People v Silvestre and Atienza - Nov 25, 1930 -Atienza told de la Cruz and his wife to take their
Nov 25, 1930 -Atienza told de la Cruz and his wife to take their furniture out
GR No. L-35748 | Dec 14, 1931
Ponente: Villa-Real
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippine Islands
Defendants-appellants: Romana Silvestre and Martin Atienza
Nature of Case:
Appeal from the conviction for the crime of arson
BRIEF
Romana Silvestre, wife of Domingo Joaquin, cohabitated with
Martin Atienza in 1930. Joaquin filed a sworn complaint for adultery. The
accused were arrested and released on bail. Joaquin withdraw his complaint
because the accused promised to discontinue cohabitation and to leave
barrio Masocol. But the accused continued to cohabit in another barrio.
Silvestre met her son, dela Cruz, followed him home in Masocol
and remained there. Atienza followed them. One night during supper,
Atienza told dela Cruz and his wife that he was going to set their house on
fire. Atienza’s reason was to take revenge on the people of Masocol who
had instigated the charge of adultery against him and Silvestre. When dela
Cruz and his wife left their house to see their barrio lieutenant, there house
was already on fire, along with other 48 houses. Witnesses saw Atienza and
Silvestre leaving dela Cruz’s house.
The trial court convicted Atienza and Silvestre of the crime of arson.
The SC affirmed Atienza’s conviction but reversed Silvestre’s.
DISPOSITIVE
SC affirmed Atienza’s conviction. Silvestre is acquitted with ½ of costs de
oficio.
FACTS
- March 1930 -Romana Silvestre, wife of Domingo Joaquin, cohabitated with
Martin Atienza in barrio Masocol, Paombong, Bulacan
- May 16, 1930 -Joaquin filed a sworn complaint for adultery with the justice of
peace (Exhibit B)
- May 16, 1930 -the accused were arrested
- May 20, 1930 - the accused were released on bail, each giving a bond of 6k;
the defendants asked the municipal president to urge Joaquin to withdraw
his complaint; they promised to discontinue cohabitation and not to live
again in the barrio; Atienza voluntarily signed the promise (Exhibit A);
Joaquin acceded and dismissed his complaint
- adultery case dismissed, bonds were cancelled, with costs against the
complainant
- accused left the barrio and went to live to Santo Nino (same municipality);
they continued to cohabit
- Nov 20, 1930 -Silvestre met her son, Nicolas de la Cruz, and followed him
home to Masocol and remained there
- Atienza followed Silvestre and lived in the home of de la Cruz
because he was going to set fire to their house; Atienza was armed with
pistol
- Atienza wanted to take revenge on the people of Masocol who had
instigated the charge of adultery against him and Silvestre
- de la Cruz and his wife left the house to see the barrio lieutenant but they
already heard cries of "Fire! Fire!"
- Their house was already on fire, along with the other 48 houses
- Witnesses saw Atienza and Silvestre going away from de la Cruz's house
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not Romana Silvestre is an accomplice to the crime of arson
ACTIONS of the COURT
Court of First Instance Bulacan
- The accused were convicted for the crime of arson
- Martin Atienza:
o principal by direct participation
o sentenced to 14 yrs, 8 mos, and 1 day of cadena temporal (par 2, art 550,
Penal Code)
o cadena temporal - in chains at hard and painful labor
- Romana Silvestre:
o accomplice (listened to Atienza's threat w/o protest, did not give alarm
when Atienza set fire)
o sentenced to 6 yrs and 1 day presidio mayor (par 2, art 550, Penal Code)
o presidio mayor- short-term imprisonment
Supreme Court
- Martin Atienza:
o he who desiring to burn the houses in a barrio, without knowing whether
there are people in them or not, sets fire to one known to be vacant at the
time, which results in destroying the rest, commits the crime of arson,
defined and penalized in article 550, paragraph 2, Penal Code
- Romana Silvestre:
o mere passive presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence and
failure to give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do
not constitute the cooperation required by article 14 of the Penal Code for
complicity in the commission of the crime witnessed passively, or with
regard to which one has kept silent
SUPREME COURT RULING
The judgment appealed from is modified as follows: It is affirmed with
reference to the accused-appellant Martin Atienza, and reversed with
reference to the accused-appellant Romana Silvestre, who is hereby
acquitted with
one-half of the costs de oficio.
CONCUR: Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez,
and Imperial, JJ.
1
ACTS and OMISSION
People v Talingdan
GR No. L-32126 | July 6, 1978
Ponente: per curiam
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Nemesio Talingdan, Magella Tobias, Augusto Berras, Pedro
Bides, Teresa Domogma
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of murder, and the sentence of life imprisonment
BRIEF
Teresa Domogma and Bernardo Bagabag’s relationship has been beset by
troubles- Teresa even leaving the family home for a number of times. She
had also been twice visited by Talingdan in her own home, each time she
made her daughter, Corazon, leave them. Bernardo then found out that
Teresa was seen with Talingdan during the last time she left home.
Bernardo and Teresa got into a fight, with Bernardo slapping her, after which
Talingdan went to their house and called for Bernardo to come out.
Sometime later, Corazon saw her mother talking with Talingdan and their co-
appellants. A few days later, Bernardo was gunned down.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that Talingdan, Tobias, Berras, and Bides were guilty of
murder, with aggravating circumstances of premeditation and committing the
offense in the house of the victim, and Teresa Domogma as guilty for being
an accessory to the crime.
FACTS
- Bernardo found out that the last time Teresa left their house for three weeks,
she was spotted with Talingdan. They argued, ending with him slapping her
and saying that if she gets pregnant, the child would not be his
- Talingdan went to their house and called out Bernardo, Bernardo refused to
see him as the former was armed
- The following Friday morning as Corazon saw her mother with the co-
appellants, she approached them; when Teresa saw her, she said “You tell
your father that we will kill him”
- On the evening of June 24, 1967 Corazon saw her mother go to the yard
where the appellants were waiting, she noted that they had long guns.
- After being called to eat, Teresa went to her room, and Bernardo kept working
on a plow.
- Corazon told her father about the men downstairs, but he didn’t mind her, he
then went to the kitchen and sat by the door. He was shot from below the stairs
- The appellants went inside and seeing that Bernardo was still alive, fired at him
again
- When Corazon tried to call for help, Bides told her “You call for help, and I will
kill you”. They fled
- Corazon told Teresa that she recognized the killers, Teresa told her not to tell
anyone, threatening to kill her if she did so
- Corazon somehow was able to tell her relatives and executed a sworn
statement on August 5, 1967
- On the other hand, Teresa said that her husband’s relatives had simply forced
the child to say these as they hold a grudge against her because Bernardo
would not give them their earnings, nor would Teresa give them the tools her
brother sent her from the States
- Teresa also said that she only knew Talingdan because they were neighbors.
Alibis
- Talingdan: was in a cursillo in Bangued that time
- Tobias,etc: was in Mrs. Bayongan’s house, sleeping
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellants are guilty of Bernardo’s murder
ACTIONS of the COURT
Abra Court of First Instance
- Convicted the appellants, except for Teresa, of murder with the sentence of life
imprisonment and indemnity of Php12,000
- Teresa could not be charged of parricide because of lack of proof
Supreme Court
- The court fully believes Corazon’s testimony
- The accepts her declaration of her mother’s relationship with Talingdan as
truthful
- The court doubts her statement that her mother told her “You tell your father
we will kill him”
o If this was true, she would have told him
- The court concludes that the appellants committed murder in conspiracy with
each other, with premeditation and in the dwelling of the offended party. 1
On Corazon’s reliability
- Appellants insist that there were contradictions in Corazon’s statement (in
italics.); Sol Gen rebutted these and stated that these cannot alter the veracity
of her witnessing the act itself:
o That Corazon said that her father appeared unconcerned
 Witness does not know her father’s mentality
o That she declared that the accused were conversing in a lighted place
that night
 This only proves that the accused were too engrossed in their
conversation, unmindful of the risk of recognition
o That Bides and Berras did not fire their guns
 This does not alter their culpability
o That only three bullets found their mark
 This simply proves that not all the accused were good shots
o That her father was still able to walk despite the doctor’s declaration that
the death was instantaneous
 Doctor’s view can yield to Corazon’s statements
1
Aggravating circumstances: see RPC Article 14
2
 - At her age (13), Corazon could not have simply created such a story
o She was also consistent and firm with her testimony and her answers
o Court rejects that it was fabrication or that she was brainwashed
On alibis
- Talingdan: was in a cursillo in Bangued that time
o He claimed the cursillo was on June 23-26, 1967
o A municipal Judge and member of the cursillo movement, as witness, said
that the cursillo was on October 20-23 1966
o Judge’s testimony belies Talingdan’s
- ACT: the act of killing Bernardo
- PREMEDITATION: when the appellants were conspiring with each other to kill
Bernardo as shown by their frequent meetings before the act
- AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
o Art. 14, par. 3: …or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation Art. 14, par. 13: That the act
be committed with evident premeditation

- Tobias,etc: was in Mrs. Bayongan’s house, sleeping

o They were sleeping at 8:00pm, the crime happened between 6-6:30pm
o The house was only 250m away, they could have simply returned
after killing Bernardo

On Teresa’s participation
- There is morally convincing proof that she is an accessory
- She enjoined her daughter from revealing the latter knew who the killers were;
even threatening to kill the child if she tells anyone
- When the peace officers were investigating, she did not help them with the
information given by Corazon
- These constitute “concealing and assisting in the escape of the principal
in the crime”2

SUPREME COURT RULING

The court found the appellants Talingdan, Tobias, Berras and Bides guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder with two aggravating circumstances, without
mitigating circumstance, thereby each sentenced to death to be executed in
accordance to law.
Teresa Domogma is found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
accessory to the murder, sentenced to 5 years in correctional prison as minimum,
8 years of prison mayor as maximum
Judgment of the Trial court is AFFIRMED.

CONCUR: Barredo, Munoz-Palma, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez,

Guerrero

NOTES:
- OMISSION: Teresa not giving information regarding the crime
o Art. 19, par. 3 (Accessories): by harbouring, concealing or assisting in
the escape of the principal of the crime.

2
RPC Article 19, par.3

3
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC INTENT
People v Puno
GR No. 97471 | Feb 17, 1993
Ponente: Regalado
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: ISABELO PUNO y GUEVARRA, alias "Beloy," and ENRIQUE
AMURAO y PUNO, alias "Enry"
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of kidnapping for ransom and highway robbery
BRIEF
Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento was fetched by Isabelo Puno,
her husband’s driver, from her bakeshop because her own driver had an
emergency. When they turned right in a corner of Araneta Ave., Enrique
Amurao boarded in the car. Puno announced that he wants to get money
from Mrs. Sarmiento and Amurao threatened her at gun point. She gave
them her bag with 7k, but the two wanted 100k more. The car sped off north
towards the North superhighway. Puno asked her to issue a check and Mrs.
Sarmiento complied.
As they were approaching towards Pampanga, Mrs. Sarmiento
jumped out of the car, injured herself, crossed on the other side, and flagged
down a fish vendor’s van. Upon reaching Balintawak, she reported the
matter to CAPCOM.
DISPOSITIVE
Judgement of RTC is set aside. The Court ruled that the accused-appellants
are guilty of simple robbery.
FACTS
- Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento owns a bakeshop in Araneta Ave., Q.C.
Her husband was away in Davao during this prosecution.
- Each of them has a personal driver: 1) accused Isabelo Puno for her husband,
2) Fred for Mrs. Sarmiento
- Jan 13, 1988, 5pm - Puno arrived at the bakeshop. He told Mrs. Socorro that
Fred had an emergency, so Puno will temporary take his place
- Mrs. Sarmiento got into the Benz of her husband with Puno as the driver. Puno
stopped the car when they turned right in a corner of Araneta Ave. A young
man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded in the car beside Puno. Puno
introduced Amurao as his nephew.
- Enrique poke a gun to Mrs. Sarmiento and Puno announced that he wants to
get money from her. She gave them her bag with 7k, but the two wanted 100k
more.
- The car sped off north towards the North superhighway. Puno asked her to
issue a check. She drafted 3 checks in denominations of two for P30 thousand
and one for P40 thousand.
- Enrique ordered her to swallow a pill but she refused.
- As they were approaching towards Pampanga, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped out of
the car, injured herself, crossed on the other side, and flagged down a fish
vendor’s van.
- Uponn reaching Balintawak, she reported the matter to CAPCOM.
- The two accused were arrested the next day. Enrique was arrested trying to
encash Mrs. Sarmiento’s P40,000.00 check at PCI Bank, Makati.
Alibis/Dispute/Additional facts
- Puno:
o he freely allowed Mrs. Sarmiento to step out of the car and to get a ride
o they brought the Benz to Pampanga and parked it near a brgy or police
outpost
o then they ate at a restaurant and divided their loot
o he needed the money for the medication of his ulcer
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellants committed the felony of kidnapping for ransom,
as charged in the information; or a violation of PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and
Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974), as contended by the Sol. Gen. and RTC;
or the offense of simple robbery, as claimed by the defense.
ACTIONS of the COURT
QC Regional Trial Court
- The court agrees that the crime is robbery. But the victim was carried away
and extorted for more money.
- The crimes committed is that punishable under P.D. 532 under which where
robbery on the highway is accompanied by extortion the penalty is reclusion
perpetua.
- Sol. Gen. concurs
Supreme Court
On Kidnapping for Ransom
- The motive of the accused has been held to be relevant or essential to
determine the specific nature of the crime
o there is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive, other
than the extortion of money from her under the compulsion of threats or
intimidation
o Puno candidly laid the blame for his predicament on his need for funds;
but this actual intent needs an indubitable proof
- Proof: Puno freely allowed Mrs. Sarmiento to get out of the car after they
received their checks. Though she signed the checks at Sto. Domingo exit,
they did not allow her to stay there because they promise to take her home at
Valle Verde, Pasig. However, they realised that they might be apprehended by
the police when they reach Balintawak. So they just let her go along Sta. Rita
Exit.
o incidental deprivation of victim’s liberty does not constitute kidnapping or
illegal detention
o also, it can hardly be assumed that when complainant readily gave the
cash and checks demanded from her at gun point, what she gave under
4
 the circumstances of this case can be equated with or was in the
concept of ransom in the law of kidnapping
o Ransom - a payment that releases from captivity

On Highway Robbery (PD No. 532)

- Rejects the theory of RTC that the crime constitutes the highway robbery (PD
No. 532)
o highway robbery/brigandage are only acts of robbery by outlaws
indiscriminately against any person or persons on Philippine highways
o these are not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or
particular victim
o also, this case is not a highway robbery just because it was committed
on a highway

On Simple Robbery
- Holds that the offense committed by appellants is simple robbery defined in Art
293 and punished under Par 5 of Art 294 of the RPC with prision correccional
in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period
o Appellants have indisputably acted in conspiracy

SUPREME COURT RULING

The assailed judgment of the trial court is hereby SET ASIDE and another
one is rendered CONVICTING accused-appellants of robbery as Punished in
Paragraph 5 of Article 294, in relation to Article 295, of the Revised Penal Code and
IMPOSING on each of them an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as
maximum, and jointly and severally pay the offended party the amounts of P7,000.00
as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages, with costs.

CONCUR: Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Nocon and Campos, Jr.

5
MISTAKE OF FACT ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court
US v Ah Chong - Convicted Ah Chong of simple homicide with extenuating3 circumstances
GR No. L-5272 | March 19, 1910
Ponente: Carson Supreme Court
Platintiff-appellee: The United States - A mistake of fact can be used as an acquittal, except in cases where it falls
Defendant-appellant: Ah Chong under criminal negligence4
o Mistake of fact: a mistake pertaining to some fact
Nature of Case: o If the act that was intended to be done was lawful and free from lack of
Appeal for the crime of simple homicide with the sentence of six years and foresight and skill, and the only thing that made it illegal was the
one day presidio mayor mistake of fact, it can be exempted
 Without intention, there can be no crime
BRIEF o If one has reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts which
On August 14, 1908, Ah Chong heard someone trying to come inside his justify a killing, he is guiltless of homicide
room, after repeated questions on his identity, the unknown man did not  NOTE: Right to self-defense: if you allow a man to attack you then
answer. When Ah Chong got up to go near the door, he felt something hit this right is useless
him. Using a knife he keeps with him, he attacked the unknown man, only to - Given that there were crimes in that place, that it was dark, and that Pascual
find out later that he was his roommate. would not answer his question- Ah Chong mistakenly believed that Pascual
was a criminal.
DISPOSITIVE - Pascual trying to get in was then interpreted as a criminal trying to break in
The trial court found him guilty of simple homicide with extenuating - All of Ah Chong’s actions were lawful as self-defense if it was indeed a criminal
circumstances. The Supreme Court reversed the decision. who will threaten his life and property
- The only thing wrong was his mistake of fact: believing it was a criminal rather
FACTS than Pascual
- Ah Chong and the deceased, Pascual Gualberto, both worked at Officer’s o Ah Chong acted in good faith, and without criminal intent in doing
Quarters, No. 27, and were roommates. no more than exercising his right to self-defense
- Their room lacked bolts, so the occupants use a hook to fasten the door and a o He cannot be said to have acted in nefligence or recklessness
chair leaning against it to secure it.
- Fort McKinley was beset with crimes that time SUPREME COURT RULING
- The two agreed that if one returned at night, he should knock and inform the The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court is REVERSED, and
other of his identity the defendant ACQUITTED of the crime, his bail bond exonerated, with costs of both
- At 10pm on August 14, 1908 Ah Chong was woken by someone trying to force instances de oficio (paid by the state)
the door open
- He called out “Who’s there?” twice: no answer CONCUR: Johnson Moreland and Elliott
- Ah Chong could not see as it was dark; he leapt up and called “If you enter the DISSENT: Arellano, Mapa
room, I will kill you”
- He was stuck by the chair placed against the door
- Thinking that this was a blow made by the unknown man, he seized a knife he
kept under his pillow and stuck at the man
- The man ran out, followed by Ah Chong, who immediately recognized the
former as his roommate.
- He called his employers and ran back to get bandages for Pascual

ISSUE/S of the CASE

- Whether Ah Chong is criminally responsible for an act that for him was lawful
due to mistake of fact

3
mitigating
4
Or if it was a crime whose result was different from what was intended

6
People v Oanis
GR No. L-47722 | July 27, 1943
Ponente: Moran
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendants-appellants: ANTONIO Z. OANIS and ALBERTO GALANTA
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence
BRIEF
Antonio Oanis and Alberto Galanta were instructed by their
Provincial Inspector to arrest Anselmo Balagtas or to get him dead or alive if
resistance is offered by him and they are overpowered.
Their search parties were headed to the house where Irene was
supposedly living. When they arrived to the house, Oanis asked Brigida
Mallare where Irene’s room was. Mallare indicated the place and added that,
Irene was sleeping with her paramour. Oanis and Galanta went to Irene’s
room. They saw a man sleeping with his back towards the door. They fired
at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. It turned out later that the
person killed was not criminal Anselmo Balagtas but an innocent citizen
named Serapio Tecson.
RTC’s decision: Oanis and Galanta are guilty of the crime of
homicide through reckless imprudence.
DISPOSITIVE
The judgment of RTC modified and appellants are declared guilty of murder
FACTS
- Dec 24, 1938 - Capt. Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received a telegram:
o "Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina
and Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." - Major Guido
- Capt. Monsod called his sergeant and asked for 4 men. These 4 men reported
to Monsod and were shown a copy of the telegram and picture of Balagtas
(newspaper clipping). They are:
o Defendant corporal Alberto Galanta
o Private Nicomedes Oralo
o Private Venancio Serna
o Private D. Fernandez
- They were instructed to arrest Balagtas and, if overpowered, to follow the
instruction contained in the telegram.
- The same instruction was given to the chief of police Oanis who was called by
the Provincial Inspector.
- Oanis joined his men in finding Balagtas since his men failed to know Balagtas’
whereabouts by themselves.
- The search party was divided into 2 groups: 1) Oanis and Galanta; 2) private
Fernandez. They are headed to the house where Irene was supposedly living.
- When they arrived to the house, Oanis asked Brigida Mallare where Irene’s
room was. Mallare indicated the place and added that, Irene was sleeping with
her paramour.
- Oanis and Galanta went to Irene’s room. They saw a man sleeping with his
back towards the door. They fired at him with their .32 and .45 caliber
revolvers.
- Awakened by the gunshots, Irene saw the defendants still firing his paramour.
- It turned out later that the person killed was not criminal Anselmo Balagtas but
an innocent citizen named Serapio Tecson.
- Capt. Monsod was informed about the killing. Galanta told him that he and
Oanis killed Tecson.
Alibis
- Galanta:
o Brigida indicated Irene’s room, and upon further inquiry about Balagtas,
she said that he too was sleeping in the same room.
o Oanis went to the room and said, “If you are Balagtas, stand up.” As
Tecson was about to sit up, Oanis fired at him.
o Oanis shouted that Tecson is Balagtas. Galanta then fired at Tecson.
- Oanis:
o When he went to the room and said, “If you are Balagtas, stand up.”
o Galanta at once fired at Tecson, while the latter was sitll lying on bed, and
continued firing.
o It was only then Oanis entered the door and fired Tecson.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the defendants be held responsible for the death thus caused
to Tecson
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court
- Refused to believe the appellants. They are vitiated by natural urge to
exculpate themselves of the crime and they are contradictory.
- Accepted Irene’s testimony because it was corroborated by defendants’ alibis.
She also stuck to the truth of every detail.
- Oanis and Galanta were declared guilty of the crime of homicide through
reckless imprudence.
Supreme Court
Theory of non-liability by reasons of honest mistake of fact
- The maxim ignorantia facti excusat applies when the mistake is committed
without fault or carelessness, just like in this case:
o The person being asleep, the appellants had ample time and
opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to themselves
o They could even effect a bloodless arrest because Tecson was
unarmed
o The appellants were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight but to arrest
him, and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or aggression is
offered by him.
- It may be true that Anselmo Balagtas was a notorious criminal, a life-termer, a
fugitive from justice and a menace to the peace of the community, but these
facts alone constitute no justification for killing him when in effecting his arrest,
7
 he offers no resistance or in fact no resistance can be offered, as when he is
asleep.

Criminal Liability
- The crime committed is not merely criminal negligence, the killing being
intentional and not accidental.
o In criminal negligence, the injury should be unintentional, it being simply
the incident of another act performed without malice.
- As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder with
the qualifying circumstance of alevosia
- The first requisite of RPC Art 11 No. 5 is also applied int this case:
o According to such legal provision, a person incurs no criminal liability
when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office. There are two requisites in order that the circumstance
may be taken as a justifying one:
▪ (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right
- Through impatience or over-anxiety or in their desire to take no chances, they
have exceeded in the fulfillment of their duty (arrest Balagtas or to get him
dead or alive if resistance is offered by him and they are overpowered) by
killing the person whom they believed to be Balagtas without any resistance
from him and without making any previous inquiry as to his identity.
o penalty lower by one or two degrees according to RPC

SUPREME COURT RULING

The judgment is modified and appellants are hereby declared guilty of
murder with the mitigating circumstance above mentioned, and accordingly
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of prision correctional to
fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to pay
the heirs of the deceased Serapio Tecson jointly and severally an indemnity of
P2,000, with costs

CONCUR: Yulo, C.J., Bocobo, Generoso and Lopez Vito, A.

8
MALUM PROHIBITUM
Padilla v Dizon
AM No. 3086 | February 23, 1988
Ponente: Per Curiam
Complainant: Alexander Padilla
Respondent: Hon. Baltazar R. Dizon, Judge Pasay RTC
Nature of Case:
Administrative complaint filed by then Commissioner of Customs, Alexander
Padilla against respondent for rendering a manifestly erroneous decision
due to gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law.
BRIEF
Lo Chi Fai was caught by customs officials attempting to smuggle foreign
currency and foreign exchange instruments out of the country. Dizon
acquitted Lo Chi Fai despite a Central Bank circular prohibiting this, saying
that there was no intent to commit a crime.
DISPOSITIVE
The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the
law and dismissed the respondent from the service.
FACTS
- On July 9, 1986, Lo Chi Fai was apprehended on plane bound for Hong Kong
by customs officials, who found him carrying 380 pieces of foreign exchange
instruments and currency amounting to $355,349.57 in various denominations
- A case was filed against him with the Pasay RTC for violation of CB Circular
no.960
- Lo Chi Fai claimed he was a businessman engaged in a garment business and
that he had come to the Philippines 9-10 times,
- He tried to declare the money he brought with him to a CB representative who
refused to accept his declaration until he could a confirmation on the source of
his money. Each time he came to the Philippines, he brought large sums of
money
- That he had a group who had decided to invest in business with him
- That he was leaving and taking all the money they invested in the Philippines
for fear that the “revolution” in Manila might affect their business.
- Dizon acquitted the accused, saying that the act of possession of the foreign
currencies was not enough to make him liable to the CB order, and that there
was no wilful violation to the law
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the Respondent Judge is guilty of gross incompetence or gross
ignorance of the law in rendering the decision in question.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Supreme Court
- The respondent showed gross incompetence or gross ignorance of the law:
o He should have known that proof of malice or intent (mens rea) IS
NOT ESSENTIAL in offenses punishable by special laws (mala
prohibita)
o The act of violating it is enough
o Hence, the decision to acquit Fai because of lack of intent is baseless
as the CB Circular is a special law
- The respondent also ignored the evidences presented to him and the
admissions of Fai
- He also directed the CB to release to the accused $3,000 – the allowed money
for the tourists that doesn’t require declaration
o There is nothing in the circular that would justify the returning of this
amount if the person is caught bringing out foreign exchange bigger
than said amount and without authority from the CB.
SUPREME COURT RULING
The Court finds the respondent GUILTY of gross incompetence, gross
ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct affecting his integrity and
efficiency.
The Respondent-Judge is DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE. All benefits
and privileges are forfeited.
The resolution is immediately executor.
CONCUR: Teehankee (CJ), Yap, Fernan, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz,
Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento Cortes, Grino-Aquino
NOTES
- Section 6, Central Bank Circular no.960: No person shall take out or send out
from the Philippines foreign exchange in amounts not exceeding such amounts
of foreign exchange brought in by them. For purposes of establishing the
amount of foreign exchange brought in or out of the Philippines, tourists and
non-resident temporary visitors bringing with them more than $30,000 or its
equivalent in other foreign currencies shall declare their foreign exchange in
the form prescribed by the Central Bank at points of entries upon arrival in the
Philippines.
9
Malum prohibitum – exception to mens rea
Magno v Court of Appeals
GR No. 96132 | July 26, 1992
Ponente: Paras
Petitioner: Oriel Magno
Respondents: Honorable Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines
Nature of Case:
Appeal for certiorari from the CA decision.
BRIEF
Oriel Magno approached Corazon Teng, VP for Mancor Industries,
to supply him the equipment needed for his new car repair shop. However,
Magno lacked funds to purchase the equipment so Mancor introduced him to
LS Finance. The arrangement went through on condition that petitioner has
to put up a warranty deposit equivalent to 30% of the total value of
equipment to be purchased, amounting to P29,790.00.
Since Magno could not come up with such amount, he requested
Joey Gomez, VP of LS Finance and Management, to look for a 3rd party who
could lend him money. Unknown to Magno, it was Corazon Teng who
advanced the deposit.
During the leasing of equipment, Magno cancelled his 1st check
and replaced it with another 6 postdated checks. Only 2 were deposited and
cleared. When he became aware it was Teng who advanced the warranty
deposit, he promised to pay her back but he failed to do so. He also failed to
pay his monthly rentals to LS Finance, thus it pulled out the equipment.
CA convicted Magno for violations of BP Blg. 22 (Bouncing Check
Laws) on 4 cases (4 checks).
DISPOSITIVE
The RTC decision is reversed and the accused-petitioner is acquitted of the
crime charged.
FACTS
- April 1983- Oriel Magno was in the process of putting up a car repair shop but:
o he did not have enough equipment to do so
o he lacked funds to purchase those equipment
- Magno, representing Ultra Sources International Corp., approached Corazon
Teng (private complainant), VP for Mancor Industries, for his needed
equipment of which Mancor was a distributor
- Mancor was willing to supply the equipment if LS Finance could provide
petitioner Magno credit facilities
- Magno has to put up a warranty deposit, 30% of the purchase value,
amounting to P29, 790.00
- Magno requested Joey Gomez, VP of LS Finance, to look for a 3rd party who
could lend him money for the warranty deposit
- Unknown to Magno, it was Corazon Teng who advanced the deposit, on
condition that same would be paid as a short term loan at 3% interest
- Magno and LS Finance entered into a leasing agreement
o LS Finance would lease the equipment; Magno would pay the rent with
the option to buy
- The equipment were delivered to Magno who in turn issued a postdated check
and gave it to Gomez, who delivered the same to Teng
- Magno cancelled the first check and replaced it with another 6 postdated
checks. Only 2 were deposited and cleared.
- Subsequently, Magno could not pay LS Finance the monthly rentals, thus it
pulled out the equipment
- Magno became aware that it was Teng who advanced the warranty deposit
- Magno promised to pay Teng but the payment never came and when the 4
checks were deposited, they were returned for the reason “account closed”
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the accused-petitioner guilty for violating BP Blg. 22.
ACTIONS of the COURT
QC Regional Trial Court
- Accused-petitioner Magno was convicted for violations of BP Blg. 22 on 4
cases:
o To imprisonment for 1 year in each Criminal Case
o To pay to complainant the respective amounts reflected in subject
checks
Supreme Court
On Warranty Deposit
- By the nature of the warranty deposit, 30% of the “purchase/lease” value of
the equipment, it is obvious that the “cash out” of Teng was not used by Magno
who was just paying rentals to the equipment
o Magno only had to pay the warranty deposit if he opted to purchase the
equipment
- Since the transaction did not ripen into purchase, but remained a lease being
paid, then it is lawful not to charge the warranty deposit against the petitioner
- To charge Magno for the refund of warranty deposit (withdrew by LS Finance),
is to even make him pay an unjust debt, since Magno did not receive the
amount in question. This is to stretch the nicety of the alleged law (BP No. 22)
violated.
- Also, Teng requested Gomez not to divulge the source of warranty deposit to
Magno. This evokes suspicion to the transaction.
o Teng’s modus operandi is designed to skim off business clients
o Teng, supplier in the name of her corp., Mancor, would be able to sell or
lease its goods; and at the same time, privately financing those who
desperately need petty accommodations
On petitioner’s penal punishment
- Punishment should be directed against the “actual and potential wrongdoers”
- There is no doubt that Magno's 4 checks were used to collateralize an
accommodation, and not to cover the receipt of an actual "account or credit for
value" as this was absent, and therefore petitioner should not be punished for
mere issuance of the checks in question
10
 - Also, from the very beginning, petitioner never hid the fact that he did not have
the funds with which to put up the warranty deposit. It would have been
different if this was not communicated to all the parties he dealt with regarding
the lease agreement the financing of which was covered by LS Finance.

SUPREME COURT RULING

The appealed decision is REVERSED and the accused-petitioner is hereby
ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

CONCUR: Padilla, Regalado, Narvasa

11
NEGLIGENCE and IMPRUDENCE On the guilt of Pugay and Samson
People v Pugay - There was no conspiracy- their acts were individual different acts directed
GR no. L-74324 | November 17, 1988 against Miranda
Ponente: Medialdea - PUGAY: Claimed that he though the can contained water
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines o A man must be cautious and prudent in all his acts to avoid danger and
Accused-appellants: Fernando Pugay and Benjamin Samson injury. He is responsible for the result of acts performed with culpable
abandon.
Nature of Case: o The smell of the liquid could not have escaped his notice as he was
Appeal for the crime of murder with the sentence of 12 years of prision pouring it
mayor to 20 years of reclusion temporal. o He failed to exercise all diligence needed to avoid every undesirable
consequence arising from his act
BRIEF o THUS, he is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence
Pugay poured gasoline on Bayani Miranda, a retardate, in jest. Samson then - SAMSON: Claimed that he simply wanted to set Miranda’s clothes on fire
lit Miranda with a match, injuring him severely, killing him. o There is no treachery on his part, it was only part of their merry-making
that evening
DISPOSITIVE o BUT there is no doubt that he knew that gasoline was poured on the
The trial court found the two guilty of murder. The Supreme Court convicted deceased
Pugay of homicide through reckless imprudence, and Samson of homicide. o Burning the clothes would still cause harm
o Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony
FACTS even if the result was different from what was intended
- Facts were gathered through Eduardo Gabion who saw the whole incident o His act of burning the clothes, led to him killing Miranda instead
- Bayani Miranda, the deceased, was a 25yr. old retardate o His lack of foresight led him to the crime
- He was walking through the fairgrounds when Pugay and Samson, then o Thus, Court credits him with the mitigating circumstance of no
seemingly drunk, saw him intention and is guilty of homicide
- Pugay took a can of gasoline from the ferris wheel and poured it on Miranda
- Samson then set Miranda on fire SUPREME COURT RULING
- The deceased was rushed to the hospital for treatment, but died days later The Court finds the Pugay GUILTY of homicide though reckless
imprudence, and is sentenced to 4mos. of arresto mayor, to 4 yrs and 2 mos of
ISSUE/S of the CASE prision correccional.
- Whether or not Gabion is a credible witness The Court finds Samson GUILTY of homicide and is sentenced to 8 yrs of
- Whether or not Pugay committed murder prision mayor to 14 yrs of reclusion temporal.
- Whether or not Samson committed murder Both shall pay for Miranda’s hospital and funeral expenses, indemnity of
P30,000, and P10,000 moral damages, and Php5000 exemplary damages
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court CONCUR: Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco, Grino-Aquino
- Convicted the two of murder: Pugay with 12-20years of prison, and Samsom
with life imprisonment.

Supreme Court
On Gabion as a witness
- Gabion’s statement was corroborated by two other witnesses.
- Their statements to the police did not charge Gabion with participation in the
crime.
- Gabion had no reason to testify falsely against them- they had no prior
misunderstanding
- Gabion is an acceptable witness

12
Aberration ictus – accidental harm to a person
People v Guillen
GR No. 96132 | Jan 18, 1950
Ponente: Per curiam
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendant-appellant: Julio Guillen
Nature of Case:
Review of the judgement rendered by Court of First Instance Manila
BRIEF
On Mar 10, 1947, Julio C. Guillen attempted to kill Pres. Roxas by
throwing a hand grenade at him. But Gen. Castaneda kicked the grenade
away towards the open space. The grenade fell to the ground and exploded
in the middle of persons closed to the platform. This resulted to the death of
Simeon Varela less serious injuries to other 4 persons.
RTC found Guillen guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder and multiple frustrated murder and is sentenced to the penalty of
death, to indemnify the of the deceased Simeon Valera (or Barrela) in the
sum of P2,000 and to pay the costs.
DISPOSITIVE
The RTC sentence is affirmed by the Court.
FACTS
- Julio C. Guillen is not insane; he has Constitutional Psychopathic Inferiority,
without psychosis (presided by Dr. Fernandez of the National Psychopathic
Hospital).
- Guillen has voted for the defeated candidate in the presidential elections held
in 1946.
- Manuel Roxas assumed the office of President of the Commonwealth and
subsequently President of the President of the Philippine Republic.
- Guillen’s disappointment in Roxas aggravated when the latter sponsored for
the approval of the so-called parity measure.
- Hence, he determined to assassinate the President.
Mar 10, 1947
- (night-time) – Roxas was delivering his speech at a pro-parity meeting held by
Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda. Guillen decided to carry out his plan to this
event.
- Guillen reached Plaza de Miranda carrying 2 grenades. He buried one near the
platform, while he hurled the other one to the President, while standing up from
his seat (7m away).
- Gen. Castaneda kicked the grenade away towards the open space. The
grenade fell to the ground and exploded in the middle of persons closed to the
platform.
o This resulted to the death of Simeon Varela and;
o Less serious injuries to Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo
and Emilio Maglalang
- Guillen was arrested 2 hrs. after the occurrence, where he admitted his
responsibility, but before that:
o One Angel Garcia saw him ran towards the barbershop. Garcia went
after Guillen but the latter managed to escape. Garcia pursued him, but
some detectives thought Garcia was the criminal, so they placed him
under arrest.
o One Manuel Robles said that the person Garcia was wrestling was Julio
Guillen; that Robles knows Julio Guillen for 10 years.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- WON the appellant is guilty of murder for the death of Simeon Varela
- WON the appellant is guilty of the complex crime of murder and multiple
frustrated murder
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court
- Appellant is guilty of murder for the death of Simeon Varela
- Appellant is guilty of the complex crime of murder and multiple frustrated
murder
- Basis of penalty: sub-section 1 of article 49 of RPC
- Considered the concurrence of the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity
and of contempt of public authorities in the commission of crime
Supreme Court
On Grave Felonies
- The facts do not support the contention of counsel for appellant that the latter
is guilty only of homicide through reckless imprudence
o In throwing hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing
him, the appellant acted with malice. He is therefore liable for all the
consequences of his wrongful act
o Where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the
intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence.
o In order that an act may be qualified as imprudence, it is necessary that
either malice nor intention to cause injury should intervene
- The case before us is clearly governed by the first clause of article 48 because
by a single act, that throwing highly explosive hand grenade at President
Roxas, the accused committed two grave felonies, namely:
o (1) murder, of which Simeon Varela was the victim; and
o (2) multiple attempted murder, of which President Roxas, Alfredo Eva,
Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang were the injured
parties.
o Art. 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes. — When a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period.
On death of Simeon Varela
- The killing of Simeon Varela was attended by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery.
13
 - Qualifying circumstance of treachery may be properly considered, even when
the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant intended to kill, if
it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any
manner put up defense against the attack, or become aware of it.

On murder and multiple frustrated murder

- The appellant did not succeed in assassinating Roxas "by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance."
- For the same reason, SC qualifies the injuries caused on the 4 other persons
as merely attempted and not frustrated murder.

SUPREME COURT RULING

The sentence of the trial court being correct, we have no alternative but to
affirm it, and we hereby do so by a unanimous vote.
The death sentence shall be executed in accordance with article 81 of the
Revised Penal Code, under authority of the Director of Prisons, on such working day
as the trial court may fix within 30 days from the date the record shall have been
remanded.

CONCUR: Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason,

Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ.

14
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: Outside Moral Intention (Praeter Inentionem)
RPC Art.13(3): Mitigating Circumstances
That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
committed.
People v Alburquerque
GR No. 38773 | December 19, 1933
Ponente: Avanceña
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Gines Alburquerque
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of homicide, and the sentence of eight years and
Php1000 indemnity, with costs
BRIEF
Alburquerque, who had lost control of his right arm due to a stroke,
confronted the deceased, Manuel Osma, for not supporting the former’s
daughter whom the latter had impregnated. When Osma refused,
Alburquerque seized him and stabbed him in the face with the penknife. Due
to lack of control of his arm, the pen landed on the base of the neck of
Osma, killing him.
DISPOSITIVE
Judgement held that there were three mitigating circumstances, without any
aggravating circumstances, thus the sentence should be reduced.
FACTS
- Alburquerque: widower, 55 years, father of 9
- Suffering from partial paralysis due to stroke- walks dragging one leg and has
lost control of one arm. He is unable to work
- All the family, except for a married daughter and a nun, depend on Maria- who
is also married
- One of the daughters, Pilar, had intimate relations with Manuel Osma, the
deceased, which culminated in Pilar’s giving birth to a child
- Alburquerque was made aware of this only when Pilar came home with her
child
- He wrote to Osma, varying from hostile to entreating, asking him to marry or
support his daughter as he was worried of the burden this would give Maria
- The deceased agreed to give a monthly allowance, but never complied
- Alburquerque went to the deceased’s office. When the deceased refused to
marry his daughter, the former took out a penknife
- The deceased tried to seize the Appellant by the neck; the Appellant then
stabbed him on the face- however, due to lack of control on his right arm, he
ended up stabbing the neck of the deceased.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellant’s act was deliberate
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court
- Found that the appellant did not intend to cause grave injury
Supreme Court
- Trial court’s decision is supported w/ evidence
o Appellant testified that he only wanted to leave a permanent scar on the
face of the deceased
o He never intended to kill him because it would frustrate his plan to make
him marry/support his daughter
o The act of inflicting a fatal wound at the base of the neck was due to
lack of control on his right arm
- However, that he acted in self-defense can’t be accepted as he provoked the
act by wielding a penknife
SUPREME COURT RULING
Despite homicide being penalized with reclusion temporal in RPC Art.249,
there are three mitigating circumstances: lack of intention, voluntary surrender and
influence of passion and obfuscations. Thus, the penalty next lower in degree,
prision mayor, should be imposed. (RPC Art.49)
The appellant is sentenced to suffer from 1 year of prision correctional to
8 years and 1 day of prision mayor with costs.
CONCUR: Abad-Santos, Vickers, Butte
NOTES:
- MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
Praetor intentionem –outside the moral intention
o Art. 13, par. 1: That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed.
o Art. 13, par. 6: That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation
o Art. 13, par. 7: That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to
a person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed
his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution.
- Article 49: WHEN THE OUTCOME IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS
INTENDED
o par.1: If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than
that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to
commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
15
Causation
Bataclan v Medina
GR No. L-10126 | Oct 22, 1957
Ponente: Montemayor
Plaintiffs-appellants: SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE BATACLAN and the minors
NORMA, LUZVIMINDA, ELENITA, OSCAR and ALFREDO BATACLAN,
represented by their Natural guardian, SALUD VILLANUEVA VDA. DE
BATACLAN
Defendant-appellant: Mariano Medina
Nature of Case:
Review of the judgement rendered by Court of First Instance Manila
BRIEF
On Sept. 13, 1952, Bus No. 30 of Medina Trans., operated by its owner
defendant Mariano Medina, left the town of Amadeo, Cavite, on its way to
Pasay City, driven by its regular chauffeur, Conrado Saylon. At about 2am,
while the bus was running within Imus, Cavite, one of the front tires burst and
the vehicle began to zig-zag until it fell into a canal or ditch on the right side of
the road and turned turtle. 4 passengers seated beside the driver could not
get out of the overturned bus.
After 30 mins., came about 10 men, 1 of them carrying a lighted torch
made of bamboo with a wick on one end, evidently fueled with petroleum.
They approached the overturned bus and a fierce fire started. It would appear
that as the bus overturned, gasoline began to leak, and that the lighted torch
brought by one of the men who answered the call for help set it on fire.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court modified and increased the damages awarded by the RTC.
FACTS
- Sept. 13, 1952 – Bus No. 30 of Medina Trans., operated by its owner
defendant Mariano Medina, left the town of Amadeo, Cavite, on its way to
Pasay City, driven by its regular chauffeur, Conrado Saylon
- At about 2am, while the bus was running within Imus, Cavite, one of the front
tires burst and the vehicle began to zig-zag until it fell into a canal or ditch on
the right side of the road and turned turtle.
- Some of the passengers managed to leave the bus, others had to be helped or
pulled out, while 4 passengers seated beside the driver (Bataclan, Lara, the
Visayan, and the woman behind them named Villanueva) could not get out of
the overturned bus.
- Calls or shouts for help were made to the houses in the neighborhood.
- After 30 mins., came about 10 men, 1 of them carrying a lighted torch made of
bamboo with a wick on one end, evidently fueled with petroleum.
- They approached the overturned bus and a fierce fire started.
- It would appear that as the bus overturned, gasoline began to leak and escape
from the gasoline tank on the side of the chassis, spreading over and
permeating the body of the bus and the ground under and around it, and that
the lighted torch brought by one of the men who answered the call for help set
it on fire.
- Wife of Juan Bataclan (one of the four passengers inside the bus) brought the
present suit to recover from Mariano Medina compensatory, moral, and
exemplary damages and attorney's fees
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- To what degree is the defendant bus carrier liable
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court
- The case involves a breach of contract of transportation for hire
- After trial, RTC awarded P1,000 to the plaintiffs plus P600 as attorney's fee,
plus P100, the value of the merchandise being carried by Bataclan to Pasay
City for sale and which was lost in the fire.
- 2 parties appealed to the CA
- Defendants endorsed the appeal to SC because of the value involved in the
claim of complainant
Supreme Court
On Negligence
- There was negligence on the part of the defendant, through his agent, the
driver Saylon.
o At the time of the blow out, the bus was speeding. From the point where
the front tire burst up to the canal where the bus overturned, there was
a distance of about 150 meters.
- On Bataclan’s death, SC does not hesitate to hold that the proximate cause
was the overturning of the bus
o The burning of the bus can be attributed to the negligence of the carrier,
through is driver and its conductor. They should have known that the
gas must have leak in the tank and soaked the area.
o Coming of the men with a torch in a rural area was to be expected and
was a natural sequence of the overturning of the bus.
o Neither the driver nor the conductor would appear to have cautioned or
taken steps to warn the rescuers not to bring the lighted torch too near
the bus.
- While in the hospital, one passenger overheard Medina speaking to his
inspector
o Medina had been telling the driver to change the tires because they
were already old but the driver refused to follow.
SUPREME COURT RULING
In view of the foregoing, with the modification that the damages awarded by
the trial court are increased from ONE THOUSAND (P1,000) PESOS TO SIX
THOUSAND (P6,000) PESOS, and from SIX HUNDRED PESOS TO EIGHT
HUNDRED (P800) PESOS, for the death of Bataclan and for the attorney's fees,
respectively, the decision appealed is from hereby affirmed, with costs.
CONCUR: Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason,
Montemayor, Reyes and Torres, JJ.
16
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
RPC Art.4(2): Criminal liability shall be incurred:
By any person performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
Intod v CA
GR No. 103119 | October 21, 1992
Ponente: Campos, Jr.
Petitioner: Sulpicio Intod
Respondents: Court of Appeals, People of the Phils.
Nature of Case:
Review of the CA decision affirming the judgement of the Regional Trial
Court, finding the petitioner guilty of attempted murder
Petitioner is asking to be held liable for an impossible crime instead of
attempted murder
BRIEF
Intod, and four others, were told by Aniceto Dumalagan to kill Bernardina
Palangpangan. Upon arriving at Palangpangan’s house, they fired at
Palangpangan’s bedroom but no one was in the room since Palangpangan
was in another city. A witness positively identified the gunmen.
DISPOSITIVE
The RTC convicted Intod of attempted murder, affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. The Supreme Court, however, modified the CA’s decision, holding
the Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime.
FACTS
- On Feb.4, 1979, Mandaya and Intod, et al. had a meeting with Aniceto
Dumalagan who told them that he wanted Palangpangan killed because of a
land dispute.
- The five men arrived at Palangpangan’s house at 10PM the same day with
firearms. They fired at the bedroom of Palangpangan.
- No one was in the bedroom since she was in another city
- Witnesses identified them
- Petitioner: Contends that Palangpangan’s absence from her room make it an
impossible crime
- Respondent: the facts constitute an attempt- the absence was a cause or
accident other than the perpetrator’s own spontaneous desistance
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of impossible crime instead of attempted
murder
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court
- Convicted Intod of attempted murder
Court of Appeals
- Affirmed decision of Trial Court
Supreme Court
- The court cites factual impossibility as making this case an impossible crime
o Factual impossibility: when extreme circumstances unknown to the
actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the crime
o Petitioner did not know that Bernardina was not in the house, and
commenced all the acts under the belief that she was.
o After committing everything, the only thing that stopped him from
succeeding was Bernardina’s absence
- In the Philippines, Impossible crime is punishable (RPC Article 4, par 2)
- To uphold that the offense was Attempted Murder is to consider all the
circumstances that prevented the crime as accidental instead of factual
o This would also render the provision on Article 4 useless
- The crime is an impossible crime, not an attempted murder
SUPREME COURT RULING
The petition is hereby GRANTED, the decision of respondent Court of
Appeals holding Petitioner guilty of Attempted Murder is hereby MODIFIED.
Court holds Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime as defined and
penalized in Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively.
Having in mind the social danger and degree of criminality shown by
Petitioner, this Court sentences him to suffer the penalty of six (6) months of
arresto mayor, together with the accessory penalties provided by the law, and to pay
the costs.
CONCUR: Feliciano, Regalado and Nocon
NOTES:
- Legal impossibility: when the person believes that she is committing a criminal
act when in fact, the act is lawful
- Factual impossibility: facts make the intended crime impossible to commit
although the defendant is unaware of this when the attempt is made
- Philippines does not distinguish between legal impossibility and factual
impossibility, and does not accept these as defense
- RPC Article 4 (2): (criminal liability shall be incurred) by any person performing
an act which would be an offense against persons or property were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
17
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
People v Saladino
GR no. L-3634 | May 30, 1951
Ponente: Bengzon
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Bartolo Saladino, Anastacia Alejo
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the decision of the Ilocos Norte Court of First Instance on the
conviction of Saladino and Alejo for the murder of Luis Bernabe
BRIEF
On midnight of June 23, the accused heard cries of help from Felix Pasion
who accused the Bernabe of robbing him. The next day, the accused
brought Bernabe to Pasion’s house- Bernabe denying the charges. Saladino
then beat Bernabe over and over until the latter died. He then ordered Alejo
to bring the body outside and shoot it in order to make it seem that Bernabe
tried to run away.
DISPOSITIVE
Trial court found them guilty of Bernabe’s murder. Supreme Court ruled that
Alejo was merely an accessory, while Saladino was guilty of torturing and
causing the death of Bernabe.
FACTS
- June 23, 1948, midnight: the appellants were resting when they heard screams
outside; they came from Pasion who claimed to have been robbed by Luis
Bernabe
- Next day, the appellants found Bernabe and took him to Pasion’s house.
Bernabe denied the charge
- Saladino punched and kicked him and different parts of the body; Bernabe still
denied guilt
- Saladino took a piece of wood and clubbed Bernabe with it and called Alejo to
whip Bernabe
- Alejo reluctantly whipped Bernabe with a tree branch 4 times then went to the
kitchen
- Saladino resumed his beatings; he tied Bernabe’s wrists with a strap, made
him stand on a chair, tied the strap to a beam, removed the chair and left
Bernabe hanging in the air then beating him.
- Policeman Plan told Saladino to stop; he didn’t
- After 5 minutes, Bernabe was allowed to sit; he still refused his guilt; Saladino
kicked the chair and booted Bernabe until he lay motionless
- Policeman Oaman said that he was dead; Saladino said he was only playing
dead and stepped on Bernabe’s throat and chest then left him alone
- An old man took Bernabe’s pulse and pronounced him dead
- Saladino ordered the men to carry Bernabe down and for Alejo to shoot him so
they could say that he tried to escape
- Alejo shot Bernabe 4 times after he was outside
Alibi: Saladino
- He was conversing with Pasion, Bernabe was with Alejo outside; he then
heard shots- Alejo had fired at Bernabe because the latter tried to escape
o He also wrote a joint affidavit to corroborate his own which he made them
sign- they could not refuse
o Pasion corroborated his testimony
Alibi: Alejo
- He was forced to follow Saladino because the latter had a gun pointed at him
- Bernabe was already dead when he shot him
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the decision was appropriate (Won; with modification for Alejo)
- Whether or not Alejo shot Bernabe when the latter was already dead
(Impossible Crime) (Won)
ACTIONS of the COURT
CFI
- Saladino was found guilty of the murder and was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua and indemnities; Alejo was found guilty of the murders and was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua and indemnitites
Supreme Court
On Saladino’s sentence and guilt
- CFI was correct in rejecting Saladino’s testimony
o Pasion had an interest in helping him as Pasion was the indirect cause
of the outrage towards Bernabe
o It was also contradicted by three policemen who had no reason to falsify
o The direction of the wounds could not have been inflicted while one’s
running away
o There was a bullet embedded on the ground beneath the corpse
- There is no doubt that he cruelly tortured and caused Bernabe’s death
On Alejo’s sentence and guilt
- Court does not believe that Alejo fired at Bernabe while Saladino’s gun was
pointed at him
- Bernabe’s point of death is of grave doubt
o Policemen Quevedo, Oaman and Plan said that Bernabe was already
dead when he was carried outside
o That the old man pronounced him dead
o HOWEVER medical examiner said that the death was due to loss of
blood from the shots
 Defense contends that the examination only took place before the
burial, when the body was already in a bad state
- The doubt regarding Bernabe’s time of death shall be resolved in favour
of Alejo
o Meaning that his alibi will hold and he cannot be convicted for shooting
a corpse
- HOWEVER he is guilty as accessory
o He performed acts to conceal Saladino’s crime by making it seem
Bernabe ran away
18
  He is not a principal nor accomplice to the murder since he did not
conspire with Saladino

SUPREME COURT’S RULING

The CFI’s decision for Saladino was AFFIRMED.
The CFI’s decision for Alejo was REVOKED and (as Alejo is now
considered only an accessory) and sentenced to 3yrs of prision correctional to
6yrs prision mayor, plus indemnities

CONCUR: Paras, Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Montermayor, Jugo

19
US v Eduave NOTES:
GR no. L-12155 | February 2, 1917 Subjective phase:
Ponente: Moreland - From the commission of the crime up to the point when he still has control
Plaintiff-appellee: The United States o If he puts poison in the drink of the person, he still has control up to the
Accused-appellants: Protasio Eduave point when the person drinks it (he can still remove the poison or
prevent the other from drinking it)
Nature of Case:  This is during the subjective phase
Appeal for the crime of murder o When the person has swallowed the drink, the effect is now outside his
control
BRIEF  This is now after the subjective phase
Eduave struck the victim with a bolo and, believing that he had killed her,
threw the body in the bushes. - Frustrated happens after the subjective phase when forces outside the will of
the person prevent the crime
DISPOSITIVE o A doctor removing the poison
The Supreme Court ruled that he is guilty of frustrated murder o The girl living after being considered dead
- Attempted happens during the subjective phase
FACTS o The person stopping the other from drinking
- Victim had accused Eduave, her mother’s querido of raping her and fathering
her child
- Sometime later, the accused rushed upon the girl, struck her from behind with
a bolo, gravely injuring her lower back, severing all muscles and tissues
- Believing her dead, he threw her to the bushes
- When he gave himself up, he declared that he had killed her

ISSUE/S of the CASE

- The precise crime that the accused committed

ACTIONS of the COURT

Supreme Court
- Eduave committed FRUSTRATED MURDER
- Frustrated murder is when the perpetrator is prevented from achieving his goal
by an outside force after completing ALL the acts (after the subjective
phase)
- Attempted murder is when the perpetrator is prevented from achieving his
goal by an outside force during the commission, thus not completing all
the acts (during the subjective phase)
- Eduave had completed all the acts: there was intent, the use of a deadly
weapon, blow was directed to a vital part of the body, thought he had killed the
girl, dumped the body, and proclaimed he had killed her
- Had the girl died, this would have been murder
- But as the girl lived- an act outside the control of the perpetrator- despite
accomplishing all the act then he committed FRUSTRATED murder

SUPREME COURT RULING

The accused is GUILTY of frustrated murder and is sentenced to cadena
temporal.

