THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 164266 : July 23, 2008]

NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR y DE LEON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

Facts:

Spouses Ernesto and Margarita Zuñiga had three daughters, namely: Marianne, Mary Ann and the victim Arlene. Mary Ann was
married to the petitioner herein. The Zuñiga family, including Mary Ann and the petitioner were living together at 550 Coloong I,
Valenzuela City.

Their residence had three bedrooms - one for the Zuñiga spouses; the other for Marianne and Arlene; and the last for Mary Ann
and the petitioner.

On September 20, 1997, the Zuñiga spouses, together with Marianne, went to Bulacan to attend the wake of Ernesto's mother;
while Mary Ann with her new born child, and Arlene, stayed at their Valenzuela home. Petitioner, at that time, asked permission to
attend a birthday... party.

At about 9:00 in the evening, petitioner, accompanied by Eduardo Palomares, returned home to get some karaoke tapes to be used
at the birthday party. They thereafter went back to the party and stayed there until 12 midnight before heading back home.

At 4:30 in the morning, the following day, the Zuñiga spouses and Marianne arrived home. They opened the main door which was
then locked. After preparing for sleep, Marianne proceeded to the room which she was sharing with Arlene. There she saw Arlene,
who... suffered stab wounds, already dead. After seeing Arlene's body, the Zuñiga spouses rushed to the room of Mary Ann and
the petitioner. While Mary Ann proceeded to Arlene's room, petitioner stayed at the sala and cried. He was later seen embracing
Mary Ann... and telling her that he was innocent.

At around 5:00 in the morning, police investigators arrived. The police found no forcible entry into the house; no valuables were
missing; and no bloodstains in other parts of the house except Arlene's room. They likewise discovered, on top of the kitchen
table,... petitioner's underwear (briefs), gray t-shirt and short pants.[7] They further found hair strands on Arlene's bed. These
pieces of evidence were brought to the laboratory for examination.

On September 21, 1997, Dr. Noel Minay (Dr. Minay), a medico-legal of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an
autopsy of the deceased.[8] He found that Arlene suffered 21 stab wounds produced by a pointed instrument, one side of which...
was sharp like a balisong or a kitchen knife. He further declared the possibility that Arlene struggled with the assailant before she
died.[9]

The NBI Forensic Biologist also examined petitioner's briefs, t-shirt and short pants, and found that the briefs and shirt were
positive of type "O" human blood, Arlene's blood type.[10] The NBI Forensic Chemist, subsequently, conducted DNA Analysis on
the... following specimens:

One (1) dirty white Hanford brief[s];

One (1) light gray t-shirt with DKNY print infront;

Several strands of hair allegedly recovered in the bedroom of [the] victim;

Buccal swabs taken from the following:

ERNESTO ZUÑIGA (victim's father)

MARGARITA ZUÑIGA (victim's mother)

NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR (suspect)[11]

The examination of specimen no. 1 yielded a negative result for the presence of human DNA; while specimen nos. 2, 3, and 4 a-c,
yielded positive results.[12]

Petitioner was thus charged with Homicide in

Issues:

All the circumstances must be consistent with one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the
same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent. Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld,
provided that... the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that
points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person

Held:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 26, 2004
in CA-G.R. CR No. 26048 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner Nover Bryan Salvador y De Leon is hereby... sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. In addition to civil indemnity and moral... damages, petitioner is
ordered to pay spouses Ernesto and Margarita Zuñiga the sum of P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

[ GR No. 103119, Oct 21, 1992 ]

SULPICIO INTOD v. CA +

DECISION

Facts:

In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador
Mandaya's house... and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan.

Thereafter, Mandaya and

Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be
killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be
killed.

At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day,... Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived
at Palangpangan's house, At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location... of Palangpangan's bedroom.
Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out; however, that Palangpangan was in another
City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the... shots.
No one was hit by the gun fire.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder.

Petitioner seeks from this Court a modification of the judgment by holding him liable only for an impossible... crime

Issues:

Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and his companions riddled it with bullets made
the crime inherently impossible.

Held:

The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, recognizes in the offender his formidability,[7] and... now penalizes an
act which were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove inadequate, would constitute a
felony against person or against property.[8] The rationale of Article 4(2) is to... punish such criminal tendencies.

To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of... accomplishment.[11]
There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act[12] in order to qualify the
act as an impossible... crime.

Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime.[13] Thus:

Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where (1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation
of the law; (2) there is intention to perform the physical act; (3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the...
consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime.

The impossibility of killing a person already dead[15] falls in this category.

On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent
the consummation of the intended crime.[16] One example is the man who puts his hand in the coat... pocket of another with the
intention to steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.

The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner shoots the place where he thought his victim would be, although in reality, the
victim was not present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end.

In the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code, in Article 4(2), expressly provided for impossible crimes and made them punishable.
WE hereby hold Petitioner guilty of an impossible crime 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.

Principles:

The rationale of Article 4(2) is to... punish such criminal tendencies

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 79123-25 January 9, 1989

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EMELIANO TRINIDAD, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused-appellant.

