ART. 14: AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
/ W/N
1. People v. Daniel (Nov 20 1978 Munoz Palma, J.)
FACTS:
 13-year old Margarita Paleng accused defendant
Amado Daniel of rape.
 Daniel allegedly forced and intimidated Paleng with a sharp
instrument to have carnal knowledge of her against her will and in her
own bedroom.
 The commission of the crime is aggravated by the fact that it
was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, the latter
not having given provocation for it, it present.
 The CA sentenced Daniel to reclusion perpetua or death under RA
4111 (since he used a deadly weapon) and referred the case to the
SC for further proceedings.
o Paleng was temporarily boarding at a house in Baguio City
and was then a first year HS student at the Baguio Eastern
HS.
o On Sept 20, 1965 Paleng had just arrived by bus in Baguio
City. Since it was raining, she decided to wait inside the bus.
While waiting, Daniel came and started molesting her by
inquiring her name and getting hold of her bag, which she
didn’t allow. She called for the bus driver and the conductor,
but it seemed that they were also afraid of Daniel.
o Paleng left the bus and went to ride a jeep. Daniel followed
her and rode in the jeep beside her.
o When Paleng alighted the jeep Daniel followed her and again
tried to carry her bag. He kept following her even if she
refused to let him carry her bag.
o Upon reaching the boarding house, Daniel dashed inside with
Paleng. He pulled a dagger and threatened her. He forced
her to lie down on the bed and placed a handkerchief on her
mouth. Paleng was quite small and was unable to extricate
herself from Daniel since he was bigger than her.
o Daniel forcibly inserted his organ into her. Paleng lost
consciousness and when she woke up Daniel was gone.
o The following morning when her father visited her, Paleng
confided in him what happened. He brought her to the
hospital where she was examined, and then went to the
police station.
o Dr. Micu of the City Medico-Legal Office concluded that
“defloration was recent” and that the contusions at the base of
the hymen indicated that force was exerted to effect the
sexual act.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists in the crime.
Daniel is guilty of the crime.
HELD: YES.
 Daniel contends that he had known Paleng prior to the incident and
that he had promised to marry her. This is preposterous, as Paleng
would have been only 12 at the time and would not have been able to
marry.
 Daniel also contends that Paleng failed to seek help when she saw
him following her. This is untenable. This contention presupposes
that Paleng was aware that he intended to rape her, nor did she
suspect that he was following her when they went to the jeep. Paleng
could not have shouted in the middle of the street when Daniel was
not doing anything against her. When they reached the boarding
house there was no one else around and when she went to her room
that was when Daniel barged in. Paleng was taken by surprise.
 Daniel contends that Paleng did not resist his acts. The fact that
Daniel is much larger and stronger than her illustrates that she was
not strong enough to overpower him. In a crime of rape, force need
not be irresistible; "it need but be present, and so long as it brings
about the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or
less irresistible, is beside the point.
 Rape is likewise committed when intimidation is used on the victim
and the latter submits herself against her will because of fear for her
life and personal safety.
 Daniel also contends that when he took the lie detector test with the
NBI, when he was asked if he forced Paleng to have sex with him he
was not lying when he said “No”. The Court does not put much faith
in lie detector tests as it is not conclusive. The subject had nothing
more to fear because the trial was over. He was not confronted by the
victim or other persons whom he had a reason to fear. Naturally, his
reaction to the questions propounded was normal and unaffected and
the apparatus could not detect it.
o Although Paleng was a boarder, her room constituted a
“dwelling” as the term is used in Art. 14(3) of the RPC.
o It is not necessary, under the law, that the victim owns the
place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or
a bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which the
law seeks to protect and uphold.
2. US v. Manalinde (Aug 28 1909 Torres, J.)
FACTS:
 Spaniard Juan Igual was wounded on the head by a kris (dagger)
while he was seated on a chair in the doorway of Sousa’s store. The
aggressor was the Moro Manalinde.
 Manalinde also approached a Chinaman named Choa and just as he
was about to enter the store Manalinde attacked him, inflicting a
wound on his left shoulder.
 Manalinde escaped by running away from the town.
 Choa died within an hour; Igual’s fate was not stated on the record.
 The incident was murder; Choa’s death was consummated with
deceit and treachery.
 When Manalinde was arrested he confessed to the crime. His wife
had died 100 days before and that by the order of Datu Rajamudah
Mupuck he went juramentado was directed to kill somebody because
Mupuck wanted to avenge a lieutenant and a sergeant and said that if
Manalinde succeeded he would give him a pretty woman in return.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists in the case.
HELD: YES.
 The aggravating circumstances present are that:
1. There is a promise of reward present. It is generic in nature
since the crime has already been qualified as committed with the
treachery, because the accused confessed that he voluntarily
obeyed the order given him by Datto Mupuck to
go juramentado and kill someone with the reward of a pretty
woman.
2. There is also premeditation. Upon accepting the order,
Manalinde thoughtfully meditated about the nature and
consequences of the acts, provided himself with a weapon,
started on a journey of day and night for the purpose of taking the
lives of 2 persons whom he did not know. The crime is
premeditated because there was a firm and persistent intention of
the accused from the moment he executed his deeds.
