Finale- Criminal Law

8/10/2019 Finale- Criminal Law

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/finale-criminal-law 1/177

CRIMINAL LAW 1

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION DEFINITION

Criminal law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for theirpunishment. (12 Cyc. 129)

STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES SOURCES OF STATE AUTHORITY

• Constitution i.Section 5, Article II, 1987 ConstitutionThe maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare areessential for the enoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

ii.Section 1, Article VI, 1987 ConstitutionThe legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the !hilippines which shall consist of a "enate and a #ouse of$epresentatives, e%cept to the e%tent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

• Revised Pen! Code "RPC#The $evised !enal Code criminali&es a whole class of acts that are generally accepted as criminal, such as the

ta'ing of a life whether through murder or homicide, rape, robbery and theft, and treason.The Code also penali&es otheracts which are considered criminal in the !hilippines, such as adultery, concubinage, and abortion. The Code e%presslydefines the elements that each crime comprises, and the e%istence of all these elements have to be proven beyondreasonable doubt in order to secure conviction.

• S$e%i! C&i'in! L(spart from the crimes penali&ed in the $evised !enal Code, several other pieces of criminal legislation have been

passed, penali&ing acts such as illegal possession and traffic'ing of dangerous drugs, money laundering, and illegalpossession of firearms. These laws are called "pecial !enal *aws+ and they form part of !hilippine Criminal *aws. There

are certain differences between crimes punished under the $evised !enal Code and "pecial !enal *aws.iolations of the crimes listed in the $evised !enal Code are referred to as mala in se, which literally means, that the act isinherently evil or bad or wrongful in itself. -n the other hand, violations of "pecial !enal *aws are generally referred to asmalum prohibitum or an act that is wrong because it is prohibited. Thus, no criminal intent is needed in order to find aperson liable for crimes punished under "pecial !enal *aws. s long as the act is committed, then it is punishable as acrime under law.ote, however, that not all violations of "pecial !enal *aws are mala prohibita. /hile intentional felonies are always mala inse, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala prohibita.There are someimportant distinctions between crimes punishable under the $evised !enal Code and "pecial !enal *aws. -ne of them isthat in crimes punished under the $evised !enal Code, the moral trait of the offender is considered. This is why liabilitywould only arise when there is criminal intent or negligence in the commission of the punishable act. 0n crimes punished

under "pecial !enal *aws, the moral trait of the offender is not considered it is enough that the prohibited act wasvoluntarily done.

• Pen! P&ovisions in Ot)e& L(s• Lo%! O&dinn%es

*ocal ordinance is a law usually found in a municipal code.• *u&is$&uden%e

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Philippines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Criminal_Laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mala_in_se

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mala_prohibita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Philippines


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Criminal_Laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mala_in_se

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mala_prohibita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder



The science of the law. y science here, is understood that conne%ion of truths which is founded on principleseither evident in conne%ion of truths which is founded on principles either evident in themselves, or capable ofdemonstration a collection of truths of the same themselves, or capable of demonstration a collection of truths of the same'ind, arranged in methodical order. 0n a more confined sense, urisprudence 'ind, arranged in methodical order. 0n a moreconfined sense, urisprudence is the practical science of giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and is the practical scienceof giving a wise interpretation to the laws, and ma'ing a ust application of them to all cases as they arise. 0n this sense,ma'ing a ust application of them to all cases as they arise. 0n this sense, it is the habit of udging the same 3uestions in thesame manner, and by it is the habit of udging the same 3uestions in the same manner, and by this course of udgments

forming precedents.

LIMITATION TO STATE AUTHORITY

# DUE PROCESS AND E+UAL PROTECTIONThe right of the !eople to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and sei&uresof whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no searchwarrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued e%cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the udge aftere%amination under oath or affirmation of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing theplace to be search and the person or things to be sei&ed+ ("ec. 2, rticle 000)

Se%tion 1, A&ti%!e III- o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property withoutdue process of law, nor shall any person be denied the e3ual protection of the laws.

PEOPLE vs. CARLOS 78 Phil. 535

FACTS: Carlos, a 4apanese spy, pointed with the 4apanese 5ilitary !olice the houses of 5artin and *adislao 5ateo and6ermin 4avier, conse3uently, houses were bro'en then the 5ateo brothers and 4avier were sei&ed, arrested and tortured in6ort "antiago from which they were released after 7 days. 8iven reasons was that the 5ateos refused to tell thewhereabouts of their guerrilla brother, 5arcelino and 4avier himself a guerrilla according to the accusedCRIME COMMITTED: TreasonCONTENTION OF THE STATE:

ppellant was guilty of treason by the !eoples Court. The court created under the stress of emergency and necessity, andof special restricted urisdiction, is not an arbitrary and it has no intentional discrimination. The !eoples court, contrary tothe contention of the accused, does not wor' to deprive the right of individuals to e3ual protection to law.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: !eoples Court deprives person similarly situated of the e3ual protection of the law !eoples court deny preliminaryinvestigation accused has limited right to appeal lac' of uniformity in ruling as special granting of release on bail.HELD:4udgment affirmed. The !eoples Court does not deprive the appellant of the e3ual protection of the laws guaranteed bythe Constitution.

# FREEDOM OF E/PRESSION

SECTION 0, A&ti%!e III, 123 Constitutiono law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of e%pression or of the press or the right of the people topeaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

4ARNES vs. 5LEN THEATRE 671 U.S. 687

FACTS: Two 0ndiana establishments wished to provide totally nude dancing as entertainment and individual dancersemployed at those establishments wished to provide the same asserting that the laws prohibition against total nudity inpublic places violates the 6irst mendment.CRIME COMMITTED: !ublic 0ndecencyCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:



:ance is a form of e%pression protected by the 6irst mendment. 0ndianas ban on nude dancing in not content ; neutraland is not date, time, and place or manner restriction. either the statute is ustified as a regulation of alcoholic beverages.

HELD:The Court held that the nude dancing involved here was not e%pressive conduct. The Court of ppeals reversed the rulingthat the non<obscene nude dancing performed for entertainment is protected e%pression and that the statute, re3uiring therespondents to wear panties and 8<strings was an improper infringement of that activity because its purpose was to prevent

the message of eroticism and se%uality conveyed by the dancers. -n Certiorari, =" "upreme Court reversed the udgmentof the =" Court of ppeals for the "eventh Circuit.

%# FREEDOM OF RELI5IONSECTION 6, A&ti%!e III, 123 Constitution

o *aw shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free e%ercise thereof. The free e%ercise andenoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. o religioustest shall be re3uired for the e%ercise of civil and political rights.

EMPLOYMENT DI9ISION DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE vs. SMITH, 00 U.S 23

FACTS: Two drug rehabilitation counselors, both members of the ative merican Church were fired from their obsbecause they had ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug for sacramental purposes. They applied for unemployment to the>mployment :ivision of -regons :epartment of #$. pplications were denied.CONTENTION OF THE STATE: The 6ree e%ercise of religion clause does not preclude -regon from denying unemployment benefits to persons dismissedfrom their obs because they used the drug whether or not such used was religiously inspected.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: The sacramental use of small 3uantities of !eyote in ative merican Church is comparable to the sacramental use of smal3uantities of alcoholHELD:The free e%ercise clause can ban the use of !eyote or can deny unemployment benefits for dismissal based on the use of

the substance.

ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR 0 SCRA 1

FACTS: leandro >strada filed a complaint against >scritor for living with a man who is not his husband and having bornea child within their live<in arrangement. >strada wanted her to be removed from her ob as a court interpreter.WHAT CRIME: :isgraceful and 0mmoral conductCONTENTION OF THE STATE: >scritor should not be allowed to remain wor'ing in the Court for it may appear that the court tolerates her disgraceful andimmoral conduct.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:

>scritor admitted that she has been living with a man who is not her husband even if her real husband is still alive but livingwith another woman. #er live<in arrangement with the man is in conformity with their religious beliefs as members of the4ehovas /itnesses and /atch Tower and ible Tract "ociety. The said arrangement even had the approval of theirCongregation. They already e%ecuted a :eclaration of !ledging 6aithfulness after ten years of living together, which ispermitted by their Congregation.HELD:The court was not able to rule over the case accurately so they remanded the complaint to the -ffice of Court dministratorand order the "olicitor 8eneral to intervene in the case. fter mediation in the case, its decision was, >scritor cannot bepenali&ed for engaging into a conugal arrangement because she has a fundamental right to freedom of religion.

d# SECTION 10 "1#, A&ti%!e III, 123 Constitution



o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.e# SECTION 10 "#, A&ti%!e III, 123 Constitution

0n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is provided, as shall enoy the rightsto be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy,impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face and to have a compulsory process to secure the attendance ofwitnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf, however, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding theabsence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure appears unustifiable.

;# SECTION 12 "1#, A&ti%!e III, 123 Constitution

o person shall be detained solely by reasons of his political beliefs and aspirations.<# SECTION 12 "#, A&ti%!e III, 123 Constitution

o involuntary servitude in any form shall e%ist e%cept as a punishment for a crime, whereof the party shall have been dulyconvicted.

)# NO E/CESSI9E FINES NOR CRUEL, DE5RADIN5 OR INHUMANE PUNISHMENT

SECTION 1 "1#, A&ti%!e III, 123 Constitution>%cessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. either shall death penalty beimposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. ny death penaltyalready imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE vs. DELA CRU= P)i!. 78

FACTS: #aving retailed a can of mil' at ten centavos more than the ceiling price, !ablo :ela Cru& was sentenced, aftertrial, in the Court of 6irst 0nstance in 5anila, t imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of five thousand plus costs. #ewas also barred from engaging in wholesale and retail business for five years.WHAT CRIME: -verpricingCONTENTION OF THE STATE:5any of us do not regard such punishment unusual and cruel, remembering that ational !olicy against profiteering in thematter of foodstuffs affecting peoples health, the need of stopping speculations in such essential and of safeguarding publicwelfare in times of food scarcity or similar stress.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:

The Trial 4udge erred? (a) in not holding that the charge was fabricated (b) in imposing a punishment whollydisproportionate to the offense and therefore unconstitutional and in not invalidating $. o. @A9 in so far as it prescribede%cessive penalties.HELD?The court decided to reduce the penalty to the imprisonment of si% months and a fine of two thousand pesos.

PEOPLE vs. ECHE5ARAY 83 SCRA 82

FACTS: "ometime in pril 199B, the accused raped his 1A year old daughter. :uring that time, $.. o. 7@9, commonly'nown as the death penalty law was already in effect.WHAT CRIME: $ape

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:!unishment are cruel only when they involve torture and lingering death but the punishment of death is not cruel within themeaning of the word as used in the Constitution.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED::eath penalty is cruel, e%cessive, or unusual punishment in violation of the constitutional prescription against cruel andunusual punishment.HELD:The 5otion for $econsideration and "upplementation 5otion for $econsideration were denied for lac' of merit.



NO E/CESSI9E FINES NOR CRUEL,DE5RADIN5 OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT

FRED HARDEN vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONER 21 P)i!. 301

FACTS? The petitioner was imprisoned for more than si% months for contempt by reason of non<compliance to court ordersissued regarding the administration of conugal partnership. #arden was restrained by the Court -rder from transferring theproperties and money in litigation to other countries since they are necessary during the proceeding. "till hardentransferred money and properties to the ban's in foreign countries and so 5rs. #arden moved for the court to direct 5r.#arden to return the subects in litigations since these are necessary during the proceedings. 6red #ardens failure tocomply with the court orders to return the properties prompted the contempt charge and the imprisonment for an indefinitetime.CRIME COMMITTED? Contempt of CourtCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:The Court has no urisdiction over the case since the properties involved are in foreign countries and outside the !hilippine

Territory, thus, habeas corpus can be a ground for relief. The penalty of imprisonment for an indefinite period of time for amere contempt of court is cruel, unust and e%cessive since it can lead to reclusion perpetua, the usual charge for which issi% months imprisonment.CONTENTION OF THE STATE:The punishment for incarceration for an indefinite period is neither cruel nor e%cessive since it does not involve torture or alingering death. The accused can avoid imprisonment if he will only obey the court order, an act he is still capable ofperforming. The indefinite period is only a remedial measure by the court to coerce him to comply.HELD:$ule 7B, "ec. , 0mprisonment until order obeyed. /hen the contempt consists in the omission to do an act which is yet inthe power of the accused to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of a "upreme Court until he performs it.

i# SECTION 1 "#, A&ti%!e III, 123 ConstitutionThe employment of physical, psychological or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use ofsubstandard or inade3uate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

*# SECTION 7, A&ti%!e III, 123 Constitutiono person shall be imprisoned for debt or non<payment of poll ta%

># 4ILL OF ATTAINDER0s a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. 0ts essence is the substitution of a legislative act for a

udicial determination of guilt.

SECTION , A&ti%!e III, 123 Constitution o ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

PEOPLE vs. FERRER 02 SCRA ?2

FACTS: -n 5arch @, 19A, 6eliciano Co was accused feloniously for becoming an officer and ran'ing leader of theCommunist !arty of the !hilippines, an outlawed and illegal group to overthrow the 8overnment of the !hilippines. -n 5ay2@, 5ilo tayag and his company were charged of the same.W)t C&i'e?iolation of "ec. B of the nti<"ubversion ct.CONTENTION OF THE STATE:0n many occasions in Tarlac, the accused persons were seen conducting meetings and delivered speeches enticing peopleto subversion which is an overt act an obvious subversion against the "tate.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:



-n 4uly 21, 19A, the accused moved to 3uash, impugning the validity of the statute on the grounds that (1) it is a bill ofattainder (2) it is vague (D) in embraces more than one subect not e%pressed in the title thereof and (B) it denies him thee3ual protection of law.

HELD:$esolving the constitutional issue, the trial court, it its resolution of "eptember 1@, 19A, declared that it is a bill of attainder,however, upon the elevation of the solicitor general, the "upreme Court upheld the validity of the anti<subversions ct.

E/ POST FACTO LAWn e% post facto law has been defined as one?

# /hich ma'e an action done before the passing of the law which was innocent when done criminal, and punishessuch action# /hich aggravates the crime or ma'e it greater than what is committed%# /hich changes the punishment and inflicts greater punishment than the law anne%ed to the crime when it wascommittedd# /hich alters the legal rules of evidence and receive less or different than the law re3uired at the time of thecommission of the offense in order to convict he offender.

US vs. DIA=-CONDE 0 P)i!. 388

FACTS: -n 5ay 7, 1921, it was noted that a complaint was presented in the Court of 6irst 0nstance of the City of 5anila,charging the defendants with the violation of the =sury *aw (ct o 27@@). The case was brought on for trail and the udgefound out that the defendants were guilty.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:The contract upon which the alleged usurious interest collected was e%ecuted before ct o. 27@@ was adopted that at thetime said contract was made (:ecember DA, 1A1@), there was not =sury *aw in the !hilippines, that the said act did notbecome effective until the first day of 5ay 1917 or four months and a half after the contract in 3uestion was e%ecuted, thatthe said law could have retroactive effect the said law impairs the obligation of the contract and the opinion of the lowercourt should be revo'e. Complaint should be dismissed and should be discharged from the custody of the law.CONTENTION OF THE STATE:

The lower court stated that at the time of the e%ecution and delivery of said contract, there was no law in force in the!hilippine 0sland punishing usury but, in as much as the defendants had collected a usurious rate of interest after theadoption of the usury law in the !hilippines, they were guilty of violation of the said law and should be punished inaccordance with its provisions.HELD:The acts complained of by the defendant did not constitute a crime at the time they were committed, therefore, sentence ofthe lower court should be revo'ed that the complaint be dismissed and the defendants be discharge from the custody ofthe law.

RULE 116, RULES ON CI9IL PROCEDURERI5HTS OF ACCUSED

">CT0- 1. Rights of accused at the trial .— 0n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the followingrights?"# To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt."# To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."%# To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgationof the udgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his tail,unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the accused without ustifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. /hen anaccused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be present on allsubse3uent trial datesuntil custody over him is regained. =pon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when itsufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.



"d# To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subect to cross<e%amination on matters covered by direct e%amination. #issilence shall not in any manner preudice him."e# To be e%empt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.";# To confront and cross<e%amine the witnesses against him at the trial. >ither party may utili&e as part of its evidence thetestimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the !hilippines, unavailable, orotherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, udicial or administrative, involving the same parties andsubect matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross<e%amine him."<# To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence in his

behalf.")# To have speedy, impartial and public trial."i# To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law. (1a)

ARTICLE , CI9IL CODE*aws must be passed after fifteen days following their completion either in the official 8a&ette or any newspaper of generalcirculation in the !hilippines, unless it is otherwise provided.

PESI5AN vs. AN5ELES 1 SCRA 130

FACTS: nselmo and 5arcelo !esigan transported twenty si% carabaos in the evening of pril 2, 19E2. These carabaos

will be transported to atangas.W)t %&i'e: iolation of >.-. 72@ which prohibits the transportation of carabaos.CONTENTION OF THE STATE:The !esigans violated e%ecutive order 72@ which provides that henceforth, no carabao, regardless of age, se%, physicalcondition or purpose shall be transported from one place to another.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:The !esigans contented that the carabaos confiscated which allegedly values to !A, AAA plus ! 92, AAA as moraldamages shall be recovered.HELD:>%ecutive -rder o. 72@ should not be enforced against the accused because it is a penal regulation published 2 monthsafter the commission of the crime.

TANADA vs. TU9ERA 1?8 SCRA 3

FACTS: Tanada and company see's a /rit of 5andamus compelling respondents public officials to cause the publication inthe official 8a&&ette of various !residential :ecrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations and administrativeorders invo'ing the peoples right to be informed on matters of public concern as well as the principle that laws, to be validmush be published in the official 8a&&ette.C&i'e Co''itted:iolation on the right of the people to be informed.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:!etitioners have no legal personality to see' for the /rit and the publication is not a sine 3ua non re3uirement for theeffectivity of laws where the law provides for their own effectivity dates.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:"ince the subect of the petition concerns a public and its obect is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need notto show any specific interest for the petition to be given due course and that the right sight in is a public right.HELD:The court ordered the respondents to publish in the official 8a&&ette all unpublished presidential decrees, issuances whichare of general applications, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect.

A&ti%!e 9. 9ISITIN5 FORCES A5REEMENT "9FA#Criminal urisdiction 1. Su!ect to t"e pro#isions of t"is article$



"# !hilippine authorities shall have urisdiction over =nited "tates personnel with respect to offenses committed within the!hilippines and punishable under the law of the !hilippines."# =nited "tates military authorities shall have the right to e%ercise within the !hilippines all criminal and disciplinary urisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the =nited "tates over =nited "tates personnel in the !hilippines. . "# !hilippine authorities e%ercise e%clusive urisdiction over =nited "tates personnel with respect to offenses, includingoffenses relating to the security of the !hilippines, punishable under the laws of the !hilippines, but not under the laws ofthe =nited "tates."# =nited "tates authorities e%ercise e%clusive urisdiction over =nited "tates personnel with respect to offenses, including

offenses relating to the security of the =nited "tates, punishable under the laws of the =nited "tates, but not under the lawsof the !hilippines."%# 6or the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph D of this article, an offense relating to security means? (1) Treason (2) "abotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense. ?. In cases w"ere t"e ri%"t to exercise !uris&iction is concurrent, t"e followin% rules s"all appl'$"# !hilippine authorities shall have the primary right to e%ercise urisdiction over all offenses committed by =nited "tatespersonnel, e%cept in cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and D (b) of this rticle."# =nited "tates military authorities shall have the primary right to e%ercise urisdiction over =nited "tates personnelsubect to the military law of the =nited "tates in relation to?

(1) -ffenses solely against the property or security of the =nited "tates or offenses solely against the property or personof =nited "tates personnel and

(2) -ffenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty."%# The authorities of either government may re3uest the authorities of the other government to waive their primary right toe%ercise urisdiction in a particular case."d# $ecogni&ing the responsibility of the =nited "tates military authorities to maintain good order and discipline among theirforces, !hilippine authorities will, upon re3uest by the =nited "tates, waive their primary right to e%ercise urisdiction e%ceptin cases of particular importance to the !hilippines. 0f the 8overnment of the !hilippines determines that the case is ofparticular importance, it shall communicate such determination to the =nited "tates authorities within twenty (2A) days afterthe !hilippine authorities receive the =nited "tates re3uest."e# /hen the =nited "tates military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the !hilippines against

=nited "tates personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, the commander will issue acertificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the !hilippinesand will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph D(b)(2) of this article. 0n thosecases where the 8overnment of the !hilippines believes the circumstances of the case re3uire a review of the dutycertificate, =nited "tates military authorities and !hilippine authorities shall consult immediately. !hilippine authorities at thehighest levels may also present any information bearing on its validity. =nited "tates military authorities shall ta'e fullaccount of the !hilippine position. /here appropriate, =nited "tates military authorities will ta'e disciplinary or other actionagainst offenders in official duty cases, and notify the 8overnment of the !hilippines of the actions ta'en.";# 0f the government having the primary right does not e%ercise urisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the othergovernment as soon as possible."<# The authorities of the !hilippines and the =nited "tates shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which

both the authorities of the !hilippines and the =nited "tates have the right to e%ercise urisdiction.0. /ithin the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the !hilippines and the =nited "tates shall assist each otherin the arrest of =nited "tates personnel in the !hilippines and in handing them over to authorities who are to e%ercise urisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this article.6. =nited "tates military authorities shall promptly notify !hilippine authorities of the arrest or detention of =nited "tatespersonnel who are subect to !hilippine primary or e%clusive urisdiction. !hilippine authorities shallpromptly notify =nited "tates military authorities of the arrest or detention of any =nited "tates personnel.8. The custody of any =nited "tates personnel over whom the !hilippines is to e%ercise urisdiction shall immediately residewith =nited "tates military authorities, if they so re3uest, from the commission of the offense until completion of all udicialproceedings. =nited "tates military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the !hilippine authorities and without delay,ma'e such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or udicial proceedings relating to the



offense with which the person has been charged. 0n e%traordinary cases, the !hilippine 8overnment shall present itsposition to the =nited "tates 8overnment regarding custody, which the =nited "tates 8overnment shall ta'e into fullaccount. 0n the event !hilippine udicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the =nited "tates shall be relievedof any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. lso, the oneyear period will not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because =nited "tates authorities,after timely notification by !hilippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.3. /ithin the scope of their legal authority, =nited "tates and !hilippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying outof all necessary investigations into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the

collection and production of evidence, including sei&ure and, in proper cases, the delivery of obects connected with anoffense.2. /hen =nited "tates personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this article and have been ac3uittedor have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had their sentence remitted or suspended,or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in the !hilippines. othing in this paragraph,however, shall prevent =nited "tates military authorities from trying =nited "tates personnel for any violation of rules ofdiscipline arising from the act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by !hilippine authorities.. /hen =nited "tates personnel are detained, ta'en into custody, or prosecuted by !hilippine authorities, they shall beaccorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the !hilippines. t the minimum, =nited "tates personnel shallbe entitled?(# To a prompt and speedy trial

"# To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them and to have reasonable time toprepare a defense"%# To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross e%amine such witnesses"d# To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses"e# To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as nationals of the !hilippines";# To have the services of a competent interpreter"<# to communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by =nited "tates authorities, and to have such authoritiespresent at all udicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public unless the court, in accordance with !hilippine law,e%cludes persons who have no role in the proceedings.17. The confinement or detention by !hilippine authorities of =nited "tates personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreedon by appropriate !hilippine and =nited "tates authorities. =nited "tates personnel serving sentences in the !hilippines

shall have the right to visits and material assistance.11. =nited "tates personnel shall be subect to trial only in !hilippine courts of ordinary urisdiction, and shall not be subectto the urisdiction of !hilippine military or religious courts.

C. PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL LAW

Identi;@ W&on<;u! 4e)vio& P&es%&ie Punis)'ent

DE *OYA vs. *AIL WARDEN OF 4ATAN5AS CITY, 013 SCRA 8?8

FACTS: The accused, 'nowing that she does not have funds in or credit with the "olid an' still issue a chec' to 6lowCatapang :e Tenorio in the amount of !1@A,AAA, however, the chec' was dishonored by the ban' for ground accountclosed. :espite of the honor and demand made by the ban' or the direct payment to 6lor Catapang :e Tenorio, the acusedfailed to do so. Tenorio filed a case against :e 4oya. :e 4oya was found guilty of the violation of ! ilang 22 she wassentence with imprisonment of 1 year and indemnity for the offended party. fter @ years, :e 4oya was arrested anddetained.C&i'e Co''itted: iolation of ! ilang 22CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED::e 4oya posits that "C dministrative Circular o 12<2AAA deleted the penalty of imprisonment for violation of ! ilang 22and allows only the imposition of fine. The petitioner argued that her detention was illegal and she must be released fromthe atangas City 4ail.



CONTENTION OF THE STATE: motion filed by the petitioner should be denied based on three grounds? (1) the decision of convicting the petitioner ofviolation of ! ilang 22 is final and e%ecutor (2) "C Circular should be applied respectively (D) "C Circular does notamend ! ilang 22 but encourages trial court udges to have uniform imposition of fine.HELD:The petitioners motion F petition is dismissed for lac' of merit.

1. Ret&iution

The penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the offense. . P&evention

The "tate must punish the criminal to prevent or suppress the danger arising from the criminal acts of the offender.. Dete&&en%e

:eter the accused from doing the same wrongful act. 8eneral "pecific

. In%$%ittion0mpedes some right vested in the accused because of his wrongful act.

%. Re)i!ittion$estore the victim to his former capacity or dignity.

D.CONSTRUCTION INTERPRETATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES

1. LI4ERALITY IN FA9OR OF THE ACCUSSED

PEOPLE vs. 5ATCHALIAN 170 PHIL 880

FACTS: Alfonso Gatchalian, owner of the New Life drug store in Zamboanga. Under his employone Expedito ernande!, as salesman, with a monthly salary of "#$ %# from August &, '%(' up to)ecember *', '%(* which is less than that pro+ided for by law, thereby lea+ing a dierence of anunpaid salary in the total amount of - ', #'".##.

C&i'e Co''itted: iolation of the /inimum wage 01hree pesos a day on the eecti+e date of thisAct and for one year after the eecti+e date, and thereafter -& a day, for employees ofestablishments located outside of /anila or its en+irons2.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE: 1he law which was +iolated by the accused carries with it both ci+il and criminal liability, thelatter being co+ered by 3ection '( which pro+ides for the penalty for all willful +iolations of anyof the pro+isions of the /inimum 4age Law. 1he court in the same order directed the 5egional5epresentati+e of the )epartment of Labor to immediately institute a ci+il action against theerring employer for the collection of the alleged underpayment of wages due the employees. Amotion for reconsideration ha+ing been denied, the Go+ernment too6 the present appeal.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:4hen arraigned on 7une '%, '%(", he pleaded not guilty to the charge. 8n August 9%, '%(", hiscounsel, in his behalf, :led a written motion to dismiss based on two grounds which in substancemerely consist in that the +iolation charged does not constitute a criminal oense but carriesonly a ci+il liability, and e+en if it does, the section of the law alleged to ha+e been +iolated doesnot carry any penalty penali!ing it.

HELD:

4herefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside. ;t is ordered that these cases beremanded to the court a quo for further proceedings, with costs against appellee.



PEOPLE vs. SULTAN ??1 SCRA 18

FACTS: Complaining witness 4uditha autista was on her way home when a certain 6ernando "ultan pointed an ice pic' onher, announcing it was hold<up. The accused grabbed autista on his house and get all her ewelries of the latter and asum of ! 1DA.AA. fter ta'ing the valuable, "ultan raped autista two times using intimidation.C&i'e Co''itted: "pecial Comple% Crime of $obbery and $apeCONTENTION OF THE STATE:

ll elements of the crime of robbery as stated by rticle 29D of the $evised !enal Code were present. *i'ewise, on thecrime of rape, the used of intimidation was sufficient to ma'e the complainant submit herself to him against her will for fearof life and personal safety.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:6or the crime of robbery, the testimony of the complaint should not be given weight and credence as no evidence waspresented in the court to prove her claim. s to the rape, the re3uisite for or intimidation was not proven beyond reasonabledoubt because consent to the se%ual intercourse was given.

HELD:6ernando "ultan was found guilty of the special comple% of crime of robbery with rape, however, the additional rapecommitted was not considered aggravating circumstance because there is no law passed providing that the additionalrapeFs may be considered aggravating.

. RETROACTI9E APPLICATION IF FA9ORA4LE TO THE ACCUSSED

PEOPLE vs. 9ALDE= ?70 SCRA 811

FACTS? $olando alde& was convicted for the comple% crime of multiple murders with double frustrated murder and illegalpossession of firearms which is punishable by death penalty and the prison terms of reclusion perpetua, respectively. Thecrime was committed even before the enactment of "ection E29B which provides that the use of unlicensed firearm in thecommission of homicide or murder should be ta'en as aggravating circumstances and not as a separate crime.C&i'e %o''itted: 5ultiple murder with double frustrated murder and illegal possessions of firearms.CONTENTION OF THE STATE:

The use of unlicensed firearms cannot be considered as special aggravating circumstances. 0t will only raise the penaltyfrom four reclusion perpetua to four fold death. "ince the law aggravates the crime, it shall not be applied to the accused.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:$epublic ct E29B should be applied prospectively however, since the law is favorable to the accused, then the same shallhave a retroactive application.HELD:The court modified the penalty from death to four sentenceDs of reclusion perpetua for the crime of multiple murderand reclusion temporal for double frustrated murder.

5O vs. DIMA5UI4A 087 SCRA 061

FACTS: :imagiba was guilty of bouncing chec's for thirteen counts and three months of imprisonment for each and

indemnify ! 1, 29@, AAA with legal interest per annum from 1997 after the chec's were dishonored by reason of accountclosed+.C&i'e %o''itted? iolation of ouncing *aw (iolation of atas !ambansa ilang 22)CONTENTION OF THE STATE:The $egional Trial Court invo'ed aca v. C- and "upreme Court dministrative Circular o. 12<2AAA which allegedlyre3uired the imposition of fine only instead of imprisonment for ! ilang 22 violations, if the accused was not recidivist orhabitual delin3uent.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:The !etition of habeas corpus was anchored on the $uling of aca and "CC o. 12<2AAA, which allegedly prescribed theimposition of a fine, not imprisonment, for conviction under ! ilang 22. $espondent sought the retroactive effect of thoserulings, thereby effectively challenging the penalty imposed on him for being e%cessive.



HELD:*et this be remanded to 5TCC of C for the re<arrest of the respondent and the completion of his sentence.

?. E+UIPOISE DOCTRINEThe rule which states that when the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced the appreciation ofsuch evidence calls for tilting of the scales in favor of the accused. Thus, the evidence for the prosecution must be heavierto overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused. The constitutional basis of the rule is ill of $ights which findse%pressions in "ec. 1, par. (a), $ule 11@ of the 19E@ $ules on Criminal !rocedure as amended

4i!! o; Ri<)ts, Se%. 1, $&. "#o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be deniedthe e3ual protection of the laws.

Ru!e 116, 126 Ru!es C&i'in! P&o%edu&e s 'ended$=*> 11@ < $08#T" -6 CC=">:Se%tion 1. (i%"ts of accuse& at trial. ; 0n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights?

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment topromulgation of the udgment. The accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the

stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification.The absence of the accused without ustifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a waiverof his right to be present thereat. /hen an accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived hisright to be present on all subse3uent trial dates until custody over him is regained. =pon motion, the accused maybe allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect hisrights without the assistance of counsel.(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subect to cross<e%amination on matters covered by directe%amination. #is silence shall not in any manner preudice him.(e) To be e%empt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.(f) To confront and cross<e%amine the witnesses against him at the trial. >ither party may utili&e as part of itsevidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the

!hilippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, udicial oradministrative, involving the same parties and subect matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross<e%amine him.(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and production of other evidence inhis behalf.(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

PEOLE vs. DINDO ?0 SCRA 0

FACTS: Crestita *ao, with daughter, ympha, and 2 Taiwanese nationals, #wang Gu Chin<in and Chin 6u #wang, boarded

the tricycle being driven by "u'arno :indo. efore they could proceed, D men boarded the same. fter a few turns, :indostopped in front of the cemetery and the D men alighted. The man wearing a blac' ac'et drew his gun and pointed it atympha and Chin 6u #wang. "oon afterward, ypmpha heard a gunshot she loo'ed behind her and saw the D menrunning away towards the cemetery. ympha alighted from the tricycle and saw her mother lying on the ground with agunshot on the upper left eyebrow.:indo denied the charge against him.

HELD: 0n the absence of any evidence that "u'arno :indo conspired with the assailants, conspiracy cannot be attributedagainst him for, in criminal cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish its case with that degree of proof whichproduces conviction in an unpreudiced mind, with evidence which stands or falls on its merits, and which cannot be allowedto draw strength from the wea'ness of the evidence for the defense. =nless it discharges the burden of proving the guilt of



the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the latter need not even offer evidence in his behalf. Thus, when the guilt of theaccused has not been proven with moral certainty, such as the case at bar, it is the policy of long standing that thepresumption of innocence of the accused must be favored and his e%oneration be granted as a matter of right."u'arno :indo is hereby AC+UITTED on reasonable doubt.

PEOLE vs. SAYANA 076 SCRA 0?

FACTS: lbert "ayana forced himself upon the daughter of his common<law wife, Ches'a ngeli'a de :ios, 11. Ches'a

recounted that appellant undressed her, laid on top of her, and made an up and down movement while he 'issed her nec'."he felt pain in her private part. 6ear prevented Ches'a from telling her mother about the incident as she had oftenwitnessed how appellant would beat her mother.ccording to Ches'a, appellant again violated her in the evening of -ctoberB, 199E.

HELD: /e reverse the decision of the trial court. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accusedhad se%ual contact with the alleged victim. This, the prosecution failed to do in this case. /hile the complainant testified thatappellant forced her into se%ual intercourse on two occasions, the physical evidence clouds her testimony. The report of :r.nnabel "oliman, 5edico<*egal -fficer of the 0 shows that there were no signs of inury in complainants genitalia. 0n alater e%aminationconducted by :r. 5anuel ves a healed superficial hymenal laceration at 12?AA position was found. :r.ves e%plained that the location of the laceration e%cludes se%ual intercourse as possible cause.

/e have held in several cases that the lone uncorroborated testimony of the complainant is sufficient to warrant aconviction, provided that such is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course ofthings. #owever, we have also held that the testimony of the complainant should not be received with precipitate credulitybut with utmost caution. lbert "ayana is CH=0TT>:.

0. 9OID FOR 9A5UENESS OR O9ER 4READTH"DOCTRINE OF PRO REO#

/henever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations ; one lenient to the offenderand one strict to the offender ; that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted.This is in consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the accused and consistentwith presumption of innocence of the accused. This is peculiar only to criminal law.

STATE vs. MET=5ER 11 NE4. 6?

FACTS: 5et&ger lived in a garden<level apartment. large window in the apartment faces a par'ing lot which is situated onthe north side of the apartment building. nother resident while par'ing his car in a space directly in front of 5et&gerIsapartment window, observed 5et&ger standing na'ed with his arms at his sides in his apartment window for a period of @seconds. The resident called the police and two officers arrived, testified that they observed 5et&ger standing in front of thewindow eating a bowl of cereal. They testified that 5et&ger was standing within a foot of the window and his nude body.The basic issue presented to us by this appeal is whether the ordinance, as drafted, is so vague as to be unconstitutional./e believe that it is. The ordinance in 3uestion ma'es it unlawful for anyone to commit any Jindecent, immodest or filthyact.J /e 'now of no way in which the standards re3uired of a criminal act can be met in those broad, general terms. There

may be those few who believe persons of opposite se% holding hands in public are immodest, and certainly more who mightbelieve that 'issing in public is immodest. "uch acts cannot constitute a crime. Certainly one could find many who wouldconclude that todayIs swimming attire found on many beaches or beside many pools is immodest. Get, the fact that it isimmodest does not thereby ma'e it illegal, absent some re3uirement related to the health, safety, or welfare of thecommunity. The dividing line between what is lawful and what is unlawful in terms of Jindecent,J Jimmodest,J or JfilthyJ issimply too broad to satisfy the constitutional re3uirements of due process. oth lawful and unlawful acts can be embracedwithin such broad definitions. That cannot be permitted. -ne is not able to determine in advance what is lawful and what isunlawful.

HELD: /e therefore believe that K [email protected] of the *incoln 5unicipal Code must be declared invalid.$eversed and dismissed.



ESTRADA vs. SANDI5AN4AYAN ?8 SCRA ?0

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:WON P!unde& L( is un%onstitution! ;o& ein< v<ueo. s long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are subect to it whatconduct would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. The amended information itself closely trac'sthe language of law, indicating wF reasonable certainty the various elements of the offense wFc the petitioner is alleged to

have committed. /e discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or ambiguous that will confuse petitioner in his defense.

!etitioner however bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory definition of the terms combination+ and series+in the 'ey phrase a combination or series of overt or criminal acts. These omissions, according to the petitioner, render the!lunder *aw unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed of thenature and cause of the accusation against him, hence violative of his fundamental right to due process.

statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used herein, or because of the employmentof terms without defining them.

statute or act may be said to be vague when it lac's comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence most

necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. 0n such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution intwo (2) respects ; it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice ofwhat conduct to avoid and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes anarbitrary fle%ing of the 8overnment muscle.

facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilling effect+upon protected speech. The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished isoutweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of other may be deterred and perceived grievances left to festerbecause of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. ut in criminal law, the law cannot ta'e chances as in thearea of free speech.

HELD: !$>50">" C-"0:>$>:, this Court holds that $ AEA otherwise 'nown as the !lunder *aw, as amended by $7@9, is C-"T0T=T0-*. Conse3uently, the petition to declare the law unconstitutional is :0"50"">: for lac' of merit

II. 4ASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

A.5ENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. Se%tion 11, A&ti%!e 9I, 123 Constitution senator or member of #ouse of $epresentatives shall in all offenses punishable by not more than si% years ofimprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. o member shall be 3uestioned nor be held liablein any other place for any speech or debate in the congress or in any committee thereof.

. A&ti%!e 10, Ne( Civi! %ode o; t)e P)i!i$$ines



!enal *aws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who or soourn in !hilippine territory subectto the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations+.

?. Re$u!i% A%t 3776n act strengthening civilian supremacy over military by returning to the civil courts the urisdiction over certain offensesinvolving members of the rmed forces of the !hilippines, other persons subect to military law, and the members of the!hilippine ational -ffice, repealing for the purpose of certain presidential decrees.

0. A&ti%!e 9, 9FAC&i'in! *u&isdi%tion 1. "ubect to the provisions of this article?

"# !hilippine authorities shall have urisdiction over =nited "tates personnel with respect to offenses committedwithin the !hilippines and punishable under the law of the !hilippines."# =nited "tates military authorities shall have the right to e%ercise within the !hilippines all criminal anddisciplinary urisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the =nited "tates over =nited "tates personnel inthe !hilippines.

2. "# !hilippine authorities e%ercise e%clusive urisdiction over =nited "tates personnel with respect to offenses, including

offenses relating to the security of the !hilippines, punishable under the laws of the !hilippines, but not under the laws ofthe =nited "tates. "# =nited "tates authorities e%ercise e%clusive urisdiction over =nited "tates personnel with respect to offenses,including offenses relating to the security of the =nited "tates, punishable under the laws of the =nited "tates, but not underthe laws of the !hilippines. "%# 6or the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph D of this article, an offense relating to security means?

(1) treason(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense.

D. 0n cases where the right to e%ercise urisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply?"# !hilippine authorities shall have the primary right to e%ercise urisdiction over all offenses committed by =nited

"tates personnel, e%cept in cases provided for in paragraphs l (b), 2 (b), and D (b) of this rticle.

"# =nited "tates military authorities shall have the primary right to e%ercise urisdiction over =nited "tatespersonnel subect to the military law of the =nited "tates in relation to?(1) offenses solely against the property or security of the =nited "tates or offenses solely against theproperty or person of =nited "tates personnel and(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty.

"%# The authorities of either government may re3uest the authorities of the other government to waive their primaryright to e%ercise urisdiction in a particular case."d# $ecogni&ing the responsibility of the =nited "tates military authorities to maintain good order and disciplineamong their forces, !hilippine authorities will, upon re3uest by the =nited "tates, waive their primary right toe%ercise urisdiction e%cept in cases of particular importance to the !hilippines. 0f the 8overnment of the !hilippinesdetermines that the case is of particular importance, it shall communicate such determination to the =nited "tates

authorities within twenty (2A) days after the !hilippine authorities receive the =nited "tates re3uest."e# /hen the =nited "tates military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the !hilippinesagainst =nited "tates personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, thecommander will issue a certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to theappropriate authorities of the !hilippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for thepurposes of paragraph D(b)(2) of this article. 0n those cases where the 8overnment of the !hilippines believes thecircumstances of the case re3uire a review of the duty certificate, =nited "tates military authorities and !hilippineauthorities shall consult immediately. !hilippine authorities at the highest levels may also present any informationbearing on its validity. =nited "tates military authorities shall ta'e full account of the !hilippine position. /hereappropriate, =nited "tates military authorities will ta'e disciplinary or other action against offenders in official dutycases, and notify the 8overnment of the !hilippines of the actions ta'en.



";# 0f the government having the primary right does not e%ercise urisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the othergovernment as soon as possible."<# The authorities of the !hilippines and the =nited "tates shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases inwhich both the authorities of the !hilippines and the =nited "tates have the right to e%ercise urisdiction.

0. /ithin the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the !hilippines and the =nited "tates shall assist each otherin the arrest of =nited "tates personnel in the !hilippines and in handing them over to authorities who are to e%ercise urisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this article.

6. =nited "tates military authorities shall promptly notify !hilippine authorities of the arrest or detention of =nited "tatespersonnel who are subect to !hilippine primary or e%clusive urisdiction. !hilippine authorities shall promptly notify =nited"tates military authorities of the arrest or detention of any =nited "tates personnel.

8. The custody of any =nited "tates personnel over whom the !hilippines is to e%ercise urisdiction shall immediately residewith =nited "tates military authorities, if they so re3uest, from the commission of the offense until completion of all udicialproceedings. =nited "tates military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the !hilippine authorities and without delay,ma'e such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or udicial proceedings relating to theoffense with which the person has been charged. 0n e%traordinary cases, the !hilippine 8overnment shall present itsposition to the =nited "tates 8overnment regarding custody, which the =nited "tates 8overnment shall ta'e into fullaccount. 0n the event !hilippine udicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the =nited "tates shall be relieved

of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. lso, the oneyear period will not include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because =nited "tates authorities,after timely notification by !hilippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.3. /ithin the scope of their legal authority, =nited "tates and !hilippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying outof all necessary investigations into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for the attendance of witnesses and in thecollection and production of evidence, including sei&ure and, in proper cases, the delivery of obects connected with anoffense.2. /hen =nited "tates personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this article and have been ac3uittedor have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had their sentence remitted or suspended,or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in the !hilippines. othing in this paragraph,however, shall prevent =nited "tates military authorities from trying =nited "tates personnel for any violation of rules of

discipline arising from the act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by !hilippine authorities.. /hen =nited "tates personnel are detained, ta'en into custody, or prosecuted by !hilippine authorities, they shall beaccorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the !hilippines. t the minimum, =nited "tates personnel shallbe entitled?

"# To a prompt and speedy trial"# To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them and to have reasonabletime to prepare a defense"%# To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross e%amine such witnesses"d# To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses"e# To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as nationals of the!hilippines

";# To have the services of a competent interpreter"<# To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by =nited "tates authorities, and to have suchauthorities present at all udicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public unless the court, in accordancewith !hilippine law, e%cludes persons who have no role in the proceedings.

17. The confinement or detention by !hilippine authorities of =nited "tates personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreedon by appropriate !hilippine and =nited "tates authorities. =nited "tates personnel serving sentences in the !hilippinesshall have the right to visits and material assistance.11. =nited "tates personnel shall be subect to trial only in !hilippine courts of ordinary urisdiction, and shall not be subectto the urisdiction of !hilippine military or religious courts.

US vs. SWEET, 1 P)i!. 2



FACTS: !hilip L. "weet was employed by the =nited "tates military who committed an offense against a !-/. #is case isfiled with the Court of 6irst 0nstance, who is given orginial urisdiction in all criminal cases for which a penalty of more thansi% months is imposed. #e is now contending that the courts are without urisdiction because he was acting in the course ofhis duty.C&i'e Co''itted: -ffense by a military person upon a prisoner of war. *ac' of urisdiction to try the case.Contention o; t)e Peo$!e: 0n the =nited "tates !hilippines Commission ct o. 1D7, "ection @7 (7), C60s are givenoriginal urisdiction in all criminal cases in which penalty of more than 7 months imprisonment or a fine e%ceeding "1AA may

be imposed because it violated the general penal provision.The "panish 5ilitary Code, which e%empts a military personfrom being tried before civil tribunals for offenses against !-/s, in no longer in force and are not applicable to the =nited"tates rmy.The fact that the act was done to e%ecute his military superiors order and in line of duty, even if true, does notaffect the right of the court to ta'e urisdiction but may only help by way of defense during the trial.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The appellant claims that Court of 6irst 0nstance in 5anila has no urisdiction over this casesince the offense was committed by a military person to a prisoner of war and is not an offense under the revised !enalCode. #e also stated that according to the "panish 5ilitary Code, military character sustained by the person charged at thetime of its commission e%empts him from the ordinary urisdiction of the civil courts, and lastly, that the fact that the allegedoffense was done in obedience to the order of military superiors.RULIN5:The Court of the 6irst 0nstance has the urisdiction over the case against !hilippi L. "weet even though he is amilitary person.

SCHNECBEN4UR5ER vs. MORAN 8? PHIL 0

FACTS: "chnec'enburger, who is an honorary in consul in =ruguay at 5anila, was subse3uently charged in C60 ; 5anilawith the crime of falsification of a private document. #e obected to this saying that under the =" and !hilippineConstitution, the C60 has no urisdiction to try him. fter this obection was overruled, he filed a petition for a writ ofprohibition to prevent the C60 from ta'ing cogni&ance of the criminal action filed against him. side from this, he contendsthat original urisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and consul is conferred e%clusively upon "upreme Court of the!hilippines.C&i'e %o''itted: 6alsification of a private document by an accredited consul in a country he wor's and resides.Contention o; t)e Peo$!e? That the case does not involved the 3uestion of diplomatic immunity. 0t is well established that a

consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunity of an ambassador or minister but is subect to the laws and regulationsof the country to which he is accredited. The 3uestion raise is about urisdiction and contented that?• There is no merit that rticle 000, "ection 2 of the Constitution of the =nited "tates of merica governs the

case.• 0t remains to consider whether the original urisdiction thus conferred upon this court by constitution over

cases affecting mbassadors either public ministers or consuls are e%clusive.• The laws in force in the !hilippines prior to the inauguration of the commentaries conferred upon the C60

original urisdiction in all criminal cases to which a penalty of more than si% months imprisonment or a finee%ceeding "1AA might be imposed such urisdiction includes the trial of the criminal action brought againstthe consul for, as it was already indicated that consuls are not entitle to privileges and immunity.

Contention o; t)e A%%used? oth the Constitution of the =nited "tates of merica and the !hilippines has no urisdiction to

try him.HELD:The C60 ; 5anila has no urisdiction to try the petitioner.

LIAN5 vs. PEOPLE ? SCRA 86

FACTS: !etitioner is an economist wor'ing with the sian :evelopment an' (:). #e was charged before the5etropolitan Trial Court of 5andaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation.C&i'e Co''itted:Two counts of grave oral defamation.Contention o; t)e Petitione&: !etitioner believes that his is covered by immunity under the agreement and that nopreliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.



Contention o; t)e Res$ondents:The :6s determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminarywhich has no binding effect in courts. =nder "ec. B@ of the agreement, the immunity mentioned is not absolute but subectto the e%ception that the acts were done in official capacity. "uffice is to say that preliminary investigation is not a matter ofright in cases cogni&able by the 5etropolitan Trial Court.HELD: !etition is denied.

4.PROSPECTI9ITY OF CRIMINAL LAW1. A&ti%!e 1, RPC

!enalties that may be imposed< no felony shall be punishable by a penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.

A&ti%!e , RPC$etroactive effect of !enal *aws< !enal *aws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of afelony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in $ule @ of rticle 72 of this Code, although at the time of thepublication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same A&ti%!e 8, RPC)ffect of t"e atten&ance of miti%atin% or a%%ra#atin% circumstances an& of "aitual &elin*uenc'. M 5itigating or aggravatingcircumstances and habitual delin3uency shall be ta'en into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penaltyin conformity with the following rules?

1. ggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which areincluded by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be ta'en into account for thepurpose of increasing the penalty.2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degreethat it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.D. ggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his privaterelations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate theliability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.B. The circumstances which consist in the material e%ecution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it,shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had 'nowledge of them at the time of thee%ecution of the act or their cooperation therein.

@. #abitual delin3uency shall have the following effects?(a) =pon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime ofwhich he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and ma%imumperiods(b) =pon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime ofwhich he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periodsand(c) =pon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the lastcrime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its ma%imum period toreclusion temporal in its minimum period.

otwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity

herewith, shall in no case e%ceed DA years.6or the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delin3uent, is within a period of ten years from thedate of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical inuries, roo, "urto, estafa ofalsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

. A&ti%!e 0, Civi! Code*aws shall have no retroactive effects, unless the contrary is provided

?. 5UMA4ON vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISOND ?3 SCRA 07



FACTS:8umabon, after pleading guilty was sentenced of reclusion perpetua on 5ay @, 19@D for the comple% crime ofrebellion with multiple murder, robbery, arson, and 'idnapping. >ach petitioner has been imprisoned for more than 1D yearsby virtue of their conviction and is petitioning for habeas corpus.C&i'e %o''itted:Comple% crime of rebellion with multiple robbery.Contention o; t)e $etitione&:That they are being denied of e3ual protection of right if the plea would not be granted. The udicial decisions shall form part of the legal system of the !hilippines. /hereby in !eople vs. #ernande& oncepromulgated calls for a retroactive effect under the e%plicit mandate of the $evised !enal Code as to the penal laws havingsuch character even if at the time of their application, a final sentence has been rendered and the convict is serving the

same.Contention o; t)e Stte:8umabon is not being deprived of e3ual protection of law.

HELD:!etition for habeas corpus granted. The emphatic affirmation that is the only means benefitting the accused byretroactive character of a favorable decision, the petition having successfully sustained the burden of ustifying their releaseand ordered be set at liberty.

0.BAY 9ILLE5AS BAMI ?6 SCRA 0

FACTS:Lay illegas Lami 0nc. claimed to be a duly recogni&ed and e%isting non<stoc', non<profit corporation created underthe laws of the land and prayed for a determination of the validity of "ec. E, $.. 71D2 and a declaration of petitioners right

and duties there under saying it violates due process, rights of association, freedom of e%pression and is an e% post factolaw.Contention o; t)e Stte:!enalty imposed is only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetratedprior thereto.Contention o; t)e A%%used: $.. 71D2 is unconstitutional for it violates due process, right of association, freedom ofe%pression and is an e% post facto law.HELD:/hile it is time that "ection 1E penali&es a violation of any provision of $ 71D2 including "ection E (a), the penalty isimposed only for acts committed after the approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior thereto. !etition denied. $71D2 is not unconstitutional

6.PEOPLE vs. RIN5OR ?7 SCRA ?0

FACTS:ugusto *oreto $ingor, 4r., on the night of 4une 2D, 199B was seen entering !eoples $estaurant located at'alantiao "treet, aguio City. witness 6ely atanes saw the accused approached the table of 5arcelino uslay 6lorida 4r.fter the accused pulled the hair and po'e a 'nife to the victim, he left the restaurant. #owever, few minutes later, hereturned with a gun and shot 6lorida si% times from behind. $ingor was caught in possession of an unlicensed firearm. #ewas found guilty.C&i'e %o''itted:5urder 3ualified with treacheryContention o; t)e $eo$!e:The act of self defense was not proven since the elements of it were not established. nd that,the aggravating circumstances of treachery 3ualified the crime to murder was clearly instituted. The use of unlicensedfirearm in murder or homicide is simply considered as an aggravating but considering the time the accused perpetrated theoffense, the unlicensed character was not yet an aggravating circumstances.

Contention o; t)e %%used:The court made an error in convicting the accused for simple illegal possession of firearms andin the punishment rendered. lso, the conviction of the accused of murder and of the sentences rendered is not ustifiablegiven by the fact that the charge of murder was not proven.HELD:The accused ; appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua.

8.PEOPLE vs. LACSON 5R No. 1006?, O%toe& 3, 77?

FACTS:"oon after the announcement in 199@ that the Luratong aleleng 8ang had been slain in a shootout with thepolice, 2 witnesses surfaced providing that testimony that the said slaying was a rub out. 5urder charges were filed against9 officers and personnel of $0T>8. The case was transferred from "andiganayan to $TC due to the failure to indicate



offenses. Charges therein were committed in relation to or in discharge of the official functions of the respondent asre3uired by $ E2B9. The suspects filed individual motions to (1) ma'e a udicial determination of the e%istence of probablecause for the issuance of warrant of arrest (2) hold in abeyance the issuance of the warrants (D) dismiss the cases shouldthe trial court find lac' of probable cuase. The cases were dismissed. 5urder charges were again filed in 2AA1 but therespondent invo'ed the right against double eopardy, stating that "ection E, $ule 11 of the 2AAA rules on criminalprocedure bans the revival of murder cases against him C denied the petition. The new information charged as principalsDB people including respondents *acson and his 2@ other co<accused. The defendant filed for determination of probablecause and an outright dismissal in $TC. The C considered the original cases to be provisionally dismissed and the new

cases as mere revival. 0t was remanded to the $TC to determine if the accuses complied with the rule and the casesshould be dismissed. 0n 2AAD, the petitioner as'ed that retroactive application of penal laws should also cover proceduresand that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the accused.

C&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e %%used:$etroactive application of penal laws should also cover procedures and that these should beapplied only to the sole benefit of the accused. !etitioner asserts that "ection E was meant to reach bac' in time to providerelief to the accused in line with the constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial.Contention o; t)e stte:Time bar provided in "ection E $!C 11 should not be applied retroactively. Though proceduresmay be applied retroactively, it should not be if to do so would wor' inustice or would involve intricate process, problems ofdue process. "tatues should be construed in light of the purposes to be achieved and the evils to be remedied.

He!d:The rule should be applied prospectively. The court upheld the petitioners contention that while "ection E secures theright of the accused. 0t should not preclude the e3ually important of the "tate to public ustice.

C.TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW1. A&ti%!e , RPC

• >%cept as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforcednot only within the !hilippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime &one, but alsooutside of its urisdiction against those who?

• "hould commit an offense while on a !hilippine ship or airship.

• "hould forge or counterfeit any coin or currency, note of the !hilippine 0slands or obligations and securities issuedby the 8overnment of the !hilippine 0sland.• "hould be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities

mentioned in the preceding number.• /hile being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the e%ercise of their functions or• "hould commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title -ne of oo' Two

of this Code.

. A&ti%!e 1, 123 ConstitutionThe ational Territory comprises the !hilippine rchipelago, with allthe island and waters embraced therein and all otherterritories over which the !hilippines has sovereignty or urisdiction consisting of the terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domain

including the territorial sea, the seabed, subsoil, the insular shelves and all other submarine areas. The waters aroundbetween and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimension, form part of the internalwaters of the !hilippines.

?. A&ti%!e 9. 9FA0.US vs. AH SIN5H ?8 PHIL 32

FACTS:The defendant is a subect of China employed as a fireman on a steamship. The steamship is a foreign steamerwhich arrived the port of Cebu on pril 2@, 191, after a voyage direct from the port of "aigon. The defendant bought E cansof opium in "aigon, brought them on board the steamship and had them in his possession during the trip from "aigon toCebu. /hen the steamer anchored in the port of



Cebu, the authorities on ma'ing the search found the cans of opium hidden in the ashes below the boiler of the steamerIsengine. The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in "aigon. #e did notconfess, however, as to his purpose in buying the opium. #e did not say that it was his intention to import the prohibiteddrug.Issue: /- the crime of illegal importation of opium into the !hilippine 0slands has been provenNHe!d: Ges. 0t is the onus of the government to prove that the vessel from which the drug discharged came into !hilippinewaters from a foreign country with the drug on board. 0n this case, it is to be noted that KB of ct o. 2DE1 begins, nyperson who shall unlawfully import or bring any prohibited drug into the !hilippine 0slandsO+ 0mport and bring should be

construed as synonymous terms. The mere act of going into a port, without brea'ing bul', is prima facie evidence ofimportation. The importation is not the ma'ing entry of goods at the customhouse, but merely the bringing them into theport, and the importation is complete before the entry to the customhouse. 5oreover, possession for personal use isunli'ely, udging from the si&e of the amount brought. 6.PEOPLE v WON5 CHEN5 08 PHIL 3

ppellee is accused of having illegally smo'ed opium, aboard the merchant vessel C"an%sa of >nglish nationality whilesaid vessel was anchored in 5anila ay two and a half miles from the shores of the city. The 3uestion that presents itselffor our consideration is whether such ruling is erroneous or not and it will or will not be erroneous according as said courthas or has no urisdiction over said offense.

ISSUE: /- the courts of the !hilippines have urisdiction over crime, li'e the one herein involved, committed aboardmerchant vessels anchored in our urisdiction waters.

/e have seen that the mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court not triableby or courts, because it being the primary obect of our -pium *aw to protect the inhabitants of the !hilippines against thedisastrous effects entailed by the use of this drug, its mere possession in such a ship, without being used in our territory,does not being about in the said territory those effects that our statute contemplates avoiding. #ence such a merepossession is not considered a disturbance of the public order. ut to smo'e opium within our territorial limits, even thoughaboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug toproduce its pernicious effects within our territory. 0t seriously contravenes the purpose that our *egislature has in mind inenacting the aforesaid repressive statute.

The order appealed from is revo'ed and the cause ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings inaccordance with law, without special findings as to costs.

8.US vs. LOOB CHOW 12 PHIL 63?5ere possession of opium on board a foreign vessel in transit in !hilippine waters as such does not involve a breach ofpublic order unless the opium is landed in our !hilippine soil.

3.MI+UIA4AS vs. COMMANDIN5 5ENERAL 27 PHIL 83

FACTS:5i3uibias is a 6ilipino citi&en and civilian employee of the =" army in the !hilippinBes who had been charge ofdisposing in the !ort of 5anila rea of things belonging to the =" army in violation of the 9B th article of war of the =". #e

was arrested and a 8eneral Court 5artial was appointed. #e was found guilty.C&i'e %o''itted:iolation of the 9B th article of war of the ="Contention o; t)e US:The !hilippines being a sovereign nation has urisdiction overall offenses committed within itsterritory, but it may, by treaty or agreement, consent that the =" shall e%ercise urisdiction over certain offenses committedwithin said portions of territory.Contention o; t)e %%used:The !ort of 5anila where the offense was committed is not within =" base for it is not namedin anne% or of the article 17 of the military base agreement and is merely part of the temporary 3uarters located withinpresented limits of the City of 5anila. 5oreover, e%tended installations and temporary 3uarters arent considered to havethe same urisdictional capacity as permanent bases.HELD:The offense at bar is beyond the urisdiction of military courts. 8eneral principles of felonies and criminal liabilities.



2.Et&te&&ito&i! A$$!i%tion. A&ti%!e , RPC• >%cept as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced

not only within the !hilippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime &one, but alsooutside of its urisdiction against those who?

• "hould commit an offense while on a !hilippine ship or airship.• "hould forge or counterfeit any coin or currency, note of the !hilippine 0slands or obligations and securities issued

by the 8overnment of the !hilippine 0sland.• "hould be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities

mentioned in the preceding number.• /hile being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the e%ercise of their functions or• "hould commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title -ne of oo' Two

of this Code.

. Fo&<e&@A&ti%!e 18?, RPC

+ain% an& importin% an& utterin% false coins. M ny person who ma'es, imports, or utters, false coins, in connivance withcounterfeiters, or importers, shall suffer?

1. !rision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to e%ceed !1A,AAA pesos, if the counterfeited

coin be silver coin of the !hilippines or coin of the Central an' of the !hilippines of ten centavo denomination orabove.2. !rision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not to e%ceed !2,AAA pesos, if thecounterfeited coins be any of the minor coinage of the !hilippines or of the Central an' of the !hilippines belowten<centavo denomination.D. !rision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to e%ceed !1,AAA pesos, if the counterfeited coin becurrency of a foreign country. (s amended by $.. o. B2A2, approved 4une 19, 197@).

A&ti%!e 188, RPC-or%in% treasur' or an notes on ot"er &ocuments pa'ale to earer importin%, an& utterin% suc" false or for%e& notesan& &ocuments. M The forging or falsification of treasury or ban' notes or certificates or other obligations and securities

payable to bearer and the importation and uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such false or forged obligationsor notes, shall be punished as follows?1. y reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to e%ceed !1A,AAA pesos, if the document which hasbeen falsified, counterfeited, or altered, is an obligations or security of the =nited "tates or of the !hilippines0slands.The word /oli%ation or securit' of t"e 0nite& States or of t"e "ilippine Islan&s/ shall be held to mean albonds, certificates of indebtedness, national ban' notes, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, chec's, ordrafts for money, drawn by or upon authori&ed officers of the =nited "tates or of the !hilippine 0slands, and otherrepresentatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued under any act of theCongress of the =nited "tates or of the !hilippine *egislature.2. y prision mayor in its ma%imum period and a fine not to e%ceed !@,AAA pesos, if the falsified or altereddocument is a circulating note issued by any ban'ing association duly authori&ed by law to issue the same.

D. y prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to e%ceed !@,AAA pesos, if the falsified or counterfeiteddocument was issued by a foreign government.B. y prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to e%ceed !2,AAA pesos, when the forged or altereddocument is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign ban' duly authori&ed therefore.

A&ti%!e 18, RPC2ow for%er' is committe&. M The forgery referred to in this section may be committed by any of the following means?

1. y giving to a treasury or ban' note or any instrument, payable to bearer or order mentioned therein, theappearance of a true genuine document.2. y erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs containedtherein.



%. Pu!i% O;;i%e&sA&ti%!e 131, RPC

-alsification ' pulic officer, emplo'ee or notar' or ecclesiastic minister. M The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not toe%ceed !@,AAA pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, ta'ing advantage of his officialposition, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts?

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so

participateD. ttributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made bythemB. 5a'ing untruthful statements in a narration of facts@. ltering true dates7. 5a'ing any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning. 0ssuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no suchoriginal e%ists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original orE. 0ntercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official boo'.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated inthe preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may

affect the civil status of persons.

A&ti%!e 17-1?, RPCA&t. 17. !irect "ri"er#. M ny public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with theperformance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personallyor through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and ma%imum periods and a finePof not less than the value of the gift andQ not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penaltycorresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.0f the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the e%ecution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and theofficer e%ecuted said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding paragraph and if said act shall nothave been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not

less than twice the value of such gift.0f the obect for which the gift was received or promised was to ma'e the public officer refrain from doing something which itwas his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its ma%imum period and a fine Pof not lessthan the value of the gift andQ not less than three times the value of such gift.0n addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporarydis3ualification.chan robles virtual law libraryThe provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal andclaim commissioners, e%perts or any other persons performing public duties. (s amended by atas !ambansa lg. E24une 1A, 19E@).A&t. 11. $ndirect "ri"er#. M The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and ma%imum periods, and public censureshall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. (s amended by atas

!ambansa lg. E2, 4une 1A, 19E@).A&t. 1. Corru%tion of %u"lic officials. M The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted, e%cept those ofdis3ualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given thegifts or presents as described in the preceding articles.A&t. 1?. &rauds against the %u"lic treasur# and similar offenses. M The penalty of prision correccional in its mediumperiod to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 2AA to 1A,AAA pesos, or both, shall be imposed uponany public officer who?

1. 0n his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the ma'ing of contracts, orthe adustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds, shall enter into an agreement with anyinterested party or speculator or ma'e use of any other scheme, to defraud the 8overnment



2. eing entrusted with the collection of ta%es, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty or any of thefollowing acts or omissions?

(a) :emanding, directly, or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those authori&ed bylaw.(b) 6ailing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially.(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise things or obects of anature different from that provided by law.

/hen the culprit is an officer or employee of the ureau of 0nternal $evenue or the ureau of Customs, the provisions of thedministrative Code shall be applied.

A&ti%!e 18-1, RPCA&t. 18. ossession of pro"iite& interest ' a pulic officer. M The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prisioncorreccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 2AA to 1,AAA pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon a publicofficer who directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty tointervene.This provisions is applicable to e%perts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in li'e manner, shall ta'e part in anycontract or transaction connected with the estate or property in appraisal, distribution or adudication of which they shallhave acted, and to the guardians and e%ecutors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or estate.

A&t. 13. +al#ersation of pulic fun&s or propert' resumption of mal#ersation. M ny public officer who, by reason of theduties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same or shall ta'e or misappropriate orshall consent, through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to ta'e such public funds, or property,wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer?

1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and ma%imum periods, if the amount involved in themisappropriation or malversation does not e%ceed two hundred pesos.2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount involved is more than twohundred pesos but does not e%ceed si% thousand pesos.D. The penalty of prision mayor in its ma%imum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period, if the amountinvolved is more than si% thousand pesos but is less than twelve thousand pesos.B. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and ma%imum periods, if the amount involved is more than

twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty<two thousand pesos. 0f the amount e%ceeds the latter, the penaltyshall be reclusion temporal in its ma%imum period to reclusion perpetua.0n all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual special dis3ualification and a fine e3ualto the amount of the funds malversed or e3ual to the total value of the property embe&&led.The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upondemand by any duly authori&ed officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property topersonal use. (s amended by $ 1A7A).A&t. 12. -ailure of accountale officer to ren&er accounts. M ny public officer, whether in the service or separatedtherefrom by resignation or any other cause, who is re3uired by law or regulation to render account to the 0nsular uditor, orto a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered, shall bepunished by prision correccional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging from 2AA to 7,AAA pesos, or both.

A&t. 1. -ailure of a responsile pulic officer to ren&er accounts efore lea#in% t"e countr'. M ny public officer whounlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the !hilippine 0slands without securing a certificate from the 0nsular uditor showingthat his accounts have been finally settled, shall be punished by arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from 2AA to 1,AAA pesos orboth.A&t. 7. Ille%al use of pulic fun&s or propert'. M ny public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under hisadministration to any public use other than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shallsuffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one<half to the total of the summisapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. 0neither case, the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special dis3ualification.0f no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from @ to @A per cent of thesum misapplied.



A&t. 1. -ailure to mae &eli#er' of pulic fun&s or propert' . M ny public officer under obligation to ma'e payment from8overnment funds in his possession, who shall fail to ma'e such payment, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a finefrom @ to 2@ per cent of the sum which he failed to pay.This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent authority to deliver any property in hiscustody or under his administration, shall refuse to ma'e such delivery.The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it shall not less than @A pesos.

d. Ntion! Se%u&it@A&ti%!e 110-1, RPCA&t. 110. Treason. M ny person who, owing allegiance to (the =nited "tates or) the 8overnment of the !hilippine 0slands,not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the !hilippine0slands or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to e%ceed !2A,AAApesos.o person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or onconfession of the accused in open court.*i'ewise, an alien, residing in the !hilippine 0slands, who commits acts of treasonas defined in paragraph 1 of this rticle shall be punished by prision mayor to death and shall pay a fine not to e%ceed!2A,AAA pesos. (s amended by >.-. o. BB, 5ay D1, 19B@).

A&t. 116. Conspirac' an& proposal to commit treason enalt'. M The conspiracy or proposal to commit the crime o

treason shall be punished respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not e%ceeding !1A,AAA pesos, and prision correccionaland a fine not e%ceeding !@,AAA pesos.

A&t. 118. +isprision of treason. M >very person owing allegiance to (the =nited "tates) the 8overnment of the !hilippine0slands, without being a foreigner, and having 'nowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose andma'e 'nown the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city inwhich he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.

A&t. 113. )spiona%e. M The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon any person who?1. /ithout authority therefor, enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain any

information, plans, photographs, or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the !hilippine rchipelago

or 2. eing in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information referred to in thepreceding paragraph, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.The penalty ne%t higher in degree shall be imposed if the offender be a public officer or employee.

A&t. 112. Incitin% to war or %i#in% moti#es for reprisals . M The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon anypublic officer or employee, and that of prision mayor upon any private individual, who, by unlawful or unauthori&ed actsprovo'es or gives occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the !hilippine 0slands or e%poses 6ilipino citi&ens toreprisals on their persons or property.

A&t. 11. Violation of neutralit' . M The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone who, on the occasion of

a war in which the 8overnment is not involved, violates any regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose ofenforcing neutrality.

A&t. 17. Correspon&ence wit" "ostile countr' . M ny person who in time of war, shall have correspondence with an enemycountry or territory occupied by enemy troops shall be punished?

1. y prision correccional, if the correspondence has been prohibited by the 8overnment2. y prision mayor, if such correspondence be carried on in ciphers or conventional signs andD. y reclusion temporal, if notice or information be given thereby which might be useful to the enemy. 0f theoffender intended to aid the enemy by giving such notice or information, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusiontemporal to death.



A&t. 11. -li%"t to enem' countr'. M The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who, owing allegianceto the 8overnment, attempts to flee or go to an enemy country when prohibited by competent authority.

A&t. 1. irac' in %eneral an& mutin' on t"e "i%" seas. M The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon anyperson who, on the high seas, shall attac' or sei&e a vessel or, not being a member of its complement nor a passenger,shall sei&e the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its e3uipment, or personal belongings of its complement orpassengers.

The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas.

e. RA ?3

REPU4LIC ACT NO. ?3 CT T- ">C=$> T#> "TT> : !$-T>CT -=$ !>-!*> 6$-5 T>$$-$0"5

e it enacted by the "enate and #ouse of $epresentatives of the !hilippines in Congress assembled?SECTION 1. S"ort Title. This ct shall henceforth be 'nown as the RS#uman "ecurity ct of 2AA.RSSEC. . 3eclaration of olic' . 0t is declared a policy of the "tate to protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorismto condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, andto ma'e terrorism a crime against the 6ilipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations.0n the implementation of the policy stated above, the "tate shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the

people as enshrined in the constitution.The "tate recogni&es that the fight against terrorism re3uires a comprehensive approach, comprising political, economicdiplomatic, military, and legal means duly ta'ing into account the root causes of terrorism without ac'nowledging these as ustifications for terrorist andFor criminal activities. "uch measures shall include conflict management and post<conflictpeace<building, addressing the roots of conflict by building state capacity and promoting e3uitable economic development.othing in this ct shall be interpreted as a curtailment, restriction or diminution of constitutionally recogni&ed powers of thee%ecutive branch of the government. 0t is to be understood, however, that the e%ercise of the constitutionally recogni&edpowers of the e%ecutive department of the government shall not preudice respect for human rights which shall be absoluteand protected at all times.

SEC. ?. Terrorism. ny person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the $evised !ena

Code?1. rticle 122 (!iracy in 8eneral and 5utiny in the #igh "eas or in the !hilippine /aters)2. rticle 1DB ($ebellion or 0nsurrection)D. rticle 1DB<a (Coup dRSU>tat), including acts committed by private personsB. rticle 2BE (5urder)@. rticle 27 (Lidnapping and "erious 0llegal :etention)7. rticle D2B (Crimes 0nvolving :estruction,-r under1. !residential :ecree o. 171D (The *aw on rson)2. $epublic ct o. 7979 (To%ic "ubstances and #a&ardous and uclear /aste Control ct of 199A)D. $epublic ct o. @2A, (tomic >nergy $egulatory and *iability ct of 197E)

B. $epublic ct o. 72D@ (nti<#iac'ing *aw)@. !residential :ecree o. @D2 (nti<piracy and nti<highway $obbery *aw of 19B) and,7. !residential :ecree o. 1E77, as amended (:ecree Codifying the *aws on 0llegal and =nlawful !ossession,5anufacture, :ealing in, c3uisition or :isposition of 6irearms, mmunitions or >%plosives)thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and e%traordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order tocoerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penaltyof forty (BA) years of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for under ct o. B1AD, otherwise 'nown as the0ndeterminate "entence *aw, as amended.



III. 5ENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FELONIES AND CRIMINAL LIA4ILITY"A%tus not ;%it &eu', nisi 'ens sit &e#

• DEFINITION OF FELONY

cts and omissions punishable by law are felonieBs. 6elonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) butalso by means of fault (culpa). There is a deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent. nd there is faultwhen the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lac' of s'ill and lac' of foresight.

• ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIA4ILITY

A. PHYSICAL ELEMENTS "ACTUS REUS)1. ACT

y act must be understood any bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the e%ternal world, it being unnecessarythat the same be actually produced, as possibility of its production is sufficient. ut the act must be one which is defined bythe $!C as constituting a felony or, at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an e%ternal act which has a direct connectionwith the felony intented to be committed.

POWEL vs. TE/AS ? US 610

F%ts:The appellant was arrested, charged with and convicted for violation of Te%as !enal Code, rticle B or beinginto%icated in a public place.C&i'e %o''itted:iolation of Te%as !enal Code, rticle B F public into%ication.Contention o; t)e $$e!!nt:0t is cruel and unusual to punish a person who is not morally blameworthy (since !owell is analcoholic). The punishment goes beyond the eight amendments limits on the use of criminal sanctions. The ruling wouldcreate confusion and uncertainty in area of criminal law where our understanding is not complete.Contention o; t)e stte:lthough the appellant is a chronic alcoholic, in that case, he appears in public under a compulsionsymptomatic of his disease, it cannot be defense to the charge. ccording to a principal testimony by a psychiatrist, the

appellant as a chronic alcoholic was subect to a very strong compulsion but which is not completely overpowering. !owelshould be convicted for being in public place while drun' and not for being a chronic alcoholic.He!d:The udgment is affirmed. !owel is not convicted. The courts maority distinguished the case from the earlier case$obinson vs. California, which ruled that drug addiction alone as a disease could not be criminali&ed.

. OMISSION0n the criminal law, an o'ission, or failure to act, will constitute an actus reus (*atin for Jguilty actJ) and give rise to liabilityonly when the law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty.

A&ti%!e 0,RPCCriminal liability shall be incurred?

• y any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

• y any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or properties, where it not for theinherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inade3uate or ineffectual means.

4. MENTAL ELEMENT "MENS REA#s an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind a guilty or wrongful purpose a criminal intent. 8uilty 'nowledge and

wilfulness.1. De!ie&te intent "do!o#

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Criminal+law

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Actus+reus

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Latin

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Law

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Defendant


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Actus+reus

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Latin

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Law

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Defendant



The word deceit in the second paragragh of article D is not the proper translation of the word dolo. :olus ise3uivalent to malice, which is the intent to do an inury to another. /hen the offender, in performing an act or in incurring anomission, has the intention to do an inury to the person, property, or right of another, such offenderacts with malice. 0f theact or omission is punished by $!C, he is liable for intentional felony.

• ELEMENTSFREEDOM/hen a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a human being but a tool. 6reedom is the state of being free to do

acts.

INTELLI5ENCE/ithout this power necessary to determine the morality of human acts, no crime can e%ist 'nowledge and understanding ofan act done.

INTENT0ntent to commit the act with malice is presumed and the presumption arises from the proof of the commission of anunlawful act purpose of doing an act.

• 5ENERAL AND SPECIFIC INTENT

5ENERAL INTENT=nli'e offenses that re3uire a "pecific 0ntent, it is not necessary that the accused intend the precise harm or result. 0t issufficient if the person meant to do the act that caused the harm or result. 6or e%ample, attery is a general intent offense. 0fa defendant commits a battery that results in harm to the victim, it does not matter if the defendant did not intend the harm.

SPECIFIC INTENTThe term specific intent is to designate a special state of mind that is re3uired, along with a physical act, to constitute certaincrimes or torts. "pecific intent is usually interpreted to mean intentionally or 'nowingly.

PEOPLE vs. PUNO 1 SCRA 26

FACTS::river of 5aria "ocorros husband too' the place of the driver of 5aria "ocorro. Together with another man, theyconspired to get money from the victim by carrying her away and ordering her to withdraw money from the ban'. ftergetting the money from 5aria "ocorro, they released the victim.C&i'e %o''itted:$obberyContention o; t)e Stte:That the accused conspiring together, confederating with and mutually and feloniously 'idnappedand carry away one 5aria :el "ocorro for the purpose of e%torting ransom to the victim.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The accused contend that the court erred in (1) convicting them under !: o. @2D since theywere not e%pressly charged and apply in "ection B and @, $ule 12A since they were not proven.HELD:The accused were guilty of robbery but not 'idnapping. They were sentence to supper imprisonment and fine of !2, AAA.AA

•

MISTABE OF FACTn error that is not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person committing the error but ratherconsists of an unconscious ignorance of a past or present material event or circumstance or a belief in the presente%istence of a material event that does not e%ist or a belief in the past e%istence of a material event that did not e%ist.5ista'e of fact can be a factor in reducing or eliminating civil liability or criminal culpability. mista'e of fact is of littleconse3uence unless it is born of unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness. person cannot escape civil or criminal liability forintentional mista'es.

