People V Comadre PDF

9/15/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME431
366
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.Comadre
*
G.R.No.153559.June8,2004.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANTONIO

COMADRE, GEORGE COMADRE and DANILO LOZANO,
appellants.
Evidence Witnesses Honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial
mattersservetostrengthenratherthandestroythecredibilityofawitnessto
acrime,especiallysowhen,asintheinstantcase,thecrimeisshockingto
theconscienceandnumbingtothesenses.Witnessescannotbeexpectedto
rememberallthedetailsoftheharrowingeventwhichunfoldedbeforetheir
eyes.Minordiscrepanciesmightbefoundintheirtestimony,buttheydonot
damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its material whole, nor
should they reflect adversely on the witness credibility as they erase
suspicion that the same was perjured. Honest inconsistencies on minor and
trivial matters serve to strengthen rather than destroy the credibility of a
witness to a crime, especially so when, as in the instant case, the crime is
shockingtotheconscienceandnumbingtothesenses.
Same Same Motive Absent evidence showing any reason or motive
for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such
improper motive exists, and their testimony is thus worthy of full faith and
credit.ItwasnotshownthatwitnessesJimmyWabe,ReyCamat,Lorenzo
Eugenio and Gerry Bullanday had any motive to testify falsely against
appellants. Absent evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution
witnessestoperjure,thelogicalconclusionisthatnosuchimpropermotive
exists,andtheirtestimonyisthusworthyoffullfaithandcredit.
Same Same Alibi For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused
mustprovenotonlythathewasatsomeotherplaceatthetimeofthecom
_______________
*ENBANC.
367
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001572ccda413e2550b84003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/23
9/15/2016
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
367
Peoplevs.Comadre
missionofthecrimebutalsothatitwasphysicallyimpossibleforhimtobe
at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.The trial court is
likewise correct in disregarding appellants defense of alibi and denial. For
thedefenseofalibitoprosper,theaccusedmustprovenotonlythathewas
atsomeotherplaceatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimebutalsothat
it was physically impossible for him to be at the locusdelicti or within its
immediatevicinity.
Same Same Positive Identification The positive identification of the
appellants by eyewitnesses Jimmy Wabe, Jaime Agbanlog, Rey Camat and
Gerry Bullanday prevails over their defense of alibi and denial.Apart
from testifying with respect to the distance of their houses from that of
JaimeAgbanlogsresidence,appellantswereunabletogiveanyexplanation
andneitherweretheyabletoshowthatitwasphysicallyimpossibleforthem
to be at the scene of the crime. Hence, the positive identification of the
appellants by eyewitnesses Jimmy Wabe, Jaime Agbanlog, Rey Camat and
GerryBullandayprevailsovertheirdefenseofalibianddenial.
Evidence, Judges Judgment The fact that the judge who heard the
evidenceisnottheonewhorenderedthejudgmentandthatforthatreason
the latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnessesduringtrialbutmerelyreliedontherecordsofthecasedoesnot
render the judgment erroneous.It is not unusual for a judge who did not
tryacasetodecideitonthebasisoftherecordforthetrialjudgemighthave
died, resigned, retired, transferred, and so forth. As far back as the case of
CoTaov.CourtofAppealswehaveheld:Thefactthatthejudgewhoheard
the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment and that for that
reasonthelatterdidnothavetheopportunitytoobservethedemeanorofthe
witnesses during the trial but merely relied on the records of the case does
notrenderthejudgmenterroneous.Thisrulehadbeenfollowedforquitea
longtime,andthereisnoreasontogoagainsttheprinciplenow.
Criminal Law Murder Aggravating Circumstances Conspiracy
Settled is the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual
cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is
required.Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the
elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled is
the rule that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather
thanmerecognizanceorapprovalofanillegalactisrequired.
SameSameSameSameMere presence of a person at the scene of
the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends
companionship.A conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusiveevidence.Itmustbeshowntoexistasclearlyandconvincinglyas
thecommissionofthecrimeitself.Merepresenceofapersonatthesceneof
368
2/23
9/15/2016
368
Peoplevs.Comadre
the crime does not make him a conspirator for conspiracy transcends
companionship.
Same Same Same Treachery Elements.The evidence shows that
George Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not have any participation in the
commissionofthecrimeandmustthereforebesetfree.Theirmerepresence
atthesceneofthecrimeaswellastheircloserelationshipwithAntonioare
insufficient to establish conspiracy considering that they performed no
positiveactinfurtheranceofthecrime.
Same Same Same Same When the killing is perpetrated with
treachery and by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a
qualifyingcircumstance.Whenthekillingisperpetratedwithtreacheryand
by means of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying
circumstance.Notonlydoesjurisprudencesupportthisviewbutalso,since
theuseofexplosivesistheprincipalmodeofattack,reasondictatesthatthis
attendantcircumstanceshouldqualifytheoffenseinsteadoftreacherywhich
willthenberelegatedmerelyasagenericaggravatingcircumstance.
Same Same Illegal Possession of Firearms The amendatory law,
R.A. 8294, was enacted not to decriminalize illegal possession of firearms
andexplosives,buttolowertheirpenaltiesinordertorationalizetheminto
more acceptable and realistic levels.With the enactment on June 6, 1997
of Republic Act No. 8294 which also considers the use of explosives as an
aggravatingcircumstance,thereisaneedtomakethenecessaryclarification
insofar as the legal implications of the said amendatory law visvis the
qualifyingcircumstanceofbymeansofexplosionunderArticle248ofthe
Revised Penal Code are concerned. Corollary thereto is the issue of which
law should be applied in the instant case. R.A. No. 8294 was a reaction to
the onerous and anachronistic penalties imposed under the old illegal
possession of firearms law, P.D. 1866, which prevailed during the
tumultuous years of the Marcos dictatorship. The amendatory law was
enacted, not to decriminalize illegal possession of firearms and explosives,
buttolowertheirpenaltiesinordertorationalizethemintomoreacceptable
andrealisticlevels.
SameSameSameWhentheillegallypossessedexplosivesareusedto
commitanyofthecrimesundertheRevisedPenalCode,whichresultinthe
death of a person, the penalty is no longer death, unlike in P.D. No. 1866,
but it shall be considered only as an aggravating circumstance.This
legislative intent is conspicuously reflected in the reduction of the
corresponding penalties for illegal possession of firearms, or ammunitions
and other related crimes under the amendatory law. Under Section 2 of the
said law, the penalties for unlawful possession of explosives are also
lowered.Specifically,whentheillegallypossessedexplosivesareusedto
3/23
9/15/2016
369
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
369
Peoplevs.Comadre
commitanyofthecrimesundertheRevisedPenalCode,whichresultinthe
death of a person, the penalty is no longer death, unlike in P.D. No. 1866,
butitshallbeconsideredonlyasanaggravatingcircumstance.
Same Same Same Congress clearly intended R.A. No. 8294 to
considerasaggravatingcircumstance,insteadofaseparateoffense,illegal
possession of firearms and explosives when such possession is used to
commit other crimes under the Revised Penal Code.With the removal of
death as a penalty and the insertion of the term x x x as an aggravating
circumstance, the unmistakable import is to downgrade the penalty for
illegal possession of explosives and consider its use merely as an
aggravating circumstance. Clearly, Congress intended R.A. No. 8294 to
reduce the penalty for illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Also,
Congress clearly intended R.A. No. 8294 to consider as aggravating
circumstance, instead of a separate offense, illegal possession of firearms
andexplosiveswhensuchpossessionisusedtocommitothercrimesunder
theRevisedPenalCode.
SameSameSameThelegislativepurposeofR.A.8294istodoaway
withtheuseofexplosivesasaseparatecrimeandtomakesuchusemerely
anaggravatingcircumstanceinthecommissionofanycrimealreadydefined
in the Revised Penal Code.It must be made clear, however, that RA No.
8294 did not amend the definition of murder under Article 248, but merely
madetheuseofexplosivesanaggravatingcircumstancewhenresortedtoin
committing any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code. The
legislative purpose is to do away with the use of explosives as a separate
crime and to make such use merely an aggravating circumstance in the
commissionofanycrimealreadydefinedintheRevisedPenalCode.Thus,
RA No. 8294 merely added the use of unlicensed explosives as one of the
aggravatingcircumstancesspecifiedinArticle14oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Like the aggravating circumstance of explosion in paragraph 12, evident
premeditationinparagraph13,ortreacheryinparagraph16ofArticle14,
the new aggravating circumstance added by RA No. 8294 does not change
thedefinitionofmurderinArticle248.
SameSameSameBefore the use of unlawfully possessed explosives
can be properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it must be
adequately established that the possession was illegal or unlawful, i.e., the
accusediswithoutthecorrespondingauthorityorpermittopossess.Even
if favorable to the appellant, R.A. No. 8294 still cannot be made applicable
in this case. Before the use of unlawfully possessed explosives can be
properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it must be adequately
4/23
9/15/2016
established that the possession was illegal or unlawful, i.e., the accused is
without the corresponding authority or permit to possess. This follows the
samerequisitesintheprosecutionofcrimesinvolvingillegal
370
370
Peoplevs.Comadre
possessionoffirearmwhichisakindredorrelatedoffenseunderP.D.1866,
asamended.Thisproofdoesnotobtaininthepresentcase.Notonlywasit
not alleged in the information, but no evidence was adduced by the
prosecution to show that the possession by appellant of the explosive was
unlawful.
SameSameSame Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, requires the averment of aggravating circumstances for their
application.The information in this case does not allege that appellant
Antonio Comadre had unlawfully possessed or that he had no authority to
possessthegrenadethatheusedinthekillingandattemptedkillings.Evenif
it were alleged, its presence was not proven by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, requires the averment of aggravating circumstances for their
application.
SameSameSameTheunderlyingphilosophyofcomplexcrimesinthe
Revised Penal Code, which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to
favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes
committed, the rationale being, that the accused who commits two crimes
with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity that when the
crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions.
TheunderlyingphilosophyofcomplexcrimesintheRevisedPenalCode,
which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by
imposingasinglepenaltyirrespectiveofthecrimescommitted.Therationale
being, that the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal
impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed
bydifferentactsandseveralcriminalresolutions.
AUTOMATICREVIEWofadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
NuevaEcija,Br.39.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforappellee.
DomingoV.Pascuaforappellants.
PERCURIAM:
5/23
9/15/2016
AppellantsAntonioComadre,GeorgeComadreandDaniloLozano
were charged with Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder in an
informationwhichreads:
Thatonoraboutthe6thofAugust1995,atBrgy.SanPedro,Lupao,Nueva
Ecija,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonor
371
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
371
Peoplevs.Comadre
able Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and

