Case: People vs. Caballero, G.R. No.

149028-30 April 2, 2003

Facts

On the afternoon of the August 3, 2004, Armando, Marciano(Accused-

Appellants) and Robito(Accused) all surnamed Caballero, were having a drinking
spree in the house of their brother Ricardo(Accused-Appellant). Later that night,
around 7:00 p.m., the victims, Eugene Tayacatac and Arnold Barcuma arrived in the
sari-sari store of Wilma Broce which was across the Mondragon Compound. Eugene
was having dinner at the said store while Arnold went to the house of Susana Broce,
Eugene’s girlfriend for a chat. Then, Armando arrived in the store and asked Eugene
with an angry tone, “Gene, will you buy?!”. Eugene replied, “What is this all about?
We don’t have any quarrel between us.” Armando left the store and stood up by
the gate of the Mondragon Compound where his brothers, Ricardo, Robito and
Marciano Jr., all equipped with a knife, joined him. Eugene, on his way to the
Mondragon Compound, was grabbed by the Caballero brothers and there, stabbed
him, and Armando, used a wooden pole to hit Eugene. Arnold, seeing what is going
on, went to the scene to try on mediating the commotion but Ricardo stabbed him
on the left side of his body and the other Caballero’s ganged up on him. Two of
them stabbed Arnold on his forearm. Arnold ran for his life and hid under the house
of a neighbor. For his part, Leonilo rushed from his house to the scene only to be
stabbed by Robito in his chest. The commotion was stopped when Teresito
Mondragon was able to pacify the Caballero brothers.

Eugene, Leonilo and Arnold was then brought to the hospital but only Arnold
survived.

The RTC decided that Armando Caballero, Ricardo Caballero, Marciano

Caballero jr, and Robito Caballero(at large) are found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the offenses charged them as principals, are hereby sentenced to suffer:
 1. In crim case no. RTC-1217 for the Murder of LEonilo Broce, there being no
mitigating circumstance present, with the attendant aggravating circumstances of
treachery and abuse of superior strength, the maximum penalty of death and to
pay the heirs of Leonilo Broce the sum of P75,000 as indemnity;

2. In crim case no. RTC-1218, for the Murder of Eugene or Eugenio Tayactac,
there being no mitigating circumstance present with the attendant aggravating
circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strength, the maximum penalty
of death; and to pay the heirs of Eugene Tayactac the sum of P75,000 as indemnity,
and;

3. In crim case no. RTC-1219, for Frustrated Murder, for having seriously
inflicted injuries upon the person of Arnold Barcuma which nearly resulted to his
death, there being no mitigating circumstance present, an imprisonment of twelve
yrs as minimum, to seventeen yrs, four months and one day, with no award as to
damages, no evidence having been introduced to establish, the same; and

4. to pay the costs in all three cases.

The accused-appellants herein appealed that the RTC was wrong and stated that,
the trial court erred in its decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the accused-appellant are guilty of murder and frustrated

murder.

RULING/HELD:
Yes. They are all GUILTY of frustrated murder against Arnold since they all
somehow, attacked him. They are all also criminally liable for the Murder of Eugene
as they ganged up on him. BUT, the court only found Robito as the sole responsible
for the death of Leonilo since the prosecution failed to prove that the other accused
participated on the killing of the said victim. Moreover, there was also a testimony
from one of the witnesses that only Robito alone confronted and stabbed Leonilo
in the chest, as the latter is towards the commotion.
Case: People vs. Canturia et. Al., Gr no. 108490

FACTS

One night, the accused-appellants herein went inside the house of the
spouses Mendenes, who were asleep, and then robbed the house. A couple of the
perpetrators hogtied the husband while RENATO CANTURIA, dragged the wife 30
meters away from the house and there, raped the latter, twice. The RTC then,
decided that they should all be liable for the Robbery but only Canturia be liable of
Rape.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the other accused-appellants are criminally liable for the
Rape of Mrs Mendenes.

RULING/HELD:

No. Only Canturia was deemed liable since, the group only agreed to rob the
place and not to rape anyone. Also, only Canturia dragged the lady and alone, raped
her; with no aid whatsoever from his co-perpetrators.
Case: People vs Castro Gr No. 187073

FACTS

One morning, in Caloocan City, the victim, named Ricardo Pacheco

Benedicto, was killed during a robbery, done by Eduardo Castro y Peralta, Renerio
Delos Reyes y Bonus(Accused-Appellants) and other two who remain at large, in his
bake shop. One of the victim’s helper was Austria who attested that one of the
accused-appellants shot his employer. The Accused-Appellants were found guilty
of Robbery with Homicide by the Trial Court. The Accused-Appellants contested
until it went to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not, both accused-appellants should be held liable for the death
of Ricardo Pacheco Benedicto.

RULING/HELD

Yes. All of the accused should be held criminally liable of Homicide. As stated
by the Supreme Court, “The appellants are liable for the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide since the existence of conspiracy among them in the
commission of the robbery makes the act of one the act of all. All those who took
part in the robbery are liable as principals even though they did not actually take
part in the killing. Case law establishes that whenever homicide has been
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part
as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with
homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that
they sought to prevent the killing.”
Topic: Complex crimes & Composite Crimes
Case: People vs. Mores Gr No. 189846

FACTS

Ramil Mores, the accused-appellant herein was found guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Murder (due to death of a Ramie Balasa)
with Multiple Attempted Murder (Numerous people that were also in the
Gymnasium, where the crime occurred) and he is sentenced to suffer the supreme
penalty of DEATH to be executed with existing law, by the RTC of Oriental Mindoro.
Mores threw a grenade in a gymnasium where a ball is on-going thus, the damages
that shall occur is expected to be huge and unfortunately, this presumption was
true. The appellant appealed that the RTC erred in filing its decision and the same
was argued in the CA, up until the case went to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the Ramil Mores should be penalized of Murder with

Multiple Attempted Murder.

RULING/HELD

Yes. As correctly explained by the Court of Appeals, “the single act of pitching
or rolling the hand grenade on the floor of the gymnasium which resulted in the
death of Ramie Balasa and injuries to other victims constituted a complex crime
under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which states that when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.”