US vs. AH CHON5 16 PHIL 022

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Specific+Intent

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Battery

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Specific+Intent

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Battery



FACTS:h Chong was a coo' in 6ort 5c'inley, $i&al. -n the night of ugust 1B, 19AE, before going to bed, he loc'edhimself in this room by placing a chair against the dood. fter having gone to bed, he was awa'ened by someone trying toopen the door. #e sat up from his bed and called out again who is there but received no answer. 6earing that theintruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and said if you enter the room, 0 will 'ill you+, but at the precise moment, hewas struc' by the chair that he placed against the door and believing that we was attac'ed, he sei&ed a 'itchen 'nife andstruc' and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate, !ascual 8ualberto.C&i'e Co''itted:#omicideContention o; t)e Stte:ny such mista'e of fact showing the act committed to have proceeded from not sort of evil in the

mind necessarily relieves the defendant from criminal liability, provided always there is no faulty or negligence on his part.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The defendant admitted that he 'illed his roommate but insisted that he struc' the final blowwithout any intend to do a wrongful act, in the e%ercise of his lawful right of self<defense.HELD:The udgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be reversed and the defendantac3uitted of the crime with which he is charged and his bail bond is e%onerated.

• MALUM PROHI4ITUM - e%ception to the re3uirement of mens rea *atin meaning Jwrong due to being prohibited,J which refers to crimes made so by statute, compared to crimes

based on obvious violations of societyIs standards which are defined as Jmalum in se.J

PADILLA v DI=ON 162 SCRA 13

FACTS:!asay $TC 4udge :i&on ac3uitted *o Chi 6ai who was arrested for violating C circular o. 97A, "ection 7 whichprovides that no one is allowed to ta'e out foreign e%change in any form unless authori&ed by the Central an' orinternational agreements. Tourist F none residents can only bring out amount e3ual to amount they brought in. if you bringout an amount greater that three thousand dollars, you need to declare. !unishable by reclusion temporal or greater thanor e3ual to fifty thousand pesos. *o Chi was caught with DEA pieces of different currencies totaling to D@@, DB9.@ dollarsand was able to show only tow Central an' declaration. c3uitted based on (1) no intent (2) money belong to him andassociates coming from abroad.C&i'e %o''itted:iolation of C Circular o 97A by *o Chi 6ai8ross incompetence and ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct by the udge.Contention o; t)e stte:The respondents ought to 'now that the proof of malice or deliberate intent is not essential in

offenses punishable by F under special laws which are mala prohibita.Contention o; t)e %%used: udge cannot be held to account or answer, criminally, civilly or administratively for anerroneous decision rendered by him in good faith.HELD:The court finds the respondent guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and serious misconductaffecting his integrity and efficiency consistent with the responsibility of the "upreme Court for the proper, ust administrationof ustice and for the attainment of the maintenance of peoples faith in udiciary.ll leaves and retirement benefits andprivileges to which he may be entitles are hereby forfeited with preudice to his being reinstated in any branch ofgovernment service, including government owned and or controlled agencies or corporations.

MA5NO v CA 17 SCRA 036

FACTS:5agno was trying to put up a car repair shop but he was lac'ing proper e3uipment. #e approached Cora&on Tengthe ice !resident of 5arcos and at the same time distributor of the said e3uipment. The latter referred him to 4oey8ome&, vice president of *" 6inance to provide him credit facilities. 5agno had no money to pay the warranty deposit of !29, AA so he as' 4oey 8ome& to find a third party to lend him money. =n'nowingly, the third party was Cora&on Teng/ith a three (D) V interest. /hen the e3uipment were delivered, 5agno issued a post dated chec' and gave it to 8ome&and un'nown to the petitioner, gave it to Cora&on Teng. /hen the chec' matured, 5agno re3uested 8ome& no to depositthe chec' as he was no longer ban'ing with the !acific an'. To replace the first chec', 5agno issued other post datedchec's. 6our (B) of the chec's were held by Cora&on Teng, on the re3uest of 5agno as they were not covered withsufficient funds. /hen 5agno was unable to pay *" 6inance the monthly rentals, thus, it pulled out the garage e3uipment.5agno found out that Cora&on Teng was the one who advance the warranty deposit. #e then promised Teng that he would



pay her but the payments never came. /hen the four chec's were deposited, they were returned for the reason of accountclosed.C&i'e Co''itted:iolation of atas !ambansa ilang 22Contention o; t)e Stte:6or all the intents and purposes, the law was devised to safeguard the interest of the ban'ingsystem and the legitimate public chec'ing account users. 0t did not intent to shelter or favor nor encourage users of thesystem to enrich themselves through manipulation and circumvention of the noble purpose and obective of the law.Contention o; t)e %%used:The transaction remained a lease.!etitioner did not even 'now that the chec's he issued wereturned over to Cora&on Teng and was 'ept from his 'nowledge on her instruction.

HELD: !etitioner is ac3uitted of the crime charged. Lnowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds withthe drawee ban' for the payment of such chec' in full upon issuance, which chec' is subse3uently dishonored by thedrawee ban' for insufficiency of funds or would have dishonored for the same reason.

5RIFFIN v CA ?3 SCRA 0

FACTS:8eoffrey 8riffin, president of *incoln 8erard 0n., was found guilty of violation of ! 22 on two (2) counts. #e wassentenced to si% () months imprisonment on each count. Two years prior to the case filed against 8riffin, !helps :odge, thecompany to whom 8riffin to pay for *incoln 8erards rent, foreclosed and auctioned the properties and earned an amountenough to pay for the two unfunded chec's. 8riffin files a petition for review on certiorari on the Court of ppeals decision.

C&i'e %o''itted:iolation of atas !ambansa ilang 22Contention o; t)e Stte:The assurance of insufficiency of funds on said date was made by 8riffin to !helps :odge throughthe note on the voucher attached to the chec's and that assurance was final and irrevocable whether it be post dated ornot. #is conviction is constitutional since the payment through auction sale was done after five days from the notice ofdishonor of the chec's, provided under ! 22 and should not be e%tinguished 8riffins criminal liability.Contention o; t)e %%used:8riffin points out that !helps :odge was made aware of the insufficiency of funds of the chec'during that time through a note on the voucher attached to the chec's. 8ood faith on his part negates any intent of puttingworthless chec's in circulation. #is conviction is unconstitutional since he is being punished for failing to pay on obligationwhen it fell due and not because of the unfunded chec's be issued. #e also asserts that the payment made through theauction sale and foreclosure done by !helps :odge e%tinguish his criminal liability since it produced enough money to paythe amount of two unfunded chec's.

HELD:!etition of 8riffin was granted.

ESTRADA v SANDI5AN4AYAN ?8 SCRA ?0

FACTS:>strada was found guilty of violation of $ AEA, otherwise 'nown as the !lunder *aw. -ne of the issues of thecase is whether or not !lunder as defined in $ AEA is a crime malum prohibitum, and if so, whether it is within the powerof the congress of the !hilippines to classify it.C&i'e %o''itted:!lunderContention o; t)e Stte:o, it is malum in se which re3uires proof of criminal intent, because it constitutive crimes aremala in se. The elements of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. 0t is noteworthy that the amendedinformation alleges that the crime of plunder was committed willfully, unlawfully and criminally. Thus alleges guilty

'nowledge on the part of petitioner.Contention o; t)e %%used:>strada contended that the statute eliminates the re3uirement of mens rea and that is thereason why he claims the statute to be void. #owever, $ o. 7@9 declares that plunder is a heinous crime. Thus, itimplies that it is malum in se. 6or when the acts are inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that suchacts are punished in special law.RULIN5:The court holds that $ AEA or the !lunder *aw as amended by $ @9 is constitutional.

• DISTIN5UISHED FROM MOTI9EMOTI9E



0n law, especially criminal law, a moti#e is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. 5otive in itself is seldoman element of any given crime however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to ma'e plausible theaccusedIs reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with.

INTENT DISTIN5UISHED FROM MOTI9EThe law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. J0ntentJ in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, whichmeans no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the rec'lessdisregard of whether the law will be violated. J5otiveJ describes instead the reasons in the accusedIs bac'ground and

station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.

PEOPLE v TEM4LOR 181 SCRA 8?

F%ts:-n :ecember DA, 19EA, Temblor went to 4ulius Cagampangs house in gusan del orte to buy cigarettes. /hileopening a pac' of cigarettes, Cagampang was shot. The accused with another person, necito >llevera demandedCagampangs wife to bring out his husbands firearms. The accused fired two shots at the fallen victim. ictoria, gave asuitcase to Temblor who then too' the .DE caliber which was inside and fled. 0n ugust 19E1, Temblor, an !, surrenderedafter hiding in the mountains of gusan :el orte. 0n ovember 19E1, he was arrested by the police at the public mar'etand detained him at the municipal ail. -n 4une 19E2, the accused was convicted and sentenced to suffer reclusion

perpetua and indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of !12, AAA.AAC&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e Stte:The accuses alibi was unacceptable because it was self<serving and uncorroborated. 0t cannooverrule positive identification it was merely 1@ ; 2A minutes away from the crime scene and his father was at wor' at thetime of murder of 4ulius Cagampang. 0t has proven that he had motive in 'illing Cagampang? he had 'nowledge thatCagampang possessed a firearm this motive is enough to 'ill him as part of the !s agaw<armas+ campaign of 'illingsperpetrated by ! for the purpose of ac3uiring more firearms.Contention o; t)e %%used:The appeal of the accused alleges that the court erred in finding that he was positivelyidentified by the prosecution witness as the 'iller and in reecting his defense of alibi.RULIN5:The udgment appealed from is affirmed in all respects e%cept as to the civil indemnity payable to the heirs of4ulius Cagampang which is increased to ! DA, AAA.AA

PEOPLE v HASSAN 163 SCRA 1

FACTS:=sman #assan, a 1@ years old lad of "amal Tribe in Wamboanga City was convicted of murder of !ichel. !ichewas stabbed t death at fruit paradise while sitting at his read #onda motorcycle, waiting for friend 4ose "amson who wasbuying fruits.C&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e Stte?5otive is not essential in order to arrive at a conviction, because after all. 5otive is a state omind, procedurally, however, for purpose of complying with a re3uirement that a udgment of guilty must stem from proofbeyond reasonable doubt, the lac' of motive on the part of the accused plays a pivotal role towards his ac3uittal especiallywhen there is doubt as to the identity of the culprit.

Contention o; t)e %%used:Considering that the accused is a minor, he was e%empted from criminal liability.HELD:The decision was reverse and the accused =sman #assan is ac3uitted of the crime charged, and his release fromconfinement is ordered.

PEOPLE v DELIM *AN., ,77?

F%ts:rlon de *eon and $onald de *eon were convicted for murder of 5odesto :elim, a resident of "ison, !angasinan.5odesto is the adopted child of 5arlons father. 5arlon, 5anual and $obers are brothers and de *eon and $onald aretheir nephews. round 7?DA pm on 4anuary 2E, 1999, 5odesto and family were preparing to eat dinner when 5arlon$obert and $onald arrived. 5arlon posed a gun while the other 2 grabbed, tied and gagged 5odesto. They herded him outthe house and went to the direction of !aldit. *eon and 5anuel guarded $ita and $andy until 5 and told them to stay


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Crime

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intent

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Mens+rea


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Statute


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Crime

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intent


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Statute



put. They searched for 5odesto for D days and reported to the !olice after D days from the incident. $andy, with relativesfound 5odesto in the housing proect in !aldit under bushes. #e was dead due to gunshot would on the head.C&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e A%%used:They claimed that they were in another place and it is possible to go to the crime scene.Contention o; t)e stte:There was a proven intention to 'ill the victim. /ith the accused are 'nives and handguns. Thevictim suffered gunshot wounds and 9 stab wounds (defensive) and with the pieces of circumstantial evidence as to thetestimony of $ita and $andy.HELD:Conviction with modification, instead of holding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of 'idnapping

and serious illegal detention defined and penali&ed under rticle 2 of the $evised !enal Code.

CONSTRUCTI9E INTENT "CULPA#Culpa is a *atin or "panish word meaning guilt or fault.A&ti%!e ?, RPC3efinitions. M cts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (&elitos).

6elonies are committed not only be means of deceit (&olo) but also by means of fault (culpa).There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from

imprudence, negligence, lac' of foresight, or lac' of s'ill.

A&ti%!e ?86, RPC Impru&ence an& ne%li%ence. M ny person who, by rec'less imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it beenintentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its ma%imum period to prisioncorreccional in its medium period if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in itsminimum and medium periods shall be imposed if it would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in itsma%imum period shall be imposed.ny person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a grave felony,shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and ma%imum periods if it would have constituted a less seriousfelony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed./hen the e%ecution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage to the property of another, theoffender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an amount e3ual to the value of said damages to three times such value,

but which shall in no case be less than twenty<five pesos. fine not e%ceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence ornegligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.0n the imposition of these penalties, the court shall e%ercise their sound discretion, without regard to the rules prescribed inrticle si%ty<four.The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable?

1. /hen the penalty provided for the offense is e3ual to or lower than those provided in the first two paragraphs ofthis article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty ne%t lower in degree than that which should be imposedin the period which they may deem proper to apply.2. /hen, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the utomobile *aw, to death of a person shall becaused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and ma%imum periods.

$ec'less imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material damageresults by reason of ine%cusable lac' of precaution on the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, ta'inginto consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other circumstancesregarding persons, time and place."imple imprudence consists in the lac' of precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to be causedis not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.The penalty ne%t higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to lend onthe spot to the inured parties such help as may be in this hand to give.

ELEMENTS:PEOPLE v CARMEN ?66 SCRA 83

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Guilt

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Guilt



FACTS:t around two ocloc' in the afternoon of 4anuary 2, 199, #oney 6e bella, 1A and her friend 6rancis $ivera, ,heard a child shout Tabang 5a+ (#elp 5other). The two children ran towards Carmens house where the cry came out.There, they saw "ibunga, une& Crment and 6alare torturing the boy $andy *untayao by immersing his head in a drum ofwater. The boy was tied and his head was banged against the bench. *ater, Carmen order "ibunga to get a 'nife and then,the former, slowly plunged the 'nife on the left side of the body of $andy.C&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e Stte:Lilling a person with treachery is murder even if there is no intent to 'ill. /hen death occurs, it is

presumed to be the natural conse3uence of physical inuries inflicted.Contention o; t)e %%used: They are members of a cult and the bi&arre ritual performed was consented to by the victimsparents. The boy is subect to a treatment to arrive the bad spirit from his body. =nfortunately, $andy died because of theirrec'less imprudence. Therefore, guilty of rec'less imprudence resulting to homicide and not of murder.HELD:The decision of $TC Cebu, ranch 1B is affirmed with modification. That the accused ; appellants are guilty ofrec'less imprudence resulting to homicide.

IMPRUDENCE OR LACB OF SBILL lac' of caution in practical affairs.:eficiency of action. NE5LI5ENCE OR LACB OF FORESI5HT

egligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do toprotect another individual from a foreseeable ris' of harm. Through civil litigation, if an inured person proves that anotherperson acted negligently to cause his inury, he can recover damages to compensate for his harm

PEOPLE 9S. PU5AY, 183 SCRA 0?

F%ts:-n or about 5ay 19, 19E2 at the town pla&a at $osario, Cavite, !ugay and "amson conspiring, confederating andmutually helping and assisting one another, with treachery and evident premeditation, ta'ing advantage of their strength,and with the decided purpose to 'ill, poured gasoline to the body of ayani 5iranda and with the use of fire, did then andthere, willfully and unlawfully and feloniously burn the whole body of the victim which cause his subse3uent death to thedamage and preudice of the heirs of the ayani 5iranda.

C&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e Stte:The respective criminal liability of !ugay and "amson arising from different acts directed thedeceased is individual and not collective and each of them is liable only for the act committed by him.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The accused !ugay admitted that he poured a can of gasoline on the deceased believing thatthe contents thereof was water and then the accused "amson set the deceased on fire.HELD:oth accused found guilty on the crime of murder. ccordingly, udgement is affirmed with modification in favor of theaccused !ugay.

CULPA DISTIN5UISHED FROM DOLO

rticle D classifies felonies into (1) intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies. n intentional felony is committed

whenthe act is performed with deliberate intent, which must necessary be voluntary. 0n culpable felony, which is committedwhen the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lac' of foresight or lac' of s'ill, the act is also voluntary. Theonly difference between intentional felonies and culpable felonies is that, in the first, the offender acts with malice wheras,in the second, the offender acts without malice

PEOPLE 9S. 4UAN, SCRA 1?2?

FACTS:uan was driving a passenger bus and allegedly because of his negligence and rec'lessness, the vehicle driven byhim struc' and collided with the passenger eep of "ergio *umidao, damaging said eep, causing it to turn turtle, and inuringits passengers. "i% of the passengers suffered slight physical inuries and three other riders came out with serious bodily

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Behaviour

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Individual

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Damages

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Behaviour

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Individual

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Damages



inuries. charge was filed against the accused ; appellant, one for slight physical inuries through rec'less imprudence, inthe ustice of the !eace of Court of 8uiguinto, for which he is tried and ac3uitted on :ecember 17, 197D.!rior to theac3uittal, however, the provincial fiscal of ulacan, filed in the Court of 6irst 0nstance the information in the case for seriousphysical inuries and damage to property through rec'less imprudence. dmittedly, both charges referred to the samehighway collision. #is counsel moved to 3uash the charges on the ground that he had already been ac3uitted of the sameoffense by the 4ustice of the !eace Court.C&i'e Co''itted:"light and serious physical inuriesContention o; t)e Stte:The accused should still be penali&ed for serious physical and damage to property through

rec'less imprudence.Contention o; t)e A%%used:$eason and precedent both coincide, in that once convicted or ac3uitted of a specific act ofrec'less imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for the same act. 6or the essence of 3uasi<offense ofcriminal negligence under rticle D7@ of the $evised !enal Code lies in the e%ecution of an imprudent or negligent act, that,if intentionally done, would be punishable as a the law penali&es thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.The gravity of the conse3uence is only ta'en into account to determine the penalty it does not 3ualify the substance of theoffense. nd, as the careless act is single, whether the inuries result should affect one person or several persons, theoffense (criminal negligence), remains one at the same and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.HELD:The charge for slight physical inuries through rec'less imprudence could not be oined with accusations for seriousphysical inuries through rec'less imprudence because article BE of the $evised !enal Code allows only the comple%ity ofgrave or less grave felonies.

TRANSFERRED INTENT ARTICLE 0, PARA5RAPH 1"E! ue de ! %use de! '! %usdo#

T&ns;e&&ed intent is a doctrine used in criminal law when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes asecond person to be hurt instead. =nder the law, the individual causing the harm will be seen as having JintendedJ the actby means of the Jtransferred intentJ doctrine.

• A4ERRATIO ICTUS5ista'e in the blow, that is, when the offender intending to do an inury to one person actually inflicts it on another.

The offender is still liable although the one he inured or 'illed is another person because it resulted from his felonious act.

PEOPLE 9S. 5UILLEN, 26 PHIL. ?73

FACTS:4ulio 8uillen, although not affiliated with any political group had voted for the defeated candidate in the !residential>lection held in 19B7. 5anuel $o%as, the successful candidate, assumed the -ffice of the !resident of the Commonwealthand subse3uently !resident of the !hilippine $epublic. ccording to 8uillen, he became disappointed in !resident $o%asfor his alleged failure to fulfill his promise. 0nstead of loo'ing after the interest of the people, he approved the so<calledparity measures, hence, he determined to assassinate $o%as.-n the night of 5arch 1A, 19B, a meeting was held by the*iberal !arty at !la&a de 5iranda. 8uillen had intended to use a revolver, for the accomplishment of his purpose, but lost.Thus, he used two hand grenades, one was put in a plant bo% and the other grenade was hurled in the platform.8eneralCastaneda, notice the grenade and 'ic'ed it away from the platform but accidentally fell into group of persons. #e seriouslyinured "imeon alera who died the ne%t day and also lfredo >va, 4ose 6abio, !edro Carilloa nd >milio 5aglalang.

C&i'e %o''itted:5urder and multiple frustrated murderContention o; t)e Stte:0n view of the findings, 4ulio 8uillen is not insane. #e is an individual with a personality defectwhich psychiatry is termed as constitutional psychopathic inferiority.Contention o; t)e %%used:#e stated that he performed the act voluntarily, that his purpose was to 'ill the !resident, butthat it did not ma'e any difference to him if there were some people around the !resident when he hurled the grenadesbecause the 'illing of those who surrounded him was tantamount to 'illing the president. 0n other words, although it was nothis main intention to 'ill people surrounding the !resident, he felt no compunction in 'illing them also in order to attain hismain purpose of 'illing the !resident.HELD:4ulio 8uillen is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime murder and multiple frustrated murder and sentenced tothe penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased "imeon arcela in the sum of !2,AAA and to pay costs.


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intention+(criminal)


http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intention+(criminal)



• ERROR IN PERSONAE5ista'e in the identity of the victim. The offender is liable even if the victim turns out to be different from the intented

victim.

PEOPLE 9S. SA4ALONES, 0 SCRA 361

FACTS:ccused eronga, "abalones, Cabanero and legarbe were convicted of two counts of murder and three counts offrustrated murder of 8len Tiempo, lfred ardo, $ey oto, $eogelio !resares and elson Tiempo. shooting incident on

4une 1, 19E@ in 5anuela Compound, Talisay, Cebu which led to the death of the victims.C&i'e %o''itted:Two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated murder.Contention o; t)e Stte:The case is better characteri&ed as error in personae or mista'e in identity of the victims. $atherthat aberration ictus, which means mista'e in the blow, characteri&ed by aiming at one but hitting the other due toimprecision in the blow.Contention o; t)e %%used:0t was impossible to identify the shooters because the crime scene was dar'.

HELD:ppeal is denied and the assailed is affirmed?The headlights of a car or eep were sufficient light.libis ; re3uires the accused to be in other place and it is physically impossible to be present at its immediate vicinity.

• PRAETER INTENTIONEM*ac' of intent to commit so grave a wrong. 0t ta'es place when the result of the felonius act is graver than what is

intended. 0t is a mitigating circumstance. The offender is liable for the felony actually committed but the penalty shll beimposed in its minimum period.

PEOPLE v AL4U+UER+UE, 6 PHIL. 167

FACTS:lbu3uer3ue was found guilty of homicide against 5anuel -sma. #e was sentence to E years and 1 dayimprisonment and ordered to indemnify the heir of the deceased in the sum of ! 1, AAA. ppellant went to the victimswor'place to compel him to marry his daughter or at least give support to her daughter since -sma is the father of the child.

0t led to a heated argument when -sma refused to do so. ppellant brought out his pen 'nife to wound -smas face buteventually 'illing him when the blow landed on the base of nec'.C&i'e %o''itted:#omicideContention o; t)e Stte:ppellants contention of acting in self<defense cannot be entered since he provo'ed andcommenced the aggression when he brought out and started shipping his 'nife.Contention o; t)e A%%used:*ac' of intention to cause such a grave inury, his voluntary surrender and act of passionshould be considered mitigating circumstances. The fatal blow was due to his lac' of control.

HELD:4udgment modified. "entenced to indeterminate penalty of one year of prision correctional to E years and 1 day ofprision mayor.

C.LIA4ILITY FOR INCOMPLETE ELEMENTSI'$ossi!e C&i'eRPC, A&ti%!e 0 "#y any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or properties, were it not for the inherentimpossibility of its accomplishment or on the account of employment of inade3uate or ineffectual means.

INTOD v COURT OF APPEALS, 16 SCRA 6

FACTS:5r. "ulpicio 0ntod and company wanted ernardina !alangpangan 'illed because of land dispute in Latugunan,*ope& 4aena, 5isamis -riental. The guide of 5r. 0ntod, 5r. "alvador 5andaya, was threatened by the former that if he will



not show the house of !alangpangan, they will also 'ill him. t 1A?AA in the evening of 6ebruary B, 199, the petitioner andaids to the crime accompanied by the guide, 5r. 5andaya arrived at the house of !alangpangan. There and then, the roomof the target was pointed by 5andaya. Thereafter, the petitioner and companions fired at said room. 0t turned out, howeverthat !alangpangan was in another city and on one was in the room.C&i'e %o''itted:ttempted murderContention o; t)e Stte: The accused is liable for impossible crimes and not for attempted murder. The factual situation inthe case at bar presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible. =nder rticle B (2) of the$!C, such is sufficient to ma'e the act and impossible crime. 6actual impossibility incurs when e%traneous circumstances

un'nown to actor or beyond control prevent consummations of intended crime.Contention o; t)e A%%used:0ntod is see'ing from the C a modification of the udgment by holding him liable for animpossible crime citing rticle B (2) of the $!C. #e contends that !alangpangans absence from her room on that night, heand his companion riddled it with bullet made the crime inherently impossible.HELD:!etition was granted.

PEOPLE 9S. SALADINO, 2 PHIL. 273

FACTS:*ourdes $elevo is a niece of the accused<appelant Conrado "aladino. #er mother and Condrados wife weresisters. *ourdes, 1D years old was sent by her parents to 5anila to live with Conrado and $osita in !asig City in order forher to have her education. $osita was a factory wor'er while Conrado is a money changer is a bus terminal. 0n "eptember

199@ at about 1A Acloc' in the evening, while *ourdes was lying on her mattress resting and feeling sic', Conrado wo'e herup and as' her to transfer to the bed as she might catch cold. $osita was already dressed up because she was wor's in the1A?AA !5 to 7?AA 5 shift. Conrado accompanied $osita to the eepney stop and returned to their room about 1@ minuteslater. #e laid down beside *ourdes and 2@ minutes after, he started fondling her breasts, he po'ed a 'itchen 'nife at herwaist and threatened to 'ill her if she shouted. #e dropped the 'nife and pinned down *ourdess hands to her belly,removed her shorts and panty with his hands. #e then removed his own shorts and underwear, went on top of *ourdes andinserted his penis inside her vagina. *ourdes struggled and Conrados penis slipped out several times but he re<inserted itevery time and resumed his movements. *ourdes confided the se%ual assault to $osita but did not believe her and evensaid that her husband is not capable of doing such act.The se%ual assault was repeated on :ecember 1, 1997 and againon 4anuary 2, 199. 6inally, *ourdes gathered enough courage and told her mother about the se%ual abuses, whichprompted >lena to fetch her and ta'e her home to atangas. >lena had *ourdes e%amined by a doctor, who confirmed that

she was no longer virgin, hence, they filed a case with the !asig City !rosecutors -ffice.C&i'e %o''itted:$ape and attempted rapeContention o; t)e Stte:The court observed that Conrado appeared to be evasive, answered 3uestions in low voice whichwas hardly audible. 0t also pointed out that Conrado appeared uncertain when he admitted that he touched her breasts,'issed the lips and private parts of the complainant and laid on top of her. This led the court to conclude that the accusedwas not unustly accused of a serious crime since it is very unli'ely for a young girl li'e *ourdes to falsely accuse his uncleof a heinous crime, undergo medical e%amination of her private parts, subect herself to the humiliation of a public trial andtarnish her familys honor and reputation.Contention o; t)e A%%used:-n the night of the alleged first rape, he was drun'. fter ta'ing his wife to the eepney stop,he went bac' to his room where she saw *ourdes lying on bed and laid beside her. lso, *ourdes was fully aware of whatwas happening yet did not show any reaction.The accused also testified that the reason they left the old house was

because they did not have privacy and that *ourdes was seducing him. *ourdes would get angry every time he refused toinsert his penis into her vagina.

HELD:Conrado "aladino, is found guilty of three counts of simple rape and sentence to supper the penalty of reclusionperpetua for each count. #e is also ordered to pay private complainant !@A, AAA for civil indemnity, another ! @A, AAA formoral damages and ! DA, AAA for e%emplary damages. lso, guilty of attempted rape and sentence to 1A months and 2Adays to E years, B months and 1A days and another ! 1@, AAA for moral damages.

UNCOMPLETED CRIMESATTEMPTED FELONIES



ARTICLE 8, RPCConsummate&, frustrate&, an& attempte& felonies. M Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated andattempted, are punishable. felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its e%ecution and accomplishment are present and it isfrustrated when the offender performs all the acts of e%ecution which would produce the felony as a conse3uence but which,nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not performall the acts of e%ecution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own

spontaneous desistance.

PEOPLE v CAMPUHAN, MARCH ?7, 777

F%ts:-n pril 2@, 1997, 5aria Cora&on !amintuan, mother of four year old Crysthel !amintuan wnet down from thesecond floor of their house prepare 5ilo chocolate for her daughter. !rimo Campuhan was a helper of Conrado !lata 4r.,brother of Cora&on. Cora&on heard one of her daughters cry ayo'o, ayo'o+. "he rush upstairs and saw !rimo inside theroom of her children 'neeling before Crysthel whose paama and panty were already removed while his short pants weredown to his 'nees. ccording to Cora&on, !rimo was forcing his penis into Crysthels vagina. Cora&on called help from herneighbor and her brother Conrado responded and accosted the accused, !rimo.C&i'e %o''itted:ttempted rape

Contention o; t)e A%%used:Campuhan maintained his innocence and assailed the charge as a mere scheme of Crysthelsmother who allegedly harbored ill will against him for refusal to ran an errand for her.HELD: The accused was found guilty of attempted rape and sentence to an indeterminate prison term of E years, B monthsand 1A days of prision mayor to 1B years, 1A months and 2A days of reclusion temporal. lthough the absence of completepenetration of the hymen does not negate the possibilities of contact, the court clarified that there was no medical basis tohold that there was se%ual contact between the accused and the victim.

PEOPLE 9S LOPE=, ?1 SCRA 820

FACTS:6ederico *ope& was accused of 'illing $ogelio "aldera and $odolfo !adapat and frustrated murder of 5ario"eldera. -n their way home on ovember 1@, 1991 at around 9 pm, they were met by *ope& and another guy. They were

trailed beside 5anila $iver. *ope& had a shotgun and shot the three. Thin'ing they were dead, he left. 5ario survived andidentified *ope&.C&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e Stte:5ario is a credible witness and memory of the massacre is deeply etched in his memory thus heremembered even minute details. atural reaction to remember assailants and how the crime is committed. "hotgunwould were verified. 5ario was also well ;adusted to lighting since hesbeen waling for some time when they wereattac'ed. #e was identified not by name but by 'nowledge of who the accused was who fre3uented his place before.

HELD:libi is wea'. #is alleged location was near enough to the crime scene. Thus, not impossible to reach it. >ach shotshould be considered as one act thus liable for three separate crimes, comple% crime ($!C BE) only when one act results todifferent felonies

PEOPLE v LI=ADA, 5R NO. 10?082 31

FACTS:-n the following dates, ugust 199D, ovember @, 199E, -ctober 22, 199E and "eptember 199E, 6reddie *i&adawith lewd designs, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force, violence and intimidation uponthe person of a certain malia -rillosa y gos, embracing, 'issing and touching her private parts, thereafter removing hers'irt and panty, placing himself on top of her and trying to insert his penis into her vagina and succeeded in having carna'nowledge against her will and consent.C&i'e %o''itted:6our counts of 3ualifiedContention o; t)e A%%used:The prosecution failed to adduce the re3uisite 3uantum of evidence that he raped the privatecomplainant precisely on "eptember 1@, 199E and -ctober 22, 199E. 5oreover, the medical findings show that the hymen



of the private complainant was intact and its orifice was so small as to preclude a complete penetration by an average si&eadult male organ in full erection without producing any genital inury.HELD:The decision of the $TC 5anila was set aside. nother udgment is rendered as follows?

• Criminal case X 99<11D9A, accused ; appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape.• Criminal case X 99<11D91, accused ; appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted rape.• Criminal case Xs 99<11D92 Y 99<11D9D, accused ; appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on two

counts of simple rape.

PEOPLE v CA4ALLERO, 077 SCRA 00

FACTS: rmando, $obito and 5arciano, 4r. Caballero, were having a drin'ing spree in the house of their brother $icardo>ugene Tayactac and rnold arcuma arrived in the sari<sari store of /ilma roce. rnold proceeded to the house of"usana roce, >ugenes girlfriend, for a chat. s >ugene wal'ed by the gate of the 5ondragon Compound, rmandosuddenly grabbed >ugene towards the compound. >ugene resisted. "pontaneously, $icardo, 5arciano, 4r. and $obito oined rmando and assaulted >ugene. rmando too' the wooden pole supporting the clothesline and hit >ugene with it.The latter tried to parry the blows of the Caballero brothers, to no avail. 0n the process, >ugene was stabbed three times. s>ugene was being assaulted, 5yrna returned to the window of her house and saw the Caballero brothers assaulting>ugene. rnold saw the commotion and rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. #owever, $icardo accosted rnold

and stabbed the latter on the left side of his body. $obito, 5arciano, 4r. and rmando ganged up on rnold. Two of themstabbed rnold on his forearm. rnold fled for his life and hid under the house of a neighbor.6or his part, *eonilo rushedfrom his house to where the commotion was. #e was, however, met by $obito who stabbed him on the chest. /ounded,*eonilo retreated and pleaded to his uncle *ucio roce for help.

HELD:0n case of an attempted crime, the offender never passes the subective phase in the commission of the crime. Theoffender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts of e%ecution which should produce the crime. #e is stoppedshort of that point by some cause apart from his voluntary desistance.-n the other hand, a crime is frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of e%ecution which should result in theconsummation of the crime. The offender has passed the subective phase in the commission of the crime. "ubectively, thecrime is complete. othing interrupted the offender while passing through the subective phase. #e did all that is necessary

to consummate the crime. #owever, the crime is not consummated by reason of the intervention of causes independent ofthe will of the offender. 0n homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts of e%ecution if the woundinflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the death of the victim barring medical intervention or attendance.0t cannot be denied that the appellants had the intention to 'ill rnold. The appellants performed all the acts of e%ecution butthe crime was not consummated because of the timely medical intervention.Treachery attended the stabbing of rnold because he was unarmed and the attac' on him was swift and sudden. #e hadno means and there was no time for him to defend himself. 0n sum, the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder.

FRUSTRATED FELONIESPEOPLE v MISION, 10 SCRA 0?

FACTS:-n the evening of -ctober 2B, 19E, at >speran&a, 5asbate, the accused, *uis 5ision, with intent to 'ill,premeditated and with treachery, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attac', assault and stab with abladed instrument 5eroy :agonoy, hitting the latter on the left shoulder and *uciana :agonoy, also hitting her on the chest,thereby inflicting wound which cause the death of said *uciana :agonoy. "everal days after performing all the acts ofe%ecution which would have produce the crime of murder, as a conse3uence but nevertheless did not produce it by reasonof causes independent of the will of the accused, that is by the timely and able medical attendance rendered to 5eroy:agonoy which prevented his death.C&i'e %o''itted:5urder (*uciana :agonoy) and frustrated murder (5eroy :agonoy)Contention o; t)e Stte:Two offense imputed to the appellant cannot be treated as a single offense because the manner inwhich he committed prevented him from constituting a comple% crime under either of the way by which multiple offensesmay be comple% under rticle BE of the $evised !enal Code.



The assault on 5eroy :agonoy constituted frustrated murder, here relatively 3uic' recovery being the result of promptmedical attention which prevented the infection in the wound.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The trial court erred in giving due weight and credit to the highly improbable testimonies of thewitness and giving every ounce of benefit to the prosecution and in not resolving even a gram of doubt to the accused.HELD:The decision of the trial court dated ugust 27, 19E1 is modified by holding the accused, *uis 5ision guilty of twoseparate crimes of murder and frustrated murder

D.LIA4ILITY FOR CRIMES WITH COMPLETE ELEMENTSARTICLE 8, RPCConsummate&, frustrate&, an& attempte& felonies. 4 Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated andattempted, are punishable. felony is consummate& when all the elements necessary for its e%ecution and accomplishment are present and it isfrustrate& when the offender performs all the acts of e%ecution which would produce the felony as a conse3uence but whichnevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not performall the acts of e%ecution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his ownspontaneous desistance.

RELATE TO ARTICLES 1?0 AND 1?0 A, RPCARTICLE 1?0$ebellion or insurrection ; how it is committedNThe crime of rebellion and insurrection is committed by rising publicly and ta'ing arms against teh 8overnment for thepurpose of removing allegiance to said government or its laws. The territory of the $epublic of the !hilippines or nay partthereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces or depriving the chief e%ecutive or legislature, wholly or partially, ofany of their powers or prerogatives.

A&ti%!e 1?0 ACou$ d Gett )o( %o''itted

The crime of coup d Zetat is a swift attac' accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed againstduly constituted authorities of the $epublic of the !hilippines, or any military camp or installation, communication, networ's,public utilities or other facilities needed for the e%ercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carriedout any where in the !hilippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public office oremployment with or without civilian support or participation for the purpose of sei&ing or diminishing state power.

PEOPLE v ORITA, 120 SCRA 176

FACTS:t around 1?DA in the morning of 5arch 2A, 19ED inside a boarding house at ictoria "t., !oblacion, orongan,>astern "amar, Ceilito -rita, with threats and intimidations succeeded in having se%ual intercourse with Cristina ". bayanagainst her will and without her consent.

C&i'e %o''itted:6rustrated rapeContention o; t)e Stte:0n the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal 'nowledge of his victim, he actuallyattains his purpose and from that moment also, all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. othingmore is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed all act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felonyis consumed.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The trial court erred in disregarding the substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of thewitnesses and the trial court erred in declaring that the crime of frustrated rape was committed by the accused.HELD: The accused Ceilito -rita is hereby found guildty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.

PEOPLE v SANCHE=, 67 SCRA 10



FACTS:8ladys 5agpayao, is a nine year old girl and studying at the #oly Child Catholic "chool in Tondo, 5anila. #ermother was a manicurist while her father was an overseas wor'er in "audi rabia. 8ladys has a sister, 5aritess, who at thetime of incident was 2A years old and five brothers of whom the youngest was then two years old. 8ladys and her familylived in an apartment on Carmen !lanas "t., Tondo, 5anila.0n the evening of :ecember 1B, 19E9, 8ladys was left alone intheir apartment, her mother and younger brothers have gone to another apartment for a manicure service. /hile 8ladyswas lying in bed, the accused<appellant !onciano "anches, 2@ years of age, entered her room. /hen she as'ed why hewas there, "anches grabbed her hand, covered her mouth. #e then un&ipped his pants, removed 8ladys shorts and

underwear and succeeded in inserting his penis into 8ladys private part. /ith her mouth covered, 8ladys was not able toscream. fter !onciano had left, 8ladys didnt tell anyone about the incident, afraid that ther mother would get angry and hither if she learned about it. -n :ecember 21, 19E9, while 8ladys was again alone watching T, !onciano, again forced herto have se% and threatened her not to report the incident. -n 4anuary 2, 199A, while disposing the waste of her youngerbrother in the toilet, !onciano entered and pinned 8ladys against the wall, un&ipped his pants and in half<'neeling position,satisfied his se%ual desire. gain, she 'ept it with herself. ut on 5arch 22, 199A, she was seen by 5aritess, slap theaccused<appellant. /hen she was as'ed by her sister why she slapped !onciano, it was then that she told her ordeal.C&i'e %o''itted:Three counts of statutory rapeContention o; t)e Stte:/hen an allegedly victim of rape says that she was violated, she says in effect all necessary toshow that rape has been committed on her and as long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may beconvicted on the basis thereof. 0n the case at bar, however, 8ladys 5agpayo detailed how she has been se%ually abused

by !onciano "anches and not merely states that she had e%perience such thing.Contention o; t)e A%%used:!onciano "anches claimed that he was falsely charged by 8ladys mother, 8loria, because he'new about 8lorias alleged illicit relations with 5acario :e 8u&man, the owner of the apartment.HELD:The accused ; appellant was found guilty of three counts of statutory rape and sentencing him to three counts ofreclusion perpetua and to pay 8ladys ! @A, AAA.

PEOPLE v SAL9ILLA, 120 SCRA 831

FACTS: -n 12 pril 19E7, a robbery was staged by the four accused at the ew 0loilo *umber Gard at about noon time. Theplan was hatched about two days before. The accused were armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade. /hen theyentered the establishment, they met $odita #ablero an employee thereat who was on her way out for her meal brea' and

announced to her that it was a hold<up. "he was made to go bac' to the office and there ppellant "alvilla pointed his gunat the owner, "everino Choco, and his two daughters, 5ary and 5imie the latter being a minor 1@ years of age, and told theformer that all they needed was money. #earing this, "everino told his daughter, 5ary, to get a paper bag wherein heplaced !2A,AAA.AA cash (!@,AAA.AA, according to the defense) and handed it to ppellant. Thereafter, "everino pleadedwith the four accused to leave the premises as they already had the money but they paid no heed. 0nstead, accused"implicio Canasares too' the wallet and wristwatch of "everino after which the latter, his two daughters, and $odita, wereherded to the office and 'ept there as hostages.t about 2?AA oIcloc' of the same day, the hostages were allowed to eat. The four accused also too' turns eating while theothers stood guard. Then, ppellant told "everino to produce !1AA,AAA.AA so he and the other hostages could be released."everino answered that he could not do so because it was a "aturday and the ban's were closed.Contention o; t)e A%%used

1. The lower court erred in holding that the crime charged was consummated and in not holding that the same wasmerely attempted.2. The lower court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.J

Contention o; t)e Stte:The "tate established a Jta'ingJ sufficient to support a conviction of robbery even though the perpetrators were interruptedby police and so &i& not pic up t"e mone' offere& ' t"e #ictim , where the defendant and an accomplice, armed with a'nife and a club respectively, had demanded the money from the female cler' of a convenience store, and the cler' hadcomplied with their instructions and placed money from the register in a paper bag and then placed the bag on the counterin front of the two men these actions brought the money wit"in t"e &ominion an& control of &efen&ant an& complete& t"etain%.



J"everance of the goods from the possession of the owner and absolute control of the property by the ta'er, e#en for aninstant, constitutes asportation (dams vs. Commonwealth, 1@B "/ DE1 "tate vs. 5urray, 2EA "/ 2d EA9 5ason vs.Commonwealth, 1A@ "> 2d 1B9) P>mphasis suppliedQ.He!d:ccused<appellant, ienvenido "alvilla, found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE v DALISAY, 072 SCRA ?36

WHAT HAPPENED:-n pril 7, 19@B, the complainants ngelina 5aghibon, 19 years old, and ngelita "inag, 17, of barrio

4ibon and Lumalas'as respectively, of the town of abas, Capi&, boarded the J".". 8eneral del !ilarJ bound for Capi&. Theyoung girls, who had wor'ed for three years as housemaids in 5anila, were going home with their savings, ngelina duringthat period having been able to save !11A.A and ngelita, !2A7. t B oIcloc' in the afternoon of the following day, the shiparrived at the port of ew /ashington, Capi&. t the doc', the two girls saw an old ac3uaintance, 4osefino 8. "elfaison, andboarded the passenger bound for the town of truc' he was driving, which was abas. The truc' started its ourney at about@ oIcloc' and passed through several towns pic'ing up and letting out passengers along the way. t barrio -ndoy,municipality of lbaay, "elfaison stopped the truc', got off and went to his house. fter a short while, he returnedaccompanied by four men who accommodated themselves on top of the truc'. The two complainants wanted to be ta'en totheir respective barrios, but "elfaison informed them that they would have to pay an additional fare of !@ each. The girlsagreed, giving him the money, and "elfaison saw them e%tract the money from bundles of paper bills hidden in thegarments over their breasts.

t a mountainous and isolated place, "elfaison suddenly stopped the truc'. #e and the other men then alighted and went tothe rear of the truc'. fter a while, they returned and forced the girls to go down. 4osefino 8. "elfaison, mrafil :alisay,$eynaldo autista and :omingo =reta pulled ngelita "inag to one side of the truc', while ernardo autista, emesio:alisay, rsenio macio and :omingo "alde dragged ngelina 5aghibon to the other side. The men then too' turns inraping ngelina and ngelita.C&i'e %o''itted:$apeContention o; t)e A%%used:t the trial of the case the appellants put up the defense of alibi.Contention o; t)e StteThe defense of alibi interposed by the appellants cannot be allowed to prevail over the testimony of the offended parties,who positively identified them as four of their assailants

He!d: ccused are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. 4osefino 8. "elfaison was well 'nown to the complainantsbecause they had previously ridden in his truc' when they went to ew /ashington in 19@1 where they boarded a ship for5anila. They were not personally ac3uainted with emesio :alisay and ernardo autista, but these two accused as theconductor were constantly seen by them during the whole trip. /ith respect to :omingo =reta, the two girls were able torecollect his features and recogni&e him as one of the four men who boarded the truc' at barrio -ndoy.0t is a natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to 'now the identity of their assailants and the manner inwhich the crime was committed creates a lasting impression which cannot easily be erased in their memory.

PEOPLE v NE5UIA, 01 SCRA 82

FACTS:-n or about 4anuary 2D, 1999, in the 5unicipality of -ton, !rovince of 0loilo, 4ohn e3uia with grave abuse of

confidence, he, being the stepfather of the victim, with lewd design and by means of force, threat and intimidation, did thenand there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeed in having carnal 'nowledge of 5$G 8#>* !. 8=C-, a 1D year<old minor, against her will andFor consent.C&i'e %o''itted: $apeContention o; t)e A%%used:The court gravely erred in convicting the accused<appellant of the crime of consummated rape despite uncertainty ofits commission.Contention o; t)e Stte:rticle 277<. (ape "en an& 2ow Committe&. ; $ape is committed?



2) y any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 0 hereof, shall commit an act of se%ualassault by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or obect, into the genital or analorifice of another person.$ape is consummated by the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either laia of t"e pu&en&um by thepenis?He!d::ecision of the $egional Trial Court of 0loilo City, ranch 2D, is 660$5>: with 5-:060CT0-, in that appellant4ohn e3uia is ordered to pay the victim 5ary 8hel 8uanco !@,AAA as civil indemnity, !@,AAA as moral damages, and!2@,AAA as e%emplary damages.

Three 4ustices of the Court maintain their position that $epublic ct o. 7@9 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes thedeath penalty nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the maority that the law is constitutional, and that the death penaltycan be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

LI5HT FELONIES PUNISHA4LE ONLY WHEN CONSUMATEDA&ti%!e 3,RPC"en li%"t felonies are punis"ale. M *ight felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with thee%ception of those committed against person or property.chan robles virtual law libraryA&ti%!e "?#, RPCrt. 9. 6ra#e felonies, less %ra#e felonies an& li%"t felonies. M 8rave felonies are those to which the law attaches thecapital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with rt. 2@ of this Code.*ess grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their ma%imum period are correctional, in

accordance with the above<mentioned rt..*ight felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not e%ceeding 2AApesos or both is provided.

A.COMMON LIA4LITY FOR CONSPIRATORSARTICLE 2, RPCConspirac' an& proposal to commit felon'. M Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases inwhich the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

IMPLIED CONSPIRACY conspiracy e%ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to

commit it. 0t is fundamental for conspiracy to e%ist that there must be unity of purpose and unity in the e%ecution of theunlawful obective.

:irect proof is not essential to establish conspiracy. "ince by its nature, conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy it can rarelybe proved by direct evidence. Conse3uently, the presence of the concurrence of minds which is involved in conspiracy,may be inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, ta'en together apparently indicate that they are merely partsof some complete whole. 0f it is prove that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of thesame unlawful obect, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected andcooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferredthough no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. T"at woul& e terme& an implie& conspirac'.

PEOPLE v LIAD, ?66 SCRA 11

WHAT HAPPENED:-n or about the 2Eth day of 6ebruary, 1997, in Hue&on City, accused<appellants >dgar *iad and 4unalderama, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously assault, attac' and employ personal violence upon the person of *ydiaCuenca. The accused flagged down the victims vehicle but when the latter refused to open her car, accused armed withhandguns fired two successive shots at the windshield, hitting the said victim, causing her to sustain serious and mortalwounds which was the immediate cause of her untimely death immediately thereafter, accused boarded the said vehicleand upon reaching 0lang<0lang "t., rgy. atasan #ills, this City, abandoned the said car after which they too', robbed andcarried away cash money in the amount of !1@,A9A.AA and valuable items all valued in the amount of !1A,AAA.AAbelonging to victim in the total amount of !1E@,A9A.AA.C&i'e %o''itted: $obbery with homicide.Contention o; t)e A%%used:



The court erred in ruling that both accused<appellants were co<conspirators of deceased aeng+ and 6eli% 6ortale&a.Contention o; t)e Stte:The Court finds the e%istence of a conspiracy between accused<appellants and the deceased *iberato Huintoa, also 'nownas aeng.+ 0n conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. 0t may be deducedfrom the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves whensuch point to a oint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Conspiracy may be inferred from theconduct of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime.The following circumstances immediately before, during and after the robbery indubitably show that the perpetrators were

one in their purpose to rob *ydia Cuenca? (1) Three (D) men bloc'ed the Tamaraw 6[ and banged on the door (2) -ne ofthe men shot the door of the vehicle, hitting *ydia Cuenca (D) nother also fired his gun but hit 5anuel Cuencas carinstead (B) -ne man smashed the 6[s window to gain entry to the 6[ (@) The three men then rode the vehicle to 0lang<0lang "treet and (7) Thereafter, all of them alighted the 6[ and fled in the same direction to the Trans</orld Compound.He!d:ccused<appellants >dgardo *iad and 4un alderama are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of $obbery with#omicide and are sentenced to each suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. ccused<appellants are ordered to pay insoli&um the heirs of the deceased *ydia Cuenca the amount of !@A,AAA.AA as indemnity for her death, !@A,AAA.AA as moraldamages and !DA@,[email protected] as funeral and burial e%penses.

PEOPLE v 5ON=ALES FLORES, ?68 SCRA 087

WHAT HAPPENED:-n ugust 7, 199B, at around 1?AA p.m., complainant 6eli%berto *eongson, 4r. chanced upon hisneighbours, Cloyd 5algapo, 4oo umatay, and accused<appellant, who were tal'ing in front of his house at 7E<C >ast$iverside, gy. !alto', "an 6rancisco del 5onte, Hue&on City. Complainant was as'ed by accused<appellant if he wasinterested to wor' as a seaman in 5iami, 6lorida, =nited "tates of merica. #e replied that he was interested to wor'abroad but he had doubts regarding his 3ualification for the ob. ccused<appellant assured him that this is not a problembecause she could fi% his application. ll he had to do was pay !B@,AAA.AA as processing fee. The amount was paid inthree (D) instalments, however, complainant was never given the opportunity to wor' as a seaman.C&i'e %o''itted: 0llegal recruitment and estafaContention o; t)e A%%used:The lower court erred in holding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of evidence adduced by theprosecution ta'en in the light of the un<rebutted evidence of the accused on very materials points.

ccused<appellant claims that she herself was a victim of illegal recruitment and that she simply told complainants about obopportunities abroad.Contention o; t)e Stte:

• ccused<appellant had no license or authority to engage in any recruitment activities.• rt. 1D (b) of the *abor Code defines recruitment and placement+ as referring to any act of canvassing, enlisting,

contracting, transporting, utili&ing, hiring or procuring wor'ers, and includes referrals, contract services, promisingor advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not

HELD: The accused if found guilty for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa in three (D) counts having been provedbeyond reasonable doubt

PEOPLE v DE LEON, ?67 SCRA 11

WHAT HAPPENED:-n or about the 1Dth day of 4une 1997 in the afternoon, in barangay *omboy, 5unicipality of inmaley,province of !angasinan, illy, *eopoldo and :ominador :e *eon conspired, confederate and mutually helping one another,armed with a bladed instrument, with treachery and used of superior strength and intent to 'ill, did then and there wilfully,unlawfully and feloniously attac', assault and stab 0gnacio 4imene&. ictim suffered multiple stab wound chest and hac'edwound head with fracture which inuries directly caused his death.C&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e A%%used:ccused<appellants claimed that the court erred in giving credence to the witnesses and further claiming that they weresomewhere else when the crime committed.Contention o; t)e Stte:



0n the case at bar, the evidence on record shows that during the stabbing, accused *eopoldo de *eon held the victim whilehis brothers illy and :ominador stabbed him several times in the different parts of his body. The combined strength othe three accused is more superior than the strength of the deceased who was much older than the accused. The stabbingis 3ualified by the circumstance of abuse of superior strength, hence the 'illing is murder.HELD:ppellants *eopoldo de *eon and :ominador de *eon were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder andsentencing them to suffer the penalty of (eclusion erpetua with modification that appellants are ordered to pay, ointly andseverally, only the amounts of !@A,AAA.AA as civil indemnity ex &elicto and !@A,AAA.AA as moral damages, to the heirs ofthe victim, 0gnacio 4imene&. The award of !1@,AAA.AA, as actual damages, is deleted for lac' of proof thereof.

PEOPLE v ELI*ORDE, ?78 SCRA 122

FACTS:>liorde and !un&alan were charge for the death of >ric #ierro. n altercation began when #ierro told 5enessesnot to touch him cause his clothes will get dirty. fist fight ensued and #ierro hid in the house of his friend. Thirty minutesafter the incident, #ierro went outside of the house where he hid together with isbal and the latters wife to go home. sthey wal'ed home, isbal noticed the accused >liorde, !un&alan and 5enesses waiting for them. s #ierro and companydrew near the three, !un&alan 'ic'ed #ierro at the bac', isbal tried to retaliate by punching !un&alan on teh face but washeld bac' by his wife. #ierro ran away and pursued by >liorde. >liorde stabbed the #ierro at the bac' and when #ierrofell down, >liorde place himself on top of the victim who was then raising his arms defensively and pleading maawa na

'ayo, huwag nyo a'ong patayin+ wala a'ong 'asalanan sa inyo+. :espite the pleading, >liorde stabbed him with a 'nifeon the chest of #ierro and fled.C&i'e %o''itted:5urderIssue:/hether or not !un&alan is liable as conspiratorHELD:!un&alan is not liable as conspirator, and he was ac3uitted, while >liorde wa found 3uilty. The court cannot assertwith moral certainty that !un&alan is guilty of murder to convict him as principal by direct participation in the instant case, itis necessary that conspiracy between him and his co<accused >liorde be proved. That is precisely wanting in the presentcase. Conspiracy must be proven as the crime itself through clear and convincing evidence, not merely by conecture. Tohold the accused guilty as a co<principal by reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed on overt act inpursuance or furtherance of the complicity, hence, conspiracy e%ist in a situation where at the time the malefactors werecommitting the crime, there action impliedly showed unity or purpose among them, a concrete effort to bring about the death

of the victim.

PEOPLE v SANCHE=, ?72 SCRA 80

FACTS:4un otarte and $eynold Gambot entered the victims office and announce a hold<up. fter emptying the victimsdrawer, otarter and Gambot too' and shoved him into the bac'seat of the car where other accused<appellant were waiting.The victim was detained in 1A days. The accused demanded ransom from the victims wife in e%change of her husbandsfreedom.C&i'e %o''itted:5urderIssue:/hether conspiracy e%istsHELD:To prove conspiracy, the following re3uisites must concur?

Two or more persons came to any agreement.greement concerned the commission of the crime.>%ecution of felony was decided upon.0n the case at bar, concurrence of the abovementioned conspiracy re3uisites madethe accused liable for such.

PEOPLE v DE 9ERA, ?1 SCRA 807

FACTS:-n 4une E, 1992, at around 12?AA 5, Lenneth 6lorendo, together with >dwin :e era, $oderic' 8arcia, and >lmerCastro, drove to 6ilinvest, Hue&on City to dropped by the house of 6rederic' Capulong. Lenneth and >lmer went to see6rederic' while $oderic' was left in the car. *ater, Lenneth had a heated conversation with 6rederic' and later, Lennethshot 6rederic' with a .D2 caliber.Issue:/hether or not there was a conspiracy in the commission of the crime.



HELD:o, the prosecution failed to established conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. 5ere presence does not amount toconspiracy. Criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere surmise or conectures. Cacao testified that he sawappellant :e era in the car, where an altercation latter occurred. Thereafter, he saw 6lorendo drag out of the vehicle anapparently disabled Capulong and shoot the victim in the head moments later. Cacaos testimony contains nothing.

PEOPLE 9 ASUELA, ?38 SCRA 61

FACTS:-n "eptember , 199, the accused ; appellant, 5arcos suela, 4=anito suela, lberto suela, $oger suela,

Teofilo Capacillo, 4un 4un suela and 5iguel suela ganged up on /ilfredo illanueva, their neighbour at alleyvievo"ubdivision, 8ulod 5alaya, "an 5ateo, $i&al. =sing 'itchen 'nife, lead pipe and before stabbing the victim, he was tear<gassed rendering him helpless while his family member helplessly watched their father 'illed with fatal blow. fter all theaccused had finished their intention of 'illing the victim, the son, nthony illanueva tried to help his father who was alreadyfatally stabbed with a 'itchen 'nife and clubbed with a lead pipe. "omeone, however, hit him at the bac' when he heardsomeone from among the accused telling hayan pa isa+. #e was also stabbed and hit with a lead pipe and fell down onlyto manage and ran away when his brother, 5ar' illanueva, tried to pacify them. "ome of the accused chased him but hewas already far away.Contention o; t)e A%%used:ppellants content that the trial court erred in according full faith and credence to thetestimonies of prosecution witness, nthony illanueva, #ayen and 5agdalena ; all surnamed illanueva. -ther appellantsdenied their participation. "ome used self<defense and aggression on the part of the victim.

HELD:The "upreme Court was not persuaded and convinced on their claims of self<defense as if self<serving and aremisplaced because there is unlawful aggression. /herefore, appeal is partly granted.Reuisites o; un!(;u! <<&ession:ctual assaultThreatened F impending assaultssault must have danger towards his lime or life

PEOPLE v HAMTON, ?6 SCRA 168

• rthur !angilian, rnolf *ope& and $eynalso Gambot were found guilty of the crime of 'idnapping for ransom and illegalpossession of firearms and imposing upon each of them the supreme penalty of death and a prison term of 7 yrs and 1

day to E yrs. -n the other hand, ntonio #amton was found guilty of robbery and sentenced to an indeterminate penaltyof from B yrs of prision correccional to E years of prision ma'or .Issue: /- appellants are guilty of illegal possession of firearms• -. ppellants were charged with and convicted of the crime of 'idnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention (rt.

27, $!C). The court agreed with the TC that they were guilty of 'idnapping for ransom.• #owever, they cannot be held liable for illegal possession of firearms since there was another crimeM'idnapping for

ransomMwhich they were committing at the same time.• 0nterpreting "ec. 1, !.:. 1E77, as amended by $.. o. E29B, the "C has consistenly ruled that if an unlicensed firearm

is used in the commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms.• !enal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. "ince the plain meaning of $ E29Bs simple language is most

favorable to herein appellant, no other interpretation is ustified. ccordingly, appellant cannot be convicted of 2 separate

offenses of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide.• 5oreover, since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms

cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance. The law is clear? the accused can be convicted of simple illegapossession of firearms, provided that no other crime was committed by the person arrested.+ The law does notdistinguish or refer only to homicide and murder.

• #ence, the Court set aside udgment convicting them of illegal possession of firearms.

PEOPLE v 4ALDO5O, ?8 SCRA ?1

FACTS:8on&alo aldogo alias aguio and >dgar emas alias unso were serving sentence in the !enal Colony of!alawan. They were also serving the Camacho 6amily who resides within teh !enal Colony. -n 6ebruary 22, 1997



aguio and unso 'illed 4orge, a fourteen year old boy and abducted 4ulie who was 12 years old then. They brought 4ulieup to the mountain. :uring their tre', aguio and unso were able to retrieve their clothing and belongings from a trun'which was located under a tamarind tree. -n 6ebruary 2E, 1997, aguio left 4ulie in the mountains to fend for herself. 4uliewent to the lowlands and there she as'ed for help.C&i'e %o''itted:5urder and 'idnappingContention o; t)e A%%used:aldogo claims that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by ermas withdeath unless he did what ermas ordered him to do. #e claims that he was even protective of 4ulie. #e insists that 4uliewas not a credible witness and her testimony is not reliable because she was merely coached into implicating him for the

death of 4orge and her 'idnapping and detention by ermas.HELD:The accused were serving sentence in the !enal Colony of !alawan when they committed the murder and'idnapping. ggravating circumstances of evident

PEOPLE v A4UT, 071 SCRA 02

FACTS: 5aricar and >dgar and $osie and l too' a stroll at the !ar'. The 2 couples sat on the concrete benches facingeach other. fter a few minutes, /inchester, 8regmar and $itchie arrived. $osie had been the girlfriend of /inchesterbefore she became the girlfriend of l./inchester told 5aricar that he wanted to get ac3uainted with >dgar. >dgarintroduced himself to /inchester. /inchester shoo' hands with >dgar. /inchester yan'ed his hand and immediately bo%ed>dgar. $itchie struc' the 2 bottles on the table and hit >dgar with the bro'en bottles. The D continued their assault on the

victim and stabbed him. >dgar pleaded to his attac'ers to stop assaulting him telling them that he had sustained so manystab wounds already. >dgar stood up and staggered only to fall down near one of the cemented benches in the par' about1A meters from the table.8regmar and /inchester denied assaulting and stabbing >dgar. They claimed that it was $itchie alone who stabbed and'illed the victim.HELD: conspiracy e%ist when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony anddecide to commit it. To establish conspiracy, direct evidence is not re3uired. 0t is not even essential that there be proof of theagreement to commit the felony. !roof of concerted action of the accused before, during and after the crime whichdemonstrates their unity of design and obective is sufficient. This Court had consistently ruled that conspiracy may beinferred when by their acts, two or more persons proceed towards the accomplishment of the same felonious obective, witheach doing his act, so that their acts though seemingly independent were in fact connected, showing a closeness of former

association and concurrence of sentiment. To hold one as a co<principal by reason of conspiracy it must be shown that heperformed an overt act in pursuance of or furtherance of the conspiracy, although the acts performed might have beendistinct and separate. This overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it mayconsist of moral assistance to his co<conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime, or by e%ertinga moral ascendance over the other co<conspirators by moving them to e%ecute or implement the criminal plan. 0n this case,the evidence on record indubitably shows that after introducing himself to the victim, appellant /inchester pulled the handof the victim and bo%ed him. $itchie bro'e two bottles of beer and hit the victim with the bro'en bottles. The appellants and$itchie ganged up and assaulted the victim. ot content, they stabbed the victim repeatedly. 5aricar narrated how theappellants and $itchie by their collective acts 'illed the victim.

PEOPLE v PA5ALASAN, 070 SCRA 36

W)t )$$ened:-n "eptember B, 199B, at 11?AA p.m., the spouses and their children were in the masters bedroom watching television.The couples housemaid, 4ulita "arno, was in the 'itchen. "he heard 'noc's on the 'itchen door. Thin'ing that it was6erdinand, she opened the door. 6our men, about @@+ to @7+ tall, each armed with handguns, two of whom were holdinghand grenades, barged into the 'itchen. The four intruders wore bonnets over their faces. /ith them was 6erdinandwhose hands were tied behind his bac'. -n orders of the intruders, she 'noc'ed on the bedroom door. /hen 8eorgesdaughter opened the door, three of the mas'ed men barged into the room, while the fourth mas'ed man remained in thesala of the house. The three mas'ed men shouted to 8eorge and :esiree? alan% man%'a'ari sa in'o asta ii%a' nin'oan% ailan%an namin.+ They ransac'ed the house, getting cash and valuables. The mas'ed men gave :esiree ahandwritten note, and dragged 8eorge and Christopher eal *im out of the bedroom through the sala to the garage, where



8eorges issan car was par'ed for the night. 8eorge saw 6erdinand in the sala with his hands tied behind his bac'. -neof the mas'ed men ordered 8eorge to hand over the 'ey to his vehicle, to board the car and occupy the bac' seat alongwith Christopher. 6ather and son did as they were told. Two of the mas'ed men positioned themselves on either side of8eorge and Christopher. The third man drove the car, while the fourth sat on the passengers seat beside the driver.C&i'e %o''itted: LidnappingContention o; t)e %%used:The trial court erred in convicting the accused<appellant for the crime of 'idnappingContention o; t)e Stte:

The collective, concerted and synchroni&ed acts of the appellant and his cohorts before, during and after the 'idnappingconstitute indubitable proof that the appellant and his three companions conspired with each other to attain a commonobective? to 'idnap 8eorge and Christopher and detain them illegally. The appellant was a principal by direct participationin the 'idnapping of the two victims.He!d:The decision of the $TC of 8eneral "antos City, is affirmed with modifications. 5ichael !agalasan alias 5i'e+ is foundguilty of 'idnapping under rticle 27, paragraph B of the $evised !enal Code and sentenced to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua. ppellant 5ichael !agalasan alias 5i'e+ is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slightillegal detention under rticle 27E of the $evised !enal Code and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from nineyears and four months of prision ma'or in its medium period as minimum to si%teen years and five months of reclusiontemporal in its medium period as ma%imum. The said appellant is ordered to pay to "pouses 8eorge and :esiree *im the

total amount of !1@A,AAA as moral damages and !@A,AAA as e%emplary damages in the two cases.

PEOPLE v TILOS, ?0 SCRA

WHAT HAPPENED:-n or about ?AA in the evening of pril 1, 199B, at !oblacion, yungon, egros -riental, 8eralynarciso, the 12<year old daughter of the victim, was on her way to a neighbours house to watch a betama% movie when shecame upon accused<appellant inflicting fist blows on her father. 6rom a distance of about 1@ meters, she saw accused<appellant holding the victim by the nape with his right hand, and bo%ing him on the abdomen with his left hand. 8eralyncalled to her mother, 6lorida arciso, for help and the latter arrived and pulled the victim away from accused<appellant./hile 6lorida was hugging the victim, accused 5ateo 5ahinay came from behind them and struc' the victim three times? onthe left eye, the right eye, and the nape. The victim fell to the ground. 6lorida sought the help of two bystanders, 5ercy

"i3uiod and !aniong gustino, in bringing the victim home. Teotimo arciso died two days later.C&i'e %o''itted:5urder aggravated by disrespect of age.Contention o; t)e %%used:ccused<appellant claimed that it was 5ateo 5ahinay, his co<accused as the perpetrators of the blows on the head that'illed the victim that he should be charge with maltreatment only.Contention o; t)e Stte:The attendance of abuse of superior strength and disregard of respect due to age merit the imposition of arresto menor , thepunishment for slight physical inuries under rticle 277, paragraph 1 of the $evised !enal Code, to its ma%imum duration ofthirty (DA) daysHELD:

4udgment appealed from is reversed, accused<appellant is found guilty of slight physical inuries and sentenced to suffer thepenalty of thirty (DA) days of arresto menor . The award of 6ifty Thousand !esos (!@A,AAA.AA) as civil indemnity to the heirsof deceased victim Teotimo arciso is withdrawn.

PEOPLE v HILARIO, ?60 SCRA ?60

FACTS:6or being at the wrong place at the wrong time, Carlos $eyes, the victim in this case, lost his life. -ne 3uietevening, while rela%ing with his friend in front of a store, he was subected to a treacherous assault by two brothers and theircumpadre. 0t turned out the three mista'enly bent their terror on him < < < the one they really planned to 'ill was his friend.The two brothers charged with committing this dastardly act were $odolfo #ilario y 5artine& and $odrigo #ilario y 5artine&.Their cumpadre, however, remains unidentified.



C&i'e %o''itted: Crime of murderContention o; t)e %%used:Testimony of the witness is fabricated.Contention o; t)e Stte:ll three accused were present at the scene of the commission of the crime accused $odrigo #ilario was the one whofurnished the weapons, a bolo and a foot<long ice pic' and acted as a loo'<out their cumpadre suddenly stabbed Carlos$eyes with the ice pic', simultaneously saying, Z0to baN, revealing a previous agreement to stab the victim. $odolfo #ilariostanding one<arm length from the victim, acted as a bac'<up+ man, and uttered, Z/alang ma'i'ialam\ fter the stabbing, all

of them ran away together.+Thus, all their acts tend to manifest a common purpose and devise. The familiar rule in conspiracy is that when two or morepersons agree or conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible, when the conspiracy is proven, for all the acts of theothers, done in furtherance of the conspiracy, hence all the three accused are liable as principals.

HELD:ccused<appellant is guilty of murder 3ualified by treachery. #e is further sentenced to pay ointly and severally withhis co<accused the amount of !@A,AAA.AA as indemnity for the death of the victim Carlos $eyes, and !DA,AAA.AA for actualfuneral e%penses, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

PEOPLE v 4ION5, ?3 SCRA ?0

FACTS:-n three occasions, particularly on 6ebruary 12, 199E, 4uly 199E and again on ugust 12, 199E, accused 8enaroiong, raped her daughter who was then 1D years old, :ina iong, with the use of threat and intimidation ('nife).C&i'e %o''itted: Crime of rape.Contention o; t)e %%used:The complaint was fabricated and filed by his daughter since the his father<in<law of iong has a grudge against him (iong)because he refused to live with his in<laws. #is father<in<law wanted to ta'e custody of his daughter.Contention o; t)e Stte:/hen a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary toconstitute the commission of the crime. o young woman would rec'lessly accuse her own father of so grave a crime,unless she has been truly aggrieved. /hen her testimony is straightforward and candid, unsha'en by rigid cross<e%amination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, it must be given full faith and credit. 0n

a rape case, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, natural, convincingand consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.

HELD:8enaro iong was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape and is sentenced to reclusionperpetua, nodeath.

LIA4ILITYPEOPLE v CA4ALLERO, 077 SCRA 00

FACTS: 0n the afternoon of ugust D, 199B, rmando, $obito and 5arciano, 4r., all surnamed Caballero, were having adrin'ing spree in the house of their brother $icardo in the 5ondragon Compound. t about ?AA p.m. of said date, >ugeneTayactac and rnold arcuma arrived in the sari<sari store of /ilma roce which was across the 5ondragon Compound.

>ugene had dinner in the store while rnold proceeded to the house of "usana roce, >ugenes girlfriend, for a chat.5omentarily, rmando arrived in the store and as'ed >ugene in an angry tone? 8ene mopalit aN+ (8ene, will you buyN).>ugene replied? /hat is this all aboutN /e dont have any 3uarrel between us.+ rmando left the store but stood by thegate of the barbed<wired fence of the 5ondragon Compound. #is brothers $icardo, $obito and 5arciano, 4r. oined him.$icardo and $obito were armed with 'nives. /hen /ilma told >ugene that she was closing the store already, he stood upand left the store on his way to "usanas house. t that time, 5yrna awin, who was standing by the window of their housesaw her brother >ugene going out of the store and proceeding to the house of "usana. "he called out to him and advisedhim to go home.s >ugene wal'ed by the gate of the 5ondragon Compound, rmando suddenly grabbed >ugene towards the compound.>ugene resisted. "pontaneously, $icardo, 5arciano, 4r. and $obito oined rmando and assaulted >ugene. rmando too'



the wooden pole supporting the clothesline and hit >ugene with it. The latter tried to parry the blows of the Caballerobrothers, to no avail. 0n the process, >ugene was stabbed three times. .C&i'e %o''itted:5urder with aggravated by abuse of superior strength.Contention o; t)e %%used:They claim that at the time of the incident they were in the "an Carlos #ospital for the treatment of the inuries of appellant5arciano, 4r.Contention o; t)e Stte:

ccused<appellants conspired to 'ill >ugene and assault rnold.HELD:ccused<appellants are found guilty beyond reasonable doubts.

PEOPLE v 5I9ERA, ?0 SCRA 61?

FACTS:-n the 2nd day of 5ay, 199D, in Hue&on City, said accused, Cesar 8ivera, together with >pefanio 8eralde andrturo 8eralde, stabbed with a 'nife a certain >usebio rrivas, hitting him on the different parts of his body, and stri'ing himwith a piece of stone on the head, thereby inflicting upon him serious wounds which causes his death.C&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e A%%used:

ccused<appellant claimed that at the time of the incident, he was having a drin' in his cousinIs house, some DA metersaway from the victimIs house. -n the other hand, 5a%imo 8ivera and rturo 8ayon were in the victimIs house also havingdrin's. ccused<appellant said he was fetched by his cousin, $ecto 8ardon, because 5a%imo and the victim >usebio8ardon were having an altercation. #e went to pacify the protagonists and then led the victim to his house. /ithout his'nowledge, however, >usebio went bac' and again engaged 5a%imo in a fist fight, as a result of which the victim >usebiowas 'noc'ed down. ccused<appellant said he was going to help the victim get up, but he saw the victimIs son, $onilo8ardon, coming with a bolo. #e, therefore, ran away and left the victim behind.Contention o; t)e Stte:The deceased was unarmed when he was stabbed by on 5a%imo 8ivera and bo%ed and 'ic'ed by accused Cesar 8iveraand two other accused.ccused 8ivera and >pifanio 8ayon taunted and provo'ed the deceased by throwing stones at him and then lured him to

run after them towards the bridge where the other accused were lying in wait ready to pounce on the deceased without ris'to themselves as the deceased was then defenseless.J

HELD:ccused<appellant Cesar 8arote, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of and sentencing him to suffer thepenalty of reclusion perpetua andin addition to pay the amount of !@A,AAA.AA as indemnity, accused<appellant is herebyordered to pay to the heirs of >usebio 8ardon amount of !@A,AAA.AA as moral damages.

PEOPLE v REYES, ? SCRA 62

FACTS:!-1 >duardo 5olato was on his way home on board a passenger eepney. /hen he alighted at the eep, he sawthe victim being held up by 2 persons. The one in font visibly too' his wristwatch while the other one stabbed him at the

bac'. #e fired one warning shot which caused the three to run. #e chased them but when he saw the victim to the nearesthospital. !-1 5olato continued chasing the suspects but they are already gone. The incident happened so swiftly but !-15olato had a good loo' at the face of the one who stabbed the victim as he was about E ; 1A meters away from them.C&i'e %o''itted:$obbery with homicideContention o; t)e A%%used:ccused ; appellant denies the charge against him and insist that he was merely mista'en foraccused rnel Cergantes who had the same protruding lips as he and he had share a commonalities as buboy nguso+.Issue:/as the accused have direct participation in the commission of the crimeNHELD:o. -nly conspiracy was clearly manifested due to the concerted efforts of the accused<appellant and his cohortsThey were seen together by !-1 5olato at the unholy hour at 2?@A 5 forcibly ta'ing the wristwatch of the victim andthereafter stabbing him at the bac'. Their simultaneous acts indicate a oint purpose, concerted action and concurrence ofsentiments. /here the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the e%istence of a common design



towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose. Conspiracy is evident and all the perpetrators be liable asprincipals. 0n the case at bar, 2nd re3uisite of principals by direct participation is not present.

PEOPLE v ALMA=AN, ?0 SCRA 21

FACTS:*oreto polinar was mercilessly shot twice by accused that cause his untimely demised.C&i'e %o''itted:5urder 3ualified by treachery

Contention o; t)e A%%used::efense of alibiContention o; t)e Stte:/e agree with the trial court and the C that under rticle 2BE of the $evised !enal Code, the appellant is guilty of murder3ualified by treachery. The crime was committed before the effectivity of $epublic ct o. 7@9 hence, the crime waspunishable by reclusion temporal in its ma%imum period to death under rticle 2BE of the $evised !enal Code.HELD:ppeal is dismissed. The :ecision of the Court of ppeals is affirmed with modification.

PEOPLE v PATANO, ? SCRA 7

FACTS:icente =y was 'idnapped F detained in e%change for a !1A, AAA, AAA ransom but was later reduced to ! @, AAA,

AAA.C&i'e %o''itted:Lidnapping for ransonContention o; t)e A%%used:There was no positive identification of the accused in the commission of the crime since he was at the crime scene ust for aswim with friends.Contention o; t)e Stte:Though the 'idnapping for ransom has been proven, appellants participation therein had not been ade3uately provenbeyond reasonable doubt.HELD: :ecision of the *ower Court is reversed and set aside.

PEOPLE v 5ON=ALES, ?63 SCRA 087

FACTS:ecause of not observing ethics in driving, a woman was shot dead and 2 boys are wounded due to gun shot. Thishappened in the afternoon of -ctober D1, 199E at about 2?DA p.m.

C&i'e %o''itted: 5urder and double frustrated murder

Contention o; t)e A%%used:#e was provo'ed by the husband of the deceased and there was lac' of intention to commitso grave a wrong.

HELD:The decision of the trial court was modified. The accused<appellant is found of guilty of homicide for the death of

6eliber ndreas. 6or the physical inuries committed against Lenneth ndres and Levin alde&, the appellant is sentence to2A days of arresto menor.

PEOPLE v NATI9IDAD, 011 SCRA 623

FACTS::uring a drin'ing spree attended by the accused, 2 gunshots were heard after which, the victim shouted, may tamaa'o+.C&i'e %o''itted: 5urderIssue:/- there was conspiracy in the commission of the crime.Contention o; t)e Stte:The evidence of the prosecution on the matter of conspiracy falls short of the re3uirement



conspiracy e%ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide tocommit it.HELD::ecision of the $TC of "an !ablo City is reversed and set aside. ppellants 6elipe atividad and Carmelitoatividad are ac3uitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, and ordered released from prison.

E/TENT OF LIA4ILITYPEOPLE v ESCOTE, 077 SCRA 87?

FACTS: -n "eptember 2E, 1997, at past midnight, $odolfo Cacaton, the driver of 6ive "tar passenger bus drove the busfrom its terminal to its destination. t Camachile, alintawa', si% passengers boarded the bus including accused ictorcuyan and 4uan 8on&ales >scote 4r. oarded also in the bus was "!-1 4ose C. 5ani 4r. 4uan and ictor suddenly stopup, whipped out their guns and announce hold up. 4uan and ictor fired their guns upward to awa'en and scare theirpassengers then they divested them of their money and valuables. Then they went to the place of 5ario 4r and demandedto show them his 0:. The accused too' his 0: and wallet as well as his service gun, and told him, pasensya 'a na parepapatayin 'a namin, baril mo ang papatay sa iyo+. The police pleaded for mercy, however, icto and 4uan ignored the pleaof the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of his body.

C&i'e %o''itted:$obbery with homicideHELD:There is treachery in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following elements are present?t the time of the attac', the victim was not in a position to defend himself.The accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means F methods or forms of attach employed by him./hen the victim was shot, he was defenceless, he was shot at a close range, thus, insuring his death. The victim was onhis way to reoin his leaving his family in grief for his untimely demise. The 'illing is a grim e%ample of the utter inhumanityto his fellowmen.

