PEOPLE VS GAORANA, 289 SCRA 652, April 28, 1998 appreciated even if the victim was warned of the
tim was warned of the danger to
FACTS:
Marivel Fuentes was instructed by Rowena Sanches
(common-law wife of Alberto Gaorana) to go in her house
which she did and saw the couple lying down. Rowena left
them to urinate. Alberto approached Marivel, covered her
mouth and threatened her. Alberto pulled her in a room and
raped her.
After 5 minutes, Rowena came back and saw his Alberto still
on top of Marivel and she was instructed by her husband to
step out of the room.
Marivel was allowed to leave at 5 pm after she was threatened
by Alberto not to tell her parents about the incident. Marivel did
not tell her parents because of fear that Alberto might
materialize his threat.
Second incident happened at around 3 am of March 6, 1991
she and her siblings were sleeping in the sala. She woke up
when Alberto kisses her and because he was holding a knife
Marivel wasn’t able to fight him off.
DEFENSE:
Habitually should not be appreciated against him.
HELD:
It is not appreciated against him because prosecution failed to
present in evidence record of Gaorana’s previous conviction.
Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and reiteracion, necessitates
the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence convicting
an accused. The fact that appellant was an inmate of
DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had been
rendered against him.
PEOPLE VS MARQUEZ, 117 SCRA 165, September 30, 1982
FACTS:
Francisca Marquez was in their house in Catanauan, Quezon
together with her 7 children and maid Rufina Martinez,
somebody called outside that identified themselves as PC
soldiers looking for contraband. She replied that they didn’t
have any but the men demanded to open their house or they’ll
shoot. She opened the window and one man (Renato
Marquez) jumped inside. She was forced to open the door and
Samuel Jacobo and Francisco Forneste entered. They
demanded that she put out their contraband but she told them
they don’t have any, they demanded for money. They took
P300 on the table, P200 inside the aparador, her ring and
earrings and the P820 in her pillow. Samuel Jacobo raped her
and taken upstairs where her children were. Her daughter and
helper were also raped by the accused. Leticia Tan- raped by
Renato Marquez. Rufina Martinez- raped by Francisco
Forneste.
DEFENSE:
They were not positively identified.
HELD
Lower court was correct in appreciating AC by disguise that is
by pretending to be PC officers.
PEOPLE VS ESCOTE, 400 SCRA 603, April 4, 2003
FACTS:
September 28, 1996, past midnight Rodolfo Cacatian drove the
5 star passenger bus from Pasay City. Also on board were
conductor Romundo Digap and other passenger. At
Cammachile, Balintawak, 6 passengers boarded the bus,
including Victor Acuyan and Juan Gonzales Escote Jr. and
another passenger was SPO1 Jose Mario Jr.
Juan and Victor suddenly stood up, whipped out their hand
guns and announced a hold-up. They accosted the passengers
and divested them of their money and valuables. They
demanded Mario to show his ID card which they took including
his service firearm and told him that they will kill him. Even
saying “pasensya ka na pare, papatayin ka naming, baril mo
papatay sa iyo” and after shooting him one of them uttered
“ganyan lng ang pumatay ng tao, parang pumapatay ng
manok”. Victor and Juan alighted from the bus and instructed
Rodulfo to continue driving and not to report the incident along
the way.
They reported the incident in Dau, Mabalacat Pampanga.
Barely a month after, October 25, 1996, Juan was arrested.
DEFENSE:
Treachery should not be appreciated against them as to
aggravate their crime.
HELD:
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the
latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
commission without risk of himself. Treachery may also be
his life where he was defenseless and unable to flee at the
time of the infliction of the coup de grace.
Treachery can not be appreciated against Juan and Victor in
the case at bar because treachery was not alleged in the
Information as mandated by Sec.8, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedures.
Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in the
Information, treachery can not aggravate the penalty of the
crime.
PEOPLE VS OCO, 412 SCRA 190, September 29, 2003
FACTS:
Herminigildo Damuag was driving his motorcycle along
V.Rama Ave. Cebu City, with Alden Abiabi riding at the back.
When they reached the vicinity of Pica Lumber, a white
Tamaraw FX overtook them and blocks their path. Another
motorcycle with 2 riders on it appeared and suddenly fired 2
shots. Abiabi fell from the motorcycle and slumped on the
pavement face down. The FX sped away.
Another motorcycle passed by from behind him. His
motorcycle zigzagged towards the gutter and Damuag hit the
ground. He heard a burst of gunfire and although wounded, he
was able to run but the 3rd motorcycle chased him. Upon
reaching the vicinity of 5 Brothers Restaurant he stopped
because he could not pass anymore, Oco fired 2 more shots at
Damuag.
DEFENSE:
His identification as one of the assailant was incredulous, and
when the crime took place he was inside a chapel. He claims
that the fact that his co-accused used helmets to hide their
identities would make it more logical for to use also a helmet .
HELD:
The fact that Oco’s companions wore helmets does not make
his identification by the eyewitnesses incredulous. Criminals
carry out their criminal designs differently. Some cover their
faces, but others boldly perform their criminal acts in full view
of the public like Oco himself.
PEOPLE VS BAJAR, 414 SCRA 494, October 27, 2003
FACTS:
August 16, 1999, Ana Bajar Rabor visited her parents in
Balingasag, Misamis Oriental. Around 3pm her father
Alejandro arrived home very drunk. Her mother suggested that
Ana sleep in her grandpa Aquilio’s house.
At 8pm, Alejandro arrived at Aquilio’s house demanding for his
wife. Alejandro accused Aquilio of hiding his wife. Aquilio said
that may be his wife was in their house. Alejandro was able to
enter the house and with the bolo he was carrying hacked
Aquilio. Aquilio stood up, embraced Alejandro but the other
continued hacking him. Lolita struck Alejandro with a wood 3
times and the latter fainted. Aquilio drew his last breath.
DEFENSE:
No proof that his intoxication was habitual of intentional.
HELD:
In the absence of clear and positive proof that the accused’s
intoxication was habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit
the crime, it is improper to consider the same as an
aggravating circumstance, and neither can it be considered
mitigating where there is no proof that he was so drunk that his
will-power was impaired of that he could not comprehend the
wrongfulness of his acts. (As Bajar insist, it was but natural for
him to drink liquor during fiesta celebrations.)