G.R. No.

L-49831 June 27, 1990

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERNESTO GA Y ESPLANADA, ALFREDO ENDENCIO Y SALVADOR and
REYNALDO RUGA Y RESURRECCION alias REYNALDO BUSTAMANTE Y MUTAS, defendants. ERNESTO GA Y ESPLANADA,defendantappellant.
Facts:
This case involves the dastardly killing of an old couple in Forbes Park and their housemate and serious injury to a daughter in the course of a
robbery of a wristwatch worth P100.00 and a transistor radio worth P60.00. It reached this Court on mandatory review of the judgment
promulgated on 10 August 1977 by the Circuit Criminal Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Pasig, 1 convicting the accused of the crime of
Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide and imposing the penalties of three death sentences for each of the accused.
Accused Alfredo Endencio and Reynaldo Ruga manifested in a letter received by the Court that they were willing to accept the sentence of
reclusion perpetua. In a Resolution dated 1 June 1988 the First Division of this Court noted the manifestation of the two accused and remanded
the case to the lower court for execution ofjudgment as to them, while the appeal of Ernesto Ga continued.
Appellant Ga does not dispute the findings of fact of the trial court. In his appeal, appellant questions only the application of certain aggravating
circumstances and the exclusion of some mitigating circumstances by the court a quo. which found the facts attendant to the commission of the
crime charged as follows:
Upon arraigrunent, the above accused, being duly assisted by counsel de officio, pleaded guilty to the Information. On 10 August
1977 they were found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Triple Homicide and Frustrated Homicide and
sentenced to each suffer the penalty of DEATH THRICE. They were also ordered to jointly and severally indemnify the heirs of the
victims in the amount of P200,000.00; to pay moral damages in the amount of P10,000.00; and another P10,000.00 as exemplary
damages, jointly and severally; and to pay their proportionate shares of the costs.
Issue:
led to the
benefits under presidential decree no. 603, otherwise known as the child and youth welfare code.

Ruling:
The court held that the purpose of articles 189 and 192 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code is the same as that of article 80 (of the Revised
Penal Code) and that is to avoid a situation where juvenile offenders would commingle with ordinary criminals in prison. So, instead of imposing
a condemnatory sentence on them, they are confined in a beneficent institution for their care, correction and education (People v. Estefa, 86
Phil. 104, 110).
Article 192 should be interpreted in the same manner as article 80. Under the original provisions of Article 80 (before it was amended by
Republic Act No. 47 which reduced the age of eighteen years to sixteen years), it was held that if at the time the crime was committed the
accused was below eighteen years but at the time of the trial or conviction he was no longer a minor, he is not entitled anymore to a suspended
sentence because he is not a juvenile offender but already an adult. The reason for the suspended sentence does not apply to him (People v.
Celespara, 82 Phil. 399;People v. Nunez, 85 Phil. 448; People v. Estefa, supra; People v. Lingcuan, 93 Phil. 9; People v. Doria, L-26189 and
two other cases, January 31, 1974, 55 SCRA 435, 450; People v. Pedro, L-1 8997, January 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 57, 67).
Finally, appellant argues that the lower court erred in sentencing him to death. Under the Revised Penal Code, when by reason or on the
occasion of a robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is imposable. Based on the
foregoing disquisition, it is clear that the imposition of the death penalty is correct there being three aggravating circumstances: abuse of
superior strength, nighttime and intoxication, and only one mitigating circumstance; the voluntary plea of guilty. However, consistent with the
Constitution and Our ruling in People v. Millora, et al., 44 to the effect that Section 19(1), Article III of the Constitution does not declare the
abolition of the capital punishment but merely prohibits its imposition, the penalty to be imposed on appellant Ga is reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
The lower court, however, was in error when it convicted the accused of "the crimes of Robbery with Triple Homicide, and Frustrated
Homicide," and in imposing on each of the accused the death penalty three times. We reiterate at this point Our ruling in People v. Cario, that
there is no crime of Robbery with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. The term 'Homicide' in paragraph 1, Art. 294 is to be understood in its
generic sense. It includes murder and slight physical injuries committed during the occasion of the robbery wmeh crimes are merged in the
crime of robbery with homicide as defined in paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code (People v. Saquing, 30 SCRA 834)."
Notwithstanding the fact that three persons were killed and one seriously injured in the commission of the robbery, the charge should have
been only for robbery with homicide. 46
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the modification that the accused is hereby held guilty of a single offense of
robbery with homicide and imposed the corresponding penalty of reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity for each of the three victims is reduced
to P30,000.00, to be paid to their heirs. No pronouncement as to costs.

Consolidated cases of People of the Philippines vs. PO3 Renato Villamor and Jessie Maghilom [G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15,
2002] and People of the Philippines vs. PO3 Renato Villamor and Jessie Maghilom [G.R. Nos. 141908-09, January 15, 2002]
G.R. Nos. 140407-08 January 15, 2002
373 SCRA 254
FACTS.:
Brothers Jerry and Jerold Velez were on their way home aboard a motorcycle, when they heard another motorcycle fast approaching at them
from behind. A gun shot rang so they their motorcycle around to the direction of the gunfire, the men aboard the motor cycle fired at them th e
second time. Jerry sustained a gunshot wound on his abdomen and left elbow while Jerold died on the spot.
PO3 Renato Villamor and Jessie Maghilom were Indicted for Murder and Frustrated Murder. PO3 Villamor was found guilty of Muder and
Frustrated with one aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his position as a policeman, while Jerry Maghilom remain at large.
ISSUE:
WON, taking advantage of his position aggravates the crime he committed.
HELD:

While the Supreme Court agrees on the presence of treachery in killing the victim, the Court ruled otherwise on the findings of the lower court
with regards to the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position as provided by Article 14 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. To
appreciate this aggravating circumstance, the public officer must use, influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office accords him as a
means for which he realizes his purpose. In this case, it was not shown that the accused used his position as a policeman to shoot the
Velez or used his ascendancy. The accused could have perpetrated the crime even if he is not a policeman, If the accused could have
perpetrated the crime e3ven if he is not a policeman, there is no abuse of public position.