Facts: Lolito Soriano is a fish dealer. His helpers were Ricardo Tan and Marcial Laroa. While
the three were driving on their way to Davao City to sell fish, accused Emeliano Trinidad asked
for a ride to Agusan del Norte. Tan, the driver at that time, suddenly heard two gunshots --
Soriano and Laroa slumped dead for both were hit on the head. Trinidad had used his carbine in
killing the two victims. Tan was able to get off the car and hail a jeepney passing by. However,
he noticed that Trinidad was also seated at the back of the said jeepney. Tan immediately got
off the jeepney, followed by Trinidad. When the jeepney started to drive away, Tan suddenly
clung to its side, but Trinidad fired two shots, one of which hit Tan on his right thigh. Tan jumped
from the jeep and fortunately a Philippine Constabulary member chanced upon him and helped
him board a bus for Butuan. Trinidad was charged with FRUSTRATED murder in relation to the
shooting of Tan.

Issues: W/N Trinidad is correct in contending that he can only be convicted of attempted
murder? YES

Held: Trinidad should only be held criminally liable for attempted murder.

Ratio: Trinidad 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, and there was a spare tire which shielded the other parts of his body.

Moreover, the wound on his thigh was not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound
inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only ATTEMPTED murder,
the accused not having performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about the
death (citing, People v. Pilones)

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G. R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007

ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y NATIVIDAD, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON. COURT OF APPEALS NACHURA, respondents.

DECISION

Facts:

While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push
cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the
supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the boxes of
detergent inside. As the taxi was about to leave the security guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandise. The accused reacted by
fleeing on foot, but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of
consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was
not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the
Supreme Court.
Issue:

Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.

Held:

No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be present – (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property
belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that
the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidating of persons or force upon things. The court held that theft is
produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable to
freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already
ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 129577-80. February 15, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BULU CHOWDURY, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

Facts
Bulu Chowdury was charged with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale by recruiting Estrella B. Calleja, Melvin C.
Miranda and Aser S. Sasis for employment in Korea. Evidence shows that accused –appellant interviewed private complainant in
1994 at Craftrade’s office, and required them to submit requirements such as passport, NBI clearance, ID pictures, medical
certificate and birth certificate. Chowdury also required them to pay placements fee for a certain amount. At that time, he was an
interviewer of Craftrade which was operating under temporary authority given by POEA pending the renewal of license. He was
charged based on the fact that he was not registered with the POEA as employee of Craftrade and he is not in his personal
capacity, licensed to recruit overseas workers. The complainants also averred that during their applications for employment for
abroad, the license of Craftrade was already expired.
For his defense Chowdury testified that he worked as interviewer at Craftrade from 1990 until 1994. His primary duty was
to interview job applicants for abroad. As a mere employee, he only followed the instructions given by his superiors, Mr. Emmanuel
Geslani, the agency's President and General Manager, and Mr. UtkalChowdury, the agency's Managing Director.
The trial Court found Chowdury huilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.

Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant knowingly and intentionally participated in the commission of the crime charged.

Held
No. The elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are:

(1) The accused undertook any recruitment activity defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice enumerated under
Article 34 of the Labor Code;
(2) He did not have the license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) He committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

The last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) 804219 states who shall be held liable for the offense, thus: “The
persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the
officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.”
 An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his
employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. The culpability of the employee therefore
hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was
merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally
liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer.
In this case, Chowdury merely performed his tasks under the supervision of its president and managing director. The
prosecution failed to show that the accused-appellant is conscious and has an active participation in the commission of the crime of
illegal recruitment. Moreover, accused-appellant was not aware of Craftrade's failure to register his name with the POEA and the
prosecution failed to prove that he actively engaged in recruitment despite this knowledge. The obligation to register its personnel
with the POEA belongs to the officers of the agency. A mere employee of the agency cannot be expected to know the legal
requirements for its operation. The accused-appellant carried out his duties as interviewer of Craftrade believing that the agency
was duly licensed by the POEA and he, in turn, was duly authorized by his agency to deal with the applicants in its behalf. Accused-
appellant in fact confined his actions to his job description. He merely interviewed the applicants and informed them of the
requirements for deployment but he never received money from them. Chowdury did not knowingly and intentionally participated in
the commission of illegal recruitment being merely performing his task and unaware of illegality of recruitment.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. L-51206 August 25, 1989

NORBERTO MASIPEQUINA and JOVENCIO ALAMPAYAN, petitioners,

vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Facts
In the afternoon of December 21, 1976, Barangay Capt. Nicolas Potane of Barrio Abehilan San Isidro, Bohol and his father,
Pedro Potane requested assistance from the Police Sub-station Commander of San Isidro in apprehending Leopoldo Potane,
son of Pedro Potane and elder brother of Nicolas, who has begun to show signs of recurring insanity. On December 18, 1975,
Leopoldo chased the wife of Nicolas with a bolo and almost hacked her. He always carried a bolo, and had threatened his own
wife, daughter, brothers, and even his parents with death.

Pat. Masipequina went up the house followed by Nicolas Potane. Patrolman Jovencio Alampayan and the rest stayed in the yard
Although in the yard, Patrolman Alampayan could see what was going on inside the house because it was a single storey house
and had an elevation of only 4 feet. Nicolas stayed on the door landing while Masipequina entered the sala and was about to sit
down on a rocking chair when Leopoldo suddenly emerged from an adjacent room and rushed at him swinging a bolo.
Masipequina pushed the rocking chair towards Leopoldo. Leopoldo hit Masipequina on the bridge of the nose. As the latter
retracted, he lost his balance and was hit on the right side of his face. At this juncture, Masipequina drew his revolver and fired
three shots. One shot misfired but the other two hit Leopoldo on the chest. Leopoldo continued to advance towards him. He
pushed the rocking chair at Leopoldo and ran out of the house shouting for help. Leopoldo ran after him. Pat. Masipequina
jumped from the house and landed on the ground. In the process he hit his shin on a piece of stone. Leopoldo also jumped to the
ground and continued to pursue Masipequina. As Leopoldo poised to hack Pat.
Masipequina, Pat. Alampayan fired his gun hitting Leopoldo once at the thigh.

