126. PEOPLE v.

ARROJADO
G.R. No. 130492 | January 31, 2001 | 2nd Division | Appeal from RTC decision
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
SALVADOR ARROJADO, defendant-appellant
MENDOZA, J.
Digest by Jadd Dealino

Short Version:
Salvador Arrojado and Mary Ann Arrojado are first cousins through their fathers. Salvador takes care
of Mary Ann’s father, for pay, and lives with them as well. In the early morning of June 1, 1996,
Salvador reported to Erlinda Arrojado Magdaluyo (another cousin) that Mary Ann committed suicide
using their kitchen knife. 10 stab wounds were found, 5 of which were fatal. Salvador was charged for
the murder of Mary Ann; treachery and evident premeditation were alleged. The RTC – Roxas City
convicted Salvador. On appeal, the SC affirmed the RTC’s judgment, modifying his sentence to
reclusion perpetua in full while the civil indemnity and moral damages were reduced. With respect
to Abuse of Confidence, the SC found it to be present in this case, as they were first cousins, Salvador
slept in the same room as Mary Ann’s father, and that she left the bedroom doors unlocked; it was
also noted that she had previously feared for her safety in relation to Salvador but brushed these
thoughts aside.

Facts:
 Salvador Arrojado and Mary Ann Arrojado are first cousins through their fathers.
 Salvador lives with Mary Ann and her invalid father.
o Salvador takes care of Mary Ann’s father.
o They live in a house which has locks and grills, but Mary Ann leaves the bedroom doors
unlocked so she can check on her father at any time.
 There is some variance as to the nature of Salvador and Mary Ann’s relations:
o According to the testimony of their cousin, Erlinda, the relationship was rocky as Mary
Ann constantly picked on and scolded Salvador for even small mistakes such as the loss
of keys.
o According to Thelma Arrojado (another relative), Mary Ann was snobbish and strict,
and that Salvador had previously complained of Mary Ann’s maltreatment.
o On the other hand, Salvador testified that she only scolded him once for buying rotten
cabbage.
 In late May of 1996, Mary Ann entrusted her jewelry, bank book, and signed deposit slips to
Erlinda, as Mary Ann feared for her life because of Salvador. A couple of days later, Erlinda
returned the items (which were implied to be accepted by Mary Ann.) They had plans to go
out on June 1, 1996.
 In the early morning of June 1, Salvador reported to Erlinda that Mary Ann committed suicide.
 The police noticed that Mary Ann’s room was neat and that there were no signs of forcible
entry.
 The doctor who performed the postmortem examination found 10 stab wounds, 5 of which
were fatal.
Salvador was charged with the murder of Mary Ann. Treachery and Evident Premeditation were
alleged.
 The RTC – Roxas City convicted Salvador for the murder of Mary Ann.

Issue(s):
Whether…
1) The RTC’s appreciation of the facts is correct. YES.
2) Treachery is present. YES.
3) Abuse of Superior Strength is present. YES.
4) Evident Premeditation is present. NO.
5) Dwelling is present as an aggravating circumstance. NO.
6) Abuse of Confidence is present. YES.
7) The aggravating circumstance of Abuse of Confidence may be appreciated in this case in
relation to the penalties. NO.
8) The penalties imposed were correct. NO.

Dispositive:
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION – Reclusion perpetua in full is imposed, civil liability from P60k to
50k, moral damages from P80k to 50k.

Reasoning:
1) Yes, the RTC correctly appreciated the facts.
a. The following circumstances were proven:
i. They lived in the same house when the crime was committed.
ii. No outsiders can gain entry as the all doors were locked and all windows had
grills.
iii. Salvador had access to Mary Ann’s bedroom because their bedroom doors were
left unlocked.
iv. The kitchen knife, which was the weapon, was readily accessible to the
occupants. If an outsider committed the crime, they would more likely bring
their own weapon.
1. The variations as regards the depths of the wounds does not necessarily
imply that different weapons were used.
v. Mary Ann’s belongings were undisturbed, so gain could not have been a motive
for the crime.
vi. The number and severity of the wounds tend to show that the perpetrator has
deep-seated resentment and anger against the victim.
vii. No one else was known to have a grudge against Mary Ann.
1. Suicide is unlikely as Mary Ann was a jolly person who had many friends,
a means of livelihood (cooking), and even had plans to go out the day she
was killed.
viii. Salvador’s behavior is inconsistent with that of an ordinary person whose first
cousin was found to be dead. He did not even go inside the room to check on
her, nor did he notify the police.
 b. Under Rule 133, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for
conviction if:
(1) There is more than 1 circumstance;
(2) The facts from which the inferences are derived from are proven; and
(3) The combination of all circumstances produces conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
2) Yes, Treachery is present in this case.
a. The two conditions for treachery are (citing People v. Bayotas, 2000):
(1) The employment of means of execution that gives the victim no opportunity to
defend themselves or retaliate; and
(2) Deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution
b. In this case, Mary Ann was not in a position to defend herself
i. She was probably asleep
c. The number and nature of the wounds show that there was a deliberate adoption of the
means of execution here. So many wounds would not have been inflicted, if there was
no conscious adoption.
3) Yes, Abuse of Superior Strength is present.
a. In this case, a man armed with a knife attacked a sleeping, unarmed, and defenseless
woman.
b. However, this circumstance is absorbed in Treachery. (citing People v. Candare, 2000)
4) No, Evident Premeditation has not been shown in this case.
a. There is no proof as to its three requisites (citing People v. De la Tongga, 2000)
(1) Time when the accused determined to commit the crime;
(2) An act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to the determination; and
(3) Sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution, allowing the accused
to reflect on the consequences.
5) No, Dwelling cannot be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
a. They lived in the same house. (citing US v. Rodriguez, 1907)
6) Yes, Abuse of Confidence is present in this case.
a. It must be shown that the confidence between the parties is immediate and personal
such that it gives the accused some advantage or it makes it easier for them to commit
the criminal act.
b. The confidence is a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, where the
accused takes advantage of the victim’s belief that the accused would not abuse the
confidence. (citing People v. Gelera, 1997)
c. In this case:
i. They are first cousins.
ii. Mary Ann allowed Salvador to sleep in the same room as her father.
iii. Mary Ann left the bedroom doors unlocked.
iv. Even though Mary Ann had previously feared for her safety, she disregarded
these thoughts later on.
7) No, Abuse of Confidence cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
a. The Rules of Criminal Procedure took place on December 1, 2001. There, the
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information.
 b. This provision retroacts because statutes regulating court procedure will be construed
as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. (citing
Ocampo v. CA, 1989, etc.)
8) No, the penalties are incorrect:
a. The RTC imposed 30 years of reclusion perpetua. Based on People v. Lucas, RP is
indivisible. Thus, 40 years is the correct penalty.
b. Based on current jurisprudence (at the time of this decision), P50k is the proper civil
indemnity while P50k is the proper amount of moral damages.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinion(s): N/A

127. People v. Mandolado

123 SCRA 128/28 June 1983

Decision by J. Guerrero, Digest by Roe Anuncio

Short Version: Accused-appellant, members of the Philippine Army, killed the victims. They were
convicted by the trial court of murder with the aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence and
obvious ungratefulness. SC convicted them of murder with no aggravating circumstances.

Charge:

Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano, draftees assigned with the Alpha Company, 3rd
Infantry Battalion, Second Infantry Division, Philippine Army with station at Pikit, North
Cotabato, together with Anacleto Simon and Conrado Erinada, trainees attached to the
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd Infantry Battalion, 2nd Infantry Division,
Philippine Army, stationed at the Army Detachment along Simuay Junction, Simuay, Sultan
Kudarat, Maguindanao, were accused of murder for the death of the victims, Herminigildo
Tenorio and his driver Nolasco Mendoza, with the use of their firearms, qualified with the
aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior
strength.
RTC:

Convicted accused with the aggravating circumstances of

"Advantage was taken of his being a draftee in the Philippine Army," and

"Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness"

Facts

Julian Ortillano, Martin Mandolado, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon, trainees/draftees
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and assigned to the 3rd Infantry Battalion of the
Philippine Army, were passengers of a bus.
They alighted at the bus terminal.
Being all in uniform, armed and belonging to the same military outfit, they got
acquainted and decided to drink ESQ rum, at the said bus terminal.
Mandolado got drunk and went inside the public market.
Subsequently, he returned, grabbed his .30 caliber machine gun and started firing.
His companions tried to dissuade him but he nonetheless continued firing his gun.
Sensing trouble, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon ran away, hailed and boarded a
passing Ford Fiera with some passengers on board.
Appellants followed and boarded also the vehicle.
The soldiers forced the driver of the Ford Fiera to bring them to the Midsayap
crossing.
Mandolado got his knife and tried to attack the driver
Appellants alighted
While waiting for a ride at the Midsayap crossing, a privately owned jeep driven by
Herminigildo Tenorio, passed by.
In it was Nolasco Mendoza

The 4 soldiers boarded the jeep.

Mandolando kept firing his gun
 Herminigildo Tenorio remarked “Kung hindi kayo tatahimik, ibabangga ko itong
jeep”
Upon learning that the jeep was bound for Cotabato City and not Pikit, North Cotabato,
appellant Mandolado got angry, "cocked" his gun and ordered the driver to stop.
Appellants also got off the jeep.
Thereupon, appellant Mandolado fired his .30 caliber machine gun at and hit the occupants
of the jeep.
Issue: Abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness?

Ruling: Guilty but no aggravating circumstance.

Ratio:

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE - NONE

There could be no abuse of confidence as the evidence on record showed the lack of confidence by
the victims to the appellants. In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is
necessary that "there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and one against
whom the crime was committed and the accused made use of such a relationship to commit the
crime."
It is also essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as
would give that accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the crime; that such
confidence was a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of
the offended party's belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. There is absolutely no
showing of any personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence might rest between the
victims and the assailants who had just met each other then.

OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS - NONE

There could have been no obvious ungratefulness in the commission of the crime for the simple
reason that the requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to the criminal act and the
breach thereof as contemplated under Article 14, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code are manifestly
lacking or non-existent. In all likelihood, the accused Army men in their uniforms and holding their
high-powered firearms cowed the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun point
which certainly is no source of gratefulness or appreciation.
128. People v Silva

G.R. No. 140871/August 8, 2002/En banch/Automatic review

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

RESTY SILVA, RODOLFO SANDANGO, alias "Dupong" and JUN-JUN FLORES, accused-appellants.

Decision per curiam. Digest by Ces.

Short version: The brothers Edmundo and Manuel Ceriales were tied up by 3 men and brought to a
coconut plantation. The brothers were separated and Edmundo was able to escape to his godfather’s
house. Manuel’s dead body was found the next day. The RTC found the accused guilty of the crimes
of murder and attempted murder with the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and the
presence of two aggravating circumstances of treachery and nighttime without any mitigating
circumstance.

Facts:

 Edmundo Ceriales passed by his brother Manuel’s house. There, he saw six other men. Some of
these men were playing tong-its while the others were merely watching the game.
o Suddenly three men arrived.
 Pointed an armalite gun to all those present and ordered them to lie on their
stomach.
 Ordered brothers Edmundo and Manuel to get out of the house.
 As soon as they were out, they were made to lie face down.
o Edmundo and Manuel were tied together by two armed men (Rodolfo Sandangao and
Junjun Flores).
o Edmundo recognized Sandangao through the light coming from a vehicle. They
continued walking side by side as they were tied.
o Edmundo whispered Manuel that he recognized the assailant.
 Upon reaching Lucing Guerrero’s coconut plantation, they were made to sit on a hollow block. It
was at this point where appellant Resty Silva focused a flashlight on himself. He then asked the
brothers if they knew their abductors. When he and Manuel positively answered, appellant Silva
retorted “Papano yan Dupong, kilala pala tayo, obligado na nating patayin.”
 Edmundo was thereafter separated from Manuel and was brought some 20m away. Sandangao
tied the feet of Edmundo.
o Edmundo then tried to free himself jumping away from where he was until he fell into a
hole.
o While there, he tried to untie his hands and feet till he heard the scream of Manuel
followed by sound akin to the cutting of a tree.
 o When Edmundo was already untying his feet he was given a warning to come out or
they would kill Manuel if he failed.
o He slowly stuck out his head from the hole and failing to see the three men, he ran
away fast until he reached the place of his godfather Andres Macatiag.
 He spent the night at the house of Macatiag, upon the latter’s offer.
 The next day, Macatiag went to Edmundo’s house to check the latter’s family.
 Later that day, the headless body of Manuel was found. Macatiag proceeded were the body was
found. He saw that the feet were still tied. Edmundo was able to identify the body because of the
clothes he was wearing. Several days after the beheading incident the missing head of the
victim Manuel Ceriales was found at Baler, Aurora.

 RTC
o Convicted Resty Silva and Rodolfo Sandango guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crimes of murder and attempted murder with the qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation and the presence of two aggravating circumstances of treachery and
nighttime without any mitigating circumstance.
o They were sentenced to the penalty of death. Jun-jun Flores remained at large.
 Automatic review to the SC

Issue (relevant to topic): Whether nighttime should be considered an aggravating circumstances -

YES

Held/Ratio: YES it should

1) The facts as related by Edmundo, who was a direct witness to the crime, being a victim himself,
and as corroborated by the other witnesses, clearly established the crimes of murder and
attempted murder. Qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation and aggravating
circumstances of treachery and nighttime are present.
2) Evidence shows that the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation attended the killing of
Manuel Ceriales. To establish evident premeditation, it must be shown that there was a period
sufficient to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection, a time adequate to allow the
conscience to overcome the resolution of the will, as well as outward acts showing the intent to
kill. It must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of
its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection, or
persistent attempt.
3) Accused-appellants deliberately planned to kill the Ceriales brothers. They arrived at the
house of Manuel Ceriales in the evening purposely armed with an armalite, bolo and rope.
They ordered the Ceriales brothers to come out while the other persons inside the house were told
to lie face down. They abducted the brothers, tied them up and brought them to an isolated place
several kilometers away where the brothers were questioned about a misunderstanding between
the victim Manuel and the father of accused Flores over a parcel of land. This dispute apparently
provided the motive for the crime and engendered the plan.
4) Treachery was correctly appreciated as the suddenness of the arrival of the accused-appellants
in the middle of the night while the victims were playing a card game, ensured that the victims
could be taken without difficulty to an isolated place several kilometers away and killed there.
The fact that accused-appellants arrived armed with an armalite gun, a bolo, a rope and a
flashlight showed that they deliberately and consciously adopted the means of execution. The act
of tying up both hands and feet of the victims with a rope ensured the killing and deprived the
victims of any chance to defend themselves.
5) Nighttime, in this case, was also correctly appreciated by the trial court considering that
nighttime facilitated the abduction of the Ceriales brothers, the killing of Manuel Ceriales and
the attempt to kill Edmundo Ceriales.
a. Evidence shows that accused-appellants took advantage of the darkness to
successfully consummate their plans.
b. The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they intended to
commit the crime in darkness.
6) By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance, however, it becomes aggravating
only when:
a. It is especially sought by the offender; or
b. It is taken advantage of by him; or
c. It facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender’s immunity from capture.
7) The fact that the Ceriales brothers were taken together, tied up and brought to an isolated place
point to no other conclusion than that accused-appellants intended to kill not only Manuel but
also Edmundo. Edmundo would have been stabbed and decapitated had he not been able to
escape. The fact that accused-appellants were not able to kill Edmundo was not by reason of their
own spontaneous desistance but due to Edmundo’s miraculous escape; hence, they are also liable
for the attempted murder of Edmundo.
8) The acts of going to Manuel’s house together at night armed with an armalite, bladed weapons
and rope, tying up the Ceriales brothers, abducting them and bringing them to an isolated place
and decapitating Manuel, taken together manifest a unity of purpose and a common design to kill
the two brothers.
9) Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually
demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful
purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals. In this case,
conspiracy among accused-appellants were sufficiently born and proven by evidence.
10) RTC decision affirmed.

PEOPLE v. LIBRANDO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAELITO LIBRANDO, LARRY SURDILLAS

and EDDIE PURISIMA, accused-appellants.

July 6, 2000

DE LEON, JR., J.
Short version:

FACTS:

One night, Edwin Labandero, his 8-year Aileen and a relative, Fernando de los Santos were on
their way home from the market.

They passed a hilly portion of the trail when they met accused Raelito Librando, Larry
Surdillas and Eddie Purisima.

Raelito inquired from Edwin the whereabouts of Fernando and suddenly hit Edwin
with a piece of wood.

Eddie followed and also hit Edwin.

Edwin ran but was chased by Raelito.

The three men took turns hitting Edwin with pieces of wood until the latter fell and died.

Although it was already dark, Aileen had no trouble identifying the assailants since Edwin
was carrying a lighted torch. Even when the torch fell, it kept on burning.

Fernando and Aileen ran and reported the crime to baranggay officials. The matter was
reported to the police. The next day, the body of Edwin was found. He sustained major
injuries to his head.

Dr. Neil Paz Natu-el, the physician who conducted the postmortem examination, testified that
most of the injuries inflicted on the deceased were on the head and his death was due to the
massive bleeding in the brain resulting in brain laceration. Dr. Natu-el did not discount the
possibility that the injuries were inflicted by more than one person.[4]

Defense: Self Defense

The accused alleged that it was Edwin who started hitting them with apiece of wood, and so
Raelito hit him until he was no longer able to stand.

The Court believed Aileen’s testimony that it was they who attacked first.

The Court found them guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength and taking into
consideration the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place, considered only
as one, and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

ISSUES:
I. WON Larry Surdillas and Eddie Purisima participated in the killing of Edwin- YES

II. WON the qualifying circumstances applied by the court were correct- YES (nighttime and
uninhabited place are considered one)

HELD:

I. WON Larry Surdillas and Eddie Purisima participated in the killing of Edwin- YES

Although the accused all named Rafaelito as the sole attacker of Edwin, after having been
allegedly attacked first, the Court believed the testimony of Aileen. They found the child’s
testimony and positive identification of the three accused credible.

II. WON the qualifying circumstances applied by the court were correct- YES (nighttime and
uninhabited place are considered one)

[On Rafaelito’s defense of self-defense] The Court believed Aileen’s testimony that they attacked
first.