People of the Philippines vs. Raelito Librando, et. al. [G.R. No. 132251, July 6, 2000]
[ G.R. No. 132251, July 06, 2000 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. RAELITO LIBRANDO, LARRY SURDILLAS AND EDDIE PURISIMA, Accused-Appellants 335 SCRA 232
FACTS:
Edwin Labandero went to market at Barangay Bunga, Don Salvador Benedicto, Negros Occidental on December 11, 1996, bringing with him
his eight year old daughter Aileen. On their way home, Fernando delos Santos with them, they took the hilly portion of the trail leading to
barangay Purok Maisan of the same town. Edwin was carrying a lighted torch. They met accused Raelito Librando, Larry Surdillas and Eddie
Purisima. After inquiring the whereabouts of Fernando, without warning, he hit the victim with a piece of wood. The three acc used took turn in
hitting Edwin until the latter fell and died.
The RTC in providing the sentence reclusion perpetua to the three accused considers nighttime and uninhabited place as one aggravating
circumstance

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

People of the Philippines vs. Resty Silva, et. al. [G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RESTY SILVA, RODOLFO SANDANGO, alias Dupong and JUN-JUN FLORES,
accused-appellants. G.R. No. 140871. August 8, 2002 387 SCRA 77 FACTS:
Resty Silva and Rodolfo Sandagao were found GUILTY beyond reasonable grounds for Murder for the death of Manuel Ceriales and for
Frustrated Murder of Edmundo Ceriales.
The accused Silva, Sandagao and Flores abducted the Ceriales brothers on the night of September 23, 1996 in San Luis Aurora. They were
brought at a coconut plantation. Accused Silva focused the flashlight he was carrying and asked their abductee if they know them. When
brothers positively identified him, accused Silva countered Paano ba yan Dupong kilala pala tayo. Obligado na tayong patayin thus,
Edmundo was brought twenty meters away from his brother Manuel. After Sandagao tied his feet, he went to where his other companions were
thus giving the chance to Edmundo to escape. Edmundo was able to jump in a hole. While he was in the hole he heard the scream of his
brother followed by a sound like that of cutting a tree. The headless body of Manuel was found in the morning of September 24, 1996. Several
days after, the head was fond in Baler, Aurora.
In providing the maximum penalty of death for the death of Manuel Ceriales, it considered the aggravating circumstances of tr eachery and
nighttime. While same were in considered in providing the penalty ranging from six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12)
years of prision mayor as maximum for the Frustrated Murder of Edmundo Ceriales.
ISSUES:
The trial court erred in holding that the killing of the victim was attended by the aggravating circumstances of treachery and nocturnity.
HELD:
By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance, however, it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the
offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offenders immunity
from capture. In this case, the trial court correctly appreciated nighttime as aggravating considering that nighttime facilitated the ab duction of
the Ceriales brothers, the killing of Manuel Ceriales and the attempt to kill Edmundo Ceriales. Evidence shows that accused-appellants took
advantage of the darkness to successfully consummate their plans. The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they
intended to commit the crime in darknes
People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Dacillo and Joselito Pacot [G.R. No. 149368, April 14, 2004]
People v. Dacillo (G.R. No. 149368)
Facts: Appellant Dacillo together with Joselito Pacot 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.
The case against appellants co-accused, Joselito Pacot, was provisionally dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to identify him with
certainty.Appellant was arraigned on February 21, 2001 and, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial was conducted on March 1, 2001
and trial ensued thereafter.

When the body was discovered in the evening of February 11, 2000, appellant immediately left for Cebu City, arriving there the next day,
February 12, 2000. He stayed in Cebu City until his arrest the following year.
On May 31, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment finding appellant guilty of murder and imposed upon him the supreme penalty of death. The
Court finds the accused Francisco Dacillo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for the death of Rosemarie Tallada, as
defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Considering the aggravating circumstance of recidivism with no
mitigating circumstance to offset the same, he is hereby sentenced to the extreme penalty of death.

Issue: Whether or not it is necessary, in recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, to be alleged in the information?
Held: The Court, however, finds that the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the ground that appellant admitted during re-cross
examination that he had a prior conviction for the death of his former live-in partner. The fact that appellant was a recidivist was appreciated by
the trial court as a generic aggravating circumstance which increased the imposable penalty from reclusion perpetua to death.
In order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in the information and to attach certified true copies
of the sentences previously meted out to the accused.This is in accord with Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
which states:
SEC. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts
or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was not alleged in the information and therefore cannot be appreciated against appellant. Hence
the imposable penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