mutually helping one another, with intent to kill and by means of treachery
andevidentpremeditation,availingofnighttimetoaffordimpunity,andwith
the use of an explosive, did there and then willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously lob a hand grenade that landed and eventually exploded at the
roofofthehouseofJaimeAgbanlogtrajectingdeadlyshrapnelsthathitand
killed one ROBERT AGBANLOG, per the death certificate, and causing
Jerry Bullanday, Jimmy Wabe, Lorenzo Eugenio, Rey Camat, Emelita
AgbanlogandElenaAgbanlogtosuffershrapnelwoundsontheirbodies,per
the medical certificates thus, to the latter victims, the accused commenced
all the acts of execution that would have produced the crime of Multiple
Murder as consequences thereof but nevertheless did not produce them by
reason of the timely and able medical and surgical interventions of
physicians,tothedamageandprejudiceofthedeceasedsheirsandtheother
victims.
1
CONTRARYTOLAW.
2
Onarraignment,appellantspleadednotguilty. Trialonthemerits
thenensued.
As culled from the records, at around 7:00 in the evening of3
August6,1995,RobertAgbanlog,JimmyWabe,GerryBullanday,
Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were having a drinking spree on
the terrace of the house of Roberts father, Barangay Councilman
Jaime Agbanlog, situated in Barangay San Pedro, Lupao, Nueva
Ecija. Jaime Agbanlog was seated on the banister of the
terrace
4
listeningtotheconversationofthecompanionsofhisson.
As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed
appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano
walking. The three stopped in front of the house. While his
companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed an object which
fell on the roof of the terrace. Appellants
immediately fled by
5
scalingthefenceofanearbyschool.
The object, which turned out to be a hand grenade, exploded
rippingaholeintheroofofthehouse.RobertAgbanlog,Jimmy
_______________
6/23
9/15/2016
1Rollo,p.17.
2Record,pp.2729.
3AlsoreferredtoasJerryBullandayintherecords.
4TSN,October12,1995,p.4March6,1996,p.3March21,1996,p.2July10,
1996,pp.23.
5TSN,October12,1995,p.5March6,1996,pp.23July10,1996,pp.24.
372
372
Peoplevs.Comadre
Wabe,GerryBullanday,ReyCamatandLorenzoEugeniowerehit
6
by shrapnel and slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all
rushedtotheSanJoseGeneralHospitalinLupao,NuevaEcijafor
medicaltreatment.However,RobertAgbanlogdiedbeforereaching
7
thehospital.
Dr.TirsodelosSantos,themedicolegalofficerwhoconducted
the autopsy on the cadaver of Robert Agbanlog, certified that the
wounds sustained by the victim were consistent with the injuries
inflicted by a grenade explosion and that the direct cause of8 death
was hypovolemic shock due to hand grenade explosion. The
surviving victims, Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat,
Jaime Agbanlog and
9
GerryBullandaysustainedshrapnelinjuries.
SPO3 John Barraceros of the Lupao Municipal Police Station,
who investigated the scene of the crime, recovered metallic
fragments at the terrace of the Agbanlog house. These fragments
were forwarded to the Explosive Ordinance Disposal Division in
Camp Crame, Quezon City, where SPO2 Jesus Q. Mamaril, a
specialist in said
division, identified them as shrapnel of an MK2
10
handgrenade.
Denying the charges against him, appellant Antonio Comadre
claimed that on the night of August 6, 1995, he was with his wife
andchildrenwatchingtelevisioninthehouseofhisfather,Patricio,
andhisbrother,Rogelio.Hedeniedanyparticipationintheincident
and claimed that he was surprised when three policemen from the
Lupao Municipal Police Station went to his house the following
morning of August 7, 1995 and asked him to go
with them to the
11
policestation,wherehehasbeendetainedsince.
Appellant George Comadre, for his part, testified that he is the
brother of Antonio Comadre and the brotherinlaw of Danilo
Lozano. He also denied any involvement in the grenadethrowing
incident,claimingthathewasathomewhenithappened.He
_______________
6TSN,October12,1995,pp.57March6,1996,pp.45March21,1996,p.3July
10,1996,p.3.
7/23
9/15/2016
7TSN,March21,1996,pp.46.
8Record,pp.1011.
9TSN,October12,1995,p.10March6,1996,p.10March21,1996,p.5July10,
1996,pp.67.
10Record,p.299.
11TSN,August28,1998,pp.79.
373
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
373
Peoplevs.Comadre
statedthatheisafriendofReyCamatandJimmyWabe,andthathe
hadnoanimositytowardsthemwhatsoever.Appellantalsoclaimed
tobeingoodtermswiththeAgbanlogssohehasnoreasontocause
12
themanygrief.
AppellantDaniloLozanosimilarlydeniedanycomplicityinthe
crime.Hedeclaredthathewasathomewithhistenyearoldsonon
thenightofAugust6,1995.HeaddedthathedidnotseeAntonio
and George Comadre that night and has not seen them for quite
sometime, either before or after the incident. Like the two other
appellants,LozanodeniedhavinganymisunderstandingwithJaime
13
Agbanlog,RobertAgbanlogandJimmyWabe.
Antonios father, Patricio, and his wife, Lolita, corroborated his
claimthathewasathomewatchingtelevisionwiththemduringthe
14
nightinquestion. JosieComadre,Georgeswife,testifiedthather
husband could not have been among those who threw a hand
grenade at the house of the Agbanlogs because on the evening of
August 6, 1995, they
were resting inside their house after working
15
alldayinthefarm.
After trial, the court a quo gave credence to the prosecutions
evidenceandconvictedappellantsofthecomplexcrimeofMurder
16
withMultipleAttemptedMurder, the dispositiveportion ofwhich
states:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrendered:
1. Finding accused Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo
LozanoGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthecomplexcrimeof
Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder and sentencing them to
suffertheimposablepenaltyofdeath
2. OrderingAntonioComadre,GeorgeComadreandDaniloLozanoto
pay jointly and severally the heirs of Robert Agbanlog P50,000.00
as indemnification for his death, P35,000.00 as compensatory
damagesandP20,000.00asmoraldamages
_______________
8/23
9/15/2016
12TSN,August5,1998,pp.28.
13TSN,December3,1998,pp.310.
14TSN,January7,1999,pp.78April9,1999,pp.68.
15TSN,July30,1999,pp.35.
16PennedbyJudgeBayaniV.VargasoftheRegionalTrialCourtofSanJoseCity,
Branch39.
374
374
Peoplevs.Comadre
3. Ordering accused Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo
Lozano to pay jointly and severally Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat,
Gerry Bullanday and Jaime Agbanlog P30,000.00 as indemnity for
theirattemptedmurder.
Costsagainsttheaccused.
SOORDERED.
Hence,thisautomaticreviewpursuanttoArticle47oftheRevised
Penal Code, as amended. Appellants contend that the trial court
erred: (1) when it did not correctly and judiciously interpret and
appreciate the evidence and thus, the miscarriage of justice was
obviously omnipresent (2) when it imposed on the accused
appellants thesupremepenalty ofdeath despite the evident lackof
the quantum of evidence to convict them of the crime charged
beyondreasonabledoubtand(3)whenitdidnotapplythelawand
jurisprudencefortheacquittaloftheaccusedappellantsofthecrime
17
charged.
Appellantspointtotheinconsistenciesintheswornstatementsof
JimmyWabe,ReyCamat,LorenzoEugenioandGerryBullandayin
identifying the perpetrators. Wabe, Camat and Eugenio initially
executedaSinumpaangSalaysayonAugust7,1995atthehospital
wherein they did not categorically state who the culprit was but
merely named Antonio Comadre as a suspect. Gerry Bullanday
declared that he suspected Antonio Comadre as one of the culprits
becausehesawthelatterstenyearoldsonbringsomethinginthe
nearbystorebeforetheexplosionoccurred.
OnAugust27,1995,ortwentydayslater,theywenttothepolice
station to give a more detailed account of the incident, this time
identifying Antonio Comadre as the perpetrator together with
GeorgeComadreandDaniloLozano.
A closer scrutiny of the records shows that no contradiction
actually exists, as all sworn statements pointed to the same
perpetrators, namely, Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and
Danilo Lozano. Moreover, it appears that the first statement was
executed a day after the incident, when Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat
9/23
9/15/2016
andLorenzoEugeniowerestillinthehospitalfortheinjuriesthey
sustained. Coherence could not thus be expected in view of their
condition.Itisthereforenotsurprisingforthewitnessestocome
_______________
17Rollo,pp.6768.
375
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
375
Peoplevs.Comadre
up with a more exhaustive account of the incident after they have