CONCUR: Torres, Araullo, Carson, Trent

20
Physical injuries, Homicide, Murder
ACTIONS of the COURT
People v Borinaga Court of First Instance Leyte
GR No. 33463 | Dec 18, 1930 - Prosecuted Borinaga for the crime of frustrated murder.
Ponente: Malcom - Borinaga was sentenced to 14 yrs., 8 mos., and 1 day imprisonment, reclusion
Plaintiffs-appellee: The People of the Philippines temporal, with the accessory penalties and the costs.
Defendant-appellant: Basilio Borinaga
Supreme Court
Nature of Case: - The homicidal intent of the accused was plainly evidenced.
Review of the judgement rendered by Court of First Instance Leyte - The crime should be qualified as murder because of the presence of the
circumstance of treachery.
BRIEF o The aggressor stated his purpose, which was to kill
American Harry H. Mooney contracted with one Juan Lawaan for o The aggressor apologized to his friends for not accomplishing that
the construction of a fish corral. Basilio Borinaga was associated with purpose
Lawaan in the construction. On Mar 4, 1929 Lawaan tried to collect money o A deadly weapon was used
from Mooney but the latter refused to pay because only 2/3 of the o The blow was directed treacherously toward vital organs of the victim
construction was finished. Lawaan threatened Mooney that something bad o The means used were entirely suitable for accomplishment
would happen to him. Frustrated murder or Attempted murder?
While Mooney was in the store of Perpetua Najarro, Borinaga tried - A majority of the court answered that the crime committed was that of frustrated
to stabbed and attacked Mooney for two times. Borinaga failed to carry out murder because Mooney was not injured in the least.
his attack. The RTC prosecuted and sentenced Borinaga for the crime of - The essential condition of a frustrated crime, that the author perform all the acts
frustrated murder. of execution, attended the attack. Nothing remained to be done to accomplish the
work of the assailant completely.
DISPOSITIVE o The cause resulting in the failure of the attack arose by reason of forces
The Court affirmed the judgement of RTC. independent of the will of the perpetrator.

FACTS SUPREME COURT RULING

- American Harry H. Mooney, a resident of the municipality of Calubian, Leyte, Based on foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from will be
contracted with one Juan Lawaan for the construction of a fish corral. Basilio affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.
Borinaga was associated with Lawaan in the construction.
- March 4, 1929 CONCUR: Avanceña, C.J., Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ.
Morning
o Lawaan and company tried to collect money from Mooney, although only
2/3 of the corral had been finished.
o Mooney refused to pay.
o Lawaan warned Mooney that if he did not pay, something would happen to
him.
Evening
o While Mooney was in the store of Perpetua Najarro, his back being in the
window, Borinaga from the window strike with a knife at Mooney, but the
knife lodged in the back of the chair on which Mooney was seated.
o Mooney fell but was not injured and Borinaga ran away.
o After 10 mins., Borinaga returned to renew his attack. Mooney and
Perpetua turned a flashlight on Borinaga, frightening him away.
o Before the attack, Borinaga had been heard to tell a companion that he
will stab Mooney.

ISSUE/S of the CASE

- WON the facts constitute frustrated murder or attempted murder within the
meaning of Art. 3 of the Penal Code

21
RPC Art. 249: Homicide
Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall
kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in
the next preceeding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be
punished by reclusion temporal.
People v Felipe Kalalo et al.
GR no. L-39303-39305 | March 17, 1934
Ponente: Diaz
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Felipe Kalalo, Marcelo Kalalo, Juan Kalalo, Gregorio Ramos
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the decision of the Batangas Court of First Instance finding the
appellants guilty of murder and discharge of firearm.
BRIEF
Marcelo Kalalo had a litigation over a parcel of land with Isabela Holgado.
He then filed a complaint saying that the woman benefited from his work on
the land. Holgado and her brother Arcadio, the deceased, then decided to till
the land for themselves- however, Kalalo and his relatives went to the land
with bolos to order the workers to stop. The Holgado’s cousin came and told
the workers to keep working. The Kalalo’s then attacked the Holgados with
bolos, killing the cousin and Arcadio.
DISPOSITIVE
Court of First Instance found the guilty of murder and discharge of weapon.
The other appellants- the Kalalo’s mother, Fausta, Alipia Abrenica, Gregorio
Ramos, Alejandro Garcia were acquitted.
FACTS
- Marcelo Kalalo and Isabela Holgado had a litigation over a parcel of land in
Batangas
- Kalalo had filed two complaints against Isabela Holgado regarding the land,
claiming he had tilled it in 1931 and 1932 and Holgado reaped all these.
- On October 1932, Isabela and her brother Arcadio hired workers to plow the
land.
- However, Marcelo Kalalo with his brothers, Felipe and Juan went to the place;
followed brother-in-law Gregorio Ramos, and Alejandro Garcia, and Kalalo’s
mother Fausta and aunt Abrenica
- The first five (Marcelo to Alejandro) had bolos
- They ordered the workers to stop, who complied
- Sometime after, Isabela, Arcadio and Maria Gutierrez arrived with food for the
laborers.
- Marcelino Panaligan, cousin of the Holgados, arrived and hearing that the work
was stopped, ordered it to resume
- Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio; Felipe, Juan and Gregorio approached
Marcelino; Fausta then said “What is detaining you?” Upon which they
attacked Arcadio and Marcelino; both died
- Marcelo then took Marcelino’s revolver from his body and fired four shots at
Hilarion Holgado who was fleeing the scene.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the sentences were in accordance with the law.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Supreme Court
- Marcelo Kalalo’s claim of self-defense against the two is unfounded
o One man could not have inflicted those injuries on Arcadio and
Marcelino
o Marcelino was also hit in the back meaning he had multiple attackers
o Witnesses state that while Marcelo was attacking Arcadio, the other
three were attacking Marcelino
o If Marcelino had indeed attacked him, he should have bullet wounds as
Marcelino is an expert shot, Marcelo didn’t have bullet wounds
- Court found that these were homicide, not murder
o Murder: must have the circumstance of abuse of superior strength
 Both parties were equally armed: Arcadio with a bolo, Marcelino
with a revolver and a good shot.
- Marcelo committed attempted homicide when he fired four shots at Hilarion
o Successive shots show that he was bent on killing him, especially after
having just killed Arcadio and Marcelino
o But causes outside his will prevented him from doing so, making it
attempted.
SUPREME COURT RULING
GR 39303: The appellants committed homicide and thereby sentenced to
14yrs 8 mos 1 day of reclusion temporal each and to indemnify the heirs of
Marcelino Panaligan with P1000
GR39304: The appellants committed homicide and thereby sentenced to
14yrs 8 mos 1 day of reclusion temporal each and to indemnify the heirs of
Arcadio Holgado with P1000
GR39305: Marcelo Kalalo committed attempted homicide and thereby
sentenced to 2yrs 4mos 1 day of prision correctional and to indemnify the heirs of
Arcadio Holgado with P1000
Appealed sentences are affirmed. Time served is credited to their sentence.
CONCUR: Street, Abad Santos, Hull, Butte
22
Physical injuries, Homicide, Murder
People v Trinidad
GR No. 79123-25 | Jan 9, 1989
Ponente: Melencio-Herrera
Plaintiffs-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Emeliano Trinidad
Nature of Case:
Appeal from the judgement of RTC
BRIEF
On Jan 19, 1983, Lolito Soriano, Marcial Laroa, and Ricardo Tan arrived
at Butuan City to sell fish. The following day, Soriano drove to Buenavista,
Agusan del Norte, with Laroa and a helper, Samuel Comendador. Tan was left
behind in Butuan City. He followed Soriano and Laroa later in the morning.
When they were about to get home to Davao, accused Emeliano
Trinidad asked for a ride to Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, which is on the way to
Davao City. Tan was their driver. But between El Rio and Afga, Tan heard 2
gunshots, and saw Soriano and Laroa slumped dead. Trinidad used his
carbine to shot their heads. Tan jumped out of the vehicle and hid in the
bushes.
After 20-30 mis., Tan hailed a jeepney. However, he and Trinidad saw
each other inside. Trinidad ordered him to get out but Tan clung to the next
jeep. Trinidad fired two shots, one of which hit Tan on his right thigh. The RTC
Found Trinidad guilty of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.
DISPOSITIVE
The accused-appellant’s conviction is affirmed and modified by the Court
FACTS (as narrated by principal witness, Ricardo Tan)
- The deceased victim, Lolito Soriano, was a fish dealer based in Davao City.
His helpers were Tan, a driver, and the other deceased victim Marcial Laroa.
- Jan 19, 1983 – using Ford Fiera, they arrived at Butuan City to sell fish
- Jan 20, 1983 (morning) – Soriano drove to Buenavista, Agusan del Norte, with
Laroa and a helper, Samuel Comendador.
- Tan was left behind in Butuan City. He followed Soriano and Laroa later in the
morning.
- While at Buenavista, accused Emeliano Trinidad, member of the Integrated
National Police, assigned at Nasipit Police Station, asked for a ride to
Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, which is on the way to Davao City.
o Trinidad was in uniform and had two firearms, a carbine and a side-arm
.38 caliber revolver.
- Jan 20, 1983 (5:20 pm) – Soriano, Laroa, Tan, and Trinidad left Butuan and
went to Davao.
o Tan was driving, seated to his right was Soriano, Laroa and Trinidad, in
that order
o Between El Rio and Afga – Trinidad advised him to drive slowly because
the place is dangerous
o All of a sudden, Tan heard 2 gunshots, Soriano and Laroa slumped dead.
Tan only witnessed the shooting of Soriano.
o Both were hit on the head. Trinidad had used his carbine.
o Tan got off the Fiera and hid in the bushes.
o Fiera was still running slowly but it came to a halt after hitting the muddy
side of the road. Tan heard a shot emanating from the Fiera.
- After 20-30 mins., Tan hailed a passenger jeep and rode on the front seat. He
noticed that Trinidad was seated at the back.
- Noticing Tan as well, Trinidad ordered him to get out but, instead, Tan moved
backward and ran around the jeep
- When the jeep started to drive away, Tan clung to its side. Trinidad fired two
shots, one of which hit Tan on his right thigh
- Tan jumped from the first jeep and ran to the second. However, the
passengers of the latter pushed him out.
- Tan crawled until a member of the P.C. chanced upon him and helped him
board a bus for Butuan City.
Alibis
Trinidad:
- He contended that he was in Cagayan de Oro City
- He reported to his post on Jan 19 1983 but asked permission from his Station
Commander to be relieved from work the next day, Jan 20, as it was his
birthday
- On Jan 20, he left Baan, his Butuan City residence, at about 3:00 P.M. and
took a bus bound for Cagayan de Oro City. He arrived at Cagayan de Oro at
around 8:00 P.M. and proceeded to his sister's house at Camp Alagar
- He claimed that he left Cagayan de Oro for Butuan at lunch time on Jan 21
1983 arriving at the latter place around 6:00 P.M., and went to his house
directly to get his service carbine.
- He was on his way to Nasipit to report for duty on Jan 21, 1983 when he was
arrested at around 6:00 P.M. at Buenavista, Agusan del Norte.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- WON the RTC erred in giving full faith and credit to Tan's testimony who,
Trinidad alleges, was an unreliable witness
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court
- Found Trinidad guilty of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder
o To pay the offended party P50,000.00 in civil indemnity and P30,000.00
for moral damages.
Supreme Court
Tan’s inconsistencies accdg. to Trinidad
- Trinidad: when he boarded the Fiera in Buenavista, Tan was not in the vehicle
o Tan was still at Langihan distributing fish. He followed only at 11am in
another vehicle. But on the return trip to Davao, Tan was already on
board.
- Trinidad: Tan was unsure when the NAPOLCOM Hearing Officer asked whether
Trinidad was in khaki or fatigue uniform
23
 o Tan said he is in khaki, but prosecution witness Comendador said he was
in a complete uniform
o These are details that do not affect the positive identification of Trinidad
that Tan has made nor detract from the latter's overall credibility.
- Trinidad has no basis to contend that the absence of gunpowder burns on the
deceased victims negates Tan’s claim that they were shot “point-blank”
o In point of fact, it matters not how far the assailant was at the time he shot
the victims, the crucial factor being whether he did shoot the victim or not

Frustrated Murder or Attempted Murder?

- Trinidad can only be convicted of Attempted Murder.
o He had commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but
was unable to perform all the acts of execution which would have
produced it by reason of causes other than his spontaneous desistance,
such as,
 that the jeep to which Tan was clinging was in motion
 there was a spare tire which shielded the other parts of his body
o Tan’s wound on his thigh is not fatal; the doctrinal rule is that, when the
wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime
is only Attempted Murder

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the guilt of the accused Emeliano Trinidad for the crimes of
Murder (on two counts) and Attempted Murder, having been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, his conviction is hereby AFFIRMED and he is hereby sentenced as
follows:

1. In each of 2 criminal case for Murder, he shall suffer the indeterminate

penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal,
as maximum; to indemnify the heirs of Marcial Laroa and Lolito Soriano,
respectively, in the amount of P30,000.00 each; and to pay the costs.

2. In 1 criminal case for Frustrated Murder, he is hereby found guilty only of

Attempted Murder and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six (6)
months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years
and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum; to indemnify Ricardo Tan in
the sum of P5,000,00;

CONCUR: Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ.

24
Mondragon v People of the Philippines  If Mondragon had intended to kill Nacionales, he wouldn’t have
GR no. 17666 | June 30, 1966 backed off
Ponente: Zaldivar  Mondragon HAD NO INTENT to kill Nacionales
Plaintiff-appellee: Isidoro Mondragon - Since the wounds could heal within 30 days, Mondragon’s offense would be
Accused-appellants: the People of the Philippines less serious physical injuries

Nature of Case: SUPREME COURT RULING

Appeal for the certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals
BRIEF
Isidoro Mondragon struck Serapion Nacionales with a bolo several times to
prevent the latter from opening a dike in the farmland. When Nacionales
brought out his own bolo and fought back, Mondragon left.
The decision of the CA is modified in the sense that the Petitioner is
declared GUILTY of less serious physical injuries and is sentenced to 3mos and
15 days of arresto mayor.
CONCUR: Concepcion (CJ), Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, Sanchez

DISPOSITIVE
The trial court and the CA found Mondragon guilty of attempted homicide.

FACTS
- On July 11, 1954 Nacionales was opening the dike of his ricefield when he
heard someone telling him not to do so
- He continued, and heard someone say “Don’t you dare open the dike” and saw
Mondragon coming towards him
- Mondragon tried to hit him, Nacionales dodged. Then the former drew his bolo
and struck Nacionales on various parts of the body. Nacionales drew his own
bolo and struck the former, who then retreated and went home
- The doctor who examined Nacionales said that the wounds will heal from 20-
25 days.

ISSUE/S of the CASE

- Whether or not the CA erred in finding him guilty of attempted homicide instead
of less serious physical injuries.

ACTIONS of the COURT

Court of Appeals
- Determined that Mondragon had intent to kill when he answered the leading
questions “Will you do everything to stop Nacionales from digging the canal?”
in the affirmative

Supreme Court
- There was no intent
o The term “will do everything” is broad; and the question is misleading
o This statement was made years after the occurrence, and is not an
accurate indication
o the intent to kill must be proved by clear and convincing evidence
o inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of
circumstance
 The petitioner began with fist blows; and the wounds inflicted by
the bolo were slight- indicating no homicidal urge on Mondragon’s
part
 The petitioner backed off when Nacionales drew his own bolo

25
People v Diño
GR no. L-43530 | August 3, 1935
Ponente: Melencio-Herrera
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Remy Diño
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo finding the
appellant guilty of Rape with Homicide (Jose Dequito and Salvador Dequito
withdrew their appeals)
BRIEF
Roberto Dumancas, eyewitness, saw Salvador Dequito pull Melinda Boglosa
into a rice paddy. The accused and Jose Dequito then held her down while
Salvador raped her. Jose and Remy Diño then had their way with her.
Afterwards, Salvador choked the woman, and the three dragged her and
pushed her head down the water.
DISPOSITIVE
Court of First Instance found the three guilty of three crimes of Rape with
Homicide. As the appeals of Salvador and Jose were withdrawn, the
Supreme Court only decided on Diño’s appeal- they found him guilty.
FACTS
- On November 13, 1973, 10-year old Roberto Dumancas was herding his
carabo when he saw Jose, Salvador and Diño 50 meters away.
- Melinda Boglosa came along; Salvador pulled her down the rice paddy; Diño
held her hands, Jose her legs- Salvador then raped her; the other two took
turns after
- Afterwards, Salvador choked her, and the three dragged her to the water and
pushed her head down
Appellants’ witnesses
- Marcelino Dequito said that Diño had been near his house for some time
before someone called him that there was a body in the paddy
- Kathleen Hustace said that she and Diño had been feeding the birds before
she left at 1’o clock
- Diño himself said that he was not in the vicinity and that on Nov.18 he was
arrested by two PC officers and was beaten to make him admit. He refused to
do so. He was forced to sign a document before he could be released.
Salvador was treated similarly.
- Appellants also claimed that it was not right for CFI judge (who was taking over
from Judge Veloso who had resigned, but was the one who presided over the
testimonies in the case) to decide on the case without the transcript of
stenographic notes
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the Iloilo Court of First Instance’s decision was appropriate
ACTIONS of the COURT
Iloilo Court of First Instance
- Convicted Remy Diño, and Jose and Salvador Dequito of 3 crimes of Rape
with Homicide each, sentencing each to 3 penalties of reclusion perpetua,
indemnify the heirs of Melinda Boglosa and jointly pay P12,000 and costs.
Supreme Court
- Though the notes were not transcribed, the important documents were given in
the court: the summaries of major testimonies, the memoranda, and an
exhaustive discussion on the facts of substance essential to the defense.
- Court found that Dumancas’ testimony is credible
o He positively identified the accused
o He was able to describe clearly and straightforwardly the particular acts
of the crime
o His statements were corroborate by medical findings
- The alibis of the appellant were not acceptable
o To establish alibi, one must be at a place for a period of time that would
make it impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime
o This was not so with the alibis given, they were in the same barrio, and
were near
- Lower court’s verdict was correct
o Rape: having carnal knowledge of a woman by using force and
depriving her of consciousness
 All of these were present
o Homicide: a person is killed without justifiable reason and the accused
had intent
 All of these were present
- Penalties were properly imposed
o Penalty should be death, but it was abolished by the constitution, thus
reclusion perpetua is appropriate
SUPREME COURT RULING
The judgement of the trial court is AFFIRMED except that the indemnity is
increased to P20,000. With 1/3 of the costs to the appellant.
CONCUR: Yap (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento
26
Robbery
People v Dio
GR No. L-36461 | June 29, 1984
Ponente: Abad Santos, Vicente
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Hernando Dio
Nature of Case:
Automatic Review of a decision of the defunct Circuit Criminal Court, 7th
Judicial District, which imposed the death penalty
BRIEF
On July 24, 1971, in Pasay City, Danilo Tobias and Hernando Dio,
conspired together and robbed away Crispulo P. Alega’s Seiko brand
men’s wrist watch. Tobias was twisting Alega’s neck while Dio was holding
the latter’s two hands. Alega resisted when the two criminals tried to divest
his watch. So Tobias, the man twisting his neck, stabbed him with
balisong. The balisong was directly aimed at the vital portions of his body
causing his death. An information for robbery with homicide was filed
against Danilo Tobias and Hernando Dio.
Dio pleaded not guilty when he was arraigned by the RTC, sentencing him
to death penalty.
DISPOSITIVE
The judgement of the RTC is modified
FACTS
- Oct. 1 1971 - An information for robbery with homicide was filed against Danilo
Tobias and a John Doe
o The order to arrest Tobias was returned unserved and he is still on the
"Wanted Persons Files."
- Dec 7, 1971 - the information was amended to name Hernando Dio as the John
Doe. Information accdg. to amendment:
o July 24, 1971, Pasay City – Tobias and Dio, conspiring together, one of
the accused steal and rob away from one Crispulo P. Alega with the use
of balisong, one Seiko brand men’s wrist watch
o The said accused, with the intent to kill, stab Alega several times. The
balisong was directly aimed at the vital portions of his body causing his
death
o Dio pleaded not guilty when he was arraigned
THE PEOPLE’S VERSION OF THE FACTS
- July 24, 1971, Pasay City (noontime) – Alega, a civil engr., fetched his girlfriend,
Remedios Maniti, a third year high school student and proceeded to the Pasay
City Public Market
- As they were going up the stairs leading to the restaurant, Remedios looked
back, and she saw a man - later Identified as Tobias but still at large - twisting
the neck of Alega, while the appellant was holding his Alega's two hands
- Alega resisted when Tobias and his companion tried to divest his watch. So the
man twisting Alega’s neck stabbed him.
- Alega shouted for help. When he reached the front of the Pasay Commercial
Bank he fell down and expired. At the time of his death, the "Seiko" watch was
strapped to his wrist.
- Cause of death: stab wound at the region below his left breast which penetrated
the heart
Alibis:
- Dio: he just held the victim’s hand; Tobias stabbed the victim
- Atty. Feria (Dio’s atty):
o The Trial Court erred in convicting Dio of the special complex of crime of
Robbery with Homicide as defined and penalized under Art. 294, Par. 1, of
RPC.
o Even assuming that the crime committed by Dio is Robbery with
Homicide, the Trial Court erred in sentencing him to suffer the death
penalty.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- WON Dio is guilty of robbery with homicide
ACTIONS of the COURT
Circuit Criminal Court
- Found the accused Hernando Dio, Guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime
of Robbery with Homicide
- Sentenced him to suffer the penalty of DEATH; to indemnify the heirs of the
victim, Crispulo Alega the amount of P12,000.00; to pay moral damages in the
amount of P10,000.00 and another P10,000.00, as exemplary damages; and to
pay the costs
Supreme Court
- Dio claims that he should not have been convicted of the robbery with homicide
because the robbery was not consummated. There was only an attempted
robbery. Accdg. to Sol. Gen.:
o It is true that, Dio and his companion failed to divest the victim’s watch.
The killing of Alega may be considered as an offshoot of the plan to carry
out the robbery, which however was not consummated because of the
resistance offered by the deceased.
o This case would properly come under Art. 297 of RPC
- Dio claims that the information does not allege any aggravating circumstance nor
was any proved during the trial. Accdg. to Sol. Gen.:
o Agree with Dio
o The crime committed by the appellant is attempted robbery with homicide
and the penalty prescribed by law is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to reclusion perpetua
o Since there was no attendant mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, the
penalty should be applied in its medium period
SUPREME COURT RULING
27
 WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court is hereby modified; the
appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
attempted robbery with homicide and he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayoras minimum to 20 years of reclusion
temporal as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of Crispulo Alega in the amount of
P30,000.00, and to pay one-half of the costs.

CONCUR: Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero,

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente and Cuevas,
JJ.

28
People v Aurelio Lamahang SUPREME COURT RULING
GR no. L-43530 | August 3, 1935 The CFI’s sentence is REVOKED. The accused is found GUILTY of
Ponente: Recto attempted trespass to dwelling, with aggravating circumstances of nighttime
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines and former convictions, and mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.
Accused-appellants: Aurelio Lamahang Sentenced to 3mos of arresto mayor.

Nature of Case: CONCUR: Avancena (CJ), Abad-Santos, Hull, Vickers

Appeal for the decision of the Court of First Instance finding the appellant
guilty of attempted robbery

BRIEF
Policeman Tomambing, while on patrol, caught Lamahang in the act of
breaking through a wall of a store with an iron bar.

DISPOSITIVE
Court of First Instance found him guilty of attempted robbery. The Supreme
Court revoked this and declared Lamahan guilty of attempted trespass.

FACTS
- Lamahan is a habitual delinquent
- On March 2, 1935 in Ilo-ilo, during patrol, policeman Jose Tomambing caught
Lamahan in the act of taking apart the boards of a wall with an iron bar
- During that time, the owner was asleep inside

ISSUE/S of the CASE

- Whether or not Lamahan committed attempted robbery

ACTIONS of the COURT

Trial Court
- Convicted him of attempted robbery; 2yrs 4mos of prison correcional

Supreme Court
- Court found that he was not guilty of attempted robbery, but of attempted
trespass
o In attempts, it is necessary to connect the act performed to a concrete
offense
o There is no evidence on record connecting the act to robbery
o The logical conclusion is that Lamahan intended to enter the store by
means of force against the will of the owner
 Trespass: when a person enters the dwelling of another against
the latter’s will
 Since Lamahan was not able to accomplish all the acts, due to
Tomambing’s interference, it is only attempted
 It was nighttime (dawn), and he had prior convictions (robbery and
theft)
 Lamahan then committed Attempted Trespass with
aggravating circumstances

29
Rape
People v Orita
GR No. 88724 | April 3, 1990
Ponente: Medialda
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Defendant-appellant: Ceilito Orita alias “Lito”
Nature of Case:
Review of a decision of the RTC
BRIEF
On Mar 20, 1983, complainant Cristina Abayan was raped by the appellant
Ceilito Orita. During the Orita’s aggression, he was poking a balisong to Abayan.
He also ordered her to perform sexual positions but could not fully penetrate her.
When Orita had both his hands flat on the floor, Abayan thought of escaping. She
dashed out the next rooms and jumped out the window when Orita chased her.
Still naked, she darted to the municipal building and knocked on its doors. The
policeman, Pat. Donceras, found her naked sitting on the stairs crying. He took
off his jacket, wrapped it around her, and brought her to the hospital.
DISPOSITIVE
The judgement of the RTC is modified
FACTS
- Complainant: Cristina S. Abayan, 19 yrs. Old, freshman student at St. Joseph’s
College, Borongan, Eastern Samar
- Appelant: Ceilito Orita alias “Lito”, Phil. Constabulary soldier
Mar. 20, 1983 (morning)
- Abayan arrived at her boarding house.
- When she was about to knock, somebody held her and poked a knife to her
neck.
- She then recognized Orita, who was a frequent visitor of another border.
- With his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand poking a "balisong"
to her neck, Orita dragged Abayan up the stairs.
- With the balisong still poked to her neck, they entered Abayan's room.
- Upon entering the room, Orita pushed Abayan who hit her head on the wall. With
one hand holding the knife, Orita undressed himself. He then ordered Abayan to
take off her clothes.
- He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. At said position,
however, Orita could not fully penetrate her.
- Orita then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him but still, he
could not fully penetrate her. At this stage, Orita had both his hands flat on the
floor. Abayan thought of escaping.
- Abayan dashed out the next rooms and jumped out the window when Orita
chased her.
- Still naked, she darted to the municipal building and knocked on its doors. The
policeman, Pat. Donceras, found her naked sitting on the stairs crying. He took
off his jacket and wrapped it around her.
- Abayan was bought to the hospital where she was examined.
- Due to darkness, the policemen failed to apprehend Orita.
Alibis:
- Orita:
o The trial court erred in disregarding the substantial inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the witnesses.
o The trial court erred in declaring that the crime of frustrated rape was
committed by the accused.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- WON Orita is guilty of frustrated rape
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court
- Found the accused guilty of the crime of Frustrated Rape, imposes on accused
an imprisonment of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, PRISION MAYOR, as
minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS PRISION MAYOR, maximum; to indemnify
CRISTINA S. ABAYAN, the amount of Four Thousand (P4,000.00) Pesos,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs.
Court of Appeals
- Found the accused guilty of the crime of Rape, sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the victim in the amount of
P30,000.00.
Supreme Court
On Abayan and Pat. Doncera’s inconsistencies
- Orita refer to trivial inconsistencies which are not sufficient to blur or cast doubt
on the witnesses’ straightforward attestations.
- The most candid witnesses may make mistakes sometimes but such honest
lapses do not necessarily impair their intrinsic credibility; complete uniformity in
details would be a strong indication of untruthfulness and lack of spontaneity
- One inconsistency that deserves discussion: the victim said that the accused
asked her to hold and guide his penis in order to have carnal knowledge of her.
o According to accused, this is strange because "this is the only case where
an aggressor's advances is being helped-out by the victim in order that
there will be a consummation of the act."
o Accused’s allegation would have been meritorious but the victim further
testified that the accused was holding a knife during the aggression.
On declaring that Orita is guilty of rape
- The victim in this case did not only state that she was raped but she testified
convincingly on how the rape was committed.
- The victim's testimony from the time she knocked on the door of the municipal
building up to the time she was brought to the hospital was corroborated by Pat.
Donceras.
- Interpreting the findings as indicated in the medical certificate, Dr. Reinerio
Zamora declared that the injuries are conclusive proof of struggle against force
and violence exerted on the victim.
30
- The trial court even inspected the boarding house and was fully satisfied that the
narration is true.

Orita questions the absence of other witnesses and medico-legal officer

- It is up to the prosecution to determine who should be presented as witnesses on
the basis of its own assessment of their necessity.
- Also, the trial court stated that it was by agreement of the parties that another
physician testified inasmuch as the medico-legal officer was no longer available.
- The accused did not bother to contradict this statement.

Frustrated rape?
- The trial court was of the belief that there is no conclusive evidence of
penetration of the genital organ of the victim and thus convicted the accused of
frustrated rape only.
- The accused contends that there is no crime of frustrated rape. The Solicitor
General shares the same view.
- On the contrary, it is stated in the medical certificate that the vulva was
erythematous (which means marked by abnormal redness of the skin due to
capillary congestion, as in inflammation) and tender.
o It bears emphasis that Dr. Zamora did not rule out penetration of the
genital organ of the victim. He merely testified that there was uncertainty
whether or not there was penetration.
o The victim positively testified that there was penetration, even if only
partially
- The Court finds the evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of consummated rape.

SUPREME COURT RULING

ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby
MODIFIED. The accused Ceilito Orita is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the
victim in the amount of P30,000.00.

CONCUR: Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ.

31
Liability for multiple, complex, and continuing crimes
Enrile v Salazar
GR No. 92163 | June 5, 1990
Ponente: Narvasa
Petitioner: Juan Ponce Enrile
Respondents: Judge Jaime Salazar, Sr. State Prosecutor Aurelio Trampe,
Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis, and City Asst. City Prosec. Eulogio
Mananquil, NBI Dir. Alfredo Lim, Brig. Gen. Edgar Dula Torres and/or any and all
persons who may have actual custody over the person of Juan Ponce Enrile
Nature of Case:
Writ of habeas corpus
BRIEF
On Feb 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was
arrested on the strength of a warrant issued by QC Regional Trial Court. The
warrant had issued on an information, charging Senator Enrile, the spouses
Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion
with murder and multiple frustrated murder committed during the period of
the failed coup attempt from Nov-Dec 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and held
overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none
having been recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest
warrant. The following day, he filed the petition for habeas corpus, alleging
that he was deprived of his constitutional rights.
DISPOSITIVE
The questioned information filed against petitioners must be read as charging
simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are entitled to bail, before final
conviction, as a matter of right.
FACTS
- Feb 27, 1990 (afternoon) – Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was
arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the NBI on the
strength of a warrant issued by QC Regional Trial Court
- The warrant had issued on an information, charging Senator Enrile, the spouses
Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion
with murder and multiple frustrated murder committed during the period of
the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990.
- Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft
Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the information
and none fixed in the arrest warrant.
- Feb 28, 1990 – Enrile was brought to Camp Karingal. He filed the petition
for habeas corpus, alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights in
being, or having been:
o (a) held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute
books;
o (b) charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no
complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted,
hence was denied due process;
o (c) denied his right to bail; and
o (d) arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the
judge who issued it first having personally determined the existence of
probable cause
- Mar 6, 1990 – Sol. Gen. filed a consolidated return for the respondents
o Urged that this case does not fall within the Hernandez ruling
o The information in Hernandez, charged murders and other common
crimes committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion
o Whereas the information against Sen. Enrile et al. charged murder and
frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of
rebellion.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- WON the Hernandez ruling can be applied in this case
ACTIONS of the COURT
Supreme Court
- Mar 6, 1990 – Parties were heard in oral argument;
- The Court issued its Resolution of the same date granting Senator Enrile and
the Panlilio spouses provisional liberty conditioned upon their filing, within 24
hours from notice, cash or surety bonds of P100,000.00 (for Senator Enrile) and
P200,000.00 (for the Panlilios), respectively.
Options presented from the parties’ oral & written pleas
- By Sol. Gen.:
1. Abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view expressed in the main
dissent of Justice Montemayor in said case that rebellion cannot absorb more
serious crimes, and that under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code rebellion
may properly be complexed with common offenses, so-called
o The President in effect by legislative flat reinstated Hernandez as binding
doctrine with the effect of law. The Court can do no less than accord it the
same recognition, absent any sufficiently powerful reason against so
doing.
- 2. Hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses committed in furtherance, or as a
necessary means for the commission, of rebellion, but not to acts committed in
the course of a rebellion which also constitute "common" crimes of grave or less
grave character
o Proponents’ arguments were not entirely devoid of merit, but they were
not sufficient to overcome what appears to be the real thrust
of Hernandez to rule out the complexing of rebellion with any other offense
committed in its course
- The rejection of the 2 options shapes and determines the primary ruling of the
Court:
o Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed on the occasion,
either as a means necessary to its commission or as an unintended effect
of an activity that constitutes rebellion
- 3. Maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion absorb all other offenses
committed in its course, whether or not necessary to its commission or in
furtherance thereof.
32
On depriving Enrile his constitutional rights
(a) held to answer for criminal offense which does not exist in the statute books
- Read in the context of Hernandez, the information does indeed charge the
petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple
rebellion.

(b) charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was
initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was denied due
process
- The record shows otherwise, that a complaint against petitioner for simple
rebellion was filed by the Director of the NBI, and that on the strength of said
complaint a preliminary investigation was conducted by the respondent
prosecutors, culminating in the filing of the questioned information.

(c) denied his right to bail

- Was a petition for habeas corpus in this Court the appropriate vehicle for
asserting a right to bail or vindicating its denial?
o The original jurisdiction to grant or deny bail rested with said respondent.
o The correct course was for petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction by filing a
petition to be admitted to bail, claiming a right to bail per se by reason of
the weakness of the evidence against him.
o Only after that remedy was denied by the trial court should the review
jurisdiction of this Court have been invoked, and even then, not without
first applying to the Court of Appeals if appropriate relief was also
available there.

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the Court reiterates that based on the doctrine enunciated
in People vs. Hernandez, the questioned information filed against petitioners Juan
Ponce Enrile and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio must be read as charging
simple rebellion only, hence said petitioners are entitled to bail, before final
conviction, as a matter of right.
The Court's earlier grant of bail to petitioners being merely provisional in
character, the proceedings in both cases are ordered REMANDED to the respondent
Judge to fix the amount of bail to be posted by the petitioners. Once bail is fixed by
said respondent for any of the petitioners, the corresponding bail bond flied with this
Court shall become functus oficio. No pronouncement as to costs.

CONCUR: Cruz, Gancayco and Regalado, JJ.

Medialdea, J., concurs in G.R. No. 92164 but took no part in G.R. No. 92163.

33
COMPLEX CRIME vs MULTIPLE CRIME
People v Ducay
GR no. L-86939 | August 2, 1993
Ponente: Davide, Jr.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused: Edgardo and Santos Ducay
Accused-appellants: Santos Ducay
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the decision of the Trial Court finding the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of complex crime of double murder and multiple frustrated
murder
BRIEF
The victims were asleep in their house when 2 men- allegedly Santos and
his son Edgardo- came in their house with guns and shot at them. Two of
the victims died while the other three lived due to timely medical response.
DISPOSITIVE
Valenzuela Regional Trial court found Santos guilty of complex crime of
double murder, while Edgardo was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court affirmed the decision, however modifying complex crime with
multiple crimes.
FACTS
- On December 24, 1985, Manuel Labos and Santos quarrelled and stabbed
each other
- On October 12, 1986 in Valenzuela, Lina Labos was sleeping with her
husband Manuel and their 6-month old daughter, Ma.Christina, when moments
later, Santos and Edgardo appeared in the sala, both carrying guns
- They fired at Manuel and his mother, Pacita – both died
- Then at Lina, Ma.Christina and Manuel’s brother, Edwin
- The accused then turned their backs, one of them saying: “Ubos ang lahi”
- Lina was able to identify the two because of the light in the sala
- The three lived due to timely medical response
Defense witnesses:
- Ruben Ampuan said that the saw two men leaving Labos’ house, they were
not the accused
- Mario Allegado said that as he was heading home, he met two men whom he
believed were the assailants, one of which was a mestizo, they were not the
accused
- Capt. Carlos Tiquia, chief investigator of the Valenzuela Police Station,
believed that Erwin was not telling the truth when he gave the statement; when
pressed further, he described one as tall with mestizo features
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the trial court’s decision was appropriate
ACTIONS of the COURT
Valenzuela RTC
- Found Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of double
murder and multiple frustrated murder
- His positive identification by witnesses sweeps aside altogether his defense
- Found Edgardo not guilty due to reasonable doubt and ordered him released.
Supreme Court
On the credibility of prosecution’s witnesses
- Appellants claimed that a Martin Gabukan overheard Edwin in the hospital
saying that he did not really see the appellant
- They also point out that Lina Labos’ statement was executed 2 days after the
event
- Since the trial court did not believe the two witnesses’ testimonies on Edgardo,
court should reject testimonies on Santos by “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”5
- Court found these without merit
o Edwin’s statement implicating Santos was made barely 4 hours after the
event, while hovering between life and death
 He did not have time to fabricate
 Martin Gabukan’s statement is hearsay
 Martin was not even used as a witness
o Delay in statements do not necessarily impair credibility if such delay is
satisfactorily explained
 With her wounds, it cannot be expected for her to immediately
give anything
o The maxim is not a mandatory rule of evidence
- The witnesses are credible
On the admissibility of paraffin test
- Santos faults the RTC for not accepting the results of his paraffin test declaring
him negative for gunpowder residue
o Court finds RTC’s decision correct as :
 Santos was subjected to paraffin test the day after the crime
 He could have fired the gun and yet test negative for nitrates by
wearing gloves or by washing his hands
On Complex Crimes
- Complex crime: caused by a single act necessary in committing other acts
- In this case there were no complex crimes
o When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute
separate and distinct crimes
o This happened in the case at hand
o HOWEVER, the trial court ruled it as a complex crime, combining all the
crimes into one
 The trial court did not want to impose corresponding penalties for
each crime
 The case then, although now combined into one complex crime,
charges the accused with five different criminal acts
5
False in one thing, false in everything

34
 o The appellant did not move to object to the multiplicity of charges*
 *Multiplicity bars charging one offense in several counts.
 This creates the risk that a defendant will be punished for, or
stigmatized with a conviction of, more crimes than he actually
committed
 BUT since the appellant did not question this, they therefore
waived such defect
- Court identifies the individual acts the appellants were convicted of:
o 2 counts of murder
o 3 counts of frustrated murder
 They committed all the acts but the accomplishment of the crime
was prevented by medical attention, something outside their will
- It must be noted that there is the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.

SUPREME COURT RULING

The judgement of the Valenzuela RTC is AFFIRMED subject to
modifications:
1. 2 crimes of murder for the death of Pacita and Manuel Labos,
sentenced reclusion perpetua for each death with indemnity increased
from P30,000 to P50,000
2. 3 crimes of frustrated murder on Lina, Ma.Christina and Edwin Labos
sentenced to 8yrs and 1day of prision mayor to 14yrs 8mos and 1day of
reclusion temporal

NOTE: Court no longer refers to it as complex . Crimes are now recognized

individually (multiple)

CONCUR: Cruz, Grino-Aquino, Bellosillo, Quiason

35
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Self-defense
RPC Art. 11: Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any
criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
People v Boholst-Caballero
GR no. L-23249 | Nov. 25, 1974
Ponente: Muñoz Palma
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the reversal of the judgement of the Court of First Instance of
Ormoc City
FACTS (by appellant Cunigunda)
BRIEF
Spouses Cunigunda Boholst and Francisco Caballero separated when
Francisco decided to leave Cunigunda and their daughter. Their marriage was
not a harmonious one – they had frequent quarrels where Francisco
maltreated and beat his wife.
One night, Cunigunda went carolling with her friends. When she was about
to get home, she met Francisco. They got into a fight until it came to a point
where Francisco intended to kill her by choking her. Because she had no other
recourse, she pulled out the knife from Francisco’s belt and thrust it at him.
When she finally released herself, she ran home and threw the knife on the
way.
She surrendered to the police and presented the torn and blood-stained
dress worn by her. The RTC found her guilty of Parricide
DISPOSITIVE
The SC set aside the judgment of conviction and ACQUIT her with costs de
oficio.
FACTS (by prosecution)
- Cunigunda Boholst and Francisco Caballero, both at the age of 20, were
married on June 7, 1956 by the parish priest of the Ormoc Roman Catholic
Church
- Marriage was not a happy one, so the two separated before the end of 1957
- Jan. 2, 1958 (late evening)- Caballero and his two companions drank “tuba” in
a certain house in Ipil, Ormoc City
o Two companions: Ignacio Barabad and Kakong Sacay
- At about midnight, Caballero and his companions proceeded home
- On the way, they saw Cunigunda standing at the corner of the yard of Igmedio
Barabad
- Cunigunda called Francisco, and when the latter approached her, Cunigunda
stabbed him with a knife
- Francisco called for help. When his two companions saw him wounded, they
brought him to St. Jude Hospital
- Dr. Cesar Samson, who attended Francisco, found a punctured wound on the
left lumbar region measuring 1 inch externally
o First aid was given but their equipment were inadequate for blood
transfusion
o Dr. Samson suggested to transport Francisco to Cebu City
- In the meantime, Cunigunda surrendered to Police Dept. of Ormoc City and
informed sergeant Restituto Mariveles that she stabbed her husband
- While at the hospital, Francisco was interrogated by Patrolman Francisco
Covero; Francisco pointed Cunigunda as the assailant
o The answers of Francisco was in written form; he affixed his thumbark in
the presence of his brother, Cresencio Caballero and another policeman,
Francisco Tomada
- Jan. 4, 1958 – Francisco was brought to Cebu City on board the “MV Ormoc”
o Trip was futile; Francisco died at noontime of the same day from stab
wound
- June 7, 1956 – after her marriage, Cunigunda lived with her husband in the
house of her parents in Ipil, Ormoc City
o Marriage was not harmonious
o But they had a daughter
- Her married life:
o Frequent quarrels caused by Francisco’s gambling, drinking, and
serenading
o He maltreated and beat her
- After more than 1 year, they transferred to a house of their own but Francisco
left them after a month
- Cunigunda went back to her parents who supported her and her child
- Nov. 1957 – daughter became sick and Cunigunda went to Francisco to ask
for support but he drove her away
o Francisco said, “I don’t care if you all would die”
- Jan. 2, 1958
o Cunigunda went carolling with her friend, Crispina Barabad, and several
instrument players
o 12am - they divided the proceeds in Crispina’s house
o When Cunigunda was about to get home, before leaving Crispina’s house,
she met Francisco
o She and Francisco got into a fight because it was already 12am, so he
accused her of being a prostitute (see original case for the whole scene).
o Cunigunda said that he has nothing to do with them anymore.
o Francisco threatened to kill all of them. He held her by the hair, slapped
her until her nose bled, and pushed her towards the ground
36
 o To keep herself from falling, she held on to his waist. Her right hand
grasped the knife tucked inside his belt but he continued to push her
o She fell to the ground. He knelt, choked her, and said that he will kill her.
o Because she had no other recourse, she pulled out the knife of Francisco
and thrust it at him
 She hit the left side of his body, near belt line, above his left thigh
o When she finally released herself, she ran home and threw the knife on
the way
- Jan. 3, 1958
o She surrendered to the police and presented the torn and blood-stained
dress worn by her
o Pat. Mariveles asked her to look for the knife
o Pat. Cabral accompanied her to look for the weapon but they could not
find it
o Pat. Cabral advised her to get any knife, and she did, she gave it to the
desk sergeant, Pat. Mariveles (Exhibit C)
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellant stab her husband in the legitimate defense of her
person
ACTIONS of the COURT
Court of First Instance
- Found Cunigunda guilty of PARRICIDE
- Sentencing her "to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment of from EIGHT (8)
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its medium period, as the
minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY
of reclusion temporal in its medium period as the maximum and;
- to indemnify the heirs of Francisco Caballero in the sum of SIX THOUSAND
PESOS (P6,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to pay the costs", and prays for an acquittal based on her plea of self-
defense”
- Cunigunda’s evidence is not clear and convincing. Reasons:
o Appellant's testimony is inherently improbable as brought out by her
demonstration of the incident in question during the trial of the case;
o There was no wound or injury on appellant's body treated by any
physician;
o Appellant's insistence that the weapon used by her was Moro hunting
knife and not Exh. C is incredible;
o She gave contradictory statements concerning the report made by her
to the police authorities that she was choked by her husband; and
o Her husband's abandonment of her and her child afforded the motive
behind appellant's attack.
Supreme Court
On Cunigunda’s self-defense
- The Court is constrained to disagree with the court a quo
- The trial judge overlooked and did not give due importance to one piece of
evidence which- the location of the wound inflicted on the victim.
o This part of Cunigunda’s narration is the same with Francisco’s
o It is also described by Francisco’s attending physician, Dr. Samson, as
the left lumbar region
- The fact that the blow landed in the vicinity from where the knife was drawn is
a strong indication of the truth of appellant's testimony
o It was quite natural for her right hand to get hold of the knife tucked in
the left side of the man's belt and thrust it at that section of the body
nearest to her hand at the moment
- This also militates the credibility of Ignacio Barabad, the lone witness
o He said that when Cunigunda and Francisco met, she already stabbed
him
o If that were true, the weapon would have been directed towards the
victim’s front body
- The Court finds the location of the fatal wound as a valuable circumstance
which confirms the plea of self-defense.
On Cunigunda’s lack of motive
- The Court disagrees with the court a quo’s statement that Cunigunda’s motive
for killing her husband was his abandonment of her and his failure to support
her and her child.
o Cunigunda declared that she still loves her husband
o No record of any event before the incident which could have aroused
her feelings
o It was Francisco who had a reason for attacking his wife. He reacted
angrily when he met Cunigunda unexpectedly at past midnight in the
road
On Cunigunda’s conduct after the occurrence
- As soon as the sun was up the next day, she surrendered at the police
headquarters
- The Court do not see the alleged contradiction in Cunigunda’s testimony which
was singled out by the judge a quo as one of his reasons for discrediting her
plea of self-defense
o At the start, she did not report the “choking by her husband", she later
changed her testimony
o Based on stenographic transcript, there is no direct statement of hers
that she did not report the incident
o What the RTC asked was whether or not she told the police about the
fist mark on her face and her answer was "No, sir, I forgot."
On Cunigunda’s weapon
- She mentioned that the true knife was missing and that Pat. Cabral advised
her to get any knife and surrender it to the desk sergeant, Pat. Mariveles
o This testimony was taken against her by the court a quo
- The Court believes Cunigunda
o Pat. Cabral did not refute such declaration
o There is sincerity in Cunigunda’s attempt to rectify a misstatement made
by her to the 2 policemen
 That the knife is indeed a blade of around 6 inches for it to
penetrate the left lumbar region
37
Elements of Self-defense are present in this case
- Unlawful aggression is established
o Presupposes an actual or imminent danger on the life or limb of a
person
o Francisco choked her and said that he will kill her
- Reasonable necessity for the means employed is likewise present
o She had no other recourse but to get hold of any weapon within her
reach to save herself from impending death
o Principle: Necessitas Non habet legem. Necessity knows no law.
- Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
o “Sufficient” means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and
adequate to stir one to its commission.
o This element refers to the person defending himself and is essentially
inseparable and co-existent with the idea of self-defense.
o Francisco intent to kill Cuniganda by choking her. All that appellant did
was to provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the mind of her
husband, which is not a sufficient provocation under the law of self-
defense

SUPREME COURT RULING

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, We find that accused-appellant acted
in the legitimate defense of her person, and We accordingly set aside the judgment of
conviction and ACQUIT her with costs de oficio.

