People v.

Jusep

FACTS:
Jesus Gandola was the administrator of a 28-hectare and he was engaged in fishing ("sensoro") as was
Leoncio Jusep, who used to stay in Perdices' land before he was driven out of it for failure to pay
rentals.
The stiff business competition between Gandola and Jusep developed into something akin to bad
blood between them. Sometime in May, 1967, Pastor Cotillas, who took charge of Jusep's fishing
business, went to Hilongos, Leyte under the pretext of recruiting fishing laborers or "buseros."
Actually, he was on an errand for Jusep to look for a hit man to do away with Gandola. Pastor
contacted his cousin.
When Pastor introduced them to each other, Jusep asked Alfredo if he was the same person that Pastor
had told him about and Alfredo replied that he was indeed the one. Jusep then told Alfredo to shoot
Gandola in consideration of the amount of P2,000. He promised to give Alfredo said amount after he
had shot Gandola. The act was successfully committed.
Alfredo demanded from Jusep that he be given the P2,000 but Jusep promised him that he would send
that amount to him through Pastor.

ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of price, promise or reward is attendant in this
case?
RULING:
The Court held YES.
That it was the appellants promise of P2,000 to Alfredo is equivalent to moral coercion as it was the
moving cause which impelled Alfredo to kill Gandola.
Although Alfredo did not actually receive the P2,000 promised him by the appellant, the price,
promise or reward is a generic aggravating circumstance because it impelled Alfredo to shoot
Gandola. Dwelling should also be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance with regard to
appellant even if it was Alfredo who went under Gandola's house, because of the proven conspiracy in
the commission of the crime.
-----------------------------------------------People v. De la cruz
FACTS:
Sotero Dionisio is a Jeepney driver. On October 1, 1988, at about 6:30 to 7:00 in the evening, as was
his habit, he was driving the said jeepney accompanied by his wife, picking-up passengers. He was
travelling at its usual pace, when he heard one of the passengers was pushed outside and fell
overboard. There were holduppers armed with knives collected from the passengers their valuables.
Rolando de la Cruz y Gomez was charged with the crime of Robbery with Homicide before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.

Upon his arraignment on 4 January 1989, Rolando de la Cruz, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant,
entered a plea of not guilty.
Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. The prosecution presented as its witnesses P/Cpl. Salvador
Fradejas, Sotero Dionisio, Abel Requejo, Catalina Dionisio and Dr. Maximo Reyes. Appellant took
the witness stand in his defense and presented Rita dela Cruz, his mother, as his lone witness.
On 21 September 1990, the trial court promulgated its decision, convicted Dela cruz of the crime of
Robbery with homicide with the penalty of life imprisonment.
ISSUE: W/N the aggravating circumstance of craft was attendant in this case?
RULING:
Appellant then is liable for the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(l) of the Revised
Penal Code. The crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of band and craft.
Craft is present because the appellant and his co-conspirators pretended to be bona fide passengers of
the jeepney so as not to arouse any suspicion as regards their criminal scheme to commit the robbery.
To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven as
conclusively as any essential element of a crime.
There is not the slightest doubt in Our minds that the appellant and his unidentified cohorts employed
violence against and intimidation of persons to consummate their criminal intent to take away, for
personal gain, the personal property of the passengers of the jeepney. One of them used a bladed
weapon to stab to death one of the victims, Venancio Estacio. The others also used bladed weapons
and a firearm to intimidate and threaten the other passengers into turning over their personal property.
One of the victims, Abel Requejo, was divested of a Seiko gold watch worth P800.00, cash of
P200.00 and other valuables and important papers.
----------------------People v De Leon
FACTS:
On April 28, 1988, at 11:00 p.m., Arthur Alfahora, Deo Vergara, Gilbert Castro, Jess Hernandez,
Archie Beticon and Michael Oris were walking along the ricefield near Don Jose Greencourt St.,
Gatchalian Subdivision, Paraaque, Metro Manila. Suddenly, they heard gunshots fired in their
direction. The shots originated approximately 60 meters from them. Arthur Alfahora saw accused de
Leon standing outside the perimeter fence of the house of the mayor. Through the light of an electric
post, Arthur saw accused de Leon, in white shirt and maong pants, firing at them. 6Archie Beticon, in
the moonlit night, saw accused de Leon holding a long firearm pointed at them. 7 Frightened, the boys
started running away from the gunfire but Michael Oris, who was a little overweight, lagged behind
the group. Moments later, Michael was hit. He fell to the ground. He cried out to his companions to
help him but the other boys continued running and left the scene. Later, the other boys returned with
Michael's father and they brought the injured Michael to the Olivares Hospital at Sucat Road. A few
days later, Michael died.
On May 2, 1988, Assistant Fiscal Leodegario C. Quilatan of Rizal filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Makati an Information charging Orlando Herrera de Leon with homicide.

After re-investigation, however, on March 27, 1989, the prosecution withdrew the Information for
homicide and filed an amended Information charging accused Orlando de Leon with murder.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Orlando Herrera de Leon of murder, and sentencing him
to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Michael Oris, in the amount of P50,
000.00 as moral damages.
Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: W/N the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is attendant in this case?