PEOPLE v 4INARAO, 010, SCRA 133

FACTS: -n the 17th day of ovember, 1991 at about 7?DA ocloc' in the evening, accused ; appellants dragged a certain

>mma Clapis to an uninhabited house where they too' turns in raping her.CRIME COMMITTED:$apeCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED::efense of alibiCONTENTION OF THE STATE:The essence of rape is carnal 'nowledge of a woman against her will. ccused < appellants failed to show that the victimconsented to have se%ual intercourse with them. -n the contrary, the evidence showed that the carnal acts were against herwill.HELD:The decision of the $TC is modified.(a) appellants are individually sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each of the three counts of rape(b) appellants are each hereby ordered to pay the complainant ointly and solidarily the amount of !@A,AAA for each count orape or a total of !1@A,AAA as civil indemnity and !@A,AAA for each count of rape or a total of !1@A,AAA as moral damages.

PEOPLE v 9ICENTE ?3 SCRA 386

FACTS:The remar' are, naaarami na 'ata a'o, a".J made by an innocent person would cost him his life.CRIME COMMITTED:5urderCONTENTION OF THE STATE:There is conspiracy among the accused ; appellants in the commission of the crime.HELD:$ey allera ersabal is found guilty of murder while carmelito icente and Carlos ersabal are guilty of slightphysical inuries.

PEOPLE v PA4ILLARE, 012 SCRA 170



FACTS:- or about the 1Ath day of 5arch, 1997 in Hue&on City, !hilippines, the accused, 'idnap one 8=$50* "08#along 0 $oad, corner >ast venue, this city, and thereafter brought him to a warehouse somewhere in Hue&on City andfinally to 4-**0>> 6ood !la&a located along :el 5onte cor. $oosevelt venue, "6:5, this city, for the purpose ofe%torting money in the amount of !2A,AAA.AA,CRIME COMMITTED:LidnappingISSUE:/- there was conspiracy between appellant and his co<accused in the commission of the offense.HELD:The decision of the $TC Hue&on City sentencing appellants Conrado Caada and >duardo !abillare to death for'idnapping for ransom is affirmed with modification.

Three (D) 4ustices of the Court maintain their position that $.. 7@9 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the deathpenalty nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the maority that the law is constitutional and the death penalty can belawfully imposed in the case at bar.

PEOPLE 9 4ISDA, 078 SCRA 060

FACTS:-n or about the Drd of "eptember 199E, in the City of 5ari'ina, the accused<appellants 'nowingly 'idnap, detainand deprive ngela 5ichelle "oriano, for the purpose of e%torting ransom from her family.CRIME COMMITTED: LidnappingCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:ngela voluntarily went with them and there was no proof of conspiracy among theaccused.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:The aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle under rticle 1B, paragraph 2A ofthe $evised !enal Code was attendant in the commission of the crime.HELD: The :ecision of the $TC of 5ari'ina City, is affirmed with modification. ccused < apellants, lma isda and8enerosa 4enny $ose+ asilan, are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 'idnapping for ransom under paragraph Band the last paragraph of rticle 27, of the $evised !enal Code.Three 4ustices of the Court maintain their position that $ep. ct o. 759 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes thedeath penalty nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the maority that the law is constitutional, and that the death penaltycan be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

4.LIA4ILITY FOR MULTIPLE, COMPLE/ AND CONTINUIN5 CRIMES

A&ti%!e , RPC6ra#e felonies, less %ra#e felonies an& li%"t felonies. M 8rave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capitalpunishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with rt. 2@ of this Code.*ess grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their ma%imum period are correctional, inaccordance with the above<mentioned rticle.*ight felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not e%ceeding 2AApesos or both is provided.

A&ti%!e 6, RPCThe penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in the following?

"cale !$0C0!* !>*T0>"

Capital punishment? :eath.

fflictive penalties? $eclusion perpetua,$eclusion temporal,!erpetual or temporary absolute,dis3ualification,!erpetual or temporary special dis3ualification,!rision mayor.



Correctional penalties? !rision correccional, rresto mayor, "uspension,

:estierro.

*ight penalties? rresto menor,!ublic censure

!enalties Common to the three precedingclasses ? 6ine and -: to 'eep peace

CC>""-$G !>*T0>"!erpetual or temporary absolute dis3ualification,!erpetual or temporary special dis3ualification,"uspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, theprofession or calling.Civil interdiction,

0ndemnification,6orfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,!ayment of costs.

A&ti%!e 02, RPCenalt' for complex crimes. M /hen a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offenseis a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to beapplied in its ma%imum period.

PEOPLE v SANCHE=, ?1?, SCRA 60

FACTS:"tate witness ivencio, malabanan, team leader of the group of policemen went to ishop Compound in Calauan*aguna, as part of security force of 5ayor ntonio "anches. fter a while, accused :ing $epadillas arrive and as'ed for5ayor "anche&. !eradillas informed 5ayor "anche& that there would be a birthday party that night at :r. irvilio elecinashouse in *anot, Calauan, *aguna near the abode of !eradillas. !eradillas assured the 5ayor that elson !enalosa will bepresent. !enalosa is a political leader of :r. elecina who is the political opponent of 5ayor "anche& for the mayoralty seatof Calauan, *aguna. 5ayor "anche& then replied ahala na 'ayo mga ana', ayusin na ang ninyo ang trabaho+, then leftthe premises.!eradillas immediately called Corcolon and veion and relayed the message ; ayos na ang pag<uusap athumanap na lang ng sasa'yan+. ll the accused including malabanana, understood is as an order to 'ill elson !enalosa.t around in the evening, 5alabanan and the three accused boarded the car and went to 5arpori !oulty farm in arngay*anoot near :r. elecinas house. !eradillas informed the occupants of the car that elson !enalosa eep was leaving theelecina compound. ccused verian immediately drove the car to the front of !eradillas house and the latter hooped in

the cars bac' seats the car overtoo' the eep, !eradillas and Corcolon fired at !enalosas eep using 5<17 and babyarmalites, e%ecuted in authomatic firing mode. There were D burst of gunfire, based on the s'etch prepared by 5alabanan,illustrating the relative position of the car and elsons eep. $ic'son !enalosa, son of elson !enalosa, fell from the eep,however, the eep continued running in a &ig &ag position until it overturned in front of 0rais farm. fter the shooting, theaccused proceeded to the house of 5ayor "anche& in ai, *aguna and reported to him that !enalosa was already dead.Together with his superior, "!-B *anorio and photographer $omeo lcantara, poliman :aniel >scares went to the crimescene, saw the body of elson !enalosa slumped at the driver seat of the owner type eep.C&i'e %o''itted:Comple% crime of double murderContention o; t)e Stte?5alabanan positively identified the accused as perpetrators. #e testified in categoricalstraightforward and spontaneous and fran' manner. The apparent inconsistencies do not affect witness 5alabananscredibility. 4urisprudence reaches that delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily



impair the credibility of the witness, especially where there is a sufficient e%planation for it. 0t was natural for malabanan to'eep silent during he time because he was a co<conspirator and "anche&, being a mayor, is a powerful man. libi anddenial are worthless in the face of positive testimony of the witness showing the involvement of each accused.Contention o; t)e A%%used:"anche& and verion appealed that the inconsistencies between 5alabanans testimony andthe autopsy results seriously affect his credibility as witness. 5alabanan has sufficient motive to implicate "anche& andCorcolon in the 'illings due to the threats of "anche&. 5alabanans delay in reporting and involvement of the accused in thecrime casts doubts on his credibility.HELD::ecision modified. "anche& and verion found guilty beyong reasonable doubt of double murder and sentenced to 2

penalties of reclusion perpetual and to indemnify the heirs of the victim. 0n conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that alconspirators actually hit and 'illed the victim. /hat is important is that the participants. !resence of a person at the sceneof the crime does not ma'e him co<conspirators.

PEOPLE v HERNANDE=, PHIL. 616

FACTS:-n 4anuary 2A, 19@2, the Congress of *abor -rgani&ations (C*-) head3uarters was raided. /riter mado#ernande&, himself a labor leader was arrested for rebellious activities with the C*-. =pon his arrest, he was charged inteh criminal information of $ebellion with 5urder+, rson and $obbery. #ernande& as'ed for bail with the court where hiscase was pending was denied because the nature of his offense.C&i'e %o''itted:$ebellion

Contention o; t)e Stte:The government, headed by 8eneral mbrosio !adilla, argued that the gravity of the crimecommitted re3uired the denial of the bail. 5oreover, the comple% crime charged by the government against #ernande& hasbeen successfully imposed with other arrested communist leaders.Contention o; t)e A%%used:$ebellion cannot be considered as comple% crime because under the $evised !enal Code,rebellion is charged as a singer offense and that it cannot be made into a comple% crime.HELD:$ebellion cannot be considered as comple% crime, li'e murder and arson. s basis, the court cited several casesconvicting the defendant of simple rebellion although they 'illed several persons.

PEOPLE v DUCAY, 6 PHIL 1

FACTS:t about @ in the morning of -ctober 12, 19E7, *ina *abos was sleeping in the sala at the second floor of the house

together with her husband 5anuel *abos and their si%<month old daughter, 5aria Cristina *abos, when she was awa'en bythe pounding of the door on the first floor leading to the sala. 5oments later, "antos :ucay and his son >dgardo :ucayappeared in the sala. "antos was carrying a long firearm while >dgardo held a calibre B@ pistol. The two started firing atmanuedl who was already standing albeit half asleep. Then, they shoot her mother in law !acita *abos. oth 5anuel and!acita were 'illed. The accused also shot her, 5aria Cristina and >dwin *abos, her brother in law, who was then comingout of the bedroom. #e was hit in the stomach and gall bladder while 5aria Cristina wa hit in the leg, left thgigh andabdomen. The accused then turned their bac's and one of them uttered ubos and lahi+. "he was able to identify the towaccused who are her former neighbours, the police came and brought the wounded to 4ose $eyes 5emorial 5edicalCenter. The medical attendance prevented the death of *ina labos, >dwin *abos and 5aria Cristina *abos.C&i'e %o''itted:Comple% crime of double murder and multiple frustrated murder.Contention o; t)e Stte:0n this case, l there are as many crimes committed as there are victims. The trial court correctly

ruled that there was no comple% crime considering that the trigger of the gun used in committing the acts complained of waspressed in several instances and not in single shot.Contention o; t)e A%%used:ppellant attac's the credibility of the prosecution witness. *ina and >dwin labons andalleges that heir identification of the appellant is vague and highly dubious. s to *ina *abos, that appellant maintains thatshe gave her statement only on -ctober 1B, 19E7 or two days after the occurrence of the incident. "he thus had sufficienttime to concoct a story and implicate the appellant and >dgardo after she had tal'ed with >dwin and 4ose *abos.HELD:ppellant is guilty of two crimes of murder and three crimes of frustrated murder and indemnify of ! @A, AAA for eachcrime.

C.LIA4ILITY UNDER SPECIAL LAWSA&ti%!e 17, RPC



ffenses not su!ect to t"e pro#isions of t"is Co&e. M -ffenses which are or in the future may be punishable under speciallaws are not subect to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter shouldspecially provide the contrary.

PADILLA v DI=ON, 162 SCRA 13FACTS:!asay $TC 4udge :i&on ac3uitted *o Chi 6ai who was arrested for violating C circular o. 97A, "ection 7 whichprovides that no one is allowed to ta'e out foreign e%change in any form unless authori&ed by the Central an' orinternational agreements. Tourist F none residents can only bring out amount e3ual to amount they brought in. if you bring

out an amount greater that three thousand dollars, you need to declare. !unishable by reclusion temporal or greater thanor e3ual to fifty thousand pesos. *o Chi was caught with DEA pieces of different currencies totaling to D@@, DB9.@ dollarsand was able to show only tow Central an' declaration. c3uitted based on (1) no intent (2) money belong to him andassociates coming from abroad.C&i'e %o''itted:iolation of C Circular o 97A by *o Chi 6ai8ross incompetence and ignorance of the law and grave and serious misconduct by the udge.Contention o; t)e stte:The respondents ought to 'now that the proof of malice or deliberate intent is not essential in offenses punishable by F underspecial laws which are mala prohibita.

Contention o; t)e %%used: udge cannot be held to account or answer, criminally, civilly or administratively for an

erroneous decision rendered by him in good faith.

HELD:The court finds the respondent guilty of gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and serious misconductaffecting his integrity and efficiency consistent with the responsibility of the "upreme Court for the proper, ust administrationof ustice and for the attainment of the maintenance of peoples faith in udiciary.ll leaves and retirement benefits andprivileges to which he may be entitles are hereby forfeited with preudice to his being reinstated in any branch ofgovernment service, including government owned and or controlled agencies or corporations.

PADILLA 9S. CA, 8 SCRA 07

FACTS:!adilla fired in a hit and run accident on -ctober 27, 1992. #e was later on apprehended with the help of civilian

witness. =pon arrest, the following were found in his possession.D@ caliber revolver with 7 live ammunition, 5<17 babyarmalite maga&ine with ammo, DEA pietro beretta with E ammo and 7 live double action ammo of DE caliber revolver!adilla claimed papers of gun were at home. #is arrest for hit and run incident modified to include grounds of illegalpossession of firearms under !: 1E77 by the $TC of ngeles City. #e was convicted and sentence to an intermediatepenalty from 1 years, B months, 1 day of reclusion temporal to 21 years of reclusion perpetua as ma%imum. The Court ofppeals confirmed decision and cancelled bail bond. $TC of ngeles was directed to issue order of arrest. 5otion forreconsideration was denied by court of appeals. !adilla filed lots of other petitions and al of a sudden, the "olicitor 8eneralmade a complete turn<around and filed manifestation in lieu of comment praying for ac3uittal.C&i'e %o''itted:0llegal possession of fire armsContention o; t)e Stte:Courts are bound to apply the governing law at the time of the commission of the offense for it is arule that laws are repealed only by subse3uent ones. Court cannot be faulted in applying !residential :ecree 1E77.

Contention o; t)e A%%used:"imple illegal possession of fire arms constitutes e%cessive and a cruel punishment. !reviouslaw on illegal possession should have been applied since the reason for penalty imposed under !: 1E77 no longer e%ists.HELD:The decision of the C sustaining petitioners conviction by the lower court of the crime of simple illegal possessionof fire arms and ammunitions is affirmed e%cept that petitioners intermediate penalty is modified.

PEOPLE v SIMON, ?0 SCRA 666

FACTS:-n -ctober 22, 19EE, in !ampanga, 5artin "imon was convicted of violating $ 7B2@ or the :angerous :rug ct of192 through a $C-5 posser<buyer. 0t was appealed for reversal alleging it was a frame<up and evidence wasinadmissible.C&i'e %o''itted?iolation of :angerous :rug ct of 192



HELD:Conviction is modified. There was overlapping error in the law. Thus, "upremen Court had to harmoni&e conflictingprovision for degrees of draduation.:egrees applied depending on 3uantity then apply mitigating or aggravatingcircumstances. *east penalty should be prision correctional so as not to depreciate seriousness of crime. 4ustified inapplying $!C provisions because law adopted penalties under $!C in their technical terms t thus signification and effectswill also apply.

S$e%i! A%ts Punis)ed @ S$e%i! L(s• Co'$&e)ensive Dn<e&ous D&u<s A%t o; 77

0llegal possession and traffic'ing of dangerous drugs• Re$u!i% A%t No. 187 (The nti<Mone@ Lunde&in< ct of 2AA1)• PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1306• Re$u!i% A%t No. 20,• P&esidenti! De%&ee No. 1288

0llegal possession of firearms

D.CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTIN5 CRIMINAL LIA4ILITY*USTIFYIN5 CIRCUMSTANCES

ARTICLE II, RPCustif#ing circumstances. M The following do not incur any criminal liability?

1. nyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur

6irst. =nlawful aggression."econd. $easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.Third. *ac' of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. ny one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural oradopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within the fourth civildegree, provided that the first and second re3uisites prescribed in the ne%t preceding circumstance are present, and the

further re3uisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attac'ed, that the one ma'ing defense had no part therein.D. nyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first andsecond re3uisites mentionedin the first circumstance of this rt. are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, orother evil motive.B. ny person who, in order to avoid an evil or inury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that thefollowing re3uisites are present

6irst. That the evil sought to be avoided actually e%ists"econd. That the inury feared be greater than that done to avoid itThird. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

@. ny person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful e%ercise of a right or office.

7. ny person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OR RELATI9ES AND STRAN5ERS DEFENSE OF PROPERTY DEFENSE OFREPUTATION

ELEMENTS

PEOPLE v NAR9AE=, 11 SCRA ?2

FACTS: t about 2?DA !5 on ugust 22, 197E, :avis 6leischer, 6laviano $ubia and three other men were fencing the landof 8eorge 6leischer, father of :avis, in 5aitum, "outh Cotabato. They were also chiseling the house of 5amerto arvae&,who was sleeping in his house. arvae& awo'e and as'ed to tal' to 6leischer from his window.







6leischer said, o, gademit, proceed, go ahead.+ arvae& shot him with a shotgun from the window, then shot $ubia whowas running towards his eep where a gun was located. oth died.arvae& voluntarily surrendered and claimed defense of his person and of his rights. The Court of 6irst 0nstance of "outhCotabato convicted him of murder 3ualified by treachery with the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and themitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.ISSUE: /- the lower court erred in convicting the defendant despite the fact that he was acting in defense of his personand of his rights.HELD: Ges, defense of ones person or rights is a ustifying circumstance, but three prere3uisites must be present.

=nlawful aggression due to the utterance of 6leischer and the invasion of arvae&s property was clear. The pending caseregarding ownership was decided only over a year after the incident, and even then, 6leischer had given arvae& until theend of the year to leave the land.*ac' of sufficient provocation was clear because arvae& was asleep in his house, then as'ed 6leischer to stop so theycould tal'.6iring a shotgun from a window, however, was a disproportionate means of resistance.arvae& was thus guilty of two counts of homicide with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense underrticle 1D of the $!C.Treachery could not be held because the shooting was not a sudden, unprovo'ed attac'.

PEOPLE v 5ENE4LA=O, ?31 SCRA 63?

FACTS:/hile le% -bien and :ominga -palsa were wal'ing along Hue&on "treet, Calauag, Hue&on, bound for home,5a%imino 8enebla&o and around si% un'nown companions stoned them. -bien and -palsa retaliated by also throwingstones at 8enebla&o and company. #owever, upon seeing that 8enebla&o was about to draw his 'nife, they ran away.5a%imino 8enebla&o caught up with :omingo -palsa and stabbed the latter twice ; the first stab landed on the left side ofthe body in the area of the armpit, while the second landed on the left side of the face.CRIME COMMITTED: 5urderCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED?"elf ; defenseCONTENTION OF THE STATE:ccused ; appellant committed unlawful aggression and not the victim.

HELD:ccused ; appellant committed homicide, not murder.

PEOPLE v RU4ISO, ? SCRA 83

FACTS: -n ovember 7, 1992, while #ubines, the victim was busy putting a bolt on a rice thresher and was in a s3uattingposition, accused<appellant approached him from behind. ppellants left hand was wrapped with a towel. s appellanwal'ed closer to #ubines, he unwrapped his hand revealing a handgun of un'nown caliber, and shot #ubines.CRIME COMMITTED:5urderCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:"elf defenseCONTENTION OF THE STATE:

*ac's the three (D) elements of self defense?(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim (2) reasonable necessity ofthe means employed by the person being attac'ed to prevent or repel it and (D) lac' of sufficient provocation on the part ofthe person defending himself.HELD:8uilty of the crime of murder.

PEOPLE v 4ATES, 077 SCRA 6

FACTS:-n ovember 2E, 199@ at around 2?AA in the afternoon, >dgar and "imon 6uentes and 4ose oholot left arangay>speran&a, -rmoc City to deliver copra to a certain 6ely $odado at arangay 8ren alley, -rmoc City. fter the deliverythe three men headed bac' to arangay >speran&a. /hile they were along the way, leading to the house of Carlito ates,the latter suddenly emerged from the thic' banana plantation surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at #ose oholot who



was then wal'ing ahead of his companions. 4ose grabbed Carlitos hand and try to wrest possession of the firearm. Thegun fired hitting Carlito who immediately fell to the ground. t that instant, 5arcelo ates and his son, brother and nephewof Carlito, respectively emerged from the banana plantation, each holding a bolo. They immediately hac'ed 4ose severatimes. 5arcelo then returned to "imon and >dgar and shouted, huwes de 'utsilyo+, upon hearing the same, "imon and>dgar ran.C&i'e %o''itted:5urderHELD:!assion may not be properly appreciated in favour of the appellant. To be considered as mitigating circumstances,passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger and

resentment. 0n the case at bar, 5arcelo was infuriated upon seeing his brother Carlito shot by 4ose, however, a distinctionmust be made between the first time that 5arcelo hac'ed 4ose and the second that the former hac'ed the latter. /hen5arcelo hac'ed 4ose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carliot, and if appellant refrained from doing anything else afterthat, he could have validly invo'ed the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, but when, upon seeing hisbrother Carlito dead, 5arcelo went bac' to 4ose, who by then was already lying dead n the ground and hardly moving,hac'ing 4ose again was a clear case of someone aching out of danger in the spirit of revenge.

PEOPLE v CARATAO, 07? SCRA 02

FACTS:y not giving additional rice vale by the victim, >dgardo ulawin to the accused, the former was stabbed to death.CRIME COMMITTED:

5urder?CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:"elf defenseCONTENTION OF THE STATE:There was aggression committed by the appellant hence the claim for self defense has no merit.HELD:ccused<appellant is guilty of homicide

PEOPLE v 9ICENTE, 076 SCRA 07

FACTS:-n 5ay DA, 199E, at E?DA o cloc' in the evening, while appellant was having supper in his house at8ueguesangen, 5angaldan, !angasinan, his brothers<in<law, noy and "onny, 3uarrelled. noy was abrasively scolding

"onny for smo'ing and gambling. This caused the latter to howl at the top of his voice. The victim, then Chairman of the"angguniang Labataan, responded to "onnys unusual cry. #e entered appellants house and suddenly pushed noy,causing him to fall to the floor. ppellant pacified the victim saying, &ont min& t"em ecause t"e' are rot"ers an& Ano' isonl' a&#isin% Sonn' .+ The victim felt insulted by such remar' and he went home and got a steel pipe. =pon his return, hehit appellant at his upper left arm but appellant was able to sei&e the steel pipe from the victim, prompting the latter toretreat and go home.fter the incident, while the appellant were tal'ing outside their house, the victim passed by. #e approached a certainLagawad 6ernande& and invited him to go to the dance hall. Then he tapped appellants right shoulder, causing him to bepushed a little bit bac'ward. /ithout any warning, the victim pulled out a 'nife and tried to stab appellant, shouting, 0 willsee to it that 0 will 'ill you tonight.+ ppellant held the victims wrist and they grappled for the possession of the 'nife. /hilethe 'nife was pointed at the victim, appellant accidentally stabbed him.

CRIME COMMITTED:5urderCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:"elf defenseCONTENTION OF THE STATE:Treachery is present since the suddenness of the attac' deprived the victim of the opportunity to repel it or defend hisperson.HELD:ccused ; appellant is guilty of murder

PEOPLE v ESCARLOS, 017 SCRA



FACTS:round 9 ocloc' in the evening of 4uly 1, 2AAA, ntonio alisacan went to the residence of 4aime =lep in:omampot, singan, !angasinan to attend a benefit dance which was near the place. 0n the benefit dance was his sonCrisanto alisacan, who attended the dance with his friends. Crisanto stood beside the emcee, Ceasario >scarlosappellants brother. /hile Ceasario was calling the victim, ntonio alisacan, to come to the stage as he was a a%awa&Crisanto heard the people at his bac' shout. 6ive (@) to si% (7) meters at his bac', he saw appellant stab his father, ntonioseveral times. Crisanto was momentarily shoc'ed that he was not able to react. /hen appellant fled, Crisanto came to hissenses and ran to ntonio. ntonio was still alive so he brought him to the hospital where he died a few minutes afterarrival.

CRIME COMMITTED:5urderCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:"elf defenseCONTENTION OF THE STATE:The assault did not come as a surprise, as it was preceded by a heated e%change of words between the two parties whohad a history of animosity. The alleged drawing of a 'nife by the victim could not have placed the life of appellant inimminent danger. The former might have done it only to threaten or intimidate the latter.HELD:ccused<appellant is found guilty of homicide

PEOPLE v RETU4ADO, 013 SCRA ??

FACTS:ccused<appellant bo%ed his son, who was then less than a year in age that caused his untimely death.CRIME COMMITTED:!arricideCONTENTION OF TEH ACCUSED:0nsanityCONTENTION OF THE STATE:There was abuse of superior strength by the accused over the defenseless child.HELD:4udgement of the lower court is affirmed.

PEOPLE v RU5AS

FACTS:ccused<appellant, without provocation, stabbed #erberto $afol while he is conversing with a certain !erla !ere& inthe street.CRIME COMMITTED:6rustrated homicideCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED?"elf defenseCONTENTION OF THE STATE?The appellant and not the victim was the unlawful aggressor.HELD:8uilty of frustrated homicide

4URDEN OF PROOFUNIDAD v CA, ? SCRA 3

FACTS:ccused<appellant, who was a policeman shot 0renio argas that cause his death. The victim was po'ing a gun and wasordered by the accused to refrain from doing so, however, he pulled the trigger hence was shot by the accused.CRIME COMMITTED:5urderCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:#e was ust repelling an attac' by the victim F self defenseHELD:



:ecision of the lower court is affirmed, with modification on the penalty to be imposed. PEOPLE v ANNI4ON5, 07? SCRA

FACTS: -n 6ebruary 1D, 199E, around 2?AA !.5., Cpl. -bngayan arrived at the !hilippine rmy detachment in rgy. :o]a*oreta, !udtol, payao where he was then the commanding officer. "till perspiring and thirsty from an operation in Centro,!udtol, payao, Cpl. -bngayan hurriedly proceeded to the camps 'itchen for a drin'. 0ncensed that all of the watercontainers were empty, -bngayan confronted appellant whose duty was to maintain the camps 'itchen. #e gave appellant

a ab in the abdomen, then slowly wal'ed away towards his bun'er.0nfuriated, appellant without warning, pic'ed up his 5<1B armalite rifle and strafed the former on the bac'. -bngayansprawled bloodied on the ground. "hortly after, appellant too' the garand rifle of rtemio Tallong, and unleashed anotherbarrage of gunshots. -bngayan died instantaneously with his brain splattered and an eye fallen on the ground.CRIME COMMITTED: 5urderISSUE:whether there was unlawful aggression on the part of Cpl. -bngayan (2) whether the 'illing was attended by the3ualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and (D) whether the imposition of the death penalty onappellant is appropriate.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED?"elf defenseCONTENTION OF THE STATE:0n legitimate self<defense the aggression must still be existin% or continuin% when theperson ma'ing the defense attac's or inures the aggressor. Thus when the unlawful aggression ceases to e%ist, the one

ma'ing the defense has no more right to 'ill the former aggressor.+HELD:The decision of the $TC of payao is affirmed with modification. ccused ; appellant is declared guilty of murder

STATE OF NECESSITY "A9OIDANCE OF 5REATER E9IL#

PEOPLE v RICOHERMOSO, 68 SCRA 0?1

FACTS:8eminio de *eon owned a parcel of land in arrio Tagbacan, "ilangan, Catanuan Hue&on which the defendant$icohermoso cultivated as 'aingin. oubt 9?AA 5 of 4anuary 197@, 8eminiano :e *eon with his DA yera old common lawwife 6abiana $osales and 2B year old son 5arianito de *eon and one $i&al $osales saw $icohermoso and 8eminianoas'ed for his share of the palay harvested. $icohermoso told him to go to his house and get the palay. t 2?AA in the

afternoon, 8eminiano and his family went to the house of $icohermoso and when he as' for the palay, the latter refused toget the palay. $icohermoso got his bolo and stabbed 8eminiano on the nec'. /hen 8eminano fell down in the ground,"evero !adernal hac'ed him on the bac' with an a%e. -n the other hand,. 4uan !adernal embraced 5arianito de *eonfrom behind with his right arm loc'ed around 5arianitors nec' and his left pressing 5arianitos left forearm. They rolleddownhill and 5arianito passed out. /hen he regained his consciousness, he saw his father wounded and dead.C&i'e %o''itted:5urder and attempted murderContention o; t)e Stte: 4uan !adernal conspired with $icohermoso and his father "evero !adernal in 'illing 8eminianode *eon. !aragraph B, rticle 00 of the $!C does not seen from this case considering that there is a close relationshipbetween $icohermoso, "evero and 4uan !adernal. The withdrawal of the appeal of "everio !adernal strengthened thecase for the appellee and rendered inoperative of the appellants version of the case.Contention o; t)e A%%used: 4uan !adernal invo'ed the ustifying circumstances of avoidance of greater evil or inury in

preventing 5arianito de *eon from shooting $icohermoso and "evero !adernal.HELD: The udgement of the lower court as to the appellant 4uan !adernal is affirmed with cost against him. The act of4uan padernal in preventing 5arianito from shooting $icohermoso and "evero was designed to ensure the 'illing of8>niniano. #e was not avoiding any evil. #is role was to wea'en to defense. #is reliance on the ustifying circumstancesin erroneous.

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL E/ISTENCE OF RI5HT

PEOPLE v DELIMA, 08 PHIL 3?2



FACTS:*oren&o apoleon escaped from ail and he was found by police officer 6elipe :elima in the house of 4orge legria.rmed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance, :elima ordered apoleon to surrender but he answered withthe stro'e of his lance. The police officer dodged it, freed his revolver but did not hit apoleon. The criminal tried toescaped, not throwing his weapon, the policeman shot him dead. :elima was tried and convicted for homicide.C&i'e %o''itted?#omicideHELD:The "upreme Court ruled that :elima must be ac3uitted. The court held that the 'illing was done in the performanceof a duty. apoleon was under obligation to surrender and his obedience is being demanded. #is disobedience with aweapon compelled :elima to 'ill him. The action of the police officer was ustified by the circumstances.

PEOPLE v OANIS, 30 PHIL. 63

FACTS:Chief of !olice -anis and his co<accused Corporal 8ellanta were under instructions to arrest one alagtas, anotorious criminal and escaped convict, and if overpowered, to get him dead or alive. !roceeding to the suspected house,they went into a room and on seeing a man sleeping with his bac' towards the door, simultaneously fired with theirrevolvers without first ma'ing any reasonable in3uiry as to his identity. The victim turned out to be an innocent man, Tecsonand not the wanted criminal.C&i'e %o''itted: 5urderContention o; t)e Stte:>ven if the victim was the notorious criminal, the accused will not be ustified in 'illing him whilethe latter is sleeping. The law does not permit the captor to 'ill him. 0t is only when the fugitive from ustice is determined

to fight the officers of the law who are trying to capture him that the 'illing would be ustified.Contention o; t)e A%%used:They only acted in the performance of their duty and that their acts should be ustified.HELD:The appellant were declared guilty of murder with mitigating circumstances according to the $evised !enal Coderticle 79.

PEOPLE v LA5ATA, 2? PHIL. 167

FACTS:0gnacio lagata was in<charge of si% prisoners assigned to clean the Capitol. 0nstantly, he discovered that one of theprisoners had escaped. The accused as'ed the remaining prisoners to help in locating *agata. /hereupon, the accuseddecided to aim his gun at those who are fleeing until one of them was hurt and another was 'illed.C&i'e %o''itted:5urder and serious physical inuries.

HELD:ased on the testimonies of the witnesses, the court is convince that the 'illing of bria was not in the performanceof duty of the ail officer since the victim was shot when he (bria) is only three (D) meters away from the guard.

O4EDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDER

TA4UENA v SANDI5AN4AYAN, 82 SCRA ??

FACTS:0n a !residential 5emorandum dated auanry 7, 19E7, !resident 5arcos allegedly commanded !etitiner Tabuena,in his capacity as 8eneral 5anager of the 5anila 0nternational irport uthority to pay immediately the !hilippine ationalConstruction through the presidents office+ the sum of ! @@, 5illion in cash as partial payments of 50 account with saidcompany mentioned in the 5emorandum of 5inister $obert -ngpin of the Trade and 0ndustry to this -ffice dated 4anuary ,

19E@. Tabuena withdraw the sum of ! @@, AAA on D separate occasions and delivered them to 8imene&, 5arcs privatesecretary. 0t is without dispute that Tabuena did not follow the normal procedures in withdrawal and delivery of the money.C&i'e %o''itted:5alversation by negligenceContention o; t)e Stte:There was no standing obligation in favour of the !CC at the time of disbursement of ! @@,AAAAAA. !CC sad themselves that they dont receive the ! @@, AAA, AAAContention o; t)e A%%used: The petitioners contend that they only acted in good faith and that they were merelycomplying with the !residents memo. Tabuena had no other choice but to follow this superiors order, 'nowing that the!resident also e%ercises control over governmental agencies li'e the 50 and !CC. #e also did not have the lu%ury oftime to observe all auditing procedures of disbursement since the memo enoined immediate compliance. Tabuena alsoclaims that he was of the belief that 50 indeed has outstanding obligations to !CC. !eralta shared the same belief andso heeded Tabuenas re3uest for help being his superior.



HELD:!etitioners ac3uitted. 0t does not follow that all similarly accused will necessary be ac3uitted upon reliance on thiscase as precedent.

PEOPLE v TULIN, ?80 SCRA 17

4ATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

PEOPLE v 5ENOSA, 01 SCRA 6?3

FACTS:-n ovember 1@, 199@, en 8enosa and rturo asobas went to a coc'fight after receiving their salary. Theyeach had two bottles of beer before heading home. /hen en arrived at the 8enosas rented house, he found out thatappellant had gone loo'ing for him. 5arivic and en 3uarrel as they usually do whenever en is drun'. en dragged hiswife towards the drawer and threatened to 'ill her with a blade. The appellant smasher her husbands arm and immediatelywent inside their childrens room, she got the gun inside the drawer and shoot her husband.C&i'e %o''itted:!arricideContention o; t)e Stte:The accused is guilty of parricide. The court rec'ons that crucial to the attered /oman"yndrome defense is the state of mind of battered woman at the time of the offense. "he must have actually fearedimminent harm from her batterer and honestly believe in the need to 'ill him in order to save her life.Contention o; t)e %%used:5arivic 8enosa invo'es self defense and F or defense her unborn child in claiming self<

defense, the appellant raises the novel theory of the battered woman syndrome.

HELD:Convicting the appellant is affirmed, however, there being two mitigating circumstances and no aggravatingcircumstances attending her commission of the offense, her penalty is reduced to 7 si% years and 1 day of prision mayor asminimum to 1B years, E months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as ma%imum.

RA 8

AN ACT DEFININ5 9IOLENCE A5AINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PRO9IDIN5 FOR PROTECTI9EMEASURES FOR 9ICTIMS, PRESCRI4IN5 PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES:e it enacte& ' t"e Senate an& 2ouse of (epresentati#es of t"e "ilippines in Con%ress assemle& ?

SECTION 1. S"ort Title.< This ct shall be 'nown as the Jnti<iolence gainst /omen and Their Children ct of 2AABJ.SECTION . 3eclaration of olic' .< 0t is hereby declared that the "tate values the dignity of women and children andguarantees full respect for human rights. The "tate also recogni&es the need to protect the family and its membersparticularly women and children, from violence and threats to their personal safety and security.Towards this end, the "tate shall e%ert efforts to address violence committed against women and children in 'eeping withthe fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and the !rovisions of the =niversal :eclaration of #uman$ights, the convention on the >limination of all forms of discrimination gainst /omen, Convention on the $ights of theChild and other international human rights instruments of which the !hilippines is a party.SECTION ?. 3efinition of Terms.< s used in this ct,

(a) JViolence a%ainst women an& t"eir c"il&renJ refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any personagainst a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a se%ual or

dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimatewithin or without the family abode, which result in or is li'ely to result in physical, se%ual, psychological harm orsuffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrarydeprivation of liberty. 0t includes, but is not limited to, the following acts?

. J"'sical ViolenceJ refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm. JSexual #iolenceJ refers to an act which is se%ual in nature, committed against a woman or her child. 0tincludes, but is not limited to?

a) rape, se%ual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a se% obectma'ing demeaning and se%ually suggestive remar's, physically attac'ing the se%ual parts of thevictimIs body, forcing herFhim to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the



woman or her child to do indecent acts andFor ma'e films thereof, forcing the wife andmistressFlover to live in the conugal home or sleep together in the same room with the abuserb) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any se%ual activity by force, threat offorce, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or coercionc) !rostituting the woman or child.

C. Js'c"olo%ical #iolenceJ refers to acts or omissions causing or li'ely to cause mental or emotionalsuffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stal'ing, damage to property,public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. 0t includes causing or allowing the

victim to witness the physical, se%ual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victimbelongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive inury to pets or to unlawful orunwanted deprivation of the right to custody andFor visitation of common children.:. J)conomic auseJ refers to acts that ma'e or attempt to ma'e a woman financially dependent whichincludes, but is not limited to the following?

1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimateprofession, occupation, business or activity, e%cept in cases wherein the other spouseFpartnerobects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in rticle D of the 6amily Code2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the use and enoymentof the conugal, community or property owned in commonD. destroying household property

B. controlling the victimsI own money or properties or solely controlling the conugal money orproperties.

(b) J:atter' J refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to the physical andpsychological or emotional distress.(c) J:attere& oman S'n&romeJ refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptomsfound in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.(d) JStalin%J refers to an intentional act committed by a person who, 'nowingly and without lawful ustificationfollows the woman or her child or places the woman or her child under surveillance directly or indirectly or acombination thereof.(e) J3atin% relations"ipJ refers to a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without the benefit ofmarriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship.

casual ac3uaintance or ordinary sociali&ation between two individuals in a business or social conte%t is not a datingrelationship.(f) JSexual relationsJ refers to a single se%ual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child.(g) JSafe place or s"elter J refers to any home or institution maintained or managed by the :epartment of "ocial/elfare and :evelopment (:"/:) or by any other agency or voluntary organi&ation accredited by the :"/: forthe purposes of this ct or any other suitable place the resident of which is willing temporarily to receive the victim.(h) JC"il&renJ refers to those below eighteen (1E) years of age or older but are incapable of ta'ing care ofthemselves as defined under $epublic ct o. 71A. s used in this ct, it includes the biological children of thevictim and other children under her care.

SECTION 0. Construction.< This ct shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and safety of victims of violenceagainst women and their children.

SECTION 6. Acts of Violence A%ainst omen an& T"eir C"il&ren.< The crime of violence against women and their childrenis committed through any of the following acts?(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm(c) ttempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm(d) !lacing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm(e) ttempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her childhas the right to desist from or desist from conduct which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, orattempting to restrict or restricting the womanIs or her childIs freedom of movement or conduct by force or threat offorce, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or child.



This shall include, but not limited to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling orrestricting the womanIs or her childIs movement or conduct?

(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody to herFhis family(2) :epriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or herfamily, or deliberately providing the womanIs children insufficient financial support(D) :epriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her child of a legal right(B) !reventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity orcontrolling the victimIs own monBey or properties, or solely controlling the conugal or common money, or

properties(f) 0nflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any se%ual activity which does notconstitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or herchild or herFhis immediate family(h) >ngaging in purposeful, 'nowing, or rec'less conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or causessubstantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to,the following acts?

(1) "tal'ing or following the woman or her child in public or private places(2) !eering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the woman or her child(D) >ntering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman or her child against herFhis will

(B) :estroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of the woman orher child and (@) >ngaging in any form of harassment or violence

(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but notlimited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children ofaccess to the womanIs childFchildren.

SECTION 8. enalties.< The crime of violence against women and their children, under "ection @ hereof shall be punishedaccording to the following rules?

(a) cts falling under "ection @(a) constituting attempted, frustrated or consummated parricide or murder orhomicide shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the $evised !enal Code.0f these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance with the $evised !enal Code those

constituting serious physical inuries shall have the penalty of prison mayor those constituting less serious physicalinuries shall be punished by prision correccional and those constituting slight physical inuries shall be punished byarresto mayor.cts falling under "ection @(b) shall be punished by imprisonment of two degrees lower than the prescribed penaltyfor the consummated crime as specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no case be lower than arrestomayor.(b) cts falling under "ection @(c) and @(d) shall be punished by arresto mayor(c) cts falling under "ection @(e) shall be punished by prision correccional(d) cts falling under "ection @(f) shall be punished by arresto mayor(e) cts falling under "ection @(g) shall be punished by prision mayor(f) cts falling under "ection @(h) and "ection @(i) shall be punished by prision mayor.

0f the acts are committed while the woman or child is pregnant or committed in the presence of her child, the penaltyto be applied shall be the ma%imum period of penalty prescribed in the section.0n addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than -ne hundredthousand pesos (!1AA,AAA.AA) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos (DAA,AAA.AA) (b) undergomandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court.

SECTION 3. Venue.< The $egional Trial Court designated as a 6amily Court shall have original and e%clusive urisdictionover cases of violence against women and their children under this law. 0n the absence of such court in the place where theoffense was committed, the case shall be filed in the $egional Trial Court where the crime or any of its elements wascommitted at the option of the compliant.SECTION 2. rotection r&ers.< protection order is an order issued under this act for the purpose of preventing furtheracts of violence against a woman or her child specified in "ection @ of this ct and granting other necessary relief. The relief



granted under a protection order serve the purpose of safeguarding the victim from further harm, minimi&ing any disruptionin the victimIs daily life, and facilitating the opportunity and ability of the victim to independently regain control over her life.The provisions of the protection order shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies. The protection orders that may beissued under this ct are the barangay protection order (!-), temporary protection order (T!-) and permanent protectionorder (!!-). The protection orders that may be issued under this ct shall include any, some or all of the following reliefs?

(a) !rohibition of the respondent from threatening to commit or committing, personally or through another, any ofthe acts mentioned in "ection @ of this ct(b) !rohibition of the respondent from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating

with the petitioner, directly or indirectly(c) $emoval and e%clusion of the respondent from the residence of the petitioner, regardless of ownership of theresidence, either temporarily for the purpose of protecting the petitioner, or permanently where no property rightsare violated, and if respondent must remove personal effects from the residence, the court shall direct a lawenforcement agent to accompany the respondent has gathered his things and escort respondent from theresidence(d) :irecting the respondent to stay away from petitioner and designated family or household member at a distancespecified by the court, and to stay away from the residence, school, place of employment, or any specified placefre3uented by the petitioner and any designated family or household member(e) :irecting lawful possession and use by petitioner of an automobile and other essential personal effects,regardless of ownership, and directing the appropriate law enforcement officer to accompany the petitioner to the

residence of the parties to ensure that the petitioner is safely restored to the possession of the automobile and otheressential personal effects, or to supervise the petitionerIs or respondentIs removal of personal belongings(f) 8ranting a temporary or permanent custody of a childFchildren to the petitioner(g) :irecting the respondent to provide support to the woman andFor her child if entitled to legal support.otwithstanding other laws to the contrary, the court shall order an appropriate percentage of the income or salaryof the respondent to be withheld regularly by the respondentIs employer for the same to be automatically remitteddirectly to the woman. 6ailure to remit andFor withhold or any delay in the remittance of support to the womanandFor her child without ustifiable cause shall render the respondent or his employer liable for indirect contempt ofcourt(h) !rohibition of the respondent from any use or possession of any firearm or deadly weapon and order him tosurrender the same to the court for appropriate disposition by the court, including revocation of license and

dis3ualification to apply for any license to use or possess a firearm. 0f the offender is a law enforcement agent, thecourt shall order the offender to surrender his firearm and shall direct the appropriate authority to investigate on theoffender and ta'e appropriate action on matter(i) $estitution for actual damages caused by the violence inflicted, including, but not limited to, property damage,medical e%penses, childcare e%penses and loss of income () :irecting the :"/: or any appropriate agency to provide petitioner may need and(') !rovision of such other forms of relief as the court deems necessary to protect and provide for the safety of thepetitioner and any designated family or household member, provided petitioner and any designated family orhousehold member consents to such relief.ny of the reliefs provided under this section shall be granted even in the absence of a decree of legal separation orannulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage.

The issuance of a !- or the pendency of an application for !- shall not preclude a petitioner from applying for,or the court from granting a T!- or !!-.SECTION . "o ma' file etition for rotection r&ers. ; petition for protection order may be filed by any of thefollowing?

(a) the offended party(b) parents or guardians of the offended party(c) ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity(d) officers or social wor'ers of the :"/: or social wor'ers of local government units (*8=s)(e) police officers, preferably those in charge of women and childrenIs des's(f) unon% :aran%a' or :aran%a' ;a%awa& (g) lawyer, counselor, therapist or healthcare provider of the petitioner



(h) t least two (2) concerned responsible citi&ens of the city or municipality where the violence against women andtheir children occurred and who has personal 'nowledge of the offense committed.

SECTION 17. "ere to Appl' for a rotection r&er . ; pplications for !-s shall follow the rules on venue under "ectionBA9 of the *ocal 8overnment Code of 1991 and its implementing rules and regulations. n application for a T!- or !!-may be filed in the regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court with territorial urisdiction over the place of residence of the petitioner? !rovided, however, That if a family court e%ists in the place ofresidence of the petitioner, the application shall be filed with that court.SECTION 11. 2ow to Appl' for a rotection r&er . ; The application for a protection order must be in writing, signed and

verified under oath by the applicant. 0t may be filed as an independent action or as incidental relief in any civil or criminalcase the subect matter or issues thereof parta'es of a violence as described in this ct. standard protection orderapplication form, written in >nglish with translation to the maor local languages, shall be made available to facilitateapplications for protections order, and shall contain, among other, the following information?

(a) names and addresses of petitioner and respondent(b) description of relationships between petitioner and respondent(c) a statement of the circumstances of the abuse(d) description of the reliefs re3uested by petitioner as specified in "ection E herein(e) re3uest for counsel and reasons for such(f) re3uest for waiver of application fees until hearing and(g) an attestation that there is no pending application for a protection order in another court.

0f the applicants is not the victim, the application must be accompanied by an affidavit of the applicant attesting to (a) thecircumstances of the abuse suffered by the victim and (b) the circumstances of consent given by the victim for the filling ofthe application. /hen disclosure of the address of the victim will pose danger to her life, it shall be so stated in theapplication. 0n such a case, the applicant shall attest that the victim is residing in the municipality or city over which courthas territorial urisdiction, and shall provide a mailing address for purpose of service processing.n application for protection order filed with a court shall be considered an application for both a T!- and !!-.arangay officials and court personnel shall assist applicants in the preparation of the application. *aw enforcement agentsshall also e%tend assistance in the application for protection orders in cases brought to their attention.SECTION 1. )nforceailit' of rotection r&ers. ; ll T!-s and !!-s issued under this ct shall be enforceableanywhere in the !hilippines and a violation thereof shall be punishable with a fine ranging from 6ive Thousand !esos(!@,AAA.AA) to 6ifty Thousand !esos (!@A,AAA.AA) andFor imprisonment of si% (7) months.

SECTION 1?. <e%al (epresentation of etitioners for rotection r&er . ; 0f the woman or her child re3uests in theapplications for a protection order for the appointment of counsel because of lac' of economic means to hire a counsel departe, the court shall immediately direct the !ublic ttorneyIs -ffice (!-) to represent the petitioner in the hearing on theapplication. 0f the !- determines that the applicant can afford to hire the services of a counsel de parte, it shall facilitatethe legal representation of the petitioner by a counsel de parte. The lac' of access to family or conugal resources by theapplicant, such as when the same are controlled by the perpetrator, shall 3ualify the petitioner to legal representation by the!-.#owever, a private counsel offering free legal service is not barred from representing the petitioner.SECTION 10. :aran%a' rotection r&ers =:s> "o +a' Issue an& 2ow. 4 arangay !rotection -rders (!-s) refer tothe protection order issued by the unon% :aran%a' ordering the perpetrator to desist from committing acts under "ection @(a) and (b) of this ct. unon% :aran%a' who receives applications for a !- shall issue the protection order to the

applicant on the date of filing after ex parte determination of the basis of the application. 0f the unon% :aran%a' isunavailable to act on the application for a !-, the application shall be acted upon by any available :aran%a' ;a%awa&. 0the !- is issued by a :aran%a' ;a%awa& the order must be accompanied by an attestation by the :aran%a';a%awa& that the unon% :aran%a' was unavailable at the time for the issuance of the !-. !-s shall be effective forfifteen (1@) days. 0mmediately after the issuance of an ex parte !-, the unon% :aran%a' or :aran%a' ;a%awa& shalpersonally serve a copy of the same on the respondent, or direct any barangay official to effect is personal service.The parties may be accompanied by a non<lawyer advocate in any proceeding before the !unong arangay.SECTION 16. Temporar' rotection r&ers. ? Temporary !rotection -rders (T!-s) refers to the protection order issued bythe court on the date of filing of the application after ex parte determination that such order should be issued. court maygrant in a T!- any, some or all of the reliefs mentioned in this ct and shall be effective for thirty (DA) days. The court shallschedule a hearing on the issuance of a !!- prior to or on the date of the e%piration of the T!-. The court shall order the



immediate personal service of the T!- on the respondent by the court sheriff who may obtain the assistance of lawenforcement agents for the service. The T!- shall include notice of the date of the hearing on the merits of the issuance ofa !!-.SECTION 18. ermanent rotection r&ers. ; !ermanent !rotection -rder (!!-) refers to protection order issued by thecourt after notice and hearing.$espondents non<appearance despite proper notice, or his lac' of a lawyer, or the non<availability of his lawyer shall not bea ground for rescheduling or postponing the hearing on the merits of the issuance of a !!-. 0f the respondents appearswithout counsel on the date of the hearing on the !!-, the court shall appoint a lawyer for the respondent and immediately

proceed with the hearing. 0n case the respondent fails to appear despite proper notice, the court shall allow e% partepresentation of the evidence by the applicant and render udgment on the basis of the evidence presented. The court shallallow the introduction of any history of abusive conduct of a respondent even if the same was not directed against theapplicant or the person for whom the applicant is made.The court shall, to the e%tent possible, conduct the hearing on the merits of the issuance of a !!- in one (1) day. /here thecourt is unable to conduct the hearing within one (1) day and the T!- issued is due to e%pire, the court shall continuouslye%tend or renew the T!- for a period of thirty (DA) days at each particular time until final udgment is issued. The e%tendedor renewed T!- may be modified by the court as may be necessary or applicable to address the needs of the applicant.The court may grant any, some or all of the reliefs specified in "ection E hereof in a !!-. !!- shall be effective untilrevo'ed by a court upon application of the person in whose favor the order was issued. The court shall ensure immediatepersonal service of the !!- on respondent.

The court shall not deny the issuance of protection order on the basis of the lapse of time between the act of violence andthe filing of the application.$egardless of the conviction or ac3uittal of the respondent, the Court must determine whether or not the !!- shall becomefinal. >ven in a dismissal, a !!- shall be granted as long as there is no clear showing that the act from which the ordermight arise did not e%ist.SECTION 13. @otice of Sanction in rotection r&ers. ; The following statement must be printed in bold<faced type or incapital letters on the protection order issued by the unon% :aran%a' or court?J9IOLATION OF THIS ORDER IS PUNISHA4LE 4Y LAW .JSECTION 12. +an&ator' erio& -or Actin% on Applications -or rotection r&ers ; 6ailure to act on an application for aprotection order within the reglementary period specified in the previous section without ustifiable cause shall render theofficial or udge administratively liable.

SECTION 1. <e%al Separation Cases. ; 0n cases of legal separation, where violence as specified in this ct is alleged,rticle @E of the 6amily Code shall not apply. The court shall proceed on the main case and other incidents of the case assoon as possible. The hearing on any application for a protection order filed by the petitioner must be conducted within themandatory period specified in this ct.SECTION 7. riorit' of Application for a rotection r&er. ; >% parte and adversarial hearings to determine the basis ofapplications for a protection order under this ct shall have priority over all other proceedings. arangay officials and thecourts shall schedule and conduct hearings on applications for a protection order under this ct above all other businessand, if necessary, suspend other proceedings in order to hear applications for a protection order.SECTION 1. Violation of rotection r&ers. ; complaint for a violation of a !- issued under this ct must be fileddirectly with any municipal trial court, metropolitan trial court, or municipal circuit trial court that has territorial urisdictionover the barangay that issued the !-. iolation of a !- shall be punishable by imprisonment of thirty (DA) days without

preudice to any other criminal or civil action that the offended party may file for any of the acts committed. udgement of violation of a !- ma be appealed according to the $ules of Court. :uring trial and upon udgment, the trialcourt may motu proprio issue a protection order as it deems necessary without need of an application.iolation of any provision of a T!- or !!- issued under this ct shall constitute contempt of court punishable under $ule1 of the $ules of Court, without preudice to any other criminal or civil action that the offended party may file for any of theacts committed.SECTION . Applicailit' of rotection r&ers to Criminal Cases. ; The foregoing provisions on protection orders shall beapplicable in impliedly instituted with the criminal actions involving violence against women and their children.SECTION ?. :on& to ;eep t"e eace. ; The Court may order any person against whom a protection order is issued togive a bond to 'eep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall underta'e that such person will not commit theviolence sought to be prevented.



"hould the respondent fail to give the bond as re3uired, he shall be detained for a period which shall in no case e%ceed si%(7) months, if he shall have been prosecuted for acts punishable under "ection @(a) to @(f) and not e%ceeding thirty (DA)days, if for acts punishable under "ection @(g) to @(0).The protection orders referred to in this section are the T!-s and the !!-s issued only by the courts.SECTION 0. rescripti#e erio&. ; cts falling under "ections @(a) to @(f) shall prescribe in twenty (2A) years. cts fallingunder "ections @(g) to @(0) shall prescribe in ten (1A) years.SECTION 6. ulic Crime. ; iolence against women and their children shall be considered a public offense which may beprosecuted upon the filing of a complaint by any citi&en having personal 'nowledge of the circumstances involving the

commission of the crime.SECTION 8. :attere& oman S'n&rome as a 3efense . ; ictim<survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering frombattered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for ustifying circumstances of self<defense under the $evised !enal Code.0n the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of thecommission of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by e%pert psychiatristsF psychologists.SECTION 3. ro"iite& 3efense. ; eing under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind<alteringsubstance shall not be a defense under this ct.SECTION 2. Custo&' of c"il&ren. ; The woman victim of violence shall be entitled to the custody and support of herchildFchildren. Children below seven () years old older but with mental or physical disabilities shall automatically be given tothe mother, with right to support, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.

victim who is suffering from battered woman syndrome shall not be dis3ualified from having custody of her children. 0n nocase shall custody of minor children be given to the perpetrator of a woman who is suffering from attered womansyndrome.SECTION . 3uties of rosecutorsCourt ersonnel . ; !rosecutors and court personnel should observe the followingduties when dealing with victims under this ct?

a) communicate with the victim in a language understood by the woman or her child andb) inform the victim of herFhis rights including legal remedies available and procedure, and privileges for indigentlitigants.

SECTION ?7. 3uties of :aran%a' fficials an& <aw )nforcers . ; arangay officials and law enforcers shall have thefollowing duties?

(a) respond immediately to a call for help or re3uest for assistance or protection of the victim by entering the

necessary whether or not a protection order has been issued and ensure the safety of the victimFs(b) confiscate any deadly weapon in the possession of the perpetrator or within plain view(c) transport or escort the victimFs to a safe place of their choice or to a clinic or hospital(d) assist the victim in removing personal belongs from the house(e) assist the barangay officials and other government officers and employees who respond to a call for help(f) ensure the enforcement of the !rotection -rders issued by the unon% :aran%' or the courts(g) arrest the suspected perpetrator wiithout a warrant when any of the acts of violence defined by this ct isoccurring, or when heFshe has personal 'nowledge that any act of abuse has ust been committed, and there isimminent danger to the life or limb of the victim as defined in this ct and(h) immediately report the call for assessment or assistance of the :"/:, social /elfare :epartment of *8=s oraccredited non<government organi&ations (8-s).

ny barangay official or law enforcer who fails to report the incident shall be liable for a fine not e%ceeding Ten Thousand!esos (!1A,AAA.AA) or whenever applicable criminal, civil or administrative liability.SECTION ?1. 2ealt"care ro#i&er (esponse to Ause ; ny healthcare provider, including, but not limited to, an attendingphysician, nurse, clinician, barangay health wor'er, therapist or counselor who suspects abuse or has been informed by thevictim of violence shall?

(a) properly document any of the victimIs physical, emotional or psychological inuries(b) properly record any of victimIs suspicions, observations and circumstances of the e%amination or visit(c) automatically provide the victim free of charge a medical certificate concerning the e%amination or visit(d) safeguard the records and ma'e them available to the victim upon re3uest at actual cost and(e) provide the victim immediate and ade3uate notice of rights and remedies provided under this ct, and servicesavailable to them.



SECTION ?. 3uties of t"er 6o#ernment A%encies an& <60s ; -ther government agencies and *8=s shall establishprograms such as, but not limited to, education and information campaign and seminars or symposia on the nature, causes,incidence and conse3uences of such violence particularly towards educating the public on its social impacts.0t shall be the duty of the concerned government agencies and *8=Is to ensure the sustained education and training of theirofficers and personnel on the prevention of violence against women and their children under the ct.SECTION ??. ro"iite& Acts. ? unon% :aran%a', :aran%a' ;a%awa& or the court hearing an application for aprotection order shall not order, direct, force or in any way unduly influence he applicant for a protection order tocompromise or abandon any of the reliefs sought in the application for protection under this ct. "ection of the 6amily

Courts ct of 199 and "ections B1A, B11, B12 and B1D of the *ocal 8overnment Code of 1991 shall not apply inproceedings where relief is sought under this ct.6ailure to comply with this "ection shall render the official or udge administratively liable.SECTION ?0. ersons Inter#enin% )xempt from <iailit'. ? 0n every case of violence against women and their children asherein defined, any person, private individual or police authority or barangay official who, acting in accordance with law,responds or intervenes without using violence or restraint greater than necessary to ensure the safety of the victim, shall notbe liable for any criminal, civil or administrative liability resulting therefrom.SECTION ?6. (i%"ts of Victims. ? 0n addition to their rights under e%isting laws, victims of violence against women and theirchildren shall have the following rights?

(a) to be treated with respect and dignity(b) to avail of legal assistance form the !- of the :epartment of 4ustice (:-4) or any public legal assistance

office(c) To be entitled to support services form the :"/: and *8=sI(d) To be entitled to all legal remedies and support as provided for under the 6amily Code and(e) To be informed of their rights and the services available to them including their right to apply for a protection

order.SECTION ?8. 3ama%es. ? ny victim of violence under this ct shall be entitled to actual, compensatory, moral ande%emplary damages.SECTION ?3. 2ol& 3eparture r&er. ? The court shall e%pedite the process of issuance of a hold departure order in casesprosecuted under this ct.SECTION ?2. )xemption from a'ment of 3ocet -ee an& t"er )xpenses. ? 0f the victim is an indigent or there is animmediate necessity due to imminent danger or threat of danger to act on an application for a protection order, the court

shall accept the application without payment of the filing fee and other fees and of transcript of stenographic notes.SECTION ?. Inter4A%enc' Council on Violence A%ainst omen an& T"eir C"il&ren =IAC4VAC>. 0n pursuance of theabovementioned policy, there is hereby established an 0nter<gency Council on iolence gainst /omen and their children,hereinafter 'nown as the Council, which shall be composed of the following agencies?

(a) :epartment of "ocial /elfare and :evelopment (:"/:)(b) ational Commission on the $ole of 6ilipino /omen (C$6/)(c) Civil "ervice Commission (C"C)(d) Commission on #uman rights (C#$)(e) Council for the /elfare of Children (C/C)(f) :epartment of 4ustice (:-4)(g) :epartment of the 0nterior and *ocal 8overnment (:0*8)

(h) !hilippine ational !olice (!!)(i) :epartment of #ealth (:-#)() :epartment of >ducation (:ep>d)(') :epartment of *abor and >mployment (:-*>) and(l) ational ureau of 0nvestigation (0).

These agencies are tas'ed to formulate programs and proects to eliminate / based on their mandates as well asdevelop capability programs for their employees to become more sensitive to the needs of their clients. The Council will alsoserve as the monitoring body as regards to / initiatives.The Council members may designate their duly authori&ed representative who shall have a ran' not lower than an assistantsecretary or its e3uivalent. These representatives shall attend Council meetings in their behalf, and shall receiveemoluments as may be determined by the Council in accordance with e%isting budget and accounting rules and regulations.



SECTION 07. +an&ator' ro%rams an& Ser#ices for Victims. ? The :"/:, and *8=Is shall provide the victims temporaryshelters, provide counseling, psycho<social services and For, recovery, rehabilitation programs and livelihood assistance.The :-# shall provide medical assistance to victims.SECTION 01. Counselin% an& Treatment of ffen&ers. ? The :"/: shall provide rehabilitative counseling and treatment toperpetrators towards learning constructive ways of coping with anger and emotional outbursts and reforming their ways./hen necessary, the offender shall be ordered by the Court to submit to psychiatric treatment or confinement.SECTION 0. Trainin% of ersons In#ol#e& in (espon&in% to Violence A%ainst omen an& t"eir C"il&ren Cases. ? llagencies involved in responding to violence against women and their children cases shall be re3uired to undergo education

and training to ac3uaint them with?a. the nature, e%tend and causes of violence against women and their childrenb. the legal rights of, and remedies available to, victims of violence against women and their childrenc. the services and facilities available to victims or survivorsd. the legal duties imposed on police officers to ma'e arrest and to offer protection and assistance ande. techni3ues for handling incidents of violence against women and their children that minimi&e the li'elihood ofinury to the officer and promote the safety of the victim or survivor.

The !!, in coordination with *8=Is shall establish an education and training program for police officers and barangayofficials to enable them to properly handle cases of violence against women and their children.SECTION 0?. )ntitle& to <ea#e. ? ictims under this ct shall be entitled to ta'e a paid leave of absence up to ten (1A) daysin addition to other paid leaves under the *abor Code and Civil "ervice $ules and $egulations, e%tendible when the

necessity arises as specified in the protection order.ny employer who shall preudice the right of the person under this section shall be penali&ed in accordance with theprovisions of the *abor Code and Civil "ervice $ules and $egulations. *i'ewise, an employer who shall preudice anyperson for assisting a co<employee who is a victim under this ct shall li'ewise be liable for discrimination.SECTION 00. Confi&entialit'. ? ll records pertaining to cases of violence against women and their children including thosein the barangay shall be confidential and all public officers and employees and public or private clinics to hospitals shallrespect the right to privacy of the victim. /hoever publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name, addresstelephone number, school, business address, employer, or other identifying information of a victim or an immediate familymember, without the latterIs consent, shall be liable to the contempt power of the court.ny person who violates this provision shall suffer the penalty of one (1) year imprisonment and a fine of not more than 6ive#undred Thousand pesos (!@AA,AAA.AA).

SECTION 06. -un&in% ? The amount necessary to implement the provisions of this ct shall be included in the annual8eneral ppropriations ct (8).The 8ender and :evelopment (8:) udget of the mandated agencies and *8=Is shall be used to implement services forvictim of violence against women and their children.SECTION 08. Implementin% (ules an& (e%ulations. ; /ithin si% (7) months from the approval of this ct, the :-4, theC$6/, the :"/:, the :0*8, the :-#, and the !!, and three (D) representatives from 8-s to be identified by theC$6/, shall promulgate the 0mplementing $ules and $egulations (0$$) of this ct.SECTION 03. Suppletor' Application ? 6or purposes of this ct, the $evised !enal Code and other applicable laws, shalhave suppletory application.SECTION 02. Separailit' Clause. ? 0f any section or provision of this ct is held unconstitutional or invalid, the othersections or provisions shall not be affected.

SECTION 0. (epealin% Clause ? ll laws, !residential decrees, e%ecutive orders and rules and regulations, or partsthereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this ct are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.SECTION 67. )ffecti#it' ? This ct shall ta'e effect fifteen (1@) days from the date of its complete publication in at least two(2) newspapers of general circulation.

E/EMPTIN5 CIRCUMSTANCESARTICLE 1,RPC

Circumstances w"ic" exempt from criminal liailit' . M the following are e%empt from criminal liability?1. n imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.



/hen the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the courtshall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not bepermitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.2. person under nine years of age.

D. person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shallbe proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of rt. EA of this Code.

/hen such minor is adudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this and

the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillanceand education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in said rt. EA.

B. ny person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an inury by mere accident without fault or intentionof causing it.@. ny person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.7. ny person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an e3ual or greater inury.. ny person who fails to perform an act re3uired by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.

INSANITY AND IM4ECILITYINSANITY

5ental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct herFhis affairsdue to psychosis, or is subect to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. 0nsanity is distinguished from low intelligence or mentaldeficiency due to age or inury. 0f a complaint is made to law enforcement, to the district attorney, or to medical personnelthat a person is evidencing psychotic behavior, heFshe may be confined to a medical facility long enough (typically 2 hours)to be e%amined by psychiatrists who submit written reports to the local superiorFcountyFdistrict court. hearing is then heldbefore a udge, with the person in 3uestion entitled to legal representation, to determine if sheFhe should be placed in aninstitution or special facility. The person may re3uest a trial to determine sanity. The original hearings are often routine withthe psychiatric findings accepted by the udge. 0n criminal cases, a plea of Jnot guilty by reason of insanity,J will re3uire atrial on the issue of the defendantIs insanity (or sanity) at the time the crime was committed. 0n these cases the defendantusually claims Jtemporary insanityJ (cra&y then, but o'ay now). The traditional test of insanity in criminal cases is whetherthe accused 'new Jthe difference between right and wrongJ. 5ost states re3uire more sophisticated tests based on

psychiatric andFor psychological testimony evaluated by a ury of laypersons or a udge without psychiatric training. claimby a criminal defendant of his insanity at the time of trial re3uires a separate hearing to determine if a defendant issufficiently sane to understand the nature of a trial and participate in hisFher own defense. 0f found to be insane, thedefendant will be ordered to a mental facility, and the trial held only if sanity returns. "e% offenders may be found to be sanefor all purposes e%cept the compulsive dangerous andFor anti<social behavior. They are usually sentenced to specialfacilities for se% offenders, supposedly with counseling available. #owever, there are often ma%imum terms related to thetype of crime, so that parole and release may occur with no proof of cure of the compulsive desire to commit se% crimes

IM4ECILITYImecilit' is that feebleness mind which, without depriving the person entirely of the use of his reason, leaves only thefaculty of conceiving ideas the most common, in which relate almost always to his physical wants and habits.0mbecility of mind is (a term) hardly capable of e%act or comprehensive definition. 0t is generally applied to a lac' of normal

mentality not so complete or absolute as e%ists in the condition we called idiocy but greater and more mar'ed than in casesin which in normal parlance we apply the milder term feeble<mindedness.

PEOPLE v ESTRADA, ??? SCRA 8

FACTS::uring the "acrament of Confirmation at the "aint 4ohns Cathedral in :agupan City, 5r. $oberto >strada wal'stowards the center of the altar and sat at the ishops chair. The church security guard, $ogelio 5ararac went near him,telling him to vacate the chair, however, >strada ust stared at 5ararac. 5ararac then grabbed his night stic' and used it totap the hand of >strada. o response still by >strada when 5ararac repeatedly tapped the hand of >strada. -n the D rd tap>strada suddenly drew a 'nife from his bac' then stabbed 5ararac hitting his left throat. 5ararac was seriously woundedand died after few minutes upon the arrival at the hospital. >strada was arrested and ailed.



C&i'e %o''itted:5urderContention o; t)e Stte:The basis of criminal liability is human free will man, therefore should be adudged or heldaccountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears impaired.0f the accused was found insane, he shall be ac3uittedbut the courts shall order his confinement in the hospital or asylum for treatment until he may be release without danger.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The lower court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime charge despite clear andconvincing evidence on record, supporting his plea of insanity. 5edical records showed that the accused was confined atthe psychiatric ward of 8# due to his violent behaviour and the warden of the ail testified of his unusual behaviour whichmade his inmates uncomfortable.

PEOPLE v 9ILLAR *R., ??1 SCRA 10

FACTS:0n the morning of 4une 22, 1991, :ionito 6ernande& was cutting grass in his yard in ew Cabalan, -longapo Citywhen $odolfo illa 4r., a member of the C68= and neighbour of 6ernande&, suddenly came out of his house with 5<18arand $ifle and shot :ionito from behind, 'illing him instantly. $onald and "hiela 6ernande&, children of :ionito, rushed totheir fathers rescue after hearing the gunshot. The accused fired at them fatally hitting $onald who was embracing hisfather and mortally wounding "hiela on the thigh and stomach.C&i'e %o''itted:5ultiple murderContention o; t)e Stte:0nsanity e%ists when there is complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act or thatthere is total deprivation of freedom of the will. 5ere abnormalities of mental faculties are not enough especially when

offender has not lost consciousness or his acts. The following circumstances clearly and unmista'eably negate a completeabsence of intelligence on his part.Contention o; t)e A%%used:0nsanity or psychosis classified as schi&ophrenia based on e%perience on battlefield.HELD:Court affirms decision. The court finds it incredible for a supposedly deranged person to remember vividly and givesuch a lucid and detailed account of the incident. There is vast difference between a genuinely insane person and one whowas wor'ed himself up into such fren&y of anger that he fails to use reason or good udgment on what he does. 0nsanity isdefense by way of confession and avoidance and as such, the 3uantum of evidence re3uired to prove that is clear andconvincing evidence.

PEOPLE 9 MADARAN5, ?? SCRA

FACTS:on "eptember D, 199D at about @?AA !5, 6ernando 5adarang and *ilia, his wife had a s3uabble. 5adarang was ealous of another man and was accusing *ilia of infidelity. 0n the heat of the fight and in the presence of their children, theaccused stabbed *ilia, resulting in her ultimate demise, who was then pregnant with their eight child and was about to givebirth.C&i'e %o''itted:!arricideContention o; t)e A%%used:That the accused had no recollection of the stabbing incident. #is behaviour at the time of thestabbing proved he was then afflicted with schi&ophrenia. There was also high possibility that the accused was alreadysuffering from insanity prior to his commission of the crime, according to :r. Tibayans opinion.The fact that he and his wifewas never engaged in a fight prior to the fateful day should be considered.HELD:5adarangs repentant attitude claiming lac' of 'nowledge on the incident, the evidence does not prove unstablemental condition but a mere general denial.lthough schi&ophrenia was diagnosed a few months after the stabbing incident,

the evidence of insanity may be accorded weight only if theres proof of abnormal behaviour immediately before orsimultaneous to the commission of the crime.5adarang was convicted, he admits committing the crime though he claimsnot guilty for reason of insanity he failed to established by convincing evidence his alleged insanity at the time he 'illed hiswife.

PEOPLE v TA4U5OCA, 26 SCRA ?1

FACTS:-n ugust 29, 191, when 4ac3ueline and her sisters were sleeping in their house at 1A?AA in the evening, she wasroused by her father and as' her to scratch his bac'. /hile doing so, he told her to stay and wait for a while. ccusedsuddenly removed her shorts and underwear and made her lie down beside him. "he could only cry at this point. #e thenentered his manhood inside his daughter. #e then warned her not to tell anyone. 4ac3ueline was 12 years old then at the



time of the crime. 4in'y on the other hand was molested by her father on the morning of :ecember 9, 199B. "he wascleaning in their house when her father approached her and then too' of his clothes. #e ordered her daughter to removeher clothes and to lie on the floor. /hen he entered her, she complained and told her father that she was in pain. #e toldher that it was normal because it was her first time to e%perience se%. #e did not persist and told her that they would ustcontinue the following day. :awn of :ecember 1A, 199B, he attempted to molest her child but this time, however, 4in'yresisted. #e then left her alone. *ater on the same day, 4in'y told her grandmother what happened the day before. =ponhearing her sisters story, 4ac3ueline also disclosed to her grandmother her e%perience with her father 2 years ago. =ponlearning of the incidents, they immediately went to the police and the municipal health officer for a physical e%amination.

C&i'e %o''itted:$apeContention o; t)e Stte: 0nsanity may be ta'en as e%empting circumstances, there must be complete depreciation ofintelligence in the commission of the act of that the accused acted without the least discernment. They did not present anye%pert witness, any psychiatric evaluation report or any psychological findings or evidence regarding his mental condition atthe time of the commission of the offenses. Chastisement is not strong enough to ma'e daughters of 6ilipino family invent acharge that would only bring shame and humiliation upon them and their family.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The accused raised the defense that he is completely unaware of what transpired on those 2occasions as he was very drun'. #e learned to drin' li3uor after his wife died on ugust 2E, 1991, that he claims e%emptionfrom criminal liability on the ground of insanity.HELD:4udgement is affirmed. Tabugoca is guilty of two counts of rape, imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetuain the first case and death in the second.

PEOPLE v 5ENOSA, ?01 SCRA 0?

FACTS:-n ovember 1@, 199@, en 8enosa and rturo asobas went to a coc'fight after receiving their salary. Theyeach had two bottles of beer before heading home. /hen en arrived at the 8enosas rented house, he found out thatappellant had gone loo'ing for him. 5arivic and en 3uarrel as they usually do whenever en is drun'. en dragged hiswife towards the drawer and threatened to 'ill her with a blade. The appellant smasher her husbands arm and immediatelywent inside their childrens room, she got the gun inside the drawer and shoot her husband.C&i'e %o''itted:!arricideContention o; t)e Stte?The accused is guilty of parricide. The court rec'ons that crucial to the attered /oman"yndrome defense is the state of mind of battered woman at the time of the offense. "he must have actually feared

imminent harm from her batterer and honestly believe in the need to 'ill him in order to save her life.Contention o; t)e %%used:5arivic 8enosa invo'es self defense and F or in defense of her unborn child in claiming self<defense, the appellant raises the novel theory of the battered woman syndrome.HELD:Convicting the appellant is affirmed, however, there being two mitigating circumstances and no aggravatingcircumstances attending her commission of the offense, her penalty is reduced to 7 si% years and 1 day of prision mayor asminimum to 1B years, E months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as ma%imum.

MINORITYThe state or condition of a minor infancy.

RA ?00

"A%t Est!is)in< Co'$&e)ensive *uveni!e *usti%e S@ste'#PRINCIPLES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF *U9ENILE *USTICE AND WELFARESEC. 6. Rights of the Child in Conflict 'ith the La'. < >very child in conflict with the law shall have the following rights,including but not limited to?

(a) the right not to be subected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment(b) the right not to be imposed a sentence of capital punishment or life imprisonment, without the possibility ofrelease(c) the right not to be deprived, unlawfully or arbitrarily, of hisFher liberty detention or imprisonment being adisposition of last resort, and which shall be for the shortest appropriate period of time(d) the right to be treated with humanity and respect, for the inherent dignity of the person, and in a manner whichta'es into account the needs of a person of hisFher age. 0n particular, a child deprived of liberty shall be separated



from adult offenders at all times. o child shall be detained together with adult offenders. #eF"he shall be conveyedseparately to or from court. #eF"he shall await hearing of hisFher own case in a separate holding area. child inconflict with the law shall have the right to maintain contact with hisFher family through correspondence and visits,save in e%ceptional circumstances(e) the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legalityof the deprivation of hisFher liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to aprompt decision on such action(f) the right to bail and recogni&ance, in appropriate cases

(g) the right to testify as a witness in hidFher own behalf under the rule on e%amination of a child witness(h) the right to have hisFher privacy respected fully at all stages of the proceedings(i) the right to diversion if heFshe is 3ualified and voluntarily avails of the same() the right to be imposed a udgment in proportion to the gravity of the offense where hisFher best interest, therights of the victim and the needs of society are all ta'en into consideration by the court, under the principle ofrestorative ustice(') the right to have restrictions on hisFher personal liberty limited to the minimum, and where discretion is given bylaw to the udge to determine whether to impose fine or imprisonment, the imposition of fine being preferred as themore appropriate penalty(0) in general, the right to automatic suspension of sentence(m) the right to probation as an alternative to imprisonment, if 3ualified under the !robation *aw

(n) the right to be free from liability for perury, concealment or misrepresentation and(o) other rights as provided for under e%isting laws, rules and regulations.

The "tate further adopts the provisions of the =nited ations "tandard 5inimum $ules for the dministration of 4uvenile4ustice or Jeiing $ulesJ, =nited ations 8uidelines for the !revention of 4uvenile :elin3uency or the J$iyadh 8uidelinesJ,and the =nited ations $ules for the !rotection of 4uveniles :eprived of *iberty.SEC. 8. (inimum Age of Criminal Res%onsi"ilit#. < child fifteen (1@) years of age or under at the time of thecommission of the offense shall be e%empt from criminal liability. #owever, the child shall be subected to an interventionprogram pursuant to "ection 2A of this ct. child above fifteen (1@) years but below eighteen (1E) years of age shall li'ewise be e%empt from criminal liability and besubected to an intervention program, unless heFshe has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall besubected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this ct.

The e%emption from criminal liability herein established does not include e%emption from civil liability, which shall beenforced in accordance with e%isting laws.SEC. 3. !etermination ofAge. < The child in conflict with the law shall enoy the presumption of minority. #eF"he shallenoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until heFshe is proven to be eighteen (1E) years old or older. The age of achild may be determined from the childIs birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other pertinent documents. 0n theabsence of these documents, age may be based on information from the child himselfFherself, testimonies of other persons,the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence. 0n case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall beresolved in hisFher favor.ny person contesting the age of the child in conflict with the law prior to the filing of the information in any appropriate courtmay file a case in a summary proceeding for the determination of age before the 6amily Court which shall decide the casewithin twenty<four (2B) hours from receipt of the appropriate pleadings of all interested parties.

0f a case has been fiied against the child in conflict with the law and is pending in the appropriate court, the person shall filea motion to determine the age of the child in the same court where the case is pending. !ending hearing on the said motion,proceedings on the main case shall be suspended.0n all proceedings, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, udges and other government officials concerned shall e%ert allefforts at determining the age of the child in conflict with the law.

