Você está na página 1de 243

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................. 1


Art.3: Felonies .................................................................................................. 6
Classification of Felonies According to the Means of Commission ................. 6
Calimutan v. People !.". #o. 1$%133& ...................................................... 6
Manuel v. People !.". #o. 16$'(%& .......................................................... '
Mista)e of Fact ............................................................................................ 1%
*.+. v. Ah Chong 1$ Phil. (''& ................................................................ 1%
,iego v. Castillo A.M. #o. "T-./%.1603& .................................................. 1(
People v. Fernando !.". #o. 1.%(20'& .................................................... 16
Mala in se v. Mala prohibita ......................................................................... 1'
3strada v. +andiganba4an !.". #o. 1('$6/& .......................................... 1'
People v. !o +hiu 1ing !.". #o. 11$1$6& ................................................ 12
Art. (: Criminal 1iabilit4 .................................................................................. %/
5rongful Act ,one be ,ifferent from That 6ntended ................................... %/
7uinto v. Andres ($3 +C"A $11& ............................................................ %/
People v. 8rtega %06 +C"A 166& ............................................................ %1
People v. Pilda (/$ +C"A 13(& ................................................................ %%
6mpossible Crimes ....................................................................................... %3
People v. ,omasian %12 +C"A %($& ....................................................... %3
6ntod v. CA %1$ +C"A $%& ....................................................................... %$
Art. 6: +tages of 39ecution ............................................................................. %0
People v. Campuhan!.". #o. 1%2(33& .................................................... %0
:alen;uela v. People !.". #o. 16/1''& ................................................... %2
People v. 8rita !.". #o. ''0%(& .............................................................. 31
Art. ': Conspirac4 ........................................................................................... 33
People v. 7uirol (03 +C"A $/2& .............................................................. 33
People v. Comadre (31 +C"A 366& ......................................................... 3$
+im v. CA (%' +C"A ($2& ........................................................................ 30
Art. 11: -ustif4ing Circumstances ................................................................... (/
+elf.defense ................................................................................................ (/
People v. +anche; !.". #o. 161//0& ....................................................... (/
+oplente v. People !.". #o. 1$%01$& ...................................................... (%
*rbano v. People !.". #o. 1'%0$/& ........................................................ ((
,efense of "elatives ................................................................................... (6
<alunuecov. CA and People !.". #o. 1%626'& ........................................ (6
Fulfilment of a ,ut4 ..................................................................................... ('
Mamangun v. People !" 1(21$%& ........................................................... ('
<a9inela v. People !.". #o. 1(26$%& ...................................................... (2
1 | P a g e
Angcaco v. People !.". #o. 1(666(& ...................................................... $1
8bedience to an 8rder ................................................................................ $3
Tabuena v. +andiganba4an !.". #os. 1/3$/1./3& .................................. $3
Art.1%: 39empting Circumstances .................................................................. $$
6nsanit4=6mbecilit4 ....................................................................................... $$
People v. "ubi>os !.". #o. 13'($3& ....................................................... $$
People v. :alledor !.". #o. 1%2%21& ....................................................... $'
Minorit4 ....................................................................................................... 61
1lave v.People !.". #o. 166/(/& ............................................................ 61
-ose v. People !.". #o. 16%/$%& ............................................................. 63
,eclarador v. -udge !ubaton !.". #o. 1$2%/'& ...................................... 6(
Accident ...................................................................................................... 66
Toledo v. People (32 +C"A 2(& ............................................................... 66
People v. Concepcion 3'6 +C"A 0(& ....................................................... 60
6rresistible Force=*ncontrollable Fear .......................................................... 62
T4 v. People !.". #o. 1(2%0$& ................................................................ 62
3ntrapment v. 6nstigation ............................................................................ 01
People v. +ta. Maria !.". #o. 101/12& .................................................... 01
People v. Pacis !.". #o. 1(63/2& ............................................................ 03
Chang v. People !.". #o. 16$111& .......................................................... 0$
Art. 13: Mitigating Circumstances .................................................................. 00
6ncomplete -ustif4ing or 39empting Circumstances .................................... 00
People v. CA and Tangan !.". #o. 1/3613& ............................................ 00
#o 6ntention to Commit so !rave a 5rong .................................................. '/
People v. Callet !.". #o. 13$0/1& ........................................................... '/
:indication of a !rave 8ffense .................................................................... '1
People v. Torpio !.". #o. 13'2'(& .......................................................... '1
Passion or 8bfuscation ................................................................................ '3
People v. 1ab.eo !.". #o. 133(3'& ......................................................... '3
People v. <ates !.". #o. 1322/0& ........................................................... '$
People v. Male?ana !.". #o. 1($//%& ...................................................... '0
:oluntar4 +urrender .................................................................................... '2
People v. <eltran !.". #o. 16'/$1& ........................................................ '2
Andrada v. People !" #o. 13$%%%& ......................................................... 21
People v. 7uim;on !.". #o. 133$(1& ...................................................... 23
Confession of !uilt ...................................................................................... 2$
People v. Montinola !.". #os. 131'$6.$0& .............................................. 2$
People v. ,a@aton !.". #o. 1(6%(0& ...................................................... 20
+imilar and Analogous Circumstances ........................................................ 2'
Canta v. People !.". #o. 1(/230& ........................................................... 2'
% | P a g e
Art. 1(: Aggravating Circumstances ............................................................. 1//
Classes of Aggravating Circumstances ..................................................... 1//
People v. 3vina (/$ +C"A 1$%& ............................................................. 1//
People v. Palaganas $/1 +C"A $33& ..................................................... 1/1
People v. Mendo;a 3%0 +C"A 62$& ....................................................... 1/%
6n Contempt or 5ith 6nsult to the Public Authorities ................................. 1/3
People v. ,e Mesa !.". #o. 130/36& .................................................... 1/3
People v. Tac.an !.". #o. 0633'.32& .................................................... 1/(
Abuse of Public Position ............................................................................ 1/6
Fortuna v. People !.". #o. 13$0'(& ...................................................... 1/6
People v. :illamor !.". #os. 1(/(/0./'& .............................................. 1/0
People v. Maga4ac !.". #o. 1%6/(3& .................................................... 1/'
#ighttimeA *ninhabited or 8bvious Place or <and ..................................... 1/2
People v. :illanueva !. ". #o. 13$33/& ................................................ 1/2
People v. Ancheta !.". #o. 0/%%%& ....................................................... 111
People v. <aro4 !.". #os. 130$%/.%%& .................................................. 113
"ecidivism ................................................................................................. 116
People v. ,acillo !.". #o. 1(236'& ....................................................... 116
"eiteracion ................................................................................................ 11'
People v. Ca?ara !.". #o. 1%%(2'& ....................................................... 11'
.............................................................................................................. 1%/
<4 Means of 6nundationA fireA etc. .............................................................. 1%1
People v. Malngan !.". #o. 10/(0/& .................................................... 1%1
People v. Comadre !.". #o. 1$3$$2& .................................................... 1%3
CraftA Fraud or ,isguise ............................................................................ 1%$
People v. 1abuguen !.". #o. 1%0'(2& .................................................. 1%$
Abuse of +uperior +trength ....................................................................... 1%0
People v. Amodio !.". #o. 1003$6& ...................................................... 1%0
People v. -amon (13 +C"A %'%& ........................................................... 1%'
People v. Calpito (16 +C"A (21& .......................................................... 13/
Treacher4 .................................................................................................. 13%
People v. Piedad 323 +C"A (''& ........................................................... 13%
People v. Piliin $1$ +C"A %/0& .............................................................. 13(
People v. 6lo 32% +C"A 3%6& .................................................................. 136
6gnomin4 ................................................................................................... 13'
People v. +ala;ar !.". #os. 1('01%.1$& ................................................ 13'
People v. <umidang !.". #o. 13/63/& .................................................. 1(/
People v. +iao !.". #o. 1%6/%1& ........................................................... 1(3
Aid of Minor or <4 Means of Motor :ehicles .............................................. 1($
People v. Mallari (/( +C"A 10/& ........................................................... 1($
3 | P a g e
People v. 3nguito 3%6 +C"A $/'& ......................................................... 1(0
Cruelt4 ...................................................................................................... 1$/
People v. !uerrero 3'2 +C"A 3'2& ....................................................... 1$/
+imangan v. People (3( +C"A 3'& ....................................................... 1$%
People v. Catian 30( +C"A $1(& ........................................................... 1$3
Art. 1$: Alternative Circumstances ............................................................... 1$(
"elationship .............................................................................................. 1$(
People v. Calongui !.". #o. 10/$66& .................................................... 1$(
People v. Marcos !.". #o. 13%32%& ....................................................... 1$$
6nto9ication ............................................................................................... 1$6
People v. MarBuita !.". #o. 130/$/& .................................................... 1$6
People v. Mondigo !.". #o. 1602$(& .................................................... 1$'
Arts. 16.%/: Persons Criminall4 1iable for Felonies ....................................... 1$2
Principals ................................................................................................... 1$2
People v. <atin !" #o. 100%%3& ............................................................ 1$2
People v. :asBue; !.". #o. 1%3232& ..................................................... 161
People v. ,acillo !.". #o. 1(236'& ....................................................... 16(
Accomplices .............................................................................................. 166
People v. "oche !.". #o. 11$1'%& ........................................................ 166
AbarBue; v. People !.". #o. 1$/06%& ................................................... 16'
People v. Compo !.". #o. 11%22/& ....................................................... 10/
Accessories ............................................................................................... 10%
People v. Tolentino !.". #o. 132102& ................................................... 10%
People v. Cui !.". #o. 1%12'%& ............................................................. 10$
People v. :er;ola !.". #o. 1.3$/%%& ..................................................... 10'
Accessories 39empt from Criminal 1iabilit4 ............................................... 1'/
People v. Mariano !.". #o. 1.(/$%0& .................................................... 1'/
Arts. %1.%(: Penalties in !eneral .................................................................. 1'3
"etroactive 3ffect of Penal 1a@s ............................................................... 1'3
People v. 3vina !.". #o. 1%('3/.31/& .................................................. 1'3
People v. 1a;aro !.". #o. 11%/2/& ....................................................... 1'(
People v. Pacifador !.". #o. 132(/$& ................................................... 1'$
Pardon b4 8ffended Part4 ......................................................................... 1'6
+ta. Catalina v. People !.". #o. 160'/$& .............................................. 1'6
<alderama v. People !.". #o. 1(0$0'.'$& ............................................ 1''
People v. ,imaano !.". #o. 16'16'& .................................................... 12/
Arts. %$.($: Penalties ................................................................................... 12%
"eclusion Perpetua ................................................................................... 12%
People v. #ovio !.". #o. 13233%& ......................................................... 12%
People v. Cacarias !.". #o. 13'22/& .................................................... 12(
( | P a g e
People v. "amire; !.". #o. 13'%61& ..................................................... 12$
Arts. (6.00: Application of Penalties ............................................................. 120
Comple9 Crime .......................................................................................... 120
People v. 1atupan !.". #os. 11%($3.$6& .............................................. 120
People v. Pineda !.". #o. 1.%6%%%& ...................................................... 122
People v. +anidad !.". #o. 1(6/22& ..................................................... %/1
,elito Continuado ..................................................................................... %/3
"amiscal v. +andiganba4an !.". #os. 1620%0.%'& ............................... %/3
+antiago v. !architorena !.". #o. 1/2%66& .......................................... %/$
Dabitual ,elinBuenc4 ................................................................................ %/0
People v. 3spina !.". #o. (3$$6& ......................................................... %/0
People v. ,e -esus !.". #o. ($12'& ...................................................... %/'
Arts. '2.23: Total 39tinction of Criminal 1iabilit4 ......................................... %1/
,eath of the Accused ................................................................................ %1/
,e !u;man v. People !.". #o. 1$($02& ............................................... %1/
People v. <a4otas !.". #o. 1/%//0& ..................................................... %11
People v. Abungan !.". #o. 136'(3& .................................................... %13
Prescription of 8ffenses ............................................................................ %1(
Panaguiton v. ,8- !.". #o. 160$01& ..................................................... %1(
"ecebido v. People 3(6 +C"A ''1& ....................................................... %16
Cani;a v. People 1$2 +C"A 16& ............................................................. %1'
Amnest4 .................................................................................................... %%/
People v. Patriarcha !.". #o. 13$($0& .................................................. %%/
Arts. 1//.1/3: Civil 1iabilit4 ......................................................................... %%3
#uguid v. #icdao !.". #o. 1$/0'$& ...................................................... %%3
+ubsidiar4 Civil 1iabilit4 of 8ther Persons ................................................. %%6
#ueva 3spana v. People (6/ +C"A $(0& ............................................... %%6
Pangonorom v. People ($$ +C"A %11& ................................................. %%2
7uinto v. Andres ($3 +C"A $11& .......................................................... %31
Probation 1a@ P.,. #o. 26'& ........................................................................ %33
Francisco v. CA !.". #o. 1/'0(0& ......................................................... %33
1agrosa v. People !.". #o. 1$%/((& ..................................................... %3$
:ico4 v. People !.". #o. 13'%/3& ......................................................... %30
Anti.Fencing 1a@ P.,. #o. 161%& ................................................................. %3'
Francisco v. People (3( +C"A 1%%& ...................................................... %3'
Tan v. People 313 +C"A %%/& ............................................................... %(/
John Aceveda
2008-0032
$ | P a g e
Art.3: Felonies
Classification of Felonies According to the Means of
Commission
Calimtan v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '(2'33)
Facts:
Victim Cantre and Saano, together with two other companions had a
drinking spree in a videoke bar at ten oclock in the morning of February 4, !!"#
$hereafter, they decided to part ways and went to their respective houses# %n
their way home, Cantre and Sanano met the petitioner and &ichael 'ulalacao#
Cantre suddenly punched 'ulalacao because he is suspecting the latter as the
one responsible for throwing stones at his house on previous night# (fter being
hit, bulalacao ran away# )etitioner picked*up a stone which is as big as mans fist,
ran toward Cantre, and threw it to the latter, hitting him at the left side of his back#
+hen Cantre turned his attention to the petitioner, Sanano tried pacify the two#
'oth Cantre and petitioner calmed down and went to their houses# +hen Cantre
arrived at his house, he complained of the pain in the left side of his back which
was hit by the stone# (t that night, he again complained of backache and also of
stomachache# ,es condition immediately became worst, and at around three
oclock in the following morning, Cantre died#
-ight after his death, Cantre was e.amined by /r# Conchita S# 0landay,
the &unicipal ,ealth %fficer and made a findings that the cause of death was
cardio*respiratory arrest due to suspected food poisoning# 0nsatisfied, the
Cantre family re1uested for an e.humation and autopsy of the body of the victim
by the 2'3# /r# &ende4 conducted an e.humation and autopsy and reported that
the cause of the death was traumatic in5ury of the abdomen# $he victim suffered
from an internal hemorrhage and there was massive accumulation of blood in his
abdominal cavity due to his lacerated spleen caused by any blunt instrument,
such as a stone#
)etitioner alleged that he only attempted to pacify the victim but the latter
refused and pulled out eight*inch 'alisong# +hen he saw the victim was about to
stab 'ulalacao, he picked up a stone and threw it at the victim Cantre# ,e was
able to hit the victim# ,e contended that the throwing of the stone was in defense
of his companion#
6 | P a g e
$he -$C rendered a decision, which was later affirmed by the C(, holding
that petitioner was criminally liable for homicide and that the act of throwing a
stone from behind was a treacherous one and the accused committed a felony
which caused the death of the victim and held that the accused is criminally liable
for all the direct and natural conse1uences of this unlawful act even if the
ultimate result had not been intended# ,ence, these case#
*sse:
+hether or not the petitioner has the intent to kill the victim and thus liable
for homicide6
+ecision:
+hile the Supreme Court is in accord with the factual findings of the -$C
and the C( and affirms that there is ample evidence proving that the death of the
victim Cantre was caused by his lacerated spleen which is the result by the stone
thrown at him by petitioner Calimutan, it nonetheless, is at variance with the -$C
and the C( as to the determination of the appropriate crime or offense for which
the petitioner should have been convicted for#
(rticle 7 of the -evised )enal Code classifies felonies according to the
means by which they are committed, in particular8 9: intentional felonies, and 9;:
culpable felonies# $hese two types of felonies are distinguished from each other
by the e.istence or absence of malicious intent of the offender#
3n intentional felonies, the act or omission of the offender is malicious# 3n
the language of (rt# 7, the act is performed with deliberate intent 9with malice:#
$he offender, in performing the act or in incurring the omission, has the intention
to cause an injury to another# 3n culpable felonies, the act or omission of the
offender is not malicious# $he in5ury caused by the offender to another person is
<unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act
performed without malice#< 9)eople vs# Sara, == )hil# !7!:# (s stated in (rt# 7, the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill#
3n the )etition at bar, this Court cannot, in good conscience, attribute to
petitioner any malicious intent to in5ure, much less to kill, the victim Cantre> and in
the absence of such intent, this Court cannot sustain the conviction of petitioner
0 | P a g e
Calimutan for the intentional crime of homicide, as rendered by the -$C and
affirmed by the Court of (ppeals# 3nstead, this Court finds petitioner Calimutan
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide under (rticle 7"= of the -evised )enal Code. $he
prosecution did not establish that petitioner Calimutan threw the stone at the
victim Cantre with the specific intent of killing, or at the very least, of harming the
victim Cantre# +hat is obvious to this Court was petitioner Calimutans intention
to drive away the attacker who was, at that point, the victim Cantre, and to
protect his helper 'ulalacao who was, as earlier described, much younger and
smaller in built than the victim Cantre#
John Aceveda
2008-0032
Manel v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. ',(8-2)
' | P a g e
Facts:
$his is a case filed against ?duardo &anuel for bigamy by $ina '#
@andalera# Complainant allege that she met the petitioner in /agupan
City sometime in Aanuary !!"# +hen he visited her in 'aguio, as one
thing led to another, they went to a motel where, ?duardo succeeded in
having his way with her# )etitioner proposed marriage and even brought
his parents to assure that he is single# $ina finally accepted the marriage
proposal and they were married on (pril ;;, !!"# 3n their marriage
contract, it appeared that ?duardo is BsingleC# ,owever, their happy
relationship turns into a disaster, &anuel started making himself scarce
and went to their house only twice or thrice a year# %ne day, petitioner
took all of his cloths, left and never returned# %ut of curiousity, $ina went
to 2S% in &anila where she found out that petitioner had been previously
married to -ubylus @aa# She was so embarrassed and humiliated when
she learned that ?duardo was in fact already married when they
e.changed their own vows#
For his part, ?duardo testified that he informed $ina of his previous
marriage, but she nevertheless agreed to marry him# ,e abandoned her
when he noticed that she had a <love*bite< on her neck, suspecting it that
it come from another man# ?duardo further testified that he declared he
was <single< in his marriage contract with $ina because he believed in
good faith that his first marriage was invalid# ,e did not know that he had
to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before
marrying $ina## -ubylus was charged with estafa in !D= and thereafter
imprisoned# ,e visited her in 5ail after three months and never saw her
again# ,e insisted that he married $ina believing that his first marriage
was no longer valid because he had not heard from -ubylus for more than
;E years# (fter trial, the court rendered 5udgment finding ?duardo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of bigamy# 3t declared that ?duardos belief, that
his first marriage had been dissolved because of his first wifes ;E*year
absence, even if true, did not e.culpate him from liability for bigamy and
that even if the private complainant had known that ?duardo had been
previously married, the latter would still be criminally liable for bigamy#
?duardo appealed the decision to the C( maintaining his contentions# ,e
insisted that conformably to (rticle 7 of the -evised )enal Code, there
must be malice for one to be criminally liable for a felony# ,e was not
2 | P a g e
motivated by malice in marrying the private complainant because he did
so only out of his overwhelming desire to have a fruitful marriage# ,ence,
these case#
*sse:
+hether or not the petitioner has criminal intent to contract on the
second marriage to be liable for bigamy6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution proved that the
petitioner was married to @aa in !D=, and such marriage was not
5udicially declared a nullity> hence, the marriage is presumed to
subsist# $he prosecution also proved that the petitioner married the private
complainant in !!", long after the effectivity of the Family Code# $he
petitioner is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he
married the private complainant# (s a general rule, mistake of fact or good
faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony
by dolo> such defense negates malice or criminal intent# ,owever,
ignorance of the law is not an e.cuse because everyone is presumed to
know the law# Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. 3t was the burden of the
petitioner to prove his defense that when he married the private
complainant in !!", he was of the well*grounded belief that his first wife
was already dead, as he had not heard from her for more than ;E years
since !D=# ,e should have adduced in evidence a decision of a
competent court declaring the presumptive death of his first wife as
re1uired by (rticle 74! of the -evised )enal Code, in relation to (rticle 4
of the Family Code# Such 5udicial declaration also constitutes proof that
the petitioner acted in good faith, and would negate criminal intent on his
part when he married the private complainant and, as a conse1uence, he
could not be held guilty of bigamy in such case# $he petitioner, however,
failed to discharge his burden#
(rticle 7, paragraph ; of the -evised )enal Code provides that
there is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent# 3ndeed, a
felony cannot e.ist without intent# Since a felony by dolo is classified as an
intentional felony, it is deemed voluntary# (lthough the words <with malice<
1/ | P a g e
do not appear in (rticle 7 of the -evised )enal Code, such phrase is
included in the word <voluntary#<
&alice is a mental state or condition prompting the doing of an
overt act without legal e.cuse or 5ustification from which another suffers
in5ury# +hen the act or omission defined by law as a felony is proved to
have been done or committed by the accused, the law presumes it to have
been intentional# 3ndeed, it is a legal presumption of law that every man
intends the natural or probable conse1uence of his voluntary act in the
absence of proof to the contrary, and such presumption must prevail
unless a reasonable doubt e.ists from a consideration of the whole
evidence#
$il Acosta
2008-008(
11 | P a g e
Mista.e of Fact
/.0. v. Ah Chong #'( !hil. -88)
Facts:
/efendant herein a chinese man named (h Chong is employed us a cook
at Fort &ckinley# (t that time there were rumours and accounts of fre1uent
robbing of homes in the area#
%n the night of the killing, (h chong before going to bed, and afraid of the
rumoured robberies taking place in the vicinity locked himself in their room by
placing wooden blocks and chairs for the purpose of thwarting robbers in case
they tried to rob him#
(fter having gone to bed, he was awakened by the noise of someone
trying to open the door# (h Chong for his part called out twice, B+ho is there, but
to no availC# Fearing that the person trying to enter was robber (h Chong leaped
from his bed and shouted B3f you enter the room 3 will kill youC# 'ut at that precise
moment, he was suddenly struck by the chair that he had placed in the door, and
believing that he was being attacked he sei4ed a knife and struck it on the
supposed assailantFrobber, who was killed by the blow# ,owever the deceased
was not a robber not intruder it turned out that the person was his roommate,
trying to enter their room#
*sse:
+hether or not (h Chong is criminally liable6
+ecision:
2%# (h Chong must be ac1uitted on the basis of honest mistake of fact#
+here the facts been as (h Chong perceived them to be, he would have been
5ustified in killing the intruder under (rticle of the -evised, par# of the
-evised )enal Code, which provides for a valid self*defense of his person# 3f the
intruder was indeed a robber, forcing his way to enter the room, unlawful
aggression would be present# (lso the necessity means to avoid or to repel the
attack would be reasonable# 0sing the knife to defend himself# (nd lastly (h
Chong gave no provocation at all to warrant such aggression# $he Supreme
1% | P a g e
Court ,eld that there is nothing unlawful in the intention as well in the act of (h
Chong, his act would not have been a felony if the real scenario was the facts he
believed them to be#
$il Acosta
2008-008(
13 | P a g e
+iego v. Castillo #A.M. &o. %TJ-02-',13)
Facts:
$his is an administrative complaint filed against herein respondent for
@ross ignorance of the law in rendering his decision in a criminal complaint for
bigamy#
%n !"= Gucena ?scoto contracted marriage with Aorge de )erio Ar# 'oth
of which were Filipino Citi4ens# ,owever on February =, !DH the two ac1uired
a /ecree of /ivorce in $e.as, 0S(#
%n Aune 4, !HD the same Gucena ?scoto contracted marriage with herein
complainants brother &anule )# /iego, celebrated at /agupan#
Audge Castillo held in this case the ac1uittal of &s# ?scoto on the basis of
good faith on her part# $hat &s# ?scoto believing that her previous marriage had
been validly dissolved by the divorce decree ac1uired in a foreign country and
that she was legally free to contract the second marriage# $hat according to
Audge Castillo as an ordinary laywoman , she entertains the impression that she
can contract a subse1uent marriage# Furthermore Audge Castillo stressed that
knowledge of the law should not be e.acted strictly from her since she is a lay
person, and that ineptitude should not be confused with criminal intent#
*sse:
+hether or not mistake of fact to cut*off the criminal liability of &s# ?scoto
was validly taken up by Audge Castillo6
+ecision:
2o# (s carefully distinguished by the Supreme Court in its previous
decisions that mistake of fact, which would could be a valid defense of good faith
in a bigamy case, from mistake of law, which does not e.cuse a person, even a
lay person, from liability# 3n )eople vs# 'idtu the Supreme Court held that even if
the accused, who had obtained a divorce decree under &ohammedan custom,
honestly believed that in contracting her second marriage she was not
1( | P a g e
committing any violation of law, and that she had no criminal intent, the same
does not 5ustify the her act# $he Court further that it is sufficient to say that
everyone is presumed to know the law, and the fact that one doe not know that
his act constitutes a violation of law does not e.empt him from the conse1uence
thereof#
$il Acosta
2008-008(
1$ | P a g e
!eo"le v. Fernando #$.%. &o. 2-2-318)
Facts:
$he residents of 'arrio of &unicahan of the &unicipality of Iamboanga
were alarmed by the presence of 7 suspicious looking persons prowling around
the town, suspecting them as moro prisoners who recently escaped from Aail#
Fernando the accused herein was a policeman, when passing in front of
the house of -emigio /elgado he was called by the latters daughter and said to
him that her father wanted to talk to him# -emigio told Fernando that 7 unknown
and suspicious looking fellows were prowling around the house, dressed in blue
same as those purportedly worn by the escapees# Fernando stayed in the house
talking to the daughter of -emigio,, both seated in a bench near the window# (t
about D oclock in the evening , there appeared a figure in the dark about 4
meters from the stairs, a person in dark clothes, calling &ang &iong# Fernando
and the daughter of -emegio had no idea who was calling# Fernando asked the
man what he wanted but instead of answering the 1uestion the man continued to
the walk with bolo in hand# Fernando upon seeing this took out his revolver and
fired a warning shot# $hereafter having fired a shot into the air the man continued
his ascend to the stairs, Fernando took a shot at him# ,owever it was found out
that the unknown man was 'uenaventura )aulino, nephew of -emigio#
$he trial court held that Fernando was guilty of the crime of murder# ,ence
this appeal#
*sse:
+hether or not Fernando is criminally liable for his acts6
+ecision:
Jes# 'ut not for the crime of murder# $he accused being agent of the law,
to whom notice was given of the presence of the suspicious looking persons who
might be the escapees# $he appearance of a man unknown to him, dressed in
clothes as that of the escaped convicts, and calling to the owner of the house, of
which the daughter of the owner of the house did not also recogni4ed, caused
the accused to suspect that the unknown man was one of the escaped convicts,
16 | P a g e
and after firing a warning shot, the man still did not halt his advance with bolo in
hand# 3n the midst of the circumstances and believing that the man was a
wrongdoer he tried to perform his duty and first fired into the air and then at the
allege intruder# (t that psychological moment when the forces of far and the
sense of duty were at odds, the accused was not able to take full account of the
true situation# ,owever, a circumstance that should have made him suspect that
the man was not only a friend but a relative when the man called B2ong &iong,
and in not asking the daughter of the owner of the house who was it who was
calling to her father with such familiarity, he did not use the ordinary precaution
that he should have used before talking such fatal action# ,ence he is liable for
homicide through reckless negligence#
%anv4lle Albano
2008-00(2
10 | P a g e
Mala in se v. Mala "rohibita
5strada v. 0andiganba4an #$.%. &o. '-8(,0)
Facts:
)etitioner Former )resident Aoseph ?strada was prosecuted for a crime of
violation of -( DEHE (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder! as
amended by -( D"=!# $hus, he 1uestions the constitutionality of the said Gaw#
%ne of the issues that was raised in the petition is whether )lunder as defined in
-( DEHE is a malum prohi"itum! and if so! whether it is within the power of
Congress to so classify it#
*sse:
+hether or not )lunder is a crime malum prohibitum6
+ecision:
$he legislative declaration in -#(# 2o#D"=! that plunder is a heinous
offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts punished are
inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter
that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in the case of
plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. 3ndeed, it would be absurd to
treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions for violations
of the 'ouncing Check Gaw 9'#)# '3g# ;;: or of an ordinance against 5aywalking,
without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts#
%anv4lle Albano
2008-00(2
1' | P a g e
!eo"le v. $o 0hi 2ing #$.%. &o. ''('(,)
Facts:
$he -egional $rial Court of )asay City finds accused*appellant (ntonio
Comia guilty of conspiring with four others to import regulated drugs in violation
of (rt# 333, Section 4 in relation to (rticle 3V, Section ; of the /angerous /rugs
(ct 9-ep# (ct 2o# "4;=, as amended:#
*sse:
+hether or not a crime for violation of /angerous /rugs (ct is a crime
malum prohibitum6
+ecision:
?ven granting that Comia acted in good faith, he cannot escape criminal
responsibility# $he crime with which he is charged is a malum prohi"itum# Gack of
criminal intent and good faith are not e.empting circumstances# (s held inPeople
## $o %o &ing8
&oreover, the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a
<malum prohi"itum< because it is punished as an offense
under a special law# 3t is a wrong because it is prohibited by
law# +ithout the law punishing the act, it cannot be
considered a wrong# (s such, the mere commission of said
act is what constitutes the offense punished and suffices to
validly charge and convict an individual caught committing
the act so punished, regardless of criminal intent#
Gikewise, in People ## 'ayona, it was held8
$he rule is that in acts mala in se there must be a criminal
intent, but in those mala prohi"ita it is sufficient if the
prohibited act was intentionally done# <Care must be
e.ercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent
to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate to act#<
2is Celestino
200,-03(-
12 | P a g e
Art. -: Criminal 2iabilit4
6rongfl Act +one be +ifferent from That *ntended
7into v. Andres #-(3 0C%A ('')
Facts:
%n 2ov# 7,!!=, /ante (ndres and -andyven )acheco invited +ilson
Kuinto and ?dison @arcia to go fishing with them inside a drainage culvert#
,owever, only Kuinto 5oined the two, @arcia remain in a grassy area about two
meters from the entrance of the drainage system# (fter a while, )acheco came
out, went back again, and emerged again carrying +ilson who was already dead#
,e laid the boys lifeless body down in the grassy area and went to the house of
+ilsons mother and informed her that her son had died# (fter more than three
months, the cadaver of +ilson was e.humed and the 2'3 performed an autopsy
thereon# (n information was later filed with the -$C changing (ndres and
)acheco with homicide#
*sse:
+hether or not the accused has criminal liability for the death of the
victim6
+ecision:
$he prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt# 3t failed to prove the guilt of the accused is criminality liable
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended# $he
Supreme Court agreed with the trial and appellate courts that the pro.imate
cause of the death of the victim was not cause by any wrongful act of the
accused# 3t is the burden of the prosecution to prove the corps delicti which
consists of criminal act and the defendants agency in the commission of the act#
$his, the prosecution failed to do#
2is Celestino
200,-03(-
%/ | P a g e
!eo"le v. 8rtega #21, 0C%A ',,)
Facts :
3n !!;, 'en5amin %rtega, Ar#, &anuel @arcia and a certain Aohn /oe
were changed with murder for the killing (ndre &an &asangkay# (s narrated by
a witness, the victim answered the called of nature and went to the back portion
of the house where they were having a drinking spree# (ccused %rtega followed
him and later they heard the victim shouting for help and when they ran towards
the scene he saw the accused on top of the victim and stabbing the latter with a
long bladed weapon# $hereafter, %rtega and @arcia brought the victim to a well
and dropped him and placed stones into the well# $he trial court found the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt# $he accused appealed averring that
the trial court erred in holding them criminally liable because at the time the
victim was dropped into the well, he was still alive#
*sse:
+hether or not the accused may be held criminally liable for the death of
the victim which is not attributable to the stab wounds but due to drowning6
+ecision:
( person who commits a felony is criminally liable for the direct natural
and logical conse1uences of his wrongful act even where the resulting crime is
more serious than that intended# $he essential re1uisites for this criminal liability
to attach are as follows 8
# the intended act is felonious >
;# the resulting act is likewise a felony> and
7# the unintended graven wrong was primarily caused by the actors
wrongful acts#
2is Celestino
200,-03(-
%1 | P a g e
!eo"le v. !ilda #-0( 0C%A '3-)
Facts:
(ccused ?dman (guilos, %dilon Gagliba and -ene )ilola were changed
with murder for the death of Aoselito Capa# -ene )ilola devised stabbing the
victim and interposed the defense of alibi# $he trial count found all the accused
guilty and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua# -ene )ilola appealed the
decision by contending that there was no conspiracy and he may not be held
criminally liable as principal by direct participation# ,e argued that the
prosecution failed to prove that he conspined with the others in stabbing the
victim to death# ,e asserts that he is merely an accomplice#
*sse:
+hether or not the appellant may be held criminally liable as principal by
direct participation in the absence of proof of conspiracy6
+ecision:
$he court in applying paragraph , (rticle 4 of the -evised )enal Code
ruled that even if two or more offenders do not conspire to commit homicide or
murder, they may be held criminally liable as principals by direct participation if
they perform overt acts which immediately cause or accelerate the death of the
victim# $hey are all criminally liable although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended by reason of their individual and separate overt
criminal acts#
9rian 9onifacio +ela Cr:
2001-0388
%% | P a g e
*m"ossible Crimes
!eo"le v. +omasian #2'3 0C%A 2-()
Facts:
3n the morning of &arch , !H;, while ?nrico was walking with a
classmate along -o1ue Street in Gope4, Kue4on, he was approached by a man
9/omasian: who re1uested his assistance in getting his fatherLs signature on a
medical certificate#?nrico agreed to help and rode with /omasian in a tricycle to
Calantipayan# ?nrico became apprehensive and started to cry when, instead of
taking him to the hospital, /omasian flagged a minibus and forced him inside,
holding him firmly all the while# /omasian told him to stop crying or he would not
be returned to his father#
/omasian talked to a 5eepney driver and handed him an envelope
addressed to /r# ?nri1ue (gra, the boyLs father# $hen they rode a tricycle, the
driver got suspicious and reported the matter to two barangay tanods# $he
tanods went after the two, Somehow, /omasian managed to escape, leaving
?nrico behind# ?nrico was on his way home in a passenger 5eep when he met his
parents, who were riding in the hospital ambulance and already looking for him#
(t about 84= in the afternoon of the same day, after ?nricoLs return, (gra
received an envelope containing a ransom note# $he note demanded ) million
for the release of ?nrico and warned that otherwise the boy would be killed# (gra
thought the handwriting in the note was familiar# (fter comparing it with some
records in the hospital, he gave the note to the police, which referred it to the 2'3
for e.amination#$he test showed that it bad been written by /r# Samson $an#
/omasian and $an were subse1uently charged with the crime of kidnapping with
serious illegal detention in the -egional $rial Court of Kue4on#
*sse:
+hether or not the sending of the ransom note was an impossible crime6
+ecision:
%3 | P a g e
2o# ?ven before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping
with serious illegal detention had already been committed# $he act cannot be
considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent improbability of
its accomplishment or the employment of inade1uate or ineffective means# $he
delivery of the ransom note after the rescue of the victim did not e.tinguish the
offense, which had already been consummated when /omasian deprived ?nrico
of his liberty#
&oreover the trial court correctly held that conspiracy was proved by the
act of /omasian in detaining ?nrico> the writing of the ransom note by $an> and
its delivery by /omasian to (gra# $hese acts were complementary to each other
and geared toward the attainment of the common ultimate ob5ective
9rian 9onifacio +ela Cr:
%( | P a g e
2001-0388
*ntod v. CA #2'( 0C%A (2)
Facts:
3n the morning of February 4, !D!, 3ntod, )angasian, $ubio and /aligdig
went to &andayaLs house in Gope4 Aaena, &isamis %ccidental and asked him to
go with them to the house of )alangpangan# $hereafter, &andaya and 3ntod,
)angasian, $ubio and /aligdig had a meeting with (niceto /umalagan# ,e told
&andaya that he wanted )alangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute
between them and that &andaya should accompany the four men, otherwise, he
would also be killed#
(t about E8EE oLclock in the evening of the same day, )etitioner,
&andaya, )angasian, $ubio and /aligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at
)alangpanganLs house in Matugasan, Gope4 Aaena, &isamis %ccidental# (t the
instance of his companions, &andaya pointed the location of )alangpanganLs
bedroom# $hereafter, )etitioner, )angasian, $ubio and /aligdig fired at said
room#3t turned out, however, that )alangpangan was in another City and her
home was then occupied by her son*in*law and his family# 2o one was in the
room when the accused fired the shots# 2o one was hit by the gun fire#
*sse:
+hether or not said act constitutes an impossible crime6
+ecision:
Jes# $he factual situation in the case at bar present a physical
impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment
and under (rticle 4, paragraph ; of the -evised )enal Code, such is sufficient to
make the act an impossible crime#
$o be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must
be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment# $here must be either
impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in order to 1ualify the act an
impossible crime# Gegal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if
%$ | P a g e
completed, would not amount to a crime#Factual impossibility occurs when
e.traneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent
the consummation of the intended crime# $he case at bar belongs to this
category#
3n our 5urisdiction, impossible crimes are recogni4ed# $he impossibility of
accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penali4ed by
itself# Furthermore, the phrase <inherent impossibility< that is found in (rticle 49;:
of the -evised )enal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical
impossibility and legal impossibility#
$o uphold the contention of respondent that the offense was (ttempted
&urder because the absence of )alangpangan was a supervening cause
independent of the actorLs will, will render useless the provision in (rticle 4, which
makes a person criminally liable for an act <which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment # # #< 3n that case all circumstances which prevented the
consummation of the offense will be treated as an accident independent of the
actorLs will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies#
Melencio 0. Fastino
%6 | P a g e
2008-003-
Art. ,: 0tages of 5;ection
!eo"le v. Cam"han#$.%. &o. '23-33)
Facts:
%n (pril ;=, !!" at around 4pm while &a# Cora4on )amintuan was
downstairs busy preparing drinks for her two daughters, she heard Crysthel, one
of her daughters crying, B(yoko, (yokoC prompting her to rush upstairs#
$hereupon, she saw )rimo inside her childrens room kneeling in front of her
four*year old daughter, whose pa5amas were already removed, while his short
pants were down to his knees#
)rimo was apprehended and was charged with statutory rape#
$he trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to the e.treme penalty
of death# 3n convicting the accused, the trial court relied 1uite heavily on the
testimony of Cora4on that she saw )rimo with his short pants down to his knees
kneeling before Crysthel whose pa5amas and panty were supposedly Balready
removed< and that )rimo was Bforcing his penis into Crysthels vagina#C
*sse:
3s )rimo guilty of Consummated rape6
+ecision:
Audgment modified into attempted rape#
3n )eople vs# /ela )ena, the SC clarified that the decisions finding a case
for rape even if the attackers penis merely touched the e.ternal portions of the
female genitalia were made in the conte.t of the presence or e.istence of an
erect penis capable of full penetration# +here the accused failed to achieve an
erection, had a limp of flaccid penis, or an oversi4ed penis which could not fit into
the victims vagina, the Court nonetheless held that rape was consummated on
the basis of the victims testimony that the accused repeatedly tried, but in vain,
%0 | P a g e
to insert his penis into her vagina and in all likelihood reached the labia of her
pudendum as the victim felt his organ on the lips of her vulva, or that the penis of
the accused touched the middle part of her vagina#
$hus, touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere
epidermal contact, stroking or gra4ing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the
penis on the e.ternal layer of the victimLs vagina, or the mons pu"is, as in this
case#
$here must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed
touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the
e.ternal surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape#
(s the la"ias, which are re1uired to be BtouchedC by the penis, are by their
natural situs or location beneath the mons pu"is or the vaginal surface, to touch
them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface,
hence, the conclusion that touching the la"ia majora or the la"ia minora of the
pudendum constitutes consummated rape#
Audicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the oft*
1uoted Btouching of the female organ,C but has also progressed into being
described as Bthe introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum,C
or Bthe bombardment of the drawbridge#C 'ut to the SCLs mind, the case at bar
merely constitutes a (shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency!( or a (strafing of
the citadel of passion.(
0nder (rt#", in relation to (rt# 77=, of the -evised )enal Code, rape is
attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of e.ecution which should produce
the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance# (ll the elements of attempted rape N and only of
attempted rape N are present in the instant case> hence, the accused should be
punished only for it#
Melencio 0. Fastino
%' | P a g e
2008-003-
<alen:ela v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. ',0'88)
Facts:
(ristotel Valen4uela and Aovy Calderon were charged with the crime of
theft#
%n ! &ay!!4, Valen4uela and Calderon were seen outside the Super
Sale Club inside the S& Comple. along 2orth ?dsa by Goren4o Gago, S&
Security @uard# Valen4uela was hauling a push cart with cases of $ide
detergent and unloaded these cases of $i de in an open parking space
where Calderon was waiting# Valen4uela went inside the supermarket again and
came back with more cases of detergent#
$hereafter, Valen4uela left the parking lot and haled a ta.i# ,e boarded
the cab and told the driver to go to the area where Calderon was waiting#
Calderon loaded the cases of $ide and boarded the ta.i# Gago saw all of
thi s and proceeded to stop the ta.i # +hen Gago asked for a receipt of the
merchandise, the two accused reacted by fleeing on foot# Valen4uela and
Calderon were apprehended at the scene#
Valen4uel a and Calderon were both convi cted by the trial court of
consummated theft#
3t was only Valen4uela who filed an appeal with the Court of (ppeals#
)etitioner contends that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since at
the time he was apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely
dispose of the articles stolen# $he Court of (ppeals re5ected this contention,
hence, this )etition for -eview#
*sse:
+hether or not petitioner Valen4uela is guilty only of frustrated theft6
+ecision:
%2 | P a g e
)etition dismissed# 0nder the statutory definition of theft, free disposal of
the stolen items is not a constitutive element of theft#
0nder (rticle 7EH of the -evised )enal Code, the crime of theft is defined
as follows# B$heft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without
force or violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall
take the property of another without the latters consent ...C
%n the face of the definition, there is only one operative act of e.ecution
by the actor involved in theft N the taking of personal property of another# 3t is
also clear from the definition that in order such taking may be 1ualified as theft,
there must further be present the descriptive circumstances that the taking was
with intent to gain> without force upon things or violence against or intimidation of
persons> and is was without the consent of the owner of the property#
For the purpose of ascertaining whether theft is susceptible of
commissions in the frustrated stage, the 1uestion is again, when is the crime of
theft produced6 $here would be all but certain unanimity in the position that theft
is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to to its taking by
one with intent to gain# Viewed from that perspective, it is immaterial to the
product of the felony that the offender, once having committed all the acts of
e.ecution for theft, is able or unable to freely disposed of the property stolen
since the deprivation from the owner alone has already ensued from such acts of
e.ecution#
3ndeed the SC, after all, held that unlawful taking is deemed complete
from the moment of the offender gains possession of the thing even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same#
Melencio 0. Fastino
3/ | P a g e
2008-003-
!eo"le v. 8rita #$.%. &o. 8812-)
Facts:
3n the early morning of &arch ;E, !H7, Cristina S# (bayan, a !*year old
freshman student at the St# AosephLs College, arrived at her boarding house from
a party# (ll of a sudden, appellant held her and poked a knife to her neck#
(ppellant dragged complainant up the stairs and with the 'atangas knife still
poked to her neck, they entered complainantLs room#
(fter removing his clothes and ordering her to remove hers, the appellant
began to rape the complainant# ,owever as they were in a position where he
continued to poke the knife to her, appellant could not fully penetrate her#
0pon changing positions, the complainant managed to dash into the ne.t
room# ,owever, the appellant chased her until she 5umped out of a window and
ran to a nearby municipal building where two policemen were on duty# 0pon
being told what happened, the policemen rushed to the boarding house,
however, they failed to apprehend appellant#
$he complainant was brought to a hospital where she was e.amined# $he
medical Certificate stated /r# &a# Guisa (bude findings8 B2o visible abrasions or
marks at the perineal area or over the vulva, errythematous 9sic: areas noted
surrounding #aginal orifice! tender! hymen intact>C
$he trial court convicted the accused of frustrated rape#
$he accused contends that there is no crime of frustrated rape and the
Solicitor @eneral shares the same view#
*sse:
+hether or not the trial court erred in declaring that the crime of frustrated
rape was committed by the accused#
+ecision:
31 | P a g e
$he decision of the -egional $rial Court is hereby &%/3F3?/# $he
accused Ceilito %rita is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rapeand sentenced to reclusion perpetua.$here is no debate that rape
can be attempted and consummated# %ur concern now is whether or not the
crime of rape can be frustrated# $he re1uisites of a frustrated felony are8 9: that
the offender has performed all the acts of e.ecution which would produce the
felony and 9;: that the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the
perpetratorLs will#
3n the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge
of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished 9consummated:# 3n
the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential# (ny penetration
of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient# ?ntry of the labia or lips of the
female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is
sufficient to warrant conviction#
3n the case of People #. )ri*a, +e found the offender guilty of frustrated
rape there being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the
offended party# ,owever, it appears that this is a <stray< decision inasmuch as it
has not been reiterated in %ur subse1uent decisions# (rticle 77= of the -evised
)enal Code, which provides, in its penultimate paragraph, for the penalty of
death when the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof# +e are of the opinion that this particular
provision on frustrated rape is a dead pro#ision.