CONCUR: Makalintal, C.J, Teehankee, Makasiar and Esguerra, JJ.

NOTES:
- Court a quo – lower court; the court from which an appeal has been taken

38

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: SELF-DEFENSE
Art. 11(1). Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided…: 1)
unlawful aggression; 2) reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel
it; 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
People v Decena
GR 107874 | August 4, 1994
Ponente: Regalado
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Phils.
Accused-appellant: George Decena y Rocaberte
Nature of the case: Motion for reconsideration, alleging errors in the trial court’s
conviction of murder
BRIEF
On Christmas Day of 1990, after watching a basketball game, Jaime Ballesteros was
stabbed with a sharp weapon by Decena. This was witnessed by Ballesteros’s
daughter Luzviminda. Defense alleges that prior to the incident, Ballesteros was
drunk and held Decena by the neck with a fork.
DISPOSITIVE
The Supreme Court ruled that the crime committed was simple homicide, with the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
FACTS
Prosecution (Luzviminda’s testimony):
1. At around 4PM, she was asked by her mother to fetch her father from the
basketball court.
2. She saw Decena rushing towards her father with a sharp weapon, prompting
her to shout in warning, “Batik kila, Tatay!”
3. Jaime just raised his hand, and was stabbed on the right chest just below
the nipple.
4. Luzviminda called for her mother who was in their house, just 15 meters
away from the scene of the crime. They rushed him to the provincial
hospital, where he was declared dead on arrival.
Defense:
1. Jaime was wobbling around the basketball court drunk. For no apparent
reason, he held Decena by the neck with one arm, and poked a fork at his
neck with the other arm. The baranggay tanod intervened and told Decena
to go home.
2. Jaime followed him home. Fernando Biala, Decena’s uncle, saw Jaime
attacking Decena with a balisong. A struggle ensued, and Decena twisted
Jaime’s arm and thrust a knife into the latter’s body.
3. Jaime has a record of always “looking for trouble” when drunk. –response:
wife says there is no record of that.
ACTIONS OF THE COURT
Trial court (Sept. 20, 1991)
- Convicted appellant of murder, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
indemnification of the heirs, P50,000, plus funeral expenses of P4,500 and
P2,300
Supreme Court
- Burden of proof now on defense, because of the claim of self-defense
ISSUE: WON Decena acted in self-defense in killing Jaime Ballesteros – NO
RATIO:
1. The defense failed to establish any continuation or persistence of Jaime’s
unlawful aggression (outside of the basketball court), which could have
justified self-defense.
2. Retaliation is different from self-defense.
Retaliation: the aggression begun by injured party had already ceased to
exist when the accused attack him
Self-defense: the aggression was still existing at the time of the attack from
the accused
3. If Jaime was inebriated and was already having trouble walking, it cannot be
expected that he would be able to persist in attacking or attempting to kill
Decena.
4. There are grave inconsistencies in the defense testimonies:
a. Appellant changed his identification of a fork to a knife. “Surely,
appellant must know the difference between a fork and a knife.”
b. Appellant insisted that after the incident, he never went out of the
house. However, in the local police blotter, it was said that he fled
after the incident.
c. Appellant says that he did not report it immediately because he was
afraid to do so; but when he professed that Jaime stuck a fork
against his neck, he was bold.  A righteous individual would not
cower, and instead, readily admit the killing ASAP if he were
justified in doing so.
d. Fernando Biala seems like a coached witness.
e. Luzviminda being the deceased’s daughter lends more credence to
her testimony, with her natural interest in convicting the guilty.
ISSUE: WON the circumstance of voluntary surrender can be appreciated – YES
RATIO:
1. Voluntary surrender can be accepted if:
a. The offender had not actually been arrested
b. He surrendered himself to a person in authority or an agent of the
latter
c. The surrender was voluntary.
2. Decena was accompanied by his father to Sgt. Romeo Diagan early in the
morning after the incident, before he could be actually arrested.
RULING:
The appealed judgment of the court is MODIFIED by finding accused-appellant guilty
of the crime of homicide.
Penalty: Indeterminate sentence of 8 years prision mayor to 14 years and 8 months
reclusion temporal
39
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – SELF-DEFENSE  Whether or not the actions of the defendant can be considered an act of
RPC Article 14. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal self-defense of her honor as a woman (No)
liability:  Whether or not her actions merits the most liberal consideration possible
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights... under the law (Yes)

People v Jaurigue and Jaurigue ACTIONS of the COURT

CA-No. 384 | February 21, 1946
Ponente: De Joya
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Avelina Jaurigue
Nature of Case:
Appeal from judgment of Court of First Instance of Laguna
BRIEF
 Avelina Jaurigue, defendant, unintentionally killed Amado Capiña, her suitor,
while the latter, with great imprudence, placed his hand on the upper part of
Avelina’s thigh while they were inside a church.
DISPOSITIVE
 Judgment modified; penalty reduced. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court’s finding that Avelina is guilty of homicide but the penalty is reduced by
two degrees, considering mitigating circumstances, to prision correccional.
Trial Court:
 Avelina Jaurigue is found guilty of homicide and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal and
indemnify the heirs of the deceased. Avelina then appealed to the Court of
Appeals (no action of CA described).
Supreme Court:
 A woman is justified in killing her aggresor when there is actual danger of
rape.
- In the instant case, the means employed by Avelina is evidently excessive.
However, her intention was not to kill Amado but only to punish his offending
hand. The Court found that Avelina is not a criminal by nature.
 The following are mitigating circumstances in her favor:
- The fact that Avelina surrendered unconditionally.
- Her action was provocated by passion or obfuscation, or temporary loss of
reason and self-control.
 Ozaeta, Perfecto, and Bengzon, concur.

FACTS
 On September 13, 1942, Amado spoke of her love to Avelina which she
flatly refused. Nonethelss, Amado suddenly embraced, kissed, touched her.
From then on, she armed herself with a long fan knife.
 On September 15, Amado climbed up the house of the defendant and
entered the room where she was sleeping. She screamed upon feeling his
presence and sought the help of her parents. Amado begged for the
forgiveness of the parents.
 On September 20, the day of the fatal incident, Avelina received news that
Amado has been falsely boasting that she desperately tried to elope with
Amado.
 On the same day, at around 8:00 p.m., Nicolas Jaurigue, father of the
defendant, went to the Seventh Day Adventists chapel to attend a religious
service. Avelina followed afterwards and sat at the back. Amado, seated on
the other side, transferred and sat near Avelina. He placed his hand on the
upper part of her right thigh.
 Avelina pulled her fan knife with the intention of punishing Amado’s
offending hand but Amado seized her right hand so she quickly grabbed the
knife by her left hand and stabbed Amado at his neck, mortally injuring
Amado.
 Avelina confessed of what she had done stating that she could not take it
anymore. She surrendered the weapon and herself to the authorities
afterwards.

ISSUES of the CASE

40
Justifying Circumstances: Self-defense
Mitigating Circumstances: Incomplete Justification or Exemption
RPC Art. 11 (1): Justifying Circumstances:
The following do not incur any criminal liability:
Par. 1: Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur:
1: Unlawful aggression
2: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
RPC Art. 13 (1): Mitigating Circumstances:
Art. 13, par. 1: Those mentioned in the preceding chapter (Justifying Circumstances),
when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability
in the respective cases are not attendant.
*INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE is present in this case.
People v Narvaez
GR No. L-33466-67 | April 20, 1983
Ponente: MAKASIAR, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Mamerto Narvaez
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of murder, and sentence of life imprisonment
BRIEF
Deceased David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, along with three other men,
were fencing the land of George Fleischer. At the place of the fencing is the
house and rice drier of appellant Mamerto Narvaez. Appellant trying to stop
said fencing shot Fleischer and Rubia, causing the death of the two.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that Narvaez is guilty for two counts of homicide mitigated
by the privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self-defense as
well as by two generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
obfuscation.
FACTS
- At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, 1968, the two deceased: Davis
Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, and 3 other men were fencing the land of
George Fleischer, father of deceased David.
- At the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant.
- At that time, Narvaez was taking his rest, but arose when he heard that the
walls of his house were being chiselled. If the fencing would go on, appellant
would be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his
ricemill.
- He addressed the group, saying 'Pare, if possible you stop destroying my
house and if possible we will talk it over what is good,' addressing the
deceased Rubia, who is appellant's compadre. Fleischer, however,
answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.'
- Appellant apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his shotgun and shot
Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards the jeep,
and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at Rubia, likewise
hitting him. Both Fleischer and Rubia died.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellant is guilty of murder. (NO)
ACTIONS of the COURT
South Cotabato Court of First Instance
- Convicted the appellant of murder with the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
- Penalty for each of the two murders is RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to
indemnify each victim’s heirs with P12,000 compensatory damages, P10,000
as moral damages and P2,000 as attorney’s fees.
Supreme Court
- It appears, however, that this incident is intertwined with the long drawn out
legal battle between the Fleischer and Co., Inc. of which deceased Fleischer
was the secretary-treasurer and deceased Rubia the asst. manager, on the
one hand, and the land settlers of Cotabato.
Supplementary Facts
- Narvaez was among the persons from Northern and Central Luzon who went
to Maitum, South Cotabato in 1937. He established his residence therein, built
his house, cultivated the area and was among those who petitioned then
President Manuel L. Quezon to order the subdivision of the defunct Celebes
Plantation and Kalaong Plantation totalling about 2,000 hectares, for
distribution among the settlers.
- Fleischer & Co. filed sales application for 1,017 hectares of said land.
- After WWII, only 300 hectares was declared open for disposition, appraised &
advertised for public auction. The rest were subdivided into subplots of 5-6
hectares to be distributed among settlers.
- Aug. 14, 1948, public auction - Fleischer was the only bidder: P6,000.
- Settlers protested but Fleischer was able to negotiate for amicable settlement.
However, settlers repudiated said agreement. The settlers appealed to the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who, however, affirmed the
decision in favor of the company.
- May 29, 1950 - settlers filed for annulment of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources’ order which affirmed the awarding of the contested land to
the company. Settlers lost in both the Court of First Instance of Cotabato and
the Court of Appeals.
- Settlers were oused by an order of the Court of First Instance dated
September 24, 1966.
- Among those ejected was Narvaez who, to avoid trouble, voluntarily
dismantled his house, built in 1947 at a cost of around P20,000.00, and
transferred to his other house near the highway.
41
 - November 14, 1966 – settlers filed in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato to
obtain an injunction or annulment of the order of award with prayer for
preliminary injunction
- During pendency of case, appellant on February 21, 1967 entered into a
contract of lease with the company (100-140 sq. meters) for a
consideration of P16.00 monthly.
- According to him, he signed the contract although the ownership of the land
was still uncertain, in order to avoid trouble, until the question of ownership
could be decided. He never paid the agreed rental, although he alleges that
the milling job they did for Rubia was considered payment.
- June 25, 1968 - deceased Fleischer wrote him a letter giving him 6 months to
remove and evacuate all his constructions from the land or else “the company
shall cause their immediate demolition.”
- August 21, 1968 – both deceased together with their laborers commenced
fencing of the property until the next day when the crime was committed.
- Appellant admitted having shot them from the window of his house with the
shotgun which he surrendered to the police authorities.
First Assignment of Error: That the lower court erred in convicting defendant-
appellant despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person;
Second Assignment of Error: That the court a quo also erred in convicting
defendant-appellant although he acted in defense of his rights
AS BY TWO (2) GENERIC MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER AND OBFUSCATION, WITHOUT ANY AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE, APPELLANT IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO SUFFER AN
IMPRISONMENT OF FOUR (4) MONTHS OF ARRESTO MAYOR, TO INDEMNIFY
EACH GROUP OF HEIRS OF DAVIS FLEISCHER AND OF FLAVIANO RUBIA IN
THE SUM OF FOUR THOUSAND (P 4,000.00) PESOS, WITHOUT SUBSIDIARY
IMPRISONMENT AND WITHOUT ANY AWARD FOR MORAL DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY'S FEES.
CONSIDERING THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN UNDER DETENTION FOR
ALMOST FOURTEEN (14) YEARS NOW SINCE HIS VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
ON AUGUST 22, 1968, HIS IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS HEREBY ORDERED. NO
COSTS.
CONCUR: Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, De Castro,
Melencio-Herrera, Escolin Vasquez and Relova, JJ.
NOTES:
o Art. 14, par. 6: That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation
o Art. 14, par. 6: That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to
a person in authority or his agents

Court rationale on above facts

- Self-defense lacks one element.
1. Unlawful aggression: YES. The property in dispute still has a pending
case for injunction or annulment of the order of award. Fleischer and co.
cannot fence said property just yet.
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed: NO. When the appellant fired
his shotgun from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was
disproportionate to the attack.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of appellant: YES. He was asleep.
He pleaded for men to stop and talk things over.
- No murder, only homicide. The qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be
appreciated in this case because of the presence of provocation on the part of
the deceased.
- No evident premeditation. Crisanto Ibanez’ testimony that Narvaez threatened
him against fencing the latter’s house does not amount to premeditation.
Evident premeditation is further negated by appellant pleading with the victims
to stop the fencing and destroying his house and to talk things over just before
the shooting.
- Passion and obfuscation attended the commission of the crime. The appellant
awoke to find his house being damaged and its accessibility to the highway as
well as of his rice mill bodega being closed. These circumstances, coming so
near to the time when his first house was dismantled, thus forcing him to
transfer to his only remaining house, must have so aggravated his obfuscation.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

WHEREFORE, FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF ONLY TWO (2) HOMICIDES, MITIGATED BY THE PRIVILEGED
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE AS WELL

42
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Self-Defense - Macapagal resumed banging on the door; dela Cruz opened it again holding a
.38 revolver. The two grappled for each other’s gun.
RPC Article 11: Justifying Circumstances: The following do not incur any criminal - Shots rang. Macapagal fell dead
liability: - Dela Cruz told San Antonio to call the police who then saw the body on the
1: Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that floor. Dela Cruz surrendered his gun to them and told them he acted in self-
the following circumstances concur: defense.
First: Unlawful aggression - Macapagal had license to carry his firearm, dela Cruz did not.
Second: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it. ISSUE/S of the CASE
Third: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person - Whether or not dela Cruz acted in self-defense (NO)
defending himself
ACTIONS of the COURT
People v dela Cruz Cabanatuan RTC
GR No. 128359 | Dec.06,2000 - Ruled that the accused did not act in self-defense; guilty and sentenced with
Ponente: VITUG death penalty.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Roberto dela Cruz Supreme Court
On self-defense
Nature of Case: - If self-defense is invoked, burden of proof rests on the defendant to prove that
Review of RTC decision for the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of elements of self-defense are satisfied (see req.)
Firearm and Ammunition with Homicide6. - Dela Cruz did not act in self-defense
o Unlawful aggression
BRIEF  On opening the bedroom door for the first time: dela Cruz was
Danila Macapagal (deceased) confronted his former girlfriend and her live-in able to prevent harm by closing the door; he could have stopped
partner, Roberto dela Cruz, in their house. A struggle ensued and led to dela there
Cruz shooting Macapagal, killing him.  Macapagal was merely threatening, and did not pose actual harm
since he was able to stop him with the door
DISPOSITIVE o Reasonable necessity
Cabanatuan RTC found dela Cruz guilty of qualified illegal possession of  Number of wounds (4 shots) in the victim show that there was
firearm and ammunition, with homicide. Sentenced to death and intent to kill
compensation. o Lack of sufficient provocation
SC found him guilty of homicide with the use of an unlicensed firearm  Dela Cruz opened the door again, now with a gun and confronted
(aggravating circumstance), set off by voluntary surrender (mitigating the victim. There was provocation on dela Cruz’s part who chose
circumstance) to confront Macapagal rather than take precautionary measures

FACTS
- Roberto dela Cruz was the live-in partner and lover of Ma. Luz Perla San
Antonio, who was the former live-in partner of Daniel Macapagal (deceased)
who was a married man. On illegal possession of firearms
- May 26, 1996: Macapagal went to San Antonio’s house holding a gun despite - Illegal possession of firearms possesses 3 requirements:
her refusal to let him in. He inspected all bedrooms. o Existence of the firearm
- Upon finding San Antonio and dela Cruz’s bedroom door locked, he yelled out o Possession or ownership of the firearm
“Come out, come out.” Dela Cruz opened the door and saw Macapagal’s gun o Absence of corresponding license thereof
pointed at him. He closed the door. - Dela Cruz claimed that he did not have animus possidendi (intent to posses);
he only used the firearm to protect himself
o Not supported by evidence
 Firearm had always been in the house; they claimed that it was
6 used as payment by her customers at the Videoke
Penalized under PD 1866, Sec.1: Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or
Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms of Ammunition

43
  PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, state that if homicide/murder
was committed with an unlicensed firearm, the use of this will be
considered an aggravating circumstance
 Dela Cruz’s gun was unlicensed thus, based on the
amendment, this will be considered an aggravating
circumstance (instead of charging him with illegal possession)
- Aggravating circumstance will be offset by the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender (it was dela Cruz who directed San Antonio to call the
police to whom he gave himself in)
- Dela Cruz has to pay for Macapagal’s loss of earning due to his death

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED. Accused-
appellant is hereby guilty of HOMICIDE with the use of an unlicensed firearm, an
aggravating circumstance that is offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, and he is accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 9 years
and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 16 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal
as maximum. The award of P2,865,600 for loss of earning is reduced to
P1,432,800.00. In other respects, the judgement of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

CONCUR: Davide (CJ), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,

Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr.

44
Justifying Circumstances: Defense of Relatives
ART. 11(2), RPC. “…in defense of the person/rights of his…relatives by affinity in the
same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree”
People v Madrid
GR No. 129896 | November 23, 2000
Ponente: Belosillo, J
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Jesus, William, and Jill Madrid. Hilarion Tinao Jr.
Nature of Case:
Appeal: Direct Assault with Murder; Aggravating: superior strength,
treachery, evident premeditation, disregard of rank
BRIEF
On the evening of Aug. 3, 1985 a fund-raising dance was held at by the
barangay tanods of Danao Sur, Romblon at the basketball court of the
community school. This was facilitated jointly by Jesus Madrid and the
deceased Camilo Malacad. While the dance ended at around 11.30PM,
Adolfo Magcalayo went back to the court to bring home a table his wife had
left behind. Once there, he heard someone shouting for help. The noise
brought him towards the waist-high fence of the school, beyond which he
claims to have seen the Madrids and Tinao ganging up on Camilo.
DISPOSITIVE
Lower court decision MODIFIED. William Madrid found guilty of homicide;
the rest acquitted.
FACTS
- Medical Examiner: Camilo sustained 12 injuries, 4 of which were fatal.
Based on the nature of the wounds, 2 weapons were used by more than 1
assailant.
- He died near Fortunato Gallos’ doorstep.
- Antonio Tasis corroborated Adolfo Magcalayo’s testimony.
- In his testimony, Dr. Rex Siarrez noted that the wound Jesus Madrid
sustained over his right lower middle chest penetrated the left liver and could
have caused the patient to die without immediate treatment.
PROSECUTION (Adolfo Magcalayo as witness):
1. Camilo was held by Jesus (armed with a piece of wood and a stick) on the
right, Jill (armed with a piece of wood) on the left, and Hilarion from behind.
William (armed with a bolo) was in front of him.
2. William then stabbed Camilo, while Jill struck him with a piece of wood.
Camilo fell, but Hilarion lifted him up. Camilo’s nephew, Antonio Tasis, then
appeared and was about to assist his uncle when William hacked him with a
bolo. Antonio parried the blow but was hit on the left arm.
3. Jesus attacked Antonio next. Antonio was able to take Jesus’ striking hand,
twist it, and lunge the knife it was holding towards his attacker’s chest. After
this, Antonio ran away.
4. Jesus then urged his companions to kill Camilo since both of them were
wounded, “so that [they] will both be dead.”
5. William hacked Camilo even as the latter walked towards Fortunato Gallos’
house.
6. Adolfo approached Camilo when the attackers were gone to ask him why
he had been attacked. Camilo said he had been ganged upon when he had
done nothing wrong.
DEFENSE (Jesus Madrid’s testimony):
1. Madrid’s niece, Lerie Madali, complained to him that Antonio had danced
with her with his hands smeared in mud. Jesus told Antonio not to do it
again.
2. Jesus stayed behind with Samuel, another tanod, to clear the venue. As they
were leaving the school gate, Antonio appeared and stabbed him on his right
lower middle chest.
3. The two struggled for possession of the knife. Jesus succeeded wounding
Antonio in the arm and sent him running.
4. Under Jesus’ orders, Samuel went to where his nephew William was staying
and told him about the incident. He then left to hire a jeep to take Jesus to
the hospital.
5. William went to the school gate where he found Jesus walking fast with
Antonio and Camilo about 10 meters behind. He raced towards his uncle,
who gave William the knife he earlier took from Antonio.
6. William faced Antonio and Camilo, prompting Antonio to run away. Camilo
then grappled with William for possession of the knife. William was able to
repeatedly stab Camillo, stopping only when he no longer fought back.
7. In the meantime, Samuel borrowed a jeep from Ms. Eusebio, who asked her
driver Mr. Fillarca and her helper Hilario Tinao to take Jesus to the hospital.
8. Samuel then went to Jill Madrid and asked him to accompany them. They
saw Jesus with William and brought him to the Romblon Provincial Hospital
where he was treated by Dr. Siarrez and regained consciousness after 3
days.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- WON the prosecution’s side of the story fabricated certain events in order to
ensure conviction of all four accused-appellants (YES)
- WON Jesus Madrid is to be granted the justifying circumstance of self-defense
(NO, qualified)
- WON William Madrid is to be granted the justifying circumstance of self
defense as well as defense of a relative (NO)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court of Romblon and Court of Appeals
- All guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder.
- All except Hilarion Tinao Jr. (15 at the time) sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua; Tinao sentenced to 7 years of prision mayor (min) to 15
years of reclusion temporal (max)
45
 - All to pay, jointly and severally: P15,000 actual damages and P100,000 moral moral damages, and P50,000 as civil indemnity. With costs. For failure to prove
damages to the widow; P50,000 in civil indemnity to the heirs. With costs. beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of other accused-appellants, they are
ACQUITTED.
Supreme Court
- Inclined to believe the accused-appellants as the account of the prosecution is CONCUR: Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon Jr.
fraught with inconsistencies:
o Adolfo Magcalayo’s admission that he was out in the sea fishing on the * a) Unlawful aggression, b) reasonable necessity, and c) lack of sufficient
night of the incident belies his assertion that he witnessed the crime provocation.
occur
o Assuming he was telling the truth, it is highly unlikely that a healthy 46-
year-old would remain silent and watch as his uncle was repeatedly
stabbed
o Magcalayo also initially testified that Jesus was holding a stick and a
piece of wood, before recanting this and asserting that Jesus was
armed with a knife later on.
o That Antonio was able to avoid Jesus Madrid’s attack by twisting his
arm and pointing the knife towads his body is too “incredible” and
“movie-like”
o Length of the scar on Magcalayo’s forearm was too short to have been
inflicted by a bolo
- Account of the accused-appellants also makes more sense in that it provides a
reason for the incident to occur. (See: Lerie Madali)
- The Court does not allow Jesus Madrid’s invocation of self-defense in
contending that he only retaliated when Antonio wounded him. This is because
the exemption is only available against the aggressor himself. Antonio was
Jesus’ aggressor, not Camilo.
- However, Jesus did not participate in the attack against Camilo and is
therefore acquitted.
- The Court also rejects William Madrid’s invocation of self-defense as well as
defense of a relative. This is because he failed in proving the necessary
elements* for such an invocation.
o Unlawful aggression is presupposed by an actual, sudden and
unexpected attack (or an imminent danger of) – not merely an
intimidating attitude.
o Camilo was unarmed in their confrontation, and there is no convincing
evidence to prove his intent of inflicting harm.
o William was the one who was armed and who posed a larger threat to
Camillo.
o The nature and number of Camilo’s wounds also reveal an intent to
deliver serious harm, not just out of self-defense.
- Jill Madrid and Hilarion Tinao are both exonerated for lack of evidence.
- Conspiracy, superior strength, and disregard of rank were also insufficiently
proved and will therefore not be considered as aggravating circumstances.

SUPREME COURT RULING

The decision appealed from finding all four accused-appellants guilty of
Murder is modified. William Madrid is held guilty of Homicide and is sentenced to an
indefinite prison term of 8 years, 4 months, and 10 days of prision mayor medium
(min) to 16 years 2 months and 20 days of reclusion temporal medium (max). He is
ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased P15,000 as actual damages, P50,000 as

46
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Lack of Intent
RPC Article 13: Mitigating Circumstances: The following are mitigating
circumstances:
3: That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed
People v Gonzalez
GR No. 139542 | June 21, 2001
Ponente: GONZAGA-REYES
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the Marikina RTC decision that found appellant guilty of murder
and two counts of frustrated murder.
BRIEF
After a traffic altercation between Noel Andres and Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.,
the latter’s son intervened. Thinking that his son’s life was in danger,
Gonzalez drew his gun and fired a shot. The bullet killed Andres’ pregnant
wife Feliber Andres, and injured his two nephews.
DISPOSITIVE
Marikina RTC found Gonzalez guilty of the complex crime of murder with two
counts of frustrated murder
FACTS
- October 31, 1998: Andres and Gonzalez were leaving Loyola Memorial park in
their own cars. Andres was with his wife Feliber, his sister-in-law and two
nephews; Gonzalez was with his grandson and 3 househelp; his son Dino was
driving his own car
- Andres and Gonzalez had a near-collision at an intersection; Gonzalez sped
off
- Andres gave chase and cut off Gonzalez. He got out the car.
Prosecution’s version
- Andres calmly told Gonzalez to be careful with his driving. He then saw the
latter turning red with anger; Andres went back to his car
- He was blocked by Dino who asked “Anong problema mo sa erpat ko?” Andres
boarded his car, closed the door and opened the window slightly to talk to Dino
- Suddenly one of his passengers said “binaril kami”, then he saw his wife
bloodied, he turned and saw his nephews wounded
Defense’s version
- Andres went to Gonzalez and repeatedly cursed at him. Gonzalez stayed in his
car, apologizing
- Dino and Gonzalez said that Andres was outside his own car when he was
arguing with Dino
- When Andres reached inside his car. Feeling that his son was in danger,
Gonzalez got his gun from the glove compartment and got out of the car,
- When he saw that Andres did not have a weapon, he put down his gun. Trisha,
Dino’s sister, came and pushed Gonzalez away. This made him drop the gun,
causing it to fire
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not Gonzales should be exempt from civil and criminal liabilities
because he had no intention to shoot (NO)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Marikina Regional Trial Court
- Took note of 5 instances that lead to the crime: 1. Andres overtook the care 2.
Andres got out of car and confronted Gonzalez 3. Andres had an argument
with Dino 4. Gonzalez took out his gun when he saw Andres arguing with Dino
5. Gonzalez had a struggle with Trisha
- Found that Gonzales was guilty of the complex crime of murder and two
counts of frustrated murder
- Pointed out that Gonzalez’s automatic pistol will not fire simply because it was
dropped
- Argued that once a gun is drawn against a person, the means, methods and
forms employed for its execution is already conceived
o It is done to insure execution, thus producing intent
o There is then treachery because Gonzales in drawing the gun is
insuring the execution of his action without risk to himself
Supreme Court
On treachery and lack of intent
- Gonzalez declared that he had no intention to shoot
o When Trisha tried to lead him away, he tried to his hand that was
holding the gun; it accidentally fired
o Andres’ windows were heavily tinted. It was difficult to determine if there
were people inside.
- SolGen agreed that crime was there was no treachery
o Crime happened after an argument thus the victim was already on
guard for any attack
o Requisites for treachery were not proven, and SolGen agreed that
auto.pistols should not be equated with treachery
 Gonzalez aimed at the car, not at Andrea- just because the gun is
drawn does not mean that mode of attack was consciously and
deliberately employed.
- SC: treachery is never presumed, it must be proven
o Chance encounters or crimes preceded by heated arguments are
generally not attended to by treachery
 Gonzalez and Andres were complete strangers before the
accident. (chance encounter)
 Andres provoked Gonzalez which led to hostilities between the
two (heated argument)
o It was clear that the shot was fired away from Andres while Andres was
arguing with the son of the appellant
47
  He did not react to Andres’ behaviour until the latter was
aggressive towards his son
 He believed his son to be in danger
 Gonzalez could have shot him, but didn’t
 No evidence proved that Gonzalez indiscriminately fired
 The appellant intended to shoot at the car not at Andres nor
any other person
o Shooting was a single, continuous act, trial court erred in breaking it into
several stages to make it appear as if there was treachery
o The shooting was a spur of the moment decision and not attended
to by treachery, and was not done in coldblood
 Without treachery, crime is homicide

On attempted murder vs. physical injuries

- The intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is physical injuries or
homicide
o In case of doubt regarding intent, shall be convicted of the lesser
offense
o Lack of intent to kill was evident
o Both children were discharged after 6 days
 Not frustrated murder but slight physical injuries

On the defense of obfuscation and passion

- Dino was of age, was hardly helpless, and was fighting back
o This could not have induced passion and obfuscation on Gonzalez

On the defense of incomplete defense of relative

- Andres yelling at them was hardly unlawful aggression

On complex crimes
- Complex crimes require two or more grave and/or less grave felonies
o Case has one felony and two light felonies
 Complex crime does not apply

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE the decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED. The
appellant is hereby found guilty of homicide for the death of Feliber Andres and is
sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 8yrs 2day of prision mayor to 14yrs
8mos 1day of reclusion temporal. For each count of slight physical injuries
against Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez, the appellant is hereby sentenced to 20
days of aresto menor.

CONCUR: Davide (CJ), Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena,

Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez

DISSENT: Puno, Kapunan, Panganiban

48
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Avoidance of greater evil
RPC Art. 11: Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any
criminal liability:
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which
causes
damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
People v Ricohermoso
GR no. L-30527 | Mar. 29, 1974
Ponente: Aquino
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Defendants: Pio Ricohermoso, Severo Padernal, Juan Padernal, Rosendo
Perpeñan, Macario Monterey, Rito Monterey
Defendants-appellants: Juan Padernal and Severo Padernal
Nature of Case:
Appeal from the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court at Lucena City
BRIEF
Germiniano de Leon asked Ricohermoso for his share of the palay harvest.
Germiniano owned the land while Ricohermoso cultivated it as kaingin. When
Germiniano went to Ricohermoso’s house to get his share, the latter, evidently
hostile, refused to do so.
Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and approached Geminiano from the left,
while Severo Padernal (Ricohermoso's father-in-law) got an axe and
approached Geminiano from the right. While Germiniano was pleading to
Severo, Ricohermoso stabbed him on the neck with his bolo. Germiniano fell
face downward and was hacked on the back with an axe by Severo.
At the same time, Juan Padernal suddenly embraced Marianito
(Germiniano’s son) from behind. They grappled and rolled downhill. Marianito
passed out. When he regained consciousness, his rifle was gone. He walked
uphill and saw his dead father.
FACTS (by appellants)
DISPOSITIVE
The SC affirmed the judgement of the lower court
FACTS (by prosecution)
- Jan. 30, 1965 (9am) – Germiniano de Leon, with his common-law wife
Fabiana Rosales (33y/o), his son Mariano de Leon (24 y/o) and one Rizal
Rosales, encountered Pio Ricohermoso in Barrio Tagbacan Silangan,
Catanauan, Quezon
- Geminiano owned a parcel of land in that barrio which Ricohermoso
cultivated as kaingin
- Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about his share of the palay harvest
o Because he should at least be allowed to taste the palay harvested
from his land
- Ricohermoso answered that Geminiano could go to his house anytime and
he would give the latter palay
- Geminiano could not get the palay that morning because he was on his way
to Barrio Bagobasin but, on his return, he would stop at Ricohermoso's
house and get the palay
- Germiniano stopped at Ricohermoso's house when he returned.
o Germiniano sat on a sack beside his wife in front of the house
o Marianito, his son, stood 3meters behind his father. A .22 caliber
rifle was slung on Marianito’s right shoulder
o Ricohermoso stood near the door of his house while Severo
Padernal was stationed near the eaves of the house
- Geminiano asked Ricohermoso about the palay but the latter, evidently
hostile, refused to do so.
- As if by pre-arrangement, Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and
approached Geminiano from the left, while Severo Padernal (Ricohermoso's
father-in-law; sexagenarian) got an axe and approached Geminiano from the
right
- While Germiniano was pleading to Severo, Ricohermoso stabbed him on the
neck with his bolo
- Germiniano fell face downward and was hacked on the back with an axe by
Severo
- At the same time and place, while the 2 were assaulting Germiniano
o Juan Padernal (Ricohermoso's brother-in-law and the son of
Severo) suddenly embraced Marianito from behind
 Right hand locked around Marianito’s neck
 Left hand pressing Marianito’s left forearm
o They grappled and rolled downhill towards a camote patch.
Marianito passed out
o When he regained consciousness, his rifle was gone.
o He walked uphill, saw his mortally wounded father Geminiano in his
death throes, and embraced him.
o He carried Geminiano for a short distance.
- The 51 year old Geminiano died at 2pm on that same day
- Dr. Matundan certified that Germiniano sustained 4 wounds (neck, back,
waist, forearm); 1 being fatal (neck area)
- Jan. 30, 1965 (9am) – when Ricohermoso refused to give palay to
Germiniano, because the land tilled was allegedly a public land, Geminiano
approached Ricohermoso
- Germiniano unsheathed his bolo, so Ricohermoso drew his bolo and struck
the former on the neck
- Germiniano tried to parry the blow and he was wounded in the wrist. As he
turned right to flee, Ricohermoso struck him again on the left side of his
body, causing him to fall on the ground. Germiniano died on the spot
- While Geminiano was being assaulted, his son Marianito tried to shoot with
his rifle but Juan Padernal disabled him and wrested the gun.
49
 o Marianito suffered abrasions on the neck and other parts of the
body
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not Juan Padernal (Severo Padernal withdrew his appeal)
conspired with Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal to kill Geminiano de Leon
ACTIONS of the COURT
Court of First Instance
- Convicted Severo Padernal and Juan Padernal of murder
- Sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua and ordering them to pay
solidarily the sum of twelve thousand pesos to the heirs of Geminiano de Leon
and to pay the costs
- In the same decision they were convicted of lesiones leves. Each one was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of fifteen (15) days of arresto menor and to pay
the costs
- Rosendo Perpeñan, Rito Monterey and Macario Monterey were acquitted
Supreme Court
On the facts by the Appellants
- It manifests that the appellants fashioned their version to shift the responsibility
for the killing to Ricohermoso.
- They even tried to exculpate Severo Padernal and to prove that Ricohermoso
acted in self-defense
- Severo Padernal’s withdrawal to his appeal strengthened the facts by the
prosecution
o In effect he accepted that the prosecution’s version is correct
o He did not take any direct part in the killing of Geminiano
o He did not force or induce Ricohermoso to stab Geminiano
o He did not cooperate in its commission
- The last reason was not well-taken by the Court
o When Germiniano appeared in Ricohermos’ house, Severo Padernal,
Ricohermoso Juan Padernal, like actors in a well-rehearsed play,
performed their assigned roles with dramatic precision
o Considering the trio’s behaviour and appellant Juan’s close relationship
with them, the conclusion is that he acted in conspiracy with them
On alevosia or treachery
- There is alevosia or treachery because Germiniano’s hands were raised and
he was pleading for mercy with Severo Padernal, when Ricohermoso struck
him on the neck with a bolo
- The exchange of words preceded the assault would not negate the
treacherous character of the attack
SUPREME COURT RULING
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court as to appellant Juan Padernal is
affirmed with costs against him.
CONCUR: Zaldivar (Chairman), Fernando, Barredo and Fernandez, JJ.
NOTES:
- See On Juan Padernal’s conspiracy for the case’s connection to the topic

On Juan Padernal’s conspiracy with Ricohermoso and Severo

- RTC said that there was conspiracy because their conduct revealed unity of
purpose and a concerted effort to encompass Geminiano's death
- Juan Padernal invokes the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater
evil or injury
o Padernal: He was just preventing Marianito from shooting Ricohermoso
and Severo
o SC: This is erroneous; the act of preventing Marianito from shooting the
aggressors, was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon
without any risk to his assailants
o Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable
Marianito
o His malicious intention was to stop any interference in the felonious
assault of Ricohermoso and Severo on the deceased
o This is not the case envisaged in Art. 11, par. 4 of RPC

On Juan Padernal’s contention that he was not a co-principal

- Accdg. to Juan Padernal, he was not a co-principal because:

50
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE: AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL
Art. 11(4). Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes
damage to another, provided…: 1) evil sought to be avoided actually exists; 2) injured feared is
greater than injury done to avoid it; 3) there be no other practical and less harmful means…
People v Norma Hernandez
1959
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendant-Appellants: Maria Norma Hernandez, Mariano Hernandez (father) & Ramona
Martinez (mother)
2. Furthermore, there were no strained relations existing between the complainant &
appellant before the incident. There always existed good relations between them for
they were neighbors so it cannot be sustained that appellant was motivated by spite
or ill-will in deliberately frustrating the marriage.
3. Appellant has the privilege to reconsider her previous commitment to marry and it
would be utterly inconsistent to convict her for slander by deed simply because she
desisted in continuing with the marriage. If she would be liable then that would be
tantamount to compelling her to go into a marriage without her free consent.
4. Appellant had the right to avoid to herself the evil of going through a loveless
marriage. (Art. 11 par.4, RPC)

Nature of the case:

Appeal from RTC decision.

DISPOSITIVE
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, reversing the RTC decision.

FACTS
- Vivencio Lascano, 19 y/o, started courting appellant, Maria Norma Hernandez and after
months of courtship, appellant finally accepted Vivencio. On the same date, she asked
him to bring his parents over her home so that they could talk about their marriage.
- When Vivencio and his parents went to her house, they brought chickens and goats and
they agreed to buy a wedding dress, 2 vestidas, shoes, P20 for the sponsors and to
repair the uncle’s roof.
- While the celebration was going on, appellant was nowhere to be found. Vivencio and
his parents waited but she never showed up thus causing them great shame and
humiliation.
- Norma Hernandez averred that Vivencio was really courting her but that she wasn’t really
in love with him. Her parents tried to persuade her to accept the proposal and that she
only accepted it out of obedience to her parents and the uncle’s insistence.
- Before Vivencio’s parents came to their home, she already counselled them not to bring
the chickens and that they should not regret whatever may happen later.
- Appellant said she felt torture because she wasn’t honestly in love with Vivencio and so
she decided to leave home as last recourse to prevent the marriage.
- Appellant’s parents also corroborated her testimony.

ACTIONS OF THE COURT

RTC
- convicted her of serious slander by deed because she purposely and deliberately
fled to prevent celebration of marriage.

Supreme Court
ISSUE: WON Norma Hernandez committed serious slander – NO

RATIO:
1. Malice, one of the essential requisites of slander hasn’t been proven. There is no
malice in the act of the appellant changing her mind. She was merely exercising her
right not to give her consent the marriage after mature consideration.

51
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
RPC Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.

People v Delima
G.R. No. L-18660 | December 22, 1922
Ponente: J. Romualdez
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Felipe Delima

NATURE OF THE CASE

 Appeal from the conviction of a lower court

BRIEF
 A policeman kills an escaped convict after assaulting him while
demanding his surrender. Lower court convicts the policeman of
homicide.

DISPOSITIVE
 Judgment revered. Delima is not guilty of homicide.

FACTS
 Lorenzo Napilon escaped from prison. Felipe Delima, a policeman, found
him days afterwards. He demanded his surrender but fugitive answered with
a stroke of a piece of bamboo shaped as a lance. Delima dodged it.
 He fired his revolver but missed. The fugitive ran but Delima went after him
and fired the second time, this time killing him.

ISSUES of the CASE

 Whether or not Delima is guilty of homicide

ACTIONS of the COURT

Trial Court:
 Delima was tried and convicted for homicide. He appealed the decision.

Supreme Court:
 Killing was in the performance of a duty. Fugitive under obligation to
surrender. Fugitive committed assault that compelled the policeman to resort
to extreme means.
 Araullo C.J., Street. Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand and Johns, JJ,
concur

52
Justifying Circumstances: Fulfilment of Duty
RPC Art. 11 (5): Justifying Circumstances:
The following do not incur any criminal liability:
5. Any person who acts in the fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of
a right or office.
People v Lagata
GR No. L-1940-42 | March 24, 1949
Ponente: PERFECTO, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Ignacio lagata
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of murder, serious physical injuries and evasion through
negligence
BRIEF
Ignacio Lagata was in charge of 6 prisoners; he accompanied them to the
nursery to pick up gabi. One of the prisoners tried and was able to escape.
Lagata, trying to control the situation, fired three shots. Two detainees were
hit; Abria was severely wounded and Tipace received a mortal shot causing
his death.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that Lagata is guilty of homicide and serious physical
injuries mitigated by an incomplete justifying circumstance of the fulfilment of
his duty as a provincial guard. Appellant is also guilty of evasion through
negligence.
FACTS
- The accused, Ignacio Lagata, a provincial guard of Catbalogan, Samar, was
in charge of 6 prisoners (Jesus, Tipace, Eusebio, Mariano, Labong & Abria)
assigned to work in the capitol plaza of Samar.
- Lagata ordered the prisoners to go to the nursery to pick up gabi. Not long
afterwards, they were called to assemble.
- Epifanio Labong was missing so Lagata ordered the 5 remaining prisoners
to go look for him.
- Eusebio Abria said that while they were gathering gabi, he heard 3 shots.
He was wounded by the 2nd one. They were already assembled by the 1st
shot and that he did not see Tipace being shot. He said he ran away
because he was afraid that he might be shot again and that his companions
were also probably scared and that is why they ran.
- Another prisoner, Mariano Ibañez stated that Epifanio Labong did not
answer their call so Ignacio Lagata ordered to go look for him in the
mountain. He said that Abria went to the camote plantation and found
footprints and called on Lagata to inform him about the footprints. When
Abria told Lagata of the flattened grass and that he was unable to look for
Labong, Ignacio Lagata fired at him and he was hit on his left arm. Abria
told Lagata he was wounded and in turn, Lagata told them to assemble.
- Once they were assembled, Lagata cocked his gun and shot Ceferino
Tipace. Mariano said that when he saw Tipace was shot, he ran away
because he also could have been shot.
- Eustaquio Galet, another detainee, received good treatment from Lagata
though his testimony corroborated those of the other prisoners.
- Pedro Mayuga, chief of Samar Provincial Hospital & Gilberto Rosales,
Sanitary Division president, verified the gunshot wound and that the death of
Tipace resulted therein.
- Ignacio Lagata, however, said that he fired his gun because the prisoners
were running far from him when he already ordered them to stop. He said
that he would be the one in jail if a prisoner escaped under his custody.
Furthermore, he would be discharged from duty like the others. He was
hopeless already. Moreover, the picking up of gabi was not part of the
prisoner’s work.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellant acted in the fulfilment of his duties.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Samar Trial Court
Appellant was charged with murder, serious physical injuries and evasion
through negligence. Finding him guilty, the trial court sentenced him as follows:
(a) For Murder — Reclusion Perpetua with civil interdiction for life and
perpetual absolute disqualification, indemnify the heirs of Ceferino Tipace Two
Thousand Pesos (2,000) and pay the costs of
this action
(b) For serious physical injuries — An indeterminate imprisonment of two (2)
year and four (4) month as minimum to four (4) year nine (9) month and ten
(10) days of prison correccional as maximum and pay the cost of this action;
and
(c) For evasion through negligence — An indeterminate imprisonment of two
(2) months one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to one (1) year one (1)
month and ten (10) days of prison correccional and pay the costs
Supreme Court
- It was clear that Lagata had absolutely no reason to fire at Tipace. The
record does not show that Tipace was bent on committing any act of
aggression or that he attempted to escape.
- According to Lagata himself, Tipace was running towards and around him.
How could anyone intending to escape run towards and around the very
guard one was supposed to escape from?
- Even if Lagata sincerely believed that he acted in the performance of his
duties, the circumstances show that there was no necessity for him to fire
directly against the prisoners as to wound them seriously and even kill one
of them.
- While custodians should take care for prisoners not to escape, only
ABSOLUTE NECESSITY would authorize them to fire against them.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
53
 Appellant is entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete justifying circumstance in paragraph 5 of Article 11 of the Revised
Penal Code. Consequently, appellant should be sentenced for homicide to an
indeterminate penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years
and one day of reclusion temporal and in the case of serious physical injuries to
an indeterminate penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor to two
years, four months and one day of prision correccional.
Modified as above stated the appealed decision is affirmed with costs
against appellant.

CONCUR: Feria, Briones, Pablo, Montemayor, Tuason and Reyes JJ., concur.
Moran, C.J., concurs in the result.