Leopoldo Potane died some thirty (30) minutes later while being brought to the health center for treatment.

Issue
Whether or not petitioners had acted in lawful self-defense.

Held
The law on self-defense embodied in any penal system in the civilized world finds justification in man's natural instinct to protect,
 repel, and save his person and rights from impending danger and peril; it is based on that impulse of self-preservation born to
man and part of his nature as a human being.

The means employed by Masipequina in repelling the attack were, under the circumstances, both reasonable and necessary.
He initially tried to defend himself by pushing the rocking chair toward Leopoldo Potane but when that proved futile and he
(Masipequina) was caught in a very precarious position, i.e., his back was on the floor and Leopoldo Potane kept flailing at him
with the bolo, he had no other choice but to use his revolver to defend himself against the attack. Under the circumstances,
there was no opportunity for Masipequina to carefully take aim. He just discharged his weapon at the deceased in the hope that
such would save him from any further injury or death.

After the elements of self-defense had been established to exculpate petitioners from the charge of homicide, the next question
that arises, albeit only incidentally, is whether or not Alampayan could be separately convicted of the lesser offense of less
serious or slight physical injuries for the gunshot wound he inflicted on Leopoldo Potane's thigh. The elements of defense of
stranger which are: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) the
person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. All these elements are present in this case.

The petition is GRANTED. Petitioners Patrolmen Norberto Masipequina and Jovencio Alampayan are ACQUITTED of the crime
charged.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 182835 April 20, 2010

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

DECISION

Facts:

After receiving from the accused Rustan via multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with her face
superimposed on the figure, Complainant filed an action against said accused for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act or Republic Act (R.A.) 9262.

The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan used. Irish surmised
that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003. The accused said to have boasted that
it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of her and threatened to spread the picture he sent through the
internet.

The trial court later found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. On Rustan’s appeal to the Court of Appeals
(CA), the latter rendered a decision affirming the RTC decision. The CA denied Rustan’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution
dated April 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan filed the present for review on certiorari.

Issue:Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case?

Held:Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA.

Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be
authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M.
01-7-01-SC).
However, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture for the first time before the Supreme Court. The
objection is too late since he should have objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in
evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection.

Moreover, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil
actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings.

In conclusion, the Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable
doubt.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6082. March 18, 1911.]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ISIDRO VICENTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.G.R. No. L-6082

Facts:
Vicentillo, a policeman was found guilty by the lower court of "illegal and arbitrary detention" of the complaining witness for a period of three
days, and sentenced to pay a fine of 625 pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of the trial.
Three days were expended in the detention , but it was conclusively proven at the trial that at the time of the arrest neither the local justice of
the peace nor his auxiliary were in the municipality, and to reach the justice of the peace of either of the two adjoining municipalities, it was
necessary to take a long journey by boat.
Issue:
FAILING TO PERFORM AN ACT WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE

Held:
The judgment of conviction of the lower court must therefore be reversed, unless the evidence discloses that having made the arrest, the
defendant arbitrarily and without legal authority, as it is alleged, cause the complaining witness to be detained for a period of three days
without having him brought before the proper judicial authority for the investigation and trial of the charge on which he was arrested. But so
far as we can gather from the record in this case the arrested man was in fact brought before a justice of the peace as soon as "practicable"
after his arrest.
The judgment of the lower court convicting and sentencing the defendant is reversed and he is hereby acquitted.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
 THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 168997 April 13, 2007

GREGORIO PELONIA, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

Facts:
On the evening of 17 August 1986, the deceased, Ignacio Nacilla, along with Winefredo Bustamante, Monico
Betarmos, and Boy Domondon, went to the barrio of Tawan-Tawan, Davao City to attend fiesta..

Boy Guhiling, one of the CHDF, invited them to have supper at the house of Gregorio Pelonia, The accused prepared
the table, set it for dining, laid the food on it and called the group into the sala to enjoy what he had offered.

The deceased, remained seated and declared that his was not to eat but to kill because he had a long-standing grudge
against the accused. the accused rushed to his room to get his rifle. Betarmos and Bustamante heard the cocking of a
gun. Betarmos told the deceased that they had to but the deceased refused to leave and said that he would not fight
back and would just let himself be killed. The accused returned to the sala and fired a warning shot and ordered the
deceased to go. The deceased declared, "I will not go down if nobody is killed.". The accused shot the deceased with
his rifle.[4]
Petitioner interposed self-defense.

Issue: WON Gregorio Pelonia is convicted for the crime murder and would his claim for Self Defense would be
granted?

Held:

1. No. The Accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty from six (6) years of prision correccional, as
minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.