regainedtheirequanimity.Thelapseoftwentydaysbetweenthetwo
statementsisimmaterialbecausesaidperiodevenhelpedthemrecall
somefactswhichtheymayhaveinitiallyoverlooked.
Witnessescannotbeexpectedtorememberallthedetailsofthe
harrowing event which unfolded before their eyes. Minor
discrepancies might be found in their testimony, but they do not
damagetheessentialintegrityoftheevidenceinitsmaterialwhole,
norshouldtheyreflectadverselyonthewitnesscredibilityasthey
18
erasesuspicionthatthesamewasperjured. Honestinconsistencies
onminorandtrivialmattersservetostrengthenratherthandestroy
thecredibilityofawitnesstoacrime,especiallysowhen,asinthe
instantcase,thecrimeisshockingtotheconscienceandnumbingto
19
thesenses.
Moreover, it was not shown that witnesses Jimmy Wabe, Rey
Camat, Lorenzo Eugenio and Gerry Bullanday had any motive to
testify falsely against appellants. Absent evidence showing any
reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical
conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their
testimonyisthusworthyoffullfaithandcredit.
The trial court is likewise correct in disregarding appellants
defense of alibi and denial. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the
accusedmustprovenotonlythathewasatsomeotherplaceatthe
timeofthecommissionofthecrimebutalsothatitwasphysically
impossibleforhimtobeatthelocusdelictiorwithinitsimmediate
20
vicinity.
Apartfromtestifyingwithrespecttothedistanceoftheirhouses
fromthatofJaimeAgbanlogsresidence,appellantswereunableto
giveanyexplanationandneitherweretheyabletoshowthatitwas
physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime.
Hence,thepositiveidentificationoftheappellantsbyeyewitnesses
_______________
18Peoplev.DelValle,G.R.No.119616,14December2001,372SCRA297.
10/23
9/15/2016
19Peoplev.Patalin,G.R.No.125539,27July1999,311SCRA186citingPeople
vs.Agunias,G.R.No.121993,12September1997,279SCRA52.
20Peoplev.Abundo,G.R.No.138233,18January2001,349SCRA577.
376
376
Peoplevs.Comadre
Jimmy Wabe, Jaime Agbanlog, Rey Camat21and Gerry Bullanday