3. People v. Sumaoy (Oct 22 1996 Mendoza, J.)
FACTS:
 Defendant Pacifico Sumaoy was convicted for killing Zandro Vargas
(16 years old). Zandro’s brother Wilbert and Patricio Jacobe, Jr.
identified Sumaoy as the assailant, along with 3 others who remain at
large.
o Jacobe testified that he worked as a pin boy in a billard hall.
On the day of the crime, he left the billiard hall to get some
beer at Pacing’s Carinderia and then went back to the billiard
hall. While on his way back, he saw Zandro and Sumaoy
talking. 3 other men were with them.
o Jacobe, after piling some billiard balls, sat on the sidewalk but
was startled by a gunshot. He saw Zandro running with his
arm bleeding. He tried to seek refuge in a beuty parlor but
was overtaken by Sumaoy and the 3 men. They boarded a
tricycle and Jacobe allegedly heard one of the men say that
they were taking Zandro to the hospital. Later Jacobe found
out that Zandro was found dead in a kangkong field.
 Wilbert’s testimony:
o While he was walking with a friend he was told that Zandro
was being beaten up in a carindera. Wilbert went there and
saw Sumaoy pointing a gun at Zandro as the latter was
running away. Sumaoy shot Zandro, hitting him on the
forearm. Zandro fell on the ground and was dragged by the 4
men and loaded into a tricycle.
o Wilbert tried to help his brother but Sumaoy pointed a gun at
him. Wilbert told his parents about the incident. They
searched for Zandro and learned from the driver of the
tricycle that Zandro had been killed and dumped in a
kangkong field.
o Wilbert says that he recognized Sumaoy because he was
assigned to the military detachment where Wilbert used to
work.
 Sumaoy denies the claims, stating that he was on duty the whole day.
He was an enlisted personnel of the Criminal Investigation
Service.
 Medical examination of Zandro’s corpse shows that he was fatally
shot in the head 3 times.
 RTC found Sumaoy guilty of murder qualified by treachery. Sumaoy
short Zandro while he was running away and the 3 bullet wounds on
Zandro’s head showed that he was shot while in a defenseless
position.
 The RTC appreciated the ordinary aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of public position.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists in the case.
HELD: NO.
 Sol Gen points out that the acts of Sumaoy constitute an unbroken
chain of events leading to the killing of Zandro. While there is no
direct evidence of Sumaoy shooting Zandro in the head, the
testimonies prove that no other person could have done it.
o The Court agrees. The circumstantial evidence in this case
establishes Sumaoy’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 Sumaoy cannot be held liable for murder because of the absence of
the evidence of the manner of killing. It cannot be established if there
was treachery.
o The RTC erred in finding the aggravating circumstance of
taking advantage of a public position.
o This circumstance requires that Sumaoy used the
influence/reputation of his position for committing the crime.
 o If he could have committed the crime without occupying his
position, there is no abuse of public position.
o There was no evidence that the killing of Zandro was
facilitated by Sumaoy abusing his public position. It was not
even shown w/n he was wearing his uniform or used his
service firearm.
4. People v. Balansi (Jul 19 1990 Sarmiento, J.)
FACTS:
 Bonifacio Balansi was accused of murdering Elpidio Dalsen with a
Garand rifled. Balansi went inside Dalsen’s house while the latter was
asleep, shot him twice and killed him.
 Balansi was then the Brgty. Capt. of Balinciagao Norte, Pasil,
Kalinga-Apayao. He was also a member of the Civilian Home
Defense Force (CHDF). Dalsen was the Provincial Dev. Officer of
Kalinga-Apayao.
 The incident took place during a wedding celebration.
 Dalsen was Balansi’s nephew. Dalsen was sleeping in his parents’
house where the wedding was taking place.
o Beatrice Canao saw Balansi, her uncle, standing at the door
of the house with a gun. She asked him what he was doing
there and he said he was waiting for Dalsen. She heard two
gunshots with an interval of 2-3 secs. She met Balansi at the
steps leading to the second floor, with a rifle.
o Yulo Asbok, a CHDF member, also heard 2 gunshots. He was
3 meters away from the house. He allegedly grappled with
Balansi with the rifle which he claimed was still warm and
smelled of gunpowder. He got the gun and Balansi fled.
o Rosalina Dalsen, the victim’s wife, was also at the wedding
when she heard the gunshots. She also saw Balansi standing
at the house’s entrance.
o Dr. Nicolas Balais, a dentist, was also at the wedding. He
thought that the shots signaled a burglary. He went up the
house and saw Dalsen lying in his room. He thought Dalsen
was only sleeping but he was dead.
o Simeon Valera, principal of Pasil Central School, and Artemio
Dalsen, the victim’s brother, testified as to the motive of
Balansi. Valera claims that it was revenge and was a tradition
among Kalingas. Artemio claims that Balansi had a grudge
against Dalsen whom he accused of delaying the construction
of a bridge in Balinciagao.
