CASE DIGEST

G.R. NUMBER L-39303 - 39305

PETITIONER  People of the Philippine Islands
RESPONDENT  Marcelo Kalalo
 Felipe Kalalo (Marcelo’s Brother)
 Juan Kalalo (Marcelo’s Brother)
 Geregorio Ramos (Marcelo’s Brother-in-law)
 Alejandro Garcia
 Fausta Abrenica (Marcelo’s Mother)
 Alipia Abrencia (Marchelo’s Aunt)

FACTS:  There are 3 cases to be considered:

o 6858 – Murder of Marcelino Panaligan
o 6859 – Murder of Arcadio Holdago
o 6860 – Discharge of firearm of Hilarion Holgado
 Marcelo and Isabella (Arcadio’s sister and Marcelino’s cousin) had an argument over a parcel of
land
 Marcelo filed 2 complaints against Isabella but both were denied
 Marcelo cultivated the land for 2 years yet Isabella harvested it
 Isabella and her brother, Arcadio hired workers to plow the land
 Arcadio went with the workers to the land
 When Marcelo heard about this, he went to the land too with his brothers Felipe and Juan, his
brother in law, Gregorio and Alejandro, they were all armed with bolos and were later followed
by his mom, Fausta and his aunt Alipia
 They told Arcadio and the workers to stop plowing the land
 Later on, Isabella, Maria and Hilarion came with food for the workers
 Marcelio, Isabella and Arcadio’s cousin arrived and told them to resume working
 At this point, Marcelo approached Arcadio while Felipe, Juan, and Gregorio approached
Marcelino
 Fausta asked “What’s detaining you?”
 And the 5 accused started beating Arcadio and Marcelino
o 6858
o 6859
 Isabella, Maria, Hilarion and the workers all ran for their lives
 Marecelo gets the revolver from Marcelino’s belt and shoots at Hilarion (4 times)
 The following were charged:
o Marcelo Kalalo – 2 Murders, 1 Discharge of fire arm
o Felipe Kalalo (Marcelo’s Brother) – 2 Murders
o Juan Kalalo (Marcelo’s Brother) – 2 Murders
o Geregorio Ramos (Marcelo’s Brother-in-law) – 2 Murders
o Alejandro Garcia - Acquitted
o Fausta Abrenica (Marcelo’s Mother) - Acquitted
o Alipia Abrencia (Marchelo’s Aunt) – Acquitted
 This case is an appeal, asking if they were charged correctly
*Homicide – killing of one by another
*Murder – killing of one by another with malicious after thought
o 6858 – Murder of Marcelino Panaligan
 17 years, 4 months, 1 day and 1,000php
o 6859 – Murder of Arcadio Holdago
 17 years, 4 months, 1 day and 1,000php
o 6860 – discharge of firearm of Hilarion Holgado
 1 year, 8 months, 21 days
ISSUE/S:  Whether or not RTC erred in charging the defendants with murder/frustrated murder
RULING:  YES, the charges were changed as follows
o 6858 – Homicide of Marcelino Panaligan
 14 years, 8 months and 1 day, 1,000php
o 6859 – Homicide of Arcadio Holdago
  14 years, 8 months and 1 day, 1,000php
o 6860 – Attempted Homicide of Hilarion Holgado
 2 years, 4 months, 1 day

ARGUMENTS MADE
CONTENTION
The question now to be decided is whether the appellants are guilty of murder or of simple homicide in each of
cases G.R. No. L-39303 and G.R. No. L-39304. The Attorney-General maintains that they are guilty of murder in
view of the presence of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength in the commission of the acts to
which the said two cases particularly refer. The trial court was of the opinion that they are guilty of simple
homicide but with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.

It is true that under article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines murder, the circumstance of "abuse of
superior strength", if proven to have been presented, raises homicide to the category of murder; but this court is
of the opinion that said circumstance may not properly be taken into consideration in the two cases at bar, either
as a qualifying or as a generic circumstance, if it is borne in mind that the deceased were also armed, one of them
with a bolo, and the other with a revolver. The risk was even for the contending parties and their strength was
almost balanced because there is no doubt but that, under circumstances similar to those of the present case, a
revolver is as effective as, if not more than three bolos. For this reason, this court is of the opinion that the acts
established in cases Nos. 6858 and 6859 (G.R. Nos. L-39303 and 39304, respectively), merely constitute two
homicides, with no modifying circumstance to be taken into consideration because none has been proved.

As to case No. 6860 (G.R. No. 39305), the evidence shows that Marcelo Kalalo fired four successive shots at
Hilarion Holgado while the latter was fleeing from the scene of the crime in order to be out of reach of the
appellants and their companions and save his own life. The fact that the said appellant, not having contended
himself with firing only once, fired said successive shots at Hilarion Holgado, added to the circumstance that
immediately before doing so he and his co-appellants had already killed Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino
Panaligan, cousin and brother-in-law, respectively, of the

former, shows that he was then bent on killing said Hilarion Holgado. He performed everything necessary on his
pat to commit the crime that he determined to commit but he failed by reason of causes independent of his will,
either because of his poor aim or because his intended victim succeeded in dodging the shots, none of which
found its mark. The acts thus committed by the said appellant Marcelo Kalalo constitute attempted homicide
with no modifying circumstance to be taken into consideration, because none has been established.