People of the Philippines vs. Vivencio Labuguen [G.R. No. 127849, August 9, 2000]
G.R. No. 127849. August 9, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee
vs.
VIVENCIO LABUGUEN @ DENCIO, accused-appellant.
337 SCRA 488
FACTS:
That on or about the 27th day of October, 1994, the said accused take, steal and carry away cash money in the amount of P40,000.00 and
belonging to Bonifacio Angeles, against his will and consent, assault, attack and shoot for several times with a firearm and stab for several
times with a pointed/bladed instrument the said Bonifacio Angeles inflicting upon him multiple stab wounds and multiple gunshot wounds.
The deceased Bonifacio Angeles was engaged in buying cows and selling them to the public market. One day, the accused Vivenci o Labuguen
went to him and told him that he knows of three big cows for sale and that the place where they are is near. Believing on such declaration, he
took money from his cabinet at his house amounting to P40,000 and then drove in his motorcycle with the accused to see the cows. On 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. The accused according to the witness was wearing a jacket and with a handkerchief tied on his forehead.
One of the witnesses, a driver of a minibus testified that while driving on his way to his destination, he saw a man behind the talahibs and he
noticed that he was wiping something from his head and right face. It was the same man whom his conductor identified as the one who stopped
their bus and rode on it. His conductor testified further that he noticed that the mans jacket was soaked with blood including his pants and that
he did not talk when asked where he was headed to and instead just gave his fare. The conductor even noticed that there was a lot of money
on the breast side pocket of his jacket and that one bill was even falling. The man then alighted from the minibus after reaching his destination
without saying any word. Later that afternoon, a news broke out that a mans body was found dead in the middle of the ricefield. He was later
on identified as Bonifacio Angeles. Based on the strength of the testimony of the witnesses, complaint and information were filed against
Vivencio and the Regional Trial Court found him guilty of the crime of Robbery with Homicide and sentenced with the penalty of death. The
case was brought to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
HELD:
Though not alleged in the Information, the generic aggravating circumstances of fraud and craft were properly appreciated by the trial court.[15]
Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the offender. When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or
machinations, fraud is present.By saying that he would accompany the victim to see the cows which the latter intended to buy, appellant was
able to lure the victim to go with him.
Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for Robbery with Homicide is reclusion perpetua to death Applying Ar ticle 63 of the
same Code, the imposable penalty under the premises is death in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of craft and fraud and
the absence of any mitigating circumstance.

People of the Philippines vs. Felix Ventura and Arante Flores [G. R. Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appelle vs FELIX VENTURA y QUINDOY and ARANTE FLORES y VENTURA, Appellants G. R. Nos.
148145-46 433 SCRA 389
FACTS:
Accused Felix Ventura and Arante Flores entered the house of victims Aileen and Jaime Bocateja through a hole they made in the kitchen door.
While spouses were both asleep in the early hours of February 23, 2000, they went to the bedroom where the two Bocatejas were sleeping.
Felix Ventura woke Jaime up, pointed the revolver at the face of the victim and announced hold up and afterwards hit him in the head. The
former then asked for the keys. Accused tried to hit victim Jaime in the head again, at this point victim tried to shout for help. The two grappled

for the possession of the gun. As Jaime was able to take possession of the gun, accused Ventura shouted to Flores to stab Jaime. Flores
stabbed Jaime three times.
At this point, the wife of the victim, Aileen woke up. Flores attacked her while she was trying to defend herself with the el ectrical cord as the
assailant continues to stab.
Defense Version:
Accused Felix Ventura narrated that he was infuriated by the revelation of his wife that the ring which the accused seen worn by his wife was
given by the Victim Jaime and that they have an affair. That Aileen, the wife, upon knowinf about it relieved Johanna from her work as a
housemaid.
Acccused Arante Flores affirmed the affair.
Since Aranta Flores know the residence of the Bocateja, accused Ventura asked him to accompany him in the place. Armed with a caliber . 38
and a knife they went to the place arriving there at 11 pm however they only decided to enter the house when it is already 2: 00 am the next
day.
Appelant Ventura woke up Jaime and confronted him of his affair with his wife Johanna but Jaime fought back and tried to struggled possession
of the gun. Soon thereafter Aileen woke up, and started throwing things at appellant Flores who she tried to strangle with an electric cord.
Almost lost of breath, Flores stabbed Aileeen.
In a decision, the trial court convicted boht the accused for the Murder of Aileen Bocoteja and for the Attempted Murder of Jaime Bocoteja. The
crime of Attempted Murder as alleged in the Information was committed with aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, dwelling,
nighttime and the breaking of door to gain entrance to the house; and were sentenced the penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, they shall serve a prison term of from Eight (8) years of Prision Mayor as Minimum to Eighteen (18)
years of Reclusion Temporal as Maximum.
ISSUE:
The trial court erred in considering evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance in Criminal Case No. 00-20893, Attempted
Murder.
HELD:
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.[39] For it to be appreciated, the following
must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that
the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon
the circumstances of his act.[40]
By appellants argument, even if appellant Ventura became jealous when he learned of the illicit affair between his wife and Jaime, it is not, by
itself, sufficient proof that he determined to kill the latter; that with Jaimes testimony that appellant had announced a hold-up, they, at most,
intended to rob, but not kill the spouses; that their only purpose was to confront Jaime regarding his supposed affair with appellant Venturas
wife, Johanna; and that if they had truly intended to kill Jaime, then appellant Ventura would not have bothered to awaken hi m, but would just
have shot him in his sleep.
These assertions run counter to the established facts and are debunked by appellants own admissions.
Appellants admittedly arrived at the Bocateja residence at 11:00 p.m. and surreptitiously entered therein at 2:00 a.m. At that time, the
surrounding premises were decidedly dark, and all the members of the household were fast asleep. Armed with a gun and a knife, they
proceeded directly to the bedroom of the spouses, where appellant Ventura woke up Jaime. These actuations are not of those seeking parley,
but instead betray an unmistakable intention to kill, not merely confront, Jaime.
Undoubtedly, the accounts of appellants evince not only their resolve to kill Jaime, but the calm and methodical manner by which they sought to
carry out his murder. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, unless shown to be customary,[45] appellants act of arming themselves with a
gun and a knife constitutes direct evidence of a careful and deliberate plan to carry out a killing. Consider the following r uling of this Court in
People v. Samolde:[46]
As stated earlier, accused-appellant and Armando Andres tried to borrow Cabalins tear gas gun. This attempt by the accused-appellant and his
co-accused to arm themselves prior to the commission of the crime constitutes direct evidence that the killing of Feliciano Nepomuceno had
been planned with care and executed with utmost deliberation. From the time the two agreed to commit the crime to the time of the killing itself,
sufficient time had lapsed for them to desist from their criminal plan had they wanted to. Instead, they clung to their determination and went
ahead with their nefarious plan. x x x[47] (Emphasis supplied)
From the time appellants left Murcia, Negros Occidental, after they had resolved to go to confront Jaime, to the time they entered the Bocateja
residence in Bacolod City, ten hours had elapsed sufficient for appellants to dispassionately reflect on the consequences of their actions and
allow for their conscience and better judgment to overcome the resolution of their will and desist from carrying out their evil scheme, if only they
had desired to hearken to such warnings. In spite of this, appellants evidently clung to their determination to kill Jaime.
That evident premeditation was established through the testimonies of appellants and not by those of the prosecution witnesses is of no
moment. While appellants could not have been compelled to be witnesses against themselves,[48] they waived this right by voluntarily taking
the witness stand. Consequently, they were subject to cross-examination on matters covered by their direct examination.[49] Their admissions
before the trial court constitute relevant and competent evidence which the trial court correctly appreciated against them. [50]
WHEREFORE, the judgment in Criminal Case No. 00-20693 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants Felix Ventura and Arante
Flores are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted murder qualified by evident premeditation with the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and nighttime and are hereby SENTENCED to an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years of Prision Correccional as
minimum to Twelve (12) Years of Prision Mayor as maximum.