2. No., His claim for self-defense was denied because when he interposes self-defense, he hereby admits having
caused the injuries of the victim, the confluence of the essential requisites for such a defense, namely: (a)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed and to prevent
or repel it; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The accused
must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the prosecution's, it cannot be disbelieved after the
accused has admitted the killingPetitioner failed to discharge his burden.

WHEREFORE, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17476 are AFFIRMED
WITH MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner Gregorio Pelonia is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Homicide under
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty from six (6) years
of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as
maximum. The assailed Decision and Resolution are hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.

SO ORDERED

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
 EN BANC

G.R. No. L-25177 October 31, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NICOLAS LAYSON, CEZAR RAGUB, CEZAR
FUGOSO and JOVENTINO GARCES, Defendants-Appellants.

Facts: In the early morning, at about 4:45 o'clock, the four accused, armed with bladed weapons, entered the cell where the
unsuspecting victim, prisoner Regino Gasang, was then Layson locked the door and Without warning they swiftly took turns in
stabbing Gasang. They refused to surrender to the trustees who had come to the scene of the crime, agreeing to surrender only to
Vicente Afurong, the supervising prison guard. Afurong arrived, identified himself, and assured them of their safety, whereupon
they handed their weapons through the hole of the barricaded door and surrendered themselves.

Gasang’s Death was caused by severe internal and external hemorrhage and shock, all secondary to multiple stab wounds.

Layson, Ragub and Fugoso admitted that they killed Gasang because the latter urinated on their coffee cups a number of
times. Garces stated that he killed Gasang because the latter spat on him a week before. The four plotted to kill Gasang a few days
prior to the actual slaying.

Issue: WON Nicolas Layson, Cezar Ragub, Cezar Fugoso and Joventino Garces should be penalized w/ Death penalty with
indemnification?

Held:

Yes. the judgment a quo imposing the death penalty on Nicolas Layson, Cezar Ragub, Cezar Fugoso and Joventino Garces, is
affirmed. The indemnification to the heirs of the victim, Regino, Gasang, is hereby increased to P12,000,to be paid jointly and
severally by the four accused. Costs de oficio.

Ruling:

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of murder, defined and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty in favor of all of them and
the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and having been previously punished for two or more crimes to which the law attaches a
lighter penalty with respect to the accused Nicolas Layson and Cezar Ragub, the aggravating circumstance of having been punished
with two or more offenses to which the law attaches a lighter penalty with respect to the
accused Cezar Fugoso and Joventino Garces and the aggravating circumstances consisting of any two of the qualifying circumstances
alleged in the information which are treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength for one is sufficient to qualify
the crime to murder and the special aggravating circumstance of having committed the crime charged while serving the penalty
imposed upon them for previous offenses as regards all the accused and conformably with Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code,
hereby sentences all of them to DEATH.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 76338-39 February 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RENATO TAC-AN Y HIPOS, accused-appellant.

Facts:
- Respondent Renato Tac-an (18) and deceased victim Francis Ernest Escano III (15) were
classmates in the third year of high school of Divine Word College in Tagbilaran City. They used
to be close friends, being members of the same Bronx gang, until Francis withdrew from the gang
and their friendship turned sour thereafter.

- At 2pm of 14 December 1984, Renato entered Room 15 of their high school building to attend
English III class, where Francis is also a classmate. Renato had placed a scrapbook he prepared
for their next Mathematics class on his chair while he approached their English III teacher (Mrs.
Liliosa Baluma) to raise a question. Upon returning to his chair, Renato then saw Francis sitting
on the said scrapbook which angered him that he promptly kicked the chair where the latter was
seated. Francis explained that he had not intentionally sat down on Renato’s scrapbook. A
fistfight would have ensued if not for the intervention of their classmates and two teachers (Mrs.
Baluma and Mr. Pasilbas). When the teo had calmed down and had shaked hands, Mrs. Baluma
resumed her class.
- Subsequently, Renato slipped out of the classroom in the middle of their English III class to go
home and get a gun. The next Math class under Mr. Pasilbas started when Renato suddenly
burst into the room, shut the door and shouted “Where is Francis?”. Upon seeing Francis, Renato
fired four times before it hit the victim on the head and fell to the floor.
- After having shot Francis, Renato was found alone outside Room 15 when a teacher (Mr. Pablo
Baluma), unaware that the latter was the killer, asked if he could help Francis who was still alive
inside the room. Renato thereupon re-entered Room 15, aimed at the chest of Francis and fired
once more.
- Thereafter, Renato proceeded to the faculty room where he held hostages some teachers and
students, and reloaded his gun. Philippine Constabulary troopers led by Capt. Lazo arrived and
surrounded the faculty room.
- After some time, Renato’s father and brother pleaded for his surrender. Renato then turned over
his gun to his brother while Capt. Lazo placed Renato under arrest.
- The teachers and students afterwards rushed Frances to Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital
where the he was pronounced dead on arrival.

- On 14 December 1984, RTC of Tagbilaran City held respondent Renato Tac-an guilty beyond
reasonable doubt to the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions qualified with
Murder to suffer a penalty of death. Respondent was also held guilty beyond reasonable doubt to
the crime of Murder, appreciating aggravating circumstances of acting: 1) while under the
influence of drugs, 2) with the use of an unlicensed firearm, and 3) with insult to a person in
authority, to also suffer a penalty of death.

Issue: WON the crime was committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities?

