28. P v.

Honrada, 62 Phil 703

F:
Honrada,the said accused with intent to kill one Estandarte did, then and
there voluntarily, illegally and criminally and with treachery stab him with a big
knife inflicting on him a wound,having the accused performed all the acts which
would produce the death of the said Estandarte as a consequence,but only
incapacitate Estandarte and requires more than 60 days of medical attendance.
The assault took place near the house of Candido Rosari; and Maxima Ballecer,
who was going to the house of Rosari and saw the defendant attack the offended
party, shouted for help. Miguel Tagle, Pedro Ballecer, and Leonardo Figueroa heard
her cries and went to the scene of the crime. When the defendant saw the three men
approaching he ran away. Pedro Ballecer took the wounded man to the poblacidn,
where he was given first aid. He was then taken to the Philippine General Hospital.
Upon examination by Dr. E. M. Lesaca he was found to have the following wounds: A
stabbed wound under the breastbone, a stabbed wound penetrating the liver, an
incised wound in the right lumbar region and another in the Jeft lumbar region, and
an incised wound on the nose. He was also suffering from shock and anemia. Because
of the wound in the liver, he was promptly operated upon, and was able to leave the
hospital at the end of three weeks.
Honrada stated that he was attacked by Gregorio Estandarte with a blackjack;
that the defendant ran away after he received two blows, and was pursued by the
offended party and his companions, Leonardo Figueroa, Miguel Tagle, and Santiago
Loren. According to the accused Figueroa and Loren struck him with sticks. The
defendant testified that the offended party overtook him and struck him several
times with a blackjack, whereupon the defendant stabbed the offended party in
selfdefense; that a struggle ensued between them and they fell into a ditch, and
the offended party was wounded in the back when they fell down. It appears that the
so-called caborrata was not a blackjack, but only a riding whip.
It does not clearly appear what was the motive for the murderous assault. It
may have been the fact that about a, week prior to the occasion in question
Gregorio Estandarte, in trying to separate two men who were fighting, struck
Hilario Honrada, defendant's father, with his elbow. Hilario Honrada resented the
action of Estandarte and tried to hit him, but Estandarte ran away. Hilario Honrada
told Estandarte that his time would come.

I:
Whether there is an intent to kill or self defense on the part of Honrado?
R&A:
There is intent to kill, The testimony of the defendant that the offended
party received the two wounds in the back when he fell into the ditch is
incredible. They were undoubtedly caused by the defendant when he attacked the
offended party from behind, as stated by the latter and Maxima Ballecer. The attack
was therefore treacherous, and the number and seriousness of the wounds, especially
the one in the abdomen that penetrated the liver, show that it was the intention of
the defendant to kill the offended party. It was only the prompt and skillful
medical treatment which the offended party received that saved his life. The
offense committed by the defendant was therefore frustrated murder. He is entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
C:
Modified, the decision appealed from is affirmed.
-------------------

P vs. FELIPE KALALO, MARCELO KALALO, JUAN KALALO, and GREGORIO RAMOS., 59 phil 715

F:
In case No. 6858, for the alleged murder of Marcelino Panaligan, to seventeen
years, four months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding
accessory penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of the said deceased Marcelino
Panaligan in the sum of P1,000, with the costs.
In case No. 6859, for the alleged murder of Arcadio Holgado, to seventeen years,
four months and one day of reclusion temporal, with the corresponding accessory
penalties, and to indemnify the heirs of the aforesaid victim, the deceased Arcadio
Holgado, in the sum of P1,000, with the costs.

In the third case, that is, No. 6860, wherein the court a quo held that the crime
committed was simply that of discharge of firearm, not frustrated murder, the
appellant Marcelo Kalalo was sentenced to one year, eight months and twenty-one
days of prision correccional and to pay the proportionate part of the costs of the
proceedings. Felipe Kalalo and Juan Kalalo, as well as their co-accused Fausta and
Alipia Abrenica, Gregorio Ramos and Alejandro Garcia, were acquitted of the charges
therein.
Prior to October 1, 1932, the date of the commission of the three crimes
alleged in the three informations which gave rise to the aforesaid three cases Nos.
6858, 6859 and 6860, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo or Calalo and Isabela Holgado or
Olgado, the latter being the sister of the deceased Arcadio Holgado and a cousin of
the other deceased Marcelino Panaligan, had a litigation over a parcel of land
situated in the barrio of Calumpang of the municipality of San Luis, Province of
Batangas. On September 28, 1931, and again on December 8th of the same year,
Marcelo Kalalo filed a complaint against the said woman in the Court of First
Instance of Batangas. By virtue of a motion filed by his opponent Isabela Holgado,
his first complaint was dismissed on December 7, 1931, and his second complaint was
likewise dismissed on February 5, 1932. Marcelo Kalalo cultivated the land in
question during the agricultural years 1931 and 1932, but when harvest time came
Isabela Holgado reaped all that had been planted thereon.