$here was no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of
the victim, but neither was it ruled out# ,owever the medical certificate stated that
the vulva was erythematous 9which means marked by abnormal redness of the
skin due to capillary congestion, as in inflammation: and tender# ,owever, /r#
Iamoras 9in place of /r (bude: testimony is merely corroborative and is not an
indispensable element in the prosecution of this case# 3n a prosecution for rape,
the accused may be convicted even on the sole basis of the victimLs testimony if
credible#
Ja4"ee $arcia
2001-0280
3% | P a g e
Art. 8: Cons"irac4
!eo"le v. 7irol #-13 0C%A (03)
Facts:
%n /ecember 4, !!7, in celebration of a fiesta in (pas, Gahug, Cebu City, a
Bbenefit disco danceC was held at the local 0C&( Village# (ppellants, Auanito
and &ario Kuirol, and the two victims, 'en5amin Silva and -oel 2gu5o, attended#
(t the dance, Auanito, &ario and Aed were together and drank all through the
night with some friends# $he dance ended 5ust prior to 4 a#m# and prosecution
principal witness +ilson Cru4 testified that it was about that time when he was
asked by 'en5amin and -oel to accompany them in escorting some ladies home#
+ilson told them to go ahead and that he would 5ust follow# +ilson was
behind them at a distance of D to E fathoms when the group passed by the
house of Aed# From his vantage point, +ilson saw Aed stop the two victims in
front of his house and frisk them#
$hereafter, +ilson saw Aed bind 'en5amin and -oel together with a pair of
handcuffs and lead them towards the control tower of the old airport of Gahug,
Cebu City# $here, the three were met by Auanito and &ario and together they
proceeded to the airport runway#
+ilson, hidden behind a bush, said he could hear 'en5amin plead for his life#
( few seconds later, Aed took out his #7H caliber service revolver and shot
'en5amin at point*blank range on the head# (s 'en5amin fell, -oel was dragged
down to his knees since he was handcuffed to 'en5amin# &ario then held -oel
while Auanito started stabbing him using a 'atangas knife# Aed finished it by
shooting -oel#
$he lower court and Court of (ppeals find that there was conspiracy and
convicting them despite their defense of alibi#
*sse:
Can there be a conspiracy based on the foregoing facts6
33 | P a g e
+ecision:
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of prior agreement to
commit the crime#2either it is necessary to show that all the conspirators actually
hit and killed the victim# +hat has to be shown is that all the participants
performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to unmistakably
indicate a common purpose and design# $he conspiracy in the instant case was
sufficiently proven by Aed meeting with appellants at the old airport tower and
walking together with them towards the runway where appellants and Aed
performed acts in unison with each other as to unmistakably reveal a common
purpose and design#
(nent &arios defense of alibi, despite corroboration from ?.e1uiel
(ranas, it is still an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over a positive
identification from a witness found credible by the trial court# (bsent arbitrariness
or oversight of some fact or circumstance of significance and influence, we will
not interfere with the credence given to the testimony of +ilson over that of &ario
and that of ?.e1uiel, as assessments of credibility are generally left to the trial
court whose pro.imate contact with those who take the witness stand places it in
a more competent position to discriminate between true and false testimony#
&oreover, as correctly discussed by the Court of (ppeals, the distance between
the scene of the crimes and where &ario claims he passed out is not so far away
as to prevent him from being physically present at the place of the crimes or its
immediate vicinity at the time the crimes were committed#
Ja4"ee $arcia
2001-0280
3( | P a g e
!eo"le v. Comadre #-3' 0C%A 3,,)
Facts:
(t around D8EE in the evening of (ugust ", !!=, -obert (gbanlog, Aimmy
+abe, @erry 'ullanday,-ey Camat and Goren4o ?ugenio were having a drinking
spree on the terrace of the house of -oberts father, 'arangay Councilman
Aaime (gbanlog, situated in 'arangay San )edro, Gupao, 2ueva ?ci5a# Aaime
(gbanlog was seated on the banister of the terrace listening to the conversation
of the companions of his son#
(s the drinking session went on, -obert and the others noticed appellants
(ntonio Comadre, @eorge Comadre and /anilo Go4ano walking# $he three
stopped in front of the house# +hile his companions looked on, (ntonio suddenly
lobbed an ob5ect which fell on the roof of the terrace# (ppellants immediately fled
by scaling the fence of a nearby school#
$he ob5ect, which turned out to be a hand grenade, e.ploded ripping a hole in
the roof of the house# -obert (gbanlog, Aimmy +abe, @erry 'ullanday, -ey
Camat and Goren4o ?ugenio were hit by shrapnel and slumped unconscious on
the floor#
$he undisputed facts show that when (ntonio Comadre was in the act of
throwing the hand grenade, @eorge Comadre and /anilo Go4ano merely looked
on without uttering a single word of encouragement or performed any act to
assist him# $he trial court held that the mere presence of @eorge Comadre and
/anilo Go4ano provided encouragement and a sense of security to (ntonio
Comadre, thus proving the e.istence of conspiracy#
*sse:
Can there be a conspiracy based on the foregoing facts6
+ecision:
3$ | P a g e
Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of
conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt# Settled is the rule that to
establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere
cogni4ance or approval of an illegal act is re1uired#
( conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence# 3t
must be shown to e.ist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the
crime itself# &ere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make
him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship#
$he evidence shows that @eorge Comadre and /anilo Go4ano did not have
any participation in the commission of the crime and must therefore be set free#
$heir mere presence at the scene of the crime as well as their close relationship
with (ntonio are insufficient to establish conspiracy considering that they
performed no positive act in furtherance of the crime#
Ja4"ee $arcia
2001-0280
36 | P a g e
0im v. CA #-28 0C%A -(3)
Facts:
)rivate complainant Aay 'yron 3lagan is a tire supplier# ,e had been
dealing with accused ?lison Villaflor for twenty years, as the latter is engaged in
the same business of selling tires and rims#
3n &arch !!H, private complainant talked to ?lison and e.pressed his
interest in buying a vehicle# ?lison told him that he knew someone who sells
vehicles at a cheap price, and that he had bought a $oyota $amaraw FO at lower
than the market price# )rivate complainant then asked ?lison to ask if there was
an 3su4u pick*up for sale# ( month later, ?lison called private complainant to
inform him that he was able to find a !!D 2issan )athfinder# $hey agreed to
inspect the vehicle together#
%n (pril 7E, !!H, only ?lison went to /agupan City to get the 2issan
)athfinder from his friend, petitioner (ugusto Sim, Ar# )etitioner told ?lison that
the 2issan )athfinder was given to him by a customer in payment of a debt and
had been used only for a year#
?lison brought the !!D 2issan )athfinder to San )ablo City# )rivate
complainant at first did not like the vehicle since it was not the brand he was
looking for# ?lison said that his kumpadre would look at the vehicle as the latter
was also interested in it#
)rivate complainant decided to buy the !!D 2issan )athfinder at the
agreed price of )4HE,EEE#EE# $he amount was paid in five checks issued by Fe
3lagan# %ne check was dated &ay ", !!H in the sum of )7=E,EEE#EE, and four
checks in the sum of )7;,=EE#EE each was dated Aune ", Auly ", (ugust " and
September ", all in !!H#
?lison gave private complainant photocopies of the Certificate of
-egistration 9C#-#: and %fficial -eceipt 9%#-#: issued by the Gand $ransportation
%ffice 9G$%: showing the name of the owner as one ,enry (ustria# (fter a week,
?lison brought the deed of sale which private complainant signed without the
signature of the owner, ,enry (ustria# (fter private complainant signed the deed
of sale, he gave it back to ?lison to be brought back to /agupan City for signing
30 | P a g e
by the ownerFvendor and transfer of registration in the name of private
complainant#
%n Aune D, !!H, ?lison returned and delivered to private complainant the
deed of sale signed by the ownerFvendor, together with the new C#-# and %#-#
issued by the G$% of Gingayen, )angasinan in the name of private complainant#
$he checks given by private complainant in payment of the vehicle were
deposited by petitioner in his name at Solidbank*/agupan 'ranch# (ll five checks
were debited in favor of petitioner# (fter receiving the registration papers from
?lison, private complainant was eventually able to use the 2issan )athfinder#
%n %ctober ;H, !!H, private complainants vehicle was apprehended by
(nti*Carnapping operatives of the )hilippine 2ational )olice 9(2C(- 2C-$&%:#
$he vehicle and its registration papers were inspected and thereafter brought to
Camp Crame# 3t turned out that the vehicle was a <hot car.<
$hereafter, ?lison and petitioner were charged and convicted with estafa#
Further the court also ruled that conspiracy is present# +ith this, the accused
appealed#
*sse:
+hether there was conspiracy between petitioner and ?lison Villaflor in
defrauding private complainant Aay 'yron 3lagan6
+ecision:
?ven in the absence of direct evidence of prior agreement to commit the
crime, conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the perpetrators before,
during and after the commission of the crime, which are indicative of a common
design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments# Conspiracy is deemed
implied when the malefactors have a common purpose and were united in its
e.ecution# Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at
the moment of the commission of the crime is sufficient to create 5oint criminal
responsibility#
3n )r+uiaga #. Court of Appeals, we ruled that conspiracy, as a rule, has to
be established with the same 1uantum of proof as the crime itself and shown as
clearly as the commission of the crime# ,owever, conspiracy need not be shown
3' | P a g e
by direct evidence, but may take the form of circumstances which, if taken
together, would conclusively show that the accused came to an agreement to
commit a crime and decided to carry it out with their full cooperation and
participation#
(s correctly pointed out by the appellate court, petitioners actions in
relation to the fraudulent sale of the 2issan )athfinder to private complainant
clearly established conspiracy as alleged in the information, which acts transcend
mere knowledge or friendship with co*accused ?lison# 2otwithstanding the fact
that it was only ?lison who dealt with or personally transacted with private
complainant until the time the sale was consummated, by his own testimony
petitioner admitted all the acts by which he actively cooperated and not merely
ac1uiesced in perpetrating the fraud upon private complainant# $hat petitioner is
a conspirator having 5oint criminal design with ?lison is evident from the fact that
as between them, both knew that petitioner was the person selling the vehicle
under the false pretense that a certain ,enry (ustria was the registered
owner#)etitioner, together with ?lison, clearly deceived private complainant in
order to defraud him in the amount of )4HE,EEE#EE, to the latters damage and
pre5udice# 3n addition, the acts of petitioner in deliberately misrepresenting
himself to private complainant as having the necessary authority to possess and
sell to the latter the vehicle so that he could collect from him )4HE,EEE#EE only to
renege on that promise and for failure to reimburse the said amount he collected
from private complainant, despite demand, amount to estafa punishable under
(rt# 7=, par# ; 9a:#
0han Ja4oma
200(-00',
32 | P a g e
Art. '': Jstif4ing Circmstances
0elf-defense
!eo"le v. 0anche: #$.%. &o. ','001)
Facts:
Sanche4Ls account of the facts shows that he and Aamero were tenants of
ad5acent lots located in San Aose, &ahayag, Iamboanga del Sur# (t about D8EE
oLclock in the morning of September 4, !!7, Sanche4 saw Aamero destroying
the dike which served as the boundary between the two lots# Sanche4 confronted
Aamero and told the latter that he was encroaching on his land# Aamero struck
him with a shovel# $he shovel got stuck in the mud so Aamero resorted to
throwing mud at Sanche4# Fighting back, Sanche4 hacked Aamero with a bolo,
resulting in the latterLs death# Sanche4 then proceeded to the municipal building
to surrender upon the advice of his son*in*law#
(ccording to the %S@, AameroLs attack on Sanche4 was unsuccessful
because the latter was able to evade it and AameroLs shovel got stuck in the mud#
Aamero fled toward the ricefield when Sanche4 unsheathed his bolo# Sanche4
pursued him and struck his head with a bolo# Aamero fell down but was able to
stand up again# ,e ran away but after a short distance, fell down again# Sanche4
approached him and stabbed him several times# 2ot satisfied, Sanche4 pushed
AameroLs face down into the knee*deep mud# (fter AameroLs aggression ceased
when he fled and left his shovel stuck in the mud, there was no longer any
5ustification for Sanche4 to go after him and hack him to death#
*sse:
+hether or not unlawful aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute
aggression warranting self*defense6
+ecision:
$here can be no self*defense, complete or incomplete, unless the
accused proves the first essential re1uisitePunlawful aggression on the part of
the victim# 0nlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and une.pected
or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person N a mere threatening or
(/ | P a g e
intimidating attitude is not sufficient# $here must be actual physical force or a
threat to inflict physical in5ury# 3n case of a threat, it must be offensive and
positively strong so as to display a real, not imagined, intent to cause in5ury#
(ggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self*
defense#
3n this case, the twin circumstances of AameroLs shovel getting stuck in the
mud and his running away from Sanche4 convincingly indicate that there was no
longer any danger to the latterLs life and limb which could have 5ustified his
pursuit of Aamero and subse1uent hacking and killing of the latter#
Sanche4Ls failure to prove unlawful aggression by Aamero and the
prosecutionLs evidence conclusively showing that it was Sanche4 who was the
unlawful aggressor completely discounts Sanche4Ls claim of self*defense# ?ven
incomplete self*defense by its very nature and essence would always re1uire the
attendance of unlawful aggression initiated by the victim which must clearly be
shown#
0han Ja4oma
200(-00',
(1 | P a g e
0o"lente v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '(21'()
Facts:
$he cousins, -ogelio and 2icanor, watched the amateur singing contest
being held near the Sta# Cru4 Chapel# +hile engrossed with the singing contest,
they were approached by two persons from the group of Geyson who then tapped
2icanors shoulder# $hey insisted on bringing 2icanor along with them so
2icanor called for -ogelios help# $he latter immediately intervened to stop the
two from harassing 2icanor#
(t about past eleven oclock in the evening 98EE p#m#:, before the
conclusion of the amateur singing contest, -ogelio and 2icanor decided to go
home# (t past midnight, 'ukay 9their cousins wife: asked -ogelio and 2icanor to
accompany her in looking for her children who had watched the singing contest#
$hey obliged but before they had gone about three hundred meters, 2icanor
separated from them to buy cigarettes from a nearby store# -ogelio and 'ukay
went onwards but at a distance of about fifty meters from the stage, -ogelio
stopped and 'ukay proceeded alone to look for her children# ( few minutes later,
'ukay appeared with the children and they all headed home#
+hile on the way home, -ogelio suddenly found himself surrounded by
around ten persons led by Geyson# ,e shouted at 2icanor to run and the latter
immediately scampered away# Geyson drew his gun and fired at -ogelio but the
latter was able to parry it by tapping the base of Geysons hand holding the gun#
Forthwith, -ogelio stabbed Geyson once# ,e was kicked by 2otarte immediately
after he stabbed Geyson# -ogelio also stabbed 2otarte# -ogelio managed to
escape after that and he sought refuge in the house of Susing 9their cousin:#
'efore dawn, a policeman arrived at Susings house and -ogelio
voluntarily gave himself up# $he knife he used was also turned over to the police#
,e was brought to the police substation at Gagao#
*sse:
(% | P a g e
+hether or not our laws on self*defense are suppose to appro.imate the
natural human responses to danger#
+ecision:
(t the commencement of the attack, -ogelio could not have been obliged
to view 2otarte, or any other member of the posse for that matter, as a less
menacing threat than Geyson# +e have to understand that these events occurred
spontaneously in a matter of seconds or even simultaneously# -ogelio bore no
superhuman power to slow down time or to prevent the events from unfolding at
virtual warp speed, to be able to assess with measured certainty the appropriate
commensurate response due to each of his aggressors# ?ven those schooled in
the legal doctrines of self*defense would, under those dire circumstances, be
barely able to discern the legally defensible response and immediately employ
the same# %ur laws on self*defense are supposed to appro.imate the natural
human responses to danger, and not serve as our inconvenient rulebook based
on which we should acclimati4e our impulses in the face of peril#
3t would be wrong to compel -ogelio to have discerned the appropriate
calibrated response to 2otartes kicking when he himself was staring at the evil
eye of danger# $hat would be a gargantuan demand even for the coolest under
pressure#
0han Ja4oma
200(-00',
(3 | P a g e
/rbano v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '821(0)
Facts:
)etitioner 0rbano testified being, in the afternoon of September ;H, !!7,
in the nearby town of 'ugallon for a picnic# ,e was with $omelden and several
others, including /ominador 2avarro, Chairperson of Gingayen +ater /istrict# (t
a restaurant in 'ugallon, the group ordered goats meat and drank beer# +hen it
was time to depart, 2avarro asked petitioner to inform $omelden, then seated in
another table, to prepare to leave#
+hen so informed, $omelden insulted petitioner, telling the latter he had
no business stopping him from further drinking as he was paying for his share of
the bill# Chastised, petitioner returned to his table to report to 2avarro# (t that
time, petitioner saw that $omelden had already consumed D bottles of beer# 3n
all, the group stayed at the picnic place for three and a half hours before
returning to the G3+(/# 0pon reaching the G3+(/ compound, $omelden
allegedly slapped and hurled insults at him, calling him <sipsip< 5ust to maintain
his employment as 2avarros tricycle driver# $omelden allegedly then delivered
several fist and kick blows at petitioner, a couple of which hit him despite his
evasive actions# )etitioner maintained that he only bo.ed the victim in retaliation,
landing that lucky punch in the course of parrying the latters blows#
$hereafter, $omelden went to the hospital several times complaining of
di44iness, headache, and other pains# $he last time he went to the hospital,
things turned for the worst# $omelden died due, per /r# (rellano, to <cardio*
respiratory arrest secondary to cerebral concussion with resultant cerebral
hemorrhage due to mauling incident#<
%r5e Sala4ar, their co*worker, attests to the provocative acts of $omelden
and to his being the aggressor#
*sse:
+hether or not the victims insulting remarks directed at the accused, and
uttered immediately before the fist fight constitute sufficient provocation6
+ecision:
(( | P a g e
+hen the law speaks of provocation either as a mitigating circumstance or
as an essential element of self*defense, the reference is to an un5ust or improper
conduct of the offended party capable of e.citing, inciting, or irritating anyone> it
is not enough that the provocative act be unreasonable or annoying> the
provocation must be sufficient to e.cite one to commit the wrongful act and
should immediately precede the act# $his third re1uisite of self*defense is
present8 9: when no provocation at all was given to the aggressor> 9;: when,
even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient> 97: when even if the
provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself> or
94: when even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was
not pro.imate and immediate to the act of aggression#
3n the instant case, $omeldens insulting remarks directed at petitioner and
uttered immediately before the fist fight constituted sufficient provocation# $his is
not to mention other irritating statements made by the deceased while they were
having beer in 'ugallon# )etitioner was the one provoked and challenged to a fist
fight#
%a4 &agram"a Jr. 9.
2008-00,'
($ | P a g e
+efense of %elatives
9alnecov. CA and !eo"le #$.%. &o. '2,3,8)
Facts:
%n &ay ;, !H; at around "8EE oclock in the evening (melia 3guico saw
accused -eynaldo, his father Auanito and brothers -icardo and -amon, all
surnamed 'alunueco, and one (rmando Flores chasing her brother*in*law
Servando 3guico# +ith the five 9=: individuals in hot pursuit, Servando scampered
into the safety of (melias house# &eanwhile Senando went out of the house fully
unaware of the commotion going on outside# 0pon seeing Senando, -eynaldo
turned his attention on him and gave chase# Senando instinctively fled towards
the fields but -eynaldo, -icardo, and (rmando cornered him and ganged up on
him# $o shield him from further violence, (melia put her arms around her
husband but it was not enough to detract -icardo from his murderous fren4y#
(melia was also hit on the leg#
3n his defense, accused -icardo invoke defense of relatives# ,e testified
that at that time he was fetching water he heard somebody shout# +hen he
hurried to the place, he saw his brother -amon embracing Senando who was
continuously hacking -eynaldo# $hereafter, Senando shoved -amon to the
ground and as if further enraged by the intrusion, he turned his bolo on the fallen
-amon# -icardo screamed, <tama na yan! mga kapatid ko ,yan.( 'ut the
assailant would not be pacified as he hacked -amon on the chest# (t this point,
Servando, the brother of Senando, threw an a.e at him but -eynaldo picked it up
and smashed Senando with it#
$he trial court found the accused guilty of homicide and frustrated
homicide# (ccording to the trial court, the denial of -icardo was self*serving and
calculated to e.tricate himself from the predicament he was in# Further, the trial
court added that the wounds allegedly received by -icardo in the hands of the
victim, Senando 3guico, if at all there were any, did not prove that Senando was
the aggressor for the wounds were inflicted while Senando was in the act of
defending himself from the aggression of -icardo and his co*conspirators#
$he Court of (ppeals sustained the conviction of accused -icardo with
modification that his conviction for the wounding of (melia 3guico, should be for
attempted homicide only#
(6 | P a g e
*sse:
+hether or not there was a valid defense of relatives6
+ecision:
)etitioner invokes the 5ustifying circumstance of defense of relatives under
(rt# , par# 9;:, of -he .e#ised Penal Code# $he essential elements of this
5ustifying circumstance are the following8 9a: unlawful aggression> 9b: reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it> and, 9c: in case the
provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense had
no part therein#
%f the three 97: re1uisites of defense of relatives, unlawful aggression is a
condition sine +ua non, for without it any defense is not possible or 5ustified# 3n
order to consider that an unlawful aggression was actually committed, it is
necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively
determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an in5ury shall have been made>
a mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to 5ustify the
commission of an act which is punishable per se, and allow a claim of e.emption
from liability on the ground that it was committed in self*defense or defense of a
relative# 3t has always been so recogni4ed in the decisions of the courts, in
accordance with the provisions of the )enal Code#
,aving admitted the killing of the victim, petitioner has the burden of proving
these elements by clear and convincing evidence# ,e must rely on the strength
of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even
if the prosecution evidence is weak it cannot be disbelieved if the accused has
admitted the killing#
3n the case at bar, petitioner -icardo utterly failed to adduce sufficient
proof of the e.istence of a positively strong act of real aggression on the part of
the deceased Senando# +ith the e.ception of his self*serving allegations, there
is nothing on record that would 5ustify his killing of Senando#
Jstiniano 7i:a
2008-0230
(0 | P a g e
Flfilment of a +t4
Mamangn v. !eo"le #$% '-3'(2)
Facts:
%n Auly 7, !!;, at about H8EE in the evening, a certain Giberty Contreras
was heard shouting, B/agnanakaw0/agnanakaw.1 Several residents
responded and thereupon chased the suspect who entered the yard of (ntonio
(bacan and proceeded to the rooftop of (bacans house#
(t about !8EE oclock that same evening, the desk officer of the
&eycauayan )2) )olice Station, upon receiving a telephone call that a robbery*
holdup was in progress in 'rgy# Calvario, immediately contacted and dispatched
to the scene the crew including herein petitioner )%; -ufino S# &amangun# +ith
the permission of (bacan, petitioner &amangun, and two others went to the
rooftop of the house whereat the suspect was allegedly taking refuge#
$he three policemen, each armed with a drawn handgun, searched the
rooftop# $here, they saw a man whom they thought was the robbery suspect# (t
that instance, petitioner &amangun, who was walking ahead of the group, fired
his handgun once, hitting the man# $he man turned out to be @ener Contreras
9Contreras: who was not the robbery suspect#
Contreras died from the gunshot wound#
*sse:
+hether or not the shooting in 1uestion was done in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful e.ercise of a right or office6
+ecision:
2o# $he 5ustifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph =,
(rticle 33, of the -evised )enal Code may be invoked only after the defense
successfully proves that8 9: the accused acted in the performance of a duty> and
9;: the in5ury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary conse1uence of the
due performance or lawful e.ercise of such duty#
(' | P a g e
Concededly, the first re1uisite is present in this case# )etitioner, a police
officer, was responding to a robbery*holdup incident# ,is presence at the situs of
the crime was in accordance with the performance of his duty# ,owever, proof
that the shooting and ultimate death of Contreras was a necessary conse1uence
of the due performance of his duty as a policeman is essential to e.empt him
from criminal liability#
$o be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty! without more, do not
completely 5ustify the petitioners firing the fatal gunshot at the victim# $rue,
petitioner, as one of the policemen responding to a reported robbery then in
progress, was performing his duty as a police officer as well as when he was
trying to effect the arrest of the suspected robber and in the process, fatally shoot
said suspect, albeit the wrong man# ,owever, in the absence of the e1ually
necessary 5ustifying circumstance that the in5ury or offense committed be the
necessary conse+uence of the due performance of such duty, there can only be
incomplete 5ustification, a privileged mitigating circumstance under (rticles 7
and "! of the -evised )enal Code#
Jstiniano 7i:a
2008-0230
9a;inela v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '-3,(2)
(2 | P a g e
Facts:
)etitioner S)%; ?duardo G# 'a.inela was in a pub drinking with two other
policemen in as early as 8EE p#m# of %ctober H, !!"# (t around ;8EE a#m# to
;87E a#m# there was a minor altercation between the deceased Sgt# Ga5o and
another customer at the pub but eventually the two were able to patch things up#
+hile on his way out, Ga5o was followed by 'ra.inela with a gun already drawn
out# From behind, 'a.inela held Ga5os left arm and asked why he was carrying a
gun# $hereafter an e.plosion coming from 'a.inelas gun was heard# Ga5o, still
standing, took two steps and then fell down#
*sse:
+hether or not fulfilment of duty may validly be invoked by the petitioner6
+ecision:
2o# 3n order to avail of this 5ustifying circumstance it must be shown that8
: the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful e.ercise of a
right or office> and ;: the in5ury caused or the offense committed is the necessary
conse1uence of the due performance of duty or the lawful e.ercise of a right or
office# +hile the first condition is present, the second is clearly lacking#
'a.inelas duty was to investigate the reason why Ga5o had a gun tucked behind
his waist in a public place# $his was what 'a.inela was doing when he
confronted Ga5o at the entrance, but perhaps through an.iety, edginess or the
desire to take no chances, 'a.inela e.ceeded his duty by firing upon Ga5o who
was not at all resisting# $he shooting of Ga5o cannot be considered due
performance of a duty if at that time Ga5o posed no serious threat or harm to
'a.inela or to the civilians in the pub#$he Court will, however, attribute to
'a.inela the incomplete defense of fulfillment of a duty as a privileged mitigating
circumstance# 3n $acanilao #. Court of Appeals, it was held that if the first
condition is fulfilled but the second is wanting, (rticle "! of the -evised )enal
Code is applicable so that the penalty lower than one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed#
Jstiniano 7i:a
2008-0230
$/ | P a g e
Angcaco v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '-,,,-)
Facts:
(t around 4 oLclock in the morning of September ;=, !HE, 2oe 'ergante
and his brother 2oel 'ergante and his cousin Freddie @anancial were awakened
by the sound of gunfire while they were asleep in their house# )etitioner Aohn
(ngcaco and his co*accused were serving a warrant of arrest issued on -estituto
'ergante, who was wanted in connection with a robbery case# 2oel informed the
policemen that his father was not in the house, having gone to )uerto )rincesa#
%ne of them ordered the men in the house to come out# 2oel accordingly went to
the gate and later called 2oe to also come out of the house# 2oe and his cousin,
Freddie @anancial, did as bidden#
%nce they were outside the house, 2oe and Freddie were flanked by
petitioner (ngcaco on the right side and accused -amon /ecosto on the left
side# /ecosto pointed an armalite at the two and warned them not to run# 2oe
and Freddie 5oined 2oel 'ergante# )rotacio ?dep approached Freddie saying,
<Jou are tough,< and pushed him# $hen, shots rang out from the armalite and
short firearm of /ecosto and ?dep, as a result of which Freddie @anancial turned
around and dropped to the ground face down#
*sse:
+hether or not the 5ustifying circumstance of fulfilment of duty is
applicable in this case6
+ecision:
2o# For this 5ustifying circumstance to be appreciated, the following must
be established8 9: that the offender acted in the lawful e.ercise of a right or a
duty> and 9b: that the in5ury or offense committed be the necessary conse1uence
of the due performance of such right or office#
3n this case, the mission of petitioner and his colleagues was to effect the
arrest of -estituto 'ergante# $he standard procedure in making an arrest was,
first, to identify themselves as police officers and to show the warrant to the
arrestee and to inform him of the charge against him, and, second, to take the
$1 | P a g e
arrestee under custody# 'ut, it was not shown here that the killing of @anancial
was in furtherance of such duty# 2o evidence was presented by the defense to
prove that @anancial attempted to prevent petitioner and his fellow officers from
arresting -estituto 'ergante# $here was in fact no clear evidence as to how
Freddie @anancial was shot# 3ndeed, as already stated, any attempt by the victim
to arrest the wanted person was pointless as -estituto 'ergante was not in his
house# (s regards the second re1uisite, there can be no 1uestion that the killing
of Freddie @anancial was not a necessary conse1uence of the arrest to be made
on -estituto 'ergante#
Ale;ander 0antos
200,-020(
$% | P a g e
8bedience to an 8rder
Tabena v. 0andiganba4an #$.%. &os. '03(0'-03)
Facts:
Guis (# $abuena and (dolfo &# )eralta were convicted by the
Sandiganbayan of malversation under (rticle ;D of the -evised )enal Code in
the total amount of )== &illion of the &anila 3nternational (irport (uthority
9&3((: funds during their incumbency as @eneral &anager and (cting Finance
Services &anager, respectively, of &3((#
$hen )resident &arcos instructed $abuena over the phone to pay directly
to the presidentLs office and in cash what the &3(( owes the )hilippine 2ational
Construction Corporation 9)2CC:, to which $abuena replied, <Jes, sir, 3 will do
it#< (bout a week later, $abuena received from &rs# Fe -oa*@imene4, then
private secretary of &arcos, a )residential &emorandum dated Aanuary H, !H"
reiterating in black and white such verbal instruction, directed to pay immediately
the )hilippine 2ational Construction Corporation, thru this %ffice, the sum of
F3F$J F3V? &3GG3%2 9)==,EEE,EEE#EE: )?S%S in cash as partial payment of
&3((Ls account with said Company signed by the then )resident &arcos#
3n obedience to )resident &arcosL verbal instruction and memorandum,
$abuena, with the help of /abao and )eralta, caused the release of )== &illion
of &3(( funds
$he disbursement of the )== &illion was, as described by $abuena and
)eralta themselves, <out of the ordinary< and <not based on the normal
procedure<# 2ot only were there no vouchers prepared to support the
disbursement, the )== &illion was paid in cold cash# (lso, no )2CC receipt for
the )== &illion was presented#
*sse:
+hether or not the petitioners defense of good faith is tenable6
+ecision:
Jes# 3t is settled that this is a valid defense in a prosecution for
malversation for it would negate criminal intent on the part of the accused#$o
$3 | P a g e
constitute a crime, the act must, e.cept in certain crimes made such by statute,
be accompanied by a criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference to
duty or to conse1uences as, in law, is e1uivalent to criminal intent# $he ma.im
is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea P a crime is not committed if the mind
of the person performing the act complained of is innocent#%rdinarily, evil intent
must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime# (ctus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea# $here can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting#
$abuena had no other choice but to make the withdrawals, for that was
what the &(-C%S &emorandum re1uired him to do# ,e could not be faulted if
he had to obey and strictly comply with the presidential directive, and to argue
otherwise is something easier said than done# &arcos was undeniably $abuenaLs
superior P the former being then the )resident of the -epublic who
un1uestionably e.ercised control over government agencies such as the &3((
and )2CC# 3n other words, &arcos had a say in matters involving inter*
government agency affairs and transactions, such as for instance, directing
payment of liability of one entity to another and the manner in which it should be
carried out# (nd as a recipient of such kind of a directive coming from the highest
official of the land no less, good faith should be read on $abuenaLs compliance,
without hesitation nor any 1uestion, with the &(-C%S &emorandum# $abuena
therefore is entitled to the 5ustifying circumstance of <(ny person who acts in
obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose#< $he
subordinate*superior relationship between $abuena and &arcos is clear# (nd so
too, is the lawfulness of the order contained in the &(-C%S &emorandum, as it
has for its purpose partial payment of the liability of one government agency
9&3((: to another 9)2CC:#
@ood faith in the payment of public funds relieves a public officer from the crime
of malversation#
%enato 0egbiense
200,-00-0
$( | P a g e
Art.'2: 5;em"ting Circmstances
*nsanit4=*mbecilit4
!eo"le v. %bi>os #$.%. &o. '38-(3)
Facts:
+here the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties,
as in the present case for parricide with unintentional abortion, the lesser one
shall be applied in the absence of any aggravating circumstances# ,ence, the
imposable penalty here is reclusion perpetua, not death#
3n an 3nformation dated &ay 7, !!=, appellant was accused of killing his
pregnant wife and the fetus inside her# +hen arraigned on Auly ;D, !!=,
appellant, with the assistance of his counsel, pleaded not guilty# (fter due trial,
the -$C convicted him#
(ppellant does not refute the factual allegations of the prosecution that he
indeed killed his wife, but seeks e.oneration from criminal liability by interposing
the defense of insanity#
*sse:
+hether or not the court a 1uo erred in not giving probative weight to the
testimony and psychiatric evaluation of /r# &aria &ercedita &endo4a finding the
accused*appellant to be suffering from psychosis or insanity classified under
schi4ophrenia, paranoid type6
+hether or not the court a 1uo erred in disregarding accused*appellantLs
defense of insanity6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court ruled that insanity presupposes that the accused was
completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of
the commission of the crime# ( defendant in a criminal case who relies on the
defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing the fact of insanity at
the very moment when the crime was committed# %nly when there is a complete
$$ | P a g e
deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime should the
e.empting circumstance of insanity be considered#
$he presumption of law always lies in favor of sanity and, in the absence
of proof to the contrary, every person is presumed to be of sound mind#
(ccordingly, one who pleads the e.empting circumstance of insanity has the
burden of proving it# Failing this, one will be presumed to be sane when the crime
was committed#
( perusal of the records of the case reveals that appellantLs claim of
insanity is unsubstantiated and wanting in material proof# $estimonies from both
prosecution and defense witnesses show no substantial evidence that appellant
was completely deprived of reason or discernment when he perpetrated the
brutal killing of his wife#
(s can be gleaned from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, a
domestic altercation preceded the fatal stabbing# $hus, it cannot be said that
appellant attacked his wife for no reason at all and without knowledge of the
nature of his action# $o be sure, his act of stabbing her was a deliberate and
conscious reaction to the insulting remarks she had hurled at him as attested to
by their =*year*old son Goren4o -obios#
Furthermore, appellant was obviously aware of what he had done to his
wife# ,e was even bragging to her brother, 'en5amin 'ueno, how he had 5ust
killed her#
Finally, the fact that appellant admitted to responding law enforcers how
he had 5ust killed his wife may have been a manifestation of repentance and
remorse ** a natural sentiment of a husband who had reali4ed the wrongfulness
of his act# ,is behavior at the time of the killing and immediately thereafter is
inconsistent with his claim that he had no knowledge of what he had 5ust done#
'arangay Magawad -olando Valde4 validated the clarity of mind of appellant
when the latter confessed to the former and to the police officers, and even
showed to them the knife used to stab the victim# Clearly, the assault of appellant
on his wife was not undertaken without his awareness of the atrocity of his act#
Similarly, an evaluation of the testimonies of the defense witnesses hardly
supports his claim of insanity# $he bulk of the defense evidence points to his
allegedly unsound mental condition after the commission of the crime# ?.cept for
$6 | P a g e
appellantLs !*year*old son Federico -obios, all the other defense witnesses
testified on the supposed manifestations of his insanity after he had already been
detained in prison#
$o repeat, insanity must have e.isted at the time of the commission of the
offense, or the accused must have been deranged even prior thereto# %therwise
he would still be criminally responsible# Verily, his alleged insanity should have
pertained to the period prior to or at the precise moment when the criminal act
was committed, not at any time thereafter#
3ndeed, when insanity is alleged as a ground for e.emption from criminal
responsibility, the evidence must refer to the time preceding the act under
prosecution or to the very moment of its e.ecution# If the e#idence points to
insanity su"se+uent to the commission of the crime! the accused cannot "e
ac+uitted.