RULING:
With respect to evident premeditation, we find this circumstance lacking in this case. For evident
premeditation to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, there must be proof, as clear as the
evidence of the crime itself, of the following elements: 1) the time when the offender determined to
commit the crime; 2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination; and 3) a
sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act. Neither the record nor the appealed decision mentions the
existence of the foregoing essential elements for a positive finding of evident premeditation. When it
is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it was
carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered.
---------------------------------------PEOPLE V CARINO
PEOPLE V BANHAON
FACTS:
Accused were bodyguards of Mayor Antonio Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna. Leopoldo Carino, one of
the accused was gunned down by an unknown assailant, and Mayor Sanchez suspected that the
following persons were involved in the killing. One of the accused, Nestor Carino, was reported to
have killed Bernardo Velencina, one of the alleged suspects on the killing of Leopoldo.
The incidents resulted to series of killing due to vindication between the parties.
ISSUE: W/N the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men is attendant in this case?
It was further alleged that the offense was committed with the aid of armed men. The requisites of this
aggravating circumstance are: (1) that armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime,
directly or indirectly, and (2) that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when
the crime was committed.52 In this case, while the appellants were all armed, all of them acted in
conspiracy with one another. All of the appellants acted in concert to ensure the commission of the
crime. Hence, the aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated. Even if it were so, the same could
not be appreciated separately as it is deemed to have been absorbed by treachery

ISSUE: W/N the aggravating circumstance of nighttime is attendant in this case?

NIGHTTIME

In the case at bar, appellant Banhaon remained at large even after Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero
issued the warrant for his arrest on March 17, 1994. 55 Appellant Banhaon surrendered only on June
27, 1995, after an alias warrant of arrest had already been issued against him, and approximately six
years after the commission of the crime. Clearly, voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in his
favor as a mitigating circumstance. Neither can it be used to show his innocence. Appellant Banhaons
failure to escape is not indicative of his innocence.
The records reveal that the crime was committed during nighttime. This circumstance is considered
aggravating only when it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken
advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity. The essence of this aggravating
circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime.
Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not become a modifying factor when
the place is adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the offenders immunity from
identification or capture.56 In the case at bar, it was not shown that nighttime was especially sought for
or used to insure the offenders immunity from identification or capture.
-------------------------------People of the Philippines vs. Sanchez, et. al.
FACTS:
The RTC found accused Antonio L. Sanchez, Luis Corcolon y Fadialan, Landrito "Ding" Peradillas
and Artemio Averion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder committed Nelson Pealosa and
Rickson Pealosa.
On April 13, 1991, accused Mayor Sanchez ordered the three other accused to kill Nelson Pealosa,
one of the political leaders of Dr. Virvilio Velecina, the latter being Sanchezs opponent in the
mayoralty seat. On the same night, while Nelson and Rickson Pealosa were leaving the birthday
party of Dr. Velecina, the accused fired at the victims while they were pursuing the Pealosas. Inside
the pursuing car were Peradillas, Averion, Corcolon and the witness, Vivencio Malabanan. Later, both
the victims died of gunshot wounds. The trial court considered the crime as a complex crime of
double murder punishable under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

Accused Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez and Artemio Averion jointly appealed from the decision to the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE: W/N the aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle is attendant in this case?
RULING:
Yes.
The trial court ruled that the accused conspired in committing the crime. Treachery was present,
thereby qualifying the crime to murder. It appreciated the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, nighttime and use of motor vehicle.
Accused specifically used a motor vehicle to execute the crime. Thus, the aggravating circumstance of
use of a motor vehicle must be appreciated.

--------------People v. Balansi

FACTS:
The accused-appellant was then the Barangay Captain of Balinciagao Norte, Pasil, Kalinga-Apayao,
and a member of the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF), while the victim was the Provincial
Development Officer of Kalinga-Apayao.
The incident took place during a wedding celebration at Balinciagao Sur, Pasil, at or about 5:30 or
6:00 o'clock in the afternoon. The defense placed two on the stand. The trial court found the accused
guilty as charged and sentenced him to die.
It appears that the victim, a nephew of the appellant, was then sleeping at the house of his parents
located opposite the house where the wedding celebration was being held. At or about 5:00 o'clock in
the afternoon, Beatrice Canao, a Balinciagao resident, saw the accused, her uncle, standing at the door
of the house of the victim's parents, also her relatives, armed with a gun. She inquired what he was
doing there and he allegedly replied that he was waiting for the victim. She then entered the premises
to locate an old newspaper with which to wrap food, a rice cake, when she saw the victim asleep.
When she left, she saw the accused at the doorway. After disposing of her rice cake (which she gave
to a certain Fr. Medina), she heard two gunshots, fired at an interval of two or three seconds,
emanating apparently from the house, to which she shortly rushed. She allegedly met the accused at
the steps leading to the second floor, brandishing his rifle.
ISSUE: W/N the aggravating circumstance of disregard of dwelling is attendant in this case?
RULING:
We, however, affirm the trial court insofar as it appreciated dwelling. Although the victim was not
shot in his house (his parents owned it) it has been held that the dwelling place need not be owned by
the victim.
Dwelling" is considered an aggravating circumstance because primarily of the sanctity of privacy the
law accords to human abode. According to one commentator, one's dwelling place is a "sanctuary
worthy of respect" and that one who slanders another in the latter's house is more guilty than if he
who offends him elsewhere. However, one does not lose his right of privacy where he is offended in
the house of another because as his invited guest, he, the stranger, is sheltered by the same roof and
protected by the same intimacy of life it affords. It may not be his house, but it is, even for a brief
moment, "home" to him. He is entitled to respect even for that short moment.