On October 1, 1932, Isabela Holgado and her brother Arcadio Holgado, one of
the deceased, decided to order the aforesaid land plowed, and employed several
laborers for that purpose. These men, together with Arcadio Holgado, went to the
said land early that day, but Marcelo Kalalo, who had been informed thereof,
proceeded to the place accompanied by his brothers Felipe and Juan Kalalo, his
brother-in-law Gregorio Ramos and by Alejandro Garcia, who were later followed by
Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica, mother and aunt, respectively, of the first
three.

The first five were all armed with bolos. Upon their arrival at the said
land, they ordered those who were plowing it by request of Isabela and Arcadio
Holgado, to stop, which they did in view of the threatening attitude of those who
gave them said order.

Shortly after nine o'clock on the morning of the same day, Isabela Holgado,
Maria Gutierrez and Hilarion Holgado arrived at the place with food for the
laborers. Before the men resumed their work, they were given their food and not
long after they had finished eating, Marcelino Panaligan, cousin of said Isabela
and Arcadio, likewise arrived. Having been informed of the cause of the suspension
of the work, Marcelino Panaligan ordered said Arcadio and the other laborers to
again hitch their respective carabaos to continue the work already began. At this
juncture, the appellant Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio, while the appellants
Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos, in turn, approached Marcelino
Panaligan. At a remark from Fausta Abrenica, mother of the Kalalos, about as
follows, "what is detaining you?" they all simultaneously struck with their bolos,
the appellant Marcelo Kalalo slashing Arcadio Holgado, while the appellants Felipe
Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos slashed Marcelino Panaligan, inflicting upon
them the wounds enumerated and described in the medical certificates Exhibits I and
H. Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan died instantly from the wounds received
by them in the presence of Isabela Holgado and Maria Gutierrez, not to mention the
accused. The plowmen hired by Arcadio and Isabela all ran away.
I:
 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? Also whether or not G.R. No. 39305
attempted homicide?
R&A:
Homicide. 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.
Yes, 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.

C: Appealed sentences in the said three cases are hereby affirmed.

--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. V.Adiao 38 Phil 754
F:
Tomas Adiao, a customs inspector, abstracted a leather belt valued at P0.80,
from the baggage of a Japanese named T. Murakami, and secreted the belt in his desk
in the Custom House, where it was found by other customs employees.
Based on these facts, the Court is of the opinion that the crime can not
properly be classified as frustrated, as this word is defined in article 3 of the
Penal Code, but that since the offender performed all of the acts of execution
necessary for the accomplishment crime of theft. The fact that the defendant was
under observation during the entire transaction and that he was unable to get the
merchandise out of the Custom House, is not decisive; all the elements of the
completed crime of theft are present.
I:
Whether or not it is theft?
R&A:
Yes. Defendant picked the pocket of the offended party while the latter was
hearing mass in a church. The latter on account of the solemnity of the act,
although noticing the theft, did not do anything to prevent it. Subsequently,
however, while the defendant was still inside the church, the offended party got
back the money from the defendant. The court said that the defendant had performed
all the acts of execution and considered the theft as consummated. (Decision of the
supreme court of Spain, December 1, 1897.)
The defendant penetrated into a room of a certain house and by means of a key
opened up a case, and from the case took a small box, which was also opened with a
key, from which in turn he took a purse containing 461 reales and 20 centimos, and
then placed the money over the cover of the case; just at this moment he was caught
by two guards who were stationed in another room near-by. The court considered this
as consummated robbery, and said: " . . . The accused . . . having materially taken
possession of the money from the moment he took it from the place where it had
been, and having taken it with his hands with intent to appropriate the same, he
executed all the acts necessary to constitute the crime which was thereby produced;
only the act of making use of the thing having been frustrated, which, however,
does not go to make the elements of the consummated crime. (Decision of the supreme
court of Spain, June 13, 1882.)
There exists the aggravating circumstance that advantage was taken by the
offender of his public position. Wherefore, in view of the provisions of articles
517 and 518, No. 5, of the Penal Code, and there being present one aggravating
circumstance compensated by no mitigating circumstances, the penalty must be
imposed in the maximum degree.
C:
Reveresed
----------------------------------------------
U.S. V. Dominguez 41 Phil 408
F:
It is proved that the accused, as salesman of the bookstore "Philippine
Education Co., Inc." sold on the morning of January 19, 1920, five copies of Sams'
"Practical Business Letters," of the value of seven pesos and fifty centavos (pesos
7.50), which the accused should have immediately delivered to the cashier but which
he did not deliver, until after it was discovered that he had sold the books and
received their value without delivering it to the cashier, as was his duty.
The accused alleges that he did not deliver the money immediately after the
sale, because the cash boys were very busy as well as the cashier, while he had to
go to the toilet for some necessity, and upon coming out, the cashier caught him by
the arm and asked him for the money, and then he delivered the sum of pesos 750 to
him; and that it was not his intention to make use of said money. Such claim,
nevertheless, does not exempt him from the criminal responsibility which he had
incurred, for the evidence before us shows clearly that he attempted to defraud the
"Philippine Education Co., Inc." Upon being asked for the money, he first said that
a woman, whom he did not know, bought books, without having paid, for the reason
that she was, according to herself, in a hurry; and, latter, he went out of the
store to talk to a friend who was employed in the Pacific Mail Steamship Co. to
tell him that if anyone should ask him if he (the employee of the Pacific Mail
Steamship Co.) bought books that morning in the store of the "Philippine Education
Company" he should answer affirmatively. Furthermore, he had also declared to the
manager of the bookstore that he used part of the money in purchasing postage
stamps.