,ence, appellant who invoked insanity should have proven that he had
already been completely deprived of reason when he killed the victim# Verily, the
evidence proffered by the defense did not indicate that he had been completely
deprived of intelligence or freedom of will when he stabbed his wife to death#
3nsanity is a defense in the nature of a confession or avoidance and, as such,
clear and convincing proof is re1uired to establish its e.istence# 3ndubitably, the
defense failed to meet the 1uantum of proof re1uired to overthrow the
presumption of sanity#
%enato 0egbiense
200,-00-0
$0 | P a g e
!eo"le v. <alledor #$.%. &o. '2323')
Facts:
%n &arch ", !!, at around 84= in the afternoon, -oger Cabiguen was
in his house at 'urgos Street, 'arangay $agumpay, )uerto )rincesa City# ,e
was working on a lettering 5ob inside his bedroom together with his first cousin,
then ;=*year old ?lsa -odrigue4, and his friends, Simplicio Jayen and (ntonio
&agbanua# -oger was working at his table and seated on his bed while ?lsa was
across the table# (ntonio was on the left side, while Simplicio was seated near
the door, on the right side of -oger#
(ll of a sudden, accused*appellant entered the room> uttered -ogerLs
nickname 9<Aer<: and immediately attacked him with a knife, but -oger was able
to parry the thrust and was stabbed instead on the right forearm# (ccused*
appellant then stabbed ?lsa -odrigue4 on the chest and said, <Ako aka"ales
den! )lsa.< 93 had my revenge, ?lsa:# $hereafter, accused*appellant fled, leaving
the stunned Simplicio and (ntonio unharmed#
)rosecution witness -oger Cabiguen testified that sometime in !HE,
accused*appellant suspected him of killing his pet dog# 3n !H!, accused*
appellant courted ?lsa but she 5ilted him# %n one occasion, ?lsa spat on and
slapped accused*appellant#
(ccused*appellantLs defense of insanity was anchored on the following
facts8
%n &arch , !!, /r# &anuel 'ilog, City ,ealth %fficer 3 of )uerto
)rincesa City interviewed accused*appellant and thereafter made the following
conclusions and recommendation, that sub5ect patient be committed to the
2ational &ental ,ospital, &etro &anila for proper medical care and evaluation
soonest#
$he defense offered in evidence the (pril ;D, !!; medical findings on
accused*appellant by /r# @uia &elendres of the 2ational Center for &ental
,ealth, pertinent portion of which reads8 3n view of the foregoing history,
observations, physical mental and psychological e.aminations the patient ?nrico
Valledor y (ndusay is found suffering from )sychosis or 3nsanity classified under
$' | P a g e
Schi4ophrenia# $his is a thought disorder characteri4ed by deterioration from
previous level of functioning, auditory hallucination, ideas of reference, delusion
of control, suspiciousness, poor 5udgment and absence of insight# Gikewise, he is
found to be suffering from )sychoactive Substance 0se /isorder, (lcohol,
abuse# $his is characteri4ed by a maladaptive pattern of psychoactive substance
use indicated by continued use despite knowledge of having a persistent or
recurrent social, occupational, psychological or physical problems#
*sse:
+hether or not the lower court erred in convicting the accused despite the
fact that when he allegedly committed the offense charged he was mentally ill,
out of his mind or insane6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court ruled that in considering a plea of insanity as a
defense, the starting premise is that the law presumes all persons to be of sound
mind# %therwise stated, the law presumes all acts to be voluntary, and it is
improper to presume that acts were done unconsciously#
Since the presumption is always in favor of sanity, he who invokes insanity
as an e.empting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence# (nd
the evidence on this point must refer to the time preceding the act under
prosecution or to the very moment of its e.ecution#
3nsanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental
faculties which is manifested in language and conduct# (n insane person has no
full and clear understanding of the nature and conse1uences of his acts# ,ence,
insanity may be shown by the surrounding circumstances fairly throwing light on
the sub5ect, such as evidence of the alleged deranged personLs general conduct
and appearance, his acts and conduct consistent with his previous character and
habits, his irrational acts and beliefs, as well as his improvident bargains# $he
vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts, by means of which we
read thoughts, motives and emotions of a person, and through which we
determine whether the acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind#
3n the case at bar, accused*appellant failed to discharge the burden of
overcoming the presumption of sanity at the time of the commission of the crime#
$2 | P a g e
$he following circumstances clearly and unmistakably show that accused*
appellant was not legally insane when he perpetrated the acts for which he was
charged8 : Simplicio Jayen was positioned nearest to accused*appellant but the
latter chose to stab -oger and ?lsa> ;: (ccused*appellant called out the
nickname of -oger before stabbing him> 7: Simplicio Jayen and (ntonio
&agbanua who were likewise inside the room were left unharmed> 4: (ccused*
appellant, a spurned suitor of ?lsa, uttered the words, <Ako aka"ales den! )lsa#<
93 had my revenge, ?lsa: after stabbing her> and =: (ccused*appellant hurriedly
left the room after stabbing the victims#
?vidently, the foregoing acts could hardly be said to be performed by one
who was in a state of a complete absence of the power to discern# Audging from
his acts, accused*appellant was clearly aware and in control of what he was
doing as he in fact purposely chose to stab only the two victims# $wo other
people were also inside the room, one of them was nearest to the door where
accused*appellant emerged, but the latter went for the victims# ,is obvious
motive of revenge against the victims was accentuated by calling out their names
and uttering the words, <3 had my revenge< after stabbing them# Finally, his act of
immediately fleeing from the scene after the incident indicates that he was aware
of the wrong he has done and the conse1uence thereof#
(ccused*appellantLs acts prior to the stabbing incident to wit8 crying>
swimming in the river with his clothes on> and 5umping off the 5eepney> were not
sufficient to prove that he was indeed insane at the time of the commission of the
crime# (s consistently held by this Court, <( man may act cra4y but it does not
necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so#< $hen, too, the medical
findings showing that accused*appellant was suffering from a mental disorder
after the commission of the crime, has no bearing on his liability# +hat is decisive
is his mental condition at the time of the perpetration of the offense# Failing to
discharge the burden of proving that he was legally insane when he stabbed the
victims, he should be held liable for his felonious acts#
Migel !aolo 0oliman
20'0-020-
6/ | P a g e
Minorit4
2lave v.!eo"le #$.%. &o. ',,0-0)
Facts:
%n Sept# ;4, ;EE;, on an errand from her mother, the victim, who was
only D years old at that time, proceeded to their house, where the accused waited
for her, and accosted her> he proceeded to se.ually abuse her, while the victim
cried for help#
( barbecue vendor nearby heard her cries and came to the scene> the
accused fled, and the vendor told the victim to tell her parents what happened#
$ogether with her parents, the victim went to the police and reported the
incident> the vendor also testified to what he saw during that time#
$he medical e.aminer found no in5ury on the hymen and perineum, but
found scanty yellowish discharge between the labia minora> there was also fresh
abrasion of the perennial skin at oclock position near the anal opening#
$he trial court found the victim guilty, declaring that he acted with
discernment, but crediting him with the special mitigating circumstance of
minority#
*sse:
+F2 accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, and if yes, whether he
acted with discernment, being a minor of age more than ! years old but less than
=6
+ecision: ?50
)enetration, no matter how slight, or the mere introduction of the male organ
into the labia of the pudendum, constitutes carnal knowledge# ,ence, even if the
penetration is only slight, the fact that the private complainant felt pains, points to
the conclusion that the rape was consummated#
61 | P a g e
+hile it is true that medical e.aminer did not find any abrasion or laceration in
the private complainants genitalia, such fact does not negate the latters
testimony the petitioner had carnal knowledge of her# $he absence of abrasions
and lacerations does not disprove se.ual abuses, especially when the victim is a
young girl as in this case#
$he court have held that when the offended party is young and immature,
from the age of thirteen to si.teen, courts are inclined to give credence to their
account of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but
also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be e.posed if the matter
to which they testified is not true#
/iscernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between
right and wrong#
$he accused, with methodical fashion, dragged the resisting victim behind the
pile of hollow blocks near the vacant house to insure that passers*by would not
be able to discover his dastardly acts#
Migel !aolo 0oliman
20'0-020-
6% | P a g e
Jose v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. ',20(2)
Facts:
(ccused was arrested in a drug buy*bust operation conducted by the police>
accused was a passenger in the car of Iarraga, whom allegedly made the deal
with the undercover in the said operation# $hey claimed that they were kidnapped
by the police and asked ransom for their release from one of the accuseds wife#
$he trial court found them guilty, and credited in their favour the preventive
imprisonment they had undergone#C( reduced the penalty on petitioner since he
was 7 years old at the time of the commission of the offense#
*sse:
+F2 petitioner acted with discernment and that prosecution failed to allege
in the information that he acted with discernment6
+ecision: &8
For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is
burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial
evidence, that he acted with discernment, meaning that he knew what he was
doing and that it was wrong#
Such circumstantial evidence may include the utterances of the minor> his
overt acts before, during and after the commission of the crime relative thereto>
the nature of the weapon used in the commission of the crime> his attempt to
silence a witness> his disposal of evidence or his hiding the corpus delicti#
$he only evidence of the prosecution against the petitioner is that he was in a
car with his cousin, co*accused, when the latter in1uired from the poseur*buyer, if
he could afford to buy sha"u#
$here is no evidence that the petitioner knew what was inside the plastic and
soft white paper before and at the time he handed over the same to his cousin#
3ndeed, the poseur*buyer did not bother to ask the petitioner his age because he
knew that pushers used young boys in their transactions for illegal drugs#
63 | P a g e
Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more persons to
commit a crime and decide to commit it# Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the
parties to such conspiracy to discern what is right from what is wrong# Since the
prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner acted with discernment, it cannot
thereby be concluded that he conspired with his co*accused#
Migel !aolo 0oliman
20'0-020-
+eclarador v. Jdge $baton #$.%. &o. '(3208)
Facts:
6( | P a g e
$he accused, a D*year old, minor, stabbed a teacher, wife of the
complainant, = times> he was charged with murder aggravated by evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength, to which the accused plead guilty
to the crime charged#
3n view of the accuseds plea, -$C rendered 5udgment finding the accused
guilty, but the sentence was suspended by the 5udge automatically because the
accused was a minor at that time> he was ordered to be committed to the
-egional -ehabilitation for Jouth#
$he husband of the victim, herein petitioner, claimed that in (rt# !; of )#/#
2o# "E7, the benefit of a suspended sentence does not apply to a 5uvenile who
was convicted of a crime punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment#
*sses:
+hether or not respondent Audge committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of or e.cess in 5urisdiction in ordering the suspension of the
sentence of the accused6
+ecision: ?50
$he benefits of )#/# 2o# "E7 shall not apply to a youthful offender who has
once en5oyed suspension of sentence under its provisions or to one who is
convicted for an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment or to one who
is convicted for an offense by the &ilitary $ribunals#
Furthermore, it shall not apply to a 5uvenile in conflict with law who has
once en5oyed suspension of sentence or, when at the time of the promulgation of
5udgment, the 5uvenile is already H yrs# old#
$he dis1ualification is based on the nature of the crime charged and the
imposable penalty therefor, and not on the penalty imposed by the court after
trial# 3t is not the actual penalty imposed but the possible one which determines
the dis1ualification of a 5uvenile#
6$ | P a g e
-ep# (ct 2o# !744 only amended the dis1ualification of those 5uveniles in
conflict with law, who at the time of the promulgation of 5udgment, was already H
years old, and allowed the benefits to apply to them# $he other dis1ualification in
)#/# 2o# "E7 remains unchanged# ,ence, the accused is still dis1ualified under
law to benefit from such suspension of sentence#
Case law has it that statutes in pari materia should be read and construed
together because enactments of the same legislature on the same sub5ect are
supposed to form part of one uniform system> later statutes are supplementary or
complimentary to the earlier enactments and in the passage of its acts the
legislature is supposed to have in mind the e.isting legislations on the sub5ect
and to have enacted the new act with reference thereto#
5ddie Tamondong
2003-0'18
Accident
Toledo v. !eo"le #-33 0C%A 3-)
Facts:
66 | P a g e
$he accused $oledo was charged with homicide for the killing of one
-icky /uarte# $oledo insisted that when he killed the victim, the same was purely
accidental# ,e claimed that the victim was so drunk that the same charged at the
door of his house# $his prompted the accused to get his bolo and when he tried
to prevent -icky from entering, he accidentally hit the latter whereby killing him#
'ut still the -$C and the Ca found him guilty#
(nd so, the accused goes to the SC wherein this time, he claims that his
actions were purely on self*defense# 3t was done when the victim attacked him
and in trying to defend himself, he accidentally killed /uarte#
*sse:
Should the Court find his actions e.empting andFor 5ustifying6
+ecision:
$he Sc ruled that there is no such thing as accidental self*defense# $he
accused cannot claim the death purely accidental and when the findings of the
lower courts were unfavorable, later on change his defense by alleging that what
happened was purely self*defense#
$he two defenses perpetuated by the accused are totally inconsistent with
each other# (lthough in the 5ustifying circumstance of self*defense, an accused is
e.cused because of /?G3'?-($?GJ trying to repel an unlawful aggression
which could have killed or in5ure him# (nd so, such acts are not in tune with
(CC3/?2$ which presupposes an act which was not even contemplated or
planned but purely accidental#
5ddie Tamondong
2003-0'18
!eo"le v. Conce"cion #38, 0C%A 1-)
Facts:
60 | P a g e
$he accused Concepcion is a police officer charged with murder for the
killing of one Goren4o @alang# (ccording to testimonies of both parties
witnesses, Goren4o @alang was brought to the barangay hall because he was so
drunk and unruly at the town pla4a and was continually disturbing the peace#
$he accused then came to the barangay hall apparently to 1uestion
@alang# 'ut herein lies the differences in the testimonies# $he prosecution
witnesses 9; of them: testified that while interrogating @alang, Concepcion
suddenly fired two shots past the ear of the victim without in5uring him# 'ut later
on, he hit the victim in the abdomen and fired a shot which wounded @alang in
the thigh and then Concepcion fired three more shots which hit the victim in the
chest and killed him#
'ut according to the accused, he was merely pacifying @alang when the
victim became so unruly that the accused fired two warning shots# 'ut instead of
scaring @alang, the latter tried to grab the gun from the accused# $wo shots were
accidentally fired which hit @alang thus causing his death#
$he accused claims that he should be e.empted because he was 5ust
performing his lawful duty as a police officer and that the shooting was purely
accidental#
$he trial court found Concepcion guilty#
*sse:
Should the accused be e.empted from criminal liability due to accident6
+ecision:
+ell settled is the rule in criminal cases, that the prosecution has
theburden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused# ,owever, once the
defendant admits the commission of the offense charged, but raises an
e.empting circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him# 'y
invoking mere accident as a defense, appellant now has the burden of proving
that he is entitled to that e.empting circumstance under (rticle ; 94: of the
Code#
6' | P a g e
0nfortunately for the accused, his testimony was too full of inconsistencies
which failed to discharge the burden # For one, Concepcion claims that when the
victim tried to grab his gun, said rifle was hanging on his shoulder on a swivel#
'ut then he claimed that @alang tried to rest the rifle away by grabbing the
'(--?G %F $,? @02C# $his was very inconceivable# Furthermore, it was not
believable that a person so drunk would try to take away a rifle from a police
officer who also had a handgun tucked by his waist#
Gastly, the prosecution witness categorically testified that he saw
Concepcion shoot the victim with the &*" rifle#
(nd so, the finding of guilt by the lower court was proper#
Mar. <ergara
2008-0323
*rresistible Force=/ncontrollable Fear
T4 v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '-321()
Facts:
62 | P a g e
$his case stemmed from the filing of D 3nformations for violation of '#)# ;;
against $y before the -$C of &anila# $he said accused drew and issue to &anila
/octors ,ospital to apply on account or for value to ?ditha G# Vecino several
post*dated checks# $he said accused well knowing that at the time of issue she
did not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for payment of
such checks in full upon its presentment, which check when presented for
payment within ninety 9!E: days from the date hereof, was subse1uently
dishonored by the drawee bank for B(ccount ClosedC and despite receipt of
notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to pay said &anila /octors ,ospital
the amount of the checks or to make arrangement for full payment of the same
within five 9=: banking days after receiving said notice#
$y claimed that she issued the checks because of Ban uncontrollable fear
of a greater in5ury#C She claims that she was forced to issue the checks to obtain
release of her mother whom the hospital inhumanely and harshly treated, and
would not discharge unless the hospital bills are paid#
$he trial court rendered 5udgment against $y# $y interposed an appeal
with the C( and reiterated her defense that she issued the checks Bunder the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of a greater in5ury or in avoidance of a greater
evil or in5ury#C $he appellate court affirmed the 5udgment of the trial court with
modification# 3t set aside the penalty of imprisonment and instead sentenced $y
to pay a fine of si.ty thousand pesos ) "E,EEE#EE e1uivalent to double the
amount of the check, in each case#
*sse:
+hether or not the defense of uncontrollable fear is tenable to warrant her
e.emption from criminal liability6
+ecision:&o.
0ncontrollable fear * For this e.empting circumstance to be invoked
successfully, the following re1uisites must concur8 9: e.istence of an
uncontrollable fear> 9;: the fear must be real and imminent> and 97: the fear of an
in5ury is greater than or at least e1ual to that committed#
0/ | P a g e
3n the instant case, the evil sought to be avoided is merely e.pected or
anticipated# 3f the evil sought to be avoided is merely e.pected or anticipated or
may happen in the future, this defense is not applicable
3t must appear that the threat that caused the uncontrollable fear is of such
gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it# 3t
should be based on a real, imminent or reasonable fear for ones life or limb# (
mere threat of a future in5ury is not enough# 3t should not be speculative, fanciful,
or remote# ( person invoking uncontrollable fear must show therefore that the
compulsion was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument acting not only
without will but against his will as well# 3t must be of such character as to leave no
opportunity to the accused for escape#
$he fear harbored by $y was not real and imminent# $y claims that she was
compelled to issue the checks, a condition the hospital allegedly demanded of
her before her mother could be discharged, for fear that her mothers health
might deteriorate further due to the inhumane treatment of the hospital or worse,
her mother might commit suicide# $his is speculative fear> it is not the
uncontrollable fear contemplated by law#
Arl4n 9arcelon
200,-002'
5ntra"ment v. *nstigation
!eo"le v. 0ta. Maria #$.%. &o. '1'0'3)
Facts:
01 | P a g e
%n 2ovember ;D, ;EE;, at around E8EE oclock in the morning, )FChief
3nsp# 2oli )acheco, Chief of the )rovincial /rug ?nforcement @roup of the
'ulacan )rovincial %ffice based at Camp (le5o Santos, &alolos, 'ulacan
received an intelligence report about the illegal drug activities in Sitio @ulod,
'arangay )antubig, San -afael, 'ulacan of a certain <Fael,< who later turned out
to be appellant -afael Sta# &aria# )FChief 3nsp# )acheco formed a surveillance
team to look for a police asset to negotiate a drug deal with appellant# 3n the
morning of 2ovember ;!, ;EE;, the surveillance team reported to )FChief 3nsp#
)acheco that a confidential asset found by the team had already negotiated a
drug deal for the purchase of );EE worth of shabu from appellant at the latters
house at 2o# ;7 Sitio @ulod, 'arangay )antubig, San -afael, 'ulacan between
D8EE and D87E in the evening of 2ovember ;!, ;EE;# $he surveillance team then
prepared for a buy*bust operation, with )%7 ?nri1ue -ullan as team leader, and
)% -hoel Ventura, who was provided with two 9;: marked )EE*bills, as
poseur*buyer# (t the appointed time and place, )% Ventura and the confidential
informant proceeded to appellants house and knocked at the door# (ppellant
opened the door and the confidential informant introduced to him )% Ventura
as a prospective buyer# )% Ventura later handed the two 9;: marked )EE*bills
to appellant who, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of shabu# $hereupon, )%
Ventura sparked his cigarette lighter, which was the pre*arranged signal to the
other members of the buy*bust team that the sale was consummated# (ppellant
was arrested and the two marked )EE*bills recovered from him# (lso arrested
on that occasion was one Iedric dela Cru4 who was allegedly sniffing shabu
inside appellants house and from whom drug paraphernalia were recovered#
0pon laboratory e.amination of the item bought from appellant, the same yielded
positive for methylampetamine hydrochloride or shabu weighing E#E4 gram#
$he accused was charged of violation of Section =, (rticle 33 of -#(# 2o#
!"=, otherwise known as the Comprehensive /angerous /rugs (ct of ;EE;#
$he trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense charged# $he Court of (ppeals promulgated the assailed decision
denying the appeal#
*sse:
+hether or not instigation was the act which preceded Sta# &arias arrest6
0% | P a g e
+ecision:
3n entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and
capture a lawbreaker while e.ecuting his criminal plan# 3n instigation, the
instigator practically induces the would*be*defendant into committing the offense,
and himself becomes a co*principal# 3n entrapment, the means originates from
the mind of the criminal# $he idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from
him# 3n instigation, the law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and
suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into e.ecution# $he
legal effects of entrapment do not e.empt the criminal from liability# 3nstigation
does#
3t is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its
commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done
at the <decoy solicitation< of persons seeking to e.pose the criminal, or that
detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its
commission# ?specially is this true in that class of cases where the offense is one
habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course
of conduct#
$he solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utili4ed by the
police merely furnishes evidence of the course of conduct# $he police received
an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs#
$hey duly acted on it by utili4ing an informant to effect a drug transaction with the
appellant# $here was no showing that the informant induced appellant to sell
illegal drugs to him#
Arl4n 9arcelon
200,-002'
!eo"le v. !acis #$.%. &o. '-,303)
Facts:
%n (pril ", !!H, (tty# Jap supervising agent of the /angeroud /rugs
/ivision of the 2'3, received an information that certain -oberto )acis was
03 | P a g e
offering to sell Q kilo of shabu for the amount of )!=E per gram or a total of
)4D=,EEE#EE# $he 2'3 Chief of /angerous /rugs /ivision approved the buy*bust
operation# (tty# Jap and Sr# (gent Cong4on, Ar# were assigned to handle the
case# $he two officer and an informant went to the house of the appellant at 7D=
Caimito Ville, Caimito Street, Valle Verde 33, )asig City# $hey negotiated the sale
of Q kilo of shabu# $he total price was reduced to )4=E,EEE#EE# 3t was agreed
that the payment and delivery of shabu would be made the ne.t day at same
place#
%n (pril D, !!H, 2'3 agents and the informant went to appellants
house# (ppellant handed to (tty# Jap a paper bag, the latter saw a transparent
plastic with white crystalline substance inside# (ppellant asked for the payment#
(tty# Jap introduced Cong4on to get the money from the car# +hen Cong4on
returned, he gave the Bboodle moneyC to (tty# Jap who handed to the appellant#
0pon receipt of payment, the officers identified themselves as 2'3 agents and
arrested him#
$he trial gave full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses# ,ence, this appeal#
*sse:
+hether or not the Bbuy*bustC operation that led to the appellants arrest
was valid6
+ecision:
3n entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the e.ecution of their criminal plan# 3n
instigation on the other hand, instigators practically induce the would* be
defendant into the commission of the offense and become co* principals
themselves# 3t has been held in numerous cases by this Court that entrapment is
sanctioned by law as legitimate method of apprehending criminal elements
engage in the sale and distribution of illegal drugs#
$he records show that the operation that led to the arrest of the appellant
was indeed an entrapment, not instigation# Courts generally give full faith and
credit to officers of the law, for they are presumed to have performed their duties
0( | P a g e
in the regular manner# 3n entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of
an incident by the prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law#
Aurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the
crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs8 9: the accused sold and delivered a
prohibited drug to another, and 9;: he knew that what he had sold was a
dangerous drug# $he elements were duly proven in the case herein# $he record
shows that the appellant sold and delivered the shabu to 2'3 agents posing as
buyers#
Arl4n 9arcelon
200,-002'
Chang v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. ',(''')
Facts:
Chang was the &unicipal $reasurer of &akati who was tasked to e.amine
or investigate ta. returns of private corporations and companies operating within
0$ | P a g e
&akati and determine the sufficiency and insufficiency of the income ta.
assessed on them and collect payments, San &ateo was the Chief %perations,
'usiness revenue ?.amination, (udit division, &akati $reasurers office#
$he e.aminers found that @roup /evelopers, 3nc# 9@/3: incurred a ta.
deficiency inclusive of penalty in the amount of )4!4,"E## $he assessment
notice was received by &ario &agat, Chief %perating %fficer of @/3# &agat was
later able to talk to San &ateo via phone# %n &ay =, !!, &agat and San
&ateo met for lunch at the &akati Sports Club# Chang later 5oined the two, the
three agreed that if @/3 could pay );=,EEE by the end of &ay !!, the
assessment would be Rresolved#
%n Aune ", !!, &agat met again for lunch with San &ateo and Chang at
the &akati Sports Club# &agat tried to convince the two that @/3 wanted to pay
the correct amount of ta. to the municipality# ,e was advised by San &ateo and
Chang, however, that @/3 had only two options8 )ay the )4!4,"E# to the
municipality or );=,EEE to them#
%n Aune ;, !!, &agat met with the 2'3 /eputy /irector ?pimaco
Velasco who advised him to file a complaint with the 2'3# &agat thus gave a
sworn statement# (fter several days, &agat contacted San &ateo and asked him
if their position was still the same to which the latter said yes# &agat thereafter
told San &ateo that he would deliver the );=,EEE on Aune !,!! at the
&akati Sports Club#
%n Aune !, !!, &agat informed the 2'3 that payment was to be made
that day around lunchtime# $he 2'3 formed a team to conduct an entrapment#
$he genuine money as well as the boodle money and the envelope where the
money was placed were then laced with fluorescent powder#
San &ateo arrived and 5oined &agat at his table# Chang arrived and 5oined
the two# &agat told Chang and San &ateo that @/3 was ready to pay and asked
them if they could give him the Certificate of ?.amination showing that @/3 has
no more ta. liability# Chang handed the Certificate while &agat gave the brown
envelope# (t that instant, the 2'3 agents announced that they were being
arrested#
06 | P a g e
$he Sandiganbayan convicted San &ateo and Chang of violation of sec
79b: of -#(# 2o# 7E!, otherwise known as (nti* @raft and Corrupt )ractices (ct#
,ence, this appeal#
*sse:
+hether or not there was a valid entrapment operation6
+ecision:
)etitioners were undisputedly public officers at the time of the commission
of the offense# $he prosecution, not only established creditably how the offense
charged was committed# 3t is established 5ust as creditably how petitioners
conspired to commit the crime#
$here is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to
ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the
crime# $here is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime# $he
difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent# 3n
entrapment, the mens reoriginates from the mind of the criminal# $he idea and
the resolve to commit the crime comes from him# 3n instigation, the law officer
conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts
the idea and carries it into e.ecution#
From the evidence of the prosecution, it was clearly established that the
criminal intent originated from the mind of the petitioner# ?ven before the Aune
!, !! meeting took place, petitioners already made known to &agat that @/3
only had two options to prevent the closure of the company, either to pay the
assessed amount of )4!4,"E# to the &unicipality or to pay the amount of
);=,EEE to them#
Jasmine Cala4ca4
200(-00-3
Art. '3: Mitigating Circmstances
*ncom"lete Jstif4ing or 5;em"ting Circmstances
!eo"le v. CA and Tangan #$.%. &o. '03,'3)
00 | P a g e
Facts:
%n /ecember , !H4, 2avy Captain ?ladio C# $angan was driving alone
on -o.as 'oulevard heading south and @eneroso &iranda was driving his car in
the same direction with his uncle, &anuel &iranda# @eneroso was moving ahead
of $angan# Suddenly, firecrackers were thrown in @enerosoLs way, causing him
to swerve to the right and cut $anganLs path# $angan blew his horn several times#
@eneroso, slowed down to let $angan pass# $angan accelerated and overtook
@eneroso, but when he got in front, $angan reduced speed# @eneroso tried four
or five times to overtake on the right lane but $angan kept blocking his lane#
+hen $angan slowed down to make a 0*turn, @eneroso passed him, pulled over
and got out of the car with his uncle# $angan also stopped his car and got out#
@eneroso and $angan then e.changed e.pletives# $hen $angan went to his car
and got his #7H caliber handgun on the front seat#
(ccording to the prosecution witnesses, &ary (nn 'orromeo, -osalia
Cru4 and &anuel &iranda, the accused pointed his gun at @eneroso &iranda
and when &anuel &iranda tried to intervene, the accused pointed his gun at
&anuel &iranda, and after that the accused pointed again the gun to @eneroso
&iranda, the accused shot @eneroso &iranda at a distance of about a meter#
$he shot hit the stomach of @eneroso &iranda causing the latter to fall# &anuel
&iranda grappled for the possession of the gun and during their grappling,
-osalia Cru4 intervened and took hold of the gun and after -osalia Cru4 has
taken hold of the gun, a man wearing a red $*shirt took the gun from her# $he
man in $*shirt was chased by &anuel &iranda who was able to get the gun
where the man in red $*shirt placed it#
%n the other hand, the defense, particularly the accused and his witness
by the name of 2elson )ante claimed that after the gun was taken by the
accused from inside his car, the &irandas started to grapple for possession of
the gun and during the grappling, and while the two &irandas were trying to
wrest away the gun from the accused, they fell down at the back of the car of the
accused# $he accused lost the possession of the gun after falling at the back of
his car and as soon as they hit the ground, the gun fell, and it e.ploded hitting
@eneroso &iranda#
$angan ran away while @eneroso lay on the ground bloodied# &anuel looked for
the gun and ran after $angan# $angan found a policeman who allowed him to
0' | P a g e
enter his patrol car# &anuel arrived and told the policeman that $angan had 5ust
shot his nephew# &anuel went back to where @eneroso lay and there found two
ladies, &ary (nn 'orromeo and -osalina Cru4, helping his nephew board a ta.i#
&anuel suggested that @eneroso be brought to the hospital in his car# ,e was
rushed to the )hilippine @eneral ,ospital but he e.pired on the way#
$angan was charged with the crime of murder with the use of an unlicensed
firearm# ,owever, the information was amended to homicide with the use of a
licensed firearm, and he was separately charged with illegal possession of
unlicensed firearm# $angan entered a plea of not guilty in the homicide case, but
moved to 1uash the information for illegal possession of unlicensed firearm on
various grounds# $he motion to 1uash was denied, whereupon he filed a petition
for certiorari with this Court# %n 2ovember =, !HD, said petition was dismissed
and the 5oint trial of the two cases was ordered#
(fter trial, the lower court ac1uitted $angan of illegal possession of firearm, but
convicted him of homicide# $he privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete
self*defense and the ordinary mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation
on the part of the offended party and of passion and obfuscation were
appreciated in his favor> $angan was released from detention after the
promulgation of 5udgment and was allowed bail in the homicide case#
$angan appealed to the Court of (ppeals, which affirmed the 5udgment of the
trial court but increased the award of civil indemnity to )=E,EEE#EE# ,is
subse1uent motion for reconsideration and a motion to cite the Solicitor @eneral
in contempt were denied by the Court of (ppeals#
$he Solicitor @eneral, on behalf of the prosecution, alleging grave abuse of
discretion, filed a petition for certiorari under -ule "=, naming as respondents the
Court of (ppeals and $angan, where it prayed that the appellate courtLs 5udgment
be modified by convicting accused*appellant of homicide without appreciating in
his favor any mitigating circumstance#
*sse:
+hether or not $angan acted in incomplete self*defense6
+ecision:
02 | P a g e
3ncomplete self*defense is not considered as a 5ustifying act, but merely a
mitigating circumstance> hence, the burden of proving the crime charged in the
information is not shifted to the accused# 3n order that it may be successfully
appreciated, however, it is necessary that a ma5ority of the re1uirements of self*
defense be present, particularly the re1uisite of unlawful aggression on the part
of the victim# 0nlawful aggression by itself or in combination with either of the
other two re1uisite suffices to establish incomplete self*defense# (bsent the
unlawful aggression, there can never be self*defense, complete or
incomplete, because if there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two
re1uisites of defense will have no basis#
$he element of unlawful aggression in self*defense must not come from
the person defending himself but from the victim#
( mere threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient# $he e.change
of insulting words and invectives between $angan and @eneroso &iranda, no
matter how ob5ectionable, could not be considered as unlawful aggression,
e.cept when coupled with physical assault# $here being no lawful aggression on
the part of either antagonists, the claim of incomplete self*defense falls#
@eide 8larte-Congson
2001-03',
&o *ntention to Commit so $rave a 6rong
!eo"le v. Callet #$.%. &o. '3(10')
Facts:
'/ | P a g e
?lbert S# Callet was charged and found guilty of the crime of &urder in the
death of (lfredo Senador# Callet used a !*inch hunting knife in stabbing the
latter on the left shoulder near the base of the neck causing Senadors death
shortly thereafter# Callet appealed his conviction claiming that the -egional $rial
Court of 2egros %riental, /umaguete City 9'ranch 7E: gravely erred in failing to
consider the mitigating circumstance of the fact that he had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong thereforehis liability should be mitigated#
*sse:
+hether or not the criminal liability of Callet be mitigated in that he had no
intention to commit so grave a wrong6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court ruled in the negative# $he lack of BintentC to commit a
wrong so grave is an internal state# 3t is weighed based on the weapon used, the
part of the body in5ured, the in5ury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted# $he fact
that the accused used a !*inch hunting knife in attacking the victim from behind,
without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, clearly shows that he
intended to do what he actually did, and he must be held responsible therefore,
without the benefit of this mitigating circumstance#
8:elle +edicatoria
200,-0-0,
<indication of a $rave 8ffense
!eo"le v. Tor"io #$.%. &o. '3838-)
Facts:
'1 | P a g e
3n the evening of %ctober , !!D, (nthony went to the house of /ennis
and invited the latter for a drinking spree# (fterwards both left the house of
/ennis and went to a nearby store and started drinking with a companion named
)orboy )ere4# $he three proceeded to Shoreline# 3n a cottage, (nthony tried to
let /ennis drink gin and as the latter refused, (nthony bathed /ennis with gin
and mauled him several times# /ennis crawled beneath the table and (nthony
tried to stab him with a ;; fan knife but did not hit him# /ennis got up and ran
towards their home#
0pon reaching home, he got a knife# (larmed by the action of /ennis, his
mother shouted# &anuel, his father, tried to scold his son and confiscate from
him the knife but failed to do so, resulting to &anuels incurring a wound in his
hand# ,e went back to the cottage# 0pon seeing /ennis, (nthony ran towards
the creek but /ennis blocked him and stabbed him# +hen he was hit, (nthony
ran but got entangled with fishing net and fell on his back# /ennis then mounted
on him and continued stabbing him resulting to the latters death# (fter stabbing,
/ennis left and went to Camp /ownes and slept there# $he ne.t morning, /ennis
voluntarily surrendered himself to 'oy ?strera, a well*known police officer#
$he trial court rendered a 5udgment convicting /ennis for the crime of
&urder 1ualified by treachery or evident premeditation and appreciating three
mitigating circumstances# ,is father &anuel was ac1uitted# 2ot satisfied with the
5udgment, /ennis appealed his case#
*sse:
+hether or not the mitigating circumstance of having acted in the
immediate vindication of a grave offense is appreciated6
+ecision:
$he Supreme held that the mitigating circumstance of having acted in the
immediate vindication of a grave offense was properly appreciated# /ennis was
humiliated, mauled and almost stabbed by the (nthony# (lthough the unlawful
aggression had ceased when /ennis stabbed (nthony, it was nonetheless a
grave offense for which the /ennis may be given the benefit of a mitigating
circumstance#
'% | P a g e
,owever, the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be
considered apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense# $hese
two circumstances arose from one and the same incident, i#e#, the attack on the
appellant by (nthony, so that they should be considered as only one mitigating
circumstance#
Maria Fa4e +. +ela Cr:
200(-00-8
!assion or 8bfscation
!eo"le v. 2ab-eo #$.%. &o. '33-38)
Facts:
'3 | P a g e
Segundina Cayno was engaged in the business of selling rummage
goods# ?arly in the morning of %ctober ;, !!" her son, Aerry Cayno went to
the Bdap*ayanC or barangay hall, in front of the $adian )ublic &arket to display
the goods for sale# (fter displaying the goods, Segundina arrived and took over#
'efore noontime, while 2ancy and Aulie were plucking the white hair strands of
Segundina, appellant +ilson Gab*eo arrived and approached his aunt,
Segundina# 0pon seeing him, 2ancy went to a distance of about two meters
while Aulie was still near Segundina# (ppellant sat down in front of his aunt and
uttered something to her in a very soft voice# 2ancy did not hear what he said
because of her distance from them while Aulie could not make out the
conversation because of the sound coming from a running motor engine# +hat
they only heard was Segundinas answer which was uttered in a loud angry voice
Bkoma*an ka tay baka mahigh bloodacC 9Byou get out because 3 might suffer high
bloodC:# $hey saw appellant leave# +hen appellant returned about 7 to =
minutes after, Segundina was sitting on a low rattan stool# 3n front of her were
2ancy and Aulie, they did not notice appellants return, especially Segundina who
had her back to appellant# +hen Aulie saw appellant approach Segundina from
the back, Aulie thought that he would 5ust bo. his aunt because she did not see
the knife, which was wrapped in his blue 5acket# $hen appellant suddenly made
a thrusting motion and he stabbed Segundina on the left portion of her back# ,e
then ran away leaving the knife at the victims back with the 5acket he had
covered it with, hanging by the knifes handle# (ppellant surrendered to the
police authorities# $he appellant was indicted for murder# $he appellant does not
deny stabbing Cayno# ,owever, he maintains that neither treachery nor evident
premeditation attended the commission of the crime# $he $rial Court found the
appellant guilty of the crime of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua#
*sse:
+hether or not the actuation of the accused can be properly appreciated
as passion or obfuscation in his favour6
+ecision:
'( | P a g e
For a person to be motivated by passion and obfuscation, there must first
e.ist an unlawful act that would naturally produce an impulse sufficient to
overcome reason and self*control# $here is passional obfuscation when the
crime is committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior
un5ust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason# 3n asking the appellant to leave, the victim did not do anything
unlawful# $here is an absolute lack of proof that the appellant was utterly
humiliated by the victims utterance# 2or was it shown that the victim made that
remark in an insulting and repugnant manner# $he victims utterance was not the
stimulus re1uired by 5urisprudence to be so overwhelming as to overcome reason
and self*restraint#
Maria Fa4e +. +ela Cr:
200(-00-8
!eo"le v. 9ates #$.%. &o. '33301)
Facts:
'$ | P a g e
(round ;8EE in the afternoon of 2ovember ;H, !!=, ?dgar Fuentes,
Simon Fuentes and Aose 'oholst left 'arangay ?speran4a, %rmoc City to deliver
copra to a certain Fely -odado at 'arangay @reen Valley, %rmoc City# (fter
delivering copra around =8EE in the afternoon, the three men headed back to
'arangay ?speran4a# +hile they were along a trail leading to the house of
Carlito 'ates, the latter suddenly emerged from the thick banana plantation
surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Aose 'oholst who was then walking
ahead of his companions# Aose grabbed Carlitos right hand and elbow and tried
to wrest possession of the firearm# +hile the two were grappling for possession,
the gun fired, hitting Carlito who immediately fell to the ground# (t that instant,
&arcelo 'ates and his son &arcelo 'ates, Ar#, brother and nephew of Carlito,
respectively, emerged from the banana plantation each brandishing a bolo# $hey
immediately attacked Aose hacking him several times# Aose fell to the ground
and rolled but &arcelo and his son kept on hacking him# &arcelo, then, turned to
Simon and ?dgar and shouted Bhuwes de kutsilyoC# 0pon hearing the same,
Simon and ?dgar ran#
0pholding the prosecution evidence, the trial court rendered its Audgment,
finding &arcelo 'ates guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of &urder#
*sse:
+hether or not &arcelo could validly invoke the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation6
+ecision:
)assion and obfuscation may not be properly appreciated in favor of
appellant# $o be considered as a mitigating circumstance, passion or
obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of
lawlessness or revenge or from anger and resentment# 3n the present case,
clearly, &arcelo was infuriated upon seeing is brother, Carlito, shot by Aose#
,owever, a distinction must be made between the first time that &arcelo hacked
Aose and the second time that the former hacked the latter# +hen &arcelo
hacked Aose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlito, and if appellant
refrained from doing anything else after that, he could have validly invoked the
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation# 'ut when, upon seeing his
brother Carlito dead, &arcelo went back to Aose, who by then was already
'6 | P a g e
prostrate on the ground and hardly moving, hacking Aose again was a clear case
of someone acting out of anger in the spirit of revenge#
Maria Fa4e +. +ela Cr:
200(-00-8
!eo"le v. MaleAana #$.%. &o. '-(002)
Facts:
'0 | P a g e
)rosecutions witness (ndres &adrid narrated that on Auly ;H, !!E at
around D8= p#m#, while he was seated in front of his 5eep parked at the side of
the road at &arisfo1ue, )ilar, Sorsogon in the company of Aanus -oces, (ntonio
Sy, Samuel (ndrade, 'ernarda Sy, Aose 'elmonte and ?rnesto Francisco, he
saw appellant at about 7E meters away heading towards their direction# 0pon
reaching their group, appellant asked them where -oces was# +hen he noticed
-oces who was sitting at a distance of meter beside &adrid, appellant
brandished an armalite rifle and fired a shot into the air# $hen he pointed the
barrel of the gun at -oces and fired five 9=: times, hitting -oces thrice# (fter the
victim fell to the ground, appellant left the scene of the incident and went ot his
house about =E meters away# &adrid and his other companions tried to assist
-oces but discovered that the latter was already dead, presumably from the
gunshot wounds that were inflicted upon him by appellant#
*sse:
+hether or not the defense was able to establish that accused was
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation6
+ecision:
)assion and obfuscation similarly cannot be appreciated in favor of the
appellant# $o be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following elements
must be present8 : $here should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such condition of mind, ;: $he act that produced the obfuscation was
not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of
time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal e1uanimity# $he
bare assertion that the victim and appellant had an argument does not provide
5ustifiable basis for applying to him this mitigating circumstance# $he cause that
produced the passion and obfuscation has not been established nor proven by
clear and convincing evidence# $he defense advance mere speculations and
con5ectures to gloss over the fact that there is lack of proof of the cause# Courts
are not permitted to render 5udgments upon guesses or surmises# Suspicion, it
has been said, cannot give probative force to testimony which in itself is
insufficient to establish or 5ustify an inference of a particular fact#
Maricris 5lla
2001-0030
'' | P a g e
<olntar4 0rrender
!eo"le v. 9eltran #$.%. &o. ',80(')
Facts:
%n 2ovember 7, !!!, appellant was indicted in an 3nformation for &urder
allegedly committed as follows8 $hat on or about %ctober ;=, !!! at around
E8EE oclock in the evening at Velas1ue4 -oad, 'rgy# Sta# -ita, 'atangas City,
)hilippines and within the 5urisdiction of this ,onorable Court, the above*named
accused, while armed with a bolo, a deadly weapon, with intent to kill and with
the 1ualifiying circumstance of treachery, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously attack, assault and hack with the said bolo, suddenly and without
warning one 2orman Conception y ,abla while the latter was unarmed and
completely defenseless, thereby hitting him on the different parts of his body,
which directly caused the victims death# +hen arraigned on 2ovember !, !!!,
appellant pleaded B2ot @uiltyC to the charge therein# $hereafter, trial ensued#
(ppellant, on his defense admitted that he hacked 2orman with a bolo but
insisted that he did the same in self*defense# Furthermore, appellant also
claimed that 2orman is taller than him> that he was forced to kill 2orman because
the latter insulted him and his mother> and that he was on his way to 'auan City
to surrender to police when he was apprehended by the barangay officers in Gipa
City#
$he -$C rendered its /ecision finding the accused ,onorato 'eltran, Ar#
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder# %n appeal, the Court of
(ppeals affirmed the -$Cs /ecision# ,ence, this petition#
*sse:
+hether or not the appellant ,onorato 'eltran, Ar# is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender6
+ecision:
'2 | P a g e
(ppellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender# (rticle 7, paragraph 9D: of the -evised )enal Code states that the
offenders criminal liability may be mitigated if he voluntarily surrendered to a
person in authority or his agents# (ccordingly, the essential elements of
voluntary surrender are8 9: that the offender had not been actually arrested or
apprehended> 9;: that the surrender was voluntary and spontaneous> and 97: that
the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent#