[On nighttime and uninhabited place as one circumstance] The trial court did not err in
considering the nighttime and uninhabited place as just one aggravating circumstance. In the
case of People vs. Santos it has been held that if the aggravating circumstances of nighttime,
uninhabited place or band concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute one
aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they can be considered separately if
their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater
degree of perversity.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 50
finding accused-appellants Raelito Librando, Larry Surdillas and Eddie Purisima guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and holding them solidarily liable to pay the heirs of the deceased victim, Edwin Labandero, the sum
of P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P13,000.00 as reimbursement of funeral expenses and P293,000.00
as loss of the deceased’s earning capacity is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
compensation for the loss of earning capacity of the said deceased is hereby increased to P659,992.50.

SO ORDERED.

130. PEOPLE v. JOSE

G.R. No. L-28232 | February 6, 1971 | En Banc | Automatic Appeal to the SC
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, ET AL., defendants.
JAIME JOSE Y GOMEZ, BASILIO PINEDA, JR., alias "BOY," EDGARDO AQUINO Y PAYUMO and
ROGELIO CAÑAL Y SEVILLA, defendants-appellants.
PER CURIAM
Digest by Dawn Chua

Short Version:
The four appellants herein were convicted of forcible abduction and rape. Pineda claims that there
was a mistrial as to him because he was not insisted by the Court to be present in all instances of the
trial. The Court ruled that while a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an
admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating
circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is capital, for the admission (plea of guilty) covers
both the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime. Because of
the aforesaid legal effect of Pineda's plea of guilty, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to
receive his evidence, much less to require his presence in court.

Facts:
- This case involves the forcible abduction and rape of the popular movie actress Magdalena
“Maggie” dela Riva.
- [For a more engaging and detailed account of Maggie’s ordeal, please read the original case]
Long story short, she was driving home when the four appellants tried to bump her with their
Pontiac.
- Maggie was forced to stop her car.
- Pineda, the driver of the car then alighted, opened her car door, and forcibly took her into the
Pontiac.
- She was cursed and threatened with acid if she resisted.
- She was brought to a hotel where all four of them took turns in ravishing her.
- She was hit on several parts of her body when she resisted and she fell into shock several
times.
- When they were done, she was returned home, whereupon she immediately told her mother
that she had been raped. She was advised to douche herself in order to prevent infection and
pregnancy.
- Four days after the incident, she informed the authorities and submitted herself to medical
inspection.
- The defense’s version was that they were driving home from a drinking session when Maggie
sped past them, almost causing a collision. Irked, they followed her until she stopped in front
of her house.
- Pineda alighted, grabbed her, and forced her into their car. The other appellants did nothing.
She was propositioned to do a striptease for P1,000, to which she obliged. They proceeded to
the Swanky Hotel, where Maggie was paid P100 downpayment. The P900 balance was to be
paid “later.”
- Out of the four appellants, only Pineda pleaded guilty.

Issues:
1. WON there was an absence of lewd design. NO.
 2. WON the commission of rape by each of the appellants has been clearly established. YES.
3. WON Jose and Canal’s extrajudicial statements should be excluded from the evidence for
being involuntarily given or concocted by the authorities. NO.
4. WON Jose’s extrajudicial statement should be exculpated on the ground that he was not
assisted by counsel during custodial interrogation. NO.
5. WON there was a mistrial on Pineda’s part because he was not present in all instances of the
trial, considering that aggravating circumstances were alleged in the amended complaint
which raised the penalty to death. NO, he pleaded guilty.
6. WON forcible abduction can be complexed with the rape committed by the other principals.
NO.
7. What penalty should be imposed. DEATH.
8. WON as many death penalties as the offenses committed should be imposed. YES.

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows: appellants Jaime G. Jose,
Basilio Pineda, Jr., and Edgardo P. Aquino are pronounced guilty of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape, and each and every one of them is likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of
rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is hereby sentenced to four (4) death penalties; all of
them shall, jointly and severally, indemnify the complainant of the sum of P10,000.00 in each of the
four crimes, or a total of 40,000.00; and each shall pay one-fourth (1/4) of the costs.

Reasoning:
1. NO
- Maggie declared on the witness stand, as well as in her sworn statements, that they helped one
another in dragging her into the car against her will; that she did not know them personally;
that while inside the car, Jose and Aquino, between whom she was seated, toyed with her
body, the former forcing his lips on hers, and the latter touching her thighs and raising her
skirt; that meaningful and knowing glances were in the meanwhile being exchanged among
the four; and that all of them later took turns in ravishing her at the Swanky Hotel.
- This testimony, whose evidentiary weight has not in the least been overthrown by the defense,
more than suffices to establish the crimes charged in the amended complaint

2. YES
- As to the absence of semen:
o Dr. Brion of the NBI, who testified as an expert, declared that semen is not usually
found in the vagina after three days from the last intercourse, especially if the subject
has douched herself within that period. In the present case, the examination was
conducted on the fourth day after the incident, and Maggie had douched herself to
avoid infection and pregnancy.
 Furthermore, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation
of rape, the important consideration being, not the emission of semen, but
penetration.
o Aquino's suggestion that the abrasions on the cervix were caused by the tough tip of a
nozzle deliberately used by Maggie to strengthen her fabricated tale of rape, is absurd.
  It is difficult to imagine that any sane woman, who is single and earning as much
Miss Dela Riva did, would inflict injuries on her genital organ by puncturing the
same with a sharply-pointed instrument in order to strike back at four strangers
who allegedly would not pay her the sum of P900.00 due her for a striptease act.
 Besides, Dr. Brion testified that the insertion of such an instrument in the genital
organ would not result in the kind of injuries he found in the mucosa of the
cervix.
- Res Gestae
o Upon Miss De la Riva's arrival at her house in the morning of June 26, 1967, she
immediately told her mother, " Mommy Mommy, I have been raped. All four of them
raped me."
 This utterance, which is part of the res gestae, commands strong probative value,
considering that it was made by the complainant to her mother who, in cases of
this nature was the most logical person in whom a daughter would confide the
truth.
- On Maggie’s statement to the press that she was not abused.
o Her statement to the press is understandable. At that time she had not yet consulted her
family on a matter which concerned her reputation as well as that of her family, and her
career, was not then in a position to reveal publicly what had happened to her.
o Another reason is that she was threatened with disfiguration.
o Equally important is the complainant's public disclosure of her tragedy, which led to
the examination of her private parts and lay her open to risks of future public ridicule
and diminution of popularity and earnings as a movie actress.

3. NO
- The statements were given in the presence of several people and subscribed and sworn to
before the City Fiscal of Quezon City, to whom neither of them intimated the use of inordinate
methods by the police.
- They are replete with details which could hardly be known to the police; and although it is
suggested that the authorities could have secured such details from their various informers, no
evidence at all was presented to establish the truth of such allegation.
o While in their statements Jose and Canal admitted having waited — together with the
two other appellants — for Miss De la Riva at the ABS Studio, each of them attempted
in the same statements to exculpate himself: Jose stated that only Pineda and Aquino
criminally abused the complainant; while appellant Canal would make it appear that
Maggie willingly allowed him to have sexual intercourse with her.
o Had the statements been prepared by the authorities, they would hardly have contained
matters which were apparently designed to exculpate the affiants.
- It is significant, too, that Jose and Canal did not see it fit to inform any of their friends or
relatives of the alleged use of force and intimidation by the police.
- However, even disregarding the in-custody statements of Jose and Canal, the Court found that
the mass of evidence for the prosecution on record will suffice to secure the conviction of the
two.
4. NO.
- The provision of the Constitution of the Philippines in point is Article III (Bill of Rights),
Section 1, par. 17 of which provides: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall ... enjoy the
right to be heard by himself and counsel ..." In this jurisdiction the term criminal prosecutions
was interpreted by this Court to mean proceedings before the trial court from arraignment to
rendition of the judgment.
- Implementing the said constitutional provision, it is provided in Section 1, Rule 115 of the
Rules of Court that "In all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall be entitled ... (b) to be
present and defend in person and by attorney at every stage of the proceedings, that is, from
the arraignment to the promulgation of the judgment." - The only instances where an accused
is entitled to counsel before arraignment, if he so requests, are during the second stage of the
preliminary investigation (Rule 112, Section 11) and after the arrest (Rule 113, Section 18).

5. NO.
- While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the
material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances, and it
matters not that the offense is capital, for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the
crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime
- Because of the aforesaid legal effect of Pineda's plea of guilty, it was not incumbent upon the
trial court to receive his evidence, much less to require his presence in court.
- It would be different had appellant Pineda requested the court to allow him to prove
mitigating circumstances, for then it would be the better part of discretion on the part of the
trial court to grant his request.
- The case of U.S. vs. Agcaoili cited by Pineda is not in point, for there the SC ordered a new trial
because it found that the accused, who had pleaded guilty, "did not intend to admit that he
committed the offense with the aggravating circumstances" mentioned in the information.
- The Court did not find a similar finding here.
o The transcript of the proceedings during the arraignment shows that Pineda's counsel,
Atty. Lota prefaced his client's plea of guilty with the statement that he had advised him
of the technicalities which would arise out of the aggravating circumstances and the
penalty that he would get. Counsel also consulted Pineda three times and his decision
was still the same.

6. NO
- The four appellants have conspired together to commit the crimes imputed to them.
o There is no doubt at all that the forcible abduction of the complainant from in front of
her house was a necessary if not indispensable means which enabled them to commit
the various and the successive acts of rape upon her person.
- It bears noting, however, that even while the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of
forcible abduction had already been consummated, so that each of the three succeeding crimes
of the same nature cannot legally be considered as still connected with the abduction — in
other words, they should be detached from, and considered independently of, that of forcible
abduction and, therefore, the former can no longer be complexed with the latter.
7. DEATH
- The kind of rape that was committed was that which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death:
ART. 335. When and how rape committed.—Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the
circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more
persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be
death.
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
death.
- As regards, therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first of the crimes
committed, the latter is definitely the more serious; hence, pursuant the provision of Art. 48 of
the Revised Penal Code, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period.
- Consequently, the appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. In this regard, there
is hardly any necessity to consider the attendance of aggravating circumstances, for the same
would not alter the nature of the penalty to be imposed.

- The Court still looked into the three other crimes of simple rape in order to properly determine
their respective penalties. The commission of said crimes was attended with the following
aggravating circumstances:
o (a) nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the
commission of these crimes;
o (b) abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants
in conspiracy with one another
o (c) ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her
complete nakedness for about ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a
circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating; and
o (d) use of a motor vehicle.
- With respect to appellants Jose, Aquino and Canal, none of these aggravating circumstances
has been offset by any mitigating circumstance.
- Pineda should, however, be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of
guilty, a factor which does not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be
imposed, for the reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining.
- As a result, appellants should likewise be made to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each
of these three simple crimes of rape. (Art. 63, par. 2, RPC.)
 8. YES
- Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code can only be taken into account in connection with the
service of the sentence imposed, not in the imposition of the penalty.
Court’s discussion on imposing multiple death penalties
- People vs. Peralta, et: the Court imposed on each of the six accused three death penalties for
three distinct and separate crimes of murder. The Court opined that "since it is the settled rule
that once conspiracy is established, the act of one conspirator is attributable to all, then each
conspirator must be held liable for each of the felonious acts committed as a result of the
conspiracy, regardless of the nature and severity of the appropriate penalties prescribed by
law."
o The imposition of multiple death penalties is decried by some as a useless formality, an
exercise in futility. It is contended, undeniably enough, that a death convict, like all
mortals, has only one life to forfeit. And because of this physiological and biological
attribute of man, it is reasoned that the imposition of multiple death penalties is
impractical and futile because after the service of one capital penalty, the execution of
the rest of the death penalties will naturally be rendered impossible.
o The foregoing opposition to the multiple imposition of death penalties suffers from four
basic flaws:
 (1) it fails to consider the legality of imposing multiple capital penalties;
 (2) it fails to distinguish between imposition of penalty and service of sentence;
 (3) it ignores the fact that multiple death sentences could be served
simultaneously; and
 (4) it overlooks the practical merits of imposing multiple death penalties.
- The imposition of a penalty and the service of a sentence are two distinct, though related,
concepts.
o The imposition of the proper penalty or penalties is determined by the nature, gravity
and number of offenses charged and proved, whereas service of sentence is determined
by the severity and character of the penalty or penalties imposed.
o In the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties, the court does not concern itself
with the possibility or practicality of the service of the sentence, since actual service is a
contingency subject to varied factors like the successful escape of the convict, grant of
executive clemency or natural death of the prisoner.
o All that go into the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties, to reiterate, are the
nature, gravity and number of the offenses charged and proved and the corresponding
penalties prescribed by law.
- Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will have to be executed
simultaneously. A cursory reading of article 70 will show that there are only two modes of
serving two or more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or successively.
o The first rule is that two or more penalties shall be served simultaneously if the nature
of the penalties will so permit. In the case of multiple capital penalties, the nature of
said penal sanctions does not only permit but actually necessitates simultaneous
service.
- The imposition of multiple death penalties, far from being a useless formality, has practical
importance. The sentencing of an accused to several capital penalties is an indelible badge of
 his extreme criminal perversity which would diminish the possibility of the grant of executive
clemency.
- Granting, however, that the Chief Executive deems it proper to commute the multiple death
penalties to multiple life imprisonments, then the practical effect is that the convict has to serve
the maximum forty (40) years of multiple life sentences. If only one death penalty is imposed,
and then is commuted to life imprisonment, the convict will have to serve a maximum of only
thirty years corresponding to a single life sentence.
- Thus four death penalties should be imposed per accused.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Villamor and
Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Barredo and Teehankee, JJ., took no part.

131. People vs. Desalisa

G.R. No. 95262 / January 4, 1994 / Second Division

Plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Accused-appellant: EMMANUEL DESALISA

Ponente: Nocon, J.

Digest by: Luisa Mauricio

SHORT VERSION Emmanuel and Norma Desalisa are husband and wife. Norma was found dead
one morning. She was found hanging from a jackfruit tree in the conjugal home. Emmanuel was
charged with the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. SC found him guilty of
such. SC held that Emmanuel had opportunity to commit the crime because they lived up in the hill
isolated from everyone else and the nearest neighbors they had were their relatives but plants and
shrubs separated the spouses’ house from them. SC however said that the aggravating circumstance
of nighttime could not be admitted because because there is no proof that it was purposely sought or
taken advantage of, or that it facilitated the commission of the crime.

FACTS

Accused Emmanuel Desalisa lives with his legal wife Norma Desalisa and their two year old
daughter in a small nipa house on a hill at Bacon, Sorsogon. Norma was 5 months pregnant. There
were different narrations of the incident: from Norma’s parents, Carlito Dichoso (neighbor) and
Desalisa himself.
VERSION OF PAULINA and VICENTE DIONEDA (Norma’s parents):

In the morning, she was informed that Desalisa and Norma had an altercation. On the same
day in the afternoon, Norma complained to her that Desalisa manhandled her by slapping and
boxing her on the stomach when she told him not to go out of the house and get drunk because
during that time their child was sick; also, Desalisa was jealous of a man.

In the evening, Desalisa went to their house and left his child. The morning after, Vicente (dad
of Norma) went to the house of Desalisa and Norma. When he arrived there, he noticed that the
plates were scattered on the floor; the kettle with rice that was not eaten was also on the floor; and the
rope which was used to tie the other end of their hammock was missing. He went out of the house.
He climbed up the tree to get coconut meat but then she saw the back of the body of Norma. He
approached her and touched her back. However, her body swayed. It was only then when he realized
that she was hanging from a branch of the jackfruit tree. Her neck was tied with the missing rope of
their hammock. Her bloody feet were approximately four inches above the ground. Her dress was
wet.

VERSION OF CARLITO DICHOSO:

In the evening of the incident, Desalisa went to his house. . It was raining during that time.
Desalisa borrowed a flashlight because he will be looking for his wife. After 2 and a half hours he
went back and sat on a bench. When asked if he found his wife, he did not answer. He continued to
sit on the bench and said “my wife is continuously possessed by devils”. Desalisa sat on the bench
the entire night. The next morning (5am) Desalisa said: "If there is something that happened, Manoy
Carlito, what would I do?" At around 7:30 o'clock of the same morning, Carlito was informed by
Vicente and Paulina Dioneda that Norma is dead.

VERSION OF DESALISA

His relationship with his wife has deteriorated as early as June 24, 1983, when she told him
upon coming home: "You nearly came upon the man." From that time on, they had no peace at home
and often quarrelled. He did not consider her anymore as his wife. He suspects that Norma
committed suicide. She previously wanted to hang herself but was stopped by her uncle.

That evening, they had an altercation because she suspected him of having an affair with the
daughter of Carlito. She told him to leave otherwise, she will leave. So, he left and visited his farm.
Upon returning home, he found his wife gone and their daughter crying alone. He brought his
daughter to Vicente and Paulina and went to search for his wife. He borrowed a flashlight from
Carlito. . At that time, he was armed with a sharp bladed instrument. He looked for her in the huts
near their farm but she was not there. When it started to rain, he returned to the house of Carlito to
check whether or not his wife is already there, only to find out that it was not so. Since it was raining
hard, he stayed in the house of Carlito up to around 5:30 o'clock in the morning of the following day.
Still, there was no trace of his wife. Searching around the premises, he saw his wife hanging from a
branch of the jackfruit tree. The first thing he did was to go to the house of his parents and informed
them about the incident instead of running to her and cutting her down.

An information was filed against him for the complex crime of parricide with
unintentional abortion with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place and
evident premeditation. TC convicted him of parricide.

ISSUE

1. WON Desalisa is guilty of killing Norma – yes

2. WON the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was correctly admitted – NO
RULING found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

REASONING

WON Desalisa is guilty of killing Norma – yes

The quantum of proof necessary to establish Desalisa’s guilt, albeit based on circumstantial
evidence, is sufficient. There is more than one circumstance. The facts from which the inference are
derived are proven.

Jealousy was the motive. This was evidenced by the quarrel between accused Emmanuel and
Norma prior to and immediately before the hanging about Norma having an affair with another man
and that other man was the father of the child in Norma’s womb.