PEOPLE v ESTEPANO, ?73 SCRA 373

FACTS:-n the evening of pril 17, 1991, >nri3ue alinas, 6lorencio Tayco, and *opita 8uadid were on their way home./hile on the way home, they met :ominador >stepano. 8audia started tal'ing to the latter, whole Tayco and alinas stoodnearby. "uddenly, $odrigo >stepano appeared and without any provocation stabbed alinas in the stomach with a bolo



$uben, $odney, :ante and $ene all surnamed >stepano, followed the attac' and hac'ed alinas. $uben was armed witha cane cutter, while the others were armed with a bolo. :ante was never apaprehended. :uring the trial, $odrigo diedfter the trial, :ominador was ac3uitted on the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court found only $uben,$odney and $ene guilty and were sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the heirs of alinas in theamount of ! 1AA, AAA for moral damages and ! 9, @AA for actual damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case ofsolvency.C&i'e %o''itted? 5urderContention o; t)e Stte?/ith respect to the appellant $ene >stepano, the records show that he was only 1D years of age

at the time the crime was committed. =nder rticle 12 of the $!C, a person over 9 years of age and under 1@ is e%emptfrom criminal liability unless it is shown that he acted with discernment. $ecords shows that prosecution failed to prove that$ene acted with discernment, what was only established wahs his presence and his supposed participation in the 'illing.HELD:The decision appealed from is modified. ccused ; appellants $uben, >stepano and $odney >stepano are foundguilty beyond reasonable doubt. ccused ; appellant $ene >stepano is ac3uitted on the absence of proof that he actedwith discernment. Conse3uently, his immediate release from confinement is ordered unless he is detained for some otherlawful cause.

PEOPLE v DO+UENA, 82 PHIL. 627

FACTS:-n the afternoon of ovember 19, 19DE, 4uan $agoos, the deceased and >pifanio $aranga were playing volleyball

in the yard of the intermediate school in "ual, !angasinan. ccused :o3uena, intervened and catching the ball, tossed it to$agohos hitting him on the stomach. 6or this act, $agohos chased :o3uina and slapped him on the nape. :o3uena thenassumed a threatening attitude which prompted $agoos to struc' him on the mouth with his fist. fter that, $agoos wentbac' to play again. The accused was offended and loo'ed for a stone and turned to his cousin to borrow his 'nife. =ponhearing this, and fearing that he might attac' $agoos, $arang warned the cousing not to give it to :o3uena. :o3uenasucceeded in possessing the 'nife. #e then challenged the deceased to punch him again but the latter refused. /hile$agoos continued playing, the accused stabbed him in the chest.C&i'e %o''itted:#omicideContention o; t)e Stte:The accused, at the time of the commission of the offense, was a th grade pupil one of thebrightest in his school and was a captain of a company of the cadet corps. #e was conscious of the nature andconse3uence of his act. The defense should not mista'e lac' of premeditation or lac' of intent for acting without

discernment.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The accused ; appellant, at the time of the commission of the offense, was only 1D years oldThe offense was done with no premeditation and so, without discernment. #e should not be criminally liableHELD: -rdered affirmed. The discernment that constitute an e%ception from criminal liability of a minor... is his mentacapacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, the appearance, the very attitude, the compartment andbehaviour of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial.

ACCIDENTPEOPLE 9 A5LIDAY, ?38 SCRA 3?

FACTS:The wife of the accused<appellant, Conchita gliday, testified that at about E?AA ocloc' in the evening of 6ebruary

2@, 1999, while washing dishes, in the 'itchen of their house, her son, $ichard gliday was shot with a shotgun by herhusband<appellant $icardo gliday. s a result, her son fell on his belly while her husband<appellant ran away. lthoughshoc'ed, Conchita was able to rush outside of the house to call for help. $ichard was first brought to the "to. ino #ospital,then to the "an Carlos 8eneral #ospital and finally, to the $egion 1 #ospital in :agupan city.C&i'e %o''itted:!arricideContention o; t)e A%%used:The court erred in its findings of facts which, had they been in accordance with the evidenceadduced, will suffice to support a udgement of ac3uittal for the accused<appellant since what happened was mere accident.RULIN5::ecision affirmed. -n the first issue, the testimony that what had been told by Conchita that the shooting wasaccident ; was contradicted by her own statements in open court that she was still in shoc' when the police officerconducted the preliminary investigation. "uch statement ta'en, are held as inferior testimonies given in open court. Thusthe court finds no ground in the case at bar to overturned the factual basis and findings of the trial court.The second issue,



before the accused may be e%empted from criminal liability be reason of rticle 12 (B), the following elements must bepresent? 91) a person is performing lawful act (2) with due care and (D) he cause an inury to another by mere accidentand (B) without any fault or intention of causing it. 6or an act to be considered as e%empting circumstances, the act has tobe lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act.U.S. v TANEDO, 16 PHIL. 18

FACTS:-n 4anuary 27, 19A9, Cecilio Tanedo, a land owner went with some wor'ers to wor' on the dam of his land,carrying with him his shotgun and a few shells. =pon reaching the dam, the accused went on his way to hunt for wild

chic'ens, meeting the victim, 6eliciano "anche&, his mother and his uncle. The accused went into the forest upon therecommendation of the deceased to continue his search for the elusive chic'ens. =pon seeing one, Tanedo shot one, butsimultaneously, he heard a human dry out in pain. fter seeing that "anche& was wounded, Tanedo run bac' to his wor'sand as'ed one ernardino Tagampa, to help him hide the body, which they did by putting it amidst the tall cogon grass andlater burying it in an old well. -nly one shot was heard that morning and chic'en was 'illed by a gunshot wound. Chic'enfeathers were found at the scene of the crime. The lower court found the accused guilty of homicide.C&i'e %o''itted:#omicideContention o; t)e Stte:The uncle of the deceased testified that the boy and the accused invited each other mutually tohunt wild chic'ens.That the accused shot the deceased, "anche& in the forest with premeditation, by planning to ta'e thedeceased to the forest, there to 'ill him so that no one could see it and to bury him secretly in order that the crime shouldremain unpunished. Concealment of the accused and denial.

Contention o; t)e %%used:ccused testified that he did not invite the deceased to go hunting with him neither did thedeceased go with him. That the incident was an accident since only one shot was heard that morning and a chic'en was'illed by a gunshot wound.!rior relations between the accused and the victim had been normal.HELD:There is no 3uestion that the accused was engage in the performance of a lawful act when the accident occurred.#e was not negligent or at fault because the deceased was not in the direction at which the accused fired his gun. 0t wasnot foreseeable that the slug would recoil after hitting the chic'en.>vidence of misadventure gives rise to an important issuein a prosecution for homicide, which must be submitted to the ury, and since a plea of misadventure is a denial of a criminalintent, which constitutes an essential element in criminal homicide, to warrant a conviction, it must be negated by theprosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the udgement ofconviction. The udgement of conviction then is reversed, the accused is ac3uitted and discharged of custody.

IRRESISTI4LE FORCE UNCONTROLLA4LE FEARA%tus Me Invito F%tus Non Est Meus F%tus

IRRESISTI4LE FORCEThis term is applied to such an interposition of human agency, as is, from its nature and power, absolutely uncontrollable asthe inroads of a hostile army

PEOPLE v 4ALDO5O, ?8 SCRA ?1

FACTS:8on&alo aldogo alias aguio and >dgar emas alias unso were serving sentence in the !enal Colony of!alawan. They were also serving the Camacho 6amily who resides within teh !enal Colony. -n 6ebruary 22, 1997

aguio and unso 'illed 4orge, a fourteen year old boy and abducted 4ulie who was 12 years old then. They brought 4ulieup to the mountain. :uring their tre', aguio and unso were able to retrieve their clothing and belongings from a trun'which was located under a tamarind tree. -n 6ebruary 2E, 1997, aguio left 4ulie in the mountains to fend for herself. 4uliewent to the lowlands and there she as'ed for help.C&i'e %o''itted:5urder and 'idnappingContention o; t)e A%%used:aldogo claims that he was acting under duress because he was threatened by ermas withdeath unless he did what ermas ordered him to do. #e claims that he was even protective of 4ulie. #e insists that 4uliewas not a credible witness and her testimony is not reliable because she was merely coached into implicating him for thedeath of 4orge and her 'idnapping and detention by ermas.HELD:The accused were serving sentence in the !enal Colony of !alawan when they committed the murder and'idnapping. ggravating circumstances of evident



PEOPLE v DEL ROSARIO, ?76 SCRA 307FACTS: t around @?DA !5, 4oselito :el $osario was hired for ! 12A by a certain oy "antos, his co<accused. Theiroriginal agreement wa that he would drive him to a coc'pit, however, despite their earlier agreement, oy directed him toproceed to the mar'et place to fetch 4un 5ar3ue& and :odong isaya which :el $osario acceded. "ubse3uently, he wasas'ed to proceed and stop at ther corner of urgos and 8eneral *una "t. where isaya was waiting.C&i'e Co''itted:$obbery with homicideContention o; t)e Stte: The trial court ruled that his fear was merely speculative and remote, hence it could not be

considered uncontrollable and that a gun pointed at him did not constitute irresistible force because it fall short of the test.Contention o; t)e A%%used:That he must be e%empted from criminal liability because he acted under the compulsion ofirresistible force. #e was threatened by oy that he must not leave, or else, he will be shot to death.HELD: The conviction of :el $osario must be set aside. #is claim for e%emptioin from criminal liability under rticle 12 (@)of the $!C as he acted under the compulsion of irresistible force must be sustained. #e was then unarmed and unable toprotect himself when he tried to leave and during the perpetration of the robbery and 'illing, and was only forced to helpthem escape after.

PEOPLE v LISIN5, 26 SCRA 66FACTS: 0n 5arch 199A, $odolfo 5analili who is a businessman as'ed 6elimon 8arcia, his town mate, if he 'new somebodywho could allegedly affect the arrest of $oberto #errera, the suspect, in the 'illing of his brother, :elfin 5analili. -n pril

21, 199A, 8arcia called up 5analili and informed him that he already contracted a policeman to help him. -n pril 22, 199A8arcia introduced $oberto *ising, >nrico :i&on and another man to 5anlili. :uring the meeting, 5analili offered them topay !@A, AAA for the ob. -n pril 2D ; 2B, *isings group met with ic *isbod and conducted a surveillance on theCastanos residence 0n the hope of seeing #errera. 6ailing to do so, the group was as'ed to return on the ne%t day. -npril 2@, the group saw a man and a woman who happened to be Conchise ernabe, 27 years old and a new graduate of=! College of law and eebom Castanos, 22 years old and a graduating student of the =! College of 5assCommunication, leave the Castanos residence in a green bo% type lancer car. The group followed the lancer car with*ising, :i&on and 5ango riding in a clac' car and *isbog and 8arcia in a motorcycle. The lancer car stopped at :ayritsham and urger #ouse on Timog Circle. lighting from the car, they were accosted by :i&on and 5anga. -n #une 21, twosecurity guards told the C!C-5 that their friends $aul 5orales and 4un 5edrano, both employees of $oberto *ising,informed them that *ising 'illed a man and a woman in the warehouse-n 4une 2@, the body of Cochise was e%humed and

the cause of death was multiple stab wounds.C&i'e %o''itted::ouble murder and 'idnappingContention o; t)e Stte:To be e%empt from criminal liability, a person invo'ing irresistible force or uncontrollable fear mustshow that the force e%erted was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument who acted not only without will but againsthis will. The compulsion must be of same character as to leave the accused no opportunity for self<defense in e3ual combator for escape.Contention o; t)e A%%used:6elimon 8arcia prays that his liability be mitigated on grounds of lac' of intent or motive, actsmade under the compulsion of an irresistible force and voluntary surrender, which is considered would ma'e him merelyaccomplice to the crime.HELD: The decision of the lower court finding the accused $odolfo 5analili, $oberto *ising, 6elimon 8arcia, $obin 5angaand >nrico :i&on, guilty of beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of double murder, including their civil liability is hereby

affirmed in toto and the decision of the lower court finding the accused $oberto *ising, >nrico :i&on and $obin 5anga guiltyof the crime of slight illegal detention aggravated by teh use of motor vehicle is hereby modified, and that the said accusedare hereby declared guilty of the crime of 'idnapping and hereby sentence to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua

PEOPLE 9 FRONDA, SCRA 31FACTS: rothers >dwin and >sminio alaan were ta'en by armed men in fatigue uniforms with long fire arms, suspectedto be ! members. ccompanied by the accused $udy 6ronda and laan. The armed men tied the hands of thedeceased at their bac' lying face down in the front of the house of 6erminio. They all proceeded towards "itio Tulogpassing through the rice fields. Three years later, the bodies or remains of the alaan brothers were e%humed. fter whichthe remains were brought to the house of 6reddie revalo, a relative of the deceased where they were laid in state for thewa'e. The $TC declared 6ronda guilty as a principal by indispensible cooperation. The appellant says that he was only



ta'en by teh armed men as pointer and interposes the e%empting circumstances under rticle 12 (7) claiming that all hisacts were performed under the impulse of uncontrollable fear and to save his life.C&i'e %o''itted::ouble murderContention o; t)e Stte:6ronda cannot claim e%empting circumstance of uncontrollable fear. 6ear, in order to be validshould be based on a real, imminent and reasonable fear for ones life or limb. 0n this case, the records indicated that theappellant was seen being handed by and receiving from one of the armed men a hunting 'nife. lso, as aforesaidappellant was not able to e%plain his failure to report the incident to the authorities for more than three years. 0n order thatthe circumstances of uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave

no opportunity to escape or self<defense in e3ual combat.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The appellant contended that he was only ta'en by the armed men as pointer and interposesthe e%empting circumstances under rticle 12 (7) of the $!C claiming that all his acts were performed under the impulse oruncontrollable fear and to save his life.HELD: ased on these circumstances, it was hold that the contemporaneous and subse3uent acts of the appellant cannotbe regarded as having been under the impulse of uncontrollable fear.

INSUPERA4LE OR LAWFUL CAUSE

U.S. v 9INCENTILLO, 1 PHIL. 112FACTS: 0sidro incentillo, a municipal president thus has the authority to ma'e arrest of the complaining witness as well as

all the usual powers of a police officer for the ma'ing of arrest without warrant, was found guilty in the court below of thecrime illegal and arbitrary detention+ of the complaining witness for a period of three days, and sentenced to pay a fine of72@ pesetas, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay cost of the trial.C&i'e %o''itted:0llegal and arbitrary detentionContention o; t)e Stte:0sidro incentillo, with no legal authority, detained the complaining witness for a period of threedays without having him brought before the proper udicial authority for the investigation and trial of the charge on which hewas arrested.Contention o; t)e A%%used:The arrested man was brought before a ustice of the peace as soon as practicable after hisarrest. 0t was true that three days was e%panded in doing due to the fact that at the time of the arrest, neither the loca ustice of the peace nor his au%illary were in the municipality. Thus, the arrested man was brought to one of the adoiningmunicipality which too' them a long ourney by boat, however, they failed to secure a trial on the first occasion being due to

the fact that the written complaint, which was entrusted to the policeman in charge of the prisoner, was either lost or stolen.HELD:There is nothing in the record upon which to base the finding that defendant caused the arrest and subse3uentdetention of the prisoner otherwise than in the due performance of his official duties and there can be no doubt of hislawfully authority in the premises. The trial udge pays great stress upon the trivial nature of the offense for which the arrestwas made, but 'eeping in mind the fact that there was no udicial officer in the remote community where the incidentoccurred at the time of the arrest, and no certainty of the early return of the absent ustice of the peace, or his au%illary.The udgement of the lower court convicting and sentencing the defendant must be reversed and he is hereby ac3uitted ofthe offense with which he is charged, with cost in both instances de oficio.

PEOPLE v 4ANDIAN, 8? PHIL. 6?7FACTS: -ne morning, alentine guilar saw his neighbour, 4osefina andian, got to a tic'et apparently to respond to the

call of nature. 6ew minutes later, andian emerged from the thic'et with her clothes stained with blood both in the front andbac', staggering and visibly showing of not being able to support herself. $ushing to her aid, he brought her to his houseand placed her on the bed. #e called on driano Comcom to help them, where Comcom saw the body of a new born babynear a path adoining the thic'et where the appellant had gone a few moments before. "he claimed that it was hers. :r.>milio epomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth in her own house and brought her child into the thic'et to 'ill itThe trial court gave the credit to his opinion.C&i'e Co''itted: 0nfanticide and abandonment of a minorContention o; t)e A%%used: pparently, andian was not aware of their childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her orshe was unable, due to her debility or di&&iness which cause may be considered as lawful or insuperable cause toconstitute mitigating circumstances, to ta'e her child from the thic'et to pee. "he caused a wrong as that of giving birth toher child in the same place and later abandoning it not because of imprudence or any other reason that she was overcome



by strong di&&iness and e%treme debility, she could not blame herself because it all happened by mere accident, with nofault or intention of causing it.HELD: andian is not guilty of infanticide. 0nfanticide and abandonment, to be punishable, must be committed wilfully orconsciously, or at least, it must be the result of voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. The evidence does not showthat the appellant, in causing her childs death in one way or another did so wilfully, consciously or imprudently. andiansact can be considered lawful or insuperable. Thus, having the fourth and seventh e%empting circumstances in her favourshe is ac3uitted of the crime that she had been accused of.

C.OTHER E/CULPATORY CAUSES

INSTI5ATION

Peo$!e v. LUA CHU nd UY SE TIEN5 J68 PHIL. 00 "1?1#KNATURE:n ppeal was made by =y "e Tieng Y *ua Chu Y made 1A assignments of errors made by the TC in its udgment.FACTS: -n ov. 1929, =y "e Tieng, was the consignee of the "hipments of -pium coming from #ong'ong, whorepresented agents of the real -wners of "hipments of -pium containing D,2@2 tins. #e collaborated wF "amson Yatividad of the Customs by paying them an amount of !7L for the opium to be released safely from Customs. -n :ec.1929, upon arrival of the "hipment of -pium in the ports of Cebu, =y "e Tieng informed "amson that the former consult the

real owners on how to proceed the payment of !7L Y will come over to "amson house on :ec. 1, 1929 to inform the decisionof the owners. -n the same day "amson informed the Constabulary represented by Captain uencoseo Y the !rovincia6iscal re3uesting a stenographer to ta'e down the conversation between "amson Y =y "e Teung.-n the night of :ec. 1,1929, Capt. uencoseo and a stenographer named 4umapao from a law firm and hid themselves behind the curtains in thehouse of "amson to witness the conversation between "amson, =y "e Teung and *ua Chu.C$tin 4uen%oseo *u'$o noted t)e ;;. i'$o&tnt ;%ts:

• =y "e Teung informed "amson that *ua Chu was one of the owners of the -pium.• *ua Chu informed "amson that aside from him, there were co<owners named Tan and another located in moy.• *ua Chu promised to pay the !7,AAA upon delivery of the opium from the warehouse of =y "e Tieng.• Customs Collector had a conversation before when "amson was on vacation in >urope, with *ua Chu and

agreed on the business of shipping the -pium.

The following morning =y "e Tieng and companion, =y y presented papers to "amson Y Captain uencoseo showed upY caught them in the act Y arrested the two Chinese. The Constabulary then arrested *ua Chu Y confiscated !@AL worthof -pium (D,2@2 tins).ISSUES: He!d:

4uan "amson induced the defendants toimport the opium.

public official shall be involved in the crime if? #e induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain :oes not ta'e the necessary steps to sei&e the instrument of thecrime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind. #e obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does ta'e thenecessary steps sei&e the instrument of the crime Y to arrest the

offenders.>ven though 4uan "amson smoothed the way for the introduction ofthe prohibited drugs, the ff should be noted that held "amson notguilty for the crime?

The accused have already planned and actually ordered the opiumwithout the consent or participation of 4uan "amson. :id not help the accused to successfully implement there plan rather,"amson assured the sei&ure of the imported drug and the arrest of thesmugglers.

Trial udge refusal of e%clusion of 4uan"amson in the witness stand eventhough he

ot one of the means prescribed in section DB2 of the Code of Civil!rocedures



was already dismissed from the Customssecret service0n accepting the transcript ta'en down by4umapao as the true Y correct conversationbetween 4uan "amson Y =y "e Tieng

• The transcript contains certain admissions made by the defendants.• "tenographer attested that it was faithfully ta'en down.• Corroborated by statement of 4uan "tatement in the court.

ARANETA 9 CA J10 SCRA 6? "128#K

NATURE: !etition to review the decision of C.FACTS? Complainant 8ertrudes Goyongco is the widow of ntonio Goyongco, an employee of 0. "he approached theappellant, tty 3uilina raneta, a hearing officer of the /or'mens Compensation =nit at Cabanatuan City, to in3uire aboutthe procedure for filing a claim for death compensation. *earning the re3irements, Goyongco prepared the forms and filedthem at the =nit. /hen she went again to follow up on the status of the application, she was told by the appellant that shehad to pay !h!1AA so that her claim would be acted upon. "he told the officer that she had no money then but if she wouldprocess her claim, Goyongco would give her the !h!1AA upon approval. To this, tty raneta refused and said that onprevious occasions certain claimants made similar promises but they failed to live up to them.

Goyongco then went to her bro<in<law, Col. Goyongco (hala 'a), the Chief of Criminal 0nvestigation "ervice, !hilConstabulary, and informed him the demand of the appellant. The Col then gave her 2 !h!@A bills and instructed her to goto Col *aureaga. The latter concocted a plan to entrap the appellant. The 2 !h!@A bills were mar'ed wF notations CC<><

1+ and CC<><2+, photographed and dusted wF ultra<violet powder.The complainant went to the officer along wF C0C alcos who pretended to be her nephew. "he again re3uestedthe officer to process her claim but was again as'ed if she already had !1AA. 0n answer, Goyongco brought out the 2 !@Abills Y handed them to the appellant. s she too' hold of the money, C0C alcos grabbed her hand Y arrested her. 0n the!C head3uarters, tty ranetas hands were e%amined for the presence of = powder Y result was positive.

ppellant contends that the bills, wFc she never accepted, were rubbed against her hand and dress.

HELD? There is ent&$'ent when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal whilein the actual commission of the crime. There is insti<tion when the accused was induced to commit the crime. Thedi;;e&en%e in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the crim intent. 0n entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mindof the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime came from him. 0n instigation, the law officer conceives the

commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into e%ecution./herefore, $$e!!nt is <ui!t@ o; t)e %&i'e o; &ie&@ , a violation of "ec D $ o DA19 'nown as the nti<8raft andCorrupt !ractices ct.+ Considering though that this case was pending since 191 and she is a mother of four and theamount involved is only !h!1AA, it is recommended that petitioner be granted either e%ecutive clemency or the privilege ofprobation if she is 3ualified. :ecision affirmed.

Ent&$'ent• The practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions• 0t is a scheme or techni3ue ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by being in the actual crime scene.• The law officers shall not be guilty to the crime if he have done the following?

• #e does not induce a person to commit a crime for personal gain or is not involved in the planning of the crime.•

:oes ta'e the necessary steps to sei&e the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained theprofits in mind.

Insti<tion:This is the involvement of a law officer in the crime itself in the following manners?• #e induces a person to commit a crime for personal gain• :oesnt ta'e the necessary steps to sei&e the instrument of the crime Y to arrest the offenders before he obtained the

profits in mind.#e obtained the profits in mind even through afterwards does ta'e the necessary steps sei&e the instrument of the crimeand to arrest the offenders



CA4RERA v PA*ARES J10 SCRA 13 1287KCabrera is the defendant in a civil case wFc !aares was trying. The case filed by CabreraIs dad Y half<siblings for theannulment of the sale made to Cabrera of 2E ha. of land in Camarines "ur. Cabrera was advised by his counsel toaccommodate any re3uest for money from the udge so that latter wonIt give him a hard time• "ept. 19EB? !aares intimated that he needed money Y so Cabrera gave him !1'.• fter 2 mosFbefore Christmas of EB? !aares Y Cabrera met in front of the aga #all of 4ustice Y the !aares told

Cabrera that he needed money again. This time, Cabrera as'ed the assistance of the 0 in entrapping !aares. #esubmitted 1A !1AA bills for mar'ing to be used in the entrapment. "uch bills were mar'ed wForange flourescent crayon Ydusted wForange flourescent crayon by the 0. female agent bet D@ Y BA yrs old was sent to aga to ta'e part in theoperations.

• 4an. 22, 19E@, E?1@ a.m. Cabrera told the udge that he decided not to settle the case but instead he filed a 56$ appointinga surveyor to delineate a portion of the land in dispute for his half<siblings in settlement. Then !aares as'ed - ano ngayonang atin.+ Cabrera then got the envelope wFthe mar'ed money Y gave it !aares. Cabrera then rushed out of the chamberon the prete%t that he forgot the 'eys in the car as a signal to the other 0 agents. s soon as they got in, "omera pointedout where the money was. 0t was inserted between the pages of a diary on the udges table. !hotos were ta'en. 6orensic Chemist allado established that the envelope Y the money in it were those mar'ed by the 0. !aares Y hisdiary were both found positive of orange fluorescent powder. (so thats how they do it\ #ehehe.)

• !aares defense? he too' the money thin'ing that it was for the surveyor. (yeah, yeah\) nd he claims that when hereali&ed it was for the surveyor, he threw it bac' to Cabrera telling him, a'it mo sa 'in yan ibibigayN 0'aw na angmagbigay niyan 'ay "urveyor !alaypayon.+ #e further claims that the envelope fell on the open pages of his diary Ythats where the 0 agents found it.

Issues Rtio:1. WON P&es %%e$ted t)e 'one@ >no(in< t)t it (s <iven to )i' @ &eson o; )is o;;i%e.

• G>". "urveyors fee was !2' Y it would have been paid by Cabrera Y the plaintiffs e3ually at !@AA each Y not byCabrera alone. esides, !aares had no reason to believe that the money was Cabreras share of the surveyorsfees. #is claim that a survey plan was needed for the final disposition of the case has no basis either because theplaintiffs were see'ing the annulment of the sale, thus a survey was not necessary.

• >vidence shows that udge did not really try to return the envelope to Cabrera but instead, he placed it

between the pages of his diary. "uch evidence is based on? "omeras testimony Y affidavit.• !hotos showing that the envelope was placed between the pages of the udges diary. hand was shown in one

of the photographs Y was identified as that of 0 agent rtemio "acaguing. "acaguing confirmed this claimingthat he was in the act of pic'ing the diary from the table.

• Testimony of 5anuel Tobias, chief agent of 0 sub<office in *egaspi• 5el3uiades olante, !aares branch cler' of court, corroborated !aares statement claiming that the udge did try

to return the envelope to Cabrera. #owever, he issued another affidavit repudiating his first testimony. #e claimsthat he was ust pressured by !aares to testify Y that he did not really see the incident.

• Constancio >l3uiero, a anitor, corroborates !aares statement. #owever, the testimonies of the D lawenforcement agents should be given more credence since theyre presumed to have acted in the reg performanceof their duties.

•

!hotos appear to have been ta'en as soon as the agents got into the udges chamber. >ven the udge himselfcomplained that as soon as the agents barged into his office, they began to ta'e pictures. This rules out thepossibility that the agents were responsible for putting the envelope in his diary. The photos loo' li'e snapshotsrather than formal pictures.

• The plan to entrap the udge was cleared wF>%ec. 4udge #on. 4uan *laguno before whom Cabrera swore to hisstatement. ot li'ely for a udge to approve a frame<up of a colleague. ot li'ely either for 0 $egional :ir. >pimacoelasco to authori&e a frame<up considering that according to !aares himself, elasco is his close friend.

• There was a discussion about how the envelope was folded, etc. ut its probable that the udge unfolded it when itwas handed to him.



• !aares claims that he was outraged by the frame<up Y that he protested. ut the photos of his arrest show that hewas smiling. #e claims it was in derision (moc'ery, scorn) Y that hes olly by nature. ut a smile is not a normalreaction to e%press outrage. (0 dont 3uite understand why this should be mentioned. "o what if he was smilingN)

. W)et)e& t)is (s n ent&$'ent o& insti<tion o$e&tion.• >T$!5>T. 0nstigation Y entrapment distinguished?

0nstigation? officers of the lawFtheir agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense wFc heotherwise wouldnt commit Y has no intention of committing. ccused cannot be held liable. 0ts a trap for unwary innocent.

• >ntrapment? criminal intentFdesign to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused Y lawenforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of the crime, the accused cannot ustify his conduct. Trapfor the unwary criminal.

• 0nstigation is not actually an issue since !aares claims that this was a frame<up. #owever, this claim has no basis asproven by the evidence presented.

?. WON P&es is <ui!t@ o; %ts une%o'in< o; ud<e.• -. 8=0*TG -*G -6 0:0$>CT $0>$G. >vidence only shows that he accepted the money Y that he 'new it was

being given to him by reason of his office as per the investigation conducted by 0nvestigating 4ustice 5endo&a.=nfortunate since the Court has always stressed that members of the udiciary should display not only the highestintegrity but must at all times conduct themselves in such manner as to be beyond reproach Y suspicion. 6or the

udge to return the peoples regard of him as an intermediary of ustice between 2 conflicting parties, he must be thefirst to abide by the law Y weave an e%ample for the others to follow. #e should be studiously careful to avoid eventhe slightest infraction of law. ut 5endo&as recommendation of merely suspending the udge for 2 yrs Y B mos asthe proper administrative penalty by virtue of !aares serious misconduct preudicial to the udiciary Y public interestcannot be upheld.

• Court approves 5endo&as recommendation to ac3uit !aares for lac' of evidence of the 2 nd charge of havingcommitted acts unbecoming of a member of the udiciary.

He!d: !aares dismissed from the service wFforfeiture of all retirement benefits Y pay Y wFpreudice to reinstatement in anybranch of the govt or any of its agencies or instrumentalities. Cler' of Court ordered to return the ten mar'ed !1AA.AA billsto Cabrera.

PEOPLE v DORIA "?71 SCRA 882#FACTS: Two civilian informants informed the !! arcom that one 4un was engaged in illegal drug activities and thearcom agents decided to entrap and arrenst 4un+ in a buy<bust operation.• -n the day of entrapment, !-D 5anlangit handed 4un+ the mar'ed bills and 4un+ instructed !-D 5anlangit to wait for

him while he got the mariuana from his associate.• /hen they met up, 4un+ gave !-D something wrapped in plastic upon which !-D arrested 4un+. They fris'ed 4un but

did not find the mar'ed bills on him. 4un+ revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named neneth+• They wen to eneths house. !-D 5anlangit noticed a carton bo% under the dinin table and noticed something wrapped

in plastic inside the bo%.• "uspicious, !-D entered the house and too' hold of the bo% and found that it ha 1A bric's of what appeared to be dried

mariuana leaves.

• "imultaneously, "!-1 adua recovered the mar'ed bills from eneth. The policemen arrested eneth and too' bothher and 4un, together with the co&, its contents and the mar'ed bill and turned them over to the investigator athead3uarters,

• 4un was then learned to be 6lorencio :oria while eneth is iolata 8addao.• They were both convicted feloniously selling, administering and giving away to another 11 plastic bags of suspected

mariuana fruiting tops, in violation of $. 7B2@, as amended by $ 7@9ISSUE: /- ioleta 8addao is liable.• >ntrapment is recogni&ed as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused Y parta'es the nature of a confession Y

avoidance.



• merican federal courts and state courts usually use the subective+ or origin of intent+ test laid down in "orrells v. =.".to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the in3uiry is on the accuseds predisposition to committhe offense is charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial e%posure to government agents.

• nother test is the obective test where the test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agenst wasli'ely to induce a normally law<abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense.

• The obective test in buy<bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly Yade3uately shown. Courts should loo' at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offensein so far as they are relevant to determine the validty of the defense of inducement.

• 0n the case at bar, 8addao was not caught red<handed during the buy<bust operation to give ground for her arrest uner"ec. @a of $ule 11D. "he was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the TC, there was no occasion at allfor 8addao to flee from the policement to ustify her arrest in hot pursuit+

• either could her arrest ne ustified under second instance of personal 'nowledge+ in $ule 11D as this must be based uponprobable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds for suspicion. 8addao was arrested solely on thebasis of the alleged indentification made by her co<accused. !-D 5anlangt, however, declared in his direct e%aminationthat appellant :oria named his co<accused in response to his 3uery as to where the mar'ed money was. :oria did not pointo 8addao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he lfet the mar'ed bills. This identificationdoes not necessarily lead to the conclusion that 8addao conspired with :oria in pushing drugs, 0f there is no showing thatthe person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, 'nowledge of the acts implicating the person arrestedto the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally obectionable.

• 6urthermore, the fact that the bo% containing about 7 'ilos of mariuana was found in 8addaos house does not ustify afinding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.

• The prosecution thus had failed to prove that 8addao conspired with :oria in the sale of the said drug. T)us, 5ddo is%uitted

EFFECT OF PARDONRPC, A&ti%!e ?

)ffect of par&on ' t"e offen&e& part'. 4 pardon by the offended party does not e%tinguish criminal action e%cept asprovided in article DBB of this Code but civil liability with regard to the interest of the inured party is e%tinguished by hise%press waiver.

A4SOLUTORY CAUSESRPC, A&t. 8 "?#Consummate&, frustrate&, an& attempte& felonies. M (D)There is an attempt when the offender commences the commissionof a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of e%ecution which should produce the felony by reason ofsome cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.RPC, A&t. 3"en li%"t felonies are punis"ale. M *ight felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with thee%ception of those committed against person or property.RPC, A&t. 18"o are criminall' liale. M The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies?

1. !rincipals.2. ccomplices.D. ccessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies?1. !rincipals2. ccomplices.

RPC, A&t. 7 Accessories w"o are exempt from criminal liailit' . M The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed uponthose who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers andsisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single e%ception of accessories falling within the provisionsof paragraph 1 of the ne%t preceding article.



RPC, A&t. 033eat" or p"'sical in!uries inflicte& un&er exceptional circumstances. M ny legally married person who having surprised hisspouse in the act of committing se%ual intercourse with another person, shall 'ill any of them or both of them in the act orimmediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical inury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

0f he shall inflict upon them physical inuries of any other 'ind, he shall be e%empt from punishment.These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteenyears of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.

ny person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to theinfidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.

RPC, A&t. 27Bualifie& trespass to &wellin%. M ny private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latterIs will shall bepunished by arresto mayor and a fine not e%ceeding 1,AAA pesos.

0f the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in itsmedium and ma%imum periods and a fine not e%ceeding 1,AAA pesos.

The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter anotherIs dwelling for the purposeof preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to anyperson who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or ustice, nor to anyone who shall

enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open.

A4SOLUTORY CAUSESRPC, A&t. ??. ersons exempt from criminal liailit' . M o criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime oftheft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons?

1. "pouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shallhave passed into the possession of another andD. rothers and sisters and brothers<in<law and sisters<in<law, if living together.

The e%emption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.RPC, A&t. ?00rosecution of t"e crimes of a&ulter', concuina%e, se&uction, a&uction, rape an& acts of lasci#iousness. M The crimes oadultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted e%cept upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are bothalive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.

The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted e%cept upon acomplaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has beene%pressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.

0n cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offendedparty shall e%tinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph

shall also be applicable to the co<principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above<mentioned crimes.

PEOPLE v OYANI4 J?60 SCRA 18 "771#KFACTS: 5anolito Y Tita -yanib were legally married. Gears thereafter they separated. Tita had affairs wF other men.5anolito reminded her that they were still legally married, but Tita still continued with her affairs.• -ne day, 5anolito came to see Tita to inform her of a meeting wF their sons school regarding their sons failed subect.

#e then came upon Tita and his paramour, 4esus >s3uierdo, having se% wF the latter on top of the other wF his pantsdown to his 'nees.



• =pon seeing him, 4esus 'ic'ed 5anolito in the chec' and 5anolito immediately stabbed 4esus. Tita left the room, got aTanduay bottle and hit 5anolita with it in the head. Tital then stabbed 5anolito in the arm with the bro'en Tanduay bottle.This angered 5anolito and he stabbed Tita as well.

• Thereupon, >dgardo, owner of the house where Tita was staying entered the room. 5anolito hid but later gave himselfup.

• #e was found guilty of homicide and parricide and was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 7 month, 1 day to 7 yrsof prision correccional as minimum to 7 yrs 1 day to E yrs of prision ma'or as ma%imum and to pay !@AL civil indemnityand costs for the death of 4esus and to reclusion perpetua, to pay !@AL and costs for the death of his wife Tita.

• #e appealed, admitting the 'illings but arguing that he 'illed them both under the e%ceptional circumstance provided in2B $!C

Issue: /- hes entitled to the e%ceptional privilege under $!C 2B• G>". #e invo'ed rt. 2B, $!C as an absolutory and an e%empting cause. n absolutory cause is present where the

act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.+• #aving admitted the 'illing, it is inucumbent upon accused to prove the e%empting circumstanbces to the satisfaction of

the court in order to be relived of any criminal liability.• $!C 2B prescribes the ff essential elements for such defense?

• That a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing se%ual intercourse with another person• That he 'ills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter and• That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife (or daughter) or that he or she has not consented

to the infidelity of the other spouse.• ccused must prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise, his defense would be untenable.• The death caused must be the pro%imate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his

spouse in the act of infideltity. "imply put, the 'illing of the husband of his ide must concur with her flagrant adultery• The Court finds the accused to have acted within the circumstances contempleated in rt. 2B, $!C• The law imposes very stringent re3uirements before affording offended spouse the opportunity to avail himself of $!C

2B.• The vindication of a 5ans honor is ustified because of the scandal an unfaithful wife creates the law is strict on this,

authori&ing as it does, a man to chastise her, even with death. ut 'illing the errant spouse as a purification is so sever thatit can only be ustified when the unfaithful spouse is caught in flagrante delicto, Y it must be resorted to only wF great

caution so much so that the law re3uires that it be inflicted only during the se%ual intercourse or immediately thereafter(!eople v. /agas)

• Court thus sentenced 5anolito to 2 yrs Y B mos of destierro and shall not be permitted to enter or be wFin a 1AA 'mradius from 0ligan City.

ACTS NOT CO9ERED 4Y LAW AND IN CASE OF E/CESSI9E PUNISHMENTRPC, A&t. 63ut' of t"e court in connection wit" acts w"ic" s"oul& e represse& ut w"ic" are not co#ere& ' t"e law, an& in cases of excessi#e penalties. M /henever a court has 'nowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is notpunishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief >%ecutive, through the :epartment of4ustice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subect of legislation.

0n the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief >%ecutive, through the :epartment of 4ustice, such statementas may be deemed proper, without suspending the e%ecution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions ofthis Code would result in the imposition of a clearly e%cessive penalty, ta'ing into consideration the degree of malice and theinury caused by the offense.

PEOPLE v 9ENERACION J0 SCRA 00 "16#K

FACTS: ug 2, 199B < cadaver of a young girl identified as ngel l3ui&a was seen floating along :el !an "t. near thecorner of *avesares "t., inondo, 5anila. "he was wrapped in a sac' Y yellow table cloth tied with a nylon cord with bothfeet Y left hand protruding from it was seen floating along.



• bundio *agunday, a.'.a. 4r. 4eofrey and #enry *agarto y !etilla were later charged with the crime of $ape with#omicide in an 0nformation dated ugust E, 199B filed with the $egional Trial Court of 5anila, ational Capital 4udicial$egion

• Trial Court < rendered a decisionon 4anuary D1, 199@ finding the defendants #enry *agarto y !etilla and >rnestoCordero y 5aristela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of $ape with #omicide and sentenced both accusedwith the Jpenalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessories provided for by law.J

• 6ebruary E, 199@ ; City !rosecutor of 5anila filed a 5otion for $econsideration praying that the :ecision be Jmodified inthat the penalty of death be imposedJ against respondents *agarto and Cordero, in place of the original penalty

(reclusion perpetua). 6eb. 1A, 199@ the motion was denied by the court.

ISSUE: /- the respondent udge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in e%cess of urisdiction when he failed andForrefused to impose the mandatory penalty of death under $ 7@9, after finding the accused guilty of the crime of $ape with#omicide.

• G>". o 3uestion on the guilt of the accused.• government of laws, not of men e%cludes the e%ercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its

authority. =nder this system, udges are guided by the $ule of *aw, and ought Jto protect and enforce it without fearor favor,Jresist encroachments by governments, political parties,or even the interference of their own personabeliefs.

• The $TC udge found the accused beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and homicide.

A&t. ??6. /hen and how rape is committed. M $ape is committed by having carnal 'nowledge of a woman under any of thefollowing circumstances?

1. y using force or intimidation.2. /hen the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious andD. /hen the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua./henever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall bereclusion perpetua to death./hen by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death./hen the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penaltyshall be reclusion perpetua to death.

/hen by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.=nder the law the penalty imposable for the crime of rape with homicide is -T reclusion perpetua but :eath.The law provides that when by reason or on the occasion of rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be &eat" court of law is no place for a protracted debate on the morality or propriety of the sentence, where the law itself provides forthe sentence of death as a penalty in specific Y well<defined instances.Peo$!e vs. Li'%o < as long as that penalty remains in the statute boo's, and as long as our criminal law provides for itsimposition in certain cases, it is the duty of udicial officers to respect and apply the law regardless of their private opinions.0t is a well settled rule that the courts are not concerned wF the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws.Ru!es o; Cou&t mandates that after an adudication of guilt, the udge should impose the proper penalty and civil liabilityprovided for by the law on the accused.

MITI5ATIN5 CIRCUMSTANCESRPC, A&t. 1?+iti%atin% circumstances. M The following are mitigating circumstances

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the re3uisites necessary to ustify or to e%empt from criminalliability in the respective cases are not attendant.2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. 0n the case of the minor, he shall beproceeded against in accordance with the provisions of rt. EA.D. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.B. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.@. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony(&elito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.



7. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he hadvoluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecutionE. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts hismeans of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.9. "uch illness of the offender as would diminish the e%ercise of the will<power of the offender without howeverdepriving him of the consciousness of his acts.chan robles virtual law library1A. nd, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.

INCOMPLETE *USTIFICATIONE/EMPTION

PEOPLE v *AURI5UE JC.A. No. ?20 "Fe. 1, 108#Kicolas and velina 4aurigue were prosecuted for the crime of murder, of which icolas was ac3uitted, but

defendant velina was found guilty of homicide.

FACTS) velina and the deceased mado Capina lived in the same barrio that for some time prior to the stabbing, madohad been courting her in vain. -n "ept.1D, mado suddenly embraced and 'issed velina and touched her breasts, velinaslapped mado, gave him fist blows and 'ic'ed him. "ince then, she armed herself with a long fan 'nife for self<protection.

-n "ept.1@, about midnight, mado climbed up the room of velina. #e felt her forehead, evidently with the

intention of abusing her. "he immediately screamed for help, which awa'ened her parents and brought them to her side.mado came out from where he had hidden under a bed in velinaIs room and 'issed the hand of icolas, her father,as'ing for forgiveness.

0n the morning of "ept. 2A, velina received information that mado had been falsely boasting in the neighbourhoodof having ta'en liberties with her person and that she had even as'ed him to elope with her and that if he should not marryher, she would ta'e poison and that velina again received information of madoIs bragging at about @ oIcloc' in theafternoon of that same day.

t about E oIcloc' in the evening of the same day, icolas went to the chapel of the "eventh :ay dventists toattend religious services, and sat on the front bench . velina entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father andsat on the bench ne%t to the last one nearest the door. mado was seated on the other side of the chapel. =pon observingthe presence of velina , mado went to the bench on which velina was sitting and sat by her right side, and, without

saying a word, mado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. -n observingthis highly improper and offensive conduct of mado, velina , conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out withher right hand the fan 'nife, which she had in a poc'et of her dress, with the intention of punishing madoIs offending hand.mado sei&ed velinaIs right hand, but she 3uic'ly grabbed the 'nife with her left hand and stabbed mado once at thebase of the left side of the nec'.

ISSUE: /hether or not velina should be completely absolved from any criminal liability.

HELD: 0f velina had 'illed mado, when the latter climbed up her bedroom late at night and undoubtedly for the purposeof raping her, as indicated by his previous acts and conduct, instead of merely shouting for help, she could have beenperfectly ustified in 'illing him.

/hen Capina sat by the side of velina, near the door of the chapel and placed his hand on the upper portion of herright thigh, without her consent, the chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there were already several people, includingher own father and the barrio lieutenant, and under the circumstances, there was and there could be no possibility of herbeing raped. nd when she gave mado a thrust at the base of the left side of his nec' causing his death, the meansemployed by her in the defense of her honor was evident!@ e%essive and therefore, s"e cannot e le%all' &eclare&completel' exempt from criminal liailit'.

ut the fact that defendant and appellant immediately and voluntarily and unconditionally surrendered to the barriolieutenant and that she had acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her a few momentsbefore, and upon such provocation as to produce passion and obfuscation, or temporary loss of reason and self<control,should be considered as 'iti<tin< %i&%u'stn%es. velina claims that she had not intended to 'ill, as shown by the factthat she inflicted upon him only one single wound. nd this is not)e& 'iti<tin<. The claim of the prosecution that the



offense was committed by velina with the aggravating circumstance that the 'illing was done in a place dedicated toreligious worship, cannot be legally sustained as there is no evidence to show that the defendant and appellant had murderin her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal night. velina is not a criminal by nature. "he happened to 'ill under thegreatest provocation. 0n the mind of the court, velina committed the crime of homicide, with no aggravating circumstancewhatsoever, but with at least three mitigating circumstances of a 3ualified character to be considered in her favor she isentitled to a reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposed upon her. nd considering the circumstances ofthe instant case, velina should be accorded the most liberal consideration possible under the law.

PEOPLE v NAR9AE= J11 SCRA ?2 "12?#K

FACTS: 5amerto arvae& has been convicted of murder (3ualified by treachery) of :avid 6leischer and 6laviano $ubia. -nugust 22, 197E, arvae& shot 6leischer and $ubia during the time the two were constructing a fence that would preventarvae& from getting into his house and rice mill. The defendant was ta'ing a nap when he heard sounds of constructionand found fence being made. #e addressed the group and as'ed them to stop destroying his house and as'ing if they couldtal' things over. 6leischer responded with Jo, gadamit, proceed, go ahead.J :efendant lost his Je3uilibrium,J and shot6leisher with his shotgun. #e also shot $ubia who was running towards the eep where the deceasedIs gun was placed.!rior to the shooting, 6leischer and Co. (the company of 6leischerIs family) was involved in a legal battle with the defendantand other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of property. t the time of the shooting, the civil case was stillpending for annulment (settlers wanted granting of property to 6leisher and Co. to be annulled). t time of the shooting,

defendant had leased his property from 6leisher (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. -n 4une2@, defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didnIt pay rent. #e was given 7 months to removehis house from the land. "hooting was barely 2 months after letter. :efendant claims he 'illed in defense of his person andproperty. C60 ruled that arvae& was guilty. ggravating circumstances of evident premeditation offset by the mitigatingcircumstance of voluntary surrender. 6or both murders, C60 sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs,and to pay for moral damages.

ISSUES:• WON CFI e&&ed in %onvi%tin< de;endnt-$$e!!nt des$ite t)e ;%t t)t )e %ted in de;ense o; )is $e&son.

o. The courts concurred that the fencing and chiselling of the walls of the house of the defendant was indeed a form ofaggression on the part of the victim. #owever, this aggression was not done on the person of the victim but rather on his

rights to property. -n the first issue, the courts did not err. #owever, in consideration of the violation of property rights,the courts referred to rt. DA of the civil code recogni&ing the right of owners to close and fence their land. lthough isnot in dispute, the victim was not in the position to subscribe to the article because his ownership of the land beingawarded by the government was still pending, therefore putting ownership into 3uestion. 0ts accepted that victim was theoriginal aggressor.

• WON t)e %ou&t e&&ed in %onvi%tin< de;endnt-$$e!!nt !t)ou<) )e %ted in de;ense o; )is &i<)ts.Ges. #owever, the argument of the ustifying circumstance of self<defense is applicable only if the D re3uirements arefulfilled. rt. 11(1) $!C enumerates these re3uisites?• =nlawful aggression. 0n the case at bar, there was unlawful aggression towards appellantIs property rights. 6leisher

had given arvae& 7 months and he should have left him in peace before time was up, instead of chiseling arvae&Is

house and putting up fence. @D7 of the CC also provides that possession may not be ac3uired through force orintimidation while rt. @D9 provides that every possessor has the right to be respected in his possession• $easonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attac'. 0n case, 'illing was disproportionate to attac'.• *ac' of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. #ere, there was no provocation at all since he was

asleep"ince not all re3uisites present, defendant is credited wF the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense,pursuant to 1D(7) $!C. These mitigating circumstances are? voluntary surrender Y passion Y obfuscation (read p. BA@e%planation)





from agadiong. #owever, many eepneys and buses plying the usa'<"ipocot route. #e returned to "ipocot on pril @,199D. #e met his sister<in<law *ourney only in 199B, when she charged him with the rape of *eah *ou. oel testified that hewas born on ovember 1, 197. #e and his mother arrived in 5anila on 5ay 7, 199A and stayed in the house of his auntConcordia in 5anila. -n 5ay 9, 199A, he went to the !hilippine 8eneral #ospital (!8#) for treatment of leu'aemia andstayed there for three days. 4oel stayed in the hospital for one wee'. >very now and then, he returned to the hospital fochec'<ups for a month. 0n ugust 199A, 4oels mother fetchedY returned him to Camarines "ur.T)e 9ERDICT: ernardo and 4oel Corte&ano are guilty of rape.

ernardo failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to have been in "ipocot on 5ay 7 and 4une 1A,

199A. ernardo even testified that it was possible for him to have returned to "ipocot if he wanted to, as there werepassenger eepneys and buses plying the route four times a day .#e even failed to present his cousin lvin $eoval tocorroborate his testimony.4oel li'ewise failed to substantiate his alibi. #e failed to prove that he was treated at the !8# andwas confined thereat on 5ay 7 and 4une 1A, 199A. /hen as'ed to produce any certification to prove his claim, he failed toproduce any, on his incredible claim that the person releasing the certification was very busy and could not issue acertification. This was belied by the certifications issued by the !8# he was never confined in the said hospital.

NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO 5RA9E A WRON5

PEOPLE v RE5ATO J13SCRA 23 "120#KFACTS: $egato, "alceda, Y $amire& arrived together at the residence of ictor 6lores and pretended to buy cigarettes.

/hen 6elicisima 6lores opened the door, they went inside the house and demanded of icto to bring out their money. /henhe refused, $amire& and $egato maltreated him, while "alceda went inside the bedroom and ransac'ed the trun' wherethe money was 'ept. $amire& then in3uired whether he found the money and "alceda answered in the affirmative. $amire&called ictor a liar and the latter called them robbers to which $amire& responded by shooting ictor. The two ($amire&remained at large) were convicted and found guilty of the special comple% crime of robbery with homicide.

HELD: There is no merit in the contention that there was lac' of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.0ntention is a mental process Y is an internal state of mind. The intention must be udged by the action, conduct and e%ternalacts of the accused. /hat men do is the best inde% of their intention. 0n the case at bar, the aforesaid mitigatingcircumstance cannot be appreciated considering that the acts employed by the accused were reasonably sufficient toproduce the result that they actually madeMthe death of the victim.

/ith respect to night<time and craft, it is obvious that the crime was committed at night. Craft involves intellectual tric'eryor cunning on the part of the accused. "houting from the outside that they wanted to buy cigs, they induced the inmates toopen the door for them.

6or lac' of necessary votes, the death penalty cannot be imposed, thus the penalty is modified to reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE v PU5AY 183 JSCRA 0? J5.R. No. 30?0 "122#K

FACTS: The deceased ayani 5iranda, a 2@<year old retardate, and !ugay were friends. 5iranda used to run errands for!ugay. -n 5ay 19, 19E2, a town fiesta fair was held in the public pla&a of $osario, Cavite. There were different 'inds of rideand one was a ferris wheel. "ometime after, 8abion was sitting in the ferris wheel and reading a comic boo' with his friend#enry. *ater, !ugay and "amson with several companions arrived. These persons appeared to be drun' as they were all

happy and noisy. s the group saw the deceased wal'ing nearby, they started ma'ing fun of him. They made the deceaseddance by tic'ling him with a piece of wood.ot content with what they were doing,!ugay suddenly too' a can of gasolinefrom under the engine of the ferris wheel and poured its contents on the body of the former. 8abion told !ugay not to do sowhile latter was already in the process of pouring the gasoline. Then, the accused "amson set 5iranda on fire ma'ing ahuman torch out of him.HELD: s no sufficient evidence appears in the record establishing any 3ualifying circumstances, the accused "amson isonl' %uilt' of t"e crime of "omici&e defined and penali&ed in rticle 2B9 of the $evised !enal Code, as amended. /e aredisposed to credit in his favor the ordinary mitigating circumstance o; no intention to %o''it so <&ve (&on< as thatcommitted as there is evidence of a fact from which such conclusion can be drawn. The eyewitness 8abion testified that theaccused !ugay and "amson were stunned when they noticed the deceased burning. The proper penalty that the accused



"amson must suffer is an indeterminate one ranging from eight (E) years of prision mayor as minimum, to fourteen (1B)years of reclusion temporal as ma%imum.ccordingly, the udgment is affirmed with the modifications.

PEOPLE v 5ON=ALES ?6 SCRA ?6

FACTS? -n -ct D1, 199E , 0nocencio 8on&ale& and oel ndres vehicle almost collided in *oyola 5emorial !ar'. oewas able to timely step on the bra'es. 8on&ales continued driving while oel drove behind the appellants vehicle for some

time and cut him off when he found the opportunity to do so. oel got out of his vehicle and 'noc'ed on the appellants carwindow. This is as far as their versions of the incident coincide.

The prosecutions version of the incident is that oel ndres calmly told the appellant to be careful with his drivingand informed him that he is with his family and to this 8on&ale& allegedly replied, ccidents are accidents, whats yourproblem.+ ndres stated that he saw the appellant turning red in anger so he decided to go bac' to his vehicle when he wasbloc'ed by the appellants son who said, nong problema mo sa erpat 'o.+ ndres testified that he felt threatened and sohe immediately boarded his vehicle, sat at the drivers seat, closed the door, and partially opened the car window ust wideenough to tal' bac' to appellants son, :ino. "uddenly, one of his passengers said inaril 'ami+. #e turned to his wife6eliber ndres and saw her bloodied and unconscious. Lenneth and Levin were also wounded. ndres admitted in courtthat he and :ino were shouting at each other so that he did not hear the shot.

The defenses version of the incident is ndresgot out of his vehicle, stood beside the appellants car window, and

repeatedly cursed the appellant, !utang ina mo, ang tanda<tanda mo na hindi 'a pa marunong magmaneho. ng bobo<bobo mo.+ The appellant stayed inside his car and allegedly replied, !asensiya 'a na hindi 'ita na'ita, nasilaw a'o.'sidente lang.+ /hen :ino arrived at the scene he confronted ndres and the two had an altercation. oth :ino and theappellant stated that ndres remained outside his vehicle during the altercation with :ino. /hen ndres suddenly reachedfor something inside his vehicle, :ino fro&e on the spot where he stood. This prompted the appellant to get his gun from theglove compartment and feeling that his son was threatened he got out of his car ready to shoot. /hen he saw that ndresdid not have a weapon he put down his hand holding the gun. This is when the appellants daughter Trisha who was ridingin :inos car arrived at the sceneand pushed the appellant away. "he hugged her father and in the process held his handholding the gun. The appellant tried to free his hand and with Trishas substantial body weight pushing against him theappellant lost his balance and the gun accidentally fired. 8on&ales stated that he did not 'now he shot somebody until thecomplainants sister<in<law, got out of the vehicle carrying a bloodied small boy.

HELD: 8on&ales is found guilty of homicide for the death of 6eliber and for each count of the slight physical inuriescommitted against Lenneth ndres and Levin alde&.The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, passion and obfuscation, incomplete defense of a relative and

lac' of intent to commit so grave a wrong, pleaded by the defense, were not convincingly proved and none can beconsidered in the imposition of penalties.

The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. oels act of shouting at theappellants son, who was then a nurse and of legal age, is not sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation as it is claimedby the accused. esides, the appellants son, :ino was shouting bac' at oel ndres. 0t was not a case wherein theappellants son appeared helpless and oppressed that the appellant lost his reason and shot at the 6[ of oel. The sameholds true for the appellants claim of provocation on the part of oel ndres. !rovocation must be sufficient to e%cite aperson to commit the wrong committed and that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. The

sufficiency of provocation varies according to the circumstances of the case. The aggressive behavior of oel towards theappellant and his son may be demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient provocation to shoot at the complainantsvehicle.

The plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative is also unmeritorioussince the act of ndres in cursing and shouting at the appellant and his son do not amount to an unlawful aggressionagainst them, :ino 8on&ale&. 6inally, the plea for the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance o; !%> o; intent to%o''it so <&ve (&on< is !i>e(ise devoid o; 'e&it. This mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notabledisparity between the means employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crime committed. The intentionof the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifested from the weapon used, the mode of attac'employed and the inury sustained by the victim. 8on&ale& use of a gun, although not deliberately sought nor employed in



the shooting, should have reasonably placed the appellant on guard of the possible conse3uences of his act. The use of agun is sufficient to produce the resulting crimes committed.

PEOPLE v CANETE 017 SCRA 600

FACTS:-n 5ay 2B, 199, *eonaldo Tumayao, 4oel Huimod and *ilio Tundag were on their way home after attending awedding party. Tumayao was wal'ing ahead of Tundag and Huimod. s they passed by the houses of the accused, Huimodand Tundag heard successive gunshots. Huimod and Tundag immediately loo'ed in the direction where the bursts of

gunfire were coming from and saw $uben, lfredo, "ergio, "otero and Trinidad Canete shooting at Tumayao who slumpedto the ground. pparently not satisfied, all the accused approached the fallen Tumayao and continued shooting him. -norder of his father "otero, lfredo shot Tumayao in the head.Huimod, who was 1A meters behind the victim, ran and hidbehind the bushes. s soon as the accused left, Huimod went home and narrated the incident to Tumayaos wife.-n theother hand, Tundag, who was behind Tumayao, saw $uben fire his gun at the victim. Tundag attempted to come to the aidof Tumayao but the latter shouted at him to flee. Thus, he ran bac' to the wedding party while hearing more gunshots. tthe wedding party, Tundag informed the people about the ambush. Thereafter, he went bac' to the crime scene where hesaw Tumayaos lifeless body on the road.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: -n 5ay 2D, 199, $ubens wife, Teresita, was in *anipga, Consolacion, Cebu, to helpprepare food for the wedding of her husbands cousin. "he stayed there overnight. t the wedding reception the following

morning, *eonaldo Tumayao, alias >duardo or >dit, approached $uben who was then loo'ing for a cold soft drin'. Tumayaosaid #ere is something cold,+ and suddenly punched $uben. Teresita summoned her husband and as'ed him to go homewith her. The latter ac3uiesced. efore they left, however, Teresita saw Tundag give Tumayao what loo'ed li'e a .B@caliber pistol."econds later, Tumayao, together with Huimod, Tundag and the latters son followed $uben to his house on amotorcycle or habal<habal. Tumayao alighted and thereafter shouted This is now a combat+ while firing a gun.#earing thegunshots, Teresita brought her children to the safety of a neighbors house. s she went bac' for her other child, Teresitasaw her husband $uben standing beside a coconut tree. Tumayao stood in front of the house of lfredo who was shoutingat him not to throw stones as he might hit the children. t that point, $uben shot Tumayao with a puga'hang, an improvisedshotgun. Tumayao slumped to the ground.

HELD: Trinidad Ca]ete and lfredo Ca]ete are found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in favor of lfredo and the mitigatingcircumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense conceded in favor of all the appellants. "aving the authorities thetrouble and e%pense for his search and capture, and freely placing himself at their disposal, lfredo should be given thefavor of a mitigated penalty for his voluntary surrender. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, being personahowever, can only be appreciated in favor of appellant lfredo.

0t must be recalled that, immediately prior to the incident, Tumayao punched $uben in the presence of many peopleat the wedding party. lthough the incident did not immediately precede the 'illing, its impact, by reason of its seriousnessand the circumstances under which it was inflicted, festered till the commission of the crime. The mitigating circumstance ofimmediate vindication of a grave offense must, therefore, be appreciated in favor of the appellants.

ll told, we are convinced that appellants lfredo and Trinidad are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder whichcarries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. "ince the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and immediate

vindication of a grave offense were present in this case, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed bythe trial court.

SUFFICIENT PRO9OCATION OR THREAT

PEOPLE v PA5AL J3 SCRA 637 "133#K

FACTS: That on :ec 27, 1979, in the City of 5anila, !>:$- !8* and 4-"> T-$C>*0- too' away from the 8au8uan, cash amounting to !1,2E1.AA that on the occasion of the said robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to ta'e,steal and carry away the said amount, the accused, stabbed him with an ice pic' and clubbing him with an iron pipe ondifferent parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which were the direct and immediate cause of 8au



8uan death . The generic aggravating circumstances of (1) night time purposely sought to better accomplish their criminadesign (2) evident premeditation (D) in disregard of the respect due the offended party and (B) with abuse of confidence,the accused being then employees of the offended party.

The counsel for the accused informed said court of their intention to enter a plea of guilty provided that they beallowed afterwards to prove the mitigating circumstances of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended partyimmediately preceding the act, and that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as to produce passion andobfuscation.

HELD: !edro !agal and 4ose Torcelino are found guilty of beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the crime of robberywith homicide.The appellants assail the trial court in not appreciating in their favor the mitigating circumstances of su;;i%ient $&ovo%tionand passion or obfuscation. Their contention is devoid of merit. 6irstly, since the alleged provocation which caused theobfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident, that is, the alleged maltreatment andFor ill treatment of theappellants by the deceased, these two mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as two distinct and separatecircumstances but should be treated as one. "econdly, the circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating ina crime which M as in the case at bar M is planned and calmly meditated before its e%ecution. Thus, this Court reected theclaim of the appellants that passion and obfuscation should have been estimated in their favor, because the death of thevictim too' place on the occasion of a robbery, which, before its e%ecution, had been planned and calmly meditated by theappellants. Thirdly, the maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to have committed against them o%%u&&ed 'u%)

e&!ie& t)n t)e dte o; t)e %o''ission o; t)e %&i'e . !rovocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance must besufficient and immediately preceding the act. /e hold that the trial court did not commit any error in not appreciating thesaid mitigating circumstances in favor of the appellants. 6inally, the appellants claim that the trial court erred in consideringthe aggravating circumstances of night time, evident premeditation, and disregard of the respect due the offended party onaccount of his ran' and age.lthough the trial court correctly considered the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity because the same was purposelyand deliberately sought by the appellants to facilitate the commission of the crime, nevertheless, /e disagree with itsconclusion that evident premeditation and disregard of the respect due the offended party were present in the commissionof the crime. >vident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery. #owever, in the crime of robbery with homicide, ifthere is evident premeditation to 'ill besides stealing, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance. 0n other wordsevident premeditation will only be aggravating in a comple% crime of robbery with homicide if it is proved that the plan is not

only to rob, but also to 'ill. 0n the case at bar, a perusal of the written statements of the appellants before the policeinvestigators show that then original plan was only to rob, and that, they 'illed the deceased only when the latter refused toopen the J'aha de yeroJ, and fought with them. The trial court erred in ta'ing into consideration the aggravatingcircumstance of evident premeditation.The aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended partyon account of his ran', age or se% may be ta'en into account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in thecommission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to ran', age, or se%. 0t is not proper to consider thisaggravating circumstance in crimes against property. $obbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and notagainst persons. #omicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and obect of the criminalThe trial court erred in ta'ing into account this aggravating circumstance.

US v MALA4ANAN P)i!. 8

FACTS: "hortly before 7 5 on ov E, 19A7, 6elino 5alaran, a prisoner and assistant ailer, reported to the foreman !edro!imentel that >steban 5alabanan had ta'en some bread out of a tin can that was in the ail 5alabanan being resentful atthis and also because he had received a severe blow with a cane from the said assistant ailer, attac'ed the latter afterbrea'fast with a small 'nife, and wounded him in the chest, the right arm, and in the bac'. $aymundo >nri3ue&, anotherassistant ailer, upon seeing what was ta'ing place, tried to separate them and prevent the accused from further attac'ing5alaran, but he did so with such bad luc' that he also was wounded with the 'nife in the right side near the abdomen, andin conse3uence of said wound $aymundo >nri3ue& died of peritonitis and hemorrhage of the spleen eleven days thereafter.Huintin de *emos, another assistant ailer, who also tried to stop 5alabanan, was wounded in the chin. 6oreman !aulinoCanlas, upon becoming aware of what was going on, ordered the opening of the door of the department where detachment



o. 7 of the prisoners was confined, and 5alabanan upon seeing him come in tried to attac' him thereupon Canlas too'hold of a stic' to defend himself and to ta'e away from 5alabanan the 'nife he held, which, li'e the hand and the clothes ofthe accused, was covered with blood. s soon as the accused was disarmed Canlas blew his whistle to call the inspectorwho on his arrival at the place where the fight had ta'en place ordered the three wounded men to the hospital and theaggressor loc'ed up in the cell. 0t was ascertained from the accused that the 'nife had been found by him among thebamboo 'ept within the department of the detachment, and it was recogni&ed by him when the same was e%hibited.:r. >dwin C. "hattuc', the prison surgeon, in a sworn declaration, stated that $aymundo >nri3ue& died eleven days afterentering the hospital in conse3uence of a dagger wound received in the left side and abdominal cavity, affecting the spleen,

death being the result of subse3uent peritonitis and hemorrhage. 6elino 5alaran had eight wounds, the most serious ofwhich were on his left shoulder, left wrist, breast, and right hip. Huintin de *emos had only a wound in the chin.

HELD: The facts stated above, duly proven by the testimony of eyewitnesses, constitute the crime of homicide, defined andpunished by article BAB of the !enal Code, no 3ualifying circumstance being present in the fact that the accused inflicted onthe assistant ailer $aymundo >nri3ue& a serious wound in the right side near the abdomen from which he died a few dayslater, to determine that a more serious classification should be made of the crime, and a heavier penalty imposed.The accused pleaded not guilty, and notwithstanding the allegations he made in his defense and his denial that the 'nifeheld by him with which he inflicted the mortal wound which caused the death of $aymundo >nri3ue& belonged to him, thereis no 3uestion as to his responsibility as the convicted author of the violent death of $aymundo >nri3ue&, who, as has beenseen, did not give the accused any reason for attac'ing him but merely approached while the latter was attac'ing 6elino

5alaran in order to separate them and prevent the accused from continuing his assault on 5alaran, for fear a homicidemight ensue, to which pacific intervention 5alabanan responded with a cut in the right side near the abdomen of theunfortunate >nri3ue& with the 'nife with which the accused was provided, as shown in the proceedings.0n the commission of this homicide there is no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance to be considered, and as to whetheror not the accused was illtreated or provo'ed prior to his assaulting ailer 5alaran, a 3uestion which will be considered in thecase for lesiones %ra#es, such a circumstance can not be dealt with in the present proceedings instituted by reason of theviolent death of $aymundo >nri3ue&, who was seriously wounded simply because he intervened for the purpose ofseparating 5alabanan, the aggressor, from 5alaran, his victim therefore, the proper penalty should be imposed in itsmedium degree.0n view of the foregoing considerations it is our opinion that the udgment appealed from should be affirmed, provided,however, that >steban 5alabanan shall be sentenced to the penalty of fourteen years eight months and one day

of reclusion temporal , to suffer the accessory penalties of article @9 of the code, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased inthe sum of !1,AAA, and to pay the costs of the proceedings.

IMMEDIATE 9INDICATION OF A 5RA9E OFFENSE

PEOPLE v ESPINA ?81 SCRA 371F%ts: -n "ept. DA, 1992, the members of an association, $ipa<ripa, went to the house of >ufronia !agas for a meeting.!resent were $omeo ulicatin, $ogelio >spina, "amson buloc who were having a drin'ing spree and playing a cardgame. /hen >spina arrived, $omeo as'ed D bottles of J'ulafuJ wine from him and he acceded. t around B?AA, $omeoagain demanded another bottle of J'ulafuJ wine from >spina but this time, the latter refused to give in. $omeo thenproceeded to where >spina was playing cards and without any warning, urinated on the latter and clipped him under his

($omeo) arms. >spina got angry, turned away and went home. *ater on in the evening, they heard >spina calling $omeofrom outside, saying, Jorgs, get out because 0 have something to say.J The trio came down from the house. $ogelio wentdown first, followed by "amson and $omeo. /hen $ogelio reached the ground, >spina told him to drop down while"amson also dropped himself to the ground when he saw >spina about to draw his firearm. t that uncture, $omeo was stillat the stairway and when he turned his bac' towards >spina, the latter shot him, hitting him at the bac'. $omeo ran awaybut he was chased by >spina who fired two (2) more shots at him. "amson saw $omeo outside the house as'ing for help$omeo was brought to the hospital where he died.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: /itness >spina declared that in the afternoon of "ept. DA, 1992, he was in the houseof !agas, having a drin'ing spree with $omeo and "amson, while his brother, >"pina, was playing cards. t around D?AAoIcloc' p.m., he saw ulicatin approach >spina and forthwith urinated on him. ulicatin grabbed >spina under his arms but



the latter was able to e%tricate himself from the hold of ulicatin and ran away. $ogelio wanted to follow >spina but wasprevailed upon by ulicatin to stay. They then continued their drin'ing spree until 9?AA oIcloc' p.m. /hen they were about togo home, $ogelio heard somebody calling ulicatin, saying < J8et out, orgs, as 0 have something to tell you.J ccording to$ogelio, he is certain that the voice was not that of >spina. /hen they decided to go home, he was the first one to godownstairs, followed by "amson, and then by ulicatin. =pon reaching the ground, $ogelio heard a gunshot andimmediately scampered away without loo'ing bac' to see who was shot. #e claimed that it was only two days after theincident that he came to 'now who the victim of the shooting incident was. #e added that from the house of !agas, hedirectly went home where he was told by his mother that >spina was stabbed and was brought to the hospital.

HELD: $omeo >spina is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder .0n >ufroniaIs affidavit, she declared that after $ogelio,"amson and the deceased went out of her house she heard

three gunshots but bothered not to go outside because of fear. >vidently, >ufronia is not an eyewitness and her testimonywould not do much for the prosecution. t any rate, it is the prosecutionIs prerogative to determine who should be presentedas witnesses on the basis of its own assessment of their necessity. #ence, its choice of witnesses cannot be successfullychallenged by accused<appellant.

either do we find improbable the testimony of "amson that he recogni&ed the voice of accused<appellant. eing afriend and a second cousin of >spina, he is e%pected to be familiar with his voice. "o also, we find no reason to doubt thetestimony of buloc that he was able to identify the pistol used by >spina as well as witnessed the stabbing of the victim atthe bac'. ot only was buloc only three to four meters away from accused<appellant, the prosecution was li'ewise able to

establish that the moonlight illuminating the locus criminis afforded the witness a clear view of the shooting incident. TheCourt has previously held that the light from the stars or the moon, an oven, or a wic' lamp or gasera can give ampleillumination to enable a person to identify or recogni&e another.=nder the circumstances, buloc could not have failed torecogni&e >spina who is not only his Jbar'adaJ but a second cousin as well.

The trial court erred in treating ale#osia merely as a generic aggravating circumstance, more so in offsetting thesame by the generic mitigating circumstance of having committed the crime in immediate vindication of a grave offense. Thetreachery employed by >spina in shooting the victim is actually a circumstance that 3ualified the 'illing to murder. "uchbeing the case, treachery cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance.The trial court correctly appreciated the mitigatingcircumstance of )vin< %ted in i''edite vindi%tion o; <&ve o;;ense . s the evidence on record show, >spina wasurinated on by the victim in front of the guests. The act of the victim, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated >spinacame within the purview of a Jgrave offense.Thus, this mitigating circumstance should be appreciated in favor of >spina.

PEOPLE v 4ENITO 30 SCRA 31

FACTS: lberto enito, a former employee of the Civil "ervice Commission, suspended for J:0"#->"TGJ. fter 2months, he was reinstated but was criminally charged for H=*060>: T#>6T, 5*>$"T0- -6 !=*0C 6=:",>"T6 and 6*"060CT0- -6 !=*0C :-C=5>T" and administratively charged for J:0"#->"TGJ culminating inhis dismissal from the Civil "ervice. ccording to enito, those criminal and administrative charges filed against him wereallegedly instigated and contrived by the victim, !edro 5oncayo, 4r and since the time of his dismissal, he was allegedly obless. -n :ec. 11, 1979, enito went to the Civil "ervice and re3uested 5oncayo to help him in his cases but the formerallegedly uttered to the suspect J=5*0" L 8 :0G and when they met again, 5oncayo allegedly remar'ed in thepresence of many people, J800"T5G !* :0T- 8 58L/J. enito, humiliated and incensed, left. t

about @?2@ p.m. of that same day, enito who was armed with an unlicensed blac' revolver waited for the victim outside theCivil "ervice compound. The victim showed up and drove his car. enito followed him and when 5oncayos car was at a fullstop due to heavy traffic, enito without any warning or provocation, suddenly and treacherously shot the victim E times onthe head and different parts of the body.

enito was sentenced to death by the Circuit Criminal Court of 5anila after he pleaded guilty to the charge ofmurder for having shot, with a .22 caliber revolver, 5oncayo, 4r. The 'illing was 3ualified by treachery and aggravated bypremeditation and disregard of ran'. 0t was mitigated by plea of guilty.enito filed a motion for reconsideration. *e contends that he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of immediatevindication of a grave offense and that the aggravating circumstances of disregard of ran+ should not "ea%%reciated against him.ISSUE: /hether or not enito is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of offense.



*EL!)+iti%atin% circumstance of imme&iate #in&ication of a %ra#e offense . M enito contends that 5oncayo insulted himwhen he (5oncayo) remar'ed that a thief was loitering in the premises of the Civil "ervice Commission. enito argues thatthat remar' Jwas tantamount to 'ic'ing a man already down and to rubbing salt into a raw woundJ and that, as it was madepublicly and in a loud voice, he was e%posed to ridicule in the presence of his officemates.enito attached to his motion acopy of the decision of 4udge 4ose C. Colayco , ac3uitting him of the charge of malversation.The "olicitor 8eneral argues that the defamatory remar' imputed to 5oncayo cannot give rise to the mitigatingcircumstance of vindication of a grave offense because it was not specifically directed at enito. ccording to enitoIstestimony (not consistent with his confession), he saw 5oncayo D hours later or at 2 !5 in the afternoon and in3uired from

him about his case and 5oncayo said that he had already submitted his report and he could not do anything more aboutenitoIs case (. s already stated, the assassination was perpetrated at around @ oIcloc' in the afternoon of the same day.ssuming that 5oncayoIs remar' was directed at enito, we see no ustification under the circumstances recited above forchanging our prior opinion that the mitigating circumstance of Jhaber eecutado el hecho en vindicacion pro%ima de unaofensa grave, causada al autor del delito,J cannot be appreciated in enitoIs favor. s aptly stated by the ponente, 4ustice>sguerra, enito Jhad more than sufficient time to suppress his emotion over said remar' if he ever did resent it.JThe 7<hour interval between the alleged grave offense committed by 5oncayo against enito and the assassination wasmore than sufficient to enable enito to recover his serenity. ut instead of using that time to regain his composure, heevolved the plan of li3uidating 5oncayo after office hours. enito literally ambushed 5oncayo ust a few minutes after thevictim had left the office. #e acted with treachery and evident premeditation in perpetrating the cold<blooded murder.The facts of the case strongly suggest that what really impelled enito to assassinate 5oncayo was not the latterIs alleged

defamatory remar' that the Civil "ervice Commission compound was a hangout for a thief or for thieves but the refusal of5oncayo to change his report so as to favor enito. enito did not act primarily to vindicate an alleged grave offense tohimself but mainly to chastise 5oncayo for having e%posed the alleged anomalies or defraudation committed by enito andfor obstinately refusing to change his report.

PEOPLE v PARANA J8? P)i! ??1 "1?3#K

F%ts: !arana was convicted of the crime of murder with the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of thedeceased. The aggravating circumstances that the appellant is a recidivist and that there was treachery must be ta'en intoconsideration. re mitigating circumstances attendantNHe!d: The fact that the accused was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many persons a few hours before the

former 'illed the latter, was considered a mitigating circumstance that the act was committed in the immediate vindication ofa grave offense. lthough the grave offense (slapping of the accused by the deceased), which engendered perturbation ofmind, was not so immediate, it was held that the influence thereof, by reason of its gravity and the circumstances underwhich it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was committed. The other mitigating circumstance that the appellanthad voluntarily surrendered himself to the agents of the authorities must be considered.Cses o; vo!unt&@ su&&ende&. "urrender is not mitigating when defendant was in fact arrested. ut where a person, aftercommitting the offense and having opportunity to escape, voluntarily waited for the agents of the authorities and voluntarilygave himself up, he is entitled to the benefit of this circumstance, even if he was placed under arrest by a policeman thenand there.

PASSION OR O4FUSCATION

PEOPLE v RA4ANILLO J?73 SCRA 81? "1#K

F%ts: $abanillo Y the deceased 5orales were drin'ing wF their friends. -ne friend started a water fight game Y $abanillo oined the fun, accidentally dousing 5orales wF water. 5orales reprimanded him because water got into his ear Y theyargued which led into a fistfight. They were pacified Y ushered to their respective houses. The prosecutions version of theevents was given credit by the court which claimed that after DA minutes after, while 5orales Y some friends were having aconversation in the terrace of the house of 5orales, $abanillo went out his house wF a 1<meter samurai Y hac'ed 5oraleswho died that same day.



He!d: There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance the penalty is the medium period of that prescribed by law forthat offense. ccused is found guilty of homicide.6or passion Y obfuscation to be mitigating, the same must originate from lawful feelings. 6rom the version of the facts bythe prosecution, clearly the assault was made in a fit of anger. The turmoil Y unreason that would naturally result from a3uarrel or fight should not be confused with the sentiment or e%citement in the mind of a person inured or offended to sucha degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self<control. The e%citement wFc is inherent in all persons who 3uarrel Y cometo blows doesnt constitute obfuscation.