(ppellant was already apprehended for the hacking incident by the
barangay officials of Gipa City 5ust before he was turned over to the police by a
certain $omas /imacuha# (ssuming that appellant had indeed surrendered to
the authorities, the same was not made spontaneously# 3mmediately after the
hacking incident, appellant, instead of proceeding to the barangay or police, went
to his brother, Sherman 'eltran, in 'auan, 'atangas, and the be.t day, to his
sister in Gipa City# 3t took him three long days to surrender to the police
authorities# &oreover, the flight of appellant and his acts of hiding until he was
apprehended by the barangay officials are circumstances highly inconsistent with
the spontaneity that characteri4es the mitigating circcumstance of voluntary
surrender#
Maricris 5lla
2001-0030
2/ | P a g e
Andrada v. !eo"le #$% &o. '3(222)
Facts:
3n an 3nformation dated Aanuary D, !HD, the %ffice of the City )rosecutor
of 'aguio City charged petitioner with Frustrated &urder committed as follows8
$hat on or about the ;4
th
day of September !H", in the City of 'aguio,
)hilippines and within the 5urisdiction of this ,onorable Court, the above*named
accused with intent to kill, with evident premeditation and with treachery, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and hack one
(rsenio 0gerio on the head twice with a bolo thereby inflicting the latter8 hacking
wound, head, resulting in 9: skull and scalp avulsion verte.> 9;: depressed
comminuted skull fracture, right parieto occipital with significant brain laceration>
operation done> craciectomy> verte. debridement> craniectomy> right parieto
occipital> dural repair> debridement, thus performing all the acts of e.ecution
which would produce the crime of &urder as a conse1uence thereof, but
nevertheless, the felony was not committed by reason of causes independent of
the will of the accused, that is, by the timely medical attendance e.tended to
(rsenio 0gerio which prevented his death# +hen arraigned on February !,
!HD, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel de parte, pleaded B2ot @uiltyC to
the crime charged# $hereafter, trial ensued#
)etitioner interposed self*defense and invoked the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender#
$he -$C rendered its /ecision finding the accused )eter (ndrada guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated &urder# %n appeal, the
Court of (ppeals affirmed the -$Cs /ecision# ,ence, this petition#
*sse:
+hether or not the accused )eter (ndrada is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender6
+ecision:
21 | P a g e
?vidence for the prosecution shows that petitioner, after attacking the
victim, ran away# ,e was apprehended by responding police officers in the
waiting shed at the corner of Cambas -oad and &agsaysay (venue# For
voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous,
made in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or
wishes to save them the trouble and e.penses that would be necessarily incurred
in his search and capture# ,ere, the surrender was not spontaneous#
Maricris 5lla
2001-0030
2% | P a g e
!eo"le v. 7im:on #$.%. &o. '33(-')
Facts:
3n an 3nformation dated Auly ;H, !!;, appellant, -icky Kuim4on and three
oher persons, namely Salvacion Gascarom, Canoto Cabero and ?dgardo /etona
were charged with the crime of murder allegedly committed as follows8 $hat on or
about the D
th
day of &arch !!;, in the &unicipality of 'urauen, )rovince of
Geyte, )hilipines, and within the 5urisdiction of this ,onorable Court, the above*
named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another with
treachery and abuse of superior strength, with intent to kill, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniuosly attack, assault, strike, stab and wound one
&arlo Casiong with short bolos locally known as BpisaoC which accused provided
themselves for the purpose, thereby hitting and inflicting upon the said &arlo
Casiong with fatal wounds on the different parts of his body which caused his
death shortly thereafter#
(ppellant surrendered to the police authorities on (ugust H, !!4 while
his other co*accused remain at*large# +hen arraigned on September ;H, !!4,
appellant, with the assistance of counsel, entered a plea of not guilty to the crime
charged# $hereafter, trial ensued#
$he -$C rendered its /ecision finding the accused -icky Kuim4on guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of &urder# %n appeal, the Court of
(ppeals affirmed the -$Cs /ecision# ,ence, this petition#
*sse:
+hether or not the appellant -icky Kuim4on is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender6
+ecision:
3t appears in the Commitment %rder, dated (ugust 4, !!4, issued by
the &unicipal $rial Audge of the &$C of 'urauen, Geyte, that appellant
Bvoluntarily surrendered to S)% Aosefino (gustin of )2) 'urauen, Geyte on
(ugust H, !!4#C (n e.amination of the records reveals that it can not be
considered as a mitigating circumstance# For the mitigating circumstance of
23 | P a g e
voluntary surreder to be appreciated, the accused must satisfactorily comply with
three re1uisites8 9: he has not been actually arrested> 9;: he surrendered himself
to a person in authority or the latters agent> and 97: the surrender is voluntary#
$here must be a showing of spontaneity and an intent to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because the accused acknowledges his
guilt or wishes to spare them the trouble and e.pense concominant to his
capture#
$he surrender of appellant was far from being spontaneous and
unconditional# $he warrant of arrest is date Aune D, !!; and all the accused,
including appellant, remained at*large, which prompted the ?.ecutive Audge of
the -$C of )alo, Geyte to achieve the case# 3t took appellant two years before he
finally surrendered to the police# 3n between said period, appellant, through
counsel, filed a &otion to Fi. 'ail 'ond without surrendering his person to the
5urisdiction of the trial court# -ecords do not reveal that the motion had been
acted upon by the trial court# $his act of appellant may be considered as a
condition set by him before he surrenders to proper authorities, thus preventing
his subse1uent act of surrendering from being considered as a mitigating
circumstance#
Maria Criselda FoAas
20'0-022,
2( | P a g e
Confession of $ilt
!eo"le v. Montinola #$.%. &os. '3'8(,-(1)
Facts:
%n H 2ovember !!", +illiam &ontinola, armed with an unlicensed Cal #
7HE )istol Glama deliberately, willfully and criminally with violence against or
intimidation of persons, with intent of gain, take and carry away cash amount of
)"D,=EE#EE belonging to Aose ?duardo -eteracion# &ontinola shot the victim on
the neck, killing -eteracion# $wo criminal cases were filed against &ontinola and
he was later on sentenced to reclusion perpetua for robbery with homicide and
death for illegal possession of firearm#
*sse:
+hether the use of an unlicensed firearm on the killing perpetrated by
reason or on occasion of the robbery may be treated as a separate offense or as
an aggravating circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide6
+ecision:
Sec# of )#/#H"" provides that if homicide or murder is committed with
the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed# Said
)residential /ecree was however, amended by -#(# H;!4, while &ontinolas
case was still pending# -#(# H;!4 provides that if homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance# $he Court held B3n
recent cases, we ruled that there could be no separate conviction for illegal
possession of firearm if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm> instead, such use shall be considered merely as an
aggravating circumstance in the homicide or murder committed# ,ence, insofar
as the new law will be advantageous to +3GG3(& as it will spare him from a
separate conviction for illegal possession of firearm, it shall be given retroactive
effect#C )ursuant to the third paragraph of Section of )#/# 2o# H"", as
amended by -#(# 2o# H;!4, use of an unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating
circumstance in the homicide or murder committed# B(t any rate, even assuming
that the aggravating circumstances present in the commission of homicide or
murder may be counted in the determination of the penalty for robbery with
2$ | P a g e
homicide, we cannot appreciate in this case the special aggravating
circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm mentioned in the third paragraph of
Section of )#/# 2o# H"", as amended by -#(# 2o# H;!4# Such law was not yet
enacted when the crime was committed by +3GG3(&> it cannot, therefore, be
given retroactive effect for being unfavorable to him#C $he Court further held
B0nder (rticle ;!4 of the -evised )enal Code, as amended by -#(# 2o# D"=!,
robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, which are
both indivisible penalties# (rticle "7 of the same Code provides that in all cases
in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
greater penalty shall be applied when the commission of the deed is attended by
one aggravating circumstance# 3f we would apply retroactively the special
aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm under Section of )#/#
2o# H"", as amended by -#(# 2o# H;!4, the imposable penalty would be death#
Conformably with our ruling in People #. 2aldez, insofar as the new law would
aggravate the crime of robbery with homicide and increase the penalty from
reclusion perpetua to death, it would not be given retroactive application, lest it
would ac1uire the character of an ex post facto law. ,ence, we shall not
appreciate that special aggravating circumstance# $here being no modifying
circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
accused*appellant +3GG3(&#C
Maria Criselda FoAas
20'0-022,
26 | P a g e
!eo"le v. +aBaton #$.%. &o. '-,2-1)
Facts:
?dgar /awaton was found guilty by the trial court of murder 1ualified by
treachery and was sentenced to death# %n ;E September !!H, Geonidas
Gavares and several companions, including /awaton were drinking in the house
of the accuseds uncle# (lready drunk, Geonidas Gavares decided to sleep while
the accused and his companions continued drinking# /awaton awakened
Gavares by stabbing him at the base of the neck# /awaton continued stabbing
Gavares until the victim died# /awaton then ran away to the house of his other
relative, where he was later on arrested by the police#
*sse:
+hether or not the penalty of death imposed by the trial court upon the
accused was correct6
+ecision:
2o# $he Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in not considering
the alternative circumstance of into.ication in favor of the accused# B0nder (rt#
= of -he .e#ised Penal Code, into.ication of the offender shall be considered
as a mitigating circumstance when the offender commits a felony in a state of
into.ication, if the same is not habitual or subse1uent to the plan to commit said
felony# %therwise, when habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance#$he allegation that the accused was drunk when he
committed the crime was corroborated by the prosecution witnesses# $he
accused and his drinking companions had consumed four 94: bottles of gin at the
house of ?smeraldo Corte4, each one drinking at least a bottle# 3t was also
attested that while the four 94: shared another bottle of gin at the house of
(mado /awaton, it was the accused who drank most of its contents#C $he Court
further stated that B0nder (rt# "7, par# 7, of -he .e#ised Penal Code, in all cases
in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two 9;: indivisible penalties,
such as in this case, when the commission of the act is attended by a mitigating
circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall
be applied# Since no aggravating circumstance attended the killing but there
e.isted the mitigating circumstance of into.ication, the accused should be
sentenced only to the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua#C
Maria $aralde
2008-032,
20 | P a g e
0imilar and Analogos Circmstances
Canta v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '-0331)
Facts:
2arciso @abriel owns a cow that was passed on from one person to another and
each person was responsible for the care and custody of the said cow# (t the time the
cow got lost, it was under the care and custody of @ardenio (gapay# (gapay took the
cow in the mountain of )ilipogan, 4E meters away from his hut, at around =8EE in the
afternoon# +hen he came back to get the cow at past ! in the evening, the cow was
gone# ,owever, (agapay saw footprints that led to the house of Filomeno Valle5os#
Valle5os told (gapay that ?.uperancio Canta took the cow#
(gapay and &aria were instructed by 2arciso to get the cow and on their way to
Florenitno Cantas house, they saw ?.uperancio# $he latter told them that if it was really
2arciso who was the owner of the cow, he should get it himself# ?.uperancia
accompanied the two to his fathers house and both recogni4ed the cow but Florentino
was not home# ?.uperancio told &aria and (gapay that he would call them the ne.t day
to talk about the matter with his father# ?.uperancio never called# $he matter was
reported to the police and 2arciso and ?.uperancio were called for investigation#
?.uperancio admitted taking the cow but claims that he was the real owner of the cow
and that it was lost on /ecember 7, !H=# ,owever, 2arciso presented a certificate of
ownership issued on &arch !, !H", signed by the municipal treasurer, in which the cow
was described as two years old and female# $hen, the petitioner also presented a
Certificate of %wnership of Garge Cattle dated February ;D, !H= and a statement
e.ecuted by Franklin $elen, who was the 5anitor at the treasurerLs office of the
municipality, that he e.ecuted the certificate of ownership in favor of ?.uperancio# $he
trial court rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty of the offense charged#
?.uperancio filed a &otion for reconsideration but was denied by the Court of (ppeals
and affirmed the trial courtLs decision#
*sse:
+hether or not the lower courts were correct in sentencing ?.uperancio to ten
9E: years and one 9: day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve 9;: years, five 9=:
months, and eleven 9: days of reclusion temporal medium, as ma.imum, and to pay
the costs6
+ecision:
2o# $he Supreme Court held that the trial court correctly found petitioner guilty
2' | P a g e
of violation of S;9c: of )# /# 2o# =77, otherwise known as the (nti*Cattle -ustling Gaw of
!D4# ,owever, it erred in imposing the penalty of E years and day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to ; years, = months and days of reclusion temporal medium, as
ma.imum# $he trial court apparently considered )# /# 2o# =77 as a special law and
applied S of the 3ndeterminate Sentence Gaw, which provides that <if the offense is
punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the ma.imum term of which shall not e.ceed the ma.imum fi.ed by said law
and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same#<
,owever, as held in People #. /acatanda,)# /# 2o# =77 is not a special law# $he penalty
for its violation is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties prescribed in the
-evised )enal Code, thus indicating that the intent of the lawmaker was to amend the
-evised )enal Code with respect to the offense of theft of large cattle# 3n fact, SE of the
law provides8
$he provisions of (rticles 7E! and 7E of (ct 2o# 7H=, otherwise known as the
-evised )enal Code, as amended, pertinent provisions of the -evised
(dministrative Code, as amended, all laws, decrees, orders, instructions, rules and
regulations which are inconsistent with this /ecree are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly#
$here being one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance in the
commission of the crime, the penalty to be imposed in this case should be fi.ed in its
minimum period# (pplying the 3ndeterminate Sentence Gaw, in relation to (rt# "4 of the
-evised )enal Code, petitioner should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty, the
minimum of which is within the range of the penalty ne.t lower in degree, i. e.!prision
correccional ma.imum to prision mayor medium, and the ma.imum of which is prision
mayor in its ma.imum period#
Catrina $arcia
200,-0'21
22 | P a g e
Art. '-: Aggravating Circmstances
Classes of Aggravating Circmstances
!eo"le v. 5vina #-0( 0C%A '(2)
Facts:
@erardo @avina was serve sentence of -eclusion )ertpetua for
raping certain &s# &aritess Catcharo# 'ased on the given facts, @erardo
took advantage of the time when the victims mother was not around# ,e
would likely forced &aritess to have carnal knowledged against her will
and even poked a knife at her while doing the deed in the victims dwelling
and threthened the victim to kill her family should she tell her parents what
happened# %n 2ovember 7, !! when the appellant arrived at the
Catcharro residence he proceeded inside the bedroom of &aritess, the
latter ran out of the bedroom and told her mother not to leave her because
her )apa @erry might raped her again# Surprised by what he heard, the
following day &aritess was brought to $acloban City &edical Center for a
check*up and found to have lacerations to the victims genitalia# Contrary
to the facts above, appellant claimed that the night of the incident he was
working as porter until E )&, thus it cannot be said that he committed the
crime accused of him# 'ased on the information submitted, aggravating
circumstances of use of weapon and dwelling were not alleged#
*sse:
+hether or not aggravating circumstances proved during trial but
was not alleged in the information may be considered6
+ecision:
$he supreme court held in the negative# (lthough the special
aggravating circumstance of the use of a weapon and the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling were proven, these aggravating circumstances
cannot be considered in fi.ing the penalty because they were not alleged
in the information as mandated by -ule E, Sections H and ! of the
-evised -ules of Criminal )rocedure# (lthough the crimes charged were
committed before the effectivity of the said rule, nevertheless, the same
should be applied retroactively being favorable to the appellant#
Catrina $arcia
200,-0'21
1// | P a g e
!eo"le v. !alaganas #(0' 0C%A (33)
Facts:
%n Aanuary ", !!H brothers Servillano and &ichael Ferrer went to
$idbits Videoke bar singing and drinking beer# %n the same evening Aaime
)alaganas and Ferdinand )alaganas and Virgilio 'autista arrived# $he two
groups occupied separate tables# (fter the Ferrers singing Aaime )alaganas
started singing and was 5oined by $ony Ferrer who sang loudly and in mocking
manner# $his insulted Aaime and soon a fight ensued between Ferrers and
)alaganas# Ferdinand ran towards his house and sought help from his brother
Fui5eric, the latter went outside however he was stoned by the Ferrer brothers#
(s they were continuously stoned the appellant Ferdinand suddenly pulled the
trigger with the gun in his hands# $he trial court rendered a decision finding the
petitioner guilty of the crime of ,omicide and Frustrated homicide but not guilty of
violation of C%&?G?C -?S# ;!=H#
*sse:
+hether or not violation of C%&?G?C -?S# ;!=H may be considered as
Special aggravating circumstances which will negate consideration of mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender6
+ecision:
+ith the passage of -epublic (ct# 2o# H;!4 on " Aune !!D, the use of an
unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a S)?C3(G
aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance#
"H
-epublic (ct 2o# H;!4 applies to the instant case since it took effect before the
commission of the crimes in ; (pril !!H# $herefore, the use of an unlicensed
firearm by the petitioner in the instant case should be designated and
appreciated as a S)?C3(G aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic
aggravating circumstance#
Catrina $arcia
200,-0'21
1/1 | P a g e
!eo"le v. Mendo:a #321 0C%A ,3()
Facts:
?fren &endo4a was charged with the crime of murder for killing (nchito
2ano# 3n this case ?fren alleged that (nchito 2ano arrived at their house and
upon arrival it started to destroy the house and that the her wife was shouting for
help# ?fren immediately look for something to protect his family but found a bolo#
,e approached (nchito but the latter tried to hacked him but he was able to
hacked him first on the right side of his neck resulting to the death of the victim#
$hereafter &endo4a went to &unicipal ,all of Vin4on and voluntarily surrendered
to the police# ,e claimed that it was self defense# $he autopsy revealed that
location of the wounds found on the body of the victim came from the back of the
victims body# $he court ruled re5ecting appellants self defense# $his court finds
that the accused was not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, an
attempt to defend himself by means which appeared unreasonable by using a
long bolo is un5ustifiable# ,ence this appeal#
*sse:
+hether or not voluntary surrender was offset by the aggravating
circumstances of treachery6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court held in the negative# ( 1ualifying circumstance
changes the nature of the crime# ( generic aggravating circumstance, on the
other hand, does not affect the designation of the crime> it merely provides for the
imposition of the prescribed penalty in its ma.imum period# $hus, while a generic
aggravating circumstance may be offset by a mitigating circumstance, a
1ualifying circumstance may not#
7;
$reachery in the present case is a 1ualifying, not a generic aggravating
circumstance# 3ts presence served to characteri4e the killing as murder> it cannot
at the same time be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance to
warrant the imposition of the ma.imum penalty# $hus, it cannot offset voluntary
surrender#
Cristine $on:ales
2008-0'32
1/% | P a g e
*n Contem"t or 6ith *nslt to the !blic Athorities
!eo"le v. +e Mesa #@#-# 2o# 7DE7":
Facts:
'arangay Chairman )atricio &otas of Sta# Cru4 )utol, San )ablo City was
pronounced dead on arrival on %ctober =, !!" at San )ablo City /istrict
,ospital# $he autopsy report showed that the cause of death was shock and
hemorrhage due to gunshot wounds at the back of the victim#
,ernando /e &esa was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of murder by the -egional $rial Court of San )ablo City# ,e was sentenced
to suffer the penalty of -eclusion )erpetua, pay the costs and to indemnify the
heirs of the victim# $reachery, nighttime, in contempt of or with assault to public
authorities, were appreciated by the trial court as aggravating circumstances
attending the case thereby 1ualifying the crime committed to murder#
*sse:
+hether or not the trial court erred in determining the nature of the crime
committed and the corresponding penalty to be imposed6
+ecision:
Jes# $he prosecution failed to positively prove the presence of
any1ualifying aggravating circumstance whereby the crime committed is only
homicide for which the imposable penalty provided by the -evised )enal Code is
-eclusion $emporal#
'eing the case, 3ndeterminate Sentence Gaw may now be applied and
absent any aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the penalty that may be
imposed is prision mayor in its medium period as minimum to reclusion
temporal in its medium period as ma.imum#
Cristine $on:ales
2008-0'32
1/3 | P a g e
!eo"le v. Tac-an #$.%. &o. 1,338-33)
Facts:
-enato $ac*anand Francis ?scanowere close friends being classmates in
high school and members of the local 'ron. gang# Francis withdrew from the
gang on the advice of his mother who saw that -enato carried a handgun on his
visits to their home# $hings started turning sour between the two, and came to a
head on /ec 4, !H4# (fter an earlier altercation on that day, -enato went
home and got his gun# ,e entered the &athematics class under &r# /amaso
)asilbas in -m= and shouted for Francis# (fter locating the victim he fired at
him but missed# ,e was later able to hit him in the head as he was running to the
door with his classmates to escape# (fter this, -enato paced outside in the
hallway# ( teacher unknowing that -enato was the culprit, asked him for help
unwittingly informing him that Francis was still alive# -enato immediately re*
entered the room and saying <So, he is still alive# +here is his chest6< Standing
over Francis sprawled face down on the classroom floor, -enato aimed at the
chest of Francis and fired once more# $he bullet entered FrancisL back below the
right shoulder, and e.ited on his front chest 5ust above the right nipple#
$ac*an was charged with illegal possession of firearms under )#/# 2o#
H""# (n amended information for murder was subse1uently filed aggravated by
the use of illegal possession of firearms#
*sses:
+hether or not illegal possession of a firearm is a special aggravating
circumstance in crimes of homicide and murder6
+ecision:
2o#0nder an information charging homicide or murder, the use of an
unlicensed firearm is not an aggravating circumstance nor can it be used to
increase the penalty for the second offense of homicide or murder to death or
reclusion perpetua# $he character of the instrument used in taking or destroying
human e.istence is not one of those included in the enumeration of aggravating
circumstances under (rticle 4 of the -evised )enal Code#
1/( | P a g e
%n the other hand, under an information for unlawful possession of a
firearm or ammunition, )#/# H"" authori4es the increase of the imposable
penalty for unlawful possession if the unlicensed firearm was used to destroy
human e.istence# $hough it is not one of the enumerated aggravating
circumstances in (rticle 4 of the -evised )enal Code, it may still be considered
to increase the penalty imposed because of the e.plicit provision of the said
special law#
2ori::a $enabe
2008-0'(-
1/$ | P a g e
Abse of !blic !osition
Fortna v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '3(18-)
Facts:
%n Auly ;, !!;, siblings /iosdada &ontecillo and &ario &ontecillo were
standing at the corner of &abini and ,arrison Streets# ( mobile patrol car
stopped in front of them and a policeman alighted# $he policeman frisked &ario
and took &arios belt# ,e motioned &ario to enter the car# &ario obeyed and
was followed by /iosdada# +hile inside the car, the policemen told &ario that he
would be brought to the 'icutan police station where he would be interrogated,
mauled and heckled for carrying a deadly weapon# $hey told the &ontecillos that
the bailbond for carrying a deadly weapon was );,EEE# $he &ontecillos were
asked how much they had and then /iosdada was asked to alight from the car#
$he driver followed her, took ),=EE from her wallet and instructed her to tell the
others that she only had )7,=EE# 3nside the car, they were told to put all her
money on the bo.# $he &ontecillos were told to get off at ,arrison )la4a# From
there, they went home# $he 7 policemen, Fortuna, @arcia, and )ablo, were
charged with robbery and were found guilty of having conspired in committing the
crime with intimidation of persons#
*sse:
+hether or not abuse of public position should be taken as an aggravating
circumstance by the mere fact that the accused were police officers6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Courted held that the lower courts failed to appreciate the
aggravating circumstance of Babuse of public position#C
'eing police officers, it placed them in a position terrify the &ontecillos to
surrender their money as bail# 3t was on the account of their authority that
convinced the &ontecillos that they had committed a crime and that they would
be taken to the police station# ,ad they not been police officers, they would have
not convinced the &ontecillos into giving them their money#
2ori::a $enabe
2008-0'(-
1/6 | P a g e
!eo"le v. <illamor #$.%. &os. '-0-01-08)
Facts:
%n 2ovember ;=, !!=, brothers Aerry Vele4 and Aelord Vele4 were on
their way home on board a motorcycle# ( motorcycle was speeding behind them
and as they were about to cross the bridge, they heard gun shots firing behind
them# (s they turned around, Aerry identified )%7 -enato Villamor and Aessie
&aghilom riding the motorcycle behind them# Shots were fired at them and Aerry
sustained wounds on the abdomen and elbow while Aelord died on the spot# $he
trial proceeded against )%7 Villamor while &aghilom was still at large# /uring
trial, the $rial Court found the )%7 -enato Villamor guilty of having commited
&urder aggravated by the circumstance of taking advantage of his public
position#
*sse:
+hether or not the $rial Court properly applied the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of public position6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of Btaking
advantage of public positionC under paragraph of (rticle 4 of the -evised
)enal Code was improperly applied#
( public officer must use the influence that is vested in his office as a
means to reali4e the purpose of the crime to be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance# $he 1uestion B/id the accused abuse his office to commit the
crimeC must be asked in order to appreciate this circumstance as an aggravating
circumstance#
2o proof was shown that Villamor took advantage of his position of being
a policeman when he shot Aelord Vele4# 2either was his influence, prestige or
ascendancy used in killing Vele4# ?ven without occupying a public position, the
accused could have committed the crime#
2ori::a $enabe
2008-0'(-
1/0 | P a g e
!eo"le v. Maga4ac #$.%. &o. '2,0-3)
Facts:
%n February , !!4, Aimmy Gumague, $ino &agayac and &anuel
&agayac, were preparing for fishing along with other persons# $ino &agayac,
pushed Aimmy for no reason# +hen Aimmy asked why, $ino proceeded to hit
Aimmy at the back# ,ours later, $ino hit Aimmy at the stomach and &anuel
proceeded to hit $ino as well# $he fight, however, was intervened# $he ne.t day,
Aimmy and &anuel e.changed blows# $hey were, again, separated from each
other# %n February ;, &anuel, while carrying a long rifle, approached Aimmy#
(s the Aimmy was trying to leave, he was shot by &anuel right on his stomach#
Aimmy fell on the ground and was shot at the back several times# (fterwhich,
&anuel surrendered to the )C &obile Force# (n information for &urder with
the 1ualifying circumstance of treachery, evident premeditation and taking
advantage of public position as a member of the C(F@0# $he $rial Court found
him guilty of &urder aggravated by cruelty and taking advantage of public
position, appreciated by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender#
*sse:
+hether or not the circumstance of taking advantage of public position
should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance considering the facts of
the case6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court held that in the commission of the offense, there was
no aggravating circumstance, specifically Babuse of public positionC#
Considering the facts of the case, &anuel was a member of the C(F@0
and the weapon used to shoot Aimmy was a government issued &*4 rifle#
$hese, however, do not necessarily prove that &anuel took advantage of his
public position as a member of the C(F@0 when the crime of murder was
committed#
Cher4l &avarro
2001-002,
1/' | P a g e
&ighttimeD /ninhabited or 8bvios !lace or 9and
!eo"le v. <illaneva #$. %. &o. '3(330)
Facts:
For automatic review by the Supreme Court is the 5udgment of ; &ay
!!H, of the -egional $rial Court, 'ranch =, Cebu City, in Criminal Case 2o#
C'0*4"E;"*(, finding accused*appellant Camilo Villanueva 9hereafter Camilo:
guilty of the crime of rape committed on the victim, 2ia @abuya 9hereafter 2ia:,
and sentencing him to suffer the e.treme penalty of death and to pay 2ia moral
damages in the amount of )=E,EEE#
3n an amended 3nformation dated " Aanuary !!H, Camilo was charged
with rape as defined and penali4ed in -#(# 2o# H7=7# $he accusatory portion of
the indictment states8
$hat at midnight of 4 /ecember !!D, in Cebu City, )hilippines, and within
the 5urisdiction of this ,onorable Court, the accused, with deliberate intent, with
force and intimidation upon person, did then and there willfully, feloniously and
unlawfully have carnal knowledge with 2ia @abuya, a minor of only years of
age and step*daughter of the said accused, against the latters will# C%2$-(-J
$% G(+#
*sses:
+hether the private complainant 2ia @abuya was really raped by the
accused Camilo Villanueva on 4 /ecember !!D at around midnight6
+hether the testimony of the private complainant 2ia @abuya is not
tainted with material inconsistencies and grievous falsity6
+hether the testimony of the private complainant is enough to convict the
accused for a crime punishable by death6
+ecision:
$he issue of credibility raised in the three assigned errors should be
1/2 | P a g e
resolved against Camilo#
2ia clearly testified that Camilo raped her# She recounted the details of her
harrowing e.perience in a credible, convincing and straightforward manner#
$he prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty the fact of
penetration, although incomplete# 3n order that the crime of rape may be said to
be consummated, the successful penetration by the rapist of the females genital
organ is not indispensable# )enile invasion, it has often been held, necessarily
entails contact with the labia and even the briefest of contacts under
circumstances of force, intimidation or unconsciousness, even without laceration
of the hymen, is deemed to be rape in our 5urisprudence# 3t would, in fine, be
enough in a conviction for rape that there is an entrance of the male organ within
the labia of the pudendum of the female organ# 2either the penetration of the
penis beyond the lips of the vagina nor the rupture of the hymen is indispensable
to 5ustify conviction#
Conse1uently, the finding that 2ias hymen is intact does not disprove that
rape was committed# ?ven the fact that there was no reddening or hematoma in
the e.ternal genitalia does not render the occurrence of rape improbable# $he
doctrine is well settled that the absence of e.ternal in5uries does not negate
rape#?ven Camilos claim that the sperm found in the vagina of 23( was not his
because he has undergone vasectomy, is inconse1uential# $he absence of
spermato4oa is not an essential element of rape# $his is because in rape, the
important consideration is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the
female genitalia by the male organ#
%n the issue of inconsistencies and discrepancies, these things on minor
matters neither impair the essential integrity of the prosecutions evidence as a
whole nor reflect on the witness honesty# Such inconsistencies, which may be
caused by the natural fickleness of the memory, even tend to strengthen rather
than weaken the credibility of the witness because they erase any suspicion of
rehearsed testimony#
Camilo has moral ascendancy over 2ia, being the common*law spouse of
her mother and the man who acted as her father since she reached the age of
reason# 2ias tender age and Camilos custodial control and domination over her
had rendered her so meek and subservient to his needs and desires, thus,
11/ | P a g e
becoming an easy prey to Camilos lecherous advances# &oreover, Camilo
threatened her with a knife#
For rape to e.ist it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed
be so great or of such character as could not be resisted# 3t is only necessary that
the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the
accused had in mind# 3ntimidation must be viewed in the light of the victims
perception and 5udgment at the time of the rape and not by any hard and fast
rule# 3t is enough that it produces fear that if the victim does not yield to the
bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment
or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident# 3t
is this form of intimidation which e.plains why there are no traces of struggle
which would indicate that the victim fought off her attacker#
0nder the (nti*-ape Gaw of !!D, any physical overt act manifesting
resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or
where the offended party is so situated as to render herFhim incapable of giving
valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts
punished in the new (rticle ;""*( of the -evised )enal Code#
Cher4l &avarro
2001-002,
!eo"le v. Ancheta #$.%. &o. 10222)
111 | P a g e
Facts:
Auan (ncheta was charged in the -egional $rial Court of (parri, Cagayan,
with the crime of robbery with arson, committed in conspiracy with two other
persons who could not be tried with him because they were then at large# ,e
asks for a reversal of the decision convicting him of the crime of arson and
sentencing him to the ma.imum penalty of reclusion perpetua plus civil indemnity
in the sum of )4E,EEE#EE for the properties burned#
%n ;= (ugust !HE, at about oLclock in the evening, (ncheta and his
two companions awakened $eresa @orospe, forced their entry into her house,
demanded the amount of ),EEE#EE, and burned her house when the money was
not delivered# Gater, while the house was in flames, the (ncheta, brandishing a
bolo, prevented the people from approaching and putting out the fire by warning
them that he had thirty companions#
*sses:
+hether or not there was conspiracy between and among the accused6
+hether or not the penalty imposed on (ncheta was proper6
+ecision:
%n whether or not there was conspiracy between and among the accused#
$he Supreme Court agreed that there was a conspiracy among the accused*
appellant and his two companions when they forcibly entered the house of
$eresa @orospe and burned it after their demand for ),EEE#EE#
( conspiracy e.ists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, whether they act
through the physical volition of one or all, proceeding severally or collectively# 3t is
settled that conspiracies need not be established by direct evidence of acts
charged, but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts,
conditions, and circumstances which vary according to the purpose to be
accomplished# $he very e.istence of a conspiracy is generally a matter of
inference deduced from certain acts of the persons accused, done in pursuance
of an apparent criminal or unlawful purpose in common between them#
11% | P a g e
$he conspiracy having been established, it should follow that the accused*
appellant is as guilty as his companions of the crime of arson, even if it be
conceded that he was not the one who actually poured the kerosene and ignited
it to burn $eresa @orospeLs house# +hen there is a conspiracy, the act of one is
the act of all and visits e1ual guilt upon every conspirator#
%n whether or not the penalty imposed on (ncheta was proper# 0nder
(rticle 7; of the -evised )enal Code, the penalty of reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed <if the offender shall set fire to any building,
farmhouse, warehouse, hut, shelter, or vessel in port, knowing it to be occupied
at the time by one or more persons# #### <
$he aggravating circumstance of nighttime was correctly appreciated
because it was sought by the defendants to facilitate the commission of the
offense and their subse1uent escape# ?vident premeditation should also have
been applied because the offenders had deliberately plotted the crime, as early
as ! oLclock of the night in 1uestion, or two hours before they actually burned the
house#
+ith these aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances to
offset them, the proper penalty as imposed by the trial court is reclusion
perpetua# $he civil indemnity of )4E,EEE#EE is allowed, but the costs of the suit
shall be ad5udged in toto against the accused*appellant and not to be shared, as
ordered by the trial court#
Cher4l &avarro
2001-002,
!eo"le v. 9aro4 #$.%. &os. '31(20-22)
113 | P a g e
Facts:
$he Supreme Court, in its /ecision promulgated on ! &ay ;EE;, affirmed
the conviction of both appellants for three counts of rape with the use of a deadly
weapon# $he penalty imposed upon them by the trial court was, however,
reduced from death to reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, because
aggravating circumstances had neither been alleged in the 3nformation nor
sufficiently proven during the trial#
(ppellant (lfredo 'aroy has since then filed a &otion for a partial
reconsideration of the Courts /ecision# ,e claims that he is entitled to the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and, hence, to a penalty two
degrees lower than reclusion perpetua# ,e presented various pieces of
conflicting documentary and testimonial evidence during the trial# ,e now prays
for the consideration and giving weight to his 'irth Certificate as the best
evidence of his age# ,is 'irth Certificate shows that he was born on ! Aanuary
!H4, while the crimes in 1uestion were committed on &arch ;, !!H#
*sse:
+hether or not 'aroyLs Certificate of Give 'irth sufficiently proves his
minority when he committed the crimes6
+ecision:
$he &otion has merit#
'aroys 'irth Certificate ** the authenticity of which was confirmed by the
2S% ** outweighs the other evidence submitted to prove his date of birth# B( birth
certificate is the best evidence of a persons date of birth#C
$he earlier evidence submitted by appellant during the trial did not
conclusively prove his age# ,owever, since the %S@ did not ob5ect to the belated
appreciation of (nne. B(C and left the matter to the sound discretion of this Court,
we resolve to rule in favor of the accused#
3f the accused alleges minority and the prosecution does not disprove his
claim by contrary evidence, such allegation can be accepted as a fact#C
11( | P a g e
'ased on his 'irth Certificate, it is clear that 'aroy was only fourteen 94:
years old when he committed the crime of rape# ,ence, a reconsideration of the
Courts ! &ay ;EE; /ecision is proper#
(rticle "H of the -evised )enal Code provides that Bwhen the offender is a
minor . . . under fifteen years . . . a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but
always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime
which he committed#C $he penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed by
'aroy is reclusion perpetua to death# $he penalty two degrees lower is prision
mayor#(dditionally, 'aroy is entitled to the benefits granted by the 3ndeterminate
Sentence Gaw#
Christine !ere:
200,-0'0-
11$ | P a g e
%ecidivism
!eo"le v. +acillo #$.%. &o. '-33,8)
Facts:
(ppellant /acillo together with Aoselito )acot were indicted for murder in
an information and that the commission of the foregoing offense was attended by
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength#
$he case against appellants co*accused, Aoselito )acot, was provisionally
dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to identify him with certainty#(ppellant
was arraigned on February ;, ;EE and, assisted by counsel, pleaded not
guilty# )re*trial was conducted on &arch , ;EE and trial ensued thereafter#
+hen the body was discovered in the evening of February , ;EEE,
appellant immediately left for Cebu City, arriving there the ne.t day, February ;,
;EEE# ,e stayed in Cebu City until his arrest the following year#
%n &ay 7, ;EE, the trial court rendered 5udgment finding appellant guilty
of murder and imposed upon him the supreme penalty of death# $he Court finds
the accused Francisco /acillo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
murder for the death of -osemarie $allada, as defined and penali4ed under (rt#
;4H of the -evised )enal Code, as amended# Considering the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism with no mitigating circumstance to offset the same, he
is hereby sentenced to the e.treme penalty of death#
*sse:
+hether or not it is necessary, in recidivism as an aggravating
circumstance, to be alleged in the information6
+ecision:
$he Court, however, finds that the trial court erred in imposing the death
penalty on the ground that appellant admitted during re*cross e.amination that
he had a prior conviction for the death of his former live*in partner# $he fact that
appellant was a recidivist was appreciated by the trial court as a generic
116 | P a g e
aggravating circumstance which increased the imposable penalty from reclusion
perpetua to death#
3n order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it is
necessary to allege it in the information and to attach certified true copies of the
sentences previously meted out to the accused#$his is in accord with -ule E,
Section H of the -evised -ules of Criminal )rocedure which states8
S?C# H# /esignation of the offense# * $he 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 1ualifying and
aggravating circumstances# 3f there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute
punishing it#
$he aggravating circumstance of recidivism was not alleged in the
information and therefore cannot be appreciated against appellant# ,ence the
imposable penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua#
9ernadette %emalla
2001-0332
110 | P a g e
%eiteracion
!eo"le v. CaAara #$.%. &o. '22-38)
Facts:
%n H &ay !!4 "*year old &arita Ca5ote, a resident of &anila, arrived in
'asey, Samar, and stayed with her sister &arie# $he following day, &arita was
fetched by another sister, &erly $agana also known as /eling, and by the latters
common law husband, accused ?lmedio Ca5ara also known as )lming# 0pon
being told by /eling that they would be going to Sulod to get copra, &arita went
with /eling and )lming to the couples house in Sitio Catuhaan in 'arangay
Serum# Since then until 7E &ay !!4 &arita stayed with /eling and )lming
together with their two 9;: small children in a house consisting of only one room
without any partition#
3n the evening of 7E &ay !!4 complaining witness &arita Ca5ote slept at
one end of the room with the two 9;: children, with /eling and )lming at the other
end# (t about two oclock the following morning &arita was awakened by the
weight of accused who was already on top of her# $he accused who was holding
a bolo told her to keep 1uiet or he would kill her# ,e then placed his bolo aside
and held &aritas hands with his right hand# +ith his left hand accused lowered
&aritas pants as well as her panty down to her knees# &arita shouted for help
but her sister /eling 5ust wrapped her head with their mos1uito net and
pretended to be asleep# &arita struggled continuously against the advances of
the accused but he was much stronger, while she was getting weak# $he
accused first inserted his fingers into &aritas private part and later succeeded in
inserting his penis into her vagina# /eling then pulled )lming away from &arita
and hit )lming in the eye# )lming bo.ed /eling on the mouth and kicked her
when she fell on the floor# )lming went back to &arita and continued with his
beastly acts# 'y this time, &arita was already too weak to resist# )lming inserted
his fingers first and then his penis into her private organ# $he older of the two 9;:
children of /eling cried# /eling who was holding her youngest child helplessly
watched the accused rape her younger sister#
$he trial court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to death# $he
%ffice of the Solicitor @eneral, in its brief, belittles the accused for failing to show
any compelling or 5ustifiable reason to set aside his conviction for rape and his
11' | P a g e
penalty of death, citing (rt# 77= of -he .e#ised Penal Code, as amended by -(
D"=!#
*sse:
+hether or not the accused is guilty of Kualified -ape#
+ecision:
$he Solicitor @eneral is correct in finding the accused guilty of rape# $he
bare denial of the accused and his common*law wife cannot overcome the
categorical testimony of the victim# /enial when unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence is negative and self*serving evidence which deserves no
greater evidentiary value than the testimony of a credible witness on affirmative
matters# 2o woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of
defloration, allow an e.amination of her private parts and thereafter pervert
herself by being sub5ected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the
desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished# $he Court likewise agrees
with the finding of the trial court that &aritas positive identification of the accused
as the person who raped her was given in a categorical, straightforward and
spontaneous manner which rendered it worthy of faith and belief#
Contrary to the ruling of the trial court and the stand of the Solicitor
@eneral, the accused can only be convicted of simple rape punishable by
reclusion perpetua# 3t was error for the trial court to impose the penalty of death#
(lthough the circumstance of relationship by affinity within the third civil degree
was alleged in the 3nformation, evidence for the prosecution clearly showed the
lack or absence of such circumstance to 1ualify the rape because the accused
and &erly $agana, sister of the victim &arita Ca5ote, were mere common*law
husband and wife and were not legally married at the time of the rape# $he
accused and the victim cannot be said to be related by affinity within the third civil
degree at the time of the commission of the crime#2either can the accused be
convicted of 1ualified rape on the basis of the circumstance that the rape was
committed in full view of the relatives of the victim within the third degree of
consanguinity because this 1ualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the
3nformation or in the Complaint against the accused#
112 | P a g e
$he records show that the crime was aggravated by reiteracion under (rt#
4, par# E, of -he .e#ised Penal Code, the accused having been convicted of
frustrated murder in !D= and of homicide, frustrated homicide, trespass to
dwelling, illegal possession of firearms and murder sometime in !H! where his
sentences were later commuted to imprisonment for ;7 years and a fine of
);EE,EEE#EE# ,e was granted conditional pardon by the )resident of the
)hilippines on H 2ovember !!#.eiteracion or habituality under (rt# 4, par# E,
herein cited, is present when the accused has been previously punished for an
offense to which the law attaches an e1ual 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# (s already discussed, herein accused can be convicted only of
simple rape and the imposable penalty therefor is reclusion perpetua# +here the
law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of the
mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to the crime, such as in the
instant case#
$he /ecision of the trial court convicting the accused ?G&?/3% C(A(-(
alias )lming of Kualified -ape is &%/3F3?/ to the effect that he is convicted
instead only of Simple -ape and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua#
Michelle %ica:a
2008-00-0
1%/ | P a g e
94 Means of *nndationD fireD etc.
!eo"le v. Malngan #$.%. &o. '10-10)
Facts:
%n Aanuary ;, ;EE, ?dna, one hired as a housemaid by -oberto Separa
Sr# was accused of setting fire the house of his employer resulted in the
destruction of his employers house and the death of si. persons including his
employer -oberto Separa Sr#, some seven ad5oining residential houses, were
also ra4ed by fire#
She was apprehended by the 'arangay Chairman and was brought to the
'arangay ,all# She was then identified by a neighbor, whose house was also
burned, as the housemaid of the Separas and upon inspection, a disposable
lighter was found inside accused*appellants bag# $hereafter, accused*appellant
confessed to the 'arangay Chairman#
%n Aanuary !, ;EE, an information was filed before the -$C of &anila,
charging the accused*appellant with the crime of (rson with multiple homicide#
$he -$C as well as the Court of (ppeals finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of (rson with multiple homicide#
*sse:
+hether or not ?dna &alngan was guilty of the crime of destructive arson
or simple arson6
+ecision:
$he crime committed by the accused*appellant is Simple (rson and not
(rson with &ultiple ,omicide# $he Supreme Court ruled that there is no comple.