Also, Desalisa had the opportunity to commit the crime. The house where accused Emmanuel
and Norma live as pictured by both the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense is up a hill and
isolated. The whole neighborhood consists of only three (3) houses. While it is true (that) from any of
the three (3) houses, one cannot see the other because of the fruit trees and shrubs that abound, their
distance from each other is only 150 meters. No one, definitely no one can go up the hill to visit or
whatever without being known to the neighbor. With such an arrangement, no one can go up the hill
to the house of the accused Emmanuel and Norma without their neighbors, who are related to them,
being aware of. Nowhere in the whole evidence, where neither Norma's family nor accused
Emmanuel Desalisa's family, directly or indirectly, even suspected any stranger for having committed
the crime.

Another point that is, when the accused was at the house of his neighbor, his Manoy Carlito
Dichoso, after having left said house to look for his wife, he was asked by Carlito if he found his wife.
The accused did not answer the query. He just sat on the bench and said, "his wife Norma is
possessed by devils."
 There is ample evidence to support the finding that the hanging of the victim was homicidal
and not suicidal. The scattered plates and kettle with untouched rice on the floor indicates previous
struggle.

WON the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was correctly admitted – NO

The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated against him because there is
no proof that it was purposely sought or taken advantage of, or that it facilitated the commission of
the crime.

132. PEOPLE v. DACILLO

G.R. No. 149368. April 14, 2004 Automatic Review En Banc Decision
FRANCISCO DACILLO alias DODOY, appellant.
CORONA, J.
Digest by Sai Bautista

Short Version:
Francisco Dacillo together with Joselito Pacot were charged with crime of murder. Victim was 17 year
old Tallada who was last seen alive in the house of Dacillo. Eye witness testified that she saw Dacillo
and another man grappling with the victim. They heard the sound of a woman being beaten up. Days
later, body of the victim was found in Dacillo’s house. Dacillo was found guilty of the crime of
murder and sentenced to death due to the aggravating circumstance of recidivism for a previous
conviction for the death of his former live-in partner. SC held the accused guilty of the crime of
murder but removed the aggravating circumstance of recidivism which was not alleged in the
information.

CHARGE : MURDER. Francisco Dacillo together with Joselito Pacot were charged with crime of
murder.

FACTS
Prosecution presented witness Jovelyn Dagmil who saw the victim, 17 year-old Rosemarie B.
Tallada, enter the house of the accused Francisco Dacillo, where she was last seen alive.
Moments later Jovelyn and several others heard a struggle that took place in the house but
failed to report the same immediately to the police.
Witness Roche Abregon testified that she peeped through a hole on the wall of Dacillo’s house
and saw appellant and another man (ACCUSED CLAIMED TO BE IN THE PERSON OF
JOSELITO PACOT) grappling with a woman who was gagged with a handkerchief.
When Roche saw appellant choking the woman, she informed her aunt about the commotion
in appellant’s house but the aunt brushed it aside as a simple family quarrel.
For a while they heard the sound of a woman being beaten up. Then everything became quiet.
Later that evening, they saw appellant leaving his house.
 The next day, Dacillo was seen with ready-mixed cement in a plastic pail.
Foul odor of the victim’s rotting body emitted from the house of the accused.
Police found the body of the victim 5 days later encased in a cement tomb in the home of
Dacillo who was only arrested a year after the discovery of the body.
RTC
He was found guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced to death due to the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism for a previous conviction for the death of his former live-in
partner.
Joselito Pacot, who ACCUSED claimed killed the victim, was acquitted for lack of sufficient
evidence to identify him with certainty.
DACILLO
Admitted complicity in the crime but minimized his participation stating that he only held
down Rosemarie’s legs to prevent her from struggling and, after the latter was killed by
Joselito Pacot, he encased the corpse in cement.

Issue
Whether the aggravating circumstance of recidivism should have been appreciated by the court
against the accused- NO!

Dispositive:
Judgment is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Dacillo is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There being neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstances, appellant is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Ratio:
In order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in the
information and to attach certified true copies of the sentences previously meted out to the
accused.

This is in accord with Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which states:
SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation
of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense,
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. The aggravating
circumstance of recidivism was not alleged in the information and therefore cannot be
appreciated against appellant. Hence the imposable penalty should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua. Therefore, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the ground that
appellant admitted during re-cross examination that he had a prior conviction for the death of
his former live-in partner.
Other issues
(As to guilt of accused) Despite Dacillo’s self-serving, exculpatory statement limiting his involvement
in the crime, all circumstances pointed to his guilt.
Assuming that Pacot was the mastermind, appellant’s admission that he participated in its
commission by holding Rosemarie’s legs made him a principal by direct participation. Two
or more persons taking part in the commission of a crime are considered principals by direct
participation if the following requisites are present:
1. they participated in the criminal resolution and
2. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end.
To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof of the previous agreement and
decision to commit the crime, it being sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert pursuant
to the same objective.
(as the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength which qualified the killing to murder)
The killing of Rosemarie was committed with abuse of superior strength. Two grown-up men against
a young fragile woman whose ability to defend herself had been effectively restrained revealed a
shocking inequality of physical strength. The victim was much weaker in constitution and could not
have possibly defended herself from her stronger assailants.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.

133. PEOPLE vs. MOLINA

July 24, 2000
Per Curiam
Digested by Mica Maurinn M. Adao

Short version: Molina was charged with murder and frustrated murder. In the course of his trial was
discovered that Molina was previously charged and convicted of attempted homicide by the same
RTC in a decision. When confronted with this fact on the witness stand, Molina interposed no
objection and admitted the same. RTC convicted him for both charges and appreciate the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism. SC affirmed and ruled that despite not being alleged in the information,
recidivism can be appreciated as aggravating because the accused admitted it and adid not object on
the presentation of evidence on the matter.

CHARGE: Roland Molina was charged with murder for stabbing Joseph Bon-ao (a hunchback) at the
back causing his death, and with frustrated murder for stabbing Angelito Bon-ao causing him to be
fatally wounded but survived due to timely medical assistance.
FACTS: “Kuba” incident
This incident happened around 12mn-1am of March 4 and 5 when the victims were on their way
home after witnessing the town fiesta of Lagangilang.

Danny Vidal (a witness who was with the victim during the incident)
Molina shouted “Kuba” and then stabbed them.

Molina
Pleaded not guilty to both charges. He professed innocence. He denied the crimes imputed to
him and attempted to put the blame upon somebody, an unknown unidentified person.

That he told his companion at that night to go down (“bumaba”) but the victim’s group
misheard it as kuba then suddenly surrounded him and Tejero.

When Joseph tried to draw a bolo, he picked up a stone and threw the same at Joseph who was
not hit.

Molina then ran away.

There was a commotion and a “taller” man appeared. Afterwards, he learned that there was
somebody hurt in the commotion where he and Tejero were before he ran to the fair ground.

Afterwards, he went home.

During trial,
It was discovered that Molina was previously charged and convicted of attempted homicide
by the same RTC in a decision dated October 9, 1996. When confronted with this fact on the
witness stand on December 18, 1997, Molina interposed no objection and admitted the same.
Trial Court
Convicted Molina of the crimes for which he was charged, appreciating against him the
aggravating circumstance of recidivism.

ISSUE: Can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be considered despite not being alleged in
the complaint?

RULING:YES because the accused does not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of
recidivism

RATIO:
On the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, the trial court properly appreciated the same
though not alleged in the information. Article 14(9) of the Revised Penal Code defines a recidivist
as "one who, at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code."
 To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the information and to attach
thereto certified copies of the sentences rendered against the accused.
Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such aggravating circumstance credence if the
accused does not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism.
In the case at bar, the Molina never voiced out any objection when confronted with the fact of his
previous conviction for attempted homicide in a decision dated October 9, 1996 in Criminal Case
No. 1133. Neither does it appear that he appealed from the said decision of conviction for
attempted homicide, claiming he became aware of the promulgation of the decision in that case
only at the provincial jail during the pendency of his case for murder and frustrated murder.

Thus, at the time of his trial for murder and frustrated murder, the decision in Criminal Case No.
1133 for attempted homicide has long been final.

Convictions affirmed.

134. PEOPLE v. CAJARA

G.R. Nos. 122498 | September 27, 2000 | En Banc | Automatic Review of Death Sentence
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
ELMEDIO CAJARA, accused-appellant.

Bellosillo, J.

Digest by Bryan John Maga

Short Version: Elmedio Cajara was convicted of qualified rape and was sentenced with death penalty.
The Supreme Court, however, modified the ruling and convicted him only of simple rape punishable
by reclusion perpetua since the qualifying circumstances were not present. In addition, while the
aggravating circumstance of reiteracion or habituality is present, it was not appreciated because what
is imposed in this case was a single indivisible penalty. The said penalty shall be applied regardless
of the mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to the crime, such as reiteracion.

Facts:

Marita, who was 16 years old, was staying with her half-sister, Meling, and her husband, the accused
Elmedio Cajara, in their house without any partition.

At about 2am one morning, Marita was awakened when Cajara, with a bolo, tried to rape her.

She shouted for help. Later, Meling helped her by pulling away Cajara but the latter hit her. He then
went back and continued having carnal knowledge with Marita.
The older of the two children of the couple cried.

Meling, holding the youngest child, helplessly watched while Cajara raped her younger sister.

The trial court

Convicted Cajara of Qualified Rape, and sentenced to death.

Being persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that he raped Marita in front of his common-
law wife and their two small children.

Issue: WON reiteracion or habituality is present? Yes.

WON the said aggravating circumstance can be appreciated in this case? No.

Dispositive:

Judgment appealed from modified. Cajara is convicted only of simple rape and is sentenced with
reclusion perpetua, not death, and to pay damages.

Reasoning:
The crime was aggravated by reiteracion under Art. 14, par. 10, of the RPC, Cajara having been
convicted of frustrated murder in 1975 and of homicide, frustrated homicide, trespass to dwelling,
illegal possession of firearms and murder sometime in 1989 where his sentences were later
commuted to imprisonment for 23 years and a fine of P200,000.00.

He was granted conditional pardon by the President on 8 November 1991.

Reiteracion or habituality under Art. 14, par. 10 is present when the accused has been previously punished for
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to the second offense
or for two or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

- However, since Cajara can be convicted only of simple rape, the imposable penalty therefor
is reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied
regardless of the mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to the crime, such as
reiteracion in the instant case.

On conviction of only simple rape:

- Under Sec. 11 of RA 7659 amending Art. 335 of the RPC, while the crime of rape shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua, the death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. When the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of
parent of the victim x x x x 3. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent,
any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
 - Hence, contrary to the ruling of the trial court, the accused can only be convicted of simple
rape punishable by reclusion perpetua. Although the circumstance of relationship by affinity
within the third civil degree was alleged in the Information, evidence showed the lack or
absence of such circumstance to qualify the rape because the accused and the half-sister of
the victim were mere common-law husband and wife and were not legally married at the
time of the rape.
o The accused and the victim then cannot be said to be related by affinity within the
third civil degree at the time of the commission of the crime.
- Neither can Cajara be convicted of qualified rape on the basis that the rape was committed in
full view of the relatives of the victim within the third degree of consanguinity because this
qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the Information or in the Complaint against the
accused.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,
Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
135. People v. Gaorana
GR No. 109138-39/ 27 April 1998/ First Division/ Appeal
People of the Philippines - plaintiff-appellee
Alberto Gaorana - accused-appellant
Decision by J. Panganiban
Digest by Joeyboy Lacas

Short version: Facts are too short for a short version.

Facts:

Two Informations charging Alberto Gaorana of the crime of rape committed against Marivel Fuentes
were filed before the trial court.

The two Informations alleged that both instances of rape were attended by the aggravating
circumstance of quasi-recidivism.

During trial, Rowena Gaorana, witness for the defense, testified that Alberto Gaorana was a living out
prisoner of Davao Penal Colony (DAPECOL).

The trial court convicted Alberto Gaorana of two counts of rape and sentencing him to two terms of
reclusion perpetua. Accused filed an appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism could be appreciated?

Ruling: NO. Quasi-recidivism was not established. However, the appeal is hereby denied.

Ratio: The trial court made no express ruling that appellant was a quasi-recidivist, and rightly so.
During the trial, the prosecution manifested that appellant had been convicted by the RTC in
Criminal Case No. 013 and was serving sentence for the crime of homicide. However, the prosecution
failed or neglected to present in evidence the record of appellant’s previous conviction.

Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and reiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of
the sentence convicting an accused. The fact that appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL does not
prove that final judgment had been rendered against him.

Voting: Davide, Bellosillo, Vitug and Quisumbing JJ., concur.

136. People v. Villapando

G.R. No. 73656/05 October 1989/First Division/Appeal to the SC

People of the Philippines – plaintiff

Rogelio Villapando – defendant

Short Version: Villapando stabbed 3 people, killing 1 and injuring 2.

Facts:
Jan 14, 1979, at around 6:10pm – Ramon, Nelia, and Alicia went to the Batangas City bus terminal.

Romulo accompanied girlfriend Alicia to see her off.

Nelia, Alicia, and Romulo boarded a parked bus while Ramon went to the counter to get student
discounts for them.

Apparently, Romulo got into an argument with Villapando who was seated in front of the 2 girls. A
fistfight between Romulo and Villapando ensued.

Villapando stabbed Romulo on the chest with a fan knife.

Romulo later died.

Alicia and Ramon tried to break up the fight but were both stabbed in the arm.

Ramon, who also tried to intervene, was also hit in the arm.

Villapando fled the scene.

Issue: WON the killing can be qualified by reiteracion or habituality. No.

Ruling:
Crim Case VIII-823 (Romulo) RTC decision modified from murder to homicide as there is no
treachery involved.

Crim Case 770 (Alicia) – RTC decision of slight physical injuries affirmed. Intent to kill not proven.

Crim Case 771 (Ramon) – RTC decision modified into less serious physical injuries.

Ratio:
Reiteracion or habituality cannot be appreciated in this case.
Here is the list of offenses which Villapando was found by the RTC to have committed
before and after the January 14, 1979 incident:

(1) before January, 1979, arrested and accused of theft before the Municipal Court of
Mendez, Cavite;
(2) May 15, 1973, charged with physical injuries in Lipa City but the case was amicably
settled;
(3) January 15, 1973, charged with theft in Lemery, Batangas and was convicted;
(4) likewise charged and convicted before Batangas City City Court;
(5) charged with theft before the CFI in Binan Laguna but the case was settled
amicably;
(6) charged with theft before CFI Manila and was convicted on October 30, 1982

In reiteracion or habituality, it is essential that the offender be previously punished, that is, he has
served the sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, or provides for an equal or greater
penalty than that attached by law to the second offense, or for two or more offenses, in which the law
attaches a lighter penalty (People v. Layson, et al).

The records do not show that Villapando has been previously punished by an offense to which the
law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty. Due to the absence of either aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty for
homicide, which is reclusion temporal, should be imposed in its medium period (A249, in relation to
A64 (1) RPC).

Other issues:
Villapando’s alibi of purchasing the watch was not upheld as he failed to prove that it was impossible
for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Villapando also was positively identified by the
witnesses.

Treachery was not sufficiently proven as the witnesses only saw the actual stabbing, not how it began
or developed.

The crime against Romulo is only simple homicide as there is no circumstance which would qualify
the killing to murder.
Voting: Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

137. People v. Uganap

G.R. No. 130605/19 June 2001/Third Division/Appeal to the SC from an RTC Decision
Felix Uganap – accused-appellant
People of the Phillippines – plaintiff-appellee
Decision by J. Gonzaga-Reyes, Digest by Al Mohammadsali

Short Version: Felix Uganap and several others hatched a plan to kill Pedro Arang, due to a land
dispute. Their plan was delayed by two weeks because Arang went to another town. They eventually
proceeded with their plan still to kill Arang. Felix Uganap (he was the only one convicted) is guilty of
the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation. Sufficient time had elapsed and this shows that
he really resolved and planned to kill Arang.

Facts:
Accused in the case are Felix Uganap, Faustino Uganap, Salvador Uganap, Nonoy Panday Tirso
Arang and four John Does.

The lone eyewitness, Samuel Arang testified that at around 8:30 in the evening of January 6, 1990, he
was walking home when he stopped near the house of Salvador Uganap, one of the accused, to light
a cigarette.

He peeped through a hole in the wall of the house and saw the five accused gathered together
– Felix Uganap had a .38 revolver tucked to his waist, while Nonoy Panday held a pistolized
carbine.

The room was illuminated by a lamp.

Upon seeing that they were armed, Samuel Arang moved away from the house and hid behind
a coconut tree.

The accused left Salvador Uganap’s house and went to the victim’s house, which was about 30
meters away from where the witness was.

Samuel Arang stated that he saw Salvador Uganap kick the door of Pedro Arang’s house;
seconds later, Pedro opened the door, carrying with him a kerosene lamp.

Immediately, Felix Uganap shot him.

Pedro shouted for help, calling on his “Tio Pelagio” (the eyewitness’s father).
 Upon seeing the shooting, Samuel Arang fled to his house where he told his father of what he
saw. As they were afraid, they did not attempt to rescue the victim but waited until the next
morning to attend to the body.

Nolly Luchavez testified and identified all the accused as members of a religious vigilante group
called Ituman.
Luchavez was himself recruited into the group when he was only 14 years old.

Accused-appellant Felix Uganap was the group’s designated field commander, and carried the
alias “Commander Matador”.

Accused Nonoy Panday was also a commander.

Luchavez left the group after five years, in 1990, disillusioned that the group which he thought
had good objectives turned out to be nothing more than a gang of hired killers.

Luchavez’s testimony revealed that the plan to kill Pedro Arang was proposed by Faustino Uganap at
a coffee shop in Toril, Davao City on December 18, 1989.
Present at that meeting were the four other accused and Luchavez.

Faustino paid Felix P3,000.00 for the purpose.

Luchavez was supposed to knock on the door of Pedro Arang’s house. He said that the group
intended to undertake the killing on December 24, but this was aborted since they found out
that the victim left town to visit his wife in Tagum.

Hence, the plan was set to January 6.

Luchavez, however, was unable to go with the group to Pedro Arang’s house because he had a fever
that day.

Felix Uganap reportedly said, “Well, it is alright, anyway we have another mission.”

The day after, he learned from Tirso Arang and Felix Uganap that Pedro had been killed.

It appeared that the cause of the conflict was a piece of land. Pedro wanted to build his house therein
but Faustino opposed it.

Trial court
Ruled that there was no conspiracy.