5oreover, the act producing obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable

length of time, during which the accused might have regained his normal e3uanimity. 0n this case, DA minutes intervenedbetween the fight and the 'illing. #aving been actuated more by the spirit of revenge or anger than of a sudden impulse ofnatural or uncontrollable fury, passion and obfuscation cannot be appreciated. To be mitigating, the accuseds state ofinto%ication should be proved or established by sufficient evidence. 0t should be such an into%ication that would diminish orimpair the e%ercise of his willpower or the capacity to 'now the inustice of his act. The accused merely testified that he oined his friends de 8u&man and "oriano in a drin'ing session, but only for a short time. The fact that he was able toresume his routine wor' thereafter, belie his claim that he was heavily drun' at the time he attac'ed the victim. Theregularity of $abanillos alcohol inta'e could even have increased his tolerance for alcohol to such an e%tent that he couldnot easily get drun'.

PEOPLE v 5ERMINA J7 SCRA 108 "12#K

F%ts: The appellant went to the house of the victim. heated conversation too' place between victims relatives andappellant concerning a 3uarrel between the accusers brother and victim. /hen the victim arrived, appellant drew his gun.ictims relatives scampered to safety and victim tries to run but tripped. /hen the appellant caught up with him, theappellant shot him at the nape. ppellant was convicted of murder because of the presence of treachery, the victim, havingbeen shot at the bac'.He!d: The mere fact that the victim was shot at the bac' while attempting to run away from his assailant would not per se3ualify the crime to murder. 0f murder was his bent, he wouldnt have gone to the house of the victim not would he engagethe victims relatives to a heated argument. Thus, the crime is not attended by treachery (aleviosa). 5oreover, passioncannot co<e%ist with treachery because in passion, the offender loses his control and reason while in treachery, the meansemployed are consciously adopted. -ne who loses his reason and self<control could not deliberately employ a particularmeans, method or form of attac' in the e%ecution of the crime. Thus, without treachery, the mitigating circumstance of

passion as well as voluntary surrender may be appreciated.

PEOPLE v 5ELA9ER ? SCRA ?178elaver armed with a 'nife assaulted and stabbed 0CT-$0 8>*>$, his lawfully wedded wif, wounding her on thedifferent parts of her body and as a result, ictoria died instantly.$andy 5amon testified that he heard shouts coming fromthe house of Tessie *ampedario .#e saw 8elaver and a woman having a heated argument. 8elaver held the nec' of thevictim, dragged her and with a 'nife on his right hand, stabbed the latter D times on the breast.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED? 8elaver testified that ictoria abandoned her family to live with her paramour. 8elavertestifiedthat his daughter informed him that his wife and paramour were living at a house near the Church, 8elaverimmediately repaired to that place. =pon entering the house, he saw his wife and her paramour having se%ual intercourse.8elavers version of the 'illing was that when his wife saw him, she pushed her paramour aside. #er paramour too' a 'nife

and attac'ed 8elaver. The latter was able to wrest possession of the 'nife and then used it against the paramour, whoevaded the thrust and it was the victim who received the stab. s to why he continued to stab his wife, appellant said thathis mind had been JdimmedJ or overpowered by passion and obfuscation by the sight of his wife having carnal act with herparamour.

HELD: 8elaver contention is bereft of merit. 0mplicit in this e%ceptional circumstance is that the death caused must be thepro%imate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity. 0n thiscase, 8elaver wants this Court to believe that he caught his wife and her paramour in se%ual intercourse. #owever, histestimony is tainted with inconsistencies which lead us to believe otherwise.ppellantIs failure to inform the police that he 'illed his wife when he saw her having se%ual intercourse with her paramour,devastated in one fell swoop whatever credibility could possibly be accorded to his version of the incident. ppellantIs claim



that on the day prior to his 'illing of the victim, his daughter had confided to him that her mother was living with a paramourat the house in front of the "to. i]o Catholic Church was belied by "heryl herself.The trial court was correct in finding thepresence of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to the authorities. ppellant, immediately after committingthe offense, voluntarily placed himself at the disposal of the police authorities.#owever , t)e t&i! %ou&t e&&ed in ;indin< t)e$&esen%e o; t)e 'iti<tin< %i&%u'stn%e o; $ssion o& o;us%tion Jas a result of his (appellantIs) wife leaving theirhome and their children.J efore this circumstance may be ta'en into consideration, it is necessary to establish thee%istence of an unlawful act sufficient to produce such a condition of mind. The act producing the obfuscation must not befar removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the accused might have

recovered his e3uanimity.The crime was committed almost a year after the victim had abandoned the conugal dwelling.4udgment appealed from is 660$5>:.

PEOPLE v I5NAS 01 SCRA ?114une 0gnas was found guilty of murder aggravated especially by the use of an unlicensed firearm by the lower court.-n5arch 1A, 1997, at Trading !ost, *a Trinidad, enguet without any authority of law or without any lawful permit have inhis possession, control and custody a Cal..DE hand gun and 2 ammunitions, which firearm and ammunitions were used bythe 0gnas in unlawfully 'illing >5>"0- *-!T>, the paramour of his wife /ilma 8race.ccording to nnie ayanes, shewas at the unloading area, when suddenly 2 gunshots shattered the 3uiet evening . "he testified that she saw a personfalling to the ground.nother person who tuc'ed a handgun into his waistband and casually wal'ed away . "he immediatelyrecogni&ed the shooter as 0gnas. 5arlon 5anis testified he saw that the fallen victim was *opate, whom he said he had

'nown since 8rade 2 and saw 0gnas hastily wal'ing away from the scene.

Contention o; t)e %%used: :efense of alibi. "ometime during the last wee' of 6ebruary 1997, he entered into apartnership with en noma, to operate a ba'ery in ueva i&caya. /hen noma proposed a business arrangement, heimmediately sei&ed the opportunity. -n 5arch E, 1997, he and noma then transferred his e3uipment to nomas ba'ery inLayapa, and said that he never left Layapa since his arrival. noma corroborated appellants alibi. noma declared thatthey immediately commenced their operations and on the evening of 5arch 1A, 1997, he and appellant ba'ed bread at hisba'ery in Layapa until 11?AA p.m., when they rested for the night.HELD: 0gnas is found 8=0*TG of the crime of #-50C0:> . There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstance.Crime and its Punishment s appellant can only be convicted of homicide. -ur tas' now is to determine whether there areaggravating or mitigating circumstances.The appreciation of special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm

in the present case is without merit.The prosecution failed to adduce the necessary 3uantum of proof.Coming now to theobverse side of the case, is the appellant entitled to benefit from any mitigating circumstanceNppellant firstly contends thatassuming without admitting that he is guilty, the lower court should have considered at least the mitigating circumstance ofi''edite vindi%tion o; <&ve o;;ense as well as that of passion and obfuscation. ppellant points out that the victimsact of maintaining an adulterous relationship with appellants wife constituted a grave offense to his honor, not to mentionthe shame, anguish, and an%iety. >ven the mere sight of the victim must have triggered an uncontrollable emotionaloutburst on appellants part, so that even a chance meeting caused in him an irresistible impulse powerful enough toovercome all reason and restraint. "econdly, appellant points out that the trial court failed to consider his voluntarysurrender as a mitigating circumstance.The "olicitor 8eneral counters that there was literally no immediate vindication+ tospea' of in this case. ppellant had sufficient time to recover his serenity following the discovery of his wifes infidelity . ocould passion and obfuscation be appreciated in appellants favor because the 'illing was not pro%imate to the time of the

offense. This interval between the revelation of his wifes adultery and the fatal shooting was ample and sufficient for reasonand self<control to reassert themselves in appellants mind. s to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the-"8 stresses that his supposed surrender at Layapa, ueva i&caya was actually due to the efforts of law enforcers whocame loo'ing for him. There he did not resist, but lac' of resistance alone is not tantamount to voluntary surrender, whichdenotes a positive act and not merely passive conduct.

PEOPLE v 4ATES 077 SCRA 6FACTS:>dgar, "imon 6uentes and 4ose oholst were along the house of Carlito ates, who suddenly emerged from thethic' banana plantation, aiming his firearm at oholst. 4ose tried to wrest possession of the firearm. /hile the two weregrappling, the gun fired, hitting Carlito who immediately fell to the ground. t that instant, 5arcelo ates and his son 5arcelo4r., emerged from the banana plantation, each brandishing a bolo. They immediately attac'ed 4ose hac'ing him several



times. 4ose fell to the ground and rolled but 5arcelo and his son 'ept on hac'ing him. 5arcelo, then, turned to "imon and>dgar and shouted J"uwes &e utsil'oJ. "imon and >dgar ran.=pon being informed by that 4ose was waylaid, the wife of4ose went to the place of incident reportedly happened which is less than a hundred meters from their house. There, shesaw 5arcelo and his son 5arcelo, 4r. hac'ing 4ose who was lying face up. "he pleaded for them to stop but they did notlisten. "he did not see Carlito. "he went home fearing for her life, thin'ing that 5arcelo and his son might turn their ire onher.

Contention o; t)e ACCUSED: !onciano was sent by arangay "ano to get a chic'en from 5arcelo house. /hile they

were trying to catch a chic'en, they noticed oholst, >dgar, and 6uentes approach the house of Carlito ates, 2A metersaway from 5arcelos house. Thereafter, they saw 4ose drag Carlito out of the latters house while both were arguing andgrappling. 5arcelo immediately ran towards 4ose and Carlito but when 5arcelo was about to approach them, 4ose shotCarlito with a gun. >dgar and "imon ran away. =pon seeing Carlito fall to the ground, 5arcelo attac'ed 4ose but the latteralso fired a shot at him. 5arcelo was able to duc' and avoid being shot. 4ose was about to shoot 5arcelo a 2nd time butthe latter retaliated by hac'ing 4ose with a bolo hitting him on his nec' and causing him to fall to the ground. 5arcelo thenwent to the aid of his brother Carlito but upon seeing that he was already dead, he went bac' to where 4ose was lying andagain hac'ed him. !onciano pic'ed up the gun used by 4ose and surrendered it to arangay Captain "ano. 5arcelo alsosurrendered himself to the said barangay captain. :uring the whole incident 5arcelo ates, 4r. was not present.

ISSUE: /- T#> T$0* C-=$T 8$>*G >$$>: 0 -T C-"0:>$08 !""0- : -6="CT0- "

50T08T08 C0$C=5"TC>.

!assion and obfuscation may not be properly appreciated in favor of appellant. To be considered as a mitigatingcircumstance, passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge orfrom anger and resentment. 0n the present case, clearly, 5arcelo was infuriated upon seeing his brother, Carlito, shot by4ose. #owever, a distinction must be made between the first time that 5arcelo hac'ed 4ose and the second time that theformer hac'ed the latter. /hen 5arcelo hac'ed 4ose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlito, and if appellant refrainedfrom doing anything else after that, he could have validly invo'ed the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscationut when, upon seeing his brother Carlito dead, 5arcelo went bac' to 4ose, who by then was already prostrate on theground and hardly moving, hac'ing 4ose again was a clear case of someone acting out of anger in the spirit of revenge.

DANAFRATE v PEOPLE 01 SCRA ?63PROSECUTIONS 9ERSION: $eynaldo 6rancia saw 5iguel :anofrata engage in a slugging match with his wife,*eonor. "he struc' 5iguel with a plastic chair, while he punched her. 5iguel ran home but shortly afterwards, he rushedoutside again, 'ic'ing the neighbors he encountered. 0n turn, without further ado, D of the neighbours whom he had treatedso uncivilly ganged up on him and mauled him, causing petitioner to run home anew.5iguel armed himself with a 'nife andwent bac' to the place where he had received a mauling. #e proceeded to the house of 5ario 8on&ales, the father oflfredo *oloy 8on&ales. 5iguel challenged 5ario to a fight. t this uncture, 5iguel spotted lfredo, who was on his wayhome. /ithout warning, petitioner stabbed lfredo in the chest fatally. #orrified, 6rancia called the police. 5iguel fled.enamin autista, who was then on his way to to buy medicine, saw the 5iguel fleeingCONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: #e narrated that on -ct 9, 199B he was withergel 8aspar and 4oo Tambio having adrin'ing spree at his house when 5iguels wife arrived and started an argument which turned violent and his wife lunged at

him with a chair, but he was able to parry the blow. The scene was witnessed by his neighbors playing pan'a. They beganlaughing at him and petitioner felt humiliated. ecause of his annoyance, petitioner said he 'ic'ed the pan'a table. Thisincensed his neighbors and a melee erupted with D of his neighbors ganging up on him. 5iguel said he received a beating,but he was able to run home and got hold of a 'nife. #e proceeded to the house of 5ario 8on&ales, where he saw 2 of hisneighbors who mauled him, "onny and :ingdong tal'ing with 5ario. =pon seeing 2 of his assailants, petitioner said he wentberser'. #e shouted Aala nin'o natataot ao sa in'o. 5ario whipped out a gun and pointed it at him, prompting petitionerto see' cover. "uddenly, he was struc' from behind by $ey with a length of lead pipe, while lfredo 8on&ales stabbed himfrom the bac' with a 'nife.ccording to petitioner, although he was himself badly inured and bleeding, he ran away from thescene of the fracas, but found himself being chased by his tormentors. #e heard a gunshot and +an% 5ario yelling, 2aulinn'o, "aulin n'o, "ol&4upper 'an . 5iguel ran and sat on a roc' to rest and e%amines his inuries. #e heard another gunshotfrom behind him. #e saw 5ario handing the gun he was holding to another person. !etitioner then crawled into a canal to



hide. #e was still there when $edentor Tiburcio came up holding a gun. -n seeing him, Tiburcio said, ata' na si<olo' ,then shot at him but missed. !etitioner then ran away to see' refuge. !etitioner stated that despite his inuries, he didnot bother to report the incident to the police. or did he file any charges against +an% 5ario and other neighbors becausepetitioner said, he was only a lowly paid driver who had neither the time nor the money to pursue a legal case.ISSUE:ut was the appellate court correct in sustaining the trial courts finding that the petitioner was entitled to a mitigatingcircumstance analogous to passion and obfuscationNHELD:!assion and obfuscation e%ist when (1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition ofthe mind, and (2) the said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a

considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal e3uanimity. There is passion andobfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provo'ed by prior unust or improperacts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. 0n this case it was established that petitioner andhis wife had a violent altercation and that petitioner was mauled by his neighbors after he 'ic'ed some of them for laughingat him. These events and circumstances prior to the 'illing of lfredo 8on&ales could have caused unusual outbursts ofpassion and emotion on petitioners part. These resulted in the tragic stabbing of the victim thus entitling petitioner to themitigating circumstance analogous to passion and obfuscation.

9OLUNTARY SURRENDER

PEOPLE v MALLARI SCRA 070 SCRA 137

!$-">C=T0-" C">? *i&a 8alang testified that on 4uly , 1997her common<law husband 4oseph admonished $ufinoand his brothers 0no and 6eli% 5allari not to drive fast while passing by 4osephs house. $ufino and his brothers, who werethen hot<tempered, challenged 4oseph to a fight. The latter ust ignored the challenge and, instead he and his own brothers$adi and 5anny as'ed apology from $ufino.*ater that afternoon, while 4oseph and *i&a were watching a bas'etball gameat the barangay bas'etball court, $ufino and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed weapons, arrived and attemptedto stab 4oseph but 4oseph was able to run away. /hen they were not able to catch up with him, $ufino boarded and drovethe truc' par'ed near the bas'etball court and continued chasing 4oseph until the truc' ran over the latter, which caused hisinstantaneous death.>dgar awar, while 4oseph was watching a bas'etball game, $ufino and his brothers 0no and 6eli%,who were carrying bladed weapons, arrived and chased 4oseph. 4oseph ran away, and $ufino pursued him with thetruc'. =pon catching up with him, $ufino bumped 4oseph, as a result of which the latter died on the spot.:r. >rwin >scal testified that the cause of death of 4oseph, was crushing inury on the head secondary to vehicular accident

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:$ufino testified while he was driving a truc' at a speed ofEA L!#, with his wife 5yrnaseated on the passenger side, he saw 4oseph on the road about B meters away from him. $ufino, who was then on his wayto the garage to par' the truc', blew thrice the horn. ut 4oseph went to the middle of the road and threw stones, whichwent through the windshield and hit $ufino on the chest. s a result thereof, $ufino lost control of the truc', and ran over4oseph. ecause of fear, $ufino did not alight from the truc' instead, he proceeded to the municipal hall of "ta. $osa,*aguna, where he surrendered and was immediately detained.5yrna 5allari testified that prior to the incident in 3uestion,she saw 4oseph at the bas'etball court. #e was apparently drun' and was carrying a alison%. 5uch to her consternationhe gave a dagger loo'. 5yrna reacted by simply crying and going inside her house. "he corroborated $ufinos testimonythat while $ufino was driving the truc', 4oseph threw stones, which went through the windshield and hit the chest of$ufino. s a result of which, $ufino had chest pains and vomited blood while in detention.

ISSUE: /- T#> !!>**T 0" >T0T*>: T- T#> 50T08T08 C0$C=5"TC> -6 -*=T$G "=$$>:>$.

/hen the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance,the lesser penalty shall be applied. 0n the present case, the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation andtreachery, which were alleged in the information, were not proved. /hat was proved was the mitigating circumstance ofvoluntary surrender through the testimonies of $ufino and 5yrna, which were not rebutted by the prosecution./e have heldthat for voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following re3uisites must concur? (1) theoffender had not been actually arrested (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to an agent of aperson in authority and (D) the surrender was voluntary. surrender is considered voluntary if it is spontaneous an& s"owst"e intention of t"e accuse& to sumit "imself uncon&itionall' to t"e aut"orities because he either ac'nowledges his guilt or



wishes to save the government the trouble and e%pense necessarily included for his search and capture. All t"esere*uisites are present in t"is case.

The appealed decision of the $TC convicting appellant $=60- 5**$0 of the crime of murder is hereby 660$5>: withthe following modifications?1. The penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua2. The award of e%emplary damages in the amount of !@A,AAA is reduced to !2@,AAA, and the awards of actual and moraldamages are reduced to!9,2AA and !@A,AAA, respectively and

D. ppellant $ufino 5allari y 0lag is further ordered to pay the heirs of 4oseph 8alang an indemnity ex &elicto in the amountof !@A,AAA.

PEOPLE v 9ICENTE 076 SCRA 07CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: -n 5ay DA, 199E, while icente was having supper, his brothers<in<law, noy and"onny, 3uarreled. noy was abrasively scolding "onny for smo'ing and gambling. This caused the latter to howl at the topof his voice. The victim,5anuel C. Huinto 4r, then Chairman of "L, responded to "onnys unusual cry. #e enteredappellants house and suddenly pushed noy, causing him to fall to the floor. icente pacified the victim saying, &ont min&t"em ecause t"e' are rot"ers an& Ano' is onl' a&#isin% Sonn' . The victim felt insulted by such remar' and said, Is t"atitD I am insulte&. I re%ret comin% "ere. Thus, he went home and got a steel pipe. =pon his return, he hit appellant at hisupper left armand shouted at him, Eou are s"it, #ul#a of 'our mot"er, I will ill 'ou to&a' .ut appellant was able to sei&e the

steel pipe from the victim, prompting the latter to retreat and go home.!resent during the s3uabble were appellants wife*inda and sister #ilda. *inda advised appellant not to mind the victim, while #ilda called Lagawad >lias6ernande&. ppellant reported to the latter the unpleasant incident. /hile they were tal'ing outside the house,the victimpassed by. #e approached Lagawad 6ernande& and invited him to go to the dance hall.Then he tapped appellants rightshoulder,causing him to be pushed a little bit bac'ward. /ithout any warning, the victim pulled out a 'nife and tried to stabappellant, shouting, I will see to it t"at I will ill 'ou toni%"t. ppellant held the victims wrist and they grappled for thepossession of the 'nife./hile the 'nife was pointed at the victim, appellant accidentally stabbed him. Vicente surren&ere& to;a%awa& -ernan&eF w"o, in turn, rou%"t "im to t"e police station.

PROSECUTIONs CASE:$onald Terte narrated that he was in the house of the victim, there being a barrio fiesta. Theyheard unusual cries from the neighborhood. "o they proceeded to appellants house and found that his brothers<in<law,

noy and "onny, were 3uarrelling.The victim tried to pacify noy. This infuriated appellant, thus, he drew a rambo 'nife andaimed it at the victim. Threatened, he and $onald immediately went home.Thereafter, appellant followed the victim to hishouse and challenged him to a fight. The victim could only answer bac', If 'ou want we will rent a ox rin% an& we willfi%"t. t around 9?B@ o cloc' in the evening, the victim and Terte returned to the house of appellant as the former intended total' to him. -n their way, they saw appellant conversing with Lagawad 6ernande&. The victim greetedLagawad6ernande& who in3uired, Are we %oin% to t"e &ance "all NThe victim answered yes. Then as a gesture of reconciliation, hee%tended his hand to appellant. #owever, appellant suddenly drew a 'nife and stabbed the victim in the chest. The victimuttered, are, I was "it. $onald immediately brought him to the hospital but he was pronounced dead on arrival.4ose oe,"r., 7B, testified that he saw appellant and Lagawad 6ernande& engaged in a serious conversation. #e heard appellantsaying, he would 'ill the victim. t that time, the victim and his companion passed by. =pon seeing Lagawad 6ernande&, thevictim greeted him, ;a%awa&, 'ou are "ere. Lagawad 6ernande& then answered 'es. Then the victim advised appellan

to for%et w"at "a& "appene& .t this point, appellant abruptly drew his 'nife and stabbed the victim in the chest.

ISSUE: The court should have appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.Si%nificantl', t"e trial court s"oul& "a#e appreciate& in fa#or of appellant t"e miti%atin% circumstance of #oluntar' surren&erunder rticle 1D of the $evised !enal Code. 6or voluntary surrender to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, thefollowing re3uisites must concur? "1# the offender has not been actually arrested "# he surrenders himself to a person inauthority and "?# the surrender is voluntary. #ere, appellant, after the commission of the crime, immediately placed himselfin the disposition of Lagawad 6ernande& who, in turn, brought him to the police station. =nder "ection DEE of the *ocal8overnment Code ($epublic ct o. 17A),for purposes of the $evised !enal Code, ;a%awa& -ernan&eF is a person inaut"orit'. Clearl', t"e miti%atin% circumstance of #oluntar' surren&er is present "ere.



PEOPLE v OCO 01 SCRA 17

PROSECUTIONS CASE:"urviving victim #erminigildo :amuag on ov 2B, 199, he was driving his motorcycle with ldenbiabi riding with him at the bac'. /hen they reached !ica *umber, a white car overtoo' their motorcycle and bloc'ed theirpath, forcing him to slow down. nother motorcycle, with 2 riders on it, appeared behind the first motorcycle. 6rom adistance of 2<Dmeters, 1 of the riders of the second motorcycle suddenly fired 2 shots in close succession. :amuagattempted to loo' at the tires of his motorcycle, thin'ing that they have e%ploded. "uddenly, biabi pushed him with hisbody. biabi fell from the motorcycle and slumped on the pavement face down. The white car sped away. s :amuag was

trying to control his motorcycle, he noticed another motorcycle (third motorcycle) passed by from behind him. #ismotorcycle &ig&agged towards the gutter. :amuag was thrown off and hit the ground. #e stood up and reali&ed that hewas hit at the right side of his body. #e then heard a burst of gunfire from behind. -co was at the bac' of the thirdmotorcycle, fired his gun at him but missed. :amuag was able to run. #owever, the third motorcycle chased him. =ponreaching the vicinity of 6ive rothers restaurant, :amuag stopped because he could not pass anymore. 6rom a distance ofabout B<@ meters, -co again fired 2 more shots at :amuag.:amuag was rushed to the #ospital. #e survived the attac'due to the timely medical attention given to him. biabi did not survive the ambush. #e sustained E gunshot wounds on thedifferent parts of his body. The prosecution theori&ed that the shooting incident was drug<related. The late biabi was a'nown anti<drug advocate while the -co was a suspected drug lord.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: -co claimed that on ov 2B, 199, he played mahong from D<9 pm. t around 9 pm,

he went home and went out to loo' for his @< year old son. ot able to find his son, -co proceeded to "ambagan to meetoy 5isa.. -co also passed by the -ur *ady of *ourdes Chapel and noticed the door opened so he went in to loo' at theclothes of the irgin for he intended to change the irgins clothes for the forthcoming fiesta celebration. =pon entering thechapel, the appellant saw a group of women who informed him that the scheduled meeting was postponed. -co was seatedat the cement floor for a few minutes when he heard an unusual burst.+ #e did not bother to investigate the origin or natureof the unusual burst.+ #e as'ed some people inside the chapel if they had seen oy 5isa but none of them did. #e wentout of the chapel, proceeded to a store across the chapel, and in3uired from a group of persons milling around the store thewhereabouts of 5isa. The appellant proceeded home and went to bed. #is son and daughter soon arrived and slept withhim. few minutes later, his wife, along with his sister<in<law and some neighbors, awa'ened him and told him that his'umpadre and good friend, biabi, was shot, he was shoc'ed upon learning the information because the victim had no'nown enemy.The appellant was thus surprised when he learned that he was implicated in the shooting of lden. #e and

biabi were good neighbors and friends and he had no motive to 'ill the victim.

ISSUE: The appreciation of -*=T$G "=$$>:>$ as a mitigating circumstance.

HELD:The presence of the aggravating circumstance of the use of motor vehicle would have raised the penalty to death ifnot for the presence of the miti%atin% circumstance of #oluntar' surren&er w"ic" t"e trial court faile& to appreciate. 6ovoluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following re3uisites should be present? (1) the offender has not been actuallyarrested (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latters agent and (D) the surrender wasvoluntary. 6urther, the surrender must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused tosurrender unconditionally to the authorities. ll these re3uisites have been complied with in the case at bar.0mmediatelyupon learning theissuance warrant of arrest, and without having been served on him, -co voluntarily surrendered himself.

-cos testimony as to the circumstances of his voluntary surrender was never rebutted. #e*i'e any other common criminal, the appellant could have opted to go on hiding. ut he chose to surrender himself to theauthorities and face the allegations levelled against him. True, he did not admit his complicity to the crimes charged againsthim but he nonetheless spared the government of time and e%pense. 6or this, he should be credited with the mitigatingcircumstance of voluntary surrender

PEOPLE 9 MA5ALLANES J5.R. No. 11086. *u!@ 2, 13K

F%ts: -n "ept 29, 1991, 8$>8-$0- 58**>" tre''ed the road to the coc'pit with coc'fighting afficionados,$omualdo Cempron and :anilo "alpucial. They passed by irgilio Tapales who was drin'ing in the store. Tapalesapproached Cempron and conversed with him briefly. 6or some un'nown reason, Tapales then directed his attention to



5agallanes. Tapales held the appellant by his shirt, slapped him and strangled his nec'. ut seeing a 'nife tuc'ed inTapales waist, the appellant pulled out the 'nife and slashed at Tapales to loosen his grip. The appellant succeeded inwounding the face and nec' of Tapales who let go of the appellant and fled for his life. 0nsatiated, the appellant pursuedTapales and when the latter fell, the appellant stabbed him several more times before uttering the following words? you arealready dead in that case. /ith that, the appellant stood up and rode on the motorcycle being driven by :anilo "alpucial .<ater, t"e appellant surren&ere& to t"e police aut"orities .6or the death of Tapales, the appellant and "alpucial werecharged as principal and accessory, respectively, of the crime of murder allegedly committed.:uring arraignment, theappellant e%pressed his willingness to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide wit" t"e miti%atin%

circumstances of plea of %uilt' an& #oluntar' surren&er "alpucial, on the other hand, pleaded not guilty to the chargesagainst him. The prosecution refused to lower the charge from murder to homicide.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:5agallanes invo'es the ustifying circumstance of self<defense in his favor, andcontends, in the alternative, that he should be convicted of the crime of homicide only and not murder.

ISSUE: /- T#> L0**08 -6 T!*>" G T#> !!>*T 0" 4="T060>: G ">*6<:>6>"> or /-,in thealternative, that he should be convicted of the crime of homicide only and not murder.

HELD:0n the claim of self<defense, although it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden ofproving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused admits committing the crime but only in defense of

oneself.The appellant asseverates that he was ustified in stabbing Tapales as he was merely defending himself from theformers unlawful and unprovo'ed aggression. ut the prosecution witnesses are one in testifying that it was the appellantwho pursued the already wounded Tapales, and inflicted more stab wounds including a fatal blow to his nec'. -f the wounds, @ were located in the nec' area suggesting that the appellant struc' with resolve to cause serious if not mortaldamage to Tapales. There certainly was no necessity to inflict such wounds upon Tapales especially in view of the fact thatthe latter was not even armed. The appellants theory of self<defense is therefore overthrown by the hard reality that thealleged aggressorsustained stab wounds in the hands of the appellant while failing to inflict upon the appellant even aminor inury.As n !te&ntive de;ense, the appellant asseverates that the 'illing of Tapales was not attended by treacherywhich would 3ualify it to murder hence, he should have been convicted of the crime of homicide only. Treachery cannotalso be presumed from the mere suddenness of the attac' or from the fact that the victim was stabbed with his bac'towards the appellant. This is particularly true in the instant case where Tapales initiated the unlawful aggression against the

appellant and should therefore have been forewarned of the possibility of retaliation from him. lthough Tapales sustained stab wounds, some of them located at his bac', we cannot infer from this physical evidence alone that treachery was initiallypresent in the case at bar. nd it is a fundamental rule of long standing that for treachery to be appreciated, thatcircumstance must be present at the inception of the attac', and if absent and the attac' is continuous, treachery if presentat a subse3uent stage is not to be considered. 5oreover, a careful scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the trialcourt )d e&&oneous!@ ;i!ed to appreciate in mitigation of the appellants penalty the circumstances of #oluntar' surren&eran& plea of %uilt'. 6eli% >stillore, a member of the !!, testified that the appellant surrendered after the stabbingincident.The fact that the appellant chose to surrender to the police authorities of 0nabanga and not "agbayan where thecrime happened is not to be ta'en against him. #e fled "agbayan not to hide from the police authorities but to evaderetaliation from the relatives of the deceased. esides, the law does not re3uire that the perpetrator of an offense to beentitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, must give himself up to the authorities in the municipality

where the offense was committed. ll that the law re3uires is for the offender to surrender to the authorities to save thegovernment the trouble and the e%pense of loo'ing for him in order to arrest him.5agallanes is guilty of homicide only with the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty in hisfavour.

PEOPLE v PINCA ?1 SCRA 37

PROSECUTIONS CASE:>vidence for the prosecution disclosed that on 4an 17, 199@, 8erry benir after disembar'ingfrom a passenger bus together with a friend entered the 5adonaIs a'eshop. =pon entering, 8erry benir saw 4oel !incawho made a remar' that somebody splashed him with li3uor and that if it were not for the presence of the shop owner, hewould have inflicted inuries to the person responsible. t about pm 8erry and the accused rode on a passenger



motorcycle driven by /ilfredo *umantas on their way home. /hen they were about to reach 8erryIs place, they passed bythe victim, Conrado ngcahan wal'ing on the road in an unsteady manner. The motorcycle stopped and both 8erry and theaccused disembar'ed. The accused told 8erry that he would wait for the victim for he was the person who splashed on himli3uor earlier in the afternoon. The accused got a piece of wood, waited for the victim and once near, the accused suddenlyand without warning, struc' the victim hitting the latter on the head rendering the victim unconscious and deprived of achance to defend himself. benir, who was gripped with fear, ran away towards his house and never reported the matter tothe police. The ne%t day he reported the incident but police officer ictor *lano arrived and made an in3uiry for the incidentof which he (8erry) obliged. fter receiving the report, police officer *lano together with benir proceeded to the house of

the accused. The accused denied any participation.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED: !inca declared that benir together with a friend entered 5adonaIs a'e "hop andordered beer and then offered to drin' with them. /hile drin'ing, ngcahan approached benir and as'ed for cigarettesbenir refused to give the victim causing the latter to murmur and went away. t about pm, the accused and benir rodeon a passenger motorcycle driven by *umantas and proceeded to their home. /hile on their way, they passed by the victimand 8erry remar'ed that ngcahan was the one who as'ed him cigarette. The motorcycle stopped and both 8erry beniand the accused disembar'ed. 8erry benir called the victim and once the victim got near to 8erry, the two bo%ed eachother. 8erry ran and got a piece of wood and used it in hitting the victim. The victim fell to the ground despite defendinghimself using his forearm. /hile the victim was on the ground, benir struc' the latter hitting the head. #e was told by8erry not to tal'. The following morning, police officer *lano arrived at his residence together with 8erry benir. ecause

8erry made signs not to tal', the accused did not give information to the police. fter the police investigation, he proceededto Tagbilaran City to fetch his wife. /hile in Tagbilaran City, he received information that the police were loo'ing for him. #epresented himself to the police and he was placed in ail.ISSUES:ttendance of 5odifying Circumstances.

Voluntar' Surren&er

6or voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following re3uisites must concur? (1) theoffender has not been actually arrested, (2) the offender surrendered to a person in authority, and (D) the surrender wasvoluntary.PD1Q 0f the only reason for the supposed surrender is to ensure the safety of the accused whose arrest is inevitable,the surrender is not spontaneous and hence not voluntary.

ccording to appellant himself, when the police came to his house the morning after the incident, he completelydenied any 'nowledge of the murder incident. #e learned that he was a suspect when he was in Tagbilaran City later thatmorning to fetch his wife, who told him that the police had come loo'ing for him at her place of wor'. 0t was only when hegot bac' to alilihan, ohol that he proceeded to the police station Jto clear his name.J ut being the prime suspect, he wasinstead incarcerated.

ppellantIs actions after the incident are not mars of #oluntar' surren&er . :enying to the police any persona'nowledge of the crime, he even tried to distance himself from the place of the incident by going to Tagbilaran City. 0t wasonly when he learned that he had become a suspect and that the police were loo'ing for him even in Tagbilaran that hefinally went to the police station, but only Jto clear his name.J "uch acts do not show any intent to surrender unconditionallyto the authorities.

The :ecision appealed from is hereby 660$5>: with the 5-:060CT0- that !inca shall serve the penalty of

reclusion perpetua, not death

PEOPLE v AMA5UIN SCRA 88

T"e coup &e main on t"e ro roo& sent G rot"ers to t"e mortuar' an& a t"ir& to me&ical care. T"e loo&at" resulte& inthe brothers /illie, 8ildo and Celso, all surnamed maguin, being charged with the murder of the -ro brothers !acifico and:iosdado. /illie and 8ildo went through trial while Celso to this date remains a fugitive.

The culpability of the maguin brothers was recounted by #ernando -ro, a younger brother of !acifico and:iosdado. #ernando narrated that in the afternoon of 2B 5ay 19, he and his brothers :iosdado and :anilo, $afaelCandelaria, and "ergio rgon&ola were invited by !acifico to the latterIs house for a small gathering to celebrate the townfiesta. 0n the afternoon, after parta'ing of the meager preparations put together by !acifico, he (#ernando) and his



companions decided to leave. They were accompanied by their host to the pla&a where they could get a ride. -n their way!acifico was called by accused? J!are, come here.J !acifico answered? J!are, not yet because 0 have to conduct my guestsfirst.J 0mmediately, Celso, with a butcherIs 'nife in hand, rushed towards !acifico. 8ildo, CelsoIs younger brother, with a'nife tuc'ed to his waist, followed with a slingshot 'nown asJ0ndian targetJ. /hile 8ildo aimed the dart from his slingshot at:anilo, which hit the latter on the chest, Celso hac'ed !acifico. 8ildo then stabbed :iosdado with a 'nife. Thereafter, /illie,the eldest of the maguin brothers, appeared with a handgun and successively shot the brothers !acifico, :iosdado andthe fleeing :anilo. :iosdado, own 'neeling, gasping for breath and pleading for his life, was again shot by /illie who ne%tfired anew at !acifico. 5eanwhile, 8ildo and Celso repeatedly stabbed !acifico who already lying prostrate and

defenseless.

H=*06G08 C0$C=5"TC>" T$>C#>$G $=*> 6-$ !!$>C0T0- T#>$>-6. M /hile we have already ruledthat even a frontal attac' can be treacherous, as when it is sudden and une%pected and the victim is unarmed, here, itappears that the aggressors did not employ means tending directly and specially to insure the e%ecution of the crimewithout ris' to themselves arising from the defense which the offended parties might ma'e. 0t must be noted that theassailants attac'ed a group of si% (7) individuals who could have been armed. 0t is highly probable that at least one of thoseattac'ed could offer resistance and could put the lives of the aggressors in danger, as what indeed happened whenaccused<appellant 8ildo maguin and his cousin :anny suffered inuries as a result of the fight which, from all indications,ended in a free<for<all. That !acifico sustained 1@ stab wounds and a gunshot wound, and :iosdado, ten stab wounds and abullet wounds, does not necessarily mean that treachery attended the 'illings. s already adverted to, for treachery to be

appreciated, the offender must employ means, methods, or forms in the commission of the crime which tend directly andspecially to insure its e%ecution without ris' to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might ma'e. #ere,there is serious doubt.

88$T08 C0$C=5"TC>" ="> -6 "=!>$0-$ "T$>8T# !!$>C0T>: 0 C"> T $. M 0n CrimCase o. EAB1, where /illie mortally shot :iosdado, he should be liable for homicide. nd, since :iosdado was already onbended 'nees and pleading for his life when fatally shot, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength,although not alleged in the information but proven during the trial, may be considered as a generic aggravatingcircumstance. 0n Crim. Case o. EAB2, where /illie shot !acifico while lying prostrate already with numerous fatal stabwounds, /illie should be liable for frustrated homicide it appearing that the gunshot wound was not fatal although his intentto 'ill was evident. *i'ewise, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength may be appreciated as a generic

aggravating circumstance.

50T08T08 C0$C=5"TC>" -*=T$G "=$$>:>$ >*>5>T" !$>">T 0 C"> T $. M /e agreewith accused<appellantsI view that voluntary surrender should be appreciated in their favor. /hile it may have ta'en both/illie and 8ildo a wee' before turning themselves in, the fact is, they voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities beforearrest could be effected. 6or voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the following elementsmust be present? (a) the offender has not been actually arrested (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person inauthority and, (c) the surrender must be voluntary. ll these re3uisites appear to have attended their surrender.

LUCES v PEOPLE 6 SCRA 60

NATURE:!etition for review see'ing to annul the decision finding 4oel *uces guilty of homicide. !etitioner was originallycharged with 5urder.PROSECUTIONS CASE::ante $eginio revealed that on ov 11, 199, :ante $eginio, elson 5agbanua, and the victimClemente :ela 8racia, were on their way to the house of :idoy >lican. s they were wal'ing along the road they met *uceswho collared the victim, saying, 8et it if you will not get it tonight, 0 will 'ill you.+*uces immediately stabbed the victim on thechest with a atangue]o+ 'nife. The place was illuminated by a street light D to B arms length away from the petitioner,enabling $eginio to easily recogni&e the latter who happened to be his barangay mate. The victim was rushed to thehospital while the petitioner fled from the crime scene.-n cross<e%amination, :ante $eginio was confronted with an affidavit of desistance dated ovember 1B, 199 allegedlye%ecuted by him and elson 5agbanua stating, among others, that?



*ong after the incident happened and after we have e%ecuted a sworn statement before the office of the !! of !atnongonsometime in ovember of 199, we have come to reali&e that after a thorough recollection and reflection of what hadhappened during the incident, that the person who stabPbedQ to death Clemente :ela 8racia in the evening of ovember 11,199, at rgy. *a $ioa, !atnongon, nti3ue, was not 4oel *uces but it might be some other persons because it was already3uite dar' in the evening and we PwereQ a little bit far from the scene of the incident.P1AQ

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED: The defense evidence consisted of denial and alibi. *uces declared that at he was in"an 4ose, nti3ue, waiting for the arrival of his wife from 0loilo City. /hen his wife arrived at pm., they left for rgy. *a

$ioa, !atnongon, and reached home at about ?DA pm. The following day, his friend told him that he was the suspect inthe 'illing of Clemente :ela 8racia. 6or fear that he might be incarcerated, he went into hiding, but his mother convincedhim to surrender to the police station of "an 4ose nti3ue. -n ovember 2@, 199, he finally surrendered to the authoritiesand denied authorship of the crime.

ISSUE: /- *uces should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender .

HELD:nent the mitigating circumstance of #oluntar' surren&er , the Court of ppeals erred in appreciating the same infavor of the petitioner. To benefit an accused, the following re3uisites must be proven, namely? (1) the offender has notactually been arrested (2) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority and (D) the surrender was voluntary. surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the

authorities, either because he ac'nowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and e%pense necessarilyincurred in his search and capture.P29Q oluntary surrender presupposes repentance. 0n !eople v. iernes, we held thatgoing to the police station to clear ones name does not show any intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities.0n thecase at bar, petitioner surrendered to the authorities in order to disclaim responsibility for the 'illing of the victim. This hardlyshows any repentance or ac'nowledgment of the crime on the part of the petitioner. 5oreover, at the time petitionersurrendered, there was already a pending warrant of arrest against him. #is arrest by that time was imminent. #ence, heshould not be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

/#>$>6-$>, in view of all the foregoing, the decision of the Court of ppeals in C<8.$. o. 2D@E1, finding petitioner4oel *uces guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide, is 660$5>:.

PEOPLE v 4ASITE01 SCRA 662

FACTS: -n 1 "ept 1997"onia !a<ay, a polio victim, was wal'ing, when she met >ddie asite. They passed by eachother. 5oments later, asite pulled out a 'nife from his waistband, thrust it at her nec' and threatened to stab her. #eordered her to lie down and out of fear she obeyed. asite undressed "onia, placed himself on top of her, inserted his penisinto her vagina and made a push and pull movement. /hen he was through with the se%ual assault, he warned her not torelate the incident to anyone or else he would stab her. =pon seeing that the accused had laid down his 'nife beside herhead while he was putting on his clothes, "onia grabbed the 'nife and stabbed him on the left shoulder. /ounded, theaccused ran away."onia tried to put on her clothes, but losing her balance she rolled down the cliff and lostconsciousness. /hen she recovered, she could not find her bearings in her wea'ened state. "he made her way up themountain by the light of the moon. "he passed by a house where she was offered camote to eat. "onia met her uncle

a&ario and other relatives on the way and she narrated her ordeal to them. Together with some companions theyproceeded to the !olice "tation to report the incident and to file a complaint. They saw >ddie alighting from a yellow 6ord6iera.a&ario approached the accused and held him by the shoulder and told him to go with them tothe !olicestation. >ddie pushed a&arios arm and ran away. a&ario and his companions caught him.8ilbert "acla, testified that hesaw a&ario and his companions run after the accused."ince he was then the arangay Captain, 8ilbert called a stop tothe commotion. #e learned that >ddie was being accused of having molested "onia. 8ilbert brought >ddie to the policestation. T"e accuse& went wit" "im willin%l'.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:The accused denied having raped "onia. #e presented 2 witnesses, *idot *acbaoand :r. $onald andonill. *idot *acbao recalled that he received complainant "onia !a<ay in his home and offeredher camote to eat. The girl was limping. "he had scratches on her arms and legs and her clothes were muddy. The girl told



him that she had slept in the forest and that she met a man who accosted her but that she stabbed him. *idot as'ed her ishe had been raped. "he replied that she had not been raped since she stabbed the man and if she did not, he would havedone something to her. andonill of the 0<C$, as an e%pert witness to dispute the findings of prosecution witness :r.$aper. ased on :r. $apers findings that there was no bleeding or scratches inside the genitalia and that the inuries wereonly outside the genital area and on the upper and lower e%tremities of "onia, :r. andonill opined that there was noinsertion into the vagina and there was no physical contact or se%ual intercourse. -therwise, the genital area would haveshown signs of trauma such as inflammation, redness, swelling and even bleeding if the hymen was the type that was easilylacerated. :r. andonill added that the 5edico<*egal Certificate issued by :r. $aper was incomplete and incomprehensive

and not compatible with standard 5edico<*egal $eports of the 0 in rape cases.

ISSUE: WON 4sites su&&ende& (s vo!unt&@.

HELD: A surren&er to e #oluntar' must e spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself

unconditionally to the authorities, either because he ac'nowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble ande%pense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. 0f none of these two (2) reasons impelled the accused to surrenderbecause his surrender was obviously moti#ate& more ' an intention to insure "is safet' , his arrest being inevitable, thesurrender is not spontaneous.asites conduct after the commission of the offense, of running away after having been stabbed by private complainant and

of fleeing from complainants relatives when they tried to bring him to the authorities, &o not s"ow #oluntar' surren&er ascontemplate& un&er t"e law . 0t appears that asite willingly went to the police authorities with 8ilbert "acla only to escapethe wrath of private complainants relatives who were pursuing him and who appeared to be thirsting for his blood.0n the instant case, the guilt of accused<appellant >ddie asite has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.!aragraph 1 ofrt. DD@ of T"e (e#ise& enal Co&e punishes with reclusion perpetua an accused who has carnal 'nowledge of a womanwith the use of force or intimidation. The use of a deadly weapon, which would otherwise have 3ualified the crime, is notalleged in the Information, hence even if proved, may not be appreciated against accused<appellant.The assailed 3ecision of the court a *uo finding "0T> guilty of simple rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua andto pay complaining witness "onia !a<ay the amount of !@A,AAA.AA as civil indemnity and !@A,AAA.AA as moral damagesis 660$5>:.

PLEA OF 5UILTPEOPLE v ALMENDRAS ?3 SCRA 3?3

NATURE? utomatic review.PROSECUTIONS CASE:The victimIs daughter, :iana 5anidlangan,9, testified that she saw D or B persons too' hermother Criselda. :iana identified 2 of them as le% -psimar and lfredo lmendras. "he recogni&ed the face of anotherbut she did not 'now his name. -psimar smelled of Tanduay. 2 of the men dragged Criselda to the road, seven to tenmeters from the house, while appellant stood by a coconut tree.Criselda was dragged to the road and she also ordered:iana to go to sleep. :iana obeyed her motherIs command and went to bed. "he did not tell her brothers or sisters aboutthe incident that had ust transpired for they were already asleep. "he did not hear any more cries from her mother./hen:iana awo'e the ne%t day, >lena, her stepfatherIs niece, informed her that her mother was dead. :iana immediately went

near the coconut tree where appellant had stood earlier that morning. "he found her dead mother lying on her bac'. :ianasaw wounds on her motherIs nec' and on the head, ust above the ear. n e%amination reveals that the deceased suffered1 wounds.fter having presented the testimonies of :r. !ere& and :iana 5anidlangan but before the offer of the testimony of the otherwitnesses for the prosecution, the accused changed his plea to Jnot guilty.J #e li'ewise invo'ed three mitigatingcircumstances, namely, voluntary surrender, plea of guilty, and passion and obfuscation.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:The accused testified that he was at the house of his uncle, *eoncio lmendras toconfront him. *eoncio was the younger brother of the accusedIs late father. The accused claimed that *eoncio, withoutpermission, opened the tomb of his (the accusedIs) father, put aside the bones and replaced them with the remains of his(*eoncioIs) wife. #is uncle left the bones of the accusedIs father on the ground. The accused discovered this alleged



desecration of his fatherIs remains when he went to the cemetery and found the bones outside the tomb. The accused toldhis uncle, JTay, ust return the bones of my father into the tomb.J *eoncio promised to return the bones.-n 4une B, 1997, theaccused went to his uncleIs house to tal' to him again about it but *eoncio immediately bo%ed the accused, hitting him onthe face. The accused fell. "omeone advanced towards him with a piece of wood about three inches long and about one<and<a<half inch in diameter. Thin'ing that it was his uncle, the accused immediately stood up and, several times, stabbedthe person approaching him. s the person fell, the accused suddenly reali&ed that he hit not his uncle *eoncio but*eoncioIs common<law wife, Criselda.The accused ran to his cornfield in Tibal<og and stayed there for J3uite some time.J*ater, he went home to their Jui& J in 5alabog, :avao City and surrendered to his brother, who brought him to

!e]aplata.The defense presented the accusedIs brother, a former C68= member and presently a civilian volunteer, toprove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

ISSUES? /- the plea of guilty is to be appreciated in lmendras favour.

HELD:lthough the information alleged the foregoing aggravating 3ualifying and generic circumstances, appellant, bymerely pleading guilty, did not admit to the presence of these circumstances. T"e plea of %uilt' of an accuse& cannot stan&in place of t"e e#i&ence t"at must e presente& an& is calle& for by "ection D, $ule 117 of the $ules of Court. Trial courtsshould not assume that a plea of guilty includes an admission of the attending circumstances alleged in the information asthey are re3uired to demand that the prosecution should prove the e%act liability of the accused.T"e elate& plea of %uilt cannot e appreciate& in "is fa#or.

To effectively alleviate the criminal liability of an accused, a plea of guilty must be made at the first opportunity,indicating repentance on the part of the accused. 0n determining the timeliness of a plea of guilty, nothing could be moree%plicit than the provisions of the $evised !enal Code re3uiring that the offender voluntarily confess his guilt before thecourt prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. 0t is well settled that a plea of guilty made afterarraignment and after trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigatingcircumstance.In t"is case, appellant plea&e& %uilt' onl' after t"e prosecution "a& alrea&' presente& two witnesses.

lmendras is found guilty of #-50C0:>.

PEOPLE v CRISOSTOMO 187 SCRA 03

FACTS: /hile Crisostomo was passing near the house of 8eronimo, he met the latter Y invited him to have a drin' in theplace of a friend. 8eronimo declined the offer. "uddenly Crisostomo rushed towards $omeo who was then standing near astore facing the street wF his bac' towards Crisostomo Y shot him at a distance of 1 meter.

HELD: The allegation of the appellant that he was drun' when he committed the offense is self<serving and uncorroborated.esides, appellant admitted that at that time he was only di&&y, and that he was on the way to another drin'ing spree.-bviously he had not drun' enough. #e remembers the details of the shooting, the time it started and ended, how muchwine he imbibed and the persons who were with him. #e reali&ed the gravity of the offense he committed so he fled and hidfrom the authorities. #e sought sanctuary in the chapel of "to. $osario, boarded a tricycle going to the poblacion and too' a*a 5allorca bus to 5anila. ll these are acts of a man whose mental capacity has not been impaired.

s the fifth assigned error appellant argues that he should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntarysurrender stating that although he hid himself from the authorities for 1A days, he voluntarily surrendered to the authoritiesthereafter upon the advice of his parents.

The re3uisites of voluntary surrender are? (a) that the offender had not actually been arrested (b) that the offendersurrendered himself to a person in authority or the latterIs agent and (c) that the surrender was voluntary.

The testimony of the appellant is not disputed by the prosecution that while in hiding, upon the advise of his parents, hevoluntarily surrendered on 4anuary B, 197E, so he was detained in the municipal ail of #agonoy. The Court agrees that theappellant is entitled to this mitigating circumstance.

2owe#er, "e cannot e cre&ite& wit" t"e miti%atin% circumstance of a plea of %uilt' to a lesser offense of t"e c"ar%e of"omici&e as in#oe& un&er t"e sixt" assi%ne& error. T"e re*uisites of t"e miti%atin% circumstance of #oluntar' plea of %uilt'are$



• That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt• That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case and• That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.0n the present case the appellant offered to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide only after some

evidence of the prosecution had been presented. #e reiterated his offer after the prosecution rested its case. This iscertainly not mitigating.

PEOPLE v DANIELA 071 SCRA 61

FACTS? 5anuel :aniela, armed with a .DE caliber gun entered the bedroom of $onito >nero and 5aria 6e. #e po'edthe said gun on 5aria 6e. "he wo'e up and attempted to stand up but 5anuel ordered her to lie down. 5anuel ordered4ose aylosis to tie her hands and put a tape on her mouth. -n orders of 5anuel, 4ose wo'e up *eo and brought him tothe room. 4ose tied the hands of *eo behind his bac'. 4ose and 5anuel then divested 5aria 6e of her nec'lace, ringsand earrings. They ransac'ed the room but failed to find money. 4ulifer wo'e up but 5anuel and 4ose threatened to 'illher if she shouted. The two tied 4ulifers hands at her bac'. 5anuel threatened to e%plode the grenade tuc'ed under hisshirt and 'ill 5aria 6e, her family and their househelps if she refused to surrender her money. !etrified, 5aria 6e too'the money from her waist pouch and gave the same to 5anuel and 4ose. 5anuel too' a blan'et and ordered 4ose to 'ill$onito with it. 4ose went to the 'itchen, got a 'nife, covered $onito with the blan'et and sat on top of him then stabbedthe latter several times. 5anuel also stabbed $onito on different parts of his body. $onito could only groan li'e a dying

pig. 5anuel hit $onito with the butt of his gun. 4ose slit the throat of $onito and too' the latters wristwatch and ring.5anuel then untied 4ulifer removed her clothes and panties and then raped her. "he could do nothing but cry. 5anueland 4ose stayed in the house until B?AA a.m. efore they left, 5anuel and 4ose told 5aria 6e that they were acting onorders of $olando !edreas, 4oel Coleara, 8race !abulacion and 4uliet Capuno

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:5anuel admitted having 'illed $onito. #e however claimed that he stabbed $onitoin self<defense and in defense of 4ose. #e also said that he, !otot, $onito and 4oo, the younger brother of 5aria 6e,had been engaged in robberies in. "ometime in "eptember 199@, the four robbed a person of !@A,AAA. #owever,5anuel failed to get his share of the loot while $onito, 4oo and !otot got theirs. 5anuel was bitter. #e later learned in:ecember 199@ that $onito and 5aria 6e had left :avao City and settled in Cebu City. -n 5arch 27, 1997, 5anuel and4ose arrived in Cebu City to contact $onito and to get his share of the loot. 5anuel met $onito on 5arch 29, 1997 at the

ai<alai. $onito told 5anuel to visit him where they can tal'. 5anuel agreed. 0n the evening on 5arch DA, 1997, 5anueland 4ose arrived in the house of $onito. 5anuel wanted to get his share of the loot from $onito. 5anuel, 4ose and$onito had a drin'ing spree. #owever, at about two ocloc' at dawn, the ne%t morning, 5anuel and $onito had analtercation when 5anuel demanded that $onito give him his share of the loot. $onito was peeved and told 5anuel thathe had long given him his share through a friend. $onito whipped out a 'nife and stabbed 5anuel. The latter tried towrest the 'nife from $onito but failed. #owever, 4ose grappled with $onito and managed to wrest possession of the'nife. 4ose then gave the 'nife to 5anuel who stabbed $onito with it.5anuel denied raping 4ulifer, and divesting $onito and 5aria 6e of their valuables. 4ose did not anymore testify

HELD:T"e appellants are not entitle& to t"e miti%atin% circumstance of plea of %uilt' on the finding of the Court that theplea of guilty of the appellants was improvidently made. esides, when the appellants changed their plea, the

prosecution had already commenced presenting its evidence.:ecision of the $egional Trial Court is 660$5>: with 5-:060CT0-. 5anuel :aniela and 4ose aylosis are foundguilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide.

PEOPLE vI4AE= J5.R. Nos. 1???-0. *u!@ ?7, 77?K

FACTS:6eli% -landa, in his early eighties, and wife $osario, 2 were soundly asleep when 6eli% suddenly felt somebodyhac' him. 6eli% recogni&ed appellant who used to reside in the house of their neighbor. #e went to the main door of theirhouse and as'ed for help. #e saw his wife already dead.>arlier on the same date, appellant went to the house of 4uanito "armiento. "armiento saw appellant with scratches on hislegs, 'nees and arms. 0ba]e& told him that he escaped from his employer who is a pala' dealer and as'ed for money in



order to go to =mangan. "armiento gave him!2A.AA. -n -ctober 2A, 1997, "armiento reported the incident to thepolice. /hen he was shown the items recovered from the crime scene ; olo, maon% pants, t<shirt, and belt ; herecogni&ed them to be those of appellant. tty. 8avino illanueva assisted appellant in the e%ecution of the e%traudicialconfession of his guilt to the commission of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.

0""=>? /- T#> T$0* C-=$T >$$>: 0 -T !!*G08 50T08T08 C0$C=5"TC>" -6 -*=T$G"=$$>:>$, -*=T$G C-6>""0- -6 8=0*T : 0T-[0CT0- 0 6-$ -6 T#> CC=">:.

HELD: ppellants plea of guilty to the two charges against him must e taen into consi&eration in imposin% t"e proper penalt' on "im.

=nder rticle 1D() of the $evised !enal Code, a plea of %uilt' on arrai%nment is a miti%atin% circumstance . Toeffectively alleviate the criminal liability of an accused, a plea of guilty must be made at the first opportunity, indicatingrepentance on the part of the accused.rticle 1D() re3uires that the offender voluntarily confesses his guilt before the courtprior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. plea of guilty made after arraignment and after trial hadbegun does not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance.0n this case, appellantpleaded guilty upon being arraigned and before the prosecution had presented witnesses. Thus, the trial court erred in nota'ing said mitigating circumstance in favor of appellant.

4uanito 0ba]e& 8=0*TG of the crimes of 5urder and 6rustrated 5urder is 660$5>: with 5-:060CT0-"?

PHYSICAL DEFECT AND ILLNESS

PEOPLE v *A9IER ?11 SCRA 638:ec 19@B? ccused<appellant >duardo 4avier was married to 6lorentina *aceste. They begot 1A children. -n 4une 97after B1 yrs of marriage, 4avier admitted 'illing his wife.

• Testimonies of "!-1 $otelio !acho, a des' investigator, and Consolacion 4avier !anit Y lma 4avier, daughters of thesps?• etween 2;Dam, Consolacion, who lived 1A<1@m. away, heard her mom shouting, your father is going to 'ill me\+

(translated from local dialect). "he ran outside Y met her sister lma who was weeping Y informed her of their parents3uarrel. Together, they went to their brother 5anuels house, about A<EAm. away from their parents house.

• =pon reaching the latter, 5anuel, who entered first, found the lifeless body of his mother in their bedroom and hisfather, wounded in the abdomen.• Their father, >duardo, confessed to son 5anuel that he 'illed his wife and thereafter stabbed himself..

• 0n his appeal, 4avier claims he 'illed his wife because he was suffering from insomnia for a month and at the time of the'illing, his mind went totally blan' and he did not 'now what he was doing. #e claims that he was insane then.

Issues nd Rtio:1. WON *vie& %n %!i' 'iti<tin< %i&%u'stn%es o; i!!ness nd o; $ssion nd o;us%tion

@o to ot". -n illness, since 4avier has already admitted to the 'illing, it is incumbent upon him to prove the claimedmitigating circumstance. -"8 found no sufficient evidence or medical finding to support his claim. 6or the mitigatingcircumstance of i!!ness of the offender to be appreciated, the law re3uires the presence of the ff re3uisites?• 0llness must diminish the e%ercise of the willpower of the offender, and•

"uch illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.6or the circumstance of $ssion nd o;us%tion of the offender to be appreciated, the law re3uires the presence of the ffre3uisites?

• There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind, and• "uch act wFc produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable

length of time during wFc the perpetrator might recover his moral e3uanimity.The defense never presented any medical record of the accused nor was a psychiatrist presented to validate the defense ofinsanity. one of the elements<re3uisites were proved to be present Y in his testimony, 4avier even stated that he was not ealous of his wife. >3ually important, the defense, during the trial, never alleged the above<claimed mitigating circumstancesof illness Y passion Y obfuscation, thus wea'ening the case of accused<appellant. The alleged mitigating circumstances aremere afterthought to whittle (to shape) down his criminal liability.



PEOPLE v PARA=O J5R 11138 *u!@ 2, 1KFACTS: 5arlon !ara&o was convicted for rape and frustrated homicide.!ara&o filed a motion for reconsideration whichalleged that !ara&o was not provided with a sign language e%pert. 0f the allegation should be proven the udgement ofconviction should be set aside. -n 6ebruary 1A, 199E the court resolved to grant the urgent omnibus motion• To hold in abeyance consideration of his motion pending his medical e%amination• To allow a supplemental motion for reconsideration after his medical e%amination• To submit the appellant for e%amination by a physician of the "upreme Court.

Issue: /- the udgment of conviction should be set aside

HELD: Ges. ppellant was e%amined by eatri& -. Cru& ("C 5edical "ervices !sychologist). The result of her e%aminationwas that +r. araFos intelli%ence function ase& on t"e 6oo&enou%" is %au%e& on t"e mil& to mo&erate &e%ree of mentalretar&ation wit" an estimate& IB of H. #is mental age on the other hand, is e3uivalent to yrs Y 9 months.!roblem o5arlon !ara&o is the severe defect or deafness. The presence of an organic disorder cannot be determined because of thelatters inability to communicate. #owever, some degree of mental retardation was gathered with the use of Z!aper Y !encilTest. Testimonies of the people who have 'nown 5arlon !ara&o since childhood corroborated the testimonies of themedical e%perts. The mother of !ara&o, barangay chairman, school teacher stated that the appellant was deaf and mute.ased on the collateral information gathered from persons who have 'nown the patient since childhood, together with theresult of the diagnostic test at =!<!8# and evidenced by the psychological report, it is now established that 5arlon !ara&o

is suffering from (1) !rofound #earing *oss, left ear (2) "evere #earing *oss, right ear (D) 5ental $etardation, 5ild.$ecords show that !ara&o was tried without the benefit of a sign language e%pert and he was only assisted by a person

who has been 'nown to him since 19ED.!eople v. Crisologo ; absence of an interpreter in sign language who could have conveyed to the accused, a deaf mute,

the full facts of the offense with which he was charged and who could also have communicated the accuseds version of thecircumstances which led to his implication in the crime, deprived the accused of a full and fair trial and a reasonableopportunity to defend himself. @ot e#en t"e accuse&s final plea of not %uilt' can excuse t"ese in"erentl' un!ustcircumstances. The absence of a 3ualified interpreter in sign language and of any other means, whether in writing orotherwise, to inform the accused of the charges against him denied the accused his fundamental right of due process oflaw. The accuracy and fairness of the factual process by which the guilt or innocence of the accused was determined wasnot safeguarded. The accused could not be said to have enoyed the right to be heard by himself and counsel, and to be

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in the proceedings where his life and liberty were at sta'e.

PEOPLE v FORMI5ONES, su$&FACTS: belardo was living on his farmhis wife, 4ulia gricola Y their @ children. 6rom there they transferred in the house ohis half<brother, Wacarias 6ormigones in the same municipality to find employment as harvesters of palay. fter a month, 4uliawas sitting at the head of the stairs of the house when belardo, wFo previous 3uarrel or provocation whatsoever, too' his bolofrom the wall of the house Y stabbed his wife 4ulia, in the bac', the blade penetrating the right lung Y causing a severehemorrhage resulting in her death. belardo then too' his dead wife Y laid her on the floor of the living room Y then lay downbeside her. 0n this position, he was found by the people who came in response to the shouts made by his eldest daughter,0rene 6ormigones.The motive was admittedly that of ealousy because according to his statement, he used to have 3uarrelswith his wife for reason that he often saw her in the company of his brother, Wacarias that he suspected the 2 were

maintaining illicit relations because he noticed that his wife had become indifferent to him. :uring the preliminaryinvestigation, the accused pleaded guilty. t the case in the C60, he also pleaded guilty but didnt testify. #is counselpresented the testimony of 2 guards of the provincial ail where belardo was confined to the effect that his conduct wasrather strange Y that he behaved li'e an insane person, at times he would remain silent, wal' around star' na'ed, refuse tota'e a bath Y wash his clothes etc... The appeal is based merely on the theory that the appellant is an 05>C0*> Ytherefore e%empt from criminal liability under $!C 12.

ISSUE: /- belardo is an imbecile at the time of the commission of the crime, thus e%empted from criminal liability

He!d: o. #e is not an imbecile. ccording :r. 6rancisco 8omes, although he was feebleminded, he is not an imbecile ashe could still distinguish between right Y wrong Y even feel remorse. 0n order that a person could be regarded as an



imbecile wFin the meaning of $!C 12 so as to be e%empt from criminal liability, he must be deprived completely of reasonor discernment Y freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. (ote that definition is same as insanity). s to thestrange behavior of the accused during his confinement, assuming it was not feigned to stimulate insanity, it may be attributedeither to his being feebleminded or eccentric, or to a morbid mental condition produced by remorse at having 'illed his wife. man who could feel the pangs of ealousy Y ta'e violent measures to the e%tent of 'illing his wife, who he suspected of beingunfaithful to him, in the belief that in doing so, he was vindicating his honor, could hardly be regarded as an imbecile. /- thesuspicions were ustified, is of little or no importance. The fact is that he believed her faithless. 6urthermore, in his writtenstatement, he readily admitted that he 'illed his wife, Y at the trial he made no effort to deny of repudiate said written

statements, thus saving the government all the trouble Y e%pense of catching him Y securing his conviction.ut 2 mitigatingcircumstances are present? passion or obfuscation (having 'illed his wife in a ealous rage) Y feeblemindedness.

OTHER RELATED CIRCUMSTANCES

PEOPLE v MAC4UL 30 P)i! 0?8ppellant pleaded guilty to information for theft of two sac's of papers valued at !1A belong to the !rovincial 8overnment of"ulu it being also alleged that he was a habitual delin3uent, having been twice convicted of the same crime. The trial courfound two mitigating circumstances? plea of guilty and e,treme %overt# and necessit# but it too' into account theaggravating circumstance of recidivism in imposing the principal as well as the additional penalty. The trial court considered e%treme poverty and necessity as a mitigating circumstance falling within o. 1A of article

1D of the $evised !enal Code, which authori&es the court to consider in favor of an accused /an' ot"er circumstance of asimilar nature an& analo%ous to t"ose ao#e mentione&./ The trial court predicates such consideration upon its finding thatthe accused, on account of e%treme poverty and of the economic difficulties brought about by the present cataclysm, wasforced to pilfer the two sac's of papers mentioned in the information from the Customhouse uilding, which he sold for!2.@A, in order to be able to buy something to eat for various minor children of his. (The stolen goods were subse3uentlyrecovered.) The "olicitor 8eneral interposes no obection to the consideration of such circumstance as mitigating under o.1A of article 1D. /e give it our stamp of approval, recogni&ing the immanent principle that the right to life is more sacredthan a mere property right. That is not to encourage or even countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat the 'een andpain<producing edges of the star' realities of life.

PEOPLE v 9ELAS+UE= 3 PHIL 2

<a presente causa entrana solo una cuestion &e &erec"o. 3e a"i *ue el 2on. Triunal &e Apelaciones la "a'a certifica&o aesta Superiori&a&.3ic"a cuestion es esta$ Con #ista &e los "ec"os a&miti&os por el apelante, se le pue&e o no "allar culpale &el &elito &emal#ersacion &e fon&os pulicos, pre#isto ' casti%a&o por el articulo GG7 &el Co&i%o enal (e#isa&oD 3e la sentenciaapela&a &el uF%a&o inferior se &espren&en los "ec"os si%uientes.2acia el perio&o compren&i&o &es&e el 9 &e septiemre &e 197 "asta el &e &iciemre &e 198, el apelante era unfuncionario pulico, *ue &esempenaa el car%o &e ca!ero auxiliar en la tesoreria pro#incial &e an%asinan, "acien&o oficinaen el municipio &e <in%a'en &e la misma pro#incia. )n &ic"o perio&o &e tiempo, el apelante, en su capaci&a& &e ca!eroauxiliar &e la tesoreria pro#incial &e an%asinan, reciio en el municipio &e <in%a'en, &e las tesorerias municipales &e+alasi*ui, Ta'u%, :inalonan, San Buintin, (osales ' +anaoa%, #arias canti&a&es &e &inero, *ue ascen&ian a la suma total

&e 1,7H1.G, sin *ue se "a'a expe&i&o recio al%uno por las menciona&as canti&a&es. )stas eran fon&os &e la /(e& Cross/, la /Anti4Tuerculosa/ ' los /:o' Scouts/. )l &e &iciemre &e 198, los au&itores &ele%a&os, Sres. :las 6iron 'e&ro Velasco, al "acer el examen ' ar*ueo &e los fon&os a!o la custo&ia &el apelante, en la capaci&a& arria in&ica&a,"allaron un &eficit &e 1,7H1.G, *ue el apelante no pu&o explicar. or lo *ue este, en #arias ocasiones, &es&e el 9 &e&iciemre &e 198 "asta el H &e enero &e 199, estu#o pa%an&o a la tesoreria pro#incial &e an%asinan la canti&a& &efrau&a&a.)n alFa&a, el apelante sostiene *ue las canti&a&es por el mal#ersa&as no eran fon&os pulicos, por lo *ue no se le pue&e"allar culpale &el &elito *uerella&o.2aien&o a&miti&o *ue el "aia recii&o las canti&a&es en cuestion, en el &esempeno &e su car%o oficial &e #ariastesorerias municipales &e &ic"a pro#incia, las canti&a&es menciona&as son fon&os pulicos, por los *ue &ee respon&er,&e acuer&o con el articulo H9 &el Co&i%o A&ministrati#o (e#isa&o, *ue &ispone$



A(T. H9. 3isposicion &e fon&os recau&a&os por funcionarios pulicos. 4 )xcepto como &e otro mo&o se &isponeespecialmente, se &ee &ar cuenta &e to&os los fon&os recii&os oficialmente por un funcionario pulico encual*uier capaci&a& o en cual*uier ocasion, como fon&os &el 6oierno.

)ste Triunal 'a "a &eci&i&o repeti&as #eces *ue cuan&o un funcionario pulico recie al%un &inero, para su custo&ia, estea&*uiere los caracteres &e fon&os pulicos =(.6. @o. JJ, &iciemre 17, 197 eople #s. Castro, (.6. @o. J17J7,a%osto H, 195 eople #s. Siulo, (.6. @o. JH71J a%osto 7, 199>. Con #ista &e estas &ecisiones, es e#i&ente *ue el apelante, al reciir la canti&a& &e 1,7H1.G, *ue eran fon&os &e la /(e& Cross/, la /Anti4Tuerculosa/ ' los /:o' Scouts/,se "iFo responsale &e &ic"a suma. Al no po&er, pues, &ar explicacion satisfactoria &e la falta &el &inero, cuan&o se

efectuaron el examen ' ar*ueo &e sus liros por los au&itores, se "a "ec"o reo &el &elito &e mal#ersacion &e fon&os pulicos, ale%a&o en la *uerella fiscal.)stamos con el 2on. rocura&or 6eneral en *ue "a lu%ar a estimar la &e#olucion "ec"a por el apelante &e la canti&a&&efrau&a&a como circunstancia atenuante especial sin nin%una a%ra#ante *ue la compense. )sto asi, proce&e con&enar alapelante a sufrir en su %ra&o minimo la pena senala&a por la le'. Con la unica mo&ificacion, por tanto, &e *ue se enten&erael apelante con&enan&o a sufrir una pena in&etermina&a &e seis meses ' un &ia a cuatro anos, &os meses ' un &ia &e prision correccional, confirmamos la sentencia apela&a, en to&as sus &emas partes, con las costas al apelante. Asi seor&ena.

A55RA9ATIN5 CIRCUMSTANCESARTICLE 10, RPC

A%%ra#atin% circumstances. M The following are aggravating circumstances?1. That advantage be ta'en by the offender of his public position.2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.D. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his ran',age, or se%, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.B. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.@. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief >%ecutive or in his presence, or where public authoritiesare engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.7. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever suchcircumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense./henever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be

deemed to have been committed by a band.. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwrec', earth3ua'e, epidemic or othercalamity or misfortune.E. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.9. That the accused is a recidivist. recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final udgmentof another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.1A. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an e3ual or greaterpenalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, e%plosion, stranding of a vessel or

international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great wasteand ruin.1D. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.1B. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.1@. That advantage be ta'en of superior strength, or means be employed to wea'en the defense.17. That the act be committed with treachery (ale#osia).There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, orforms in the e%ecution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its e%ecution, without ris' to himself arisingfrom the defense which the offended party might ma'e.1. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.1E. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.



There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be bro'en.2A. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehiclesmotori&ed watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (s amended by $ @BDE).21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong notnecessary for its commissions.

PLACE OF COMMISSIONPALACE OF THE CHIEF E/ECUTI9E,

OR IN THE PLACE OF RELI5IOUS WORSHIP

PEOPLE v *AURI5UE, su$&FACTS) velina and the deceased mado Capina lived in the same barrio that for some time prior to the stabbing, madohad been courting her in vain. -n "ept.1D, mado suddenly embraced and 'issed velina and touched her breasts, velinaslapped mado, gave him fist blows and 'ic'ed him. "ince then, she armed herself with a long fan 'nife for self<protection.

-n "ept.1@, about midnight, mado climbed up the room of velina. #e felt her forehead, evidently with theintention of abusing her. "he immediately screamed for help, which awa'ened her parents and brought them to her side.mado came out from where he had hidden under a bed in velinaIs room and 'issed the hand of icolas, her father,as'ing for forgiveness.

0n the morning of "ept. 2A, velina received information that mado had been falsely boasting in the neighbourhood

of having ta'en liberties with her person and that she had even as'ed him to elope with her and that if he should not marryher, she would ta'e poison and that velina again received information of madoIs bragging at about @ oIcloc' in theafternoon of that same day.

t about E oIcloc' in the evening of the same day, icolas went to the chapel of the "eventh :ay dventists toattend religious services, and sat on the front bench . velina entered the chapel shortly after the arrival of her father andsat on the bench ne%t to the last one nearest the door. mado was seated on the other side of the chapel. =pon observingthe presence of velina , mado went to the bench on which velina was sitting and sat by her right side, and, withoutsaying a word, mado, with the greatest of impudence, placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. -n observingthis highly improper and offensive conduct of mado, velina, conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out withher right hand the fan 'nife, which she had in a poc'et of her dress, with the intention of punishing madoIs offending hand.mado sei&ed velinaIs right hand, but she 3uic'ly grabbed the 'nife with her left hand and stabbed mado once at the

base of the left side of the nec'.

HELD:The claim of the prosecution that the offense was committed by velina with the aggravating circumstance that the'illing was done in a place dedicated to religious worship, cannot be legally sustained as there is no evidence to show thatthe defendant and appellant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel that fatal night. velina is not a criminaby nature. "he happened to 'ill under the greatest provocation. 0n the mind of the court, velina committed the crime ofhomicide, with no aggravating circumstance whatsoever, but with at least three mitigating circumstances of a 3ualifiedcharacter to be considered in her favor she is entitled to a reduction by one or two degrees in the penalty to be imposedupon her. nd considering the circumstances of the instant case, velina should be accorded the most liberal considerationpossible under the law.

UNINHA4ITED PLACE

PEOPLE v DAMASO 28 SCRA ?37NATURE? utomatic review.PROSECUTIONS CASE::onata $ebolledo and ictoriano de la Cru& heard the bar'ings of dogs outside their house. 2men armed with guns, entered, pointed their weapons at them and as'ed :onata for the wereabouts of her daughterCatalina. :onata was ordered to open an JaparadorJ from which the two men too' valuables.They could hear the movements and voices of D<B other persons beneath the house. The 2 men brought Catalina downfrom the house and then as'ed where they could find "usana .Thereafter, :onata heard the men opening the door to"usanaIs store. fter several minutes, feeling that the intruders had left, :onata untied the hands of ictoriano and as'edhim to go to the store to see if her daughters were there. :onata sent ictoriano to the barrio lieutenant to report the



incident.The following morning the two women were found already dead with wounds in several parts of their bodies. T"e'were foun& in a su%ar plantation 1HH meters from 3onataKs "ouse . The deaths were caused by profuse hemorrhage due toa fatal, big, wide, gaping and deep lacerated wound.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED::amaso stated that he was with his co<accused 8regorio, >ugenio, lviar and >speoon the night the "abado sisters were 'illed that he never went into the house of :onata $ebolledo as >ugenio and8regorio were the ones who did that it was 8regorio and >ugenio who actually did the 'illing while he, lviar and >speomerely stood by that the victims were stabbed and their throats cut with a reaping 'nife (pangapas or lait) that the 'illing

was motivated by the failure of the older woman (Catalina) to pay for a carabao bought from 8regorio and that on thatevening, 8regorio, >ugenio, lviar and >speo were carrying caliber .B@ pistols while he was unarmed.

ISSUE:/- the trial court erred in its appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of armed band, treachery anduninhabited place.nent the circumstances of unin"aite& place, counsel disclaims its e%istence by pointing to the pro%imity of the sugarcanefield where the victims were 'illed to the national highway as well as to certain houses in the barrio. The uninhabitedness ofa place is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime, but whether or not in the place ofcommission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. Considering that the 'illing was done duringnighttime and the sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby, there was noreasonable possibility for the victims to receive any assistance. T"at t"e accuse& &elieratel' sou%"t the solitude of the

place is clearly shown by the fact that they brought the victims to the sugarcane field although they could have disposed ofthem right in the house of :onata $ebolledo where they were found. Thus, in eople #. Sa%uin%, the Court considered thecrime as having been committed in an uninhabited place because the 'illing was done in a secluded place at the foot of ahill, forested, and uninhabited.The trial court considered separately the three circumstances of armed band, treachery and uninhabited place where underother situations one may be considered absorbed or inherent in the other. There is ample ustification for this. The elementsof each circumstance subsist independently and can be distinctly perceived thereby revealing a greater degree of perversityon the part of the accused.0 0>/ -6 T#> 6-$>8-08 C-"0:>$T0-", /e hereby affirm in toto the decision of the trial court in the twocases.