crime of (rson with &ultiple ,omicide# $here are two laws that govern the crime
of arson where death results therefrom N (rticle 7;E of the -evised )enal Code
and Section = of )residential /ecree "7, 1uoted hereunder, to wit8
-evised )enal Code
(rt# 7;E# /estructive (rson N .... 3f as a
conse1uence of the commission of any of the acts penali4ed
1%1 | P a g e
under this (rticle, death results, the mandatory penalty of
death shall be imposed#
)residential /ecree 2o# "7
Sec# =# +here /eath -esults from (rson N if by
reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed#
'oth laws provide only one penalty for the commission of arson, whether
considered destructive or otherwise, where death results therefrom# $he reason
is that arson is itself the end and death is simply the conse1uence#
$he case falls under simple arson since from a reading of the body of the
information it can be seen that it states that Bthe accused, with intent to cause
damage! xxx deli"erately set fire upon the two3storey residential house! xxx that
"y reason and on the occasion of the said fire! xxx which were the direct cause
of their death xxx.1 3t is clear that her intent was merely to destroy her employers
house through the use of fire#
+hen fire is used with the intent to kill a particular person who may be in a
house and that ob5ective is attained by burning the house, the crime is murder
only# +hen the )enal Code declares that killing committed by means of fire is
murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a means to that end#
$here can be no murder without a design to take life# 3n other words, if the main
ob5ect of the offender is to kill by means of fire, the offense is murder# 'ut if the
main ob5ective is the burning of the building, the resulting homicide may be
absorbed by the crime of arson# $he latter being the applicable one in this case#
Michelle %ica:a
2008-00-0
1%% | P a g e
!eo"le v. Comadre #$.%. &o. '(3((3)
Facts:
(t around D8EE oclock in the evening of (ugust ", !!=, -obert (gbanlog,
Aimmy +abe, @erry 'ullanday, -ey Camat and Goren4o ?ugenio were having a
drinking spree on the terrace of the house of -oberts father, Aaime (gbanlog#
Aaime was seated on the banister of the terrace listening to the conversation of
the companions of his son#
(s the drinking session went on, -obert and the others noticed appellants
(ntonio Comadre, @eorge Comadre and /anilo Go4ano walking# $he three
stopped in front of the house# +hile his companions looked on, (ntonio suddenly
lobbed an ob5ect which fell on the roof of the terrace# (ppellants immediately fled
by scaling the fence of a nearby school#
$he ob5ect, which turned out to be a hand grenade, e.ploded ripping a
hole in the roof of the house# -obber (gbanlog and his companions were hit by
shrapnel and slumped unconscious on the floor# $hey were all rushed to the
hospital for medical treatment# ,owever, -obert (gbanlog died before reaching
the hospital for wounds sustained which the grenade e.plosion inflicted# -oberts
companions sustained shrapnel in5uries#
$he appellants were arrested the following day but denied any
participation in the incident, claimed they were elsewhere when the incident
occurred and that they had no animosity towards the victims whatsoever#
(fter trial, the court a 1uo convicted appellants of the comple. crime of
&urder with &ultiple (ttempted &urder for having conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and by means of treachery and
with the use of an e.plosive#
*sse:
+hether or not the use of e.plosive 1ualifies the crime to murder6
+hether or not appellants conspired to kill the victims6
1%3 | P a g e
+ecision:
Jes, the killing by means of e.plosives 1ualifies the crime to murder# $he
information alleges that both treachery and the Buse of e.plosive attended the
crime#
Since both circumstances can 1ualify the killing to murder under (rticle ;4H
of the -evised )enal Code, the Supreme Court held that when the killing is
perpetrated with treachery and by means of e.plosives, the latter shall be
considered as a 1ualifying circumstance# 2ot only does 5urisprudencesupport
this view but also, since the use of e.plosives is the principal mode of attack,
reason dictates that this attendant circumstance should 1ualify the offense
instead of treachery which will then be relegated merely as a generic aggravating
circumstance#
2o, there was no conspiracy# $he undisputed facts show that when (ntonio
Comadre was in the act of throwing the hand grenade, @eorge Comadre and
/anilo Go4ano merely looked on without uttering a single word of encouragement
or performed any act to assist him#
( conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence# 3t
must be shown to e.ist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the
crime itself# &ere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make
him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship#
$he evidence shows that @eorge Comadre and /anilo Go4ano did not have
any participation in the commission of the crime and must therefore be set free#
$heir mere presence at the scene of the crime as well as their close relationship
with (ntonio are insufficient to establish conspiracy considering that they
performed no positive act in furtherance of the crime# $here being no conspiracy,
only (ntonio Comadre must answer for the crime#
Anna Ma4 <alleAos
2001-0'-0
1%( | P a g e
CraftD Frad or +isgise
!eo"le v. 2abgen #$.%. &o. '218-3)
Facts:
$he deceased 'onifacio (ngeles was engaged in buying cows and selling
them to the public market# %ne day, the accused Vivencio Gabuguen went to him
and told him that he knows of three big cows for sale and that the place where
they are is near# 'elieving on such declaration, he took money from his cabinet
at his house amounting to )4E,EEE and then drove in his motorcycle with the
accused to see the cows# %n their way to see the cows, they have been seen
together by several witnesses who later on identified them in court as the victim
and the accused respectively# $he accused according to the witness was
wearing a 5acket and with a handkerchief tied on his forehead# %ne of the
witnesses, a driver of a minibus testified that while driving on his way to his
destination, he saw a man behind the Rtalahibs and he noticed that he was
wiping something from his head and right face# 3t was the same man whom his
conductor identified as the one who stopped their bus and rode on it# ,is
conductor testified further that he noticed that the mans 5acket was soaked with
blood including his pants and that he did not talk when asked where he was
headed to and instead 5ust gave his fare# $he conductor even noticed that there
was a lot of money on the breast side pocket of his 5acket and that one bill was
even falling# $he man then alighted from the minibus after reaching his
destination without saying any word# Gater that afternoon, a news broke out that
a mans body was found dead in the middle of the ricefield# ,e was later on
identified as 'onifacio (ngeles# 'ased on the strength of the testimony of the
witnesses, complaint and information were filed against Vivencio and the
-egional $rial Court found him guilty of the crime of -obbery with ,omicide and
sentenced with the penalty of death# $he case was brought to the Supreme Court
for automatic review#
*sse:
1%$ | P a g e
+hether or not the court has correctly appreciated the employment of
generic aggravating circumstance of fraud and craft in the commission of the
crime even if not alleged in the information6
+ecision:
$hough not alleged in the 3nformation, the generic aggravating
circumstances of fraud and craft were properly appreciated by the trial court#
Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the offender# +hen
there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present#
'y saying that he would accompany the victim to see the cows which the latter
intended to buy, appellant was able to lure the victim to go with him#
0nder (rticle ;!4 of the -evised )enal Code, the penalty for -obbery with
,omicide is reclusion perpetua to death (pplying (rticle "7 of the same Code,
the imposable penalty under the premises is death in view of the presence of the
aggravating circumstances of craft and fraud and the absence of any mitigating
circumstance#
Four members of the Court are steadfast in their adherence to the
separate opinion e.pressed in )eople vs# ?chegaray that -epublic (ct 2o# D"=!
is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty# ,owever, they bow
to the ma5ority opinion that the aforesaid law is constitutional and therefore, the
penalty prescribe thereunder has to be imposed#
0her4ll Tablico
2008-03-'
1%6 | P a g e
Abse of 0"erior 0trength
!eo"le v. Amodio #$.%. &o. '113(,)
Facts:
%n Aune E, ;EE7 at about 78EE a#m#, -ichard (vila -oda, an (ssistant
&anager of 2ognog Videoke -estaurant in Kue4on City, went out of the
restaurant to invite customers# ,e noticed that three of the attackers, whom he
later identified as accused*appellants (modia, &arino, and Go*oc, were regular
customers of their restaurant# ,e saw Go*oc hold the shoulders of the victim
while &arino and (modia took turns in beating the victim#(s a result of the
beating, the victim fell on the ground where -oda immediately approached the
victim and saw blood oo4ing out of the back of his head# %ne of the maulers was
about to deliver another blow on the victim but -oda was able to stop him,
thereafter the appellants then went inside the restaurant and drank one bottle of
beer each#'ut, -oda did not immediately report the incident because he was
threatened by accused*appellants who were still hanging around the area#
Gater, in the early morning of the same day, there were already
some barangay tanods and police officers investigating the incident#$he victim,
later identified as Aaime 'artina, was then brought to the Kue4on City @eneral
,ospital and died at around = oLclock in the afternoon of Aune E, ;EE7#
0pon the advice of a person from the Ga Goma )olice Station, -oda went
to Camp Maringal in Kue4on City to report what he had witnessed#$he police
then filed an investigation report which became the basis for the filing of an
3nformation against accused*appellants#
,owever, accused*appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge against
them by denying involvement in the death of the victim and averred alibi as their
defense#
$he -egional $rial Court rendered a decision finding accused*appellants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder#
$he case was appealed to the Court of (ppeals which in its decision
affirmed the trial courts decision#
*sse:
1%0 | P a g e
+hether or not the killing was 1ualified by the circumstance of abuse of
superior strength6
+ecision:
2o#$he 1ualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength had not
been sufficiently proved# $o appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse of
superior strength, what should be considered is whether the aggressors took
advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense# &ere
superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength# $here must
be clear proof that the assailants purposely used e.cessive force out of
proportion to the defense available to the person attacked#
3n this case, although the victim was un1uestionably outnumbered, it was
not shown that accused*appellants deliberately applied their combined strength
to weaken the defense of the victim and guarantee the e.ecution of the crime#
2otably, accused*appellants took turns in bo.ing the victim# +hen the victim fell,
the prosecution witness was able to hold him, preventing accused*appellants
from further hurting him# $hen accused*appellants simply turned away# $o be
sure, had accused*appellants really intended to use their superior strength to kill
the victim, they would have finished off the victim, and probably even the lone
prosecution eyewitness#
0her4ll Tablico
2008-03-'
!eo"le v. Jamon #-'3 0C%A 282)
1%' | P a g e
Facts:
3nformation was filed dated September =, !!H against appellant
charging him with murder for shooting Victoria $acla at her left chest with the use
of a gun, thereby inflicting upon said victim serious and mortal wounds which
were the direct and immediate cause of her untimely death#
0pon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty# $hereafter, trial on the
merits ensued#
$he prosecution presented as eyewitness )ilar ?vangelista $acla, the
appellants wife and the victims own mother as well as /r# +ilfredo ?# $ierra,
&edico Gegal %fficer of the 2ational 'ureau of 3nvestigation 92'3:, also testified#
%n the witness stand, )ilar said that on Auly !, !!H, at around ! oclock
in the morning, she had a heated altercation with appellant#(ppellant warned
)ilar that once they moved out, she could never set foot in her daughters house
again and he added in a threatening manner, with his eyes bulging that if )ilar
came back to Victorias house, he would beat her up
#
,owever, when appellant presented, he declared that the shooting was
unintentional#
$he court disbelieved appellants claim of accidental shooting whereby
convicting the appellant based on the evidence of the parties#Furthermore, the
court concluded that abuse of superior strength attended the commission of the
crime#
#
*sse:
+hether or notthe killing was attended by abuse of superior strength to
1ualify the crime as murder6
+ecision:
Jes#$he prosecution sufficiently proved the 1ualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength# (buse of superiority is present whenever there is
1%2 | P a g e
ine1uality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation
of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and
selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime#
3n the present case, the victim was a woman with a smaller build# She was
unarmed# (ppellant was a fifty*one*year*old male, in the prime of his life, and
armed with a deadly weapon# $he killing indubitably constitutes an instance of
abuse of superior strength, hence the offense is 1ualified to murder, and not
merely homicide#$hus, the 1ualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength,
as alleged in the information, attended the fatal shooting of Victoria $acla#
0her4ll Tablico
2008-03-'
!eo"le v. Cal"ito #-', 0C%A -3')
13/ | P a g e
Facts:
$hat on or about the ;
st
day of 2ovember, !!E, appellant Francisco
Calpito armed with a deadly weapon, with intent to gain did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of violence and intimidation on the
person of Florentina Villas rob, take and carry away a shoulder bag containing
cash in the amount of )=,EEE and 5ewelries amounting to )7E,EEE belonging
to Florentina Villas#
$he appellant attack and stab with the said weapon Florentina Villas and
3srael Montilla inflicting wounds on Florentina Villas which caused her death
and a wound on 3srael Montilla which necessitated medical attendance on him
for a period of =*D days and which incapacitated him from performing his usual
work for the same length of time#
,owever, appellant entered a plea of not guilty and waived pre*trial# 'ut
on Aune =, !!7, appellant was re*arraigned and after being appraised of the
conse1uences of the nature of his offense, he changed his plea to one of guilty#
$he court a 1uofinding the charge of -obbery with ,omicide
unsubstantiated by evidence, convicted appellant of the crime of murder#
(ppellant, thereafter, filed a &otion for -econsideration arguing that the
trial court erred in convicting him of &urder instead of ,omicide and in failing to
apply the mitigating circumstance of minority#
$he court denied the motion and affirmed appellants conviction for
murder#
*sse:
+hether or not the abuse of superior strength 1ualified the killing to
murder6
+ecision:
Jes#( perusal of the facts of the case readily reveals that abuse of
superior strength attended the crime# 3n several cases, this Court has ruled that
this circumstance depends on the age, si4e and strength of the parties# 3t is
131 | P a g e
considered whenever there is a notorious ine1uality of forces between the victim
and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous
for the aggressor which the latter selected or took advantage of in the
commission of the crime# 3n a recent case, it was held that an attack made by a
man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman
constitutes an abuse of the aggressors superior strength# $he circumstance
must apply with more reason in the present case, where the abuse of superior
strength is evident from the notorious disparity between the relative strength of
the victim, a D4*year*old unarmed woman, and the assailant, a young man armed
with a knife#
5ileen 0. Tan
2001-0021
Treacher4
!eo"le v. !iedad #333 0C%A -88)
13% | P a g e
Facts:
%n the night of (pril E, !!", victim &ateo Gactawan, and his friend
(ndrew were drinking beer when he got involved in a fist fight with other people
drinking alcohol in the nearby store# $hat was when Gu4, &ateos wife arrived in
the scene of the crime and saw that a group of men were attacking his husband#
(mong the other aggressors who continuedly bo.ed &ateo whos already lying
on the ground, Gu4 saw 2iel struck &ateo on the head with a stone, and Gito
stabbed &ateo on the back, thereby inflicting traumatic head in5uries and a stab
wound which eventually led to &ateos death# 2iel )iedad claims that the attack
on the victim was made upon an impulse of the moment and was not the product
of deliberate intent> while Gito @arcia contends that treachery cannot be
appreciated inasmuch as the attack was preceded by a 1uarrel and heated
discussion#
*sse:
+hether or not treachery must be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance6
@eld:
Jes# $here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the e.ecution thereof
which tend directly and especially to ensure its e.ecution, without risk to himself
arising from any defense which the offended party might make# For treachery to
be appreciated, the prosecution must prove8 a: that at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to defend himself, and b: that the offender
consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by
him#
$he essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, affording the
hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape#
+hile it is true that the victim herein may have been warned of a possible danger
to his person, since the victim and his companion headed towards their
residence when they saw the group of accused*appellants coming back for them
after an earlier 1uarrel 5ust minutes before, in treachery, what is decisive is that
133 | P a g e
the attack was e.ecuted in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim
to retaliate#
3n the case at bar, &ateo did not have any chance of defending himself
from the concerted assault of his aggressors, even if he was forewarned of the
attack# &ateo was obviously overpowered and helpless when accused*
appellants group numbering around eight, ganged up and mauled him# &ore
importantly, &ateo could not have actually anticipated the sudden landing of a
large concrete stone on his head# $he stone was thus treacherously struck#
2either could the victim have been aware that Gito came up beside him to stab
his back as persons were beating him from every direction# Gitos act of stabbing
the victim with a knife, inflicting a =*centimeter*deep wound shows deliberate
intent of using a particular means of attack# Considering the location of the
in5uries sustained by the victim and the absence of defense wounds, &ateo
clearly had no chance to defend himself# 3n view of the foregoing, treachery was
correctly appreciated by the trial court#
5ileen 0. Tan
2001-0021
!eo"le v. !iliin #('( 0C%A 201)
Facts:
13( | P a g e
%n ! 2ovember !!D, -odrigo arrived at the gate of his house aboard on
an owner*type 5eep he was driving# ,is wife, 2orma Iayenis 92orma:, who was
inside the house at the time, went out to open the gate# +hen -odrigo was about
to park his 5eep, a man, later identified as )iliin, suddenly approached him, poked
his gun, and fired at him, hitting the left side of his neck# -odrigo fell unconscious
and the man 1uickly ran away# 'y reason of the gunshot wound, the victim
thereafter died# )iliin confesses killing -odrigo and implicated Ju and Caballes
as his co*perpetrators# ,owever, (fter trial, appellant was found guilty for
murder# $he two other accused, Ju and Caballes were ac1uitted for insufficiency
of evidence#
/uring the stage of appeal, )iliin argues that the prosecution failed to
establish the e.istence of treachery# (ccording to him, the witness failed to see
the inception of the attack because she was in the act of opening the gate for her
husband when the latter was shot# She lacked knowledge of the attending
circumstances prior to the shooting incident# ,ence, the trial courts finding of
treachery becomes speculative#
*sse:
+hether or not treachery must be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance6
+ecision:
Jes# $here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods or forms in their e.ecution, without
risk to himself arising from the defenses which the offended party might make# $o
establish treachery, two elements must concur8 9: that at the time of the attack,
the victim was not in a position to defend himself, and 9;: that the offender
consciously adopted the particular means of attack employed# $he essence of
treachery is the une.pected and sudden attack on the victim which renders the
latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and
severity of the attack# (ppellants wife witnessed the incident from its inception
up to its consummation#
3n this case, the victim was about to park his car when appellant suddenly
appeared and shot him without any warning# $he attack was so sudden that the
13$ | P a g e
latter had no opportunity to repel it or defend himself# 3t can readily be inferred
that the manner of the attack adopted by appellant manifested treachery#
Furthermore, as correctly observed by the Solicitor @eneral, the weapon used
and the nature of the in5ury inflicted, which pertained to the lone gunshot fatally
wounding appellant, established that appellant deliberately and consciously
adopted the particular mode of attack to ensure the commission of the offense
with impunity#
5ileen 0. Tan
2001-0021
!eo"le v. *lo #332 0C%A 32,)
Facts:
136 | P a g e
(madeo, a witness declared that on the night of Auly ;7, !!D he and the
accused had a drinking spree in the latters house# &oments later, appellant and
his live*in partner Virginia had a heated argument# (ccused 3lo kicked her several
times#3lo rushed to the kitchen, got hold of an old frying pan and struck Virginia
with it# She fell on the floor# (madeo tried to placate his friend but was rebuffed
anew# 3lo got hold of a stone used as tripod in cooking and smashed Virginias
head with it# Conse1uently Virginia died# $hereafter the trial court rendered a
decision finding the 3lo guilty of &urder# %n appealD (ppellant argues that the
in5uries inflicted by him on the victim were spur*of* the* moment refle.es during a
passionate lovers 1uarrel, spawned by 5ealousy# ,e avers that the prosecution
failed to prove that the killing of Virginia by the 3lo was the product of a
preconceived plan# ,e further contends that his actuations were triggered by the
provocation emanating from the victim herself# ,ence, appellant contends that he
is guilty only of homicide and not of murder#
*sse:
+hether or not the trial court erred in finding that treachery attended the
killing of the victim 6
+ecision:
2%#$reachery is not presumed# $he circumstances surrounding the
murder must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself# $o constitute treachery,
two conditions must be present, namely8 9: the employment of means of
e.ecution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend or to retaliate>
and 9;: the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of e.ecution# $he
Court held that treachery cannot be appreciated if the assailant did not make any
preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the killing or to make it
impossible or difficult for the victim to defend herself# $he prosecution must prove
that the killing was premeditated or that the assailant chose a method or mode of
attack directly and especially to facilitate and insure the killing without danger to
himself# $he essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without
warning done in a swift and une.pected manner of e.ecution affording the
hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape# $here
is no treachery where the attack is neither sudden nor preconceived and
deliberately adopted but 5ust triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the
offender# $o establish treachery, the evidence must show that the offender made
130 | P a g e
some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the e.ecution of
the crime or to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend
himself# $he mode of attack must be planned by the offender and must not spring
from the une.pected turn of events# $here is no treachery when the killing
results from a verbal altercation between the victim and the assailant such that
the victim was forewarned of the impending danger#
$he prosecution failed to discharge its burden# $he prosecution failed to
adduce evidence as to the relative positions of appellant #is33#is the victim#
$aking into account the se1uential continuity and rapidity of the events resulting
in the death of Virginia, it cannot be gainsaid that appellant made preparations to
kill Virginia and adopted a mode of attack as to make it impossible or difficult for
her to defend herself#
Marie Joan Tsi
2001-021,
*gnomin4
!eo"le v. 0ala:ar #$.%. &os. '-81'2-'()
13' | P a g e
Facts:
%n /ecember ;H, !!!, at "8EE)&, two armed men suddenly entered
'arnachea residence in 'arangay Calumbaya, 'auang, Ga 0nion# $he two
ordered a ;*year old boy, Aessie ?# 'arnachea, to drop the floor by hitting him in
the back with the butt of a long gun# $hey hurriedly proceeded to the living room
and shot Aessies uncle, Victorino Golarga, and continued shooting in the kitchen
hitting his mother Carmelita 'arnachea, his brother Feli. 'arnachea, Ar#, and his
cousin -ubenson (bance#
,is eldest brother, -obert ?# 'arnachea, who then was in his uncles
house, noticed a stainless 5eep, with blue rim and marking <fruits and vegetables
dealer,< and with the description of the <?l Shaddai< parked in front of the fence
of their house# (lso, the 5eep did not go unnoticed by the neighbors, -ussel
$amba and Francisco (ndrada#
$he incident was immediately reported to the police and at around D84=
p#m#, the 5eep was intercepted at a checkpoint set up in the highway by the police
force in (ringay, Ga 0nion# %n board were the eight appellants# 2o firearms were
found in the vehicle# $he 5eep and the eight appellants were thereafter brought to
the (ringay police station and then turned over to the 'auang police# Aessie was
able to identify two of the eight appellants by the name of Cachola and (may as
the two assailants who entered the house# $he ne.t day a paraffin test was
conducted on the appellants#
$he /eath Certificates attest to the gruesome and merciless killings#
Carmelita sustained one gunshot wound on her head and three on her body>
Feli., Ar#, two gunshot wounds on his head and on his body, and stab wounds on
his chest and arms> Victorino, two gunshot wounds on his head, three on his
body, and with his penis e.cised>-ubenson, one gunshot wound on his head and
a stab wound that lacerated his liver#
-$C convicted all the eight appellants but the %ffice of the Solicitor
@eneral 9%S@: recommended the affirmance of the conviction for murder of
appellants Cachola and (may, and the ac1uittal of the other appellants for failure
of the prosecution to establish their identity and participation beyond reasonable
doubt#
132 | P a g e
*sse:
+hether or not e.cising of penis amounts to ignominy that can aggravate
the offense charged6
+ecision:
&8# For ignominy to be appreciated, it is re1uired that the offense be
committed in a manner that tends to make its effect more humiliating, thus
adding to the victims moral suffering# +here the victim was already dead when
his body or a part thereof was dismembered, ignominy cannot be taken against
the accused#
3n this case, the information states that Victorinos se.ual organ was
severed after he was shot and there is no allegation that it was done to add
ignominy to the natural effects of the act# +e cannot, therefore, consider
ignominy as an aggravating circumstance#
SC sustained the conviction of Cachola and (may but the rest of the si.
appellants were ac1uitted for the crime charged for insufficiency of evidence#
Marie Joan Tsi
2001-021,
!eo"le v. 9midang #$.%. &o. '30,30)
Facts:
%n September ;!, !!", at ;8EE(&, accused 'umidang loudly called
1(/ | P a g e
&elencio 3mbat 9father of the victim: to open the latters door# &elencio, an
octogenarian who was sleeping at that time, hurriedly opened the door as the
accused threatened to kill them if the door was not opened# $he accused entered
and asked the old man to bring him upstairs where he and his ="*year old
unmarried daughter @loria was sleeping# +hen they were in the room, the
accused got a spear at the side of &elencios bed and ordered the latter to lie in
a prone position as he headed the daughters bed# @loria arose and screamed
for help but his old father was in no strength to help her and remained in a prone
position as told by the accused#
$he accused approached @loria and poked the spear at her# She recogni4ed
him because he was lighting the room with a flashlight# $he accused ordered her
to stand up and removed her pa5ama, with the panty going along with it# +hile
the accused was removing her clothes, she sat and struggled# $he accused then
removed his short pants and became completely naked# ,e used the flashlight to
e.amine her genital# ,e placed the spear beside her and whenever she
attempted to move, he would point the spear at her# $he accused then went on
top of her, inserted his penis into her pudenda, held her breasts and kissed her
until he became sated# $he accused threatened the father and daughter that he
will kill them if they will report it to the authorities# $hen he went to the door and
left after satisfying his lust#
/espite the threats, @loria reported the incident to a 4agawad who handed a
note to be given to the authorities 9security:# $he accused was immediately
arrested#
%n %ctober , !!", @loria submitted herself to a vaginal e.amination of /r#
Kuines, confirming a laceration of the hymen at "8EE oLclock but no spermato4oa
were obtained# $he laceration was about 7 to = days old at the time of the
e.amination#
%n H %ctober !!", a complaint for rape was filed before the &C$C of
Villaverde*Kue4on, 2ueva Vi4caya, and found a prima facie case against
'umidang# $he records were forwarded to the %ffice of the )rovincial
)rosecutor#
+hen it reached -$C, it rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of
rape with the use of a deadly weapon under (rt# 77= of the -evised )enal Code
1(1 | P a g e
and was sentenced to death by lethal in5ection#
*sse:
+hether or not dwelling, nighttime and ignominy shall be appreciated as
aggravating circumstances of the crime of rape6
+ecision:
?50# $he trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling# $here was a clear violation of the sanctity of the victimLs place of abode
when @loria, who apparently did not give any provocation, was raped in her own
house# /welling is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of
the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode#
2ighttime is an aggravating circumstance when 9: it is especially sought by
the offender> 9;: it is taken advantage of by him> or 97: it facilitates the
commission of the crime by ensuring the offenderLs immunity from capture#
3n this case, other than the fact that the crime was committed at about ;8EE
oLclock in the morning, nothing on the record suggests that 'umidang
deliberately availed himself or took advantage of nighttime nor proved that
'umidang used the darkness to facilitate his evil design or to conceal his identity#
$he 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#
3n this case, it was established that 'umidang used the flashlight and
e.amined the genital of @loria before he ravished her# ,e committed his bestial
deed in the presence of @loriaLs old father# $hese facts clearly show that
'umidang deliberately wanted to further humiliate @loria, thereby aggravating
and compounding her moral sufferings# 3gnominy was appreciated in a case
where a woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed or of her husband or
was made to e.hibit to the rapists her complete nakedness before they raped
her#
1(% | P a g e
SC sustained -$Cs decision finding 'aliwang guilty of rape with the use of a
deadly weapon and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death#
Marie Joan Tsi
2001-021,
!eo"le v. 0iao #$.%. &o. '2,02')
Facts:
1(3 | P a g e
%n &ay ;D, !!4, at about 78EE)&, accused*appellant -ene Siao, in his
residence, ordered -eylan @imena, his familys D*year old houseboy, to pull
?strella -aymundo, their 4*year old housemaid, to the womens 1uarters# %nce
inside, appellant Siao pushed her to the wooden bed and asked her to choose
one among a pistol, candle or a bottle of sprite# (ppellant lit the candle and
dropped the melting candle on her chest# ?strella was made to lie down on her
back on the bed wF her head hanging over one end#
(ppellant then poured sprite into her nostrils as she was made to spread
her arms wF his gun pointed to her face# (ppellant Siao then tied her feet and
hands wF an electric cord or wire as she was made to lie face down on the bed#
(s Siao pointed his pistol at her, he ordered ?strella to undress and commanded
her to take the initiative on @imena# 2ot understanding what he meant, appellant
motioned to her poking the gun at her temple# @imena was then ordered to
remove his shorts# ,e did not do so but only let his penis out# (ppellant Siao
spread the arms of ?strella and made her lie down spread*eagled# She felt di44y
and shouted for help twice# Siao then ordered @imena to rape ?strella# (t first,
@imena refused because he has a sister# ,owever, Siao said that if they would
not obey, he would kill both of them#
'oth @imena and ?strella were forced and intimidated at gunpoint by Siao
to have carnal knowledge of each other# $hey performed the se.ual act because
they were afraid they would be killed# Siao commanded @imena to rape ?strella
in 7 diff positions 9i#e# missionary position, side*by*side and dog position as
narrated vividly in the case:, pointing the handgun at them the whole time#
$hereafter, Siao warned them, B3f you will tell the police, 3 will kill your mothers#C
(ppellant Siao, for his defense, denies the whole event# ,e asserts that
she retaliated through this accusation because ?strella herself was accused of
stealing many of his familys personal effects#
*sse:
+hether or not ignominy, as an aggravating circumstance of the crime of
rape, is attendant to 5ustify the award of e.emplary damages6
+ecision:
1(( | P a g e
?50# $he -$C overlooked and did not take into account the aggravating
circumstance of ignominy and sentenced accused*appellant to the single
indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua# 3t has been held that where the accused
in committing the rape used not only the missionary position i#e# male superior,
female inferior but also the dog position as dogs do, i#e# entry from behind, as
was proven in the case, the aggravating circumstance of ignominy attended the
commission thereof#
Still, SC respected -$Cs finding of facts and found any inconsistencies in
the witnesses testimonies inconse1uential considering that they referred to trivial
matters wFc have nothing to do wF the essential fact of the commission of rape
that is carnal knowledge through force and intimidation# ?rgo, even if it was
pointed out that in all 7 positions, @imena e5aculated 7. in a span of less than 7E
mins, wFc does not conform to common e.perience, rape was still present from
the evidence because rape is not the emission of semen but the penetration of
the female genitalia by the male organ# )enetration, however slight, and not
e5aculation, is what constitutes rape# &oreover, even if the house was occupied
by many people at the time of the crime, rape was still committed because lust is
no respecter of time and place# (nd ?strellas and @imenas decision not to flee
proves only the fear and intimidation that they were under because Siao was
after all their BamoC or employer who threatened to kill them or their family if they
did not succumb to his demands#
$he governing law is (rt 77= -)C as amended by -( D"=! wFc imposes
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, if committed wF the use of a deadly
weapon# Siao is further ordered to pay the offended party moral damages, wFc is
automatically granted in rape cases wFo need of any proof, in the amount of
)h)=EM# Furthermore, the presence of the aggravating circumstance of ignominy
5ustifies the award of e.emplary damages pursuant to (rt ;;7E CC# Audgment
affirmed wF modification of damages awarded#
Anna Ma4 <alleAos
2001-0'-0
Aid of Minor or 94 Means of Motor <ehicles
!eo"le v. Mallari #-0- 0C%A '10)
1($ | P a g e
Facts:
'ased on the accusatory portion of the 3nformation filed against -ufino
&allari, he was accused of hitting and bumping one Aoseph @alang with an 3su4u
Canter ?lf truck on or about Auly D, !!"# $he evidence for the prosecution
showed that the said incident was preceded by an altercation between -ufino
&allari and Aoseph @alang when the latter admonished the former not to drive
fast while passing by the latters house# $o end the situation Aoseph, together
with his brothers, who were also present at that time, asked for apology from
-ufino# ,owever, the conflict did not end there because when dusk came and
while Aoseph was watching basketball game with his wife, -ufino arrived with
some companions and attacked Aoseph with bladed weapons# $hey chased him
and when Aoseph was able to run away, -ufino pursued him with the use of the
3su4u Canter ?lf truck# +hen he caught up with him, he bumped him which
resulted in his instant death# $he doctor who conducted the medico*legal
inspection of the cadaver testified that Aosephs cause of death was Bcrushing
in5ury on the head secondary to vehicular accidentC# $he trial court found -ufino
liable with murder and sentenced with the penalty of death after considering the
1ualifying circumstance of use of motor vehicle in committing the crime# $he case
was brought to the Supreme Court pursuant to the re1uirement of automatic
review of cases penali4ed with death penalty based on (rticle 4D of the -evised
)enal Code# -ufino argued that the use of a motor vehicle was only incidental,
considering that he resorted to it only to enable him to go after Aoseph after he
failed to catch up with the latter#
*sse:
+hether or not the 1ualifying circumstance of use of motor vehicle was
correctly appreciated by the trial court in imposing the death penalty6
+ecision:
$he evidence shows that -ufino deliberately used his truck in pursuing
Aoseph# 0pon catching up with him, -ufino hit him with the truck, as a result of
which Aoseph died instantly# 3t is therefore clear that the truck was the means
used by -ufino to perpetrate the killing of Aoseph#
1(6 | P a g e
$he case of )eople v# &uo4 cited by -ufino finds no application to the
present case# 3n the said case, the police patrol 5eep was merely used by the
accused therein in looking for the victim and in carrying the body of the victim to
the place where it was dumped# $he accused therein shot the victim, which
caused the latters death# 3n the present case, the truck itself was used to kill the
victim by running over him#
0nder (rticle ;4H of the -evised )enal Code, a person who kills another
Bby means of a motor vehicleC is guilty of murder# $hus, the use of motor vehicle
1ualifies the killing to murder# $he penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to
death# Since the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, we shall apply
(rticle "797: of the -evised )enal Code, which reads8
7# +hen the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating
circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied#
3n the present case, the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation and treachery, which were alleged in the information, were not
proved# +hat was proved was the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
through the testimonies of -ufino and &yrna, which were not rebutted by the
prosecution#
3n view of the absence of an aggravating circumstance and the presence
of one mitigating circumstance, reclusion perpetua, not death, should be the
penalty to be imposed on -ufino#
Anna Ma4 <alleAos
2001-0'-0
!eo"le v. 5ngito #32, 0C%A (08)
Facts:
1(0 | P a g e
%n or about September ;;, !!, Felipe -e1uerme was driving a
motorela, together with his wife -osita and another passenger, ?ngr# +ilfredo
(chumbre, who is the deceased in this case# $he deceased was picked up by
them on their way home and re1uested them to bring him to his house# +hile on
their way, a white vehicle, which was later on identified as a Ceres Mia
automobile bearing )late 2o# D;;, intentionally hit and pushed the motorela that
they were riding and violently kept pushing it causing it to turn around facing the
direction from where it came from and fell on its right side# -osita testified that
while she was struggling out of the motorela she noticed that the white vehicle
went up the elevated catwalk or pathway pursuing (chumbre who was hit when
he was already at the railing 9barandilla:# $hen she observed that the white
vehicle drove away without even caring to see what happened to them# $he
spousesFvictims were brought to the police station while the (chumbre was
brought to the hospital who was declared dead on arrival# 3t was later on found
out upon investigation that said incident was predicated on the earlier fight which
transpired between (chumbre and the driver of the motor vehicle, $hadeos
?nguito, the accused in this case# (s a result of the death of (chumbre, his wife
filed a criminal complaint against the accused# $he -egional $rial Court found
him guilty with the crime of ,omicide with Gess Serious )hysical 3n5uries, taking
into consideration the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle which
was alleged in the information# %n appeal to the Court of (ppeals, the latter
modified the crime to &urder due to the aggravating circumstance# $he accused
went to the Supreme Court imputing error on the decision of the Court of (ppeals
with respect to the declaration of the crime of &urder against him on the ground
that he did not intentionally choose the motor vehicle he was driving as a means
of committing the offense, and that at most, the vehicle was the only available
means to stop the deceased from escaping# ,e argued that it was his intention to
apprehend and surrender the deceased to the police for his previous act of
mauling him but in the process, he killed the deceased#
*sse:
+hether or not the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle
should be considered in this case6
+ecision:
1(' | P a g e
$he indictment against accused*appellant is murder attended by the use
of motor vehicle# $he use of a motor vehicle 1ualifies the killing to murder if the
same was perpetrated by means thereof# (ppellantLs claim that he merely used
the motor vehicle, Mia Ceres van, to stop the victim from escaping is belied by his
actuations# 'y his own admission, he testified that there was a police mobile
patrol near the crossing# (ccused*appellant could have easily sought the
assistance of the police instead of taking the law into his own hands# &oreover,
accused*appellant already noticed the deceased trying to 5ump out of the
motorela but he still continued his pursuit# ,e did not stop the vehicle after hitting
the deceasedT"U who was hit when he 9(chumbre: was at the railing of the
&arcos bridge# (ccused*appellant further used the vehicle in his attempt to
escape# ,e was already more than one 9: kilometer away from the place of the
incident that he stopped his vehicle upon seeing the police mobile patrol which
was following him#
(ppellant contends that he should have been convicted of the crime of
homicide with two 9;: mitigating circumstances of acting in passion and voluntary
surrender> and had the charge been homicide he could have pleaded guilty# +e
find that these mitigating circumstances cannot be appreciated in his favor#
(ccused*appellant was allegedly <still very angry< while he was following,
bumping and pushing the motorela which was in front of him# ,e was previously
mauled by the deceased and he was allegedly rendered unconscious by the
blows inflicted on him# +hen he regained consciousness, he claims that he
wanted to look for a policeman to report that he was mauled# Clearly, accused*
appellantLs state of mind after he was mauled and before he crushed (chumbre
to death was such that he was still able to act reasonably# 3n fact, he admitted
having seen a police mobile patrol nearby but instead, he chose to resort to the
dastardly act which resulted in the death of (chumbre and in the in5uries of the
spouses -e1uerme# For passion to be considered as a mitigating circumstance,
facts must be proved to show causes sufficient to produce loss of self*control and
to overcome reason# $he turmoil and unreason which naturally result from a
1uarrel or fight should not be confused with the sentiment or e.citement in the
mind of a person in5ured or offended to such a degree as to deprive him of his
sanity and self*control#
$he mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated#
?vidence shows that accused*appellant was further pursued by the police#
(ppellant himself testified that he stopped his vehicle 5ust after the police mobile
1(2 | P a g e
stopped but admitted having <stopped farther than the police mobile<# S)%7
Catiil further testified that appellant did not surrender but only stopped his vehicle
when its right tire was already flat# ,is testimony was corroborated by )%7
&akiling who was patrolling the portion of &arcos 'ridge# ,e testified that he saw
the vehicle being driven by accused*appellant already destroyed and the right
portion of the vehicle a little bit lower as it was running flat# Clearly, accused*
appellant could have eluded arrest but his situation became futile when his
vehicle suffered a flat tire#
$he foregoing notwithstanding, the e.istence or non*e.istence of a
mitigating circumstance in the case at bar will not affect the penalty to be
imposed pursuant to (rticle "7 of the -evised )enal Code# $he crime committed
by accused*appellant is the comple. crime of murder with less serious physical
in5uries# 0nder (rticle 4H of the -evised )enal Code, the penalty for a comple.
crime shall be the ma.imum period of the penalty for the most serious crime# $he
crime was committed in !!; where the penalty for the crime of murder, which is
the most serious crime, was reclusion temporal in its ma.imum period to death
under (rticle ;4H of the -evised )enal Code# $he death penalty being the
ma.imum period of the penalty for murder should be imposed for the comple.
crime of murder with less serious physical in5uries considering that under (rticle
"7, an indivisible penalty cannot be affected by the presence of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance# (nd, consonant with the ruling in )eople vs# &uo4
that (rticle 333, Section ! 9: of the !HD Constitution did not change the period
of the penalty for murder e.cept only insofar as it prohibits the imposition of the
death penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua, the Court of (ppeals was
correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua#
Catherine ?arte
20''-023,
Crelt4
!eo"le v. $errero #383 0C%A 383)
Facts8
1$/ | P a g e
%rlando @uerrero, Ar#, also known as )ablo, together with his father
%rlando @uerrero, Sr#, nicknamed /ino, was accused of murder# $he accuseds,
conspired, confederated and mutually helped one another, with deliberate intent
to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and without 5ustifiable cause, attack, assault, club,
beheaded and cut off the penis of the victim ?rnesto %campo, which caused his
death thereafter, to the damage and pre5udice of his lawful heirs#
0pon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty# %rlando interposed self*
defense while his father, /ino, denied any complicity in the killing#
(ccording to the the witness, Aacalne, he was informed that one /ino
@uerrero was inside the house nearby# /ino @uerrero came out with his hands
e.tended forward# S)% ?milio $aracatac immediately frisked and handcuffed
him# 'efore /ino was handcuffed, according to the witness, he said that it was
his son who had killed the victim# $hereafter, /ino was brought to the police
station for custodial investigation#
Further, Aacalne testified that appellant %rlando @uerrero, Ar#, was not at
the scene of the crime during their investigation# 'ut upon their return to the
police station, appellant was already there#
T
(ppellant admitted killing the
victim, according to Aacalne, by clubbing the victim first with the wooden stick,
and then cutting his head and his penis with a knife#
(nother withness, 3reneo (cierto, appellants brother*in*law, testified that
while he was resting in his house at past 87E in the morning of Auly D, !!D, he
heard someone screaming# +hen he looked out from his window, he saw that
the person screaming was his sister*in*law, (na# ,e went out of the house and
went near the porch of the @uerreros, where he saw ?rnesto %campos head
about to be severed by appellant# +hen the head was cut off, appellant placed
the same on the right side of the victims trunk# (fter that, appellant cut off
?rnestos penis# 3reneo noticed that while the head was being severed, the victim
was lying down on the floor, but not moving# 3reneo then told appellant, $hat is
enough, "ayaw# Stop it# (ccording to the witness, his wife (na was also saying,
$hat is enough, /anong# (ppellant angrily turned to 3reneo, telling him not to
interfere or else he might also be implicated# 3reneo hurriedly went away after
1$1 | P a g e
that# 3reneo did not see his father*in*law, /ino, at the time of the incident and did
not know where /ino was#
$he trial court convicted %rlando @uerrero, Ar# of murder while his father
/ino was ac1uitted#
3ssue8
+hether or not the court a 1uo gravely erred in appreciating the 1ualifying
circumstance of cruelty andFor outraging and scoffing the corpse in order to
classify the killing as murder despite failure of the prosecution to allege the same
in the information
/ecision8
$he information alleges the 1ualifying circumstances of 9: treachery and
9;: evident premeditation# 3t also states that there was cruelty in the perpetration
of the crime, where there was deliberate and inhuman suffering of the victim and
the offender had scoffed at the victims corpse#
%n treachery and e#ident premeditation, the trial court found that the
evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of the re1uirements of the law#
T

we hold that in the present case, the trial court did not err when it found neither
treachery nor evident premeditation# ,owever, the trial court found there was
cruelty as well as outraging or scoffing at the corpse, thus, 1ualifying the crime to
murder#
Catherine ?arte
20''-023,
0imangan v. !eo"le #-3- 0C%A 38)
Facts:
1$% | P a g e
%n February E, !HE at about H pm, Simangan and four
other men wearing fatigues knocked on the door of the store owned
by ?rnesto and Sofronia# $he couple was having dinner with their
daughter Gorna# Simangan asked ?rnesto to guide them on the
road as they were not familiar# ?rnesto agreed, he then ordered his
houseboy -omeo to accompany him in guiding the group of
Simangan# $he ne.t morning, -omeo reported to Sofronia that
?rnesto is dead# ?rnesto was found near a creek, he sustained E
stab wounds#

*sse:
+hether or not Simangan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt#

+ecision:
Jes# $he testimonies of -omeo and Sofronia are credible#
$hus, Simangans conviction is affirmed# 3t is found that Simangan
stabbed ?rnesto E times, three of which were fatal# 'ut the
number of stab wounds does not 1ualify as an aggravating
circumstance against Simangan for it must be proven that
Simangan intended to e.acerbate the suffering of ?rnesto# 2igh
time is also not appreciated as it was included in the original
information#
Catherine ?arte
20''-023,
!eo"le v. Catian #31- 0C%A ('-)
Facts:
1$3 | P a g e
)?/-% C($(C0$(2 alias <)edro /uling< was accused of murder and
frustrated murder#
$he trial court ad5udged the accused guilty of murder 1ualified by
treachery for the death of Gigaya Santos# For the in5ury sustained by -enato
Gicup, the accused was ad5udged guilty of attempted murder only because Gicup
would not have died even without medical attention# 2octurnity was not
considered because the site of the shooting was well lighted and for lack of
evidence to indicate that nighttime was purposely chosen to facilitate the
commission of the crimes# -ecidivism was also considered because the accused
<admitted that in !"7 he was convicted of murder and frustrated murder for
which he was sentenced to serve H years to 4 years imprisonment# (s a matter
of fact, he was granted parole and at the time of the incident he was a parolee#
*00/5:
+hether or not the trial court erred in concluding that there was treachery6
+ecision:
$he record shows that the appellant had a previous misunderstanding with
Gigaya Santos> and that when he suddenly attacked her he was with a group of
armed men so that there was present not only the element of surprise but also
the advantage of no risk to himself#
(leviosa was certainly present#
Jose"h 8seo
200,-03(0
Art. '(: Alternative Circmstances
%elationshi"
!eo"le v. Calongui 9@#-# 2o# DE="":
1$( | P a g e
Facts:
Calon1ui was found guilty for two counts of rape# %n Aanuary , !!H
about ; am in $agbong, Camarines Sur, Calon1ui was able to rape the 7 year
old girl &aricel in the latters house# %n September ;", !!H at about three in the
morning, the accused again raped the victim# 'oth rape incidents were witnessed
by the brother of &aricel#
*sse:
+hether or not the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and relationship
be appreciated against Calon1ui and the latter circumstance as an alternative
circumstance6
+ecision:
Calon1ui and &aricel live under the same shelter as they are first cousins#
(t the time of the incident, both are living in the same house and in the same
room# $herefore, the supposed aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be
appreciated as there was no trespass to the sanctity of the house of the victim on
the part of Calon1ui, while the aggravating circumstance of relationship is
likewise cannot go against Calongui, even as an alternative circumstance, as
being first cousins is not within the concept contemplated in (rticle = of the
-evised )enal Code# ,owever, his conviction is nonetheless affirmed#
Jose"h 8seo
200,-03(0
!eo"le v. Marcos #$.%. &o. '32332)
Facts:
1$$ | P a g e
)rosecution, with the testimony of a lone eye*witness, who happened to
be the son of the victim, along with the admission of guilt, found Cesar &arcos
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of &urder for the killing of his elder brother,
Virgilio, as aggravated by the 1ualifying circumstance of evident premeditation#
/uring (ppeal, the Solicitor @eneral insisted that since the accused is a brother
of the victim, the alternative circumstance of relationship must be considered in
determining the imposable penalty#
*sse:
+hether or not the alternative circumstance of relationship shall be
considered in the imposition of the proper penalty6
+ecision:
3n order that the (lternative Circumstance of relationship may be taken
into consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty, )aragraph ; of (rticle
= of the -evised )enal Code provides that the offended party must either be the
9a: spouse, 9b: ascendant, 9c: descendant, 9d: legitimate, natural or adopted
brother or sister, or 9e: relative by affinity in the same degree, of the offender#
-elationship is &itigating in Crimes against )roperty, while it must be considered
as (ggravating in Crimes against )ersons where the offended party is a relative
of a higher degree than the offender or when in the same degree or level, as in
brothers#
$herefore, the (lternative Circumstance of relationship shall be
considered as (ggravating#
%a4 &agram"a Jr. 9.