The judgment in Criminal Case No. 00-20692 is likewise AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants Felix Ventura and Arante Flores are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength with the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, dwelling and nighttime and are SENTENCED to the supreme penalty of DEATH.
People of the Philippines vs. Baliwang Bumidang [G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000]

Facts: On September 29, 1996, while father and daughter, Melencio and Gloria Imbat, were already asleep in their house, the accused
Baliwang Bumidang aged 19 years and half-naked, loudly called Melencio Imbat and asked the latter to open the door. Melencio was aroused
from his sleep and he opened the door downstairs because Bumidang threatened to kill them if the door was not opened. Accused Bumidang
entered and asked the old man to bring him upstairs. While they were upstairs, Bumidang asked him where he was sleeping. When Melencio
indicated that he slept at the place where they were, Bumidang got a spear at the side of his (Melencio's) bed. Pointing the weapon at him in a
threatening manner, the accused ordered him to lie in a prone position which he obeyed because he was afraid.
Then Bumidang asked the room of his unmarried daughter, Gloria, aged 56. Melencio, 80 years old, pointed the room of his daughter which
was in the same room but separated by an aparador. Bumidang went to Gloria's room, still carrying the spear. Suddenly, Gloria screamed for
help, but the octogenarian remained in a prone position as Bumidang threatened to kill him if he would help his daughter. Bumidang, a betel
nut-chewing man, approached Gloria and poked the spear at her. She recognized him because he was lighting the room with a flashlight. The
accused ordered her to stand up and removed her pajama, with the panty going along with it. While the accused was removing her clothes, she
sat and struggled. Bumidang then removed his short pants and became completely naked. He used the flashlight to examine her genital. He
placed the spear beside her and whenever she attempted to move, he would point the spear at her.
The accused then went on top of her, inserted his penis into her pudenda. At this instant, Gloria shouted to her father but t he accused pointed
the spear at her, and told her, "can you see this?" The accused then made a pumping motion. After he was sated, having satisfied his lust, the
accused held her breast and kissed her lips. After resting on top of her, he went to the door and left. Melencio helplessly s aw the accused on
top of her daughter but he could not move because he was too afraid and weak. Before the accused left, he made the following threat: "If you
will report to the authorities, I will come back and kill all of you."
The trial court appreciated against BALIWANG the aggravating circumstances of (a) dwelling, because the crime was committed inside the
house of the victim; (b) nighttime, because the sexual assault was perpetrated at about 2:00 a.m. to facilitate the commission of the offense;
and (c) ignominy, because he used his flashlight to examine Gloria's vagina and raped her in the presence of her old father, thereby making its
effects more humiliating.
Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime and ignominy are present.
Held: The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. There was a clear violation of the sanctity of the victim's
place of abode when Gloria, who apparently did not give any provocation, was raped in her own house. Dwelling is c onsidered an aggravating
circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.
Nighttime is an aggravating circumstance when (1) it is especially sought by the offender; (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates
the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from capture. In this case, other than the fact that the crime was committed at
about 2:00 o'clock in the morning, nothing on the record suggests that BALIWANG deliberately availed himself or took advantage of nighttime
nor proved that BALIWANG used the darkness to facilitate his evil design or to conceal his identity.
The aggravating circumstance of ignominy shall be taken into account if means are employed or circumstances brought about which add
ignominy to the natural effects of the offense; or if the crime was committed in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating to the
victim, that is, add to her moral suffering. It was established that BALIWANG used the flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before he
ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the presence of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly show that BALIWANG deliberately
wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral sufferings. Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a
woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed, or of her husband, or was made to exhibit to the rapists her complete nakedness before
they raped her.
Cruelty
People v. Guerrero (389 SCRA 389)
Facts:
Orlando Guerrero, Jr., also known as Pablo, together with his father Orlando Guerrero, Sr., nicknamed Dino, was accused of murder. The
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 justifiable cause, attack, assault, club, beheaded and cut off the penis of the
victim Ernesto Ocampo, which caused his death thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of his lawful heirs.
Upon arraignment, both pleaded not guilty. Orlando interposed self-defense while his father, Dino, denied any complicity in the killing.
According to the the witness, Jacalne, he was informed that one Dino Guerrero was inside the house nearby. Dino Guerrero came out with his
hands extended forward. SPO1 Emilio Taracatac immediately frisked and handcuffed him. Before Dino was handcuffed, according to the
witness, he said that it was his son who had killed the victim. Thereafter, Dino was brought to the police station for custodial investigation.
Further, Jacalne testified that appellant Orlando Guerrero, Jr., was not at the scene of the crime during their investigation. But upon their return
to the police station, appellant was already there.[11 Appellant admitted killing the victim, according to Jacalne, by clubbi ng the victim first with
the wooden stick, and then cutting his head and his penis with a knife.
Another withness, Ireneo Acierto, appellants brother-in-law, testified that while he was resting in his house at past 11:30 in the morning of July
7, 1997, he heard someone screaming. When he looked out from his window, he saw that the person screaming was his sister-in-law, Ana. He
went out of the house and went near the porch of the Guerreros, where he saw Ernesto Ocampos head about to be severed by appellant.
When the head was cut off, appellant placed the same on the right side of the victims trunk. After that, appellant cut off Ernestos penis. Ireneo
noticed that while the head was being severed, the victim was lying down on the floor, but not moving. Ireneo then told appellant, That is