prevailsovertheirdefenseofalibianddenial.
It was established that prior to the grenade explosion, Rey
Camat, Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe and Gerry Bullanday were
able to identify the culprits, namely, appellants Antonio Comadre,
GeorgeComadreandDaniloLozanobecausetherewasalamppost
22
infrontofthehouseandthemoonwasbright.
AppellantsargumentthatJudgeBayaniV.Vargas,thePresiding
JudgeoftheRegionalTrialCourtofSanJoseCity,Branch38erred
in rendering the decision because he was not the judge who heard
andtriedthecaseisnotwelltaken.
Itisnotunusualforajudgewhodidnottryacasetodecideiton
thebasisoftherecordforthetrialjudgemighthavedied,resigned,
23
retired,transferred,andsoforth.
AsfarbackasthecaseofCoTao
24
v. Court of Appeals we have held: The fact that the judge who
heard the evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment and
thatforthatreasonthelatterdidnothavetheopportunitytoobserve
thedemeanorofthewitnessesduringthetrialbutmerelyreliedon
the records of the case does not render the judgment erroneous.
This rule had been followed for quite25 a long time, and there is no
reasontogoagainsttheprinciplenow.
However, the trial courts finding of conspiracy will have to be
reassessed.TheundisputedfactsshowthatwhenAntonioComadre
wasintheactofthrowingthehandgrenade,GeorgeComadreand
Danilo Lozanomerelylooked onwithout uttering a single wordof
encouragement or performed any act to assist him. The trial court
heldthatthemerepresenceofGeorgeComadreandDaniloLozano
provided encouragement and a sense of security to Antonio
Comadre,thusprovingtheexistenceofconspiracy.
Wedisagree.
_______________
21Peoplev.Francisco,G.R.Nos.13456667,22January2001,350SCRA55.
22TSN,July10,1996,p.4March21,1996,p.4.
23Peoplev.Escalante,G.R.No.L37147,22August1984,131SCRA237.
24101Phil.188,194(1957).
25Peoplev.Rabutin,G.R.Nos.11813132,5May1997,272SCRA197.
11/23
9/15/2016
377
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
377
Peoplevs.Comadre
Similartothephysicalactconstitutingthecrimeitself,theelements
of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Settled is
therulethattoestablishconspiracy,evidenceofactualcooperation
rather than
mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is
26
required.
A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence. It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as
thecommissionofthecrimeitself.Merepresenceofapersonatthe
sceneofthecrimedoesnotmakehimaconspiratorforconspiracy
27
transcendscompanionship.
The evidence shows that George Comadre and Danilo Lozano
did not have any participation in the commission of the crime and
must therefore be set free. Their mere presence at the scene of the
crimeaswellastheircloserelationshipwithAntonioareinsufficient
toestablishconspiracyconsideringthattheyperformednopositive
actinfurtheranceofthecrime.
NeitherwasitproventhattheiractofrunningawaywithAntonio
was an act of giving moral assistance to his criminal act. The
ratiocination of the trial court that their presence provided
encouragementandsenseofsecuritytoAntonio,isdevoidofany
factual basis. Such finding is not supported by the evidence on
record and cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of
conspiracy.
Time and again we have been guided by the principle that it
wouldbebettertosetfreetenmenwhomightbeprobablyguiltyof
thecrimechargedthantoconvictoneinnocentmanforacrimehe
28
didnotcommit. Therebeingnoconspiracy,onlyAntonioComadre
mustanswerforthecrime.
Coming now to Antonios liability, we find that the trial court
correctlyruledthattreacheryattendedthecommissionofthecrime.
Fortreacherytobeappreciatedtwoconditionsmustconcur:(1)the
means, method and form of execution employed gave the person
attackednoopportunitytodefendhimselforretaliateand(2)such
means,methodsandformofexecutionwasdeliberately
_______________
26Peoplev.Tabuso,G.R.No.113708,26October1999,317SCRA454.
27Peoplev.Bolivar,G.R.No.108174,28October1999,317SCRA577.
28Peoplev.Capili,G.R.No.130588,8June2000,333SCRA354.
378
12/23
9/15/2016
378
Peoplevs.Comadre
and consciously adopted by the accused. Its essence lies in the