54
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Fulfilment of Duty
RPC Article 11: Justifying Circumstances: The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
5: Any person who acts in the fulfilment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office
People v Tan
GR No. 116200-02 | June 21, 2001
Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: PO3 Eleuterio Tan, PO3 Leonila Maranga, PO3 Alexander
Pacioles, PO1 Paulo dela Peña, PNP Naval Biliran
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the decision of Biliran RTC which found defendants guilty of
murder and two counts of attempted murder
BRIEF
After seeing the Ramon Gabitan’s (deceased) friend dance and touch the
thigh of his waitress-girlfriend, PO3 Tan called his friends, and with them he
shot at Gabitan and his friends as they went back to their ship. Gabitan died,
while 2 of the party – Jovith Cervilles and Edward Villaflor- sustained
injuries.
DISPOSITIVE
Biliran RTC found Tan et al. guilty as principals of murder, qualified by
treachery, and two counts of attempted murder.
SC modified this decision: They were guilty of murder, less serious physical
injuries and slight physical injuries.
FACTS
- May 12, 1991: Gabitan, CAFGU Andres Lapot, Danilo Dumdum and other
crew members of the M/V Dang Delima docked at the pier were drinking at a
disco pub in Leyte.
- Froilan Acorda, a crew member, danced with waitress Rose Catigbe (Tan’s
alleged girlfriend). Catigbe then sat with Acorda who rested his hand on her
thigh.
- Gabitan’s group left with 5 waitresses including Catigbe and Cervilles to go to
the M/V Dang Delima; as they were leaving Tan approached the group and
talked to 2 waitresses who then left the group
- Tan confronted Acorda telling him that he was a police officer, Acorda asked
for a badge, Tan drew his gun
o Froilan hit Tan with a karate blow and disarmed him; Tan left
- As they were about to leave the pier by boat towards their ship, a fire truck
arrived; Tan was on top of the truck, Pacioles drove, dela Peña and Maranga
jumped off the truck. All with M-16 rifles
- They fired warning shots, the boat did not stop; they fired at the boat
- Gabitan fell (his body recovered the next day) Villegas and Cervilles were hit
Alibi/ Defense’s version
- Tan et al. were responding to a report of a stolen bicycle
- Gabitan et al. were the first to shoot
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the act was committed in the course of the appellants’ fulfilment
of duty (NO)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Biliran Regional Trial Court
- Found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of murder
(Tan, with premeditation)
o Tan: reclusion perpetua
o Et al: 10yrs 1day of prision mayor to 17yrs 4mos of r.temporal
- Found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of attempted
murder (Tan, with premeditation)
o Tan: 2yrs 10mos and 21days of prision correcional to 8yrs and 21days
of prision mayor
o Et al: 1yr 7mos 11days of aresto mayor to 6yrs 1mo 11days of prision
correccional
Supreme Court
On fulfilment of duty
- Justifying circumstance of fulfilment of duty has 2 requisites:
o The accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office
o That the injury/offense committed is a necessary consequence of the
due performance of duty/ exercise of right or office
- Defense’s story to justify fulfilment of duty is improbable
o First: Tan was positively identified drinking in the disco, not wearing
uniform. Tan’s a patrolman who patrols; if he was on duty, he should be
on the street (undercover was not his duty)
 THUS he was not on-duty
o Second: Tan et al. had no reason to use the fire truck nor to shoot at
Gabitan et al. indiscriminately
 Rules of court: officers must identify himself and intention to arrest
if there is no danger to himself
 Rules of engagement: if person did not heed his call, pursuit
without danger is his next move
 Lawful apprehension is the goal of law enforcement
 Gabitan et al. were not required to identify themselves as they
were not suspects to any crime; it was right for them to keep
moving
o Third: Evidence showed that Gabitan did not shoot a gun
o Fourth: Tan drew his gun when asked for a badge; policemen know that
they are supposed to present their badge
o Fifth: Defense failed to provide proof to their claim
- Boat was riddled with 33 bulletholes- couldn’t have been self-defense
- Policement were at a higher level than the pumpboat (on the truck), they were
safe, no reason to fire at the boat
55
 - No proof that Gabitan et. al were thieves, no reason to fire at them
- Trial court ruled that witnesses were credible (SC defers to their judgement on
these as TC heard and saw the witnesses)
- Defense of Fulfilment of Duty has no merit

On Murder vs. Homicide

- There was treachery: victims could not defend themselves and Tan et al.
were at an advantageous position
- There was no premeditation: needs proof that they planned with cool
judgement (no proof here); can’t be presumed from external acts
- There was conspiracy: if proven, the act of one, is the act of all; the 4 knew
their positions and they fired simultaneously, indicating a concerted action
made to accomplish a single purpose
- The appellants committed MURDER as there was treachery
o Treachery will not act as aggravating circumstance as it was already
absorbed by murder
o RA 76597 prescribed death penalty- took effect after the crime; was not
applicable because it had no retroactive effect

On Murder vs. Injuries

- If in doubt whether homicide/murder or injuries, the latter should be chosen (as
it is favourable to the accused)
- Villaflor’s injuries may heal within 2-3 weeks: less serious
- Cerilles may heal within 7-8 days: slight physical injuries

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED subject to the
following modifications:
1. Accused-appellants are found guilty of MURDER and each is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
2. Accused-appellants are found guilty of LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES and each is sentenced to 6 months of aresto mayor
maximum, and pay a fine of P500 each
3. Accused-appellants are found guilty of SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
and each is sentenced to 30 days of aresto menor
4. All penalties shall be served successively
5. Accused-appellants are to pay:
a. Gabitan heirs: P50,000 indemnity, P50,000 moral damages
b. Villaflor: P20,000 indemnity, P10,000 moral damages
c. Ceriles: P20,000 indemnity, P10,000 moral damages
d. P10,000 exemplary damages each to Ceriles and Villaflor

CONCUR: Davide (CJ), Puno, Kapunan, Pardo

7
RA 7659: an act to impose the death penalty on certain heinous crimes, amending
for that purpose the revised penal laws,

56
Justifying Circumstances: Obedience to a Lawful Order of a Superior
ART. 11(6), RPC. “The following does not incur criminal liability: …Any person who
acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.”
People v Beronilla
GR No. L-4445 | February 28, 1995
Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L., J
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Manuel Beronilla, Filipino Velasco, Policarpio Paculdo, and
Jacinto Adriatico.
Nature of Case:
Appeal: Murder
BRIEF
The deceased Arsenio Borjal was elected as mayor of La Paz, Abra at the
outbreak of the war and continued to serve during Japanese occupation. He
had moved away to Bangued, Abra on March 10, 1943 after an attempt on
his life but was forced to move back to La Paz in 1945 in order to escape the
bombing of Bangued. Upon his return, he was arrested, charged, and found
guilty of espionage, aiding the enemy, and abuse of authority by a 12-man
jury appointed by then Military Mayor of La Paz Beronilla. On the night of
April 18, 1945, Beronilla ordered the execution of Borjal. Two years later,
Beronilla was indicted in the Court of First Instance of Abra for murder –
allegedly for conspiring and confederating in the execution of Borjal.
DISPOSITIVE
Lower court decision REVERSED and appellants are acquitted.
FACTS
Antecedent
- Shortly after his appointment as Military Mayor of La Paz on December 18,
1944, Manuel Beronilla received a copy of a memorandum issued by his
superior, Lt. Col. Arnold, “to appoint a jury of 12 bolomen to try persons
accused of treason, espionage, or the aiding and abetting (of) the enemy.”
- Separately, Beronilla also received a list of all puppet government officials of
Abra (of which Borjal was included) and a memorandum instructing all
military officers to investigate and gather complaints against them.
- Numerous charges were filed against Borjal. Beronilla appointed a jury for
his trial which lasted 19 days, ending on April 10, 1945 when Borjal was
found guilty of all charges.
- Beronilla sent the records to the Headquarters of the 15 th Infantry for review.
They were returned about a week later, on April 18, with instructions from Lt.
Col. Arnold indicating that the matter was “best handled by [Beronilla’s]
government and whatever disposition [he makes] of the case is hereby
approved.”
- Beronilla ordered Borjal’s execution the same night. He immediately sent a
report to Arnold afterwards.
- He received a reply indicating Arnold’s belief that “there was no doubt” to
Borjal’s treasonable acts and that Beronilla’s trial was “absolutely impartial
and fair.”
The Case
7. Many people involved in the case were indicted for murder alongside
Beronilla including: the prosecutors, the jury, the executioner, the
gravedigger. Father Filipino Velasco, who conducted the last rites over the
remains, was alleged to be the conspirator.
8. Soon after, President Manuel Roxas issued Executive Proclamation No. 8
(Guerrilla Amnesty) which granted amnesty to all persons who committed
acts penalized under the RPC in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy
against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy.
9. Jesus Labugen, then a master sergeant at the Philippine Army, was granted
amnesty.
10. The trial proceeded. The case against Beronilla is anchored to the existence
of a radiogram from Col. Volckmann, overall area commander to Lt. Col.
Arnold, which specifically called to the illegality of Borjal’s conviction and
sentence.
11. The prosecution claims that Beronilla knew about the content of
Volckmann’s correspondence with Arnold.
12. On July 10, 1950, the RTC found the defendant-appellants guilty of the
crime of murder as conspirator and co-principals. The rest were acquitted.
ISSUE
- WON Volckmann’s message was relayed to Beronilla on the morning of
Borjal’s execution, therefore finding him guilty of murder (NO)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court of Romblon and Court of Appeals
- All guilty beyond reasonable doubt as conspirator and co-principals of the
crime of murder.
- All sentenced to suffer the penalty from 17 years, 4 months, and 1 day of
reclusion temporal (min) to reclusion perpetua
- All to pay, jointly and severally: P4,000; with subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency. Each pay a fourth of the costs.
Supreme Court
- There is no satisfactory proof that Beronilla did receive Volckmann’s radiogram
or a copy thereof
o The only witness against Beronilla was Rafael Balmaceda, Beronilla’s
bodyguard and a relative of Borjal who claimed that he had read the
message over Beronilla’s shoulder
o However, Balmaceda failed to mention this, or even the mere fact of the
letter’s existence, in his affidavit. This leads the Court to conclude that
he was not with Beronilla when the message arrived.
o It is difficult to believe that Balmaceda would not have relayed the
message to Borjal, since they were related.
57
 o Balmaceda also claimed that the accused-appellants decided to kill
Borjal on the early evening of April 18. This was contradicted by
Bayken, another witness, who testified that the agreement was made at
10AM.
- The Court also believes that Beronillo’s conduct belies his receipt of the
message. He would not have immediately informed a superior of violating an
order he was given.
- Lt. Col. Arnold failed to transmit the message to Beronilla. Charge of criminal
conspiracy against the latter because there would have been no need for him
to conspire against a man who, to his knowledge, had been duly sentenced to
death.
- Since the arrest and trial of Borja were made upon express orders of higher
command and Lt. Col. Arnold later stated that “whatever disposition [Beronilla
makes] of the case is hereby approved” in an assent to the verdict and the
sentence, it is clear that the appellants were not impelled by malice.
- Maxim: actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea;
A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act
complained of be innocent.
- Court adds that even if the accused-appellants did commit the crime they were
charged with, the lower court should not have denied them the benefits of
Executive Proclamation No. 8

SUPREME COURT RULING

For reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the
appellants are acquitted, with costs de officio.

CONCUR: Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo,
Bautista Angelo and Conception, JJ.

58
OBEDIENCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER OF A SUPERIOR
Article 11 and Article 219 of the RPC
Tabuena vs Sandiganbayan
GR No. 103501-03, GR No. 103507 | February 17, 1997
Ponente: J. Francisco
Petitioners: Luis A. Tabuena and Adolfo M. Peralta
Respondents: Honorable Sandiganbayan, The People of the Philippines,
represented by the Office of the Special Prosecutor
Nature of the Case:
Appeal for the decision of the Sandiganbayan denying reconsideration of their
conviction for the crime of malversation.
BRIEF
Luis Tabuena (Gen. Manager of the Manila International Airport
Authority) was instructed by President Marcos over the phone to pay to the
president’s office, in cash, the amount owed by MIAA to the Philippine
National Construction Group. These said instructions were given again
through a memorandum dated January 8, 1986,
Relative to these instructions, Tabuena, through the assistance of
Gerardo Dabao and Adolfo Peralta (Assistant Gen, Manager, and Acting
Finance Service Manager of MIAA) caused the release of Php 55 Million of
MIAA funds. These funds were released through three withdrawals. The
money was delivered to President Marcos’ Private Secretary, Mrs. Fe Roa-
Gimenez. Receipts were issued by Gimenez to Tabuena.
It was found out later that PNCC never received the money that
was thought to have been paid to them by the MIAA.
DISPOSITIVE
Tabuena and Peralta were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
malversation of the amount of Php55 Million in form of MIAA funds.
FACTS
-Tabuena was instructed by President Marcos to pay to the President’s Office and in
cash the amount owed by the MIAA to the PNCC. Tabuena replied saying “Yes, sir, I
will do it.”
-Tabuena received a Memorandum from the President’s secretary about a week later.
-The amount was withdrawn as follows:
Date Amount c/o
10/1/1986 Php 25M Gerardo Dabao
16/1/1986 Php 25M Gerardo Dabao
29/1/1986 Php 5M Adolfo Peralta
-The money was delivered to the office of Mrs. Gimenez
-It was upon the receipt of the Php 5M that receipts were issued to Tabuena.
-The disbursement of Php 55M was “out of the ordinary” and “out of normal
procedure” as attested to by Tabuena and Peralta. Supporting this were the facts that
1. No voucher was prepared to support the disbursement, 2. The amount was paid in
cash, 3. No PNCC receipt was presented.
Statement of the Prosecution:
-There was no outstanding obligation present in favour of the PNCC when the
disbursement was made
Statement of the Defense:
-Tabuena was merely complying with the Marcos Memorandum and that he was
operating under the belief that MIAA had liabilities to PNCC. He acted in good faith.
Peralta shared the same belief so he complied with the request of his superior,
Tabuena.
-They were being accused of a crime not charged in the amended information
Sandiganbayan
The claims of good faith were rejected and Tabuena was found guilty of Malversation
by negligence.
ISSUES
1. WON the Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners of a crime not charged in
the amended information.
2. WON Tabuena and Peralta acted in good faith
ACTIONS of the COURT
Sandiganbayan
- Reasons of good faith were rejected and petitioners were found guilty of
Malversation by negligence.
Supreme Court
- Malversation is committed either by fault or negligence. This means that
even if the means by which Malversation was said to be committed when
charged , be it culpa or dolo, differs with the means proved, Malversation is
still present eitherway.
- Tabuena acted in strict compliance with the Memorandum which was issued
by the president. It is presumed to have been issued regularly. The
memorandum is lawful on its face. There was reason for Tabuena to have
acted accordingly without question.
- The violation of due process is a more compelling reason for the acquittal of
the petitioners.
- Sandiganbayan was biased when the Justices cross examined the witness.
The “cold neutrality of an impartial judge” requirement of due process was
denied.
DECISION of the SUPREME COURT
Petitioners Luis A. Tabuena and Adolfo M. Peralta are hereby acquitted of the crime
of malversation as defined and penalized under Article 217 of the Revised Penal
Code. The Sandiganbayan Decision of October 12, 1990 and the Resolution dated
December 20, 1991 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
CONCUR
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Bellosillo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, and Torres, JJ.
59
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES: Insanity
RPC Art. 12: Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. —the
following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
People v Bonoan
GR no. L-45130 | Feb. 17, 1937
Ponente: Laurel
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Defendant-appellant: Celestino Bonoan y Cruz
Nature of Case:
Review for the judgement of the lower court
BRIEF
On December 12, 1934, the accused Celestino Bonoan stabbed the deceased
Carlos Guison who, as a result the wounds received by him, died in the
hospital two days after the aggression. The RTC charged Bonoan with the
crime of murder but his defense counsel claimed that Bonoan was mentally
deranged and was at the time confined in Pyschopatic Hospital.
DISPOSITIVE
The SC decided that Bonoan is exempted from criminal liability
FACTS
- Dec. 12, 1934 – defendant Celestino Bonoan met the now deceased Carlos
Guison on Avenida Rizal near a barbershop
- Francisco Beech, who was at the time in the barbershop, heard the
defendant say in Tagalog, "I will kill you."
- Beech turned around and saw Bonoan withdrawing his right hand, which
held a knife, from the side of Guison who said, "I will pay you", but Bonoan
replied saying that he would kill him and then stabbed Guison thrice on the
left side
- The assault was witnessed by policeman Damaso Arnoco who rushed to the
scene and arrested Bonoan and took possession of the knife
- Policeman Damasco asked for the reason of assault, Bonoan replied that
Guison owed him P55 and would pay; that appellant bought the knife, for 55
centavos in Tabora Street and that for 2 days he had been watching for
Guison in order to kill him
- Guison was taken to the Philippine General Hospital where he died two days
later
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not Bonoan is not guilty of murder because he was mentally
deranged
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court
- Jan. 5, 1935 – the prosecuting attorney filed an information charging Bonoan
with the crime of murder
- Jan. 16, 1935 – case was called for the arraignment of the accused
o Defense counsel: Bonoan was mentally deranged and was at the time
confined in Pyschopatic Hospital
o Dr. Joson, asst. alientist, rendered a report on the mental condition
of Bonoan
- Mar. 23, 1935 – case was again called for arraignment, as objected by the
fiscal
o The required the doctor of Bonoan to appear and produce the complete
record pertaining to the latter’s mental condition
o Mar. 26, 1935 – Dr. Joson appeared before the court
o The prosecution and the defense asked the court to place the latter
under a competent doctor for a closer observation
o Dr. Fernandez, rendered his report on June 11, 1935. He was called
again on June 28, stating that the accused was not in a condition to
defend himself
- Case was suspended indefinitely
- Jan. 21, 1936 – Dr. Fernandez reported that the defendant could be
discharged from the hospital and appear for trial
- Feb. 27, 1936 – Bonoan was arraigned, pleaded “not guilty” and trial was had
- After the trial, the lower court found Bonoan guilty for the crime of murder and
sentenced him to life imprisonment, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs
Supreme Court
- The defendant appeals that the court a quo erred in:
o Finding that the evidence establishes that the accused has
had dementia only occasionally and intermittently and has not had it
immediately prior to the commission of the defense
o Finding that the evidence in this case further shows that during and
immediately after the commission of the offense, the accused did not
show any kind of abnormality either in behavior, language and
appearance, or any kind of action showing that he was mentally
deranged
o Declaring that under the circumstances that burden was on the defense
to show that the accused was mentally deranged at the time of the
commission of the offense, and that the defense did not establish any
evidence to this effect
o Finding the accused guilty of the offense charged and in not acquitting
him thereof
On the question of insanity as a defense in criminal case
- Based on US Cases, 3 different theories:
o Proof of insanity at the time of committing the criminal act should be
clear and satisfactory in order to acquit the accused on the ground of
insanity (Followed by Philippines; stricter view)
o An affirmative verdict of insanity is to be governed by a preponderance
of evidence, and in this view, insanity is not to be established beyond a
reasonable doubt
60
 o The prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt
- RTC prosecuted Bonoan because his insanity was only occasional and not
continuous
- The Court is concerned with the continuity of a particular attack prior of the
crime charged, and ending with a positive diagnosis of insanity immediately
following the commission of the act
- Considerations why the Court’s decision is different from that by the court a
quo:
o The recurrence of Bonoan’s dementia praecox at the time of the crime
is supported by his medical record. He was twice confined in the insane
dept. of San Lazaro Hosp. at different periods
o All persons suffering from dementia praecox are clearly to be regarded
as having mental disease to a degree that disqualifies them for legal
responsibility for their actions
o According to an intern in San Lazaro Hospital, Bonoan had insomnia
attacks 4 days before the murder incident. Insomnia is one of the
symptoms of dementia
o Even the police arrested him sent Bonoan to a Psychopathic Hospital.
Indication that the police themselves doubted his mental normalcy
o According to Dr. Joson, Bonoan was suffering from manic depressive
psychosis
- The prosecution tried to prove that Bonoan has motive and premeditation
(deceased owed him money and Bonoan bought a knife to kill him) but in the
type of dementia praecox, homicidal attacks are common because of delusions
that their property is being taken
SUPREME COURT RULING
In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the defendant-appellant
was demented at the time he perpetrated the serious offense charged in the
information and that consequently he is exempt from criminal liability. Accordingly, the
judgment of the lower court is hereby reversed, and the defendant-appellant
acquitted, with costs de oficio in both instances. In conformity with paragraph 1 of
article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, the defendant shall kept in confinement in the
San Lazaro Hospital or such other hospital for the insane as may be designated by
the Director of the Philippine Health Service, there to remain confined until the Court
of First Instance of Manila shall otherwise order or decree. So ordered.
and as it appears, there is sufficient evidence that Bonoan was mentally
incapacitated when he committed the crime
- Also, no credit was given to the conclusions of fact arrived at by the judge who
tried the case
DIAZ:
- The appellant committed the crime while he was sane, or at least, during a
lucid interval
- Bonoan has a reason: to avenge himself or to punish his victim for having
refused to pay a debt
- The fact that the appellant was afflicted with manic depressive psychosis after
the crime, does not prove that he was so afflicted on the date and at the time
of the commission of the crime
- The lower court’s sentence is supported by evidence and in accordance with
law
CONCEPCION:
- There is no evidence that from the month of January, 1926, when he was
declared cured at the Psychopathic Hospital, to December 12, 1934, the date
of the crime, he had shown signs of having had a relapse. Therefore it is a
proven fact during the long period of nine years the accused had been sane.
- The intern in San Lazaro Hospital admitted that he was not a specialist in
mental diseases; he is therefore disqualified to testify. He said that the
insomnia may lead to dementia. But this is not an affirmation of a fact but of a
mere possibility.
- Also, the evidence shows that on the day the accused committed the crime he
talked and behaved as an entirely normal man.

CONCUR: Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real and Abad Santos, JJ.

DISSENTING OPINIONS:
IMPERIAL:
- Agrees with the dissenting opinions of Diaz and Concepcion
- Supported by expert testimony, the accused, before the commission of the
crime, had been cured of dementia praecox and later of manic depressive
psychosis.
- The majority admits that there is no positive evidence regarding Bonoan’s
mental state when he committed the crime, so they just infer from the facts that
he must have then been deprived of his reason
- Legal presumption: a person who commits a crime is in his right mind because
the law presumes all acts and ommissions punishable by law to be voluntary

61
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE: INSANITY
Art. 12(1). An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
People v Dungo
GR 89420 | July 31, 1991
Ponente: Paras
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Phils.
Accused-appellant: Rosalino Dungo
Nature of the case: Automatic review of RTC decision
BRIEF
Rosalino Dungo, a then-farmer, stabbed Mrs. Belen Macalino Sigua, who held office
at the Department of Agrarian Reform (Pampanga), with a knife. Dungo wanted to
know why Sigua did not want to transfer the Certificate of Land Transfer of the
landholding of his deceased father to his name, and why she was asking so many
documents from him. The defense alleges that he is insane, suffering from organic
mental disorder (psychosis) secondary to stroke.
DISPOSITIVE
The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC conviction of murder.
FACTS
- Rosalino Dungo had been engaged in farming up to 1982, when he went to
Lebanon. Afterwards, he worked in Saudi Arabia as a welder. He did not
finish his contract because he got sick, and upon arriving in the Philippines,
was confined at the Macabali Clinic.
Prosecution:
Rodolfo Sigua’s testimony:
1. Prior to the incident, Mr. Sigua met Dungo at the Siguas’ residence. Dungo
wanted to know why Mrs. Sigua didn’t want to approve the transfer of the
Certificate of Land Transfer from Dungo’s father’s name to the appellant’s.
2. Dungo remarked, “I now ascertained that she is making things difficult for the
transfer of the landholding in the name of my father and my name.”
3. On March 16, 1987 (between 2 and 3PM), Dungo went to Mrs. Sigua’s DAR
office and talked to her briefly. Afterwards, he drew a knife from the
envelope he was carrying and stabbed her several times.
4. He went outside with blood-stained clothes, and a bloodied knife.
5. Dr. Vicente Balatbat treated Dungo for ailments secondary to a stroke. Dr.
Ricardo Lim testified that Dungo suffered from occlusive disease of the brain
resulting in left side weakness. Both of them testified that he was
rehabilitated after medical treatment in their clinic. Another doctor testified
that Dungo had a low level of intelligence.
Defense:
Andrea Dungo (wife)’s testimony:
1. After he arrived from Saudi Arabia, he was not able to resume farming due
to his sickness. Instead, they operated a small store.
2. 2 weeks prior to the incident: Dungo was always in deep thought; he
maltreated their children (which he did not do before); demanded payment
from customers even though they have already paid; chased any child when
their children quarreled with others; informed her that his feet and head were
on fire even though they were not.
3. On the day of the incident: He complained to her of stomach ache, but they
did not buy medicine after his immediate relief. He went back to the store,
but when she followed him there, he was gone. She only saw him when he
was in his parents’ house after the crime was committed.
4. When she asked why he did it, he said, “That is the only cure for my ailment.
I have a cancer in my heart.”—that he would die if he did not kill Mrs. Sigua;
he chose to live longer in jail.
Dr. Sylvia Santiago, Dr. Nicanor Echavez (Nat’l Center for Mental Health):
1. Dungo was confined in the mental hospital on August 25, 1987, as per the
order of the trial court.
2. They concluded that he was insane, and classified his insanity as organic
mental disorder secondary to cerebro-vascular accident or stroke.
3. This allows him no lucid intervals.
Rosalino Dungo:
1. He claimed he was not aware of the stabbing incident nor of the death of
Mrs. Sigua, until he was already accused and was put in jail.
ACTIONS OF THE COURT
Trial court (January 1989)
- Convicted appellant of murder, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
indemnification of the heirs, P75,000, P20,000 exemplary damages,
P30,000 moral damages
- Dungo was sane during the commission of the crime:
a. The act of concealing a weapon indicates conscious adoption of a
pattern to kill.
b. He also fled to Metro Manila in order to evade arrest.
Supreme Court
- Re: insanity: it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act; that the offender acts without the least
discernment and there must be deprivation of the freedom of the will.
- Foreign jurisdiction: a) delusion test – false belief for which there is no
reasonable basis; b) irresistible impulse test; c) right and wrong test – loss of
capability in distinguishing right from wrong.
- Phil. Jurisdiction: Definition of insanity under Section 1039 of Revised
Administrative Code – a deranged and perverted condition of the mental
62
 faculties which is manifested in language or conduct; no full and clear
understanding of the nature and consequence of his act
- Insanity may be shown by surrounding (outward) circumstances: general
conduct, appearance, things inconsistent with previous character

ISSUE: WON Dungo can plead insanity – NO

RATIO:
1. Dungo’s meeting with Mr. Sigua shows that his insanity (if any) admitted
lucid intervals. Dungo was supposed to be suffering from impairment of the
memory.
2. Dr. Echavez testified that Dungo may have been lucid: “he appears
normal...he can reason out and at the next moment he burst out into
violence.” Dungo also shouted out, “Napatay ko si Mrs. Sigua!” when he was
aware of what he did.
3. In the defense of insanity, doubt as to the fact of insanity should be resolved
in favor of sanity.

RULING: RTC decision affirmed.

63
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – INSANITY

People v Taneo
G.R. No. 37673 | March 31, 1933
Ponente: C.J. Avanceña
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Potenciano Taneo

Nature of Case:
Appeal from judgment of Court of First Instance of Leyte

BRIEF
 Potenciano Taneo kills his wife and attacks three other people, including his
father, during a state of insanity involving dreams and hallucinations.

DISPOSITIVE
 Judgment reversed.

FACTS
 During a fiesta in their barrio, the Taneo family entertained visitors including
Fred Tanner and Luis Malinao.
 Potenciano went to sleep but was suddenly awakened and grabbed a bolo.
He left the room and while his wife tried to stop her, he wounded her. He
also attacked his visitors and his own father. His wife, seven months
pregnant died.
 It appears on the evidence that Potenciano had a quarrel with Enrique
Collantes and Valentin Abadilla over a glass of “tuba.” The defendant stated
that he dreamed of Collantes trying to stab him while Abadilla held his feet.
Thinking that it was really happening, he got up and armed himself. He
fancied that his wife was wounded and then he wounded himself.

ISSUES of the CASE

 Whether or not the actions of the appellant can be treated as a
justifying circumstance of the crime (Yes)

ACTIONS of the COURT

Trial Court:
 The lower court found Taneo guilty of parricide.
Supreme Court:
 The Court found that the appellant did not have any trouble with his wife. It
concluded that he acted while in a dream and his acts were not voluntary in
committing the crime.
 The Court found no motive for him to commit the acts against people whom
he dearly loved. As an effect of hallucination, he was not in his right mind.
 He also did not dream that he was assaulting his wife but, rather, he was
defending himself. He is not criminally liable but is ordered to be confined in
a government insane asylum.

64

Exempting Circumstances: Insanity
RPC Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following
are exempt from criminal liability: (1) An imbecile or an insane person, unless the
latter has acted during a lucid interval.
People v Genosa
GR No. 135981 | September 29, 2000
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Marivic Genosa
Nature of Case:
Urgent Omnibus Motion (a legal motion in which multiple requests are made)
BRIEF
Marivic Genosa admittedly killed her husband, Ben Genosa. She was found
guilty of the crime of parricide and was sentenced to death. Appellant
alleges that she committed the crime as a result of her “battered wife
syndrome”.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court denied appellant’s request for exhumation of the body of the
victim and a re-examination of the cause of his death. The case was
remanded to the RTC for the reception of evidence from qualified
psychologists or psychiatrists whom the parties may present to establish her
state of mind at the time of the killing.
FACTS
- Appellant was found guilty of parricide by the RTC of Ormoc City. Dispositive
reads: “"WHEREFORE, after all the foregoing being duly considered, the Court
finds the accused, Marivic Genosa y Isidro, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of parricide as provided under Article 246 of the Revised Penal
Code as restored by Sec. 5, RA No. 7659, and after finding treachery as a
generic aggravating circumstance and none of mitigating circumstance, hereby
sentences the accused with the penalty of DEATH. The Court likewise
penalizes the accused to pay the heirs of the deceased the sum of fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency as indemnity and another
sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), Philippine currency as moral
damages."
- Appellant alleges that despite the evidence on record of repeated and severe
beatings she had suffered at the hands of her husband, the trial court failed to
appreciate her act of killing her husband as equivalent to self-defense.
- She also alleges that RTC erred in concluding that she lied about the means
she employed in killing her husband.
- Appellant thus prays for the following reliefs:5
"1. The Honorable Court allow an exhumation of the body of the victim, Ben M.
Genosa, and a re-examination of the cause of death.
2. The Honorable Court submit accused-appellant for examination by qualified
psychologists and psychiatrists of the Court to determine her state of mind at
the time of the killing of her spouse, Ben Genosa.
3. Thereafter, the Honorable Court allow the reports of the psychologists and
psychiatrists to form part of the records of the case for purposes of the
automatic review or, in the alternative, to allow a partial reopening of the case
before a lower court in Metro Manila to admit the testimony of said
psychologists and psychiatrists.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- (1) whether the body of the victim should be exhumed and reexamined in order
to ascertain the cause of his death
- (2) whether the appellant should be examined by qualified psychologists or
psychiatrists in order to determine her state of mind at the time of the killing.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Appeal of criminal cases opens the entire records to review. The Court may pass
upon all relevant issues, including those factual in nature and those that may not have
been brought before the trial court. Even novel theories such as the "battered woman
syndrome," which is alleged to be equivalent to self-defense, should be heard, given
due consideration and ruled upon on the merits, not rejected merely on technical or
procedural grounds. Criminal conviction must rest on proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
First Issue: No Need for a Reexamination of Cause of Death
- Considering that the appellant has admitted the fact of killing her husband
and the acts of hitting his nape with a metal pipe and of shooting him at the
back of his head, the Court believes that exhumation is unnecessary, if not
immaterial, to determine which of said acts actually caused the victim's
death
- Matter of proving cause of death should have been made before RTC. SC is
not a trier of facts. DENIED.
Second Issue: The Need to Determine Appellant's State of Mind at the Time of the
Killing
- Court was requested to "reevaluate the traditional elements" used in
determining self-defense and to consider the "battered woman
syndrome" as a viable plea within the concept of self-defense.
- Four characteristics of the syndrome: (1) the woman believes that the
violence was her fault; (2) she has an inability to place the responsibility for
the violence elsewhere; (3) she fears for her life and/or her children's lives;
and (4) she has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and
omniscient.
- Trapped in a cycle of violence and constant fear, it is not unlikely that she
would succumb to her helplessness and fail to perceive possible solutions to
the problem other than to injure or kill her batterer.
- Syndrome is already a recognized form of self-defense in the United States
and in Europe. In the US particularly, it is classified as a post-traumatic
stress disorder, rather than a form of mental illness.
65
 - The records of the case already bear some evidence on domestic violence
between appellant and her deceased husband. A defense witness, Dr. Dino
Caing, testified that she had consulted him at least six (6) times due to
injuries related to domestic violence and twenty-three (23) times for severe
hypertension due to emotional stress Even the victim's brother and mother
attested to the spouses' quarrels every now and then.
- The court a quo, however, simplistically ruled that since violence had not
immediately preceded the killing, self-defense could not be appreciated.
- There is legal and jurisprudential lacuna with respect to the so-called
"battered woman syndrome" as a possible modifying circumstance that
could affect the criminal liability or penalty of the accused

Consistent with the principle of due process, a partial reopening of the case is
apropos, so as to allow the defense the opportunity to present expert evidence
consistent with our foregoing disquisition, as well as the prosecution the opportunity
to cross examine and refute the same.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

WHEREFORE, the Urgent Omnibus Motion of Appellant Marivic Genosa is PARTLY
GRANTED. The case is hereby REMANDED to the trial court for the reception of
expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the "battered woman
syndrome" plea, within ninety (90) days from notice, and, thereafter to forthwith
report to this Court the proceedings taken, together with the copies of the TSN and
relevant documentary evidence, if any, submitted.

CONCUR: Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De
Leon, Jr., JJ.,

66
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES: Minority - Appeal was unfounded
o Defense attorney claimed that the accused’s state of mind, time he had
RPC Article 12: Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability: The to think on the consequences of his actions, and his degree of
following are exempt from criminal liability: reasoning must be taken into consideration to determine discernment
3: A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he  This are elements of premeditation and lack of intention (art.13)
acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be and not discernment
preceded against in accordance with the provisions of Article  Discernment under Art.12(3) is his mental capacity to understand
80 of this code. between right and wrong determined by the facts of the case, the
attitude, behaviour, abilities and appearance of the minor
People v Doqueña  Based on the facts, and the capacity of the minor (see first item on
GR No. 46539 | Sept. 27, 1939 facts) the decision of CFI was correct
Ponente: Diaz  Accused acted with discernment
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Valentin Doqueña SUPREME COURT RULING
Court AFFIRMED the decision of the lower court.
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of homicide and the decision that appellant acted with CONCUR: Avanceña (CJ), Villa-real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion
discernment.
NOTES:
BRIEF - Court distinguished between lack of intention/premeditation, and discernment
After a schoolyard fight, the accused took hold of a knife and stabbed the of a minor
deceased, Juan Ragojos with it. o Though Doqueña was a minor, he was a bright pupil and a captain of
the cadet corps, thus he could discern right from wrong
DISPOSITIVE o He is not exempt from liability because of his ability to discern
Pangasinan CFI found that the accused acted with discernment in o But he will not be imprisoned, rather he will be sent to the Training
committing homicide; SC upheld the CFI’s decision. School for Boys until he is of age

FACTS
- Accused was 13yrs, 9mos and 5 days old; 7 th grade, was a captain in the
cadet corps, and one of the brightest pupils in the school
- Nov. 19, 1938: Ragojos and a Epifanio Rafang was playing volleyball
- Accused took the ball and threw it at Ragojos’ stomach; Ragojos (who was
taller and more robust) chased him and slapped him; accused turned at him
with a threatening attitude; accused was then punched on the mouth; Ragojos
went back to play volleyball
- Accused looked for a stone to hit Ragojos with; saw his cousin with a knife;
Rarang told the cousin not to lend knife to the accused
- Accused managed to get knife and challenged Ragojos to hit him again;
Ragojos refused because he was bigger than the accused
- Accused then stabbed him as he continued playing

ISSUE/S of the CASE

- Whether or not Doqueña acted with discernment (Yes)

ACTIONS of the COURT

Pangasinan Court of First Instance
- Accused acted with discernment in committing homicide; was sentenced to be
sent to Training School for Boys in accordance with the RPC

Supreme Court

67
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES: Accident - Tañedo: Denied all knowledge before trial. Admitted to the facts provided
above on trial.
RPC Art. 12(4): “Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes - Sanchez was a tenant on a land that belonged to a relative of Tañedo.
an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.” Relationship between the two was not strained.

The United States v Cecilio Tañedo ISSUE/S of the CASE

GR no. 5418 |February 12, 1910 - WON Tañedo committed the crime of homicide (NO)
Ponente: Moreland, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines ACTIONS of the COURT
Accused-appellants: Cecilio Tañedo Court of First Instance
HOMICIDE; 14 years, 8 months, 1 day of reclusion temporal, accessories,
Nature of Case: indemnification, and costs
Appeal: homicide; 14 years, 8 months, 1 day of reclusion temporal,
accessories, indemnification, and costs. Supreme Court
- No possible reason for killing the accused. Relationship between the two
BRIEF was normal. Only reason for killing would have been if they had a fight while
On the morning of January 26, 1909, Cecilio Tañedo went with 4 of his hunting. Negated by the fact that the chicken and Sanchez were shot with one
laborers to work on a malecon (dam) on his land. After about an hour, he went bullet.
a short distance away across a stream to check how the adjustments to the - Evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. There is no evidence of
dam affected the flow of water. Tañedo carried a shotgun with him. He met negligence on the part of the accused and the only thing suspicious is his
Feliciano Sanchez across the stream, near a mango tree that was a short concealment and denial.
distance from the small shack where the latter was living with his mother and
uncle. Tañedo asked Sanchez’s uncle where he could find a good place to SUPREME COURT RULING
hunt wild chickens. Sanchez himself answered the question and directed The judgment of conviction is REVERSED, defendant ACQUITTED and discharged
Tañedo towards a portion of the forest that was close to the shack. Tañedo from custody. Costs de officio.
took the advice and went in the forest. A gun was shot. Feliciano Sanchez was
found dead with a gunshot wound. CONCUR: Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Johnson, JJ.
Art. 1 of the Penal Code – Crimes or misdemeanors are voluntary acts and
DISPOSITIVE omissions punished by law. Always presumed to be voluntary unless the contrary
The judgment of conviction is REVERSED. shall appear.
Art. 8(8) of the Penal Code – He who, while performing a legal act with due care,
FACTS causes some injury by mere accident without liability or intention of causing it.
- Sanchez’s uncle, who laid on the floor sick with a fever during the exchange at Sec. 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – innocent until proven guilty
the shack, testified that Sanchez and Tañedo invited each other to hunt and
that Tañedo accepted the invitation.
- Tañedo insists that did not invite Sanchez to hunt. Sanchez did not go with
him. He remained under the mango tree, “trying something.”
- Tañedo claims that he saw a chicken, shot it, and heard a human cry
immediately after. He saw that he had wounded a man and went back to his
companions at the malecon where he told Bernardino Tagampa about the
incident.
- Tañedo claims that he Tagampa concealed the body in cogon grass.
- The dead chicken was taken by a man named Yumul who gave it to his wife.
She later testified that the chicken had indeed been killed by a gunshot.
- That evening, Tañedo and Tagampa went back to dispose of the body
properly. They carried it about 1700-1800 meters from where Sanchez was
killed and buried it in an old well. They covered it with straw and earth before
burning straw on top of it to conceal it.
- Tagampa: Helped accused because he was afraid. No threats made to him,
however.

68
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE or UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR of a GREATER INJURY The Court reversed the decision of the lower court and acquit the defendants,
Article 12 of the RPC- Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability appellants, with costs de oficio in both instances.
US vs Caballeros CONCUR: Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Carson, JJ
GR No 1352 | March 29, 1905
Ponente: J. Mapa
Defendants/Appellants: Apolonio Caballeros, et al.
Complainant/Appelle: The United States
Nature of the Case:
Appeal for the inclusion as accessories in the crime of Assassination
BRIEF
Robert Baculi and Apolonio Caballeros were included as accessories to the
crime of assassination perpetrated against four (4) American schoolteachers for
having participated in the burial of the corpses of the victims in order to conceal the
crime. The defendants did not report the crime.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled acquitted the defendants after having consideration of the
facts.
FACTS
-The crime of assassination was perpetrated against the American Schoolteachers
Louis A. Thomas, Clyde O. France, John E. Wells, and Ernest Eger.
-Robert Baculi was gathering bananas in his plantation when he heard the shots.
After which, he began to run but was seen by Damaso and Isidoro, the leaders of the
band. They called him and striking him with the butts if their guns, they forced him to
bury the corpses. This was corroborated by the prosecution’s witness and only
witness to the crime, Teodoro Sabate,
-There was no proof that Antonio Caballeros took part in any way in the crime. There
is no conclusive truth to the contrary since Baculi and Sabate expressly declared that
Caballeros did not take part in the burial.
-A confession was made by Caballeros before Enrique Calderon.
ISSUES of the CASE
WON the Defendants should incur liability based on the extent and condition of their
participation in the crime.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Court of First Instance of Cebu
- Defendants were sentenced to a penalty of seven years in presidio mayor as
accessories.

Supreme Court
- Baculi acted by reason of an irresistible force.
- The confession of his liability and guilt made before Enrique Calderon, an
official of the division of information of the Constabulary, cannot be
considered as legal proof because Calderon declared that only Baculi made
a confession to him voluntarily.
- Another witness from the prosecution, Meliton Covarrubias, said in his
statements that the confession of Caballeros was made because of the
promise to him and other defendants that nothing would be done to them.
- The fact that the Defendants did not report the crime does not give them
criminal liability since this is not punishable by law.

SUPREME COURT RULING

69
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES: Irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of a
greater injury
RPC Art. 12: Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. —the
following are exempt from criminal liability:
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal
or greater injury
People v Loreno
GR no. L-54414 | July 9, 1984
Ponente: Concepcion, Jr.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendant-appellant: Eustaquio Loreno y Malaga and Jimmy Marantal y Londete
Nature of Case:
Review for the judgement of the lower court
BRIEF
On Jan. 7, 1978, while the Monge family was preparing to attend the dance
to be held in barrio proper later that evening, they were ransacked by several
malefactors, who claimed to be members of the New People's Army (NPA).
The whole family were tied and intimidated on their sala. The two daughters
were raped by an unidentified man in the dark sweater. The accused Loreno
and Marantal, who were recognized by the family, participated in the assault.
The total amount robbed from the family is P10, 619.50.
The RTC charged Loreno and Marantal with tile crime of Robbery with
Double Rape.
DISPOSITIVE
The SC affirmed the lower court’s decision with modification
FACTS
Robbery-rape incident
- Jan. 7, 1978 – The Monge family was preparing to attend the dance to be
held in barrio proper in the evening. Their house is located at Libmanan,
Caramines Sur. Occupants in the said house are:
o Brgy. Capt. Elias Monge – father
o Beata Monge – mother; who was changing the diaper of her
grandchild (Cristina’s daughter)
o Monica (14 y/o) and Cristina (22y/o; married) – daughters
o Mario (11 y/o) and Nilo (13 y/o) – sons
o Francisco Fable – farm helper
- Cristina was then vacationing and her husband, Raymond Baybayon wa in
Manila
- 7:40 pm – While in the balcony, Fable saw 2 men (one in red clothes and the
other in dark sweater) approaching their house. One of them called Elias,
saying that there was a letter from the chief. Fable called Elias. Elias went
out and the man in dark sweater handed him the letter. Because it was dark
to read outside, Elias invited the man inside their sala
- Upon reading the letter, Elias and Monica read the following: “Kami mga
NPA,”
- Seized with fear, Monica run and informed her mother. Cristina tried to get a
bolo but she was held by the man in dark sweater. He announced not to
make any scandal then he poked his gun to Elias
- Meanwhile in the balcony, the man in red clothes asked for a glass of water
to Fable. Fable noticed that the man was following him as he went inside the
house. When Fable reached the door, the man poked a gun on his back and
pointed a sharp instrument on his neck.
- Once inside the sala, Fable recognized the man as Eustaquio Loreno. Elias,
Monica and Cristina also recognized him as he entered the sala.
- The man in dark sweater instructed Loreno to tie all their victims on the floor.
Loreno tied them with rattan
- The man in dark sweater cut the baby's hammock (duyan) and got the ropes
with which he and Loreno used to reinforce in tying the victim's hands
together behind their backs.
- Thereafter, the man in dark sweater instructed Loreno to go downstairs and
drive the barking dog away. Loreno held Fable and brought him downstairs.
As they were going downstairs, Fable recognized one of the assailants’
lookouts, Jimmy Marantal. When Jimmy also recognized Fable, he kicked
him on his right rib and fall on the ground. Loreno brought Fable upstairs.
- After the 2 returned to sala, the man in dark sweater dragged Monica to the
room above the balcony. He ransacked the room but did not found any piggy
bank savings. So the man decided to rape her instead.
- Below the sala, Loreno forced Beata to open their aparador and trunk of
their masters and teacher’s rooms. All the things he got were poured on the
floor
- When the man in dark sweater returned to sala, she now dragged Cristina in
to the room rented by Teacher Olitoquit (was then in Naga). He punched
her, she lost consciousness, and then he raped her.
- Third man entered the sala and he told Loreno to cover their victims on the
floor with a mat. A fourth man entered the sala and he asked from Elias
Monge for a cigarette. Then Loreno asked Elias Monge to accompany him
to the house of a nearby neighbor, Elias refused, but Loreno pointed his gun
at him.
- When they got back, Loreno entered the room where Cristina was brought.
Loreno tried to raped her but one of the malefactors on the ground called
those upstairs to hurry because a man was approaching. The malefactors
went down from the house one by one, bringing along all the things they
robbed from their victims
- The man in the dark sweater returned to the sala and told them not to tell
anybody what happened to them, otherwise he will kill them. Then all the
malefactors left the place.
- Soon after, Elias heard Sixto Agapito, asking him if he was going to the
dance hall. Elias replied that he was not feeling well.
- Fable told Elias that he saw Jimmy Marantal. The two daughters also told
him that they were raped.
- Total amount robbed: P10, 619.50
After the incident
70
 - Jan. 10, 1978 - After several attempts, Elias finally met Sgt. Victoriano del o He must have heard Monica’s shouts for help. As a lookout, Marantal
Socorro, chief of investigation of Police Department gave his companions effective means and encouragement to commit
- Sgt. Socorro and his team were able to pick up Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy the crimes of robbery and rape
Marantal. o He did not raised a voice of protest or did an act to prevent the
- The two suspects told their victims if they could just talk and settle the commission of the crimes
matter, but Elias did not agree. - All these demonstrated the voluntary participation and the conspiracy of the
- Dr. Miraflores certified Elias’ external injury, while Dr. Cabral, examined appellants
Monica (none for Cristina because she was already married) - The foregoing acts, though separately performed from those of their
unidentified companions, clearly showed their community of interest and
Alibis concert of criminal design with their unidentified companions which constituted
- Appellants Eustaquio Loreno and Jimmy Marantal claimed that they acted conspiracy without the need of direct proof of the conspiracy itself
under the compulsion of an irresistible force and/or under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. SUPREME COURT RULING
- They admitted the crime but they were only forced by a man wearing black WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED,
sweater and his five companions who claimed to be members of the New with the modification that the accused cused JIMMY MARANTAL is hereby sentenced
People's Army (NPA), operating in the locality, with the threat that if they did to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. With costs against appellants.
not obey, appellants and their families would be killed.
CONCUR: Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De
ISSUE/S of the CASE la Fuente and Cuevas, JJ.
- Whether or not Loreno and Marantal are exempted from the crime of robbery
with double rape DISSENTING OPINIONS:
MAKASIAR:
ACTIONS of the COURT - Appellant Jimmy Marantal is guilty of robbery only no clear proof that he knows
Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur Monica Monge was being raped and even if he did, he could not prevent it if he
- Accused Eustaquio Loreno y Malaga and Jimmy Marantal y Londete were was on the ground outside the house as look out.
charged with tile crime of Robbery with Double Rape
Supreme Court
- The Court finds the contention/ alibis of the accused untenable.
- A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who
acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is
exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom.
o A threat of future is not enough.
- Inconsistencies of the appelants’ alibis:
Loreno:
o Loreno was armed when he went up the house. He also pointed the gun
to the victims which enabled the malefactors to ransack the house.
o As they were approaching the house, Loreno admitted that, without prior
instructions, he immediately positioned himself near the post of the
balcony. This act showed his voluntary participation in the criminal acts.
o Loreno himself tied the victim with rattan and thereafter, with ropes of
the hammock.
o When Monica was shouting when the man in the dark sweater was
raping her, Loreno’s immediate reaction was to point his gun to the
victims.
o Loreno also made Beata to open the trunk and aparador from their
bedrooms without the assistance of the man in the dark sweater
o Loreno took advantage of Cristina
Marantal:
o Marantal’s reaction towards Fable serves as a warning not to report his
presence to the authorities

71
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE: INSUPERABLE CAUSE + MERE ACCIDENT - Re: infanticide/abandonment of a minor: It must be proven that it was
committed willfully or consciously. Even under imprudence, the offender
Art. 12(4). Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an must be fully in control of his mental faculties.
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
Art. 12(7). Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented ISSUE: WON Josefina is criminally liable for infanticide – NO
by some lawful or insuperable cause. RATIO:
1. Luis Kirol testified that a) Josefina’s former affair took place 3 years before
People v Bandian the incident; b) he knew she was pregnant and believed that the child was
GR 45186 | Sept. 30, 1936 his. Therefore, appellant had no cause to be ashamed of her pregnancy.
Ponente: Diaz 2. Appellant denied having made any admission to the physician.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Phils.
Accused-appellant: Josefina Bandian
3. There are several insuperable causes:
a) She suffered from continuous fever;
Nature of the case: Appeal from trial court conviction of infanticide. b) she is a primipara, being then 23 years of
age;
BRIEF c) she is uneducated  was not aware of her
Valentin Aguilar, the appellant’s neighbor, saw Josefina go into a thicket 4 or 5 brazas childbirth OR was unable to tell due to her
from her house, apparently to respond to a call of nature. A few minutes later, he saw debility;
her emerge from the thicket with bloodstained clothes, staggering and showing signs 4. Court cites her strong dizziness and extreme debility under Art. 12(4), RPC
of not being able to support herself. He helped her go to her house; she told him she (mere accident). Law requires her to care for, protect, and not abandon the
was very dizzy. He called Adriano Comcom to take bamboo leaves to stop the child.
hemorrhage. Comcom found the body of a newborn baby near the thicket. Josefina
said the baby was hers. RULING:
Acquitted of the crime, under the circumstances that give her the 4 th and 7th
DISPOSITIVE exempting circumstances.
The SC acquitted Bandian due to exempting circumstance. Villareal concurred, but
qualified that appellant committed no crime.
Concurring: Villareal

FACTS - Concurs acquittal, but states that Josefina committed no criminal act or
- There is no evidence as to how the child died. There were animal bites on omission.
the child’s body. - “Unconscious, precipitate or sudden deliveries are well known in legal
medicine among primiparae who, by reason of their ignorance of the
Prosecution: symptoms of parturition and of the process of expulsion of fetus, are not
Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno: aware that they are giving birth when they are responding to an urgent call of
1. On the day of the incident, he went to Josefina’s house and found her lying nature.”
in bed, still bleeding. Her bed and the floor were full of blood. - No deceit, imprudence, negligence: accused was not aware that she had
2. He declared that Josefina gave birth in her bed, and threw the child into the delivered.
thicket to kill it, for the purpose of concealing her dishonor from Luis Kirol, - Art. 12(4) cannot be applied because the delivery was not itself an injury;
her partner, because the child was not his. the exposure of the child to animals and the elements caused its death.
3. He says that she admitted this to him.