enough, bayaw. Stop it. According to the witness, his wife Ana was also saying, That is enough, Manong. Appellant angrily turned to Ireneo,
telling him not to interfere or else he might also be implicated. Ireneo hurriedly went away after that. Ireneo did not see his father-in-law, Dino,
at the time of the incident and did not know where Dino was.
The trial court convicted Orlando Guerrero, Jr. of murder while his father Dino was acquitted.
Issue:
Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of cruelty and/or 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
Decision:
The information alleges the qualifying circumstances of (1) treachery and (2) evident premeditation. It 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.
On treachery and evident premeditation, the trial court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution fell short of the requirements of the
law.[ we hold that in the present case, the trial court did not err when it found neither treachery nor evident premeditation. However, the trial
court found there was cruelty as well as outraging or scoffing at the corpse, thus, qualifying the crime to murder.
PEOPLE v DUMADAG
FACTS:
Prudente with his friends including Meliston agreed to meet at a swimming pool to celebrate the feast of St. John. On their way home, there
was heavy downpour so they decided to take a shelter at a store where 2 men, 1 of whom is Dumadag are having some drinks. Dum adag
offered Prudente a drink of Tanduay but the latter refused then left. Dumadag followed Prudented and stabbed the victim on his breast with a
knife which resulted to his death.
HELD:
As a general rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was deliberately
adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply if the attack was not
preconceived but merely triggered by infuriation of the appellant on an act made by the victim. In the present case, it is apparent that the attack
was not preconceived. It was triggered by the appellant's anger because of the victim's refusal.

PEOPLE v BISO
Facts:
Dario, a black belt in karate, entered an eatery, seated himself beside Teresita and made sexual advances to her in the presence of her
brother, Eduardo. Eduardo contacted his cousin, Biso an ex-convict and a known toughie in the area, and related to him what Dario had done
to Teresita. Eduardo and Pio, and 2others decided to confront Dario. They positioned themselves in the alley near the house of Dario. Dario
arrived on board a taxicab. The four assaulted Dario. Eduardo held, with his right hand, the wrist of Dario and covered the mouth of Dario with
his left hand. The 2 others held Dario's right hand and hair. Pio then stabbed Dario near the breast with a fan knife. Eduardo stabbed Dario and
fled with his three companions from the scene.
Held:
There was no evident premeditation. The prosecution failed to prove that the four intended to kill Dario and if they did intend to kill him, the
prosecution failed to prove how the malefactors intended to consummate the crime. Except for the fact that the appellant and his three
companions waited in an alley for Dario to return to his house, the prosecution failed to prove any overt acts on the part of the appellant and his
cohorts showing that that they had clung to any plan to kill the victim.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ARNEL BERNAL,

140465-66. September 2, 2002
FACTS:
Appellant, Pedrito Beralas, Felix Bernal, Fernando Bernal and Rey Bernal were on board a tricycle on their way to the Benedisco pub house
located along Zamora St., Zone 5, Bangued, Abra. Upon reaching the pub house, Pedrito invited the group to go inside to dance. Pedrito, Rey
and Arnel went inside while Felix and Fernando were left outside. Later, Fernando went inside to look for the three (appellant, Rey and Pedrito).
He saw them in a sleeping position inside Benedisco. Upon seeing the three (appellant, Rey and Pedrito), Fernando returned to where Felix
was and told him to start the tricycle engine as they would bring home appellant, Rey and Pedrito. Fernando first brought Pedrito out of the pub
house and had him seated at the passengers seat inside the tricycle. Thereafter, he returned and got appellant who was roused when they
reached the tricycle. After that, Fernando fetched Rey. While the two (Fernando and Rey) were already at the gate of Benedisco, Fernando
heard a gunshot. When Fernando looked at the tricycle where his companions were, he saw appellant holding a gun. Immediately, he rushed to
the tricycle where Pedrito was. Then, Fernando heard a second gunshot. According to Fernando, he knew that appellant shot Pedrito.
Consequently, Fernando attacked appellant and held him. The two (Fernando and appellant) grappled for possession of the gun. While they
were thus grappling, some policemen arrived. Police Superintendent Sarte called up the police station and ordered his men to pick up appellant
for investigation.
Accused-appellant denied culpability and offered his own recollection of the incident. Accused-appellant narrated that when he was only 2
years old, his father was killed by victim Pedrito Beralas. This he learned from his mother and other relatives. Accused-appellant admitted that,
on February 6, 1995, he joined the victim and his group in their drinking spree. It was at that time that the alleged killing of the father of