2008-00,'
*nto;ication
!eo"le v. MarEita #$.%. &o. '310(0)
1$6 | P a g e
Facts:
%n Aune ;4, !!H, at about eleven oLclock in the evening, Aunilla &acaldo
was sitting on a bench outside her house# +hile thus seated, ?dlyn @amboa
came to her asking for the whereabouts of Jen*yen 3bua# Aunilla noticed that
?dlyn was followed by accused @eorge Cortes# Aunilla then instructed ?dlyn to
go upstairs of the house# +hen ?dlyn was about to go upstairs, accused followed
her and successively stabbed her several times# Aunilla tried to help ?dlyn, but
was overpowered by the accused# Aunilla shouted for help and the accused run
away# She was brought to the 'abano &edical Clinic, where she e.pired#
%n (ugust ;, !!H, the provincial prosecutor filed with the -egional $rial
Court, Surigao del Sur, 'ranch ;!, an 3nformation for murder against accused
@eorge Cortes y %rtega# (ccused admitted that he stabbed ?dlyn and enter the
plea of guilty of the said crime# $he prosecution presented evidence to prove the
presence of into.ication as aggravating circumstances# $he accused on the other
hand presented evidence proving the alternative mitigating of into.ication#
%n September ;, !!H, the trial court rendered decision finding accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of &urder, and sentence to suffer
the penalty of /eath#
*sse:
+hether or not the crime committed by the accused was aggravated by
reason of into.ication6
+ecision:
%rdinarily, into.ication may be considered either aggravating or mitigating,
depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime#
3nto.ication has the effect of decreasing the penalty, if it is not habitual or
subse1uent to the plan to commit the contemplated crime> on the other hand,
when it is habitual or intentional, it is considered an aggravating circumstance# (
person pleading into.ication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having
taken a 1uantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime,
sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason# (t the same time, that
person must show proof of not being a habitual drinker and not taking the
alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime#
1$0 | P a g e
(ccused argues that in the absence of any of the aggravating
circumstances alleged in the information and considering that there was one
mitigating circumstance attendant, that of plea of guilty, the penalty imposable is
not death but reclusion perpetua# $he Solicitor @eneral agrees with the accused
that <the only aggravating circumstance present was treachery which 1ualified
the killing to murder and that there were two mitigating circumstances of plea of
guilty and into.ication, not habitual# $he penalty shall be reclusion perpetua, not
death, in accordance with (rticle "7 in relation to (rticle ;4H of the -evised
)enal Code, as amended by -epublic (ct 2o# "D=!
%a4 &agram"a Jr. 9.
2008-00,'
!eo"le v. Mondigo #$.%. &o. ',13(-)
Facts:
%n September ;D !!H, appellant, /amaso /elima 9/amaso:, /amasos
son /elfin and three other unidentified individuals were having a drinking spree in
1$' | P a g e
Gigas, &alolos, 'ulacan# (nthony 9damasos another son: 5oined the group# (t
around "8EE p#m#, &ondigo, using a <5ungle bolo,< suddenly hacked (nthony on
the head, causing him to fall to the ground unconscious# (ppellant ne.t attacked
/amaso# ( witness who was in the vicinity, Golita Gumagi, hearing shouts coming
from the scene of the crime, rushed to the area and there saw appellant
repeatedly hacking /amaso who was lying on his back, arms raised to ward off
appellants blows# /amaso later died from the in5uries he sustained# (nthony
sustained wound on his left temporal area#(ppellant was charged before the
-$C with &urder and Frustrated &urder# $he-$C found appellant guilty of
&urder for the killing of /amaso and Serious )hysical 3n5uries for the hacking of
(nthony, mitigated by into.ication#
*sse:
+hether the trial court erred in giving credence of alternative circumstance
of into.ication to mitigate the crime6
+ecision:
$he trial court erred in crediting appellant with the circumstance of
into.ication as having mitigated his crimes because <the stabbing incident
ensued in the course of a drinking spree#< For the alternative circumstance of
into.ication to be treated as a mitigating circumstance, the defense must show
that the into.ication is not habitual, not subse1uent to a plan to commit a felony
and the accuseds drunkenness affected his mental faculties# ,ere, the only
proof on record on this matter is appellants testimony that before /amaso,
(nthony, and /elfin attacked him, he drank <about 7 to 4 bottles of beer#< $he
low alcohol content of beer, the 1uantity of such li1uor appellant imbibed, and the
absence of any independent proof that appellants alcohol intake affected his
mental faculties all negate the finding that appellant was into.icated enough at
the time he committed the crimes to mitigate his liability#
Ale;ander 0antos
200,-020(
Arts. ',-20: !ersons Criminall4 2iable for Felonies
!rinci"als
!eo"le v. 9atin #$% &o. '11223)
Facts:
1$2 | P a g e
?ugenios wife, Aosephine -efugio testified she glanced to her left and
saw 2eil 'atin standing at the gate to their compound, looking towards her and
her husband# ( few moments later, 2eil went to one of the parked cars, opened
its door, and took a gun from inside# She ne.t noticed Castor going towards 2eil
as the latter stood at the side of the car and shouting8 <,uwagV< Castor grabbed
the gun from 2eil# (fter the gun was taken from him, 2eil 5ust proceeded towards
the right rear of the car# Castor followed 2eil and handed the gun back to him#
+hen she shifted her glance from the 'atins, Aosephine heard Castor ordering
his son8 <Sige, banatan mo na#< 2eil responded by drawing the gun from his
waistline, raising and aiming it at her and her husband, and firing twice from his
eye*level# 'oth Aosephine and ?ugenio fell to the ground, the former, backwards,
and the latter landing on top of her#
2eighbors testified that 2eil went out to the street, went between the
parked white car and yellow ta.icab, aimed the gun at ?ugenio and Aosephine
who were at the mango tree, and then asked Castor8 <$ay, banatan ko na6<> that
Castor replied8 <Sige, anak, banatan mo na#<
*sse:
+hether or not the statement made by the father made him liable as
principal by inducement6
+ecision8
$he Court finds that Castor and 2eil conspired in shooting ?ugenio# $his
finding is ine.orable because the testimonies of the )rosecution witnesses that
Castor returned the gun back to 2eil> that he instigated 2eil to shoot by shouting8
<Sige, banatan mo na<> and that 2eil then fired his gun twice N were credible and
sufficed to prove Castors indispensable cooperation in the killing of ?ugenio#
(ccordingly, Castor was as much liable criminally for the death of ?ugenio as
2eil, the direct participant in the killing, was#
+hile Castor was indeed heard to have shouted <,uwag,< this cannot be
considered as reliable evidence that he tried to dissuade 2eil from firing the gun#
3t was established by credible testimony that he handed back the gun to 2eil and
urged him to shoot the -efugio spouses# Aosephine -efugio plainly stated on
16/ | P a g e
cross*e.amination that Castor shouted <,uwag< while inside the car grappling for
possession of the gun, and not when 2eil was aiming the gun at the spouses#
(s concluded by the trial court, the circumstances surrounding Castors
utterance of <,uwagV< shows beyond doubt that Castor shouted the same, not to
stop 2eil from firing the gun, but to force him to leave the use of the gun to
Castor# $hese circumstances only confirm the conspiracy between the 'atins in
committing the crime8 after the 'atins grappled for the gun and Castor shouted
<,uwag,< Castor finally decided to give the gun to 2eil N a crystal*clear
e.pression of the agreement of the 'atins concerning the commission of a
felony#
Conspiracy may also be deduced from the acts of the appellants before,
during, and after the commission of the crime which are indicative of a 5oint
purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments#?ven if we pursue the
theory that the defense is trying to stir us to, the results would be the same#
Castors argument is that <9h:is alleged utterance of the words RSige, banatan mo
na cannot be considered as the moving cause of the shooting and, therefore, he
cannot be considered a principal by inducement#
3nducement may be by acts of command, advice or through influence or
agreement for consideration# $he words of advice or the influence must have
actually moved the hands of the principal by direct participation# +e have held
that words of command of a father may induce his son to commit a crime# $he
moral influence of the words of the father may determine the course of conduct of
a son in cases in which the same words coming from a stranger would make no
impression# $here is no doubt in our minds that Castors words were the
determining cause of the commission of the crime#
Ale;ander 0antos
200,-020(
!eo"le v. <asEe: #$.%. &o. '23333)
Facts:
161 | P a g e
$he appellant drove the passenger 5eepney with his cohorts on board
looking for Guable and @eronimo# +hen the appellant saw the two going in the
opposite direction, the appellant drove the vehicle and sideswiped @eronimo#
(nd when @eronimo fled, the appellant, armed with a bolo, pursued him# +hen
the appellant failed to overtake the victim, he returned to the passenger 5eepney
and drove it to where his cohorts ganged up on the victim# $he appellant urged
them on to kill @eronimo# $hereafter, he left the scene along with his cohorts,
leaving the hapless @eronimo mortally wounded#
(fter trial, the court rendered 5udgment ac1uitting -amon, but convicting
the appellant of murder for the killing of @eronimo, and attempted homicide for
attempting to kill Guis#
$he appellant avers that he and his brother -amon had no motive to kill
@eronimo# $he appellant contends that the witnesses for the prosecution were
not in agreement as to who killed @eronimo# $he appellant noted that according
to the testimony of the witness, the appellant stayed in the 5eepney and merely
yelled to his companions who ganged up on @eronimo, <Sige patayin ninyo,
patayin ninyo na, at huwag ninyong iwanang buhayV<
$he appellant further posits that the prosecution witnesses were not even
in accord as to where @eronimo was stabbed to death# $he appellant argues that
because of the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses of the
prosecution, it failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes
charged# ,ence, he should be ac1uitted of the said charges#
*sse:
+hether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant when the
witnesses testimony didnt confirm who chased and stabbed the victims6
+ecision:
+hether /omingo Vas1ue4 chased the deceased with a bolo was averred
by Guis Guable or whether the accused merely incited his companions in the
5eepney to kill the deceased as averred by Guisa (bellanosa, is immaterial in the
determination of his liability because a conspiracy among the occupants of the
5eepney has been established#
16% | P a g e
3n order to hold an accused guilty as co*principal by reason of conspiracy,
it must be established that he performed an overt act in furtherance of the
conspiracy, either by actively participating in the actual commission of the crime,
or by lending moral assistance to his co*conspirators by being present at the
scene of the crime, or by e.erting moral ascendancy over the rest of the
conspirators as to move them to e.ecuting the conspiracy#<
$he Supreme Court, likewise, stressed that where there are several
accused and conspiracy has been established, the prosecution need not pinpoint
who among the accused inflicted the fatal wound# +here conspiracy has been
established, evidence as to who among the accused rendered the fatal blow is
not necessary# (ll the conspirators are liable as co*principals regardless of the
intent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all#
(rticle H of the -evised )enal Code provides that there is conspiracy
when two or more person agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it#
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence# 3t may be inferred from the
conduct of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime,
showing that they had acted with a common purpose and design# Conspiracy
may be implied if it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful ob5ect, each doing a part so
that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other were, in
fact, connected and cooperative, indicting a closeness of personal association
and a concurrence of sentiment# Conspiracy once found, continues until the
ob5ect of it has been accomplished and unless abandoned or broken up# $o hold
an accused guilty as a co*principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to
have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity# $here
must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance
of the common design and purpose# ?ach conspirator is responsible for
everything done by his confederates which follows incidentally in the e.ecution of
a common design as one of its probable and natural conse1uences even though
it was not intended as part of the original design#
-esponsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a
particular purpose of conspiracy but e.tends to collateral acts and offenses
incident to and growing out of the purpose intended# Conspirators are held to
have intended the conse1uences of their acts and by purposely engaging in
163 | P a g e
conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces a prohibited result, they are,
in contemplation of law, chargeable with intending that result# Conspirators are
necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator unless such act differs
radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit# +hen a
conspirator embarks upon a criminal venture of indefinite outline, he takes his
chances as to its content and membership, so be it that they fall within the
common purposes as he understands them#<
(ll the foregoing constitutes evidence beyond cavil of conspiracy between
the appellant and the principals by direct participation# $he appellant is, thus,
criminally liable for the death of the victim, although there is no evidence that he
did not actually stab the latter#
Ale;ander 0antos
200,-020(
!eo"le v. +acillo #$.%. &o. '-33,8)
Facts:
16( | P a g e
(ppellant was convicted by the trial court of the crime of murder for the
death of -osemarie $allada, with aggravating circumstance of recidivism with no
mitigating circumstance to offset the same, and sentenced to the e.treme penalty
of death#
3n his defense, appellant admitted complicity in the crime but minimi4ed
his participation# (ppellant alleged that he only held down -osemaries legs to
prevent her from struggling and, after the latter was killed by another man he
identified as Aoselito )acot, he encased the corpse in cement#
,e claimed that )acot, a co*worker at /avao 0nion Cement Corporation
9/0CC:, was looking for a house where he and his girlfriend -osemarie could
spend the night# ,e offered his brothers house which was under his care# 3n the
evening of February ", ;EEE, he and Aoselito )acot brought -osemarie to the
house at )urok 2o# 7, 2ew Society Village, 3lang, /avao City#
(fter accompanying the couple there, he went home to take supper# Gater
that evening, he returned to the house with the bottle of Sprite )acot had
ordered# +hen he arrived, )acot and -osemarie were already grappling with
each other and )acot was strangling the girl# ,e told )acot to stop but instead of
heeding him, the latter ordered him to close the door# )acot told appellant that he
was going to be implicated 5ust the same so he closed the door as ordered and
helped )acot <9hold: the feet of the woman< as <her feet kept hitting the walls#<
$he two men stopped only when -osemarie was already motionless#
)acot wanted to dump the body into the sea but appellant told him it was low
tide# (ppellant then suggested that they entomb the body in cement for which
)acot gave appellant )=EE#)acot left the house at dawn the following day,
February D, ;EEE# (t past E8EE a#m#, appellant brought the concrete mi.ture and
cast the dead body in cement#
*sse:
+hether or not appellant is liable as a principal6
+ecision:
16$ | P a g e
$he rule is that any admission made by a party in the course of the
proceedings in the same case does not re1uire proof to hold him liable therefor#
Such admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through
palpable mistake or no such admission was in fact made# $here was never any
such disclaimer by appellant#
&oreover, despite appellants self*serving, e.culpatory statement limiting
his involvement in the crime, all circumstances pointed to his guilt# (ssuming for
the sake of argument that )acot was the mastermind, appellants admission that
he participated in its commission by holding -osemaries legs made him a
principal by direct participation#
$wo or more persons taking part in the commission of a crime are
considered principals by direct participation if the following re1uisites are present8
#: they participated in the criminal resolution and ;#: they carried out their plan
and personally took part in its e.ecution by acts which directly tended to the
same end#
'oth re1uisites were met in this case# $wo or more persons are said to
have participated in the criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy at the
time of the commission of the crime# $o establish conspiracy, it is not essential
that there be proof of the previous agreement and decision to commit the crime,
it being sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same
ob5ective#
3t is well*settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of
another where, between them, there is conspiracy or unity of purpose and
intention in the commission of the crime charged# Conspiracy need not be proved
by direct evidence of prior agreement on the commission of the crime as the
same can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after
the commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other
pursuant to a common purpose or design#
Mar. <ergara
2008-0323
Accom"lices
!eo"le v. %oche #$.%. &o. ''('82)
166 | P a g e
Facts:
(n information for the murder of -oderick Ferol was filed against accused*
appellant -estituto -oche and three others, namely, &arcelino Fallore, Francisco
@regorio, and one Aohn /oe# $he Court found that the prosecution evidence has
established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused -estituto -oche for
the crime of murder but could not make a pronouncement as to the guilt of
accused /orico Caballes because he remained at large and therefore could not
be arraigned#Finding that the prosecution evidence failed to establish the guilt of
accused Francisco @regorio and &arcelino Fallore, both accused were ac1uitted#
*sse:
+hether or not the accused*appellant should held liable for the killing of
-oderick Ferol on the ground of conspiracy6
+ecision:
&o. 3n the case at bar, -ogelio -ossel testified that he did not see
-estituto -oche at the time /orico Caballes was stabbing -oderick Ferol#(part
from ,elen (marille and -odel Ferol, whose testimonies are highly suspect, no
other witness was presented to prove that accused*appellant directly participated
in the commission of the offense or performed an act which would show
community of purpose with /orico Caballes# ?ven if it is assumed as true that
accused*appellant was responsible for telling /orico Caballes it was -oderick
Ferol who had tripped him 9-estituto:, this would not suffice to find accused*
appellant in conspiracy with /orico Caballes#
For conspiracy to e.ist, proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of
the crime is not a condition precedent# 3t may be deduced from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the
accused evincing a 5oint or common purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest#
3n )eople v# ?li5orde, Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as the
crime itself through clear and convincing evidence, not merely by con5ecture# $o
hold an accused guilty as a co*principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be
shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
160 | P a g e
complicity# ,ence, conspiracy e.ists in a situation where at the time the
malefactors were committing the crime, their actions impliedly showed unity of
purpose among them, a concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim# 3n
a great ma5ority of cases, complicity was established by proof of acts done in
concert, i.e.! acts which yield the reasonable inference that the doers thereof
were acting with a common intent or design# $herefore, the task in every case is
determining whether the particular acts established by the re1uisite 1uantum of
proof do reasonably yield that inference#
3ndeed, there is no proof to show accused*appellant, together with /orico
Caballes, had resolved to attack -oderick Ferol# 3nstead, we think the assault on
-oderick Ferol was an impulsive act by /orico Caballes borne out of the desire
to get even with him for the offense committed against his brother# 3n no way can
such act be attributed to accused*appellant#2either can accused*appellant be
held liable as an accomplice for the crime charged# $he following re1uisites must
concur in order that a person may be considered an accomplice8 9a: community
of design, i.e.! knowing that criminal design of the principal by direct participation,
he concurs with the latter in his purpose> 9b: he cooperates in the e.ecution of
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts> and, 9c: there must be a relation
between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person
charged as accomplice#
$here is no evidence to show that accused*appellant performed any
previous or simultaneous act to assist /orico Caballes in killing -oderick Ferol#
3n fact, it has not been proven that he was aware of /orico Caballes plan to
attack and kill -oderick Ferol# (bsent any evidence to create the moral certainty
re1uired to convict accused*appellant, we cannot uphold the trial courts finding of
guilt# %ur legal culture demands the presentation of proof beyond reasonable
doubt before any person may be convicted of any crime and deprived of his life,
liberty, or even property# $he hypothesis of his guilt must flow naturally from the
facts proved and must be consistent with all of them#
Mar. <ergara
2008-0323
AbarEe: v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '(01,2)
Facts:
16' | P a g e
$he prosecution charged (bar1ue4 with the crimes of homicide and
attempted homicide alleging in the two informations filed that said accused was
conspiring and confederating with one (lberto (lmo5uela in the killing of -icardo
Kue5ong 'ello, by stabbing him twice with a bladed weapon and hitting him with
a gun at the back#
$he trial court found (bar1ue4 guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an
accomplice in the crime of homicide#
(bar1ue4 filed an appeal to the Court of (ppeals# ,owever the Court of
(ppeals re5ected (bar1ue4s allegation that he was merely at the crime scene to
pacify the 1uarreling parties#
(bar1ue4 alleges that the prosecutions evidence does not satisfy the test
of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support his conviction as an accomplice#
,e further alleges that there was a misapprehension of facts and that the trial
court and the Court of (ppeals reached their conclusion based entirely on
speculation, surmises and con5ectures# (bar1ue4 also assails the credibility of
the witnesses against him#
*sse:
+hether or not there is sufficient evidence to prove that fact that (bar1ue4
was an accomplice in the killing of -icardo 'ello6
+ecision:&o.
$wo elements must concur before a person becomes liable as an accomplice8
9: community of design, which means that the accomplice knows of, and
concurs with, the criminal design of the principal by direct participation>
and
9;: the performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts
that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime#&ere
commission of an act, which aids the perpetrator, is not enough#
$he cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly
rendered, which cannot e.ist without the previous cogni4ance of the criminal act
162 | P a g e
intended to be e.ecuted# 3t is therefore re1uired in order to be liable as an
accomplice> that the accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal
by direct participation#
$he court held in one case that the mere presence of the accused at the
crime scene cannot be interpreted to mean that he committed the crime charged#
3n convicting (bar1ue4 in this case, the trial court and the Court of
(ppeals relied mainly on the testimony of )a4# )a4 testified that he was held by
(bar1ue4 on the shoulders, thus preventing him from helping Kue5ong who was
grappling with (lmo5uela#
)a4s testimony does not show that (bar1ue4 concurred with (lmo5uelas
criminal design# <-umigil< literally means <stop#< Clearly, (bar1ue4 was trying to
stop )a4 from 5oining the fray, not from helping Kue5ong# )a4 claims that he was
only trying to talk to (lmo5uela# ,owever, )a4 could not have been merely talking
to (lmo5uela, as he tried to portray, because (lmo5uela was already grappling
with Kue5ong at that time# )a4 interpreted (bar1ue4s action as an attempt to
prevent him from helping Kue5ong# ,is interpretation was adopted by the trial
court and sustained by the Court of (ppeals# Jet, in his testimony, )a4 admitted
that while restraining him, (bar1ue4 was scolding or reprimanding him and telling
him to stop# 3t was not shown that (bar1ue4 was stopping )a4 from helping
(lmo5uela# 3t is more likely that (bar1ue4 was trying to stop )a4 from 5oining the
fight# (bar1ue4s act of trying to stop )a4 does not translate to assistance to
(lmo5uela#
Mar. <ergara
2008-0323
!eo"le v. Com"o #$.%. &o. ''2330)
Facts:
10/ | P a g e
&auricio @on4aga and Gemuel Compo were charged conspiring in the
murder of )rocopio /ales
#
'ased on the statements of Gibardo, @on4aga, )%7 )edro +ate, and the
post mortem findings the the Court held the accused &auricio @on4aga and
Gemuel Compo guilty of the crime of murder punished under (rticle ;4H of the
-evised )enal Code and sentenced each one of them to suffer an imprisonment
of -eclusion )erpetua#
(ccused Gemuel Compo filed with the trial court a notice of appeal# 3n this
appeal, accused*appellant imputes a single assignment of error to the trial court#
*sse:
+hether or not the testimony of the witness Gibrado that he saw Gemuel
carrying an 3ndian )ana is sufficient to establish the latter is an accomplice to the
crime6
+ecision: &o.
$he court held that the prosecution failed to overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence# 'asically, accused*appellant Gemuel was convicted
based on the testimony of the conductor of passenger bus @ilberto Gibardo who
saw Gemuel carrying an B3ndian )anaC and a flashlight# +ithout any testimony
positively identifying accused*appellant as the assailant nor any evidence directly
linking him as the author of the crime, Gemuel Compo cannot be convicted of the
murder of /ales# $he accused*appellant deserves an ac1uittal and must
forthwith be given back his liberty#
$he testimony of witness &auricio @on4aga, states that Gemuel was
merely present before the stabbing incident, holding a flashlight# 2o other overt
act was established to prove that Gemuel shared and concurred with the criminal
design of &auricio# $he mere presence of Gemuel, who was not shown to be
armed, at the scene of the crime does not connote conspiracy#
Singularity of purpose and unity in the e.ecution of the unlawful ob5ective
are essential to establish conspiracy#
101 | P a g e
&ere knowledge, ac1uiescence, or agreement to cooperate, is not enough
to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the
commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design
and purpose#Conspiracy transcends companionship#$he presence and company
of Gemuel were not necessary or essential to the perpetration of the murder#
2either can Gemuel be considered an accomplice# (rticle H of the
-evised )enal Code provides that an accomplice is one who, not being a
principal, cooperates in the e.ecution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts# $o be convicted as such, it is necessary that he be aware of the criminal
intent of the principal and then cooperate knowingly or intentionally by supplying
material or moral aid for the efficacious e.ecution of the crime#
$he prosecution, however, failed to present convincing evidence
establishing that accused*appellant Gemuel knew of the other accusedLs intent to
kill /ales# (gain, his mere presence at the scene of the crime and his flight
therefrom with the other accused are not proof of his participation in the crime#
$he 1uantum of proof re1uired in criminal prosecution to support a conviction has
not been reached with regard to accused*appellant Gemuel# $he oft*repeated
truism that the conviction of an accused must rest not on the weakness of the
defense but on the strength of the prosecutions evidence applies#,e must,
therefore, be ac1uitted on reasonable doubt#
Jasmine Cala4ca4
200(-00-3
Accessories
!eo"le v. Tolentino #$.%. &o. '33'13)
Facts:
10% | P a g e
%n February ;H, !!" appellant Aonathan Fabros and his cousins, Sheila
@uilayan and &erwin Gedesma, were at their house in Guyahan, )asonanca,
Iamboanga City when their neighbor +ilfredo $olentino called them# +hen
asked what it was all about, +ilfredo simply motioned to them to come to his
house located 5ust across the road# %nce they were inside the house, +ilfredo
immediately revealed his plan to kill ,ernan Sagario, SheilaLs stepfather# +ilfredo
e.plained that it was the only way to free SheilaLs mother * appellantLs aunt * of
the sufferings being caused by ,ernan# +ilfredo then instructed &erwin to go
back to the house and get the bolo of ,ernan# &erwin obliged, got the bolo, and
gave it to +ilfredo# $hereafter, they were told by +ilfredo to go home and wait for
,ernan#
(round H87E in the evening, ,ernan arrived# ,e went directly to the
kitchen and fi.ed the bag of rice he was carrying# Aonathan together with Sheila
and &erwin, 5ust stayed 1uiet in the living room#Gater, +ilfredo with a ;<.;< piece
of wood in his hand entered the house# ,e then followed ,ernan towards the
kitchen# +hen about an armslength away from ,ernan, +ilfredo, immediately
walloped ,ernan on the right side of the neck sending the latter unconscious and
falling face down to the ground# +ilfredo immediately instructed appellant and
&erwin to help him bring ,ernan out of the house# Gifting ,ernan out of the
house, +ilfredo held him by the neck while both appellant and &erwin grasped
his feet# $hey then carried ,ernan towards the creek, upon reaching the
creekside, the three stopped, then +ilfredo successively stabbed ,ernan on
different parts of the body causing the latterLs instant death# (fter throwing the
victimLs lifeless body in the creek, the three immediately left# $olentino called
Aonathan, Sheila and &erwin and warned them that if they will tell other people,
he will kill them# %ut of fear, they 5ust followed whatever $olentino told them#
%n E &arch !!", however, Aonathan was arrested for the death of
,ernan Sagario# (ccused Aonathan Fabros and +ilfredo $olentino both denied
killing the victim# 3nstead, they pointed to each other as the one who killed
,ernan Sagario# Fabros pointed to $olentino as the assailant and the latter also
fingered the former as the killer of Sagario#
,owever, on 4 Auly ;EEE, long after the trial courtLs decision had become
final and e.ecutory on his part, +ilfredo $olentino, apparently conscience*
stricken, e.ecuted an affidavit admitting sole responsibility for the death of
103 | P a g e
,ernan Sagario and retracted his testimony implicating accused*appellant
Aonathan Fabros#
$he trial court held that the prosecutionLs evidence positively identified
+ilfredo $olentino as the person who had hit the victim with a piece of wood and
later stabbed him with a bolo# 3t also ruled that the killing was 1ualified by
treachery and attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling#
$he court a +uo observed that overt and positive acts of appellant
9Aonathan Fabros: manifested his approval of the killing and the concurrence of
his acts with those of the other accused#
H
$hus, the -$C concluded that Fabros
was a co*conspirator and should be held e1ually responsible for the murder#
,ence, this appeal#
*sse:
+hether or not appellant 9Aonathan Fabros: should be convicted as an
accessory6
+ecision8
(ppellant cannot be convicted as an accessory# (rticle ! of the -evised
)enal Code defines an accessory as one who had knowledge of the commission
of the crime and did not participate in its commission as principal or accomplice,
yet took part subse1uent to its commission by any of three modes8 9: profiting
oneself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime> 9;:
concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its discovery> and 97: harboring, concealing, or
assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts
with abuse of his public functions or when the offender is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief ?.ecutive, or is
known to be habitually guilty of some other crime# $o convict an accused as an
accessory, the following elements must be proven8 9: knowledge of the
commission of the crime and 9;: subse1uent participation in it by any of the three
above*cited modes#
0nder paragraph ; of said codal provision, the concealment or the
destruction of the body of the crime or of the effects or the instruments thereof
10( | P a g e
must have been done in order to prevent the discovery of the crime# $hat,
precisely, is wanting in the present case#
3n his testimony, appellant stated that because he was afraid his co*
accused would hurt him if he refused, he agreed to assist the latter in carrying
the victim towards the river# $he fact that appellant left thereafter likewise
indicated his innocence of the charge# Verily, he ade1uately e.plained his
conduct prior to the stabbing incident as one born of fear for his own life# 3t is not
incredible for an eyewitness to a crime, especially if unarmed, to desist from
assisting the victim if to do so would put the formerLs life in peril#
$he presumption of innocence in favor of appellant has not been
overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt# $hus, he must be ac1uitted#
Jasmine Cala4ca4
200(-00-3
!eo"le v. Ci #$.%. &o. '2'382)
Facts:
10$ | P a g e
3n the evening of /ecember =, !!E, ten 9E: armed robbers raided the
compound of Aohnny and -ose Gim on ?dison Street, Gahug, Cebu City# $he
Gims, their three 97: children, and the employees of the family*owned business,
were able to see the faces of the leader +ilfredo alias <$oto< @arcia and two of
his men, &awe @arcia and a certain ?dgar# $he other robbers could not be
identified as they had flour sacks over their heads# $he robbers carted away cash
and 5ewelries worth twenty thousand pesos 9);E,EEE#EE:# $hey also blindfolded
and forcibly abducted seventeen 9D: year old Stephanie, the youngest daughter
of the Gims# $hey demanded a ransom of one million pesos 9),EEE,EEE#EE: for
her release#Aohnny Gim turned over to $oto @arcia the ransom amount in the
afternoon of the ne.t day at an arranged meeting place# Stephanie, in turn, was
released to her father#
3nitially, the Gims kept the crime a secret# 'ut on the third day, they
reported the kidnapping to the )hilippine 2ational )olice Cebu &etropolitan
/istrict Command 9Cebu &etrodiscom:# $he &etrodiscom 3ntelligence Security
$eam 9&3S$: conducted an investigation and Aohnny Gim identified one of the
suspects as $oto @arcia#
$oto @arcia was known as the leader of a group of armed robbers called
the 'aong @ang# $he gangLs base of operation was pinpointed at Kuiot, )ardo,
Cebu# +hen the police learned that ?duardo 'asingan, hailed from Kuiot, )ardo,
Cebu City, they decided to interrogate him#
0pon 'asinganLs interrogation, he identified $oto @arcia, &awe @arcia
and ?dgar as the three 97: who did not wear masks, Sadam and -ey as the two
9;: who held him and the Gims at gunpoint, and $ata @arcia, Jul (lvare4, a
certain 'en5ie, a certain Geos and a certain Garing as the look*outs who stayed
outside the Gim compound# ,e named $oto @arcia as the chief plotter of the
crime at bar, and revealed that his neighbor and close family friends, the spouses
Geonilo and 'everly Cui, participated in the plan# 'asingan said he was asked to
5oin the plot and was assured that he would not be under suspicion because he
would be placed at gun point together with the other members of the Gim
household when the crime is committed# ,owever, he refused to 5oin the plot
during the /ecember ;, !!E meeting of the group at the residence of the Cuis in
Kuiot, )ardo, Cebu City# Geonilo Cui even invoked their close ties as godfathers
of each otherLs children but he was unmoved# (t the meeting were $oto @arcia,
&awi @arcia, ?dgar, -ey, Sadam and the Cuis#
106 | P a g e
%n /ecember H, !!E, 'asingan e.ecuted a sworn statement reiterating
these revelations in writing# Aohnny and -ose Gim then formali4ed their complaint
by e.ecuting a Aoint (ffidavit# (ssistant )rosecutor 'ienvenido 2# &abanto, Ar#
filed an information for Midnapping with -ansom against 'asingan, the Cuis, and
the members of the group of $oto @arcia as identified by 'asingan in his sworn
statement#%n the same day, 'asingan and Geonilo Cui were arrested#
%n &arch 4, !!, Aoselito <$ata< @arcia, ,ilaria Sarte and her live*in
partner, Guis %beso, referred to by 'asingan as <Garing< and <Geos<,
respectively, were arrested in the neighboring 2egros 3sland# $he ne.t day,
however, $ata @arcia died due to <hemorrhage, severe, secondary to gunshot
wounds#< 0pon presentation of his death certificate, the trial court ordered his
name deleted from the information#
(fter preliminary investigation, )rosecutor &anuel A# (dlawan found that
the participation of the Cuis was only that of accomplices amended the
3nformation downgrading the charge against the Cuis as mere accomplices in
the kidnapping with ransom of Stephanie Gim#
%n &ay =, !!, 'asingan, the Cuis, %beso and Sarte were arraigned
and they all pleaded not guilty# %n Aune ;D, !!, 'asinga escaped from the
prison# $rial on the merit ensued against the Cuis, %beso and Sarte# 'asingan
was tried in a"sentia#
%n February 7, !!;, 'einvenido 2acario, alias <-ey 2acario<, was
arrested# %n arraignment on (pril 7, !!;, he pleaded not guilty# ,owever, on
&ay =, !!, he, too, escaped from detention and remains at large to this date#
%n (ugust H, !!;, the prosecuting fiscal manifested before the trial court that,
per newspaper report, $oto @arcia had been killed in /avao# $hus, on /ecember
", !!7, the trial court convicted the Cuis, %beso, Sarte, 'asingan and 2acario#
%beso and Sarte filed their 2otice of (ppeal on &ay !, !!4# $he Cuis filed
theirs on &ay 7, !!4#
*sse:
+hether or not the Cuis are liable as accessories6
+ecision8
100 | P a g e
(rt# ! of the -evised )enal Code, as amended, penali4es as accessories
to the crime those who, subse1uent to its commission, take part therein by
profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of the crime,
without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices#
Conviction of an accused as an accessory re1uires the following elements8 9:
that he has knowledge of the commission of the crime> and 9;: that he took part
in it subse1uent to its commission by any of the three modes enumerated in
(rticle ! of the -evised )enal Code, as amended# $hese twin elements are
present in the case of the Cuis, and indubitable proof thereof is e.tant in the
records of the case#
$he Court held that the Cuis profited from the kidnapping of Stephanie
Gim and are liable as accessories#
Jasmine Cala4ca4
200(-00-3
!eo"le v. <er:ola #$.%. &o. 2-3(022)
Facts:
10' | P a g e
%n September ;H, !"!, 'ernardo &olina was clubbed to death by
-icardo Ver4ola in the presence of appellant Aosefina &olina inside &olinaLs
house at 'arrio Gipcan, 'angued, (bra# $he body of the victim was subse1uently
carried by the two appellee to the ground and left at the foot of the stairs#
(ppellant Ver4ola then went to his house, changed his clothes and threw his
bloodstained sweater undershirt and underwear, including the piece of wood be
used in clubbing the deceased, inside their toilet# (fterwards, he went to the
municipal building and reported to the police authorities that 'ernardo had died in
an accident# $he police authorities together with the &unicipal ,ealth %fficer, the
&unicipal Audge and a photographer went to Gipcan to conduct the investigation#
$hey found the body of the deceased 'ernardo &olina sprawled at the foot of the
bamboo ladder# 'lood had oo4ed from the mouth, nose and ears# $here were
bloodstains on the floor of the bedroom of the house, on the mat, as well as on
the beddings of the deceased# $he bloodstains led to the bamboo ladder where
some of the stains could be found on the steps of the ladder# +hen 1uestioned
by the police, Aosefina revealed that the assailant of her husband was -icardo
Ver4ola#
0pon her re1uest, she was brought to the %ffice of the Chief of )olice of
'angued, where at about ;8EE oLclock in the morning of September ;!, !"! she
gave a written statement narrating the circumstances surrounding the incident in
1uestion and pointing to appellant Ver4ola as the assailant of her husband# 3n
that e.tra*5udicial statement, she stated that immediately after E8EE oLclock in
the evening of September ;H# !"!, appellant -icardo Ver4ola went to their
house in 'arrio Gipcan, 'angued (bra entered the room where she was sleeping
with her husband, 'ernardo &olina, woke her up and had carnal knowledge of
her> that when 'ernardo &olina woke up and attempted to rise from the floor,
that was the moment when Ver4ola clubbed 'ernards, hitting him on the head
several times that afterwards, she heard the sound of a body being dragged
downstairs and the voice of Ver4ola saying that he was leaving and warning her
not to say anything about the incident# She looked out of the door and saw her
husband already lying prostrate at the foot of the stairs# $his statement was
sworn to by her before &unicipal Audge Francisco $# Valera#
%n that same morning, appellant Ver4ola was picked up by the police and
brought to the municipal building, and there he also e.ecuted a written statement
admitting that he clubbed the victim several times# 'oth appellants admit that it
was appellant Ver4ola who inflicted the fatal blows on the victim#
102 | P a g e
$he trial court convicted Ver4ola as principal and Aosefina &olina as an
accessory to the crime of murder#
*sse8
+hether or not assisting the principal in bringing the body of the deceased
to the ground will make one an accessory to the crime6
+ecision:
(n accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor cooperate in
the commission of the felony, but with knowledge of the commission of the crime,
he subse1uently takes part in three 97: ways8 9a: by profiting from the effects of
the crime> 9b: by concealing the body, effects or instruments of the crime in order
to prevent its discovery> and 9c: by assisting in the escape or concealment of the
principal of the crime, provided he acts with abuse of his public functions or the
principal is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
Chief ?.ecutive or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime#
?ven if she assisted her co*appellant without duress, simply assisting
Ver4ola in bringing the body down the house to the foot of the stairs and leaving
said body for anyone to see, cannot be classified as an attempt to conceal or
destroy the body of the crime# $he concealing or destroying of the body of the
crime, the effects or instruments thereof, must be done to prevent the discovery
of the crime# 3n the case at bar, the body was left at the foot of the stairs at a
place where it was easily visible to the public# 0nder such circumstances there
could not have been any attempt on the part of Aosefina to conceal or destroy the
body of the crime# $hus, Aosefina &olina is ac1uitted#
John Cirv4
2008-0032
Accessories 5;em"t from Criminal 2iabilit4
!eo"le v. Mariano #$.%. &o. 2--0(21)
Facts:
1'/ | P a g e
$hat on or about and during the period from &ay and Aune H, !D, in
San Aose del &onte, 'ulacan, the said accused ,ermogenes &ariano, being
then appointed as Giaison %fficer by the then incumbent &unicipal &ayor,
Constantino 2olasco, acting for and in behalf of the municipality and authori4ed
to receive and be receipted for 0S e.cess property of 0S(3/F2?C for the use
and benefit of said municipality, received from the said 0S(3/F2?C the following
items with a total value of WDD#=E or )4,D!D#7=, involving the duty of making
delivery of said items to the said &unicipal &ayor, but the said accused
,ermogenes &ariano once in possession of the said items and far from
complying with his aforesaid obligation and in spite of repeated demands, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with grave abuse of confidence
and with deceit, misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own personal use
and benefit the said items valued at WDD#=E or )4,D!D#7=, belonging to the said
0S(3/F2?C, to the damage and pre5udice of the said owner in the said sum of
WDD,=E or )4,D!D#7=# %n February !, !D=, ,ermogenes &ariano thru his
counsel Filed a motion to 1uash the 3nformation on the following grounds8
# $hat the court trying the cause has no 5urisdiction of the offense
charged or of the person of the defendant>
;# $hat the criminal action or liability has been e.tinguished>
7# $hat it contains averments which , if true, would constitute a legal
e.cuse or 5ustification#
3n his motion to 1uash, &ariano claimed that the items which were the
sub5ect matter of the 3nformation against him were the same items for which
&ayor Constantino (# 2olasco was indicted before a &ilitary Commission under
a charge of malversation of public property, and for which &ayor 2olasco had
been found guilty and that inasmuch as the case against &ayor 2olasco had
already been decided by the &ilitary $ribunal, the Court of First 3nstance of
'ulacan had lost 5urisdiction over the case against him#
%n &arch 4, !D= respondent Audge issued an %rder granting the
motion to 1uash on the ground of lack of 5urisdiction reasoning as follows8
Considering that the &ilitary Commission had already taken cognizance of
the mal#ersation case against /ayor 5olasco in#ol#ing the same su"ject matter
in its concurrent jurisdiction with this Court, the case involving the sub5ect
properties had already been heard and decided by a competent tribunal, the
1'1 | P a g e
&ilitary Commission, and as such this Court is without 5urisdiction to pass upon
anew the same sub5ect matter# 9pp# 7E*7, rollo, emphasis supplied:
-espondent Audge issued an order granting the motion to 1uash on the ground
of lack of 5urisdiction but did not rule on the other grounds invoked in the motion
to 1uash#
*sse:
+hether or not &ariano can be held liable for estafa6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court ruled that -espondent court gravely erred when it
ruled that it lost 5urisdiction over the estafa case against respondent &ariano with
the filing of the malversation charge against &ayor 2olasco before the &ilitary
Commission# ?stafa and malversation are two separate and distinct offenses and
in the case now before the SC the accused in one is different from the accused in
the other#
$he conferment of 5urisdiction upon courts or 5udicial tribunals is derived
e.clusively from the constitution and statutes of the forum# $hus, the 1uestion of
5urisdiction of respondent Court of First 3nstance over the case filed before it is to
be resolved on the basis of the law or statute providing for or defining its
5urisdiction# $hat, +e find in the Audiciary (ct of !4H where in its Section 44 9f: it
is provided that Courts of First 3nstance shall have original 5urisdiction In all
criminal cases in which the penalty pro#ided "y law is imprisonment for more
than six months!or a fine of more than two hundred pesos#$he offense
of estafa charged against respondent &ariano is penali4ed with arresto mayor in
its ma.imum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or
imprisonment from four 94: months and one 9: day to two 9;: years and four 94:
months# 'y reason of the penalty imposed which e.ceeds si. 9": months
imprisonment, the offense alleged to have been committed by the accused, now
respondent, &ariano, falls under the original 5urisdiction of courts of first instance#
$he above of course is not disputed by respondent Audge> what he claims
in his %rder is that his court e.ercises concurrent 5urisdiction with the military
commission and because the latter tribunal was the first to take cogni4ance of
the sub5ect matter, respondent court lost 5urisdiction over it #$hat statement of
1'% | P a g e
respondent court is incorrect# 3n People #s. 6ontanilla, this Court speaking
through then Austice now Chief Austice Fred -ui4 Castro, categorically reiterated
the settled rule that the jurisdiction of a court is determined "y the statute in force
at the time of the commencement of the action# 3n the case at bar, it is rightly
contended by the Solicitor @eneral that at the time Criminal Case 2o# S&*
"4! was filed with the Court of First 3nstance of 'ulacan, that was Decem"er 78!
