ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 1

2. People vs Subano, 73 Phil 692 (1942)

TITLE VIII → 123 CASES STATUS

FACTS: Pilos Subano and his wife Bankalot had quarrels in
two separate occasions. When the wife refused to
Alaba 1-20 COMPLETE accompany him in the river to catch fish, Subano dragged
her and killed her. It appears that Subano has three wives.
Andoy 21-40
ISSUE: Whether or not Subano is guilty of Parricide
Mabborang 41-60 COMPLETE
HELD: No. The crime committed is homicide and not
Nenaria 61-81 parricide. From the testimony of Ebol Subano, father of the
deceased, it appears that the Subano has three wives and
Labendia 82-102 that the deceased was the last in point of time. Although the
practice of polygamy is approved by custom among these
Matilac 103-123
non-Christians, polygamy, however, is not sanctioned by the
Marriage Law which merely recognizes tribal marriage
E-SCRA ACCOUNT rituals. The deceased, under our law, is not thus the lawful
wife of the defendant and this precludes conviction for the
Username: adduescra045@escra.com
crime of parricide.
Password: escra
3. People vs Cruz, 109 Phil 288 (1960)
VISIT: http://www.central.com.ph/escra/
FACTS: Remigio Cruz was married to Natividad Concepcion
in 1953. In 1954 Natividad separated from Cruz allegedly
- Digest Properly because he used to beat her up. Eventually, they reconciled.
- Maximum of 5 sentences for facts, if possible
After learning that they left him, Cruz followed his wife and
- Use the most important ruling related to the
facts. E-scra will help. 😊 daughter to Cabanatuan City where her parents lived. Cruz
- Some cases are found in the book of Reyes and his wife were talking but eventually, he started hacking
but do not contain any facts her with the bolo. Cruz contends that, assuming that he was
- Please do not use the “petitioner” or mentally fit at the time of the killing, he should not have been
“respondent” or “appellant” or “defendant”, convicted of the crime of parricide because his marriage to
please rename it according to Atty. Dulay Natividad was not provided in accordance with the best
- DEADLINE: MARCH evidence rule.

18, 2019 (Monday) ISSUE: May an oral evidence to prove the fact of marriage
be admissible?

HELD: Yes. In a case of parricide, the best proof of the

TITLE VIII – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
relationship between the accused and the deceased is the
marriage certificate. If, however, the oral evidence presented
ALABA
to prove the fact of marriage is not objected to, the said
Article 246. Parricide.
evidence may be considered by the court.

1. People vs Embalido, 58 Phil 154 (1933)

4. People vs Berang, 69 Phil 83 (1939)

FACTS: Feliciano Embalido was charged with the crime of

FACTS: The accused Berang was charged with parricide
parricide. He admits having killed his wife, but claims that he
because he boloed to death his wife Mora Bayna and child.
surprised her in the act of committing adultery. The lower
The accused told the sergeant that he killed his wife and
court found him guilty of the crime of parricide.
children because he was made with rage. There was doubt
regarding the evidence of the marriage of Berang and Mora
ISSUE: Whether or not Embalido is guilty of parricide
Bayna.