Held:
No. Court held its disagreement that a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school may
be regarded as a “public authority” within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 14 (Aggravating
Circumstances) if the RPC.
Careful reading of the last paragraph of Article 152 of the RPC (Persons in authority abd agents of
persons in authority) will show that while a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school is
deemed to be a “person in authority”, such teacher or professor is so deemed only for purposes of
application of Articles: 148 (Direct Assault upon a person in authority), and 151 (Resistance and
Disobedience to a person in authority of the agents of such person) of the RPC.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. L-69317 May 21, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
DANILO BADILLA Y OÑES alias DODONG, accused-appellant.

Facts: "The first witness of the prosecution was Ruth Torrefranca, 10 years old, who testified that on in the morning
of July 18, 1984, she was in their house at Calceta Street, Tagbilaran City together with her
aunt Nestora Horohoro. The owner of the house where they live is Praxedes Quidang who at that time was in
Manila. In the afternoon somebody informed her of the incident that happened to her aunt Horohoro but Before that
incident when she returned home at 11:00am Nestora Horohoro and Danilo Badilla were with them. When she
arrived home she noticed that the radio cassette and rota air Electric fan were already gone and that Nestora was
already dead .
On cross-examination she declared that before the death of Nestora Horohoro on July 18, 1984, he (sic)
saw Danilo Badilla the accused visit the house of Praxedes Quidang three times. However, she did not know the
reason why Danilo Badilla visited Nestora Horohoro because at that time she did not know yet that the accused is a
relative of Nestora Horohoro.
The appellant's reason for stabbing the victim is that "when he saw that his finger was bleeding because of the bite
of Nestora Horohoro's teeth, he felt so obfuscated so he held his knife and stabbed Nestora Horohoro". The more
believable reason is the appellant's craving for the radio cassette recorder and the electric fan and his willingness to
get them from the appellant whatever the means or cost. The testimony of the appellant, therefore, was only an
attempt to cover-up his plan to get the two items as he did not even make mention of an electric fan to be borrowed
from the deceased.

The homicide then, was committed as a consequence of or on occasion of the robbery.

It is evident that robbery was committed. Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code states:
"Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence
against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery."
It has been held that in robbery with homicide, the robbery itself must be proven, otherwise, the accused may be
convicted only for the killing, homicide or murder as the case may be. (People v. Repuela, et al., G.R. No. 85178,
March 15, 1990). In the case at bar, the fact of robbery has been established.

We find that such mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in this case. The intention of the appellant was
clearly manifested in his overt acts as the victim suffered at least eighteen (18) stab wounds and multiple lacerated
wounds plus abrasions and other injuries.

Issue: WON the accused is guilty of special complex crime of robbery w/ homicide w/ mitigating and aggravating
circunstances?

Held:

Yes. the accused-appellant DANILO BADILLA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling and the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty. The accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. In addition, the INDEMNITY to the offended party is INCREASED TO THIRTY THOUSAND
PESOS (P30,000.00).

Robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The aggravating circumstances of treachery and
dwelling are appreciated in this case with the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 95320 September 4, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BALTAZAR LACAO, SR., PATRIA LACAO and TRINIDAD LACAO MANSILLA, accused-
appellants.

Facts:
The accused-appellants Baltazar Lacao, Sr., alias "Bantan", Patria Lacao, Trinidad Mansilla, Baltazar
Lacao II, alias "Boticol," and Baltazar Lacao III, alias "Toto," were charged with the complex crime of murder with
direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority, the deceased Police Corporal Jose G. Inocencio, Jr, on or about
the 28th day of September, 1985, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, in Brgy. Manibad, Municipality of
Mambusao, Province of Capiz, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above-named accused armed with
knives and wooden stools, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation, treachery and taking advantage of nighttime and superior
strength to better facilitate the commission of the offense, assault, attack and hit one Police Corporal Jose G.
Inocencio, Jr., an agent of person in authority while in the actual performance of his official duties, thereby inflicting
upon the latter several injuries on the different parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death; that due to
the death of said Police Corporal Jose G. Inocencio, Jr. and the consequent loss of his earning capacity, his heirs
have suffered and are entitled to an indemnity in the sum of P30,000.00 plus moral and exemplary damages. Further
more, the accused Baltazar Lacao, Sr., alias "Bantan" has been previously convicted by final judgment of the crime
of homicide.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial Court erred in finding the accused-appellants Baltazar Lacao, Sr., Patricia Lacao
and Trinidad Lacao Mansilla guilty of the crime of murder with direct assault upon an agent of person in authority in
accordance with Articles 248 and 148 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines and
Whether or not the Court erred in sentencing them of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim
Police Corporal Jose G. Inocencio, Jr the sum of P30, 000 for his death, P9, 250 as actual damages plus P100,000 as
moral damages and the cost of the suit.

Held:
No. The Court did not erred in finding the accused-appellants Baltazar Lacao, Sr., Patricia Lacao and
Trinidad Lacao Mansilla guilty of the crime of murder with direct assault upon an agent of person in authority.
According to the finding of the Court accused-appellants Baltazar Lacao admitted that he killed the said victim and
to other accused-appellants Lacao and Trinidad Lacao Mansilla were their disavowal of participation in the gory
killing of Cpl. Inocencio furthermore, their cooperation in the execution of the offense by simultaneous acts which,
although not indispensable to the commission of the offense, bore a relation to the acts done by the principal and
supplied material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way. Since they were aware of the
criminal intent of the principals and having participated in such murderous criminal design sans a conspiracy, the
Court held them guilty of the milder form of responsibility as accomplices thus the two will serve the sentence of
reclusion temporal.