It held that only two of the five accused, Felix Uganap and the deceased Salvador Uganap
(died during trial), were positively identified.
 Moreover, although Nolly Luchavez testified that Faustino Uganap proposed the killing,
there was no showing that he participated in the killing as based on the account of Samuel
Arang he, as well as Nonoy Panday and Tirso Arang, merely stood around while Felix Uganap
assaulted Pedro Arang.

The trial court also appreciated treachery and evident premediation. It convicted appellant
and acquitted the other accused.

Issue: WON the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were properly
appreciated? No for treachery. Yes for evident premediation

[This is not the main issue of the case, but this case is listed under “Evident Premeidation” in the
syllabus. The main issue is the appellant’s contention that he should be acquitted in view of the
finding of no conspiracy.]

Ruling: Conviction and finding of evident premeditation affirmed. Reversed finding as to treachery.

Ratio:
Treachery
The Court determined that no convincing evidence was submitted on the manner of attack. It was not
shown with particularity how the victim was killed. The trial court determined how treachery could
have been present based on how it “surmised” the manner of attack. Treachery cannot be appreciated
where no particulars were shown as to the manner by which the aggression was commenced and
developed. Treachery cannot be acknowledged on the basis of mere presumptions or suppositions,
but must be proven as clearly as the crime itself.

Evident Premeditation
The elements of evident premeditation must be established with equal certainty and clarity as the
criminal act itself before it can be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. These elements are: (1)
the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that
they clung to their determination to commit the crime; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the
decision to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the accused to reflect upon the
consequences of their act. The essence, therefore, of evident premeditation is that the execution of the
criminal act is preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.

In CAB, all the elements of evident premeditation are met.

As early as December 18, 1989, the conspirators had determined to kill Pedro Arang.

On December 24, 1989, they met to set their heinous plan into effect but they had to
postpone it because Pedro left for another town to visit his wife.

Still they clung to their resolve as they simply postponed the execution to January 6, 1990.
 All these demonstrate that the criminal intent had been harbored in dark reflection and
calculation for more than two weeks, where the malefactors had every opportunity to
abandon it but did not do so.

Voting: Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

138. PEOPLE V. CAMPOMANES
GR No. 132568 / 6 February 2002 / FIRST DIVISION / Appeal from decision of Trial Court
Plaintiff-appellee – People of the Phils
Accused-Appellant – Matt Campomanes, Edwin Rosita
Puno, J.
(Digest by Kei Garcia)

SHORT VERSION: A security guard witnessed Rosita stabbing Alkonga with a balisong while
Campomanes was holding the victim’s hands up. The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court to
hold both accused guilty of murder due to treachery, but the Court denied the existence of evident
premeditation. While there was conspiracy due to the acts of both accused witnessed at the time of
the murder, there was no proof showing that there was conspiracy to commit the crime BEFORE the
act was done.

FACTS:
Aureada, security guard at Rizal park and eyewitness presented by the prosecution, testified that on
October 30, 1994 at 10:30pm, while he was guarding the area around the monument of Rizal, he saw
park photographer Campomanes running after the deceased Alkonga. Campomanes caught Alkonga
and grabbed the latter’s collar and they both lost balance. Aureada blew his whistle to call their
attention, but the two park photographers did not stop, and Alkonga grabbed for Campomanes’s
camera and hit the latter. Then another park photographer, Rosita arrived and brought out a
“balisong”/fan knife, pointing it at Alkonga. Aureada tried to fire a warning shot but he misfired and
Rosita came after the security guard, to which Aureada then started running away and eventually
called on park security patrol. He then saw Rosita stabbing Alkonga with the balisong while
Campomanes held Alkonga’s arms up. Then both Campomanes and Rosita ran away towards the
Manila Hotel, where they were both apprehended by the park security patrol later on. Alkonga died
the day after he was brought to the hospital due to multiple stab wounds.

According to the accused, they were merely defending themselves from Alkonga and that Rosita
stabbed Alkonga after they grappled with the knife. That before the incident, Alkonga hit Rosita in
the stomach after Rosita and some four female customers refused to allow him to take their pictures.

The trial court found both Campomanes and Alkonga guilty of murder.

ISSUE (RELEVANT TO TOPIC): Whether or not evident premeditation was sufficiently

established as a qualifying circumstance in the commission of the crime.

RULING: DECISION OF TC AFFIRMED.

RATIO:
The Court enumerated the requisites that need to be established to properly appreciate the existence
of evident premeditation:
1. the time when the accused determined to commit the crime;
2. an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to his determination; and
3. a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his act
The Court also said that, “where conspiracy is directly established, with proof of the attendant
deliberation and selection of the method, time and means of executing the crime, the existence of
evident premeditation can be taken for granted,” citing People v. Custodio.

However, there was no evident premeditation in this case because no evidence of conspiracy where
premeditation was established between the two accused was actually shown. In fact, conspiracy was
only inferred (and established) from the acts of both accused at the time, and not from any evidence
showing that there was a plan they both conspired in to kill the victim.

There was, however, treachery established and thus, both accused were still found guilty of murder.

VOTING: Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

139. PEOPLE v. BIBAT

G.R. No. 124319 | May 13, 1998 | Third Division | Appeal from a Judgment of the RTC
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
GARI BIBAT Y DESCARGAR, defendant-appellant.
PURISIMA, J.
Digest by Dawn Chua

Short Version:
Bibat stabbed del Rosario to death. He was found guilty of murder in the RTC. Bibat claims that the
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should not have been appreciated. Court ruled
that based on the testimonies of the witnesses, evident premeditation has been established. Bibat and
his companions planned the killing in the house of Rogelio Robles and in his presence. On the day of
the killing, another witness Nona Cinco overheard Bibat planning the killing with his companion
while waiting for her bettor. A few hours later, Cinco personally saw Bibat kill the victim Lloyd del
Rosario. From the time Nona Cinco heard the plan to kill someone at 11:30 up to the killing incident
at 1:30 in the afternoon of the same day, there was a sufficient lapse of time for Bibat to reflect on the
consequences. Such is evidence of evident premeditation.

Facts:
- Gari Bibat stabbed Lloyd del Rosario to death while the latter was waiting for his ride to
school.

Testimonies of Witnesses
 1. The incident was witnessed by the laundrywoman Nona Cinco, who testified that she was
waiting for her better when she saw a person about 1 meter away talking to Bibat. Said person
told Bibat: “O pare, anduon na. Puntahan mo na. Siguruhin mo lang na itumba mo na.” to
which he answered: “Oo ba. Ganito ba, ganito ba?”
o After hearing the conversation, she went to see another bettor. She first went inside a
house and after a while, she went outside where she saw Bibat entering an alley. She
walked along with him. They were even able to look at each other.
o While del Rosario was going out of a gate, Bibat hurried towards him and took a
pointed object from a notebook, then stabbed him in the left chest twice.
o Cinco was only about 4 to 5 meters away from the scene of the crime.

2. Florencio Castro testified among others that he saw Bibat together with four others inside the
Gloria Memorial Homes. One of them used the phone inside said place to call somebody.
The rest stayed beside the one calling. He saw one of them open a notebook where a
stainless knife was inserted. He heard the one using the phone, asking “kung nasaan.”
Thereafter, the group left.

3. Rogelio Robles, testified that Bibat had been going to his place because their Samahang
Ilocano (SI) president, Tonton Montero, is his neighbor. Before the incident occurred, Tonton
Montero told him about a rumble in school whereby somebody died. The group of the
accused was planning to take revenge against the victim, Lloyd del Rosario. He further
testified that he only knows Lloyd del Rosario by the face because the latter is from his place.
He only knew what had happened to Lloyd after that fateful incident because 6 or 7 of the
members of the group arrived, all with a “tusok” and they even kept two guns in his house.
Bibat was one of the 6 or 7 people he saw on that day, with a “tres-cantos” or “veinte nueve”
tucked in his (Bibat’s) waistline. He further narrated that he actually saw the killing of the
victim; that even before the day Lloyd died, they already hid some guns and “tusok” in his
house.

RTC: Bibat guilty of murder, appreciating circumstance of evident premeditation.

o The RTC has appreciated evident premeditation based solely on the testimony of
Rogelio Robles who testified that Bibat and his companion hid some guns and “tusok”
in his house.

Bibat: evident premeditation was not properly appreciated by the RTC.

Bibat claims that he should have been charged with homicide.
o He claims that Robles’ testimony is not credible because no sane person would plan a
killing in the presence of another who was not in on it.
o He faults Robles for his indifferent reaction upon hearing of the plans to kill del
Rosario.

Issues:
WON there was evident premeditation. - YES
Dispositive:
RTC decision affirmed.

Reasoning:
- There is evident premeditation when the following requisites are met:
1. The time when the offender determined (conceived) to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his act.
- The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by cool
thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of
time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.

- With regard to Robles’ indifference, the Court, based on the record, found that he was fearful
of his and his siblings’ life if he reported what he had heard to the authorities. Fully aware that
Bibat and his companions were armed with guns and “tusok”, it was but natural for Robles to
just observe them and not get involved. Fear for his own life and that of his family may have
overcome whatever humanitarian inclination he had as a concerned citizen.

- Besides, even without the testimony of Rogelio Robles, the presence of the first requisite of
evident premeditation appears to have been thoroughly and sufficiently established.
o The determination or conception of the plan to kill the victim could be deduced from
the outward circumstances that happened on the day of the killing.
o Records show that at 11:30 in the morning of October 14, 1992, prosecution witness
Nona Cinco saw the accused with some companions at Funeraria Gloria. She
personally heard the plan to kill someone.
o Another prosecution witness, Florencio Castro, who works at the Funeraria Gloria also
saw the group of Gari Bibat in the said place. At around 1:30 in the afternoon, Nona
Cinco saw the appellant for the second time. She saw Bibat hurry towards Lloyd, take a
pointed thing from a notebook and with the use of such weapon, stabbed the victim on
the chest.
o These overt acts clearly evinced that the appellant clung to his resolution to kill the
victim.

- From the time Nona Cinco heard the plan to kill someone at 11:30 up to the killing incident at
1:30 in the afternoon of the same day, there was a sufficient lapse of time for Bibat to reflect on
the consequences.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Romero, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

140. People v. Lug-aw

G.R. No. 85735/January 18, 1994/En Banc/ Appeal from RTC’s decision

Julio Lug-aw and Rogelio Bannay alias Junior Bannay-defendants-appellants

People of the Philippines – plaintiff-appellee

Decision by J. Romero, Digest by Arnel

Topic: Evident Premeditation

SHORT VERSION: On December 12, 1985, Carlos Pal-loy was shot by Julio Lug-aw as he was
fencing the boundary limits of his land. His 13-year old daughter heard the first shot so she went
uphill (along with her sister Carina) and climbed a tree wherein she saw Lug-aw, behind a tree
stump, firing another shot at his father. She then went to his father who told him that Lug-aw and
Bannay shot him. RTC sentenced Lug-aw and Bannay to reclusion perpetua plus Php30k as
indemnity for the heirs of Pal-loy. MR denied. Lug-aw petitions for a new trial but was denied. The
SC did not appreciate the aggravating circumstance of treachery and premeditation since Sonia, the
lone witness, did not witness the commencement of the attack, only the second assault. Lug-aw is
sentenced to 10 yrs, 1 day to 17 yrs, 4 mos (prision mayor to reclusion temporal) and Bannag was
acquitted.

Facts:

Around 5PM on December 12, 1985, Carlos Pal-loy was shot to death as he was fencing his farmland
in Maddela, Quirino, by persons identified with the owner of the land adjacent to his own and with
whom Pal-loy had a boundary dispute. (Note: The parties hail from Banawe, Ifugao)

Pal-loy was proceeding towards the house when Sonia, her 13 year-old daughter, heard a gun
report/gunshot. Immediately, she went uphill, climbed a tree and just as a second gun report
resounded, she saw Rogelio Bannay and Julio Lug-aw from a distance of around four meters.

She saw, too, that as her father was about to draw his bolo, Lug-aw shot him.

The two then fled.

Pal-loy told Sonia, and his wife Carmen (who was fetched by Sonia) that his assailants were Julio
Lug-aw and Rogelio Bannay.

No one came to their aide, so they buried Pal-loy after he died at around midnight.
When the police heard about the mysterious death, they had the body exhumed and autopsied. Lug-
aw and Bannay was charged with murder.

DEFENSE: Denial and Alibi.

Julio Lug-aw, the son-in-law of Conchita Nipol(owner of the adjacent farm), swore that he was
plowing his farm in Nalungtutan, Nagtipunan, Quirino around 16 to 17 kilometers away or 5
hours away from the farm of Nipol(!).

Rogelio Bannay whose house in Nalungtutan was around fifty meters away from that of Lug-
aw, testified that when the crime occurred, he was at home "peeling peanuts" with his wife
(yes, that’s what the court said: “peeling peanuts” with his wife).

RTC: Lug-aw and Bannay guilty of murder, and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua plus Php30k
as indemnity for the heirs of Pal-loy. Treachery and evident premeditation are present.

APPEAL: after Lug-aw’s MR was denied, he petitioned for "new trial and/or consideration" based on
the "inefficient legal service" rendered by the CLAO (Citizens Legal Assistance Office) which
allegedly denied the accused due process, plus some other affidavits of witnesses which mentioned
that Carmen admitted that Carlos did not identify the assailants. Denied, as well. Thus, this appeal.

ISSUE/HELD:

WON treachery and premeditation was present? NO.

WON Bannag is guilty of homicide? NO.

RATIO:

A. Sonia's failure to name the appellants in her sworn statement could be attributed to her tender
years and the trauma and shock she had experienced after having witnessed the horrifying
killing of her father. Her positive identification of the accused, during her testimony, as the
perpetrators of the crime demolished their alibi and denial. Even standing alone, such positive
sole testimony is enough basis for conviction.
B. The qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation had not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
a. The trial court drew the conclusion of the presence of treachery because the attack was
 sudden as Pal-loy was simply going about his task of fencing his kaingin.
i. The SC finds, however, that no one witnessed the initial attack. As Sonia
herself testified, she heard the first shot, went up a hill, climbed a tree and
from there, saw Lug-aw shooting her father with the shot reverberating as the
second gun report.
ii. As the Court held in People v. Castor, where the lone eyewitness was not able
to observe the commencement of the assault, he could not, therefore, testify on
how it all began and developed.
iii. Absent any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced
or how the act resulted in the death of the victim unfolded, treachery cannot be
appreciated to qualify the killing to murder.
C. The three requisites of this aggravating circumstance, namely:

a. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime,

b. an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and
c. a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution to allow the accused
opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of his act

are wanting in the case at bar. Evident premeditation was, therefore, incorrectly
appreciated by the trial court

D. The testimony of Sonia reveals that Bannag was just standing near Lug-aw when the latter
shot Pal-loy. There is no evidence that Bannay shared Lug-aw's criminal intent.
a. Thus, although he did not do anything in contravention of the supposed conspiracy,
his mere passive presence at the scene of the crime did not make him liable therefor.
b. And in case of doubt as to the culpability of an accused, it should be resolved in
accordance with the presumption of innocence

DISPOSITIVE: Julio Lug-aw is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of HOMICIDE shall serve the
indeterminate sentence of ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor maximum as minimum
penalty to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal medium as maximum
penalty, and indemnify the heirs of Carlos Pal-loy in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00).
Appellant Rogelio Bannay is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged and he shall be released from
custody immediately. No costs.

141. PEOPLE v. CAMILET

G.R. No. 70392 | June 30, 1986 | Second Division | Appeal

People – plaintiff-appellee

Regino Camilet – defendant-appellant

Decision by: Fernan, J.

Digest by: KY Bautista

Short version: Accused Camilet stabbed the Brgy. Capt beside a road in the middle of the night. The
TC convicted him of murder. However, the TC’s decision did not indicate what circumstance
qualified the killing to murder. The SC said there was no evident premeditation 1) the time when he
determined to commit the crime; 2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his
determination; and 3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his
will had he desired to hearken to its warnings. SC also said that the other aggravating circumstances
alleged (treachery, nighttime, disregard of rank) were not present. He is only guilty of homicide.

CHARGE: accused Regino Camilet, of murder, using a knife, with treachery, evident
premeditation, and taking advantage of nighttime, disregard of age and rank, stabbed and killed
62 yr old Brgy. Capt. Perfecto Camancho.

BACKGROUND

 Prior to this stabbing incident, there was a land dispute between the accused Camilet and the
Camanchos.
o This was settled in the barangay when the accused’s mother-in-law agreed to turn
over the land (to the Camachos) in dispute but this did not seem to satisfy the accused.

FACTS

Prosecution (Camancho was walking with his relatives looking for someone, at night, then Camilet
arrived then stabbed him) :

 After the 7pm Baptist prayer meeting in Camacho’s residence, the group stayed to converse.
Before 9pm, Jolly, the dumb nephew of Camancho arrived crying. He communicated that he
was strangled and hit on the buttocks by someone. He asked Camancho to go back to where he
was attacked.
 It was a moonlit night but Camancho, along with Camancho Jr., Camayo, and Cagayao,
brought a flashlight. After walking around 150 mtrs, the accused Camilet suddenly stepped
from a grove of banana plants and stabbed Camancho with a foot-long knife.
 Camancho then exclaimed “To Reno, you stabbed me.” Cagayao also heard him say “you flee”
Defense version (self-defense, it was Camancho who attacked him first):

 Witness Cachila said that on his way home he saw Camancho and his 3 children. Camancho
was standing near a dike. Accused Camilet arrived then Camancho told him “Reno, so you are
here. I will kill you. Your soul has no value to me.”
 Accused 43-year old Camilet said that on his way to his mother-in-law’s house to ask for help
to prepare his ricefield and and make bamboo stakes for the dike, he was waylaid by
Camancho then hit his mouth with a hammer, knocking out 5 of his teeth.
 Sherwin (Camancho’s son) struck him on his shoulder with an air rifle, then hit his left eye.
Camilet’s wife Thelma heard Camancho’s shout then helped Camilet up.
 He pulled out his knife then swung and hit someone, he didn’t know. He only learned it was
Camancho the following day.

RTC

Discredited his claim of self-defense. During trial when he opened his mouth to show his missing
teeth, it was found that he lost them due to tooth decay. He was convicted of murder.

