SULPICIO INTOD v. CA, GR No.

103119, 1992-10-21

Facts:

In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to
Salvador Mandaya's house... and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan.

Thereafter, Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told
Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya
should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed.

At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day,... Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with
firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's house

At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location... of Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter,
Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out; however, that Palangpangan was in
another City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the
accused fired the... shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.

After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Intod of attempted murder.

Petitioner seeks from this Court a modification of the judgment by holding him liable only for an impossible...
crime

Issues:

Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and his companions riddled it
with bullets made the crime inherently impossible.

RULING:

Intod’s petition was granted, the crime committed by Intod was modified from AttemptedMurder to an Impossible
Crime.
Article 4 Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code States:
Criminal Liability shall be incurred: By a person committing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were itnot for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
Domasian

G.R. No. 95322 March 1, 1993

FACTS:
March 11, 1982 morning: While Enrico was walking with Tirso Ferreras, his classmate, along Roque street in the
poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was approached by Pablito Domasian who requested his assistance in getting his
father's signature on a medical certificate. Enrico agreed to help and rode with the man in a tricycle to
Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the man went into a building to get the certificate. Enrico became
apprehensive and started to cry when, instead of taking him to the hospital, the man flagged a minibus and forced
him inside, holding him firmly all the while. The man told him to stop crying or he would not be returned to his
father. When they alighted at Gumaca, they took another tricycle, this time bound for the municipal building from
where they walked to the market. Here the man talked to a jeepney driver and handed him an envelope addressed
to Dr. Enrique Agra, the boy's father. The two then boarded a tricycle headed for San Vicente. As Enrico was crying
and being firmly held, Alexander Grate, the tricycle driver became suspicious and asked Domasian about his
relationship with the boy who told him they were brothers. Their physical differences and the wide gap between
their ages made Grate doubt so he immediately reported the matter to two barangay tanods when his passengers
alighted from the tricycle. Grate and the tanods went after the two and saw the man dragging the boy. Noticing
that they were being pursued, Domasian was able to escape, leaving Enrico behind. Enrico was on his way home in
a passenger jeep when he met his parents, who were riding in the hospital ambulance and already looking for him.

At about 1:45 in the afternoon of the same day, after Enrico's return, Agra received an envelope containing a
ransom note. The note demanded P1 million for the release of Enrico and warned that otherwise the boy would be
killed. Agra thought the handwriting in the note was familiar. After comparing it with some records in the hospital,
he gave the note to the police, which referred it to the NBI for examination

March 11, 1982 1:45 pm: Agra received an envelope containing a ransom note demanding P1 million otherwise
Enrico will be killed. . Agra thought the handwriting in the note was familiar so he referred it to the NBI for
examination and it turned out to be Dr. Samson Tan’s signature.

Domasian and Tan were subsequently charged with the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon

RTC: Domasian and Tan guilty as charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and all
accessory penalties
• Appealed

ISSUE: W/N Domasian and Tan is guilty of kidnapping with serious illegal detention

HELD: YES. appealed decision is AFFIRMED

PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES vs LAMAHANG

G.R. No. L-43530

FACTS:

The defendant Aurelio Lamahang is on appeal from a decision finding him guilty of attempted robbery.
At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on Delgado and C.R.
Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caughtthe accused in the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall
of a store of cheap goods located on the last named street.
At that time the owner of the store, Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman.
The accusedhad only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening another from the wall, when the
policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and placed him under custody.

ISSUE: WON the accused was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery

RULING: YES, he was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery. The accused is then held guilty of
attempted trespass to dwelling, committed by means of force, with the aforesaid aggravating and mitigating
circumstances and sentenced to three months and one day of arresto mayor.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MANOLITO PANCHO, appellant.
FACTS:
This is an appeal from the Joint Decision dated June 19, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos,
Bulacan, finding appellant Manolito Pancho guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in Criminal Case No. 837-M-96
and attempted rape in Criminal Case No. 838-M-96. In Criminal Case No. 837-M-96, the trial court sentenced him
to suffer reclusion perpetua, while in Criminal Case No. 838-M-96, the penalty of 10 years and 1 day, as minimum,
to 12 years, as maximum of prision mayor, was imposed upon him.