ACTIONS OF THE COURT

Trial court (Sept. 20, 1991)
- Convicted Bandian of infanticide, on the grounds of Dr. Nepomuceno’s
testimony

Supreme Court

72
OTHER EXCULPATORY CAUSES – INSTIGATION  The Captain then appeared and arrested Uy and Lua together with the bills
of lading and invoice in Chinese. His team also examined the customhouse
People v Lua Chu and Uy Te Sieng and confirmed the presence of the shipment containing opium worth
G.R. No. 34917 | September 7, 1931 P50,000.
Ponente: J. Villa-Real
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines ISSUES of the CASE
Accused-appellant: Lua Chu  Whether or not the lower court erred on its judgment as to (1) refusal to
permit presentation of certain evidence, (2) exclusion of Samson as witness,
Nature of Case: (3) admission of stenographic notes taken during the entrapment, and (4)
Appeal from judgment of Court of First Instance of Cebu sufficiency of evidence. (No)

BRIEF ACTIONS of the COURT

 The chief of customs secret service pretended to agree to a plan of Trial Court:
illegal smuggling of opium to assure the seizure of opium and arrest of  The accused are found guilty of illegal importation of opium.
its importers.
Supreme Court:
DISPOSITIVE  The lower court did not err in refusing to excluded Samson, the primary
 Judgment affirmed. Government witness, during the hearing. Neither in accepting the transcript
of the stenographer than contained the admissions of the two Chinese.
FACTS  Samson’s testimony is also believable because the officers of the
 On the November 1929, Uy Se Tieng wrote his correspondent in Hong Kong Constabulary and Samson himself only did their duty. Moreover, the
about a shipment of opium. On November 4, Juan Samson, then chieft of defendants do not deny their participation.
the customs secret service of Cebu, returned from a vacation in Europe.  The Supreme Court held that, contrary to what the defense alleges, Samson
Joaquin Natividad, the collector of customs in the Port of Cebu, promised did not induce them to import opium. He might have smoothed the way for
Samson that he will recoup of his expenses and gave him P300. the Uy and Lua but that was after the accused planned of its importation.
 A week later, Natividad called Samson and told him that the shipment  As a general rule in entrapment operations, “it is no defense to the
consisted of opium. Uy Se Tieng went that very night to Samson’s house by perpetrator of the crime that facilities for its commission were purposely
the order of Natividad. He told Samson that he agreed to pay P6,000 to placed in his way.”
Natividad.  Samson neither induced nor intigated the importation because he only
 The shipment was boarded on a steamship called Kolambungan and it was pretended to have an understanding with the collector of customs in order to
agreed that Natividad, Samson, and certain employees shall partake the assure the seizure of opium and its importers and not for his personal gain.
money. Due to certain engine troubles, Kolambungan went back to Hong This case is simply a trap set to catch a criminal.
Kong. It remained there until December 7. On November 16, all the  Avanceña, Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Romualdez, Imperial,
necessary papers are ready according to Uy. concur.
 Kolambungan arrived in Cebu on December 14. Natividad instructed
Samson to have the cargo unloaded safely and get their payment from Uy.
On that night, Uy went to Samson’s house without the money but informed
him that he’ll see if he can get it the next day.
 Samson informed Colonel Francisco of the Constabulary and he instructed
the provincial commander, Captain Buenconsejo, to discuss how to capture
the opium owners.
 On December 17 evening, the Captain, together with Lieutenant Fernando
and a stenographer, went to Samson’s house and concealed themselves.
 Uy arrived and said that he did not bring the money because the owner of
the shipment, Lua Chu, was afraid of him. Samson guaranteed that he Lua
need not be afraid. Uy then fetched Lua and brought him to Samson. Lua
said that he is not the sole owner and he did not bring the money but he
promised to pay as soon as the opium are delivered to Uy’s warehouse. Lua
also stated that it was the collector who got him to bring in the opium.

73

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – SELF-DEFENSE
RPC Article 14. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
2. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights...
People v Jaurigue and Jaurigue
CA-No. 384 | February 21, 1946
Ponente: De Joya
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Avelina Jaurigue
Nature of Case:
Appeal from judgment of Court of First Instance of Laguna
BRIEF
 Avelina Jaurigue, defendant, unintentionally killed Amado Capiña, her suitor,
while the latter, with great imprudence, placed his hand on the upper part of
Avelina’s thigh while they were inside a church.
DISPOSITIVE
 Judgment modified; penalty reduced. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court’s finding that Avelina is guilty of homicide but the penalty is reduced by
two degrees, considering mitigating circumstances, to prision correccional.
 Whether or not the actions of the defendant can be considered an act of
self-defense of her honor as a woman (No)
 Whether or not her actions merits the most liberal consideration possible
under the law (Yes)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court:
 Avelina Jaurigue is found guilty of homicide and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal and
indemnify the heirs of the deceased. Avelina then appealed to the Court of
Appeals (no action of CA described).
Supreme Court:
 A woman is justified in killing her aggresor when there is actual danger of
rape.
- In the instant case, the means employed by Avelina is evidently excessive.
However, her intention was not to kill Amado but only to punish his offending
hand. The Court found that Avelina is not a criminal by nature.
 The following are mitigating circumstances in her favor:
- The fact that Avelina surrendered unconditionally.
- Her action was provocated by passion or obfuscation, or temporary loss of
reason and self-control.
 Ozaeta, Perfecto, and Bengzon, concur.

FACTS
 On September 13, 1942, Amado spoke of her love to Avelina which she
flatly refused. Nonethelss, Amado suddenly embraced, kissed, touched her.
From then on, she armed herself with a long fan knife.
 On September 15, Amado climbed up the house of the defendant and
entered the room where she was sleeping. She screamed upon feeling his
presence and sought the help of her parents. Amado begged for the
forgiveness of the parents.
 On September 20, the day of the fatal incident, Avelina received news that
Amado has been falsely boasting that she desperately tried to elope with
Amado.
 On the same day, at around 8:00 p.m., Nicolas Jaurigue, father of the
defendant, went to the Seventh Day Adventists chapel to attend a religious
service. Avelina followed afterwards and sat at the back. Amado, seated on
the other side, transferred and sat near Avelina. He placed his hand on the
upper part of her right thigh.
 Avelina pulled her fan knife with the intention of punishing Amado’s
offending hand but Amado seized her right hand so she quickly grabbed the
knife by her left hand and stabbed Amado at his neck, mortally injuring
Amado.
 Avelina confessed of what she had done stating that she could not take it
anymore. She surrendered the weapon and herself to the authorities
afterwards.

ISSUES of the CASE

74
Justifying Circumstances: Self-defense
Mitigating Circumstances: Incomplete Justification or Exemption
RPC Art. 11 (1): Justifying Circumstances:
The following do not incur any criminal liability:
Par. 1: Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur:
1: Unlawful aggression
2: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
RPC Art. 13 (1): Mitigating Circumstances:
Art. 13, par. 1: Those mentioned in the preceding chapter (Justifying Circumstances),
when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability
in the respective cases are not attendant.
*INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE is present in this case.
People v Narvaez
GR No. L-33466-67 | April 20, 1983
Ponente: MAKASIAR, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Mamerto Narvaez
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of murder, and sentence of life imprisonment
BRIEF
Deceased David Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, along with three other men,
were fencing the land of George Fleischer. At the place of the fencing is the
house and rice drier of appellant Mamerto Narvaez. Appellant trying to stop
said fencing shot Fleischer and Rubia, causing the death of the two.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that Narvaez is guilty for two counts of homicide mitigated
by the privileged extenuating circumstance of incomplete self-defense as
well as by two generic mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
obfuscation.
FACTS
- At about 2:30 in the afternoon of August 22, 1968, the two deceased: Davis
Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, and 3 other men were fencing the land of
George Fleischer, father of deceased David.
- At the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant.
- At that time, Narvaez was taking his rest, but arose when he heard that the
walls of his house were being chiselled. If the fencing would go on, appellant
would be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his
ricemill.
- He addressed the group, saying 'Pare, if possible you stop destroying my
house and if possible we will talk it over what is good,' addressing the
deceased Rubia, who is appellant's compadre. Fleischer, however,
answered: 'No, gademit, proceed, go ahead.'
- Appellant apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his shotgun and shot
Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia ran towards the jeep,
and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, appellant fired at Rubia, likewise
hitting him. Both Fleischer and Rubia died.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellant is guilty of murder. (NO)
ACTIONS of the COURT
South Cotabato Court of First Instance
- Convicted the appellant of murder with the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
- Penalty for each of the two murders is RECLUSION PERPETUA, and to
indemnify each victim’s heirs with P12,000 compensatory damages, P10,000
as moral damages and P2,000 as attorney’s fees.
Supreme Court
- It appears, however, that this incident is intertwined with the long drawn out
legal battle between the Fleischer and Co., Inc. of which deceased Fleischer
was the secretary-treasurer and deceased Rubia the asst. manager, on the
one hand, and the land settlers of Cotabato.
Supplementary Facts
- Narvaez was among the persons from Northern and Central Luzon who went
to Maitum, South Cotabato in 1937. He established his residence therein, built
his house, cultivated the area and was among those who petitioned then
President Manuel L. Quezon to order the subdivision of the defunct Celebes
Plantation and Kalaong Plantation totalling about 2,000 hectares, for
distribution among the settlers.
- Fleischer & Co. filed sales application for 1,017 hectares of said land.
- After WWII, only 300 hectares was declared open for disposition, appraised &
advertised for public auction. The rest were subdivided into subplots of 5-6
hectares to be distributed among settlers.
- Aug. 14, 1948, public auction - Fleischer was the only bidder: P6,000.
- Settlers protested but Fleischer was able to negotiate for amicable settlement.
However, settlers repudiated said agreement. The settlers appealed to the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who, however, affirmed the
decision in favor of the company.
- May 29, 1950 - settlers filed for annulment of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources’ order which affirmed the awarding of the contested land to
the company. Settlers lost in both the Court of First Instance of Cotabato and
the Court of Appeals.
- Settlers were oused by an order of the Court of First Instance dated
September 24, 1966.
- Among those ejected was Narvaez who, to avoid trouble, voluntarily
dismantled his house, built in 1947 at a cost of around P20,000.00, and
transferred to his other house near the highway.
75
 - November 14, 1966 – settlers filed in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato to
obtain an injunction or annulment of the order of award with prayer for
preliminary injunction
- During pendency of case, appellant on February 21, 1967 entered into a
contract of lease with the company (100-140 sq. meters) for a
consideration of P16.00 monthly.
- According to him, he signed the contract although the ownership of the land
was still uncertain, in order to avoid trouble, until the question of ownership
could be decided. He never paid the agreed rental, although he alleges that
the milling job they did for Rubia was considered payment.
- June 25, 1968 - deceased Fleischer wrote him a letter giving him 6 months to
remove and evacuate all his constructions from the land or else “the company
shall cause their immediate demolition.”
- August 21, 1968 – both deceased together with their laborers commenced
fencing of the property until the next day when the crime was committed.
- Appellant admitted having shot them from the window of his house with the
shotgun which he surrendered to the police authorities.
First Assignment of Error: That the lower court erred in convicting defendant-
appellant despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person;
Second Assignment of Error: That the court a quo also erred in convicting
defendant-appellant although he acted in defense of his rights
AS BY TWO (2) GENERIC MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER AND OBFUSCATION, WITHOUT ANY AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE, APPELLANT IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO SUFFER AN
IMPRISONMENT OF FOUR (4) MONTHS OF ARRESTO MAYOR, TO INDEMNIFY
EACH GROUP OF HEIRS OF DAVIS FLEISCHER AND OF FLAVIANO RUBIA IN
THE SUM OF FOUR THOUSAND (P 4,000.00) PESOS, WITHOUT SUBSIDIARY
IMPRISONMENT AND WITHOUT ANY AWARD FOR MORAL DAMAGES AND
ATTORNEY'S FEES.
CONSIDERING THAT APPELLANT HAS BEEN UNDER DETENTION FOR
ALMOST FOURTEEN (14) YEARS NOW SINCE HIS VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
ON AUGUST 22, 1968, HIS IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS HEREBY ORDERED. NO
COSTS.
CONCUR: Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, De Castro,
Melencio-Herrera, Escolin Vasquez and Relova, JJ.
NOTES:
o Art. 14, par. 6: That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation
o Art. 14, par. 6: That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to
a person in authority or his agents

Court rationale on above facts

- Self-defense lacks one element.
4. Unlawful aggression: YES. The property in dispute still has a pending
case for injunction or annulment of the order of award. Fleischer and co.
cannot fence said property just yet.
5. Reasonable necessity of means employed: NO. When the appellant fired
his shotgun from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was
disproportionate to the attack.
6. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of appellant: YES. He was asleep.
He pleaded for men to stop and talk things over.
- No murder, only homicide. The qualifying circumstance of treachery cannot be
appreciated in this case because of the presence of provocation on the part of
the deceased.
- No evident premeditation. Crisanto Ibanez’ testimony that Narvaez threatened
him against fencing the latter’s house does not amount to premeditation.
Evident premeditation is further negated by appellant pleading with the victims
to stop the fencing and destroying his house and to talk things over just before
the shooting.
- Passion and obfuscation attended the commission of the crime. The appellant
awoke to find his house being damaged and its accessibility to the highway as
well as of his rice mill bodega being closed. These circumstances, coming so
near to the time when his first house was dismantled, thus forcing him to
transfer to his only remaining house, must have so aggravated his obfuscation.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

WHEREFORE, FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF ONLY TWO (2) HOMICIDES, MITIGATED BY THE PRIVILEGED
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INCOMPLETE SELF-DEFENSE AS WELL

76
Mitigating Circumstances: Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
RPC Art.13 (3): That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed.
People v Ural GR No. L-30801 | March 27, 1974
Ponente: AQUINO, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Domingo Ural
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of murder, and the sentence of life imprisonment
BRIEF Policeman Domingo Ural was found guilty of the murder of a detention
prisoner, Felix Napola. A former detention prisoner witnessed his abuse and
incineration causing the death of Napola.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that appellant’s lack of intent to commit a grave so wrong is
a mitigating circumstance to this case, offset by the aggravating
circumstance of appellant’s abuse of his public position.
FACTS
- Main witness is Brigido Alberto, a 26 year old former detention prisoner in
Buug, Zamboanga del Sur who was accused of murder and set at liberty on
June 9, 1966 after posting bail. He then stayed with his father.
- On July 31, 1966, he intended to go to his residence at but night overtook him
in the town. He decided to sleep in the Buug municipal building where there
would be more security.
- Arriving at the municipal building at around 8PM, he saw Policeman Ural (with
whom he was already acquainted) inside the jail, boxing detention prisoner,
Felix Napola. The latter collapsed on the floor.
- Ural went out of the cell. After a short interval, he returned with a bottle. He
poured its contents on Napola's recumbent body. Then, he ignited it with a
match and left the cell.
- Doctor Luzonia R. Bakil, the municipal health officer, certified that Napola,
whom she treated twice would die toxemia and tetanus infection if not given
proper treatment.
- Napola died on August 25, 1966. The sanitary inspector issued a certificate of
death indicating "burn" as the cause of death.
Alibis
- Ural: At 9PM, he heard the screams of Napola, went to him and found the
prisoner’s shirt in flames. Policeman, with the assistance of Ogoc and Siton
removed the deceased’s shirt.
- Felicisima Escareal, Ogoc’s common-law wife: Saw Napola’s shirt burning but
did not know how it happened. Ural and Siton rempved the short of Napola and
put out the fire.
- Teofilo Matugas, a policeman: declared that he was relieved as guard by Ural
at eight-thirty in the evening of July 31st. He denied that witness Alberio was in
the municipal building at eight o'clock.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not there is credibility or sufficiency in the prosecution's evidence to
prove Ural’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Zamboanga del Sur Court of First Instance
- Convicted the appellants, except for Teresa, of murder with the sentence of life
imprisonment and indemnity of Php12,000
Supreme Court
- The court deplored the half-hearted manner in which the prosecution handled
the case. They failed to present as witnesses two detention prisoners (Ogoc
and de la Serna) who saw the burning of Napola. They also failed to present
Rufina Paler, the victim’s widow, as a vital witness to prove the victim’s dying
declaration.
- The court refutes Ural’s assault on Alberio’s credibility based from the latter’s
previous conviction of murder.
- The testimonies of Felicisima Escareal, Ogoc's common-law wife, and
Policeman Matugas are compatible with the prosecution's theory that Ural
burned Napola's shirt.
- The trial court which had the advantage of seeing their demeanor and behavior
on the witness stand, chose to believe Alberio. This Court, after a searching
scrutiny of the whole record, does not find any justification for disbelieving
Alberio.
- Case is covered by article 4 of the Revised Penal code: “"criminal liability shall
be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended". The rationale of the rule in
article 4 is found in the doctrine that "el que es causa de la causa es causa del
mal causado" (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused).
- Even if Napola died weeks after the commission of the crime, Ural is still
criminally liable of the murder of the deceased.
- Trial court correctly held that accused took advantage of his public position.
Otherwise, he would not have had access to the cell where Napola was
confined.
- Trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance "that the offender
had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed". It was
manifest when Ural realized the fearful consequences of his felonious act, and
allowed Napola to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
SUPREME COURT RULING
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic
aggravating circumstance of abuse of official position. The trial court properly
imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty
for murder.
Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, the same is affirmed with costs
against the appellant.
77

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Lack of Intent
RPC Article 13: Mitigating Circumstances: The following are mitigating
circumstances:
3: That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed
People v Gonzalez
GR No. 139542 | June 21, 2001
Ponente: GONZAGA-REYES
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the Marikina RTC decision that found appellant guilty of murder
and two counts of frustrated murder.
BRIEF
After a traffic altercation between Noel Andres and Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.,
the latter’s son intervened. Thinking that his son’s life was in danger,
Gonzalez drew his gun and fired a shot. The bullet killed Andres’ pregnant
wife Feliber Andres, and injured his two nephews.
DISPOSITIVE
Marikina RTC found Gonzalez guilty of the complex crime of murder with two
counts of frustrated murder
FACTS
- October 31, 1998: Andres and Gonzalez were leaving Loyola Memorial park in
their own cars. Andres was with his wife Feliber, his sister-in-law and two
nephews; Gonzalez was with his grandson and 3 househelp; his son Dino was
driving his own car
- Andres and Gonzalez had a near-collision at an intersection; Gonzalez sped
off
- Andres gave chase and cut off Gonzalez. He got out the car.
Prosecution’s version
- Andres calmly told Gonzalez to be careful with his driving. He then saw the
latter turning red with anger; Andres went back to his car
- He was blocked by Dino who asked “Anong problema mo sa erpat ko?” Andres
boarded his car, closed the door and opened the window slightly to talk to Dino
- Suddenly one of his passengers said “binaril kami”, then he saw his wife
bloodied, he turned and saw his nephews wounded
Defense’s version
- Andres went to Gonzalez and repeatedly cursed at him. Gonzalez stayed in his
car, apologizing
- Dino and Gonzalez said that Andres was outside his own car when he was
arguing with Dino
- When Andres reached inside his car. Feeling that his son was in danger,
Gonzalez got his gun from the glove compartment and got out of the car,
- When he saw that Andres did not have a weapon, he put down his gun. Trisha,
Dino’s sister, came and pushed Gonzalez away. This made him drop the gun,
causing it to fire
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not Gonzales should be exempt from civil and criminal liabilities
because he had no intention to shoot (NO)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Marikina Regional Trial Court
- Took note of 5 instances that lead to the crime: 1. Andres overtook the care 2.
Andres got out of car and confronted Gonzalez 3. Andres had an argument
with Dino 4. Gonzalez took out his gun when he saw Andres arguing with Dino
5. Gonzalez had a struggle with Trisha
- Found that Gonzales was guilty of the complex crime of murder and two
counts of frustrated murder
- Pointed out that Gonzalez’s automatic pistol will not fire simply because it was
dropped
- Argued that once a gun is drawn against a person, the means, methods and
forms employed for its execution is already conceived
o It is done to insure execution, thus producing intent
o There is then treachery because Gonzales in drawing the gun is
insuring the execution of his action without risk to himself
Supreme Court
On treachery and lack of intent
- Gonzalez declared that he had no intention to shoot
o When Trisha tried to lead him away, he tried to his hand that was
holding the gun; it accidentally fired
o Andres’ windows were heavily tinted. It was difficult to determine if there
were people inside.
- SolGen agreed that crime was there was no treachery
o Crime happened after an argument thus the victim was already on
guard for any attack
o Requisites for treachery were not proven, and SolGen agreed that
auto.pistols should not be equated with treachery
 Gonzalez aimed at the car, not at Andrea- just because the gun is
drawn does not mean that mode of attack was consciously and
deliberately employed.
- SC: treachery is never presumed, it must be proven
o Chance encounters or crimes preceded by heated arguments are
generally not attended to by treachery
 Gonzalez and Andres were complete strangers before the
accident. (chance encounter)
 Andres provoked Gonzalez which led to hostilities between the
two (heated argument)
o It was clear that the shot was fired away from Andres while Andres was
arguing with the son of the appellant
78
  He did not react to Andres’ behaviour until the latter was
aggressive towards his son
 He believed his son to be in danger
 Gonzalez could have shot him, but didn’t
 No evidence proved that Gonzalez indiscriminately fired
 The appellant intended to shoot at the car not at Andres nor
any other person
o Shooting was a single, continuous act, trial court erred in breaking it into
several stages to make it appear as if there was treachery
o The shooting was a spur of the moment decision and not attended
to by treachery, and was not done in coldblood
 Without treachery, crime is homicide

On attempted murder vs. physical injuries

- The intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is physical injuries or
homicide
o In case of doubt regarding intent, shall be convicted of the lesser
offense
o Lack of intent to kill was evident
o Both children were discharged after 6 days
 Not frustrated murder but slight physical injuries

On the defense of obfuscation and passion

- Dino was of age, was hardly helpless, and was fighting back
o This could not have induced passion and obfuscation on Gonzalez

On the defense of incomplete defense of relative

- Andres yelling at them was hardly unlawful aggression

On complex crimes
- Complex crimes require two or more grave and/or less grave felonies
o Case has one felony and two light felonies
 Complex crime does not apply

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE the decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED. The
appellant is hereby found guilty of homicide for the death of Feliber Andres and is
sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 8yrs 2day of prision mayor to 14yrs
8mos 1day of reclusion temporal. For each count of slight physical injuries
against Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez, the appellant is hereby sentenced to 20
days of aresto menor.

CONCUR: Davide (CJ), Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena,

Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez

DISSENT: Puno, Kapunan, Panganiban

79
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
RPC Art. 13(4). That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party immediately preceded the act;
People v Pagal
GR No. L-32040 | Oct. 25, 1977
Ponente: Concepcion
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino
Nature of Case:
Appeal; Robbery with Homicide; Circuit Criminal Court of Manila
BRIEF
On December 26, 1969 Pagal and Torcelino conspired in the robbery of Gau
Guan wherein the amount of P1, 281.00 was taken. Afterwards, Gau Guan was then
stabbed with an ice pick and clubbed him with an iron pipe on different parts of his
body. Victim died shortly after.
DISPOSITIVE
Lower court ruling MODIFIED. Robbery with homicide, with the aggravating
circumstance of night-time offset by mitigating circumstance of pleading guilty.
Lesser penalty: reclusion perpetua.
FACTS
1. Accused pled guilty during arraignment. They cited the mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the deceased which
allegedly led them to act upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion
and obfuscation.
2. Lower court explained to accused that seeking to prove mitigating
circumstances is tantamount to admitting the commission of the crime
charged against accused.
3. Pagal contends that his conviction of robbery with homicide was an error on
the part of the court since the record is bereft of evidence that he and
Torcelino conspired to commit the crime.
- Sentenced to DEATH. Indemnity of P15,000 moral damages and P15,000
exemplary damages, to bear interest until fully paid.
Supreme Court
1. Pagal’s contention of lower court lacking evidence is not well-taken because
his guilty plea in a statement signed by him before the police investigators.
By pleading guilty, he admitted to the crime and the circumstances
surrounding its commission. It is sufficient to sustain a conviction without
introducing more evidence.
2. Mitigating circumstance of provocation also caused the mitigating
circumstance of obfuscation. As they arose from the same event, they
cannot be considered as two separate circumstances.
3. Passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating circumstances to a crime
which had been mediated before its execution.
4. Mitigating circumstance, provocation: must have immediately preceded the
unlawful act. Alleged maltreatment performed by victim on the appellants
happened on a much earlier date.
5. Evident premeditation cannot be aggravating in a crime of robbery with
homicide unless sufficient proof on intent to kill is given. Deceased was only
killed when he refused to open the safe.
6. Disregard of respect due cannot be an aggravating circumstance in a crime
against property like the case at bar. It only applies to crimes against
persons.
SUPREME COURT RULING
Lower court ruling MODIFIED. Robbery with homicide, with the aggravating
circumstance of night-time offset by mitigating circumstance of pleading guilty. Lesser
penalty: reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE/S of the CASE

- WON court erred in convicting Pagal of the crime of robbery with homicide
instead of declaring him liable only for his individual acts
- WON court erred in denying the accused the mitigating circumstances of
sufficient provocation and passion or obfuscation
- WON aggravating circumstances considered are valid

ACTIONS of the COURT

Court of First Instance
- Both accused found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide
- Aggravating circumstances: night-time, evident premeditation, disregard of
respect due to the offending party
- Mitigating circumstance: guilty plea

80
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES-VINDICATION of a WRONG
Article 13-Mitigating Circumstances
People vs Benito
G.R. No. 128072 | February 19, 1999
Ponented: J. Quisumbing
Plaintiff-apellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-applellants: Henry Benito
Nature of the Case:
Appeal seeking the reversal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Dagupan City which found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of murder.
BRIEF
Accused-appellant Henry Benito, armed with a bladed weapon, with intent to
kill and with evident premeditation, unlawfully and feloniously stabbed Alberto de la
Cruz. De la Cruz died as a result of the wound inflicted by the accused-appellant.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that Benito was guilty of murder with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery.
FACTS
- On the evening of February 4, 1988, 7:20 pm, in Barangay Sonquil, Sta,
Barbara, Pangasinan, Henry Benito went to the house of hut of if spouses
Dionisio and Imelda Albarida looking for his wife, Thelma Catab. Imelda
opened the window at the frontage and told appellant that his wife was not
there. Angered, he started hitting the wall and this went on for about two
minutes.
- Appellant left the house and about a meter from the hut, he met Alberto de la
Cruz. De la Cruz muttered “who is this person making trouble?” As the two
met side by side, appellant pulled a knife from his waist and stabbed de la
Cruz on his chest. De la Cruz fell to the ground and the appellant fled.
- Imelda witnessed the stabbing from her window.
- A crowd formed around the body. The parents of the victim, Luis and Virginia
de la Cruz were there. Pedro Almazan and a barangay kagawad, Manual
Suarez were also there.
- The victim was brought to a hospital on a tricycle but died on the way. The
corpse was brought to the morgue instead.
Version of Defense
- On the night of the incident, accused-appellant followed his wife in the house
of his mother-in-law at Bo. Sonquil, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan. His house is
48 meters away.
- In going to the house, he passed a drinking session participated by Pedro
Almagan, Alberto de la Cruz, Berto Miranda, Jong de la Cruz and Luis de la
Cruz which was situated 10 meters from the said house. He was offered
wine by the group but refused.
- Upon arriving, he called his wife and told her it was time to go home but his
mother-in-law refused to let her go. His mother-in-law was mad at him at that
time.
- His wife finally went down and on their way home, he saw that the people
who were drinking were boxing each other. The accused-appellant
specifically noted Alberto de la Cruz and Pedro Almagan.
- Accused-appellant denied the following:
o The accusations of his mother-in-law that he stabbed the victim
o The testimony of Kagawad Suares that he was nowhere to be
found in the Barangay after the incident
o That Pedro Almagan was an eyewitness to the stabbing and the
authorship of the death threat letters
- Accused-appellant maintained the following:
o His mother-in-law treats him badly
o He stayed in the barangay after the incident
o He went to Manila on Feb. 16, 1988 because of his mother-in-law
and he came to know the accusations against him on Sept. 16,
1995 when he was arrested in Brgy. Maligaya, Novaliches, Metro
Manila
o He knows Pedro Almagan and that they had no misunderstandings
o In February 11, 1995, he was already in jail. Further questioning
indicated that he was detained on Feb. 11, 1995
o On cross-that presence of the kerosene lamp outside his mother-in-
law’s house. That he had no misunderstandings with victim, Alberto
de la Cruz, Manual Suarez, Salvador Cardenas. That there was no
obstruction between the place he was standing to the place where
the group was drinking,
- Witness Statements Offered by Defense:
o Teofilo Benito- supported the presence of a quarrel between the
accused and his mother-in-law.
o Ramon Crisostomo-He saw the accused in the Barangay on the
day of and the day after the incident.
ISSUES of the CASE
WON the court erred in giving full merit to the testimonies of the witnesses presented
by the prosecution.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City
- Accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and appreciating the
qualifying aggravating circumstance of Treachery, the court sentenced
accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay the
bereaved wife of the victim the following:
o Php 19,500 as actual damages
o 50,000 as indemnity
o 30,000 as moral damages
o And cost.
Supreme Court
- The trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses
because of the opportunity to observe the witness first-hand. Except for
81
 compelling reasons, the Supreme Court is doctrinally bound to accept the
trial court’s assessment of the witnesses.
- Lack of motive doesn’t preclude conviction. It is of judicial knowledge that
individuals have committed crimes without motives.
- Truth is not established by the number of witnesses but by the quality of their
testimonies
- On Witness Imelda Albarida-Answer to Issue(NO)
o Was in the position to clearly observe the crime given that her
house was only one meter from the scene of the crime and that her
yard was illuminated by the kerosene lamp.
o Defense failed adduce evidence showing ill motives on part of the
witness.
o Witnesses are not expected to give perfectly accurate testimonies.
The small variants in recounts even buttress the veracity of the
testimony because it indicates that the statement, like other truthful
recounts, is being recalled and not something though up.
o Concretizing the guilt of the accused is his flight from the Barangay
as supported by the testimonies of OIC Brgy. Captain Salvador
Cardenas and Kagawad Manuel Suarez
o Treachery is present because the appellant surreptitiously and
without warning stabbed the victim.
- On Witness Pedro Almazan
o The reference to the statement made was only to explain the failure
of the prosecution to present him as a witness.

SUPREME COURT DECISION

The court dismisses the instant appeal and affirms the judgement that
Henry Benito is guilty of the crime of murder and is sentenced to the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Php 19,500 as actual damages
and Php 50,000 as indemnity to the heirs of the victim. The moral
damages is deleted because of lack of factual basis. Costs against the
appellant.

CONCURING
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza, and Buena, JJ

82
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Passion or Obfuscation o The two conversed with each other
Hicks: Did I not tell you to leave this woman alone?
RPC Art. 13: Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating Wallace: That is all right, she told me that she did not want to live with you
circumstances; any longer, but if she wishes, she may quit me, and you can live with her.
Hicks: God damn, I have made up my mind;
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have o After Hicks’ last reply, Wallace saw him drawing a revolver from his
produced passion or obfuscation. trousers' pocket. Hicks caught him by the hand but Wallace snatched his
hand roughly away
US v Augustus Hicks o Wallace jumped in to the room and hide in the partition
GR no. 4971 | Sept. 23, 1909 o Hicks drew his revolver and fired at Agustina Sola who was close by in
Ponente: Torres the sala of the house.
Plaintiff: The United States o The bullet struck her in the left side of the breast; she fell to the ground,
Defendant: Augustus Hicks and died in a little more than an hour later.
o Upon hearing the shot Edward Robinson, who was also in the house, went
Nature of Case: to render assistance and wrested the weapon from the hand of the
Review of RTC decision (death penalty) accused.
o Hicks gave himself up to the chief of police of the town, H. L. Martin,
BRIEF asking him to lock him up in jail
Agustina Sola left her 5-year long lived-in partner, Augustus Hicks, when o A few minutes later, a policeman came running in and reported that Hicks
trouble arose in their relationship. She stayed with her brother-in-law after had fired a shot at Agustina
quitting Hicks’ house. A few days later, Augustina had new relations with  This caused Hicks to be arrested
Wallace Current who then live with her. o Once in jail, Hicks threw eight revolver cartridges out of the window; these
On Dec. 21, 1907, Hicks, with another soldier, went to Augustina and were picked up by a policeman who reported the occurrence and
confronted her new partner. Wallace saw Hicks drawing a revolver from his delivered the cartridges to his chief
trousers' pocket. Hicks caught him by the hand but Wallace snatched his hand
roughly away. Wallace hid in the bedroom. Hicks in turn, drew his revolver and Alibis
fired at Agustina Sola who was close by in the sala of the house. Agustina died Hicks:
more than an hour later. - When he withdrew his hand from that of Wallace, who had seized him, he fell
RTC found Hicks guilty for the crime of murder and sentenced him to death backward but managed to support himself on his two hands
penalty. - When he got up, Wallace threatened him with a revolver thrust into his face
- Hicks also drew his revolver to Wallace, but when he was caught by Edward
DISPOSITIVE Robinson from behind, his revolver went off and the bullet struck Augustina
The SC affirmed the judgement of the lower court
Additional Testimony:
FACTS (by prosecution) Charles Gatchery and Eugenio R. Whited:
- For about 5 years (Sept 1902-Nov 1907), Augustus Hicks and Augustina - While working in the canteen, Hicks asked leave from Whited because his
Sola illicitly lived together in the municipality of Parang, Cotabato, Moro mind was unsettled and that he feared getting into trouble
Province, until trouble arose and Augustina quitted Hick’s house - During noon, Whited and Hicks drank gin, while the revolver (used in crime)
o Augustus Hicks - Afro-American was lying on the table with several loaded cartridges
o Augustina Sola – Christian Moro woman - Hicks said that Augustina’s time had come, adding that he would rather see
- Augustina live with her brother-in-law, Luis Corrales her dead than in the arms of another man
o A few days later, Augustina had new relations with Wallace Current who
then live in the said house ISSUE/S of the CASE
o Wallace Current – negro; corporal in the Army - Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder
- Dec. 21, 1907 (7:30 pm)
o Hicks, with Lloyd Nickens (soldier), went to his mistress Augustina ACTIONS of the COURT
o Augustina went out from their room (with Wallace) and conversed with Court of First Instance
Hicks in Moro dialect in their sala - Feb. 8, 1908 - Charged Augustus Hicks with the crime of murder
o Hicks asked Wallace to come out. And so the latter came out from their
room and shook hands with Hicks

83
 - Sept. 10, 1908 – After proceedings, RTC sentenced the accused to the penalty
of death, to be executed according to the law, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.

Supreme Court
On alevosia or treachery
- The facts constitute the crime of murder, defined and punished by article 403
of the Penal Code, with treachery
o Agustina was suddenly and roughly attacked and unexpectedly fired
upon with a 45-caliber revolver
o She was unarmed and unprepared

On Hicks’ alibis
- Hicks’ allegation are at variance with the testimony of the witnesses, namely:
o Wallace Current
o Edward Robinson – witnessed actual firing shot
o Luis Corrales - witnessed actual firing shot
o Lloyd Nickens
- Thus, the shot was not due to an accident but to a willful and premeditated act
on the part of the aggressor with intent to deprive the victim of her life

On Charles Gatchery’s and Eugenio R. Whited’s testimony

- Their testimony proved that premeditation is present
- Premeditation is manifest and evident by reason of the open acts executed by
the accused
- He even disguise his intention to successfully accomplish his criminal design
by behaving himself properly

No mitigating circumstances is present

- The only causes which mitigate the criminal responsibility for the loss of self-
control are such as originate from legitimate feelings, not those which arise
from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions.

SUPREME COURT RULING

From the foregoing considerations, and as the judgment appealed from is in
accordance with the law, it is our opinion that the same should be affirmed, as we do
hereby affirm it with costs, provided, however, that the death penalty shall be
executed according to the law in force, and that in the event of a pardon being
granted, the culprit shall suffer the accessory penalties of article 53 of the Penal Code
unless the same be expressly remitted in the pardon. So ordered.

CONCUR: Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ.

NOTES:
- See No mitigating circumstances is present for the connection to the topic

84
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Self-Defense - Macapagal resumed banging on the door; dela Cruz opened it again holding a
.38 revolver. The two grappled for each other’s gun.
RPC Article 11: Justifying Circumstances: The following do not incur any criminal - Shots rang. Macapagal fell dead
liability: - Dela Cruz told San Antonio to call the police who then saw the body on the
1: Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that floor. Dela Cruz surrendered his gun to them and told them he acted in self-
the following circumstances concur: defense.
First: Unlawful aggression - Macapagal had license to carry his firearm, dela Cruz did not.
Second: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it. ISSUE/S of the CASE
Third: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person - Whether or not dela Cruz acted in self-defense (NO)
defending himself
ACTIONS of the COURT
People v dela Cruz Cabanatuan RTC
GR No. 128359 | Dec.06,2000 - Ruled that the accused did not act in self-defense; guilty and sentenced with
Ponente: VITUG death penalty.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Roberto dela Cruz Supreme Court
On self-defense
Nature of Case: - If self-defense is invoked, burden of proof rests on the defendant to prove that
Review of RTC decision for the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of elements of self-defense are satisfied (see req.)
Firearm and Ammunition with Homicide8. - Dela Cruz did not act in self-defense
o Unlawful aggression
BRIEF  On opening the bedroom door for the first time: dela Cruz was
Danila Macapagal (deceased) confronted his former girlfriend and her live-in able to prevent harm by closing the door; he could have stopped
partner, Roberto dela Cruz, in their house. A struggle ensued and led to dela there
Cruz shooting Macapagal, killing him.  Macapagal was merely threatening, and did not pose actual harm
since he was able to stop him with the door
DISPOSITIVE o Reasonable necessity
Cabanatuan RTC found dela Cruz guilty of qualified illegal possession of  Number of wounds (4 shots) in the victim show that there was
firearm and ammunition, with homicide. Sentenced to death and intent to kill
compensation. o Lack of sufficient provocation
SC found him guilty of homicide with the use of an unlicensed firearm  Dela Cruz opened the door again, now with a gun and confronted
(aggravating circumstance), set off by voluntary surrender (mitigating the victim. There was provocation on dela Cruz’s part who chose
circumstance) to confront Macapagal rather than take precautionary measures

FACTS
- Roberto dela Cruz was the live-in partner and lover of Ma. Luz Perla San
Antonio, who was the former live-in partner of Daniel Macapagal (deceased)
who was a married man. On illegal possession of firearms
- May 26, 1996: Macapagal went to San Antonio’s house holding a gun despite - Illegal possession of firearms possesses 3 requirements:
her refusal to let him in. He inspected all bedrooms. o Existence of the firearm
- Upon finding San Antonio and dela Cruz’s bedroom door locked, he yelled out o Possession or ownership of the firearm
“Come out, come out.” Dela Cruz opened the door and saw Macapagal’s gun o Absence of corresponding license thereof
pointed at him. He closed the door. - Dela Cruz claimed that he did not have animus possidendi (intent to posses);
he only used the firearm to protect himself
o Not supported by evidence
 Firearm had always been in the house; they claimed that it was
8 used as payment by her customers at the Videoke
Penalized under PD 1866, Sec.1: Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or
Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms of Ammunition

85
  PD 1866, as amended by RA 8294, state that if homicide/murder
was committed with an unlicensed firearm, the use of this will be
considered an aggravating circumstance
 Dela Cruz’s gun was unlicensed thus, based on the
amendment, this will be considered an aggravating
circumstance (instead of charging him with illegal possession)
- Aggravating circumstance will be offset by the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender (it was dela Cruz who directed San Antonio to call the
police to whom he gave himself in)
- Dela Cruz has to pay for Macapagal’s loss of earning due to his death

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED. Accused-
appellant is hereby guilty of HOMICIDE with the use of an unlicensed firearm, an
aggravating circumstance that is offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender, and he is accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 9 years
and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 16 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal
as maximum. The award of P2,865,600 for loss of earning is reduced to
P1,432,800.00. In other respects, the judgement of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

CONCUR: Davide (CJ), Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,

Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr.

86
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES – PASSION OR OBFUSCATION - It is unnatural for the appelant for failing to inform the police that he killed
RPC Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating his wife when he saw her having sexual intercourse with her paramour.
circumstances: - If her wife and his paramour were realluy having intercourse, he would
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have no time to get dressed.
have produced passion or obfuscation. - The appelant also contradicted his testimony that he chased the paramour
but at the same time the same stayed in the room and used Eduardo’s wife
People v Gelaver as a shield.
G.R. No. 95357 | June 9, 1933 - It is also unusual for Eduardo not to know the name of the paramour
Ponente: J. Quiason considering that they lived in the same town almost a year before the
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines incident.
Accused-appellant: Eduardo Gelaver - Sheryl, the appelant’s daughter, also belied his claim that she informed
Eduardo of his mother’s current residence.
Nature of Case:  In order for Article 247 to operate, the following must be present:
Appeal from judgment of Regional Trial Court of South Cotabato 1. That a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person;
BRIEF 2. That he kills any or both of them immediately thereafter;
 Eduardo Gelaver kills his own wife upon catching her with her paramour. 3. That he has not promoted the prostitution of his wife.
None of these are established by the defense.
DISPOSITIVE  Cruz, Griño-Aquino, Bellosillo, concur.
 Judgment of the trial court affirmed with the modification of increasing the
indemnity to be paid.

FACTS (*witness’ perspective)

 The Information filed with the trial court accused Gelaver of killing his wife
Victoria using a knife on March 24, 1988.
 *Prosecution witness Randy Mamon testified that he heard shouts in the
neighborhood. Thereafter, he saw Eduardo and a woman having a heated
argument. The appellant held the neck of the victime and stabbed her three
times on the breast.
 *Eduardo admitted killing his wife but he claimed that it was after catching
her having a carnal act with her paramour. He further testified that is was her
daughter Sheryl who informed her about the current abode of his wife and
her paramour. His version of the killing is that when he saw his wife, her
paramour attacked him with a knife. However, he was able gain possess the
weapon and use it against the paramour who hid behind the victim. In the
process, it was the victim who received the stab.
ISSUES of the CASE
 Whether or not the appelant acted as a result of passion or obfuscation (No)

ACTIONS of the COURT

Trial Court:
 Gelaver was convicted of parricide with a penalty of reclusion perpetua and
was ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased. Defendent appeals that
his penalty must only be of destierro for killing under exceptional
circumstances under RPC Article 247.

Supreme Court:
 The Court found a lot of inconsistencies with the statements produced by the
defense.

87
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Lack of Intent
RPC Article 13: Mitigating Circumstances: The following are mitigating
circumstances:
3: That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed
People v Gonzalez
GR No. 139542 | June 21, 2001
Ponente: GONZAGA-REYES
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the Marikina RTC decision that found appellant guilty of murder
and two counts of frustrated murder.
BRIEF
After a traffic altercation between Noel Andres and Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.,
the latter’s son intervened. Thinking that his son’s life was in danger,
Gonzalez drew his gun and fired a shot. The bullet killed Andres’ pregnant
wife Feliber Andres, and injured his two nephews.
DISPOSITIVE
Marikina RTC found Gonzalez guilty of the complex crime of murder with two
counts of frustrated murder
FACTS
- October 31, 1998: Andres and Gonzalez were leaving Loyola Memorial park in
their own cars. Andres was with his wife Feliber, his sister-in-law and two
nephews; Gonzalez was with his grandson and 3 househelp; his son Dino was
driving his own car
- Andres and Gonzalez had a near-collision at an intersection; Gonzalez sped
off
- Andres gave chase and cut off Gonzalez. He got out the car.
Prosecution’s version
- Andres calmly told Gonzalez to be careful with his driving. He then saw the
latter turning red with anger; Andres went back to his car
- He was blocked by Dino who asked “Anong problema mo sa erpat ko?” Andres
boarded his car, closed the door and opened the window slightly to talk to Dino
- Suddenly one of his passengers said “binaril kami”, then he saw his wife
bloodied, he turned and saw his nephews wounded
Defense’s version
- Andres went to Gonzalez and repeatedly cursed at him. Gonzalez stayed in his
car, apologizing
- Dino and Gonzalez said that Andres was outside his own car when he was
arguing with Dino
- When Andres reached inside his car. Feeling that his son was in danger,
Gonzalez got his gun from the glove compartment and got out of the car,
- When he saw that Andres did not have a weapon, he put down his gun. Trisha,
Dino’s sister, came and pushed Gonzalez away. This made him drop the gun,
causing it to fire
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not Gonzales should be exempt from civil and criminal liabilities
because he had no intention to shoot (NO)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Marikina Regional Trial Court
- Took note of 5 instances that lead to the crime: 1. Andres overtook the care 2.
Andres got out of car and confronted Gonzalez 3. Andres had an argument
with Dino 4. Gonzalez took out his gun when he saw Andres arguing with Dino
5. Gonzalez had a struggle with Trisha
- Found that Gonzales was guilty of the complex crime of murder and two
counts of frustrated murder
- Pointed out that Gonzalez’s automatic pistol will not fire simply because it was
dropped
- Argued that once a gun is drawn against a person, the means, methods and
forms employed for its execution is already conceived
o It is done to insure execution, thus producing intent
o There is then treachery because Gonzales in drawing the gun is
insuring the execution of his action without risk to himself
Supreme Court
On treachery and lack of intent
- Gonzalez declared that he had no intention to shoot
o When Trisha tried to lead him away, he tried to his hand that was
holding the gun; it accidentally fired
o Andres’ windows were heavily tinted. It was difficult to determine if there
were people inside.
- SolGen agreed that crime was there was no treachery
o Crime happened after an argument thus the victim was already on
guard for any attack
o Requisites for treachery were not proven, and SolGen agreed that
auto.pistols should not be equated with treachery
 Gonzalez aimed at the car, not at Andrea- just because the gun is
drawn does not mean that mode of attack was consciously and
deliberately employed.
- SC: treachery is never presumed, it must be proven
o Chance encounters or crimes preceded by heated arguments are
generally not attended to by treachery
 Gonzalez and Andres were complete strangers before the
accident. (chance encounter)
 Andres provoked Gonzalez which led to hostilities between the
two (heated argument)
o It was clear that the shot was fired away from Andres while Andres was
arguing with the son of the appellant
88
  He did not react to Andres’ behaviour until the latter was
aggressive towards his son
 He believed his son to be in danger
 Gonzalez could have shot him, but didn’t
 No evidence proved that Gonzalez indiscriminately fired
 The appellant intended to shoot at the car not at Andres nor
any other person
o Shooting was a single, continuous act, trial court erred in breaking it into
several stages to make it appear as if there was treachery
o The shooting was a spur of the moment decision and not attended
to by treachery, and was not done in coldblood
 Without treachery, crime is homicide

On attempted murder vs. physical injuries

- The intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is physical injuries or
homicide
o In case of doubt regarding intent, shall be convicted of the lesser
offense
o Lack of intent to kill was evident
o Both children were discharged after 6 days
 Not frustrated murder but slight physical injuries

On the defense of obfuscation and passion

- Dino was of age, was hardly helpless, and was fighting back
o This could not have induced passion and obfuscation on Gonzalez

On the defense of incomplete defense of relative

- Andres yelling at them was hardly unlawful aggression

On complex crimes
- Complex crimes require two or more grave and/or less grave felonies
o Case has one felony and two light felonies
 Complex crime does not apply

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE the decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED. The
appellant is hereby found guilty of homicide for the death of Feliber Andres and is
sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 8yrs 2day of prision mayor to 14yrs
8mos 1day of reclusion temporal. For each count of slight physical injuries
against Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez, the appellant is hereby sentenced to 20
days of aresto menor.

