PEOPLE V RODAS

Key Word: Benefit Dance

Topic: Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, or by a Band
FACTS:
1) On 09 August 1996, accused, armed with a hunting knife, firearm, chako and bolo, stabbed TITING
ASENDA.
2) Accused entered their plea of NOT GUILTY but later withdrew and entered their respective PLEAS OF
GUILTY.
3) TITING helped his brother harvest corn. At 8PM, a benefit dance was held. Victim and the accused were
present. Suddenly, without a word, Charlito Rodas, armed with a hunting knife, stabbed Titing at the back.
Armando Rodas then clubbed Titing with a chako hitting him at the left side of the nape causing him to fall.
Thereafter, Jose Rodas, Sr. handed to Jose Rodas, Jr. a bolo which the latter used in hacking Titing, hitting
him on the left elbow.
4) Defense: Charlito and Jose killed Titing. Appellant Jose Rodas said he was in his
home with his wife.
5) They insist that Asonda and Anggot could not have seen the killing because only a Petromax lighted the
place.
6) During the incident, they claimed that they were 1km away.
Ruling of CA: Affirmed in toto
RTC decision convicting accused-appellants
Armando Rodas and Jose Rodas, Sr. of the crime of Murder; for the death of one Titing Asenda
Sentencing them to reclusion perpetua

ACs: Teachery, Nocturnity, Evident Premeditation

Issue: WON the RTC erred in appreciating the AC of NIGHTTIME
Assignment of error:
Assuming arguendo that the accused are guilty, they are only liable for the crime of homicide
HELD: Yes.
Sentence: Reclusion perpetua (there being no MC and AC)
1) [ON NIGHTTIME] Not Present. Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not
become a modifying factor when the place is adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the
offender's immunity from identification to capture. The crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a Petromax
which led to the identification of all the accused.

2) [ON CONSPIRACY] Present. In this case, conspiracy was convincingly proven beyond reasonable doubt.
All the accused had the same purpose and acted in unison when they assaulted the victim. (refer to #3 of
the facts)

3) [ON EVIDENT PREMEDITATION] Not proved.

4) [ON TREACHERY] Present. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself or to retaliate. In the case under review, the victim was completely unaware that
he was going to be attacked.

5) [ABSENCE OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION] A medical examination or a medical certificate is not

indispensable in the case at bar. Its absence will not prove that appellants did not commit the crime
charged.

6) Defense witnesses’ testimonies as to their whereabouts were inconsistent.

OTHER PERTINENT PRINCIPLES
1) For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establish two elements: (1) he
was not at the locus criminis at the time the offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible
for him to be at the scene at the time of its commission. 30 Appellants failed to do so.

2) For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be established:

(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 decision and execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the
consequences of his act.