For Criminal Case No. 837-M-96 (For Rape):

On August 1, 1994, at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning, Michelle, who was then only ten years old, went home
after spending the night at her aunt’s house. While she was about to undress, appellant suddenly dragged her and
forced her to lie down on the floor. Although frightened, she struggled by kicking and boxing him. However, he
forcibly removed her clothes and underwear. Then he took off his clothing. Appellant started kissing and holding
her breast and eventually had carnal knowledge of her. She felt pain when he inserted his organ into her vagina
which bled. She tried to resist but he held her both arms. He was on top of her making push and pull movements
for four (4) minutes. Then he dressed up, threatening to kill her should she complain or tell anyone about the
incident.

For Criminal Case No. 838-M-96 (For Attempted Rape):

Sometime in December, 1995 at the family’s new residence at Bayugo, Meycauayan, Bulacan, appellant arrived
from work. When Michelle opened the door and saw him, she got scared. While he was approaching her, she
managed to hit him. Then she attempted to jump out of the window, but he dragged her by her feet. At that
instance, her uncle (Tito Onio) suddenly arrived. Immediately, appellant stopped, thus thwarting his bestial desire.

Upon arraignment, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
rape and attempted rape.

HELD:
The court explained that – Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted when
the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, but does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.

In this second case, the prosecution failed to prove that appellant started to rape the victim and had commenced
the performance of acts of carnal knowledge. He did not force her to lie down or remove her garment. In short,
there was no showing that he did commence at all the performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt to
rape the victim. What he did was to drag her and hold her feet. At this juncture, the court cannot safely conclude
that he was attempting to rape her.
The court cited the case of People vs. Campuhan, that the thin line that separates attempted rape from
consummated rape is the entrance of the male organ into the labial threshold of the female genitalia.

Wherefore, the decision dated June 19, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal
Case No. 837-M-96, convicting appellant Manolito Pancho of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that he is ordered to pay the victim, Michelle dela Torre,
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, and P50,000.00 as moral damages.

In Criminal Case No. 838-M-96, the trial courts judgment convicting the appellant of attempted rape is REVERSED
AND SET ASIDE and a new one is entered ACQUITTING him of the crime charged.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ARNULFO ORANDE y CHAVEZ, appellant.

FACTS:

Jessica Castro charged the plaintiff Arnulfo Orande for raping her four times between 1994 to 1996 while
the former was still a minor (between 9-12 years old). The complainant contends that all were executed by means
of threat and intimidation, threatening her of death if she resists. RTC convicted Orande two counts of simple rape,
one statutory and one frustrated. The accused appealed that the court had a grave error on convicting him of
frustrated rape despite the fact that there is no such crime.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is a crime of frustrated rape?

HELD:

The court said no, there is no crime of frustrated rape. In People vs. Orita, it was reiterated that in the crime
of rape, the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and from that
moment, all the elements of the crime are consummated. Since the offender has performed the last act necessary
to the crime, there is nothing more left to be done by the offender. Thus, it is consummated rape. Also, perfect
penetration is not essential in consummating rape, mere or any penetration of the female organ by the male organ
is sufficient. Necessarily, when there is no penetration of the female organ, the rape is considered attempted
because not all acts of execution were performed. Considering all the elements and manner of execution of the
crime of rape and all jurisprudence on the mater, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage can be
committed. WHEREFORE, the court ruled that the RTC committed an error on convicting Orande the crime of
frustrated rape, for in fact, the rape was consummated. Hence, Orande should be found guilty of consummated
rape rather that frustrated.

Valenzuela v. People
G. R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007

FACTS:
• May 19, 1994 4:30 pm: Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a
supermarket by Lorenzo Lago, a security guard who was then manning his post. Lago saw Valenzuela, who was
wearing an ID with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)” who hauled a push cart with cases of detergent of
“Tide” brand and unloaded them in an open parking space.. He then returned inside the supermarket and emerged
5 minutes after with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open
parking space. Thereafter, he left the parking area and got a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the
parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then
boarded the vehicle. As Lago watched, he proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area and
asked Valenzuela for a receipt of the merchandise but Valenzuela and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot. Lago
fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards. Valenzuela and Calderon were apprehended at the scene
and the stolen merchandise recovered worth P12,090.
• RTC: guilty of consummated theft
• CA: Confirmed RTC and rejected his contention that it should only be frustrated theft since at the time he was
apprehended, he was never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen.

ISSUE: W/N Valenzuela should be guilty of consummated theft.