ISSUE:

W/N evident premeditation is present - NO

RULING:

Judgment of the TC modified. Camilet is found guilty of homicide and sentenced to 8 years and 1
day of prision mayor medium as minimum to sixteen 16 years of reclusion temporal medium as
maximum, and to pay the heirs of Perfecto Camancho, Sr. an indemnity of P30k.

RATIO:

 The TC’s decision does not indicate what circumstance qualified the killing to murder but it
considers disregard of rank an aggravating circumstance.
 As only one circumstance suffices to qualify the killing as murder, either treachery or evident
premeditation must be proven.
 No Evident premeditation. It was not established. Although the facts tend to show that the
accused might have harbored ill-feelings towards the Camanchos after they took a portion
of the land he was farming and they took the produce from his cornfield, there is no proof
that the accused conceived of killing Camanchos. There is no evidence of:
1) the time when he determined to commit the crime
 2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination, and
3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution
of his will had he desired to hearken to its warnings
 No treachery. Mere suddenness of an attack is not sufficient to constitute treachery where it
does not appear that the aggressor adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration
of the killing without risk to himself
 No circumstance of nighttime: no proof that it was especially sought by Camilet to perpetuate
the crime
 No disregard of rank: no clear evidence that Camilet committed the crime in disregard of
the respect due Camancho. as barangay captain

VOTING: Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin and Relova, JJ.,
concur.

Aquino and Gutierrez, JJ., took no part. Makasiar, J., I reserve my vote. Vasquez, J., I reserve my vote.
De Castro, J., concur in the result. Teehankee, J., is on leave.

142. People v. Ilaoa

GR No. 94308 | June 16, 1994 | First Division

Bellosillo

Digest by PS Magno

Short Version:

Ilaoa is convicted for the murder of Nestor through circumstantial evidence, namely:

1. Nestor was seen at 11pm in a drinking session with his compadre Ruben, together with Julius
and Edwin, outside Ruben’s apartment.
2. The drunken voices of Ruben and Nestor engaged in an argument were heard. Also, Nestor
was seen being mauled and kicked by his drinking companions later on. Nestor, who was then
drunk, was also seen being “dragged” by his drinking companions into Ruben’s apartment.
3. Lastly, Ruben borrowed a neighbor’s tricycle under the pretext that he needed to rush another
neighbor to the hospital as she was supposedly about to give birth. Ruben was then seen
driving the tricycle with a sack that looked like it contained a human body, in the sidecar. The
tricycle was returned with bloodstains on the floor.
4. Blood was found in Ruben’s shirt. Ruben’s hair and forehead were also partly burned. Ruben’s
girlfriend was seen sweeping what appeared to be blood at the entrance of their apartment

Facts:
The decapitated body of a man, later identified through his voter’s ID to be Nester de Loyola, was
found in a grassy portion in Angeles City.

The body bore 43 stab wounds in the chest as well as slight burns all over the body.

5 persons, Ruben Ilaoa, Rogelio Ilaoa, Rodel Ilaoa, Julius Elginio, and Edwin Tapang, where charged
for this crime.

However, only Ruben and Rodel stood trial, as the 3 others escaped and were never apprehended.

The RTC used the ff. circumstantial evidence to convict Ruben and Rodel

1. Nestor was seen at 11pm in a drinking session with his compadre Ruben, together with Julius
and Edwin, outside Ruben’s apartment.
2. The drunken voices of Ruben and Nestor engaged in an argument were heard.
a. Nestor was seen being mauled and kicked by his drinking companions later on.
b. Nestor, who was then drunk, was also seen being “dragged” by his drinking
companions into Ruben’s apartment.
3. Lastly, Ruben borrowed a neighbor’s tricycle under the pretext that he needed to rush another
neighbor to the hospital as she was supposedly about to give birth.
a. Ruben was then seen driving the tricycle with a sack that looked like it contained a
human body, in the sidecar. The tricycle was returned with bloodstains on the floor.
4. Blood was found in Ruben’s shirt. Ruben’s hair and forehead were also partly burned. Ruben’s
girlfriend was seen sweeping what appeared to be blood at the entrance of their apartment.

Issue and Dispositive:

(For Crim Law Rev) Is evident premeditation supposed to be considered? No, there was no
evidence proving the same.

(Others) Are Ruben and Rogelio guilty? Ruben is, but Rogelio is not.

Ratio:

As to Rogelio’s guilt, the RTC relied SOLELY on the testimony that established that Rogelio helped
Ruben drag Nestor inside Ruben’s apartment. Apart from that there is nothing else to link Rogelio to
the crime.
To warrant a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, there must be

1. More than one circumstance

2. The circumstances from which the inferences are derived are proven to be true
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt

In Rogelio’s case, this is totally inadequate, and does not meet the standard for conviction under
circumstantial evidence.

As to Ruben, the case is a totally different matter. “His fate was sealed by the unbroken chain of
circumstances which culminated in the discovery of Nestor Loyola’s decapitated body.” The SC
basically affirmed the finding of circumstantial evidence found by the RTC, as listed above.

Ruben tried to defend himself by saying that

 The sack he was carrying in the sidecar of the tricycle contained marijuana, and that he was
driving the same to the fields as a favor to Nestor
 That it was the vomit of his drinking companions that was being swept up by his girlfriend in
their apartment
 However, he was not able to take into consideration the bloodstains on the tricycle

Despite all this, the SC does not hold Ruben liable for murder, but only for homicide

 No qualifying circumstances, as alleged in the information, namely, abuse of superior strength,

cruelty, and evident premeditation, were not sufficiently proved
 Abuse of strength
o There was NO evidence whatsoever that Ruben was physically superior to Nestor
 Cruelty
o There was no showing that Ruben, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused Nestor to
suffer slowly and painfully, and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain
o Number of wounds is NOT a criterion
o Neither can it be inferred from the fact that Nestor’s body was decapitated
 Evident premeditation
o There is nothing to show that Ruben, prior to the night, resolved to kill Nestor, nor is
there proof to show that such killing was the result of meditation, calculation, or
resolution on Ruben’s part
143. PEOPLE v. LABUGUEN
337 SCRA 488 | August 9, 2000 | En Banc | AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cauayan, Isabela, Br. 20.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
VIVENCIO LABUGUEN @ DENCIO, accused-appellant.
PER CURIAM
Digest by Lilian Dy

Short Version: (AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: CRAFT & FRAUD)

Labuguen was found guilty of robbery with homicide. The penalty of death was imposed given the
presence of the aggravating circumstances of craft and fraud. By saying that he would accompany the
victim to see the cows which the latter intended to buy, accused was able to lure the victim to go with
him

Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the offender, and when there is a direct
inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present

Facts:
1. 27 Oct 1994, Isabela: Vivencio Labuguen (Dencio) told Bonifacio (Bonifacio) Angeles, a cow
dealer, that he knew of 3 big cows for sale and that he would take Bonifacio to their location
nearby.
2. Bonifacio took with him 40K (since the cows were “big”’). Bonifacio and Dencio left using
Bonifacio’s motorcycle.
3. Several witnesses saw Bonifacio and Dencio on their way to see the cows.
4. At around noon, a minibus picked up Dencio near the National Highway. The conductor
noticed that Dencio’s clothes were soaked with blood. Moreover, he saw that Decnio’s breast
pocket was full of money (2 inch thick stack of P100 bills)
5. Bonifacio was later found dead in a ricefield. He had been shot and stabbed several times.
6. Dencio used the defense of denial and alibi.
7. RTC finds Dencio guilty of Robbery with homicide and considering the aggravating
circumstances of fraud and craft without any mitigating circumstance sentences Dencio the
penalty of Death.

Issue:
WON the aggravating circumstance of craft and fraud were present? (YES)

Dispositive:
RTC decision affirmed.

Reasoning:
Though not alleged in the Information, the generic aggravating circumstances of fraud and craft were
properly appreciated by the trial court. Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of
the offender. When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present.
By saying that he would accompany the victim to see the cows which the latter intended to buy,
appellant was able to lure the victim to go with him.
Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Robbery with Homicide is reclusion
perpetua to death. Applying Article 63 of the same Code, the imposable penalty under the premises is
death in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of craft and fraud and the absence of
any mitigating circumstance.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

144. People v. Marquez

G.R. No. L-32860/30 September 1982/First Division/Appeal
People of the Philippines – plaintiff-appellee
Renato Marquez – defendant
Francisco Forneste and Samuel Jacobo – defendants-appellants
Decision by J. Gutierrez, Jr., Digest by Pip

Short Version: The accused pretended to be PC soldiers and managed to get inside the house of the
victims. They then proceeded to rob the victims of valuables before raping three women (the
youngest thirteen). On appeal, the accused who were still alive (one died) questioned the propriety of
their identification as the perpetrators of the crime. The Court ruled that the witnesses had identified
them with sufficient accuracy, and any initial reluctance to do so could be attributed to the fear and
trauma they experienced as a result of the offenses against them.

Facts: Sometime in the 1960s1, one November night, Francisca Marquez was inside her house with her
seven children and their maid. Somebody called in front of their window, identifying themselves as
PC soldiers looking for contraband. She replied that they did not have any contraband and that her
husband, Angel Tan, was in the poblacion at that time. The men ordered her to let them in, otherwise
they would shoot up the house.

Naturally, this terrified Francisca and she opened the window shutter. A man whom she
recognized as Renato Marquez2 jumped inside the brightly-lit house. Holding her by the nape and at
gunpoint, Marquez pushed her to the door and ordered her to open it. When she opened the door,
Forneste and Jacobo—also armed—entered and demanded she give them the contraband they were
looking for.

When she repeated that there was none, they demanded she give them money. She gave up
P300.00 initially, but Jacobo went on to search their aparador and found an additional P200.00. They
took Francisca’s jewelry as well, which amounted to about P30.00. With Forneste guarding her
children and the maid, Jacobo continued to search Francisca’s belongings. They were apparently

1
Some confusion as to date, since the charge was made in 1964 but the crime itself was apparently
perpetrated in 1966
2
Her distant cousin
unsatisfied with the amount of money they were getting because Francesca and Angel were copra-
buyers (i.e. rich) and after threatening Francesca more 3 she gave them P820.00 that she had hidden in
her pillow.

After getting the money in her pillow, Jacobo raped Francesca while Marquez finished ransacking
the store and taking the merchandise inside. Jacobo then tied Francisca up and made her face down
on the floor together with her children. Forneste and Marquez came in and brought Francisca’s
daughter, Leticia, and the maid Rufina down to the first floor of the house, where they raped them.
They were then brought back up and tied in the same manner as Francisca and the other children.

The men finally left and Leticia was able to free Rufina by biting away at the rope on her wrists.
Rufina then freed everyone else.

Marquez, Forneste, and Jacobo were charged with the crime of robbery with multiple rape before
the CFI of Quezon in June 1964. While the case was pending, Marquez died and as a result the case
was dropped as to him. Forneste and Jacobo were found guilty of robbery with rape (then as defined
under Article 294[2] of the RPC).4

On appeal, Forneste and Jacobo did not dispute the factual findings of the CFI on the commission
of the crime and the circumstances of its commission. However, they did take exception to the CFI’s
finding that they had been positively identified as the perpetrators of the crime by the prosecution
witnesses.

Issue: Were the accused positively identified by the victims? YES.

Ruling: Judgment affirmed, penalty modified from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua.

Ratio: The Court found Francisca and Leticia’s testimony to be sufficient to establish the identity of
the accused. It was immaterial to the Court that Rufina was never put on the witness stand. 5

Francisca identified all three accused in open court. Earlier on, Francisca was able to pick out the
three accused from a police line-up (though she did so discreetly to the PC because she was afraid
that if she did so openly they might “take revenge” against her and her husband) following the
investigation of the incident. It was also of import to the Court that prior to the incident she already
knew Marquez and Forneste, and she could recognize them “anywhere, any time, and any place.”
She did not know Jacobo’s name but she also knew him by face. Even before the line-up
(“confrontation”) she was able to give the names of Forneste and Marquez.

3
“kuarta o buhay”—literally “your money or your life”
4
There was some discussion about the difference between robbery with multiple rape and robbery with
rape. The former involves conspiracy, apparently, and the latter does not. I personally do not understand
the difference.
5
By the time the case went to trial in 1969, Rufina was no longer working for Francisca and could not be
located.
 Leticia, who was only thirteen when she was raped, was also able to identify all three accused in
open court as the people who committed the crimes against her and her family. 6
The Court found it understandable that Francisca did not identify the accused openly during the
line-up and instead only told a PC officer, who subsequently picked out the three accused. From
experience, the Court believed that witnesses are reluctant to divulge the identity of their assailants
except to the proper authorities or until they feel safe enough from any probable harm. Moreover,
even before identifying the accused, the complaining witnesses both gave accurate descriptions of the
perpetrators of the crime which match the appearances of the accused.

The Court also upheld the aggravating circumstances which the prosecution proved and the
CFI appreciated: (1) nighttime; (2) dwelling; (3) unlawful entry; (4) utter disregard due to the victims’
age; and (4) disguise by pretending to be PC officers. With no mitigating circumstances to offset the
aggravating, the Court upheld the imposition of the maximum penalty, correcting only the CFI’s
denomination of the same as “life imprisonment” (should be reclusion perpetua). The Court also
awarded indemnity to the victims (which the CFI apparently forgot to do).

Voting: Teehankee, Makasiar, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Relova, JJ., concur.

145. People vs. Empacis

G.R. No. 95756, May 14, 1993

People of the Philippines - plaintiff-appellee

Crisologo Empacis, defendant-appellant

Decision by: C.J. Narvasa. Digest by: Lor Saguinsin.

Short Version:

Appellant and his companion disguised themselves as customers and ate at the deceased
store’s before the latter was able to close their store. Then after they declared a hold-up. On the
process of getting the money from Saromines, Langomez and appellant Empacis stabbed the store
owner who died moments after. The Supreme Court held that the aggravating circumstance of “craft,
fraud or disguises” was properly appreciated by the trial court in deciding the case.

Facts:

1. Deceased Saromines and his wife were about to close to their small store, located in their
house, when two men came and asked to buy some sardines and rice. They were Langomez
6
Guys, kung may oras kayo, basahin ninyo sa original yung testimony ng bata. Ang sakit basahin, lalo na’t
hindi pa talaga ata alam ng mga tao nuon kung paano mag-examine ng batang na-rape. 
 and Empacis. The wife served them and they proceeded to make a meal of the rice and
sardines.
2. After they finished eating, Langomez told Saromines to sell him cigarettes. As Fidel was
handing over the cigarettes, Langomez announced a "hold-up" and commanded Fidel to give
up his money.
3. As it happened, the deceased then had P12,000.00 in his house, wrapped in cellophane. This he
started to give to Langme but as the latter was taking hold of the packet, Saromines suddenly
decided to fight to keep his money.
4. A struggle followed in the course of which Romualdo stabbed Saromines about three times.
Empacis joined in and with his own knife also stabbed Saromines. Then they escaped.
5. During the incident Empacis was wounded. On the course of having it treated, he was arrested
and later found guilty by the trial court of robbery with homicide.

Issue:

1. Whether the aggravating circumstance of “craft, fraud and disguise” can be appreciated in this
case? (YES)

Ruling:

The ruling of the trial court is affirmed, finding the accused Crisologo Empacis guilty of
robbery with homicide as defined and penalized under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, and
considering the attendance of the four generic aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, craft
or fraud and superior strength, not offset by any mitigating or extenuating circumstance

Ratio:

1. The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud was properly appreciated against Empacis.

 He and Romualdo pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim's store and on his pretext
gained entry into the latter's store and later, into another part of his dwelling.
 This Court has held stratagems and ruses of this sort to constitute the aggravating
circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g: where the accused —
o pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy gained entry into the residence
of their prey whom they thereafter robbed and killed;
o pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and through this artifice, entered the
house of the victim whom they thereupon robbed and killed;
o pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by this means gained entry into a
house, in which they then perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide;
o pretended to be customer wanting to buy a bottle of wine;
o pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a public utility vehicle;
 o posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as being thristy, asking for drink of
water
2. The Court also agrees that nighttime was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
against the accused. In the case at bar, the lateness of the hour no doubt precluded the presence of
other customers who could have deterred the felons, or come to the aid of the victim.

3. For the aggravating circumstance of superior strength, the evidence shows that Empacis helped his
co-accused by also stabbing the victim; he and his companion took advantage of their combined
strength and their bladed weapons to overcome their unarmed victim.

4. That the crime was "committed in the dwelling of the offended party, . . . the latter . . . not (having)
given provacation," was also correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

146. People v. Ambrocio

G.R. No. 140267 / June 29, 2004 / Second Division
People of the Philippines – plaintiff-appellee
Ben Ambrocio, Benigno Ambrocio, Sr., Benigno Ambrocio, Jr., Joseph Andrade and Carlito Francisco –
accused-appellants
Decision by J. Quisumbing; Digest by Jason Jimenez

Short Version: Appellants and their co-accused, totaling five in number, were charged with and
found guilty of MURDER for hacking and killing Roberto Sanchez. The aggressors simultaneously
assaulted the deceased. When all five accused, armed with bolos, joined forces to attack and pursue
Sanchez and the barangay captain, in a concerted effort, they definitely abused their superiority in
number and in arms.

Facts: Prosecution: The barangay captain received a report that coconut lumbers were cut without
permit in Sitio Nasunog. He was accompanied by the victim, Sanchez, in Sitio Nasunog where they
saw the pile of coconut lumber beside the road near the construction site. There was a drinking spree
going on amongst the 5 accused – Carlito Francisco, Joseph Andrade, Benigno Ambrocio, and his
sons Ben and Benny. Ben Ambrocio walked towards the two until Ben was six meters away from
them with only the construction site’s bamboo fence separating them. Ben and his companions were
already drunk. With their bolos drawn, the five approached them. Masangya and Sanchez had a
heated argument or exchange of words with appellant Ben Ambrocio, who was holding a bolo.
Without warning, Ben suddenly hacked Sanchez at the back. Before Sanchez could run away, he
suffered another blow. This time Benny Ambrocio struck him at the back with his bolo. The victim
fell. All the five accused then gathered around Sanchez and continued hacking him to death. Defense:
They merely defended themselves from Masangya and Sanchez’s unlawful aggression. Appellants
and their co-accused were charged of MURDER for hacking and killing Sanchez. RTC found the
appellants guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. RTC also found the following to be present –
conspiracy and treachery.
Issue: Was the killing of Sanchez attended by (a) conspiracy and (b) treachery? (a) YES (b) NO

Ruling: AFFIRMED with modification

Ratio: (a) Conspiracy existed on the appellants’ actions at the time of the commission of the crime
which showed a unity of purpose amongst them. A division of labor among appellants and co-
accused occurred: Ben and Benny took care of Sanchez, while the other three pursued Masangya.
When all the accused carried the body of Sanchez from the road to the thicket, it showed their unity
of purpose – to end his life and hide his corpse. Thus, as co-conspirators, they must all be liable for
the death caused even if not all may have dealt a fatal blow on the victim.