 Balansi contends that he was also at the wedding but when he heard
the gun shots Yulo Asbok prevented him from entering the house and
grabbed him firearm. He did not know Dalsen had been shot. He
admitted that he fled because he had been implicated. 4 days later he
surrendered to the police.
 The RTC judge observed that althought there were no eyewitness
who saw Balansi shoot Dalsen, all the circumstances pointed to him
as the perpetrator. The judge did not give weight to the defense of the
accused.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists in the crime.
HELD: YES.
 The circumstantial evidence points to Balansi as the shooter. (1) He
was seen standing by the entrance of the house where the victim had
sojourned, armed with a long rifle, minutes before gunshots were
heard. Three witnesses saw him: Beatrice Canao, Yulo Asbok, and
Rosalina Dalsen. (2) Moments later, two shots rang out, one after the
other. Four witnesses heard them: Canao, Asbok, Dalsen and
Nicolas Balais. (3) Thereafter, Canao saw him descending from the
steps of the house. Asbok also saw him there, whom he wrestled for
the possession of the rifle. (4) He fled and hid for four days.
 Flight is a silent admission of guilt.
 The incident was not murder because there was no treachery. There
was no evidence that Dalsen was still asleep when he was killed.
 It was also not premeditated. In appreciating premeditation, it is
necessary to show: (1) the time when the offender determined to
commit the offense; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit
had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient interval of time
between the determination and execution. The prior determination of
Balansi to kill Dalsen is not proven.
o Although Dalsen was not shot in his own house, the dwelling
place need not be owned by the victim.
o “Dwelling” is considered an aggravating circumstance
because primarily of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to
human abode.
o One’s dwelling place is a “sanctuary worthy of respect” and
that one who slanders another in the latter’s house is more
guilty than if he who offends him elsewhere.
o One does not lose his right of privacy if he is offended in
another’s house because as the invited guest, the person is
sheltered and protected by the same intimacy of life it affords.
It is for a brief moment “home” to him.
 The court holds Balansi for homicide aggravated by dwelling.
5. People v. Luchico (Dec 6 1926 Villa-Real, J.)
FACTS:
 Inocencia Salva (13 years old) was in the kitchen of defendant
Teodoro Luchico as his servant. She was preparing a decotion of
senna leaves.
 Luchico declared his love for Inocencia but she said that it cannot be
because she looks upon him as her father. Luchico forcibly kissed her
on the left cheek. Inocencia ran to the parlor and got a penknife.
Luchico snatched the knife away and went to the room where his wife
Catalina de Jesus was.
 Inocencia went downstairs but was pursued by Luchico. She reached
the municipal president’s pharmacy and saw Benito Bugnay and
asked him if she could step in for a moment. Bugnay asked her why
she was tired and she said that Luchico was pursuing her and that
she wanted to go to the municipal building to file a complaint. Bugnay
pointed to the municipal president on the opposite side of the
pharmacy. She then went there, but was met by Luchico.
 While Inocencia was telling the municipal president what happened,
Luchico interrupted and said that he shouldn’t believe her because
she is very young and had typhoid fever. The municipal president
paid no attention to her and merely applied medicine to her wounded
hand.
 Luchico told Inocencia to come with him and if she won’t he would
break her feet.
 Upon passing by a place distant from the houses, he threw her to the
ground under a camachile tree. Luchico covered Inocencia’s mouth
and mounted her. He introduced with difficulty his genital into her.
She attempted to call for help but she couldn’t because he was
covering her mouth.
 After the act, Luchico carried Inocencia in his arms and took her to
Placida Javier’s house. He sent his niece Maria to get a chemise for
her because the one she was wearing had blood. He took her dress
and chemise. He ordered Inocencia to go to his brother Isidro’s house
where she spent the night.
 The following day Inocencia, under the pretext of going to mass, went
to the ex-municipal president Arsenio Roldan’s house to present her
complaint. Roldan sent her to the house of Lt. Selga. Selga
accompanied her to Luchico’s house where she got the blood-stained
dress and torn chemist from underneath the aparador.
 Dr. Emiliano Panis examined her. Her hymen was not present and
there was an inflammation due to a hard body out of proportion with
her vaginal cavity introduced and traumatized the cavity.
 The physical exam leaves no doubt that Inocencia had been raped.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists in the crime.
HELD: NO.
 The crime was committed within the period of 2 hours, 5 pm to 7 pm,
without interruption. In order that the aggravating circumstance of
nocturnity may be taken into consideration, it is necessary that the
same be sought and that it be taken advantage of, which does not
appear to be clearly proven in the present case.
 In order to take into consideration the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of confidence, it is essential that the confidence be a means
of facilitating the commission of a crime, the culprit taking advantage
of the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said
confidence.
o When Luchico raped Inocencia she had already lost
confidence in him when he made an indecent proposal to her
and kissed her, which compelled her to arm herself with a
penknife.
o It cannot be said that the fact of the accused being the
offended party's master facilitated rape.
6. People v. Lee (Dec 20 1991 Davide, Jr., J.)
FACTS:
 Ruben Lee, Quirino Viray, and Juan Larosa were charged with
Robbery in Band with Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries.