I:
Whether the possession the proceeds of the sale, delivering them to the
cashier only after the deceit had been discovered, constitutes a consummated
offense or merely a frustrated offense of estafa?
R&A:
Frustrated Estafa. The supreme court of Spain in its decision of January 3,
1876, in deciding the appeal taken by the accused, who alleged that the act
constituted only an attempt and not a frustrated estafa, declared that the appeal
was not well taken, on the ground that the offense is frustrated when the accused
performs all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime, and,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
actor, and that in said case the appellant, together with his coaccused attempted
to take possession of the two bundles which they believed were at the station, by
going there and presenting the tag, and they did not succeed because these bundles
had already been taken, which constitutes the frustrated crime.
Applying the doctrine, established by the supreme court of Spain in the
decisions cited, to the case at bar, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the
appellant is guilty of the frustrated offense of estafa of 37 � pesetas, inasmuch
as he performed all the acts of execution which should produce the crime as a
consequence, but which, by reason of causes independent of his will, did not
produce it, no appreciable damage having been caused to the offended party, such
damage being one of the essential elements of the crime, due to the timely
discovery of the acts prosecuted.

C:
it is hereby, modified, and the accused is sentenced to pay a find of 325
pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
-----------------------------------
P V. Espiritu et al CA 5 31 1949 GR 2107

F:
The accused had removed nine pieces of hospital linen from a supply depot
and loaded them onto a truck. However, as the truck passed through the checkpoint,
the stolen items were discovered by the Military Police running the checkpoint.

I: Whether or not there is frustrated theft?

R&A&C:
No. The accused were guilty of consummated theft, as the accused "were able
to take or get hold of the hospital linen and that the only thing that was
frustrated, which does not constitute any element of theft, is the use or benefit
that the thieves expected from the commission of the offense."
Hospital linens were taken from boxes that were diffused or destroyed and
brought out of the hospital. From the moment they took it out of the boxes where
the owner or the possessor had placed it, the control is complete. You do not have
to go out of the compound to complete the taking or the control.

P V. Dino CA 45 OG 3446
F:
Dino was a truck driver and delivered truck load of materials to the Port and
was stopped by the the guard and the load contains Rifles from the U.S. Army, after
he was caught, he denied the charges against him and stated that there were 4
persons who were in cahoots and placed them in his truck and he merely acted as
instructed by them to ensure that the item will reach outside the U.S. army station
and will meet with them eventually once he is able to accomplish the task.
A truck loaded with stolen box of rifles was on the way out of the check
point in South Harbor surrounded by a tall fence when an MP guard discovered the
boxes on the truck. It was held that the crime committed was frustrated theft,
because of the timely discovery of the boxes on the truck before it could pass out
of the check point.

I:
Whether or not Dino is guilty of frustrated theft?
R&A:
Yes. This court is of the opinion that in the case at bar, in order to make
the booty subject to the control and disposal of the culprits, the articles stolen
must first be passed through the M.P. check point, but since the offense was
opportunely discovered and the articles seized after all the acts of execution had
been performed, but before the loot came under the final control and disposal of
the looters, the offense can not be said to have been fully consummated, as it was
frustrated by the timely intervention of the guard. The offense committed,
therefore, is that of frustrated theft.

C:
Petitions DENIED. The judgment appealed from is MODIFIED, and appellant is
found guilty as principal of the crime of frustrated theft.