HELD: Yes. In cases of parricide, prosecution is required to

ISSUE: Whether or not Berang is guilty of parricide
prove three facts, namely:
(1) That death of the deceased:
HELD: Yes, he is guilty of parricide for killing his daughter.
(2) that he or she was killed by the accused; and
However, as to Mora Bayna, the court considered it homicide
(3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or
only in the absence of clear evidence of the marriage.
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
5. People vs Jumawan, 116 SCRA 739 (1982)
Here, the victim is the legitimate spouse of the accused
Embalido.
FACTS: A complaint for murder was filed against Jumawan
et al. for the death of Rodolfo Magnaye. Magnaye was
married to Presentacion Jumawan but they had been living
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 2
separately from each other. During the trial, Presentacion
admitted her marriage to Rodolfo.
ISSUE: Whether or not Presentacion Jumawan-Magnaye
should be convicted of Parricide
HELD: No. Presentacion should have been accused of
parricide but as it is, since her relationship to the deceased is
not alleged in the information, she, like the others, can be
convicted of murder only, qualified by abuse of superior
strength. Although not alleged in the information, relationship
as an aggravating circumstance should be assigned against
the Jumawan et al.. True, relationship is inherent in parricide,
but Presentacion stands convicted of murder. And as to the
others, the relationships of father-in-law and brother-in-law
aggravate the crime.
6. People vs Recote, 96 Phil 980 (1955)
FACTS: Ambrosio Recote alias “Bucio”, while struggling for
the possession of the gun with his children, without intent to
kill anyone, pulled the trigger of the gun which exploded and
hit his wife who was approaching them.
ISSUE: Whether or not Recote is guilty of parricide
HELD: Yes. Recote is guilty of parricide through reckless
imprudence. The deceased here is the legitimate spouse of
Recote.
7. People vs dela Cruz, 276 SCRA 352 (1997)
FACTS: Leonardo P. De La Cruz confronted his wife Violeta,
"I heard you have a lover." She denied and it led to a violent
quarrel between them. Leonardo boxed and slapped Violeta
until she died. He was found guilty of parricide before the
trial court and was ordered to indemnify his wife's heirs
P50,000.00.
ISSUE: Whether or not indemnity is proper in parricide cases
HELD: It depends. In this case before us where a husband
who killed his wife and was ordered to indemnify his wife's
heirs P50,000.00, the Supreme Court held that indemnity is
proper. However, in the case of People vs Berang, in a case
where the natural father killed his child, no indemnity was
imposed, "considering that the accused, as the father, is the
presumptive heir of the deceased."
8. People vs Echaluce, 66 SCRA 221 (1975)
FACTS: The accused Bonifacia Echaluce is married to the
victim Severiano Echaluce. Bonifacia, their son Jose
Echaluce, and a stranger Jose Sabas killed Severiano. The
trial court charged the three with parricide. Jose Sabas filed
a motion to quash the information as against him on the
ground that the facts charged with respect to him did not
constitute the offense of parricide since he was not related in
anyway to the victim as provided in Article 246 of the RPC..
ISSUE: Is Sabas guilty of parricide?
HELD: No. A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide, is not guilty of parricide
but only homicide or murder, as the case may be. In this
case, Sabas is guilty of murder.
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances.
9. People vs Corazon Cortez, 59 Phil 568 (1934)
FACTS: Accused Corazon De Cortez is the wife of Angel De
Cortez. Corazon killed Maria Bigay, the concubine of his
husband. Corazon claims that she killed Bigay because she
saw them in the act of adultery at Lucia Celis’ house.
ISSUE: Whether or not De Cortez is entitled to the benefits
of Article 247 of RPC
HELD: Yes. De Cortez is guilty of homicide for killing Bigay,
however, she killed her under the circumstances mentioned
in article 247 of the RPC which is death or physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional circumstances. She is to suffer 6
months and 1 day of destierro.
Summary: The wife who kills or inflicts serious physical
injuries on her husband and/or his concubine, under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 247, is entitled to the
benefits of said article.
10. People vs Marquez, 53 Phil 260 (1929)
FACTS: Guardiano Marquez admits that he killed his wife,
Oliva Sumampong; but he alleges that he caught her in the
act of adultery, and so took her life. He alleged that there
was a man who jumped out of the window, and when he
asked his wife why there was a man inside the house, she
answered that there was no man. He claims exemption
under Article 423 of the Penal Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not Marquez can avail the benefits of
exemption under Article 423 of the Penal Code
HELD: No. In order that the Marquez might be entitled to the
benefits of article 423 of the Penal Code, it was necessary
for him to prove positively that he surprised his wife in the act
of committing adultery. No other inference can be made from
the wording of said article. The burden of proof, that he
caught his wife in the very act of adultery, is upon the
husband who alleges it by way of defense.
11. People vs Bituanan, 56 Phil 23 (1931)
FACTS: Moro Bituanan and Mora Sabay were married
according to Moro customs. They got divorced thru the same
customs. After 20 days, Bituanan caught Sabay and Ali
Sabpa sleeping on the same bed. Thereupon, Bituanan
attacked Ali Sabpa and Sabay, killing Sabpa and wounding
Sabay. The CFI found Bituanan guilty of the crime of murder.
The accused contends that CFI's decision should be
modified and he be exempt from according to Article 423 of
the Penal Code which provides that "Any husband who,
having surprised his wife in the act of adultery, shall kill her
or her paramour in the act, or shall inflict any serious
physical injuries upon either, shall suffer the penalty of
destierro."
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 3
ISSUE: Whether or not Bituanan can avail the exempting
circumstance
HELD: No. The privilege given in Article 423 of the Penal
Code (now Art. 247 of RPC) extends solely to the case of a
husband who surprises his wife in the act of actual adultery,
that is, actual carnal knowledge with her paramour. The
provision is not applicable when the accused did not see his
spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another person.
The phrase "in the act of committing sexual intercourse"
does not include merely sleeping on the same bed.
12. People vs Gonzales, 69 Phil 66 (1931)
FACTS: Accused Marciano Gonzales testified that he
surprised his wife, Sixta Quilason, and Isabelo Evangelio in
the act of adultery in two occasions. In the second occasion,
he looked for her and found her with Isabelo near the toilet of
his house in a place covered with underbush. When he saw
them, his wife was rising up, while Isabelo, who was
standing and buttoning his drawers, immediately took to his
heels. Evangelio was able to escape. Then, Gonzales killed
his wife. Gonzales contends that he was entitled to the
privilege afforded by article 247 of the RPC.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzales can avail the benefits of
Art. 247 of RPC
HELD: No. Art. 247 is not applicable as where the accused
surprised his wife after the act, as when he saw her already
rising up and the man buttoning his drawers. He did not
surprise the supposed offenders in the very act of committing
adultery.
13. U.S. vs Feliciano, 36 Phil 753 (1917)
Note: This is an adultery case and not about Art. 247.
FACTS: Margarita Feliciano, the accused, was married to the
complainant Felix Atacador on 1911. Five years after, she
left her husband and lived for three months with Pedro
Velasquez in a rented house. The owner considered them to
be man and wife. A photograph shows their intimate
relations. A witness testified to having seen the accused and
Velasquez in scant apparel and sleeping together. The
woman and her paramour had the opportunity to satisfy their
adulterous inclination. Felix filed a complaint against his wife
Feliciano and Velasquez charging them with adultery.
ISSUE: Whether or not acquittal of the man carries with it the
acquittal of the woman in the offense of adultery
HELD: No. Where a man and a woman are charged in the
same complaint with adultery, and on separate trial the case
against the man is dismissed, the acquittal of the man does
not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the woman.
Moreover, the husband can testify against the wife in an
adultery case because adultery comes within the exceptions
of section 383, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure,
as amended, as an action for a crime committed by the wife
against the husband.
Ruling in the book of Reyes (ang facts sa case dili jud
related sa Art. 247)
A husband to be justified, it is not necessary that he sees the
carnal act being committed by his wife with his own eyes. It
is enough that the circumstances show reasonably that the
carnal act is being committed or has just been committed.
14. U.S. vs Alano, 32 Phil 383 (1915)
FACTS: Teresa Marcelo, the wife of the accused Eufrasio
Alano went out the house to buy medicine in the store.
Teresa did not return immediately so Alano looked for her
but couldn’t find her. Upon returning home, he observed a
man lying upon a woman in a position to hold sexual
intercourse with her in the grass, but they both hurriedly
arose from the ground, startled by the noise made by the
defendant in stumbling. Alano recognized the woman as his
wife, and the man as Martin Gonzalez, who immediately
started to run. Alano chased the man but couldn’t see him so
when he returned home, he saw Teresa and killed her by
stabbing.
ISSUE: Whether or not Alano can avail the benefit of Article
423 of the Penal Code (now Art. 247 of RPC)
HELD: Yes. This case fall within the scope of the provisions
of Article 423 of the Penal Code, for it is reasonable to hold
that the woman was killed immediately after she was caught
in the commission of adultery, for not even an hour elapsed
between the catching and the killing and the time that
intervened was only that necessarily employed by the
husband in the unsuccessful pursuit of his wife's paramour.
15. U.S. vs Vargas, et al., 2 Phil 194 (1903)
FACTS: Simeon Alberto was attacked and assaulted by
Mamerto Vargas et al., He died the next day. Vargas testified
that, he found his wife and Alberto lying together. Vargas
drew his bolo in which Alberto escaped but when Vargas
pursued him, Alberto was killed. There was an evidence that
the relations existing between Alberto and the wife of Vargas
had been the subject of common talk in the barrio.
ISSUE: Whether or not Article 423 of the Penal Code (now
Article 247 of RPC) is applicable
HELD: Yes. Where Vargas surprises his wife and her
paramour, and the latter takes flight and is immediately
pursued and killed, the killing is "in the act" within the
meaning of Article 423. Penal Code, and the penalty should
be destierro. In this case, the discovery, the escape, the
pursuit, and the killing were all parts of one continuous act.
16. People vs Coricor, 79 Phil 672 (1947)
FACTS: When he was approaching the room, Cirilo Coricor
heard low voices. He looked through a hole into the room
and saw Pedro Lego on top of the wife of Coricor who was
naked from the chest down. Then he unsheathed his bolo,
slowly went up passing through the kitchen door, and as he
was approaching the door of the room, Lego came out and
he gave him a thrust. Upon being wounded, Lego jumped
out of the window, but the accused pursued and killed him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the benefits under Article 247 of the
RPC is applicable
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 4
HELD: Yes. Art. 247 was applied and the accused was
sentenced to destierro only for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day
of banishment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
the sum of P2,000.
17. People vs Abarca, 153 SCRA 735 (1987)
FACTS: Khingsley Paul Koh and Jenny, the wife of accused
Francisco Abarca, had illicit relationship. It started while the
accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar exam. On
July 15, 1984, upon reaching home, the accused found his
wife and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse.
When both noticed the accused, the wife pushed her
paramour who got his revolver. Abarca who was then
peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and
ran away. Abarca went to look for a firearm. About an hour
later, he proceeded to the "mahjong session" and found Koh
playing. He fired at Kingsley Koh several times which led to
his death.
ISSUE: Whether or not Article 247 of the RPC is applicable
HELD: Yes. Though quite a length of time, about one hour,
had passed between the time the accused-appellant
discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim
and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must
be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the
victim by the accused-appellant. The RPC, in requiring that
the accused "shall kill any of them or both of them . . .
immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of
intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing
instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be
the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the
accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of
infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated
by the same blind impulse, and must not have been
influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct
by-product of the accused's rage.
There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and
her paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit
copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the
deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. Article 247
prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married
person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person; and (2) that he kills any of
them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter.
These elements are present in this case.
Article 248. Murder.
18. People vs Manalad, G.R. No. 128593, August 14,
2002
FACTS: Gerry Orbino saw accused Zenaida Manalad stab
Herman Miclat, Jr. twice. The victim later on died. The
victim’s daughter testified that one week prior to the killing,
Diega Manalad approached her and said, "Antang, wala ka
ng nanay, mawawalan ka pa ng tatay." The trial court found
her guilty of murder. It appreciated the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed by Manalad was
murder
HELD: No. The trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation.
Orbino did not testify on the events that led to the stabbing.
Hence, there is no showing whether the attack was swift and
unexpected; or whether the victim did not expect the attack
or gave the slightest provocation. In order to appreciate
treachery as a modifying circumstance in a continuous
aggression, it must be shown to have been present at the
inception of the attack.
Also, the attendance of evident premeditation was not
proved. In order to appreciate this circumstance, the
following must be shown: (1) the time when the accused
decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly
indicating that he has clung to his determination; and (3)
sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the
execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the
consequences of his act. In the absence of proof of the
events immediately preceding the killing, the decision and
determination to kill the victim cannot be established.
Thus, the crime committed is Homicide, penalized under
Article 249 of the RPC.
19. U.S. vs Baluyot, 40 Phil 385
FACTS: Accused Jose Baluyot ran for Governor of Bataan
but lost to the deceased Conrado Lerma. After 2 years of
such defeat, Baluyot encountered series of unfortunate
events, which he attributed Lerma having played a significant
part of such. An assault was begun suddenly and
unexpectedly by the firing of a pistol by the Jose Baluyot at
his victim, Governor Conrado Lerma, who was unarmed.
When Lerma attempted to flee, Baluyot pursued him. Lerma
driven to take refuge in a closet, where he called aloud for
help. Baluyot then tried" to force open the door but was
unable to do so. Thereafter, he fired a shot at the door and
the bullet passed through the panel of the door and, entering
the head of the deceased, produced death. Lerma died 2
hours after. Baluyot was charged with murder by the CFI of
Bataan, qualified by: (1) Treachery, (2) Evident
premeditation; and (3) crime committed against a public
authority in discharge of his duty.
ISSUE: What crime was committed?
HELD: Where the accused killed the provincial governor
while engaged in the performance of his official duties. It is a
complex crime of direct assault with murder. Where the
accused entered the office of the provincial governor where
the latter was engaged in the exercise of his official functions
and slew him under conditions constituting murder, it is held
that two crimes were committed, namely, murder and assault
upon a person in authority, and that the penalty prescribed
for murder should be imposed in its maximum degree, in
accordance with section 89 of the Penal Code.
The qualifying circumstance of alevosía (treachery) essential
to the crime of murder was found to be present in the case at
bar not only because of the sudden and unexpected manner
in which the fatal assault with a deadly weapon was begun
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 5