As to the Court erred in sentencing them of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim
Police Corporal Jose G. Inocencio, Jr the sum of P30, 000 for his death, P9, 250 as actual damages plus P100,000 as
moral damages and the cost of the suit. The court modify their ruling

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROGELIO MERCADO y PEDRO, REYNALDO MERCADO, RODELIO GUERRERO and GERARDO MATIENZO, accused.

ROGELIO MERCADO y PEDRO, REYNALDO MERCADO and RODELIO GUERRERO, appellants.

Facts:

In the evening of October 24, 1986, 15-year-old complainant, Elizabeth Ilagan and her aunt Aurora Matienzo
attended a birthday party at the house of Rodelio Gumapang at Calamba, Laguna, at the same night Elizabeth
left the house of Rodelio and walked alone going to her house located in the same barangay. Along the way,
she saw Rodelio walking towards the same direction. Elizabeth walked on with Rodelio. Elizabeth and Rodelio
met Rogelio Mercado and Reynaldo Whereupon, Rodelio said, "Pare, ikaw na ang bahala diyan." At that,
Reynaldo, Rodelio and Rogelio laughed. Thereafter, Rodelio boxed Elizabeth three (3) times, hitting her on the
breast and on the stomach . Elizabeth felt half conscious only and fell on the ground .Rogelio and Reynaldo
held Elizabeth on her arms and legs while Rodelio started to remove her T-shirt and jogging She struggled to
free herself from the three of them, but was not able to do so.

After Rodelio had removed Elizabeth's clothing, he placed himself on top of and forcibly inserted his private
organ into hers. Elizabeth felt pain and as she tried to shout for help, she lost her consciousness

After about ten (10) minutes, Elizabeth regained her consciousness and noticed that Rodelio, Rogelio and
Reynaldo were no longer there. She then stood up and felt pain on her private part and right thigh.

Elizabeth cried upon reaching home. The following day, sensing that Elizabeth was acting strangely, her father
Guillermo asked her what was wrong. This time, Elizabeth revealed to her father that she had been raped by
Rodelio Guerrero the previous night
ISSUE: WON ROGELIO,REYNALDO, RODELIO and GERARDO were guilty of the crime of RAPE and was there a Conspiracy?

HELD: Yes. All of them were charged with rape with the existence of conspiracy.

Principle: Where conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all (People vs. Mallari, 241 SCRA 113 [1995]). Where
conspiracy is adequately shown, the precise modality or extent of participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary;
the applicable rule is that the act of one conspirator is the act of all of them

The concerted acts of accused-appellants clearly established their conspiracy to rape Elizabeth even if there is absence of evidence
that they had previously come to an agreement to rape her. The act of Reynaldo and Rogelio in holding Elizabeth's arms and legs to
enable Rodelio to rape her manifestly shows the existence of conspiracy and their common design to rape her.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 159734 November 29, 2006

ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts: Written incriminatory statements made not in the course of custodial investigation are admissible in a criminal case filed
against the confessant. Rosario Astudillo and Filipina Orellana were hired by Western Marketing Corporation (Western), as
salespersons, while Roberto Benitez and Flormarie Robel were hired as floor manager and service-in-charge/cashier-reliever,
respectively. In the course of preparing the monthly sales report of the branch, the Branch Accountant noticed discrepancies in the
monthly sales report. The case of the missing invoices and the shortage of cash sales collection were then reported to
Western‘s branch manager Lily Chan Ong (Lily). In a subsequent meeting with Lily, Filipina admitted having brought home some
appliances while Benitez made a written admission asking for apology. In an inventory of stocks conducted at the branch office of
Western, several other appliances were found missing. On the basis of the complaint of Western, Astudillo and Orellana were
collectively charged with Qualified Theft, along with Flormarie Robel and Roberto Benitez. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found
Astudillo and Orellana guilty of Qualified Theft. The Court of Appeals affirmed affirmed the RTC‘s decision. Hence, this petitions for
review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the employees‘ extra-judicial admissions taken before an employer in the course of an administrative inquiry
are admissible in a criminal case filed against them.

HELD:

It bears noting, however, that when the prosecution formally offered its evidence, petitioners failed to file any objection thereto
including their extra-judicial admissions. At any rate, the Court answers the issue in the affirmative.
The employee may, of course, refuse to submit any statement at the investigation; that is his privilege. But if he should opt to do so,
in his defense to the accusation against him, it would be absurd to reject his statements, whether at the administrative investigation,
or at a subsequent criminal action brought against him, because he had not been accorded, prior to his making and presenting them,
his “Miranda rights” which, to repeat, are relevant in custodial investigations.
The Court of Appeals did not thus err in pronouncing that Astudillo and Orellana were not under custodial investigation to call for
the presence of counsel of their own choice, hence, their written incriminatory statements are admissible in evidence.
Astudillo and Orellana at all events argue that their written statements were obtained through deceit, promise, trickery and scheme,
they claiming that Lily dictated to them their contents. There is nothing on record, however, buttressing Astudillo and Orellana‘s
claim other than their self-serving assertion. The presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly
confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience such that it is presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is proved thus
stands.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. L-56358 October 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
LUIS B. TORING DIOSDADO BERDON and CARMELO B. BERDIN, accused-appellants.