P V. Marcos 185 SCRA 154

F:
A2C Serafin Artizona, a soldier, assigned at the 1st Regional Narcotics
Command, Baguio City, he was assigned by his immediate chief Major Florencio Junio
to compose a team to entrap accused Dante Marcos in the Holy Ghost
Proper,Thereafter, together with the confidential informer they went to the Holy
Ghost Proper. He was also accompanied by the back-up team strategically positioned
within the vicinity, namely Major Junio, Maximo Peralta, Freddie Cortel and Philip
de Vera,Once at the Holy Ghost Proper, he was introduced by the confidential
informer as a buyer of marijuana to the accused who was then standing at the
stairway together with his companion. After a while, they were asked to proceed to
the second floor, He then ordered ten (10) kilos of marijuana priced at seven
hundred pesos per kilo (P700.00). The accused left the room to get the stuff, and
returned with a light blue sack and gave it to him. After inspecting the contents
of the aforesaid sack, he gave the prearranged signal to his companion by spitting
through the window. Accordingly, the back-up team went inside the house. Meanwhile,
he introduced himself to the accused as a NARCOM agent.
Pat. Maximiano Peralta, an investigator of the 1st Narcotics Regional Unit,
testified that on December, 1985, he was a member of the back-up team of A2C
Artizona who negotiated .On the other hand, the defense presented the accused Dante
Marcos as its principal witness who vehemently denied the accusation against him
and claimed instead that the sack of marijuana belonged to a certain Roland
Bayogan.
Marcos contends that there was an instigation or even frame up and not a real
entrapment. The �buy-bust� operation team who went to the place does not know the
accused. In fact, the alleged buyer had to be introduced. There was no marijuana
yet when the authorities came or when the alleged poseurbuyer came to buy the
prohibited drug. Thus, the accused was not about to commit a crime or committing a
crime.
I:
Whether or not it is instigation or entrapment?
R&A:
C:
In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and capture a
lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. On the other hand, in instigation the
instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into committing the offense,
and himself becomes a co-principal (People v. Natipravat, infra). Entrapment is no
bar to prosecution and conviction while in instigation, the defendant would have to
be acquitted (People v. Lapatha, 167 SCRA 159).
The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal
intent. In entrapment, the means originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea
and the resolve to commit the crime come from him. In instigation, the law enforcer
conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the
idea and carries it into execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt
the criminal from liability. Instigation does (Araneta v. Court of Appeals, 142
SCRA 534 [1986])
Entrapment, The testimony of Artizona, the poseur buyer, was clear and
convincing and demonstrated that the accused needed no instigation or prodding to
commit a crime he would not otherwise have committed. Noteworthy is the fact that
the accused, as gathered from the records, had a ready supply of marijuana for sale
and disposition to anyone willing to pay the price asked for the prohibited
material. Thus, the acts of the arresting officers here constituted entrapment,
process not prohibited by the Revised Penal Code their agents incite, induce,
instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense, which he otherwise would
not commit and has no intention of committing, the accused cannot be held liable.
But in entrapment, where the criminal intent or design to commit the offense
charged originates from the mind of the accused and law enforcement officials
merely facilitate the commission of the offense, the accused cannot justify his
conduct. Instigation is a �trap for the unwary innocent.� Entrapment is a trap for
the unwary criminal (Cabrera v. Judge Pajares, Adm. Mat. R-278-RTJ & R-309- RTJ,
May 30, 1986, En Banc, Per Curiam, 142 SCRA 124).
C:
The decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED

-------------
P vs Geronimo 53 SCRA 246

F:
The prosecution claims that Romeo and Jose conspired with their uncle Enrico
to kill the victim; that their acts were concerted and cooperative; that Romeo�s
act of holding Fermin immobilized the latter, thus allowing Jose to hit Fermin�s
head with a stone, rendering him unconscious; that these acts of Romeo and Jose
enabled Enrico to hack with ease the prostrate Fermin; and that conspiracy is
sufficiently established by circumstances evincing unity of purpose.
Appellants maintain that if at all they are liable, both of them should be
credited with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed. It will be seen from the Medical Certificate 16 that the
serious wounds of the deceased were wound No. 1 � incised wound at the right ankle
joint posterior, about 3-1/2 inches long; and wound No. 2 � incised wound 4.5
inches long just below and almost around the left ankle joint completely serving
the tendon of achilles. All these are at the back part of the body, which shows
that the intention, according to the defense, was not to kill or else the blows
should have been aimed against the vital parts of the body.