against the defenseless victim, but also because of the

peculiar conditions under which the offense was finally
consummated.

20. People vs Salamillo, 404 SCRA 211 (2003)

FACTS: Brothers Liberato and Julian Solamillo, and two

others were armed with weapons, with treachery and evident
premeditation and with intent to kill, hacked Alexander
Guiroy, a proprietor of Liberty Bakery and Grocery, They
forcibly took the cash and other personal belongings of the
victim. The trial court convicted them of the crime of Robbery
with Homicide since the commission of which was attended
by the following: committed by a band; with evident
premeditation; treachery; and with deliberate cruelty.
Solamillo brothers contend that the trial court erred in finding
them guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide. Julian
contends that he cannot be held liable for homicide because
he only took money but did not participate in the victim’s
killing.

ISSUE: Whether or not Solamillo brothers are guilty of

robbery with homicide

HELD: Yes.
In the offense of robbery with homicide, a crime primarily
classified as one against property and not against persons,
the prosecution has to firmly establish the following
elements:
(a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person;
(b) the property thus taken belongs to another;
(c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus
lucrandi; and
(d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the
crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense,
was committed.

In this case, the prosecution amply established the said

elements. Julian Solamillo’s contention that he cannot be
held liable for homicide because he only took money but did
not participate in the victim’s killing is untenable. What is
essential in robbery with homicide is that there is a direct
relation and intimate connection between robbery and the
killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former
or whether both crimes be committed at the same time.