accused-appellant by victim Pedrito was brought up. Accused-appellant maintained that Pedrito confessed to killing his father. But accusedappellant insisted that they should stop discussing about the death of his father. Thereafter, when they were about to go home, accusedappellant and Pedrito had an altercation. Accused-appellant claimed that Pedrito threatened him and attempted to fire his gun at him but failed.
So, accused-appellant struggled with Pedrito for the possession of the gun and consequently, the gun went off. Accused-appellant felt that
Pedrito was losing his grip on the gun and so he seized it from him. Because accused-appellant feared for his life, it was at that moment that he
shot the victim.
It appears from the record that not one of the prosecution witnesses saw the actual killing of the victim by accused-appellant. However, the
separate and detailed accounts of the event by prosecution witnesses Fernando and Felix Bernal reveal only one conclusion: that it was
accused-appellant who shot the victim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the testimony of witnesses Fernando and Felix Bernal be admitted as evidence to prove the fact of death of the victim and to
sustain the guilt of accused-appellant.
RULING:
Circumstantial as it is, conviction based thereon can be upheld, provided the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to
one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to accused-appellant, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. Direct evidence of the
commission of the crime is not the only matrix from which the trial court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt. Circumstantial evidence
is of a nature identical to direct evidence. It is equally direct evidence of minor facts of such a nature that the mind is led, intuitively or by a
conscious process of reasoning, to a conclusion from which some other fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when
the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. In either case, what is required is that there be proof beyond reasonable doubt that a crime
was committed and that accused-appellant committed it.

PEOPLE v. GAORANA
289 SCRA 652 (1998)
Facts:
Marivel Fuentes, complainant, went to Rowena Sanchezs house upon the latters instruction. When Marivel got there, Rowena went to the
bathroom. Then, Alberto, Rowenas common law husband and appellant herein, approached Marivel, covered her mouth and pointed a hunting
knife to her neck. He told her that hed kill her if shed tell her mother. Marivel fought but Alberto got her inside a room and had intercourse
with her. All the while, private complainant's mouth was covered with a handkerchief. After about 5 minutes, Rowena came back and saw
Alberto still on top of Marivel. Alberto instructed Rowena to step out of the room. After a while, he got up, put on his briefs and called his wife
inside the room.
The second incident of rape happened while Marivel was sleeping but then awakened by the Albertos kisses. He had a knife which scared
Marivel and he again had sex with her. She did not shout because she was afraid of Alberto who was a
prisoner and had already killed somebody. Marivel reported the incidences eventually and after a due trial, RTC convicted
Alberto with 2 counts of rape and sentencing him to 2 terms of reclusion perpetua.
Issue: WON Quasi-Recidivism was established
NO. Appeal denied.
The two Informations alleged that both instances of rape were attended by the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The trial court
made no express ruling that appellant was a quasi-recidivist, and rightly so.
During the trial, the prosecution manifested that appellant had been convicted by the RTC of Kabangkalan, Negros Occidental in Crim. Case
No. 013 and was serving sentence for the crime of homicide. However, the prosecution failed or neglected to present in evidence the record of
appellant's previous conviction.
Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and reiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused. The
fact that appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had been rendered against

People vs. Bibat [May 13, 1998]

Appeal from RTC Manila decision
Facts:
del Rosario along G. Tuazon cor Ma. Cristina Sts., Sampaloc, Manila. Del
Rosario was then waiting for a ride to school.
waiting for her bettor.
1. She saw somebody talk to Bibat who told Bibat, Pare anduon na. Siguraduhin mo lang na itumba mo na. Bibat then demonstrated how he
was going to perform the act.
2. After some time, she then saw Bibat approach del Rosario & took a pointed object from a notebook, then he stabbed victim in the left chest
twice. Bibat left but after hearing del Rosario shout for help, he returned & stabbed him again. Bibat ran away & Avila left too.
Memorial Homes. He saw one of them open a notebook
where a stainless knife was inserted.
because of Tonton Montero. Montero is the president of
Samahang Ilocano Fraternity, a frat Bibat was part of. Montero told Robles about a rumble in their school wherein somebody died & that Bibats
group planned to take revenge against del Rosario. He knew del Rosario by face & he further testified that he knew Bibats group kept tusok &
guns in his house.
claimed that it was his moms birthday on that day & that he was at home
during that time reviewing for his final exams. He also testified that he went to school for his finals where he stayed until 4:30 p.m. He denied all
allegations & he claims that he was merely implicated & he didnt know anything about the
incident.
his claims.
ISSUES & RATIO:

1. WON the prosecution witnesses are not credible. - NO

arbitrarily or it overlooked some substantial facts/value that
might affect result.
in reporting incident is acceptable considering that she must have been scared herself. It doesnt
affect her credibility if it is sufficiently reasoned out. Not impossible either for her to remember details of the incident. Bibats camp theorized
that Cinco couldve not been taking bets for the PBA on the day of the incident w/c was a Wed because PBA games were then held on Tues,
Thurs & Sat. But she couldve done so to maximize profit. Besides, such is immaterial in the case.
2. WON defense of alibi should be appreciated. - NO
physically impossible for accused to be at the crime scene at
the time of commission.
llano University. These places are actually near the crime scene. He could very
well be present in the crime scene during commission. Besides, this claim is unsubstantiated. He should have presented a class card or
grading sheet to prove that he did take the exam.
negative & self-serving denials & alibis presented by Bibat.
3. WON the AC of evident premeditation should be appreciated. - YES
mined/conceived to commit crime, act manifestly indicating that culprit has clung to his determination, &
sufficient lapse of time bet determination & execution to allow him to reflect upon consequences of his act.
act is preceded by cool thought & reflection upon resolution to carry out criml intent during space of time
sufficient to arrive at calm judgment.
Bibat tried to contest Robles testimony. Robles testified that
he allowed Bibats group to hide guns & tusok in his house. Bibat claims that it was not logical for
someone in his rt frame of mind to allow anybody to do that. But Robles explained that he was scared of Bibats group & he wanted to protect
his family thats why he allowed them to do so. Besides, evident premeditation was clearly proven by Cincos testimony. She heard Bibats
group plan the killing at around 11:30 a.m. then they committed crime at around 1:30 a.m. Thus, there was a sufficient lapse of time for Bibat to
reflect & such is proof that Bibat clung to his resolution to kill del Rosario.

