1. ROQUE GALANG VS. CA ( G.R. NO.

128536, YEAR 2000 )

2. PEOPLE VS. ACURAM ( GR. NO. 117954, YEAR 2000 )

3. PEOPLE VS. ALFREDO CABANDE ( GR. NO. 132747, YEAR 2000 )

FACTS OF THE CASE:

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 128536 January 31, 2000

P/INSP. ROQUE G. GALANG, petitioner,

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

PARDO, J.:

The case is an appeal via certiorari from the decision of the Court of
Appeals1 finding petitioner guilty of homicide and "appreciating the
privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete justifying
circumstance of performance of duty as provided under paragraph 1,
Article 13 in relation to paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal
Code", sentencing him to six (6) years of prision correcional, as
minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum, to
indemnify the heirs of Carlos Oro in the amount of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) and costs.1âwphi1.nêt

Police Inspector Roque G. Galang was originally charged with homicide

by information filed with the Regional Trial Court, Romblon, Odiongan,
Branch 82 which reads as follows. That on or about the 26th day of
November, 1992, at around 8:30 o'clock in the evening, in the
Poblacion, Municipality of Alcantara, province of Romblon, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused,
with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously shot with a .45 cal. pistol, one CARLOS G. ORO, inflicting
upon the latter, mortal gunshot wounds in different parts of his body
which were the cause of this death.
ISSUE:
The Court of Appeals erred in convicting the petitioner of homicide, not
appreciating his claim of self-defense. We deny the petition. The rule is
well established that factual findings of the trial court are binding on
the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence on record
and carry more weight when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In this
petition, petitioner imputes as errors the Court of Appeals' failure to
appreciate his claim of self-defense and its reliance on the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses. We agree with the Court of Appeals that
petitioner failed to prove his claim of self-defense. Generally, "the
burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in
fact innocent."9 However, if the accused admits killing the victim, but
pleads self-defense,10 the burden of evidence is shifted to him to prove
such defense by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence11 that
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on his part.12 To escape
liability, it now becomes incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear
and convincing evidence all the elements of that justifying
circumstance.13 IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is hereby DENIED, for
lack of merit. We, however, set aside the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 16954, promulgated on November 29, 1996.
Instead,
WHERE IT WAS HELD: Regional Trial Court, Romblon, Odiongan, Branch
82
CONCLUSION: The Court hereby renders judgment finding accused
Police Inspector Roque G. Galang guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code, with neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, their
attendance having been offset by each other, and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentencing him to an indeterminate
penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Carlos Oro in the amount.

REFLECTION: The Police officers must do their duty to serve and protect
the people in the community and not use their authority to abuse
others because they will face the consequences if they violates the law
that they must enforce.

REFERENCES:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/jan2000/gr_128536_2000.html

FACTS OF CASE:
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 117954 April 27, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ORLANDO ACURAM, accused-appellant

QUISUMBING, J.

On appeal is the decision rendered on August 24, 1994, by the Regional

Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 22, in Criminal Case No. 91-
1161, finding accused-appellant Orlando Acuram guilty of murder.

On September 30, 1991, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Benber Apepe

charged appellant with the crime of murder, allegedly committed as
follows:

On June 29, 1991, at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, at Poblacion, El

Salvador; Misamis Oriental, which is within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill and
treachery did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and
with the use of his armalite rifle, shoot at one Orlando1 Manabat who
was just standing on the highway waiting for a ride towards home,
thus, hitting and wounding the latter on the right leg or thigh, which
caused his death the following day.
ISSUE:To conclude, since the qualifying circumstance was not proved in
this case, the crime committed is only homicide, not murder. Under
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, the applicable penalty for
homicide is only reclusion temporal. As there is neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance found by the trial court or shown after a review
of the records, the penalty in this case shall be fixed in its medium
period of reclusion temporal, which ranges from a minimum of 14
years, 8 months and 1 day to a maximum of 17 years and 4 months.
Further applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the imposable
penalty shall be within the range of prision mayor as a minimum to
reclusion temporal in its medium period as the maximum. The range of
prision mayor is from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. The span of
reclusion temporal, medium, is from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to
17 years and 4 months.
WHERE IT WAS HELD: Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City,
Branch 22, in Criminal Case No. 91-1161,
CONCLUSION:DECISION of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro
City, Branch 22, in Criminal Case No. 91-1161, is hereby MODIFIED.
Appellant Orlando Acuram is hereby found GUILTY of HOMICIDE and
sentenced to suffer a prison term of 10 years of the medium period of
prision mayor, as minimum, to 15 years and 10 months and 1 day of the
medium period of reclusion temporal, as maximum, with accessory
penalties provided by law, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased
Rolando Manabat in the amount of P50,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
REFLECTION: The gun owners must knowledge about how dangerous of
firearms that in just one click it can destroy or end life, So they must be
responsible on what they doing with their guns because they can’t turn
back if they killed person either it is accident.
REFERENCES:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/apr2000/gr_117954_2000.html
FACTS OF THE CASE:
THIRD DIVISION
G. R. No. 132747 - February 8, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFREDO CABANDE,