 The accused, conspiring with deceased Geronimo Gerdad, pretended
to be passengers of a jeepney and at nighttime held-up and pointed
their weapons, guns, and knives at the driver and passengers and
took their belongings.
 The accused also took possession of the steering wheel of the
jeepney and drove it away, firing shots at the crew of a mobile patrol
car that was chasing them. The shots hit hold-up victims Leopoldo
Espellego (died), Gina Salvador (on back, injured), Wong Ngaw and
Perpetuo Aquino (injured).
o The jeepney was driven by Bernabe Poyuaon and was on its
was from Rizal Ave. to Baclaran. While on Taft Ave. Ruben
Lee, seated need the jeepney’s entrance, drew out a gun and
announced a hold-up. Quirino Viray drew a knife. Geronimo
Gerdad drew out a gun and pointed it at the driver.
o Lee ordered the passengers to hand over their belongings.
o The jeepney was noticed by the crew of Police Mobile Patrol
Car 221 because it was on a one-way street. Lee ordered
Bernabe to talk to the policemen to tell them they entered the
street by accident.
o While Bernabe was talking to the policemen, Lee got on the
driver’s seat and drove off. The police car followed and
 started shooting at the jeepney. When the jeep stopped, the
accused started shooting at the policemen.
ISSUE: W/N and aggravating circumstance exists in the crime,
HELD: YES.
 The RTC correctly appreciated the generic aggravating
circumstances of band and craft.
o A crime is committed by a band whenever more than 3 armed
malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense. In the case at bar, commission by a band was
properly appreciated as it has been shown that when the
holdup was staged, Ruben Lee, Quirino Viray, Geronimo
Gerdad (deceased), and accused Larosa were all armed with
guns and knives.
o Craft is likewise present herein since the accused and his
cohorts pretended to be passengers of the jeep in order not to
arouse suspicion. However, once inside the jeep, they robbed
the driver and the other passengers.
o As for nighttime, there is no proof that they waited for night to
come to commit the crime. There was light emanating from
the jeep.
7. People v. Aspili (Nov 21 1990, Gutierrez, Jr., J.)
FACTS:
 The M/L Elsa left Puerto Princesa for Dumaran, Palawan. 17 persons
were on board the vessel and some cargoes consisting of liquor
(tanduay, beer, coke, etc.)
 The shio left at 3 am but was forced to seek shelter ar Balon, Sta.
Lucia because of big waves and strong winds.
 While docked, 2 persons went aboard the vessel. They were Pacifico
Rebutido and Rodolfo Aspili. After they were handed the liquor, they
left. It was later established that these two, along with 4 others
(Ernesto Magbanua, Rodolfo Sales, Roberto Aguirre, and Eduardo
Mendoza) were convicts and had been drinking liquor since morning
and even hatched a plan to escape from the penal colony they were
in using the M/L Elsa. They buying of the tanduay was to show that
they were innocent, peaceful, and unarmed.
 Between 7-8 pm, the 6 accused boarded the vessel bringing with
them chicken and dried fish. They were already armed. Upon
boarding, they placed themselves is strategic positions.
 While Pepito Severino was handing tanduay to Magbanua, the latter
trust his bolo into the former’s abdomen and pointed a pistol at him
and shouted “walang kikilos”. Severino jumped into the sea. Catalino
Nadayao also jumped overboard after dodging a stab by Rodolfo
Sales. Other passengers also jumped overboard.
 Only 5 persons did not jump overboard.
o Josie Gonzales (13) was prevented from jumping by
Magbanua. Magbanua dragged her over to the cargoes
where he raped her. Afterwards, Sales raped her while
Magbanua held a gun to her head. Afterwards, Rebutido
raped her.
o Narcisa Batayola (15) attempted to jump but Magbanua also
prevented her by dragging her dress. She saw the accused
ransacking the cargo and taking the contents. Aguirre then
with a pistol held her shoulders down and Mendoza her legs
down. Aguirre raped her, and then Mendoza raped her. Aspili
then took her toward a sawali and raped her. She could no
longer resist because she was too exhausted and weak.
 Afterwards, the 6 accused boarded a banca. Josie and Narcisa,
together with the children, jumped into the water and swan to the
bakawan to hide. They were rescued by the Baracuda launch. Daisy
Gonzales (15) and Yolanda Arque (9) were found dead. They died
from drowning.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists in the crime.
HELD: YES. 4 exist.
 What was committed was the special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide Aggravated by Rape
 The overwhelming evidence reveals that the original design of the
malefactors was to commit robbery in order to facilitate their escape
from the penal colony. Their original intent did not comprehend the
commission of rape. Hence, the crime of rape cannot be regarded as
the principal offense. Rape is deemed to aggravate the crime.
 The accused are also liable for the deaths of Daisy and Yolanda
because it is immaterial that the death of a person supervened by
mere accident, provided that the homicide is produced by reason or
on occasion of the robbery.
