BURDEN OF PROOF wounded simply because he

intervened for the purpose of separating Malabanan, the

UNIDAD v CA, 399 SCRA 27 aggressor, from Malaran,
his victim; therefore, the proper penalty should be imposed
FACTS: in its medium degree.

Accused-appellant, who was a policeman shot Irenio Vargas NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG
that cause his death. The victim was poking a gun and was PEOPLE v CANETE 410 SCRA 544
ordered by the accused to refrain from doing so, however, FACTS:On May 24, 1997, Leonaldo Tumayao, Joel Quimod
he pulled the trigger hence was shot by the accused. and Lilio Tundag were on their way home after attending a
CRIME COMMITTED: wedding party. Tumayao was walking ahead of Tundag and
Murder Quimod. As they passed by the houses of the accused,
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Quimod and Tundag heard successive gunshots. Quimod
He was just repelling an attack by the victim / self defense and Tundag immediately looked in the direction where the
bursts of gunfire were coming from and saw Ruben, Alfredo,
HELD:
Sergio, Sotero and Trinidad Canete shooting at Tumayao
Decision of the lower court is affirmed, with modification on who
the penalty to be imposed
U.S. vs. Malabanan
Facts:
Felino Malaran, a prisoner, reported to the foreman Pedro
Pimentel that Esteban
Malabanan had taken some bread out of a tin can that was
in the jail; Malabanan
being resentful at this and also because he had received a
severe blow with a cane
from Malaran, attacked the latter with a small knife, and
wounded him in the chest,
the right arm, and in the back. Raymundo Enriquez, another
assistant jailer, tried to
separate them and prevent the accused from further
attacking Malaran, but he was
also wounded in the abdomen, and in consequence of said
wound Enriquez died
eleven days thereafter. Quintin de Lemos, another assistant
jailer, who also tried to
stop Malabanan, was wounded in the chin. Foreman
Paulino Canlas, ordered the
opening of the door of the cell where the prisoners were
confined, and Malabanan
upon seeing him tried to attack him; thereupon Canlas took
hold of a stick to defend
himself and to take away from Malabanan the knife he held.
Malabanan was later
subdued, he was convicted of Homicide and was sentenced
to twelve more years of
imprisonment. Judgement was appealed.
Issue:
Whether the mitigating circumstance of Sufficient
Provocation or Threat is
attendant in the case at bar?
Ruling:
No. The court held that, notwithstanding the allegations he
made in his defense and
his denial that the knife held by him which caused the death
of Raymundo Enriquez
belonged to him, there is no question as to his responsibility
as the convicted author
of the violent death of Raymundo Enriquez, who, as has
been seen, did not give the
accused any reason for attacking him but merely
approached while the latter was
attacking Felino Malaran in order to separate them and
prevent the accused from
continuing his assault, for fear a homicide might ensue, to
which Malabanan
responded with a cut in the right side near the abdomen of
Enriquez.
In the commission of this homicide there is no mitigating nor
aggravating
circumstance to be considered, and as to whether or not the
accused was illtreated
or provoked prior to his assaulting jailer Malaran, a question
which will be
considered in the case for lesiones graves(grievous bodily
harm), such a
circumstance cannot be dealt with in the present
proceedings instituted by reason
of the violent death of Enriquez, who was seriously
slumped to the ground. Apparently not satisfied, all the appellant was playing
accused approached the fallen Tumayao and continued cards and without any warning, urinated on the latter and
shooting him. On order of his father Sotero, Alfredo shot clipped him under his
Tumayao in the head.Quimod, who was 10 meters behind the arms. Accused-appellant got angry. He however did not
victim, ran and hid behind the bushes. As soon as the engage Romeo in any
accused left, Quimod went home and narrated the incident to altercation but instead went home.
Tumayaos wife.On the other hand, Tundag, who was behind Later on in the evening, while the trio were still having a
Tumayao, saw Ruben fire his gun at the victim. Tundag drinking spree, they heard
attempted to come to the aid of Tumayao but the latter accused-appellant calling Bulicatin from outside, saying,
shouted at him to flee. Thus, he ran back to the wedding party Borgs, get out because I
while hearing more gunshots. At the wedding party, Tundag have something to say. The trio came down from the
informed the people about the ambush. Thereafter, he went house. Rogelio and Samson
back to the crime scene where he saw Tumayaos lifeless were ordered to lie on the ground, Bulicatin was still at the
body on the road. stairway and when he
turned his back towards accused-appellant, the latter shot
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: On May 23, 1997, him, hitting him at the
Rubens wife, Teresita, was in Lanipga, Consolacion, Cebu, back. Bulicatin ran away but he was chased by accused-
to help prepare food for the wedding of her husbands cousin. appellant who fired two (2)
She stayed there overnight. At the wedding reception the more shots at him.
following morning, Leonaldo Tumayao, alias Eduardo or Edit, On appeal he alleged that the court erred by overlooking and
approached Ruben who was then looking for a cold soft drink. misinterpreting some
Tumayao said Here is something cold, and suddenly significant facts in convicting him.
punched Ruben. Teresita summoned her husband and asked Issues:
him to go home with her. The latter acquiesced. Before they 1. Are appellants contentions tenable?
left, however, Teresita saw Tundag give Tumayao what 2. Is appellant entitled to any mitigating circumstance?
looked like a .45 caliber pistol.Seconds later, Tumayao, Ruling:
together with Quimod, Tundag and the latters son followed The court held that, contrary to the claim of accused-
Ruben to his house on a motorcycle or habal-habal. Tumayao appellant, the trial court did
alighted and thereafter shouted This is now a combat not overlook his contention that he could not have committed
while firing a gun.Hearing the gunshots, Teresita brought her the offenses charged
children to the safety of a neighbors house. As she went back because at the time of the incedent, he was unconscious due
for her other child, Teresita saw her husband Ruben standing to a stab wound. In
beside a coconut tree. Tumayao stood in front of the house fact, the trial court treated the same as a defense of denial
of Alfredo who was shouting at him not to throw stones as he and alibi. Indeed, these
might hit the children. At that point, Ruben shot Tumayao with defenses cannot prevail over the categorical and positive
a pugakhang, an improvised shotgun. Tumayao slumped to identification of accused-
the ground. appellant by prosecution witness Abuloc who was not shown
to have any ill motive
to testify falsely against him.
HELD: Trinidad Caete and Alfredo Caete are Moreover, it is doctrinally settled that the assessment of the
found guilty of murder and sentenced to credibility of witnesses
reclusion perpetua. and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender court because of its
should be appreciated in favor of Alfredo and the mitigating unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to
circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense note their demeanor,
conceded in favor of all the appellants. Saving the authorities conduct and attitude under grilling examination. In the case
the trouble and expense for his search and capture, and at bar, the trial court
freely placing himself at their disposal, Alfredo should be did not err in giving credence to the version of the
given the favor of a mitigated penalty for his voluntary prosecution. The facts and
surrender. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary circumstances alleged to have been overlooked by the trial
surrender, being personal however, can only be appreciated court are not material to
in favor of appellant Alfredo.
the case and will not affect the disposition thereof.
It must be recalled that, immediately prior to the The trial court however correctly appreciated the mitigating
incident, Tumayao punched Ruben in the presence of many circumstance of having
people at the wedding party. Although the incident did not acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense. As the
immediately precede the killing, its impact, by reason of its evidence on record show,
seriousness and the circumstances under which it was accused-appellant was urinated on by the victim in front of
inflicted, festered till the commission of the crime. The the guests. The act of
mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave the victim, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated
offense must, therefore, be appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant, came
appellants.
within the purview of a grave offense under Article 13,
All told, we are convinced that appellants Alfredo paragraph 5, of the
and Trinidad are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder Revised Penal Code. Thus, this mitigating circumstance
which carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. should be appreciated in favor of accused-appellant.
Since the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
Nevertheless the decision of the lower court was
and immediate vindication of a grave offense were present in
affirmed with modifications, his sentenced was reduced to
this case, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was
prision mayor.
properly imposed by the trial court.
People vs Cauyan, 128 SCRA 504
People vs. Espina
Nature of Action: Automatic Review of the lower courts
Facts:
decision
Romeo Bulicatin, Rogelio Espina, Samson Abuloc who were
having a drinking spree
FACTS:
and playing cards during an association meeting, when
accused-appellant Romeo Constancio Cauya , was convicted by the CFI of Quezon of 2
Espina arrived, Bulicatin asked three (3) bottles of kulafu criminal cases. First is murder of Claudia Amat, which
wine from him and he sentenced him to 20 years reclusion temporal and frustrated
acceded by buying three (3) bottles of kulafu wine from the murder of Andres Patron, which sentenced him to an
store of Eufronia indeterminate penalty of 2 years and 4 months of prision
Pagas. Later on that afternoon, Bulicatin again demanded correccional as minimum to 12 years of prision mayor.
another bottle of Appellant appealed to the CA of its resolution dated January
kulafu wine from accused- appellant but this time, the latter 18, 1971, eliminating passion and obfuscation as a
refused to give in to mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty should be
the demand. Bulicatin then proceeded to where accused- reclusion perpetua.
9:30 in the evening of April 7, 1961, Claudia Amat, 58 years
old, was heard by her husband, Maximo Patron, and her son,
Andres Patron shouting, Huag, pare! Tama na, pare!
Andres Patron, 21 years old, rushed to the stairs and saw the
appellant stabbing his mother. When the appellant saw him,
he stabbed Andres on the armpit and other parts of the body.
Andres went to the yard and took a piece of wood to defend
himself, but the appellant, still holding the knife, ran after him
and fell on the ground.
Prosecution contended that the appellant was actuated by
hate and resentment against the Patron family because the
father of Andres had bailed out a certain Fr. Palilio in
connections with a criminal case which the appellant filed
against the priest. The witnesses testimonies negated the
claim of the appellant that the stabbing is accidental.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellate court erred in rejecting passion
and obfuscation under Art. 13 (6) of the RPC in favor of the
accused?
HELD:
The appellate court is correct in rejecting passion and
obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance in favor of appellant.
In order that the said circumstance can be considered, it is
necessary to establish the existence of an unlawful act
sufficient to produce a situation of mind, and must be shown
that the act which produced the passion and obfuscation is
not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity (People vs Gervacio, 24
SCRA 960).
It was not unlawful on the part of Maximo Patron, husband of
the deceased, when he acted as bondsman of the priest. And
it was not shown that the act of having bailed the priest was
so proximate in point of time to the commission of the crime
as to preclude a sober realization of the wrongfulness of
action taken by appellant.
ACCORDINGLY, appellant is guilty of the crime of murder
and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs
of Claudia Amat the sum of P30,000 and to pay the cost.
People v. Bates (G.R. No. 139907)
Facts:
Around 2:00 in the afternoon
of November 28, 1995, Edgar Fuentes,
Simon Fuentes and Jose Boholst left Barangay Esperanza,
Ormoc City to deliver
copra to a certain Fely Rodado at Barangay Green
Valley, Ormoc City. After
delivering copra around 5:00 in the afternoon, the three
men headed back to
Barangay Esperanza. While they were along a
trail leading to the house of
Carlito Bates, the latter suddenly emerged from the
thick banana plantation
surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Jose Boholst who
was then walking
ahead of his companions. Jose grabbed Carlitos right hand
and elbow and tried
to wrest possession of the firearm. While the two were
grappling for possession,
the gun fired, hitting Carlito who immediately fell to the
ground. At that instant,
Marcelo Bates and his son Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and
nephew of Carlito,
respectively, emerged from the banana plantation each
brandishing a bolo. They
immediately attacked Jose hacking him
several times. Jose fell to the ground
and rolled but Marcelo and his son kept on hacking
him. Marcelo, then, turned to
Simon and Edgar and shouted huwes de kutsilyo. Upon
hearing the same,
Simon and Edgar ran.
Upholding the prosecution evidence, the trial court rendered
its Judgment,
finding Marcelo Bates guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder.
Issue:
Whether or not Marcelo could validly invoke the mitigating
circumstance of
passion and obfuscation?
Decision:
Passion and obfuscation may not be
properly appreciated in favor of
appellant. To be considered as a mitigating circumstan
ce, passion or
obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not f
rom a spirit of
lawlessness or revenge or from anger and resentment. In
the present case,
clearly, Marcelo was infuriated upon seeing is
brother, Carlito, shot by Jose.
However, a distinction must be made between the first time
that Marcelo hacked
Jose and the second time that the former hacked the
latter. When Marcelo
hacked Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlit
o, and if appellant
refrained from doing anything else after that, he could have
validly invoked the
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. But
when, upon seeing his
brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back to Jose, who
by then was already prostrate on the ground and hardly
moving, hacking Jose again was a clear case
of someone acting out of anger in the spirit of revenge.
PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
DANAFRATE v PEOPLE 412 SCRA 357
PROSECUTIONS VERSION: Reynaldo Francia saw Miguel
Danofrata engage in a slugging match with his wife, Leonor.
She struck Miguel with a plastic chair, while he punched her.
Miguel ran home but shortly afterwards, he rushed outside
again, kicking the neighbors he encountered. In turn, without
further ado, 3 of the neighbours whom he had treated so
uncivilly ganged up on him and mauled him, causing
petitioner to run home anew.Miguel armed himself with a
knife and went back to the place where he had received a
mauling. He proceeded to the house of Mario Gonzales, the
father of Alfredo Loloy Gonzales. Miguel challenged Mario to
a fight. At this juncture, Miguel spotted Alfredo, who was on
his way home. Without warning, petitioner stabbed Alfredo in
the chest fatally. Horrified, Francia called the police. Miguel
fled. Benjamin Bautista, who was then on his way to to buy
medicine, saw the Miguel fleeing
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: He narrated that on Oct
9, 1994; he was withVergel Gaspar and Jojo Tambio having
a drinking spree at his house when Miguels wife arrived and
started an argument which turned violent and his wife lunged
at him with a chair, but he was able to parry the blow. The
scene was witnessed by his neighbors playing panya. They
began laughing at him and petitioner felt humiliated. Because
of his annoyance, petitioner said he kicked the panya table.
This incensed his neighbors and a melee erupted with 3 of
his neighbors ganging up on him. Miguel said he received a
beating, but he was able to run home and got hold of a knife.
He proceeded to the house of Mario Gonzales, where he saw
2 of his neighbors who mauled him, Sonny and Dingdong
talking with Mario. Upon seeing 2 of his assailants, petitioner
said he went berserk. He shouted Akala ninyo natatakot ako
sa inyo. Mario whipped out a gun and pointed it at him,
prompting petitioner to seek cover. Suddenly, he was struck
from behind by Rey with a length of lead pipe, while Alfredo
Gonzales stabbed him from the back with a knife.According
to petitioner, although he was himself badly injured and
bleeding, he ran away from the scene of the fracas, but found
himself being chased by his tormentors. He heard a gunshot
and Mang Mario yelling, Habulin nyo, habulin nyo, hold-upper
yan . Miguel ran and sat on a rock to rest and examines his
injuries. He heard another gunshot from behind him. He saw
Mario handing the gun he was holding to another person.
Petitioner then crawled into a canal to hide. He was still there
when Redentor Tiburcio came up holding a gun. On seeing
him, Tiburcio said, Patay na si Loloy,then shot at him but
missed. Petitioner then ran away to seek refuge. Petitioner
stated that despite his injuries, he did not bother to report the
incident to the police. Nor did he file any charges against
Mang Mario and other neighbors because, petitioner said, he
was only a lowly paid driver who had neither the time nor the
money to pursue a legal case.
ISSUE:But was the appellate court correct in sustaining the
trial courts finding that the petitioner was entitled to a
mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and
obfuscation?
HELD:Passion and obfuscation exist when (1) there is an act,
both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of the
mind, and (2) the said act which produced the obfuscation
was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity. There is passion and
obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or
improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as
to overcome reason. In this case it was established that
petitioner and his wife had a violent altercation and that
petitioner was mauled by his neighbors after he kicked some
of them for laughing at him. These events and