I:
Whether or not the accused's lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed can serve as a mitigating circumstance? also lack of education
constitute a lack of intelligence which shall in turn be an alternative
circumstance?
R:
Yes.The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed should have been appreciated by the trial court, but not for both
but only for appellant Jose Geronimo who alone inflicted injury without intent to
cause the death of the victim when appellant Romeo Geronimo war holding him
No. Regarding the alternative circumstance of lack of education, while the
evidence shows that appellant Romeo is unschooled, this circumstance alone is not
sufficient. Illiteracy alone will not constitute such circumstance. 17 It must be
accompanied by lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full
significance of one�s act. As held by this Court in People v. Sari:

"Appellant was proved, beyond reasonable doubt, to have committed the crime
of murder qualified by either treachery or abuse of superior strength since his
victim was an unarmed defenseless woman, whom he ruthlessly attacked with a bolo on
different parts of the body. Appellant claims to be entitled to the benefit of the
mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction. We have repeatedly held, however,
that it is for the trial court rather than the appellate court to find and consider
the circumstance of lack of instruction and similar circumstance in favor of the
accused; for it is not illiteracy alone, but the lack of sufficient intelligence
and knowledge of the full significance of one�s acts, which only the trial court
can appreciate, that constitute this mitigating circumstance (People v. Ripas, Et
Al., L-6246, March 26, 1956; also U.S. v. Estorio, 35 Phil. 410: People v. Joseph,
52 Phil. 206; People v. Bangug, 52 Phil. 87; People v. Sedenio, L-6372, April 29,
1954)." 18
C:
The appealed decision is hereby modified
---------------
36. P vs Hernandez 182 SCRA 794

F:
The prosecution presented six (6) witnesses, including Joyag, who testified
that at about 6:30 o'clock in the evening of November 6, 1981, in the company of
Gregorio Perez, Artemio Austria, Leonardo Mapalad and Arturo Ilagan, he arrived at
the house of Leonardo Hernandez in Barangay Galamay-Amo, San Jose, Batangas, as an
invited guest; that he saw Vivencio Remo, Victorino Remo ("whom he had not met
before"), and Romeo Hernandez in the sala drinking "liliw" (a native wine).
Vivencio Remo introduced him (Joyag) to his companions. After a while Arturo Ilagan
left the group and went out of the house, telling Joyag that he was going to answer
the call of nature. Vivencio and Victorino Remo, accompanied by Romeo Hernandez,
followed Arturo. Feeling the urge to relieve himself also, Joyag left the sala to
urinate outside. Before he could do so, he saw at a distance of some eight (8)
meters away, Victorino, Vivencio and Romeo encircle Arturo. It was beginning to get
dark ("takipsilim") but he had an unobstructed view of the trio as they ganged up
against Arturo. He saw two of the group hold Arturo's hands, and, although he
failed to actually see the weapon. he saw Victorino's hand moving from different
directions, stabbing the victim's breast and other parts of his body. He also saw
Arturo's head move in different directions, in an effort to evade the knife
thrusts. Joyag rushed inside Leonardo's house shouting for his companions to come
out because Arturo was being attacked. Upon reaching the place, they found Arturo
lying on his back, moaning and bleeding. His assailants were nowhere in sight. With
the aid of Gregorio Perez and Leonardo Mapalad, Joyag rushed Arturo to the
hospital.

Vivencio Remo eventually died which resulted the dismissal of his case while
Victorino Remo is at large.
I:
Whether or not the acts of Hernandez be considered as murder despite not
directly killing Arturo?

R:
Yes. The appellate court and the trial court found the appellant guilty as a
co-conspirator in the murder of Arturo Ilagan qualified by abuse of superior
strength. For a collective responsibility among the accused to be established, it
is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all of them acted in concert,
each doing his part to fulfill their common design to kill their victim. Although
only one of them may have actually stabbed Ilagan, the act of that one is deemed to
be the act of all (People vs. Napoleon Montealegre, 161 SCRA 700; People vs.
Dominador Roca, 162 SCRA 696)

A: The crime committed by the accused was murder with treachery by taking
advantage of superior strength with the aid of armed men or by employing means to
weaken the defense. Three men, armed with a knife, crept up in the dark against a
defenseless and unsuspecting victim who was answering a call of nature. When two of
Ilagan's attackers pinioned his arms so that their companion could stab him
repeatedly and with impunity, they thereby employed means which assured the
execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from the defense that
their victim might make.

The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death (Art.
248, Revised Penal Code).
In view of the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances to modify the
criminal liability of the accused, the medium period (reclusion perpetual) of the
penalty prescribed by law is imposable on the accused.

C: Reaffirmed.