The rule is well-established that whenever homicide has

been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of
the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
robbery shall also be held guilty as principals of the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide whether or not they
actually participated in the killing, unless it clearly appears
that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 6
ANDOY
21. People vs Gregorio, 412 SCRA 90
FACTS: At around 10 in the evening, Juanito Regachio was
standing in front of a store when Juancho Osorio alighted
from a tricycle and immediately shot the former but the he
was able to parry Osorio’s hand. Regachio then ran to the
alley towards his house. Meanwhile, Mateo Gregorio came
out from a nearby alley and fired his gun in the air. He
approached Osorio and asked, “Nasaan na?” Osorio and
Mateo followed Regachio to the alley. Thereafter, gunshots
were heard. The 2 came out from the alley still holding their
guns. Earlier that day, Alberto Gregorio and Regachio had a
heated altercation after they came from a mahjongan.
Alberto challenged Regachio, “Kung gusto mo, tapusin na
natin ito.” RTC found Osorio and Mateo guilty.
ISSUE: Are they guilty of Murder?
RULING:No.
The qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of
superior strength were not sufficiently established by the
prosecution. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the
aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the part of
the victim. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever
there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim
and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of
strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor
selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of
the crime. It must be shown by clear and convincing
evidence that this qualifying circumstance was consciously
sought by the assailants.
The actual killing of Regachio occurred in an alley and was
no longer seen by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, there is
no way of determining whether the elements of treachery
and abuse of superior strength were met.
22. People vs Caraig, 400 SCRA 67
FACTS: At past midnight inside a beerhouse, Donato Caraig,
then member of Phil. Constabulary, confronted Diaz,
Raagas, Castro, and Agustin asking them if they were
military men. They did not answer. A rumble or fight
suddenly ensued between them. It was a brief scuffle. Caraig
then ran back to the beerhouse. Diaz, et al, rode on a taxi.
They were chased, however, by a white car, which
eventually blocked the taxi. Caraig, Renato Laxamana, and
Rolando Laomoc alighted from the said car. Each of them
held a .45 caliber gun, which they simultaneously upon Diaz,
et al. While the hail of bullets went on, Diaz played dead. He
then heard somebody utter: “Pare, tama na yan. Patay na
lahat ang mga iyan.” The trial court appreciated treachery
and conspiracy among Caraig, et al in the commission of the
crime.
ISSUE: Are they guilty of murder?
RULING: Yes, they should be held liable for 3 counts of
murder and 1 count of frustrated murder.
Their acts undoubtedly showed unanimity in design, intent,
and execution of the attack on the part of Caraig and his co-
assailants. They performed specific acts with closeness and
coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose
and design to bring about the death of the victims.
Conspiracy among Caraig and his co-assailants was thus
established with moral certainty. The attack upon the victims
was likewise attended by treachery. There is treachery when
the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the
execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend
directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
23. People vs Avendano, 306 SCRA 309
FACTS: Jeffre Castillo suddenly awakened when he heard a
commotion. However, by the time he woke up, the room was
very dark because the lamp was already turned off. He
heard his mother shout, “Dikong, tulungan mo kami.” He
immediately eased his way to where they kept their pillows
and tried to hide. Then, there was silence. Then he heard
somebody going downstairs. His brother Melvin lit the lamp,
while Jeffre stayed where he was. He then heard the person
downstairs going up again. He saw through his blanket that
the person had come that was when he distinctly heard his
Kuya Melvin say, “Kuya Willie, tama na, tama na!”. That was
just before Melvin was killed. Jeffre recalled that someone
coughed and he recognized the cough as that of his Kuya
Willie. He recognized it because he had heard a similar
cough on several occasions in the past when Willie
frequented their house. He remained where he was until
Willieeft.
24. People vs Escarlos, 410 SCRA 463
25. People vs Felipe, 418 SCRA 146
26. Luces vs People, 395 SCRA 524
27. People vs Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28,
2003
28. People vs Alcodia, 398 SCRA 673
29. People vs Nicolas, 400 SCRA 217
30. People vs Abut, 401 SCRA 498
31. People vs Almoguera, 415 SCRA 647
32. People vs Escarlos, 410 SCRA 463
33. People vs Mantes, 368 SCRA 661
34. People vs dela Cruz, 416 SCRA 24
35. People vs Dizon, 558 SCRA 395 [October 10, 2008]
36. People vs Alfon, 399 SCRA 64
37. People vs Samaro, 570 SCRA 449 [November 3, 2008]
38. People vs Guevarra, 570 SCRA 288 [October 29, 2008]
39. People vs Cando, 334 SCRA 331
40. People vs Guillermo, 302 SCRA 257
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 7
MABBORANG
41. People vs Lobingas, et al., December 17, 2002 [394
SCRA 170]
Facts:
Frank Lobrigas, Marlito Lobrigas and Teoderico Mante were
accused of murder. On February 1996, they mauled the 76
years old, Felix Taylaran in Mante’s store. They inflicted
injuries in the vital parts of Taylaran’s body, which resulted
his death.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are liable for murder
Held:
No, they are liable for homicide.
To appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a
deliberate intent on the part of the male-factors to take
advantage of their greater number. They must have
notoriously selected and made use of superior strength in
the commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior
strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to
the means for self-defense available to the person attacked;
thus, the prosecution must clearly show the offenders’
deliberate intent to do so.
There was no clear indication in this case that the Lobrigas
and his companions purposely used their joint efforts to
consummate the crime. Consequently, the crime committed
by accused-appellant was only homicide.
42. People vs Delim, 396 SCRA 386
Facts:
Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers. They are the
uncles of Leon Delim and Ronald Delim. Modesto Manalo
Bantas, the victim, was an Igorot and a carpenter. He took
the surname Delim after he was “adopted” by the father of
Marlon, Manuel and Robert.
One evening, Marlon, Robert and Ronald suddenly barged
into the house and closed the door. Each of the three
intruders was armed with a short handgun. Marlon poked his
gun at Modesto while Robert and Ronald simultaneously
grabbed and hog-tied the victim. A piece of cloth was placed
in the mouth of Modesto.
Days later, Modesto’s body was found beneath some
bushes, already decomposing with multiple gunshot and stab
wounds. Only 3 of 6 were apprehended by the authorities.
The accused argued that they are not criminally liable for the
death of Modesto but only for kidnapping.
Issue:
Whether or not they are liable for kidnapping or murder
Held:
They are liable for murder. Specific intent must be alleged in
he information and proved by the prosecution.
To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely
use force that is out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the person attacked. In this case, it is evident on
the face of the Information that the specific intent of the
malefactors in barging into the house of Modesto was to kill
him and that he was seized precisely to kill him with the
attendant modifying circumstances. The act of the
malefactors of abducting Modesto was merely incidental to
their primary purpose of killing him. Irrefragably then, the
crime charged in the Information is Murder under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article
268 thereof.
43. People vs Hugo, 410 SCRA 62
Facts:
On August 1997, Remegio Talon with his cousin Joel Talon
was on their way home, when they meet Ernesto, Lorenzo,
and Rudy. Ernesto was walking along the left side of the
road, while Rudy and Lorenzo took the right side. Ernesto
came face to face with Remegio. Suddenly Ernesto hacked
Remegio twice with a bolo, first on the forearm and then on
the right shoulder, causing the latter to fall to the ground.
Ernesto quickly ran away, and his bolo slipped from his
hand. Remegio then told Joel to run after Ernesto. Joel
promptly gave a chase. Though wounded, Remegio stood up
to follow them. Lorenzo and Rudy also chased Remegio and
Joel.
The prosecution failed to prove the acts of Rudy and
Lorenzo Hugo as evidenced by the discrepancies in Joel’s
affidavits. On the other hand, Joel was consistent in his
sworn statements and testimony in court that the assault was
sudden, unexpected, and unprovoked. There was no
exchange of words between the victim and Ernesto at any
time before the actual attack.
Issue:
Whether or not Ernesto, Lorenzo, and Rudy are liable for
murder
Held:
NO, only Ernesto Hugo is liable for murder. Lorenzo and
Rudy were acquitted.
The elements for murder are: that a person was killed, that
the accused killed him, that the killing was attended by any
of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 and
the killing is not parricide or infanticide. In this case, Ernesto
committed all this acts, with an aggravating circumstance of
treachery.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength
to be appreciated, the size, age and strength of the parties
must be considered. There must be a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressor, giving the latter
a superiority of strength which is taken advantage of by him
in the commission of the crime. Abuse of superior strength is
absorbed in treachery.
The presumption of innocence enjoyed by Lorenzo and Rudy
was not overcome by the prosecution, which has the burden
to prove that they conspired with Ernesto in killing Remegio.
Jurisprudence is replete that conspiracy must be proved as
clearly as the commission of the offense itself. Hence, Rudy
and Lorenzo were acquitted.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 8
44. People vs Casitas, Jr., 397 SCRA 382
Facts:
On 1998, Haide Bombales-Marbella was found dead in the
house of Mario Chan, where she is a caretaker. During the
incident, the appellant, Jose Casitas was seen inside the
compound. Nemesio Capiz saw Jose Casitas jumped over
the fence with his shirt and pants with blood.
The next day, a warrant of arrest was served. Upon serving
the warrant, he ran off and was shot on the leg. He was
brought to the police station, later detained in Quezon City
Jail.
Issue: Whether or not Jose Casitas is guilty of murder
Held:
NO, he is only guilty of homicide because to qualify a killing
to murder, the circumstances invoked must be proven as
indubitably as the killing itself—it cannot be deduced from
mere supposition.
The accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial
evidence, when the circumstances constitute an unbroken
chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing
to the accused—to the exclusion of all others—as the guilty
person.
The RTC qualified the killing to murder by appreciating the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Settled is the
rule that such circumstance is present whenever there is
inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
superior strength is advantageous for the aggressor, and the
latter takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime.
45. People vs Roxas, 410 SCRA 451
Facts:
On 1996, from a distance of barely four to five meters,
Joelyn Puno could see Lorna Puno running away from Roger
Roxas. Roxas, apparently drunk, had no clothes from waist
up, was wearing shorts and carrying a gun. Joelyn promptly
closed the door but appellant was able to kick it open.
Joelyn, her forehead hit by the door, was pushed aside.
Roxas, grabbed Lorna’s bag, opened it and, apparently not
finding what he could have been looking for, hurled the bag
to the floor. Joelyn tried to hold the hand of Roger Roxas but
he pushed her hand away. Appellant then shot Lorna with a
caliber .45 gun with its muzzle just two feet away from
Lorna’s face. Lorna fell on the floor with half of her body
outside the door and the other half inside the house. Three
days after, Lorna died.
Issue:
Whether or not Roger Roxas is liable for murder
Held:
Yes, Roxas is liable for murder.
An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an
unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the
circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and
the weapon used in the act afforded him and from which the
woman was unable to defend herself.
In this instance, Lorna was 27 years old trying to escape
from appellant, an armed “hulk of a man,” 5’7” in height, and
around 33 years of age, when she was senselessly shot at
close range.
46. People vs Aliben, 398 SCRA 255
Facts:
On October 1997, Bonifacio Aliben, Diosdado Nicolas and
Ronnie Nicolas was accused of killing Juanito P. Bongon, Sr.
Romeo Barsaga saw Bonifacio strike Juanito with a bolo and
Nicolas and Ronnie hitting him with pieces of wood.
The doctor testified that based on his post-mortem
examination, that the victim died immediately after sustaining
the injuries on the right side of his head.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of murder
Held:
Yes, they are liable for murder. The attendant circumstance
of taking advantage of superior strength qualifies the killing
to murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code:
ART. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to
death, if committed with any of the following circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken
the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford
impunity.
Superiority in number does not necessarily mean abuse of
superior strength. It is still necessary to prove that the
accused cooperated and took advantage of their superior
strength.
In the instant case, the 3 accused were all armed. Ronnie
Nicolas and Diosdado Nicolas were armed with a piece of
wood while Bonifacio Aliben was armed with a bolo and they
helped one another in assaulting the victim who was alone.
Furthermore, the victim at the time of his death was 52 years
old while appellant Ronnie Nicolas at the time of the incident
was 23 years old; Diosdado Nicolas was 29 years old and
Bonifacio Aliben was 41 years old. There is a wide gap of the
age between the victim and the accused, showing that the
victim was much older than the three (3) accused who are
younger and physically stronger
47. People vs Astudillo, 401 SCRA 723
FACTS:
Brothers Clarence, Crisanto and Hilario Astudillo, went to
house of Alberto Damian who was celebrating the eve of his
birthday. Clarence greeted Alberto and thereafter asked the
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 9
victim, Silvestre Aquino, who was one of the visitors, to go
with him. Silvestre acceded and the two walked towards
Floras' Store, where they were later joined by Crisanto and
Hilario.
While at the store, Crisanto and Silvestre had an