PEOPLE v CODERES 1?7 SCRA 1?0

PROSECUTIONS CASE:Testimony of $osie de illa, victim,17 ? "he and "hirley de *ara were eating having come fromthe 4ade >ast ight Club where she wor'ed as an agogo dancer. -n their way out of the canteen, they met the D accused1 named 4ose Coderes, who offered to bring her home. /hen $osie refused the offer, the D hailed a ta%icab and 4uliusClar' forced her inside the cab. The three accused oined her inside the ta%icab. 0nside the vehicle, she was bo%ed on thestomach by 4ose Coderes. $osie as'ed the accused to bring her to $eno #otel where she lived, but upon reaching thehotel the ta%icab did not stop and instead the vehicle speeded away towards the Tourist Spot . $osie did not shout for helpon the way because her mouth was covered by asilio Clar'. /hen they reached the Tourist "pot, 4ulius Clar' dragged herout of the ta%icab. The two other accused also alighted from the vehicle. Then the driver drove the vehicle away with theunidentified passenger. fter the ta%icab left asilio Clar' threw $osie down face up on the ground, and despite her

screams, he placed himself hori&ontally on top of her and succeeded in having se%ual intercourse with her with theassistance of 4ulius Clar', who held her legs, and of 4ose Coderes, who held her hands. fter asilio Clar' has finished withher, one of the accused bo%ed her and then 4ose Coderes also raped her, aided in the dastardly act by 4ulius, who held herhands, and asillo who held her legs. fter Coderes was through, 4ulius Clar' too' his turn and while he was having se%ualintercourse with her, asilio held her two legs and Coderes too' hold of her hands. 4ust then a man whom she came to'now later as 4ose :umlao, 4r. arrived at the scene and he fired a shot. 4ulius and Coderes stood up and attempted toescape but :umlao fired at them, stopping them on their way up.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: 4ose Coderes staunchly denied having ravished the offended party.#e and his co<accused saw $osie de illa dead<drun' lying on a wooden catwal' behind the "aulog Canteen.



ISSUE: /- the trial court erred in considering against them the aggravating circumstances of Juninhabited place.JThe law provides that there are three (D) elements to be ta'en into account before the aggravating circumstance ofnighttime and uninhabited place may be considered, to wit?(a) /hen it facilitated the commission of the crime or(b) /hen especially sought for by the offender or(c) /hen offender too' advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity.ppellants also strongly vociferate against the trial courtIs considering Juninhabited placeJ as an aggravating circumstancein the commission of the alleged crime. They contend that there is more than sufficient evidence and based on the

testimony itself for the prosecution that the Tourist Spot or the place where the alleged rape was committed is notuninhabited because of the following facts established and uncontradicted?(1) There are houses within the @A meter radius from the Tourist "pot.chanrobles virtual law library(2) !lace where crime was allegedly committed only B meters from road and is continuously illuminated by cars oncomingfrom "ubic and -longapo City.(D) There were plenty of cars passing through during time of alleged crime.chanrobles virtual law library(B) !rosecution witness admits he was able to flag down a eepney to call for a police right away. This is established by thefact that alleged crime was at 2?DA a.m. and testimony that at D?AA a.m. parties were already at the -longapo !olice "tation.

The decision is modified by eliminating or disregarding the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited placeand in their place instead considers and ta'es into account the aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle. The

case against 4ulius Clar' who, according to the records, died at the ! #ospital in 5untinlupa during the pendency of thisautomatic review on 4uly 1, 199, is considered dismissed insofar as his criminal liability is concerned but his civil liabilityshall be ta'en from his estate.0n all other respects, the udgment of the lower court is affirmed.

DWELLIN5

PEOPLE v DE LA TORRE ?3? SCRA 170PROSECUTIONS CASE:5arita Cordova, D@, was a coo' at the *a 6iesta 6arm.!aulino, her husband and dela Torre werealso wor'ers of the same farm.nthony 0nocenciotestified that !aulino went to see him at his farm. !aulino as'ed for hisassistance because the accused, then armed with a 'nife and bolo, was causing trouble and commotion at the *a 6iesta

6arm of 5r. lindada. nthony responded to !aulinoIs call for help. =pon arriving at the *a 6iesta 6arm, he learned that theaccused forcibly too' the shoes and money of 5r. lindadaIs wor'ers. 5arita and her children as'ed nthony whether theycould stay in his farm. #e obliged and they all proceeded there. =pon reaching the farm, 5arita told nthony that she wasraped by the accused that night.s to how the rape was committed, 5arita testified that she was coo'ing at the with her @children when suddenly, the accused, holding a 'nife and a bolo, dragged her outside and brought her towards a houseunder construction about 2AA meters away.5aritaIs children tried to follow but they desisted when the accused threatenedthem. /hile going to the said house, 5arita and the accused met 4oel illasis and 4ohnny :i&on, also wor'ers in the farm.5arita as'ed for their help but they did nothing because they were afraid of the accused. The accused pinned her arms ather bac', pulled down his pants, too' off her panty and placed himself on top of her./hile he was raping her, she wasunable to resist because the 'nife was pointed at her throat.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED :ela Torre never denied having se%ual contact with 5arita that night of. #e claimedhowever, that she was his mistress and that the carnal incident between them was consensual. #e courted 5arita, who thentold him that she would be willing to be his mistress if he would give her permanent support. "ince then, their se%ual affairbecame fre3uent until "eptember, 19E9 when 5arita was recruited to wor' at *a 6iesta 6arm. ccused further narrated thatat about 1?AA in the afternoon of ovember @, 19E9, he and 5arita tal'ed at the 'itchen of *a 6iesta 6arm. They agreed tomeet about E?AA in the evening in the nearby house under construction. #e arrived first at the place and, shortly thereafter,she followed. There, they had se%ual intercourse on the ground using JsawaliJ as mat.

ISSUE:The appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.



HELD:The 0nformation alleges the presence of the aggravating circumstance of dwelling in the commission of the offense.This should have been appreciated by the court a *uo. 0t appears from the records that the 'itchen at the *a 6iesta 6armwhere 5arita was dragged from "er /&wellin%,J albeit the same does not belong to her. 0n Peo%le v. Para-o,this Courstressed that the JdwellingJ contemplated in rticle 1B(D) of the $!C does not necessarily mean that the victim owns theplace where he lives or dwells. e he a lessee, a boarder, or a bedspacer, the place is his home, t)e sn%tit@ o; ()i%) t)e!( see>s to $&ote%t. The fact that the crime was consummated in the nearby house is also immaterial. 5arita was forciblyta'en by appellant from her dwelling house ('itchen) and then raped her. :welling is aggravating if the victim was ta'enfrom his house although the offense was not completed therein.

PEOPLE v ALMO5UERA 016 SCRA 803NATURE: utomatic review. The crime involved is despicable because innocent lives of D young children were callouslyta'en. This gruesome incident shoc'ed the 3uiet barangay of !ia, "an 4acinto,5asbate.

PROSECUTIONS CASE:6lorentino and *ily 4ulaton went to the polling precinct to cast their votes in the barangayelections. efore leaving, they instructed their D children, 8ina, 1B years old, *yn, E years old and $ey, years old, to watchtheir store and prevent strangers from entering their house.4essie 8enova, 4r was about DA meters away from the 4ulatonshouse,when he heard :ante ton shouting and inviting him to smo'e cigarettes. s he was approaching the house, henoticed thatton was hiding his right hand behind the door while his left hand was holding a cigarette. ear the door werethe bodies of 2 dead children, 8ina and $ey. /hen ton uttered here he comes,lmoguerra immediately went down the

stairs holding assorted coins at his right hand and a bladed 'nife then forced 8enova, 4r to accept the loose coins.6rightened, he received the coins, placed them inside his poc'et and ran away. t the moment, he heard them shouting iyou tell somebody, we will 'ill you and your family. #e and his father8enova, "r., accompanied the 4ulatons in bringing thedead tothe #ospital.=pon their return to barangay !ia, he gave the loose coins amounting to !DA.@ to his father and toldhim about the incident.5eanwhile, upon being informed of the incident by "onny mor, spouses 4ulaton immediatelyreturned home.long the way, they saw lmoguerra on the upper part of the hill near their house.rriving there, they foundall their children dead. They also found that their wooden chest or aul was forcibly opened and that their cash of [email protected] and some loose change were missing.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:4osefina went to the polling precinct to cast her .#er husband, ienvenido, and herchildren, Charlie, 4erry, :arwin, and$odelyn, were still asleep. fter casting her vote she heard that 6lorentino 4ulatons

children were 'illed."he then proceeded to their residence ."he saw the dead bodies. fter informing her family andchildren about the incident, her husband and their son, Charlie, went to the 4ulatons house where they stayed for DAminutes because the latter had a fevercaused by a boil. -n 4uly B, 199B, he was arrested and detained. #e admitted thatwhile he was in detention at the 5atiporon provincial ail, he escaped with a certain :onggoy and thereafter committedanother crime of robbery.HELD:The circumstance of 'illing was aggravated by treachery and dwelling. :welling is present in this case as aggravatingcircumstance because robbery could not be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home.Theaggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling have been alleged in the 0nformation and proved by the prosecution bystrong and convincing evidenceThe aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present here. ppellants deliberate intrusion inthe privacy of the 4ulatons domicile shows perversity.0n eople #s. -eliciano, dwelling is considered aggravating in robberywith homicide because this 'ind of robbery cannot be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the

house.

PEOPLE v DALANON ?3 SCRA 873PROSECUTIONS CASE:-*0>$ Cervantes testified he saw "gt. #ermes :alanon, "alvadorlbao, 8odelio 5onsalesarmed with long guns. lbao ordered Cervantes at gun point to lie face down. $odrigo as'ed :alanon if they had committedany wrong but lbao replied with a 'ic'. lbao sought 6elicidad and her 2 daughters, $ebecca and "heila.lbao demandedmoney from 6elicidad but in vain. lbao was infuriated. #e struc' 6elicidad on the head with a bolo.:alanon started tose%ually molest $ebecca.:isappointed that the $eusos had no money, lbao brought $odrigo downstairs. Cervantes heard$odrigoIs painful moan. =pon the instigation of :alanon, 6elicidad was also ta'en downstairs by 5onsales. Cervantes thenheard Jchopping sounds.J 0t was the turn of Cervantes to be brought down. #e saw $odrigo and 6elicidad $euso sprawleddead. "ensing that lbao and 5onsales were some 2meters away from him, he ran away. They pursued him and fired at



him. #e hid among the tall grasses. #is pursuers missed him in the dar'ness of the evening.#e waited until 2 5 andrushed to the house of onifacio Ca]ares. onifacio and Cervantes went to the house of the arangay Captain CornelioCarles. Then they went to the !olice station.CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:3A<A@@alleged that he along with 8odelio 5onsales, and icolas Cervantesescorted >ngr. 4aime ravo, 5rs. ella :alanon !anes ravo, and enie to $ancho ravo in sid. They arrived there inthe evening. They party then left at 2 5 for acolod. They sent<off the ravo family to the 5asbate irport .>%hausted bythe trip, he returned to the bun'house to rest. #e was surprised when he was implicated in the 'illings of the $euso family.5ore so, when he was made to oin the police line<up.

HELD:/e affirm the conviction of :alanon.ggravating circumstances that attended the commission of the crime?D(e!!in< o& moradawas present because theprincipal crime too' place in the house of the victims, although the 'illings were committed outside thereof. The accusedshowed greater perversity in their deliberate invasion of the tran3uility of the $eusoIs domicile. The Crime "cene "'etchalso revealed that human blood stains were found in the bedroom of $ebecca.

PEOPLE v ARI=O4AL ?01 SCRA 10?PROSECUTIONS CASE:Clementina 8imene&, wife of victim *aurencio, testified that Clarito ri&obal and >rly *ignes and athird person wearing mas'barged into their bedroom, ransac'ed their cabinet and scattered everything until they found !EAAAamong sheets of paper. They ordered *aurencio to go with them to 4immyIs house. *aurencio went with them.Clementina heard a volley of shots. #er grandchild could only mutter in fear, /<olo is already dead\J >rlinda 8imene&, wife

of 4immy, narrated that 4immy with 6rancisco 8imene& arrived and informed her that they had already bought a carabao./hile he s'inning a chic'en for supper, D men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie face down. They tied 6ranciscoand 4immy as they whipped the latter with an armalite rifle. The robbers proceeded to ransac' the household in search forvaluables. They too' around !1, AAAand told them to produce !1AA, AAA in e%change for 4immyIs life. The D mas'ed menthen dragged 4immy outside the house and together with *aurencio brought them some @A meters away while leavingbehind Clarito ri&obal and >rly *ignes to guard 6rancisco and >rlindaIs son. 5oments later she heard a burst ofgunfire.The mas'ed men informed >rlinda that 4immy and *aurencio had been 'illed for trying to escape.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED::>0* and *00. *ignes testified that he was at the house of oli #ermosaattending a house blessing and helped as coo' and food server. The occasion was attended by around 2A visitors.#e saidthat he did not 'now any Clarito ri&obal.

HELD:The robbery with 'illing was aggravated? :' &wellin% ecause t"e roer' is committe& wit" #iolence a%ainst orintimi&ation of persons.The trial court is correct in appreciatin% &wellin% as an a%%ra#atin% circumstance. 8enerally, dwelling is considered inherentin the crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in aninhabited place. #owever, in robbery with homicide the authors thereof can commit the heinous crime without transgressingthe sanctity of the victimIs domicile. 0n the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the inviolability ofthe victimsI abode when they forced their way in, looted their houses, intimidated and coerced their inhabitants intosubmission, disabled *aurencio and 4immy by tying their hands before dragging them out of the house to be 'illed.The :ecision of the $TC finding >$*G *08>" and C*$0T- $0W-* 8=0*TG of $obbery with #omicide and imposingupon both of them the penalty of :>T# is 660$5>: with the 5-:060CT0-.

PEOPLE v DANIELA 071 SCRA 61FACTS? 5anuel :aniela, armed with a .DE caliber gun entered the bedroom of $onito >nero and 5aria 6e. #e po'ed thesaid gun on 5aria 6e. "he wo'e up and attempted to stand up but 5anuel ordered her to lie down. 5anuel ordered 4oseaylosis to tie her hands and put a tape on her mouth. -n orders of 5anuel, 4ose wo'e up *eo and brought him to theroom. 4ose tied the hands of *eo behind his bac'. 4ose and 5anuel then divested 5aria 6e of her nec'lace, rings andearrings. They ransac'ed the room but failed to find money. 4ulifer wo'e up but 5anuel and 4ose threatened to 'ill her if sheshouted. The two tied 4ulifers hands at her bac'. 5anuel threatened to e%plode the grenade tuc'ed under his shirt and 'il5aria 6e, her family and their househelps if she refused to surrender her money. !etrified, 5aria 6e too' the money fromher waist pouch and gave the same to 5anuel and 4ose. 5anuel too' a blan'et and ordered 4ose to 'ill $onito with it. 4osewent to the 'itchen, got a 'nife, covered $onito with the blan'et and sat on top of him then stabbed the latter several times.



5anuel also stabbed $onito on different parts of his body. $onito could only groan li'e a dying pig. 5anuel hit $onito withthe butt of his gun. 4ose slit the throat of $onito and too' the latters wristwatch and ring. 5anuel then untied 4uliferremoved her clothes and panties and then raped her. "he could do nothing but cry. 5anuel and 4ose stayed in the houseuntil B?AA a.m. efore they left, 5anuel and 4ose told 5aria 6e that they were acting on orders of $olando !edreas, 4oelColeara, 8race !abulacion and 4uliet Capuno

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:5anuel admitted having 'illed $onito. #e however claimed that he stabbed $onito inself<defense and in defense of 4ose. #e also said that he, !otot, $onito and 4oo, the younger brother of 5aria 6e, had

been engaged in robberies in. "ometime in "eptember 199@, the four robbed a person of !@A,AAA. #owever, 5anuel failedto get his share of the loot while $onito, 4oo and !otot got theirs. 5anuel was bitter. #e later learned in :ecember 199@that $onito and 5aria 6e had left :avao City and settled in Cebu City. -n 5arch 27, 1997, 5anuel and 4ose arrived inCebu City to contact $onito and to get his share of the loot. 5anuel met $onito on 5arch 29, 1997 at the ai<alai. $onito told5anuel to visit him where they can tal'. 5anuel agreed. 0n the evening on 5arch DA, 1997, 5anuel and 4ose arrived in thehouse of $onito. 5anuel wanted to get his share of the loot from $onito. 5anuel, 4ose and $onito had a drin'ing spree.#owever, at about two ocloc' at dawn, the ne%t morning, 5anuel and $onito had an altercation when 5anuel demandedthat $onito give him his share of the loot. $onito was peeved and told 5anuel that he had long given him his share througha friend. $onito whipped out a 'nife and stabbed 5anuel. The latter tried to wrest the 'nife from $onito but failed. #owever,4ose grappled with $onito and managed to wrest possession of the 'nife. 4ose then gave the 'nife to 5anuel who stabbed$onito with it.

5anuel denied raping 4ulifer, and divesting $onito and 5aria 6e of their valuables. 4ose did not anymore testify

HELD:D(e!!in< is not <<&vtin< in t)is %se s it (s not !!e<ed in t)e 'ended in;o&'tionThe trial court sentenced both appellants to death on its finding that the robbery with homicide was aggravated by nighttimeand &wellin%. 0t appreciated the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the appellants.The trial court correctlyappreciated &wellin% as an a%%ra#atin% circumstance against the appellants. There was no provocation on the part of$onito and 5aria 6e. The crime was committed in their dwelling. This Court held that dwelling is aggravating because of thesanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. #e who goes to anothers house to hurt him or do him wrong is moreguilty than he who offends him elsewhere. Ho(eve&, d(e!!in< is not <<&vtin< in t)is %se s it (s not !!e<ed int)e 'ended in;o&'tion. =nder "ection 9, $ule 1A of the $evised $ules of Court, aggravating circumstances must bealleged in the informationand proved otherwise, even if proved but not alleged in the information, the same shall not be

considered by the Court in the imposition of the proper penalty on the accused. lthough the rule too' effect only on:ecember 1, 2AAA, however, the same may be applied retroactively.

PEOPLE v DE LOS SANTOS 5.R. No. 1?066FACTS: 4oy *. Cayabyab, 1A, testified that while she was defecating inside the comfort room of their house she heardsomebody 'noc' and lfredo :elos "antos entered. lfredo loc'ed the door and removed his trousers then he embracedand 'issed her and put her on his lap. #er legs were spread apart between the legs of the accused then the accusedinserted his organ into her vagina. "he said she felt pain.The accused told her not to tell her mother what happened, andthen he put on his shorts and left the victim inside the comfort room. *ater, she went to her sister, 4oan, E, and told her whathappened. 4oan who told her parents what happened.:e *os "antos deniedthe allegation.

HELD:0t cannot be ignored that the appellant committed rape with t"e a%%ra#atin% circumstance of &wellin% as the crimewas committed within the house of the victim. :welling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because ofthe sanctity of privacy the law accords to the human abode.Ho(eve&,ecause of t"e failure to state suc" circumstance int"e complaint, t"e same, t"ou%" pro#en, cannot e appreciate&. "ections E and 9, $ule 11A of the $evised $ules onCriminal !rocedure, which too' provides that aggravating as well as 3ualifying circumstances must be specifically alleged inthe information, otherwise they cannot be considered against the accused even if they were proven during the trial. eingfavorable to the accused, this rule has to be applied retroactively to this case .

PEOPLE v 4A5SIT 07 SCRA ?67$ichard "isonsaw ngelito agsit pointing a gun at his father !epito who was closing the front door of their house. ot forlong, $ichard heard a gunshot and almost simultaneously saw his father falling to the cement floor. $ichard further testified



that ngelito, a second cousin of his mother, used to fre3uent their house. #e could not say what motivated ngelito to 'ilhis father but as far as he 'new, his father had no 3uarrel with the appellant before the shooting incident.

agsit averred thathe became drun' after a drin'ing bout with :ante agsit and 5arcos arte who hired him earlier thatmorning to ta'e care of his piggery. #e spent the night leaning on a fence by the house of one 6eli% gdon. /hen he finallyarrived home at around five ocloc' the following morning his wife told him about the shooting of !epito.

HELD:!'elling also alleged in the amended 0nformation, is aggravating. The triggerman showed greater perversity when,

although outside the house, he attac'ed his victim inside the latters own house when he could have very well committed thecrime without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the victims home. #e who goes to anothers house to hurt him or dohim wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. 6or the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is notnecessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense < it is enough thatthe victim was attac'ed inside his own abode, although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assaultfrom the outside.The :ecision of the trial court finding appellant agsit guilty of murder 3ualified by treachery, with the special aggravatingcircumstance of use of unlicensed firearm and the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and imposing on him thesupreme penalty of :>T#, is 660$5>: with the 5-:060CT0-.

TIME OF COMMISSION

NI5HTTIMEPEOPLE v DESALISA SCRA ?6

FACTS: >mmanuel :esalisa, 22, lived with his wife, orma, 1E, who was then @ mos pregnant and their 2<yr old daughterin a small nipa. The whole neighborhood consists of D houses. The other 2 houses are about 1@A meters away? the houseof his parents<in<law and the house of Carlito :ichoso. The view of the houses is obstructed by the many fruit trees andshrubs prevalent in the area.-n -ct 9, 19ED, icente :ionedatestified that he went to the house of the accused only to findplates scattered on the floor, the 'ettle wF coo'ed rice untouched, and the other rope holding the hammoc' missing. #ewent out of the house and noticed the couples pig to be hungry. #e thought of feeding it when he saw the bac' of the bodyof his daughter hanging from a branch of the ac'fruit tree. #er nec' was suspended about B inches above the ground. #er

nec' was tied wF the missing rope of the hammoc'. ccused<appellant often manhandled his daughter because hesuspected her of having a paramour and that the baby in her womb was not his. :esalisa invo'es the defense of denial.HELD: The accused has the opportunity to commit the crime. The house where they lived is up a hill and isolated. Thewhole neighborhood consists only of D houses. o one can go up the hill to visit wFo being 'nown to the neighbor.5oreover, the motive of ealousy is evident for what can be more humiliating to a man aside from a wife being unfaithful tobe refused entry to ones very homeN lthough the accused did not flee after the crime, there is no case law holding thatnon<flight is conclusive of proof of innocence.

The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can not be appreciated against accused<appellant absent anyproof as to how and when the plan to 'ill was hatched or what time elapsed before it was carried out. @eit"er ma' t"ea%%ra#atin% circumstance of ni%"ttime e appreciate& a%ainst "im because there is no proof that it was purposely sought orta'en advantage of or that it facilitated the commission of the crime.

#owever, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is present. The uninhabitedness of a place is determined notby the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but /- there was reasonable possibility of the victimreceiving some help in the place of commission. Considering that the 'illing was done during nighttime and many fruit treesand shrubs obstructed the view of the neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victim to receiveany assistance.

PEOPLE v A9ENDANO?8 SCRA ?7

FACTS:4>66$>G C"T0**-, E, son of the victim $emedios and brother of the victim 5elvin stated that he saw appellant intheir house, loo'ing for his plow. fter dinner, he, his mother and brother went to sleep, they had an overnight lamp whichwas turned on. #e was suddenly awa'ened when he heard a commotion. #e heard his mother shout, J3ion%, tulun%an mo



ami .J /hen he heard the alamu%an he immediately eased his way to where they 'ept their pillows and tried to hide.#esaw through his blan'et that the person had come up? J@aanina% o po sa umot 'un% tao. That was when he distinctlyheard his Luya 5elvin say, J;u'a illie, tama, na, tama na\J That was ust before 5elvin was 'illed.4effre recalled that herecogni&ed the cough of his ;u'a /illie. #e recogni&ed it because appellant fre3uented their house. 4effre fell asleep andwas awa'ened by persistent 'noc'ing on their door. #e opened the door to find his te nnie, te orma and te nnloo'ing for his mother. #e then told his te nnie that /illerie venda]o 'illed both his mother $emedios and his ;u' a5elvin.HELD:The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and unlawful entry. -f the three ,

onl' ni%"ttime was properl' alle%e& in t"e information.s to nighttime, this circumstance is considered aggravating only when (1) it was especially sought by the offender or (2)the offender too' advantage of it or (D) it facilitated the commission of the crime by ensuring the offenderIs immunity fromidentification or capture. 0n this case, the prosecution &i& not a&&uce e#i&ence t"at t"e appellant &elieratel' sou%"t t"eco#er of t"e ni%"t to commit t"e offense . The mere fact that the 'illing was committed at night would not suffice to sustainnocturnity for, by, and of itself.ggravating circumstances must be established with the same 3uantum of proof as fully asthe crime itself, and any doubt as to their e%istence must be resolved in favor of appellant./0**>$0> >:_- is found 8=0*TG of two counts of homicide.

PEOPLE v CALO=A ?8 SCRA ?

FACTS::ionisio ulaclac as'ed llan ulaclac to come to his farm the following day to help him till the land. llan agreedt about @?AA a.m. on 4uly 7, 199, llan left their place and proceeded to :ionisioIs farm. /hen llan was about a hundredmeters away from :ionisioIs hut, he noticed $afael at a distance of 1A meters coming from the direction of the hut of:ionisio.llan noticed bloodstains on the clothes of $afael. llan was perple%ed when $afael tried to evade him as theymet.llan peeped through the window and was horrified to see his brotherIs feet as well as blood under the bed. llanimmediately rushed home and reported the incident to his parents.$afael denied the charge. #e testified that he and two co<wor'ers were having a drin'ing spree. They as'ed :ionisio to givethem a duc' or chic'en for their pulutan. :ionisio refused. The two companions of $afael tarried and conversed in theirnative dialect and thereafter returned to :ionisioIs hut. $afael heard a commotion coming from inside the hut of :ionisio./hen he loo'ed toward the direction of the hut, $afael, who was about to 1A meters away therefrom, saw his two isayancompanions 'ill :ionisio, >dna and 5ar' 4oseph, and e%it from the hut. :ondon was carrying a crowbar ( areta &e ara)

$afael was so petrified that he did not even try to help the victims. :ondon then threw the crowbar ( areta &e ara) a$afael and threatened him with the words, Jutan% ina mo papata'in a rin namin.J #owever, the crowbar landed near thefeet of $afael. fraid for his life, $afael immediately fled the sceneHELD:The Court &oes not a%ree with the ruling of the trial court t"at ni%"ttime was atten&ant in t"e commission of t"ecrime. /hile it was established, as admitted by $afael himself, that the victims were 'illed between the hours of 2<D a.m.,the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that $afael too' advantage of the dar'ness of the night to successfullyconsummate his dastardly acts. y and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. 0t becomes aggravating onlywhen? (1) it is especially sought by the offender or (2) it is ta'en advantage of by him or (D) it facilitates the commission ofthe crime by ensuring the offenderIs immunity from capture.

$afael Calo&a 4r. is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.


"urviving victim #erminigildo :amuag on ov 2B, 199, he was driving his motorcycle with lden biabi riding with him atthe bac'. /hen they reached !ica *umber, a white car overtoo' their motorcycle and bloc'ed their path, forcing him to slowdown. nother motorcycle, with 2 riders on it, appeared behind the first motorcycle. 6rom a distance of 2<Dmeters, 1 of theriders of the second motorcycle suddenly fired 2 shots in close succession. :amuag attempted to loo' at the tires of hismotorcycle, thin'ing that they have e%ploded. "uddenly, biabi pushed him with his body. biabi fell from the motorcycleand slumped on the pavement face down. The white car sped away. s :amuag was trying to control his motorcycle, henoticed another motorcycle (third motorcycle) passed by from behind him. #is motorcycle &ig&agged towards the gutter.:amuag was thrown off and hit the ground. #e stood up and reali&ed that he was hit at the right side of his body. #e then



heard a burst of gunfire from behind. -co was at the bac' of the third motorcycle, fired his gun at him but missed. :amuagwas able to run. #owever, the third motorcycle chased him. =pon reaching the vicinity of 6ive rothers restaurant,:amuag stopped because he could not pass anymore. 6rom a distance of about B<@ meters, -co again fired 2 more shotsat :amuag.:amuag was rushed to the #ospital. #e survived the attac' due to the timely medical attention given to him.biabi did not survive the ambush. #e sustained E gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body. The prosecutiontheori&ed that the shooting incident was drug<related. The late biabi was a 'nown anti<drug advocate while the -co was asuspected drug lord.

HELD)e &o not a%ree wit" t"e trial court, in its appreciation of t"e a%%ra#atin% circumstance of ni%"ttime. Thiscircumstance is considered aggravating only when it facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially sought orta'en advantage of by the accused for the purpose of impunity. The essence of this aggravating circumstance is theobscuridad+ afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime. lthough the offense was committed at night,nocturnity does not become a modifying factor when the place is ade3uately lighted, and thus could no longer insure theoffenders immunity from identification or capture. 0n this case at bar, a lamp post illuminated the scene of the crime.

PEOPLE v MACTAL 071 SCRA 81

FACTS:ppellant and the deceased were married, beset by fre3uent violent 3uarrels due to appellants drin'ing, gamblingand womani&ing. -n the night of the incident, $omeo $ivera heard the couple arguing but he did not mind them as he was

used to their arguments.t around midnight, appellant went to $iveras house to chec' whether his wife >velyn was there.$ivera, his wife and appellant conversed in the formers garage for about DA min, with the $ivera couple suggesting placeswhere appellant should loo' for his wife. t around 1?AA a.m., lfred Goung, passing by appellants house, he saw >velynseated on a wooden chair in front of the window of the house. "he appeared lifeless because her head was Jhanging.Jppellant was about an arms length away from >velyn. t about the same time, $omeo dayo, who was wal'ing home,saw appellant. The latter was about 2A steps away from him, carrying the body of his wife >velyn over his right shoulder.ppellant was wal'ing very fast towards a dar' street. The body of >velyn was discovered by a neighbor at around @?AAa.m., 1@ meters away from her house.

HELD:ighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance w"ere no e#i&ence was presente& s"owin% t"atnocturnit' was especially sought by the accused nor ta'en advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or

to insure his immunity from captive.#ere, there is no evidence showing that appellant purposely sought the cover of dar'ness to insure the commissionof the crime

esides the aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the information and cannot therefore ustify the death penalty."ection E, $ule 11A1D of the 2AAA $evised $ules on Criminal !rocedure now re3uires that any aggravating circumstance'ust e !!e<ed in t)e in;o&'tion for it to be appreciated in the imposition of the penalty. "ince the rule is favorable tothe accused, it can be given retroactive effect, consistent with the basic principles of criminal urisprudence.The decision of the Trail Court is 660$5>: with the 5-:060CT0-.

ON THE OCCASSION OF A CALAMITYPERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER

RECI9IDISMPEOPLE v 4ALDERA 28 PHIL 12

FACTS:The evidence shows Casa 5anila bus loaded with passenger left atangas bound for 5anila. -n the highway inbarrio Calansayan, same province, it was held up by a group of @<7 armed men. -ne is identified as !edro aldera, armedwith a .B@ caliber pistol, fired a shot, and this was followed by a hail of bullets coming from different directions. s a resultseveral passengers, among them 4ose Cabrera, 4ose !astor and 6rancisco 5endo&a, were wounded. ppellant got on thebus and, threatening the passengers with his gun, too' !9A from 4ose !astor and !DB from !onciana illena. notherpassenger named 6rancisco 5endo&a was also relieved of his !D. ppellant then alighted and ordered the bus to proceed,whereupon the driver headed for the municipal building of "an 4ose and there reported the incident to the authorities.



Testifying in his own defense, appellant denies participation in the crime charged, declaring that he passed the night in3uestion in a house of prostitution in atangas, where he was employed by the prostitutes for drawing water. ut this alii iswithout corroboration and can not stand up against the clear and positive testimony of !onciano illena. who has not shownto have any motive for falsely testifying against him.

HELD:T"e lower court &i&, "owe#er, err in appreciatin% a%ainst t"e accuse& t"e circumstance of reci&i#ism ' reason of "is pre#ious con#iction for t"eft, it appearin% t"at crime was committe& on or aout 3ecemer H, 19J7 w"ile t"e offense now

c"ar%e& too place se#en &a's efore t"at &ate.0n conclusion, we find appellant guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and serious and less serious physical inurieswith two aggravating circumstances. ut there being no sufficient vote to impose the e%treme penalty, appellant can besentenced to life imprisonment only./herefore, reducing appellantIs sentence to life imprisonment but increasing the indemnity to be paid by him to the heirs ofthe deceased 4ose Cabrera to !7,AAA, the udgement below as so modified is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

REITERATION OR HA4ITUALITYRPC, A&t 8 "6#rt. 72. )ffect of t"e atten&ance of miti%atin% or a%%ra#atin% circumstances an& of "aitual &elin*uenc'. M 5itigating oaggravating circumstances and habitual delin3uency shall be ta'en into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing

the penalty in conformity with the following rules?@. #abitual delin3uency shall have the following effects?

(a) =pon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime ofwhich he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and ma%imumperiods(b) =pon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime ofwhich he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periodsand(c) =pon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the lastcrime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its ma%imum period toreclusion temporal in its minimum period.

RPC, A&t 187rt. 17A. Commission of anot"er crime &urin% ser#ice of penalt' impose& for anot"er offense enalt'. M esides theprovisions of $ule @ of rticle 72, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final udgment,before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the ma%imum period of thepenalty prescribed by law for the new felony.chan robles virtual law libraryny convict of the class referred to in this article,who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have already served out his originalsentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other circumstanceshe shall not be worthy of such clemency.

PEOPLE v 5AORANA 2 SCRA 86

PROSECUTIONS CASE:5arivel 6uentes, private complainant, was instructed by $owena "anche&, common<law wife ofappellant, to go to her house which was about 2A meters away./hen 5arivel arrived in she saw appellant and $owenalying down. $owena bade her to come in and $owena left the house. ppellant approached5arivel, covered her mouth andpointed a hunting 'nife to her nec'. ppellant made her lie down on the floor and he put himself on top of5arivel and hadintercourse with her. fter about @ min, $owena came bac' and saw appellant still on top of 5arivel. ppellant instructed$owena to step out of the room.The second incident of rape occurred at around D?AA oIcloc' in the morning of 5arch 7, 1991.5arivel was sleeping in thesala when she was awa'ened by the 'isses of appellant. ppellant had a 'nife which scared5arivel. gain appellant hadintercourse with her. 5ariveldid not shout because she was afraid of appellant who was a prisoner and had already 'illedsomebody.



CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:ppellant interposes the defense of alibi and denial.Ru!in< o; t)e T&i! Cou&t:

Buasi4(eci&i#ism as @ot )stalis"e& The two 0nformations alleged that both instances of rape were attended by the aggravating circumstance of 3uasirecidivism. The trial court made no e%press ruling that appellant was a 3uasi<recidivist, and rightly so. :uring the trial, theprosecution manifested that appellant had been convicted was serving sentence for the crime of homicide. 2owe#er, theprosecution failed or neglected to present in evidence the record of appellantIs previous conviction. Huasi<recidivism, li'e

recidivism andreiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused. The facthat appellant was an inmate of :!>C-* does not prove that final udgment had been rendered against him.

PEOPLE v 4ALDO5O 5R 118-73

FACTS:8on&alo aldogo alias JaguioJ Y >dgar ermas alias JunsoJ were serving sentence in the !enal Colony of!alawan. They were also serving the Camacho family who resides wFin the !enal Colony-n 6eb 22, 1997 aguio Y unso 'illed 4orge (1B y.o.) Y abducted 4ulie (12 y.o.). They brought 4ulie up to the mountains:uring their tre' aguio Y unso were able to retrieve their clothing Y belongings from a trun' which was located under aTamarind tree.6eb. 2E, 1997 ; aguio left 4ulie in the mountains to fend for herself. 4ulie went to the lowlands Y there sheas'ed for help from icodemusaguioFaldogo denied 'illing 4orge and 'idnapping 4ulie. aguio contends that while he

was preparing for sleep he was approached by unso who was armed with a bloodied bolo. unso warned him not toshout, otherwise he will also be 'illed.ccused<appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt 4ulie or deprive her of her liberty. #e averred that during theentire period that he and 4ulie were in the mountain before ermas left him, he tried to protect her from ermas.

HELD:Huasi<recidivism is alleged in both 0nformations. ppellant is alleged to have committed murder and 'idnappingwhile serving sentence in the penal colony by final udgment for the crime of homicide. Huasi<recidivism is a specialaggravating circumstance.The prosecution is burdened to prove the said circumstance by the same 3uantum of evidence asthe crime itself. 0n the present case, to prove 3uasi<recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence acertified copy of the udgment convicting accused<appellant of homicide and to prove that the said udgment had becomefinal and e%ecutory. 0n this case, the prosecution adduced in evidence merely the e%cerpt of the prison record of accused<

appellant showing that he was convicted of homicide by the $TC of aguio. The e%cerpt of the prison record of appellant isnot the best evidence to prove the udgment of the $TC and to prove that said udgment had become final and e%ecutory."aid e%cerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence which is inadmissible absent proof that the original of the udgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution. Thebarefaced fact that accused<appellant was detained in the penal colony does prove the fact that final udgment for homicidehas been rendered against him.

PRICE, PROMISE OR REWARDMEANS OF COMMISSION

TABIN5 AD9ANTA5E OF PU4LIC OFFICE

RPC, A&t 1 "?#rt. 19. Accessories. M ccessories are those who, having 'nowledge of the commission of the crime, and without havingparticipated therein, either as principals or accomplices, ta'e part subse3uent to its commission in any of the followingmanners?chan robles virtual law library

D. y harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory actswith abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt tota'e the life of the Chief >%ecutive, or is 'nown to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

PEOPLE v SUMAOY 5.R. No. 17681



FACTS:!atricio 4acobe, 4r. testified that he saw the deceased Wandro argas tal'ing to!acifico "umaoy. D other men werewith them.#e was startled by the sound of a gunshot. #e saw argas run but he was overta'en and dragged towards awaiting tricycle. "umaoy and D other men then boarded the tricycle ta'ing argas with them. 4acobe allegedly heard one ofaccused<appellantIs companion say that they were ta'ing Wandro to the hospital. *ater that evening 4acobe learned thatWandro was found dead in a 'ang'ong field.ccused<appellant denies participation in the 'illing of Wandro argas. #e claims that the whole day of 4uly 9, 19EE he wason duty as an enlisted personnel of the 11ADrd Criminal 0nvestigation "ervice (C0") in Tagum, :avao. "umaoyidentified adocument signed by Technical "ergeant $icardo 8o called J:uty :etailJ showing that accused<appellant was on duty from

E?AA a.m. of 4uly 9, 19EE to E?AA a.m. of 4uly 1A, 19EE. $icardo 8o, Technical "ergeant, !hilippine Constabulary,corroborated the accused<appellantIs alibi.HELD: "umaoydefense of alibi is of no moment. ot only was accused<appellant positively identified as the person who hadshot and ta'en argas to an undisclosed placed. 0t is also settled that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accusedprove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. #e must demonstrate that he could not have beenphysically present at the place of the crime or in its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.T"e trial court also erre& in fin&in% t"e a%%ra#atin% circumstance of tain% a&#anta%e of official position in t"e commissionof t"e offense. This circumstance re3uires that the accused, as a public officer, used the influence or reputation of hisposition for the purpose of committing the crime. 0f the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying hisposition, then there is no abuse of public position. 0n the case before us, no evidence was adduced to show that the 'illingof Wandro argas was in any way facilitated by the accused<appellantIs public position. 0t was not even shown whether the

accused<appellant wore his uniform or used his service firearm when he committed the crime.!acifico "umaoy is guilty of homicide.

PEOPLE v CAPALAC 113 SCRA 230

FACTS:5ario Capalac was convicted of murder for the death of 4immy 5ag<aso committed with evident premeditation andtreachery with the accused tain% a&#anta%e of "is position as a police officer and employing means which added ignominyto the natural effects of his fact. The similar charge against his brother, 4esus, who, together with him attac'ed the victimafter the latter had stabbed their brother 5oises, was dismissed as he had died in the meanwhile.0n praying for the reversalof the udgment, appellant averred that the lower court erred in appreciating conspiracy, and the 3ualifying as well as theaggravating circumstances, all to his disadvantage.The "upreme Court held that the lower court correctly held that the

crime was one of murder, the 3ualifying circumstance of treachery being present. ppellant was assisted by three othersthe victim was unable to put up any defense as his hands were raised in surrender he was pistol<whipped and lyingprostrate on the ground when he was stabbed and there was no ris' at all to the aggressors. Conspiracy was attendant tothe commission of the crime as indicated by the manner by which the appellant, his brother and 2 other companionsattac'ed the victim. Their purpose was to avenge the stabbing of 5oises Capalac and this common purpose impelled themto act in concert to perpetuate their obective. The "upreme Court however held that the aggravating circumstances ofevident premeditation, of means being employed or circumstances brought about to add ignominy to the natural effects ofthe act, and of the crime being committed with the offender ta'ing advantage of his official position were not duly proved.The criminal act, evidently made in the heat of anger, did not call for a finding that there was evident premeditation.ppellant and his brother, who were prompted by their desire to avenge their brother, assaulted the victim relying on theweapons they carried with them cannot be said to have deliberately employed means to add ignominy to the natural effects

of the act as all they were interested in was that there be retribution for what was done to their brother. The fact thatappellant was a member of the police force did not of itself ustify that the aggravating circumstance of advantage beingta'en by the offender of his public !osition be considered as present. #e acted instinctively to aid his brother who wasassaulted and he did not purposely rely on his being a policeman to commit the act.

TL08 :T8> -6 -660C0* !-"0T0- -T !$>">T /#>$> !!>**T :0: -T !=$!-">*G $>*G -#0" >08 !-*0C>5 T- C-550T T#> CT. M The mere fact that appellant 5ario Capalac is a member of the policeforce certainly did not of itself ustify the aggravating circumstance of advantage being ta'en by the offender of his publicposition be considered as present. #e acted li'e a brother, instinctively reacting to what was undoubtedly a vicious assaulton his 'in that could cause the death of a loved one. 0t would be an affront to reason to state that at a time li'e that andreacting as he did, he purposely relied on his being a policeman to commit the act. #e pistol<whipped the deceased



because he had his pistol with him. 0t came in handy and he acted accordingly. That he was a policeman of no relevance inassessing his criminal responsibility.

PEOPLE v 5APASIN ?1 SCRA 32

FACTS? C0C *-$>T- 8!"0, !C 0C-$ "*=:$>", *-$>W- "-$0-, 5-$ "*=:$>", 6$L"*=:$>", >* "*=:$>", and 0CL "*=:$>", attac' and shoot 4erry Calpito, with an rmalite rifle duly issuedto the accused !C soldier, inflicting multiple gunshot wounds on the body of the latter, stepped and 'ic'ed the victim several

times, causing his instantaneous death due to hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wounds.That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of (1) ignominy, the accused having stepped and 'ic'edthe body of the deceased (2) abuse of superior strength, and (D) tain% a&#anta%e of pulic position, with respect to theaccused C0C *oreto 8apasin who is a !C soldier.

HELD:T"e trial court properl' appreciate& tain% a&#anta%e of pulic position as an a%%ra#atin% circumstance. ppellant, amember of the !hilippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an armalite which was issued to him when he received themission order (!eople v. 5adrid, EE !hil. 1 P19@1Q).oluntary surrender may be considered in appellantIs favor but this is offset by the aggravating circumstance of ta'ingadvantage of public position. Therefore, only the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation may beappreciated against appellant.

/#>$>6-$>, the decision appealed from is 660$5>:.

INSULT TO PU4LIC AUTHORITY

PEOPLE v TION5SON 1?7 SCRA 810

FACTS: -n -ct 27, 191, $udy Tiongson escaped from the 5unicipal 4ail, together with 8eorge de la Cru& and $olando"antiago, where they were detained under the charge of ttempted #omicide. /hile in the act of escaping, Tiongson 'illed!at. Wosimo 8elera, a member of the police force who was guarding the said accused, and !C Constable urelio Canela,who went in pursuit of them.

HELD:/e also agree with the parties that the aggravating circumstances of (1) evident premeditation, (2) in contempt of orwit" insult to pulic aut"orities, (D) uninhabited place, and (B) abuse of superior strength were not $&esent in thecommission of the crimes.The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities cannotalso be appreciated since !at. 8elera and !C Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crimes werecommitted. esides, !at. 8elera and !C Constable Canela are not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person inauthority.$udy Tiongson should be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from eight (E) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, asminimum, to fourteen (1B) years and eight (E) months of reclusion temporal, as ma%imum, for each homicide committed byhim, the udgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby, 660$5>:.

PEOPLE v MA54UENO 100 SCRA 17

-iscal 6ernando 5. :ilig had placed himself at the driverIs seat inside his eep par'ed near his house,all of a sudden, twosuccessive gunshots `burst into the air, as the gunman coming from his left side aimed and poured said shots into his body,inflicting two fatal wounds that instantaneously caused his death.0"=*T T- !=*0C =T#-$0TG @T A<ICA:<) /#> C-550TT>: 80"T !=*0C =T#-$0TG #05">*6. MThe aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to public authority does not seem to be borne by therecords. 6or this aggravating circumstance to be considered it must not only be shown that the crime was committed in thepresence of the public authority but also that the crime was not committed against the public authority himself. (=.". v.$odrigue&, 19 !hil. 1@A !eople v. $i&al, 1AD "C$ 2E2). 0n the instant case 6iscal :ilig, the public authority involved in the



crime, was the victim. #ence, the lower court erred in including commission of the crime with insult to public authority as anaggravating circumstance.

DISRE5ARD OF RANB, A5E, OR SE/

PEOPLE v LAPA= 5.R. No. 8222

FACTS:>ulalia Cabunag, a A<year old woman who was living alone, was beaten to death by D men.4ohnson arleso used to stay in the house of >ulalia Cabunag, as his common<law wife was the niece of the latter. Theytransferred to the house of urelio 8audicos, when >ulalia called arleso a thief in the presence of many people.pparently, arleso resented the remar'. arleso proposed to Cristoto in the presence of !aulino that they 'ill >ulalia.Cristoto agreed. #e as'ed !aulino to buy a bottle of J'ulafuJ wine which he dran' to embolden himself. Cristoto carried arounded piece of wood , while arleso also carried another piece of wood and a bolo. The three then entered the house.arleso and Cristoto proceeded to the sala where they helped one another in beating the victim with the pieces of woodthey brought with them until the latter slumped on the floor.The victim suddenly shouted for help even as she was alreadylying on the floor. 6rightened, the D panic'ed and umped one after the other through the same opening through which theyentered the house

HELD:/hile it may be true that nighttime is absorbed in the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the a%%ra#atin%circumstance of &isre%ar& of sex an& a%e cannot e similarl' asore& . Treachery refers to the manner of the commissionof the crime. :isregard of se% and age pertains to the relationship of the victim, who is a A<year old woman, and theappellant who is young man, 2 years old, at the time of the commission of the offense.

PEOPLE v DALANON ?3 SCRA 873

PROSECUTIONS CASE:-*0>$ Cervantes testified he saw "gt. #ermes :alanon, "alvadorlbao, 8odelio 5onsalesarmed with long guns. lbao ordered Cervantes at gun point to lie face down. $odrigo as'ed :alanon if they had committedany wrong but lbao replied with a 'ic'. lbao sought 6elicidad and her 2 daughters, $ebecca and "heila. lbao demandedmoney from 6elicidad but in vain. lbao was infuriated. #e struc' 6elicidad on the head with a bolo.:alanon started to

se%ually molest $ebecca.:isappointed that the $eusos had no money, lbao brought $odrigo downstairs. Cervantes heard$odrigoIs painful moan. =pon the instigation of :alanon, 6elicidad was also ta'en downstairs by 5onsales. Cervantes thenheard Jchopping sounds.J 0t was the turn of Cervantes to be brought down. #e saw $odrigo and 6elicidad $euso sprawleddead. "ensing that lbao and 5onsales were some 2 meters away from him, he ran away. They pursued him and fired athim. #e hid among the tall grasses. #is pursuers missed him in the dar'ness of the evening.#e waited until 2 5 andrushed to the house of onifacio Ca]ares. onifacio and Cervantes went to the house of the arangay Captain CornelioCarles. Then they went to the !olice station.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:3A<A@@alleged that he along with 8odelio 5onsales, and icolas Cervantesescorted >ngr. 4aime ravo, 5rs. ella :alanon !anes ravo, and enie to $ancho ravo in sid. They arrived there inthe evening. They party then left at 2 5 for acolod. They sent<off the ravo family to the 5asbate irport .>%hausted by

the trip, he returned to the bun'house to rest. #e was surprised when he was implicated in the 'illings of the $euso family.5ore so, when he was made to oin the police line<up.

HELD:/e affirm the conviction of :alanon.

Crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of rape, dwelling, band, treachery and craft

$ape was established. !rior to CervantesI escape, he saw accused<appellant fondling the breast of $ebecca. The !hysicaland 5edical >%amination $eport of $ebecca showed that there was a fresh deep and incomplete laceration of the hymencorresponding to a 7?AA oIcloc' position. 0t concluded that there was penetration of her private organ. The Crime "cene"'etch also revealed that human blood stains were found in the bedroom of $ebecca.



PEOPLE v 4ANE= ?71 SCRA 0FACTS:

• /ilfredo a]e& was found by the $TC to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of parricide for the 'illing of his father,ernardo, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death.

• ccused was living in his parentsI house. -ne day, his sisters, >lvira a]e&<ustamante and >melinda a]e&<ntiadocame to the house because their father complained that the accused made trouble whenever drun'.

• They were discussing the plan for putting up the accused in another house or sleeping 3uarters. fterwards, the accused,who loo'ed drun' because he was red in the face, ran into the 'itchen, got 2 'nives, went into his fatherIs room Y stabbedhim. >lvira tried to ta'e away the 'nives but he lunged at her Y stabbed her. >melinda also tried to stop him. #e chased herwhile >lvira loc'ed herself in their fatherIs room. fter the accused had left, she rushed their father to the hospital but hewas already dead.

• The accused entered a plea of insanity.• >lvira testified that the accused had been staying in their fatherIs house for B years after the accused separated from his

wife that he was confined at the icutan $ehabilitation Center for addiction to gasoline and was discharged that he wasalso treated at the aguio 8eneral #ospital for addiction to gasoline, and that he had not shown any indication that he

was cra&y. :r. 8erona 000 of the C5# (ational Center for 5ental #ealth) testified that accused was admitted to theC5# 2A days after the crime that the accused was suffering from schi&ophrenia, described as a mental disordercharacteri&ed by thought disturbances, hallucination, suspiciousness, and deterioration in areas of wor', social relationsand self<care that schi&ophrenia can be caused by use of substances (inhaling gasoline and alcoholism) that he couldnot say whether the accused was insane at the time he committed the crime.

• 5arina 8abel<ane&, mother of the accused, testified that he had been confined for more than a year at the icutan$ehab Center that he was also treated at the aguio 8eneral #ospital that after 'illing his

father, he was confined at the 5andaluyong 5ental #ospital for treatment that his wife left him and he blamed hisin<laws for his marital troubles that he resorted to gasoline to forget his problems, Y that he was not a drun'ard.

• The trial court found him guilty of parricide with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling and habitual into%icationand sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death

Issues:WON t)e&e eists t)e <<&vtin< %i&%u'stn%es o; intoi%tion nd d(e!!in< in t)e %o''ission o; %&i'e

• o. :welling cannot be considered aggravating because accused and his father were living in the same house wherethe crime was committed. The rationale for considering dwelling as an aggravating circumstance is the violation bythe offender of the sanctity of the home of the victim by trespassing therein to commit the crime. The reason isentirely absent in this case. $egarding the aggravating circumstance of into%ication, it has not been shown that it ishabitual or intentional as re3uired by $!C 1@. >ven assuming that the accused was drun' at the time he committedthe crime, it wasnt shown that he is a habitual and e%cessive drin'er or that he intentionally got drun'. either caninto%ication be mitigating because there is no showing that he accused was so drun' that his will power was impairedor that he couldnt comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts.

PEOPLE v PARAISO ?1 SCRA 0

F%ts: $oland !araiso was found guilty of the special comple% crime of $obbery with #omicide and sentencing him tosuffer the penalty of death. Confederating with 4ohn :oe he entered the house of *olita lipio Tigley, and stole several itemsand on the occasion thereof, with intent to 'ill, dragged Tigley inside a room, and thereafter assaulted, attac'ed and stabbedthe latter on the different parts of the body which caused her death shortly thereafter.Issues:• WON P&iso (s <ui!t@ o; t)e s$e%i! %o'$!e %&i'e o; &oe&@ (it) )o'i%ide.

Ges. The essential elements of the special comple% crime of $obbery with #omicide (rt. 2B9, $!C) are? (1) the ta'ing ofpersonal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person (2) the property thus ta'en belongs to



another (D) the ta'ing is characteri&ed by intent to gain or animus lucran&i and, (B) on the occasion of the robbery or byreason thereof, the crime of homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. The evidence for theprosecution showed that appellant and his companion, with a gun and a 'nife, too' possession of personal propertiesbelonging to the victim, with intent to gain, and on the occasion thereof, the victim was 'illed.

• WON <<&vtin< %i&%u'stn%es (e&e &i<)t!@ $$&e%itedo. :welling and abuse of superior strength may be appreciated but not disregard of respect due the offended party onaccount of her se%.

D(e!!in<. :welling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if thelatter has not given provocation or if the victim was 'illed inside his house. #ere, robbery was committed in the house ofthe victim without provocation on her part. 0n robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling isaggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing thesanctity of the offended partyIs house. :welling is considered aggravating primarily because of the sanctity of privacy thelaw accords to human abode. #e who goes to anotherIs house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he whooffends him elsewhere.

Ause o; su$e&io& st&en<t). /hile abuse of superior strength may be considered when there is an ine3uality ofcomparative force between the victim and the aggressor, there must, nonetheless, be a situation of strength notoriouslyselected and made use of by the latter in the commission of the crime. /hat should be considered is whether theaggressors too' advantage of their combined strength in order to consummate the offense. buse of strength is present

not only when the offenders enoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious ine3uality of forces between the victimand the aggressor but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of proportion to the defenseavailable to the offended party. #ere, the victim was totally helpless in the face of two (2) perpetrators who were armedwith a gun and a 'nife.

Dis&e<&d o; &es$e%t due to se. #owever, the aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due to the victimby reason of her se% cannot be appreciated. This aggravating circumstance can be considered only in crimes againstpersons and honor. The special comple% crime of $obbery with #omicide is a crime against property not againstpersons. 5oreover, nothing appears in the record that appellant deliberately intended to offend or insult the age or se% ofthe offended party. 5oreover, such an aggravating circumstance would be absorbed by the aggravating circumstance ofabuse of superior strength.

PEOPLE v ARI=O4AL ?01 SCRA 10?

PROSECUTIONS CASE:Clementina 8imene&, wife of victim *aurencio, testified that Clarito ri&obal and >rly *ignes and athird person wearing mas'barged into their bedroom, ransac'ed their cabinet and scattered everything until they found !EAAA among sheets of paper. They ordered *aurencio to go with them to 4immyIs house. *aurencio went with them.Clementina heard a volley of shots. #er grandchild could only mutter in fear, /<olo is already dead\J >rlinda 8imene&, wifeof 4immy, narrated that 4immy with 6rancisco 8imene& arrived and informed her that they had already bought a carabao./hile he s'inning a chic'en for supper, D men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie face down. They tied 6ranciscoand 4immy as they whipped the latter with an armalite rifle. The robbers proceeded to ransac' the household in search forvaluables. They too' around !1, AAAand told them to produce !1AA, AAA in e%change for 4immyIs life. The D mas'ed menthen dragged 4immy outside the house and together with *aurencio brought them some @A meters away while leaving

behind Clarito ri&obal and >rly *ignes to guard 6rancisco and >rlindaIs son. 5oments later she heard a burst of gunfire.The mas'ed men informed >rlinda that 4immy and *aurencio had been 'illed for trying to escape.


HELD: The trial court is correct in appreciating dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. 8enerally, dwelling is consideredinherent in the crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as trespass to dwelling and robbery inan inhabited place. #owever, in robbery with homicide the authors thereof can commit the heinous crime withouttransgressing the sanctity of the victimIs domicile.0n the case at bar, the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the



inviolability of the victimsI abode when they forced their way in, looted their houses, intimidated and coerced theirinhabitants into submission, disabled *aurencio and 4immy by tying their hands before dragging them out of the house to be'illed.

PEOPLE v 4A*AR 010 SCRA 00

FACTS:na aar $abor visited her parents in their house, her mother *olita, suggested that since her father was verydrun', she should sleep at the house of her maternal grandfather, the victim 3uilio, 1AA meters away. leandro, who was

still obviously very drun', in3uiring whether his wife was in the house.3uilio answered that his wife was in their(leandros) house. leandro accused 3uilio of lying and of hiding his daughter. na heard a sound and saw thatleandro was carrying a bolo and approaching her grandfather. "he saw her father hac' her grandfather, who was lying onthe bed. "he got up, ran towards the sala, and saw her father still hac'ing his grandfather. /hile he was being stabbed andattac'ed, 3uilio stood up to embrace his son<in<law. na shouted for help as she held down the hand which her fatherused to wield the bolo. leandro testified that on the date and time in 3uestion, he left his two daughters, na and lma,and his two grandchildren, 5ary 4oy and nn<nn, at his house. #e proceeded to his father<in<laws house to loo' for hiswife. =pon arrival, he greeted 3uilio with respect? !a, good evening.+ The latter replied that *olita was not there andinvited him (leandro) to go up and see for himself. leandro went up, and not finding his wife, said? "he is not here !a.+3uilio angrily retorted? >verytime you are drun' you come here to as' me.+ 3uilio then suddenly clubbed leandro on thehead with a 2 % D coco lumber he saw near the door.leandro then touched his head, and saw blood on his hand. #e felt

di&&y. "eeing that 3uilio was about to attac' him again, he drew out his hunting 'nife and defended himself by moving hishand from the right to left. #e felt he hit something before he lost consciousness.HELD:/e affirm leandros conviction.nent the generic aggravating circumstance of &isre%ar& of t"e respect &ue t"e offen&e& part' on account of age, it isconsidered present when the offended person, by reason of his age, could be the father of the offender. This is obvious inthis case. ot only was 3uilio, by reason of his age, considered old enough to be the father of leandro (who incidentallydeclared in open court that he was @E years old), he was also the latters father<in<law. The presence of this aggravatingcircumstance by reason of their age difference is, therefore, reinforced by their actual relationship by affinity. 6urther, it isingrained in !hilippine culture that those advanced in age are respected especially in the provinces."uffice it is to say that the alternative circumstance of relationship was correctly appreciated, the victim being the father<in<law of the appellant.

A4USE OF CONFIDENCE

PEOPLE v MANDOLADO 1? SCRA 1??

FACTS:4ulian -rtillano and 5artin 5andolado, appellants, as well as Conrado >rinada and nacleto "imon, were on a busbound for 5idsayap, orth Cotabato. ll B were traineesFdraftees of 6!• They alighted at the bus terminal in 5idsayap. eing all in uniform, armed Y belonging to the same military outfit, they got

ac3uainted Y decided to drin' >"H rum, at the said bus terminal.• fter drin'ing for about an hour, 5andolado got drun' and went inside the public mar'et. "ubse3uently, he returned

grabbed his .DA caliber machine gun and started firing. #is companions tried to dissuade him but he nonetheless continued

firing his gun.• "ensing trouble, Conrado and nacleto ran away, hailed and boarded a passing 6ord 6iera with some passengers on

board. ppellants followed and boarded also the vehicle and forced the driver of the 6ord 6iera to bring them to the5idsayap crossing. ll the while, 5andolado was harassing the driver and firing his gun.

• They for off at the 5idsayap crossing and waited for a ride. /hen #erminigildo Tenorio, driving a privately owned eepwhere olasco 5endo&a was on board, passed by the B boarded the eep. The whole time, 5andolado was still causingtrouble and firing his gun.

• =pon learning that the eep was bound for Cotabato City and not !i'it, orth Cotabato, appellant 5andolado got angry,Jcoc'edJ his gun and ordered the driver to stop. /hile the eep was coming to a full stop, Conrado and nacletoimmediately umped off the eep and ran towards their detachment camp.



• ppellants also got off the eep but then 5andolado fired his .DA caliber machine gun at and hit the occupants of the eep. ppellant -rtillano li'ewise, fired his armalite, not at the occupants of said eep but downwards hitting the ground.

• Then they ran away from the scene and boarded another vehicle and went in so many places until they wereapprehended.

• 5andolado was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder 3ualified by treachery, evident premeditation and abuseof superior strength while -rtillano was penali&ed by imprisonment for being an accessory

WON t)e use o; su$e&io& st&en<t) '@ e $$&e%ited.• -. lthough the "C appreciated the presence of treachery, it did not appreciate aggravating circumstances of

evident premeditation and the use of superior strength. /hile it may be true that a soldier in the 6! is deemed asone who holds public position, there is no persuasive showing that herein appellants being draftees of the rmy, infull military uniform and carrying their high<powered firearms, facilitated the commission of the crimes they werecharged.

• 0t may be conceded that as draftees, the accused could easily hitch hi'e with private vehicles, as in the case of thedeceased TenorioIs owner<type eep, but there is no evidence that when they stopped the eep the accused alreadyintended to shoot the occupants of the vehicle.

• !eople v. !antoa? There is nothing to show that the appellant too' advantage of his being a sergeant in the!hilippine rmy in order to commit the crimes. The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had an army rifle atthe time is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crimes ...

• There could be no ause of confi&ence as e#i&ence on recor& s"owe& lac of confi&ence by the victims to the

appellants, that this confidence was abused, and that the abuse of the confidence facilitated commission of crimes.• 0n order that abuse of confidence be deemed as aggravating, it is necessary that Jthere e%ists a relation of trust and

confidence between the accused and one against whom the crime was committed and the accused made use ofsuch a relationship to commit the crime.J

• 0t is also essential that the confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal such as would give thataccused some advantage or ma'e it easier for him to commit the crime that such confidence was a means offacilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit ta'ing advantage of the offended partyIs belief that the formerwould not abuse said confidence

• 0n the instant case, there is absolutely no showing of any personal or immediate relationship upon which confidencemight rest between the victims and the assailants who had ust met each other then. Conse3uently, no confidenceand abuse thereof could have facilitated the crimes.

• "imilarly, there could have been no o#ious un%ratefulness in t"e commission of the crime for the simple reason thatthe re3uisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to the criminal act and the breach thereof as contemplatedunder rt. 1B(B) $!C are manifestly lac'ing or non<e%istent. 0n all li'elihood, the accused rmy men in their uniformsand holding their high<powered firearms cowed the victims into boarding their eep for a ride at machine gun pointwhich certainly is no source of gratefulness or appreciation.

He!d: 5andolado is guilty of murder 3ualified by treachery while -rtillano is convicted as an accomplice to the crime ofmurder

AID OF ARMED MENasis?0t is based on the means and ways of committing the crime.

$e3uisites?• That armed men or persons too' part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.• 2. That the accussed availed himself of their aid relied upon them when the crime was committed.

INUNDATION, FIRE, POISONThe basis of this aggravating circumstance has reference to the time of the commission of the crime.The reason for the e%istence of this circumstance is found in the debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst ofa great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by ta'ing advantage of their misfortune todespoil them.

E9IDENT PREMIDATATION



PEOPLE v SUMALPON5 20 SCRA 080Ntu&e: ppeal from a decision of $TC Cotabato City (199E)FACTS: -n 4an 12, 199B, E!5, rola :ilangalen Y 5ohammad 5anaguili escorted home their friend, 4u'aris uan, to ayon"hariff Labunsuan on a service owned by 1 ong 6red. fter dropping off their friend. The D went on their way home:ilangalen Y 5anaguili as'ed to be dropped off at B4 !i&&a #ouse along otre :ame venue to eat. fter wFc, while waitingfor a tricycle to ta'e them home, they saw B men near an electric post @ meters away from the B4 !i&&a #se entrance. /Fowarning, the B men suddenly Y simultaneously stabbed them. rola :ilangalen died of hemmorhage Y antecedent multiplewounds while 5anaguili, who sustained stab wounds on his right anterior<a%illary line, was still rushed to the >$. #e was

confined for 2nts. -n 4an 1B 9B, !olice -fficer Tayong brought before him @ persons including appellant 8erry "umalpong foidentification purposes. #e was positively identified by 5anaguili as 1 of the assailants. :ilangalens mother testified that theyspent !h!AL for the burial of her son Y for other 5uslim ceremonies for the dead.

Two of the B men remain at large. -nly "umalpong and 6ernando were convicted wF the crimes of murder and frustratedmurder. 6or their defense, both gave their defense of alibi. 6ernando said he was wor'ing then from <1Apm at his employersshop, ma'ing balusters (railings), ta'ing only 1A min brea's for lunch and supper. #e denied previously 'nowing the accused#owever, his employer testified that in ma'ing balusters, they had to wait for B hrs from the time they poured mi%ed cementinto the molding till it hardened. :uring this wait, 6ernando would usually go home to eat and sleep and one would ust wa'ehim up when his services were again needed. "umalpong, on the other hand, claimed that he was a home reading in theevening of 4an 12. This was attested to by his father.

The court held that their defenses were of no merit. The residence of 6ernando was ust a few minutes ride from the

scene of the crime. nd it was unusual for "umalpong, a college student, to be at home and asleep at such an early time inthe evening. 5oreover, both were positively identified by victim 5anaguili as those who attac'ed them. The court found thepresence of treachery in the sudden and simultaneous attac' against the victims who were unarmed and unsuspecting. 0talso believed that there was conspiracy among the accused. ut wFo e%planation, it found that evident premeditationaggravated the crime. Thus, it imposed upon both the penalty of &eat" for the fatal stabbing of :ilangalen and reclusiontemporal ma%imum for the wounding of 5anaguili, wF damages.

oth appeal that in the clear absence of any generic aggravating circumstance attending the murder, appellants may besentenced only to reclusion perpetua, not death.HELD:)#i&ent preme&itation and even voluntary surrender were wron%l' appreciate& ' t"e trial court.

The court re preme&itacion conoci&a did not ma'e any ratiocination or analysis as to how or why it was appreciated. 6orevident premeditation to aggravate a crime, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the ff elements

(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime (2) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to hisdetermination Y (D) sufficient laps of time between determination Y e%ecution, to allow himself to reflect upon theconse3uences of his act. The "ol8en correctly observed that these re3uisites were not duly established by the prosecution.

bsent any clear and convincing evidence of evident premeditation or other aggrFmit circumstances, the penaltyimposable for the murder of :ilangalen is reclusion perpetua (7D (2) $!C).

PEOPLE v 4I4AT 7 SCRA 3

FACTS:-ct 1B, 1992, 1?DA p.m.? 8ari ibat stabbed to death *loyd del $osario along 8. Tua&on cor 5a. Cristina "ts.,"ampaloc, 5anila. :el $osario was then waiting for a ride to school.• /itness? ona vila Cinco, a laundry woman, was then at 6uneraria 8loria waiting for her bettor.

•

"he saw somebody tal' to ibat who told ibat, !are anduon na. "iguraduhin mo lang na itumba mo na.+ ibat thendemonstrated how he was going to perform the act.• fter some time, she then saw ibat approach del $osario Y too' a pointed obect from a noteboo', then he stabbed

victim in the left chest twice. ibat left but after hearing del $osario shout for help, he returned Y stabbed him again.ibat ran away Y vila left too.

• /itness 6lorencio Castro testified that he saw ibat wFB others inside the 8loria 5emorial #omes. #e saw one of themopen a noteboo' where a stainless 'nife was inserted.

/itness $ogelio $obles testified that ibat fre3uented his place in "ampaloc because of Tonton 5ontero. 5ontero is thepresident of "amahang 0locano 6raternity, a frat ibat was part of. 5ontero told $obles about a rumble in their school wherein



somebody died Y that ibats group planned to ta'e revenge against del $osario. #e 'new del $osario by face Y he furthertestified that he 'new ibats group 'ept tuso' Y guns in his house.ibat claimed that it was his moms birthday on that day Y that he was at home during that time reviewing for his final e%ams.#e also testified that he went to school for his finals where he stayed until B?DA p.m. #e denied all allegations Y he claims thathe was merely implicated Y he didnt 'now anything about the incident.• /itnesses 5arte "oriano Y *ino suncion 000, classmates of ibat, corroborated his claims.• $TC found ibat guilty beyond reasonable doubt of crime of murder.

ISSUES RATIO:/- C of evident premeditation should be appreciated.

• G>". $e3uisites? time when offender determinedFconceived to commit crime, act manifestly indicating that culprit hasclung to his determination, Y sufficient lapse of time bet determination Y e%ecution to allow him to reflect uponconse3uences of his act.

• >ssence? e%ecution of criml act is preceded by cool thought Y reflection upon resolution to carry out criml intentduring space of time sufficient to arrive at calm udgment.

• /itnesses $obles Y Cinco have testified to prove that D re3uisites were met. ibat tried to contest $obles testimony.$obles testified that he allowed ibats group to hide guns Y tuso' in his house. ibat claims that it was not logical forsomeone in his rt frame of mind to allow anybody to do that. ut $obles e%plained that he was scared of ibatsgroup Y he wanted to protect his family thats why he allowed them to do so. esides, evident premeditation was

clearly proven by Cincos testimony. "he heard ibats group plan the 'illing at around 11?DA a.m. then theycommitted crime at around 1?DA a.m. Thus, there was a sufficient lapse of time for ibat to reflect Y such is proof thatibat clung to his resolution to 'ill del $osario.

• !eople vs. :umdum? one hour was considered a sufficient lapse of time.#>*:? ffirmed.

PEOPLE v *ULIANDA ?37 SCRA 002

FACTS: 8ertrudes Casalo testified that she saw Teofilo Coralde riding a carabao while his brother 6erdinand was wal'ingbehind him."he saw that their way was suddenly bloc'ed by the brothers 4esus, 4r., 4immy, and olito 4ulianda.4immy andolito tried to hac' Teofilo so the latter alighted from the carabao and ran away. oth Teofilo and 6erdinand entered the

store of a certain rlene Cabrillas.ppro%imately 2A people surrounded the store, B of whom she recogni&ed? the D 4uliandabrothers M and "amson 8uerrero.6rom a distance of 1A meters she saw olito pull the hand of Teofilo and drag himtowards the road. olito hac'ed the bac' of Teofilo. :espite this, Teofilo was able to run and cross the road before he felldown. 4immy li'ewise hac'ed Teofilo while 4esus hit Teofilo with a stone.6erdinand Coralde went out of the store. #e wasmet by "amson 8uerrero who smashed his nose with a stone. Then the group ganged up on him. #e was already down,when the group left him.6erdinand, upon regaining consciousness, got up and ran away, leaving his brother Teofilo behind.4esus 4ulianda, 4r. and "amson 8uerrero denied any participation in the murder and attempted murder charges againstthem. 4esus 4ulianda, 4r. claimed that he was in his house the whole day while "amson 8uerrero claimed that he was ustpacifying the 3uarrel between 6erdinand Coralde and 4immy 4ulianda.HELD:The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery."ince no evidence was adduced showing when the accused hatched the murderous plan and the interval of time therefrom

to its commission we find that t"is case is not atten&e& ' t"e a%%ra#atin% circumstance of e#i&ent preme&itation."ettled isthe rule that when it is not shown as to how and when the plan to 'ill was hatched or what time had elapsed before it wascarried out, e#i&ent preme&itation cannot e consi&ere&.

E9IDENT PREMIDATATION

PEOPLE v DELA CRU= ?2 SCRA 016

FACTS: "alvador de la Cru&, Tamano and oy egro 'noc'ed on the door of the house of 6lorencio ntonio, , 6erdinand!earanda, saw 6lorencio fleeing for dear life, chased by Tamano,"alvador and oy egro. Tamano stabbed him at the



bac'. ading and oy egro too' turns in stabbing 6lorencio. $esidents in the neighborhood saw the incident and shoutedat Tamano, ading and oy egro.C="> -6 :>T#?5ultiple stab wounds

6or his defense, "alvador denied having stabbed the victim. #e admitted that he was present when 6lorencio was stabbed.#e, however, insisted that Tamano and oy egro helped each other in fighting with and stabbing 6lorencio. "alvadorclaimed that when Tamano told him that he ust had an altercation with 6lorencio, he ("alvador) suggested that Tamano and6lorencio settle their differences. #e even offered to act as mediator since 6lorencio was the godson of "alvadors father.

HELD:Crime Committed y ccused<ppellantThe trial court convicted accused<appellant of murder on its finding that treachery and evident premeditation attended the'illing of 6lorencio.The Court &oes not a%ree wit" t"e trial court . Case law has it that treachery must be proved with the same 3uantum ofevidence as the crime itself. Treachery cannot be presumed nor can it be based on mere surmises or speculations. 0n caseof doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of the accused)#i&ent preme&itation was not atten&ant because the prosecution failed to prove the elements thereof, namely? (1) the timewhen the offender determined to commit the crime (2) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and e%ecution toallow himself to reflect upon the conse3uence of his act."alvador de la Cru&is guilty only of homicide.

PEOPLE v 4ALDO5O ?8 SCRA ?1

FACTS: 8on&alo aldogo alias JaguioJ Y >dgar ermas alias JunsoJ were serving sentence in the !enal Colony of!alawan. They were also serving the Camacho family who resides wFin the !enal Colony. -n 6eb 22, 1997 aguio Y unso'illed 4orge (1B y.o.) Y abducted 4ulie (12 y.o.). They brought 4ulie up to the mountains.• :uring their tre' aguio Y unso were able to retrieve their clothing Y belongings from a trun' which was located under

a Tamarind tree.• 6eb. 2E, 1997 ; aguio left 4ulie in the mountains to fend for herself. 4ulie went to the lowlands Y there she as'ed for

help from icodemus• aguioFaldogo denied 'illing 4orge and 'idnapping 4ulie. aguio contends that while he was preparing for sleep he

was approached by unso who was armed with a bloodied bolo. unso warned him not to shout, otherwise he will alsobe 'illed.• ccused<appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt 4ulie or deprive her of her liberty. #e averred that during the

entire period that he and 4ulie were in the mountain before ermas left him, he tried to protect her from ermas.ccused<appellant asserted that he wanted to bring 4ulie bac' to her parents after ermas had left them and tosurrender but accused<appellant was afraid that 4ulio "r. might 'ill him.

Issues:/- the 3ualifying aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation can be appreciated.• To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, the prosecution must establish the confluence of the ff. re3uisites

Time when offender determined to commit the crime

•

n act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination and• "ufficient interval of time between the determination and the e%ecution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the

conse3uences of his act.• >vident premeditation must be proved with certainty as the crime itself• 0t cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time from the time the malefactor has decided to commit a felony up to the

time that he actually commits it.• The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that after deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his

determination to commit the crime. The law doesnt prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon hasdecided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it.

• arefaced fact that accused<appellant and ermas hid the bag containing their clothing under a tree located about a'ilometer or so from the house of 4ulio "r. does not constitute clear e#i&ence t"at t"e' &eci&e& to ill or%e an&



i&nap ulie. 0t is possible that they hid their clothing therein preparatory to escaping from the colony. ? Insufficiente#i&ence for e#i&ent preme&itation.

PEOPLE v DELADA ? SCRA 6?2

FACTS: :anny !aredes discovered that his pedicab was missing. Cerna told him that $ogelio :elada, 4r., too' his

pedicab.*ater, !aredes saw :elada aboard the pedicab. #e accosted him and said, J An%, w"' &i& 'ou steal m' trisia& Nppellant answered, J@%ano, pala% aNJ !aredes attempted to punch appellant but the latter was able to dodge the blowand run towards the public mar'et. /hile !aredes was tal'ing with Cerna and Huipanes, Huipanes saw :elada thrust a'nife into the side of !aredes waist. Huipanes boarded !aredes on a motorela which brought him to the hospital.ppellant interposed self<defense to ustify the 'illing of the victim, !aredes. #e claimed that !aredes entrusted the pedicabto him. #e as'ed for !aredes permission to use the pedicab. #e was surprised when the victim confronted him for using thepedicab. #e surmised that the latter was into%icated. The victim allegedly bo%ed him for no reason, hitting him on the rightside of the face. /hen he saw !aredes scrambling for an umbrella tube with which to stri'e him, he then got a 'nife frominside the shoe repair shop.

HELD: The aggravating circumstance of e#i&ent preme&itation &i& not atten& t"e illin% . The prosecution was not able to

show? (a) the time when accused<appellant decided to commit the crime (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused<appellant had clung to his determination and (c) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and its e%ecution toallow him to reflect upon the conse3uence of his act.

$ogelio :elada 4r. is guilty of murder.

PEOPLE v APOSA5A 010 SCRA 8

FACTS:4effrey lipoon, 5arlon Tad<y, /ilbert as3ue&, and 5edel "igue&a were drin'ing whis'ey. "i3ue&a invited posagato oin them but appellant angrily declined, saying.The group started on their way home when po&aga carrying an a%e inhis right hand and a long pointed instrument in his left, shouted at "igue&a to come near him. 5oments later, lipoon heard

a thud as the two men grappled to wrest control of the weapons held by appellant. "igue&a ran, appellant also ran in thesame direction. "i3ue&a wasfound in a pool of blood, lying face up"i3ue&as version? "i3ue&a wal'ing towards 6armers mar'et 5edel "igue&a, 4effrey lipoon, 5arlon Tad<y and as3ue&.The deceased stabbed "i3ue&a. ppellant as'ed the deceased what was his fault but the deceased stabbed him again."i3ue&a was able to parry the blow and push the deceased. Tad<y and lipoon then held appellants shoulders but heelbowed one of them and bo%ed the other with his right hand. The deceased again tried to stab appellant but the latter wasable to hold the hand of the deceased. /hen lipoon tried to stab appellant, the latter parried the blow causing lipoon tostab the deceased instead. ppellant then pushed the deceased and ran home.

HELD:The essence of premeditation is that the e%ecution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought andreflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during an interval of time sufficient to arrive at a calm

udgment.There must be evidence showing that the accused meditated and reflected on his intention between the timewhen the crime was conceived by him and the time it was actually perpetrated. The premeditation must be evident and notmerely suspected.