 All of the appellants are also recidivists.
o They were serving sentence at the Sta. Lucia Penal Colony
by virtue of a final judgment of conviction when they
committed the offense.
o Sale and Aguirre were convicted of robbery in band. The rest
were convicted of frustrated homicide, serious physical
injuries, theft, and murder and trespass to dwelling.
 The crime was also committed in band.
 There was also abuse of superior strength since most of the
victims were women and children 2-9 years old.
 However, craft and nocturnity should not be appreciated.
o There was no showing that the appellants purposely sought
the cover of night when they committed the crime.
 o Neither did the appellants employ craft, since they had
already boarded the vessel when they pretended to buy
Tanduay Rum in exchange for the dried fish and chicken they
were carrying. Even without such pretense, they could
nonetheless have carried out their unlawful scheme.
8. People v. Barrios (Jul 30 1979 Fernandez, J.)
FACTS:
 Renato Barrios and Rico Nazario were accused of Robbery with
Homicide.
 Victim Teodoro Castillo was a taxi driver. The accused took his
earnings and killed him by stabbing him with a balisong.
 The accused were with one Arthur who is still at large.
 Nazario invited Barrios to stage a hold-up. He sat in front while
Barrios and Arthur sat in the back. Barrios poked the driver with the
balisong. They pulled the driver to the rear seat where they frisked
him but he shouted for help. Barrios immediately stabbed the driver 3
times. The accused fled.
 Barrios contends that his statement was forcibly taken.
o It is a settled rule that where the statement of the accused
mentions details which only the declarant could have
furnished and could not have been concocted by the
investigator, the confession is considered to have been
voluntarily given.
o Moreover, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
presumption is that the police officers who investigated the
accused performed their official duties regularly.
 The RTC appreciated the aggravating circumstances of craft and
abuse of superior strength.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists in the crime.
HELD: NO.
 Craft is a circumstance characterized by trickery or cunning resorted
to by the accused to carry out his design. NOT PRESENT.
o There is no evidence that the two accused pretended to be
passengers. In fact, it is not clear how the taxicab was
stopped.
o When Generoso Quimpo saw the taxi from his house, it was
already at a standstill and only 2 men were struggling in the
back seat.
 Superior strength is also ruled out.
o Only one man was struggling with the taxi driver at the rear
seat of the taxicab and the witness saw only one man coming
out of the rear of the taxicab and running towards the
opposite direction going to Estrada Street.
 An aggravating circumstance should be proven as fully as the crime
itself in order to aggravate the penalty.
 The RTC erred in imposing the death penalty since there are no
aggravating circumstances.
9. People v. Januario dela Cruz (Oct 5 1990 Sarmiento, J.)
FACTS:
 Reynaldo Pascasio, a tricycle driver, was on his trike parked in front
of the Big Foot Bar. Accused Januario dela Cruz, who crossed the
road, approached Reynaldo and said “Come here, we shall throw
something”.
 Reynaldo went with dela Cruz to the gate of the Guerrero Compoung
where dela Cruz’ companions were.
 Then, 3 males and dela Cruz boarded the trike. Of his 4 passengers,
Reynaldo only knew dela Cruz.
 While otw to San Narciso, Reynaldo heard someone shout “aray” and
blood spurted from the sidecar to his forearm and the steering bar of
the motorcycle. Reynaldo stopped the trikeand saw one of the
passengers in the sidecar bloodied. The 2 passengers mauled the
bloodied passenger and threw him by the roadside.
 Afterwards, dela Cruz told Reynaldo to bring them to his house. At
the house, the other 2 passengers washed away the blood from the
steering bar and inside the sidecar. While the trike was being washed
by dela Cruz, the other two went inside the house to treat one of
them’s wound.
 Dela Cruz paid Reynaldo 7php and he went home. Because he was
afraid, he didn’t report it to the police. However, 5 days later he was
arrested. He learned from the father of the slain man that his name
was Jerry Pamoleras.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists in the case.
HELD: YES.
 The Court cannot appreciate the AC of premeditation.
o In evident premeditation, the time intervening between the
plan to slay the victim and the actual slaying must be shown.
 The use of motor vehicle is appreciated since the accused had
deliberately availed themselves of a trike to consummate their act
and to use as a cover to facilitate it.
10. People/US v. Baluyot (Nov 6 1919 Street, J.)
FACTS:
 Jose Baluyot was convicted for the muder of Conrado Lerma, the
Governor of Bataan, and was sentenced to death.
 Baluyot was a competitor of Lerma in the June 1916 general
elections. Baluyot came 3rd in the race.
 A personal rancor developed in Baluyot’s mind against Lerma, and
during the 2 years that followed he became imbued with the idea that
Lerma was persecuting him.
 In 1918 Baluyot was prosecuted for estafa in connection with a loan
of money which had been negotiated at the PhiIippine National Bank.
 Baluyot was appointed as Captain of the National Guard, but
because of the pedency of his estafa case he was asked to resign.
However, he did not resign but was temporarily relieved from duty.
 These misfortunes were attributed by Baluyot to Lerma.
 On the day of the crime, Baluyot went to Bataan with a revolver. He
inquired for Lerma at the recorder’s office in the provincial building.