adoption of ways to minimize or neutralize any resistance, which
maybeputupbytheoffendedparty.
Appellantlobbedagrenadewhichfellontheroofoftheterrace
where the unsuspecting victims were having a drinking spree. The
suddennessoftheattackcoupledwiththeinstantaneouscombustion
and the tremendous impact of the explosion did not afford the
victims sufficient time to scamper for safety, much less defend
themselvesthusinsuringtheexecutionofthecrimewithoutriskof
reprisalorresistanceontheirpart.Treacherythereforeattendedthe
commissionofthecrime.
Itissignificanttonotethatasidefromtreachery,theinformation
29
also alleges the use of an explosive as an aggravating
circumstance. Since both attendant circumstances can qualify
the
30
killingtomurderunderArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode, we
should determine which of the two circumstances will qualify the
killinginthiscase.
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and by means of
explosives,thelattershallbeconsideredasaqualifyingcircum
_______________
29Definedasasuddenandrapidcombustion,causingviolentexpansionoftheair,
andaccompaniedbyareport.UnitedLife,FireandMarineInsurance,Inc.v.Foote,22
OhioSt.348,10AmRep735,citedinBouviersLawDictionary,ThirdRevision,Vol.
1 also defined in Wadsworth v. Marshall, 88 Me 263, 34 A 30, as a bursting with
violenceandloudnoise,causedbyinternalpressure.
30Art.248.Murder.Anypersonwho,notfallingwithintheprovisionsofArticle
246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetuatodeathifcommittedwithanyofthefollowingattendantcircumstances:
xxxxxxxxx
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of armed men, or
employingmeanstoweakenthedefense,orofmeansorpersonstoinsureoraffordimpunity
xxxxxxxxx
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding or a vessel,
derailmentorassaultuponarailroad,fallofanairship,orbymeansofmotorvehicles,orwith
theuseofanyothermeansinvolvinggreatwasteandruin.(Italicssupplied)
379
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
379
Peoplevs.Comadre
31
stance. Not only does jurisprudence support this view