Facts:
A benefit dance was held in one sitio in Lapu lapu City for the last canvassing of votes for the candidates for princesses,
attended by the entire family of one of the candidates. Also present were members of the kwaknit gang, headed by Toring,
noted for their bird-like way of dancing and their propensity for drunkennessand provoking trouble.
Samuel, the father of the declared winner, while answering the callof nature, was approached by Toring and two others and
was stabbed from behind by Toring using a knife handed to him by a companion. Samuel died of stab wound he sustained on
the right side of his abdomen.
An information for MURDER was filed against Toring. The lower court rendered a decision discrediting Toring's claim that the
killing of Samuel was justified because it was done in defense of a stranger. While Toring testified that Samuel was aiming his
shotgun at the chest of Ely Amyon (Amion), prosecution witness Joel Escobia claimed that he was at the receiving end of
Samuel's thrusts with the butt of his shotgun. To the court, such discrepancy isfatal to the defense because in appreciating the
justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger, the court must know "with definiteness the identity of the stranger defended
by the accused.
Upon appeal, Toring seeks his exoneration by contending that his assault on Samuel was justified because he acted in defense
of his first cousin, Joel Escobia is the first cousin of Toring their fathers being brothers, although no explanation appears on
record why they have different surnames. At any rate, this allegation on relationship was not rebutted by the prosecution.
Escobia attested that as he was about to dance with a girl, Samuel stopped

him, pointed his shotgun at him, took a bullet from his jacket pocket, showed it to Escobia.
Samuel pointed the shotgun at his chin and told him to eat the bullet.

Issue: Whether the act of Toring in stabbing Samuel was justified for being done in defense of his relative, Joel Escobia.

Held: NO. SC ruled that there was no reason to doubt Joel Escobia's assertion of Samuel's unlawful aggression and that
prosecution failed to prove that Joel testified to favor Toring.
However, the presence of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and the lack of proof of provocation on the part of
Toring notwithstanding, full credence cannot be given, to Toring's claim of defense of a relative.
Toring himself admitted in court that in 1979, he was shot with a .22 caliber revolver by Edgar Augusto, Samuel's brother. It
cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel, Toring was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence or the lawful desire
to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted on his cousin. Rather, he was motivated by revenge, resentment or evil motive
because of a "running feud" between the Augusto and the Toring brothers.
Indeed, vendetta appears to have driven both camps to commit unlawful acts against each other.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 88724 April 3, 1990

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CEILITO ORITA alias "Lito," defendant-appellant.

Facts:
In the early morning of March 20, 1983, Cristina Abayan arrived at her boarding house coming from a party. While she was knocking
at the door of her boarding house, someone held her and poked a knife at her neck. She recognized the person as Ceilito “LITO” Orita because
he is a frequent visitor of another boarder. Lito then ordered her to go upstairs but because of the front door being locked, he forced the
complainant to use the back door. Once inside, Lito dragged the complainant and ordered her to look for a room. After entering the room, the
accused pushed the complainant and ordered her to undress herself. He mounted the victim and tried to penetrate her but only a small portion
was inserted because of the constant moving of the victim. The accused lay down and ordered the victim to mount him and the victim used this
chance to escape. She dashed to the next room while the accused pursued her until she was able to jump out through the window. She ran
towards the municipal building and knocked on the front door. When there was no answer she rushed to the back of the building. When the
policemen went out, they found her sitting naked while crying. After hearing what happened they went back to the boarding house and saw
somebody running but they failed to apprehend the accused. She was brought to a hospital for physical examination. Her PE revealed that she
is still a virgin, with abrasions on the left breast, left and right knees, and multiple pinpoint marks on her back, among others. The trial court
convicted the accused of frustrated rape.
Issue:
Whether or not the frustrated stage applies to the crime of rape?

Held:
The decision of the RTC is hereby MODIFIED. The accused Ceilito Orita is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of rape [consummated] and sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim in the amount of P30,000.00.

Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that
moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he
has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. [Art. 266 and Art. 6]
We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by
the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient
to warrant conviction.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

[G.R. NO. 153559. June 8, 2004]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ANTONIO COMADRE, GEORGE COMADRE and DANILO
LOZANO, Appellants.

DECISION

Facts:
Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio (drinking grioup) were
having a drinking spree on the terrace of the house of Robert’s father (Jaime). As the drinking session went on,
Robert and the others noticed appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano (appellants)
walking. The three stopped in front of the house. While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly throw
a hand grenade, ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Drinking group were hit by shrapnel (fragments of the
grenade) and slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to the Hospital. However, Robert died
before reaching the hospital. TC: appellants guilty of complex crime of murder with multiple attempted murder.

ISSUE: WON the trial court erred in convicting the appellants?

Held: Only Antonio is liable for the crime.

RULING:
It was established that prior to the grenade explosion, Rey Camat, Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe and
Gerry Bullanday were able to identify the culprits, namely, appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and
Danilo

Lozano because there was a lamppost in front of the house and the moon was bright. No conspiracy. Only Antonio
is liable for the crime. When Antonio Comadre was in the act of throwing the hand grenade, George Comadre and
Danilo Lozano merely looked on without uttering a single word of encouragement or performed any act to assist
him.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 90603 October 19, 1992

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANGEL FABROS y SARMIENTO alias BOY FABROS, and DANILO FERNANDO, defendants-appellants.