Course Outline in Criminal 1

P
a
g
e
1
0
6
circumstances prior to the killing of Alfredo Gonzales could
have caused unusual outbursts of passion and emotion on
petitioners part. These resulted in the tragic stabbing of the
victim thus entitling petitioner to the mitigating circumstance
analogous to passion and obfuscation.
2. The award of exemplary damages in the amount of
P50,000 is reduced to P25,000, and the awards of
actual and moral damages are reduced toP9,200 and
P50,000, respectively; and

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
Course Outline in Criminal 1
PEOPLE v MALLARI SCRA 404 SCRA 170
PROSECUTIONS CASE: Liza Galang testified that on July
7, 1996her common-law husband Joseph admonished
Rufino and his brothers Ino and Felix Mallari not to drive fast
while passing by Josephs house. Rufino and his brothers,
who were then hot-tempered, challenged Joseph to a fight.
The latter just ignored the challenge; and, instead he and his
own brothers Radi and Manny asked apology from
Rufino.Later that afternoon, while Joseph and Liza were
watching a basketball game at the barangay basketball court,
Rufino and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed
weapons, arrived and attempted to stab Joseph; but Joseph
was able to run away. When they were not able to catch up
with him, Rufino boarded and drove the truck parked near the
basketball court and continued chasing Joseph until the truck
ran over the latter, which caused his instantaneous
death.Edgar Bawar, while Joseph was watching a basketball
game, Rufino and his brothers Ino and Felix, who were
carrying bladed weapons, arrived and chased Joseph.
Joseph ran away, and Rufino pursued him with the truck.
Upon catching up with him, Rufino bumped Joseph, as a
result of which the latter died on the spot.
Dr. Erwin Escal testified that the cause of death of
Joseph, was crushing injury on the head secondary
to vehicular accident

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:Rufino testified while he

was driving a truck at a speed of80 KPH, with his wife Myrna
seated on the passenger side, he saw Joseph on the road
about 4 meters away from him. Rufino, who was then on his
way to the garage to park the truck, blew thrice the horn. But
Joseph went to the middle of the road and threw stones,
which went through the windshield and hit Rufino on the
chest. As a result thereof, Rufino lost control of the truck, and
ran over Joseph. Because of fear, Rufino did not alight from
the truck; instead, he proceeded to the municipal hall of Sta.
Rosa, Laguna, where he surrendered and was immediately
detained.Myrna Mallari testified that prior to the incident in
question, she saw Joseph at the basketball court. He was
apparently drunk and was carrying a balisong. Much to her
consternation, he gave a dagger look. Myrna reacted by
simply crying and going inside her house. She corroborated
Rufinos testimony that while Rufino was driving the truck,
Joseph threw stones, which went through the windshield and
hit the chest of Rufino. As a result of which, Rufino had chest
pains and vomited blood while in detention.

ISSUE: WON THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO

THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER.

When the commission of the act is attended by some

mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. In the
present case, the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation and treachery, which were alleged in the
information, were not proved. What was proved was the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender through the
testimonies of Rufino and Myrna, which were not rebutted by
the prosecution.We have 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.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.