(b) When Masangya and Sanchez arrived at the scene of the crime, they had a heated argument or
exchange of words with appellant Ben Ambrocio, who was holding a bolo. Ben was six meters away
from Sanchez, the victim. Said heated exchange prompted the appellants and co-accused to jump
over the fence. They promptly surrounded Masangya and Sanchez. Noteworthy, this incident took
place in broad daylight. The victim Sanchez could not have missed the import of what was
happening: the bolo held by the appellants and co-accused meant danger to his life. Like Masangya,
Sanchez had an opportunity to escape from the tension-filled situation. Unfortunately, unlike
Masangya, he did not succeed to run away. Nevertheless, where a killing is preceded by an
argument or quarrel, treachery can no longer be appreciated, as the victim could be said to have
been forewarned and could anticipate aggression from the assailants.

While treachery might not have attended the killing of Sanchez, there was abuse of superior strength
that should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance on the part of appellants. Abuse of
superior strength is present when the aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to
the means of defense available to the person attacked.

Superiority in number does not necessarily amount to the aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of superior strength. But in this case, it has been shown that the aggressors cooperated in
such a way as to secure the advantage of their numerical strength and advantage. There is proof of
the relative numerical strength of the aggressors and the assaulted, a ratio of 5 to 2. There is also
proof that the aggressors simultaneously assaulted the deceased. When all five accused, armed with
bolos, joined forces to attack and pursue Sanchez and Masangya, in a concerted effort, they definitely
abused their superiority in number and in arms. Since this aggravating circumstance was alleged in
the information and duly proved, it qualifies properly the killing to murder.

Voting: Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee. vs.SABANGAN CABATO, accused-appellant| 15
April 1988| J. Cortes

Short Version: Three masked bandits robbed the home of the Spouses Guinit. In the struggle, one of
the bandits was unmasked and the victims quickly recognised him as Cabato, an old friend. Cabato
stoned Guinit’s wife to death and he was convicted of robbery with homicide. The SC did not
appreciate the aggravating circumstance of superior strength since it had not been proven that there
was notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor.

Nature: Appeal from CFI judgment finding Cabato guilty of Robbery with Homicide.

Facts

25 January 1971 (7:30pm): Cabato, with two others who are still at large, all armed with firearms and
stones, entered the dwelling of Victor Guinit and attacked him and his wife, Herminia, and then rob
them of cash money (coins) in the amount of P300. Aside from this, the trio attacked Herminia by
sticking her with stones several times, causing her death.

Upon arraignment, Cabato pleaded not guilty.

Guinit testimony:

Guinit, 69 years old, widower, testified that he knew Cabato personally. He relayed that around
7:30pm, his wife was his only companion in the house and that three masked persons came while
they were having supper. Two persons suddenly hugged him from behind and covered his mouth.
One of them proceeded to hit his mouth with a stone. Another grappled with his wife and, in the
struggle, his mask fell off. They discovered it was Cabato and Herminia shouted: “Sabangan, do not
kill us, we will give you the money.”
The trio said that they wanted P3k but the couple, earning only from the sale of bananas, did not have
the amount. When Guinit told them this, one of the bandits struck him with a pistol and another
boxed him while another struck the back of the head. It was at this time that he noticed his wife had
died/ Guinit called for help but nobody came. He then went to his two married sons uphill.

Cabato denial:

Cabato admits that he was well-known to the Guinit family. He alleges that he was gathering corn in
their farm and stayed in his house all night at the time of the commission of the crime. He said that
the next day, he was informed of the robbery and that he visited one of the sons of Guinit who told
him the robbers were not identified. Cabato, while in the market, was suddenly arrested.

TC: Cabato was clearly identified as one of the bandits and his defines of alibi cannot lie, lacking
corroboration. Only Cabato testified that he was out tending to the farm.

Issue: Was the aggravating circumstance of superior strength attendant in this case? NO.

Ratio

Prosecution:Cabato was a robust 29 year old man carrying a huge stone attacking a defenceless
woman.

However, according to SC, the records of the case were bereft of any information with respect to the
physical conditions of both the accused and the victims. Thus, abuse of superior strength cannot be
considered. This aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. It is
considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
assessing a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is
selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior
strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of the defense
available to the person attacked [People v. Cabiling]
However, the Court considers dwelling as an aggravating circumstance since it has been proven that,
indeed robbery with homicide was committed inside the house of the offended parties. Dwelling is
aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation because this class of robbery can be committed
without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house.

SC also considered disguise as another aggravating circumstance for the masks on the bandits had no
other purpose but to conceal their identities. The fact that the mask fell would not render disguise as
inapplicable.

Robbery with homicide under Art. 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code is punishable with reclusion
perpetua to death. However, in view of Sec. 19 (1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution the supreme
penalty of death can no longer be imposed.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED insofar as the judgment
sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA but is MODIFIED insofar as
the civil indemnity is concerned which is hereby increased to P30,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

Paula P.

PEOPLE vs. RUELAN

People vs. Fordito Ruelan

April 19, 1994

Kapunan, J.

Short version: Ruelan was charged with murder for the death of his employer, Rosa. Court found that
there was no treachery or evident premeditation. However, there was abuse of superior strength as
Ruelan was 20 years old while Rosa was already 76 years old. Abuse of superior strength is a generic
aggravating circumstance which does not qualify the crime to murder. It can also be offset with the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Thus, Ruelan is only guilty of homicide.

FACTS

Ruelan was convicted of murder for killing his employer, Rosa Jardiel. The Spouses Jardiel hired
Ruelan as a store helper. He stayed in the couple’s residence but he had separate quarters for
sleeping.

One morning, Rosa was joined by Ruelan in opening the store in the public market. Rosa talked to
Ruelan and ordered him to bring an axe which would be used in repairing some fixtures in the store.
Ruelan followed her order and took an axe and a sack.

When they were about to leave the premises, Rosa’s house dog got loose and went out towards the
street. Rosa got angry and scolded Ruelan while she walked ahead of him along Tulip Drive going to
McArthur highway. Ruelan pleaded with Rosa to stp berating him but Rosa did not heed his request.

Ruelan got fed up and with the use of his axe, he struck Rosa behind her ear causing her to fall face
down. Thereafter, Ruelan dragged her to a grassy portion at the side of the street and then
immediately left the place.

ISSUES:

1. (Not our topic) Whether Ruelan’s confession is admissible in evidence against him (YES, he
was properly informed by the PAO lawyer of his rights and the consequences of his
confession)
2. Treachery? NO
3. Evident premeditation? NO
4. Abuse of superior strength? YES

REASONING
In appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the following requisites must concur: first,
that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and second, the
offender consciously adopted the particular means, method and form of attach employed by him.

From the evidence adduced, the first requisite was proven. Dr. Ladrido testified that the victim
suffered a hack would behind her right ear that caused her to fall face down. As a consequence
thereof, she suffered another wound on her left eyebrow. Accordingly, when the victim was attacked
by the appellant, she was not in a position to defend herself. However, the second requisite was not
proven. No evidence was offered to prove that the appellant made preparations to kill the victim.
Records bear out that it was the victim who ordered the appellant to bring the axe before they left the
house indicating that he had no plan to kill said victim.

From the evidence adduced, the first requisite was proven. Dr. Ladrido testified that the victim
suffered a hack would behind her right ear that caused her to fall face down. As a consequence
thereof, she suffered another wound on her left eyebrow. Accordingly, when the victim was attacked
by the appellant, she was not in a position to defend herself. However, the second requisite was not
proven. No evidence was offered to prove that the appellant made preparations to kill the victim.
Records bear out that it was the victim who ordered the appellant to bring the axe before they left the
house indicating that he had no plan to kill said victim.

Here, the prosecution failed to present evidence when the appellant determined to kill the victim or
any indication that he clung to such determination. As already mentioned above, appellant did not
intend to nor planned to kill the victim. Hence, there was no sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution of the crime charged so as to allow the appellant to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.

To properly appreciate the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the prosecution
must prove that the assailant used purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person attacked.

In the instant case, the appellant clearly took advantage of his superior strength as the victim was an
elderly woman, 76 years old, frail and of small build while the appellant was then only 20 years old,
of good stature and build and was armed with an axe with which to kill the victim.
However, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot qualify the killing of the
victim and raise it to the category of murder because the same was not alleged in the information.
The rule in cases like this is clear. A qualifying circumstance like abuse of superior strength must be
pleaded in the information for if it is not pleaded but proved, it shall only be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance in the imposition of the correct penalty.

Accordingly, for failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation, appellant cannot be convicted of the crime of murder. Instead, appellant
should be held liable for the crime of homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code which
carries a penalty of reclusion temporal. The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is
therefore offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which was admitted by the
prosecution. Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant should suffer a penalty of six
(6) 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.

DISPOSITIVE: Ruelan is guilty of homicide.

149. PEOPLE v. PADILLA

G.R. No. 75508 | June 10, 1994 | 1st Division | Appeal from CFI decision
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
SGT. FELIX PADILLA, accused-appellant
BELLOSILLO, J.
Digest by Jadd Dealino

Short Version:
Pfc. Edino Ontuca was maltreated by strangers so he sought the help of Pat. Omega. They talked to
the strangers, who turned out to be 3 Air Force officers: Sgt. Felix Padilla, Maj. De la Cruz, and C1C
Belino, but Omega advised Ontuca to stop and forget the matter. Sometime later, at the entrance of
the Malayan Hotel, the 3 Air Force officers ganged up on Ontuca. Omega tried to intervene but the
Air Force officers poked their pistols at him. The Air Force officers ordered the 2 police officers to
accompany them for a liquor test. Along the way, they were accompanied by another member of the
Air Force. At an intersection, Ontuca managed to free himself. He got a girl and used her as a human
shield but she managed to escape. Despite Ontuca begging for his life, Padilla shot him in the head.
Padilla and De la Cruz surrendered to the MPs but only surrendered their firearms to their
commanding officer. Padilla was charged for Ontuca’s murder, qualified by Treachery, Evident
Premeditation, and Taking Advantage of Public Position. The Samar CFI convicted Padilla of Murder
qualified by Treachery and aggravated by the Taking Advantage of Public Position, mitigated by
Sufficient Provocation. The SC affirmed the CFI’s judgment, modifying the penalty by increasing the
civil indemnity from P30k to 50k. For Abuse of Superior Strength, the SC held that in this case, the
powerful weapon used (a pistol) was out of proportion to the defense available to the victim (a piece
of plywood.)

Facts:
 Pfc. Edino Ontuca was maltreated by strangers so he sought the help of Pat. Omega.
 They passed by the Malayan Hotel to get Ontuca’s service revolver.
 The 2 police officers encountered Sgt. Padilla, Maj. De la Cruz, and a C1C Belino (all ostensibly
from the Air Force).
 Ontuca then asked the 3 Air Force officers why they treated him the way they did.
 Omega admonished Ontuca, telling him to stop, keep quiet, go home, and sleep.
 Sometime later, Ontuca waited at the entrance of the hotel, where he was eventually ganged
up on by the 3 Air Force officers. Belino took away the service revolver. While Omega tried to
intervene, Belino and De la Cruz poked their pistols at him. The 3 Air Force officers ordered
the 2 police officers to accompany them to a hospital for a liquor test.
 On their way to the hospital, De la Cruz summoned a Sgt. Bongosia to accompany them.
 At the intersection of Curry Avenue and San Bartolome Street, Ontuca freed himself and ran
away.
 Ontuca grabbed a girl to serve as a human shield but she managed to escape. All he had left to
defend himself was a piece of plywood.
 Ontuca begged for his life, but Padilla shot him in the head. After this, Padilla kicked Ontuca’s
body and asked if Ontuca were still alive.
 15 mins. later, military police officers arrived. Padilla and De la Cruz refused to surrender their
firearms. They only did so upon returning to their barracks, surrendering the weapons to their
commanding officer.
 The 2 were charged for Ontuca’s murder, qualified by Treachery, Evident Premeditation, and
Taking Advantage of Public Position. De la Cruz’ charge was provisionally dismissed pending
reinvestigation.
 The Samar CFI convicted Padilla of Murder qualified by Treachery and aggravated by the
Taking Advantage of Public Position, mitigated by Sufficient Provocation.

Issue(s):
Whether…
1) The CFI’s appreciation of the facts is correct. YES.
2) Treachery is present in this case. NO.
3) Abuse of Superior Strength is present in this case. YES.
4) Padilla’s public position was taken advantage of for the commission of the crime. NO.
5) Sufficient Provocation on the part of Ontuca is present in this case. NO.

Dispositive:
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION – Civil indemnity increased from P30k to 50k.
Reasoning:
9) Yes, the CFI’s appreciation of the facts is correct.
a. Padilla asserts that he encountered Ontuca as Ontuca was forcing himself upon a
woman. Padilla tried to intervene but 2 men shot at Ontuca from 30 meters away.
b. The SC disagrees with Padilla. His narration is inconsistent with human experience,
observation, and reason.
i. The characteristics of the gunshot show that the gun was fired at close range.
Padilla’s story is too fantastic. It would be incredible for a person with ordinary
shooting skills to hit an extraordinary mark (top of the head) from a distance of
30m, when the target is mobile and the line of sight is obscured. Even then, the
chance of a fatal shot is unlikely.
1. The point of entry of the bullet (the top of the head) implies that it was
fired from a gun that was on a higher physical plane than the victim.
2. The size of the gunshot wound was too large for the bullet to have been
fired from a distance of 30m.
3. The identification of the slug has been sufficiently established by the tests
conducted by the PC Crime Lab.
a. Although the slug was not formally offered, it was duly identified
by the Senior Ballistician. It was noted and incorporated in the
records.
b. The PC Crime Lab conducted tests to identify the bullet, based on
the microscopic impression of the slug itself and similar bullets
from the same gun.
c. The medico-legal’s testimony as to the slug is understood in the
context of a post-mortem report on the cadaver rather than a
ballistics test.
c. Omega may serve as a witness.
i. Even if Ontuca (the deceased) is Omega’s superior in the police force, no
partiality can be asserted against Omega.
1. Ontuca was already dead at the time Omega testified.
2. The defense has shown neither personal nor financial gain on the part of
Omega.
10) No, there is no Treachery/Alevosia.
a. Padilla was not shown to have deliberately employ means, methods, or forms in the
mode of his attack which directly and specially tended to insure is safety from any
defense Ontuca might make.
i. It was not until Ontuca lost his human shield that Padilla had the instant chance
to kill with ease.
ii. Killing a prone person does not necessarily imply a design to employ a method
indicative of treachery, as opposed to when a person is bound or hiding behind a
closet’s door. (citing People v. Canete, 1923)
b. Besides, the attack was not sudden and unexpected.
i. This is belied by Ontuca’s fleeing and taking a hostage/human shield
11) Yes, Abuse of Superior Strength is present.
 a. This was alleged in the information and proved during trial.
i. It may be defined as the use of excessive force out of proportion to the means
of defense available to the attacked person (citing People v. Cabiling, 1976)
b. Abuse of Superior Strength is not just numerical superiority, it is also present where
the offender uses a powerful weapon out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the victim.
i. In this case, Padilla had a pistol while Ontuca had a piece of plywood.
12) No, Padilla did not abuse his public position in committing the crime.
a. Abuse of Public Position is a public official’s use of influence, prestige, and ascendancy,
given by his office, to realize his purpose.
i. In this case, the crime could have been committed using another weapon aside
from the service firearm.
ii. Ontuca himself resisted the assault on his person, and did not adhere to Padilla,
nor Belino, nor De la Cruz.
13) No, Sufficient Provocation is not appreciable as a mitigating circumstance.
a. When an offended party flees from an aggressor, the aggressor has no reason to pursue
and attack.
b. In this case, Ontuca ran away from the group of Padilla, De la Cruz, Belino, and
Bongosia.

Cruz, Davide Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinion(s)

150. People v. Jorolan

23 June 2003

Accused: Sergio Jorolan

Decision by J. Quisumbing, Digest by Roe Anuncio

Short Version: Sergio Jorolan killed the maid and a 12-year-old kid. He was found guilty of
murder (with respect to the kid) because killing of a minor constitutes treachery which is a
qualifying circumstance.

Facts:

Sergio Jorolan, 19 years old, single, is the store helper of the Jimenez spouses.
Leonil Jimenez, 12 years old,student, is the younger brother of the Jimenez husband.

While the spouses were away, the maid was shot to death. When Leonil arrived home, he was shot to
death twice in the head.

Sergio Jorolan was later found in the living room lying on a wooden sofa with his mouth, arms and
feet loosely tied with pieces of cloth.

They further observed that an electric fan was blowing on him and that he used a stuffed toy as
pillow.

They discovered that Sergio survived with a penetrating gunshot wound on the upper right side of
his chest. Sergio was suspected of being the author of the crime and was subjected to paraffin test
where both of his hands were found positive for gunpowder nitrates.

CHARGE: He was later charged and subsequently found guilty of murder.

ISSUE: Was there treachery? YES.

SC: RTC decision modified. Sergio guilty of murder and homicide.

RATIO: Leonil was only 12 years old at the time he was killed.

The killing of minor children who, because of their tender age, could not be expected to put up a
defense, is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not shown. This ruling
finds support in jurisprudence.
151. People v Malejana

G.R. No. 145002/January 24, 2006/Second division/Petition for review on certiorari

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

PFC FLORO MALEJANA, Accused-Appellant.

Decision by Azcuna, J. Digest by Ces

Short version: Malejana approached the group of Roces while carrying an armalite. He first fired a
shot into the air and then shot in the direction of Roces 5 times, hitting him thrice. He was charged
and convicted of murder. The SC held that treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance. Treachery can be appreciated when the killing was sudden and unexpected and the
victim is not in a position to defend himself.The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor. Even if the victim saw
Malejana arriving while carrying the armalite, that would not be sufficient to put him on guard,
especially since Malejana was a well-known member of the PNP. The first shot fired into the air also
cannot be sufficient warning because the next shots were fired within less than 10 seconds.