HELD: YES. petition is DENIED

People of the Philippines vs Recones, Wahing, Degamo GR. No. 129535

FACTS:
Calixto Recones, Carlos Wahing and Pablo Degamo were charged with murder., The above named accused,
conspiringn, with intent to kill and without justifiable cause, with treachery by suddenly attacking the victim, with
evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
attack, assault and strike or hit with the use of the remaining broken portion of a concrete land marker one
Tranquilino L. Garate who was unarmed and unaware of the attack, thereby inflicting mortal injuries on the
victim’s body which resulted in the untimely death of the said Tranquilino Garate; to the damage and prejudice of
the heirs of the victim in the amount to be proved during trial.

Recones was arrested first and tried separately. He pleaded guilty to the charge and is now serving sentence in
Muntinlupa. Wahing remains at large. Degamo was arrested on December 8, 1994. The instant appeal therefore
pertains only to accused-appellant Degamo.

When brought before the court, Degamo entered a plea of not guilty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court of origin has committed a serious error in finding and concluding that the
accused-appellant is a co-conspirator in the murder of Tranquilino L. Garate.

HELD:
Yes, the court found that accused-appellant was a co-conspirator in the murder of Garate. After carefully
going over the pieces of evidence presented by both parties, the Court finds that the trial court did not overlook
any material point to justify his acquittal. On the contrary, the trial court correctly found accused-appellant’s guilt
to have been satisfactorily established beyond a shadow of doubt.

The trial court correctly appreciated the presence of conspiracy among the malefactors. Conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Proof
of a previous agreement to commit a felony is not necessary to establish conspiracy, it being sufficient that the
acts of the accused, before, during, and after the commission of the felony, demonstrate its existence.

Conspiracy was appropriately inferred from the following circumstances:

accused-appellant was in the company of Recones and Wahing in the afternoon of July 7, 1993;
upon seeing Garate at the waiting shed, the trio alighted from the motorcycle and ganged up on Garate with
Recones and Wahing raining blows on Garate in the presence of accused-appellant who did nothing to stop his
companions;
when Garate attempted to flee, accused-appellant, together with Recones and Wahing, pursued him;
when accused-appellant caught up with Garate, he gripped the latter tightly, thereby effectively preventing any
possible escape;
he, likewise, blocked the path of Garate when the latter attempted to flee towards the safety of his house;
accused-appellant was holding Garate while Recones and Wahing were raining blows on the victim;
accused-appellant did not stop Recones when the latter hit Garate on the head with a stone marker; and finally,
accused- appellant fled from the crime scene together with the two assailants.

Taken collectively, these circumstances clearly and satisfactorily provide the bases for this Courts finding that
Recones, Wahing and accused-appellant acted in concert with each other in killing Garate. Although accused-
appellant did not deliver the fatal blow, he remains accountable for the death of the latter on the principle that the
act of one is the act of all.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
PIO CANTUBA & PEDRITO LALAGUNA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:

Accused conspiring with each other to kill ATTY. ADOLFO CELERA. Accused were outside of the Pub where the
victim was. And when the victim was already outside the pub and was waiting for a tricycle for he was about to go
home, Pio Cantuba approached the victim and Margie Rotor heard a shot, Atty Celera staggered and then Baco
came and stabbed the victim twice.

The accused Cantuba, Lalaguna, Versales, Gerbuela, Baco and Mayor Moises Espinosa pleaded not guilty upon
arraignment. Penales and Labuyo remained at large and were not arraigned.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused was correctly convicted as a co-conspirator in the murder of Atty. Celera.

HELD:
The accused was correctly convicted as a co-conspirator. His knowledge of the plot to assassinate the victim, the
fact that he had been ordered to scout for a man who could do the job and his knowledge of the place, date
and time of the assault are sufficient to show unity of purpose. At the very least, therefore, he had to know the
plot and decided to join the execution. From the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. The degree
of actual participation in the commission of the crime is immaterial in conspiracy.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRINEO TUMLOS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On or about November 21, 1937, eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and five belonging to his son-in-
law, Ambrosio Pecasis, then grazing together in the barrio of Libong-cogon, municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo,
were taken by the herein defendant without the knowledge or consent of their respective owners. The deputy
fiscal of Iloilo filed on July 11, 1938, an information against the said defendant for the offense of theft of the eight
cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega, which resulted in his being sentenced on July 15, 1938, to an
indeterminate penalty of from one year, eight months and twenty-one days to five years, five months and eleven
days of prision correccional, with the accessories prescribed by law and costs. In the information filed in the
present case the same defendant is charged with the theft of five cows belonging to Ambrosio Pecasis, committed
on November 21, 1937, the date of the commission of the theft to the eight cows of Maximiano Sobrevega
charged to the previous information.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the conviction of the accused for the theft of the eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega
constitutes a bar to his conviction for the theft of the five cows belonging to Ambrosio Pecasis, which were grazing
together with the aforesaid eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega in the same place from which they
were stolen at the same time, under the legal procedural principle of "autrefois convict" or double jeopardy.
HELD:
The theft of the thirteen (13) cows committed by the defendant took place at the same time and in the
same place. Consequently, he performed but one act. In this case, the act is not susceptible of division.

