunk, and throwing stones at the truck,
then changed it when he was cross-examined, that he saw Joseph for the first time at the place where he
was run over. Rufinos testimony that he first saw Joseph on the road when the truck was just four meters
away from him. According to Rufino, the road was clear because only Joseph and the truck he was driving
were on the road. From Rufinos own testimony, it appears that his view was unobstructed. He could have
seen Joseph from afar and could therefore have avoided bumping the latter had he really wanted to. The
trial court imposed the death penalty on the ground that the qualifying circumstance of use of motor
vehicle is present. Rufino, however, argues that the use of a motor vehicle was only incidental,
considering that he resorted to it only to enable him to go after Joseph after he failed to catch up with the
latter. The evidence shows that Rufino deliberately used his truck in pursuing Joseph. Upon catching up
with him, Rufino hit him with the truck, as a result of which Joseph died instantly. It is therefore clear that
the truck was the means used by Rufino to perpetrate the killing of Joseph. The court held that for
voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the offender had not been actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority or to an agent of a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was voluntary.[29] A surrender is
considered voluntary if it is spontaneous and shows the intention of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities because he either acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save the
government the trouble and expense necessarily included for his search and capture. All these requisites
are present in this case.