The appealed decision of the RTC convicting appellant

RUFINO MALLARI of the crime of murder is hereby
AFFIRMED with the following modifications:
1. The penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua;
3. Appellant Rufino Mallari y Ilag is further
ordered to pay the heirs of Joseph Galang an
indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
PEOPLE v VICENTE 405 SCRA 40
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: On May 30, 1998, while
Vicente was having supper, his brothers-in-law, Anoy and
Sonny, quarreled. Anoy was abrasively scolding Sonny for
smoking and gambling. This caused the latter to howl at the top
of his voice. The victim,Manuel C. Quinto Jr, then Chairman of
SK, responded to Sonnys unusual cry. He entered appellants
house and suddenly pushed Anoy, causing him to fall to the
floor. Vicente pacified the victim saying, dont mind them
because they are brothers and Anoy is only advising Sonny. The
victim felt insulted by such remark and said, Is that it? I am
insulted. I regret coming here. Thus, he went home and got a
steel pipe. Upon his return, he hit appellant at his upper left
armand shouted at him, You are shit, vulva of your mother, I will
kill you today.But appellant was able to seize the steel pipe from
the victim, prompting the latter to retreat and go home.Present
during the squabble were appellants wife Linda and sister Hilda.
Linda advised appellant not to mind the victim, while Hilda called
Kagawad Elias Fernandez. Appellant reported to the latter the
unpleasant incident. While they were talking outside the
house,the victim passed by. He approached Kagawad
Fernandez and invited him to go to the dance hall.Then he
tapped appellants right shoulder,causing him to be pushed a
little bit backward. Without any warning, the victim pulled out a
knife and tried to stab appellant, shouting, I will see to it that I
will kill you tonight. Appellant held the victims wrist and they
grappled for the possession of the knife.While the knife was
pointed at the victim, appellant accidentally stabbed him.Vicente
surrendered to Kagawad Fernandez who, in turn, brought him
to the police station.
PROSECUTIONs CASE:Ronald Terte narrated that he was in
the house of the victim, there being a barrio fiesta. They heard
unusual cries from the neighborhood. So they proceeded to
appellants house and found that his brothers-in-law, Anoy and
Sonny, were quarrelling.The victim tried to pacify Anoy. This
infuriated appellant, thus, he drew a rambo knife and aimed it at
the victim. Threatened, he and Ronald immediately went
home.Thereafter, appellant followed the victim to his house and
challenged him to a fight. The victim could only answer back, If
you want we will rent a box ring and we will fight. At around 9:45
o clock in the evening, the victim and Terte returned to the house
of appellant as the former intended to talk to him. On their way,
they saw appellant conversing with Kagawad Fernandez. The
victim greetedKagawad Fernandez who inquired, Are we going
to the dance hall?The victim answered yes. Then as a gesture
of reconciliation, he extended his hand to appellant. However,
appellant suddenly drew a knife and stabbed the victim in the
chest. The victim uttered, Pare, I was hit. Ronald immediately
brought him to the hospital but he was pronounced dead on
arrival.Jose Noe, Sr., 64, testified that he saw appellant and
Kagawad Fernandez engaged in a serious conversation. He
heard appellant saying, he would kill the victim. At that time, the
victim and his companion passed by. Upon seeing Kagawad
Fernandez, the victim greeted him, Kagawad, you are here.
Kagawad Fernandez then answered yes. Then the victim
advised appellant to forget what had happened.At this point,
appellant abruptly drew his knife and stabbed the victim in the
chest.
ISSUE: The court should have appreciated the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. Significantly, the trial
court should have appreciated in favor of appellant the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender under Article 13
of the Revised Penal Code. For voluntary surrender to be
considered as a mitigating circumstance, the following
requisites must concur: (1) the offender has not been actually
arrested; (2) he surrenders himself to a person in authority;
and (3) the surrender is voluntary. Here, appellant, after the
commission of the crime, immediately placed himself in the
disposition of Kagawad Fernandez who, in turn, brought him to
the police station. Under Section 388 of the Local Government
Code (Republic Act No. 7160),for purposes of the Revised
Penal Code, Kagawad Fernandez is a person in authority.
Clearly, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is
present here.
PEOPLE vIBAEZ [G.R. Nos. 133923-24. July 30, 2003]
FACTS:Felix Olanda, in his early eighties, and wife Rosario, 72
were soundly asleep when Felix
suddenly felt somebody hack him. Felix recognized appellant
who used to reside in the house of
their neighbor. He went to the main door of their house and
asked for help. He saw his wife
already dead.
Earlier on the same date, appellant went to the house of
Juanito Sarmiento. Sarmiento saw appellant with scratches on
his legs, knees and arms. Ibaez told him that he escaped
from his
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 117
employer who is a palay dealer and asked for money in order
to go to Umangan. Sarmiento gave himP20.00. On October 20,
1996, Sarmiento reported the incident to the police. When he
was shown the items recovered from the crime scene bolo,
maong pants, t-shirt, and belt he recognized them to be
those of appellant. Atty. Gavino Villanueva assisted appellant
in the execution of the extrajudicial confession of his guilt to the
commission of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.
ISSUE: WON THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER, VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT AND
INTOXICATION IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED.
HELD: Appellants plea of guilty to the two charges against him
must be taken into consideration in imposing the proper
penalty on him.
Under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, a plea of guilty
on arraignment is a mitigating circumstance. To effectively
alleviate the criminal liability of an accused, a plea of guilty
must be made at the first opportunity, indicating repentance on
the part of the accused.Article 13(7) requires that the offender
voluntarily confesses his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. A plea of
guilty made after arraignment and after trial had begun does
not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a
mitigating circumstance.In this case, appellant pleaded guilty
upon being arraigned and before the prosecution had
presented witnesses. Thus, the trial court erred in not taking
said mitigating circumstance in favor of appellant.
Juanito Ibaez GUILTY of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated
Murder is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS:
OTHER RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES
PEOPLE v MACBUL 74 Phil 436
Appellant pleaded guilty to information for theft of two sacks of
papers valued at P10 belong to the Provincial Government of
Sulu; it being also alleged that he was a habitual delinquent,
having been twice convicted of the same crime. The trial court
found two mitigating circumstances: plea of guilty and extreme
poverty and necessity; but it took into account the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism in imposing the principal as well as
the additional penalty.
The trial court considered extreme poverty and
necessity as a mitigating circumstance falling within No. 10 of
article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, which authorizes the court
to consider in favor of an accused "any other circumstance of a
similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned." The
trial court predicates such consideration upon its finding that the
accused, on account of extreme poverty and of the economic
difficulties brought about by the present cataclysm, was forced
to pilfer the two sacks of papers mentioned in the information
from the Customhouse Building, which he sold for P2.50, in
order to be able to buy something to eat for various minor
children of his. (The stolen goods were subsequently
recovered.) The Solicitor General interposes no objection to the
consideration of such circumstance as mitigating under No. 10
of article 13. We give it our stamp of approval, recognizing the
immanent principle that the right to life is more sacred than a
mere property right. That is not to encourage or even
countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat the keen and
pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life.
PEOPLE v CODERES 130 SCRA 134
PROSECUTIONS CASE:Testimony of Rosie de Villa,
victim,16 : She and Shirley de Lara were
eating having come from the Jade East Night Club where she
worked as an agogo dancer. On
their way out of the canteen, they met the 3 accused, 1 named
Jose Coderes, who offered to
bring her home. When Rosie refused the offer, the 3 hailed a
taxicab and Julius Clark forced her
inside the cab. The three accused joined her inside the taxicab.
Inside the vehicle, she was boxed
on the stomach by Jose Coderes. Rosie asked the accused to
bring her to Reno Hotel where she
lived, but upon reaching the hotel the taxicab did not stop and
instead the vehicle speeded away
towards the Tourist Spot. Rosie did not shout for help on the
way because her mouth was
covered by Basilio Clark. When they reached the Tourist Spot,
Julius Clark dragged her out of the
taxicab. The two other accused also alighted from the vehicle.
Then the driver drove the vehicle
away with the unidentified passenger. After the taxicab left
Basilio Clark threw Rosie down face
up on the ground, and despite her screams, he placed himself
horizontally on top of her and
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her with the
assistance of Julius Clark, who held her
legs, and of Jose Coderes, who held her hands. After Basilio
Clark has finished with her, one of
the accused boxed her and then Jose Coderes also raped her,
aided in the dastardly act by
Julius, who held her hands, and Basillo who held her legs.
After Coderes was through, Julius
Clark took his turn and while he was having sexual intercourse
with her, Basilio held her two legs
and Coderes took hold of her hands. Just then a man whom
she came to know later as Jose
Dumlao, Jr. arrived at the scene and he fired a shot. Julius and
Coderes stood up and attempted
to escape but Dumlao fired at them, stopping them on their
way up.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Jose Coderes staunchly
denied having ravished the offended party.He and his co-
accused saw Rosie de Villa dead-drunk lying on a wooden
catwalk behind the Saulog Canteen.
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in considering against them
the aggravating circumstances of "uninhabited place."
The law provides that there are three (3) elements to be taken
into account before the aggravating circumstance of nighttime
and uninhabited place may be considered, to wit:
(a) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
(b) When especially sought for by the offender; or
(c) When offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity.
Appellants also strongly vociferate against the trial court's
considering "uninhabited place" as an aggravating
circumstance in the commission of the alleged crime. They
contend that there is more than sufficient evidence and based
on the testimony itself for the prosecution that the Tourist Spot
or the place where the alleged rape was committed is not
uninhabited because of the following facts established and
uncontradicted:
(1) There are houses within the 50 meter radius from the
Tourist Spot.chanrobles virtual law library
(2) Place where crime was allegedly committed only 4
meters from road and is continuously illuminated by cars
oncoming from Subic and Olongapo City.
(3) There were plenty of cars passing through during time
of alleged crime.chanrobles virtual law library
(4) Prosecution witness admits he was able to flag down
a jeepney to call for a police right away. This is established by
the fact that alleged crime was at 2:30 a.m. and testimony that
at 3:00 a.m. parties were already at the Olongapo Police
Station.
The decision is modified by eliminating or disregarding the
aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place
and in their place instead considers and takes into account the
aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle. The case
against Julius Clark who, according to the records, died at the
NBP Hospital in Muntinlupa during the pendency of this
automatic
review on July 17, 1979, is considered dismissed insofar as his
criminal liability is concerned but his civil liability shall be taken
from his estate.
In all other respects, the judgment of the lower court is
affirmed.
DWELLING
PEOPLE v DE LA TORRE 373 SCRA 104
PROSECUTIONS CASE:Marita Cordova, 35, was a cook at
the La Fiesta Farm.Paulino, her husband and dela Torre were
also workers of the same farm.Anthony Inocenciotestified that
Paulino went to see him at his farm. Paulino asked for his
assistance because the accused, then armed with a knife and
bolo, was causing trouble and commotion at the La Fiesta
Farm of Mr. Alindada. Anthony responded to Paulino's call for
help. Upon arriving at the La Fiesta Farm, he learned that the
accused forcibly took the shoes and money of Mr. Alindada's
workers. Marita and her children asked Anthony whether they
could stay in his farm. He obliged and they all proceeded there.
Upon reaching the farm, Marita told Anthony that she was
raped by the accused that night.As to how the rape was
committed, Marita testified that she was cooking at the with her
5 children when suddenly, the accused, holding a knife and a
bolo, dragged her outside and brought her towards a house
under construction about 200 meters away.Marita's children
tried to follow but they desisted when the accused threatened
them. While going to the said house, Marita and the accused
met Joel Villasis and Johnny Dizon, also workers in the farm.
Marita asked for their help but they did nothing because they
were afraid of the accused. The accused pinned her arms at
her back, pulled down his pants, took off her panty and placed
himself on top of her.While he was raping her, she was unable
to resist because the knife was pointed at her throat.
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED Dela Torre never denied
having sexual contact with Marita that night of. He claimed,
however, that she was his mistress and that the carnal incident
between them was consensual. He courted Marita, who then
told him that she would be willing to be his mistress if he would
give her permanent support. Since then, their sexual affair
became frequent until September, 1989 when Marita was
recruited to work at La Fiesta Farm. Accused further narrated
that at about 1:00 in the afternoon of November 5, 1989, he
and Marita talked at the kitchen of La Fiesta Farm. They
agreed to meet about 8:00 in the evening in the nearby house
under construction. He arrived first at the place and, shortly
thereafter, she followed. There, they had sexual intercourse on
the ground using "sawali" as mat.
ISSUE:The appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating
circumstance.
HELD:The Information alleges the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling in the commission of the offense. This
should have been appreciated by the court a quo. It appears
from the records that the kitchen at the La Fiesta Farm where
Marita was dragged from her "dwelling," albeit the same does
not belong to her. In People v. Parazo,this Court stressed that
the "dwelling" contemplated in Article 14(3) of the RPC does
not necessarily mean that the victim owns the place where he
lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bedspacer, the
place is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to
protect. The fact that the crime was consummated in the
nearby house is also immaterial. Marita was forcibly taken by
appellant from her dwelling house (kitchen) and then raped
her. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his
house although the offense was not completed therein.
HELD:The circumstance of killing was aggravated by treachery
and dwelling. Dwelling is present in this case as aggravating
circumstance because robbery could not be committed without
the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home.The
aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling have
been alleged in the Information and proved by the prosecution
by strong and convincing evidenceThe aggravating
circumstance of dwelling is present here. Appellants deliberate
intrusion in the privacy of the Julatons domicile shows
perversity.In People vs. Feliciano, dwelling is considered
aggravating in robbery with homicide because this kind of
robbery cannot be committed without the necessity of
transgressing the sanctity of the house.

PEOPLE v ALMOGUERA 415 SCRA 647

NATURE: Automatic review. The crime involved is despicable
because innocent lives of 3 young
children were callously taken. This gruesome incident shocked
the quiet barangay of Pia, San
Jacinto,Masbate.

PROSECUTIONS CASE:Florentino and Lily Julaton went to

the polling precinct to cast their votes in the barangay
elections. Before leaving, they instructed their 3 children, Gina,
14 years old, Lyn, 8 years old and Rey, 7 years old, to watch
their store and prevent strangers from entering their
house.Jessie Genova, Jr was about 30 meters away from the
Julatons house,when

Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 125

he heard Dante Aton shouting and inviting him to smoke

cigarettes. As he was approaching the house, he noticed
thatAton was hiding his right hand behind the door while his left
hand was holding a cigarette. Near the door were the bodies of
2 dead children, Gina and Rey. When Aton uttered here he
comes,Almoguerra immediately went down the stairs holding FACTS: Manuel Daniela, armed with a .38
assorted coins at his right hand and a bladed knife then forced
Genova, Jr to accept the loose coins. Frightened, he received caliber gun entered the bedroom of Ronito
the coins, placed them inside his pocket and ran away. At the Enero and
moment, he heard them shouting if you tell somebody, we will
kill you and your family. He and his fatherGenova, Sr.,
accompanied the Julatons in bringing the dead tothe Maria Fe. He poked the said gun on Maria Fe.
Hospital.Upon their return to barangay Pia, he gave the loose She woke up and attempted to stand up but
coins amounting to P30.75 to his father and told him about the
incident.Meanwhile, upon being informed of the incident by Manuel ordered her to lie down. Manuel
Sonny Amor, spouses Julaton immediately returned ordered Jose Baylosis to tie her hands and put
home.Along the way, they saw Almoguerra on the upper part of
the hill near their house.Arriving there, they found all their
a tape on
children dead. They also found that their wooden chest or baul
was forcibly opened and that their cash of P15, 000.00 and her mouth. On orders of Manuel, Jose woke up
some loose change were missing.
Leo and brought him to the room. Jose tied the
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Josefina went to the
polling precinct to cast her .Her husband, Bienvenido, and her hands of Leo behind his back. Jose and
children, Charlie, Jerry, Darwin, andRodelyn, were still asleep. Manuel then divested Maria Fe of her
After casting her vote she heard that Florentino Julatons necklace, rings
children were killed.She then proceeded to their residence
.She saw the dead bodies. After informing her family and and earrings. They ransacked the room but
children about the incident, her husband and their son, Charlie,
went to the Julatons house where they stayed for 30 minutes failed to find money. Julifer woke up but
because the latter had a fevercaused by a boil. On July 4, Manuel and
1994, he was arrested and detained. He admitted that while he
was in detention at the Matiporon provincial jail, he escaped Jose threatened to kill her if she shouted. The
with a certain Donggoy and thereafter committed another crime
two tied Julifers hands at her back. Manuel
of robbery.
threatened to explode the grenade tucked
under his shirt and kill Maria Fe, her family and
their
househelps if she refused to surrender her
money. Petrified, Maria Fe took the money
from her
waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel and
Jose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose
to
kill Ronito with it. Jose went to the kitchen, got
a knife, covered Ronito with the blanket and sat
on
top of him then stabbed the latter several
times. Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different
parts of
his body. Ronito could only groan like a dying
pig. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun.
Jose
slit the throat of Ronito and took the latters
wristwatch and ring. Manuel then untied Julifer
removed her clothes and panties and then
raped her. She could do nothing but cry.
Manuel and
Jose stayed in the house until 4:00 a.m. Before
they left, Manuel and Jose told Maria Fe that
they
were acting on orders of Rolando Pedrejas,
Joel Colejara, Grace Pabulacion and Juliet
Capuno
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Manuel admitted having
killed Ronito. He however claimed that he stabbed Ronito in
self-defense and in defense of Jose. He also said that he,
Potot, Ronito and Jojo, the younger brother of Maria Fe, had
been engaged in robberies in. Sometime in September 1995,
the four robbed a person of P50,000. However, Manuel failed
to get his share of the loot while Ronito, Jojo and Potot got
theirs. Manuel was bitter. He later learned in December 1995
that Ronito and Maria Fe had left Davao City and settled in
Cebu City. On March 26, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in
Cebu City to contact Ronito and to get his share of the loot.
Manuel met Ronito on March 29, 1996 at the jai-alai. Ronito
told Manuel to visit him where they can talk. Manuel agreed. In
the evening on March 30, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in the
house of Ronito. Manuel wanted to get his share of the loot
from Ronito. Manuel, Jose and Ronito had a drinking spree.
However, at about two oclock at dawn, the next morning,
Manuel and Ronito had an altercation when Manuel demanded
that Ronito give him his share of the loot. Ronito was peeved
and told Manuel that he had long given him his share through a
friend. Ronito whipped out a knife and stabbed Manuel. The
latter tried to wrest the knife from Ronito but failed. However,
Jose grappled with Ronito and managed to wrest possession
of the knife. Jose then gave the knife to Manuel who stabbed
Ronito with it.
Manuel denied raping Julifer, and divesting Ronito and Maria
Fe of their valuables. Jose did not anymore testify
HELD:Dwelling is not aggravating in this case as it was not
alleged in the amended information
The trial court sentenced both appellants to death on its finding
that the robbery with homicide was aggravated by nighttime
and dwelling. It appreciated the plea of guilty as a mitigating
circumstance in favor of the appellants.The trial court correctly
appreciated dwelling as an aggravating circumstance against
the appellants. There was no provocation on the part of Ronito
and Maria Fe. The crime was committed in their dwelling. This
Court held that dwelling is aggravating because of the sanctity
of privacy the law accords to human abode. He who goes to
anothers house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than
he who offends him elsewhere. However, dwelling is not
aggravating in this case as it was not alleged in the amended
information. Under Section 9, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of
Court, aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the
informationand proved otherwise, even if proved but not
alleged in the information, the same shall not be considered by
the Court in the imposition of the proper penalty on the
accused. Although the rule took effect only on December 1,
2000, however, the same may be applied retroactively.
PEOPLE v DE LOS SANTOS G.R. No. 134525
FACTS: Joy L. Cayabyab, 10, testified that while she was
defecating inside the comfort room of
their house she heard somebody knock and Alfredo Delos
Santos entered. Alfredo locked the
door and removed his trousers then he embraced and kissed
her and put her on his lap. Her legs
were spread apart between the legs of the accused then the
accused inserted his organ into her
vagina. She said she felt pain.The accused told her not to tell
her mother what happened, and
then he put on his shorts and left the victim inside the comfort
room. Later, she went to her sister,
Joan, 8, and told her what happened. Joan who told her
parents what happened.
De Los Santos deniedthe allegation.
HELD:It cannot be ignored that the appellant committed rape
with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling as the crime was
committed within the house of the victim. Dwelling is
considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because
of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to the human
abode.However,because of the failure to state such
circumstance in the complaint, the same, though proven,
cannot be appreciated. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took provides that
aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances must be
specifically alleged in the information, otherwise they cannot be
considered against the accused even if they were proven
during the trial. Being favorable to the accused, this rule has to
be applied retroactively to this case.
DWELLING
PEOPLE v BAGSIT 409 SCRA 350
Richard Sisonsaw Angelito Bagsit pointing a gun at his father
Pepito who was closing the front door of their house. Not for
long, Richard heard a gunshot and almost simultaneously saw
his father falling to the cement floor. Richard further testified
that Angelito, a second cousin of his mother, used to frequent
their house. He could not say what motivated Angelito to kill his
father but as far as he knew, his father had no quarrel with the
appellant before the shooting incident.
Bagsit averred thathe became drunk after a drinking bout with
Dante Bagsit and Marcos Barte who hired him earlier that
morning to take care of his piggery. He spent the night leaning
on a fence by the house of one Felix Agdon. When he finally
arrived home at around five oclock the following morning his
wife told him about the shooting of Pepito.
HELD:Dwelling, also alleged in the amended Information, is
aggravating. The triggerman showed greater perversity when,
although outside the house, he attacked his victim inside the
latters own house when he could have very well committed the
crime without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the
victims home. He who goes to anothers house to hurt him or
do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him
elsewhere. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered,
it is not necessary that the accused should have actually
entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense - it is
enough that the victim was attacked inside his own abode,
although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate
the assault from the outside.
The Decision of the trial court finding appellant Bagsit guilty of
murder qualified by treachery, with the special aggravating
circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm and the generic
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and imposing on him the
supreme penalty of DEATH, is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION.
NIGHTTIME
PEOPLE v AVENDANO396 SCRA 309
FACTS:JEFFRE CASTILLO, 8, son of the victim Remedios
and brother of the victim Melvin
stated that he saw appellant in their house, looking for his
plow. After dinner, he, his mother and
brother went to sleep, they had an overnight lamp which was
turned on. He was suddenly
awakened when he heard a commotion. He heard his mother
shout, "Dikong, tulungan mo kami."
When he heard the kalambugan he immediately eased his way
to where they kept their pillows
and tried to hide.He saw through his blanket that the person
had come up: "Naaninag ko po sa
kumot yung tao. That was when he distinctly heard his Kuya
Melvin say, "Kuya Willie, tama, na,
tama na!" That was just before Melvin was killed.Jeffre recalled
that he recognized the cough of
his Kuya Willie. He recognized it because appellant frequented
their house. Jeffre fell asleep and
was awakened by persistent knocking on their door. He
opened the door to find his Ate Annie,
Ate Norma and Ate Ann looking for his mother. He then told his
Ate Annie that Willerie Avendao
killed both his mother Remedios and his Kuya Melvin.
HELD:The trial court appreciated the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and unlawful entry. Of the
three, only nighttime was properly alleged in the information.
As to nighttime, this circumstance is considered aggravating
only when (1) it was especially sought by the offender; or (2)
the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the
commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity
from identification or capture. In this case, the prosecution did
not adduce evidence that the appellant deliberately sought the
cover of the night to commit the offense. The mere fact that the
killing was committed at night would not suffice to sustain
nocturnity for, by, and of itself.Aggravating circumstances must
be established with the same quantum of proof as fully as the
crime itself, and any doubt as to their existence must be
resolved in favor of appellant.
WILLERIE AVENDAO is found GUILTY of two counts of
homicide.
PEOPLE v CALOZA 396 SCRA 329
FACTS:Dionisio Bulaclac asked Allan Bulaclac to come to his
farm the following day to help him
till the land. Allan agreed. At about 5:00 a.m. on July 6, 1997,
Allan left their place and proceeded
to Dionisio's farm. When Allan was about a hundred meters
away from Dionisio's hut, he noticed
Rafael at a distance of 10 meters coming from the direction of
the hut of Dionisio.Allan noticed
bloodstains on the clothes of Rafael. Allan was perplexed when
Rafael tried to evade him as they
met.Allan peeped through the window and was horrified to see
his brother's feet as well as blood
under the bed. Allan immediately rushed home and reported
the incident to his parents.
Rafael denied the charge. He testified that he and two co-
workers were having a drinking spree. They asked Dionisio to
give them a duck or chicken for their pulutan. Dionisio refused.
The two companions of Rafael tarried and conversed in their
native dialect and thereafter returned to Dionisio's hut. Rafael
heard a commotion coming from inside the hut of Dionisio.
When he looked toward the direction of the hut, Rafael, who
was about 7 to 10 meters away therefrom, saw his two Visayan
companions kill Dionisio, Edna and Mark Joseph, and exit from
the hut. Dondon was carrying a crowbar (bareta de kabra).
Rafael was so petrified that he did not even try to help the
victims. Dondon then threw the crowbar (bareta de kabra) at
Rafael and threatened him with the words, "Putang ina mo
papatayin ka rin namin." However, the crowbar landed near the
feet of Rafael. Afraid for his life, Rafael immediately fled the
scene
HELD:The Court does not agree with the ruling of the trial court
that nighttime was attendant in the commission of the crime.
While it was established, as admitted by Rafael himself, that
the victims were killed between the hours of 2-3 a.m., the
prosecution failed to adduce evidence that Rafael took
advantage of the darkness of the night to successfully
consummate his dastardly acts. By and of itself, nighttime is
not an aggravating circumstance. It becomes aggravating only
when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is
taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission
of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from capture.
Rafael Caloza Jr. is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
homicide.
PEOPLE v MACTAL 401 SCRA 612
FACTS:Appellant and the deceased were married, beset by
frequent violent quarrels due to
appellants drinking, gambling and womanizing. On the night of
the incident, Romeo Rivera heard
the couple arguing but he did not mind them as he was used to
their arguments.At around
midnight, appellant went to Riveras house to check whether
his wife Evelyn was there. Rivera,
his wife and appellant conversed in the formers garage for
about 30 min, with the Rivera couple
suggesting places where appellant should look for his wife. At
around 1:00 a.m., Alfred Young,
passing by appellants house, he saw Evelyn seated on a
wooden chair in front of the window of
the house. She appeared lifeless because her head was
"hanging." Appellant was about an arms
length away from Evelyn. At about the same time, Romeo
Adayo, who was walking home, saw
appellant. The latter was about 20 steps away from him,
carrying the body of his wife Evelyn over
his right shoulder. Appellant was walking very fast towards a
dark street. The body of Evelyn was
discovered by a neighbor at around 5:00 a.m., 15 meters away
from her house.
HELD:Nighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance where no evidence was presented showing that
nocturnity was especially sought by the accused nor taken
advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or
to insure his immunity from captive.
Here, there is no evidence showing that appellant purposely
sought the cover of darkness to insure the commission of the
crime
Besides the aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the
information and cannot therefore justify the death penalty.
Section 8, Rule 11013 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure now requires that any aggravating circumstance
must be alleged in the information for it to be appreciated in the
imposition of the penalty. Since the rule is favorable to the
accused, it can be given retroactive effect, consistent with the
basic principles of criminal jurisprudence. The decision of the
Trail Court is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION.
PEOPLE v BALDOGO GR 129126-07
FACTS:Gonzalo Baldogo alias "Baguio" & Edgar Bermas alias
"Bunso" were serving sentence in
the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the
Camacho family who resides w/in the
Penal Colony
On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge (14 y.o.) &
abducted Julie (12 y.o.). They brought Julie up to the
mountains. During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to
retrieve their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was
located under a Tamarind tree.Feb. 28, 1996 Baguio left Julie
in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands
& there she asked for help from NicodemusBaguio/Baldogo
denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Baguio contends that
while he was preparing for sleep he was approached by Bunso
who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bunso warned him not to
shout, otherwise he will also be killed.
Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt
Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during the
entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before
Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas.
HELD:Quasi-recidivism is alleged in both Informations.
Appellant is alleged to have committed murder and kidnapping
while serving sentence in the penal colony by final judgment for
the crime of homicide. Quasi-recidivism is a special
aggravating circumstance.The prosecution is burdened to
prove the said circumstance by the same quantum of evidence
as the crime itself. In the present case, to prove quasi-
recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to adduce in
evidence a certified copy of the judgment convicting accused-
appellant of homicide and to prove that the said judgment had
become final and executory. In this case, the prosecution
adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of the prison record of
accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of homicide
by the RTC of Baguio. The excerpt of the prison record of
appellant is not the best evidence to prove the judgment of the
RTC and to prove that said judgment had become final and
executory. Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary
evidence which is inadmissible absent proof that the original of
the judgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same
cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution. The
barefaced fact that accused-appellant was detained in the
penal colony does prove the fact that final judgment for
homicide has been rendered against him.
PEOPLE v SUMAOY G.R. No. 105961
FACTS:Patricio Jacobe, Jr. testified that he saw the deceased
Zandro Vargas talking toPacifico
Sumaoy. 3 other men were with them.He was startled by the
sound of a gunshot. He saw Vargas
run but he was overtaken and dragged towards a waiting
tricycle. Sumaoy and 3 other men then
boarded the tricycle taking Vargas with them. Jacobe allegedly
heard one of accused-appellant's
companion say that they were taking Zandro to the hospital.
Later that evening Jacobe learned
that Zandro was found dead in a kangkong field.
Accused-appellant denies participation in the killing of Zandro
Vargas. He claims that the whole day of July 9, 1988 he was
on duty as an enlisted personnel of the 1103rd Criminal
Investigation Service (CIS) in Tagum, Davao. Sumaoyidentified
a document signed by Technical Sergeant Ricardo Go called
"Duty Detail" showing that accused-appellant was on duty from
8:00 a.m. of July 9, 1988 to 8:00 a.m. of July 10, 1988. Ricardo
Go, Technical Sergeant, Philippine Constabulary, corroborated
the accused-appellant's alibi.
HELD: Sumaoydefense of alibi is of no moment. Not only was
accused-appellant positively identified as the person who had
shot and taken Vargas to an undisclosed placed. It is also
settled that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused
prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was
committed. He must demonstrate that he could not have been
physically present at the place of the crime or in its immediate
vicinity at the time of its commission.
The trial court also erred in finding the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of official
position in the commission of the offense. This circumstance
requires that the accused, as a
public officer, used the influence or reputation of his position for
the purpose of committing the
crime. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without
occupying his position, then there
is no abuse of public position. In the case before us, no