He was told Lerma had not arrived, but was expected to arrive later.
Baluyot waited for him.
 When Lerma arrived, he greeted Baluyot by shaking his hand. He
invited Baluyot into his office. However, another called Antonio
Aranjuez was already there and Baluyot momentarily stepped out of
the office.
 When Aranjuez came out, Baluyot re-entered. Baluyot approached
Lerma who was behind his desk and inquired about Lerma’s revolver.
Baluyot told him to be prepared because one of them must die.
 According to Baluyot, he saw guard Paulo Venegas enter Lerma’s
office with an unloaded revolver. Venegas carried it away from the
office because he was going to get it cleaned. The conversation
abovementioned was Baluyot reassuring if Lerma was indeed
unarmed. Upon discovering that he was, Baluyot shot him. Baluyot
knew that Lerma was unarmed and defenseless.
 The first shot hit Lerma on the right shoulder. He stood up, but his
exit was obstructed by a small book on his right. He instead went left
towards a passageway in the wall. Baluyot advanced on Lerma.
 Baluyot again fired another shot and struck Lerma on the right
shoulder blade. Lerma continued to flee along the corridor and took
refuge ins a closet at the end of the corridor. He then began to call
aloud for help. Baluyot fired and the shot passed thru the door of the
closet and struck Lerma on the head near the the right temple. If
passed downwards and came thru the left eye, loosening the eyeball
in its socket.
 Baluyot opened the closet, and Lerma’s body fell forward.
 Baluyot called thru a window to a squad of Constabulary and
surrendered to them.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists.
HELD: YES. 3 exist.
 Alevosia or treachery was present.
o Access to Lerma’s office was gained by Baluyot upon the
pretext that he desired a friendly interview.
o Being seated in a reclining chair, and hemmed in by
obstacles which prevented him from reaching- his assailant, it
is plain that the unarmed governor could make no effectual
defense against a person armed with such a deadly weapon
as a revolver.
o It is obvious also that the means and methods thus
deliberately selected by the assailant were intended to insure
the execution of the crime without any risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party could make.
o The entire assault from the beginning must be considered
continuous. The presence of treachery in the 3rd shot is too
obvious to doubt. It was impossible for Lerma to see
Baluyot while he was in the closet. It was as if the victim
had been bound or blindfolded, or had been
treacherously attacked from behind in a path obscured
by the darkness of night.
 The generic AC of the offense being committed in place where
public authority was engaged in discharge of duty is also present.
 There was also premeditation.
o It was testified by Pedro Magajes, Baluyot’s friend, that
Baluyot had ill-feelings against Lerma and said that Lerma will
pay for the misfortunes befalling him.
o Baluyot also remarked to Domingo Lintag while they shook
hands prior to the crime that “maybe this will be the last time
we will shake hands”. This shows that Baluyot had
contemplated the grave consequences of the crime he will
commit.
o On the morning of the crime, Baluyot asked more than one
person if they thought he was in Bilibid, intimating this false
rumor was circulated by Lerma. This shows clearly that the
mind of the accused was fixed upon Lerma as the supposed
author of his wrongs.
o There was also no explanation for his trip to Balanga, and the
conclusion is that he went there to exact vengeance.
o The conduct of the accused in the next day or two succeeding
the commission of the crime was that of a person stimulated
by a feeling of gratification over the successful
accomplishment of a fixed purpose, not the conduct of one
effected by grief over the fatal results of a sudden and
unexpected altercation. He didn’t exhibit regret.
 In order to constitute the element of known premeditation in the
crime of murder it is not necessary that the slayer should have
 prefigured in his mind all of the details of the crime or determined
upon the exact moment when he should carry his purpose into effect.
It is enough that the determination to take life should have been
formed for a period sufficiently long to allow the actor time to reflect
coolly upon the character and the consequences of the act, the
accomplishment of the crime being left to some suitable opportunity
such as chance or design may present.
11. People v. Sangalang (Aug 30 1974 Aquino, J.)
FACTS:
 Victim Ricardo Cortez (25) was gathering tuba from a coconut tree.
His wife Flora Sarno was in their nipa hut. While Cortez was on top of
a tree, he was struck by a volley of shots. He fell to the ground.
 Flora heard the 3 shots and saw 5 men armed with a long firearm
firing at her husband. She recognized defendant Larureano
Sangalang (56) as one of the 5 men. She and her brother Ricardo
has known Sangalang since childhood.
 She also recognized Conrado Gonzales, Irineo Canuel, Perino
Canuel and Eleuterio Cuyom as the other malefactors.
 She ran towards the scene and asked why the men shot her
husband. The 5 men shot at her but she retreated to the hut for
cover. She heard some more shots. After the men left, she returned
to her husband who was already dead.
 Flora’s brother Ricardo was in his own nipa hut. He heard the shots
and saw Cortez being shot by the 5 men. He saw Sangalang using a
Garand carbine. He wanted to join his sister but he too was fired
upon by the 5 men.
 Cortez sustained 23 gunshot wounds and died due to the multiple
wounds.