argument.Prosecution eyewitnesses Manuel Bareng and
Eduardo Bata, 12 and 11 years of age, respectively, were
selling balut in front of Floras' Store. They saw Clarence stab
Silvestre with a bolo while Crisanto and Hilario held him by
the wrists. Clarence delivered several stab blows at the back
and on the chest of the victim until the latter fell to the
ground. Thereafter, the three appellants fled on board a
tricycle. Silvestre was rushed to the Municipal Health Office
of Bangued, Abra, where he was pronounced dead on
arrival.
Issue:
Whether or not they are liable for murder
Held:
Yes, they are liable for murder because the killing was
qualified with treachery.
The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating where the use
thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought
to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the
escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.
However, it is clear that treachery qualified the killing of the
deceased to murder, considering that the appellants
deliberately restrained the victim so as to enable one of them
to successfully deliver the stab blows without giving the latter
a chance to defend himself or to retaliate.
48. People vs Comadre, 461 SCRA 366 [Bar question
2008]
Facts:
Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey
Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio (drinking grioup) were having a
drinking spree on the terrace of the house of Robert’s father
(Jaime). As the drinking session went on, Robert and the
others noticed appellants Antonio Comadre, George
Comadre and Danilo Lozano (appellants) walking. The three
stopped in front of the house.
While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly throw a
hand grenade, ripping a hole in the roof of the house.
Drinking group were hit by shrapnel (fragments of the
grenade) and slumped unconscious on the floor. They were
all rushed to the Hospital. However, Robert died before
reaching the hospital.
Short facts: [The accused dropped a hand grenade inside a
house, killing one and causing 4 others to suffer shrapnel
wounds on their bodies.]
Issue: Whether or not the accused should be punished under
the RPC or under PD 1866
Held:
The accused must be punished under the Revised Penal
Code.
When the illegally possessed explosives are used to commit
any of the crimes under the Revised Penal Code, which
result in the death of a person, the penalty is no longer
death, unlike in P.D. No. 1866, but it shall be considered only
as an aggravating circumstance.
The accused was found guilty of the complex crime of
murder with multiple attempted murder under Article 48, and
the penalty for the most serious crime (murder) shall be
imposed.
49. People vs Cañete, 410 SCRA 544
Facts:
Joel Quimod and Lilio Tundag were on their way home after
attending a wedding party. Tumayao was walking ahead of
Tundag and Quimod. As they passed by the houses of the
accused, Quimod and Tundag heard successive gunshots.
Quimod and Tundag immediately looked in the direction
where the bursts of gunfire were coming from and saw
Ruben, Alfredo, Sergio, Sotero and Trinidad all surnamed
Cañete, shooting at Tumayao who slumped to the ground.
Apparently not satisfied, all the accused approached the
fallen Tumayao and continued shooting him.
On order of his father Sotero, Alfredo shot Tumayao in the
head. Quimod, who was ten meters behind the victim, ran
and hid behind the bushes. As soon as the accused left,
Quimod went home and narrated the incident to Tumayao’s
wife.
On the other hand, Tundag, who was behind Tumayao, saw
Ruben fire his gun at the victim. Tundag attempted to come
to the aid of Tumayao but the latter shouted at him to flee.
Thus, he ran back to the wedding party while hearing more
gunshots. At the wedding party, Tundag informed the people
about the ambush. Thereafter, he went back to the crime
scene where he saw Tumayao’s lifeless body on the road
Issue: Whether or not they are liable for murder?
Held:
Yes, they are liable for murder.
We likewise agree that treachery attended the commission of
the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any
of the crimes against persons, employing means or methods
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from
the defense which the offended party might make. The
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
without the slightest provocation on the part of the person
being attacked.
In this case, the events narrated by the eyewitnesses point
to the fact that Tumayao could not have been aware that he
would be attacked by appellants. There was no opportunity
for Tumayao to defend himself as appellants, suddenly and
without any provocation, fired their guns at him, one after the
other.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 10
Saving the authorities the trouble and expense for his search
and capture, and freely placing himself at their disposal, the
accused should be given the favor of a mitigated penalty for
his voluntary surrender; The mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender is personal, and can only be appreciated
in favor of the accused who surrendered voluntarily.
50. People vs Baldogo, 396 SCRA 31
Facts:
On February 1996, the accused Gonzalo Baldogo and Edgar
Bermas who were both serving time for the crime Murder at
the Iwahig Penal Colony, were employed as domestic
helpers by Julio Camacho Sr. One evening while their
master was away, they killed his son Jorge and kidnapped
his daughter Julie whom they took to the mountains and
detained her for more than five days.
Issue:
What are the crime/s committed by Baldogo
Held:
Baldogo committed two separate crimes, which are murder
and kidnapping.
There is no evidence that Jorge was kidnapped or detained
first by Baldogo and Bermas before he was killed. The last
paragraph of Article 267 of the Code is applicable only if
kidnapping or serious illegal detention is committed and the
victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the kidnapping or
serious illegal detention.
Baldogo is guilty of murder, but it is not qualified by evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength. A finding of
evident premeditation cannot be based solely on mere lapse
of time that he actually commits it—the prosecution must
adduce clear and convincing evidence as to when and how
the felony was planned and prepared before it was effected.
Instead, in light of the evidence on record, it is clear that the
killing of Jorge was qualified by treachery. When Jorge was
killed by accused-appellant and Bermas, he was barely 14
years old. Hence, Baldogo committed murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.
51. People vs Clamania, 85 Phil 350
Facts:
On September 1942, Apolinario Inciso and Modesto Delantar
were forced by the Fausto Clamania at the point of a
revolver to accompany him to the beach. At the beach they
saw Juan Grafil and Apolinario Gahoy in a boat with their
hands tied behind their backs. With Apolinario Inciso at the
helm, Delantar and the accused rowed the boat with. the
victims on board to Can-usod Island. There, Grafil and
Gahoy were taken ashore and beaten to death by Fausto
Clamania with an oar. After Grafil and Gahoy were killed the
accused ripped their abdomens to let out the bowels,
attached stones as weights to the bodies, tied the bodies to
the craft, and then hauled them to deep water where they
were released.
Issue:
Whether or not Clamania is liable for murder
Held:
Yes, as the killing was qualified by treachery.
Nocturnity is absorbed by treachery by which the killing is
qualified; there is no proof that Canusod Island was
uninhabited, and the disemboweling of the deceased was
not an unnecessary mutilation or deliberate and wanton
augmentation of the suffering of the offended parties. For
when the disemboweling was effected, the victims were
already dead, and the operation was conceived solely for the
purpose of facilitating the sinking of the cadavers and
preventing their discovery.
52. People vs Alban, et al., 245 SCRA 549
Facts:
The facts of this case are based mainly on the testimony of
the prosecution’s sole eyewitness, Joseph Salinas, thirteen-
year old son of the victim Roberto Salinas. On July 1991, he
saw his father, Roberto Salinas, being attacked by four men.
Joseph saw Robert and Demetrio stabbing his father while
the other two men restrained his hands.
The testimony of Joseph was straightforward, coherent and
convincing. He was able clearly to describe the manner in
which his father was killed and he positively identified Robert
and Demetrio as among the four malefactors responsible for
his father’s death.
Issue: Whether or not Alban is liable for murder
Ruling:
Yes, Alban is liable for murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code with no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance.
It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that questions
regarding the competency of a child to testify rest primarily
with the trial judge who sees the proposed witness, observes
his manner, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence,
as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath.
Cruelty cannot be appreciated in the absence of any
showing that appellants, for their pleasure and satisfaction,
caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted
on him unnecessary physical and moral pain.
The mere fact that wounds in excess of what was
indispensably necessary to cause death were found in the
body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such
wounds were inflicted with cruelty and with the intention of
deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or aggravating the
sufferings of the victim.
53. U.S. vs Campo, 23 Phil 369
Facts:
Patricio Campo took the life of one Isidro Palejo. Campo was
convicted of the crime of homicide by the Trial Court.
However, it was appealed that it should be murder, as
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 11
defined by the Penal Code as the unlawful taking of the life
of another, other than parricide, when the act is marked by
any of the following qualifying aggravating circumstances: (1)
With treachery ( alevosia); (2) for a price or promise of
reward; (3) by means of an inundation, fire, or poison;
deliberately and inhumanly increasing the sufferings of the
offended party.
Issue:
Whether or not Campo is liable for murder
Ruling:
No, Campo is not liable for murder but only for homicide.
The Court held that an accused person cannot be convicted
of a higher offense than that with which he is charged in the
complaint or information on which he is tried. It matters not
how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be,
an accused person cannot be convicted in the courts of
these Islands of any offense, unless it is charged in the
complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily
included therein.
In this case, since alevosia (treachery) is not expressly
charged in the complaint, it was improper for the court to
take it into consideration in imposing the prescribed penalty
for the homicide of which the appellant was convicted.
54. People vs Valerio, 112 SCRA 231
Facts:
The case revolves around a plot of murder of an eight-year
old boy for insurance. Sometime in August 1972, Amador
Castro brought home a boy whom he met in a Pantranco bus
during a flood. “I will live with you to take care of the cows”
said the boy. On November 8, 1972, accused VALERIO, one
Celestino de la Cruz and Amador Castro, while at the latter’s
yard at Bo. Tamayo, San Carlos City, conferred about
obtaining life insurance on the boy living with Castro, who
would be subsequently killed so that the policy proceeds
could be “divided 50-50”.
Based on their plan and upon instructions of Valerio, Castro
had the boy baptized as his child, examined by Dr. Romero
on whose behalf an application for life insurance had been
filed. Herminigildo Solar, agent of Cardinal Life Insurance
Corporation approved the application by issuing Insurance
Policy No. 727 of P 20,000 in favor of "Amador Castro, Jr."
with spouses Castro as parents and beneficiaries. For the
payment of
the premiums, de la Cruz, Valerio and Castro contributed.
The insured boy left the Castro household after losing
money, through gambling. Castro then informed de la Cruz
and Valerio about the departure of the boy but the latter told
him that they will substitute a boy for him. Valerio then gave
Amador Castro a boy, who began staying with the Castros.
Thereafter, Valerio, Castro and de la Cruz planned the killing
of the new boy at Lido beach, Cavite. Valerio and de la Cruz
told Castro that if the plan were to be executed in
Pangasinan, they might get caught.
On 1973, VALERIO, and De la Cruz together with the new
boy went swimming. When they reached a depth of four feet,
Celestino de la Cruz who was at the back of the boy hit the
latter’s head with a piece of iron. Castro was at the left side
of the boy while VALERIO was at the boy’s right side. De la
Cruz then held the boy by the neck and submerged him in
water. VALERIO and Castro left De la Cruz and the boy in
the water.
Issue: Whether or not Epifanio Valerio, Jr. is liable for murder
Held:
YES, he is liable for murder.
Killing of child is murder and treachery even if manner of
attack is not shown. Treachery, as alleged in the Information,
must be considered qualifying and must be appreciated
against the accused. The killing of a child is murder even if
the manner of attack was not shown. The qualifying
circumstances of treachery or “alevosia” exists in the
commission of the crime of murder when an adult person
illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death.
Also, evident premeditation present in the case at bar. In the
case at bar, from the time the insurance was taken in
November, 1972, and even after the boy insured got lost, the
culprits did not relent in the pursuit of their scheme for
money culminating in the killing of the substitute boy and the
filing of a death claim with the Cardinal Life Insurance
Corporation.
55. People vs Gavarra, 155 SCRA 327
Facts:
On August 1972, Celerina Leyco, nicknamed “Baby”, an
eight year old, Grade 1 pupil, was sent by her elder sister
Elizabeth Leyco Gabelo to fetch water from a well near the
house of one David Garcia about 100 meters away. On that
same afternoon, Fe Garcia, wife of David Garcia, while
answering the call of nature near her house, saw Celerina
pass by on her way to the well carrying an empty pail. About
five minutes later, while looking around, she saw the
accused, Dominador Gavarra, up a coconut tree some 35 to
40 meters from the path taken by the victim. Thereafter, Fe
sat on the stairs of her house and she again saw Celerina on
her way home, carrying the pail filled with water.
After about an hour of waiting for Celerina, Elizabeth Gabelo
got worried and wondered why she had not yet returned.
After informing them that Celerina could not be found, the
three of them started searching for Celerina along the path
taken by the latter. While searching thus, they came upon
the Dominador sitting on a stone inside a clearing cultivated
by him.
And it was there at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
August 20, 1972 that Bitonio discovered the lifeless body of
a little girl, whom Elizabeth Gabelo and her husband Eleno
identified as that of Celerina Leyco. The spot where the body
was found was only about five arms length from the stone
where Dominador Gavarra was seen sitting when
approached by Eleno Gabelo the previous afternoon.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 12