evidence was adduced to show that the
killing of Zandro Vargas was in any way facilitated by the
accused-appellant's public position. It
was not even shown whether the accused-appellant wore his
uniform or used his service firearm
when he committed the crime.
Pacifico Sumaoy is guilty of homicide.
PEOPLE v BAJAR 414 SCRA 494
FACTS:Ana Bajar Rabor visited her parents in their house, her
mother Lolita, suggested that
since her father was very drunk, she should sleep at the house
of her maternal grandfather, the
victim Aquilio, 100 meters away. Alejandro, who was still
obviously very drunk, inquiring whether
his wife was in the house.Aquilio answered that his wife
was in their (Alejandros) house.
Alejandro accused Aquilio of lying and of hiding his daughter.
Ana heard a sound and saw that
Alejandro was carrying a bolo and approaching her
grandfather. She saw her father hack her
grandfather, who was lying on the bed. She got up, ran
towards the sala, and saw her father still
hacking his grandfather. While he was being stabbed and
attacked, Aquilio stood up to embrace his son-in-law. Ana
shouted for help as she held down the hand which her father
used to wield the bolo. Alejandro testified that on the date and
time in question, he left his two daughters, Ana and Alma, and
his two grandchildren, Mary Joy and Ann-Ann, at his house. He
proceeded to his father-in-laws house to look for his wife.
Upon arrival, he greeted Aquilio with respect: Pa, good
evening. The latter replied that Lolita was not there and invited
him (Alejandro) to go up and see for himself. Alejandro went
up, and not finding his wife, said: She is not here Pa. Aquilio
angrily retorted: Everytime you are drunk you come here to
ask me. Aquilio then suddenly clubbed Alejandro on the head
with a 2 x 3 coco lumber he saw near the door.Alejandro then
touched his head, and saw blood on his hand. He felt dizzy.
Seeing that Aquilio was about to attack him again, he drew out
his hunting knife and defended himself by moving his hand
from the right to left. He felt he hit something before he lost
consciousness.
HELD:We affirm Alejandros conviction.
Anent the generic aggravating circumstance of disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of age, it is
considered present when the offended person, by reason of his
age, could be the father of the offender. This is obvious in this
case. Not only was Aquilio, by reason of his age, considered
old enough to be the father of Alejandro (who incidentally
declared in open court that he was 58 years old), he was also
the latters father-in-law. The presence of this aggravating
circumstance by reason of their age difference is, therefore,
reinforced by their actual relationship by affinity. Further, it is
ingrained in Philippine culture that those advanced in age are
respected especially in the provinces.
Suffice it is to say that the alternative circumstance of
relationship was correctly appreciated, the victim being the
father-in-law of the appellant.
PEOPLE v JULIANDA 370 SCRA 448
FACTS: Gertrudes Casalo testified that she saw Teofilo
Coralde riding a carabao while his
brother Ferdinand was walking behind him.She saw that their
way was suddenly blocked by the
brothers Jesus, Jr., Jimmy, and Nolito Julianda.Jimmy and
Nolito tried to hack Teofilo so the latter
alighted from the carabao and ran away. Both Teofilo and
Ferdinand entered the store of a
certain Arlene Cabrillas.Approximately 20 people surrounded
the store, 4 of whom she
recognized: the 3 Julianda brothers and Samson
Guerrero.From a distance of 10 meters she
saw Nolito pull the hand of Teofilo and drag him towards the
road. Nolito hacked the back of
Teofilo. Despite this, Teofilo was able to run and cross the road
before he fell down. Jimmy
likewise hacked Teofilo while Jesus hit Teofilo with a
stone.Ferdinand Coralde went out of the
store. He was met by Samson Guerrero who smashed his
nose with a stone. Then the group
ganged up on him. He was already down, when the group left
him.Ferdinand, upon regaining
consciousness, got up and ran away, leaving his brother
Teofilo behind.
Jesus Julianda, Jr. and Samson Guerrero denied any
participation in the murder and attempted murder charges
against them. Jesus Julianda, Jr. claimed that he was in his
house the whole day while Samson Guerrero claimed that he
was just pacifying the quarrel between Ferdinand Coralde and
Jimmy Julianda.
HELD:The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength is absorbed in treachery. Since no evidence was
adduced showing when the accused hatched the murderous
plan and the interval of time therefrom to its commission we
find that this case is not attended by the aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation.Settled is the rule that
when it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was
hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out,
evident premeditation cannot be considered.
EVIDENT PREMIDATATION
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 398 SCRA 415
FACTS: Salvador de la Cruz, Tamano and Boy Negro knocked
on the door of the house of
Florencio Antonio, , Ferdinand
Pearanda, saw Florencio fleeing
for dear life, chased by
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 143
Tamano,Salvador and Boy Negro. Tamano stabbed him at the
back. Bading and Boy Negro took
turns in stabbing Florencio. Residents in the neighborhood saw
the incident and shouted at
Tamano, Bading and Boy Negro.
CAUSE OF DEATH:Multiple stab wounds
For his defense, Salvador denied having stabbed the victim.
He admitted that he was present when Florencio was stabbed.
He, however, insisted that Tamano and Boy Negro helped
each other in fighting with and stabbing Florencio. Salvador
claimed that when Tamano told him that he just had an
altercation with Florencio, he (Salvador) suggested that
Tamano and Florencio settle their differences. He even offered
to act as mediator since Florencio was the godson of
Salvadors father.
HELD:Crime Committed By Accused-Appellant
The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder on its
finding that treachery and evident premeditation attended the
killing of Florencio.
The Court does not agree with the trial court. Case law has it
that treachery must be proved with the same quantum of
evidence as the crime itself. Treachery cannot be presumed;
nor can it be based on mere surmises or speculations. In case
of doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of the accused
Evident premeditation was not attendant because the
prosecution failed to prove the elements thereof, namely: (1)
the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2)
sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequence of
his act.
Salvador de la Cruzis guilty only of homicide.
PEOPLE v BALDOGO 396 SCRA 31
FACTS: Gonzalo Baldogo alias "Baguio" & Edgar Bermas alias
"Bunso" were serving sentence in
the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the
Camacho family who resides w/in the
Penal Colony. On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge
(14 y.o.) & abducted Julie (12 y.o.).
They brought Julie up to the mountains.
During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to retrieve
their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was located
under a Tamarind tree.
Feb. 28, 1996 Baguio left Julie in the mountains to
fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands & there she asked
for help from Nicodemus
Baguio/Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping
Julie. Baguio contends that while he was preparing for sleep he
was approached by Bunso who was armed with a bloodied
bolo. Bunso warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be
killed.
Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend
to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during
the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before
Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-
appellant asserted that he wanted to bring Julie back to her
parents after Bermas had left them and to surrender but
accused-appellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him.
Issues:WON the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation can be appreciated.
 To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the
prosecution must establish the confluence of the ff. requisites
a. Time when offender determined to commit the crime;
b. An act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to
his determination; and
c. Sufficient interval of time between the determination
and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.
Evident premeditation must be proved with certainty
as the crime itself
It cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from
the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to
the time that he actually commits it.
The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that
after deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his
determination to commit the crime. The law doesnt prescribe a
time frame that must elapse from the time the felon has
decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it.
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 144
Barefaced fact that accused-appellant and Bermas
hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about
a kilometer or so from the house of Julio Sr. does not constitute
clear evidence that they decided to kill Jorge and kidnap Julie.
It is possible that they hid their clothing therein preparatory to
escaping from the colony. Insufficient evidence for evident
premeditation.
PEOPLE v DELADA 399 SCRA 538
FACTS: Danny Paredes discovered that his pedicab was
missing. Cerna told him that Rogelio Delada, Jr., took his
pedicab.Later, Paredes saw Delada aboard the pedicab. He
accosted him and said, "Ang, why did you steal my trisikad?"
Appellant answered, "Ngano, palag ka?" Paredes attempted to
punch appellant but the latter was able to dodge the blow and
run towards the public market. While Paredes was talking with
Cerna and Quipanes, Quipanes saw Delada thrust a knife into
the side of Paredes waist. Quipanes boarded Paredes on a
motorela which brought him to the hospital.
Appellant interposed self-defense to justify the killing of the
victim, Paredes. He claimed that Paredes entrusted the
pedicab to him. He asked for Paredes permission to use the
pedicab. He was surprised when the victim confronted him for
using the pedicab. He surmised that the latter was intoxicated.
The victim allegedly boxed him for no reason, hitting him on the
right side of the face. When he saw Paredes scrambling for an
umbrella tube with which to strike him, he then got a knife from
inside the shoe repair shop.
HELD: The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation
did not attend the killing. The prosecution was not able to
show: (a) the time when accused-appellant decided to commit
the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused-
appellant had clung to his determination; and (c) a sufficient
lapse of time between such determination and its execution to
allow him to reflect upon the consequence of his act.
Rogelio Delada Jr. is guilty of murder.
PEOPLE v CASITAS 397 SCRA 382
Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be proven as
clearly as the crime itself. In any
event, even if they are established beyond reasonable doubt,
they cannot be appreciated unless
they are alleged in the information.
FACTS:Version of the Prosecution
Jose Casitas, Jr was at the store of Romeo Briones, near the
house of Mario Chan where Haide Marbella was working as
caretaker. Casitas and Romeo were able to converse for about
20 minutes. During their conversation, appellant showed
Romeo the 3 25-centavo coins which he had and said, this
venture of mine is being taken on a chance.Romeo never
noticed when appellant left his store. Meanwhile, Corazon
Goyena saw Haide sprawled on the kitchen floor lying face
down and bloodied. Surprised, Corazon ran outside and asked
for help from Romeo.On the other side of the house Nemesio
CapizsawCasitas jumped over the fence, his shirt was bloodied
and very red and the edge of his pants was red.
Version of the Defense
Casitasinvokes denial and alibi as defenses. Gerondina
Casitas testified that Jose Casitas, Jr. was preparing and
packing his clothes because he was busy going to Manila. But
before going to Manila, he will [pass] by Legaspi City where he
will get the money she borrowed from Angelo Orenze.
HELD:The RTC qualified the killing to murder by appreciating
the circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Settled is the
rule that such circumstance is present whenever there is
inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
superior strength is advantageous for the aggressor, and the
latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the
crime.Under the facts, no one actually saw how the killing was
perpetrated. No evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, was
presented to establish that there had been inequality of
strength between the appellant and the victim, or that the
former had purposely or consciously taken advantage of
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 148
superior strength in committing the crime. Thus, the RTC
erroneously relied on mere suppositions on the manner of the
killing and improvidently concluded that there was abuse of
superior strength despite the lacuna of evidence thereof.
Casitasis GUILTY of HOMICIDE.
PEOPLE v ALIBEN 398 SCRA 255
FACTS: Romeo Barsaga testified he saw 3 persons hitting
Juanito Bongon, Sr. on the head with
pieces of wood and a bolo. He recognized the the assailants
as Bonifacio Aliben, Ronnie Nicolas
and Diosdado Nicolas. Barsaga watched the incident for
about 4 minutes. While Aliben was
hacking the victim, Diosdado Nicolas and Ronnie Nicolas were
at the back of the victim. Barsaga
further testified that he got scared after witnessing the incident,
so he returned to the house of the
victim
Ronnie Nicolas testified that he was inside their house
watching the group of Victorino Bernal, Allan Cabiles,
Generoso San Jose and Edgar Florendo play tong-its (a game
of cards). Dante Nicolas, Junior Nicolas, Bobby Quiones and
Ponciano Alcantara were also playing tong-its inside their
house. Bonifacio Aliben, Diosdado Nicolas and Junior Godoy
were watching this other group play.While Ronnie was
watching the game, somebody threw small stones with soil at
the place and Victorio was hit on the forehead. Ronnie looked
for the person who threw the stones and found Bongon, Sr.
hiding behind a coconut tree. Bongon, Sr. stabbed Ronnie 3
times, but he wasnot hit. Ronnie was able to get hold of a piece
of wood and hit Bongon, Sr., on the left temple causing
Bongon, Sr. to fall down. Ronnie lost control of himself and did
not know if he continued hitting Bongon, Sr.
HELD:Taking advantage of superior strength
We agree with the trial court that the killing was attended by
the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior
strength which was alleged in the Information. Superiority in
number does not necessarily amount to the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength.It is
necessary to show that the aggressors cooperated in such a
way as to secure advantage from their superiority in strength.
There must be proof of the relative physical strength of the
aggressors and the assaulted party or proof that the accused
simultaneously assaulted the deceased. The circumstance of
taking advantage of superior strength depends on the age, size
and strength of the parties.It is considered whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken
advantage of by him in the commission of the offense.
Ronnie Nicolas, Diosdado Nicolas and Bonifacio Aliben
areGUILTY ofmurder.
PEOPLE v HUGO 410 SCRA 62
FACTS:Joel Talon and Lolito Villamar on their way home were
met by Ernesto, Lorenzo, and
Rudy. Ernesto came face to face with Remegio. Suddenly,
Ernesto hacked Remegio twice with a
bolo causing the latter to fall to the ground. Ernesto quickly ran
away, and his bolo slipped from
his hand. Remegio then told Joel to run after Ernesto. Joel
promptly gave a chase. Remegio
stood up to follow them. Lorenzo and Rudy also chased
Remegio and Joel. Joel decided to turn
back. Standing approximately 10 meters from Remegio,
Joel saw Lorenzo and Rudy hack
Remegio with a bolo on the back of his head, causing Remegio
to fall to the ground. Joel
witnessed Lorenzo deliver another blow at Remegio's neck.
Rudy hacked Remegio at the mouth
and forehand. Lorenzo and Rudy fled.
Ernesto voluntarily surrendered to the police station.
Rudy testified that he was in Pasig City at the time the crime in
question was committed. Lorenzos alibi is thathe was working
at the ricefields in Barangay Moging, San Nicolas, Pangasinan
HELD: The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength cannot be appreciated. The records are bereft of any
information with respect to the physical condition of both
Ernesto and Remegio. For the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of superior strength to be appreciated, the age, size,
and strength of the parties must be considered. There must be
a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, giving the latter a superiority of strength which is
taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime.And
even assuming arguendo that it existed, abuse of superior
strength should not be appreciated separately, for it is
absorbed in treachery.
LORENZO HUGO and RUDY HUGO are ACQUITTED on the
ground of reasonable doubt; ERNESTO HUGO is found guilty
of murder.
PEOPLE v ROXAS 410 SCRA 451
FACTS:Joelyn B. Maceda and Lorna Maceda Puno were
security guardsand when on duty, the
sisters were issued caliber .38 service firearms that they were
not, however, allowed to bring
home.Joelyn saw Lorna coming home carrying a brown bag.
From a distance of 4-5 meters,
Joelyn could see Lorna running away fromRoger Roxas.
Appellant, apparently drunk, had no
clothes from waist up, was wearing shorts and carrying a gun.
When Joelyn asked the pale and
trembling Lorna why she was running, the latter replied, Lyn,
Lyn, enter, close the door, a man is
following me! Joelyn promptly closed the door but appellant
was able to kick it open. Joelyn
was pushed aside. Appellant grabbed Lornas baghurled the
bag to the floor. Appellant then shot
Lorna with a caliber .45 gun with its muzzle just two feet away
from Lornas face. Joelyn held her
sister. Lorna was still alive. A neighbor responded to Joelyns
cries for help. Lorna was brought
to the hospital.
HELD: In asseverating that the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength was not proven at the trial, appellant
would premise his argument on the contention that the victim
used teargas to immobilize him. There was, however, no
convincing proof that the victim had indeed
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 150
used teargas onRoxas. The hospital record presented that
appellant was treated for eye irritation and for abrasions on his
right hand,was not attested to by any supposed attending
physician.The trial court described Roxas as being a big hulk
of a man, 57 in height, and muscularly bulky. At the
witness stand, when Joelyn stood to identify appellant, the
prosecutor noted for the record that appellant was very much
taller than the witness who stood at 53 in height. According
to Joelyn, Lorna was only about 55 in height, a fact that the
defense did not dispute. The case could bring to mind People
v. Quesada. In that case, the Court, noting that the appellant
was a robust, middle-aged man while the deceased was a
woman of about 22 years of age, appreciated the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength when
the malefactor stabbed the deceased while she was trying to
escape from his grasp, and unable to repel the attack. In this
instance, Lorna was 27 years old trying to escape from
appellant, an armed hulk of a man, 57 in height, and
around 33 years of age,when she was senselessly shot at
close range. Still in another case, this Court said: In several
cases, we have held that an attack made by a man with a
deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman
constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which
his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from
which the woman was unable to defend herself. This is the
exact scenario in this case.
PO3 Roger Roxas is guilty of murder.
PEOPLE v GREGORIO 412 SCRA 90
FACTS:Henry Ginez and Pablo Bihasa testified that they saw
the victim, Juanito Regacho
standing in front of a store. A tricycle pulled up and Juancho
Osorio alighted. He drew a gun and
fired at Juanito, but the latter was able to parry Juanchos hand.
Juanito then ran to the alley
towards his house.Juancho then pointed the gun at the
bystanders who scampered and
hide.Mateo Gregorio came out from a nearby alley and fired his
gun in the air. He approached
appellant Osorio and asked, Nasaan na? Both appellants
followed the victim to the alley.
Gunshots were heard.Ignacio Lopea, Jr. declared that earlier
that day, Alberto Gregorio and the
victim had a heated altercation after they came from a
mahjongan on the day the crime
happened. He heard Alberto challenge the victim,Kung gusto
mo, tapusin na natin ito.