CONCUR: Davide (CJ), Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena,

Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez

DISSENT: Puno, Kapunan, Panganiban

89
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE: PASSION OR OBFUSCATION

Art. 13(6). That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obfuscation.

US v Dela Cruz
GR 7094 | March 29, 1912
Ponente: Carson
Plaintiff-appellee: The United States
Accused-appellant: Hilario dela Cruz

Nature of the case: Appeal from the trial court conviction of homicide.

BRIEF/FACTS
Dela Cruz, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased, who had been his querida,
upon discovering her in flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual
acquaintance.

DISPOSITIVE
The SC modifies the RTC decision, marking the crime with the mitigating
circumstance of passion/obfuscation.

ACTIONS OF THE COURT

Trial court
- Convicted appellant of homicide, with no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, with the penalty of 14 years, 8 months & 1 day reclusion
temporal

Supreme Court
- Cites a decision from the Court of Spain: “…the immediate cause of the
crime by producing in the accused strong emotion which impelled him to the
criminal act…were a sufficient impulse in the natural and ordinary course to
produce the violent passion and obfuscation which the law regards ars
special reason for extenuation…”
- Cites U.S. v. Hicks, and states that circumstances are different in this case
because “the impulse upon which defendant acted and which naturally
‘produced passion and obfuscation’ was…the sudden revelation that she
was untrue to him…”

RULING:
The appealed judgment of the court is MODIFIED with the mitigating circumstance of
passion/obfuscation.
Penalty: 12 years & 1 day reclusion temporal

90
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Voluntary Surrender
RPC Article 13: Mitigating Circumstances: The following are mitigating
circumstances:
7: That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person
in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed
his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution
People v Amaguin
GR No. 54344-45 | Jan.10, 1994
Ponente: BELLOSILLO
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Willie Amaguin, Gildo Amaguin
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the Iloilo Court of First Instance decision that found appellants
guilty of murder and accomplice to murder.
BRIEF
During a town fiesta, the Oro brothers (inc. the deceased Pacifico and
Diosdado Oro) encountered the Amaguin brothers who shot and stabbed the
deceased to death.
DISPOSITIVE
Iloilo CFI found Gildo guilty of murder, and Willie of accomplice to murder
SC found Willie guilty of homicide and frustrated homicide; Gildo of 2 counts
of homicide.
FACTS (based on Hernando Oro’s testimony)
- May 27, 1977: brothers Hernando, Danilo, Diosdado were invited to their
brother Pacifico’s house, together with their brother in law Rafael Candelaria,
and first cousin Sergio Argonzola
- On their way home, Celso Amaguin called out to them to join him. Pacificio
refused. Celso rushed at him with a butcher’s knife
- Gildo, Celso’s brother, followed with an indian pana and aimed it at Danilo,
who was hit on the chest. Celso then hacked Pacifico and Gildo stabbed
Diosdado
- Willie, the Amaguin’s oldest brother, arrived and shot Pacifico, Diosdado and
the fleeing Danilo.
- Diosdado, kneeling and pleading for his life, was shot again by Willie, who then
fired at Pacifico. Gildo and Celso also stabbed Pacifico who was lying prostrate
and defenceless
- Danilo Oro and Rafael Candelaria corroborated testimony
Defense’s version
- Oro brothers started the fight; the brothers approached Celso, and while
Pacifico was talking to Celso one of Oro’s group held Celso and said “This is
the bravest man in Divinagracia”, another of the group kicked Celso. Gildo
came and asked them not to fight.
- The groups fought. Gildo retreated to the side of the road and threw rocks. He
saw his cousin Danny hit Danilo with a dart- Danny was then stabbed from
behind. Celso’s guest Ernie Ortigas came out of the house with a gun and shot
at Pacifico and some of his companions
- Ernie and Celso escaped. Gildo was brought by his uncle to Fort San Pedro
the next day then to the local police after a week.
- Willie claimed that when he arrived at the scene, the fight had already ended.
He turned himself in five days later when he heard that the police were
looking for him
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not witnesses had credibility(YES)
- Whether or not there was treachery and conspiracy (NO; YES)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Iloilo Court of First Instance
- Found Gildo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, sentenced to reclusion
perpetua for both Pacifico and Diosdado; sentenced to reclusion perpetua
- Found Willie guilty as accomplice to the murder of Pacifico and Diosdado
sentenced to 17yrs 4 mos 1day to 20years for each case
- Both were liable for indemnities
Supreme Court
On the credibility of witnesses
- Court respects trial court’s findings that the witnesses were credible
o It is the domain of trial court to determine witness’ credibility since they
are heard and tried here
o Even if Hernando was the only who accused Willie compared to the
defense witnesses who refuted him, his can still stand
o Witnesses are weighed not numbered.
o If the testimony of a single witness is credible and positive then it is
enough to convict
o The alibis of the Amaguins do not establish physical impossibility and
were unsubstantiated; thus, it is weak compared to the testimony
o The version of the prosecution prevails.
On treachery and conspiracy
- There was no treachery
o For treachery to be present, offender must employ means or forms in
the commission of the crime which tend to insure its execution without
the risk arising from the defense the offended party might make
o There were 6 men in the Oro group, some of them could have been
armed; regardless, the Amaguin attacked them resulting in a free for all
 If there had been treachery, Amaguins would have first made sure
that they would not be harmed by the Oros
- There was conspiracy
o It is evident that Celso and Gildo acted in unison to achieve a common
felonious objective
 While Celso was attacking Pacifico, Gildo was attacking Danilo
91
  It was not necessary to prove that there was prior agreement; it
was clear that they acted together

On Willie’s guilt
- There was no evidence linking Willie to this conspiracy, thus he is not an
accomplice to them
o Willie is not guilty of being an accomplice, but he is guilty of
HOMICIDE
 He mortally wounded Diosdado
 He shot him while the latter was pleading for his life; this
aggravates his crime with superior strength
o Willie is guilty of frustrated homicide for shooting Pacifico while the
latter was lying on the ground
 Aggravating circumstance of superior strength present too
- Willie voluntarily surrendered himself before arrest could be affected
o VOLUNTARY SURRENDER has the following requisites:
 Offender has not actually been arrested
 Offender surrendered himself to a person in authority
 Surrender must be voluntary
o Willie satisfied all these and thus offsets his superior strength
circumstance with the mitigating voluntary surrender

SUPREME COURT RULING

The decision of the trial court was MODIFIED:
1. Willie was found guilty of homicide (killing of Diosdado) and sentenced
to 6yrs 2mos 1 day of prision mayor to 14yrs 8mos 20days of
reclusion temporal and guilty of frustrated homicide (for Pacifico) and
sentenced to 6mos 20 days of prision correccional to 8yrs 4mos
10days of prision mayor
2. Gildo was found guilty of two separate crimes of homicide and
sentenced to 6yrs 2mos 1day of prision mayor to 12yrs 6mos 10days
of reclusion temporal for each homicide to be served successively
3. Both are jointly liable to the heirs of Diosdado Oro for P50,000 as civil
indemnity
4. Gildo is liable to the heirs of Pacifico Oro for P50,000

CONCUR: Cruz, Davide, Jr., Quiason

92
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES – ILLNESS
Article 12, 13, and 14 of the RPC
People vs Formigones
G.R. No. L-3246 | November 29, 1950
Plaintiff-Appellee: The People of the Philippines
Defendant-Appellant: Abelardo Formigones
Ponente: J. Montemayor
Nature of the Case
Appeal for the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur
finding the appellant guilty of parricide.
BRIEF
In November 1946, the defendant was living with his wife, Julia Aricola, and
his five children on his farm in Bahao, Libmanan, Siopocot, Camarines Sur. From
there, they went to live with the defendant’s half-brother Zacarias Formigones in
Binahian, Siopocot, Camarines Sur in order to find employment as harvesters of
palay. On December 28, 1946, late in the afternoon, Julia was sitting at the head of
the stairs when the accused took his bolo at the wall of the house and stabbed his
wife in the back. The blade penetrated her right lung and caused a severe
haemorrhage from which Julia died thereafter. The blow sent Julia toppling down the
stairs to the ground where her husband followed after. He carried her up and laid her
on the living room floor where he laid down beside her. He was found in this position
by people who responded to shouts by his daughter Irene who witnessed the incident.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court affirms the decision of the lower court with modifications that the
appellant will be credited with one half of any correctional imprisonment he has
undergone.
FACTS
- The defendant, in a written statement, Exhibit D, admitted that the
motivation was jealousy. In his statements, the defendant said that he
had quarrels with his wife because he often saw her in the company of
his brother. The defendant felt like they were maintaining an illicit
relationship as evidenced by her being indifferent to him.
- During the preliminary investigations in the municipality of Siopocot, the
defendant had plead guilty but in the Court of First Instance, he had
plead not guilty.
- His counsel presented the testimony of two guards in the provincial jail
where the defendant was confined stating that the defendant would
exhibit behaviour of an insane person such as the following:
o Remove his clothes and go stark naked in the presence of his
fellow prisoners
o Remain silent and indifferent to his surroundings
o Refused to take a bath and wash his clothes unless the
authorities forced him
o Sing in chorus with his fellow prisoners or alone even when not
asked
o When the cell door was opened, darted from his cell into the
prison compound apparently in order to escape
- Appeal is based on the theory that the appellant is an imbecile.
ISSUES of the CASE
1. WON the appellant is an imbecile?
2. WON the state of mind of the appellant would affect his criminal liability.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur
- Decided that the defendant is guilty of parricide and sentenced him to
reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs the amount of Php 2,000,
and to pay costs.
- Decided that the defendant is not an imbecile. The defendant’s witness,
Dr. Francisco Gomez, presented that the defendant was suffering from
feeblemindedness and could distinguish right from wrong
- Article 12 of the RPC indicates that he must be deprived of the ability to
distinguish right from wrong and consequently, the freedom of will, in
order to be exempt from criminal liability.
Supreme Court
- Agreed with the lower court that the defendant is not an imbecile. Cited
the commentary of Judge Guillermo Guevara saying that exemption
must only be allowed when an individual is completely deprived of his
faculties to decide between right or wrong. The allegation of insanity has
to be proved and cannot be assumed.
- The strange behaviour exhibited by Abelardo in prison may come from
feeblemindedness or his remorse from killing his wife like in United
States vs. Vaquilar (27 Phil. 88).
- During his marriage of 16 years, he acted normally as evidenced by him
being able to work in his farm, raise five (5) children, and maintain their
schooling. He killed his wife based on the belief that he was vindicating
his honor. This shows that he could not have been an imbecile. Issue
No. 1
- The feeling of jealousy shows that he justified the act not by mere
hallucinations. This is may be a result of the following fact: His brother
Zacarias was living with his grandmother when the house was vacant
but when Abelardo and his family moved in, Zacarias started
frequenting the house and even spent nights there.
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances-Issue No. 2
- Although the deceased was struck in the back, the court is not prepared
to find that there was treachery involved. This was not alleged during
the proceedings in the lower court.
- His feeblemindedness as well as him killing his wife in a fit of jealousy
are mitigating circumstances
Other Findings
- The court further observed as in People vs. Castañeda (60 Phil. 604)
that the defendant did not exhibit malice nor exhibited such moral
turpitude as requires life imprisonment.
93
SUPREME COURT RULING
The Court finds the appellant guilty of parricide and affirm the judgement of
the lower court with the modifications that the appellant will be credited with
one-half of any preventive imprisonment he has undergone. Appellant will
pay costs.
This case should be brought to the attention of the Chief Executive who, in
his discretion may reduce the penalty to that next lower to reclusion
perpetua to death or otherwise apply executive clemency in the manner he
sees fit.
CONCURING
Moran, Bengzon, C. J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Tuason, Reyes, and Jugo, JJ.
Separate Concurring Opinion:
I concur in the result.
J. Padilla

94
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V CAPALAC
September 11, 1996 | Davide, Jr., J.
Plaintiff-Appellee: The People of the Philippines
Defendant-Appellant: Mario Capalac
NATURE
Appeal for the reversal of judgment of the lower court for the crime of murder
with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery,
taking advantage of a position as a public officer, and employing means or
bringing about circumstances which added ignominy to the natural effects of
his act. Sentenced to death.
DOCTRINE
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating
circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
BRIEF
At around 2PM on September 20, 1970 on the duly licensed cockpit of Iligan,
Jimmy Magaso stabbed and killed Moises Capalac for no apparent reason.
He tried to escape but Jesus (now deceased) and Mario Capalac
apprehended him. At the mercy of the Capalac siblings, Magaso raised his
hands in surrender. In turn he was pistol-whipped by Mario, and was
stabbed in the chest by Jesus after falling to the ground due to the blows
dealt by Mario to his face. Magaso died at the hospital due to hemorrhagic
shock due to a wound to the heart. SC denied reversal of judgment but
modified lower court decision to retain qualifying circumstance of treachery,
exclude the listed aggravating circumstances and include the mitigating
circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense.
FACTS
1. After commiting the crime, Magaso tried to escape by boarding a jeep. This
was unsuccessful as he was forced to alight the vehicle after 2 shots were
fired at him.
2. Mario Capalac was a police officer.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
a. Prays for the reversal of judgment assigning the following errors to the
lower court:
 Absence of conspiracy
 Deny existence of qualifying and aggravating circumstances
against him
 Discarding the ante mortem statement of the victim
Supreme Court: Issues of the Case
ISSUE: WON there was conspiracy in the murder of Jimmy Magaso, (NO)
RATIO
1. The brothers had one purpose in mind, which was to avenge the stabbing of
Moises Capalac. They were impelled by a common purpose and acted in
concert.
2. There is sufficient basis for the finding of conspiracy.
ISSUE: WON the qualifying circumstance of treachery was present, (YES)
RATIO
1. Magaso had nowhere to go after being apprehended by the brothers. His
situation was hopeless and he was defenseless at their mercy. This was
evident in the act of raising his hands.
2. Treachery was present given that Magaso had no chance to defend
himself.
ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, circumstances
brought about to add ignominy, and taking advantage of an official position were
present, (NO)
RATIO
1. There is no proof that Capalac had resolved to commit the crime prior to the
moment of its execution. No proof of meditation, calculation, and
persistence. (x evident premeditation)
2. The assault on Magaso relied on the weapons that the Capalac brothers had
on them. They did what they felt was necessary to redress a grievance. (x
deliberate means to add ignominy)
3. That Capalac was a police officer does not automatically mean that he took
advantage of that position. His acts were clearly driven by the instinct of a
brother to protect a brother. (x taking advantage of an official position)
ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in discarding the ante mortem statement of the
victim, (NO)
RATIO
1. Ante mortem statement need not be considered because it does not warrant
a reversal. Victim merely answered that he was stabbed by Jesus Capalac.
Courts are aware of this fact. It does not excuse Mario Capalac from criminal
liability.
Crucial Issues brought up by the Court:
1. Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense must be
considered.
RULING: Decision of lower court UPHELD but MODIFIED. Crime is of murder
qualified by treachery with the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave
offense. Accused sentenced to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor minimum to 17
years, 4 months, and 1 day of reclusion temporal maximum.
95
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
People v Gapasin
GR No 73489 | April 25, 1995
Ponente: J. Quiason
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant/Accused: CIC Loreto Gapasin, PC Nicanor Saludares, Lorenzo
Soriano, alias “Olit”, Amor Saludares, Frank Saludares, Bel Saludares, and Nick
Saludares, accused, CIC Loreto Gapasin, Accused-Appellant
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of murder qualified by treachery, with attendance of the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, and the aggravating circumstance of
taking advantage of public position and evident premeditation.
BRIEF:
Appellant and victim left the wake of the victim’s relative. After which, the
appellant followed shot the victim with an armalite rifle,
DISPOSITIVE:
The court found the accused CIC Loreto Gapasin, PC Nicanor Saludares,
Lorenzo Soiano, Amor Saludares, Frank Saludares, Bel Saludares, and Nick
Saludares, conspiring and confederating together, and all helping one another, with
evident premeditation, and treachery, guilty of the murder of Jerry Calpito.
FACTS:
Recount by the Prosecution’s Witness:
- Witness and Rodrigo Ballad left the house of Enteng Teppang after
attending the pamisa for the deceased father of Teppang. Jerry Calpito
followed them. While they were walking along the Barangay road,
Calpito was shot by appellant with an armalite rifle. Additional shots
were fired at Calpito after he fell to the ground. Thereafter, Amor
Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the hand of Calpito.
- Upon hearing the shots, Faustina Calpito, the victim’s spouse, ran to her
fallen husband. The accused, Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at
Faustina while accused Soriano fired his gun upward. Saludares
threatened to kill any of the victim’s relatives who would approach him.
The group of the accused chased said relatives away.
Recount by Appellant
- He was issued a mission order to investigate a report about the
presence of unidentified armed men in Barrio San Jose, Roxas,
Isabella. The next day, he was instructed by Sgt. Dominador Ignacio to
contact Nicanor Saludares who may be able to give information on the
identities of the persons with unlicensed firearms.
- When appellant met Nicanor Saludares he was informed that Jerry
Calpito had an unlicensed firearm.
- The next day, appellant went to the house of Nicanor Saludares. From
there, they went to the house of Enteng Teppang to attend a "pamisa."
- Appellant and Nicanor Saludares positioned themselves inside the yard
of the latter. When appellant saw Calpito, he went out of the yard into
the barangay road.
- When Calpito was about three meters away from him, appellant asked
him what was bulging in his waist. Instead of answering, Calpito took a
step backward, drew his firearm from the waist and fired twice at
appellant. He missed because appellant dropped to the ground
simultaneously firing his armalite.
ISSUES of the CASE
- Whether or not facts of the case include circumstances affecting
criminal liability.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court, Branch XVI, Isabela
- Found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified
by treachery, with the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender, and the aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of public position and evident premeditation.
- Penalty: reclusion perpetua and to pay to the heirs of the late Jerry
Calpito, Sr., the sum of P88,596.00 as actual or compensatory
damages; P30,000.00 as death indemnity; P20,000.00 as moral
damages; P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and the costs.
Supreme Court
- The findings of the trial court on the credibility of the witness will not be
interfered with.
- Even if the witnesses were relatives of the victim. If anything, it is in the
best interest of the family to have the right person convicted.
- The contention of the appellants that the shooting was done in self
defense is not persuasive because findings indicate that the shot was
fired by someone standing on the victim’s right side. This disproves the
version of the events narrated by the appellant. The idea of self defense
is disproved by the nature and number of bullet wounds.
- The trial court was correct in ruling that the crime was murder and not
homicide. There was treachery involved which is characterized by: 1.
Employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no
means of defending himself or to retaliate. 2. Means of execution were
deliberate
- The information alleged three other generic aggravating circumstances:
ignominy, abuse of superior strength and taking advantage of public
position. The trial court correctly ruled out ignominy on the strength of
the autopsy conducted by the doctor who failed to find any other injuries
such as bruises and contusions which may indicate that the victim was
kicked by his assailants. It also correctly held that treachery absorbed
abuse of superior strength
- The trial court properly appreciated taking advantage of public position
as an aggravating circumstance. Appellant, a member of the Philippine
96
 Constabulary, committed the crime with an armalite which was issued to
him when he received the mission order
- Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant's favor but this is
offset by the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public
position. Therefore, only the generic aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation may be appreciated against appellant.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
The court affirms the decision of the lower court
CONCURING
Cruz, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

97
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Insult to public authority
RPC Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating
circumstances:
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public
authorities.
People v Tiongson
GR nos. L-35123-24 | July 25, 1984
Ponente: Concepcion, Jr.
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Defendant-appellant: Rudy Tiongson
Nature of Case:
Mandatory Review (death penalty)
BRIEF
At about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of October 26, 1971, the accused
Rudy Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental
Mindoro, together with George de la Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where they
were detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide. While in the act of
escaping, the said Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the
police force of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who was guarding the said
accused, and PC Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in
Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who went in pursuit of them.
The RTC found Rudy Tiongson guilty of murder and sentenced him to death
penalty.
DISPOSITIVE
The SC modified the judgement of the lower court
FACTS (by prosecution)
- Rudy Tiongson, George de la Cruz and Rolando Santiago were detained
under the charge of Attempted Homicide at Municipal Jail of Bulalacao,
Oriental Mindoro
- Tiongson conspired and confederate with George and Rolando to escape from
the said jail
- Oct. 26, 1971
(5:30pm)
o The three detainees, under the pretext that they would answer the call of
nature, convinced Police First Class Patrolman Zosimo Gelera to allow
them to go out
o While still hardly out, they ganged up on Gelera, took the latter's service
pistol and shot him point blank at his right cheek
o After Gelera’s death, the three were able to escape.
(6:00pm)
o The three also ambushed and shot PC Constable Aurelio Canela, when
the latter was in hot pursued of said accused who had earlier escaped
from custody
o This resulted to Canela’s death
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the accused is guilty of murder
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court
- Rudy Tiongson was charged with Murder, in two separate informations
- Upon arraignment, the said accused pleaded guilty to both informations
- RTC did not render judgment outright, but ordered the prosecution to present
its evidence, after which, it sentenced the said accused to suffer the death
penalty in each case, to indemnify the heirs of the victims in the amount of
P12,000.00 and to pay the costs.
Supreme Court
RTC’s acceptance of the plea of guilty
- The RTC’s acceptance of the plea of guilty was not precipitate
o The judge required the taking of testimony when the crime was
committed before passing judgment so that
o So, the resulting verdict cannot in any way be branded as deficient
- Norms to be followed when a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant:
o The court should be sure that the defendant under stands the nature of
the charges and the character of the punishment
o The Court then requires RTC to call witnesses in determining whether
accuse understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance
and consequences of his plea
On Treachery
- In this case, it does not appear how and in what position the victim was when
he was killed
o It cannot be said for certain that the accused had adopted a means of
attack tending directly to insure the commission of the offense without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the victim might put up.
- Treachery must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner
o Mere presumptions or deductions from hypothetical facts are not
sufficient
- Since treachery was not present, the crimes may only be punished as
Homicide
On other aggravating circumstances
- The other aggravating circumstances were not present in the commission of
the crimes. These are:
o Evident premeditation – due to absence of sufficient proof that a plan to
kill the victims existed
o In contempt of or with insult to public authorities - Pat. Gelera and
PC Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crime were
committed; Besides, the 2 policemen are not persons in authority, but
merely agents of a person in authority
o Uninhabited place – the offense was not committed in an isolated place,
far from human habitation; it should be considered that the houses in
the area are a great distance apart
98
 o Abuse of superior strength – no direct evidence; the accused was then
a detainee and was unarmed when Galera had his service pistol; With
respect to Canela, the accused was alone against 3 armed
pursuers/policemen

SUPREME COURT RULING

As heretofore stated, the accused is guilty only of the crime of Homicide in the killing
of PC Constable Canela and Pat. Gelera. The Solicitor General recommends that the
accused should be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from 8 years and 1 day to 14
years and 8 months, with the accessory penalties, for each homicide committed by
him. The penalty recommended is within the range provided by law.

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the accused Rudy Tiongson should be
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, for each homicide committed by him, the judgment appealed
from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of
the victims is hereby increased to P30,000.00 in each case.

CONCUR: Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin,

Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente and Cuevas, JJ.

NOTES:
- See On other aggravating circumstances for the connection to the topic

99
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE: INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITY
Art. 14(2). That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public
authorities.
People v Magdueño
GR L-68699 | September 22, 1986
Per Curiam
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Phils.
Accused-appellant: Hermogenes Magdueño
Nature of the case: Automatic review of the Palawan and Puerto Princesa RTC
conviction of murder.
BRIEF
On October 15, 1980, a little past 8AM, the late Fiscal Fernando M. Dilig placed
himself at the driver’s seat in his jeep parked near his house. From out of nowhere,
Magdueño fired 2 gunshots and fatally wounded Dilig. 3 witnesses testified to this
fact.
DISPOSITIVE
The SC affirms the murder conviction, qualified by treachery and evident
premeditation, and aggravated only by price or reward.
FACTS
Testimonies:
1. Elena Adion Lim: sitting at the gate of her fence (20-30m away), she saw the
gunman bringing a short gun and a clutch bag as he ran away from where
she heard 2 shots; she identified Magdueño as the gunman
2. Ernesto Mari y Gonzales: onboard a tricycle, passed the house of Fiscal
Dilig. He asked the tricycle driver to stop upon hearing the gunshots. He saw
a scar on the gunman’s left temple below his left eyebrow; identified
Magdueño
3. Cynthia Canto: was in front of the store of Aling Charing (near Dilig’s house);
saw the gunman standing by for a while, and proceeding to fire at Dilig;
identified Magdueño.
Alibi:
- Appellant asserts that he was at the house of Leonardo Senas in Plaridel,
Aborlan, Palawan, bringing “assorted merchandise” from Divisoria. 
denied, because it is not impossible for him to go to the place of the crime,
since a bus from there to Puerto Princesa only takes a little over 2 hours
ACTIONS OF THE COURT
Trial court
- Convicted appellant of murder, qualified by treachery and evident
premeditation, and aggravated by price or reward, and insult to public
authority, with the penalty of death, and indemnification of the heirs
P130,000, and P20,000 moral damages
- The RTC considered an executed extra-judicial confession from Magdueño
(who implicated 2 other men)
- The 2 other men (Leonardo Senas and Mauricio de Leon) were dropped
from the charges.
Supreme Court
ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in convicting Magdueño of murder – NO
RATIO:
1. The appellant was a stranger in the town, but was still readily and positively
identified by the 3 eyewitnesses upon confrontation. One of the
eyewitnesses, Ernesto Mari Gonzales, also testified that the man who shot
Dilig had a scar on his left temple below his left eyebrow. (The appellant has
a scar below and above his left eye at the eyebrow in the shape of a letter
“J.”)
2. Treachery: shots were fired while Dilig was still in his seat; Magdueño
immediately fled after shooting Dilig  deliberate and conscious adoption of
means of commission without risk of Dilig defending himself
3. Price and reward: appellant cried, “Fiscal!” before shooting Dilig, in order to
ascertain (being a hired killer) that the man was indeed Dilig
* Extra-judicial confession still considered, Court rejected allegations of extraction via
violence and torture: Magdueño was properly informed of his constitutional rights and
was given a lawyer.
ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance of insult to public authority is present –
NO
RATIO:
- The crime must NOT be committed against the public authority himself.
- Tolentino: a) the public authority must be engaged in exercise of his
functions; b) crime must not be committed against public authority; c)
offender knows him to be public authority; d) public authority’s presence
must not have prevented the commission of the crime.
RULING:
Affirms RTC ruling, without the aggravating circumstance of insult to public authority.
- “The crime in this case is a particularly heinous one. The appellant is…a
heartless contract killer.”
100

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES – DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX;
DWELLING
RPC Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating
circumstances:
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect
due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given
provocation.
People v Collado
G.R. No. 88631 | April 30, 1991
Ponente: J. Medialdea
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Crisanto Lara
Nature of Case:
Appeal from judgment of Regional Trial Court of Laguna
BRIEF
 Fernando Collado, Crisanto Lara, Felix Collado, and Romeo Gloriani were
charged of the crime of robbery with homicide of Maria Regay.
DISPOSITIVE
 Judgment of the trial court affirmed with the modification of increasing the
civil indemnity to be paid.
FACTS (mainly based on the plaintiff-appellee’s brief)
 On January 18, 1985, Crisanto went to Honorio delos Santos’ house and
proposed that they hold-up Maria Regay. On January 20, at around 7 a.m.,
Josefina Buenaflor (daughter of the victim) saw Crisanto was seen
conversing with some of his neighbors.
 At about 10 a.m., Crisanto, together with Fernando, Felix, and Romeo, were
seen by Mario Marasigan, son-in-law of the victim, in a pathway as if waiting
for someone. Mario was on top of a tree.
 After a few minutes, Maria Regay came by. Crisanto struck her with on the
face with a piece of wood. The old woman fell to the ground. They dragged
her for a few meters and Romeo stabbed her once she appeared to regain
consciousness. Marasigan went down the tree but did not go near the victim.
 Josefina, noticing her mother’s absence, began searching for her until
someone informed them that her mother sprawled in the coconut plantation.
She was dead when found and her “katsa” containingg her money was not
found. Moreover, her watch was no longer with her anymore.
 On February 5, Mario finally reported that he witnessed the killing and
robbery. He explained that he kept his silence because the accused is his
uncle.
 *Crisanto’s defense is an alibi. He testified that he was he was in another
town during the incident. Furthermore, he said that he could not have struck
the old woman with a piece of wood because he his right hand is “pasmado”
and his left hand is amputated.
 *Fernando, meanwhile, said his uncle Romeo called him and told him that he
was waiting for the victim. When she finally showed up, his uncle pointed a
balisong at her and got her money which Romeo gave to him. After receiving
the money, Fernando ran away.
 *Fernando alleged that he was maltreated during investigation. While
detained in the provincial jail, he wrote a letter stating that Crisanto is
innocent.
ISSUES of the CASE
 Whether or not the trial court erred in judging the appelant’s guilt (No)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court:
 Upon arraignment, Fernando and Crisanto pleaded not guilty while the other
accussed remained at large. Fernando eventually withdrew his plea and
pleaded guilty as an accomplice.
 The trial court then found Crisanto Lara guilty as charged. Crisanto appealed
and assigned errors of (1) giving credence to Mario’s testimony, (2) the lack
of consideration for his incapacity, (3) giving credence to Honario’s
testimony, and (4) not giving credence to Fernando’s testimony.
 It appreciated the aggravating circumstances of disregard of rank, age or
sex, uninhabited place, taking advantage of superior strenght and evident
premediation.
Supreme Court:
 The Court found Mario Marasigan’s testimony as a credible one. Even
though there are certain inconsistencies, those are de minimu, not sufficient
to cast doubt.
- His failure to see the four accused could be due to the fact that it was a
vast plantation. The accussed may not have noticed Mario because they are
focused on the arrival of their victim.
 Crisanto’s defense of incapacity cannot overthrow th positive testimony of
Mario that he saw him doing the act. The incapacity was never proven in
court.
 The proposal to commit the crime was only revealed in Court more than two
years after the incident. Nonetheless, the appelant’s conviction could be held
even without Honorio’s testimony.
 It is not unusual for a judge who did not try a case to decide it on basis of
the record of the previous judge handling the case. The judge found
Fernando’s statement that Crisanto was not there only as an afterthought.
 On the aggravating circumstances:
- Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against
persons. Disregard of rank, age, or sex can only be used in crimes against
persons or honor. Thus, it is not a proper aggravating circumstance.
Likewise, evident premediation have not been proved.
101

Aggravating Circumstances: Disregard of rank, age, or sex; dwelling
RPC Art.14 (3): The following are aggravating circumstances;
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.
People v Dalanon
GR No. 107458 | October 14, 1994
Ponente: PUNO, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Sgt. Hermes Dalanon
Accused (at large): Godelio Monsales, Salvador Albao alias “Badoy” and John Doe
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of attempted robbery with multiple homicide
BRIEF
According to the testimony of sole survivor Oliver Cervantes, the above-
named accused, armed with deadly weapons went to the residence of
Rodrigo Rejuso to demand for money. Crime of robbery was not fulfilled
because of the refusal and lack of money of the Rejuso family. The accused
then proceeded to the killing of Rodrigo, his wife and his two children. One of
the Rejuso siblings, Rebecca, was raped before being killed.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that appellant was guilty of the crime of attempted robbery
with homicide and the aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling, and
rape.
FACTS
- Prosecution evidence came principally from the testimony of the lone
survivor of the carnage, Oliver Cervantes, house helper of the Rejuso family.
- At 10PM of February 17, 1991 witness saw Rodrigo talking to accused-
appellant Sgt. Hermes Dalanon and on the ground, saw accused Salvador
"Badoy" Albao, Godelio Monsales, and another person he did not know. All 4
were armed with guns.
- Albao requested for a glass of water and the 3 men followed Cervantes
inside the house.
- Albao, at gun point, then ordered all residents of the house (Rodrigo, his wife
Felicidad, their daughters Rebecca and Shiela and Cervantes) to lie face
down on the bamboo flooring. Albao then tied their hands with straws.
- Albao demanded money from Felicidad, but the latter told former that they
had none. Infuriated, Albao struck Felicidad on the head with a bolo.
- Dalanon then started to sexually molest Rebecca.
- Disappointed that the Rejusos do not have money, Albao brought Rodrigo
downstairs followed by witness’ hearing of Rodrigo’s painful moan of
“Badoy”.
- Felicidad was also taken downstairs by Monsales where Albao is. Cervantes
then heard”chopping sounds”.
- Cervantes was able to run away and evade his pursuers by hiding among
tall grasses. He waited until 2AM before rushing to seek help from
Felicidad’s relatives and the authorities.
- Upon arrival at the scene of the crime, they saw the lifeless bodies of the
Rejuso family.
- A day after, Cervantes identified accused-appellant Dalanon and Monsales
from a police line-up composed of about thirty (30) persons.
- Albao and John Doe are still at large.
- Monsales escaped from the Masbate Provincial Jail and was later found
dead on June 12, 1992.
ALIBI
Dalanon: he along with Godelio Monsales, and Nicolas Cervantes escorted
Mrs. Bella Dalanon Panes Bravo, and family to Rancho Bravo in Asid and then
proceeded to Nabungsuran Ranch. They arrived there at 11PM. They party then left
at 2AM.
Monsales, member of Civilian Volunteer Organization (CVO) supervised by
Dalanon: he was with the Bravo family, left Asid at 8PM and went to Nabungsuran
Ranch.
Bella Bravo: corroborated the testimonies of the accused.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether there is merit on the testimony of appellant, as corroborated by
witnesses
- Whether the testimony of alleged lone-eyewitness is sufficient basis for the
RTC’s decision
- Whether or not appellant is guilty of attempted robbery with homicide
ACTIONS of the COURT
Masbate RTC
- Convicted the appellants guilty of the crime of attempted robbery with multiple 9
homicide committed with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, dwelling
and rape.
- Penalty is reclusion perpetua together with its accessory penalties and to
indemnify heirs of four victims the amount of P50,000 each.
Supreme Court
- Affirmed RTC ruling in toto.
On Cervantes’ credibility
9
* Should be Attempted Robbery with Homicide. The number of persons killed in
homicide on the occasion of attempted robbery is immaterial. All homicides or
murders are merged in the composite, that is attempted robbery with homicide.
Further, the term "homicide" in robbery should be understood as a generic term.
102
 o Gives credence to the testimony of witness Cervantes which is positive CONCUR: Narvasa, C.J., Regalado and Mendoza, JJ.
and clear. Cervantes' knowledge of the crime is based not only on his
sense of sight but also his sense of sound.
o Cervantes’ initial reluctance to disclose the names of the criminals is
understandable.
o His subsequent conduct of accompanying authorities to the scene fo the
crime bolsters his credibility.

Response to Alibis
o Alibi cannot prevail over positive identification of an accused.
o To sustain the defense of alibi, an accused must not only prove
satisfactorily that he was at another place at the time the crime
happened. But more important, that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
Dalanon does not meet this test. The distance between Rancho Bravo
and the locus criminis, the house of the Rejusos, is only 1 kilometer
while Nabungsuran Ranch is 52 kilometers away.
o Both testimonies of Bravo and Villamor is suspect. Bravo is the niece
while Villamor is a subordinate od the appellant.
o To cap it all, motive for the commission of the crime at bench was
established by Oscar Rejuso, the oldest and only son of spouses
Rejuso. He averred that his sister Rebecca turned down accused-
appellant's proposition of love. Accused-appellant is a married man.
- There is attempted robbery. Demand for money by use of threat amounts to a
robbery that would have been complete were it not for the refusal of Felicidad
to give money as they had none.
- There is conspiracy among the accused. The evidence proved that: Albao and
Monsales brought spouses Rejuso to the ground; Albao butchered them; and
accused-appellant Dalanon did not do anything to stop the killings. Their unity
of design is self evident.
- Aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present. The principal crime took place
in the house of the victims, although the killings were committed outside
thereof.
- Treachery characterized the commission of the crime. The victims were first
hog-tied to render them incapable of defense. They were then mercilessly
hacked to death.
- Rape was likewise established. The Physical and Medical Examination Report
of Rebecca showed that there was a fresh deep and incomplete laceration of
the hymen; it concluded that there was
penetration of her private organ.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of the trial court, finding
accused-appellant HERMES DALANON guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Attempted Robbery with Homicide, is AFFIRMED in toto. Accused-appellant is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnity to
the heirs of RODRIGO, FELICIDAD, REBECCA, and SHEILA REJUSO, in the
amount of FIFTY-THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00). Withcosts against accused-
appellant.

103
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Disregard of rank, age, or sex; dwelling
RPC Article 14: Aggravating Circumstances: The following are aggravating
circumstances:
(2) That the act be committed in contempt of or with insult to the
public authorities
People v Rodil
GR No. 35156 | Nov.20,1981
Ponente: MAKASIAR
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Floro Rodil
Nature of Case:
Appeal for decision of the Rizal Circuit Criminal Court convicting Rodil of the
crime of murder.
BRIEF
The deceased, PC Lt. Guillermo Masana confiscated Rodil’s handgun.
When Masana refused to return it to Rodil, a member of the anti-smuggling
unit, the latter repeatedly stabbed the former.
DISPOSITIVE
Rizal CCC convicted Rodil of murder and sentenced him to death and
indemnify Masana’s heirs.
SC found Rodil guilty of homicide aggravated by disregard of respect due to
rank.
FACTS
- Apr.24, 1971: Masana with 3 other soldiers were eating lunch inside a
restaurant. Masana saw Rodil outside and approached him. Masana identified
himself as a PC officer and asked Rodil if the gun tucked in his waist was
licensed.
- Rodil moved backward and attempted to draw his gun. PC Fidel, who was with
Masana, grabbed the gun from Rodil and gave it to Masana
- They went back inside with Rodil, Masana and Rodil occupying a separate
table. Masana wrote a receipt for the gun and asked Rodil to sign it.
- Rodil refused and asked for the gun back. Masana refused
- As Masana was about to stand up, Rodil pulled out a double bladed dagger
and stabbed Masana several times
- The 3 companions of Masana stood up to assist; but the Indang,Cavite Chief
of Police who was eating lunch there, was quicker and grabbed Rodil from
behind, wresting the dagger from him.
- Chief then brought Rodil to the municipal building
Defense’s version (claimed self-defense)
- Rodil and his wife were eating lunch when Masana approached him and asked
if he was Floro Rodil and if he was a member of the anti-smuggling unit
- Masana then invited him to a table, and asked him not to report any smuggling
activities to the authorities. Rodil said he had not done so
- Masana asked for his ID from the unit, Rodil gave him his anti-communist
league ID. Masana insisted that the ID was fake and tried to take it away. Rodil
refused, Masana got mad and pulled a gun from his waist and hit Rodil’s head
2 times. When he was about to hit him for a third time, Rodil resisted and
stabbed Masana.
- Rodil went to the municipal building and met the Police chief there, and told
him that he was hit by Masana on the head
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not contempt of, or insult to public authority was present as an
aggravating circumstance (YES)
- Whether or not the specific circumstance of insult or disregard of rank was
present as an aggravating circumstance (Yes)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Pasig, Rizal Circuit Criminal Court
- Convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced him to death and indemnify
the heirs of the deceased with P12,000, moral damages of P10,000 and
exemplary damages of P10,000
Supreme Court
On self-defense
- Records reveal that Masana was unarmed during the incident because he was
on leave then, he could not have used a gun on Rodil
- Medical records show that Rodil was hit on the right side of his body; Masana
was right-handed- if Masana did hit him, injuries must be on the left-side
- Claim of self-defense is without merit
o His wound was from bumping his head on the table when Masana
parried some of his attacks
o It took 2 ½ months for him to claim self-defense, if it was indeed so, he
should have formed the Chief of Police- whom he allegedly saw-
immediately.
On murder vs. homicide
- There was no treachery, thus it was homicide
o Assailant and victim were face to face, and the victim was able to ward
off the attack with his hand
o His parry was so strong that it caused the accused to bump his head on
the table
o No evidence showing that the accused made preparation to kill the
victim; neither did Rodil employ means to insure that he will not be
harmed by the offending party- Masana had 3 companions nearby when
Rodil attacked
o Treachery must be proven, not assumed
On contempt and disregard of rank
- Masana identified himself to Rodil, the latter inferior both in rank 10 and station
to the victim
10
Standing as a grade in the armed force; grade/relative position in social life
104
 o Ranks, age, sex deserve to be respected
o When there is a difference of social condition between offended and
offended, the circumstance disregard of rank is present
o BUT cannot be used in murder of a person in authority, as this
circumstance will be absorbed in the charge of assault against authority
o Since the appellant is accused of homicide only, then this circumstance
can be considered aggravating
- Police chief was also present during the crime
o Police chief is a public authority
o Rodil committed crime despite knowing that he was there
o This is in contempt to the position of the chief of police
- Aggravating circumstances of contempt and disregard of rank are present

SUPREME COURT RULING

Court AFFIRMED and MODIFIED Pasig, Rizal Circuit Criminal Court’s
decision and found Floro Rodil guilty of homicide aggravated by contempt for or
insult to a public authority, or disregard of the respect due to the offended
party on account of his rank. He is sentenced from 12yrs of prison mayor to
20yrs of reclusion temporal. Circuit court’s decision is affirmed in all other respect.
CONCUR: Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero

NOTES:
The evidence indicated that Rodil knew that Masana was an agent of
authority because the latter of him so
BUT Rodil cannot be convicted of the complex crime of homicide for the
simple reason that the information filed in the court simply stated that Masana was
attacked in the performance of his duties, and did not indicate whether or not Rodil
was aware that Masana was on a rank higher than him. This deficiency in the
information cannot allow for the conviction of a complex crime.

105
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
RPC Art. 13(4). That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party immediately preceded the act;
People v Pagal
GR No. L-32040 | Oct. 25, 1977
Ponente: Concepcion
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Pedro Pagal and Jose Torcelino
Nature of Case:
Appeal; Robbery with Homicide; Circuit Criminal Court of Manila
BRIEF
On December 26, 1969 Pagal and Torcelino conspired in the robbery of Gau
Guan wherein the amount of P1, 281.00 was taken. Afterwards, Gau Guan was then
stabbed with an ice pick and clubbed him with an iron pipe on different parts of his
body. Victim died shortly after.
DISPOSITIVE
Lower court ruling MODIFIED. Robbery with homicide, with the aggravating
circumstance of night-time offset by mitigating circumstance of pleading guilty.
Lesser penalty: reclusion perpetua.
FACTS
4. Accused pled guilty during arraignment. They cited the mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the deceased which
allegedly led them to act upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion
and obfuscation.
5. Lower court explained to accused that seeking to prove mitigating
circumstances is tantamount to admitting the commission of the crime
charged against accused.
6. Pagal contends that his conviction of robbery with homicide was an error on
the part of the court since the record is bereft of evidence that he and
Torcelino conspired to commit the crime.
- Sentenced to DEATH. Indemnity of P15,000 moral damages and P15,000
exemplary damages, to bear interest until fully paid.
Supreme Court
7. Pagal’s contention of lower court lacking evidence is not well-taken because
his guilty plea in a statement signed by him before the police investigators.
By pleading guilty, he admitted to the crime and the circumstances
surrounding its commission. It is sufficient to sustain a conviction without
introducing more evidence.
8. Mitigating circumstance of provocation also caused the mitigating
circumstance of obfuscation. As they arose from the same event, they
cannot be considered as two separate circumstances.
9. Passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating circumstances to a crime
which had been mediated before its execution.
10. Mitigating circumstance, provocation: must have immediately preceded the
unlawful act. Alleged maltreatment performed by victim on the appellants
happened on a much earlier date.
11. Evident premeditation cannot be aggravating in a crime of robbery with
homicide unless sufficient proof on intent to kill is given. Deceased was only
killed when he refused to open the safe.
12. Disregard of respect due cannot be an aggravating circumstance in a crime
against property like the case at bar. It only applies to crimes against
persons.
SUPREME COURT RULING
Lower court ruling MODIFIED. Robbery with homicide, with the aggravating
circumstance of night-time offset by mitigating circumstance of pleading guilty. Lesser
penalty: reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE/S of the CASE

- WON court erred in convicting Pagal of the crime of robbery with homicide
instead of declaring him liable only for his individual acts
- WON court erred in denying the accused the mitigating circumstances of
sufficient provocation and passion or obfuscation
- WON aggravating circumstances considered are valid

ACTIONS of the COURT

Court of First Instance
- Both accused found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide
- Aggravating circumstances: night-time, evident premeditation, disregard of
respect due to the offending party
- Mitigating circumstance: guilty plea

106
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES – TREACHERY
RPC Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating
circumstances:
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
People v Arizobal
G.R. No. 135051-52| December 14, 2000
Ponente: Per Curiam
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes
Nature of Case:
Automatic review of a decision of the Regional Trial Court Batangas
BRIEF
 Laurencio Gimenez and his son Jimmy Jimenez were robbed and slayed by
a group of armed men in their respective dwellings. Clarito Arizobal and Erly
Lignes were positively identified as the perpetrators of the crime. They were
convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide.
DISPOSITIVE
 Judgment affirmed with modification. Accusesed-appellant is guilty of crime
of robbery with homicide.
FACTS (*came from witnessess’ testimonies)
 *On March 24. 1994, Clementina Gimenez testified that she and her
husband, Laurencio, victim, were sound asleep in their house. At around
9:30 p.m., she roused to sleep since there were persons outside their house.
When she opened the door, she was suddenly confronted by three armed
men. The two were identified as Clarito and Erly and the other one wore a
mask.
 *The intruders ransacked their home in search of a gun and money. Before
leaving with their loot, they ordered Laurencio to go to Jimmy’s house.
Laurencio complied. Afterwards, Clementina heard shots.
 *Erlinda Gutierrez, wife of Jimmy, victim, testified that while she and her son
had their supper, Jimmy arrived with a certain Francisco. Jimmy informed
her that he already bought a carabao and showed her the related certificate.
Three armed men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie face down.
The intruders took liberty of consuming their food and took around P1000
from her sari-sari store.
 *They also demanded P100,000 in exchange for Jimmy’s life. Erlinda offered
the certificate instead but the intruders did not fall for the ruse. They dragged
Jimmy outside. Moments later, she heard a shot.
 *Erly Lignes, in her defense, produced an alibi that he was attending a
house blessing at the time. He also produced an corraborating witness.
 Arizobal escaped from detention and was tried in absentia.
ISSUES of the CASE
 Whether or not the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are unreliable
due to inconsistencies (No)
 Whether or not the aggravating circumstances appreciated were correct
(Yes and No)
 Whether or not the two crimes are separately committed (No)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court:
 Gave full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnessess and
rejected the alibi of the defendant. The court explained that the place of the
crime is only six kilometers from the alleged place where the accused was.
 Moreover, the court found that the crime was aggravated (1) by a band, (2)
with treachery, (3) nocturnity, and (4) dwelling.
Supreme Court:
 First and foremost, the Court found that the appeal of the accused mainly
concernes factual issues. Presuming that the trial court is in better position
to decide on the questions, the Court found no reason to deviate from the
lower court’s observations.
 The Court also ruled that even though, admittedly, the prosecution witnesses
did not give consistent accounts, the significance of a conspiracy is not
necessarily to show that all conspirators actually commit the alleged crime
but is to show that participants performed specific acts that indicate a
common purpose or design.
 The lower court was correct in appreciating dwelling but not in holding that it
was aggravated by band (proof needed) and nocturnity (locus criminis is
well-lighted). Likewise, treachery cannot be appreciated in the instant case
because the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is primarily
classified as a crime against property, not on persons.
 Moreover, the offenders did not commit two separate crimes but only a delito
continvado as the acts are not entirely distint from one another.
 Davide, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisimbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon,
concur.
107
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
People v Mandolado
Ponente: J. Guerrero
Plaintiffs-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendants-Appellants: Martin Maldonado and Julian Ortillano
Nature of the Case:
Case for mandatory review.
BRIEF
Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano were trainees of the AFP. While intoxicated,
they were involved in a series of activities that ultimately led to the murder of
Herminigildo Tenorio and Nolasco Mendoza.
DISPOSITIVE
The Appellants were found guilty with Mandolado guilty of double murder and
Ortillano of being an accessory to the crime.
FACTS:
- Julian Ortillano, Martin Mandolado, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon,
trainees/draftees of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and assigned to the
3rd Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army, were passengers of a bus
bound for Midsayap, North Cotabato.
- They alighted at the bus terminal in Midsayap. Being all in uniform, armed
and belonging to the same military outfit, they got acquainted and decided to
drink ESQ rum, at the said bus terminal.
- While drinking, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon decided to join
appellants in going to Pikit, North Cotabato, home base of appellants.
- After drinking for about an hour, appellant Mandolado got drunk and went
inside the public market. Subsequently, he returned, grabbed his .30 caliber
machine gun and started firing. His companions tried to dissuade him but he
nonetheless continued firing his gun.
- Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon ran away, hailed and boarded a
passing Ford Fiera with some passengers on board. Appellants followed and
boarded also the vehicle. The soldiers forced the driver of the Ford Fiera to
bring them to the Midsayap crossing.
- On their way, appellant Mandolado got his knife and tried to attack the
driver. After appellants alighted at said crossing, the Ford Fiera sped away.
Appellant Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at the speeding
vehicle hitting the right side of the back of the driver's sister who was then on
board said vehicle.
- Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon boarded a jeep being driven by
Herminigildo Tenorio with Nolasco Mendoza. Thereafter, appellants ran after
the jeep and boarded it. On the way, both appellants kept firing their guns
prompting Herminigildo Tenorio to remark, "Kung hindi kayo tatahimik,
ibabangga ko itong jeep."
- Upon learning that the jeep was bound for Cotabato City and not Pikit,
Mandolado got angry, cocked his gun, and ordered the driver to stop. Simon
and Erinada immediately jumped off the jeep and ran towards their
detachment camp. Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at the
passengers of the jeep and Ortillano fired his armalite downwards hitting the
ground.
- Appellants ran from the scene and boarded another vehicle alighting at
Pinaring crossing. Mandolado proceeded to a house where he left his
belongings and changed his wet uniform. After an hour, they rode a bus
bound for Midsayap. The appellants alighted at the Midsayap crossing and
waited for a bus bound for Pikit upon the advice of a Leopoldo Jalandoni.
- Appellants rode a sand and gravel truck which took them to Pikit. At camp,
appellants returned their firearms but did not report the incident. They
attended a party that night.
- The next day, appellants proceeded to Davao city but stopped at Kavocan to
stay overnight. They watched a movie in Davao in the morning then
proceeded to the office of Dona Ana, a shipping firm where they saw a Sgt.
Villanueva who informed them that they were suspects in the Tenorio and
Mendoza killings. Mandolado purchased two tickets for Manila afterwards
but before boarding, they were apprehended by a team led by Lt. Licas.
They were brought to Pikit where Lt. Licas and Maburang investigated them.
- They were brought to the headquarters of the 2 nd MP Battalion at PC Hill,
Cotabato City where they were investigated once more.
- Appellant Mandolado admitted the killing of Tenorio and Mendoza whereas
appellant Ortillano admitted his presence at said killings and of his having
fired his armalite downwards after appellant Mandolado fired upon and killed
the victims.
ISSUE of the CASE:
- Whether or not the facts of the case would qualify for aggravating
circumstances.
ACTIONS of the COURT
Court of First Instance of Cotabato, Branch II, Cotabato City
- Martin Mandolado, the supreme penalty of death in each case and the accused
Julian Ortillano to imprisonment of six [6] years of prision correccional as
minimum to seventeen [17] years of prision mayor as maximum, being merely an
accessory.
Supreme Court
-The claim of the appellant that he was not informed of his constitutional rights is
belied by the opening statements on record.
- The conviction of Mandolado is not only based on his confession but on the
following: 1. he repeatedly fired his .30 caliber machine gun while intoxicated at
the bus terminal in Midsayap 2. that he fired at the Ford Fierra which took them in
the Midsayap junction hitting one of its passengers 3. that Anacleto Simon while
running away from the jeep driven by the deceased, heard a burst of machine
gun fire coming from the direction of the jeep 4. the result of the Ballistic
examination showing that the shells recovered from the scene of the crime were
fired from the gun issued to appellant Mandolado 5. the attempted flight of both
appellants from justice and which act clearly indicates guilt for the "wicked tread
where no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as the lion," and lastly 6.
108
 appellant's own admission before the lower court that he killed Tenorio and
Mendoza although he claims the same to be accidental
- We cannot agree with the finding of the trial court that the aggravating
circumstances of 1. advantage was taken of his being a Draftee in the Philippine
Army, and 2. abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness were present in the
commission of the crime.
- Drunkenness shall be considered in favour of the appellants
- death of Herminigildo Tenorio, the award of P12,000.00 as compensatory
damages and P 20,000.00 for moral damages is hereby affirmed. For the death
of Nolasco Mendoza, We reduce the award of P50,000.00 as compensatory
damages to P12,000.00. We also reduce the award of P100,000.00 as moral
damages to P20,000.00. The liability of the appellants for the above damages
which shall be paid to the heirs of the victims shall be in solidum
SUPREME COURT RULING
Judgment of the trial court is hereby modified.
The accused-appellant Martin Mandolado is hereby found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. 561 for the killing
of Nolasco Mendoza and in Criminal Case No. 562, for the killing of Herminigildo
Tenorio. There being no aggravating circumstance but having found and
appreciated drunkenness which is not habitual as a mitigating circumstance, said
accused is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of ten [10] years and one [1]
day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen [17] years, four [4] months and
one [1] day of reclusion temporal as maximum in each of the two cases.
The accused-appellant Julian Ortillano is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as accomplice in the crime of murder in Criminal Case No. 561 for the
killing of Nolasco Mendoza and in Criminal Case No. 562 for the killing of
Herminigildo Tenorio. Similarly, there being no aggravating circumstance but
having found and appreciated the mitigating circumstance of drunkenness which
is not habitual in his favor, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of four [4] years, two [2] months of prision correccional as minimum
to ten [10] years and one [1] day of prision mayor as maximum in each case.
In Criminal Case No. 561 for the killing of Nolasco Mendoza, We sentence both
accused to pay the heirs of the victim P12,000.00 as compensatory damages
and P20,000.00 as moral damages. The liability of the accused shall be in
solidum.
In Criminal Case No. 562 for the killing of Herminigildo Tenorio, We sentence
both accused to pay the heirs of the victim P12,000.00 as compensatory
damages and P20,000.00 for moral damages. The liability of the accused shall
also be in solidum.
CONCUR:
Fernando C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, De Castro,
Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

109
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES – SELF-DEFENSE
RPC Article 14. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal
liability:
3. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights...
People v Jaurigue and Jaurigue
CA-No. 384 | February 21, 1946
Ponente: De Joya
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Avelina Jaurigue
Nature of Case:
Appeal from judgment of Court of First Instance of Laguna
BRIEF
 Avelina Jaurigue, defendant, unintentionally killed Amado Capiña, her suitor,
while the latter, with great imprudence, placed his hand on the upper part of
Avelina’s thigh while they were inside a church.
DISPOSITIVE
 Judgment modified; penalty reduced. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court’s finding that Avelina is guilty of homicide but the penalty is reduced by
two degrees, considering mitigating circumstances, to prision correccional.
ISSUES of the CASE
 Whether or not the actions of the defendant can be considered an act of
self-defense of her honor as a woman (No)
 Whether or not her actions merits the most liberal consideration possible
under the law (Yes)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court:
 Avelina Jaurigue is found guilty of homicide and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal and
indemnify the heirs of the deceased. Avelina then appealed to the Court of
Appeals (no action of CA described).
Supreme Court:
 A woman is justified in killing her aggresor when there is actual danger of
rape.
- In the instant case, the means employed by Avelina is evidently excessive.
However, her intention was not to kill Amado but only to punish his offending
hand. The Court found that Avelina is not a criminal by nature.
 The following are mitigating circumstances in her favor:
- The fact that Avelina surrendered unconditionally.
- Her action was provocated by passion or obfuscation, or temporary loss of
reason and self-control.
 Ozaeta, Perfecto, and Bengzon, concur.