There is nothing in appellants 3uery, /hat position would you prefer if you were to dieN+ which would clearlyindicate that he already conceived of a plan to 'ill the deceased. 0t must be noted that the 3uery was directed to 5ugat andthe name of the deceased was never mentioned during their conversation. 5oreover, even if appellant and the deceasedhad an argument a month before the night of the stabbing incident, it is settled that mere e%istence of ill feelings or grudgesbetween the parties is not sufficient to sustain a conclusion of preme&itate& illin% . "ince the time as to when appellanthatched his plan to 'ill the deceased has not been established by the prosecution, it cannot also be deduced as to whethera sufficient interval of time had elapsed from the moment appellant conceived of his plan to 'ill the deceased up to the time



of the e%ecution of thereof to allow appellant to reflect on the conse3uences of his act. Conse3uently, evident premeditationcannot be considered to e%ist. To repeat? 0t is not sufficient that there is premeditation it must be evident."atur posaga is guilty of murder.

PEOPLE v 5IALOLO 010 SCRA 6

FACTS::esiderio aculi, while urinating, heard a voice coming from the house of 6ederico 8ialolo. #e peeped through andsaw the D appellants, together with 4ose !laton. The victim was held close 6ederico and -scar 5a'abenta. 6edericoembraced the victims left side with both arms, while -scar embraced the victims right side below the waist also with bothhis arms. 5arcos 8ialolo was at the bac' of 4ose. #e pulled 4oses hair with his left hand and then slashed his nec' with ascythe.They then left 4ose who &ig&agged towards a nearby coconut tree by the side of the road, where he eventually fell.The defense offered a different story. 6ederico and his wife were awa'ened by the noise from the residence of 6ideagares some1@A meters away from their house. They did not go out because they had been previously threatened by6idel agares, and they 'new that it was 6idel agares birthday. The spouses went bac' to sleep. -scar 5a'abenta has asimilar story. #e testified that he was asleep at his residence. 5arcos story had the same tune. #e testified that he waswith his wife and childrenHELD:ppellants alibi is not worth a damaged nic'el. 6or the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only

that he was some place else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at thescene of the crime or its immediate vicinity through clear and convincing evidence. 0n the instant case, the crime wascommitted at barangay ulod, arugo, *eyte near appellant 6edericos house. ll three appellants were within theimmediate vicinity of the place of the crime.The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation against the appellants. 6orevident premeditation to be appreciated, the following elements must be present? (a) the time when the offenderdetermined to commit the crime (b) an act manifestly indicating that he has adhered to such determination and (c)sufficient lapse of time between the determination and e%ecution to allow the offender to reflect upon the conse3uence ofhis act.PDAQ 0n the case at bar, no proof was presented to show any of these elements. or can the aggravatingcircumstance of superior strength be appreciated against the appellants. This circumstance was not alleged in the0nformation and hence cannot be the subect of proof during the trial

5arcos 8ialolo, 6ederico 8ialolo and -scar 5a'abenta are guilty of murder.

CRAFT, FRAUD, DIS5UISE

PEOPLE v MAR+UE= 113 SCRA 186

FACTS: *ower court found 6rancisco 6orneste Y "amuel 4acobo guilty of the crime of robbery wF rape. $enato 5ar3ue&died during trial.• ov. 17, 1977 ; accused preten&e& to e C sol&iers that were loo'ing for contraband. 6rancisca 5ar3ue& said that

there was no contraband in their house. The men ordered her to open up otherwise theyll shoot. "he opened the

window Y $enato 5ar3ue& forced himself him. The door to the house was then opened Y his companions were able toenter the house.• The accused demanded the money and other valuable items of the occupants of the house. *eticia (daughter 1D year

old) Y $ufina (household help) was also raped.• :uring the initial investigation $ufina and *eticia did not name names of their aggressors but instead they described

them. 6rancisca pointed out secretly to the !C that the accused were the perpetrators of the crimeISSUES: WON t)e %%used (e&e identi;ied e@ond &eson!e dout t)t t)e@ (e&e t)e $e&$et&to&s o; t)e &oe&@.

• G>". "ilence of the complaining witnesses on the identity of the accused immediately after the incident wase%plained by the ordeal that they ust suffered at the hands of the accused.

• The accused were positively identified by the victims and it was not shown that witness have an improper motive orwere biased against them,



• >%perience has shown that witnesses are reluctant to divulge the identity of their assailants e%cept to propereauthorities or until they feel safe enough from any probable harm.

WON t)e AC o; ni<)tti'e, un!(;u! ent&@, d(e!!in< o; t)e o;;ended $&ties, dis<uise "$&etendin< to e PC o;;i%e&s# utte& dis&e<&d due to vi%ti's <e se %n e $$&e%ited.

• G>". !roperly alleged in the information and was proven by the prosecution.

PEOPLE v EMPACIS SCRA 6

FACTS:6idel "aromines and his wife Camila were about to close their small store when $omualdo *angome& andCrisologo >mpacis, came and as'ed to buy some sardines and rice. fterwhich, *angome& told 6idel to sell him somecigarettes. #e then announced a hold<up and ordered 6idel to give up his money. The latter started to hand him !h!12Lbut suddenly decided to fight to 'eep it. struggle followed in the course of wFc *angome& stabbed 6idel. >mpacis alsostabbed 6idel. t this time, gunshots were heard outside the house. 0t was only when !eter, 6idels 1D<yr old son, rushed tohis fathers defense wF a long bolo stri'ing >mpacis and inflicting 2 wounds on him did the 2 men flee. 6idel died from thefatal inuries. >mpacis went to the clinic of for the treatment of his wounds. The ne%t day police officers went loo'ing for aman who might have been treated for wounds from a bladed weapon. They came to :r >usta3uios clinic who told themabout >mpacis. #e was found at the public mar'et ta'ing brea'fast Y there they arrested him. #e denied having oined*angome& in his attac'. #e asserts that he tried to stop him but the latter succeeded in stabbing 6idel. The other 2 menwho were accused of firing the gun from outside, denied any participation in the crime. They were both absolved by the

court. *angome& disappeared Y could not be found.HELD: The aggravating circumstance of %&;t o& ;&ud was properly appreciated against >mpacis. oth men pretended tobe bona fide customers of the victims store and on this prete%t gained entry into the latters store and later, into another partof his dwelling. 0n previous cases, the Court held the presence of fraud or craft when one pretended to be constabularysoldiers to gain entry into a residence to rob and 'ill the residents, pretended to be needful of medical treatment only 'illingthe owner of the house, and pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way to enter into a house.

A4USE OF SUPERIOR STREN5TH

PEOPLE v PADILLA ?? SCRA 08

FACTS: "gt. 6eli% !adilla was a member of the !hilippine ir 6orce. #e was charge wF a crime of murder 3ualified bytreachery, evident premeditation Y ta'ing advantage of his public position for fatal shooting on 5ay @, 19E1 of his comrade<in<arms !fc. -ntunca. 2 C were alleged to have attended the commission of the offense? aid or armed men Y abuse ofsuperior strength.• TC convicted !adilla of murder 3ualified by treachery wF the generic C of ta'ing advantage of his public position but at

the same time 5C of sufficient provocation in favour of the accused.• !rosecution /itness !at. -mega ; Together with 5a. :e la Cru& they were ust across the street (1@ meters) and from

where they stood they could see clearly the side view of the accused Y the victim facing each other. -ntuca begged forhis life Y said that he was not going to fight with him. The accused showed no mercy and s3uee&ed the trigger pumpinga single bullet into the head of his victim who was ust some D<B meters from him. The accused bac'trac'ed Y thenreturned to the fallen policeman Y tauntingly 'ic'ed him saying, re Gou "till liveN+

•

ersion of !adilla ; the victim was shot at the head by unidentified men. #e contends that he was at a distancestruggling with a woman at the time that -ntunca was hit.

ISSUES: WON AC o; use o; su$e&io& st&en<t) %n e $$&e%ited

• G>". !roperly alleged.• buse of superior strength is present not only when the offenders enoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious

ine3uality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful weapon wFc isout of proportion to the defense available to the offended party.

• ccused was armed wF a powerful pistol wFc he purposely used, gaining him an advantage to his victim who only hada piece of plywood to cover himself after he was disarmed.



WON t)e %%used used )is $u!i% $osition.• -. !ublic official must use his influence, prestige, Y ascendancy wFc his office gives him in reali&ing his purpose• Could not be said that the accused purposely used or too' advantage of his position or ran' in 'illing the victim

because he could have committed the crime ust the same by using another weapon not necessarily his servicefirearm

PEOPLE v LO4IN5AS ?0 SCRA 137

FACTS:6eli% Taylaran was a farmhand of Castor 8uden, he as'ed for permission not to wor' for it was raining and he hadto go to the store of Teodorico 5ante. 6eli% returned to 8udens house with bruises on his face and inuries all over his body.#e told Castor that he was mauled by 6ran' *obrigas, 5arlito *obrigas and Teodorico 5ante at the store. 6eli% spent thenight in Castors house and left the following morning to go to the seaside house of *orie guilar to heal his wounds in thesaltwater. #owever, 6eli% Taylaran died.

*obrigas denied the accusation and alleged that he was asleep at the time the incident too' place.

HELD: /e do not agree with the trial court that the crime committed was murder 3ualified by the aggravating circumstanceof ause of superior stren%t". To appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part of themalefactors to ta'e advantage of their greater number. They must have notoriously selected and made use of superior

strength in the commission of the crime. To ta'e advantage of superior strength is to use e%cessive force that is out ofproportion to the means for self<defense available to the person attac'ed thus, the prosecution must clearly show theoffenders deliberate intent to do so.There was no clear indication in this case that the accused<appellant and his companions purposely used their oint effortsto consummate the crime.6ran' *obrigas is 8=0*TG of #omicide for the death of 6eli% Taylaran.

PEOPLE v CASITAS ?3 SCRA ?2

Hualifying and aggravating circumstances must be proven as clearly as the crime itself. 0n any event, even if they areestablished beyond reasonable doubt, they cannot be appreciated unless they are alleged in the information.

FACTS:Version of t"e rosecution4ose Casitas, 4r was at the store of $omeo riones, near the house of 5ario Chan where #aide 5arbella was wor'ing ascareta'er. Casitas and $omeo were able to converse for about 2A minutes. :uring their conversation, appellant showed$omeo the D 2@<centavo coins which he had and said, this venture of mine is being ta'en on a chance.$omeo nevernoticed when appellant left his store. 5eanwhile, Cora&on 8oyena saw #aide sprawled on the 'itchen floor lying face downand bloodied. "urprised, Cora&on ran outside and as'ed for help from $omeo.-n the other side of the house emesioCapi&sawCasitas umped over the fence, his shirt was bloodied and very red and the edge of his pants was red.ersion of the :efenseCasitasinvo'es denial and alibi as defenses. 8erondina Casitas testified that 4ose Casitas, 4r. was preparing and pac'inghis clothes because he was busy going to 5anila. ut before going to 5anila, he will PpassQ by *egaspi City where he willget the money she borrowed from ngelo -ren&e.

HELD:The $TC 3ualified the 'illing to murder by appreciating the circumstance of abuse of superior strength. "ettled is therule that such circumstance is present whenever there is ine3uality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, superiorstrength is advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter ta'es advantage of it in the commission of the crime.=nder thefacts, no one actually saw how the 'illing was perpetrated. o evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, was presented toestablish that there had been ine3uality of strength between the appellant and the victim, or that the former had purposelyor consciously ta'en advantage of superior strength in committing the crime. Thus, the $TC erroneously relied on meresuppositions on the manner of the 'illing and impro#i&entl' conclu&e& t"at t"ere was ause of superior stren%t" &espite t"elacuna of e#i&ence t"ereof.

Casitasis 8=0*TG of #-50C0:>.



PEOPLE v ALI4EN ?2 SCRA 66

FACTS: $omeo arsaga testified he saw D persons hitting 4uanito ongon, "r. on the head with pieces of wood and a bolo.#e recogni&ed the the assailants as onifacio liben, $onnie icolas and :iosdado icolas. arsaga watched the incidentfor about B minutes. /hile liben was hac'ing the victim, :iosdado icolas and $onnie icolas were at the bac' of thevictim. arsaga further testified that he got scared after witnessing the incident, so he returned to the house of the victim(onnie @icolas testified that he was inside their house watching the group of ictorino ernal, llan Cabiles, 8eneroso "an

4ose and >dgar 6lorendo play tong<its (a game of cards). :ante icolas, 4unior icolas, obby Hui]ones and !oncianolcantara were also playing tong<its inside their house. :onifacio Alien, 3ios&a&o @icolas and 4unior 8odoy werewatching this other group play./hile $onnie was watching the game, somebody threw small stones with soil at the placeand ictorio was hit on the forehead. $onnie loo'ed for the person who threw the stones and found ongon, "r. hidingbehind a coconut tree. ongon, "r. stabbed $onnie D times, but he wasnot hit. $onnie was able to get hold of a piece ofwood and hit ongon, "r., on the left temple causing ongon, "r. to fall down. $onnie lost control of himself and did not'now if he continued hitting ongon, "r.

HELD:Ta'ing advantage of superior strength/e agree with the trial court that the 'illing was attended by the aggravating circumstance of ta'ing advantage of superiorstrength which was alleged in the 0nformation. "uperiority in number does not necessarily amount to the aggravating

circumstance of ta'ing advantage of superior strength.It is necessar' to s"ow t"at t"e a%%ressors cooperate& in suc" a wa'as to secure a&#anta%e from t"eir superiorit' in stren%t" . There must be proof of the relative physical strength of theaggressors and the assaulted party or proof that the accused simultaneously assaulted the deceased. The circumstance ofta'ing advantage of superior strength depends on the age, si&e and strength of the parties.0t is considered whenever thereis a notorious ine3uality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriouslyadvantageous for the aggressor which is selected or ta'en advantage of by him in the commission of the offense.$onnie icolas, :iosdado icolas and onifacio liben are8=0*TG ofmurder.

PEOPLE v ROLLON 017 SCRA 6

FACTS:riel $ollon Y>dgar !ere& on their way home saw 4ose $afol for no apparent reason, >dgar bo%ed 4ose.4osetried

to retaliate, riel moved in to aid his friend. Thomas $ios intervened and pacified the protagonists. 4oses son, :i%onarrived and punched >dgar who fell to the ground. riel fled to call for reinforcements. riel, on board a tricycle driven by>rrol $ollon, armed with a bolo with them were >ddie *achica and "alvador $omano, armed with guns. fter the tricyclepulled over, >rrol immediately alighted and bo%ed 4ose. 6isticuffs ensued. 4oses other son, :ic'y, arrived, pacified >rroland his father and brought the latter home.>rrol bro'e a bottle of gin on the pavement. >rrol and his companions pursued4ose and :ic'y to their house and pelted it. >rrol and his group retreated. /hen riel saw Lapitan Tito $oyo, he attemptedto hac' the latter with his bolo, but the bolo hit the wooden pole which 6ilun used to stri'e Tito. Tito managed to evade theblow, and dove under the table. #e then fled to his house. commotion ensued.6elipe and his sons >rrol and riel, with >ddie *achica, "alvador $omano, :anilo !ere& and 6rancisco $abino, all boardedthe tricycle and went after Tito. s they reached the gate of Titos house, they chanced upon leandro and 5elchor. >rrolbloc'ed leandro and 5elchors way. riel vented his ire on leandro and hac'ed the latter on his left arm. leandro

retaliated and bo%ed riel, who fell to the ground. >rrol then oined the fray, but was held at bay by leandro. >ddiesuddenly shot leandro, who fell prostrate to the ground. 0n the meantime, 5elchor could not help his brother because6rancisco had his gun aimed at the latter. >rrol then shot leandro two more times on the head and on his body. riel, forhis part, then hac'ed the hapless leandro with his bolo. 5elchor somehow managed to snea' out without being noticedand ran for dear life to the house of Thomas $ios. /hen 5elchor was already inside the house, he heard someone shout(Lill him\).+ 5elchor heard another gunshot. #e peeped through a hole and saw the dead body of his brother, leandro,being run over by the tricycle driven by >rrol. 5elchor could only watch in horror and grief.rielY>rroldenied the charge.HELD:/e agree with the trial court that the appellant is guilty of murder under rticle 2BE of the $evised !enal Code,3ualified by ause of superior stren%t" as alleged in the 0nformation. To ta'e advantage of superior strength is to purposelyuse e%cessive force, out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attac'ed. 0n the case at bar, there



was a clear and gross disparity of strength between the unarmed victim and the four armed assailants ; three of whom werearmed with firearms. The victim gave no provocation and was in fact already bac'ing off when he was attac'ed.

PEOPLE v HU5O 017 SCRA 8

FACTS:4oel Talon and *olito illamar on their way home were met by >rnesto, *oren&o, and $udy. >rnesto came face to

face with $emegio. "uddenly, >rnesto hac'ed $emegio twice with a bolo causing the latter to fall to the ground. >rnesto3uic'ly ran away, and his bolo slipped from his hand. $emegio then told 4oel to run after >rnesto. 4oel promptly gave achase. $emegio stood up to follow them. *oren&o and $udy also chased $emegio and 4oel. 4oel decided to turnbac'. "tanding appro%imately 1A meters from $emegio, 4oel saw *oren&o and $udy hac' $emegio with a bolo on the bac'of his head, causing $emegio to fall to the ground. 4oel witnessed *oren&o deliver another blow at $emegioIs nec'. $udyhac'ed $emegio at the mouth and forehand. *oren&o and $udy fled.

>rnesto voluntarily surrendered to the police station. $udy testified that he was in !asig City at the time the crime in 3uestion was committed.*oren&os alibi is thathe was wor'ing at the ricefields in arangay 5oging, "an icolas, !angasinanHELD: The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior stren%t" cannot e appreciate& . The records are bereft of any

information with respect to the physical condition of both >rnesto and $emegio. 6or the aggravating circumstance of abuseof superior strength to be appreciated, the age, si&e, and strength of the parties must be considered. There must be anotorious ine3uality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, giving the latter a superiority of strength which is ta'enadvantage of by him in the commission of the crime.nd even assuming ar%uen&o that it e%isted, abuse of superior strengthshould not be appreciated separately, for it is absorbed in treachery.

*-$>W- #=8- and $=:G #=8- are CH=0TT>: on the ground of reasonable doubt >$>"T- #=8- is found guiltyof murder.

PEOPLE v RO/AS 017 SCRA 061

FACTS:4oelyn . 5aceda and *orna 5aceda !uno were security guardsand when on duty, the sisters were issued caliber .DE service firearms that they were not, however, allowed to bring home.4oelyn saw *orna coming home carrying a brownbag. 6rom a distance of B<@ meters, 4oelyn could see *orna running away from$oger $o%as. ppellant, apparently drun'had no clothes from waist up, was wearing shorts and carrying a gun. /hen 4oelyn as'ed the pale and trembling *ornawhy she was running, the latter replied, *yn, *yn, enter, close the door, a man is following me\+ 4oelyn promptly closed thedoor but appellant was able to 'ic' it open. 4oelyn was pushed aside. ppellant grabbed *ornas baghurled the bag to thefloor. ppellant then shot *orna with a caliber .B@ gun with its mu&&le ust two feet away from *ornas face. 4oelyn held hesister. *orna was still alive. neighbor responded to 4oelyns cries for help. *orna was brought to the hospital.

HELD? 0n asseverating that the 3ualifying circumstance of ause of superior stren%t" was not proven at the trial, appellanwould premise his argument on the contention that the victim used teargas to immobili&e him. There was, however, no

convincing proof that the victim had indeed used teargas on$o%as. The hospital record presented that appellant wastreated for eye irritation and for abrasions on his right hand,was not attested to by any supposed attending physician.Thetrial court described $o%as as being a big hul' of a man,+ @+ in height, and muscularly bul'y.+ t the witness stand, when4oelyn stood to identify appellant, the prosecutor noted for the record that appellant was very much taller than the witness+who stood at @D+ in height. ccording to 4oelyn, *orna was only about @@+ in height, a fact that the defense did notdispute. The case could bring to mind eople #. Buesa&a. 0n that case, the Court, noting that the appellant was a robustmiddle<aged man+ while the deceased was a woman of about 22 years of age, appreciated the aggravating circumstance ofta'ing advantage of superior strength when the malefactor stabbed the deceased while she was trying to escape from hisgrasp, and unable to repel the attac'.+ 0n this instance, *orna was 2 years old trying to escape from appellant, an armedhul' of a man,+ @+ in height, and around DD years of age,when she was senselessly shot at close range. "till in anothecase, this Court said? 0n several cases, we have held that an attac' made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an



unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority w"ic" "is sex an& t"e weaponused in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. This is the e%act scenario in thiscase.+!-D $oger $o%as is guilty of murder.

PEOPLE v 5RE5ORIO 01 SCRA 7

FACTS:#enry 8ine& and !ablo ihasa testified that they saw the victim, 4uanito $egacho standing in front of a store.

tricycle pulled up and 4uancho -sorio alighted. #e drew a gun and fired at 4uanito, but the latter was able to parry4uanchos hand. 4uanito then ran to the alley towards his house.4uancho then pointed the gun at the bystanders whoscampered and hide.5ateo 8regorio came out from a nearby alley and fired his gun in the air. #e approached appellant-sorio and as'ed, @asaan naD oth appellants followed the victim to the alley. 8unshots were heard.0gnacio *opea, 4r.declared that earlier that day, lberto 8regorio and the victim had a heated altercation after they came from a ma"!on%an onthe day the crime happened. #e heard lberto challenge the victim,;un% %usto mo, tapusin na natin ito.The victim died in front of the door of his house

5ateo 8regorio narrated that on the night of the crime, he was on his way home after getting the gun which somebodypawned to him. #e admitted that he fired said gun in the air because 0gnacio, "r., brother<in<law of the victim, was meddlingin a heated altercation between the victim and lberto 8regorio. #e saw the victim run away and afterwards he heard

gunshots. #e saw the gunman board a tricycle.

HELD: ppellants cannot be convicted of murder. The 3ualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of superior strengthwere not sufficientl' estalis"e& ' t"e prosecution. Ause of superior stren%t" is present whenever there is a notorious ine3uality of forces between the victim and theaggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or ta'enadvantage of by him in the commission of the crime. 0t must be shown by clear and convincing evidence that this 3ualifyingcircumstance was consciously sought by the assailants.The actual 'illing of the victim occurred in an alley and was no longer seen by the prosecution witnesses. #ence, there is noway of determining whether the elements of treachery and abuse of superior strength were met.=ndisputedly, there was notestimon' as to how the attac' was initiated in the case at bar. 0n the same way that there was nothing in the testimonies of

the eyewitnesses for the prosecution which would prove that appellants pondered upon the mode or method to insure the'illing."uperiority in numbers is not necessarily superiority in strength. lthough the two appellants used guns to 'ill theunarmed victim, nonetheless, the prosecution failed to establish that there was indeed a deliberate intent to ta'e advantageof superior strength.The crime committed by appellants is homicide.

4AND

PEOPLE v POLORES ?7 SCRA 3

4nd "en %ud&i!!# consists of at least B armed persons organi&ed with the intention of carrying out an unlawful design.and is inherent in brigandage but not in robbery. (!>-!*> v !-*-$>" 2DA "C$ 29)

The re3uisite four armed persons contemplated in this circumstance must all be principals by direct participation who actedtogether in the e%ecution of the acts constituting the crime.0f one of them was a principal by inducement, there would be no cuadrilla but the aggravating circumstance of having actedwith the aid armed men may be considered against the inducer if the other two acted as his accomplice.

This aggravating circumstance is inherent in $08:8>.This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance os abuse of superior strength.This aggravating circumstance is not applicable in crimes against chastity.

PEOPLE v 4UAYA4AN 077 SCRA 02



FACTS:!aulino uayaban, *arry etache, 5arciano To]acao, Goyong uayaban and !edro Tumula', all armed, enteredthe house of :ioscoro bonales. !edro Tumula' and !aulino uayaban immediately po'ed their guns at $olando erdidawho with his fiancee >li&abeth bonales. Goyong 'ic'ed :ioscoro in the face and when the latter stood up, 5arciano shothim in the nec'. :ioscoro died instantly.*arry etache went outside the house and stood guard at the door holding a 'nife.!edro then went to the 'itchen, grabbed the right arm of 4osefa bonales and as'ed her where the money was. 6rightened,4osefa 3uic'ly went to the room, followed by 5arciano while !edro returned to where >li&abeth and $olando were lyingdown in order to watch over them. 5arciano threatened 4osefa with death if she refused to surrender the money. 4osefatoo' the money amounting to !DA, AAA from the wooden chest, placed it inside a pillow case and she handed it to 5arciano.

"omebody forcibly too' the wallet of $olando. /hile escaping, the malefactors bumped into rtemio bonales. rtemio wason his way to :ioscoros house to investigate the gunshots he heard. !aulino pointed the gun at rtemio and pulled thetrigger but the gun did not fire.

!edro Tumula' put up the defense of alibi and denial.

#>*:? 0n the present case, we cannot treat the ordinary aggravating circumstance of band because it was not alle%e& int"e information. Though it is an ordinary aggravating circumstance, the 2AAA $ules on Criminal !rocedurere3uire that evengeneric aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the 0nformation.

0n this case, we cannot properly appreciate the ordinary aggravating circumstance of band in the commission of the crime

since there was no allegation in the information that Jmore than three armed malefactors acted together in the commissionof the crime.Jll things considered, we find !edro Tumula' guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.

TREACHERY

PEOPLE v 9ERCHE= ?? SCRA 130

9e&sion o; t)e P&ose%ution:• ug 1@, 19E@ ; $aul Castaneda Y *t. 5arcelo 8arbo of the "pecial -perations 8roups ("-8) of the Central -rgani&ed

Crime Tas' 6orce of the !hilippine ConstabularyF0ntegrated ational !olice led a team of govt agents in conducting a

surveillance operations on a house reported to be the hideout of a gang of suspected ban' robbers.• They stopped a car the came out from the subdivision. The driver was alane and he was as'ed by the police officers to

accompany them to where his companions where staying.• /hen the 1st car approached the house they were met wF heavy volley of gunfire. orcio died while oora Y !agsanan

were inured.• 5en inside the house eventually surrendered.• ccused were assisted by tty. :e la $osa when they e%ecuted their sworn statements. erche&, ldave and alane

admitted being involved in several ban' heist and erche& also admitted that he fired the first shot at the policemen.• The firearms of the accused were unregistered and unlicensed.

9e&sion o; t)e De;ense:•

erche& invited alane on ugust 1@, 199B to visited his brother. They were oined by ldave, /hile they were waitingfor the brother of erche&, alane went out to buy cigarettes and pulutan. #is car was bloc'ed and the occupants of theother car pointed their firearms at him. They dragged him out of the car, handcuffed and blindfolded him.

• erche& saw several cars stop outside the house and he heard a gunshot. erche& and ldave got loaded firearms fromthe rooms and fired bac'.

• They contended that they were forced into signing a prepared statement confessing their illegal activities, includinghaving engaged the police officers in a fire fight.

Issues:WON t&e%)e&@ (s su;;i%ient!@ est!is)ed.

• -. Two conditions must concur



>mployment of means of e%ecution that gives the person attac'ed no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate

• "aid means of e%ecution was deliberately or consciously adopted• *awmen were prepared for any resistance that may be possibly be put up• orcio was 'illed and oora was wounded during and not before the gun battle• There is no showing that the appellants deliberately and consciously adopted their mode of attac'.• o showing that they planned to ambush the lawmen, much less that they 'new the lawmen were coming.

ppellants were caught by surprise by lawmen hence, acting on the spur of the moment, they fired bac'.

PEOPLE v CASTILLO 2 SCRA 1?

FACTS: round 15 on 5ay @, 199D, >ulogio elasco, flr manager of Cola !ubhouse along >:", was sitting outside thepub while tal'ing wF his co<wor'er. "oon, their customer Tony :ometita came out of the pub and informed him that hell beon his way home. #owever, when he was about an arms length from >ulogio, appellant $obert Castillo came out fromnowhere and suddenly and wFo warning stabbed Tony wF a fan 'nife on his left chest. s Tony pleaded for help, appellantstabbed him once more, hitting him on the left hand. >ulogio placed a chair between the two to stop Castillo from furtherattac'ing Tony.• Tony ran away but appellant pursued him. >ulogio came to 'now later that Tony had died. #is body was found outside the

fence of 0glesia ni Cristo, >:". 5edico<legal officer testified that the pro%imate cause of Tonys death was the stab wound

on his chest.• ppellant $obert Castillo claims that decedent Tony was attac'ed by 2 malefactors as testified by one >dilberto

5arcelino, a tricycle driver, who saw men ganging up on Tony by the compound of 0glesia ni Cristo.• TC did not appreciate Castillos defense of alibi and held that the 'illing was 3ualified by abuse of superior strength, the

accused having surprised and attac'ed wF a deadly weapon. nd although treachery was present, it also held that thiswas absorbed by abuse of superior strength.

• ppellant contends that the TC showed its preudice against him by as'ing 3uestions that were well wFin the prosecutionto e%plore and as'.

HELD: The 'illing was 3ualified by treachery. Treachery is committed when 2 conditions concur? (1) means, methods andforms of e%ecution employed left the person attac'ed no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) that such

means, methods, and forms of e%ecution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused wFo danger to hisperson. These re3uisites were evidently present when the accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly and une%pectedlystabbed the victim ust as he was bidding goodbye to his friend. The action rendered it difficult for the victim to defendhimself. The presence of defense wounds+ does not negate treachery because the first stab, fatal as it was, was inflictedon the chest and hence, rendered Tony defenseless.

PEOPLE v DACI4AR 5.R. No. 11128

FACTS:/elda and 4ose acalangco were sitting behind their bed when suddenly there was an e%plosion followed by thesounds of footsteps. /elda saw /arlito :icon coming out from under their house, stooping and carrying a long firearm.6ollowing him was appellant $amil :acibar who was carrying a bolo. "eeing her husband shot, /elda shouted to her

children that their father was shot. $i&a also heard the gunshot and saw :icon holding a long firearm and $amil :acibarholding a bolo emerging from under their house. $eali&ing the predicament of her father, $i&a together with her sister,shouted for help. $i&aIs uncle came to help. #e carried the victim with the intention of bringing the latter to the hospital.#owever the victim died.

/arlito :icon testified that he was at his house at the time the victim was 'illed.

HELD:0n the case at bar, it was established that :icon had a dispute with the victim over the 'illing and eating of theformersI dog, as a result of which :icon verbally threatened the victim with vengeance. The victim was later shot and 'illed,on which occasion both appellants were seen leaving the scene of the crime carrying a firearm and a bolo, emerging fromunder the victimIs house.



e a%ree t"at treac"er' atten&e& t"e commission of t"e crime . Treachery is present when the shooting was une%pectedand sudden, giving the unarmed victim no chance whatsoever to defend himself. @ The two conditions for treachery to bepresent are (1) that at the time of the attac', the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the offenderconsciously adopted the particular means, method, or form of attac' employed by him.0n the case at bar, the victim hadabsolutely no idea that he was going to be shot as he went to bed, from under his own house at that. #e was not in aposition to defend himself, being unaware and une%pectant of an attempt on his life, in the particular manner purposelyadopted by appellants. Clearly, he was 'illed in a treacherous manner. The circumstance of treachery, however, absorbs theaggravating circumstances of superior strength and nighttime.

PEOPLE v CANDO ??0 SCRA ??1

FACTS:Cando and $apcing, were employed as candlema'ers at a factory, the victim, *uis :. $emoriata, was thecareta'erin said factory.argas, $apcing, onoy "aysonYCandowere having a drin'ing session at a canteen in front of thefactory. Cando came angry because he was unable to get his salary from the secretary, nor was he able to get a loan of!1AA.AA from the careta'er. Cando already had previous misunderstandings with the careta'er, so this time he threatenedto 'ill the careta'er. argas, $apcing, and Cando, armed with two 'nives and carrying a shoulder bag, proceeded to thevictims room. Cando pic'ed a piece of lead pipe and told argas to pull open the door where the victims mos3uito net wasattached. /hen argas pulled open the door, the mos3uito net snapped and Cando struc' the victim on the head with thelead pipe. The victim awa'ened and Cando demanded money from him. /hen the victim replied that he had no money,

Cando struc' him again with the lead pipe. lood oo&ed from the victims head. Cando repeatedly hit him with the lead pipeuntil he became unconscious. Cando placed the victims radio cassette in his bag. #e went upstairs to get more items andthe 'eys of the Cimarron van. Cando and $apcing pushed the van outside. -nce they were out of hearing range, argasgunned the motor and the two clambered into the van.

argas readily admitted his participation and pinpointed appellants Cando and $apcing as his co<perpetrators.

ISSUE:/- the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation attended the commission of theoffenseNHELD:There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods, orforms in the e%ecution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its e%ecution, without ris' to himself arising from

the defense which the offended party might ma'e.The conditions which must concur before treachery can be appreciatedare? (a) the employment of means of e%ecution that gives the person attac'ed no opportunity to defend himself or toretaliate and (b) that said means of e%ecution be deliberately and consciously adopted.The essence of treachery lies in theadoption of ways that minimi&e or neutrali&e any resistance which may be put up by the offended party.The 'illing of thesleeping victim herein was attended by treachery since he was in no position to flee or defend himself.The presence oftreachery, though, s"oul& not result in *ualif'in% t"e offense to mur&er, for the correct rule is that when it obtains in thespecial comple% crime of robbery with homicide, such treachery is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance,robbery with homicide being a case of a composite crime with its own definition and special penalty in the $evised !enaCode.$-8>$ C:-, $>* $8", and /0*>$T- $!C08 are guilty of the crime of $obbery with#omicide.

PEOPLE v ARI=O4AL ?01 SCRA 10?

PROSECUTIONS CASE:Clementina 8imene&, wife of victim *aurencio, testified that Clarito ri&obal and >rly *ignes and athird person wearing mas'barged into their bedroom, ransac'ed their cabinet and scattered everything until they found !EAAA among sheets of paper. They ordered *aurencio to go with them to 4immyIs house. *aurencio went with them.Clementina heard a volley of shots. #er grandchild could only mutter in fear, /<olo is already dead\J >rlinda 8imene&, wifeof 4immy, narrated that 4immy with 6rancisco 8imene& arrived and informed her that they had already bought a carabao./hile he s'inning a chic'en for supper, D men suddenly appeared and ordered them to lie face down. They tied 6ranciscoand 4immy as they whipped the latter with an armalite rifle. The robbers proceeded to ransac' the household in search forvaluables. They too' around !1, AAAand told them to produce !1AA, AAA in e%change for 4immyIs life. The D mas'ed menthen dragged 4immy outside the house and together with *aurencio brought them some @A meters away while leaving



behind Clarito ri&obal and >rly *ignes to guard 6rancisco and >rlindaIs son. 5oments later she heard a burst of gunfire.The mas'ed men informed >rlinda that 4immy and *aurencio had been 'illed for trying to escape.


HELD: Treachery was incorrectly considered by the trial court. The accused stand charged with, tried and convicted of

robbery with homicide. This special comple% crime is primarily classified in this urisdiction as a crime a%ainst propert', andnot against persons, homicide being merel' an inci&ent of robbery with the latter being the main purpose and obect of thecriminals. s such, treachery cannot be validly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under rt. 1B of The $evised!enal Code.This is completely a reversal of the previous urisprudence on the matter decided in a litany of cases before!eople v. ari3uit.

PEOPLE v MA=O ?83 SCRA 08

FACTS: $ommel brenica and $afael 5orada, 4r., were having a drin' in the J$ende&vous,+ whenan altercation betweenthem and the :ennis 5a&o occurred. $ommel was ealous of the accused whose alleged girlfriend $ommel also fancied./hile tal'ing to the girl, the accused approached them and said, Joh, whatNJ They responded by as'ing him, JwhatNJ

$ommel described the accuseds attitude as Jbrave as if he was threatening them.J$ommel and $afael rode $ommelsmotorcycle. They passed the group of :ennis 5a&o. "omebody called, J!ssst,J and $ommel stopped the vehicle. $afaelalighted and approached :ennis and his companions to as' who called them. :ennis and $afael wal'ed towards eachother, :ennis holding his bac' poc'et. "uddenly, :ennis, who wielded a 'nife on his right hand, stabbed $afael about eightinches below the left nipple.$ommel remained seated on his motorcycle allowing him to witness the incident. $afael wasable to parry another of :ennis thrusts and then run. $afael cushioned his fall with his hands and was able to roll on hisbac'. #e raised his feet and his hands to shield himself from :ennis stabbing thrusts. Thereafter, :ennis fled .

:ennis 5a&o invo'ed self<defense.

HELD:Treac"er' &i& not atten& t"e commission of t"e crime . There is treachery when the offender commits any of the

crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the e%ecution thereof which tend directly and specially toinsure its e%ecution, without ris' to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might ma'e.0ts essence lies inthe attac' which comes without warning, and is swift, deliberate and une%pected, and affords the hapless, unarmed andunsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.#ere, the trial court found that treachery was present both at the initial and final stages of the attac'. 6irst, the victimapproached appellant unarmed without any in'ling that he would be stabbed by appellant. 0t bears noting, however, that analtercation in the $ende&vous had ust recently ensued between appellant on the one hand and the victim and $ommelbrenica on the other. There was an e%change of words with the victim moc'ing appellants long hair. 0n their subse3uentencounter, the victim by his lonesome audaciously approached appellant and his three companions. 0t cannot be said,therefore, that the victim had not been forewarned of the danger he faced when he approached appellant. There could beno treachery when the victim was placed on guard, such as when a heated argument preceded the attac', or when the

victim was standing face to face with his assailants and the initial assault could not have been unforeseen.5oreover;0n treachery, the mode of attac' must be consciousl' a&opte& . This means that the accused must ma'esome preparation to 'ill the deceased in such a manner as to insure the e%ecution of the crime or to ma'e itimpossible or hard for the person attac'ed to defend himself or retaliate. The mode of attac', therefore, must beplanned by the offender, and must not sprin% from t"e unexpecte& turn of e#ents.

The meeting between appellants group and the victim was merely by chance and it could not be said that the mode ofattac' could have been planned. 'illing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous.The trial court also held that there was treachery when appellant continued to stab the victim when the latter fell and wascrawling on his bac'. This conclusion is erroneous. 0t is true that appellant too' advantage of the victims unfortunate fall tofinish him off but there is no showing that appellant had consciously adopted, prepared or planned to use the victimssudden, hapless position to his advantage.



:ennis 5a&o is 8=0*TG of #omicide.

PEOPLE v MANTES ?82 SCRA 881

FACTS:>fren 5antes and :anilo 6lores too'>lica&ar apili from his house, armed with guns and bolos, tolm him thathe was being summoned by the barangay captain. Cowed by their arms, >lica&ar went with the two. Thirty minutesafter,>li&abeth went to the barangay captain to in3uire as to the whereabouts of her husband. "he was told that her

husband was not summoned. ioleta *atagan testified that while she and her husband belardo and their child wereresting inside their house, three persons sought shelter from the rain. 5inutes later, she heard them 3uarrelling. "hesaw 5antes and 6lores hac'ing at >lica&ar apili. >lica&ar managed to force his way inside ioletas house. 8rabbingher child, ioleta and her husband fled the scene, but not before she was hac'ed in the left buttoc' by 6lores."ince >lica&ar had not yet returned, the the barangay captain and >li&abeth proceeded to the house of >fren 5antesfather to loo' for >fren. There, they found 5antes already awa'e, wearing a bloodied T<shirt and with wounds on hishands and bac'. /hen as'ed the reason therefor, >fren told the group that he had been in a drin'ing spree that nightand that a fight had ensued thereat. Told to escort the group to the place of the drin'ing spree and fight, 5antes led thegroup to the hut of icanor 5alabanan. The group unearthed the lifeless body of >lica&ar apili wrapped in atransparent plastic sheet. The testimony of $ogelio 5anabat and 4ulio de "alit, who were members of the group whichwent to the house of >fren 5antes father and later discovered >lica&ars cadaver, corroborated the testimony of the

barangay captain.

5antes narrated that he, >lica&ar apiliY ernardo were invited by belardo to a drin'ing spree.ernardo and >lica&argot into an argument, which ultimately led to ernardo dealing fist blows to >lica&ar. 5antes was suddenly hac'ed witha bolo by belardo, prompting him to run and hide in the bushes nearby. 6rom his vantage point, 5antes saw >lica&arwrest the bolo from belardo and chase the latter into the house. 0t was inside the house where ioleta was hac'ed by>lica&ar. belardo managed to hit >lica&ar on the arm with a piece of wood, causing him to drop the bolo. belardothen too' hold of the bolo and hac'ed >lica&ar in the nec'. /ith >lica&ar down, belardo and his wife left their houseonly to return minutes later. They then rolled >lica&ars body to the cree' nearby.:anilo 6lores invo'ed alibi as defense.

HELD? This Court finds appellants guilty only of homicide, not murder, the 3ualifying circumstance of treac"er' not "a#in% een pro#en as conclusi#el' as t"e illin% itself.There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or formsin the e%ecution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure the e%ecution of the crime, without ris' to himselfarising from the defense which the offended party might ma'e. The elements of treachery are? (i) the means ofe%ecution employed gives the victim no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate and (ii) the methods of e%ecutionwere deliberately or consciously adopted (eople #s. Cirilo, 8.$. o. 1DB2B@, :ecember 1, 2AAA). These twoconditions are clearly wanting in the case at bar. lthough >lica&ar was unarmed at the time he was attac'ed with bolosby appellants, such circumstance alone does not satisfy the legal re3uirements of treachery. 0n eople #s. Valles (17"C$ 1AD P199Q), we declared that the mere fact that the victim had no weapon with which he could have defendedhimself is not sufficient to prove the e%istence of the first element of treachery, for settled is the rule that treachery

cannot be presumed, it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.5oreover, t"e essence of treac"er' is t"e su&&en, unexpecte&, an& unforeseen attac on the person of the victim,without the slightest provocation on the part of the latter. 0n the instant case, >lica&ar was already alerted to the factthat appellants meant him harm. ccording to his wifes testimony, >lica&ar was already pleading for his life withappellants when they too' him away. They even hac'ed at his wife when the latter tried to follow them. ll thesecircumstances point to the fact that >lica&ar was already forewarned of the danger to his life. 0n eople #s. <opeF (2B9"C$ 71A P199@Q), we declared that Jthere is no treachery were the victim was aware of the danger on his life, when hechose to be courageous instead of cautious, courting obvious danger which, when it came, cannot be defined assudden, une%pected, and unforeseen.J ioleta *atagans testimony is no less enlightening. ioleta testified that sheheard appellants and >lica&ar 3uarreling prior to the attac' on the latter, and that during the attac' the latter even triedto escape. The fact that there was a 3uarrel prior to the attac' proves that there was no treachery, and it is also all too



obvious that >lica&ar was well<aware of the danger to his life as shown in his attempt to escape, albeit unsuccessfully,from his assailants.

PEOPLE v COSTALES ?3? SCRA 8

4essie 5olina recalled that she and her sisters :onabel and >rlinda together with their parents 5iguel and Crispina hadprepare for the night. 4essie and >rlinda had ust watched tv when 2 persons suddenly barged into their house passingthrough the door 'ept aar by sac's of palay and strangled her father 5iguel. 4essie readily recogni&ed 6ernando JndoJ

Costales, po'ed a gun at the head of her father and shot him once in cold blood. Thereafter 6ernando $amire& sprayed ontheir faces what she described as Jsomething hot and pungent,J and with his firearm pumped a bullet on her motherIschest.oth 4essie and >rlinda affirmed that they were familiar with the 2 accused because, li'e the rest of the family, theywere members of the Jaro a CristianoJ also 'nown as *amplighter, of which Costales and 6 $amire& were the high priestsin their respective areas. ccording to 4essie, her parents decided to 3uit the brotherhood because $amire& warned themnot to sever their ties with the sect if they did not want any harm to befall them. 0n fact, according to her, a month earlier$amire& even threatened her sister >rlinda with bodily harm.6ernando Costales? alibi.HELD: /e yield to the trial courtIs finding of treachery. /ithout doubt, treachery has been established by the prosecutionevidence which showed that 6ernando Costales and his confederate 6ernando $amire& swiftly and une%pectedly bargedinto the 5arcelo residence in the middle of the night, shot 5iguel 5arcelo to death as well as his wife Crispina who almost

lost her life, and sprayed a substance which temporarily blinded the other occupants of the house. The suddenness of theattac' gave the victims no opportunity whatsoever to resist or parry the assault thereby ensuring the accomplishment oftheir dastardly deed without ris' to themselves. "ince the attac' on the victims was synchronal, sudden and une%pected,treachery must be properly appreciated.6ernando JndoJ Costales is guilty of murder and attempted murder.

PEOPLE v LOPE= ?6 SCRA 17

$ichard *an&anas, 11<year<old son of the victim, 5auricio *an&anas, testified that while he was standing near the barangayhall he heard two gunshots. #e saw his father inside the sash factory, lying on the ground face up. The trigger man, 6eli%*ope&, shot his father twice more and then got the latters two handheld radios. $ichard remained motionless but, after

regaining his composure, rushed home and met his mother along the way. #e told his mother about his fathers fate. "hetried to catch up with the appellant but failed.

-n the charge of murder, we agree with the trial court that treac"er' was &ul' estalis"e& considering that the appellant, inshooting victim 5auricio *an&anas, employed means and methods which directly and specially ensured its e%ecutionwithout ris' to himself arising from the possible defense the victim might have made. s appellant was approaching thesash factory, the victim was totally unaware of the formers criminal intent. The victim even greeted the appellant with a nodbefore he was shot twice by the latter with an armalite rifle, a high<powered weapon. "ubse3uently, the appellant againshot the helpless victim who was already lying prostrate on the ground. The essence of treachery is the une%pected andsudden attac' on the victim which renders the latter unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddennessand severity of the attac'.

6eli% 4. *ope& is guilty of murder.

PEOPLE v ALFON ? SCRA 80

FACTS: icente >usebio testified that he saw the victim wal'ing from the opposite direction being followed by >%peditolfon. lfon came from behind the unsuspecting victim, and suddenly stabbed the latter twice with a 'nife 'nown as balisong29. The victim was hit on the left portion of his ribs and on the right side of his chest. s he fell on the ground face down,appellant ran away towards the seashore. >usebio shouted for help, and immediately, 5anuel $ayoso, 4esus rran&a, andgripino *a&ado responded. They carried the victim to a motorboat and brought him to a doctor in !oblacion, Caramoan.=nfortunately, Tomas lfere& did not survive.



>%pedito lfon, on the other hand, interposed the defense of denial. #e narrated that in the afternoon of 6ebruary 1E, 199D,he was on his way home from his sisters house.

HELD:The essence of treachery is the une%pected and sudden attac' on the victim which renders the latter unable andunprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attac'.This criterion applies, whether theattac' is frontal or from behind. >ven a frontal attac' could be treacherous when une%pected and on an unarmed victim whowould be in no position to repel the attac' or avoid it. The fact that the location of the fatal stab wound is in front does not in

itself negate treachery. 0n the case at bar, it was established that appellant came from behind, went towards the right of thevictim, and suddenly stabbed the victims chest while holding the latters left shoulder. >vidence shows that, first, at the timeof attac', the victim was not in a position to defend himself, as he was unarmed and totally unsuspecting when appellantsuddenly held and stabbed him and second, appellant consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means of attac',as he was seen surreptitiously following the victim with a balisong tuc'ed under his waist. Clearly therefore, treacheryattended the crime.

>%pedito lfon is guilty of murder

PEOPLE v ESCOTE 077 SCRA 83

FACTS: t Camachile, alintawa', si% passengers boarded the bus, including ictor cuyan and 4uan 8on&ales >scote, 4r.4uan seated himself on the third seat near the aisle, in the middle row of the passengers seats, while ictor stood by thedoor in the mid<portion of the bus beside $omulo. nother passenger is "!-1 4ose C. 5anio, 4r. /hen the bus wastravelling along !laridel, ulacan, 4uan and ictor suddenly stood up, whipped out their handguns and announced a holdup.!etrified, $odolfo glanced at the center mirror towards the passengers seat and saw 4uan and ictor armed with handguns.4uan fired his gun upward to awa'en and scare off the passengers. 4uan and ictor then accosted the passengers anddivested them of their money and valuables. 4uan divested $omulo of the fares he had collected from the passengers. Thefelons then went to the place 5anio, 4r. was seated and demanded that he show them his identification card and wallet.4uan and ictor too' the identification card of the police officer as well as his service gun. The police officer pleaded formercy. ictor and 4uan ignored the plea of the police officer and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of hisbody. 5anio, 4r. sustained si% entrance wounds. #e fell to the floor of the bus. ictor and 4uan then moved towards the

driver $odolfo, seated themselves beside him and ordered the latter to maintain the speed of the bus. $odolfo heard one ofthe felons saying? 8anyan lang ang pumatay ng tao. !arang pumapatay ng mano'.

"!-D $omeo 5eneses and !-D 6lorante ". 6errer were at the police chec'point along the national highway when a whiteta%i cab without any plate number came to view. 5eneses stopped the cab and as'ed the driver, who turned out to be theaccused 4uan 8on&ales >scote, 4r., for his identification card. 4uan told 5eneses that he was a policeman and handedover to 5eneses the identification card of "!-1 5anio, 4r. which 4uan and ictor too' from 5anio, 4r. during the heist.5eneses became suspicious when he noted that the identification card had already e%pired. #e as'ed 4uan if the latter hada new pay slip. 4uan could not produce any. #e finally confessed to 5eneses that he was not a policeman. 4uan admittedto the police investigators that he and ictor rroyo, staged the robbery on board 6ive "tar us and are responsible for thedeath of "!-1 5anio, 4r.

ictor denied the charge and interposed the defense of alibi

HELD:0n the case at bar, the victim suffered si% wounds #e was shot at close range, thus insuring his death.The issues that now come to fore are (1) whether or not treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery withhomicide and if in the affirmative, (b) whether treachery may be appreciated against 4uan and ictor. n t"e first issue, werule in t"e affirmati#e. This Court has ruled over the years that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in the felonyof robbery with homicide, a special comple% crime and at the same time a single and indivisible offense. #owever, this Courtin two cases has held that robbery with homicide is a crime against property and hence treachery which is appreciated onlyto crimes against persons should not be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. 0t held in another case thattreachery is not appreciated in robbery with rape precisely because robbery with rape is a crime against property.Theserulings of the Court find support in case law that in robbery with homicide or robbery with rape, homicide or rape are merely



incidents of the robbery, with robbery being the main purpose and obect of the criminal.0ndeed, in !eople vs. Cando, twodistinguished members of this Court advocated a review of the doctrine that treachery is a generic aggravatingcircumstance in robbery with homicide. They opined that treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. After all,in eople #s. :ari*uit, t"is Court in a per curiam &ecision promul%ate& in 'ear GHHH &eclare& t"at treac"er' is applicaleonl' to crimes a%ainst persons. #owever, this Court held in !eople vs. Cando that treachery is a generic aggravatingcircumstance in robbery with homicide, citing its prior rulings that in robbery with homicide, treachery is a genericaggravating circumstance when the victim of homicide is 'illed with treachery. This Court opted not to apply its ruling earlierthat year in !eople vs. ari3uit.

Thus, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although said crime is classified as a crimeagainst property and a single and indivisible crime. Treachery is not a 3ualifying circumstance because as ruled by the"upreme Court of "pain in its decision dated "eptember 11, 1EE, the word homicide+ is used in its broadest and mostgeneric sense.

0n sum then, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is 'illedby treachery.:e t"at as it ma', treac"er' cannot e appreciate& a%ainst uan an& Victor in t"e case at ar ecause t"e same was notalle%e& in t"e Information.

PEOPLE v CARAI5 077 SCRA 83

FACTS: >dmundo :ia&, $oberto $aagas, 5elencio Castro 4r., and !lacido gustin were leaving the beerhouse whenCaraig confronted them whether they were military men. rumble suddenly ensued between his group and Caraig. 0t was abrief scuffle. Caraig then ran bac' to the eerhouse. >dmundo and his companions rode on a ta%i. They were chased,however, by car which eventually bloc'ed the ta%i, Caraig, *a%amana, and *aomoc alighted from the car. Theysimultaneously fired upon >dmundo and his companions. /hile the hail of bullets went on, >dmundo played dead. #e thenheard somebody utter? Jare, tama na 'an. ata' na la"at an% m%a i'an .J /hen the car left, he as'ed the people whogathered around the scene to bring him to a hospital, where he underwent treatment for eighteen days.

Caraig denied that he was one of the assailants

HELD:e a%ree wit" t"e S6 an& t"e trial court on t"e fin&in% of treac"er'. There is treachery when the offender employsmeans, methods, or forms in the e%ecution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to ensureits e%ecution without ris' to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might ma'e.Two elements musttherefore concur? (1) the means of e%ecution employed gives the person attac'ed no opportunity to defend himself orretaliate and the (2) the means of e%ecution was deliberately or consciously adopted.The attac' upon the victims in thesecases was attended by treachery. !er :anilo 4aviers testimony, the ta%i on which the victims were riding was moving slowlyaway from the beerhouse when Caraig and his co<assailants pursued it and then bloc'ed its path. The interception too'place at less than 1AA meters away from the beerhouse. "ince the victims were inside the ta%i, they had no chance to fightbac' or defend themselves. The number of the victims individual wounds and their relative positions when found dead bythe police emphasi&ed further the essence of treachery. The means, method, and form of the attac' in this case were,

therefore, consciously adopted and effectively forestalled the victims from employing a defense against their attac'ers.

:-T- C$08 is found guilty of D counts of murder and of frustrated murder.

PEOPLE v A4UT 071 SCRA 02

FACTS:5aricar and >dgar and $osie and l too' a stroll at the !ar'. The 2 couples sat on the concrete benches facingeach other. fter a few minutes, /inchester, 8regmar and $itchie arrived.$osie had been the girlfriend of /inchesterbefore she became the girlfriend of l./inchester told 5aricar that he wanted to get ac3uainted with >dgar. >dgarintroduced himself to /inchester. /inchester shoo' hands with >dgar. /inchester yan'ed his hand and immediately bo%ed>dgar. $itchie struc' the 2 bottles on the table and hit >dgar with the bro'en bottles. The D continued their assault on the



victim and stabbed him. >dgar pleaded to his attac'ers to stop assaulting him telling them that he had sustained so manystab wounds already. >dgar stood up and staggered only to fall down near one of the cemented benches in the par' about1A meters from the table.8regmar and /inchester denied assaulting and stabbing >dgar. They claimed that it was $itchie alone who stabbed and'illed the victim.HELD:The trial court correctly convicted the appellants of murder with the 3ualifying circumstance of abuse of superiorstrength. 2owe#er, t"e trial court erre& in appreciatin% treac"er' a%ainst t"e appellants . There is treachery when theoffender commits any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the e%ecution thereof which

tend directly and specially to insure its e%ecution without ris' to himself arising from the defense which the offended partymight ma'e. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as conclusively as the 'illing itself. 0n this case,the prosecution failed to prove that the mode or manner of e%ecution was deliberately or consciously adopted by theappellants when they stabbed the victim. ppellant /inchester first bo%ed the victim. The appellants and $itchie thenmauled and 'ic'ed the victim. There is no evidence that at the outset, they had decided to stab and 'ill the victim. 0t wasonly at the late stage of the assault that the appellants and $itchie stabbed the victim. The Court believes that after gangingup on and mauling the victim, the appellants, at the spur<of<the moment, decided to stab the victim. Thus, the subectiveelement of treachery was not present/inchester but and 8regmar aliga are guilty of murder3ualified by abuse of superior strength.

PEOPLE v ESCARLOS 017 SCRA 08?

FACTS:ntonio alisacan went to attend a benefit dance, his son Crisanto, also attended with his friends. Crisanto stoodbeside the emcee, >scarlos. /hile Ceasario was calling the victim, ntonio alisacan, to come to the the stage,Crisantosaw appellant stab his father, ntonio, several times. Crisanto was momentarily shoc'ed that he was not able toreact. ntonio was still alive so he brought him to #ospital where he e%pired a few minutes after arrival.ccused T05-T>- >"C$*-" was invited to buy lechon during the benefit dance./hile ntonio who was then drun',passed in front and told him, ZGou are here again to create trouble. ccused was offended so he answered bac' sayingZ/hy do you say that to me when 0 am not doing any trouble here. ntonio alisacan told him, Z-L05 L>T:0 andwithout warning bo%ed him. Timoteo was hit on the forehead. #e intended to bo% bac' but he noticed that the victim waspulling out a 'itchen 'nife, so for fear of his life, he grabbed the weapon from ntonio alisacan and used the 'nife instabbing the latter who was hit at the side below the left armpit. #e stabbed the victim thrice.

HELD:The essence of treachery is the sudden and une%pected attac' by an aggressor without the slightest provocation onthe part of the victim, thus depriving the latter of any real chance to put up a defense, and thereby ensuring the commissionof the attac' without ris' to the aggressor. There is no treachery when the assault is preceded by a heated e%change ofwords between the accused and the victim or when the victim is aware of the hostility of the assailant towards the former. Int"e instant case, t"e #eral an& p"'sical s*uale prior to t"e attac pro#es t"at t"ere was no treac"er', an& t"at t"e #ictimwas aware of t"e imminent &an%er to "is life. 5oreover, the prosecution failed to establish that appellant had deliberatelyadopted a treacherous mode of attac' for the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to fight or retreat.Certainly, thevictim 'new that his scuffle with appellant could eventually turn into a violent physical clash. The e%istence of a strugglebefore the fatal blows were inflicted on the victim clearly shows that he was forewarned of the impending attac', and that hewas afforded the opportunity to put up a defense.0ndeed, a 'illing done at the spur of the moment is not

treacherous. 5oreover, any doubt as to the e%istence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused.>"C$*-" is guilty of homicide.

PEOPLE v DE LA CRU= 018 SCRA 0

I5NOMINYPEOPLE v *OSE ?3 SCRA 067

FACTS: 4une 27, 197 ; 5agdalena de la $iva was abducted outside her own by 4aime 4ose, >dgardo 3uino, asilio!ineda and $ogelio Canal. They brought 5aggie to "wan'y #otel. 4ose, 3uino, !ineda and Canal too' turns raping5aggie.



• They decided to leave her on a spot in front of the 6ree !ress uilding not far from >pifanio de los "antos venue nearChannel @ to ma'e it appear, according to them, that the complainant had ust come from the studio.

• They threatened that she would be doused with acid if she would inform anyone of the incident.• /hen she was inside the cab and alone with the driver, 5iguel 6. Campos, she bro'e down and cried. "he 'ept as'ing

the driver if a car was following them and each time the driver answered her in the negative• /hen she reached home she informed her mother of the incident• ppellant Canal and !ineda e%ecuted swore to separate statements on the day of their arrest

• Ca]al confirmed the information previously given by 4ose that the four of them waited for 5iss :e la $iva to come

down from the " "tudio, and that they had planned to abduct and rape her. ppellant Ca]al admitted that all fourof them participated in the commission of the crime, but he would ma'e it appear that insofar as he was concernedthe complainant yielded her body to him on condition that he would release her

• !ineda e%ecuted a statement stating that he and his other three companions wept to the " "tudio, and that, onlearning that 5iss :e la $iva was there, they made plans to wait for her and to follow her. #e admitted that his groupfollowed her car and snatched her and too' her to the "wan'y #otel. #e would ma'e it appear, however, that thecomplainant voluntarily acceded to having se%ual intercourse with him.

• 4ose, 3uino, Canal pleaded not guilty while !ineda pleaded guilty.

IssuesWON <<&vtin< %i&%u'stn%es (e&e $&esent.

• G>". ighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes• buse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another (Cf

!eople vs. :e 8u&man, et al., @1 !hil., 1A@, 11D)• I%nomin', since the appellants in ordering the complainant to e%hibit to them her complete na'edness for about ten

minutes, before raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to ma'e the effects of the crime morehumiliating

• use of a motor vehicle.

PEOPLE v 4UTLER 17 SCRA 21

FACTS:>melita !asco, the housemaid of the victim >nri3uita lipo, testified that her mistress came home with utler. They

immediately entered the victimIs bedroom. Thereafter, the victim left her bedroom holding an 0: card and a piece of paper,and on the piece of paper, the victim wrote the following words? 50C#>* 4. =T*>$, BB2@2<E@19 ="" #C-CL. !ascotestified that the victim said she was copying the name of the accused because she 'new he would not be going bac' toher. Then she rushed bac' to her bedroom after instructing !asco to wa'e her up the following morning. 2 efore retiring,however, the victimIs friend, $osemarie 4uare&, came to the formerIs house and after having a small conversation, also left.The following day !asco rose to wa'e her mistress as instructed. "he 'noc'ed at the door. "he found that the victim waslying on her bed, facing downward, na'ed up to the waist, with legs spread apart, with a bro'en figurine beside her head

HELD: /e find and sustain the finding of the lower court that the aggravating circumstance of outra%in% or scoffin% at t"ecorpse of the deceased applies against the accused since it is established that "e moce& or outra%e& at the person ocorpse of his victim by having an anal intercourse with her after she was already dead. The fact that the muscles of the anus

did not close and also the presence of spermato&oa in the anal region as testified to by :r. ngeles $o%as and clearlyestablished the coitus after death. This act of the accused in having anal intercourse with the woman after 'illing her is,undoubtedly, an outrage at her corpse.

PEOPLE v SAYLAN 1?7 SCRA 16

FACTS:>utropia . gno, a married woman and a teacher and her five<year old daughter ilsonita boarded a eepney andwhile inside the vehicle she noticed that the other passengers were $udy 8on&ales, $afael "aylan, and a couple whom shedid not 'now. 0t was almost 7?DA pm when the eepney arrived at the 5alinas and so all the passengers alighted and had towal'. The couple separated from the group and appellant oined the group of >utropia and suddenly pulled out a dagger andpointing it at >utropiaand dragged >utropia at some distance. #e ordered everybody to stop and told the children to stay



behind and threatened to 'ill them if they follow them.Thereafter, @ meters away from where ilsonita and $udy were"aylan ordered to lie down. "ubse3uently, appellant placed himself on top of the victim and inserted his penis into hervagina and succeeded in having se%ual intercourse. "econd intercourse happened. third time,in the dogIs way of se%uaintercourse.

"aylan did not deny having had se%ual intercourse with 5rs. gno in fact he admitted that he copulated with her for Dsuccessive times.

HELD:The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the missionary position, i.e. malesuperior, female inferior, but also JThe same position as dogs doJ i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there wasignominy because JThe studies of many e%perts in the matter have shown that this IpositionI is not novel and has repeatedlyand often been resorted to by couples in the act of copulation.J T"is ma' well e if t"e sexual act is performe& 'consentin% partners ut not ot"erwise."aylan is guilty of rape and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE v SIAO ?3 SCRA ?1

FACTS: $ene "iao in his residence ordered $eylan 8imena, his familys 1yr old houseboy, to pull >strella $aymundo,their 1Byr old housemaid, to the womens 3uarters. -nce inside, appellant "iao pushed her to the wooden bed and as'ed

her to choose one among a pistol, candle or a bottle of sprite. ppellant lit the candle and dropped the melting candle onher chest. >strella was made to lie down on her bac' on the bed wF her head hanging over one end. ppellant then pouredsprite into her nostrils as she was made to spread her arms wF his gun pointed to her face. ppellant "iao then tied her feetand hands wF an electric cord or wire as she was made to lie face down on the bed. s "iao pointed his pistol at her, heordered >strella to undress and commanded her to ta'e the initiative on 8imena. ot understanding what he meant,appellant motioned to her po'ing the gun at her temple. 8imena was then ordered to remove his shorts. #e did not do sobut only let his penis out. ppellant "iao spread the arms of >strella and made her lie down spread<eagled. "he felt di&&yand shouted for help twice. "iao then ordered 8imena to rape >strella. t first, 8imena refused because he has a sister.#owever, "iao said that if they would not obey, he would 'ill both of them.• oth 8imena and >strella were forced and intimidated at gunpoint by "iao to have carnal 'nowledge of each other.

They performed the se%ual act because they were afraid they would be 'illed. "iao commanded 8imena to rape >strella

in D diff positions (i.e. missionary position, side<by<side and dog position as narrated #i#i&l' in the case), pointing thehandgun at them the whole time. Thereafter, "iao warned them, 0f you will tell the police, 0 will 'ill your mothers.+• ppellant "iao, for his defense, denies the whole event. #e asserts that she retaliated through this accusation because

>strella herself was accused of stealing many of his familys personal effects.• TC held $ene "iao guilty as principal by induction of rape and imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and

indemnification of !h!@AL. 8imena was ac3uitted for having acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an e3ualif not greater inury.

HELD: "C respected TCs finding of facts and found any inconsistencies in the witnesses testimonies inconse3uentialconsidering that they referred to trivial matters wFc have nothing to do wF the essential fact of the commission of rape, that iscarnal 'nowledge through force and intimidation. >rgo, even if it was pointed out that in all D positions, 8imena eaculated

D% in a span of less than DA mins, wFc does not conform to common e%perience, rape was still present from the evidencebecause rape is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. !enetrationhowever slight, and not eaculation, is what constitutes rape. 5oreover, even if the house was occupied by many people atthe time of the crime, rape was still committed because lust is no respecter of time and place. nd >strellas and 8imenasdecision not to flee proves only the fear and intimidation that they were under because "iao was after all their amo+ oremployer who threatened to 'ill them or their family if they did not succumb to his demands.

The governing law is rt DD@ $!C as amended by $ 7@9 wFc imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, ifcommitted wF the use of a deadly weapon. The TC overloo'ed and did not ta'e into account the aggr circumstance ofignominy and sentenced accused<appellant to the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. 0t has been held thatwhere the accused in committing the rape used not only the missionary position i.e. male superior, female inferior but also



the dog position as dogs do, i.e. entry from behind, as was proven in the case, the aggr circumstance of ignominy attendedthe commission thereof.

#owever, the use of a deadly weapon serves to increase the penalty as opposed to a generic aggr circumstance wFc onlyaffects the perio& of the penalty. This nonetheless should be alleged in the information, because of the accuseds right to beinformed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Considering that the complaint failed to allege the use of adeadly weapon, the penalty to be rec'oned wF in determining the penalty for rape would be reclusion perpetua, asprescribed for simple rape. "imple rape is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, wFc must beapplied regardless of any mitFaggr circumstance wFc may have attended the commission of the deed. #ence, the penalty of

reclusion perpetua imposed by the TC is correct.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY

PEOPLE v 4AELLO 0 SCRA 12

FACTS: rgy. Capt. >usta3uio ora awo'e to find out that the front door of his house was open Y that their T set in thesala was missing. #e Y his wife went to the 2 nd floor Y found their daughter, eronica aello dead. "he was stabbed todeath. ora reported the incident to the authorities Y they later on discovered that some more items were missing in theirhouse. *ost items amount to about !@A'.• "uspects? 4ohn aello, also 'nown as Totong along with one 4erry whos still at large. /hyN T set discovered in the

house of aellos bro<in<law, >ugenio Tagifa. Tagifa e%ecuted a sworn statement testifying that it was aello who broughtthe T to their house. aello was captured later on Y he admitted that he too' part in the commission of the crime. #istestimony was ta'en in the presence of !- lawyer tty. 8eneroso since he couldnt afford his own counsel. #eadmitted that they passed through the window of the houses 2 nd floor however he claimed that he only got the T set Yhe didnt 'now what items 8erry too' from the house. #e further claimed that 8erry was responsible for eronicas deathsince he was the one who stayed on the 2 nd floor of the house.

• #e later on claimed that he was mauled Y that his lawyer didnt really helpFdefend him. ccording to him, tty. 8enerososimply stared at him Y that the lawyer as'ed aello to sign a typewritten statement wFthe promise that hell be releasedlater on. aellos mother attested to the fact that her son had contusions caused allegedly by one 8abriel, >usta3uiosnephew, who was in ail too.

• $TC found aello guilty.Y sentenced him to $! (reclusion perpetua) wFindemnity of !@A' Y ordered to pay !@A' as

repatriation for the stolen items.

ISSUES RATIO:/- the C of unlawful entry should be appreciated.

• G>". They entered the ora residence through the second floor window wFc is not intended for ingress.• -CT=$0TG also appreciated (C) since the crime was committed in the dar'ness Y they too' advantage of such

circumstance to accomplish the crime.HELD:Conviction affirmed.

PEOPLE v UYCO+UE 08 SCRA 382

FACTS:*ucas and his wife, 6rancisca 6lores heard someone 'noc'ing, *ucas opened the door. "uddenly, someonegrabbed *ucas and forced him out of the house. 6rancisca heard volley of gunshots. 6rancisca found *ucas lying prostrateon the ground. #e had been shot. 6rancisca saw 4ose illanueva and 2 other suspects surrounding her fallen husband.0nstinctively, 6rancisca embraced *ucas. 0r'ed, accused<appellant shoved her aside and in the process *ucas was releasedfrom her hold. Thereafter, she sought help from her neighbors. ccused<appellant and his cohorts fled.ccused<appellants contention is that he shot *ucas in self<defense.4ose illanueva is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of J +ur&er J.Carlo =yco3ue is hereby ac3uitted of the said charge for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the (said) accusedbeyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:/e affirm the udgment of conviction.



There is ale#osia since the attac' was sudden and une%pected, rendering the victim defenseless in the hands of hisassailants and ensuring the accomplishment of the assailantsI evil purpose. /e 3uote with approval the findings of the triacourt, thus?

The Court is convinced that the accused 'illed *ucas 6lores with treachery. illanueva and his cohorts preten&e& toe #isitors, noce& on t"e &oor to t"e "ouse of <ucas -lores an&, w"en t"e latter went to open t"e &oor, t"e accuse& an& "is co"orts t"en pulle& <ucas -lores out of t"e &oor an& s"ot "im to &eat" . *ucas 6lores sustained no less than gunshowounds. The incident was so sudden and une%pected. *ucas 6lores was not thus able to defend himself and ( sic) againsthe unforeseen assault on him.

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling also attended the commission of the crime even if the victim was 'illed outside hisresidence. personIs abode is regarded as a sanctuary which should be respected by everybody. #ere, while the victimwas resting in the comfort of his home, accused<appellant and his cohort(s) forcibly led him (the victim) out of his houseshortly before he was shot to death. t that point, the aggression had begun, although it ended outside the victimIshouse.n act performed cannot be divided or its unity be bro'en up, when the offender began the aggression in the dwellingof the offended party and ended it in the street or outside said dwelling. :welling is aggravating if the victim was ta'en fromhis house and 'illed ust beside his abode although the offense was not completed therein.

4REABIN5 A WALL, DOOR, ETC

PEOPLE v ASTUDILLO 071 SCRA 3?

FACTS: Clarence, Crisanto and #ilario studillo, went to house of lberto :amian. Clarence greeted lberto and as'ed thevictim, "ilvestre 3uino, to go with him. "ilvestre acceded and the two wal'ed towards 6loras "tore, where they were later oined by Crisanto and #ilario. /hile at the store, Crisanto and "ilvestre had an argument.5anuel areng and >duardoata, 12 and 11 years of age, saw Clarence stab "ilvestre with a bolo while Crisanto and #ilario held him by the wrists.Clarence delivered several stab blows at the bac' and on the chest of the victim until the latter fell to the ground.Thereafter, the three appellants fled on board a tricycle."ilvestre was rushed to the 5unicipal #ealth -ffice of angued,bra, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.Clarence said "ilvestre struc' him on the head and arm with an empty one<liter softdrin' bottle.#ilario arrived and tried topacify "ilvestre but the latter attac'ed him. s he retreated, he saw a 'nife which he then swung at the victim. "ilvestrewas hit but continued to attac' him. *eft with no choice, #ilario stabbed "ilvestre 2 or D times. /hen the latter collapsed to

the ground, #ilario rushed to the succor of his elder brother, Clarence

HELD? 0n order that treachery may be considered, the following re3uisites must concur? (1) the employment of means,method or manner of e%ecution which would ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliatory acts on thepart of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate and (2) the means, method, ormanner of e%ecution were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.PD7Q #ere, it is clear that treachery 3ualifiedthe 'illing of the deceased to murder, considering that the appellants deliberately restrained the victim so as to enable oneof them to successfully deliver the stab blows without giving the latter a chance to defend himself or to retaliate.studillo nteng+ or >nteng+, and #ilario studillo oda+, are guilty of murder.


FACTS:"urviving victim #erminigildo :amuag on ov 2B, 199, he was driving his motorcycle with lden biabi riding withhim at the bac'. /hen they reached !ica *umber, a white car overtoo' their motorcycle and bloc'ed their path, forcing himto slow down. nother motorcycle, with 2 riders on it, appeared behind the first motorcycle. 6rom a distance of 2<Dmeters,1 of the riders of the second motorcycle suddenly fired 2 shots in close succession. :amuag attempted to loo' at the tires ofhis motorcycle, thin'ing that they have e%ploded. "uddenly, biabi pushed him with his body. biabi fell from themotorcycle and slumped on the pavement face down. The white car sped away. s :amuag was trying to control hismotorcycle, he noticed another motorcycle (third motorcycle) passed by from behind him. #is motorcycle &ig&aggedtowards the gutter. :amuag was thrown off and hit the ground. #e stood up and reali&ed that he was hit at the right side ofhis body. #e then heard a burst of gunfire from behind. -co was at the bac' of the third motorcycle, fired his gun at him butmissed. :amuag was able to run. #owever, the third motorcycle chased him. =pon reaching the vicinity of 6ive rothers



restaurant, :amuag stopped because he could not pass anymore. 6rom a distance of about B<@ meters, -co again fired 2more shots at :amuag.:amuag was rushed to the #ospital. #e survived the attac' due to the timely medical attentiongiven to him. biabi did not survive the ambush. #e sustained E gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body. Theprosecution theori&ed that the shooting incident was drug<related. The late biabi was a 'nown anti<drug advocate whilethe -co was a suspected drug lord.

HELD:/e agree with the trial court that treachery attended the 'illing of biabi and the wounding of :amuag. There istreachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the

e%ecution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its e%ecution, without ris' to himself arising from the defensewhich the offended party might ta'e.+P92Q 6or treachery to e%ist, two conditions must be found? (1) that at the time of theattac', the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the offender consciously adopted the particular means,method or form of attac' employed by him.P9DQ 0n the case at bar, the motorcycle driven by :amuag (first motorcycle) wassuddenly bloc'ed by a white Tamaraw 6[. /ithout any warning, the bac'rider of the second motorcycle, coming frombehind, suddenly fired successive shots at :amuag and biabi. /hile biabi was helplessly laid at the pavement face downdue to the wounds he sustained, appellant mercilessly shot at him. -n the other hand, :amuag, already wounded, tried toescape but appellant pursued him and shot at him three more times. The une%pected and sudden attac' on the victims,rendering them unable and unprepared to defend themselves, such suddenness having been meant to ensure the safety ofthe gunman as well as the success of the attac' clearly constitutes alevosia.

WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 16,OR WITH MOTOR 9EHICLES

PEOPLE v ON5 "*ANUARY ?7, 136#

FACTS: enamin -ng used to play mahong with #enry Chua, Lo Ling !in, 8o on Lim and 5arcelo Tanlimco. #e lostsubstantially that at one time, it amounted to as much as !1@A, AAA.AA. #e suspected that he lost in unfair games and wascompletely cheated by #enry Chua and the latterIs companions, who made things worse by pressing him to pay hisgambling debt with a threat of bodily harm upon his person and that of his family. The deceased and his companionsembarrassed -ng, incident after incident, especially when they went time and again to enamin -ngIs office at the cme"hoes. -ng sought the assistance of 6ernando Tan, aldomero mbrosia and ienvenido Huintos. The B met and finali&ed their

plan to li3uidate Chua. The group, riding in enamin -ngIs iscayne car, then went to the mihan ightclub .-ng andChuamet there and had a couple of drin's. The duo left t and rode in #enryIs car. 6ernando Tan, ienvenido Huintos andaldomero mbrosio riding in -ngIs car, followed the couple, they made a turn towards a dirt road. /hen they reached adar' and secluded place, enamin -ng urged Chua to stop the car in order to urinate, to which the latter obliged. 0t was atthis time that the iscayne car arrived and 6ernando Tan and aldomero mbrosio alighted with a flashlight and pretendedto be policemen. 6ernando Tan po'ed his gun at Chua and pulled him down from his car with mbrosio giving him help.They then guided and forced him inside the rear part of the iscayne. #e was made to lie, face up. #is hands were tied andhis mouth gagged with a flannel cloth. 6ernando Tan and ienvenido Huintos then rested their feet on him. aldomerombrosio drove the iscayne while enamin -ng drove the 5ustang and followed them from behind.The group reached adeserted place and it was here that #enry Chua was stabbed twice with an icepic' and buried there with all his belongingswith him consisting of a !iaget watch, lighter, wallet containing !@A bills, driverIs license, dinerIs card, etc.

HELD:ggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle in the commission of the crime. The iscayne car of enamin -ngwas used in trailing the victimIs car from /igwam ightclub up to the time that it was overta'en and bloc'ed. 0t carried thevictim on the way to the scene of the 'illing, it contained at its baggage compartment the pic' and shovel used in digging thegrave it was the fast means of fleeing and absconding from the scene. gain, the motor vehicle facilitated the star'happening. 0t has been held that the use of a motor vehicle is aggravating in murder where the said vehicle was used intransporting the victim and the accused.

enamin -ng and ienvenido Huintos are guilty of the crime of murder with the attendant 3ualifying circumstance oftreachery, and the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and use of motor vehicle.



PEOPLE v ASTUDILLO 071 SCRA 3?