Wherefore, he is acquitted of the charge, which is dismissed,

People vs Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563

Facts:
The case is an appeal of the defendants Elias Jaranilla, Ricardo Suyo, and Franco Brillantes from the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Ilo-ilo which convicted the accused of robbery and with homicide, and sentenced each of
them to Reclusion Perpetua and ordered the accused to pay solidarily the sum of six thousand pesos to the heirs of
Ramonito Jabatan and the sum of five hundred pesos to Valentin Baylon as the value of five fighting cocks.
It should also be noted that the accsued, Elias Jaranilla, has escaped from the provincial jail and no record shows
that he has been appreheanded.
Issue:
WON defendants Suyo and Brillantes are liable as co principal in the crime of Homicide.
Held:
The killing of the peace officer is characterized as homicide because the act was made during the spur of the
moment and the treacherous mode of attack was not consciously or deliberately adopted by the offender. In
addition, only persons who perpetrated the killing is responsible for such action. Furthermore, mere presence in
the crime scene does not necessarily make a person co-principal thereof.
Hence, only the accused, Elias Jaranilla, who perpetrated the killing is responsible and liable for robbery and
homicide. The co-accused, Suyo and Brillantes, are convicted of theft. Therefore, the decision of the lower court is
reversed and sentenced the accused, Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes, as co-principals in the crime of theft.

No promulgation as to the accused, Elias Jaranilla, that being stated that the accused has escaped from the
provincial jail.

GERUNCIO H. ILAGAN, CLARO PIÑON and ROSENDO PIÑON, petitioners, vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARTURO A. ROMERO, SALVADOR Q. QUIMPO and HOMETRUST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS:
The records show that on July 21, 1992, eight informations were filed and docketed as Criminal Cases Nos.
C-40482 to C-40489 in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 120, Kalookan City, charging herein petitioners Geruncio H.
Ilagan, Claro Piñon and Rosendo Piñon as co-conspirators in the crime of estafa.
Petitioners alleged that the informations are duplicitous and the trial court should have quashed them. They
contend that the complainants in Criminal Case No. 40482 and the individual complainants in the seven other
cases (Criminal Case No. 40483-40489) are one and the same and that the acts alleged in the first case (No. 40482)
to have been committed during the period July, 1990 to December, 1991 are the same acts charged individually in
the other seven cases (Nos. 40483-40489) on dates covered by the same period alleged in the first case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the offenses separately charged in the eight informations actually constitute only one offense or
were correctly considered as eight separate crimes of estafa.

HELD:
The crime of estafa committed against respondent corporation, on the one hand, and those committed against the
lot buyers, on the other, are definitely separate felonies. They were dictated by different criminal intents,
committed under different modes of commission provided by the law on estafa, perpetrated by different acts,
consummated on different occasions, and caused injury to different parties.
The series of acts committed against the seven (7) lot buyers were not the product of a single criminal
intent. The misrepresentation or deceit was employed against each lot buyer on different dates and in
separate places, hence, they originated from separate criminal intents and consequently resulted in separate
felonies.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CELERINO CASTROMERO, accused-appellant.

FACTS:
The accused Celerino Castromero was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Serious
Physical Injuries sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. That on the February 26, 1993 at about 2am in the province
of Batangas Philippines, the accused armed with a balisong wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with the offended party, Josephine Baon, against her will and consent and as a consequence thereof
she suffered serious physical injuries, by jumping down through the 2nd floor window of her house.
Castromero and Baon are relatives. Josephine Baon's husband is the second-cousin of Castromero. They were
neighbors wherein their houses are located a mere 50 meters apart. During the incident Castromero's penis due to
their movement sideways was able to touch Baon's private parts. When Baon, noticed that Castromero was no
longer holding the knife she tried to escape by pushing him off and jumping through the 2nd flr window. Upon
falling down she yelled for help wherein her in-laws came out to help her and bring her to the hospital, as she was
experiencing intense pain.
ISSUES:
Whether or not rape committed in this case.
Whether or not the accuse have other liabilities aside from rape.