FACTS
 On September 13, 1942, Amado spoke of her love to Avelina which she
flatly refused. Nonethelss, Amado suddenly embraced, kissed, touched her.
From then on, she armed herself with a long fan knife.
 On September 15, Amado climbed up the house of the defendant and
entered the room where she was sleeping. She screamed upon feeling his
presence and sought the help of her parents. Amado begged for the
forgiveness of the parents.
 On September 20, the day of the fatal incident, Avelina received news that
Amado has been falsely boasting that she desperately tried to elope with
Amado.
 On the same day, at around 8:00 p.m., Nicolas Jaurigue, father of the
defendant, went to the Seventh Day Adventists chapel to attend a religious
service. Avelina followed afterwards and sat at the back. Amado, seated on
the other side, transferred and sat near Avelina. He placed his hand on the
upper part of her right thigh.
 Avelina pulled her fan knife with the intention of punishing Amado’s
offending hand but Amado seized her right hand so she quickly grabbed the
knife by her left hand and stabbed Amado at his neck, mortally injuring
Amado.
 Avelina confessed of what she had done stating that she could not take it
anymore. She surrendered the weapon and herself to the authorities
afterwards.

110
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Nocturnity, uninhabited place, or band
RPC Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating
circumstances:
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or
by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense.
People v Tiongson
GR no. L-30449 | Oct. 31, 1979
Ponente: Abad Santos
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Defendant-appellant: Antonio Carcia y Cabarse alias “Tony Manok” and Reynaldo
Arviso v Rebelleza alias “Rene Bisugo”
Nature of Case:
Appeal from the decision of Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal (death
penalty)
BRIEF
During the dawn of Oct. 19, 1968, Corazon witnessed the killing of her
brother, Apolonio. Along P.C. Santos St., Corazon saw her brother fleeing a
group of about 7 persons, which was led by the 2 accused, Antonio Garcia and
Reynaldo Arviso. When she ventured to look from where she was hiding, about
20 meters away, she saw the group catch up with her brother and maltreat
him. The group then scampered away. Antonio was left behind. He was sitting
astride the prostrate figure of Apolonio, stabbing the latter in the back with his
long knife.
The RTC found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced them to death
penalty
DISPOSITIVE
The SC modified the judgement of the lower court
FACTS (by Corazon Dioquino – lone eyewitness)
- Corazon lived at Pasay City for about 5 months before moving to QC
- She conceived a child while at Pasay. It was unusual for her and her
husband to have irregular walks in the wee hours of the mornings. They did
this for 5 times.
- Also, her brother Apolonio visited her family for about 20 times. He and her
husband were very close to each other.
o Apolonio’s residence is at Porac, Pampanga
o He would sometimes stay at their parents’ house in Muntinlupa,
Rizal
- Before the crime incident, Corazon’s husband informed her that he saw
Apolonio engaged in a drinking spree with his gang in front of Bill's Place at
M. de la Cruz St., Pasay City
- Oct. 19, 1968 - She then asked permission to fetch her brother at 3am.
o She thought that Apolonio was in Pampanga
o She went to fetch him immediately because she wanted him to
escape the untoward influence of his gang
- Along P.C. Santos St., Corazon saw her brother fleeing a group of about 7
persons, including the 2 accused, Antonio Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso
o She recognized the two accused because they were former
gangmates of her brother
- The chase was led by the two accused, with Antonio carrying a long sharp
instrument
- When she ventured to look from where she was hiding, about 20 meters
away, she saw the group catch up with her brother and maltreat him
o Some beat him with pieces of wood, others boxed him
- The group scampered away. Antonio was left behind. He was sitting astride
the prostrate figure of Apolonio, stabbing the latter in the back with his long
knife
- Corazon saw his brother bathed in a pool of his own blood
- Due to confusion, she resolved to report it to her sister, who in turn shared
the news to their father
- Corazon learned that the police authorities were searching for her brother's
gangmates for having killed him. She also learned that the suspects were in
hiding.
- On the same day — October 19, 1968 — accompanied by her family, she
went at 2:00 p.m. to the Police Department to inquire about her brother's
corpse.
- Dr. Cueva, Jr. testified that:
o The deceased suffered 22 stab wounds (hips, chest, neck, torso)
o The wounds sustained by the deceased brought about a massive
hemorrhage which caused death
o It is possible that the instrument marked as Exhibit "B" could have
been used in inflicting the multiple stab wounds sustained by the
deceased, except the stab wounds on the neck
Alibis
- Antonio: During the incident (Oct. 19), he was at a place called Pacita’s
canteen which adjoins Bill's Place at M, de la Cruz Street
- Reynaldo: In the evening of preceding night (Oct. 18), he went on a drinking
spree with his friends at Pacita's Canteen. He went home at 10:30 p.m. and
slept up to 7:00 a.m the next day. Then he performed his duties as a bus
conductor
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the accused are guilty of murder
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court
- Found Antonio Garcia v Cabarse and Reynaldo Arviso y Rebelleza, GUILTY,
beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Murder
- Sentencing both of them to death penalty
- The two accused are further ordered to indemnify, the heirs of the deceased,
Apolonio Dioquino, Jr. in the amount of TWELVE 'THOUSAND (P12,000,00)
PESOS, jointly and severally and to pay their proportionate share of the costs.
111
Supreme Court
On Corazon’s inconsistencies
- The alleged inconsistencies (sketch of the locale of the crime) in Corazon's
testimony, which the defense makes much of, are not irreconcilable with the
physical facts
- At the outset, it should not be overlooked that Corazon was testifying as an
eyewitness to the traumatic incident by which her brother met a violent death
at the hands of a mob
- She was only a resident of Pasay City for only about five months. She testified
that she is not familiar with the streets
On Corazon’s delay to report the crime
- She incurred no fault in waiting until the culprits were arrested before
confronting them and giving her statement
- It would have been the better if she had given her statement earlier; but since
she was only a 22-year old housekeeper at that tune, she cannot be held to a
higher standard of discretion
On Reynaldo Aviso’s innocence
- It is claimed that there is absence of evidence to show that Reynaldo was a
direct participant and that the only evidence against him is that he was seen
pursuing the victim
- But he is guilty because of his participation in the conspiracy to kill the
deceased; Corazon testified that he and Antonio were the leaders following
closely the victim
- When a group of seven men, more or less, give chase to a single unarmed
individual running for his life, and they overtake him and inflict wounds on his
body by means of shooting, stabbing, and hitting with pieces of wood, there is
conspiracy to kill; and it does not detract from their status as conspirators that
there is no evidence of previous agreement, it being sufficient that their wills
have concurred and they labored to achieve the same end
o Objective test (under which nocturnity facilitates the commission of the
offense) – passed because the assault was at 3am; it would be hard to
identify the malefactors and there is a relative scarcity of people
o Subjective Test (under which the nocturnity was purposely sought by
the offender) - not passed because there is no showing that the
accused purposely sought the cover of night time
o The Court find that nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated the
commission of the offense
SUPREME COURT RULING
The information alleges that the crime of murder was attended by the two
qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Neither of these
qualifying circumstances was proved; hence, the killing cannot be qualified into
murder, and constitutes instead the crime of homicide, which is punished by reclusion
temporal. It is not controverted that the accused voluntarily surrendered to the
authorities; they are therefore entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. This lone mitigating circumstance offset by the two generic aggravating
circumstances of abuse of superiority and nocturnity, produces the result that in the
crime of homicide, one aggravating circumstance remains.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court a quo is hereby modified in that the two
accused, Antonio Garcia y Cabarse and Reynaldo Arviso y Rebelleza, are sentenced
to undergo an indeterminate imprisonment of 10 years as minimum to 18 years as
maximum, but in all other respects affirmed.
CONCUR: Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,
Santos Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro and -Melencio-Herrera, JJ.
NOTES:
- See On aggravating circumstances for the connection to the topic

On Aggravating Circumstances
- Evident premeditation – not present; in the case of conspiracy, this may not be
appreciated;
o There should be a showing that the accused had the opportunity for
reflection and persisted in executing his criminal design
- Treachery – not present; this must not be presumed and be fully proven
o Where the manner of the attack was not proven, the defendant should
be given the benefit of the doubt, and the crime should be considered
homicide only
o There being no showing when the intent to kill was formed, it cannot be
said that treachery has been proven
o The attack was not sudden or unexpected; the victim could have made
a defense
- This is not treachery, but abuse of superiority
o Helpless victim killed by assailants superior to him in arms and in
numbers
- Nocturnity – passed; 2 tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance:

112
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE: NOCTURNITY, BAND, UNINHABITED PLACE
(Art. 14)
People v Damaso (or People v Oring)
GR L-30117 | November 20, 1978 |
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Phils.
Accused-appellant: Lorenzo Alviar alias ORING
(also Fausto Damaso, Victoriano Eugenio, Bonifacio Espejo)
Nature of the case: Automatic review of death penalty imposed for robbery with
double homicide
BRIEF/FACTS
At nighttime of Nov. 21, 1959, in Victoria, Tarlac, the four accused forcibly entered the
house of Donata Rebolledo and Victoriano de la Cruz and took away property all
amounting to P176.92. They also held and brought Donata’s daughters Catalina and
Susana Sabado to an uninhabited sugarcane field and stabbed them with a scythe.
Prosecution:
1. At around 9PM, Donata and Victoriano heard dogs barking outside their
house. Shortly, 2 men armed with guns entered their house. Victoriano’s
hands were tied and was covered with a blanket. Donata was asked as to
the location of Catalina. The former blocked the door to the latter’s room, but
was pushed aside.
2. Donata was ordered to open an aparador, and took the following: a jacket, a
necklace, an earring, a ring, a hat, 3 scythes, a document (owned by
Donata, totaling P125.90); P15 belonging to Victoriano; P15 belonging to
Susana Sabado; liquor, sardines and cigarettes totaling P36.02. The grand
total is P176.92.
3. Catalina was taken by the 2 robbers, and Susana was taken from her store
which was about 5 meters from the house.
4. Catalina and Susana Sabado were held and brought to a sugarcane field,
tied their forearms, and stabbed them in different parts of the body, and cut
their necks with a scythe.
Sworn extrajudicial statements (before Municipal Judge de Gracia):
Fausto Damaso
1. Gregorio and Eugenio did the killing.
2. The killing was motivated by Catalina’s failure to pay for a carabao bought
from Gregorio.
 Changed to Damaso and Eugenio did the killing; killing was done because
the women had already recognized them.
Victoriano Eugenio
1. Gregorio conceived of the plot to commit the crime; he also killed the 2
women with a reaping knife.
2. Eugenio and Damaso entered the house.
3. No idea as to the motive.
Estanislao Gregorio
1. The other co-conspirators went to him and informed him of the robbery plan.
2. Damaso and Eugenio robbed; Gregorio stabbed and cut the throats of the
victims.
3. Motive: to prevent the women from becoming witnesses against them.
Bonifacio Espejo
1. They planned the crime.
2. Damaso and Eugenio robbed; Alviar and Gregorio stood by. Gregorio killed
the victims.
Lorenzo Alviar
1. Gregoio killed; Catalana was killed before Susana.
2. He was only forced by the group to take part in the crime.
ACTIONS OF THE COURT
Trial court
- All accused found guilty as charged (robbery with double homicide).
Supreme Court
ISSUE: WON the alleged robbery took place – YES
RATIO: It is evident from the declaration of Donata Rebolledo that two men, including
Fausto Damaso, took items with worth amounting to P15. In robbery, what is
essential is that culprits take away personal property belonging to another by use of
force, intimidation or violence.
ISSUE: WON this particular homicide can be complexed with robbery or WON the
homicide was committed by reason of the robbery – YES
RATIO:
1. Fausto Damaso changed his motive theory behind the killing of Catalina and
Susana from:
a. Catalina bought a carabao from him and did not pay him; to
b. They were killed in order to eliminate witnesses to the robbery.
2. For complex crime of robbery with homicide: An intent to commit robbery
must precede the taking of human life.
3. The intent in 1(a) does not prevent the punishment of the accused for the
complex crime.
ISSUE: WON the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of a) armed
band; b) treachery; and c) uninhabited place – YES
RATIO:
a) Armed band exists whenever there are more than 3 armed malefactors
committing an offense together.
a. Eugenio, Alviar, and Gregorio were armed.
b. Proof that Damaso was also armed with a .22 paltik revolver: his
extrajudicial confession, Eugenio’s statement, confessions
113
 attributing to him a .30 Springfield rifle; Donata and Victoriano’s
testimonies.
b) Treachery exists if the victim is killed while bound in such a manner as to be
deprived of the opportunity to repel the attack/escape.
a. The bodies of Catalina and Susana were found dead with their
arms tied behind their backs.
b. Gregorio confessed that he killed the sisters while their arms were
held by Eugenio and Damaso.
c) Uninhabited place was contested in that the sugarfield was near a national
highway and some houses in the barrio.
a. “Uninhabitedness” of a place is not determined by the distance of
the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but by the reasonable
possibility of the victim to receive some help.
b. The killing was done during nighttime, and the sugarcane in the
field was tall enough to obstruct view.  no reasonable possibility
to receive help
d) All three circumstances are considered independently of each other.

ISSUE: WON the prosecution’s evidence stands – YES

RATIO:
1. The extrajudicial confessions were sworn to before a municipal judge. If it
were true that the statements were extracted with force, they should have
manifested this before the judge.
2. The movements reconstructed by the appellants in the reenactment of the
robbery and the killings match the details in their sworn statements. This
reenactment was done in front of people who had no connection with the
police or the prosecution. A photographer present testified that there was no
violence, force or intimidation during the reenactment.
3. The defense of alibi is worthless in the face of positive identification by the
prosecution witnesses, pointing to the accused as the participants in the
crime.

ISSUE: WON the accused committed the crime in conspiracy – YES

RATIO:
1. Basic rule: the act of one conspirator is imputable to the others, and the
criminal liability of each participant is the same as those of the others. Also,
direct proof is not essential.
2. The appellants got together and planned the crime shortly before its
execution. They proceeded together to the house of the victims: while
Damaso and Eugenio went upstairs, the others stood by on lookout. The
killings were also committed by the appellants as a group.

RULING: ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE, with aggravating circumstances: band,

treacery, uninhabited place, commission in the dwelling of the victim
Penalty:
Art. 294 (par. 1), RPC, robbery with homicide: reclusion perpetua to death. Maximum
imposed.

114
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES – RECIDIVISM*  Four persons were prosecuted and tried but only Pedro Baldera and co-
RPC Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating accussed Miguel Blay were found guilty of robbery in band with homicide
circumstances: and less serious physical injuries.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
Supreme Court:
People v Baldera  The Court does not dispute the perpetration of the crime. The clear and
No. L-2390| April 24, 1950 positive testimony of Ponciano trumpts the defense of alibi.
Ponente: J. Reyes  Even without the confession, the evidence is sufficient to prove the
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines involvement of Baldera.
Accused-appellant: Pedro Baldera  The question of whether or not it is robbery in band is not material because it
is not essential to the crime of robbery with homicide. However, the
Nature of Case: testimony of one of the government’s witness that there were more than
Review of death sentence imposed by Court of First Instance Batangas three armed men was uncontradicted.
 However, the lower court erred in appreciation the circumstance of
BRIEF recidivism by reason of his previous conviction for theft.
 Pedro Baldera, armed with a pistol, together with other men held up a bus.  Moran, Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, concur.
They extorted money from the passengers, one of whom died due to
wounds caused by firing of the pistol.

DISPOSITIVE
 Judgment modified. The Court reduced the appellant’s sentence to life
imprisonment.

FACTS
 On December 23, 1947, a group of five or six armed men held up a Casa
Manila bus bound for Manila in Batangas. Pedro Baldera, later identified,
armed with a .45 caliber pistol, fired shots which wounded Jose Cabrera,
Jose Pastor and Francisco Mendoza. After firing, Pedro got on the bus and
took money from the passengers. Appellant alighted afterwards.
 The driver headed to the municipal buiding to report thee incident. Jose
Cabrera died the following day.
 Appellant, however, was arrested in connection with theft of a radio. Due to
similarities of his features in relation to the crime, he was questioned about
the held up. He confessed his involvement.
Recidivism – a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of
behavior (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
ISSUES of the CASE
 Whether or not the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the
crime is reliable (Yes)
 Whether or not the crime committed is robbery in band (No)

ACTIONS of the COURT

Trial Court:
 Another passenger, Ponciana Villena, identified the appellant at trial.
 In his own defense, the appellant denied participation and produced an alibi
but it was without a corroboration.
 His counsel also contends that the confession is inadmissible because it was
made on the promise that Baldera would be rendered protection from his co-
accused. Moreover, the counsel

115
Aggravating Circumstances: Evident Premeditation
RPC Art.14 (13): The following are aggravating circumstances;
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
US v Manalinde
GR No. L-5292 | August 28, 1909
Ponente: TORRES, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: The United States
Accused-appellant: The Moro Manalinde
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of murder, and the sentence of death penalty
BRIEF
Between 2 and 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the 19th of January, 1909,
accused Manalinde assaulted Juan Igual and Choa using a kris, resulting in
the death of the latter.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that Manalinde was guilty of the crime of murder with
aggravating circumstances of reward and premeditation, without any
mitigating circumstances.
FACTS
- On January 19, 1909 (between 2 and 3 PM), Spaniard Juan Igual was struck
on the head from behind while sitting on a chair in the doorway of a store in
Cotabato.
- Assailant was the Moro Manalinde, who used a kris to strike Igual.
- Manalinde then struck Chinaman Choa on the left shoulder. This was while
said Chinaman was putting down his load in front of the door of a store.
- The Moro, who came to town from the rancheria of Dupit and had entered the
town carrying the kris wrapped up in banana leaves, escaped by running away
from town.
- Both wounded men were taken to the hospital, where the Chinaman died
within an hour.
- The record did not state the result of the wound inflicted on the Spaniard Juan
Igual.
APPELLANT’S EXCUSE
- Manalinde, upon being arrested, pleaded guilty of the crime and confessed
that he had perpetrated the crime herein mentioned.
- He stated that he did the crime by order of the Datto Rajamudah Mupuck, who
had directed him to go juramentado in Cotabato in order to kill somebody,
because the said Mupuck had certain grievances to avenge against a
lieutenant and a sergeant.
- The said datto further stated that if he, Manalinde, was successful in the
matter, he would give him a pretty woman on his return.
- Manalinde travelled for a day & a night from his home carrying a kris.
- He further stated that he had no quarrel with the assaulted persons.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellant is guilty of murder
ACTIONS of the COURT
District Court of Cotabato
- Convicted appellant with the crime of murder with aggravating circumstances
of reward and premeditation
- Sentenced accused to the penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the sum of P1,000, and to pay the costs.
Supreme Court
- It appears beyond doubt that the crime of murder, defined and punished by
Article 403 of the Penal Code, was committed on the person of the
Chinaman Choa, in that the deceased was:
o unexpectedly and suddenly attacked, receiving a deep cut on the
left shoulder at the moment of putting down his load
o as a result of the tremendous wound received, was unable to
defend himself, apart from the fact that he was unarmed.
o he was also unable to flee from the danger.
o means and form employed in the attack was consummated with
deceit and treachery (alevosia).
- Appellant’s excuse that he went juramentado by order of the said datto and
on that account killed only two persons, whereas if he had taken the oath of
his own volition he would have killed many more, cannot under any
consideration be accepted or considered under the laws of civilized nations;
such exhibitions of ferocity and savagery must be restrained.
- The presence of aggravating circumstances 3 and 7 of article 10 11 of the
Penal Code should be taken into consideration in that promise of reward and
premeditation are present.
- The fact that the targets of the killing were unspecified does not bar the
consideration of the circumstance of premeditation.
- Upon accepting the order, appellant (1) had the chance to thoughtfully
meditate over the nature and the consequences of the acts which he was
about to carry out, and to that end (2) provided himself with a weapon, (3)
concealing it by wrapping it up, and (4) started on a journey of a day and a
night for the sole purpose of taking the life of two unfortunate persons whom
he did not know, and with whom he had never had any trouble.
- There can be no doubt that after the crime was agreed upon by means of a
promise of reward, the criminal by his subsequent conduct showed a
persistency and firm intent in his plan to carry out the crime which he
intentionally agreed to execute,
- It is immaterial whether Datto Mupuck did or did not conceive the crime,
once Manalinde obeyed the inducement and voluntarily executed it
SUPREME COURT RULING
11
Art. 13 (11) and (13) of the Revised Penal Code.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise. 13.
That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
116
 In view of the fact that no mitigating circumstance is present to
neutralize the effects of the aggravating ones, it is our opinion that the judgment
appealed from should be affirmed with costs provided however, that the penalty
imposed on the culprit shall be executed in accordance with the provisions of Acts.
Nos. 451 and 1577, and that in the event of a pardon being granted he shall likewise
be sentenced to suffer the accessory penalties imposed by article 53 of the Penal
Code. So ordered.

CONCUR: Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ.

117
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Evident Premeditation
RPC Article 14: Aggravating Circumstances: The following are aggravating
circumstances:
(13) Evident Premeditation: That the act be committed with
evidence premeditation
People v Ilaoan
GR No. 94308 | June 16, 1994
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Ruben E. Ilaoa and Rogelio E. Ilaoa
Nature of Case:
Appeal for acquittal from the crime of murder, with attendant circumstances
of premeditation, abuse of superior strength and cruelty. Ruben and Rogelio
claim that the attendant circumstances were unwarranted.
BRIEF
The deceased, Nestor Loyola, was seen drinking with Ruben, then getting
into a fight with the latter some time later. The appellants, with 2 other
people, thrashed Loyola and dragged him inside Ruben’s apartment.
Afterwards, Ruben borrowed a tricycle, and was later seen driving the
vehicle with a placed in the sidecar- bloodstains were found on the floor
when it was returned.
DISPOSITIVE
RTC ruled that Ruben and Rogelio were guilty of murder with attendant
circumstances; the SC ruled that Ruben was guilty of homicide, and
acquitted Rogelio since evidence was insufficient.
FACTS
- Nov. 4, 1987: deceased was drinking with his compadre Ruben and Rogelio
and Rodel Ilaoa, Julius Eliginio, Edwing Tapang, and a “Nang Kwang”.
- Ruben and Nestor were then heard arguing; Nestor was then seen being
kicked and mauled by his drinking mates- save for Rodel
- Nestor was dragged into Ruben’s apartment- the former was heard saying
“Pare bakit ninyo ako ginaganito, hirap na hirap na ako!”
- Nov.5 1987, 2am: Ruben and Julius borrowed Alex Villamils’s tricycle to
allegedly bring a pregnant woman to the hospital
- Ruben was seen driving the vehicle with a sack that seemed to contain a
human body; Alex found bloodstains on the floor when it was returned- he
thought it was that of the pregnant woman’s
- Pfc. Reynaldo Angeles was sent to look at a decapitated body with stabs
wounds and slight burns, the head was found 2ft. away.
- Only Ruben and Rogelio were caught; the other 3 escaped
- During the investigation, blood was found on Ruben’s shirt and shoe, he had
partial burns on his forehead; his live-in partner was seen to be sweeping
blood from their apartment on Nov.5
Alibis
- Ruben: The sack in the tricycle contained marijuana he was delivering as a
favour for Nestor; his live-in partner was sweeping vomit, not blood.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not Ruben and Rogelio are guilty of murder (No)
- Whether or not attendant circumstances are unwarranted (Yes)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Angeles RTC
- Convicted the appellants for murder with attendant circumstances of
premeditation, abuse of superior strength and cruelty.
Supreme Court
- Rogelio’s conviction is baseless
o To warrant conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the following
must be present: a. there must be more than one circumstance; b.
circumstances inferred from must be proven c. combination of
circumstances prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
 Apart from dragging the deceased into the apartment, there was
nothing else linking Rogelio to the killing (see a)
 This alone is not enough to link him to the crime
- Acts of Ruben (beating Nestor, borrowing a tricycle then returning it with
blood) are sufficient to establish guilt.
o His friendship with Nestor will not clear him of guilt
o He belied his own excuse: he claimed he was delivering marijuana with
the tricycle- not helping a pregnant woman
o There’s no reason for Alex to lie on bloodstains on his tricycle’s floor
- Ruben is liable for homicide. Abuse of superior strength, cruelty and
evident premeditation, were not sufficiently proven
o Superior strength: no proof that Ruben was stronger than Nestor
o Cruelty: no proof that Ruben made Nestor suffer slowly and painfully for
the former’s pleasure
o Evident Premeditation: no evidence that prior the evening, Ruben et al
planned to kill Nestor; no proof showing that there was meditation,
calculation and resolution
 Evidence shows that the killing was a result of an unbroken chain
of events, with no time between them for calculation and
meditation
SUPREME COURT RULING
Court AFFIRMED and MODIFIED Angeles City RTC’s decision and found
Ruben E. Ilaoa guilty of homicide- not murder. He is sentenced from 8yrs 10mos
10 days of prison mayor medium to 16 yrs 4 mos 10 days of reclusion temporal
medium, and to pay indemnities, moral damages, actual damages and lawyer’s fees.
Court ACQUITTED Rogelio E. Ilaoa for insufficiency of evidence.
CONCUR: Cruz, Davide, Quiason, Kapunan
NOTES:
118
- The aggravating circumstance premeditation was not present in the case
o No evidence showed appellants planning to kill the victim before
Nov.4, 1987
o Crime took place as the result of an unbroken chain of events with no
prior planning

119
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Treachery
RPC Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating
circumstances:
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
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.
People v Sangalang
GR no. L-32914 | Aug. 30, 1974
Ponente: Abad Santos
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Laureano Sangalang
Nature of Case:
Appeal from the decision of Court of First Instance of Cavite
BRIEF
On June 9, 1968, Ricardo Cortez, was struck by a volley of shots while
gathering tuba from a coconut tree. When his wife Flora heard the shots, she
went out of their nipa hut and saw 5 men with long firearms firing her husband.
She ran towards the incident but the malefactors tried to fire her too. She
retreated to the hut for cover and heard some more shots. After 5mins, the
men left the place and Flora found her husband dead.
RTC found the accused, Laureano Sangalang, guilty of murder, sentencing
him to reclusion perpetua.
DISPOSITIVE
The SC affirmed the lower court’s decision
FACTS
June 9, 1968 (6am)
- Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut located at Barrio Biluso, Silang, Cavite to
gather tuba from a coconut tree nearby; Flora Sarno, his wife, was left inside
the hut
- While he was on top of the tree, he was struck by a volley of shots. He fell to
the ground at the base of the coconut tree
- Flora heard three successive shot coming south of the hut and went outside
- From a distance of 25 meters, she saw 5 men with long firearms firing her
husband. The assailants were 5 meters away from the victim
- She recognized some the malefactors, namely, Laureano Sangalang, Conrado
Gonzales, Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel and Eleuterio Cuyom
- She ran towards the incident and asked the 5 men, why are they firing her
husband. When she was 20 meters away, they fired her too. She retreated to
the hut for cover and heard some more shots.
- After 5mins, the men left the place and Flora found her husband dead
- Meanwhile, Flora’s brother, Ricardo Sarno, was also at the nipa hut. He
supported her sister’s testimony. He wanted to join her but he was likewise
fired upon by the five men. So, he retired and took refuge in his own hut
- Ricardo gathered their children and brought them to Sitio Biga. He also
reported the killing to the chief of police who went to the scene of the crime
- Necropsy report: Cortez sustained 23 gunshot wounds on the different parts of
the body. He died due to the multiple gunshot wounds
Alibis
Sangalang:
- June 8, 1968 (afternoon) - He and Crispulo Mendoza went to the house of
Julian Gatdula at Dapitan Street, Sampaloc, Manila. He arrived at Gatdula's
place at 6pm. He wanted to borrow money from Gatdula to defray the
matriculation fees of his children.
- As Gatdula had no money at that time, he advised Sangalang to wait until
morning. They allegedly slept in Gatdula's house on the night of June 8th and
returned to Cavite at 7pm of June 9.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the accused are guilty of murder
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court
- Found Laureano Sangalang guilty of murder, sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua and ordering him to pay the heirs of Ricardo Cortez an indemnity of
twelve thousand pesos and to pay his widow moral damages in the sum of ten
thousand pesos
Supreme Court
On Floras’s inconsistencies
- Those inconsistencies, which are not glaring, strengthen their credibility and
show that their testimonies were not coached nor rehearsed.
- The controlling fact is that Flora and Sarno clearly and consistently testified
that they saw Sangalang, a person already well-known to them, among the five
armed persons who shot Ricardo Cortez. That unwavering identification
negates appellant's alibi.
On motive for killing
- The prosecution did not prove the motive for the killing. On the other hand,
Sangalang did not show that Mrs. Cortez and Sarno were impelled by a
malicious desire to falsely incriminate him.
- Evident premeditation, which was alleged in the information, was not proven.
On Treachery
- The qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia), which was alleged in the
information, was duly established. Hence, the killing can be categorized as
murder
o The victim was shot while he was gathering tuba on top of a coconut
tree. He was unarmed, defenceless, and not expecting to be assaulted.
He also did not give any immediate provocation.
120
 o 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.

SUPREME COURT RULING

The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua on Sangalang
(Arts. 64[1] and 248, Revised Penal Code).
Finding no error in its judgment, the same is affirmed with costs against the appellant.

CONCUR: Zaldivar (Chairman), Fernando, Barredo and Fernandez, JJ.

NOTES:
- See On Treachery for the connection to the topic

121
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE: DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in the conviction – NO

RATIO:
People v San Pedro The appellant confessed inability to dispute the facts in the information filed. Instead,
GR L-44274 | January 22, 1980 he only seeks resolution of questions of law.
Per Curiam
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Phils. ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance of craft is absorbed by treachery – NO
Accused-appellant: Luisito San Pedro, et al., Artemio Banasihan RATIO:
- Craft was employed not to make treachery more effective. It was directed
towards facilitating the taking of the jeep in the robbery scheme.
Nature of the case: Automatic review of the death penalty imposed by the Court of - The element of defense against bodily injury makes treachery proper only for
First Instance of Laguna. crimes against persons.

BRIEF ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance should be offset by the mitigating
On the pretext of hiring the jeep driven by the deceased Felimon Rivera to haul circumstance of lack of instruction – NO
coconuts, Luisito San Pedro, et al. approached the former and had him drive to Bo. RATIO:
Puypuy, Laguna. Rivera was ordered to stop, and was hit on the nape with a water 1. It would make no difference, because there are 2 aggravating
pipe. He jumped out of the jeep but was chased and stabbed at the back with a circumstances: treachery and craft.
dagger. The appellant admits these facts, and only raises questions of law, with 2. Lack of instruction (no read, no write) is not applicable to crimes of theft and
regard to the appreciation of modifying circumstances. robbery, much less to the crime of homicide because robbery and killing are,
by their nature, wrongful acts and are manifestly so equally to the
DISPOSITIVE “enlightened” and to the ignorant.
The RTC decision is affirmed.
RULING:
FACTS Affirms RTC ruling.
1. Felimon Rivera was the driver of a passenger jeep owned by Pablito delos
Reyes, a fruit vendor. He was murdered on June 2, 1970; his body was
found the same day.
2. The police authorities only found a lead on June 11, 1971, when Rodrigo
Esguerra (upon apprehension and questioning) admitted his participation
and named his companions.
3. Artemio Banasihan was apprehended in 1972. He recounted that 4 days
before the day of the incident, they all met and planned to get the jeep driven
by Rivera. Esguerra brought the water pipe wrapped in paper.
4. Upon reaching a river between the barrios of Mainit and Puypuy, San Pedro
ordered Rivera to stop driving. Esguerra gave a signal, and Salvador Litan
hit Rivera with a water pipe.
5. When Rivera jumped out of the jeep, he was chased by San Pedro and
Litan, and was stabbed several times in the back by the latter.
6. Esguerra drove the jeep to Makati, Rizal, wherein they were joined by
Nelson Piso and Antonio Borja. The jeep was brought to Cavite City where it
was sold for P2,000.
7. Piso went to Los Baños and gave San Pedro, Litan, Banasihan P50 each,
promising to give them the balance later on. This was not fulfilled.

ACTIONS OF THE COURT

Trial court
- Conviction of robbery with homicide, with a penalty of death
Supreme Court

122
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES – TREACHERY
RPC Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating
circumstances:
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
People v Arizobal
G.R. No. 135051-52| December 14, 2000
Ponente: Per Curiam
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Clarito Arizobal and Erly Lignes
Nature of Case:
Automatic review of a decision of the Regional Trial Court Batangas
BRIEF
 Laurencio Gimenez and his son Jimmy Jimenez were robbed and slayed by
a group of armed men in their respective dwellings. Clarito Arizobal and Erly
Lignes were positively identified as the perpetrators of the crime. They were
convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide.
DISPOSITIVE
 Judgment affirmed with modification. Accusesed-appellant is guilty of crime
of robbery with homicide.
FACTS (*came from witnessess’ testimonies)
 *On March 24. 1994, Clementina Gimenez testified that she and her
husband, Laurencio, victim, were sound asleep in their house. At around
9:30 p.m., she roused to sleep since there were persons outside their house.
When she opened the door, she was suddenly confronted by three armed
men. The two were identified as Clarito and Erly and the other one wore a
mask.
 *The intruders ransacked their home in search of a gun and money. Before
leaving with their loot, they ordered Laurencio to go to Jimmy’s house.
Laurencio complied. Afterwards, Clementina heard shots.
 *Erlinda Gutierrez, wife of Jimmy, victim, testified that while she and her son
had their supper, Jimmy arrived with a certain Francisco. Jimmy informed
her that he already bought a carabao and showed her the related certificate.
Three armed men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie face down.
The intruders took liberty of consuming their food and took around P1000
from her sari-sari store.
 *They also demanded P100,000 in exchange for Jimmy’s life. Erlinda offered
the certificate instead but the intruders did not fall for the ruse. They dragged
Jimmy outside. Moments later, she heard a shot.
 *Erly Lignes, in her defense, produced an alibi that he was attending a
house blessing at the time. He also produced an corraborating witness.
 Arizobal escaped from detention and was tried in absentia.
ISSUES of the CASE
 Whether or not the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are unreliable
due to inconsistencies (No)
 Whether or not the aggravating circumstances appreciated were correct
(Yes and No)
 Whether or not the two crimes are separately committed (No)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court:
 Gave full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnessess and
rejected the alibi of the defendant. The court explained that the place of the
crime is only six kilometers from the alleged place where the accused was.
 Moreover, the court found that the crime was aggravated (1) by a band, (2)
with treachery, (3) nocturnity, and (4) dwelling.
Supreme Court:
 First and foremost, the Court found that the appeal of the accused mainly
concernes factual issues. Presuming that the trial court is in better position
to decide on the questions, the Court found no reason to deviate from the
lower court’s observations.
 The Court also ruled that even though, admittedly, the prosecution witnesses
did not give consistent accounts, the significance of a conspiracy is not
necessarily to show that all conspirators actually commit the alleged crime
but is to show that participants performed specific acts that indicate a
common purpose or design.
 The lower court was correct in appreciating dwelling but not in holding that it
was aggravated by band (proof needed) and nocturnity (locus criminis is
well-lighted). Likewise, treachery cannot be appreciated in the instant case
because the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is primarily
classified as a crime against property, not on persons.
 Moreover, the offenders did not commit two separate crimes but only a delito
continvado as the acts are not entirely distint from one another.
 Davide, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisimbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon,
concur.
123
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Lack of Intent
RPC Article 13: Mitigating Circumstances: The following are mitigating
circumstances:
3: That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed
People v Gonzalez
GR No. 139542 | June 21, 2001
Ponente: GONZAGA-REYES
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the Marikina RTC decision that found appellant guilty of murder
and two counts of frustrated murder.
BRIEF
After a traffic altercation between Noel Andres and Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.,
the latter’s son intervened. Thinking that his son’s life was in danger,
Gonzalez drew his gun and fired a shot. The bullet killed Andres’ pregnant
wife Feliber Andres, and injured his two nephews.
DISPOSITIVE
Marikina RTC found Gonzalez guilty of the complex crime of murder with two
counts of frustrated murder
FACTS
- October 31, 1998: Andres and Gonzalez were leaving Loyola Memorial park in
their own cars. Andres was with his wife Feliber, his sister-in-law and two
nephews; Gonzalez was with his grandson and 3 househelp; his son Dino was
driving his own car
- Andres and Gonzalez had a near-collision at an intersection; Gonzalez sped
off
- Andres gave chase and cut off Gonzalez. He got out the car.
Prosecution’s version
- Andres calmly told Gonzalez to be careful with his driving. He then saw the
latter turning red with anger; Andres went back to his car
- He was blocked by Dino who asked “Anong problema mo sa erpat ko?” Andres
boarded his car, closed the door and opened the window slightly to talk to Dino
- Suddenly one of his passengers said “binaril kami”, then he saw his wife
bloodied, he turned and saw his nephews wounded
Defense’s version
- Andres went to Gonzalez and repeatedly cursed at him. Gonzalez stayed in his
car, apologizing
- Dino and Gonzalez said that Andres was outside his own car when he was
arguing with Dino
- When Andres reached inside his car. Feeling that his son was in danger,
Gonzalez got his gun from the glove compartment and got out of the car,
- When he saw that Andres did not have a weapon, he put down his gun. Trisha,
Dino’s sister, came and pushed Gonzalez away. This made him drop the gun,
causing it to fire
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not Gonzales should be exempt from civil and criminal liabilities
because he had no intention to shoot (NO)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Marikina Regional Trial Court
- Took note of 5 instances that lead to the crime: 1. Andres overtook the care 2.
Andres got out of car and confronted Gonzalez 3. Andres had an argument
with Dino 4. Gonzalez took out his gun when he saw Andres arguing with Dino
5. Gonzalez had a struggle with Trisha
- Found that Gonzales was guilty of the complex crime of murder and two
counts of frustrated murder
- Pointed out that Gonzalez’s automatic pistol will not fire simply because it was
dropped
- Argued that once a gun is drawn against a person, the means, methods and
forms employed for its execution is already conceived
o It is done to insure execution, thus producing intent
o There is then treachery because Gonzales in drawing the gun is
insuring the execution of his action without risk to himself
Supreme Court
On treachery and lack of intent
- Gonzalez declared that he had no intention to shoot
o When Trisha tried to lead him away, he tried to his hand that was
holding the gun; it accidentally fired
o Andres’ windows were heavily tinted. It was difficult to determine if there
were people inside.
- SolGen agreed that crime was there was no treachery
o Crime happened after an argument thus the victim was already on
guard for any attack
o Requisites for treachery were not proven, and SolGen agreed that
auto.pistols should not be equated with treachery
 Gonzalez aimed at the car, not at Andrea- just because the gun is
drawn does not mean that mode of attack was consciously and
deliberately employed.
- SC: treachery is never presumed, it must be proven
o Chance encounters or crimes preceded by heated arguments are
generally not attended to by treachery
 Gonzalez and Andres were complete strangers before the
accident. (chance encounter)
 Andres provoked Gonzalez which led to hostilities between the
two (heated argument)
o It was clear that the shot was fired away from Andres while Andres was
arguing with the son of the appellant
124
  He did not react to Andres’ behaviour until the latter was
aggressive towards his son
 He believed his son to be in danger
 Gonzalez could have shot him, but didn’t
 No evidence proved that Gonzalez indiscriminately fired
 The appellant intended to shoot at the car not at Andres nor
any other person
o Shooting was a single, continuous act, trial court erred in breaking it into
several stages to make it appear as if there was treachery
o The shooting was a spur of the moment decision and not attended
to by treachery, and was not done in coldblood
 Without treachery, crime is homicide

On attempted murder vs. physical injuries

- The intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is physical injuries or
homicide
o In case of doubt regarding intent, shall be convicted of the lesser
offense
o Lack of intent to kill was evident
o Both children were discharged after 6 days
 Not frustrated murder but slight physical injuries

On the defense of obfuscation and passion

- Dino was of age, was hardly helpless, and was fighting back
o This could not have induced passion and obfuscation on Gonzalez

On the defense of incomplete defense of relative

- Andres yelling at them was hardly unlawful aggression

On complex crimes
- Complex crimes require two or more grave and/or less grave felonies
o Case has one felony and two light felonies
 Complex crime does not apply

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE the decision of the trial court is hereby MODIFIED. The
appellant is hereby found guilty of homicide for the death of Feliber Andres and is
sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 8yrs 2day of prision mayor to 14yrs
8mos 1day of reclusion temporal. For each count of slight physical injuries
against Kenneth Andres and Kevin Valdez, the appellant is hereby sentenced to 20
days of aresto menor.

CONCUR: Davide (CJ), Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena,

Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez

DISSENT: Puno, Kapunan, Panganiban

125
Aggravating Circumstances: Treachery
RPC Art.14 (16): The following are aggravating circumstances;
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
People v Eduardo Dollendo
G.R. No. 181701 | January 18, 2012
Ponente: PEREZ, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused: Eduardo Dollendo (at large)
and Nestor Medice (appellant)
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of murder, and the sentence of death penalty
BRIEF
As deceased Ruiz and 3 of his friends were playing cards at a house,
appellant Nestor Medice entered and immediately left. After two minutes,
Medice came back with his brother-in law Dollendo and handed a bolo to the
latter. Using said weapon. Dollendo then stabbed Ruiz four times resulting to
the death of Ruiz.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that appellant is guilty of the crime of murder aggravated by
treachery.
FACTS
- On February 13, 2001, Del Valle, together with Anquillo and victim Garry
Ruiz were playing cards in the sala of Romines’ house.
- Meanwhile, Romines was getting their pulutan ready. He was in the kitchen,
which was about less than two meters away from the sala, with an
unobstructed view of the sala.
- The drinking session had not yet begun when appellant arrived. He did
nothing and left immediately upon seeing them. After two minutes, appellant
returned with his brother-in-law Dollendo.
- Ruiz did not notice them enter the house because his back was turned
against the door. Appellant pulled out a bolo (dipang), handed it over to
Dollendo saying, "Uh! You take care of it," after which, he stepped back.
- Dollendo, in turn, immediately stabbed Ruiz on the left chest. Del Valle ran
to seek police assistance while Romines was left behind. Romines
recounted that after the first blow, three successive stab blows were further
delivered hitting Ruiz in his chest near the heart and in his arm. Thereafter,
appellant and Dollendo fled towards the direction of P. Tingzon.
- Ruiz died on his way to the hospital.
- Dollendo escaped from the Provincial Jail. Medice remains as sole
appellant.
ALIBI
Medice: claimed that he never saw Dollendo on the date of the incident.
- That he was then in the house of spouses Dafia Pusio and Dondon Morino
from 12:00 noon to 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon.
- Dafia’s house is only forty (40) meters apart from locus crimis,
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellant is guilty of the crime of murder aggravated by
treachery
ACTIONS of the COURT
RTC, Branch 19, Catarman, Northern Samar
- guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by induction of the crime of Murder
and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 and another P50,000.00 as moral
damages and to pay the costs
Court of Appeals
- appeal is DENIED
- modification that he shall indemnify the victim in the amount of Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages.
Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court held that the law provides that an offender acts with
treachery when he "commits any of the crimes against a 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." There is, thus, treachery
when the attack against an unarmed victim is so sudden that he had clearly
no inkling of what the assailant was about to do.
- It is clear in the records that the circumstance of treachery is attendant in
this case. The aggressors ensured that the victim had no opportunity to
resist or defend himself through the sudden and unexpected attack.
- Evident premeditation was not established as an aggravating circumstance.
Evident premeditation may only be considered if the following are
established: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination;
and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to
allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. None of the
requisites, however, is present in this case.
- There was conspiracy to commit murder; Appellant is, therefore, liable
notwithstanding the evidence showing that it was only Dollendo who stabbed
the victim.
- To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution;
he need not even take part in every act. Each conspirator may be assigned
separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but,
in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal
objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators.
- Defense of alibi cannot prosper; There was failure to establish physical
impossibility to be at the locus criminis; Witnesses positively identified the
assailants
SUPREME COURT RULING
126
 WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 28 November 2006 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00243 DENYING the appeal of appellant Nestor
Medice is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Appellant is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Murder and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is further
ordered to pay the heirs of Gary G. Ruiz the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral
damages, Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) as temperate damages, Thirty
Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary damages, and interest on all damages
at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until fully
paid.