Facts:

 Prosecution witness Andres Madrid narrated that on July 28, 1990 ataround 7:15 p.m., while he
was seated in front of his jeep parked at the side of the road at Marisfoque, Pilar, Sorsogon in the
company of Janus Roces, Antonio Sy, Samuel Andrade, Bernarda Sy, Jose Belmonte and Ernesto
Francisco, he saw appellant at about 30 meters away heading towards their direction.
 Upon reaching their group, Malejana asked them where Roces was. When he noticed Roces who
was sitting at a distance of 1 meter beside Madrid, Malejana brandished an armalite rifle and fired
a shot into the air. Then he pointed thebarrel of the gun at Roces and fired 5 times, hitting Roces
thrice.
 After the victim fell to the ground, Malejana left the scene of the incident and went to his house
about 150 meters away.
 Madrid and his other companions tried to assist Roces but discovered that the latter was already
dead, presumably from thegunshot wounds.
 The RTC convicted Malejana of murder and sentenced him to sentenced him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging between fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months,
and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as
maximum.
 The CA affirmed the judgment but raised the penalty imposed to reclusion perpetua.
 Hence, automatic review to the SC

Issue: Whether treachery was properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance

Held/Ratio: YES it was

1) Treachery can be appreciated when the killing was sudden and unexpected and the victim is not
in a position to defend himself.The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by
the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself,
thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.
2) The existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success of the assault, for
treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person.
What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend
himself or to retaliate.
3) Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who
would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.
4) In this case, the victim could not effectively defend himself from the assault on his person. The
defense cannot say that there was no treachery just because the victim and his companions
already saw Malejana carrying an armalite and approaching their general direction.
5) It is a well-known fact in the community that Malejana is a member of the PNP-Pilar. Therefore,
him carrying an armalite would not be something out of the ordinary nor would it cause panic
and alarm.
6) Neither could the fact that Mejlana first fired his weapon into the air be construed as sufficient
warning upon the victim and his companions such that they would have had the opportunity to
put up a defense. The interval of time between the first warning shot and the subsequent fatal
shots is not sufficient to put the victim on guard, since it took less than 10 seconds before the 2 nd
shot was fired.
7) Neither does the fact that other people were present during the shooting negate the attendance of
treachery. The suddenness of the attack prevented the victim’s unarmed companions from coming
to his aid.
8) Passion and obfuscation also cannot be appreciated in favor of Majelana. The following
elementsmust be present:
a. There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient toproduce such condition of mind,
b. The act that produced the obfuscation wasnot far removed from the commission of the crime
by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal
equanimity.
9) The bare assertion that the victim and appellant had an argument does not provide justifiable
basis for applying to him this mitigating circumstance. The cause that produced the passion and
obfuscation has not been established nor proven byclear and convincing evidence.
Extra issue on evidence: The ballistics expert first stated that the shots came from a .45 caliber and
not from an M-16 armalite, like the one carried by Malejana, based on the bullet wounds. However,
he did not categorically rule out the possibility that it might have been an armalite, because he did
not initially consider the distance and position of the accused relative to the victim.

PEOPLE v. CASTILLO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERT CASTILLO y MONES, accused-

appellant..

April 20, 1998

PANGANIBAN, J.

Short version: Antonio Dometita was on his way home from the pubhouse when out of nowehre, he
was suddenly attacked by Robert Castillo. Castillo stabbed him in the chest with a knife and then at
other parts of the body. Dometita died. Castillo was convicted of murder with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery because of the surprise means attack. SC affirmed.

FACTS: Prosecution witness Eulogio Velasco, floor manager of the Cola Pubhouse, narrated that he
was sitting outside the Pubhouse when “Tony” Dometita, one of their customers, came. He said
goodbye to Eulogio when out of nowhere, Robert Castillo suddenly appeared and stabbed Dometita
with a fan knife on his left chest without warning. As Tony pleaded for help, the assialant stabbed
him on the left hand.

Eulogio placed a chair between Tony and Castillo. Tony ran towards the other side of EDSA,
but Castillo pursued him. Tony died. Melinda Mercado who was also at the scene confirmed that he
saw Castillo wielding a knife and running away.

On the other hand, the defense presented Edilberto Marcelino, a tricycle driver who saw two
people ganging up on a third while riding his tricycle. He said that none of the assailants was
Castillo.

The TC convicted Castillo, and found that the killing was qualified by abuse of superior
strength, because “the accused used a deadly weapon in surprising the victim who [was] unarmed.”
Although treachery was present, the trial court held that this was absorbed by abuse of superior
strength.

ISSUES:

I. WON the witnesses were credible- YES

II. WON the qualifying circumstances were correct- NO evident premeditation; NO abuse of
strength; YES to treachery

HELD: I. WON the witnesses were credible- YES

II. WON the qualifying circumstances were correct- NO evident premeditation; NO abuse of
strength; YES to treachery

[On evident premeditation] The prosecution failed to prove evident premeditation. For this
circumstance to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the
following elements: 1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime, 2) an act
manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination, and 3) a sufficient lapse of time between
determination and execution to allow himself time to reflect upon the consequences of his act. These
requisites were never established by the prosecution.

[On abuse of superior strength] There was likewise no abuse of superior strength. To properly
appreciate the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, the prosecution must prove
that the assailant purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available
to the person attacked. The prosecution did not demonstrate that there was a marked difference in
the stature and build of the victim and Castillo which would have precluded an appropriate defense
from the victim. Not even the use of a bladed instrument would constitute abuse of superior strength
if the victim was adequately prepared to face an attack, or if he was obviously physically superior to
the assailant.

[On treachery] The killing was qualified by treachery. “Treachery is committed when two
conditions concur, namely, that the means, methods, and forms of execution employed gave the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and that such means, methods, and
forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his
person.” These requisites were present in this case when Castillo appeared from nowhere and swiftly
and unexpectedly stabbed the victim just as he was saying goodbye to his friend, Witness Velasco. It
made it difficult for the victim to defend himself. The presence of “defense wounds” does not negate
treachery because, as testified to by Velasco, the first stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted on the chest.
The incised wounds in the arms were inflicted when the victim was already rendered defenseless.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is
AFFIRMED, but the award of actual and moral damages is DELETED for lack of factual basis. Costs
against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

153. PEOPLE VS. SANGGALANG

G.R. No. L-32914 / August 30, 1974 / SECOND DIVISION

Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines

Accused-appellant: Laureano Sangalang

Ponente: Aquino

Digest by: Luisa Mauricio

SHORT VERSION Sangalang and 4 others fired at Ricardo Cortez until dead while Ricardo was up
in a coconut tree outside his house gathering tuba. SC convicted Sangalang of murder. The
circumstance qualifying the act to murder was treachery because the accused fired at Ricardo at a
time when the victim was unarmed and defenseless.

FACTS

At around six o'clock in the morning of June 9, 1968 Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut to gather
tuba from a coconut tree nearby. Flora Sarno, his wife, was left inside the hut.

While he was on top of the tree gathering tuba, he was struck by a volley of shots. He fell to
the ground at the base of the coconut tree. Flora heard three successive shot coming south of the hut.
She went outside the hut and saw saw five men, each armed with a long firearm, firing at her
husband until he died.

She recognized Laureano Sangalang, Conrado Gonzales, Irineo Canuel, Perino Canuel and
Eleuterio Cuyom as the malefactors. Flora knew Sangalang since childhood.
 Ricardo Sarno, Flora’s brother corroborated the story and the identity of the malefactors. He
was in his own house ten meters away from the house of Ricardo.

Sangalang had an alibi. He said that he went to the house of a certain Gatdula in Dapitan,
Manila to borrow money for the matriculation fees of his children.

CFI Cavite convicted Sangalang of murder.

ISSUE WON Sangalang is guilty of murder – yes.

RULING affirmed. Guilty of murder. Reclusion perpetua.

REASONING

Flora and Sarno clearly and consistently testified that they saw Sangalang, a person already
well-known to them, among the five armed persons who shot Ricardo Cortez. That unwavering
identification negates Sangalang’s alibi. Moreover, Sangalang did not show that Flora and Sarno were
impelled by a malicious desire to falsely incriminate him.

Ricardo was shot while he was gathering tuba on top of a coconut tree. He was unarmed and
defenseless. He was not expecting to be assaulted. He did not give any immediate provocation. The
deliberate, surprise attack shows that Sangalang and his companions employed a mode of execution
which insured the killing without any risk to them arising from any defense which the victim could
have made. The qualifying circumstance of treachery (alevosia), which was alleged in the information,
was duly established (See art. 14[16], Revised Penal Code). Hence, the killing can be categorized as
murder. Treachery absorbs the aggravating circumstance of band.

154. PEOPLE v. GUTIERREZ

G.R. No. L-39383 March 14, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
CATALINO GUTIERREZ, JR. y BUQUID, accused-appellant.
NARVASA, J.
Digest by Sai Bautista

Short Version:
Catalino Gutierrez went to the office of Florentino Mantuano and holding a balisong, challenged the
latter to a duel. Victim’s son Benjamin, talked to Catalino, who responded "Nakikinig naman ako sa
iyo.” Benjamin thought that he had succeeded in pacifying the accused but the latter suddenly
stabbed Florentino in the back. Accused was found guilty of murder. SC affirmed the ruling. The
attack was clearly attended by alevosia; it was sudden and unexpected, perpetrated from behind, the
victim being unarmed, with no chance to defend himself. There was no longer any reason for either
the victim or his son to expect any attack from the accused after victim’s son pacified him.

Facts:
Catalino Gutierrez, Jr. was charged with murder and found guilty thereof by the CFI of Batangas.
Victim's son, Benjamin Mantuano, who was working with him in the same office testified that he saw
his father about to enter the door leading into the "operating section" of the office when the Catalino
Gutierrez was heard challenging Florentino to a duel. Catalino was holding a balisong. After
Benjamin talked to Catalino, he went back to his machine, believing that he had succeeded in calming
down and pacifying accused. Afterwards, Catalino stabbed Florentino in the back. Florentino turned
to face him and a struggle ensued between them. Benjamin joined the fray and tried to stop the
assault and help his father wrest the balisong away from Catalino. Catalino, however, passed the
knife to his companion who quickly fled. Benjamin’s mother arrived; so he left her to see to his father
and went in pursuit of Catalino who had also fled. Sgt. Malaluan of the local police force joined in the
chase. Another son of the victim, Manolo, overtook and confronted Catalino who was brought to the
police headquarters. The accused denied killing Catalino, asserting that it had been done by his
friend, Johnny Antipas. He declared that he had gone to the TELECOM Office to request his chief to
excuse him from work when he heard Florentino making disparaging remarks of him and when he
confronted Florentino, the latter gave him a fist blow that found its mark on his right upper lip; that a
fist fight then ensued between them. When Florentino happened to turn his back to Johnny, the latter
suddenly stabbed him twice, shouted to him "Boy, run!" and himself ran away from the scene, never
to be seen again by the accused.

Issue
WON the trial court erred in classifying the killing as murder due to the presence of qualifying
circumstance of treachery- NO!

Dispositive:
The Court finds no reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the Court a quo. However, the
award of damages for the death of Florentino Mantuano should be increased from that granted by the
Trial Court, P12,000.00, to P30,000.00 in accordance with established jurisprudence.
Ratio:
The attack was clearly attended by alevosia; it was sudden and unexpected, perpetrated from behind,
the victim being unarmed, with no chance to defend himself. The argument of accused that the
circumstance of the deceased having been challenged to a fight put him on guard precluded the
adoption or employment of means of attack calculated to ensure the killing without risk to himself
disregard the fact that an event had supervened between the challenge and the assault (the attempt of
the victim's son to pacify the accused and his companion which had seemingly succeeded in the light
of the latter's response, "Nakikinig naman ako sa iyo.”) There was thus no longer any reason for either
the victim or his son to expect any attack from the accused. Florentino was in fact already walking
toward the side door of the office, on the point of going home, and Benjamin was seating himself back
at his desk to resume work when suddenly and swiftly, the accused had flung open the front door,
rushed at Florentino and stabbed him in the back.
 As the Court held in People v. Villanueva: “killing was an assassination pure and simple. It was a
deliberate, sudden and unexpected assault from behind, without warning and without giving the
victim a chance to defend himself or repel the assault, and without risk to the assailant. That is the
characteristic or distinguishing hallmark ofalevosia. It was not a killing made on the spur of the
moment. It was not prompted by mere impulse. It was well-planned and reflected upon as shown by
the prior threatening acto of the a and the manner it was executed. The existence of treachery cannot
be doubted.”

Teehankee, C.J., Cruz, Gancayco and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

155. People vs. Verchaez, at al.

June 15, 1994
Ponente: QUIASON, J.
Digested by Mica Maurinne M. Adao

Short version: The accused Verchez and Aldave was charged with murder, frustrated murder for firing upon
a group of PC/INP soldiers causing Norcio to die and Noora to be fatally wounded. They were also
charged with illegal possession of firearms. RTC convicted them and considered the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. SC modified their conviction ruling that treachery was not established because there was no
showing that the appellants deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of attack.

FACTS:
On August 15, 1985, Capt. Raul Castaneda and Lt. Marcelo Garbo led a team of government agents in
conducting a surveillance operation on a house reported to be the hideout of a gang of suspected
bank robbers at Queen's Row Subdivision, Barangay Molino, Bacoor, Cavite. When a blue Toyota car
came out of the subdivision, the government agents stopped it and introduced themselves to the
driver of the car as police officers. Virgilio Balane, the driver, identified himself as a member of the
PC. Balane was prevailed upon into accompanying the government agents to the house where his
companions were staying. The government agents, together with Balane, then proceeded to the house
in four cars. When the first car approached the house, the lawmen were met by a heavy volley of
gunfire. The police disembarked from their vehicles and after seeking cover, shouted to the occupants
of the house that they were members of the PC. The occupants of the house responded with another
barrage of bullets. As the government agents returned fire, a fire fight ensued. Three of the lawmen
were hit.

Lt. Garbo sought reinforcement from the Bacoor Police Department upon instructions of Capt.
Castaneda. He returned with about ten lawmen, who were deployed around the hideout. The fire
fight resumed. With Balane in tow, Capt. Castaneda then approached the house, and negotiated for
the surrender of its occupants.The men inside the house eventually surrendered, throwing their
firearms outside the gate

Accused Rolando Verchez, Romeo Aldave, Virgilio Balane, Alfredo Mamuntag, Hector Mamuntag
and Gilbert Ang were charged with murder and 2 counts of frustarated murder for firing upon a
group of PC/INP soldiers, hitting Sgt. Monico Norcio who died, P/Cpl. David Noora, and PFC
Wilfredo Pagsanjan who were both fatally wounded, and with the crime of Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunitions for being in possession, custody and control of assorted firearms

RTC of Bacoor, Cavite convicted Rolando Verchez and Romeo Aldave with murder and 1 count of
frustrated murder both with aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of his rank. Verchez and Aldave were also convicted for illegal possession. Accused
Virgilio Balane, Hector Mamuntag and Alfredo Mamuntag were all acquitted of all the charges.

Verchez and Aldave appealed. They claimed that at Camp Crame, they were tortured into admitting
participation in several bank robberies. They were forced into signing a prepared statement
confessing their illegal activities, including having engaged the police officers in a fire fight on August
15, 1985.

ISSUE: Is there a qualifying circumstance of treachery in this case?

RULING: NO

RATIO:
The issue of whether or not the extra-judicial confessions of appellants are admissible against them is
not material. As the trial court correctly ruled, there is sufficient evidence, independent of their
confessions, to hold appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the death of Sgt. Norcio and for
the injuries sustained by Cpl. Noora. Anent the claim of appellants that they were tortured and
maltreated by the apprehending lawmen, as well as by the crime investigators, no evidence was ever
presented by appellants to support it.

However, treachery was not sufficiently established. For the qualifying circumstance of treachery
to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) that said means of
execution was deliberately or consciously adopted (People v. Dela Cruz [1992]).

The lawmen, knowing that they were dealing with a gang of bank robbers, were prepared for any
resistance that may possibly be put up. They even brought along with them Balane to facilitate the
surrender of appellants. The casualties on the lawmen's side were suffered only after the first volley
of fire came from the side of appellants and after the lawmen had left their vehicles and taken cover.
In short, Sgt. Norcio was killed and Cpl. Noora was wounded during, and not before the gun battle.
There is no showing that appellants deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of attack.
Neither is there any showing that they planned to ambush the lawmen, much less that they knew
that the lawmen were coming. What is apparent is that appellants were caught by surprise by the
lawmen, hence, acting on the spur of the moment, they fired back.

Absent the qualifying circumstance of treachery, appellants can only be convicted of homicide for the
death of Sgt. Norcio and frustrated homicide for the wounding of Sgt. Noora.

The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his
rank is, likewise, unavailing. There is no showing that appellants deliberately intended to offend or
insult the rank of the victim, which is the essence of said aggravating circumstance. This is so because
the raiding police officers were not even in uniform.

Appellants' allegation that they did not have control or management of the firearms is without merit.
The records show that they knew where to find the firearms. Both Verchez and Aldave testified that
they sought cover inside separate bedrooms when the lawmen fired at them. Thereafter, they
retrieved the firearms from the cabinet in their respective rooms. Their story that their finding of
firearms in the cabinets was a happenstance is simply incredible and not deserving of any slightest
consideration.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is Modified. The accused are found guilty of homicide,
frustrated homicide and illegal possession of firearms.

155. People vs. Verchaez, at al.

June 15, 1994
Ponente: QUIASON, J.
Digested by Mica Maurinne M. Adao

Short version: The accused Verchez and Aldave was charged with murder, frustrated murder for firing upon
a group of PC/INP soldiers causing Norcio to die and Noora to be fatally wounded. They were also
charged with illegal possession of firearms. RTC convicted them and considered the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. SC modified their conviction ruling that treachery was not established because there was no
showing that the appellants deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of attack.