Issue:
Whether or not Gavarra is liable for murder
Held:
Yes, Gavarra is liable for the crime of murder qualified with
treachery and taking advantage of his superior strength.
The court held that the only crime the accused can be found
guilty of committing is murder. It is clear that in killing an 8-
year old defenseless girl, he did so with treachery, taking
advantage of his superior strength. He is therefore guilty of
murder. In view of the abolition of the death penalty under
Section 19, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, the penalty
that may be imposed for murder is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
time of the incident, saw the stabbing of the two victims from
a distance of four (4) armslengths.
Three other witnesses, Jaime Cano, Federico Malinao and
Basilisa Polinar, identified accused-appellants as the
assailants. Alex Pilapil, Federico Malinao and Basilisa
Polinar all gave written statements to the police in the early
morning of February 1, 1982 soon after the incident (Exhibits
“C”, “D” & “1”). Jaime Cano, himself a victim, testified that
while running away and when he was about three (3)
armslengths distant, he looked back and saw accused-
appellants stab the victim Gloria with their balisongs.

Since in the instant case, no aggravating or mitigating

circumstances have been shown or proven, the penalty that
should be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period. Applying the indeterminate sentence law, the
minimum term to which the accused may be sentenced
should be within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree, i.e., reclusion temporal in its medium and minimum
period.

56. People vs Lopez, 157 SCRA 304

Facts:
On January 31, 1982, about 7:30 p.m, on their way home,
Adelina and her husband went ahead. While the others were
outside in front of Encounter waiting for a ride, all of a
sudden Domingo Lopez and Roberto Ansale appeared and
attacked Jaime Cano. Appellant Roberto Ansale hit Cano on
the neck with his balisong. Unarmed and sensing danger
Cano with his other companions started to run and
disappeared. The assailants however were able to gang up
on Jaime Gloria who was just beside and about three (3)
arms length away from Cano. Appellants Lopez and Ansale
took turns in stabbing Gloria in various parts of his body.

Issue:
Whether or not Domingo Lopez and Roberto Ansale are
liable for murder.

Held:

Yes, they are liable for murder.

The general denial by the accused of the stabbing incident
cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the
prosecution witnesses.