CONCUR: Carpio, Sereno, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.

127
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Ignominy12
RPC Article 14: Aggravating Circumstances: The following are aggravating
circumstances:
17: That means be employed or circumstances brought about
which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act
- As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed her and began to unbutton
his pants, winding cogon leaves around his organ (Cordero was able to see as
her blindfold had slipped)
- Torrefiel then raped her, Oromeo taking his turn after
- They returned her to her house instead of taking her to headquarters
- When Eady returned to their house, she told him she had been raped

People v Torrefiel et al. ISSUE/S of the CASE

45 OG 803 | - Whether or not the accused committed rape (Yes)
Ponente: - Whether or not there were aggravating circumstances (Yes)
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Torrefiel and Ormeo ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court
Nature of Case: - Ruled that accused raped Cordero during night time (aggravating
Appeal for the crime of rape circumstance)

BRIEF Supreme Court

The accused asked the victim, Ceferina Cordero, and her husband for - Testimony proves the accused’s guilt
supplies which the latter two did not have. The accused charged them with o Affidavit and testimony of the victims were corroborative
being fifth columnists13, tied and blindfolded them and took them to their o Torrefiel and Ormeo were positively identified
headquarters. During the trip, the husband managed to escape, and o Exertion of force or violence is implied in rape
Torrefiel raped Cordero with cogon leaves wrapped around his organ.  The act of pushing Cordero down (force) and having
Ormeo then took his turn. intercourse with her against her will makes it rape
- Trial court erred in identifying the aggravating circumstance
DISPOSITIVE o Nocturnity did not apply as the act began early afternoon
Trial Court found the accused guilty of rape with the aggravating o Ignominy was the aggravating circumstance
circumstance of nocturnity (night); SC found the accused guilty of rape with  The act of winding cogon grass around Torrefiel’s genitals
the aggravating circumstance of ignominy increased the pain and added humiliation to the act against the
victim
FACTS
- Dec. 17, 1942: Accused were USSAFE soldiers who passed by the victim’s SUPREME COURT RULING
house and asked Eady, victim’s husband, for khakis; victim told off the Court AFFIRMED the decision of the lower court, modifying aggravating
accused as her and Eady’s belongings had been looted by USSAFE. Torrefiel circumstance from nocturnity to ignominy
threatened her and brought out his revolver
- They charged Eady and Cordero as being fifth columnists for not giving aid;
they tied and blindfolded the two and took them to headquarters; Torrefiel took
charge of Eady, Oromeo of Cordero
- Cordero would call out to Eady to know if he was near. After a while he didn’t
respond: Torrefiel had lost his way and had left Eady in the guardhouse to find
Oromeo and Cordero to no avail. Torrefiel then went back to the guardhouse to
find Eady had escaped
- Torrefiel somehow managed to find Oromeo and Cordero, Oromeo rushing
back to look for Eady, leaving the woman with Torrefiel

12
Adding disgrace/ humiliation to the injury caused by the crime; applicable to
crimes against chastity and persons
13
Sympathizers of enemies

128
PEOPLE V JOSE
February 6, 1971 | Per Curiam
Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., Edgardo Aquino, Rogelio Canal
NATURE
Appeal for the CA ruling. Guilty of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE
(Art. 335 RPC.) Sentenced to DEATH. Indemnity P10,000 each.
DOCTRINE
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating
circumstances:
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add
ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
BRIEF
At around 4.30AM on June 26, 1967 respondents abducted Magdalena
(Maggie) De la Riva in front of her house using their Pontiac two-door
convertible car. The brought Maggie to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay, where
they took turns raping her (order as listed above.) Afterwards, they left her in
front of the Free Press Building by EDSA, near Channel 5. SC found Jose,
Pineda, and Aquino GUILTY of the complex crime of FORCIBLE
ABDUCTION WITH RAPE and each was convicted of 3 other crimes of
rape. Each sentenced to 4 DEATH PENALTIES. Indemnity of P10,000 for
each crime totaling in P40,000 each. Canal died in prison.
FACTS
1. Maggie was 25 and single at the time of the incident. Graduated from high
school at Maryknoll College and finished a secretarial course at St.
Theresa’s College. She was receiving P8,000 per picture as a movie
actress, P800/month in permanent shows, P300/month in live promotional
shows, P100-200/appearance as a guest in other shows.
2. It was 4.30AM and Maggie was homeward bound from ABS Studio on
Roxas Blvd. She was driving her bantam car with her maid in the passenger
seat as they made their way home to New Manila, QC.
3. When they were nearing the house, a 2-door Pontiac convertible driven by
Pineda with the 3 other appellants inside came abreast of her car and tried
to bump it. Maggie stepped on the brakes to avoid a collision before
stepping on the gas and swerving her car to the left.
4. At this point, she was already in front of her house gate. The driver of the
Pontiac accelerated, however, and they almost collided for a second time.
Annoyed by the incident, she asked Pineda: “Ano ba?”
5. Pineda stopped the car, jumped out, and rushed towards Maggie. She was
so scared that she beeped her car’s horn continuously. Pineda opened the
door and grabbed Maggie’s left arm. She held on to the steering wheel and
started to scream together with her maid.
6. Pineda eventually succeeded in pulling her out of the car but the struggle
continued as Maggie and her maid attempted to free her from Pineda’s grip.
The latter was too strong however, and he managed to successfully drag
Maggie towards the Pontiac convertible.
7. The three men inside the car – whose motor was still running – assisted
Pineda. One held Maggie by the neck while the other two held her arms and
legs. The three men pulled her into the car and before she was completely
in, Pineda got into the driver’s seat and sped away towards Broadway
Street.
8. Pineda was driving, Canal was in the passenger seat, and Maggie sat in the
back seat between Jose (pulled an arm around her and forcibly kissed her)
and Aquino (placed his arms on her thighs and lifted her skirt.)
9. Maggie continuously asked her captors to release her, telling them that she
was the sole breadwinner of her family because her father had died. Aquino
merely remarked that the situation was much better than he thought since no
one could take revenge against him.
10. Maggie started to pray, which angered the appellants and made them curse
at her. Aquino would talk in whispers with Pineda every now and then, after
which they would exchange knowing glances with Canal and Jose.
11. The car reached a dead end street. Turned around towards Victoria Street.
The proceeded to Araneta Ave., Sta. Mesa St., Shaw Blvd., then EDSA.
12. Once they reached Makati, Aquino brought out a handkerchief from his
pocket and blindfolded Maggie. She was told not to shout or else she would
be stabbed or shot with a Thompson.
13. She was brought to a room and made to sit on a bed and her blindfold was
removed. Pineda and Aquino stood in front of her while Canal and Jose sat
beside her. Pineda told her: “Magburlesque ka para sa amin.”
14. She ignored the command. They told her to remove her stockings and she
reluctantly complied. They started pushing her around, pulling down the
zipper of her dress and unlocking her bra.
15. She stood naked for 10 minutes in front of the four men who were kneeling
before her, during which she was asked to turn around twice. Pineda then
picked up her clothes and left the room with his companions.
16. Left alone, Maggie tried to look for a blanket to cover herself with but could
not find one. Jose entered the room soon after and began undressing. She
was sitting on the bed trying asking him to release her when he pushed her
backward and pinned her down. A struggle ensued.
17. Jose cursed her because she was putting up stiff resistance. Then he, like
all the others to follow him, hit her several times on the stomach and other
parts of the body. Maggie crossed her legs but Jose was able to pry them
open and have carnal knowledge of her. He left the room afterwards.
18. The other three took turns. Aquino followed and after he succeeded in
having carnal knowledge of her, Maggie was already in a state of shock.
Aquino called the others into the room and they proceeded to pour water on
her face and slap her in order to revive her.
19. Afterwards, Pineda was left in the room with Maggie. Another struggle
occurred wherein he hit her and then proceeded to have carnal knowledge
of her.
20. Maggie went into a state of shock for the second time and they poured water
on her face and slapped her several times again. Canal was the last to have
carnal knowledge of Maggie.
21. It must be noted that while each of the four appellants was struggling with
Maggie the other three were just behind the door, threatening the
complainant with acid and telling her to give in because she could not
escape with them there.
129
22. Afterwards, they gave her her clothes, told her to get dressed, and warned
her not to inform the police under threat of being harmed. They decided to
drop her off in front of the Free Press Building near EDSA, by Channel 5 so
that it would seem like she just came from the studio.
23. Pineda asked Jose to alight a cab. Several well-known cabs passed before a
UBL taxi was hailed. Canal accompanied Maggie to the taxi. It was past
6AM at this point.
24. On the ride home, Maggie kept asking the drive if a car was following them.
She had broken down and was crying. She reached home at around 6.30
where PC officers were already investigating her abduction.
25. Maggie run towards her mother and told her: “Mommy, Mommy I have been
raped. All four of them raped me.” She was then instructed to take a bath
and a douche. They called the family doctor to treat her for external injuries.
26. Maggie’s rape was kept a secret even from Pat. Pascual who attempted to
question her.
27. On June 29, the fourth day after the incident, Maggie filed a complaint and
executed a statement at the QCPD Headquarters. She then submitted
herself to a medico-internal examination by NBI Chief Medico-Legal Officer,
Dr. Brion.
28. Pat. Pascual was present then, and he received a call from the headquarters
on the apprehension of one of the suspects. Jose was brought to the
headquarters where Maggie identified him as one of her rapists.
29. Dr. Brion noted the presence of multiple contusions and bruises on different
parts of Maggie’s body. He declared that upon examining her, Maggie
complained of tenderness around the neck, on the abdominal wall, and at
the sites of the extragenital physical injuries.
30. Dr. Brion further identified the injuries to have been caused by blows,
possibly from a closed fist or by the palm of the hand. They could have been
inflicted while she was being raped.
31. Spermatozoa was not found, which was not unusual as spermatozoa usually
does not survive past 3 days after intercourse. Maggie also douched herself.
APPELLANTS
a. 9PM on the day of his capture Jose executed a statement claiming he
knew and was involved in the June 26 incident. He named his
companions. He also stated that things were done under Pineda’s
initiative. That it was Pineda who blindfolded Maggie and that only
Pineda and Aquino raped her.
b. Pineda and Canal also fell into the custody of authorities in Lipa on July
1, 1967. Maggie identified them both among a lineup as the people who
raped her. She added that Canal had tattoo marks on his right hip. Said
marks were found by the policemen later when they took Canal
downstairs and undressed him to see the words “Bahala na Gang”
tattooed on his right hip.
c. Pineda pleaded guilty.
d. Canal confirmed information previously given up by Jose that they
waited for Maggie to come down from ABS, and that they had planned
to abduct and then rape her.
e. Canal further said that they all participated in the commission of the
crime although he notes that Maggie yielded to him on the condition that
he would release her afterwards.
f. Aquino was last brought into custody in Batangas on July 5, 1967. He
claims that Pineda went with him with the problem of where he’d get
P900 which he allegedly owed Maggie. Pineda invited Aquino and
Canal to go with him to Lipa, where Pineda had relatives, to help raise
the money. In Lipa, Aquino left Canal and Pineda in order to visit his
own relatives.
g. Aquino was the last to be apprehended, having surrendered to Mrs.
Aurelia Leviste, the wife of the governor of Batangas, after reading that
he was wanted in the newspapers.
h. Appellants who plead not guilty claim:
i. They went with Pineda to the Ulog Cocktail Lounge in Mabini
from 9.30PM on June 25 and stayed there until closing time
around 3.30AM.
ii. They were joined by a man identified as Frankie who later
asked to be dropped off at his home in Cubao.
iii. Pineda steered the car to Espana Extension to bring Aquino to
his home in Mayon Street. Along Espana Extension, before the
Rotonda, a small car whizzed past and almost hit them.
Angered, Pineda gave chase.
iv. It was said that the struggle in front of Maggie’s house lasted
10 minutes before they finally succeeded in abducting her.
v. They said that they did nothing to help Pineda but also
admitted not doing anything to stop him. Pineda cruised
around the area just to scare Maggie. He stopped on the street
where they abducted her, presumably to return her, before
changing his mind and asking her to do a strip tease for them
instead for P1000.
vi. Pineda sped the car to Swanky Hotel where he and Maggie
alighted the vehicle first. She borrowed a handkerchief from
one of them to disguise her identity.
vii. When they got into the room, Maggie asked the boys to close
the windows before she undressed in front of them. The boys
took off their pants. Pineda and Canal stripped to the skin while
Jose and Aquino kept their briefs on “because it was hot.”
viii. They claim to have seen Pineda hand Maggie P100 and heard
him promise her that he’d give the P900 later. Afterwards, they
all got dressed and left the room to wait in the car for Pineda
and Maggie who were apparently discussing the modes of
payment.
ix. It was Maggie’s idea that they should drop her near her place
of work.
ACTIONS OF THE COURT
Trial Court/CA
- The court cannot believe that any woman would consent to doing such a
performance after the rough handling she experienced from the men.
- The striptease for P100 is simply preposterous.
130
 - Found GUILTY. 3. Complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, pursuant to Art. 48 RPC,
shall impose the penalty prescribed in its maximum period.
Supreme Court: ISSUES of the CASE
RULING: Instant petition DENIED. Decision of RTC Cebu AFFIRMED.
ISSUE: WON the charges were established beyond reasonable doubt, (YES)
RATIO
3. Defense was unable to explain the injuries found on the body of Maggie.
(1)Only attempt at explanation was that Maggie and Pineda were left behind.
Not possible because they rejoined the others after 3-4 minutes.
(2)They also suggested that Maggie inflicted the injuries herself in order to
make a case against them. Not believable because Maggie was earning
more than P900.
4. Absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape.
Penetration is what is important. Abrasions were found on the victim’s cervix.
5. Maggie’s statement when she went home after the incident establishes the
commission of successive rapes. It was res gestae which commands strong
pribative value since the words were uttered to her mother who would be the
most logical confidant of a victim.

ISSUE: WON Maggie’s sole and uncorroborated testimony stands, (YES)

RATIO
3. A woman does not easily trump up rape charges for she has much more to
lose. The notoriety of the case will affect her, her honor, and the honor of her
family.
4. That there were more testimonies against Maggie’s own testimony is not
important. What is more important in gauging the weight of the evidence is
which of the declarations prove to be more credible, logical, and reasonable.
5. Maggie’s testimony stands.

ISSUE: WON Maggie’s sole and uncorroborated testimony stands, (YES)

RATIO
1. A woman does not easily trump up rape charges for she has much more to
lose. The notoriety of the case will affect her, her honor, and the honor of her
family.
2. That there were more testimonies against Maggie’s own testimony is not
important. What is more important in gauging the weight of the evidence is
which of the declarations prove to be more credible, logical, and reasonable.
3. Maggie’s testimony stands.

Aggravating Circumstances:
1. Nighttime - YES; purposefully sought out
2. Abuse of Superior Strength – YES; 4 vs 1
3. Ignominy – YES; humiliation in ordering her to exhibit her nakedness
4. Use of a motor vehicle – YES

Crucial Input brought up by the Court:

2. Even while the first act of rape was being committed, the crime of forcible
abduction had already been consummated. Each of the three succeeding
crimes should therefore be detached from and considered independently of
forcible abduction.

131
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Evident Premeditation
RPC Article 14: Aggravating Circumstances: The following are aggravating
circumstances:
(13) Evident Premeditation: That the act be committed with
evidence premeditation
People v Ilaoan
GR No. 94308 | June 16, 1994
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Ruben E. Ilaoa and Rogelio E. Ilaoa
Nature of Case:
Appeal for acquittal from the crime of murder, with attendant circumstances
of premeditation, abuse of superior strength and cruelty. Ruben and Rogelio
claim that the attendant circumstances were unwarranted.
BRIEF
The deceased, Nestor Loyola, was seen drinking with Ruben, then getting
into a fight with the latter some time later. The appellants, with 2 other
people, thrashed Loyola and dragged him inside Ruben’s apartment.
Afterwards, Ruben borrowed a tricycle, and was later seen driving the
vehicle with a placed in the sidecar- bloodstains were found on the floor
when it was returned.
DISPOSITIVE
RTC ruled that Ruben and Rogelio were guilty of murder with attendant
circumstances; the SC ruled that Ruben was guilty of homicide, and
acquitted Rogelio since evidence was insufficient.
FACTS
- Nov. 4, 1987: deceased was drinking with his compadre Ruben and Rogelio
and Rodel Ilaoa, Julius Eliginio, Edwing Tapang, and a “Nang Kwang”.
- Ruben and Nestor were then heard arguing; Nestor was then seen being
kicked and mauled by his drinking mates- save for Rodel
- Nestor was dragged into Ruben’s apartment- the former was heard saying
“Pare bakit ninyo ako ginaganito, hirap na hirap na ako!”
- Nov.5 1987, 2am: Ruben and Julius borrowed Alex Villamils’s tricycle to
allegedly bring a pregnant woman to the hospital
- Ruben was seen driving the vehicle with a sack that seemed to contain a
human body; Alex found bloodstains on the floor when it was returned- he
thought it was that of the pregnant woman’s
- Pfc. Reynaldo Angeles was sent to look at a decapitated body with stabs
wounds and slight burns, the head was found 2ft. away.
- Only Ruben and Rogelio were caught; the other 3 escaped
- During the investigation, blood was found on Ruben’s shirt and shoe, he had
partial burns on his forehead; his live-in partner was seen to be sweeping
blood from their apartment on Nov.5
Alibis
- Ruben: The sack in the tricycle contained marijuana he was delivering as a
favour for Nestor; his live-in partner was sweeping vomit, not blood.
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not Ruben and Rogelio are guilty of murder (No)
- Whether or not attendant circumstances are unwarranted (Yes)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Angeles RTC
- Convicted the appellants for murder with attendant circumstances of
premeditation, abuse of superior strength and cruelty.
Supreme Court
- Rogelio’s conviction is baseless
o To warrant conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the following
must be present: a. there must be more than one circumstance; b.
circumstances inferred from must be proven c. combination of
circumstances prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
 Apart from dragging the deceased into the apartment, there was
nothing else linking Rogelio to the killing (see a)
 This alone is not enough to link him to the crime
- Acts of Ruben (beating Nestor, borrowing a tricycle then returning it with
blood) are sufficient to establish guilt.
o His friendship with Nestor will not clear him of guilt
o He belied his own excuse: he claimed he was delivering marijuana with
the tricycle- not helping a pregnant woman
o There’s no reason for Alex to lie on bloodstains on his tricycle’s floor
- Ruben is liable for homicide. Abuse of superior strength, cruelty and
evident premeditation, were not sufficiently proven
o Superior strength: no proof that Ruben was stronger than Nestor
o Cruelty: no proof that Ruben made Nestor suffer slowly and painfully for
the former’s pleasure
o Evident Premeditation: no evidence that prior the evening, Ruben et al
planned to kill Nestor; no proof showing that there was meditation,
calculation and resolution
 Evidence shows that the killing was a result of an unbroken chain
of events, with no time between them for calculation and
meditation
SUPREME COURT RULING
Court AFFIRMED and MODIFIED Angeles City RTC’s decision and found
Ruben E. Ilaoa guilty of homicide- not murder. He is sentenced from 8yrs 10mos
10 days of prison mayor medium to 16 yrs 4 mos 10 days of reclusion temporal
medium, and to pay indemnities, moral damages, actual damages and lawyer’s fees.
Court ACQUITTED Rogelio E. Ilaoa for insufficiency of evidence.
CONCUR: Cruz, Davide, Quiason, Kapunan
NOTES:
132
- The aggravating circumstance premeditation was not present in the case
o No evidence showed appellants planning to kill the victim before
Nov.4, 1987
o Crime took place as the result of an unbroken chain of events with no
prior planning

133
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES: Relationship
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must be
taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature
and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.
They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and
education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration
when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees
of the offender.
People v Sangalang
G.R. Nos. 124303-05 | Feb. 10, 1998
Ponente: Panganiban
Plaintiff-appellee: The People of the Philippines
Accused-appellant: Alejandro Atop @ “Ali”
Nature of Case:
Automatic Review (death penalty)
BRIEF
Private complainant, Regina Guafin, is the granddaughter of Trinidad Mejos.
Alejandro Atop is the common law husband of said Trinidad. Regina has been
living with the couple since her childhood. According to her, she was molested
by Alejandro for six times from 1991 to 1995. Every time she tried to tell her
grandmother, the latter always refused to believe her.
Regina finally reported the rape and was accompanied by her aunts to the
police. It took her so long to report because she was afraid. The accused
threatened to kill her should she tell anybody about those incidents.
RTC found the accused, Alejandro Atop, guilty of rape, sentencing him
to death penalty.
DISPOSITIVE
The SC affirmed and modified the lower court’s decision
FACTS (by prosecution)
- Private complainant, Regina Guafin, is the granddaughter of Trinidad Mejos.
Alejandro Atop is the common law husband of said Trinidad.
- Regina has stayed with Trinidad and Alejandro since childhood in Matag-ob,
Leyte
- Regina’s mother, daughter of Trinidad, lives in Pangasinan
- Sometime in 1991, when she 10 y/o the Alejandro started having lustful desire
on her.
o Alejandro inserted his finger into her vagina
o When she told Trinidad, the latter did not believe her and said that
Alejandro was just manifesting his fatherly concern
- Oct. 9, 1992 – She was called by Alejandro. When she approached him,
Alejandro rushed towards her, removed her panty and inserted his male organ
into her vagina
o She was not able to resist because he gagged her mouth and was
carrying a knife
o She told Trinidad, who came home from giving hilot, but the latter
refused to believe her
- 1993 – the same incident happened again: she was raped but her
grandmother did not believe her again
- Dec. 26, 1994 – Alejandro raped her again, gagged her mouth and carried a
knife
- Dec. 31, 1994 – While she was sleeping with her Aunt and 2 nieces, she
kicked Alejandro when he was about to lie on top of her. He then touched the
nieces but they kicked him also.
- Jan. 1, 1995 – Upon remembering that there were no classes, she went to her
grandfather, Zacarias Geva. Alejandro also arrived at the said house with
Rubilen Atop. Rubilen was about to box Zacarias but they went out of the
house immediately. Alejandro wanted to bring her back to their house so he
pulled her until they reached a waiting shed. Alejandro smashed her to the
concrete wall.
- Regina reported the rape and was accompanied by her aunts to the police. It
took her so long to report because she was afraid. The accused threatened to
kill her should she tell anybody about those incidents.
- Dr. Lomosco’s findings supported Regina’s testimony
Alibis
Sangalang:
- Denied the accusations of Regina and imputed ill motives upon her aunts,
daughters of Trinidad
- He said that Trinidad’s children became mad at him because their mother was
already old and he was still young
- Also, he said that he did not evade arrest by going out of Matag-ob because
he was working in Hideco as a labourer during that time
- Regina was just coached by her aunts because they wanted him and their
mother be separated
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the accused are guilty of rape
ACTIONS of the COURT
Regional Trial Court
- Found Alejandro Atop guilty of rape
- Sentenced the appellant to death, holding that his common-law relationship
with the victim's grandmother aggravated the penalty
Supreme Court
On Nocturnity
- The time-settled rule is that nocturnity, as an aggravating circumstance, must
have been deliberately sought by the offender to facilitate the crime or prevent
its discovery or evade his capture or facilitate his escape. The culprit must
134
 have purposely taken advantage of the cover of night as an indispensable counts of rape for which he was found GUILTY by the trial court, and is ordered to
factor to attain his criminal purpose. PAY Regina Guafin indemnity in the amount of P150,000 plus moral damages of
- The prosecution failed to prove this. They failed to show that Alejandro’s carnal P50,000.
designs were consummated at night
o Except on Dec. 26, 1994 where the incident happened at 11pm CONCUR: Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno,
Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Martinez, Quisumbing and Purisima, JJ.
On Relationship as aggravating circumstance
- The scope of relationship as defined by law encompasses (1) the spouse; (2)
an ascendant; (3) a descendant; (4) a legitimate, natural or adopted brother or NOTES:
sister; or (5) a relative by affinity in the same degree - See On Relationship as aggravating circumstance for the connection to the
o Relationship by affinity – in-laws, stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and topic
the like
- The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law
relations. No blood relationship or legal bond exists between appellant and
victim.
- This cannot be considered against Alejandro

On Death Penalty
- Sec. 11 Art. 355 of RPC:
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with
any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the
parent of the victim.
- Alejandro is not the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. He is the
common-law husband of the girl's grandmother.
- So Alejandro is not the victim’s "parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree."
- He should not be sentenced to death penalty

On Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence

- The Court disagrees with the appellant that the prosecution evidence was not
sufficient to prove his guilt
- Alejandro relies on Regina’s disparity: her sworn statement merely proves
acts of lasciviousness, while her testimony in court shows 3 counts of rape
- The Court: the crimes evidently committed by appellant on the aforestated
dates were consummated rapes, not merely acts of lasciviousness. Initially,
she hesitated to completely divulge her ravishment by appellant because of his
threats to kill her should she tell anybody of his assaults. With his arrest and
detention, she mustered the courage to finally and completely reveal her
embarrassing story.
- Appellant's contention that private complainant was merely induced by her
aunts is a trite defense that is completely undeserving of credit. For this would
bring scandal to the entire family.

SUPREME COURT RULING

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the
MODIFICATION that Appellant Alejandro Atop shall not suffer the penalty of death
but shall SERVE three (3) terms of reclusion perpetua, one for each of the three (3)

135
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE: DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in the conviction – NO

RATIO:
People v San Pedro The appellant confessed inability to dispute the facts in the information filed. Instead,
GR L-44274 | January 22, 1980 he only seeks resolution of questions of law.
Per Curiam
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Phils. ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance of craft is absorbed by treachery – NO
Accused-appellant: Luisito San Pedro, et al., Artemio Banasihan RATIO:
- Craft was employed not to make treachery more effective. It was directed
towards facilitating the taking of the jeep in the robbery scheme.
Nature of the case: Automatic review of the death penalty imposed by the Court of - The element of defense against bodily injury makes treachery proper only for
First Instance of Laguna. crimes against persons.

BRIEF ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance should be offset by the mitigating
On the pretext of hiring the jeep driven by the deceased Felimon Rivera to haul circumstance of lack of instruction – NO
coconuts, Luisito San Pedro, et al. approached the former and had him drive to Bo. RATIO:
Puypuy, Laguna. Rivera was ordered to stop, and was hit on the nape with a water 3. It would make no difference, because there are 2 aggravating
pipe. He jumped out of the jeep but was chased and stabbed at the back with a circumstances: treachery and craft.
dagger. The appellant admits these facts, and only raises questions of law, with 4. Lack of instruction (no read, no write) is not applicable to crimes of theft and
regard to the appreciation of modifying circumstances. robbery, much less to the crime of homicide because robbery and killing are,
by their nature, wrongful acts and are manifestly so equally to the
DISPOSITIVE “enlightened” and to the ignorant.
The RTC decision is affirmed.
RULING:
FACTS Affirms RTC ruling.
8. Felimon Rivera was the driver of a passenger jeep owned by Pablito delos
Reyes, a fruit vendor. He was murdered on June 2, 1970; his body was
found the same day.
9. The police authorities only found a lead on June 11, 1971, when Rodrigo
Esguerra (upon apprehension and questioning) admitted his participation
and named his companions.
10. Artemio Banasihan was apprehended in 1972. He recounted that 4 days
before the day of the incident, they all met and planned to get the jeep driven
by Rivera. Esguerra brought the water pipe wrapped in paper.
11. Upon reaching a river between the barrios of Mainit and Puypuy, San Pedro
ordered Rivera to stop driving. Esguerra gave a signal, and Salvador Litan
hit Rivera with a water pipe.
12. When Rivera jumped out of the jeep, he was chased by San Pedro and
Litan, and was stabbed several times in the back by the latter.
13. Esguerra drove the jeep to Makati, Rizal, wherein they were joined by
Nelson Piso and Antonio Borja. The jeep was brought to Cavite City where it
was sold for P2,000.
14. Piso went to Los Baños and gave San Pedro, Litan, Banasihan P50 each,
promising to give them the balance later on. This was not fulfilled.

ACTIONS OF THE COURT

Trial court
- Conviction of robbery with homicide, with a penalty of death
Supreme Court

136
PERSONS WHO INCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITY: PRINCIPALS
Art 17. Principals: those who 1) take direct part in the execution of the act; 2) directly
force/induce others to commit it; 3) cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been accomplished
People v Banzales
GR L-63260 | March 20, 1987
Ponente: Fernan
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Phils.
Accused-appellant: Murphy Banzales y Ilagan and Josephine Dialola
Nature of the case: Appeal from judgment of Court of First Instance (Lucena,
Quezon), convicting the accused with rape
BRIEF
At 3PM of June 17, 1982, Rosalina Ricafort, a then 17-year-old cosmetology student,
visited her elder half-sister Nida, who was then at the resthouse of the family-owned
resort in the Luzonian University. When she left, she took the shortcut leading to the
“burol,” which is a stopping place for jeepneys. While walking, Dialola approached her
and requested that they look for a boy who had died in that area, assuring her that
they would be safe since they were both girls. Soon after, Banzales emerged from
hiding and pinned her down.
DISPOSITIVE
The SC affirms the rape conviction, but does not appreciate the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender.
FACTS
Prosecution:
1. Rosalina visited her sister Nida at the resthouse in the Luzonian University
site. They exchanged pleasantries and “munched coconut meat.”
2. At around 4PM, Rosalina left for home and took the shortcut leading to an
uphill road (“burol”) where jeepneys stopped. This shortcut is a narrow
footpath in the middle of tall cogon grasses, thick underbrushes, trees and
bamboo groves.
3. Josephine Dialola approached her, requesting that they both look for a boy
who had died in there. She assured Rosalina that they would be safe since
they were both girls.
4. Dialola pulled her towards a thickly forested area, around 10m away from
where Murphy Banzales emerged from hiding. He grabbed Rosalina from
behind.
5. Dialola covered Rosalina’s mouth while Banzales pinned her down with his
thighs. He threatened to kill her if she shouted. He also boxed her on her
stomach, rendering her unconscious. When she came to, Banzales was
already on top of her, with his penis in her vagina.
6. She was rendered unconscious again. When she came to again, Dialola was
nowhere to be found, and Banzales was seated, facing the path for leaving
the area. He warned her that he would kill her parents if she reported the
matter to the police.
7. Rosalina called for Nida, and told her she was raped. Nida placed a blanket
around Rosalina, and brought her to the Quezon Memorial Hospital. Upon
examination, it was found that her vagina bore dark blood and traces of
sperm cells; coitus was obtained through force.
8. The police arrived and asked Rosalina for a description of her rapists. The
woman was of medium height with a high-bridge nose, wearing a green-
striped t-shirt, maong pants, and Adidas shoes. The man was quite fat, tall
with thick, curly hair and a protruding stomach. This led to the apprehension
of Dialola and Banzales.
Defense/Alibis:
Banzales (high school graduate, 24 years old, PUJ driver):
- On the day of the incident, he was on his Lucena City-university route.
- 4PM: he was at the marketplace picking up passengers
- Phil. Constabulary Sgt. Charlie Tolopia, a longtime acquaintance and
comrade of Banzales’s father, boarded his jeepney. They both talked for a
while at Madrid Street.
- He resumed driving at 5:20PM, and called it a day at 5:35PM, and had
drinks with another driver until 9:30PM at the house of an Aling Delia, at the
university site.
- He presented himself to deny involvement.
- Rosalina remained silent when the police asked her if Banzales was the one
who abused her.
Dialola (20 years old, jeepney conductress, reportedly a tomboy):
- From 9AM to 8:30PM, she was working as a conductress in the red
Tamaraw jeepney driven by Rolando Lopez. She made 12 complete trips,
each covering the same university site route being serviced by Banzales
(market  university).
- Declared that she had never seen Rosalina before.
- Witnesses: Rolando Lopez, Dionisio Diolalo (father)
ACTIONS OF THE COURT
Trial court
- Convicted Banzales as principal by direct participation;
- Convicted Dialola as principal by indispensable cooperation;
- With mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Supreme Court
ISSUE: WON Banzales and Dialola have been definitely identified by Rosalina – YES
RATIO:
1. The defense testimonies corroborating their alibis came from either a
relative, a close friend, or an associate. This leads the court to doubt the
testimonies’ veracity.
137
 2. Independently of these testimonies, the Court is convinced that Rosalina
was able to positively identify the appellants:
a. She had ample opportunity to recognize and remember her 2
attackers. She has seen them before.
b. She was raped in broad daylight.
c. Her identification of them was unwavering, even after being showed
another tomboy.
d. There was no physical impossibility on the appellants’ part to reach
the scene of the crime.

ISSUE: WON Dialola is equally liable – YES

RATIO: She cooperated in the perpetration of the rape by acts without which the
crime could not have been consummated.

ISSUE: WON voluntary surrender can be appreciated as mitigating circumstance –

NO
RATIO: They were picked up by the police; willingly going with the police does not
amount to voluntary surrender.

RULING: Affirms RTC, without voluntary surrender circumstance.

Penalty: reclusion perpetua, indemnification of P30,000

138
BENJAMIN ABEJUELA v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE COURT OF
APPEALS
August 19, 1991 | C.J. Fernan
Petitioner: Benjamin Abejuela
Respondents: People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals
NATURE
Petition for certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals.
DOCTRINE
In establishing the guilt of an alleged accomplice to a crime, it must be
proven first that he is aware of the criminal intent of the principal.
BRIEF
Petitioner is found guilty as an accomplice to the complex crime of estafa
through falsification of documents. However, the petitioner was unaware of
the illegal schemes of the principal perpetrator of the crime. He was only
deceived when his co-accused borrowed his passbook for the use of
depositing a withdrawing money. The Court held that the petitioner must be
acquitted because of reasonable doubt but is nonetheless civilly liable for the
non-exercise of prudence on his part.
FACTS
 Petitioner Abejuela is a businessman who had a savings deposit in Banco
Filipino Tacloban Branch. Sometime in April 1978, he was friended by
Glicerio Balo Jr., an employee of the same bank. They became close friends
and spent time dining, clubbing, and drinking together.
 On August 3, 1978, Balo went to Abejuela’s welding shop and asked if he
can borrow his passbook. Balo said that he wants to use it to deposit checks
from the proceeds of his father’s insurance policy in Banco Filipino but he is
prohibited to make an account there because he is an employee. Balo
reassured Abejuela that there is nothing wrong with his proposal.
 Abejuela reluctantly accepted Balo’s assurances. Starting from August 8,
1978, Balo deposited and withdrew money using Abejuela’s passbook.
During the month of August alone, the passbook reflected P176,145 worth of
deposits and P175,607 worth of withdrawals.
 Abejuela borrowed P20,000 from Balo on August 9 but he decided to pay it
on August 31 because he became apprehensive with Balo’s constant use of
his passbook.
 Abejuela closed his account and surrendered his passbook. The bank’s
accountant discovered discrepancies between the interest reconciliation and
the subsidiary ledger balance. He also noticed that Abejuela’s passbook
reflected four large deposits in August 1978 but the deposit slips could not
be found. They later found out it was Balo’s fault.
 Thereafter, the bank sued Abejuela and Balo. The trial court then ordered a
preliminary attachment against all properties of the accused.
 Balo was then reportedly killed by the NPA in the mountains of Samar on the
suspicion that he was a PC informer. The court dismissed the case against
him without prejudice to a civil action for damages.
PETITIONER
 He had no knowledge of the criminal intent of his co-accused thus he
cannot be convicted as an accomplice.
 He lent his passbook in good faith and he was also deceived by Balo.
Presumption of innocence must apply to him.
RESPONDENTS
 Petitioner is an intelligent individual who had knowledge of Balo’s
fraudulent acts.
 He must be convicted as a principal to the crime since his cooperation
was indispensable to its commission.
ACTIONS OF THE COURT
Trial Court
 Petitioner convicted as an accomplice in the complex crime of estafa thru
falsification of a commercial document.
Court of Appeals
 Affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto.
Supreme Court
 Acquitted Abejuela due to reasonable doubt but held him civilly liable.
ISSUE: WON the petitioner is an accomplice to the complex crime of estafa (NO)
RATIO
 The Court is convinced that Abejuela did not have knowledge of Balo’s
schemes.
o Abejuela was deceived by Balo’s statement that he needs to
deposit his father’s insurance claims.
o Abejuela’s acquisence is understandable because of friendship.
o The Court also takes notice that even without the passbook, Balo
can still post the false deposits as long as he knew the account
number.
 Since their is no criminal intent on the part of Abejuela, he must be
acquitted. The prosecution was unable to sufficiently establish guilt of
Abejuela.
ISSUE: WON the petitioner can be held civilly liable (YES)
RATIO
 Abejuela failed to exercise prudence. Although he could not have known
the criminal workings of Balo, he nevertheless contributed to the eventual
consummation of the crime.
RULING: Petition GRANTED. Petitioner acquitted of the complex crime of estafa
through falsification of commercial documents but is still civilly liable.
139
ACCOMPLICES
RPC Article 18: Accomplices
Accomplices ware the persons who, not begin included in Article
17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts.
People v Doctolero et al.
GR 34386 | February 2, 1991
Ponente: Regalado
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Doctolero et al.
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of multiple murder and slight physical injuries
BRIEF
Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio Doctolero went to the house of the Marcial
Sagun where Ludovico then hacked Lolita Guzman Oviedo (+), Epifania
Escosio(+), and Jonathan Oviedo with a bolo. The first 2 died. Afterwards,
they met Marcelo Doctolero (+) on the road, who they also then attacked
with bolos.
DISPOSITIVE
Trial Court found Ludovico Doctolero guilty as principal, and Conrado and
Virgilio Doctolero as accomplices in committing the crime of murder, and
inflicting slight physical injuries. Ludovico withdrew his appeal, and Virgilio
died before the Supreme Court could give its decision.
SC modified the decision of the trial court, adjusting slight physical injuries to
less serious physical injuries, the rest of the decision was held.
FACTS/ Witness statements (marked with *)
- *6:30 pm, Nov. 8, 1970: Marcial and Maria Sagun, and Antonio Oviedo and
his wife Lolita de Guzman, were walking home. They met Ludovico who,
without warning, grabbed Marcial by the shoulder and struck him with a bolo.
The two struggled. Lolita ran away.
- *Marcial and Maria went to Marcelo Doctolero’s (uncle of the accused) house
to tell him what happened
- *Around this time, Paciencia Sagun (sister of Marcial) then saw the three
accused throwing stones at the house of Marcial, shouting for her brother to
come out. She then saw them go up the house
- The three accused killed Epifania Escosia (adopted mother of Paciencia) and
Lolita with their bolos, inflicting injuries on the child Jonathan (Lolita’s child) as
he breastfed from Lolita
- The three left the house and walked towards the road
- They met Marcelo who tried to talk with them, but was hacked with bolos.
Marcelo died on the way to the hospital.
- Sgt. Delfin Ronquillo personally conducted the investigation immediately after
and examined the crime scene. He testified pn the results of his investigation
Alibi/ Accused’s version
- When Ludovico met Marcial, Maria, Antonio and Lolita, Antonio suddenly
swung his bolo at him.
- He unsheated his bolo, and Marcial also unsheated his. As they were eyeing
each other, the women were hitting him with pieces of wood
- He left as he knew he couldn’t fight both Antonio and Marcial
- He went to Marcial’s house to ask where he was. Epifania told him the Marcial
had left the she hit him at the back of his neck. He saw darkness (nandilim ang
kanyang paningin -_- ) and he hacked at her with his bolo
- He went out to look for Marcial and hid in fear of ambush. He then saw
someone approach and saw Marcelo, who then hit him with a stick. Marcelo
unsheated his bolo and insisted Ludovico to do the same. Ludovico then
hacked at him several times.
- Conrado claimed that he was not at the scene of the crime
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the witnesses were credible (Yes)
- Whether or not Conrado was an accomplice (Yes)
ACTIONS of the COURT
Trial Court
- Ruled that Ludovico acted as principal and Conrado and Virgilio as
accomplices in the murder of Marcelo Doctolero, Epifania Escosio and Lolita
de Guzman Oviedo. Ludovico was sentenced to 3 life imprisonments, plus
additional penalty for inflicting slight physical injuries on Jonathan
- Conrado and Virgilio were sentenced to 10 to 17 years of imprisonment, plus
penalty for inflicting slight physical injuries
- All were ordered to indemnify the heirs
- Antonio Doctolero was acquitted
Supreme Court
- Witnesses were credible
o When there are no evidences indicating that witnesses had improper
motives, then the testimony is entitled to full faith
 There were no evidences proving that Pacencia, Maria and Sgt.
Ronquillo had improper motives
 Sgt. Ronquillo merely reported his findings
 Pacencia used to be friends with Ludovico
 Maria had no reason to implicate Conrado and Virgilio
- Conrado and Virgilio acted as accomplices
o Conrado’s claim was not corroborated by evidence
 His denial of participation cannot overthrow positive identification
and witness testimonies
o The two cannot claim that they were unaware of Ludovico’s actions
 They were with Ludovico when they hurled stones at the house
 The number of wounds on the victims show that it was impossible
for the two not to have heard the contact of the bolo with the
bodies or the cries of pain
 They knew what was going and merely stood by as their brother
murdered the women
140
  Their presence gave Ludovico encouragement and reliance to
proceed
o The accused’s contention that they did not know Ludovico’s intention is
not an excuse
 One can be an accomplice even if he did not know the actual
crime intended but was aware that it was an illicit act
 They knew that murdering the women was illicit, so even if
they did not know Ludovico’s intention, they were still
accomplices.
o Torrefiel and Ormeo were positively identified
o Exertion of force or violence is implied in rape
- ALSO: Jonathan required medical attention for 15 days, thus the liability is not
slight physical injuries, but less serious p.i.

SUPREME COURT RULING

Court MODIFIED the decision of the trial court: Conrado was sentenced to 3
sentences from 10 yrs of prision mayor to 17 years 4mos of reclusion temporal- each
for the death of Epifania Escosio, Lolita de Guzman and Marcelo Doctolero, and a
penalty of 20 days of aresto menor for less serious physical injuries on Jonathan
Oviedo, plus indemnities for each set of heirs of the deceased.
- Virgilio Doctolero’s civil liability still stands despite his death thus he is still
liable to compensate the victims
- The increase the death indemnity was increased by the court, it will not apply
to Ludovico as he withdrew his appeal thus the judgement rendered by the trial
court to him was final and executory.
-
Concur: Melencio-Herrera (CJ), Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento

141
ACTS and OMISSION
People v Talingdan
GR No. L-32126 | July 6, 1978
Ponente: per curiam
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: Nemesio Talingdan, Magella Tobias, Augusto Berras, Pedro
Bides, Teresa Domogma
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of murder, and the sentence of life imprisonment
BRIEF
Teresa Domogma and Bernardo Bagabag’s relationship has been beset by
troubles- Teresa even leaving the family home for a number of times. She
had also been twice visited by Talingdan in her own home, each time she
made her daughter, Corazon, leave them. Bernardo then found out that
Teresa was seen with Talingdan during the last time she left home.
Bernardo and Teresa got into a fight, with Bernardo slapping her, after which
Talingdan went to their house and called for Bernardo to come out.
Sometime later, Corazon saw her mother talking with Talingdan and their co-
appellants. A few days later, Bernardo was gunned down.
DISPOSITIVE
The Court ruled that Talingdan, Tobias, Berras, and Bides were guilty of
murder, with aggravating circumstances of premeditation and committing the
offense in the house of the victim, and Teresa Domogma as guilty for being
an accessory to the crime.
FACTS
- Bernardo found out that the last time Teresa left their house for three weeks,
she was spotted with Talingdan. They argued, ending with him slapping her
and saying that if she gets pregnant, the child would not be his
- Talingdan went to their house and called out Bernardo, Bernardo refused to
see him as the former was armed
- The following Friday morning as Corazon saw her mother with the co-
appellants, she approached them; when Teresa saw her, she said “You tell
your father that we will kill him”
- On the evening of June 24, 1967 Corazon saw her mother go to the yard
where the appellants were waiting, she noted that they had long guns.
- After being called to eat, Teresa went to her room, and Bernardo kept working
on a plow.
- Corazon told her father about the men downstairs, but he didn’t mind her, he
then went to the kitchen and sat by the door. He was shot from below the stairs
- The appellants went inside and seeing that Bernardo was still alive, fired at him
again
- When Corazon tried to call for help, Bides told her “You call for help, and I will
kill you”. They fled
- Corazon told Teresa that she recognized the killers, Teresa told her not to tell
anyone, threatening to kill her if she did so
- Corazon somehow was able to tell her relatives and executed a sworn
statement on August 5, 1967
- On the other hand, Teresa said that her husband’s relatives had simply forced
the child to say these as they hold a grudge against her because Bernardo
would not give them their earnings, nor would Teresa give them the tools her
brother sent her from the States
- Teresa also said that she only knew Talingdan because they were neighbors.
Alibis
- Talingdan: was in a cursillo in Bangued that time
- Tobias,etc: was in Mrs. Bayongan’s house, sleeping
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellants are guilty of Bernardo’s murder
ACTIONS of the COURT
Abra Court of First Instance (or Regional Trial Court)
- Convicted the appellants, except for Teresa, of murder with the sentence of life
imprisonment and indemnity of Php12,000
- Teresa could not be charged of parricide because of lack of proof
(Court of Appeals, if any)
Supreme Court
- The court fully believes Corazon’s testimony
- The accepts her declaration of her mother’s relationship with Talingdan as
truthful
- The court doubts her statement that her mother told her “You tell your father
we will kill him”
o If this was true, she would have told him
- The court concludes that the appellants committed murder in conspiracy with
each other, with premeditation and in the dwelling of the offended party. 14
On Corazon’s reliability
- Appellants insist that there were contradictions in Corazon’s statement (in
italics.); Sol Gen rebutted these and stated that these cannot alter the veracity
of her witnessing the act itself:
o That Corazon said that her father appeared unconcerned
 Witness does not know her father’s mentality
o That she declared that the accused were conversing in a lighted place
that night
 This only proves that the accused were too engrossed in their
conversation, unmindful of the risk of recognition
o That Bides and Berras did not fire their guns
 This does not alter their culpability
o That only three bullets found their mark
 This simply proves that not all the accused were good shots
14
Aggravating circumstances: see RPC Article 14
142
 o That her father was still able to walk despite the doctor’s declaration that
the death was instantaneous
 Doctor’s view can yield to Corazon’s statements
- At her age (13), Corazon could not have simply created such a story
o She was also consistent and firm with her testimony and her answers
o Court rejects that it was fabrication or that she was brainwashed
- PREMEDITATION: when the appellants were conspiring with each other to kill
Bernardo as shown by their frequent meetings before the act
- AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
o Art. 14, par. 3: …or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation Art. 14, par. 13: That the act
be committed with evident premeditation

On alibis
- Talingdan: was in a cursillo in Bangued that time
o He claimed the cursillo was on June 23-26, 1967
o A municipal Judge and member of the cursillo movement, as witness, said
that the cursillo was on October 20-23 1966
o Judge’s testimony belies Talingdan’s

- Tobias,etc: was in Mrs. Bayongan’s house, sleeping

o They were sleeping at 8:00pm, the crime happened between 6-6:30pm
o The house was only 250m away, they could have simply returned
after killing Bernardo

On Teresa’s participation
- There is morally convincing proof that she is an accessory
- She enjoined her daughter from revealing the latter knew who the killers were;
even threatening to kill the child if she tells anyone
- When the peace officers were investigating, she did not help them with the
information given by Corazon
- These constitute “concealing and assisting in the escape of the principal
in the crime”15

SUPREME COURT RULING (starting from WHEREFORE..)

The court found the appellants Talingdan, Tobias, Berras and Bides guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of murder with two aggravating circumstances, without
mitigating circumstance, thereby each sentenced to death to be executed in
accordance to law.
Teresa Domogma is found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
accessory to the murder, sentenced to 5 years in correctional prison as minimum,
8 years of prison mayor as maximum
Judgment of the Trial court is AFFIRMED.

CONCUR: Barredo, Munoz-Palma, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez,

Guerrero

NOTES: (Connection to the subtopic)

- OMISSION: Teresa not giving information regarding the crime
o Art. 19, par. 3 (Accessories): by harbouring, concealing or assisting in
the escape of the principal of the crime.
- ACT: the act of killing Bernardo

15
RPC Article 19, par.3

143