Accused-Appellant.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The arguments and the issues raised in an appellant's brief must pertain
to errors allegedly committed by the trial court, not to those matters
that are no longer in dispute. Although herein appellant did not strictly
adhere to this rule and despite his anemic Brief, this Court carefully
pored over the entire records of this case in the interest of substantial
justice, and it is thoroughly convinced that the trial court did not err in
convicting him of the crimes charged. However, pursuant to current
jurisprudence, we are motu proprio modifying the award of civil
liabilities.
The Case
Appellant Alfredo Cabande appeals the July 24, 1997 Decision1 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan (Branch 16) in Criminal
Case Nos. 1568-M-90 and 1569-M-90, finding him guilty of two counts
of murder and sentencing him to two terms of reclusion perpetua.

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Edsel N. Rutor filed two Information

both dated July 31, 1990, charging appellant with murder. The
Information in Criminal Case No. 1568-M-90 reads as follows:
That on or about the 20th day of May, 1990, in the Municipality of San
Ildefonso, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a gun
and with intent to kill one Vicente Trinidad, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with evident premeditation, abuse of
superior strength and treachery, attack, assault and shoot with the said
gun he was then provided the said Victor Trinidad, hitting the latter, on
his body, thereby causing him serious physical injuries which directly
caused his death.
The Information in Criminal Case No. 1569-M-90 was similarly worded,
except for the name of the victim, who was Victor Trinidad in lieu of
Vicente Trinidad.
In an Order dated August 28, 1990, the RTC ordered the consolidation
of the two cases.4 The proceedings were stalled because appellant
surrendered only in 1993. When arraigned on July 28, 1993, appellant,
with the assistance of counsel,5 entered a plea of not guilty. Trial on
the merits ensued. On August 26, 1997,6 the trial court promulgated its
assailed Decision dated July 24, 1997, the dispositive portion of which
reads as follows:
ISSUE:
Qualifying Circumstances
In asking for his acquittal, appellant, for reasons known only to him and
his defense counsel, argues mainly that no evidence supported the
three qualifying circumstances alleged in two the Informations: abuse
of superior strength, evident premeditation and treachery. In other
words, he is putting forth arguments which, even if accepted, would
result only in a modification of the crime and a reduction of the
corresponding penalty. Damages
In line with current jurisprudence,24 we affirm the award of indemnity
ex delicto to the heirs of each victim in the sum of P50,000 or a total of
P100,000. This may be awarded without need of proof other than the
commission of the crime. Likewise, we sustain the award of P100,000
to the heirs of each victim for the wake and burial expenses, for these
were duly proven.25 Although the records show that they were entitled
to moral damages,26 we hold that the award should be reduced to
P100,000 or P50,000 for each set of heirs of the victims.
We cannot sustain, however, the award of exemplary damages, which
are awarded only in the presence of one or more aggravating
circumstances.27 None was established in this case.
WHERE IT WAS HELD: Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan
CONCLUSION: The Court of appealed Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Malolos, Bulacan is AFFIRMED, except in regard to the civil
liabilities which are MODIFIED; accordingly, appellant is hereby ordered
to pay the heirs of the victims as follows:
1. Indemnity ex-delicto in the rum of P50,000 for each victim.
2. Actual damages in the sum of P100,000 for each victim.
3. Moral damages in the amount of P50,000 for each victim.
4. Lost income of P2,733,333.33 for Victor plus P100,00.00 for Vicente.
REFLECTION: Killing someone just to revenge is not right act to get
justice because we have due process in our criminal justice system that
punish people who are violating the law, if you put the law in your own
hands you will face the consequences even you get what you want but
you can’t get away from law.
REFERENCES:https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/
jurisprudence2000/feb2000/gr_132747_2000.php