but also,
13/23
9/15/2016
31
stance. Not only does jurisprudence support this view but also,
since the use of explosives is the principal mode of attack, reason
dictates that this attendant circumstance should qualify the offense
insteadoftreacherywhichwillthenberelegatedmerelyasageneric
32
aggravatingcircumstance.
Incidentally,withtheenactmentonJune6,1997ofRepublicAct
33
No. 8294 which also considers the use of explosives as an
aggravating circumstance, there is a need to make the necessary
clarificationinsofarasthelegalimplicationsofthesaidamendatory
law visvis the qualifying circumstance of by means of
explosion under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code are
concerned. Corollary thereto is the issue of which law should be
appliedintheinstantcase.
R.A. No. 8294 was a reaction to the onerous and anachronistic
penalties imposed under the old illegal possession of firearms law,
P.D. 1866, which prevailed during the tumultuous years of the
Marcos dictatorship. The amendatory law was enacted, not to
decriminalize illegal possession of firearms and explosives, but to
lower their penalties in order
to rationalize them into more
34
acceptableandrealisticlevels.
_______________
31 People v. Tayo, G.R. No. L52798, 19 February 1986, 141 SCRA 393,
citing
Peoplev.Guillen,85Phil.307Peoplev.GallegoandSoriano,82Phil.335Peoplev.
Agcaoili,86Phil.549Peoplev.Francisco,94Phil.975.
32Peoplev.Tintero,G.R.No.L30435,15February1982,111SCRA704Peoplev.
Asibar,G.R.No.L37255,23October1982,117SCRA856.
33Entitled:AnActAmendingtheProvisionsofPresidentialDecreeNo.1866,As
Amended, Entitled Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession,

Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or
Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or
Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof, and for
RelevantPurposes.
34 Representative Roilo Golez, in his sponsorship speech, laid down two basic
amendmentsunderHouseBillNo.8820,nowR.A.8294:
1. reductionofpenaltiesforsimpleillegalpossessionoffirearmsorexplosives
fromtheexistingreclusionperpetuatoprisioncorreccionalorprisionmayor,
dependinguponthetypeoffirearmpossessed
2. repeal of the incongruous provision imposing capital punishment for the
offenseofillegalpossessionoffirearmsandexplosivesinfurtheranceoforin
pursuitofrebellionorinsurrection.
380
380
Peoplevs.Comadre
14/23
9/15/2016
Thislegislativeintentisconspicuouslyreflectedinthereductionof
the corresponding penalties for illegal possession of firearms, or
ammunitions and other related crimes under the amendatory law.
Under Section 2 of the said law, the penalties for unlawful
possession of explosives are also lowered. Specifically, when the
illegallypossessedexplosivesareusedtocommitanyofthecrimes
undertheRevisedPenalCode,whichresultinthedeathofaperson,
thepenaltyisnolongerdeath,unlikeinP.D.No.1866,butitshall
beconsideredonlyasanaggravatingcircumstance.Section3ofP.D.
No.1866asamendedbySection2ofR.A.8294nowreads:
Section2.Section3ofPresidentialDecreeNo.1866,asamended,ishereby
furtheramendedtoreadasfollows:
Section 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or
Possession of Explosives.The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum
periodtoreclusiontemporalandafineofnotlessthanFiftythousandpesos
(P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture,assemble,dealin,acquire,disposeorpossesshandgre
_______________
The same rationale was the moving force behind Senate Bill 1148 as articulated by then
SenatorMiriamDefensorSantiagoinhersponsorshipspeech:
Theissueofdisproportionisconspicuousnotonlywhenwemakeacomparisonwiththeotherlaws,but
also when we make a comparison of the various offenses defined within the existing law itself. Under
P.D. No. 1866, the offense of simple possession is punished with the same penalty as that imposed for
much more serious offenses such as unlawful manufacture, sale, or disposition of firearms and
ammunition.
xxxxxxxxx
It was only during the years of martial law1972 and 1983that the penalty for illegal possession
made a stratospheric leap. Under P.D. No. 9 promulgated in 1972the first year of martial lawthe
penalty suddenly became the mandatory penalty of death, if the unlicensed firearm was used in the
commission of crimes. Subsequently, under P.D. No. 1866, promulgated in 1983during the last few
yearsofmartiallawthepenaltywassetatitspresentonerouslevel.
The lesson of history is that a democratic, constitutional, and civilian government imposes a very
low penalty for simple possession. It is only an undemocratic martial law regimea law unto itself
whichimposesanextremelyharshpenaltyforsimplepossession.
381
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
381
Peoplevs.Comadre
nade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives, including but not limited to
pillbox, molotov cocktail bombs, fire bombs, or other incendiary
devices capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or
causinginjuryordeathtoanyperson.
15/23
9/15/2016
When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised

PenalCodeorspeciallawwiththeuseoftheaforementionedexplosives,
detonation agents or incendiary devises, which results in the death of
anypersonorpersons,theuseofsuchexplosives,detonationagentsor
incendiary devices shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
(shallbepunishedwiththepenaltyofdeathisDELETED.)
xxxxxxxxx.
Withtheremovalofdeathasapenaltyandtheinsertionoftheterm
xxxasanaggravatingcircumstance,theunmistakableimportis
to downgrade the penalty for illegal possession of explosives and
consideritsusemerelyasanaggravatingcircumstance.
Clearly,CongressintendedR.A.No.8294toreducethepenalty
for illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Also, Congress
clearly intended RA No. 8294 to consider as aggravating
circumstance, instead of a separate offense, illegal possession of
firearms and explosives when such possession is used to commit
othercrimesundertheRevisedPenalCode.
Itmustbemadeclear,however,thatRANo.8294didnotamend
thedefinitionofmurderunderArticle248,butmerelymadetheuse
of explosives an aggravating circumstance when resorted to in
committinganyofthecrimesdefinedintheRevisedPenalCode.
Thelegislativepurposeistodoawaywiththeuseofexplosivesasa
separate crime and to make such use merely an aggravating
circumstanceinthecommissionofanycrimealreadydefinedinthe
Revised Penal Code. Thus, RA No. 8294 merely added the use of
unlicensed explosives as one of the aggravating circumstances
specified in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Like the
aggravating circumstance of explosion in paragraph 12, evident
premeditation in paragraph 13, or treachery in paragraph 16 of
Article 14, the new aggravating circumstance added by RA No.
8294doesnotchangethedefinitionofmurderinArticle248.
Nonetheless, even if favorable to the appellant, R.A. No. 8294
still cannot be made applicable in this case. Before the use of
unlawfully possessed explosives can be properly appreciated as an
aggravatingcircumstance,itmustbeadequatelyestablishedthat
382
382
Peoplevs.Comadre
the possession was illegal or unlawful, i.e., the accused is without