79:;! the law in force vesting 5urisdiction upon said court was the Audiciary (ct of
!4H, the particular provision of which was not affected one way or the other by
any )residential issuances under &artial Gaw# $he &ilitary Commission is not
vested with 5urisdiction over the crime of estafa#
@eide 8larte-Congson
2001-03',
Arts. 2'-2-: !enalties in $eneral
%etroactive 5ffect of !enal 2aBs
!eo"le v. 5vina #$.%. &o. '2-830-3'0)
1'3 | P a g e
Facts:
@erardo ?vina was found guilty by the -egional $rial Court of $acloban
City 9'ranch !: of two counts of simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua for each count# $he crime of rape was committed on
2ovember 7, !! and on 2ovember D, !!, in the City of $acloban against
&arites Cacharo while she was sleeping in her bedroom# ?vina tied &aritess
hands with a big handkerchief and poked a knife at her# $his special aggravating
circumstance of the use of a weapon and the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling were both proven during the trial# ,owever, these were not alleged in
the information#
*sse:
+hether or not the aggravating circumstances be considered in fi.ing the
penalty6
+ecision8
$he aggravating circumstances cannot be considered in fi.ing the penalty
because they were not alleged in the information as mandated by -ule E,
Sections H and ! of the -evised -ules of Criminal )rocedure# (lthough the
crimes charged were committed before the effectivity of the said rule,
nevertheless, the same should be applied retroactively being favorable to the
appellant# (lthough the aggravating circumstances in 1uestion cannot be
appreciated for the purpose of fi.ing a heavier penalty in this case, they should,
however, be considered as bases for the award of e.emplary damages,
conformably to current 5urisprudence#
@eide 8larte-Congson
2001-03',
!eo"le v. 2a:aro #$.%. &o. ''2030)
Facts:
Ga4aro was charged, tried and convicted for two separate crimes of illegal
possession of firearmsFammunition and homicide under Section of )#/# 2o#
1'( | P a g e
H"" which was the governing law at the time the crime was committed in !!#
$he two separate cases, Criminal Case 2o# !*74HD 9for homicide: and Criminal
Case 2o# !*74H7 9for illegal possession of firearm: were not tried 5ointly,
although filed in the same trial court# -epublic (ct 2o# H;!4 has since amended
)#/# 2o# H"" by reducing the penalties for simple and aggravated forms of
illegal possession and considering the use of an unlicensed firearm simply as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide# -#(# H;!4 took effect on Auly
", !!D# $he crime involved in the case at bench was committed on &ay =, !!#
3n view of the amendments introduced by -epublic (ct H;!4 to )residential
/ecree H"", separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal possession are no
longer in order# 3nstead, illegal possession of firearms is merely to be taken as an
aggravating circumstance in the homicide case#
*sse:
+hether or not the accused can be rightfully convicted of the crime of
illegal possession of firearms separately from the crime of homicide under -(
H;!4 9amending )/ H"":#
+ecision:
2o# (s a general rule, penal laws will generally have prospective
application e.cept where the new law will be advantageous to the accused# 3n
this case -#(# H;!4 will spare accused*appellant Ga4aro from a separate
conviction for the crime of illegal possession of firearm# (ccordingly, said law
should be given retroactive application#
(ccordingly, accused*appellant Ga4aro should be spared from a separate
conviction for the crime of 3llegal )ossession of Firearms, which is the sub5ect of
the present review# (ccused*appellant Ga4aro was hereby ac1uitted of the said
crime and the case was dismissed#
@eide 8larte-Congson
2001-03',
!eo"le v. !acifador #$.%. &o. '33-0()
Facts:
%n %ctober ;D, !HH, (rturo F# )acificador then Chairman of the 'oard of
the 2ational Shipyard and Steel Corporation, a government*owned corporation,
and therefore, a public officer was charged before the Sandiganbayan with the
crime of violation of -epublic (ct 2o# 7E!, as amended, otherwise known as the
1'$ | P a g e
(nti*@raft and Corrupt )ractices (ct# $he crime was committed from /ecember
", !D= to Aanuary ", !D", in &etro &anila by )acificador# (fter his
arraignment, the respondent filed a &otion to /ismiss on the ground of
prescription of the offense# Sandiganbayan on 2ovember E, !!H dismissed
the 3nformation against the respondent on the ground of prescription# $he 0rgent
&otion for -econsideration of the Solicitor @eneral was denied by the
Sandiganbayan# -epublic (ct 2o# 7E! provides for its own prescriptive period#
Section of -#(# 2o# 7E!, as amended by '#)# 'lg# !=, provides that the
offenses committed under the said statute shall prescribe in fifteen 9=: years# 3t
appears however, that prior to the amendment of Section of -#(# 2o# 7E! by
'#)# 'lg# != which was approved on &arch ", !H;, the prescriptive period for
offenses punishable under the said statute was only ten 9E: years#
*sse:
+hether or not the crime had not yet prescribed as the special law
governing the same have been amended increasing the prescriptive period from
ten 9E: to fifteen 9: years#
+ecision:
$he longer prescriptive period of fifteen 9=: years, as provided in Section
of -#(# 2o# 7E! as amended by '#)# 'lg# !=, does not apply in this case for
the reason that the amendment, not being favorable to the accused, cannot be
given retroactive effect# ,ence the crime prescribed on Aanuary ", !H" or ten
9E: years from Aanuary ", !D"# $he crime had already prescribed when the
3nformation in this case was filed with the Sandiganbayan on %ctober ;D, !HH#3t
bears emphasis, as held in a number of cases that in the interpretation of the law
on prescription of crimes, that which is more favorable to the accused is to be
adopted# $he said legal principle takes into account the nature of the law on
prescription of crimes which is an act of amnesty and liberality on the part of the
state in favor of the offender#
8:elle +edicatoria
200,-0-0,
!ardon b4 8ffended !art4
0ta. Catalina v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. ',180()
Facts:
1'6 | P a g e
Goren4o 'allecer entered into a 5oint business venture with (rnold Sta#
Catalina involving importation of Aute sacks from China# )etitioner told that he
had a ready buyer in the )hilippines which was willing to buy the 5ute sacks at
);#;= per piece# Convinced, 'allecer ordered one container to Sta# Catalina#
$hereafter, 'allecer and Sta# Catalina proceeded to Citytrust 'ank to open
a letter of credit# $hey were re1uired to post a marginal deposit amounting to
)EE, EEE# $he two went to 0nited Coconut )lanters 'ank to encash a check#
(fter the encashment, they went back to Citytrust but arrived after banking hours#
Sta# Catalina suggested that the money be deposited in his account which
'allecer agreed#
Few days after, while preparing the supporting documents for the letter of
credit, 'allacer found that there was an overpricing on the cost of the 5ute sacks#
-eali4ing that his business venture was losing proposition he asked Sta# Catalina
to return the )EE, EEE, however, the latter failed to return the money despite
repeated verbal and formal demands made by the former#
Sta# Catalina as defense alleged that there was no misappropriation of the
money# ,e further claimed that the said money was spent and used for the office
e.penses, salaries and other e.penses of the office which both of the occupy#
$he trial court convicted Sta# Catalina for the crime of ?stafa# (ggrieved,
he appealed the decision of the trial court before the Court of (ppeals# ,owever,
the public prosecutor filed a manifestation stating that 'allecer is no longer
interested in pursuing his complaint and the case should be decided based on
'allecers (ffidavit of /esistance# $he Court of (ppeals rendered a /ecision
affirming the 5udgment of conviction by the trial court# ,ence, this instant petition#
*sse:
+hether or not the (ffidavit of /esistance e.ecuted by 'allacer will 5ustify
the dismissal of the action6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court held that an (ffidavit of /esistance is not a ground for
the dismissal of an action, once the action has been instituted in court# 3n the
1'0 | P a g e
case at bar, 'allecer made the so*called pardon of Sta# Catalina after the
institution of the action, almost two years after the trial court had rendered its
decision#
$he court attaches no persuasive value to a desistance especially when
e.ecuted as an afterthought# 3t would be a dangerous rule to re5ect the testimony
taken before the court of 5ustice simply because the witness who had given it
later on changed his mind for one reason or another# Such a rule will make a
solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous
witnesses#
8:elle +edicatoria
200,-0-0,
9alderama v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '-1(18-8()
Facts:
-olando 'alderama and -olando 2agal are employees of the Field
?nforcement /ivision of G$%# %n the other hand, Auan (rmamento is the
1'' | P a g e
operator of SA $a.i# %n Auly 4, !!;, the team of Flying S1uad flagged down
one ta.i owned by (rmamento# $hey impounded the ta.i on the ground that its
meter was defective, however, upon inspection and testing by the G$% the
results showed that the meter was functioning normally#
Feeling aggrieved, (rmamento filed a complaint for 'ribery and violation
of (nti*@raft and Corrupt )ractices (ct before the %mbudsman# ,e alleged that
prior to the impounding of his ta.i, the four G$% officers had been collecting
protection money from him in e.change of non*apprehension and non*
impounding of his vehicles#
?ventually, the %ffice of the %mbudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan
nine 9!: 3nformation for violation of /irect 'ribery and (nti*@raft and Corrupt
)ractices (ct# /uring the pendency of the action, accused /e Aesus died# $he
cases against him were dismissed but the hearing proceeded against
'alderama, 2agal and Gubrica#
$he Sandiganbayan rendered its /ecision, convicting 'alderama, 2agal
and Gubrica for the above violation# $hey filed a motion for reconsideration but
were denied by the former# ,ence, this instant petition#
*sse:
+hether or not (rmamentos affidavit of recantation will result to the
dismissal of the complaint6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court held that the complaint shall not be dismissed# (
recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation#
$he court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in
court# 3t is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after
conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant attention#
1'2 | P a g e
$he rationale for the rule is obvious8 affidavits of retraction can easily be
secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary
consideration# %nly when there e.ist special circumstances in the case which
when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or
statement given, can retractions be considered and upheld#
3n this case, there is indubitably nothing in the affidavit which creates doubts on
the guilt of the accused 'alderama and 2agal#
8:elle +edicatoria
200,-0-0,
!eo"le v. +imaano #$.%. &o. ',8',8)
Facts:
&aricar /imaano is the daughter of the accused ?dgardo /imaano# (
complaint was filed by &aricar charging ?dgardo with two counts of -ape and
12/ | P a g e
one count of attempted rape# &aricar alleged that she was only E years old
when her father ?dgardo started se.ually abusing her# 3t was only on 2ovember
of !!= that she confided the se.ual abuses to her mother# $he last se.ual
assault happened in the afternoon of Aanuary , !!"#
&aricar and her mother went to Camp Crame upon the advised of a
relative# $he &edico*Gegal %fficer at the )2) Crime Gaboratory e.amined the
complainant and found her to have suffered deep healed hymenal lacerations
and was in a non*virgin state#
%n the other hand, the accused denied such accusations# ,e contended
that he could not have raped &aricar because he was always in the office# ,e
claimed that it was impossible for him to rape his daughter because there were
other people in the house# ,e further argued that had he raped &aricar, then she
would have not accompanied him to the )arana1ue )olice Station to apply for
police clearance#
$he trial court rendered its /ecision, convicting ?dgardo of the crime of
-ape# (ggrieved, he appealed his case before the Court of (ppeals but the latter
affirmed the decision of the trial court#
*sse:
+hether or not the voluntary and due e.ecution of the (ffidavit of
/esistance by &aricar is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint against
?dgardo6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court held that by itself, an (ffidavit of /esistance is not a
ground for the dismissal of an action, once the action has been instituted in court#
( private complainant loses the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the
121 | P a g e
rape charge should proceed, because the case was already filed and must
therefore continue to be heard by the trial court#
$he court attaches no persuasive value to a desistance, especially when
e.ecuted afterthought# $he unreliable character of this document is shown by the
fact that it is 1uite incredible that a victim, after going through the trouble of
having the accused arrested by the police, enduring the humiliation of a physical
e.amination of her private parts and recounting her anguish in detail, will
suddenly turn around and declare that she is no longer interested in pursuing the
case#
3n the case at bar, &aricar repudiated the affidavit of desistance in open
court by stating that no lawyer assisted her when she affi.ed her signature and
had shown her resolve to continue with the prosecution of the cases#
Maria $aralde
2008-032,
Arts. 2(--(: !enalties
%eclsion !er"eta
!eo"le v. &ovio #$.%. &o. '33332)
12% | P a g e
Facts:
%n September ;7, !!4, 7*year*old &aricel '# $alisay, together with her
minor brothers Aun and Aoey slept side*by*side at their store# $heir parents were
caretakers of a beach house and needed to sleep there at that time# (t 78EE in
the morning, a ticklish sensation and stabs of pain in her vagina awakened
&aricel# +hen she woke up, she saw the accused, 2oli 2ovio, naked on top of
her# ,er duster was rolled up to her neck and her panty has already been
removed by the accused# 2oel 2ovio was able to penetrate his penis inside
&aricels Vagina#
&eanwhile, &aricels parents were awakened by their neighbor and
reported to them that a man was inside their store# 2enita, &aricels mother
immediately got hold of her bolo and flashlight and proceeded to their store#
2enita saw a mans sandals at the doorstep# 2enita knocked and called out to
&aricel and ordered her to open the door# /espite repeated demands to open
the door, &aricel was not able to do so# 2enita was able to forcibly open the
door and beamed the flashlight to &aricel and saw 2oel 2ovio on top of her# $he
accused was holding the hands of &aricel with his left hand and covered her
mouth with his right hand# 2enita mounted to hack 2ovio with her bolo but the
accused immediately took his 5ogging pants and ran away leaving his shirt,
wallet, underwear and sandals# 2enita immediately reported the incident to the
barangay and went to the police for investigation# &aricel submitted herself to
medical e.amination right after the incident#
2oli 2ovio denied the allegations and argued that &aricel and him are
sweethearts# $he trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for the crime of rape and sentenced him to 7E years of reclusion perpetua and to
indemnify the victim the sum of Fifty $housand 9)=E,EEE#EE: pesos without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the cost of these
proceedings#
*sse:
+hether or not the trial court was correct in imposing the proper penalty
for the crime of rape6
+ecision:
123 | P a g e
2o, the Supreme Court held that the penalty imposed by the trial court is
void# 0nder (rticle 77= of the -evised )enal Code, as amended by -epublic (ct
D"=!, the prescribed penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua. ,owever, the
trial court sentenced the appellant to thirty years of reclusion perpetua# $he
penalty imposed by the trial court is void#(lthough under (rticle ;D of the -evised
)enal Code as amended by -epublic D"=!, reclusion perpetua has a range of
twenty years and one day to forty years, by nature, the penalty remains a single
and indivisible penalty# 3t cannot be divided into periods or e1ual portions# 3f the
law prescribes reclusion perpetua as a single and indivisible penalty for a felony,
the trial court is mandated to impose said penalty, absent any privileged
mitigating circumstances conformably with (rticle "7 of the -evised )enal Code#
$he trial court is not authori4ed to vary the penalty provided for by law either in
the character or the e.tent of punishment inflicted#
$here was no need for the trial court to specify the duration of thirty years
of reclusion perpetua whenever it is imposed as a penalty in any proper case#
$he Court is not impervious to (rticle DE of the -evised )enal Code which
pertinently provides that, in applying the so*called Bthree*fold rule,C i#e#, that
B9w:hen the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, # # # the ma.imum duration
of the convicts sentence shall not be more than three*fold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon himC N Bthe
duration of perpetual penalties 9penal perpetua: shall be computed at thirty
years#C $he imputation of a thirty*year duration to reclusion perpetua in (rticle DE
is, as this Court recently held, Bonly to serve as the basis for determining the
convicts eligibility for pardon or for the application of the three*fold rule in the
service of multiple penalties#
Maria $aralde
2008-032,
!eo"le v. Facarias #$.%. &o. '38330)
Facts:
12( | P a g e
Sergio )elicano, Sr#, on direct e.amination, testified that on Aune ;7, !!7
at about ;87E in the morning while waiting for his son, he heard a commotion
outside his house# +hen he looked outside, he saw Christopher Sacay, son of
his long*time friend, being chased by Sammy Iacarias, -odel Iacarias, +ally
$icalo and -ene &atugas# $he boy ran towards the Seventh /ay (dventist
Church# )elicano followed the group and when he was only about E meters
away from the four men, he saw -odel Iacarias hold the victim while the rest
took turns in stabbing and hacking the boy#,owever, $icalo claimed that on the
day of the said incident, he was working in the farm and had a drinking spree
with the owner of the farm until E8EE in the evening# $he owner of the farm even
contended that the town where his farm was was far distant from the town where
the stabbing incident took place# $he trial court sentenced $icalo to serve the
penalty of reclusion perpetua for the death of Christopher Sacay
*sse:
+hether or not the court a 1uo gravely erred in finding $icalo guilty of the
crime charged6
+ecision:
2o, the Supreme Court is not convinced with the contention of $icalo,
however, a word, in passing, about the manner the trial court imposed the
penalty# 3n the scales of penalties under the -evised )enal Code, reclusion
perpetua is the penalty immediately higher than reclusion temporal which has a
duration of twelve years and one day to twenty years# $he minimum range of
reclusion perpetua should then, by necessary implication, start at ;E years and
day while the ma.imum thereunder could be co*e.tensive with the rest of the
natural life of the offender# (rticle DE, however, provides that the ma.imum
period in regard to the service of sentence shall not e.ceed 4E years# .eclusion
perpetua remains to be an indivisible penalty and, when it is the prescribed
penalty, should be imposed in its entirety, i#e#, reclusion perpetuasans a fi.ed
period for its duration, regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance
that may have attended the commission of the crime# 3n prescribing the penalty
of reclusion perpetua,its duration in years, in fine, need not be specified#
Maria $aralde
2008-032,
!eo"le v. %amire: #$.%. &o. '382,')
Facts:
12$ | P a g e
%n &ay ;7, !!7, at D87E in the evening in 'gy# San Aose, %rmoc City,
&ontano 'ane4, while strolling in the pla4a, saw the victim Aonathan RAo5oC
(lkuino# Since Ao5o was a former resident of the barangay, 'ane4 invited him to
have a drinking spree in the nearby store# $he two sat side*by*side and were
e.changing stories when )edro -amire4 suddenly came up to them# -amire4 hit
Ao5o on the right side of his body 5ust below his ribs# Ao5o was immediately
brought to the hospital and was still alive on arrival but died the ne.t day due to
hypovolemic shock or massive blood loss# $he trial court found -amire4 guilty of
murder and sentencing him to <suffer imprisonment of forty 94E: years reclusion
perpetua#C
*sse:
+hether or not the trial court was correct in specifying the length of
imprisonment in the penalty of -eclusion )erpetua6
+ecision:
2o, the Supreme Court held that in sentencing appellant <to suffer
imprisonment of forty 94E: years reclusion perpetua#< $here was no 5ustification or
need for the trial court to specify the length of imprisonment, because reclusion
perpetua is an indivisible penalty# $he significance of this fundamental principle
was laid down by the Court in People #. Di+uit! <Since reclusion perpetua is an
indivisible penalty, it has no minimum, medium or ma.imum periods# 3t is
imposed in its entirety regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances
that may have attended the commission of the crime# 9(rt# "7, -evised )enal
Code: .eclusion perpetua is imprisonment for life but the person sentenced to
suffer it shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty 97E: years,
unless by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause, he shall be
considered by the Chief ?.ecutive as unworthy of pardon 9(rt# ;D, -evised )enal
Code:#<
Christine !ere:
200,-0'0-
126 | P a g e
Arts. -,-11: A""lication of !enalties
Com"le; Crime
!eo"le v. 2at"an #$.%. &os. ''2-(3-(,)
Facts:
%n (pril ;!, !!, Ceferino /agulo heard shouts of a woman and a child
coming from the north# ,e saw accused @erardo Gatupan walking in his
direction, carrying a thin, bloodied knife# (ccused Gatupan entered the house of
Ceferino and started chasing CeferinoLs wife, who was able to run#
$he house of ?milio (suncion known as B?myC was EE meters from
CeferinoLs house# ,e reached his house and found his wife, Gilia, dead on the
ground with several stab wounds on her body and his 7 children 9Geo, Aaime, and
Aose: wounded# /octors treated the in5uries of Geo and Aaime, ,owever, Aose
was transferred to another hospital due to seriousness of his wounds# Aose was
declared dead on arrival#
%n &ay ;=, !!7, at arraignment, accused pleaded not guilty to the
charge of frustrated murder# /uring the pre*trial conference of the four cases
9Criminal Case 2o# 7D!*$, Criminal Case 2o# 7HE*$, Criminal Case 2o# 7H*$,
Criminal Case 2o# 7H;*$:, accused offered to change his plea of not guilty to
guilty of the comple. crime of double murder and frustrated murder#
%n (ugust ;=, !!7, the trial court rendered a decision finding the
accused Gatupan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the comple. offense of
/ouble &urder and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to indemnify
the heirs#
*sse:
+hether or not trial court erred in convicting accused*appellant of the
comple. crime of double murder6
120 | P a g e
+ecision:
$he trial court, erred in convicting accused*appellant of the <comple.
crime of double murder< and separate offenses of serious physical in5uries#
(rticle 4H of the -evised )enal Code provides8 <+hen a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its ma.imum period#<
$he instant case does not fall under any of the two mentioned instances
when a comple. crime is committed# $he killing of Gilia (suncion and Aose
(suncion and the wounding of Aaime and Geo (suncion resulted not from a
single act but from several and distinct acts of stabbing# <+here the death of two
persons does not result from a single act but from two different shots, two
separate murders, and not a comple. crime, are committed#<
$hus, accused*appellant is liable, not for a comple. crime of double
murder, but for two separate counts of murder, and separate counts of physical
in5uries#
12' | P a g e
Christine !ere:
200,-0'0-
!eo"le v. !ineda #$.%. &o. 2-2,222)
Facts:
%n Auly ;!, !"=, the occupants of the home of the spouses $eofilo
&endo4a and Valeriana 'ontilao de &endo4a in )ugaan City of 3ligan, were
asleep# 3t was then that guns 9rifle, caliber ;;: and paliuntod9homemade gun:
were fired in rapid succession from outside the house# $eofilo &endo4a fell dead#
$hereafter, defendants below destroyed the door of the house, entered therein,
and let loose several shots killing 2eceforo &endo4a, all minor children of the
couple and wounding Valeriana 'ontilao de &endo4a#
$wo of the three defendants in the five criminal cases8 $omas 2arbasa
and $ambak (lindo, moved for a consolidation thereof <into one 9: criminal
case#< $heir plea is that <said cases arose out of the same incident and
motivated by one impulse#<
-espondent Audge directed the City Fiscal to unify all the five criminal
cases, and to file one single information in Case ;4"# ,e also ordered that the
other four cases, 2os# ;4D, ;4H, ;4! and ;=E <be dropped from the docket#<
$he City Fiscal moved for reconsideration upon the ground that <more
than one gun was used, more than one shot was fired and more than one victim
was killed#< $hereafter, the defense opposed#
%n &ay 7, !"", respondent Audge denied the motion to reconsider# ,e
took the position that the acts complained of <stemmed out of a series of
continuing acts on the part of the accused, not by different and separate sets of
shots, moved by one impulse and should therefore be treated as one crime
though the series of shots killed more than one victim>< and that only one
information for multiple murder should be filed, to obviate the necessity of trying
five cases instead of one#<
122 | P a g e
*sse:
+hether or not there should be one information, either for the comple.
crime of murder and frustrated murder or for the comple. crime of robbery with
multiple homicide and frustrated homicide or should the five indictments remain
as they are6
+ecision:
Four separate crimes of murder and a frustrated murder result from the
firing of several shots at five victims# $he crimes are not comple.# Five
information should be filed# $here is a comple. crime where one shot from a gun
results in the death of two or more persons, or where one stabbed another and
the weapon pierced the latters body and wounded another, or where a person
plants a bomb in an airplane and the bomb e.plodes, with the result that a
number of persons are killed# +hen various victicms e.pire from separate shots,
such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes#
%// | P a g e
Christine !ere:
200,-0'0-
!eo"le v. 0anidad #$.%. &o. '-,033)
Facts:
%n " Aanuary !!!, &arlon $ugadi, Aun Kuipay, -aymund Fontanilla,
-olando $ugadi, )epito $ugadi, /elfin $adeo, -icardo $adeo, ?dwin $umalip,
'obby Velas1ue4 and /ennis 'alueg left 'udac, $agum, (bra, on board a
passenger 5eepney driven by /elfin $adeo to attend a barangay fiesta in the town
of Gagangilang, (bra# +hen they arrived they 5oined the residents in a drinking
spree that lasted the following morning#
(ccused*appellants Aimmel Sanidad, )once &anuel alias )ambong and
several other residents of Gagangilang 5oined them in drinking# &arlon $ugadi
and accused Aimmel Sanidad were drinking buddies and members of the
C(F@0 before then#
%n D Aanuary !!!, Aimmel Sanidad and his companions finished
drinking and left# Shortly after, the group of &arlon $ugadi also stopped drinking
and headed home for 'udac, $agum, (bra, boarding the same 5eepney driven by
/elfin $adeo#
(s the 5eepney moved closer, the accused in a classic case of ambuscade
suddenly and without warning unleashed a volley of shots at the
5eepney#&iraculously, almost all of its passengers, with the e.ception of -olando
$ugadi, survived the ambush and suffered only minor in5uries#
(pparently shaken and da4ed by their terrifying ordeal, the victims hid in a
culvert on the side of the road and did not come out until the police arrived at the
scene# (pparently shaken and da4ed by their terrifying ordeal, the victims hid on
the side of the road and did not come out until the police arrived at the scene#
(n 3nformation for murder with multiple attempted murder and malicious
mischief was filed against Aimmel Sanidad, )once &anuel alias )ambong, Aohn
/oe and )eter /oe# $he defense of the accused rested on bare denial and alibi#
%/1 | P a g e
$he trial court disregarded the defense interposed by the accused and
convicted them of the comple. crime of murder and multiple attempted murder,
and sentenced them to death#
*sse:
+hether or not accused*appellants are guilty of comple. crime of murder
and multiple attempted murder and imposing upon then the supreme penalty of
death6
+ecision:
$he Supreme Court fully agreed with the lower court that the instant case
comes within the purview of (rt# 4H of $he -evised )enal Code which, speaking
of comple. crimes, provides that when <a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in
its ma.imum period#< 3n a comple. crime, although two or more crimes are
actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well
as in the conscience of the offender#
(lthough several independent acts were performed by the accused in
firing separate shots from their individual firearms, it was not possible to
determine who among them actually killed victim -olando $ugadi# &oreover,
there is no evidence that accused*appellants intended to fire at each and every
one of the victims separately and distinctly from each other# %n the contrary, the
evidence clearly shows a single criminal impulse to kill &arlon $ugadiLs group as
a whole# $hus, one of accused*appellants e.claimed in frustration after the
ambush8 <&y gosh, we were not able to kill all of them#< +here a conspiracy
animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts done in
pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the act of e.ecution,
giving rise to a single comple. offense#
%/% | P a g e
9ernadette %emalla
2001-0332
+elito Continado
%amiscal v. 0andiganba4an #$.%. &os. ',3121-28)
Facts:
)ursuant to the recommendation of the Senate 'lue -ibbon Committee to
Bprosecute andFor cause the prosecution of @en# Aose -amiscal Ar# 9-et:, past
(F)*-S'S )resident, who had signed the unregistered deeds of sale covering
the ac1uisition of certain parcels of land,C %mbudsman 3nvestigators -icardo
Sullano, -odil 'uenaventura and (natolio (le5andrino of the %ffice of the /eputy
%mbudsman for the &ilitary conducted a fact*finding investigation# $hey
e.ecuted a Aoint (ffidavit*Complaint, stating that based on their findings, the
following may be charged with falsification of public documents and violation of
Section 79e: and 9g: of -epublic (ct 9-#(#: 2o# 7E!8 petitioner 'F@en# Aose
-amiscal, Ar#, former (F)*-S'S president> (tty# &einrado ?nri1ue 'ello, ,ead
of the (F)*-S'S Gegal /epartment in charge of Gand (c1uisition> Capt#
)erfecto ?nri1ue Kuilicot, (F)*-S'S )ro5ect %fficer, $anauan, 'atangas, Gand
(c1uisition> and 2otaries )ublic (lfredo 2asser and &anuel Satuito#
$he matter was further looked into by a panel of %mbudsman
3nvestigators, which issued on &arch 7E, ;EE a Aoint -esolution finding
probable cause to file the corresponding 3nformations for 4H counts of violation
of (rticle 7=, in relation to (rticle D, paragraph 4 of the -evised )enal Code,
and Section 7 9e: of -#(# 2o# 7E! against &einrado 'ello and (tty# &anuel
Satuito# ,owever, it was likewise recommended that the complaint against
petitioner be dismissed, without pre5udice to a thorough fact*finding investigation
on his liability.
(fter conducting clarificatory hearings, the investigating panel issued a
&emorandum, recommending to the %mbudsman that petitioner be charged with
4H counts of estafa through falsification of public documents, and one count
violation of Section 79e: of -#(# 2o# 7E!# $he %mbudsman approved the
recommendation of the )anel of )rosecutors# )etitioner and his co*accused filed
their respective &otions for -econsideration of the investigating panels Aune =,
;EE4 &emorandum#$he Sandiganbayan denied the motion# 3t likewise denied the
%/3 | P a g e
motion for the consolidation of the cases, considering that the other cases filed
were pending in its other divisions#
)etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution which was
denied again by the Sandiganbayan# &otion to Kuash was likewise denied#
*sse:
+hether or not only one information for estafa should be filed for all these
cases6
@eld:
$he petition has no merit#$he Sandiganbayan, for its part, sustained the
contention of respondents and ruled that the determination of 9a: the chargeFs
and the personFs against whom the charge is filed are addressed to the sound
discretion of the )rosecutors based on the facts before them> and 9b: the crimes
committed by petitioner are separate, and not a single crime consisting of series
of acts arising from a single criminal resolution#
+hen re1uired to comment on the motion of petitioner and his co*
accused for a consolidation of the charges filed against them before the
Sandiganbayan, the Special )rosecutor ob5ected thereto, insisting that there
were as many crimes committed by the accused as there were sales contracts
forged by them#
3ndeed, the determination of what charges to file and who are to be
charged are matters addressed to the discretion of the %mbudsman, including
the matter of whether the crime perpetrated by petitioner and his co*accused
under the 3nformations pending in the /ivisions of the Sandiganbayan constitute
delito continuado or classified as concurso de delitos< orinvolve separate crimes
under the category of concurso real delito involve factual issues# Such factual
issues should be resolved after trial on the merits, and not in this case# $he Court
is being tasked to determine whether the several sales contracts e.ecuted by
petitioner and his co*accused were set afoot or triggered by a single impulse and
operated by an uninterrupted force however long a time it may occupy, which,
however, is a matter best left to the determination of the trial court, in this case,
the Sandiganbayan#
%/( | P a g e
9ernadette %emalla
2001-0332
0antiago v. $architorena #@#-# 2o# E!;"":
Facts:
%n &ay , !!, petitioner was charged in Criminal Case 2o# ""!H of
the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 79e: of -#(# 2o# 7E!, as amended,
otherwise known as the (nti*@raft and Corrupt )ractices (ct, allegedly
committed by her favoring <un1ualified< aliens with the benefits of the (lien
Gegali4ation )rogram#
%n &ay ;4, !!, petitioner filed with us a petition for certiorari and
prohibition, docketed as @#-# 2o# !!;H!*!!;!E 9Santiago v# Vas1ue4, ;E= SC-(
"; T!!;U:, to en5oin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with Criminal Case
2o# ""!H on the ground that said case was intended solely to harass her as she
was then a presidential candidate# $he petition was dismissed on Aanuary 7,
!!;#
%n %ctober ;D, !!;, the Sandiganbayan 9First /ivision:, of which
)residing Austice @architorena is a member, set the criminal case for
arraignment on 2ovember 7, !!;# $he Sandiganbayan 9First /ivision: denied
the motion to defer the arraignment# )etitioner filed a motion for a bill of
particulars# (ccording to petitioner, unless she was furnished with the names and
identities of the aliens, she could not properly plead and prepare for trial#
%n &arch 4, !!7, the Sandiganbayan 9First /ivision: promulgated a
resolution, admitting the 7; (mended 3nformations and ordering petitioner to post
the corresponding bail bonds# ,ence, the filing of the instant petition#
*sse:
+hether or not the 7; (mended 3nformations may be admitted6
@eld:
$he petition is denied#
%/$ | P a g e
$he Court find that, technically, there was only one crime that was
committed in petitionerLs case, and hence, there should only be one information
to be file against her#$he 7; (mended 3nformations charge what is known as
delito continuado or <continued crime< and sometimes referred to as <continuous
crime#<
$he original information charged petitioner with performing a single
criminal act * that of her approving the application for legali4ation of aliens not
1ualified under the law to en5oy such privilege# $he original information also
averred that the criminal act 8 9i: committed by petitioner was in violation of a law
* ?.ecutive %rder 2o# 7;4 dated
(pril 7, !HH, 9ii: caused an undue in5ury to one offended party, the
@overnment, and 9iii: was done on a single day, i#e#, on or about %ctober D,
!HH# $he 7; (mended 3nformations reproduced verbatim the allegation of the
original information, e.cept that instead of the word <aliens< in the original
information each amended information states the name of the individual whose
stay was legali4ed#
$he 7; (mended 3nformations aver that the offenses were committed on
the same period of time, i#e#, on or about %ctober D, !HH# $he strong
probability even e.ists that the approval of the application or the legali4ation of
the stay of the 7; aliens was done by a single stroke of the pen, as when the
approval was embodied in the same document# Gikewise, the public prosecutors
manifested at the hearing the motion for a bill of particulars that the @overnment
suffered a single harm or in5ury#
$he -esolution dated &arch 7, !!7 in Criminal Case 2o# ""!H of the
Sandiganbayan 9First /ivision: is affirmed and its -esolution dated &arch ,
!!7 in Criminal Case 2o# ""!H is modified in the sense that the %ffice of the
Special )rosecutor of the %ffice of the %mbudsman is directed to consolidate the
7; (mended 3nformations 9Criminal Cases 2os# H7D to H4E;: into one
information charging only one offense under the original case number, i#e#, 2o#
""!H#
%/6 | P a g e
Michelle %ica:a
2008-00-0
@abital +elinEenc4
!eo"le v. 5s"ina #$.%. &o. -3((,)
Facts:
$he appellant was charged in the lower court with the crime of theft of
articles valued at ) =H=#= and, having pleaded guilty, was sentenced to si.
months and one day of prision correccional and, being a habitual delin1uent, to
an additional penalty of two years, four months and one day of prision
correccional. $he appellant is a recidivist and plead guilty to the crime of theft# ,e
is also a habitual delin1uent, this being his third conviction#
*sse:
+hether or not recidivism, as inherent in habitual delin1uency, should still
be taken into consideration in fi.ing the principal penalty6
+ecision:
Jes, recidivism should still be taken into consideration in fi.ing the
principal penalty even though it is inherent in habitual delin1uency# $he appellant
in this case is a habitual delin1uent, this being his third conviction# -ecidivism,
although inherent in habitual delin1uency, should still be considered in fi.ing the
principal penalty# $here is no doubt that the purpose of the law in imposing
additional penalty on a habitual delin1uent is to punish him more severely#
,owever, the result would be otherwise if, for imposing the additional penalty,
recidivism could not be considered as an aggravating circumstance in fi.ing the
principal penalty# 3n the instant case, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
plea of guilty is present# 3f the aggravating circumstance of recidivism is not to be
taken into consideration for imposing the additional penalty for habitual
delin1uency, the mitigating circumstance would re1uire that the penalty
prescribed by law be imposed in it minimum period# $he imposition of the
additional penalty would make the penalty lighter, instead of more severe,
contrary to the purpose of the law#
%/0 | P a g e
Michelle %ica:a
2008-00-0
!eo"le v. +e Jess #$.%. &o. -('38)
Facts:
'asilio de Aesus y Aavier was convicted by the Court of First 3nstance of
&anila of the crime of theft of an umbrella and a buri hat valued at ) ;#"=
committed, according to the information, on (pril ;H, !7"# ,e was therein
sentenced to one month and one day of arresto mayor with accessory penalties,
to indemnify Francis Giwanag the value of the umbrella which was not recovered,
and being a habitual delin1uent, the additional penalty of two years, four months
and one day of prision correccional.