HELD:
Yes ,in this case Rape was consummated, because sexual assault was perpetrated by force and intimidation.
The accused is liable for physical injury. The rape victim jumped from a window of her house to escape from the
accused; as a result, she suffered serious physical injuries specifically a broken vertebra which required medical
attention and surgery for more than ninety days. Here, the rape was complexed with the crime of serious
physical injuries, in accordance with the settled principle that a person who creates in another’s mind an
immediate sense of danger that causes the latter to try to escape is responsible for whatever injuries the other
person may consequently suffer.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANTONIO COMADRE, GEORGE COMADRE and DANILO LOZANO,
appellants.

FACTS:
Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were having a drinking spree on
the terrace of the house of Robert’s father (Jaime). While the drinking session continued, the group of Comadre
stopped walking in front of Jaime’s house and Antonio lobbed an object(hand grenade) and fell into the
terraces’roof, ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Those drinking were injured except for Robert Agbanlog who
died before reaching the hospital Appellants were found guilty of complex crime of murder with multiple
attempted murder.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the appellants.

HELD:
AFFIRMED insofar as appellant Antonio Comadre is convicted of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple
Attempted Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. Appellants Gregorio Comadre and Danilo Lozano
are ACQUITTED for lack of evidence to establish conspiracy.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MELECIO ROBIOS y DOMINGO, appellant.

FACTS:

That on or about March 25, 1995 at around 7:00 a.m. in Brgy. San Isidro, Municipality of Camiling, Province of
Tarlac, the said accused and his wife was having a fight as per Lorenzo(son) and then suddenly at a distance of
about five meters, saw appellant, with a double-bladed knife, stab Lorenza, who was, then six (6) months pregnant
causing death of said Lorenza Robinos, and the fetus inside her womb. Appellant does not refute the factual
allegations of the prosecution that he indeed killed his wife, but seeks exoneration from criminal liability by
interposing the defense of insanity

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the appellant.

HELD:
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Camiling, Tarlac (Branch 68) in Criminal Case No. 95-45 is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the penalty is REDUCED to reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ELADIO BALOTOL,Defendant-Appellant.

FACTS:
This is an appeal from a sentence of the Court of First Instance of Samar convicting the appellant of double murder
and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Potenciano Sabasido
and Bernardino Lacambra in the sum of P2,000, respectively, and to pay the costs.
In 1941 the deceased Potenciano Sabasido wounded the appellant. He was prosecuted for less serious physical
injuries, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to suffer fifteen days of imprisonment.
On the afternoon of May 24, 1942, the appellant saw Potenciano Sabasido for the first time since the latter was
released from jail, at a cockpit in the barrio of Silaga, municipality of Santa Rita, Samar. According to the witnesses
for the prosecution Sabasido was standing outside the ring close behind Bernardino Lacambra with his two hands
holding the shoulders of the latter, witnessing a cockfight. The appellant approached Sabasido from behind and
stabbed him with a bolo in the back. The weapon pierced through the body of Sabasido at the abdominal region
and wounded Lacambra also. Sabasido fell face downward and the appellant stabbed him again in the back near
the right shoulder, the bolo again piercing thru his body. Sabasido died instantaneously and Lacambra, seven days
later. The appellant admits having cause the death of Potenciano Sabasido but denies having wounded of
Bernardino Lacambra.
The accused called two witnesses, Celso Palo and Basillo Lacambra, to corroborate his story. These two witnesses
testified in substance to the same effect as the accused, except that they added that it was the deceased
Potenciano Sabasido who wounded Bernardino Lacambra accidentally while the accused was running away and
Sabasido was pursuing him. The trial court did not believe the testimony of the accused and his witnesses and
believed that of the witnesses for the prosecution.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Eladio Balatol was guilty of double murder, which was the judgement of the Court of First Instance
of Samar; and whether or not he should suffer life imprisonment.

HELD:

The court affirmed the judgement of the Court of First Instance. The crime committed by the appellant was double
murder, defined and penalized in article 248, in relation to article 48, of the Revised Penal Code. Article 48
provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. The penalty for murder is reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death. Since under article 48 this penalty must be applied in its maximum
period, the appellant should be sentenced to death. However, in view of the lack of the necessary number of votes
to impose the death penalty, the court is constrained to apply the penalty next lower in degree, which is life
imprisonment.