the corresponding authority or permit to possess. This follows the
same requisites in the
prosecution of crimes involving illegal
35
possessionoffirearm which is a kindred or related offense under
P.D. 1866, as amended. This proof does not obtain in the present
case.Notonlywasitnotallegedintheinformation,butnoevidence
16/23
9/15/2016
was adduced by the prosecution to show that the possession by

appellantoftheexplosivewasunlawful.
It is worthy to note that the above requirement of illegality is
borneoutbytheprovisionsofthelawitself,inconjunctionwiththe
pertinenttenetsoflegalhermeneutics.
36
A reading of the title of R.A. No. 8294 will show that the
qualifier illegal/unlawful . . . possession is followed by of
firearms, ammunition, or explosives or instruments . . . Although
the term ammunition is separated from explosives by the
disjunctive word or, it does not mean that explosives are no
longer included in the items which can be illegally/unlawfully
possessed. In this context, the disjunctive word or is not used to
separate but to37signify a succession or to conjoin the38enumerated
items together. Moreover, Section 2 of R.A. 8294, subtitled:
Section3.Unlawful
_______________
35
In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, two requisites must be
established, viz.: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and, (2) the fact that the
accusedwhoownedorpossessedthefirearmdoesnothavethecorrespondinglicense
orpermittopossess.See:Peoplev.Solayao,G.R.No.119220,20September1996,262
SCRA255Peoplev.Lualhati,234SCRA325(1994)Peoplev.Damaso,212SCRA
547(1992).
36AnActAmendingtheProvisionsofPresidentialDecreeNo.1866,asamended,
entitled Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing

in,AcquisitionorDispositionofFirearms,AmmunitionorExplosivesorInstruments
UsedintheManufactureofFirearms,AmmunitionorExplosives,andImposingStiffer
PenaltiesforCertainViolationsThereof,andForRelevantPurposes.
37 This follows a similar construction used in Article 344 of the Revised Penal
Codewhichstatesinpartthattheoffensesofseduction,abduction,rapeoractsof
lasciviousness,shallnotbeprosecutedexceptuponcomplaintbytheoffendedpartyor
her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor in any case, if the offender has been
expressly pardoned by the abovementioned persons, as the case may be. In this
context,orhasthesameeffectastheconjunctivetermand.
38Subtitled:Section3.UnlawfulManufacture,Sale,Acquisition,Dispositionor
PossessionofExplosiveswherethemodifierunlawfuldescribesthemanufacture,
sale,etc.of,amongothers,explosives.
383
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
383
Peoplevs.Comadre
Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of

Explosives, clearly refers to the unlawful manufacture, sale, or
possessionofexplosives.
17/23
9/15/2016
What the law emphasizes is the acts lack of authority. Thus,

whenthesecondparagraphofSection3,P.D.No.1866,asamended
by R.A. No. 8294 speaks of the use of the aforementioned
explosives,etc.asanaggravatingcircumstanceinthecommission
of crimes, it refers to those explosives, etc. unlawfully
manufactured, assembled, dealt in, acquired, disposed or possessed
mentionedinthefirstparagraphofthesamesection.Whatisperse
aggravating is the use of unlawfully manufactured . . . or
possessedexplosives.Themereuseofexplosivesisnot.
The information in this case does not allege that appellant
Antonio Comadre had unlawfully possessed or that he had no
authority to possess the grenade that he used in the killing and
attempted killings. Even if it were alleged, its presence was not
provenbytheprosecutionbeyondreasonabledoubt.Rule110ofthe
2000RevisedRulesonCriminalProcedurerequirestheavermentof
39
aggravatingcircumstancesfortheirapplication.
TheinapplicabilityofR.A.8294havingbeenmademanifest,the
crime committed is Murder committed by means of explosion in
accordance with Article 248 (3) of the Revised Penal Code. The
same, having been alleged in the Information, may be properly
considered as appellant was
sufficiently informed of the nature of
40
theaccusationagainsthim.
_______________
39Sec.8.Designationoftheoffense.Thecomplaintorinformationshallstatethe
designationoftheoffensegivenbythestatute,avertheactsoromissionsconstituting
the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designationoftheoffenses,referenceshallbemadetothesectionorsubsectionofthe
statutepunishingit.
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation.The acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be
statedinordinaryandconciselanguageandnotnecessarilyinthelanguageusedinthe
statutebutintermssufficienttoenableapersonofcommonunderstandingtoknow
whatoffenseisbeingchargedaswellasitsqualifyingandaggravatingcircumstances
andforthecourttopronouncejudgment.
40Peoplev.Manansala,G.R. No. 147149, 9 July 2003, 405 SCRA 481People v.
Paulino,G.R.No.148810,18November2003,416SCRA122.
384
384
Peoplevs.Comadre
The trial court found appellant guilty of the complex crime of