Facts:

On July 1, 1988, at around half past seven in the evening, four armed men entered the house of Jun Siobal in Barangay Salcedo,
San Manuel, Tarlac, and forcibly took him and his son Jovito outside, where they were shot in cold blood. More than four months
later, two suspect were identified as Angel Fabros and Danilo Fernando and were subsequently prosecuted for double murder.
After trial, they were found guilty as charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay solidarily civil indemnity in the amount
of P60,000.00, the funeral expenses in the sum of P14,000.00, an the costs of the suit. 1 The accused-appellants are not before this
Court to replead their innocence.

The star witness for the prosecution was Anita Siobal Fernandez, Juan's daughter. She testified that on that tragic night, four men
knocked at their door and introduced themselves as Constabulary soldiers. They were not in uniform but were all armed. Each of the
accused carried a .38 caliber revolver while the masked men were carrying carbines. Minutes later, they heard five shots. As they
feared, these shots had killed Juan and Jovito, whose lifeless bodies were found sprawled along the road. 2

ISSUE: WON was there a complex crime committed?

Held:

No. there was no complex crime committed.

The trial court erred in ruling that "in essence, a complex crime was charged which carries only a single penalty." Under Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime exists "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." We have held that where the killing are not shown to have been committed
by a single discharge of firearms, the crime cannot be complexed. 12 In the case at bar, the evidence shows that the victims were
killed separately with five gunshots.

the decision of the lower court is hereby MODIFIED. The accused-appellants are found guilty of two murders and sentenced for
each murder to the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay jointly and severally to the heirs of the victims the sum of P100,000.00,
in accordance with the existing policy of the Court. Conformably to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of the two
penalties of reclusion perpetua shall not exceed 40 years. The appeal is DISMISSED, with costs against the accused-appellants
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 87203 April 6,1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
GABRIEL DAWANDAWAN, accused-appellant.

Facts:

On November 2, 1984, at about 11 o'clock in the evening, Gloria Vda. de Asis, her children and her younger sister, Maria
Nedia Villafuerte, they were roused from their sleep. Somebody knocked at their door and contemporaneously someone
uttered "We are here together with our companions, the Commander of the NPA" but Mariaopened the door, she saw a
man holding a knife. Since her sister ran away to seek help, she was left behind. The man choked her and dragged her to
a coconut drier while being dragged to that coconut drier, she struggled to free herself. But her effort was unsuccessful.
On the way to the coconut drier, the man removed his mask and revealed his identity. It was accused-appellant who was
wearing mask and while dragging Maria Nedia Villafuerte, accused-appellant identified himself as being their neighbor
and that he is the uncle of Maria Nedia Villafuerte's boyfriend, Nestor Tan.

the following day, Maria Nedia Villafuerte, was found wounded by her sister Gloria. She saw her sister by the side of the
road loaded in a pedicab and was very weak. She sustained wounds in her neck and there were contusions in her body
and her clothes was removed. The dress which Maria Nedia Villafuerte wore the night she was sexually and physically
molested was retrieved by her neighbors.

Maria Nedia Villafuerte testified that when she opened the door Upon reaching the coconut drier, accused-appellant
boxed Maria Nedia Villafuerte at her mid-section causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining her consciousness,
she realized that accused-appellant had sexually molested her as she had felt pain in her sex organ. He slapped her and
boxed her in several parts of her body and stabbed her on the left side of her breast And she again lost her
consciousness.

ISSUE: WON there was a crime of rape w/ homicide committed?

Held: Yes. The crime of rape was committed but the physical injuries which could have caused the victim's death were not the result
of the rape committed; neither was the slashing a necessary means for committing the rape. Independently of the slashing of the
victim's neck and the stabbing, the accused was able to consummate the rape. The physical injuries were inflicted after the rape and
were not a necessary means to commit the same. Hence, the crimes committed are the two separate crimes of Rape and Frustrated
homicide.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we find the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes of Rape and Frustrated Homicide. The
decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED in all respects.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 135457. September 29, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE PATRIARCA, JR., alias

"KA DJANGO," CARLOS NARRA, alias "KA JESSIE" and TEN (10) JOHN
DOES, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

Facts: Accused-appellant Jose Patriarca, Jr., a member of the NPA, wasfound guilty by the
trial court of the crime of murder for the death ofAlfredo Arevalo and was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant appealed the decision of the
RTC.

Accused-appellant applied for amnesty under Proclamation No. 724. Hisapplication was
favorably granted by the National Amnesty Boardconcluding that his activities were done in
pursuit of his political beliefs.

Issue: What is the effect of the grant of amnesty to the conviction of the accused-
appellant?

Held: Amnesty commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels for their treason or other high
political offenses, or the forgiveness which one sovereign grants to the subjects of another,
who have offended, by some breach, the law of nations. Amnesty looks backward, and
abolishes and puts into oblivion, the offense itself; it so overlooks and obliterates the
offense with which he is charged, that the person released by amnesty stands before the
law precisely as though he had committed no offense.

Paragraph 3 of Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally
extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects.

The grant of amnesty serves to put an end to the appeal. Accused-appellant is acquitted of
the crime of murder.