 Flora stated to the police that she knew the malefactors used to pass
by her place from time to time. Sangalang was the only one
apprehended.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists.
HELD: YES.
 Treachery/alevosia exists.
 The victim was unarmed and defenseless. He was not expecting
to be assaulted. He did not give any immediate provocation.
 The deliberate, surprise attack shows that Sangalang and his
companions employed a mode of execution which insured the
killing without any risk to them arising from any defense which the
victim could have made.
 The killing is murder.
 Treachery absorbs the aggravating circumstance of band.
12. People v. Saylan (Jun 29 1984 Abad Santos, J.)
FACTS:
 Rafael Saylan was accused of raping Eutropia Agno.
 Agno was married and was a teacher of the Malinao Elem. School.
 On the day of the crime, Agno went to the marker to buy food for her
family and then went to her mother’s store to fetch her 5-year old
daughter Nilsonita. Otw home, they boarded a jeep wherein Saylan
was one of the passengers.
 Since the road ahead was not passable, they all alighted the jeep.
Saylan walked alongside Agno. He suddenly pulled out a dagger and
pointed it at her, saying “Do not shout, Nang, I will kill you!”
 Saylan wrapped his arm around her neck and pointed the dagger at
her left breast. He dragged her into the distance. When they reached
the junction of the trail for men, he ordered all the other passengers
to stop and stay behind.
 Saylan dragged Eutropia towards a creek near a coconut tree. Saylan
ordered her to remove her panty which she first refused but he
threatened her. Saylan succeeded in having intercourse with her.
 Afterwards, Saylan told her to get up and again raped her. Not
satisfied with the second intercourse, he ordered her to lie down
again and raped her again. Afterwards, he raped her from behind. He
again raped her for the 5th time.
 Saylan asked Eutropia is she will tell her husband what happened.
She replied no but only said it so he would let her go.
 When they got back to the children, Saylan carried Nilsonita who was
sleeping ang they all proceeded along.
 Upon reaching her friend Ben’s house, she went upstairs and went to
Ben’s room as she felt very bad. She requested Ben to fetch her
husband. Once her husband was there, she asked him if Saylan was
still there. He was not. She then told her husband what happened
and he advised her to seek a medical exam.
 Rudy Gonzales, a pupil of Eutropia, was a witness and was one of
the passengers on the jeep.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists.
HELD: YES. 2
 The RTC disregarded superiority of strength because it is inherent
in every crime of rape and is absorbed by the element of force.
 It also did not consider nocturnity because there was no evidence
that the accused waited until night to commit the crime.
 Desplobado (deserted spot) was present.
 o Saylan dragged Eutropia to a carabao trail to attain his
purpose without interference and to secure himself from
detection and punishment.
 There is also ignominy (shame).
o Saylan not only raped Eutropia in the missionary position, but
also in the same position as dogs do. Since it was not
consensual sex, it is not acceptable.
 There is no reiteracion (recidivism) because even if Saylan was
accused of Robbery in Band, it was after the rape case. Saylan’s
other case, Frustrated Homicide, is lighter than the penalty of rape.
 There is also no disregard of rank.
13. People v. Bartulay (Dec 21 1990 Medialdea, J.)
FACTS:
 Dante Bartulay was accused of the crime Robbery with Homicide.
 He evaded arrest and his co-conspirators were convicted ahead of
him.
 Benjamin Caca, driver of Fortune Tobacco Corp., testified that Mike
Chua, a salesman for Fortune Tobacco, was driving a panel truck
together with Edgardo Aniar and Frank Morante.
 The group had come from delivering cigarettes and collected
payments for previous sales worth 100k.
 Bartulay motioned the truck to stop. When the truck stopped co-
accused Baltazar Beran approached Chua under the pretext of
borrowing a screwdriver. Chua told him to wait as he will park the
truck on the side of the road. At this moment Bartulay and Beran
pulled out their guns and announced a hold-up.
o The malefactors ordered the 4 people to alight the truck.
Bartulay separately led Chua 2 meters away. The 4 men were
ordered to lie down facing the ground. The malefactors took
their watches and wallets. Bartulay asked Chua where the
money was and ordered Beran to get it. Beran demanded the
keys of the truck from Chua. Beran ordered the companions
of Chua to get into the truck.
o After 25 secs of being locked in the truck, Chua’s companions
heard 2 shots. The truck then started to move but they were
able to get out thru a secret exit door.
 Miguel Chua died of a gun shot wound to the head.
 Bartulay took a PAL flight to Manila from Puerto Princesa to evade
arrest.
 Upon trial, Bartulay stated that they only intended to commit a hold-
up and not to kill Chua. He resented that Beran had to kill Chua while
he was getting the money from the truck.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists.
HELD: YES. 1
 Evidence shows that Bartulay and Beran agreed to commit a robbery
2 weeks prior the incident.
 There were no witnesses to the killing of Chua, nor was there
evidence that Bartulay tried to prevent Beran from killing Chua.
 Bartulay tries to exculpate himself from liability by saying that he was
not the one who killed Chua. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all.