FACTS:
On August 15, 1985, Capt. Raul Castaneda and Lt. Marcelo Garbo led a team of government agents in
conducting a surveillance operation on a house reported to be the hideout of a gang of suspected
bank robbers at Queen's Row Subdivision, Barangay Molino, Bacoor, Cavite. When a blue Toyota car
came out of the subdivision, the government agents stopped it and introduced themselves to the
driver of the car as police officers. Virgilio Balane, the driver, identified himself as a member of the
PC. Balane was prevailed upon into accompanying the government agents to the house where his
companions were staying. The government agents, together with Balane, then proceeded to the house
in four cars. When the first car approached the house, the lawmen were met by a heavy volley of
gunfire. The police disembarked from their vehicles and after seeking cover, shouted to the occupants
of the house that they were members of the PC. The occupants of the house responded with another
barrage of bullets. As the government agents returned fire, a fire fight ensued. Three of the lawmen
were hit.

Lt. Garbo sought reinforcement from the Bacoor Police Department upon instructions of Capt.
Castaneda. He returned with about ten lawmen, who were deployed around the hideout. The fire
fight resumed. With Balane in tow, Capt. Castaneda then approached the house, and negotiated for
the surrender of its occupants.The men inside the house eventually surrendered, throwing their
firearms outside the gate
Accused Rolando Verchez, Romeo Aldave, Virgilio Balane, Alfredo Mamuntag, Hector Mamuntag
and Gilbert Ang were charged with murder and 2 counts of frustarated murder for firing upon a
group of PC/INP soldiers, hitting Sgt. Monico Norcio who died, P/Cpl. David Noora, and PFC
Wilfredo Pagsanjan who were both fatally wounded, and with the crime of Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunitions for being in possession, custody and control of assorted firearms

RTC of Bacoor, Cavite convicted Rolando Verchez and Romeo Aldave with murder and 1 count of
frustrated murder both with aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended
party on account of his rank. Verchez and Aldave were also convicted for illegal possession. Accused
Virgilio Balane, Hector Mamuntag and Alfredo Mamuntag were all acquitted of all the charges.

Verchez and Aldave appealed. They claimed that at Camp Crame, they were tortured into admitting
participation in several bank robberies. They were forced into signing a prepared statement
confessing their illegal activities, including having engaged the police officers in a fire fight on August
15, 1985.

ISSUE: Is there a qualifying circumstance of treachery in this case?

RULING: NO

RATIO:
The issue of whether or not the extra-judicial confessions of appellants are admissible against them is
not material. As the trial court correctly ruled, there is sufficient evidence, independent of their
confessions, to hold appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the death of Sgt. Norcio and for
the injuries sustained by Cpl. Noora. Anent the claim of appellants that they were tortured and
maltreated by the apprehending lawmen, as well as by the crime investigators, no evidence was ever
presented by appellants to support it.

However, treachery was not sufficiently established. For the qualifying circumstance of treachery
to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) that said means of
execution was deliberately or consciously adopted (People v. Dela Cruz [1992]).

The lawmen, knowing that they were dealing with a gang of bank robbers, were prepared for any
resistance that may possibly be put up. They even brought along with them Balane to facilitate the
surrender of appellants. The casualties on the lawmen's side were suffered only after the first volley
of fire came from the side of appellants and after the lawmen had left their vehicles and taken cover.
In short, Sgt. Norcio was killed and Cpl. Noora was wounded during, and not before the gun battle.
There is no showing that appellants deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of attack.
Neither is there any showing that they planned to ambush the lawmen, much less that they knew
that the lawmen were coming. What is apparent is that appellants were caught by surprise by the
lawmen, hence, acting on the spur of the moment, they fired back.
Absent the qualifying circumstance of treachery, appellants can only be convicted of homicide for the
death of Sgt. Norcio and frustrated homicide for the wounding of Sgt. Noora.

The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his
rank is, likewise, unavailing. There is no showing that appellants deliberately intended to offend or
insult the rank of the victim, which is the essence of said aggravating circumstance. This is so because
the raiding police officers were not even in uniform.

Appellants' allegation that they did not have control or management of the firearms is without merit.
The records show that they knew where to find the firearms. Both Verchez and Aldave testified that
they sought cover inside separate bedrooms when the lawmen fired at them. Thereafter, they
retrieved the firearms from the cabinet in their respective rooms. Their story that their finding of
firearms in the cabinets was a happenstance is simply incredible and not deserving of any slightest
consideration.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is Modified. The accused are found guilty of homicide,
frustrated homicide and illegal possession of firearms.

156. PEOPLE v. BUMIDANG

G.R. Nos. 130630 | December 4, 2000 | En Banc | Automatic Review of Death Sentence
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
BALIWANG BUMIDANG, accused-appellant.
Per Curiam
Digest by Bryan John Maga

Short Version: Baliwang Bumidang used the flashlight to examine the genital of Gloria Imbat and
raped her in front of her old father. The Supreme Court appreciated this as the aggravating
circumstance of ignominy since the manner in which the rape was committed tends to make its
effects more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her moral suffering.

Facts:
- Around 2:00am one morning, Baliwang Bumidang, half-naked, loudly called Melencio Imbat,
80 years old, and asked him to open the door. The latter obeyed because Baliwang threatened
to kill them if the door was not opened. Pointing a spear to Melencio, Baliwang ordered him to
lie in a prone position. He then went to proceed to the room of Gloria, aged 56, daughter of
Melencio.
- Baliwang poked the spear at Gloria and ordered her to stand up and removed her pajama,
with the panty going along with it. He then used the flashlight to examine her genital. He
placed the spear beside her and whenever she attempted to move, he would point the spear at
her.
- Melencio helplessly saw the accused on top of her daughter but he could not move because he
was too afraid and weak. He did not see how the accused consummated the rape because he
was too ashamed to look at what he was doing to her daughter.
 - The trial court convicted Baliwang and sentenced with death penalty.

Issue: WON aggravating circumstance of ignominy is present? Yes.

Dispositive:
Judgment appealed from affirmed, with modification only in respect to the grant of damages.

Reasoning:
- The aggravating circumstance of ignominy shall be taken into account if means are employed
or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the offense; or if
the crime was committed in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating to the
victim, that is, add to her moral suffering.
- It was established that Baliwang used the flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before
he ravished her. He raped Gloria in the presence of her old father. These facts clearly show
that Baliwang deliberately wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and
compounding her moral sufferings.

On other matters of the case:

- The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is appreciated. There was a clear violation of the
sanctity of the victim's place of abode when Gloria, who apparently did not give any
provocation, was raped in her own house. Dwelling is considered an aggravating circumstance
primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.
- Pursuant to the 3rd paragraph of Article 335 of the RPC, as amended, a rape committed with
the use of a deadly weapon is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. The aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and ignominy having been duly proven, the greater penalty of
death shall be imposed, applying Article 63, paragraph 2, no. 1, RPC.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo,
Buena, Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

157. People v. Siao

GR No. 126021/ 03 March 2000/ Third Division/ Appeal
People of the Philippines - plaintiff-appellee
Rene Siao - accused-appellant
Decision by J. Gonzaga-Reyes
Digest by Joeyboy Lacas

Short version: Siao intimidated and ordered his houseboy to rape his minor housemaid in three
different positions, which included the doggy style. Siao was convicted for rape as principal by
induction. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy was appreciated since Siao ordered his
houseboy to do the doggy style position in raping his minor housemaid.

Facts: Siao ordered his houseboy Gimena to rape his minor housemaid Estrella Raymundo. Gimena
was scared due to the fact that Siao was pointing a gun at him and Estrella so he acceded to the
orders of Siao who threatened to kill them if they will not follow his commands. Siao ordered Gimena
to rape Raymundo in three different positions – gisakyan (missionary), takilid (spooning), gatuwad
(doggy style).

Siao was later on convicted by the trial court for rape as principal by induction. Gimena was
acquitted. Siao was held guilty of rape with the use of a deadly weapon, but the trial court
overlooked and did not take into account the aggravating circumstance of ignominy and sentenced
the accused to the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.

Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of ignominy is present in the case at bar?

Ruling: YES. Siao’s conviction of reclusion perpetua is affirmed.

Ratio: The aggravating circumstance of Ignominy is present due to the fact that Siao ordered Gimena
to do the “dog-style” position in raping Estrella. It has been held that where the accused in
committing rape used not only the missionary position but also the dog position as dogs do as was
proven like the crime itself in the instant case, the aggravating circumstance of ignominy attended the
commission thereof.

Voting: Melo, Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.

158. People v Baello

G.R. No. 101314/1 July 1993/Third Div/Appeal to SC

People of the Philippines – plaintiff
John Amet Baello (aka Totong) – defendant
Decision by J. Davide, Digest by Angelo Zantua

Short Version: 2 robbers entered the second floor window of the house and stole several items. A
woman in the room where such window was located was killed. SC affirmed the RTC’s decision
finding them guilty of robbery with homicide. The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry was
affirmed. The window is not a means intended for entry.

Facts:
Baello (Totong) was charged with robbery with homicide in Pasig RTC. Totong pleaded not guilty.
RTC decision – guilty robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry.
Sentenced to reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties and ordered to pay damages. Appeal
filed with SC.

Facts based on the information filed:

Totong and Jerry entered Eustaquio Borja’s house, without his knowledge, through the second floor
window. This window is an opening not intended for ingress or egress (entry or exit). After gaining
entry, they took away a tv, stereo, camera, and several pieces of jewelry. They also stabbed Veronica
Borja, causing her death.

Based on the records:

10 October 1990, around 5am, brgy capt Eustaquio Borja woke up and found their front door open
and their tv in the sala was missing. Eustaquio and his wife later found their 22-year old daughter,
Veronica, dead in bed. The window in her room was also open. They also later found out the missing
appliances and jewelry.

3:25pm - autopsy was done. Her death was due to multiple stab wounds. 6pm - the police recovered
the missing tv from the house of Eugenio Tagifa (husband of the Totong's sister). Tagifa was
questioned by the police and executed a sinumpaang salaysay stating that Totong placed the tv under
the stairs of his house. Oct 13 1990 – Totong was captured by the police and later made an oral
admission regarding the crime. He later executed a statement admitting to stealing the tv but denying
participation in the killing. He said Gerry remained in the house when he left the house and pointed
to him as the killer.

Totong’s defense:
He was beaten in the police station. He was not fully and duly assisted by a counsel engaged by him
in making the statement.

Issue:
WON Totong is guilty of the crime?
Yes. Tagifa’s testimony given weight. The sworn statement of witness Prudencion Bagasina, stating
that he saw Totong carrying the tv on the street early morning, was also given weight despite his
testimony to deny undegoing investigation at the police station.
The SC also added that the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry was properly appreciated
against Totong and Jerry when they through the window, a way not intended for entry. The
aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was also present in the commission of the crime as they took
advantage of the darkness to facilitate their evil plans.

RTC decision affirmed in toto.

Other Issues:
WON the extrajudicial confession was admissible?
He did not object to the assigment of the PAO lawyer (allowed as per Sec 12 (1), Article III of the
Constitution). The PAO lawyer informed him of his rights and provided assistance. Totong even went
against the lawyer’s advice and proceeded to make the confession.

WON there was conspiracy?

Yes. The rule is when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those
who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide unless
proof is presented that the accused tried to prevent the killing. (People v de la Cruz) Totong offered
no such proof. Conspiracy was established. Totong and Jerry had a prior agreement to undertake the
robbery. They entered the house and stole the various items – common design.

Voting: Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

159. People v. Guerrero

G.R. No. 134759/19 September 2002/Second Division/Appeal to the SC from an RTC Decision
Orlando Guerrero Jr. – accused-appellant
People of the Phillippines – plaintiff-appellee
Decision by J. Quisuimbing, Digest by Al Mohammadsali

Short Version: Ernesto Ocampo attacked Orlando Guerreo Jr. The latter was able to fend off the
attack and did more. He killed Ernesto by beheading him and cut-off his penis. The trial court found
this sufficient for the qualifying circumstance of cruelty and scoffing or outraging the dead. The SC,
on appeal, modified by saying there was no cruelty (Because the act of cruelty, the beheading, was
not attendant to the killing; it was in itself the act that killed the victim). But the cutting-off of the
penis was considered scoffing and outraging the dead, to qualify the killing to murder.

Facts:
Guerreo Jr. was roused from his sleep by someone calling his name outside the kitchen door. He rose
and proceeded to the door. Then suddenly, the door was kicked open, and there he saw his
godfather, Ernesto Ocampo (victim). Ernesto immediately put his left foot inside Guerrero Jr.’s house.
Ernesto wanted to know the whereabouts of Guerreo Jr.’s sister, Nora. Guerreo Jr. replied that he did
not know where she was. Ernesto then warned that if ever Guerrero Jr. could not present Nora to
him, “blood will be spilled” around their house. Ernesto suddenly rushed towards Guerrero Jr. and
lunged at him (“dinuklos nak”), and while doing so, drew out a knife from his waist.

Guerrero Jr. immediately reached for a wooden club they kept beside the door, usually used to secure
the door at night, as its knob had long ago been broken. Using the club, Guerrero Jr. struck Ernesto
on the head, which sent Ernesto reeling and caused him to step backward. Guerrero Jr. struck again,
this time causing Ernesto to fall down on the porch of the house.

After Ernesto fell, Guerrero Jr. got Ernesto’s knife and used it to slash his neck, to the point of
completely severing the head from the body. He then proceeded to cut off Ernesto’s penis. He placed
Ernesto’s head beside his body, and then went out of the house.

He, together with his father, was charged with murder in an information which read: “xxx the above-
named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent
to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously and without justifiable cause, attack, assault, club, beheaded and cut off the penis of the
victim Ernesto Ocampo, which caused his death thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of his lawful
heirs.”
Guerrero Sr. was acquitted. Guerrero Jr. interposed self-defense, but was convicted of murder. The
trial court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of cruelty and scoffing at or outraging the
victim’s corpse (not treachery and evident premediation). Guerrero Jr. appealed the RTC decision to
the SC.

Issue: WON the qualifying circumstances of cruelty and scoffing at or outraging the victim’s corpse
was properly appreciated? No for cruelty. Yes for scoffing and outrage.

Ruling: Conviction affirmed with mofifications.

Ratio:
As established by the testimony of witnesses, Guerrero Jr. first severed the victim’s head before his
penis was cut-off. This being the sequence of events, cruelty has to be ruled out for it connotes an act
of deliberately and sadistically augmenting the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its
commission, or inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering.

As testified to by a doctor, and reflected in her medical certificate, Ernesto in fact died as a result of
his head being severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the act constituting the alleged cruelty
in the killing was perpetrated when the victim was already dead.

But the act of cutting-off the victim’s penis constitutes the qualifying circumstance of outraging or
scoffing at the corpse of the victim.

The allegations in the information, that the accused “beheaded and cut off the penis of the victim”
serves the function of stating specifically the act which constitutes outraging or scoffing at the
victim’s corpse. This negates Guerrero’s position that it cannot be appreciated because it was not
alleged in the information. While the information did not allege this qualifying circumstance in the
exact words of the law, outraging the dead and scoffing at the victim’s corpse are nevertheless
deducible from the recital in the information.

The sequence of events as “attack, assault, club, beheaded and cut the penis of the victim, Ernesto
Ocampo” alleged in the information points to the outrage committed on the dead.

Voting: Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

160. PEOPLE V. LACAO

GR No. L-32078 / 30 September 1974 / SECOND DIVISION / Appeal from decision of Trial Court
Plaintiff-appellee – People of the Phils
Accused-Appellant – Baltazar Lacao
Aquino, J.
(Digest by Kei Garcia)
SHORT VERSION: Baltazar Lacao stabbed Sergio Gallardo, but when Baltazar tried to pull out the
knife, Gallardo ran away and towards the bamboo grove. There, Gallardo was assaulted and stabbed
several times by other relatives of Baltazar Lacao using several weapons. The Court held that the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty cannot be appreciated because the numerousness of the wounds
is not the criterion to establish such. The test to establish CRUELTY as an aggravating circumstance:
“whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong
not necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed
at his person or corpse.” Also, Lacao can only be found guilty of homicide because the qualifying
circumstance of treachery was also not alleged in the information filed against him.

FACTS:
On March 27, 1969, both Baltazar Lacao and Sergio Gallardo were attending the wake of the wife of
Francisco Labo. At around 11pm, when Gallardo was about to go home and descending the stairs,
Barrio Captain Lacao called out to Gallardo, “Ser, ser!” and stabbed the latter with a knife to the right
side of his body. Lacao tried to pull out the knife, and Gallardo ran towards the bamboo grove. It was
at the bamboo grove that Gallardo was then assaulted and stabbed subsequently by David Lacao
(armed with a carbine), David’s son Benedicto, Baltazar Lacao’s coursins Salvador and Federico, and
a Jose Mansilla. Gallardo sustained 14 wounds and died due to massive hemorrhage. According to
the prosecution, the killing was motivated by a political agenda wherein Gallardo apparently
opposed the proposed resolution of Barrio captain Lacao to change the barrio’s name.

The day after, Baltazar surrendered himself to the Constabulary and subsequently issued a
certification admitting to stabbing Gallardo. Constabulary Sergeant Blancaflor forwarded a spot
report with the certification to the Provincial Commander.

According to Baltazar Lacao, he was merely defending himself from Gallardo’s aggression, and that
it was the latter that chased after him to the bamboo groves.

The trial court convicted Lacao of murder, qualified by treachery, aggravated by cruelty.

ISSUE (RELEVANT TO TOPIC): Whether or not the trial court erred in appreciating that cruelty
was committed as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING: Lacao is only guilty of homicide, and there was no cruelty.

RATIO:
The Court emphasized the test to establish CRUELTY as an aggravating circumstance: “whether the
accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary
for its commission or inhumanly increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person
or corpse.” The numerousness of the wounds is NOT the criterion to establish cruelty.

Furthermore, testimonies of prosecution witnesses showed that several persons inflicted the wounds
on Gallardo, and not just Baltazar Lacao. The nature of the wounds indicates that they could not have
been caused solely by one person using only a knife, which was the weapon used by Baltazar Lacao.
(ALSO, ON NOT APPRECIATING TREACHERY AS A QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE FOR
MURDER:)
Court held that: “Since treachery was not expressly alleged in the information, it could not be used to
qualify the killing as murder. It should be treated as a generic aggravating circumstance…Hence,
Lacao can only be held guilty of homicide, aggravated by treachery.”

VOTING: Fernando and Antonio, JJ, concur.