Rivera vs. People

G.R. No. 166326. January 25, 2006
Petitioners: Esmeraldo Rivera, Ismael Rivera, and Edgardo Rivera
Respondent: People of the Philippines
Ponente: J. Callejo, Sr.
FACTS:
As the victim, Ruben Rodil, went to a nearby store to buy food, accused Edgardo Rivera mocked him for being jobless and dependent on his
wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a heated exchange of words ensued. In the evening of the following day, when
Ruben and his three-year-old daughter went to the store to buy food, Edgardo, together with his brother Esmeraldo Rivera and Ismael Rivera,
emerged from their house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to the ground, Edgardo
hit him three times with a hollow block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to their house only when the policemen
arrived. Ruben sustained injuries and was brought to the hospital. The doctor declared that the wounds were slight and superficial, though the
victim could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder.
An appeal was made by the accused, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision with modification, changing the crime to
attempted murder and imposed an indeterminate penalty of 2 years of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor
as maximum.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not there was intent to kill.
2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to
attempted murder.
3) Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of treachery was properly applied.
4) Whether or not the correct penalty was imposed.
HELD:
1) Yes. The Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the
malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or
immediately after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. In the
present case, Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows, while Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Even though
the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his death, intent to kill was presumed.
2) Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance. Although the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his death,
it does not negate criminal liability of the accused for attempted murder. The intent to kill was already presumed based on the overt acts of
the accused. In fact, victim could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.
3) Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, which gives no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself. In
the present case, the accused attacked the victim in a sudden and unexpected manner as he was walking with his three-year-old daughter,
impervious of the imminent peril to his life. He was overwhelmed with the assault of the accused and had no chance to defend himself and
retaliate. Thus, there was treachery.
4) No. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to
death. Since the accused were guilty only of attempted murder, the penalty should be reduced by two degrees, in accordance to Article 51 of
the Revised Penal Code. Thus, under Article 61 (2), in relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty should be prision mayor. In
the absence of any modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime other than the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the maximum of
the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor which has a range of from eight (8) years and one (1) day to
ten (10) years. To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision mayor should be reduced by one degree, prision

correccional, which has a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, the accused were sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of from two (2) years of prision correccional in its minimum period, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of
prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.

People vs. Sangalang (August 30, 1974)

Post under case digests, Criminal Law at Monday, March 12, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
Facts: Around 6:00 in the morning of June 8, 1968, Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut to gather tuba from a coconut tree nearby. Flora Sarno, his
wife, was left inside the hut. While he was on top of the tree gathering tuba, a group of five men each armed with a long firearm, fired volley of
shots on him. He fell to the ground from the treetop. One of the five men was recognized by Cortezs wife Flora and her brother Ricardo as
Laureano Sangalang who was using a Grand Carbine. Sangalang was the only one apprehended.
CFI convicted Sangalang of the crime of murder, penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not Sangalang was guilty of murder
(2) Whether or not TREACHERY can be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance to the murder.
Held:
(1) Yes. Court gave credence to the consistent and unwavering testimonies of victims widow Flora and brother-in-law Ricardo who positively
identified Sangalang as one of the killers.
(2) Yes. The victim was shot while he was gathering tuba on top of a coconut tree. He was unarmed and defenseless, nor was he able to give
any provocation. This deliberate surprise attack indicated that Sangalang and his companions employed a mode of execution which insured the
killing without any risk to them arising from any defense which the victim could have resorted to.
Treachery here not considered as an aggravating but as an element that qualified murder. The circumstance of Band was not appreciated since
US v Abelinde ruled that band is absorbed by Treachery. No mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, therefore reclusion perpetua. RTC
affirmed.