 Bartulay’s sudden departure is indicative of guilt. The guilty flee when
no man pursueth but the innocent are as bold as a lion.
 Bartulay and Beran’s use of a motor vehicle aggravated the crime
since the vehicle was used to facilitate their escape from the scene of
the crime.
o Beran drove the truck away while Bartulay followed on a
motorcycle.
14. People v. Tac-an (Feb 26 1990 Feliciano, J.)
FACTS:
 Renato Tac-an was convicted of qualified illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition, and of murder.
 Tac-an (then 18) and the victim Francis Escano III (15) were close
friends and classmates and members of the Bronx Gang. On the 2
occasions that Tac-an went to Francis’ house, Francis’ mother
noticed that he carried a handgun and adviced Francis to distance
himself from Tac-an.
 Francis withdrew from the Bronx Gang. His relationship with Tac-an
grew sour. One time they quarreled and Francis lifted Arnold
Romelde, Tac-an’s friend. Their strained relationship was aggravated
when Francis learned that Tac-an and the other members of the
Bronx Gang wanted to beat him up. Graffiti also appeared on the wall
of their HS classroom and on the armrest of a chair, deprecating the
Bronx Gange and describing Tac-an as “bayot” (gay), which was
attributed to Francis.
o On the day of the crime, Tac-an entered Room 15 of the HS
building to attend his English 3 class. He stood up to ask their
teacher a question but when he got back to his seat Francis
was sitting on it and on his scrapbook.
o Francis explained that he did not intend to sit on the
scrapbook. Their classmates and 2 teachers prevented them
from having a fistfight.
o Afterwards, class resumed. Tac-an slipped out of the
classroom to go to his house to get a gun.
 o During the start of their Math class, Tac-an suddenly burst
into the room, shut the door, held up his revolver, and
shouted “Where is Francis?”
o Upon seeing Francis Tac-an shot at him, hitting a notebook, a
geometry book, and the armrest of classmate Ruel Ungab.
The class rushed towards the teacher’s platform to seek
protection from their teacher.
o Tac-an fired again, this time hitting the blackboard.
o Francis and the class went to the rear of the room, but Tac-an
fired a 3rd time hitting the wall.
o Francis and a couple of classmates ran towards the door but
Tac-an shot for a 4th time, hitting Francis on the head.
o Tac-an left the room and was asked by a teacher who did not
know he was the assailant of Francis was okay. Tac-an
reentered Room 15, and standing over Francis aimed at his
chest and shot him once more.
o Tac-an locked Francis in the room and proceeded down to
the faculty room where he held some teachers and students
hostage. He also reloaded his gun.
o After some time, a team of PH Constabulary troopers arrived
and surrounded the faculty room. Tac-an’s brother offered to
persuade him to give up. His father also pleaded for him to
surrender. Tac-an gave his gun to his brother thru an opening
in the balustrade of the faculty room. Capt. Lazo arrested
Tac-an.
o In the meantime, some teachers and students tried to save
Francis but he was locked in the room. One student entered
the room by climbing up the 2nd floor from the outside. Francis
died before reaching the hospital.
ISSUE: W/N an aggravating circumstance exists.
HELD: YES. 1
 No self-defense.
o Tac-an alleges that Francis taunted him and told him to get
his gun or else he will kill Tac-an’s parents and siblings.
o There was no evidence that this conversation occurred.
o It does not constitute unlawful aggression, since Francis was
unarmed.
 PD 1866 applies.
o Tac-an contends that PD 1866 was only effective during
martial law.
o There is nothing in PD 1866 that supports this contention.
 The special aggravating circumstance of killing Francis with and
unlicensed firearm does not exist. There is not law which renders
the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in
homicide or murder (not punishable by RPC).
 Treachery exists. It is murder.
o Room 15 was on the 2nd floor and had only 1 door.
o At the time of the attack, Francis was sitting and writing on his
armrest while talking to Ruel Ungab. He was unaware of the
impending assault and did not have any means to defend
himself.
o The attack was so sudden and so unexpected. The accused
consciously conceived that mode of attack.
o Tac-an did not give Francis a chance to defend himself.
When Francis was already on the ground, Tac-an shot him
again.
o The deceased was not armed. He was totally defenseless. He
was absolutely not aware of any coming attack.
o Tac-an must have known that Francis had no means of
escape and blocked the door.
 There was no premeditation.
o In order that evident premeditation may be taken into
account, there must be proof of (a) the time when the
offender formed his intent to commit the crime; (b) an action
manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his
determination to commit the crime; and (c) of the passage of
a sufficient interval of time between the determination of the
offender to commit the crime and the actual execution
thereof, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his
act.
o There was no evidence adequately showing when Renato
had formed the intention and determination to take the life of
Francis.
 The RTC found that Tac-an was under the influence of a
dangerous drug (marijuana) when he killed Francis. However, there
was no medical evidence to support this claim.
 Tac-an’s surrender was not voluntary because: (1) he only
surrendered his gun and not himself, (2) he surrendered the gun to
his brother who is not a person of authority, (3) he was arrested by
Capt. Lazo
 No contempt for persons in authority.