FACTS: Clarence, Crisanto and #ilario studillo, went to house of lberto :amian. Clarence greeted lberto and as'ed thevictim, "ilvestre 3uino, to go with him. "ilvestre acceded and the two wal'ed towards 6loras "tore, where they were later oined by Crisanto and #ilario. /hile at the store, Crisanto and "ilvestre had an argument.5anuel areng and >duardoata, 12 and 11 years of age, saw Clarence stab "ilvestre with a bolo while Crisanto and #ilario held him by the wrists.Clarence delivered several stab blows at the bac' and on the chest of the victim until the latter fell to the ground.Thereafter, the three appellants fled on board a tricycle."ilvestre was rushed to the 5unicipal #ealth -ffice of angued,

bra, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.Clarence said "ilvestre struc' him on the head and arm with an empty one<liter softdrin' bottle.#ilario arrived and tried topacify "ilvestre but the latter attac'ed him. s he retreated, he saw a 'nife which he then swung at the victim. "ilvestrewas hit but continued to attac' him. *eft with no choice, #ilario stabbed "ilvestre 2 or D times. /hen the latter collapsed tothe ground, #ilario rushed to the succor of his elder brother, Clarence

HELD ? s regards the generic a%%ra#atin% circumstance of use of motor #e"icle , t"e trial court erre& in appreciatin% thesame inasmuch as the prosecution failed to show that the tricycle was deliberately used by the appellants to facilitate thecommission of the crime or that the crime could not have been committed without it. The use of motor vehicle is notaggravating where the use thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of theoffense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.

Clarence studillo, Crisanto studillo nteng+ or >nteng+, and #ilario studillo oda+, are guilty of the crime ofmurder .

CRUELTYPEOPLE v ILAOA ?? SCRA ?1

FACTS: decapitated body of a man was found in a grassy portion at Tinio "t., ngeles City. #e was later identified asestor de *oyola thru his voters identification.• part from the decapitation, the decease bore BD stab wounds in the chest as well as slight burns all over the body.• The head was found 2 feet away from the corpse (nice\yech\)• @ persons were charged for the crime although $uben and $ogelio 0laoa were the only ones who stood trial and the two

were found guilty of murder attended by evident premeditation, abuse of superios strength and cruelty.

• Circumstancial evidence established that estor was drin'ing with the two, and later $uben and estor were engaged inan argument. estor was then 'ic'ed and mauled by $uben and his brother $odel and 4ulius >liginio and >dwinTapang. Thereafter he was dragged to $ubens apartment. $uben and 4ulius later borrowed the tricycle of a certain le%illamil. $uben was seen driving the tricycle with a sac' in the sidecar that loo'ed li'e it contained a human body. le%noted bloodstains on the tricycles floor. lood was found in $ubens shirt and shoes and hair near his right forehead wasfound partly burned. "usan -campo, $ubens live<in partner was li'ewise seen sweeping what appeared to be blood atthe entrance of their apartment.

ISSUE:WON %&i'e (s ttended (it) %&ue!t@• -. The fact that estors decapitated body bearing BD stab wounds, 2B of which were fatal, was found dumped in

the street is not sufficient for a finding of cruelty where there is no showing that $uben, for his pleasure and

satisfaction, cause estor to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain.• umber of wound alone is not the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance

either can it be inferred from the mere fact that the victims body was dismembered

PEOPLE v ALLAN 06 SCRA 60

FACTS: 4oseph "alinas, thirteen<year old son of the victim $oberto "alinas, testified that after they had gone fishing,$oberto decided to have a bottle of beer at a store. 4oseph !roceeded to go home. 6e 8utierre& instructed 4oseph to fetchhis father. 4oseph saw $obert and :emetrio stabbing his father while the other two men restrained his hands. nunidentified person, rthur :oe, stabbed the middlebac' part of the victim. $oberto was slumped prostrate against the wallhe was shot at the left temple by a person who has not, as yet, been apprehended.



$obert and :emetrio interposed the defense of alibi. $obert testified that he had gone fishing and came home only thefollowing morning. :emetrio claimed that he stayed overnight in arrio 5alimpec.

HELD:The Court is not convinced that cruelty had been sufficiently shown on the basis of this finding alone. Cruelty cannotbe appreciated in the absence of any showing that appellants, for their pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to sufferslowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The mere fact that wounds in e%cess of whatwas indispensably necessary to cause death were found in the body of the victim does not necessarily imply that suchwounds were inflicted with cruelty and with the intention of deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or aggravating the

sufferings of the victim.$obert lban and :emetrio lban are guilty of murder.

PEOPLE v SI4ON5A 070 SCRA 17

FACTS: 4uan eranio was the leader of the 8reenan,+ an aggrupation of civilians, who tas'ed themselves to preservepeace and order in the community. 0sugan, icente and #enry proceeded to the house of 4uan eranio who, wheninformed of icentes problem, agreed to arrest 8audioso.4uan eranio wo'e up 8audioso saying. 4uan eranio demanded to 'now from 8audioso why he bo%ed 4ulia. 8audiosoreplied that he did so because of his anger, and that he was drun'. 4uan eranio right then and there declared that8audioso was at fault. #e told 8audioso that he would have to be brought to the municipal building. #e also told 0sugan to

go with the men so that if 8audioso would sustain inuries, 0sugan would declare that 8audioso had fought bac'. 0suganagreed. /hen they were about three 'ilometers away, the group stopped. Cristitoto 5ari]as suddenly stabbed 8audioso onhis right side. >ufrecino "ibonga, for his part, stabbed the victim at the bac'. The rest of the men too' turns in stabbing thevictim. 0sugan was afraid to help. #e might also be 'illed if he intervened for the victim. #e opted to 'eep silent. 0suganthen heard a gunshot. The 8reenan members carried the body of the victim to a nearby precipice. /hen the accused andappellants returned, accused 4uan eranio told 0sugan? /e dropped the dead body to the precipice because this is our law(sic) if somebody fights bac'.+The group then dispersed

HELD: The Court agrees with the appellants contention that the trial court erre& in rulin% t"at cruelt' atten&e& thecommission of the crime when the victim was thrown into the precipice. The trial court premised its ruling on its finding thatwhen the appellants and their co<accused threw the victim into the precipice, he was still alive.

Cruelty in the commission of a felony is appreciated when the wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberatelyaugmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission. There is no cruelty when the other wrong is doneafter the victim is already dead. The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the accuseddeliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, orinhumanly increased the victims suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. 0n this case, the evidence of theprosecution as gleaned from the testimony of 8audioso 0sugan 3uoting accused 4uan eranio is that when the accused andappellants threw the victim into the precipice, the latter was already dead.

PEOPLE v SOLAMILLO 070 SCRA 11

FACTS:The victim owned the *iberty a'ery and 8rocery hisemployees were appellant 4ulian "olamillo, >dgardo >barle

and >ddie Trumata, who lived together in the ba'ery.>dgardo >barle, >ddie Trumata and appellants were at theba'ery. leli 8uiroy, the victims daughter, saw them when she arrived.The ne%t morning, leli returned to the ba'ery butwas unable to open the doors. "he sought help from her uncle, *oren&o 8uiroy who, in turn, as'ed /arlito 8ono& toaccompany her bac' to the ba'ery. /hen /arlito peeped through a window, he saw the victim lying on thefloor. 0mmediately, they reported the matter to the police.!-D Celso Tan "anche& arrived and found the victims dead body,a wooden stool, a bolo and a piece of aawan (firewood), all with blood. The table drawers were open and the ba'ery wasin disarray.leli informed !-D "anche& that her fathers !2A, AAA.AA, wallet and "ei'o watch were missing.

HELD: The trial court erred in appreciating against appellants the aggravating circumstances that the crime was committed?(a) by a band (b) with evident premeditation (c) with deliberate cruelty and (d) with treachery.



The trial court held that the crime was committed with deliberate cruelty considering that the victim suffered 21 hac' andstab<wounds, contusions and abrasions on the different parts of his body. T"e numer of woun&s is not t"e criterion for t"eappreciation of cruelt' as an a%%ra#atin% circumstance. The mere fact that wounds in e%cess of what is necessary to causedeath were inflicted upon the body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty.0t isnecessary to show that the accused intentionally and deliberately increased the victimIs suffering. 0n this case, there is noevidence showing appellants intent to commit such cruelty.:u'du' "olamillo and 4ulian "olamillo are found 8=0*TG of the crime of $->$G /0T# #-50C0:>.

ALTERNATI9E CIRCUMSTANCESRPC, A&t. 16T"eir concept. M lternative circumstances are those which must be ta'en into consideration as aggravating or mitigatingaccording to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are therelationship, into%ication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be ta'en into consideration when the offended party in the spouse,ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of theoffender.The into%ication of the offender shall be ta'en into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender hascommitted a felony in a state of into%ication, if the same is not habitual or subse3uent to the plan to commit said felony butwhen the into%ication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

RELATIONSHIPPEOPLE v ATOP28 SCRA 163

FACTS:$egina 8uafin, told the court that she is a granddaughter of Trinidad 5eos and that the accused leandro top isthe common law husband of said Trinidad top• #er mother is a daughter of Trinidad top and lives in !angasinan. "he is an illegitimate child and she does not even

'now her father. "ince her early childhood she stayed with her grandmother Trinidad top and the accused. "ometime in1991 when she was already 1A years of age the accused started having lustful desire on her. The accused then insertedhis finger into her vagina. "he told her grandmother about this but her grandmother did not believe her. "he was then

told by her grandmother, Trinidad 5eos, that what her grandfather did to her was ust a manifestation of fatherlyconcern. "he continued staying with her grandmother and her common law husband leandro top.• -ct. 9, 1992 ; top had carnal 'nowledge of $egina. $egina informed her grandmother but her grandmother refused to

believe her.• $egina reported the incidents of rape that happened in 1992, 199D, and 199B only in 4anuary 199@. "he said that she

was afraid to report the incident because li threatened to 'ill her.li denied the accusations of $egina and imputed ill motive upon her aunts, who were the daughters of his live in partner.

Issues:• WON t)e %i&%u'stn%e o; &e!tions)i$ s <<&vtin< %n e $$&e%ited.

• "cope of $elationship

"pouse

• scendant• :escendant• *egitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister• $elative by affinity in the same degree

• $elationship by affinity refers to a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. $elatives by affinity are thosecommonly referred to as in<laws, stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the li'e.

• $elatives by consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under the second, third and fourth enumeration above.• The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common<law relations.



• There is no blood relationship or legal bond that lin's the appellant to his victim. T"us, t"e mo&if'in% circumstance ofrelations"ip cannot e consi&ere& a%ainst "im

INTO/ICATION

PEOPLE vI4AE= J5.R. Nos. 1???-0. *u!@ ?7, 77?K

FACTS:6eli% -landa, in his early eighties, and wife $osario, 2 were soundly asleep when 6eli% suddenly felt somebody

hac' him. 6eli% recogni&ed appellant who used to reside in the house of their neighbor. #e went to the main door of theirhouse and as'ed for help. #e saw his wife already dead.>arlier on the same date, appellant went to the house of 4uanito "armiento. "armiento saw appellant with scratches on hislegs, 'nees and arms. 0ba]e& told him that he escaped from his employer who is a pala' dealer and as'ed for money inorder to go to =mangan. "armiento gave him!2A.AA. -n -ctober 2A, 1997, "armiento reported the incident to thepolice. /hen he was shown the items recovered from the crime scene ; olo, maon% pants, t<shirt, and belt ; herecogni&ed them to be those of appellant. tty. 8avino illanueva assisted appellant in the e%ecution of the e%traudicialconfession of his guilt to the commission of the crimes of murder and frustrated murder.

0""=>? /- T#> T$0* C-=$T >$$>: 0 -T !!*G08 50T08T08 C0$C=5"TC>" -6 -*=T$G"=$$>:>$, -*=T$G C-6>""0- -6 8=0*T : 0T-[0CT0- 0 6-$ -6 T#> CC=">:.

HELD:0nto%ication as a generic mitigating circumstance. =nder rticle 1@ of the $evised !enal Code, into%ication is mitigatingwhen it is not habitual or subse3uent to the plan to commit the felony. To be mitigating, the accuseds state of into%icationmust be proved.0n the case at bar, appellant merely alleged that when the offenses were committed, he was sodrun'. #owever, his self<serving statement in the e%traudicial confession was not corroborated by other evidence. Thedefense did not present evidence neither was it elicited on cross<e%amination of 4uanito "armiento who testified thatappellant went to see him between D?AA and B?AA in the morning on the date of incident. Thus, appellants bare assertion ointo%ication is devoid of any probative value.

4uanito 0ba]e& 8=0*TG of the crimes of 5urder and 6rustrated 5urder is 660$5>: with 5-:060CT0-"?

PEOPLE v 4A*AR 010 SCRA 00

FACTS:na aar $abor visited her parents in their house, her mother *olita, suggested that since her father was verydrun', she should sleep at the house of her maternal grandfather, the victim 3uilio, 1AA meters away. leandro, who wasstill obviously very drun', in3uiring whether his wife was in the house.3uilio answered that his wife was in their(leandros) house. leandro accused 3uilio of lying and of hiding his daughter. na heard a sound and saw thatleandro was carrying a bolo and approaching her grandfather. "he saw her father hac' her grandfather, who was lying onthe bed. "he got up, ran towards the sala, and saw her father still hac'ing his grandfather. /hile he was being stabbed andattac'ed, 3uilio stood up to embrace his son<in<law. na shouted for help as she held down the hand which her fatherused to wield the bolo.

leandro testified that on the date and time in 3uestion, he left his two daughters, na and lma, and his two grandchildren,5ary 4oy and nn<nn, at his house. #e proceeded to his father<in<laws house to loo' for his wife. =pon arrival, he greeted3uilio with respect? !a, good evening.+ The latter replied that *olita was not there and invited him (leandro) to go up andsee for himself. leandro went up, and not finding his wife, said? "he is not here !a.+ 3uilio angrily retorted? >verytimeyou are drun' you come here to as' me.+ 3uilio then suddenly clubbed leandro on the head with a 2 % D coco lumber hesaw near the door.leandro then touched his head, and saw blood on his hand. #e felt di&&y. "eeing that 3uilio was aboutto attac' him again, he drew out his hunting 'nife and defended himself by moving his hand from the right to left. #e felt hehit something before he lost consciousness.HELD:/e affirm leandros conviction.



/ith regard to the alternative circumstance of into%ication, which the trial court treated as aggravating , we fin& t"at it "asnot een s"own to e "aitual or intentional as re*uire& ' Article 15 of the $evised !enal Code. *olita testified that hehusband would drin' li3uor once a wee' but was not a fre3uent drin'er.+ "he also admitted that on that fateful day, therewas a fiesta celebration at arangay 5ambayaan. s leandro insists, it was but natural for him to drin' li3uor during fiestacelebrations. 0n the absence of clear and positive proof that leandros into%ication was habitual or subse3uent to the planto commit the crime, it is improper to consider the same as an aggravating circumstance. either can into%ication beconsidered mitigating in the instant case, there being no proof that the appellant was so drun' that his will<power wasimpaired or that he could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts.

PEOPLE v MOSENDE ?31 SCRA 008

FACTS:*eticia Wabala "apupo saw Cayetano LTanoM 5osende, leaning on the fence, ust arms away from where shestood. The vicinity was sufficiently illuminated from neighboring houses and a nearby construction site. 5osende wasunaware of being watched because she by then had the lights in the house turned off. /TanoM was 'nown in theneighborhood of closely<'nit urban dwellers as being a habitual drun'ard and troublema'er when inebriated. *eticia saw5osende wal' towards the mango tree where >nri3ue "efriuto, popularly called by neighbors as ndrew,+ was lying faceup on a nearby bench. 5oments later, ndrew stood up and wal'ed some distance away to urinate. 5osende also roseentered the yard and positioned himself behind ndrew while the latter was relieving himself. /hen ndrewfaced LTano,M the latter, without warning, stabbed the unsuspecting victim twice at the left portion of the abdomen. *eticia

sprung to call for help. $elatives immediately brought him to the hospital but the young man died.

HELD:The court a *uo, in considering the aggravating circumstance of into%ication, gave much weight to the testimony thatappellant was so identified as a habitual drun'ard. /hile *eticia "apupo testified to having seen 5osende drin'ing analcoholic beverage at a store earlier the afternoon of the incident, nothing would show that he was in any state ofinto%ication or in drun'en condition when the dastardly deed was being committed.Cayetano 5osende is guilty of murder.

PEOPLE 9 RENE*ANE 162 SCRA 008

FACTS? -n ov 1, 19E1, at 11!5, *aborte and 5araasin were invited to the house of eniano to parta'e of some food and

drin's. fter a considerable length of time, !aulino *aborte stabbed policeman 5ario de 4esus. 0t was followed by anotherstabbing done by eniano $eneane. *i'ewise, the police officers companion, $egino 5araasin was also stabbed by$odolfo $ipdos.

0t was alleged that previously, in -ct, the police officer apprehended $eneane for illegal possession of mariuana and that5araasin was suspected of having been the informer. $eneane, as his motive, must have harbored a grudge against thecomrades.

HELD? :enials made and alibi advanced by the appellant cannot prevail over their positive identification. 6urthermore$eneane had a motive in the 'illing.

Intoi%tion is aggravating if it is habitual or intention. The fact that the accused dran' li3uor prior to the commission of thecrime did not necessarily 3ualify such action as an aggr circumstance. The affair was an ordinary drin'ing party. eithercan this be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the absence of proof that the inta'e of alcoholic drin's was of such3uantity as to blur the appellants reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control. This has been strengthened by thefact that treachery has been established. Therefore, the means of e%ecution employed were deliberately or consciouslyadopted. 5oreover, the aggr circumstance of the act being in disregard of ran' is appreciable in the case at bar.

/herefore, udgment appealed from is affirmed. !enalty modified from reclusion perpetua to reclusion temporal in its ma%period to reclusion perpetua.



PEOPLE v CAMANO 116 SCRA 822

FACTS: 6eb. 1, 19A bet. B Y @ p.m. in ato, "agnay, Camarines "ur? Camano, after drin'ing li3uor, stabbed 8odofredo!ascua wFa bolo while the latter was wal'ing along the barrio street almost in front of the store of one "ocorro uates.!ascua sustained 2 mortal wounds wFc caused his death. fterwards, Camano went to the seashore of the barrio where hefound 5ariano uenaflor leaning at the gate of the fence of his house in a 'neeling position wFboth arms on top of the fenceY his head stooping down. Camano then hac'ed uenaflor wFthe same bolo sustaining E wounds wFc caused latters death.o proof of any altercation between the accused Y victims prior to the incidents.• D yrs before the incident, the victims had a misunderstanding wFthe accused. Camano as'ed for !ascua to tow his

fishing boat wFthe motorboat owned by uenaflor but the two refused to do so. Camano resented such refusal. >ven ifthey were seen drin'ing together later on, the friendly attitude was more artificial than real. Camano refused to associatewFthe 2 Y a neighbors attempt to reconcile the D was repeatedly refused. nd in instances when Camano was drun',hed even challenge uenaflor to a fight Y announce his evil intention to 'ill them.

• !rosecution? Camano surrendered upon demand of the peace officers. #e admitted that he owned the bolo used in the'illing Y such was hidden under the table of his house. !atrolman aluyot found the bolo at the place indicated byCamano. The bolo was still stained wFhuman blood. #e li'ewise admitted that 'illed !ascua Y uenaflor in self<defensebut he refused to sign his statement. #e was charged wFmurder attended by evident premeditation Y treachery.

• :efense? Camano claims that he went fishing early morning of 6eb. 1. uenaflor, upon seeing that he had a big catch,demanded a percentage for the fishery commission. Camano refused to pay Y saw uenaflor called him hard headed

#e went home afterwards. fter dinner, he prepared to go out to sea again. /hile standing in the yard of his house, hesaw uenaflor Y !ascua having a drin'ing session wFa group of men at the score of "ocorro uates. #e claims that theuenaflors group approached him Y wFo any provocation, !ascua bo%ed him. uenaflor punched him also. #e claimsthat when !ascua was about to bolo him, he was able to grab the bolo from !ascua. !ascua then fell on the ground Ythe rest of the group ran away e%cept for uenaflor who approached him. uenaflor was also armed wFa bolo wFcprompted Camano to bolo him. uenaflor ran away once he was wounded but Camano ran after him claiming thatformer had a gun at home wFc he might use to shoot Camano later on. Thus, he hac'ed uenaflor to death. #e denies'illing !ascua Y claims that the fight was due to a heated argument Y their drun'enness.

Issues Rtio:WON t)e !te&ntive %i&%u'stn%e o; intoi%tion s)ou!d e $$&e%ited s n <<&vtin< %i&%u'stn%e.

• -. 0T" 50T08T08. Camanos counsel claims that there was no proof of accuseds into%ication at the time of the'illing other than !ayagos testimony that he saw Camano drin'ing in his house about DA meters away. o policereportFdoctors certification was presented either. 6urthermore, theres no proof that accused purposefully got drun'to facilitate the commission of the offense. 0f into%ication should be appreciated it should be used as mitigatingcircumstance since it diminished his capacity to 'now the inustice of his acts Y comprehend fully the conse3uence ofhis acts.

• 5itigating if accidental, not habitual or intentional Y not subse3uent to the plan to commit the crime. 0t must beindubitably proven.

• ggravating if habitual or intentional. #abitual drun'ard is one given to into%ication by e%cessive use of into%icatingdrin's. #abit should be actual Y confirmed. ot necessarily a daily occurrence but it must lessen the individualsresistance to evil thought Y undermine will power ma'ing its victim a potential evildoer.

•

o proof that Camano was a habitual drin'er although he used to get drun' every now Y then. >ven !agayostestimony does not establish the habitual drin'ing of Camano. The into%ication not being habitual Y since accusedwas in a state of into%ication at the time of the commission of the crime, into%ication should be appreciated as amitigating circumstance.

He!d: Camano is guilty of murder.

DE5REE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATIONPEOPLE v 5ALI5AO 5R 10781

FACTS: :orivie 8aligao, 12, testified that sometime in the night of 6ebruary 1997, her sisters :eborrah and :aisy, togetherwith their brother :e%ter, were sleeping in their house. Their mother, *ourdes Calderon<8aligao, had left for 5anila. :orivie



was roused from her sleep when she felt someone ta'ing off her panties. "he wo'e up and saw that it was her fatherobby 8aligao. #er father raped her.fter satisfying his lust, accused<appellant went to the bathroom to wash himself. "heput on her panties and went bac' to sleep. 5eanwhile, accused<appellant went to his room. :orivie revealed that prior tothe incident her father had raped her several times beginning when she was 9.:orivie also narrated how :eborrah and:aisy were ravished by her father. t one time, she saw accused<appellant crawling towards :eborrah and lay under theblan'et beside her. :orivie, who was only one meter away, noticed that there was movement underneath the covers:orivie further testified that she saw her father rape :aisy, her eldest sister. #owever, she did not do anything for fear thataccused<appellant will 'ill her. s in :eborahs case, :orivie was only a meter away when she witnessed :aisys se%ua

abuse in the hands of their father.8aligao admitted having raped :aisy, but claimed he did so to get bac' at her mother who left him for a man with whom shealready had a child. #e denied having raped :orivie and :eborrah and argued that the charges against him were filed atthe instigation of his wife.HELD: AR/. 07. $n 'hat cases the death %enalt# shall not "e im%osed1 utomatic review of :eath !enalty Cases. ; Thedeath penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under e%isting laws, e%cept when the guilty personis below eighteen (1E) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or whenupon appeal or automatic review of the case by the "upreme Court, the re3uired maority vote is not obtained for theimposition of the death penalty, in which cases, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.

The Court ac'nowledged that circumstances could e%ist to warrant an e%ercise of such forbearance. 0n !eople v. "antos

the Court considered the acts of the deceased victim, a former municipal mayor, in clearing and wor'ing on the land claimedby the 0longots which could have been seen by the accused as an act of oppression and abuse of authority which he feltmorally bound to forestall, as well as the limited schooling of the accused, as ustification to reduce the penalty of death toreclusion perpetua. 0n !eople v. :e la Cru&, the Court too' into account in lowering the penalty to reclusion perpetua on theaccused most of whom were already death row convicts, the deplorable sub<human conditions of the ational !enitentiarywhere the crime was committed. 0n !eople v. 5arcos, the failure of appellant to reali&e the gravity of his offense was held to ustify the reduction of the penalty to reclusion perpetua. "ere, as in t"e ao#e4mentione& Santos case, accuse&4appellants limite& sc"oolin% was taen into consi&eration to re&uce "is penalt' to reclusion perpetua, we can &o no less"erein consi&erin% t"at accuse&4appellant is an unlettere& fis"erman.Criminal Cases os. C<B9B and C<B9? 8aligao is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rapeCH=0TT>: in Criminal Case o. C<B97.

I9. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIA4LEARTICLE 18, RPC"o are criminall' liale. M The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies?

1. !rincipals.2. ccomplices.D. ccessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies?1. !rincipals2. ccomplices.

A.PRINCIPALS

ARTICLE 13, RPCrincipals. M The following are considered principals?

1. Those who ta'e a direct part in the e%ecution of the act2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit itD. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have beenaccomplished.



DIRECT PARTICIPATIONPEOPLE v NUNA5 13? SCRA 30

FACTS? Complainant, *oren&a *ope&, then about 1@.@ y.o., declared that in the 2nd w' of 5ay 19E, at DA!5, while shewas watch a T program in the house of her neighbor, *a%amana, she saw the accused 5ario unag, 1 of her neighbors,coming towards her. unag, staggering Y drun', came to her Y as'ed her to go wF him. ecause she refused, unag heldher by the hand Y po'ed a 'nife at her stomach Y threatened to 'ill her. unag placed something in her mouth Y led her toa nearby ricefield, about 1@m. away from *a%amanas house. ery soon thereafter, the accused was oined by B others,

whom she 'new also. fter conspiring in whispers, 5andap Y "alangsang held her hands while Carpio Y 5analili held herfeet Y forced her to lie on the ground. unag undressed her Y had se%ual intercourse wF her. fter him, 5andap followed."he lost consciousness Y only regained it while 5analili was abusing her. The @ accused left wF a threat that they would 'ilher Y her family.

fter the incident, the complainant missed her menstruation period whenit became due and noticed that her stomach wasgetting bigger. Get she didnt tell anybody until her family noticed. 0n -ct 19E, she gave birth prematurely to female twinswho died after baptism.

ccused unag admitted having se%ual intercourse wF *ope& but denied the charge of rape. #e asserted that it was whilehe was sleeping when she came on to him and they went to the ricefield to relieve their lasciviousness. "he as'ed moneyafter the act and he gave her !h!B.AA and went home.

ccused "alangsang offers the same testimony but asserts that he gave *ope& !2 instead. ccused 5analili also

contends that it was *ope& who came on to her but he refused to give her money. 0t was only Carpio Y 5andap who deniedhaving se%ual intercourse wF her.HELD? C$050* *00*0TG -6 >C# CC=">: 0 C"> T $ M >ach of the @ accused<appellants must be foundguilty of D distinct and separate crimes of rape, the first three, namely, 5ario unag, rnel 5andap and :iosdado 5analili,' &irect act an& participationand the other two, namely, :anilo Carpio and >fren "alangsang, in the absence of conclusiveproof that they had se%ual intercourse with complainant, ' in&ispensale cooperation, since they aided the three (D)accused in having se%ual intercourse with the complainant.

PEOPLE v DORIA ?71 SCRA 882

FACTS: Two civilian informants informed the !! arcom that one 4un was engaged in illegal drug activities and the

arcom agents decided to entrap and arrenst 4un+ in a buy<bust operation.• -n the day of entrapment, !-D 5anlangit handed 4un+ the mar'ed bills and 4un+ instructed !-D 5anlangit to wait for

him while he got the mariuana from his associate.• /hen they met up, 4un+ gave !-D something wrapped in plastic upon which !-D arrested 4un+. They fris'ed 4un but

did not find the mar'ed bills on him. 4un+ revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named neneth+• They wen to eneths house. !-D 5anlangit noticed a carton bo% under the dinin table and noticed something wrapped

in plastic inside the bo%.• "uspicious, !-D entered the house and too' hold of the bo% and found that it ha 1A bric's of what appeared to be dried

mariuana leaves.• "imultaneously, "!-1 adua recovered the mar'ed bills from eneth. The policemen arrested eneth and too' both

her and 4un, together with the co&, its contents and the mar'ed bill and turned them over to the investigator at

head3uarters,• 4un was then learned to be 6lorencio :oria while eneth is iolata 8addao.• They were both convicted feloniously selling, administering and giving away to another 11 plastic bags of suspected

mariuana fruiting tops, in violation of $. 7B2@, as amended by $ 7@9

Issue: /- ioleta 8addao is liable• >ntrapment is recogni&ed as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused Y parta'es the nature of a confession Y

avoidance.• merican federal courts and state courts usually use the subective+ or origin of intent+ test laid down in "orrells v. =.".

to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the in3uiry is on the accuseds predisposition to committhe offense is charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial e%posure to government agents.



• nother test is the obective test where the test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agenst wasli'ely to induce a normally law<abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense.

• The obective test in buy<bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly Yade3uately shown. Courts should loo' at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offensein so far as they are relevant to determine the validty of the defense of inducement.

• 0n the case at bar, 8addao was not caught red<handed during the buy<bust operation to give ground for her arrest uner"ec. @a of $ule 11D. "he was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the TC, there was no occasion at allfor 8addao to flee from the policement to ustify her arrest in hot pursuit+

• either could her arrest ne ustified under second instance of personal 'nowledge+ in $ule 11D as this must be based uponprobable cause which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds for suspicion. 8addao was arrested solely on thebasis of the alleged indentification made by her co<accused. !-D 5anlangt, however, declared in his direct e%aminationthat appellant :oria named his co<accused in response to his 3uery as to where the mar'ed money was. :oria did not pointo 8addao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he lfet the mar'ed bills. This identificationdoes not necessarily lead to the conclusion that 8addao conspired with :oria in pushing drugs, 0f there is no showing thatthe person who effected the warrantless arrest had, in his own right, 'nowledge of the acts implicating the person arrestedto the perpetration of a criminal offense, the arrest is legally obectionable.

• 6urthermore, the fact that the bo% containing about 7 'ilos of mariuana was found in 8addaos house does not ustify afinding that she herself is guilty of the crime charged.

• T"e prosecution t"us "a& faile& to pro#e t"at 6a&&ao conspire& wit" 3oria in t"e sale of t"e sai& &ru%. T"us, 6a&&ao is

ac*uitte&

PEOPLE v REYES ? SCRA 62

FACTS: !-1 >duardo C. 5olato alighted at the corner of *apu<lapu "treet when he saw the victim being held up by twopersons. The one in front of the victim forcibly too' his wristwatch while the other one stabbed him at the bac'. #e firedone warning shot which caused the three to run towards !hase 0, *apu<lapu venue. #e chased them but when he saw thevictim, he hailed a tricycle and as'ed the driver to bring the victim to the nearest hospital. #e continued chasing thesuspects up to !hase 00 until he reached gora, but the suspects were gone. The incident happened swiftly but !-1 5olatohad a good loo' at the face of the one who stabbed the victim as he was about E to 1A meters away from them.ccused<appellant denies the charge against him and insists that he was merely mista'en for accused rnel Cergontes who

had the same protruding lips as he had and with whom he shares a common alias as uboy guso.+HELD: 0n the case at bar, conspiracy was clearly manifested in the concerted efforts of the accused<appellant and hiscohort. They were seen together by !-1 5olato at the unholy hour of 2?@A a.m. forcibly ta'ing the wristwatch of the victimand thereafter stabbing him at the bac'. Their simultaneous acts indicate a oint purpose, concerted action andconcurrence of sentiments. /here the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the e%istence of acommon design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all t"e perpetratorswill e liale as principals.:anilo $eyes is guilty of $obbery with #omicide.

4Y INDUCTIONPEOPLE v YAMSON-DUMANCAS ?7 SCRA 620

FACTS:4eanette Ganson :umancas was swindled in a fa'e gold bar transaction losing !D@2,AAA to :anilo *umangyao and$ufino 8argar, 4r.• -n ug. @, 1992 1A?DA 5 5ario *amis, :ominador 8eroche, $olando 6ernande&, 4aime 8argallano, >dwin :ivinagracia

Teody :elgado, 5oises 8rande&a were planning to abduct *umangyao Y 8argar 4r. because they swindled the :umancasfamily. Col icolas Torres was also informed of the plan of the group.

• -n ugust 7, 1992, 4eannette investigated the two abducted and told the group of 8eroche to ta'e care of the two.• -n ug , 1992, 8argallano shot 8argar while 8eroche shot *umangyao. Then the 2 bodies were buried by !echa Y

#ilado.• The $TC found the following guilty of?

• !rincipals by 0nduction? 4eanette Ganson :umancas





PEOPLE v 4OLI9AR ?13 SCRA 633

FACTS? -n 6eb 1B, 19E, at around 9 !5, :amaso "uelan came home along wF $olly rendia aboard a tricycle from thetown of arotac to rgy ista legre. fter they alighted from the vehicle, they passed by the store of $odney alaito to buysome cigarettes. They were then invited by the storeowner to drin' a bottle of beer to wFc the 2 obliged. fter muchdrin'ing, the moved out to drin' beer at the small hut situated at the bac' of the store. There they oined the group accused$enato albon, 8racian olivar, 4oel "oberano and Cresenciano Canaguran.

/hile the group inside the hut was still drin'ing, a certain Huirino arrived carrying wF him a .12 gauge pistoli&ed firearm wFche handed to Canaguran. Then the group accused as'ed permission to go home.

t around 11DA!5, while there was still a group drin'ing, a shot burst Y a spray of pellets hit :amaso, 4r. on the shoulderY on the right forearm, while B shots were targeted to Y hit #ugo Callao resulting to his death.

The inured :amaso, 4r. loo'ed for a tricycle for Callao. #e passed through the main gate of the storeowners compoundY saw B persons running away from the place where the shot came from. #e identified the B to be the group of olivar thatpreviously as'ed permission to go home.

$TC found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the comple% crime of murder wF frustrated murder. The caseof 8raciano olivar who died of cardio<respiratory arrest in 199D is dismissed. :eath of the accused pending appeal of hisconviction e%tinguishes his criminal and civil liability.HELD? /itness $odolfo !anaga testifies that he saw arrion and Canaguran tal'ing but apparently, the subect of such

discussion was not the 'illing of Callao. #ence, the testimony of the witness is not conclusive to prove beyond reasonabledoubt that arrion was a principal by inducement of the crime. The fact that he would ta'e care+ of the problem, as overheardby the witness, is ambiguous Y doesnt necessarily lead to the conclusion that he plotted to 'ill Callao.

P&in%i$!s are those who directly force or induce others to commit an offense. -ne is induced to commit a crime either bya command ( precepto) or for a consideration ( pacto), or by any other similar act wFc constitutes the real and moving causeof the crime and wFc was done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was sufficient for that purpose. Theindu%e'ent e%ists whenever the act performed by the physical author of the crime is determined by the influence of theinducer over the mind of him who commits the act whatever the source of such influence.

0n the case at bar, only the testimony of the witness is offered and no evidence of force, fear, price, promise or rewarde%erted over or offered to Canaguran by arrion that impelled him to 'ill Callao was presented. 5oreover, from thee%amination of evidence, there is nothing to show that a conspiracy in fact e%isted among the accused<appellants. The

factors given ("uch factors include drin'ing together in the night of the crime, seen running away together from the scene ofthe crime after the shots were fired) are circumstantial in nature, wFc even ta'en collectively, do not reasonably lead to proof$: that a conspiracy e%isted.

/herefore, $TC ruling reversed. The accused<appellants are ac3uitted based on reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE v DELA CRU= 3 SCRA ?26

FACTS:gapito de la Cru& was found guilty as principal by inducement of the crime of Lidnapping and "erious 0llegal:etention, and sentencing him to death.• The facts are such that gapito met up wF 5ohamad "agap "alip, lih 0tum and a certain smad and proposed to them the

'illing of ntonio Gu Y the 'idnapping of the ntonios younger bro Gu Chi Chong, for ransom. gapito happened to be the

oversser of ntonios rubber Y coconut land for no less than 1A yrs• #e gave them instructions as to how and where to locate the Gu brothers at a given time and how they were to ambush

the brothers. (ut he didnt directly participate in actual crime)• ut ntonio had to go somewhere and so the younger Gu went with 0sabelo 5ancenido to 0sabela (0sabelo 0sabela

hehe.. funny..). The younger Gu was ambushed as instructed but when Gu Chi Chong tried to escape by stri'ing ngihwith a piece of wood, ngih got so pissed he shot Gu several times, 'illing him.

• The gun shots alerted the villagers so the 'idnappers fled. /hen the villagers left after seeing the body (they said theyllcome bac' in the morning with police in tow), the 'idnappers too' the body and threw it in the ocean.

• ntonio testified and provided the possible motive for gapito to commit such crime. gapito was assigned manager andadministrator of the farm but when the younger Gu came bac', gapito was demoted to overseer. 6urther, profits were



higher with Gu as manager and ntonio became stricter with gapito. gapito was convicted as mastermind or principalby inducement

Issue: /- gapito should be convicted as mastermind or principal by inducement in the absence of the elements ofconspiracy to the crime charged.• -. The re3uisites necessary in order that a person may be convicted as a principal by inducement are?

• That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime and• That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material e%ecutor

• The foregoing re3uisites are indubitable present in this case• 4amas 4umaidi Y -yong sidin, 2 discharged witnesses, testified that smad Y mil contected them to go to asilan to

do a ob for gapito.• /hen the group was brought face to face with him, he lost no time in lating down the strategy for the 'illing of ntonio Gu

and the 'idnapping of Gu Chi Chong for ransom.• 0t was he who 'new when the truc' of the intended victims would go to *atawan to load the copra to be delivered to 0sabela• #e 'new the route the truc' would ta'e Y the appro%imate time that it was to pass by. #e even selected the ambush

place.• Clearly, he had positive resolution to procure the commission of the crime. #e, too, presented the strongest 'ind of

temptation, a pecuniary gain in the form of ransom, wFc was the determining factor of the commission of the crime by hisco<accused.

• /Fo him, the crime would not have been conceived, much less committed. Clearly, he was a principal by induction, withcollective criminal responsibility with the material e%ecutors.

• -ne is induced to commit a crime either by a commans (precepto) or for a consideration (pacto), or by any other similar acwFc constitutes the real and moving cause of the crime Y wFc was done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act Y wassufficient for that purpose. The person who gives promises, or offers the consideration Y the one who actually commits thecrime by reason of such promise, remuneration or reward are both principals.

• The inducer need not ta'e part in the commission of the offense. 1 who induces another to commit a crime is guilty asprincipal even though he might have ta'en no part in its material e%ecution.

4Y INDISPENSA4LE COOPERATION

PEOPLE v MALUENDA 22 SCRA 6

FACTS:$aul 5ondaga, 5aluenda and alias Ile%I. 5ondaga 'idnapped >ngr. 5iguel >. $esus upon orders of a certain6ather "imon, an alleged ! Commander. efore that the trio solicit money and medicines from >ngr. 5iguel >. $esus and his wife, :r. ernardita . $esus. The ne%tday 5ondaga arrived at the residence of the $esus couple. >ngr. $esus then drove 5ondaga to ndanan. =pon reachinglegria, 5ondaga ordered >ngr. $esus that he had to go with them. gainst his will, >ngr. $esus went with the three. =ponreaching a hut, 5ondaga told him that he had forgotten something and had to go bac' and that >ngr. $esus had to staythere. "o >ngr. $esus, 5aluenda, le% and 8il ueno passed the night in the farmhut.5ondaga demanded, at first, DAA,AAA from :r $esus then lowered it down to 2AA,AAA then 1AA,AAA for the release of her

husband.5ondaga, 5aluenda and *egarto were later arrested by the police.Jppellant *egarto, the $esus coupleIs former part<time driver, denies any criminal involvement in the 'idnapping. #e avowsthat he participated only in the delivery of the ransom money at the insistence of :r. $esus herself.HELD:lthough the trial court did not pass upon conspiracy as a source of *egartoIs culpability, we deem it proper to do so,since it was alleged in the 0nformation. 0n theory, conspiracy e%ists when two or more persons come to an agreementconcerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. -nce established, the act of one becomes the act of all.6urther, conspiracy must be shown to e%ist as clearly as the commission of the offense itself, although direct proof is notessential. !rior agreement or assent to the crime is usually inferred from the acts of the accused showing concerted action,common design and obective, actual cooperation, concurrence of sentiments, or community of interest. 0n most cases, li'ethe one at bar, proof of conspiracy is fre3uently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances only. ut such proof must



always be established by evidence that satisfies the re3uirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 0n *egartoIs case,conspirac' was not at all estalis"e& ' t"e prosecution. The familiarity between *egarto and 5ondaga is insufficient proof,as conspiracy transcends companionship.5oreover, 5ondagaIs act of meeting *egarto on the road to ndanan does notshow conspiracy, because a merely casual or unintended meeting, li'e passive presence, is not proof of conspiracy."imilarly insufficient as circumstantial evidence to prove conspiracy were 5ondagaIs demand for the use of *egartoIsmotorcycle, *egartoIs collecting the ransom money and delivering part of it, and *egartoIs failure to testify against 5ondagadue to either refusal or neglect. /e stress that conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences andconectures. /ithout an allegation of any overt act showing community with the 'idnappers, inferences do not ade3uately

establish participation in a criminal conspiracy.*egartoIs Criminal *iability:espite its belief that *egarto was not a co<principal or a co< conspirator, this Court cannot completely free him from criminalliability. >stablished by the prosecution are the following? (1) he reported the JlossJ of the motorcycle to the police authoritiesdespite the fact that it had been given to 5ondaga as part of the ransom (2) he had received !D7,AAA for it (D) he paid thebalance of the purchase price of the motorcycle with the said money and (B) he claimed, regained and retained itspossession.*egarto may not have had a direct hand in the 'idnapping, but he received part of the ransom and used it to payoff his arrears in his motorcycle loan. Thus, having 'nowledge of the 'idnapping for ransom and without having directlyparticipated therein, he too' part in the crime subse3uent to its commission by profiting from its effects. #e may not be thedevil with the face of an angel that the trial court described, but he is definitely not a saint . 2e is criminall' liale as anaccessor' to t"e crime of i&nappin% for ransom.

The assailed :ecision is hereby 660$5>: as regards 5aluenda, but 5-:060>: as regards *egarto. *egarto is herebyfound 8=0*TG as an CC>""-$G.

PEOPLE v MONTEALE5RE 181 SCRA 377

FACTS:>dmundo badilla was eating in a resto when he detected the smell of mariuana smo'e coming from a nearbytable.• 0ntending to call a policeman, he 3uietly went outside and saw !fc. $enato Camantigue. Camantigue oined badilla in

the resto and they both smelled the mariuana smo'e from the table of icente Capalad and apoleon 5ontealegre.• Camantigue collared the 2 Y said agmamariuana 'ayo, anoN+ #e forced them up, holding 1 in each hand but Capalad

pulled out a 'nife Y started stabbing Camantigue at the bac'. Camantigue let go of 5ontealegre to get his gun but

5ontealegre restrained Camantigues hand to prevent the latter from defending himself.• They grappled Y fell on the floor. Capalac fled and Camantigue pursued him firing some shots. Then he stopped and

as'ed to be brought to a hospital. Capalac was found slumped in the street, with a bullet to his chest. oth he andCamantigue died the ne%t day. 5ontealegre on the other hand, escaped through the confusion. #e was laterapprehended.

Issue: /- 5ontealegre was rightly considered a co<principal for having corroborated with Capalad in the 'illing of thepolice officer.• G>". The two acted in concert, with Capalad actually stabbing Camantigue times and 5ontealegre holding on to

victims hands to prevent him from drawing the pistol and defending himseld, as badilla had testified.• /hile it is true that 5ontealegre did not himself commit the act of stabbing, he was nonetheless e3ually guilty thereof for

having prevented Camantigue for resisting the attac' against him.• 5ontealegre was a principal by indispensable cooperation under 1 (D), $!C. The re3uisites of this provision

• !articipating in the criminal resolution, i.e., theres either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose Y intentionimmediately before the commission of the crime charged Y

• Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act wFo wFc it would not have beenaccomplished.

• ut although there was no evidence of prior agreement between Capalad Y 5ontealegre, their subse3uent acts shouldprove the presence of such conspiracy. The Court has consistently upheld such view in previous cases (!eople v.*aganson, !eople v. Cercano, !eople v. 8arcia Cabarse, :acanay v. !eople)

• 5ontealegre was correctly convicted of the comple% crime of murder, 3ualified by treachery, wF assault upon a person ofauthority.



ACCOMPLICESRPC, A&t 12ccomplices are those persons who, not being included in article 1, cooperate in the e%ecution of the offense by previousor simultaneous acts.

A4E*UELA v PEOPLE 77 SCRA 278

FACTS: enamin beuela had a savings deposit with anco 6ilipino. "ometime in 5ay 19E, beuela was befriended by8licerio alo, 4r., an employee of anco 6ilipino. alo became the godfather of beuelaIs daughter. 5oreover, alo offeredbeuela financial assistance in the latterIs welding business, claiming that he was e%pecting a large sum of money out ofthe insurance policy of his late father.-n ug D, 19E, alo went to beuelaIs welding shop to borrow the latterIs passboo'. beuela was surprised and thoughtthat it was not possible for alo to use his passboo'. alo showed beuela some chec's purporting to be the proceeds ofhis fatherIs insurance policy. #e wanted to deposit the chec's in beuelaIs account. beuela then suggested that aloopen his own account. alo e%plained that he was prohibited from opening an account with anco 6ilipino since he wasemployed with that ban' as a savings boo''eeper. alo assured beuela that there was nothing wrong in allowing him touse his passboo' and even reassured beuela that he would accompany him to the ban' to ma'e the deposit. cceptingaloIs e%planations and assurances beuela entrusted his passboo' to alo. -n ugust E,19E, alo returned beuelaIs

passboo' where a deposit in the amount of !2A,AAA.AA was already reflected. -nce again, alo assured beuela thatthere was nothing wrong with the deposit and stated that he ust deposited one of his chec's. -n the same day alore3uested beuela to withdraw money from his account. gain with assurances from alo, beuela reluctantly agreed. #ewithdrew the amount of !1@, AAA which he gave to alo. aloIs practice of depositing and withdrawing money usingbeuelaIs passboo' continued for 3uite some time. 0n the meantime, beuela borrowed !2A, AAA from alo, payable within9A days. ut feeling apprehensive over aloIs constant use of his passboo', beuela decided to pay his loan. beuelaalso closed his account with anco 6ilipino. Thereafter, the ban' discovered a discrepancy between the interestreconciliation balance and the subsidiary ledger balance. The ban' could not locate the posting reconciliation and the proofreconciliation. #e also notice that the account of beuela reflected B large deposits on various dates but the deposits slipscould not be located. fter further e%amination, the ban' was convinced that the irregularities were caused by alo. Theyconcluded that alo was able to manipulate the ledger, by posting the fictitious deposits after ban'ing hours when the

posting machine was already closed and cleared by the ban' accountant.The ban' officials confronted alo, who feigned ignorance and initially denied the accusations, but later admitted havingposted the false deposits. beuela was also implicated because he was the owner of the passboo' used by alo inaccomplishing his fraudulent scheme.

HELD: -n reasonable doubt, beuela is AC+UITTED. #owever, the writ of preliminary attachment issued by the $TCagainst beuelas and alos properties to satisfy their civil obligation made permanent by the said court stands./e are inclined to believe that petitioner beuela was completely unaware of the malevolent scheme of alo. 6rom aloIsown admissions, it was he who deceived beuela through sweet tal', assurances, drin'ing sprees and parties and caoledhim into giving in to his re3uests. 6urthermore, during that time, nobody would have 3uestioned aloIs source of money andsince he had a perfect alibi, i.e. the insurance proceeds of his later father. /hen alo showed beuela some chec's

purporting to be his fatherIs insurance proceeds, beuela was hoodwin'ed into believing that alo indeed had money.aloIs re3uest to borrow beuelaIs passboo' in order to facilitate the encashment of the chec's seemed reasonableenough, considering that they were close friends and JcompadresJ, beuelaIs ac3uiescence to aloIs overtures isunderstandable. 6urthermore, the court ta'es udicial notice of the practice of ban's in allowing anybody to deposit in anaccount even without the ownerIs passboo', as long as the account number is 'nown. Thus, even without beuelaIspassboo', the false deposits could still have been posted by alo in the savings account ledger of beuela. 5ore oftenthan not, it is the ledger which is more accurate and up<to<date. 0n the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution clearlypoints at alo as the one who had posted the bogus deposits in beuelaIs ledger. #e was also the one who wiselymanipulated beuela in order that the fictitious deposits could be placed at his disposal. Thus, when alo re3uestedbeuela to withdraw the amount he had earlier placed in the latterIs account beuela had no choice but to give in. #eactually believed that the money was really owned by alo and he did not want alo to thin' that he was interested in it.



Thus, the prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that beuela had 'nowledge of the fraudulentscheme of alo. The most that could be attributed to beuela was his negligence in lending his passboo' and his uttergullibility.

PEOPLE v ELI*ORDE J?78 SCRA 122 "1#K

FACTS: #ierro, enamin isbal and $odel Contemplado were drin'ing in the house of the latter. "ometime later, #ierroand isbal went out to buy mango at a nearby sari<sari store. >liorde, !un&alan and >dwin 5enes were at the time in front

of the store. s 5enes approached #ierro the latter warned 5enes, J:onIt touch me, my clothes will get dirty.J "uddenly5enes punched #ierro on the face, followed by >liorde who also bo%ed #ierro on the face, and !un&alan who 'ic'ed #ierroat the bac'. #ierro and isbal ran for their lives. They sought shelter at ContempladoIs house. fter some minutes, #ierrowent out of the house to go home together with isbal and the latterIs wife. isbal noticed the >liorde, !un&alan and 5eneswaiting for them. s #ierro and company drew near, !un&alan 'ic'ed #ierro at the bac' for the second time. isbal tried toretaliate by punching !un&alan on the face but was held bac' by his wife. #ierro ran away pursued by >liorde. They werefollowed by isbal. >liorde stabbed #ierro at the bac'. /hen #ierro fell down, >liorde placed himself on top of #ierro whowas now raising his arms defensively and pleading, J5aawa na 'ayo, huwag ninyo a'ong patayin, wala a'ong 'asalanan sainyo.J :espite the pleas of #ierro for mercy, >liorde stabbed him with a 'nife on the chest and then fled. isbal and his wifebrought #ierro to the hospital where he died soon after. -nly >liorde and !un&alan were arrested,charged and tried for themurder of #ierro 3ualified by treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength, 5enes remained at large.

ISSUES? /- !un&alan is guilty of murder by reason of conspiracy with >liorde or only as an accomplice.

HELD: The :ecision of the court is 5-:060>:. >*04-$:> is 8=0*TG of 5=$:>$ and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua!=W* is CH=0TT>:. >*04-$:> is solely held responsible for the payment to the heirs of #ierro. /ith respect to !un&alan, the Court cannot assert with moral certainty that he is guilty of murder. To convict him as aprincipal by direct participation in the instant case, it is necessary that conspiracy between him and his co<accused >liordebe proved. The only involvement of !un&alan was 'ic'ing #ierro at the bac' before #ierro was pursued and stabbed by>liorde. fter 'ic'ing #ierro, !un&alan remained where he was and did not cooperate with >liorde in pursuing #ierro toensure that the latter would be 'illed. There is no other evidence to show unity of purpose and design between !un&alanand >liorde in the e%ecution of the 'illing, which is essential to establish conspiracy. #is act of 'ic'ing #ierro prior to the

actual stabbing by >liorde does not of itself demonstrate concurrence of wills or unity of purpose and action. 6or it ispossible that the accused !un&alan had no 'nowledge of the common design. The mere 'ic'ing does not necessarily proveintention to 'ill. The evidence does not show that !un&alan 'new that >liorde had a 'nife and that he intended to use it tostab the victim. Neit)e& %nPunQ!n e %onside&ed n %%o'$!i%e in the crime of murder. The cooperation that the lawpunishes is the assistance 'nowingly or intentionally rendered which cannot e%ist without previous cogni&ance of thecriminal act intended to be e%ecuted. 0t is therefore re3uired in order to be liable either as a principal by indispensablecooperation or as n %%o'$!i%e that the accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct participationThere is nothing on record to show that !un&alan 'new that >liorde was going to stab #ierro, thus creating serious doubton !un&alanIs criminal intent. 0n the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal responsibilityarising from different acts directed against one and the same person is individual and not collective, and that each of theparticipants is liable only for his own acts. Conse3uently, !un&alan must be absolved from all responsibility for the 'illing of

#ierro

PEOPLE v DE 9ERA J?1 SCRA 807 "1#K

FACTS: The prosecution presented an eyewitness ernardino Cacao. -n 4une E, 1992, Cacao saw a car passing by,driven by victim 6rederic' Capulong together with B other passengers. #e 'new the victim by name who was a resident ofthe subdivision. #e recogni&ed and identified 2 of the passengers as Lenneth 6lorendo and $oderic' 8arcia, both familiarin the subdivision.Cacao did not at first notice anything unusual inside the car while it passed by him, but then he heardunintelligible voices coming from the car as it was cruising around a circular road whose entrance and e%it were through thesame point. 5oments later, he saw the victim dragged out of the car by 6lorendo and brought to a grassy place. 6lorendowas holding a gun. =pon reaching the grassy spot, 6lorendo aimed and fired the gun at Capulong, hitting him between the



eyes. fter the shooting, 6lorendo and his companions fled in different directions. /hile testifying in court, Cacao identified8arcia and pointed to :e era as among the companions of 6lorendo

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED? :e era claims that he had no part in the 'illing, and that it was 6lorendo who hadshot the victim

ISSUES: 1. /- !rosecution evidence is sufficient to find :e era guilty of murder by reason of conspiracy. 2. /hen is a loo'out deemed an accomplice and when a conspiratorN /hat is the distinction between the twoN

HELD: The appeal is partially 8$T>:. :e era is C-0CT>: as an accomplice, not as a principal, in the crime ofmurder. 1. 0t is a%iomatic that the prosecution must establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The bare testimony oCacao fails to do so. Cacao testified that he saw :e era in the car, where an altercation later occurred and saw 6lorendodrag out of the vehicle Capulong and shoot the victim in the head. CacaoIs testimony contains nothing that could inculpate:e era. side from the fact that he was inside the car, no other act was imputed to him. 5ere presence does not amountto conspiracy. s the Court has repeatedly stated, criminal conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere surmises orconectures. Clearly, CacaoIs testimony does not establish :e eras culpability. :e era is an accomplice, not a conspirator 2. :e era had acted as a loo'out. #e was there in order to aid and abet the commission of the crime. These facts,however, did not ma'e him a conspirator only an accomplice. The distinction between the 2 concepts needs to be

underscored. -nce conspiracy is proven, the liability is collective and not individual. 0n the case of an accomplice, theliability is 1 degree lower than that of a principal. Conspirators and accomplices have 1 thing in common? they 'now andagree with the criminal design. Conspirators, however, 'now the criminal intention because they themselves have decidedupon such course of action. ccomplices come to 'now about it after the principals have reached the decision, and onlythen do they agree to cooperate in its e%ecution. Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed accomplices merelyconcur in it. :e era new that 6lorendo had intended to 'ill Capulong at the time, and he cooperated with the latter. ut hehimself did not participate in the decision to 'ill Capulong that decision was made by 6lorendo and the others. #e oinedthem that afternoon after the decision to 'ill had already been agreed upon he was there because Jnag'ahiyaan na.J"ignificantly, the plan to 'ill could have been accomplished without him. 0t should be noted further that he alone wasunarmed that afternoon. 6lorendo and 8arcia had guns, and Castro had a baseball bat.

PEOPLE v SUN5A ? SCRA 80

FACTS:-n 4uly 12, 199B, the mutilated body of 4ocelyn Tan, a high school was found at a coffee plantation. The hunt forthe possible 'illers of 4ocelyn was swift, several arrests having been made in a span of days. ccused in the 0nformationwere "unga, *ansang, !ascua, 4r., and -ctac as principals, and *ocil Cui alias 8inalyn Cuyos as accomplice."TT> /0T>"" CC-=T? -n 4une 29, 199B, *ocil boarded a tricycle in !uerto !rincesa City. lready on board was alesbian who invited *ocil for a oy ride.=pon instruction, the tricycle driver, "unga repaired to the 5endo&a !ar'.t !ar', thelesbian alighted and spo'e to 4ocelyn. The lesbian, together with 4ocelyn, then oined *ocil aboard the tricycle which wasalready driven by !ascua vice "unga who had in the meantime left. "till aboard the tricycle, the B of them proceeded to anda forested area, 4ocelyn was dragged to a nearby JbuhoJ clumps. There, 4ocelyn was made to lie down. s she lay face upwith both her hands held by "unga and !ascua, *ansang stripped na'ed, placed himself on top of 4ocelyn, inserted his

penis into her.fter *ansang, "unga too' turn to have se%ual intercourse with 4ocelyn, !ascua subse3uently had carnal'nowledge of 4ocelyn who all along struggled against her malefactors.fter !ascua satisfied his lust, "unga, with a sharpbladed weapon, stabbed the abdomen of the motionless 4ocelyn, drawing her to rise to a sitting position and clutch herabdomen. "unga then passed on the bladed weapon to *ansang who smashed 4ocelyns head with an irregularly shapedstone, causing her to fall to the ground lifeless. *ocil witnessed everything

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: ll the accused proffered alibi. "unga denied having anything to do with the rape and'illing of 4ocelyn. #e branded as false the testimony of *ocil whom he claimed is a prostitute and a pimp and was alwaysseen loitering at 5endo&a !ar'. /hile he ac'nowledged 'nowing -ctac and !ascua, he denied being in their company on4une 29, 199B or in *ansangs.



ISSUES? /hether the guilt of appellants has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD: 0t is undisputed that at the start of the trial, the prosecution did not have direct evidence, testimonial or otherwise, toestablish the culpability of the accused.ased on *ocils sworn statement, and she was t"e onl' person w"o saw whahappened to 4ocelyn. #er testimony was thus indispensable. That she did not appear to be the most guilty among theaccused and that she had not been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude were shown, as was the susceptibilityof material corroboration of her testimony at the time of her discharge in view of the other evidence in the hands of theprosecution. The rule in this urisdiction is that the testimon' of a self2confessed accom%lice or co2cons%irator imputin%

t"e lame to or implicatin% "is co4accuse& cannot, ' itself an& wit"out corrooration, e re%ar&e& as proof to a moral certaint' t"at t"e latter committe& or participate& in t"e commission of t"e crime . The testimony must be substantiallycorroborated in its material points by unimpeac"ale testimon' an& stron% circumstances an& must e to suc" an extent t"at its trustwort"iness ecomes manifest ./as *ocils testimony corroborated in its material points by the prosecutions other evidenceN 0f in the affirmative, was thecorroborative evidence unimpeac"ale testimony and stron% circumstances to such an e%tent that *ocils trustwort"inessecomes manifest NThe sole, uncorroborated testimony of an accused who turned state witness may suffice to convict his co<accused if it isgiven unhesitatingly and in a straightforward manner and is full of details which by their nature could not have been theresult of deliberate afterthought otherwise, it needs corroboration the presence or lac' of which may ultimately decide thecause of the prosecution and the fate of the accused.

PEOPLE v PILOLA 076 SCRA 1?0

FACTS:>lisa $olan was inside their store waiting for her husband to arrive. 4oselito Capa and 4ulian &ul, 4r. were drin'ingbeer. >dmar guilos and -dilon *agliba arrived at the store. 4oselito and 4ulian invited them to oin their drin'ing spreeand although already inebriated, the 2 newcomers obliged. 0n the course of their drin'ing, the conversation turned into aheated argument. >dmar nettled 4ulian, and the latter was peeved. n altercation between the two ensued. >lisa pacifiedthe protagonists and advised them to go home as she was already going to close up. >dmar and -dilon left thestore. 4oselito and 4ulian were also about to leave, when >dmar and -dilon returned, bloc'ing their way. >dmar too' ofhis eyeglasses and punched 4ulian in the face. >lisa shouted? Tama na. Tama na.+ >dmar and 4ulian ignored her andtraded fist blows until they reached ling "oteras store at the end of the street, about twelve to fifteen meters away from

>lisas store. 6or his part, -dilon positioned himself on top of a pile of hollow bloc's and watched as >dmar and 4ulianswapped punches. 4oselito tried to placate the protagonists to no avail. 4oselitos intervention apparently did not sit welwith -dilon. #e pulled out his 'nife with his right hand and stepped down from his perch. #e placed his left arm around4oselitos nec', and stabbed the latter. $onnie and the appellant, who were across the street, saw their gangmate -dilonstabbing the victim and decided to oin the fray. They pulled out their 'nives, rushed to the scene and stabbed4oselito. >lisa could not tell how many times the victim was stabbed or what parts of his body were hit by whom. The victimfell in the canal. -dilon and the appellant fled, while $onnie went after 4ulian and tried to stab him. 4ulian ran for dealife. /hen he noticed that $onnie was no longer running after him, 4ulian stopped at >. $odrigue& $oad and loo'edbac'. #e saw $onnie pic' up a piece of hollow bloc' and with it bashed 4oselitos head. ot content, $onnie got a piece obro'en bottle and struc' 4oselito once more. $onnie then fled from the scene. 4oselito died on the spot. >lisa rushed to4oselitos house and informed his wife and brother of the incident .

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:The appellant denied stabbing the victim and interposed the defense of alibi

HELD:To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must concur? (a) the community of criminal design that is,

'nowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose (b) theperformance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. ccomplices cometo 'now about the criminal resolution of the principal by direct participation after the principal has reached the decision tocommit the felony and only then does the accomplice agree to cooperate in its e%ecution. ccomplices do not decidewhether the crime should be committed they merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct participation and cooperatein its accomplishment. #owever, where one cooperates in the commission of the crime by performing overt acts which by



themselves are acts of e%ecution, he is a principal by direct participation, and not merely an accomplice. 0n this case, -dilonall by himself initially decided to stab the victim. The appellant and $onnie were on the side of the street. #owever, while-dilon was stabbing the victim, the appellant and $onnie agreed to oin in they rushed to the scene and also stabbed thevictim with their respective 'nives. The three men simultaneously stabbed the hapless victim. -dilon and the appellant fledfrom the scene together, while $onnie went after 4ulian. /hen he failed to overta'e and collar 4ulian, $onnie returned towhere 4oselito fell and hit him with a hollow bloc' and a bro'en bottle. $onnie then hurriedly left. ll the overt acts o-dilon, $onnie and the appellant before, during, and after the stabbing incident indubitably show that they conspired to 'ilthe victim.

ll things considered, we rule that $onnie and the appellant conspired with -dilon to 'ill the victim hence, all of themare criminally liable for the latters death. The appellant is not merely an accomplice but is a principal by direct participation.

>ven assuming that the appellant did not conspire with $onnie and -dilon to 'ill the victim, the appellant isnevertheless criminally liable as a principal by direct participation. The stab wounds inflicted by him cooperated in bringingabout and accelerated the death of the victim or contributed materially.

C. ACCESSORIESRPC, A&t. 1ccessories are those who, having 'nowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein,either as principals or accomplices, ta'e part subse3uent to its commission in any of the following manners?chan robles

virtual law library1. y profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.2. y concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent itsdiscovery.D. y harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory actswith abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or anattempt to ta'e the life of the Chief >%ecutive, or is 'nown to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

RPC, A&t. 7A&t. 7. Accessories 'ho are e,em%t from criminal lia"ilit# . M The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not beimposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adoptedbrothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single e%ception of accessories falling within

the provisions of paragraph 1 of the ne%t preceding article.

PD 181PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 181

ANTI-FENCIN5 LAW OF 13Se%tion 0. *iability of -fficials of 4uridical !ersons. 0f the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or association, thepresident or the manager or any officer thereof who 'nows or should have 'nown the commission of the offense shall beliable.PD 12PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 12

PENALI=IN5 O4STRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS

Se%tion 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its ma%imum period, or a fine ranging from 1,AAA to 7,AAA pesos, or both,shall be imposed upon any person who 'nowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension ofsuspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts?

(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offenseor the identity of any offenderFs by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or obect, with intent to impair itsverity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibili ty as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in,criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he 'nows, or has reasonable ground to believeor suspect, has committed any offense under e%isting penal laws in order to prevent his arrest prosecution andconviction



(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the e%ecution of a udgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbingproceedings in the fiscalIs offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts(f) ma'ing, presenting or using any record, document, paper or obect with 'nowledge of its falsity and with intent toaffect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, orimpeding the prosecution of a criminal offender

(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property orthat of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in theinvestigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, inorder to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehendingthe offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim or fabricating information from the data gathered inconfidence by investigating authorities for purposes of bac'ground information and not for publication andpublishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.

0f any of the acts mentioned herein is penali&ed by any other law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed.

PEOPLE v TALIN5DAN J20 SCRA 1 "132#K

FACTS: ernardo agabag was murdered in his own house in bra on 4une 2B, 197 by Talingdan, Tobias, erras, idesand Teresa :omogma, his alleged wife Pwhom cannot be charged with parricide because no certificate or proof of marriagecould be presented by the prosecutionQ. The murder was witnessed by Cora&on P12Q, the eldest child of ernardo andTeresa. "he testified to the crime committed by the accused<appellants"tory? !rior to the violent incident, ernardo and Teresa have had several conflicts in their married life. "he would oftenwithdraw from their house. The longest even for more than D wee's. 0t was suspected that Teresa is having an illicit affairwith Talingdan, a policeman who lives nearby. Two days before the crime, Teresa was slapped several times by ernardoafter a violent 3uarrel. "he sought the help of Talingdan who challenged ernardo to come down, but the latter refused.Then, Talingdan left after shouting J0f 0 will find you someday, 0 will 'ill you.J Two days before the commission of the crime,Cora&on overheard her mothers meeting with the other accused<appellants about their plot to 'ill her father as one of them

said, "hall he elude a bulletN+ Cora&on was then driven away by her mother saying, Gou tell your father that we will 'illhim.+ -n the night of the murder, Cora&on was coo'ing food for supper when she saw her mother tal'ing with the otheraccused<appellants in their batalan+ armed with long guns. fter a while, Teresa went inside the room to put her baby tosleep. fter eating supper alone, Cora&on told her father about the persons outside but he ignored her. #e went to the'itchen and sat on the floor near the door then he was fired. Talingdan and Tobias fired their guns again. ides threatenedto 'ill Cora&on if she would as' for help. Cora&on confessed to her fathers relatives the identities of the murderers duringhis burial. The trial court found them guilty of the offense and so the five accused appealed to their conviction.

C&i'e Co''itted? 5urderContention o; t)e A%%used? ccording to Teresa, there was no illicit affair between her and Talingdan. "he loved herhusband. Contrary to the testimony of Cora&on, they never 3uarreled nor did the former maltreat her. "he never left home

for so long. nd she was coo'ing for supper, and not Cora&on, on the night of the murder. "he contends that her in<lawsused her daughter to testify against her because they dont want Teresa from the start. "he even added that ernardo hadsome enemies during his lifetime. Talingdan said that he escorted the 5ayor as a bodyguard, while the other three accusedalso claimed that they were at a certain 5rs. ayongans house during the night of the murderContention of the !eople? The sworn statement of the 1D<year old Cora&on was true. "he 'new the accused because theylive nearby their place. esides, the accused<appellants testimonies are indefensible and futile. 5oreover, her motherclaimed to have no suspect in mind during the investigation in their house although she was in conspiracy with the otherfour accusedRu!in<: The court affirmed the decision held by the trial court with costs. There are two aggravating circumstances present,treachery and evident premeditation, with no mitigating circumstances to offset the accused<appellants. Talingdan, Tobiaserras, and ides are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder and are sentenced to :>T# to be e%ecuted in



accordance with law. Teresa :omogma is guilty as accessory to the same murder, and is hereby sentenced to suffer theindeterminate penalty of @ years prision correccional as minimum to E years of prision mayor as ma%imum, with theaccessory penalties of the law

W)t out Te&ess %onvi%tion Teresa was more or less passive in her attitude regarding her co<appellantsI conspiracy,'nown to her. fter ernardo was 'illed, she became active in her cooperation with them. These subse3uent acts of herconstitute Jconcealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in the crimeJ which ma'es her liable as an accessory <<<paragraph D of rticle 19 of the $evised !enal Code.

PEOPLE v CUI J?10 SCRA 16? "1#K

F%ts: 0n the evening of :ec @, 199A, some 1A armed robbers raided the compound of 4ohnny and $ose *im on Cebu City.The *ims, their D children, and the employees of the family<owned business, /illiamIs >ducational "upply, were able to seethe faces of the leader /ilfredo alias JTotoJ 8arcia and two of his men, 5awe 8arcia and a certain >dgar. The other robberscould not be identified as they had flour sac's over their heads.The robbers carted away cash and ewelries worth !2A,AAA.AA. They also blindfolded and forcibly abducted 1 year old "tephanie, the youngest daughter of the *ims. Theydemanded a ransom of !1, AAA,AAA.AA for her release. 4ohnny *im turned over to 8arcia the ransom amount in theafternoon of the ne%t day at an arranged meeting place. "tephanie, in turn, was released to her father. 0nitially, the *ims 'eptthe crime a secret. ut on the third day, they reported the 'idnapping to the !! Cebu 5etropolitan :istrict Command. They

conducted an investigation and 4ohnny identified the suspects from around 9A photographs, *im pic'ed that of 8arcia. Theidentification of 8arcia gave 50"T a valuable lead. 8arcia was 'nown as the leader of a group of armed robbers called theaong 8ang. The gangIs base of operation was pinpointed at Huiot, !ardo, Cebu. /hen the police learned from *im thathis house guard, >duardo asingan, hailed from barangay, they decided to interrogate him .asinganIs interrogation bro'ethe case wide open. #e identified Toto, 5awe and >dgar as the D who did not wear mas's, "adam and $ey as the 2 whoheld him and the *ims at gunpoint, and Tata 8arcia, Gul lvare&, a certain enie, a certain *eos and a certain *aring as theloo'<outs who stayed outside the *im compound. #e named Toto 8arcia as the chief plotter of the crime at bar, andrevealed that his neighbor and close family friends, the spouses *eonilo and everly Cui, participated in the plan. asingansaid he was as'ed to oin the plot and was assured that he would not be under suspicion because he would be placed atgun point together with the other members of the *im household when the crime is committed. #owever, he refused to ointhe plot during the :ec 2, 199A meeting of the group at the residence of the Cuis in Huiot, !ardo.

ISSUE: /- -beso and "arte are principally liable or not liable at all. /- the Cuis are criminally liable as accomplices or accessories.

HELD: There is no 3uestion that asingan escaped and never testified in court to affirm his accusation against the Cuis,-beso and "arte. Thus, the trial court committed reversible error in admitting and giving weight to asingans the swornstatements. =ndeniably, they are hearsay for any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay by nature if its probative value isnot based on the personal 'nowledge of the witnesses but on the 'nowledge of some other person who was neverpresented on the witness stand. Conviction cannot be based on hearsay evidence0n the case at bar, the alleged conspiracy among the accused was not priorly established by independent evidence. orwas it was shown that the e%tra<udicial statements of asingan were made while they were engaged in carrying out the

conspiracy. 0n fine, the e%tra<udicial statements of asingan cannot be used against the Cuis, -bese and "arte withoutdoing violence against their constitutional right to confront asingan and to cross<e%amine him. /e hold that on the basis ofother evidence on record, t)e Cuis &e <ui!t@ e@ond &eson!e dout o; ein< %%esso&ies, not accomplices.s accessories to the consummated crime of 'idnapping for ransom, the penalty imposable upon *eonilo and everly Cui istwo degrees lower than that prescribed by law.

6inally, while we affirm the conviction of the Cui spouses , (e %uit Oeso nd S&te.The only evidence lin'ing -beso and "arte to the 'idnapping of "tephanie *im is asinganIs sworn statements that acertain *eos and a certain *aring were among the loo'outs who stood as guards outside the house of the *ims while Toto8arcia and his group were inside. asinganIs sworn statements are hearsay, hence, inadmissible in evidence against hisco<accused because he escaped before he could ta'e the witness stand.



>%cept for asingan who could not even give the real names of -beso and "arte and ust referred to them as *eos and*aring, respectively, no one really 'new them. nd significantly, no prosecution witness identified them, not even "tephanie*im. "he never saw any of them during the robbery or in the house where she was detained. -beso and "arte interposedthe defense of alibi. They asseverated that in late ovember, 199A, they left the house they were renting in *inao,5inglanilla, Cebu and went to anilad, acong, :umaguete City where the parents of "arte reside. 0t was there, in 5arch1991, that they were arrested.The prosecution never rebutted the claim of live<in partners -beso and "arte that they were inacong, :umaguete City as early as ovember, 199A. o direct evidence has been proffered by the prosecution to place-beso and "arte at the scene of the crime. Their alibi has to be given credence.

($TC decision? >duardo asingan, ienvenido acario, *uis -beso, #ilaria "arte, as $&in%i$!s for the crime ofL0:!!08 /0T# $"-5. *eonilo Cui and everly Cui being %%o'$!i%es)

PEOPLE v ORTE5A 38 SCRA 188

FACTS:-n -ct 1, 1992 -rtega and 8arcia attac'ed, assaulted and stabbed repeatedly with a pointed weapon on thedifferent parts of the body :$> 5$ 5"8LG , inflicting serious physical inuries which directly caused his death.:iosdado Huitlong testified that on -ct1@, 1992, he, 5asang'ay, riel Caranto, $omeo -rtega, $oberto "an ndres werehaving a drin'ing spree in the compound near the house of enamin -rtega. /hile they were drin'ing, -rtega and 8arciawho were drun' arrived and oined them. 5asang'ay answered the call of nature and went to the bac' of the house. -rtega

followed him and later they heard 5asang'ay yelled #uwag, tulungan ninyo a'o\+. #e and Caranto ran towards the bac' ofthe house and saw -rtega on top of 5asang'ay who was lying down in a canal with his face up and stabbing the latter witha long bladed weapon. Caranto ran and fetched enamin -rtega, "r. Huitlong went to $omeo to pacify his brotherenamin, 4r. $omeo went to the place of the stabbing and together with enamin 4r. and 8arcia lifted 5asang'ay from thecanal and dropped the latter inside the well. $omeo , enamin 4r. and 8arcia then dropped stones to the body of5asang'ay inside the well. $omeo warned Huitlong not to tell anybody of what he saw. Huitlongs conscience botheredhim and he told his mother what he witnessed. #e went to the residence of Col. *eonardo -rig and reported the matter.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:8arcia testified that in the morning of -ct 1@, he and his wife, 5aritess, brought theirfeverish daughter to the !olo >mergency #osp. #e left the hospital at am and went to wor'. fter office hours, he and-rtega, 4r. passed by the canteen at their place of wor'. >n route to heading home, they chanced on Huitlong and

5asang'ay, who invited them to oin their own drin'ing spree. 8arciaIs wife came and as'ed him to go home because theirdaughter was still sic'. 8arcia went home and attended to his sic' daughter. 5aritess corroborated the testimony of herhusband. -rtega, 4r. li'ewise corroborated the testimony of 8arcia. ccording to him, between 11 and 12 pm, 5asang'ayleft the drin'ing session. DA minutes after 5asang'ay left, he also left the drin'ing place to urinate. #e went behind thehouse where he saw 5asang'ay peeping through the room of his sister $a3uel. #e ignored 5asang'ay and continuedurinating.5asang'ay approached him and as'ed where his sister was. #e answered that he did not 'now. 5asang'ayallegedly bo%ed him in the mouth, an attac' that induced bleeding and caused him to fall on his bac'. /hen he was aboutto stand up, 5asang'ay drew a 'nife and stabbed him, hitting him on the left arm, immobili&ing him. 5asang'ay thengripped his nec' with his left arm and threatened to 'ill him. Huitlong came and, to avoid being stabbed, grabbed5asang'ayIs right hand which was holding the 'nife. Huitlong was able to wrest the 'nife from 5asang'ay and, with it, hestabbed 5asang'ay 1A times successively, in the left chest and in the middle of the stomach. /hen the stabbing started,

-rtega moved to the left side of 5asang'ay to avoid being hit.

Huitlong chased 5asang'ay who ran towards the direction ofthe well. Thereafter, -rtega went home and treated his inured left armpit and lips.

ISSUE: /hat are the criminal liabilities, if any, of ppellants -rtega and 8arciaN-rtega is guilty only of homicide. 8arcia deserves ac3uittal.+ur&er or 2omici&ebuse of superior strength re3uires deliberate intent on the part of the accused to ta'e advantage of such superiority. 0n thislight, it is necessary to evaluate not only the physical condition and weapon of the protagonists but also the variousincidents of the event. Huitlong mentioned nothing about -rtegas availment of force e%cessively out of proportion. 0t shouldbe noted that 5asang'ay was a 7<footer, whereas -rtega, 4r. was only @ feet and @ inches tall. othing in the testimony andcircumstances can be interpreted as abuse of superior strength. #ence, -rtega is liable only for homicide, not murder.



<iailit' of 6arcia 0n spite of the evidence showing that 8arcia could be held liable as principal, there are 2 legal obstacles barring hisconviction, even as an accessory.1. The 0nformation 8arcia (and -rtega) attac'PingQ, assaultPingQ, and stabPbingQ 5"8LG. The prosecutionIs evidenceitself shows that 8arcia had nothing to do with the stabbing. #is responsibility relates only to the attempted concealment ofthe crime and the resulting drowning of 5asang'ay. The hornboo' doctrine in our urisdiction is that an accused cannot beconvicted of an offense, unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information. y parity of reasoning, 8arcia cannot beconvicted of homicide through drowning in an information that charges murder by means of stabbing.

G. lthough the prosecution was able to prove that 8arcia assisted in Jconcealing . . . the body of the crime . . . in order toprevent its discovery,J he can neither be convicted as an accessory after the fact defined under rt 19, par. 2, of the $!C.The records show that 8arcia is a brother<in<law of -rtega, the latterIs sister, 5aritess, being his wife. "uch relationshipe%empts ppellant 8arcia from criminal liability as provided by8arcia, being a covered relative by affinity of -rtega, 4r., is legally entitled to the afore3uoted e%empting provision of the$evised !enal Code. This Court is thus mandated by law to %uit )i'.

Documents

Finale- Criminal Law