The general denial by Domingo Lopez and Roberto Ansale is

limp. It is highly improbable that LOPEZ would not have
known of the stabbing incident immediately near the parking
area that he was tending. Obviously, he was not telling the
truth. Neither was the Manager of the Beer House whom the
Trial Court found to be “evasive, talkative and pretending to
be smart.” Moreover, such denial cannot prevail over the
positive identification made by prosecution witnesses. Thus,
Alex Pilapil, who works as a parking boy in the compound of
the Encounter Disco, and who happened to be eating at the
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 13
Article 249. Homicide.
57. People vs Penesa, 81 Phil 398
FACTS:
On August 1942, there was a heated argument between
Santiago Cerrado, a cousin of Rosario and Timoteo Penesa
because Santiago refused that Rosario and Timoteo will live
in another place.
Angered by this remark, Timoteo unsheated his bolo and
assaulted Santiago. Crescencio Doro, the eldest son of
Rosario, who tried to prevent another blow upon Santiago
and had made a remark similar to that of Santiago before the
latter came to the house, was also assaulted by Timoteo. At
this juncture, Rosario went down through the stairway,
preceded by Santiago. Crescencio and Timoteo grappled for
the possession of the bolo and both fell to the floor. A brother
of Rosario appeared upon the scene and snatched the bolo
and a dagger from the hands of Timoteo. As a result of the
assault upon Santiago Cerrado, two wounds were inflicted
upon him, one on the left forearm and another under the left
axilla. They were not serious.
Issue:
Whether or not Timoteo Penesa is liable for homicide
Held:
NO, in the absence of proof as to the period of the offended
party’s incapacity for labor or of the required medical
attendance, is slight physical injuries against Santiago
Cerrado, as provided for in article 266 of the Revised Penal
Code; and against Crescencio Doro is serious physical
injuries.
When he went to the house of Rosario early in the morning
of 81 August, it was not with the intention to kill anybody, for
he went there to entreat Rosario Aguillón to live with him in
another house. The bolo with which the appellant inflicted
the wounds upon Santiago Cerrado and Crescencio Doro
was one ordinarily used by farm laborers. The dagger was
carried for selfdefense. The wounds inflicted upon the
offended parties by the appellant were caused
indiscriminately and not deliberately. Appellant’s purpose in
going to the house, and not the kind of weapons he carried,
nor the parts of the victims’ bodies on which the wounds
were inflicted indiscriminately, is indicative and determinative
of his intent.
58. Mondragon vs People, G.R.No. L-17666, June 30,
1966
FACTS:
On July 1954, Serapion Nacionales was opening the dike of
his ricefield to drain the water therein and prepare the
ground for planting the next day, he heard a shout from afar
telling him not to open the dike, Nacionales continued
opening the dike, and the same voice shouted again, ‘Don’t
you dare open the dike.’ When he looked up, he saw Isidoro
Mondragon coming towards him. Nacionales informed
appellant that he was opening the dike because he would
plant the next morning. Without much ado, Mondragon tried
to hit the Nacionales who dodged the blow. Thereupon,
appellant drew his bolo and struck Nacionales on different
parts of his body. Nacionales backed out, unsheathed his
own bolo, and hacked appellant on the head and forearm
and between the middle and ring fingers in order to defend
himself. Mondragon retreated, and Nacionales did not
pursue him but went home instead.
Issue:
Whether or not Mondragon is liable for homicide
Held:
Mondragon is not guilty of homicide because when intent to
kill was not manifest, offense is physical injuries.
The facts brought out by the decision appealed f rom
indicate that the petitioner had no intention to kill the
offended party. Thus, petitioner started the assault on the
offended party by just giving him fist blows; the wounds
inflicted on the offended party were of slight nature,
indicating no homicidal urge on the part of the petitioner; the
petitioner retreated and went away when the offended party
started hitting him with a bolo, thereby indicating that if the
petitioner had intended to kill the offended party he would
have held his ground and kept on hitting the offended party
with his bolo to kill him. The element of intent to kill not
having them fully established, and considering that the
injuries suffered by the offended party were not necessarily
fatal and could be healed in less than 30 days, the offense
committed by the petitioner is only that of less serious
physical injuries.
The intent to kill being an essential element of the offense of
f rustrated or attempted homicide, said element must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence and with the same
degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of the
crime. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in
the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such intent
beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Villanueva, 51 Phil.
488).
59. U.S. vs Abiog, 37 Phil 143
Facts:
The deceased Anacleto Cudiamat coming upon the
VICENTE ABIOG and LUIS ABIOG cleaning a caua said to
them, "What of it if you throw away the water as I also can
get water as easily as you can?" Vicente Abiog indignant at
this allusion replied. "Do you want a fight? Wait there."
Immediately proceeding to the house, Vicente procured a
revolver and returned to the field. A brother of V. Marcelino
Abiog, attempted to gain possession of the revolver and was
killed (probably accidentally) for his pains. Loading the
revolver anew, Vicente pointed it at Cudiamat wounding him
in the stomach. The wife of Cudiamat tried to succor her
husband, but the other brother Luis Abiog stopped her and
attacked Cudiamat with a bolo. Cudiamat's nephew, Urbano
Banastas, was also wounded. While the points indicated
stand out sharply in the record, they fail adequately to
portray the passing of events or the words spoken during this
affray.
Issue: Whether or not they are liable for homicide
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 14

Held:
Yes, they are liable for homicide. That both Vicente and Luis
are liable for the death of Cudiamat. As the spark of life went
out, each wound was a contributing cause. Although a man
can not be killed twice, two persons, acting independently,
may contribute to his death and each be guilty of a homicide.

Drop by drop the life current went out from both wounds, and
at the very instant of death the gunshot wound was
contributing to the event. // the throat cutting had been by a
third person, unconnected with the defendant, he might be
guilty; for, although a man cannot be killed twice, two
persons, acting independently, may contribute to his death
and each be guilty of a homicide. A person dying is still in
life, and may be killed, but if he is dying from a wound given
by another both may properly be said to have contributed to
his death."

Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or

homicide.

60. U.S. vs Poblete, 10 Phil 582

Facts:
On May 1907, Gliceria Dolac, a young woman, 19 years of
age was walking in the direction of the church, for the
purpose of hearing mass, accompanied by her aunt, Toribia
Unson, and another young woman, Gliceria Velgrado. When
nearing the parish house she was unexpectedly met by
Candido Poblete, who seized her with his left hand and
immediately attacked her with an open penknife, inflicting
several wounds in her chest, back, sides, arms, and thigh,
and although she fell to the ground senseless upon being cut
in the breast with the penknife, Poblete continued to attack
her; as the two women who accompanied Dolac promptly
attempted to render assistance. Poblete with the same knife
also attacked Toribia Unson who was crying out for help,
wounding her in the forehead.

Issue: What is the crime committed

Held:
The crime committed was FRUSTRATED MURDER.

When the aggressor of a young woman of 19 years of age

inflicts upon her, with a cutting weapon, sixteen wounds
more or less serious, for the purpose and with the criminal
intent of causing her death, at the same time doing
everything which should naturally have resulted in the death
of the assaulted party, although the same did not take place
for reasons which did not depend on the will of the
aggressor, who continued to attack her notwithstanding the
fact that she was lying senseless on the ground, and only
refrained when he believed her to be dead, and that the act
which he had committed treacherously and with perfect
safety to himself had been consummated, the crime thus
committed is unquestionably that of frustrated murder.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 15

NENARIA
61. U.S. vs Villanueva, 2 Phil 62

Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray.

62. U.S. vs Tandoc, 40 Phil 954
63. People vs Corpuz, 102 SCRA 674

Article 252. Physical Injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray.

NO CASES

Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide.

NO CASES

Article 254. Discharge of firearms.

64. People vs Agbuya, 57 Phil 238
65. People vs Kalalo, et al., 59 Phil 715
66. U.S. vs Sabio, 2 Phil 485
67. U.S. vs Samonte, 10 Phil 642

Article 255. Infanticide.

68. People vs Jaca and Rasalan, 55 Phil 952
69. U.S. vs Vedra, 12 Phil 96
70. U.S. vs Aquino, 34 Phil 813

Article 256. Intentional abortion.

71. U.S. vs Boston, 12 Phil 134

Article 257. Unintentional abortion.

72. U.S. vs Jeffrey, 15 Phil 391
73. People vs Salufrania, 159 SCRA 401
74. People vs Villanueva, 242 SCRA 47

Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or

by her parents.
NO CASES

Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and

dispensing of abortive.
NO CASES

Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel.

Article 261. Challenging to a duel.

75. People vs Tacomoy, G.R.No. L-4798, July 16, 1951

Article 262. Mutilation.

76. U.S. vs Esparcia, 36 Phil 840

Article 263. Serious physical injuries.