The victim died in front of the door of his house
Mateo Gregorio narrated that on the night of the crime, he was
on his way home after getting the gun which somebody
pawned to him. He admitted that he fired said gun in the air
because Ignacio, Sr., brother-in-law of the victim, was
meddling in a heated altercation between the victim and
Alberto Gregorio. He saw the victim run away and afterwards
he heard gunshots. He saw the gunman board a tricycle.
HELD: Appellants cannot be convicted of murder. The
qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior
strength were not sufficiently established by the prosecution.
Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken
advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. It must be
shown by clear and convincing evidence that this qualifying
circumstance was consciously sought by the assailants.
The actual killing of the victim occurred in an alley and was no
longer seen by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, there is no
way of determining whether the elements of treachery and
abuse of superior strength were met.Undisputedly, there was
no testimony as to how the attack was initiated in the case at
bar. In the same way that there was nothing in the testimonies
of the eyewitnesses for the prosecution which would prove that
appellants pondered upon the mode or method to insure the
killing.Superiority in numbers is not necessarily superiority in
strength. Although the two appellants used guns to kill the
unarmed victim, nonetheless, the prosecution failed to
establish that there was indeed a deliberate intent to take
advantage of superior strength. The crime committed by
appellants is homicide.
BAND
PEOPLE v POLORES 230 SCRA 279
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 151
Band (en cuadrilla) consists of at least 4 armed persons
organized with the intention of carrying out an unlawful design.
Band is inherent in brigandage but not in robbery. (PEOPLE v
POLORES 230 SCRA 279)
The requisite four armed persons contemplated in this
circumstance must all be principals by direct participation who
acted together in the execution of the acts constituting the
crime.
If one of them was a principal by inducement, there would be
no cuadrilla but the aggravating circumstance of having acted
with the aid armed men may be considered against the inducer
if the other two acted as his accomplice.
This aggravating circumstance is inherent in BRIGANDAGE.
This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance
os abuse of superior strength.
This aggravating circumstance is not applicable in crimes
against chastity.
PEOPLE v BUAYABAN 400 SCRA 48
FACTS:Paulino Buayaban, Larry Betache, Marciano Toacao,
Yoyong Buayaban and Pedro
Tumulak, all armed, entered the house of Dioscoro Abonales.
Pedro Tumulak and Paulino
Buayaban immediately poked their guns at Rolando Verdida
who with his fiancee Elizabeth
Abonales. Yoyong kicked Dioscoro in the face and when the
latter stood up, Marciano shot him in
the neck. Dioscoro died instantly.Larry Betache went outside
the house and stood guard at the
door holding a knife. Pedro then went to the kitchen, grabbed
the right arm of Josefa Abonales
and asked her where the money was. Frightened, Josefa
quickly went to the room, followed by
Marciano while Pedro returned to where Elizabeth and
Rolando were lying down in order to watch
over them. Marciano threatened Josefa with death if she
refused to surrender the money. Josefa
took the money amounting to P30, 000 from the wooden chest,
placed it inside a pillow case and
she handed it to Marciano. Somebody forcibly took the wallet
of Rolando. While escaping, the
malefactors bumped into Artemio Abonales. Artemio was on
his way to Dioscoros house to
investigate the gunshots he heard. Paulino pointed the gun at
Artemio and pulled the trigger but
the gun did not fire.
Pedro Tumulak put up the defense of alibi and denial.
HELD: In the present case, we cannot treat the ordinary
aggravating circumstance of band because it was not alleged
in the information. Though it is an ordinary aggravating
circumstance, the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedurerequire
that even generic aggravating circumstances must be alleged
in the Information.
In this case, we cannot properly appreciate the ordinary
aggravating circumstance of band in the commission of the
crime since there was no allegation in the information that
"more than three armed malefactors acted together in the
commission of the crime."
All things considered, we find Pedro Tumulak guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.
PEOPLE v CANDO 334 SCRA 331
FACTS:Cando and Rapcing, were employed as candlemakers
at a factory, the victim, Luis D.
Remoriata, was the caretakerin said factory.Vargas, Rapcing,
Nonoy Sayson&Candowere having
a drinking session at a canteen in front of the factory. Cando
came angry because he was unable
to get his salary from the secretary, nor was he able to get a
loan of P100.00 from the caretaker.
Cando already had previous misunderstandings with the
caretaker, so this time; he threatened to
kill the caretaker. Vargas, Rapcing, and Cando, armed with two
knives and carrying a shoulder
bag, proceeded to the victims room. Cando picked a piece of
lead pipe and told Vargas to pull
open the door where the victims mosquito net was attached.
When Vargas pulled open the door,
the mosquito net snapped and Cando struck the victim on the
head with the lead pipe. The victim
awakened and Cando demanded money from him. When the
victim replied that he had no
money, Cando struck him again with the lead pipe. Blood
oozed from the victims head. Cando
repeatedly hit him with the lead pipe until he became
unconscious. Cando placed the victims
radio cassette in his bag. He went upstairs to get more items
and the keys of the Cimarron van.
Cando and Rapcing pushed the van outside. Once they were
out of hearing range, Vargas
gunned the motor and the two clambered into the van.
Vargas readily admitted his participation and pinpointed
appellants Cando and Rapcing as his co-perpetrators.
ISSUE:WON the aggravating circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation attended the commission of the offense?
HELD:There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 154
might make.The conditions which must concur before
treachery can be appreciated are: (a) the employment of
means of execution that gives the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) that said
means of execution be deliberately and consciously
adopted.The essence of treachery lies in the adoption of ways
that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put up
by the offended party.The killing of the sleeping victim herein
was attended by treachery since he was in no position to flee
or defend himself.The presence of treachery, though, should
not result in qualifying the offense to murder, for the correct
rule is that when it obtains in the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide, such treachery is to be regarded as a
generic aggravating circumstance, robbery with homicide being
a case of a composite crime with its own definition and special
penalty in the Revised Penal Code.
ROGER CANDO, ARNEL VARGAS, and WILBERTO
RAPCING are guilty of the crime of Robbery withHomicide.
PEOPLE v MAZO 367 SCRA 462
FACTS: Rommel Abrenica and Rafael Morada, Jr., were
having a drink in the "Rendezvous,
whenan altercation between them and the Dennis Mazo
occurred. Rommel was jealous of the
accused whose alleged girlfriend Rommel also fancied. While
talking to the girl, the accused
approached them and said, "oh, what?" They responded
by asking him, "what?" Rommel
described the accuseds attitude as "brave as if he was
threatening them."Rommel and Rafael
rode Rommels motorcycle. They passed the group of Dennis
Mazo. Somebody called, "Pssst,"
and Rommel stopped the vehicle. Rafael alighted and
approached Dennis and his companions to
ask who called them. Dennis and Rafael walked towards each
other, Dennis holding his back
pocket. Suddenly, Dennis, who wielded a knife on his right
hand, stabbed Rafael about eight
inches below the left nipple.Rommel remained seated on his
motorcycle allowing him to witness
the incident. Rafael was able to parry another of Dennis
thrusts and then run. Rafael cushioned
his fall with his hands and was able to roll on his back. He
raised his feet and his hands to shield
himself from Dennis stabbing thrusts. Thereafter, Dennis fled .
Dennis Mazo invoked self-defense.
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 155
HELD:Treachery did not attend the commission of the crime.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.Its essence lies
in the attack which comes without warning, and is swift,
deliberate and unexpected, and affords the hapless, unarmed
and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.
Here, the trial court found that treachery was present both at
the initial and final stages of the attack. First, the victim
approached appellant unarmed without any inkling that he
would be stabbed by appellant. It bears noting, however, that
an altercation in the Rendezvous had just recently ensued
between appellant on the one hand and the victim and Rommel
Abrenica on the other. There was an exchange of words with
the victim mocking appellants long hair. In their subsequent
encounter, the victim by his lonesome audaciously approached
appellant and his three companions. It cannot be said,
therefore, that the victim had not been forewarned of the
danger he faced when he approached appellant. There could
be no treachery when the victim was placed on guard, such as
when a heated argument preceded the attack, or when the
victim was standing face to face with his assailants and the
initial assault could not have been unforeseen.Moreover
In treachery, the mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
This means that the accused must make some preparation to
kill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the execution
of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person
attacked to defend himself or retaliate. The mode of attack,
therefore, must be planned by the offender, and must not
spring from the unexpected turn of events.
The meeting between appellants group and the victim was
merely by chance and it could not be said that the mode of
attack could have been planned. A killing done at the spur of
the moment is not treacherous.
The trial court also held that there was treachery when
appellant continued to stab the victim when the latter fell and
was crawling on his back. This conclusion is erroneous. It is
true that appellant took advantage of the victims unfortunate
fall to finish him off but there is no showing that appellant had
consciously adopted, prepared or planned to use the victims
sudden, hapless position to his advantage.
Dennis Mazo is GUILTY of Homicide.
PEOPLE v MANTES 368 SCRA 661
FACTS:Efren Mantes and Danilo Flores tookElicazar Napili
from his house, armed with guns and bolos, tolm him that he
was being summoned by the barangay captain. Cowed by their
arms, Elicazar went with the two. Thirty minutes after,Elizabeth
went to the barangay captain to inquire as to the whereabouts
of her husband. She was told that her husband was not
summoned. Violeta Latagan testified that while she and her
husband Abelardo and their child were resting inside their
house, three persons sought shelter from the rain. Minutes
later, she heard them quarrelling. She saw Mantes and Flores
hacking at Elicazar Napili. Elicazar managed to force his way
inside Violetas house. Grabbing her child, Violeta and her
husband fled the scene, but not before she was hacked in the
left buttock by Flores.
Since Elicazar had not yet returned, the the barangay captain
and Elizabeth proceeded to the house of Efren Mantes father
to look for Efren. There, they found Mantes already awake,
wearing a bloodied T-shirt and with wounds on his hands and
back. When asked the reason therefor, Efren told the group
that he had been in a drinking spree that night and that a fight
had ensued thereat. Told to escort the group to the place of the
drinking spree and fight, Mantes led the group to the hut of
Nicanor Malabanan. The group unearthed the lifeless body of
Elicazar Napili wrapped in a transparent plastic sheet. The
testimony of Rogelio Manabat and Julio de Salit, who were
members of the group which went to the house of Efren
Mantes father and later discovered Elicazars cadaver,
corroborated the testimony of the barangay captain.
Mantes narrated that he, Elicazar Napili& Bernardo were
invited by Abelardo to a drinking spree.Bernardo and Elicazar
got into an argument, which ultimately led to Bernardo dealing
fist blows to Elicazar. Mantes was suddenly hacked with a bolo
by Abelardo, prompting him to run and hide in the bushes
nearby. From his vantage point, Mantes saw Elicazar wrest the
bolo from Abelardo and chase the latter into the house. It was
inside the house where Violeta was hacked by Elicazar.
Abelardo managed to hit Elicazar on the arm with a piece of
wood, causing him to
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 156
drop the bolo. Abelardo then took hold of the bolo and hacked
Elicazar in the neck. With Elicazar down, Abelardo and his wife
left their house only to return minutes later. They then rolled
Elicazars body to the creek nearby.
Danilo Flores invoked alibi as defense.
HELD: This Court finds appellants guilty only of homicide, not
murder, the qualifying circumstance of treachery not having
been proven as conclusively as the killing itself.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms
in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially
insure the execution of the crime, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. The
elements of treachery are: (i) the means of execution employed
gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate;
and (ii) the methods of execution were deliberately or
consciously adopted (People vs. Cirilo, G.R. No. 134245,
December 1, 2000). These two conditions are clearly wanting
in the case at bar. Although Elicazar was unarmed at the time
he was attacked with bolos by appellants, such circumstance
alone does not satisfy the legal requirements of treachery. In
People vs. Valles (167 SCRA 103 [1997]), we declared that the
mere fact that the victim had no weapon with which he could
have defended himself is not sufficient to prove the existence
of the first element of treachery, for settled is the rule that
treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence.
Moreover, the essence of treachery is the sudden, unexpected,
and unforeseen attack on the person of the victim, without the
slightest provocation on the part of the latter. In the instant
case, Elicazar was already alerted to the fact that appellants
meant him harm. According to his wifes testimony, Elicazar
was already pleading for his life with appellants when they took
him away. They even hacked at his wife when the latter tried to
follow them. All these circumstances point to the fact that
Elicazar was already forewarned of the danger to his life. In
People vs. Lopez (249 SCRA 610 [1995]), we declared that
"there is no treachery were the victim was aware of the danger
on his life, when he chose to be courageous instead of
cautious, courting obvious danger which, when it came, cannot
be defined as sudden, unexpected, and unforeseen." Violeta