People vs. Ladjaalam

G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, 2000
Appellee: People of the Philippines
Appellant: Walpan Ladjaalam alias Warpan
Ponente: J. Panganiban
FACTS:
Four Informations were filed against appellant Walpan Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City (Branch 16), three of
which he was found guilty, to wit: 1) maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972); 2) illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act. No.
8294; and 3) direct assault with multiple attempted homicide. The following information was provided by the prosecution: 1) In the afternoon of
September 24, 1997, more than thirty (30) policemen proceeded to the house of appellant and his wife to serve the search warrant when they
were met by a volley of gunfire coming from the second floor of the said house. They saw that it was the appellant who fired the M14 rifle
towards them. 2) After gaining entrance, two of the police officers proceeded to the second floor where they earlier saw appellant firing the rifle.
As he noticed their presence, the appellant jumped from the window to the roof of a neighboring house. He was subsequently arrested at the
back of his house after a brief chase. 3) Several firearms and ammunitions were recovered from appellants house. Also found was a
pencil case with fifty (50) folded aluminum foils inside, each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride. 4) A paraffin test was conducted and
the casts taken both hands of the appellant yielded positive for gunpowder nitrates. 5) Records show that appellant had not filed any application
for license to possess firearm and ammunition, nor has he been given authority to carry firearms.
ISSUE:
Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
HELD:
No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition shall be penalized,
unless no other crime was committed. Furthermore, 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. Since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide
or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.
People vs. Empacis
Nature: Appeal from decision of RTC Cebu. (1993)
FACTS: At about 9PM of Sept 16, 1986, as vicitms Fidel Saromines and his W Camila were about to close their small store in Cebu, 2 men,
Romualdo Langomez and Crisologo Empacis, came and asked to buy some sardines and rice. After they finished eating, Langomez told Fidel
to sell him some cigarettes. He then announced a hold-up and ordered Fidel to give up his money. The latter started to hand him PhP12K but
suddenly decided to fight to keep it. A struggle followed in the course of w/c Langomez stabbed Fidel about 3x. Empacis joined in and w/ his
own knife also stabbed Fidel. At this time, gunshots were heard outside the house. It was only when Peter, Fidels 13-yr old son, saw his
father fighting for his life and rushed to his fathers defense w/ a pinuti (a long bolo) striking Empacis and inflicting 2 wounds on him did the 2
men flee. Fidel died from the fatal injuries, w/c penetrated his lungs and heart. Empacis went to the clinic of Dr Eustaquio for the treatment of
his wounds inflicted by Peter. He told the doctor that he was assaulted w/o warning by a young man near the Papan Market.

The next day, police officers went looking for a man who might have been treated for wounds from a bladed weapon. They came to Dr
Eustaquios clinic who told them about Empacis. He was found at the public market taking breakfast & there they arrested him. He admitted
going to the store of Fidel but denied having joined Langomez in his attack. He asserts that he tried to stop him but the latter succeeded in
stabbing Fidel. He further alleges that he was brought by his neighbors to the the clinic. The other 2 men, who were accused of firing the gun
from outside, denied any participation in the crime. They were both absolved by the court. Langomez disappeared & could not be found.
HELD: Conspiracy was adequately proven by the evidence. Both acted in concert, helping and cooperating w/ one another by simultaneous
acts, evidently in pursuit of a common objective.
The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud was properly appreciated against Empacis. Both men pretended to be bona fide customers of
the victims store and on this pretext gained entry into the latters store and later, into another part of his dwelling. In previous cases, the Court
held the presence of fraud or craft when one pretended to be constabulary soldiers to gain entry into a residence to rob and kill the residents,
pretended to be needful of medical treatment only killing the owner of the house, and pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way to enter
into a house.
Nighttime was also properly appreciated as an AC as nocturnity was deliberately and purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime.
For superior strength to be deemed present, it doesnt suffice to prove superiority in number on the part of the malefactors but that they
purposely employed excessive force, force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked w/c was present in this
case. Empacis & his companion took advantage of their combined strength & their bladed weapons to overcome their unarmed victim & assure
the success of their felonious design to take the money. Dwelling was also correctly appreciated.
Indemnity for death payable is increased to PhP50K & restitution of PhP12K shall be made by the accused. Decision affirmed w/ modification.

People vs. Mandolado [June 28, 1983]

Post under case digests, Criminal Law at Monday, March 12, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
Facts: Martin Mandolado and Julian Ortillano, draftees assigned with the Alpha Company, 3rd Infantry Battalion, Second Infantry Division of the
Philippine Army stationed at Pikit, North Cotabato, were accused for the murder of Herminigildo Tenorio and his driver Nolasco Mendoza in the
afternoon of October 3, 1977 at Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao qualified with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident premeditation
and abuse of superior strength.
In the morning of that date, Ortillano, Mandolado, Conrado Erinada and Anacleto Simon, AFP trainees/draftees, were passengers of a bus
bound for Midsayap, North Cotabato. After reaching Midsayap, while still in uniform, they decided to drink ESQ rum at the bus terminal.
Erinada and Simon decided to join the accused in going to Pikit, North Cotabato, the home base of the accused. After an hour of drinking,
Mandolado got drunk and went inside the public market. When he returned, he grabbed his .30 caliber machine gun and started firing.
Companions tried to dissuade him but Mandolado just wont stop.
Troubled enough, Erinada and Simon ran away, hailed and boarded a passing Ford Fiera with some passengers on board. The accused
followed and also boarded the same vehicle. The soldiers forced the driver to bring them to the Midsayap crossing.
On the way, Mandolado got his knife and tried to attack the driver. After appellants alighted at said crossing, the Ford Fiera sped away.
Mandolado fired his machine gun at the speeding vehicle, hitting the back of the drivers sister who was also on board.
At the said crossing, waiting for a ride, a privately owned jeep driven by Tenorio passed by. The appellants shouted at the driver, to stop vehicle
and allow them to board it. While Mandolado and Ortillano were inside the jeep, they kept on firing their guns. Tenorio remarked: If you will not
stop firing your guns I will ram this jeep into something.
When Mandolado learned that the jeep was bound for Cotabato City and not Pikit, North Cotabato, he got so angry, cocked his gun and
ordered the driver to stop. While the jeep was coming to a full stop, Erinida and Simon got off the jeep and ran towards their detachment camp
which was just nearby. Then the killing transpired. Mendoza and Tenorio were dead.
Issue: Whether or not the specific circumstance of abuse of confidence may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
Held: NO. In order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that there exists a relation of trust and confidence
between the accused and one against whom the crime was committed and the accused made use of such a relationship to commit the crime.
(People v. Comendador). It is also essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give the
accused undue advantage or make it easier for him to commit the said crime. In the instant case, there is absolutely no showing of any
personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence might rest between the victims and the assailants who had just met each other then.
Thus, no confidence and abuse thereof could have facilitated the commission of the crimes.