77. U.S. vs Villanueva, 31 Phil 412
78. U.S. vs Santos, 17 Phil 87
79. People vs Hernandez, 94 Phil 49
80. People vs Sto. Tomas, 138 SCRA 206
81. People vs Balubar, 60 Phil 699
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 16
LABENDIA
82. U.S. vs Bugarin, 15 Phil 189
FACTS:
The accused, Antonio Bugarin, upon being caught by Miguel
Guillermo in the act of stealing a carabao, struck Guillermo
with his bolo, severing the index and middle fingers of
Guillermo’s right hand. As a result, Guillermo’s right hand
was rendered useless for work in the fields, his usual
occupation. The CFI sentenced Bugarin under the
provisions of paragraph 2 of article 416 of the Penal Code to
imprisonment for five years.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sentence imposed was proper.
HELD:
No. The penalty should be under paragraph 3 of
article 416 of the Penal Code.
Under paragraph 2 of said article 416, a person
convicted of lesiones graves is punished with prision
correccional in its medium and maximum degrees if, as a
result of such injuries, the person assaulted should have lost
an eye or any principal member, or should have been
hindered in the use thereof, or rendered unable to pursue the
occupation in which, up to that time, he had been habitually
engaged.
Under paragraph 3 of article 416 of the Penal Code,
a person convicted of the crime of lesiones graves should be
punished with prision correccional in its minimum and
medium degrees, if the party injured was disfigured or lost a
member, not a principal one, or the member was thereby
rendered useless. The penalty shall be two years of prision
correccional.
83. People vs Penesa, 81 Phil 403
FACTS:
Timoteo Penesa and Rosario Aguillon lived as
husband and wife. The victim, Crescencio Doro is the eldest
son of Rosario by her late husband. Due to continuous
wrangles between Timoteo and Rosario’s children by her
late husband, both agreed to part. Timoteo left the house on
30 August 1942. The following day, Timoteo returned to the
house and asked Rosario to live with him in another place.
The request was refused. Santiago Cerrado, a cousin of
Rosario, came to the house and, upon seeing Timoteo,
asked the latter why he was there after they had agreed to
live apart. Angered by this remark, Timoteo unsheated his
bolo and assaulted Santiago. Crescencio Doro who tried to
prevent them, was also assaulted by Timoteo. Crescencio
and Timoteo grappled for the possession of the bolo.
Wounds were inflicted upon Crescencio Doro. In the left
palm affecting two fingers, a wound 3 inches long and from
1/2 to 3/4 inch deep, which on the day of the trial, was still
bandaged because it was not yet healed. Upon this evidence
the trial court found Timoteo Penesa guilty of frustrated
homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty of frustrated homicide
was proper.
HELD:
No. When Penesa went to the house of Rosario, it
was not with the intention to kill anybody.
The crime committed by Penesa against
Crescencio Doro is serious physical injuries, for, although
the physician who had treated him did not state in his
testimony the time during which the wounds would heal or
the period during which the offended party would be
incapacitated to perform his ordinary or usual work,
nevertheless the evidence shows that the wound inflicted on
the 31st of August upon Crescencio Doro in the left palm
affecting two fingers, 3 inches long and from 1/2 to 3/4 inch
deep, was not yet cured on the day of the trial held on 9
October 1942, or that the wound did not heal within 30 days.
Article 264. Administering injurious substances or
beverages.
84. U.S. vs Chiong Songco, 18 Phil 459
FACTS:
Chiong Songco threw the contents of a bottle of
sulphuric acid into the face and on the body of the victim,
inflicting wounds which resulted in the illness of the victim for
more than thirty days. The trial court found the defendant
guilty of the crime of lesiones defined in subsection 4 of
article 416 read together with article 417 of the Penal Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime charged is correct.
HELD:
No. The infliction of injuries (lesiones) by throwing
mordant chemicals or poisons in the face or upon the body is
not one of the offenses defined and penalized in article 416
of the Code.
Article 265. Less serious physical injuries.
85. U.S. vs Trinidad, 4 Phil 152
FACTS:
Trinidad, with a kitchen knife, inflicted a wound on
Margarita Maria Pando, in the right scapular region of her
body. This wound necessitated medical attendance for two
days and prevented her from attending to her ordinary labors
for a period of twenty-nine or thirty days. The cause of the
aggression seems to be the scolding that Margarita gave
Trinidad, who was her cook, for having broken a piece of
china ware. The lower court charged Trinidad the crime of
attempted homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime charged is correct.
HELD:
No. The facts in the case are only constitutive of
the crime of lesiones menos graves, provided for and
punished by article 418 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as the
wound inflicted upon Margarita Pando did not cause her any
sickness nor incapacity to work for more than thirty days.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 17

The first and most essential element constitutive of

the crime of attempted homicide is the intention on the part
of the guilty party to cause the death of the person attacked.
There is nothing tending to show in a plain and conclusive
manner that Trinidad had formally made up his mind to kill
Margarita Pando when he assaulted her with a knife.

It is a well-known principle of criminal law that when

a particular act constitutes a crime by itself, and is separately
and distinctly punished by law, like that of lesiones, it is not
possible in law to qualify the act as a greater offense unless
well-defined circumstances should show beyond reasonable
doubt that the intention of the accused was to commit an
offense of greater criminal importance.

86. People vs Penesa, 81 Phil 398

Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.

87. People vs Ganohon, 196 SCRA 431
88. People vs Manolong, 85 Phil 829
89. People vs Aquino, 71 Phil 143

Article 266-A. Rape. As amended by R.A. No. 8353

Article 266-B. Penalties (R.A. No. 8353)
90. People vs Reyes, 60 SCRA 126
91. People vs Nazareno, 80 SCRA 484
92. People vs Lim, 206 SCRA 176
93. People vs Canastre, 82 Phil 480
94. People vs Jimenez, 93 Phil 137
95. People vs Savellano, 57 SCRA 320
96. People vs Garcines, 57 SCRA 653
97. People vs Aldana, 175 SCRA 135
98. People vs Bautista, 102 SCRA 483
99. People vs Erinia, 60 Phil 998
100. People vs Orita, 184 SCRA 114
101. People vs Dayo, 62 Phil 102
102. People vs Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 18

MATILAC

103. People vs Laspardas, 93 SCRA 638

Facts: a Constabulary sergeant filed on December 17,

1976 against Laurencio Laspardas. It was alleged
therein that on December 1, 1976 inflicted twelve
wounds upon Elizabeth Arriesgado and Josephine
Arriesgado thereby causing their death. The
certificates of death show that the two victims were
twelve and eight years old. In view of Laspardas
admission in his confession that he raped Elizabeth,
the complaint was amended so as to add rape to the
charge of double murder. Upon arraignment in the
municipal court, Laspardas pleaded guilty.

Issue: WON Laspardas is guilty of the penalty of

special complex crime of rape with homicide.

Held: No, was not committed in this case and that two
separate murders were perpetrated. The murders were
qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident
premeditation and abuse of confidence, two
circumstances which are deducible from the testimony
of the accused.
Premeditation was evident because there was a
sufficient interval of time between the planning of the
murders and the execution thereof to allow the
conscience of the accused to overcome the resolution
of his will had he desired to hearken to its warnings.
There was abuse of confidence because, according to
the accused, he had stayed for two years with the
family of his two young and trusting victims who in their
immaturity and innocence never had an inkling that he
had homicidal intentions towards them. Presumably,
they looked upon him as their protector and guardian
in their parents' absence and not as their aggressor
and assassin. The two murders were specifically
alleged in the information. The accused cannot
complain that he was not duly informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him. Even without
his extrajudicial confession, his plea of guilty and
testimony establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
(Sec. 5, Rule 118, and sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of
Court. The corpus delicti, or the fact of the commission
of the two murders, is indubitably shown in the record.
By his plea of guilty, he himself supplied the necessary
proof as to his culpability, he was found guilty of two
separate murders and is sentenced to two death
penalties.

104. People vs Taño, G.R. No. 133872 [2000]

 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 19

105. People vs Maglente, 306 SCRA 546 [1999]

106. People vs Victor, 292 SCRA 186 [1998]
107. People vs Prades, 293 SCRA 411 [1998]
108. People vs Mahinay, 302 SCRA 486 [1999]
109. People vs Robles, Jr., 305 SCRA [1999]
110. People vs Dizon, 309 SCRA 669 [1999]
111. People vs Bayons, G.R. No. 13343, March 2, 2000
112. People vs Mosqueda, 313 SCRA 694 [1999]

Article 266-C. Effect of pardon. (R.A. No. 8353)

113. Laceste vs Santos, 56 Phil 472
114. People vs Miranda, 57 Phil 264

Article 266-D. Presumptions (R.A. No. 8353)

115. People vs Lim, 206 SCRA 176
116. People vs Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142
117. People vs Castro, 58 SCRA 473
118. People vs Conchada, 86 SCRA 683
119. People vs Estrebella, 164 SCRA 114
120. People vs Burgos, 115 SCRA 767
121. People vs Galano, 108 SCRA 405
122. People vs Magabo, 350 SCRA 126
123. People vs Estares, G.R. No. 12878, December 5, 1997