Latagans testimony is no less enlightening. Violeta testified
that she heard appellants and Elicazar quarreling prior to the
attack on the latter, and that during the attack the latter even
tried to escape. The fact that there was a quarrel prior to the
attack proves that there was no treachery, and it is also all too
obvious that Elicazar was well-aware of the danger to his life
as shown in his attempt to escape, albeit unsuccessfully, from
his assailants.
PEOPLE v COSTALES 373 SCRA 269
Jessie Molina recalled that she and her sisters Donabel and
Erlinda together with their parents Miguel and Crispina had
prepare for the night. Jessie and Erlinda had just watched tv
when 2 persons suddenly barged into their house passing
through the door kept ajar by sacks of palay and strangled her
father Miguel. Jessie readily recognized Fernando "Ando"
Costales, poked a gun at the head of her father and shot him
once in cold blood. Thereafter Fernando Ramirez sprayed on
their faces what she described as "something hot and
pungent," and with his firearm pumped a bullet on her mother's
chest.Both Jessie and Erlinda affirmed that they were familiar
with the 2 accused because, like the rest of the family, they
were members of the "Baro a Cristiano" also known as
Lamplighter, of which Costales and F Ramirez were the high
priests in their respective areas. According to Jessie, her
parents decided to quit the brotherhood because Ramirez
warned them not to sever their ties with the sect if they did not
want any harm to befall them. In fact, according to her, a month
earlier Ramirez even threatened her sister Erlinda with bodily
harm.
Fernando Costales: alibi.
HELD: We yield to the trial court's finding of treachery. Without
doubt, treachery has been established by the prosecution
evidence which showed that Fernando Costales and his
confederate Fernando Ramirez swiftly and unexpectedly
barged into the Marcelo residence in the middle of the night,
shot Miguel Marcelo to death as well as his wife Crispina who
almost lost her life, and sprayed a substance which temporarily
blinded the other occupants of the house. The suddenness of
the attack gave the victims no opportunity whatsoever to resist
or parry the assault thereby ensuring the accomplishment of
their dastardly deed without risk to themselves. Since the
attack on the victims was synchronal, sudden and unexpected,
treachery must be properly appreciated.
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 157
Fernando "Ando" Costales is guilty of murder and attempted
murder.
PEOPLE v LOPEZ 395 SCRA 210
Richard Lanzanas, 11-year-old son of the victim, Mauricio
Lanzanas, testified that while he was standing near the
barangay hall he heard two gunshots. He saw his father inside
the sash factory, lying on the ground face up. The trigger man,
Felix Lopez, shot his father twice more and then got the latters
two handheld radios. Richard remained motionless but, after
regaining his composure, rushed home and met his mother
along the way. He told his mother about his fathers fate. She
tried to catch up with the appellant but failed.
On the charge of murder, we agree with the trial court that
treachery was duly established
considering that the appellant, in shooting victim Mauricio
Lanzanas, employed means and
methods which directly and specially ensured its execution
without risk to himself arising from the
possible defense the victim might have made. As appellant
was approaching the sash factory,
the victim was totally unaware of the formers criminal intent.
The victim even greeted the
appellant with a nod before he was shot twice by the latter with
an armalite rifle, a high-powered
weapon. Subsequently, the appellant again shot the helpless
victim who was already lying
prostrate on the ground. The essence of treachery is the
unexpected and sudden attack on the
victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to
defend himself by reason of the
suddenness and severity of the attack.
Felix J. Lopez is guilty of murder.
PEOPLE v ALFON 399 SCRA 64
FACTS: Vicente Eusebio testified that he saw the victim
walking from the opposite direction being
followed by Expedito Alfon. Alfon came from behind the
unsuspecting victim, and suddenly
stabbed the latter twice with a knife known as balisong 29. The
victim was hit on the left portion of
his ribs and on the right side of his chest. As he fell on the
ground face down, appellant ran away
towards the seashore. Eusebio shouted for help, and
immediately, Manuel Rayoso, Jesus
Arranza, and Agripino Lazado responded. They carried the
victim to a motorboat and brought him
to a doctor in Poblacion, Caramoan. Unfortunately, Tomas
Alferez did not survive.
Expedito Alfon, on the other hand, interposed the defense of
denial. He narrated that in the afternoon of February 18, 1993,
he was on his way home from his sisters house.
HELD:The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden
attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and
unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness
and severity of the attack.This criterion applies, whether the
attack is frontal or from behind. Even a frontal attack could be
treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who
would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. The fact
that the location of the fatal stab wound is in front does not in
itself negate treachery. In the case at bar, it was established
that appellant came from behind, went towards the right of the
victim, and suddenly stabbed the victims chest while holding
the latters left shoulder. Evidence shows that, first, at the time
of attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, as
he was unarmed and totally unsuspecting when appellant
suddenly held and stabbed him; and second, appellant
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means of
attack, as he was seen surreptitiously following the victim with
a balisong tucked under his waist. Clearly therefore, treachery
attended the crime.
Expedito Alfon is guilty of murder
PEOPLE v CARAIG 400 SCRA 67
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 159
FACTS: Edmundo Diaz, Roberto Raagas, Melencio Castro Jr.,
and Placido Agustin were leaving the beerhouse when Caraig
confronted them whether they were military men.A rumble
suddenly ensued between his group and Caraig. It was a brief
scuffle. Caraig then ran back to the Beerhouse. Edmundo and
his companions rode on a taxi. They were chased, however, by
car which eventually blocked the taxi, Caraig, Laxamana, and
Laomoc alighted from the car. They simultaneously fired upon
Edmundo and his companions. While the hail of bullets went
on, Edmundo played dead. He then heard somebody utter:
"Pare, tama na yan. Patay na lahat ang mga iyan." When the
car left, he asked the people who gathered around the scene to
bring him to a hospital, where he underwent treatment for
eighteen days.
Caraig denied that he was one of the assailants
HELD:We agree with the OSG and the trial court on the finding
of treachery. There is treachery when the offender employs
means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of the crimes
against persons that tend directly and especially to ensure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.Two elements must therefore
concur: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and the
(2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted.The attack upon the victims in these cases was
attended by treachery. Per Danilo Javiers testimony, the taxi
on which the victims were riding was moving slowly away from
the beerhouse when Caraig and his co-assailants pursued it
and then blocked its path. The interception took place at less
than 100 meters away from the beerhouse. Since the victims
were inside the taxi, they had no chance to fight back or defend
themselves. The number of the victims individual wounds and
their relative positions when found dead by the police
emphasized further the essence of treachery. The means,
method, and form of the attack in this case were, therefore,
consciously adopted and effectively forestalled the victims from
employing a defense against their attackers.
DONATO CARAIG is found guilty of 3 counts of murder and of
frustrated murder.
PEOPLE v ABUT 401 SCRA 498
FACTS:Maricar and Edgar and Rosie and Al took a stroll at the
Park. The 2 couples sat on the
concrete benches facing each other. After a few minutes,
Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie
arrived.Rosie had been the girlfriend of
Winchester before she became the
girlfriend of
Al.Winchester told Maricar that he wanted to get acquainted
with Edgar. Edgar introduced himself
to Winchester. Winchester shook hands
with Edgar. Winchester yanked his
hand and
immediately boxed Edgar. Ritchie struck the 2 bottles on the
table and hit Edgar with the broken
bottles. The 3 continued their assault on the victim and stabbed
him. Edgar pleaded to his
attackers to stop assaulting him telling them that he had
sustained so many stab wounds
already. Edgar stood up and staggered only to fall down near
one of the cemented benches in
the park about 10 meters from the table.
Gregmar and Winchester denied assaulting and stabbing
Edgar. They claimed that it was Ritchie alone who stabbed and
killed the victim.
HELD:The trial court correctly convicted the appellants of
murder with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. However, the trial court erred in appreciating
treachery against the appellants. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. Treachery must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself. In this
case, the prosecution failed to prove that the mode or manner
of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the
appellants when they stabbed the victim. Appellant Winchester
first boxed the victim. The appellants and Ritchie then mauled
and kicked the victim. There is no evidence that at the outset,
they had decided to stab and kill the victim. It was only at the
late stage of the assault that the appellants and Ritchie
stabbed the victim. The Court believes that after ganging up on
and mauling the victim, the appellants, at the spur-of-the
moment, decided to stab the victim. Thus, the subjective
element of treachery was not present
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 160
Winchester Abut and Gregmar Baliga are guilty of
murderqualified by abuse of superior strength.
PEOPLE v ESCARLOS 410 SCRA 463
FACTS:Antonio Balisacan went to attend a benefit dance, his
son Crisanto, also attended with
his friends. Crisanto stood beside the emcee, Escarlos. While
Ceasario was calling the victim,
Antonio Balisacan, to come to the the stage, Crisantosaw
appellant stab his father, Antonio,
several times. Crisanto was momentarily shocked that he was
not able to react. Antonio was still
alive so he brought him to Hospital where he expired a few
minutes after arrival.
Accused TIMOTEO ESCARLOS was invited to buy lechon
during the benefit dance.While Antonio who was then drunk,
passed in front and told him, You are here again to create
trouble. Accused was offended so he answered back saying
Why do you say that to me when I am not doing any trouble
here. Antonio Balisacan told him, OKINNAM KETDI and
without warning boxed him. Timoteo was hit on the forehead.
He intended to box back but he noticed that the victim was
pulling out a kitchen knife, so for fear of his life, he grabbed the
weapon from Antonio Balisacan and used the knife in stabbing
the latter who was hit at the side below the left armpit. He
stabbed the victim thrice.
HELD:The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the
part of the victim, thus depriving the latter of any real chance to
put up a defense, and thereby ensuring the commission of the
attack without risk to the aggressor. There is no treachery
when the assault is preceded by a heated exchange of words
between the accused and the victim; or when the victim is
aware of the hostility of the assailant towards the former.In the
instant case, the verbal and physical squabble prior to the
attack proves that there was no treachery, and that the victim
was aware of the imminent danger to his life.Moreover, the
prosecution failed to establish that appellant had deliberately
adopted a treacherous mode of attack for the purpose of
depriving the victim of a chance to fight or retreat.Certainly, the
victim knew that his scuffle with appellant could eventually turn
into a violent physical clash. The existence of a struggle before
the fatal blows were inflicted on the victim clearly shows that he
was forewarned of the impending attack, and that he was
afforded the opportunity to put up a defense.Indeed, a killing
done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous. Moreover,
any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in
favor of the accused.
ESCARLOS is guilty of homicide.
PEOPLE v BUTLER 120 SCRA 281
FACTS:Emelita Pasco, the housemaid of the victim Enriquita
Alipo, testified that her mistress
came home with Butler. They immediately entered the victim's
bedroom. Thereafter, the victim
left her bedroom holding an ID card and a piece of paper, and
on the piece of paper, the victim
wrote the following words: MICHAEL J. BUTLER, 44252-8519
USS HANCOCK. 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 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
HELD: We 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 and 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.
PEOPLE v ASTUDILLO 401 SCRA 723
FACTS: Clarence, Crisanto and Hilario Astudillo, went to house
of Alberto Damian. Clarence
greeted Alberto and asked the victim, Silvestre Aquino, to go
with him. Silvestre acceded and the
two walked towards Floras Store, where they were later joined
by Crisanto and Hilario. While at
the store, Crisanto and Silvestre had an argument.Manuel
Bareng and Eduardo Bata, 12 and 11
years of age, saw Clarence stab Silvestre with a bolo while
Crisanto and Hilario held him by the
wrists. Clarence delivered several stab blows at the back and
on the chest of the victim until the
latter fell to the ground. Thereafter, the three appellants fled
on board a tricycle.Silvestre was
rushed to the Municipal Health Office of Bangued, Abra, where
he was pronounced dead on
arrival.
Clarence said Silvestre struck him on the head and arm with an
empty one-liter softdrink bottle.Hilario arrived and tried to pacify
Silvestre but the latter attacked him. As he retreated, he saw a
knife which he then swung at the victim. Silvestre was hit but
continued to attack him. Left with no choice, Hilario stabbed
Silvestre 2 or 3 times. When the latter collapsed to the ground,
Hilario rushed to the succor of his elder brother, Clarence
HELD : As regards the generic aggravating circumstance of
use of motor vehicle, the trial court erred in appreciating the
same inasmuch as the prosecution failed to show that the
tricycle was deliberately used by the appellants to facilitate the
commission of the crime or that the crime could not have been
committed without it. The use of motor vehicle is not
aggravating where the use thereof was merely incidental and
was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the
offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his
apprehension difficult.
Clarence Astudillo, Crisanto Astudillo @ Anteng or
Enteng, and Hilario Astudillo @ Boda, are guilty of the
crime of murder .
PEOPLE v ALLAN 245 SCRA 549
Course Outline in Criminal 1
Page 167