$he accused plead guilty of the crime imputed to him in the information
filed against him# 3t was alleged in the information that he is a habitual delin1uent,
having been convicted by final 5udgments of the crimes of theft and 1ualified theft
on Aanuary 4, !77 and 2ovember H, !7= respectively, the date of his last
release being Aanuary E, !7"#
/ue to his admission of guilt of the crime imputed to him in the
information, it is well settled in this 5urisdiction that when one pleads guilty of the
crime imputed to him in the information, it is understood that he admits all
material facts alleged therein, not e.cluding those alleging his former convictions
of other crimes#
*sse:
+hether or not the circumstance of recidivism can be and must be twice
taken into consideration, first as an aggravating circumstance, and second as a
1ualifying circumstance or one inherent in habitual delin1uency6
+ecision:
Jes, recidivism can be considered as an aggravating circumstance in
determining the principal penalty and as a 1ualifying circumstance in habitual
delin1uency#
%/' | P a g e
(s to the principal penalty, there is the rule that in cases in which the
penalty prescribed by law contains three periods, the courts must take into
consideration, in the application of said penalty, the aggravating or mitigating
circumstances established at the trial if they do not appear to be compensated by
other circumstance# 3t is reiterated in )eople vs# &elendre4 that the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism, even in cases of habitual delin1uency, should be
taken into consideration in the application of the principal penalty in the
corresponding period#
$he proposition that if recidivism is considered an inherent or 1ualifying
circumstance of habitual delin1uency it should not be taken into account in the
imposition of the principal penalty, seems to be untenable because it is based
upon the erroneous assumption that habitual delin1uency is a crime# 3t is simply
a fact or circumstance which, if present in a given case, gives rise to the
imposition of the additional penalties prescribed therein#
(s to the additional penalty, if we must rely upon the spirit and letter of the
law, we would say that the purpose of the latter in establishing it was to prevent
those for the second time or more commit the crimes from relapsing thereafter at
least during the period fi.ed thereby# $he lower court correctly ruled in imposing
the additional penalty#
%/2 | P a g e
%anv4lle Albano
2008-00(2
Arts. 83-33: Total 5;tinction of Criminal 2iabilit4
+eath of the Accsed
+e $:man v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '(-(13)
Facts:
%n February H, !!=, in the City of &akati, petitioner /e @u4man, stole
several pieces of 5ewelry valued at )4,"EE,EEE#EE belonging to one Aasmine
@ongora#$he trial court rendered its decision finding de @u4man guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and imposed a penalty of imprisonment, as well as the
penalties accessory thereto# $he Court further finds the accused /e @u4man
civilly liable and orders her to pay the private offended party# %n appeal, the C(
affirmed the conviction but reduced the award of damages# /uring the appeal in
the Supreme Court, on Aanuary 7E, ;EE7, counsel for the petitioner filed a
&anifestation informing the Court that the petitioner passed away on Aanuary 7,
;EE7#$he death of the petitioner resulted from a vehicular accident, as indicated
in the Certificate of /eath attached thereto#
*sse:
+hether or not the criminal and civil liability of the petitioner is
e.tinguished by reason of her death6
+ecision:
0pon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal
action is e.tinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the
accused> the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability e. delicto is
ipso facto e.tinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal#(lthough both the trial
and the appellate courts found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, she
had the right to appeal her case to this Court of last resort and challenge the
findings of the two courts below# $he 5udgment of conviction was pending review
until her untimely demise# 3t has, therefore, not yet attained finality# $hus,
pursuant to (rticle H! of the -evised )enal Code, it is incumbent upon the Court
to dismiss the instant petition for review# $he Court is dismissing the case
because there is no longer a need to continue with the review of the appeal# $he
lower courts decision has thus become ineffectual#
%1/ | P a g e
%anv4lle Albano
2008-00(2
!eo"le v. 9a4otas #$.%. &o. '02001)
Facts:
3n Criminal Case 2o# C*7;D filed before 'ranch ", -$C -o.as City,
-ogelio 'ayotas y Cordova was charged with -ape and eventually convicted
thereof on Aune !, !!#
)ending appeal of his conviction, 'ayotas died on February 4, !!; at the
2ational 'ilibid ,ospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic
encephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering#
Conse1uently, the Supreme Court in its -esolution of &ay ;E, !!;
dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal# ,owever, it re1uired the Solicitor
@eneral to file its comment with regard to 'ayotasL civil liability arising from his
commission of the offense charged#
3n his comment, the Solicitor @eneral e.pressed his view that the death of
accused*appellant did not e.tinguish his civil liability as a result of his
commission of the offense charged#
*sse:
+hether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction
e.tinguish his civil liability6
+ecision:
/eath of the accused pending appeal of his conviction e.tinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon# (s opined by
Austice -egalado, in this regard, <the death of the accused prior to final 5udgment
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and
based solely on the offense committed, i#e#, civil liability ex delicto in senso
strictiore#<
%11 | P a g e
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of
accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than
delict# (rticle =D of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of
obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or
omission8
a: Gaw
b: Contracts
c: Kuasi*contracts
d: # # #
e: Kuasi*delicts
+here the civil liability survives, as e.plained in 2umber ; above, an action
for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil
action and sub5ect to Section , -ule of the !H= -ules on Criminal
)rocedure as amended# $his separate civil action may be enforced either against
the e.ecutorFadministrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source
of obligation upon which the same is based as e.plained above#
Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file
this separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of
the criminal action and prior to its e.tinction, the private*offended party instituted
together therewith the civil action# 3n such case, the statute of limitations on the
civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of the criminal case,
conformably with provisions of (rticle == of the Civil Code, that should thereby
avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription#
(pplying this set of rules to the case at bench, we hold that the death of
appellant 'ayotas e.tinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based
solely on the act complained of, i#e#, rape# Conse1uently, the appeal is hereby
dismissed without 1ualification#
%1% | P a g e
%anv4lle Albano
2008-00(2
!eo"le v. Abngan #$.%. &o. '3,8-3)
Facts:
%n (ugust 4, !!;, at Capulaan, Villasis, )angasinan, the accused
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, armed with long
firearms, attack, assault and shoot Camilo /irilo, TSr#U y )a5arito, inflicting upon
him wounds on the different parts of his body which directly caused his death#
(n 3nformation, dated &arch !, !!7, was filed charging appellant )edro
(bungan, together with -andy )ascua and ?rnesto -agonton Ar# 9both at large:,
with murder#
$he trial court rendered a decision finding (bungan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder#
/uring appeal, in a letter dated (ugust D, ;EEE, however, Aoselito (#
Fa5ardo, assistant director of the 'ureau of Corrections, informed the Court that
(ppellant (bungan had died on Auly !, ;EEE at the 2') ,ospital#
*sse:
+hether or not the criminal and civil liability of the appellant is
e.tinguished by reason of her death6
+ecision:
3n the present case, it is clear that, following the case of People
#s.'ayotas, the death of appellant e.tinguished his criminal liability# &oreover,
because he died during the pendency of the appeal and before the finality of the
5udgment against him, his civil liability arising from the crime or delict 9civil
liability ex delicto: was also e.tinguished# 3t must be added, though, that his civil
liability may be based on sources of obligation other than delict# For this reason,
the victims may file a separate civil action against his estate, as may be
warranted by law and procedural rules#
%13 | P a g e
9rian 9onifacio +ela Cr:
2001-0388
!rescri"tion of 8ffenses
!anagiton v. +8J #$.%. &o. ',1(1')
Facts:
Cawili and his business associate $ongson borrowed from )anaguiton
9petitioner: sums amounting to ,!D!,4=!# $hey issued checks signed by both of
them to )anaguiton but these were dishonored upon presentation#)anaguiton
made demands to pay but to no avail# ,e formally filed a complaint on (ugust ;4,
!!= for violating ') ;; before the City )rosecutors %ffice#
$ongson moved to drop his name from the case as his signatures were
allegedly falsified# Case against him was dismissed but afterwards upon finding
that $ongson might have indeed signed the checks, the chief state prosecutor
directed the city prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation#$ongson moved for
reconsideration but denied#
3n !!! assistant prosecutor dismissed the complaint for the action has
prescribed pursuant to (ct 77;", which provides for the prescriptive periods of
statutes without their own 94 years for ');;:# She claims that the filing of the
complaint on (ugust ;4, !!= did not interrupt the running of the period as the law
refers to 5udicial and not administrative proceedings#
*sse:
+hether or not the filing of the complaint in the prosecutors office tolled
the prescriptive period6
+ecision:
Jes# Filing of the complaint in the prosecutors office tolls the prescriptive
period for violations of ');;#+hen (ct 77;" was passed into law, preliminary
investigation of cases was done by the 5ustices of peace, and not by agents of the
e.ecutive department 9i#e# prosecutors:# $hus, the prevailing rule at that time is
%1( | P a g e
that prescription is tolled once filed with the 5ustice of peace 9a 5udicial process:#
,owever, since then, the conduction of a preliminary investigation was moved to
the function of the e.ecutive department#
$oday, the term proceedings must be understood to mean either
e.ecutive or 5udicial proceedings# +ith this interpretation, any type of
investigation may ultimately lead to sufficiently toll prescription#
$o rule otherwise would deprive the in5ured party the right to obtain
vindication on account of delays not under his control# (s seen in this case,
various conflicting opinions of the /%A delayed his cause# (ggrieved parties who
do not sleep on their right should not be allowed to suffer simply because of
circumstances beyond their control#
%1$ | P a g e
9rian 9onifacio +ela Cr:
2001-0388
%ecebido v. !eo"le #3-, 0C%A 88')
Facts:
Sometime in (pril !H=, Caridad /orol mortgaged her property**an
agricultural land located in 'acon, Sorsogon to her cousin -ecebido#/orol and
-ecebido did not e.ecute any mortgage document, but instead, the former gave
to the latter a copy of the /eed of Sale dated Aune ", !D7 which was done by
Auan /orol 9father of Caridad:#
%n September !, !!E, Caridad /orol went to the house of -ecebido to
redeem such property, wherein -ecebido refused to allow claiming that /orol
has already sold to him the land on !D!# /orol, on the other hand, insisted that
the transaction between them was not a sale, but a mere mortgage#
Caridad /orol, then, went to the %ffice of the (ssessor in Sorsogon and
verified the e.istence of a file /eed of Sale dated (ugust 7, !D! in which she
knew that the property was already registered in -ecebidos name#( comparison
of the specimen signatures of Caridads other documents and that in the
1uestioned /eed of Sale was done, and 2'3 /ocument ?.aminer (ntonio
&agbo5as found out that in the latters signature was falsified#
$he %ffice of the )rovincial )rosecutor of Sorsogon filed the information
indicting -ecebido for Falsification of )ublic /ocument with the -egional $rial
Court of Sorsogon#
$he trial court rendered the decision convicting the petitioner of the crime and
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of one 9: year to three 97: years and si.
9": months of prision correccional as ma.imum and to pay a fine of $hree
$housand 9)7,EEE#EE: )esos, with subsidiary imprisonment#
$he defense of prescription was raised only during the motion for
reconsideration of the Court of (ppeals#
%16 | P a g e
*sse:
+hether or not the crime charged had already prescribed at the time the
information was filed6
+ecision:
2o# )rescription, although not invoked in the trial, may, as in this case, be
invoked on appeal# ,ence, the failure to raise this defense in the motion to 1uash
the information does not give rise to the waiver of the petitioner*accused to raise
the same anytime thereafter including during appeal#
2onetheless, we hold that the crime charged has not prescribed# $he
petitioner is correct in stating that whether or not the offense charged has already
prescribed when the information was filed would depend on the penalty imposable
therefore, which in this case is Bprision correccional in its medium and ma.imum
periods and a fine of not more than =,EEE#EE pesos#C
0nder the -evised )enal Code, said penalty is a correctional penalty in the
same way that the fine imposed is categori4ed as correctional# 'oth the penalty
and fine being correctional, the offense shall prescribe in ten years# $he issue that
the petitioner has missed, however, is the reckoning point of the prescriptive
period# $he petitioner is of the impression that the ten*year prescriptive period
necessarily started at the time the crime was committed# $his is inaccurate#
0nder (rticle ! of the -evised )enal Code, the period of prescription shall
Bcommence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended
party, the authorities, or their agents#
%10 | P a g e
9rian 9onifacio +ela Cr:
2001-0388
Cani:a v. !eo"le #'(3 0C%A ',)
Facts:
%n&arch ;E, !D4, (ssistant City Fiscal of &anila filedan 3nformation
for fal si fi cation of publi c documentsallegedly committed on 2ov# =, !"H by
Cani4a#
%n &ay ;4, !D4, Cani4a filed &otion to Kuash sayingthat allegations in
the information did not constitute an offense, and that the information contained
averments which, if true, would constitute a legal e.cuse or 5ustification#$he$rial
court granted &otion to Kuash, dismissed case against Cani4a# Fiscals &otion
for -econsideration of this %rder was denied#
%n Aune 7, !D!, a second 3nformationwas filed charging Cani4a
with substantially the same offense as that charged under the previous
information#Cani4a moved to 1uash this second information on the grounds that
: the offense charged had already prescribed, ;:1uashal of the first 3nformation
had been on the merits, 7:the allegations of the second 3nformation did not
constitute and offense#
$he 5udge i ssued an order denying the motion to 1uash# ,e also
denied Cani4as motion for reconsideration#
*sse:
+hether or not the offense charged had already prescribed6
+ecision:
2o# = years, 4 months, and " days had elapsed between 2ovember =,
!"H 9the date of commission of the alleged offense: and &arch ;E, !D4 9date
of filing the first information:> 4 years, ; months and ;days had elapsed
between (pril 7, !D= 9date of denial by the trial court of the Fiscals motion for
reconsideration: and Aune 7, !D! 9date of filing of the second information:# (
%1' | P a g e
total of ! years, " months and ;H days had been consumed by the time the
second 3nformation was filed in court#
0nder (rticle !E, in relation with (rticle D; of the -evised )enal Code,
the crime of falsification of public document committed by a private individual
*the offense with which petitioner Cai4a is presently charged * prescribes in ten
9E: years# 3n this respect, (rticle ! of the -evised )enal Code states further8
B$heperiod of prescription shall commence to run fromthe day on which the
crime is discovered by theoffended party, the authorities, or their agents,
andshall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint orinformation, andshall
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused
being convicted or ac1uitted,or are 5ustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him#C
%12 | P a g e
Alvin 8cam"o
20''-038,
Amnest4
!eo"le v. !atriarcha #$.%. &o. '3(-(1)
Facts:
%n (ugust ", !!E, an 3nformation for murder was filed
against Aose )atriarca, Ar#, alias <Ma /5ango,< <Carlos 2arra<, <Ma
Aessie,< et al#, for killing (lfredo (revalo#
(ccused*appellant Aose )atriarca, Ar# was also charged with
&urder for the killing of one -udy de 'or5a and a certain ?lmer
Cadag under 3nformations docketed as Criminal Cases 2os# ;""=
and ;"D;, respectively#
%n Aanuary ;E, !!H, the lower court rendered its decision
convicting the herein accused*appellant#
$hus, (ccused*(ppellant filed his appeal# ,owever, while his
appeal was pending, he applied for amnesty under )roclamation
2o# D;4 amending )roclamation 2o# 74D, dated &arch ;=, !!4,
entitled <@ranting (mnesty to -ebels, 3nsurgents, and (ll %ther
)ersons +ho ,ave or &ay ,ave Committed Crimes (gainst )ublic
%rder, %ther Crimes Committed in Furtherance of )olitical ?nds,
and Violations of the (rticle of +ar, and Creating a 2ational
(mnesty Commission#< ,is application was favorably granted by
the 2ational (mnesty 'oard#
(fter a careful verification and evaluation on the claims of
the applicant, the Gocal (mnesty 'oard concluded that his activities
were done in the pursuit of his political beliefs# 3t, thus,
recommended on ;E &ay !!H the grant of his application for
amnesty#
%%/ | P a g e
$he Commission, in its deliberation on the application on ;;
%ctober !!!, resolved to approve the recommendation of the
Gocal (mnesty 'oard#
$he %ffice of the Solicitor @eneral, in its letter dated Aune
;7, ;EEE to the 2ational (mnesty Commission, re1uested
information as to whether or not a motion for reconsideration was
filed by any party, and the action, if there was any, taken by the
2(C#
3n his reply dated Aune ;H, ;EEE, 2(C Chairman $adiar
wrote, among other things, that there has been no motion for
reconsideration filed by any party#
(ccused*appellant Aose 2# )atriarca, Ar# was granted
amnesty under )roclamation 2o# D;4 on &ay D, !!"#
*sse:
+hether or not the grant of amnesty in favor of Aose
)atriarca, Ar# * while the various criminal cases filed against him
were pending * shall completely e.tinguished his criminal liability6
+ecision:
(mnesty commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels for
their treason or other high political offenses, or the forgiveness
which one sovereign grant to the sub5ects of another, who have
offended, by some breach, the law of nations# (mnesty looks
backward, and abolishes and puts into oblivion, the offense itself> it
so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged,
that the person released by amnesty stands before the law
precisely as though he had committed no offense#
)aragraph 7 of (rticle H! of the -evised )enal Code
provides that criminal liability is totally e.tinguished by amnesty,
which completely e.tinguishes the penalty and all its effects#
%%1 | P a g e
3n the case of People #s. Casido, the difference between
pardon and amnesty is given8
<)ardon is granted by the Chief ?.ecutive and as such it is a
private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person
pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof> while
amnesty by )roclamation of the Chief ?.ecutive with the
concurrence of Congress, is a public act of which the courts should
take 5udicial notice# )ardon is granted to one after conviction> while
amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may
"e guilty of political offenses! generally "efore or after the institution
of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after con#iction. )ardon
looks forward and relieves the offender from the conse1uences of
an offense of which he has been convicted, that is, it abolishes or
forgives the punishment, and for that reason it does Lnot work the
restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the right of suffrage,
unless such rights be e.pressly restored by the terms of the
pardon,L and it Lin no case e.empts the culprit from the payment of
the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentenceL 9(rticle 7",
-evised )enal Code:# +hile amnesty looks backward and
abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks
and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person
released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he
had committed no offense#<
$his Court takes 5udicial notice of the grant of amnesty upon
accused*appellant Aose 2# )atriarca, Ar# %nce granted, it is binding
and effective# 3t serves to put an end to the appeal#
%%% | P a g e
%enato 0egbinese
200,-00-0
Arts. '00-'03: Civil 2iabilit4
&gid v. &icdao #$.%. &o. '(018()
Facts:
(ccused Clarita S# 2icdao is charged with having committed the crime of
Violation of ') ;; in fourteen 94: counts# $he criminal complaints allege that
sometime in !!", from (pril to (ugust thereof, TrespondentU and her husband T,U
of Vignette Superstore T,U approached TpetitionerU and asked her if they TcouldU
borrow money to settle some obligations# ,aving been convinced by them and
because of the close relationship of TrespondentU to TpetitionerU, the latter lent the
former her money# $hus, every month, she was persuaded to release
)EE,EEE#EE to the accused until the total amount reached ),=E,EEE#EE#
(s security for the ),=E,EEE#EE, TrespondentU gave Tpetitioner a open
dated ,ermosa Savings 'ank 9,SG': with the assurance that if the entire
amount is not paid within one 9: year, TpetitionerU can deposit the check#
3n Aune !!D, TpetitionerU together with Samson Ching demanded payment
of the sums Tabove*mentionedU, but TrespondentU refused to acknowledge the
indebtedness# $hus, on %ctober ", !DD, TpetitionerU deposited all
aforementioned checks in the bank of Samson Ching totaling ),=E,EEE#EE
since all the money given by her to TrespondentU came from Samson Ching# $he
checks were all returned for having been drawn against insufficient funds 9/(3F:#
( verbal and written demand was made upon TrespondentU to pay the amount
represented by the bounced checks, but TtoU no avail# ,ence, a complaint for
violation of ') ;; was filed against the TrespondentU#
*sse:
+hether respondent remains civilly liable to her for the sum of),=E,EEE#
3n this connection, she asserts that respondent obtained loans from her in the
aggregate amount of),=E,EEE and that these loans have not been paid6
%%3 | P a g e
+ecision:
From the standpoint of its effects, a crime has a dual character8 9: as an
offense against the State because of the disturbance of the social order and 9;:
as an offense against the private person in5ured by the crime unless it involves
the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage, contempt and others 9wherein no civil
liability arises on the part of the offender either because there are no damages to
be compensated or there is no private person in5ured by the crime:# +hat gives
rise to the civil liability is really the obligation of everyone to repair or to make
whole the damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission, whether
done intentionally or negligently and whether or not punishable by law#
?.tinction of penal action does not carry with it the eradication of civil
liability, unless the e.tinction proceeds from a declaration in the final 5udgment
that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not e.ist#
$he basic principle in civil liability ex delicto is that every person criminally
liable is also civilly liable, crime being one of the five sources of obligations under
the Civil Code# ( person ac1uitted of a criminal charge, however, is not
necessarily civilly free because the 1uantum of proof re1uired in criminal
prosecution 9proof beyond reasonable doubt: is greater than that re1uired for civil
liability 9mere preponderance of evidence:# 3n order to be completely free from
civil liability, a personLs ac1uittal must be based on the fact that he did not commit
the offense# 3f the ac1uittal is based merely on reasonable doubt, the accused
may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act
complained of# 3t may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the offense
charged#
(c1uittal will not bar a civil action in the following cases8 9: where the
ac1uittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is
re1uired in civil cases> 9;: where the court declared the accusedLs liability is not
criminal but only civil in nature and 97: where the civil liability does not arise from
or is not based upon the criminal act of which the accused was ac1uitted#
3n this petition, we find no reason to ascribe any civil liability to
respondent# (s found by the C(, her supposed civil liability had already been
fully satisfied and e.tinguished by payment# $he statements of the appellate
%%( | P a g e
court leave no doubt that respondent, who was ac1uitted from the charges
against her, had already been completely relieved of civil liability#
Gikewise, TpetitionerU admitted having received the cash payments from
petitioner on a daily basis but argues that the same were applied to interest
payments only# 3t however appears that TpetitionerU was charging TrespondentU
with an e.orbitant rate of interest on a daily basis# 3n any event, the cash
payments TmadeU were recorded at the back of the cigarette cartons by
TpetitionerU in her own handwriting as testified to by TrespondentU and her
employees, &elanie $olentino and Aocelyn 2icdao# 3ndeed, the daily cash
payments marked in evidence as ?.hibits D to = reveal that TrespondentU had
already paid her obligation to TpetitionerU in the amount of )=,DHE,EEE#EE as of
Auly ;, !!D and that she stopped making further payments when she reali4ed
that she had already paid such amount#
From the foregoing, it would appear that TrespondentU made a total
payment of )",!HE,EEE#EE, inclusive of the ),;EE,EEE#EE /emand /raft, which
is definitely much more than ),=E,EEE#EE, the amount she actually borrowed
from TpetitionerU# $hese facts were never rebutted by TpetitionerU#
&oreover, we find no evidence was presented by the prosecution to prove
that there was a stipulation in writing that interest will be paid by TrespondentU on
her loan obligations Tas re1uired under (rticle !=" of the Civil CodeU#
'y and large, the obligation of TrespondentU has already been e.tinguished
long before the encashment of the sub5ect checks# ( check is said to apply for
account only when there is still a pre*e.isting obligation# 3n the case at bench, the
pre*e.isting obligation was e.tinguished after full payment was made by
TrespondentU# +e therefore find the clear and convincing documentary evidence
of payment presented by TrespondentU worthy of credence#
%%$ | P a g e
5ddie Tamondong
2003-0'18
0bsidiar4 Civil 2iabilit4 of 8ther !ersons
&eva 5s"ana v. !eo"le #-,0 0C%A (-1)
Facts:
)etitioner 2ueva ?spana was found guilty of reckless imprudence resulting
into double homicide when the passenger bus he was driving rammed into a
,onda motorcycle driven by -eynard So with 2ilo Castro as passenger resulting
into the death of both# (n aggravating circumstance was also imposed as
?spana also left the scene of the crime without lending assistance to the victims#
/uring trial, the father of So and the mother of Castro were both called on to
testify as to the earning capacity of the two# Sos father claimed that his son was
earning )HE,EEE a month while Castros mother said that his son was bringing in
)H,EEE a month# Sos father additionally testified that the funeral e.penses
incurred by them was )HD,EEE while Castros mom stated that they spent
)7E,EEE for the funeral#
(s a result the trial court, besides imprisonment, awarded the following
amounts to the heirs of the victims8
$% $,? ,?3-S %F $,? V3C$3& -?J2(-/ S%
: );,!!D,EEE#EE N indemnity for loss of earning capacity of victim
;: 4,;EE#EE N for e.penses of the wake
7: ;E,EEE#EE N for funeral parlor
4: ;,EEE#EE N for the tomb
=: =7,EEE#EE N for cost of burial site
": 7E,EEE#EE N for attorneys fees
D: ;EE,EEE#EE N for moral damages
H: EE,EEE#EE N for e.emplary damages
! 3D-23D200.00 G T8TA2 AM8/&T
$% $,? ,?3-S %F V3C$3& 23G% C(S$-%
: ),D;H,EEE#EE N indemnity for loss of earning capacity
;: ;E,EEE#EE N for funeral e.penses
7: ;EE,EEE#EE N for moral damages
4: =E,EEE#EE N for e.emplary damages
! 'D338D000.00 G T8TA2 AM8/&T
$he court based the amount of loss of earning capacity based on the
formula used by the Supreme Court as illustrated8
%%6 | P a g e
(s to the civil liability, particularly the indemnity for the loss of the earning
capacity of the victims, the formula last enunciated by the Supreme Court is8
B2et earning capacity 9.: X life e.pectancy . gross*living
e.penses annual 9=EY of
gross annual
income:C
$husly, since the victim -eynard So was earning )HE,EEE a month at the
time of his death when he was thirty 97E: years old, his lost earning capacity
should be computed as follows8
. X ; 9HE Z 7E: . T)!"E,EEE#EE Z )4HE,EEE#EE:
7
. X 77#4 . )4HE,EEE#EE
. X . )",E7;,EEE#EE
+ith respect to the victim 2ilo Castro, he was earning )H,EEE#EE a month
when he died at the age of twenty*si. 9;":# ,is lost earnings were8
. X ; 9HE Z ;": T)!",EEE#EE Z )4H,EEE#EEU
7
. X 7" . )4H,EEE#EE
. X ),D;H,EEE#EE
(s a result, petitioner appeals to the C( but the appellate court affirmed the
decision of the trial court regarding the damages, Conse1uently, the C( declared
that Vallacar $ransit 3nc#, should not yet be held subsidiary liable for the liability
of the petitioner as its driver# $hus, this petition for review with the SC#
*sse:
+as the award of damages amounting to )H million proper6
+ecision:
$he SC modifies the award of damages mostly to the fact that loss of
earning capacity should be properly adduced and supported by competent
evidence to prove the same# $his rule also applies to the funeral and burial
e.penses# 3n the case at bar, the lower courts based their award for damages
solely on the testimony of S%s father and Castros mother, even though both of
them never substantiated the amounts claimed with receipts, papers and other
evidence# (nd so the award is modified as follows8
$o summari4e, the heirs of the deceased -eynard So are entitled to the following8
) =E,EEE P civil indemnity ex delicto
%%0 | P a g e
D7,EEE P actual damages
;=,EEE P temperate damages
=E,EEE P moral damages
;=,EEE P e.emplary damages
7E,EEE P attorneys fees
) ;=7,EEE P $%$(G
$he heirs of 2ilo Castro are also entitled to the following8
) =E,EEE P civil indemnity ex delicto
=E,EEE P temperate damages
=E,EEE P moral damages
;=,EEE P e.emplary damages
7E,EEE P attorneys fees
) ;E=,EEE P $%$(G
$he SC meanwhile adopts the pronouncement of the Court of (ppeals
regarding the subsidiary liability of petitioners employer, Vallacar $ransit 3nc#,
under (rticle E7 of the -evised )enal Code# (n employer may be subsidiarily
liable for the employees civil liability in the criminal action if it can be shown that8
9: the employer is engaged in any kind of industry> 9;: the employee committed
the offense in the discharge of his duties and 97: the accused is insolvent#
,owever, sub5ect to prevailing 5urisprudence, the subsidiary liability may be
enforced only upon a motion for subsidiary writ of e.ecution against Vallacar
$ransit, 3nc# and upon proof that petitioner is insolvent#
%%' | P a g e
5ddie Tamondong
2003-0'18
!angonorom v. !eo"le #-(( 0C%A 2'')
Facts:
)angonorom was the driver of a passenger bus owned and operated by
&&$C which collided with a @emini 3su4u car driven by Carlos 'erba, resulting
into the damage of the car and physical in5uries obtained by 'erba#
)angonorom was found guilty of reckless imprudence resulting into
damage to property and physical in5uries#
$he trial court awarded damages amounting to )4;,EEE but was silent as
to the subsidiary liability of &&$C# Conse1uently, the C( affirmed the decision of
the trial court and also found &&$C subsidiary liable for the amount
notwithstanding the fact that the 5udgment of the trial court was silent as to said
matter#
*sse:
/id the C( err in not holding &&$C not subsidiary liable despite the fact
that the -$C did not mention anything to that effect6
+ecision:
$he SC ruled that even when the dispositive portion of an -$C decision
does not e.pressly pronounce subsidiary liability of the employer, they are
deemed written into the 5udgment whenever applicable#
'ut, he subsidiary liability of the employer arises only after conviction of
the employee in the criminal action# 3n the present case, there e.ists an
employer*employee relationship between petitioners, the &&$C is engaged in
the transportation industry, and %limpio has been ad5udged guilty of a wrongful
act and found to have committed the offense in the discharge of his duties#
%%2 | P a g e
,owever, there is no proof here of %limpios insolvency# $he 5udgment of
conviction against %limpio has not attained finality# $his being so, no writ of
e.ecution can issue against him to satisfy his civil liability# %nly after proof of the
accused*employees insolvency may the subsidiary liability of his employer be
enforced#
3n short, there is as yet no occasion to speak of enforcing the employers
subsidiary civil liability unless it appears that the accused*employees primary
liability cannot in the first instance be satisfied because of insolvency# $his fact
cannot be known until sometime after the verdict of conviction shall have become
final# (nd even if it appears prima facie that e.ecution against the employee
cannot be satisfied, e.ecution against the employer will not issue as a matter of
course# $he procedure for the enforcement of a 5udgment will have to be
followed# %nce the 5udgment of conviction against %limpio becomes final and
e.ecutory, and after the writ of e.ecution issued against him is returned
unsatisfied because of his insolvency, only then can a subsidiary writ of
e.ecution be issued against the &&$C after a hearing set for that precise
purpose# 3t is still too early to hold the &&$C subsidiarily liable with its accused*
employee considering that there is no proof yet of %limpios insolvency#
%3/ | P a g e
5ddie Tamondong
2003-0'18
7into v. Andres #-(3 0C%A ('')
Facts:
)etitioner Kuinto is the mother of an *year old boy named +ilson who
died while going inside a drainage with the respondents (ndres and )acheco,
who were also of the same age#
+hat was clear according to a witness who was a friend of the victim was
that the three of them 9+ilson and the respondents: went inside the drainage
filled with water# First to emerge was )acheco who immediately went home, and
then ne.t to come out was (ndres who was already carrying the dead body of
+ilson#
(fter being charged with homicide, the trial court the respondents not
guilty and also found the same not civilly liable because of the absence of
preponderance of evidence to prove liability# K0into appealed the civil aspect of
the decision which the C( affirmed#
*sse:
)etitioner comes to the Court and raises the following issues8 : /oes
e.tinction of criminal liability carry with it e.tinction of the civil liability> and ;:
was the prosecution able to establish preponderance of evidence#
+ecision:
$he civil action based on delict is not e.tinguished unless the court itself
finds that civil liability did not arise# 3n the case at bar, the trial court was very
clear that the prosecution was not able to establish a preponderance of evidence
to find the respondents liable#
%31 | P a g e
(s to whether preponderance of evidence should have been considered,
the trial court and the C( was correct in their findings# )reponderance of
evidence should not be based on the fact that the evidence of the defense is
weaker# $he evidence presented must be strong enough to S0FF3C3?2$GJ
S0S$(32 $,? C(0S? %F (C$3%2#
3n the case at bar, the prosecution single prosecution witness testified that
the hematomas on the alleged victim may have been caused by either hitting
with a blunt ob5ect or slipping and falling on the hard pavement#
?ven the friend of the deceased testified that the drainage was so dark
and this was the reason that he did not come with the other boys inside#
(nd so, the possibility of slippage by +ilson was very much a possibility#
%3% | P a g e
Migel !aolo 0oliman
20'0-020-
!robation 2aB #!.+. &o. 3,8)
Francisco v. CA #$.%. &o. '081-1)
Facts:
)etitioner, as )resident and @eneral &anager of the company, humiliated
his employees and blurted out invectives against the latter# ,e was charged with
multipTle grave oral defamation by = of his employees who were allegedly the
recipient of the said invectives#
,e was found guilty of oral defamation in 4 out of = cases filed against
him# )etitioner elevated the 5udgment from the &e$C to the -$C> however, the
latter affirmed his conviction, with modification, accrediting to him the mitigating
circumstance of passion or obfuscation# ,is appeal to the C( was to no avail
also#
*sse:
+hether or not petitioner is still 1ualified to avail of probation6
+ecision: &8
)robation is a mere privilege, not a right# 3ts benefits cannot e.tend to
those not e.pressly included# )robation is not a right of an accused, but rather an
act of grace and clemency or immunity conferred by the state which may be
granted by the court to a seemingly deserving defendant who thereby escapes
the e.treme rigors of the penalty imposed by law for the offense of which he
stands convicted#
$he )robation Gaw should not therefore be permitted to divest the state or
its government of any of the latterLs prerogatives, rights or remedies, unless the
%33 | P a g e
intention of the legislature to this end is clearly e.pressed, and no person should
benefit from the terms of the law who is not clearly within them#
$hat an appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if
the appeal is taken solely to reduce the penalty is simply contrary to the clear
and e.press mandate of Sec, 4 of )#/# 2o# "E7, which states that no application
for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the
appeal from the 5udgment of conviction#
$he penalties imposed by the &e$C were already probationable# ,ence,
there was no need to appeal if only to reduce the penalties to within the
probationable period#
$he multiple prison terms are distinct from each other, and if none of the
terms e.ceeds the limit set out in the )#/# 2o# "E7, then he is entitled to
probation, unless he is otherwise specifically dis1ualified#
Fi.ing the cut*off point at a ma.imum term of si. 9": years imprisonment
for probation is based on the assumption that those sentenced to higher
penalties pose too great a risk to society, not 5ust because of their demonstrated
capability for serious wrong doing but because of the gravity and serious
conse1uences of the offense they might further commit#
Considering that the multiple prison terms should not be summed up but
taken separately as the totality of all the penalties is not the test, petitioner should
have immediately filed an application for probation as he was already 1ualified
after being convicted by the &e$C, if indeed thereafter he felt humbled, was
ready to unconditionally accept the verdict of the court and admit his liability#
Conse1uently, in appealing the /ecision of the &e$C to the -$C, petitioner lost
his right to probation# For, plainly, the law considers appeal and probation
mutually e.clusive remedies#
%3( | P a g e
Migel !aolo 0oliman
20'0-020-
2agrosa v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '(20--)
Facts:
)etitioners were found guilty by the -$C, of violation with Sec# "H of )#/#
2o# DE=, for having found in possession of forest products without permit# $hey
appealed the decision to the C(, but it affirmed their conviction, with
modifications as to the penalty imposed by the lower court> from ;*H years to "
months to year#
)etitioners applied for probation but was denied by the trial court, and
subse1uently affirmed by the C(#
*sses:
+hether or not petitioner can still apply for probation6&8
+hether or not 6ransisco #. CA applies in this case6?50
+ecision:
$he fact that petitioners put the merits of their conviction in issue on
appeal belies their claim that their appeal was prompted by what was admittedly
an incorrect penalty# Certainly, the protestations of petitioners connote a
profession of guiltlessness, if not complete innocence, and do not simply assail
the propriety of the penalties imposed#
For sure, petitioners never manifested that they were appealing only for
the purpose of correcting a wrong penalty N to reduce it to within probationable
range# ,ence, upon interposing an appeal, more so after asserting their
innocence therein, petitioners should be precluded from seeking probation#
%3$ | P a g e
'y perfecting their appeal, petitioners ipso facto relin1uished the
alternative remedy of availing of the )robation Gaw, the purpose of which is
simply to prevent speculation or opportunism on the part of an accused who,
although already eligible, does not at once apply for probation, but did so only
after failing in his appeal#
(lthough it has been suggested that an appeal should not bar the accused
from applying for probation if the appeal is solely to reduce the penalty to within
the probationable limit may be e1uitable, we are not yet prepared to accept this
proposition, especially given the factual circumstances of this case# ,ad the
petitioners appeal from the decision of the trial court raised the impropriety of the
penalty imposed upon them as the sole issue, perhaps this Court would have
been more sympathetic to their plight# 0nfortunately, their misrepresentation has
led to their own undoing#
%36 | P a g e
Migel !aolo 0oliman
20'0-020-
<ico4 v. !eo"le #$.%. &o. '38203)
Facts:
)etitioner was convicted for violation of an ordinance against peddling fish
outside of market, as well as for the crime of resisting and disobeying an agent of
a person in authority#
)etitioner filed an application for probation, but subse1uently withdrew it
and filed a notice of appeal# &$CC granted the withdrawal of application for
probation butdenied her notice appeal for being filed out of time#$he court
ordered petitioner to furnish the City )rosecutors %ffice a copy of her
memorandum and the assailed 5udgement of conviction# )etitioner failed to do
so, and the court dismissed her special civil action for certiorari#
*sse:
+hether or not the -$C erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on
ground of petitioners failure to comply with the earlier %rder of the same court6
+ecision: &8
$he fact that the City )rosecutors %ffice has not yet entered its
appearance is no 5ustification to petitioners adamant and continued insistence
not to comply with a lawful order of the court# ?very court has the power to
enforce and compel obedience to its orders, 5udgments, and processes in all
proceedings pending before it#
Section D, -ule ;E, of the -ules on Criminal )rocedure is e.plicit that a
5udgment in a criminal case becomes final when the accused has applied for
probation# $his is totally in accord with Section 4 of )residential /ecree 2o# !"H,
which in part provides that the filing of an application for probation is deemed a
waiver of the right to appeal# $hus, there was no more opportunity for petitioner
%30 | P a g e
to e.ercise her right to appeal, the 5udgment having become final by the filing of
an application for probation#
Maria Criselda FoAas
20'0-022,
Anti-Fencing 2aB #!.+. &o. ','2)
Francisco v. !eo"le #-3- 0C%A '22)
Facts:
)acita Ginghon was the helper of Aovita -odrigue4# )acita, through her
brother &acarion, sold to petitioner ?rnesto Ginghon several pieces of 5ewelry
stolen from -odrigue4# $he -egional $rial Court of &alolos, 'ulacan, 'ranch ;;,
found petitioner ?rnesto Francisco guilty of violating )residential /ecree 2o#
";, otherwise known as the (nti*Fencing Gaw, sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of ten 9E: years and one 9: day of prision mayor ma.imum, as
minimum, to twenty 9;E: years of reclusion temporal ma.imum, as ma.imum,
with the accessory penalties corresponding to the latter, and to pay the
corresponding value of the sub5ect pieces of 5ewelry# $he petitioner asserts that
the prosecution failed to prove his guilt for the crime charged beyond reasonable
doubt# ,e avers that the prosecution failed to prove that )acita stole the 5ewelry
sub5ect of the charge, and that &acario sold the said pieces of 5ewelry to him#
*sse:
+hether the Court of (ppeals erred in sustaining the trial courts decision
finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of the 9sic:
)residential /ecree 2o# ";, otherwise known as the (nti*Fencing Gaw6
+ecision:
$he essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows8 9: a crime
of robbery or theft has been committed> 9;: the accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, ac1uires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in
any manner deals in any article, item, ob5ect or anything of value, which has
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft> 97: the accused
knew or should have shown that the said article, item, ob5ect or anything of value
%3' | P a g e
has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft> and, 94:
there is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another#
&acario Ginghon testified that he sold the 5ewelry to petitioner# B(lthough the well*
entrenched rule is that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient on which to
anchor a 5udgment of conviction, it is re1uired that such testimony must be
credible and reliable# 3n this case, we find the testimony of &acario to be
dubious> hence, barren of probative weight#C $he Court further held B3t bears
stressing that, in the absence of direct evidence that the accused had knowledge
that the 5ewelry was stolen, the prosecution is burdened to prove facts and
circumstances from which it can be concluded that the accused should have
known that the property sold to him were stolen# $his re1uirement serves two
basic purposes8 9a: to prove one of the elements of the crime of fencing> and, 9b:
to enable the trial court to determine the imposable penalty for the crime, since
the penalty depends on the value of the property#C
%32 | P a g e
Maria Criselda FoAas
20'0-022,
Tan v. !eo"le #3'3 0C%A 220)
Facts:
-osita Gim is the proprietor of 'ueno &etal 3ndustries> upon inventory, she
found that several pieces of e1uiptment were missing# &anuelito &ende4 was a
former employee of Gim, who left her employment before Gim found out that her
goods were missing# Subse1uently, &anuelito &ende4 was arrested in the
Visayas and he admitted that he and his companion @audencio /ayop stole from
the complainants warehouse some boat spare parts such as bron4e and
stainless propellers and brass screws# &anuelito &ende4 asked for
complainants forgiveness# ,e pointed to petitioner -amon C# $an as the one
who bought the stolen items and who paid the amount of )7,EEE#EE, in cash to
&ende4 and /ayop, and they split the amount with one another# $an was found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating the (nti*Fencing Gaw of !D!,
otherwise known as )residential /ecree 2o# ";, and sentences him to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of S3O 9": J?(-S and %2? 9: /(J to $?2 9E:
J?(-S of prision mayor and to indemnify -osita Gim the value of the stolen
merchandise purchased by him in the sum of )H,EEE#EE#
*sse:
+hether or not the prosecution has successfully established the elements
of fencing as against petitioner6
+ecision:
Fencing, as defined in Section ; of )#/# 2o# "; is the act of any person
who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
keep, ac1uire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner
deal in any article, item, ob5ect or anything of value which he knows, or should be
known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft# $he essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows8 9: a crime of
robbery or theft has been committed> 9;: the accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, ac1uires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in
%(/ | P a g e
any manner deals in any article, item, ob5ect or anything of value, which has
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft> 97: the accused
knew or should have shown that the said article, item, ob5ect or anything of value
has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft> and, 94:
there is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another# $he
Supreme Court stated that there was no sufficient proof of the unlawful taking of
anothers property# $he theft was not proved because complainant -osita Gim did
not complain to the public authorities of the felonious taking of her property# She
sought out her former employee &anuelito &ende4, who confessed that he stole
certain articles from the warehouse of the complainant and sold them to
petitioner# Such confession is insufficient to convict, without evidence of corpus
delicti.$he Court held that accused $an could not be held guilty because there
was no showing at all that the accused knew or should have known that the very
stolen articles were the ones sold to him#
%(1 | P a g e
%(% | P a g e
E
E