FACTS: Joseph Salinas, thirteen-year old son of the victim
Roberto Salinas, testified that after they had gone fishing,
Roberto decided to have a bottle of beer at a store. Joseph
Proceeded to go home. Fe Gutierrez instructed Joseph to fetch
his father. Joseph saw Robert and Demetrio stabbing his father
while the other two men restrained his hands. An unidentified
person, Arthur Doe, stabbed the middleback part of the victim.
Roberto was slumped prostrate against the wall; he was shot
at the left temple by a person who has not, as yet, been
apprehended.
Robert and Demetrio interposed the defense of alibi. Robert
testified that he had gone fishing and came home only the
following morning. Demetrio claimed that he stayed overnight
in Barrio Malimpec.
HELD:The Court is not convinced that cruelty had been
sufficiently shown on the basis of this finding alone. Cruelty
cannot be appreciated in the absence of any showing that
appellants, for their pleasure and satisfaction, caused the
victim to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him
unnecessary physical and moral pain. The mere fact that
wounds in excess of what was indispensably necessary to
cause death were found in the body of the victim does not
necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty
and with the intention of deliberately and inhumanly intensifying
or aggravating the sufferings of the victim. Robert Alban and
Demetrio Alban are guilty of murder.
PEOPLE v SOLAMILLO 404 SCRA 211
FACTS:The victim owned the Liberty Bakery and Grocery;
hisemployees were appellant Julian
Solamillo, Edgardo Ebarle and Eddie Trumata, who lived
together in the bakery.Edgardo Ebarle,
Eddie Trumata and appellants were at the bakery. Aleli Guiroy,
the victims daughter, saw them
when she arrived.The next morning, Aleli returned to the
bakery but was unable to open the
doors. She sought help from her uncle, Lorenzo Guiroy who, in
turn, asked Warlito Gonoz to
accompany her back to the bakery. When Warlito peeped
through a window, he saw the victim
Dukduk Solamillo and Julian Solamillo are found GUILTY of
the crime of ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
PEOPLE v LOBINGAS 394 SCRA 170
FACTS:Felix Taylaran was a farmhand of Castor Guden, he
asked for permission not to work for
it was raining and he had to go to the store of Teodorico
Mante. Felix returned to Gudens house
with bruises on his face and injuries all over his body. He told
Castor that he was mauled by
Frank Lobrigas, Marlito Lobrigas and Teodorico Mante at the
store. Felix spent the night in
Castors house and left the following morning to go to the
seaside house of Lorie Aguilar to heal
his wounds in the saltwater. However, Felix Taylaran died.
Lobrigas denied the accusation and alleged that he was asleep
at the time the incident took place.
HELD: We do not agree with the trial court that the crime
committed was murder qualified by the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength. To appreciate
abuse of superior strength, there must be a deliberate intent on
the part of the malefactors to take advantage of their greater
number. They must have notoriously selected and made use of
superior strength in the commission of the crime. To take
advantage of superior strength is to use excessive force that is
out of proportion to the means for self-defense available to the
person attacked; thus, the prosecution must clearly show the
offenders deliberate intent to do so.
There was no clear indication in this case that the accused-
appellant and his companions purposely used their joint efforts
to consummate the crime.
Frank Lobrigas is GUILTY of Homicide for the death of Felix
Taylaran.

Course Outline in Criminal 1

Page 168

lying on the floor. Immediately, they reported the matter to the

police.PO3 Celso Tan Sanchez arrived and found the victims
dead body, a wooden stool, a bolo and a piece of bakawan
(firewood), all with blood. The table drawers were open and the
bakery was in disarray.Aleli informed PO3 Sanchez that her
fathers P20, 000.00, wallet and Seiko watch were missing.

HELD: The trial court erred in appreciating against appellants

the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed:
(a) by a band; (b) with evident premeditation; (c) with deliberate
cruelty; and (d) with treachery.

The trial court held that the crime was committed with
deliberate cruelty considering that the victim suffered 21 hack
and stab-wounds, contusions and abrasions on the different
parts of his body. The number of wounds is not the criterion for
the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance.
The mere fact that wounds in excess of what is necessary to
cause death were inflicted upon the body of the victim does not
necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty.It
is necessary to show that the accused intentionally and
deliberately increased the victim's suffering. In this case, there
is no evidence showing appellants intent to commit such
cruelty.