murder with multiple attempted murder under Article 48 of the
RevisedPenalCode,whichprovides:
18/23
9/15/2016
Art.48.Penaltyforcomplexcrimes.Whenasingleactconstitutestwoor
moregraveorlessgravefelonies,orwhenanoffenseisanecessarymeans
of committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed,thesametobeappliedinitsmaximumperiod.
TheunderlyingphilosophyofcomplexcrimesintheRevisedPenal
Code,whichfollowstheproreo principle, is intended to favor the
accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes
committed.Therationalebeing,thattheaccusedwhocommitstwo
crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity
than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several
criminalresolutions.
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may
quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct
offenses, yet these component criminal offenses should be
consideredonlyasasinglecrimeinlawonwhichasinglepenaltyis
imposed because the offender was impelled by a single
criminal
41
impulsewhichshowshislesserdegreeofperversity.
Undertheaforecitedarticle,whenasingleactconstitutestwoor
more grave or less grave felonies the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
period irrespective of the presence of modifying circumstances,
including
the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery in this
42
case. Applying the aforesaid provision of law, the maximum
penaltyforthemostseriouscrime(murder)isdeath.Thetrialcourt,
therefore,correctlyimposedthedeathpenalty.
Three justices of the Court, however, continue to maintain the
unconstitutionality of R.A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death
penalty.Nevertheless,theysubmittotherulingofthemajoritytothe
effectthatthelawisconstitutionalandthatthedeathpenaltycanbe
lawfullyimposedinthecaseatbar.
Finally,thetrialcourtawardedtotheparentsofthevictimRobert
AgbanlogcivilindemnityintheamountofP50,000.00,P35,000.00
ascompensatorydamagesandP20,000.00asmoral
_______________
41Peoplev.Sakam,61Phil.27Peoplev.Manantan,94Phil.831.
42Peoplev.Guillen,G.R.No.L1477,18January1950.
385
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
385
Peoplevs.Comadre
43
damages. Pursuant to existing jurisprudence the award of civil

indemnity is proper. However, the actual damages awarded to the
heirs of Robert Agbanlog should be modified, considering that the
19/23
9/15/2016
prosecutionwasabletosubstantiateonlytheamountofP18,000.00
44
asfuneralexpenses.
Theawardofmoraldamagesisappropriatetherebeingevidence
toshowemotionalsufferingonthepartoftheheirsofthedeceased,
but the same must be increased
to P50,000.00 in accordance with
45
prevailingjudicialpolicy.
With respect to the surviving victims Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy
Wabe, Rey Camat and Gerry Bullanday, the trial court awarded
P30,000.00eachfortheinjuriestheysustained.Wefindthisaward
inappropriatebecausetheywerenotabletopresentasinglereceipt
to substantiate their claims. Nonetheless, since it appears that they
areentitledtoactualdamagesalthoughtheamountthereofcannotbe
determined, they
should be awarded temperate damages of
46
P25,000.00each.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed
decisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofSanJoseCity,Branch39in
Criminal Case No. L16(95) is AFFIRMED insofar as appellant
AntonioComadreisconvictedofthecomplexcrimeofMurderwith
Multiple Attempted Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
death. He is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P18,000.00 as actual damages and likewise ordered to pay the
surviving victims, Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat and
Gerry Bullanday, P25,000.00 each as temperate damages for the
injuries they sustained. Appellants Gregorio Comadre and Danilo
Lozano are ACQUITTED for lack of evidence to establish
conspiracy, and they are hereby ordered immediately RELEASED
from confinement unless they are lawfully held in custody for
anothercause.Costsdeoficio.
_______________
43Peoplev.Delim,G.R.No.142773,28January2003,396SCRA386.
44RTCRecord,Vol.1,p.170,ExhibitJTSN,21March1996,p.10.
45Peoplev.Caballero,G.R.Nos.14902830,2April2003,400SCRA424People
v.Galvez,G.R.No.1300397,17January2002,374SCRA10TSN,March21,1996,p.
11.
46Peoplev.Abrazaldo,G.R.No.124392,7February2003,397SCRA137.
386
386
Peoplevs.Comadre
In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act 7659 amending

Article83oftheRevisedPenalCode,uponfinalityofthisDecision,
let the records of this case be forwarded to the Office of the
Presidentforpossibleexerciseofpardoningpower.
20/23
9/15/2016
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
YnaresSantiago, SandovalGutierrez, Carpio, AustriaMartinez,
Corona,CarpioMorales,AzcunaandTinga,JJ.,concur.
Callejo, Sr., J., Please see my concurring and dissenting
opinion.
CONCURRINGANDDISSENTINGOPINION
CALLEJO,SR.,J.:
I concur with the majority that the appellant Antonio Comadre is
guilty of murder for the death of Robert Agbanlog, and multiple
attempted murder for the injuries sustained by the other victims. I
dissent,however,fromtherulingofthemajoritythatthekillingof
Agbanlogisqualifiedbytheuseofexplosivesandnotbytreachery.
UnderSection3ofP.D.No.1866whichtookeffectonJune29,
1983, any person who commits any of the crimes defined in the
RevisedPenalCodewiththeuseofexplosives,detonationagentsor
incendiary devices which results in1the death of a person shall be
sentencedtosufferthedeathpenalty. However,withtheonsetofthe
1987 Constitution, the imposition of the death penalty was
suspended.
Under paragraph 3, Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amendedbyRepublicActNo.7659,theuseofexplosivesinkilling
apersonisacircumstancewhichqualifiesthekillingtomurder,the
imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua to death. When
the crimes were committed by the appellants on August 6, 1995,
Rep. Act No. 7659 was already on effect. But while the case was
pending,Rep.ActNo.8294wasapprovedonJune6,1997.Section
2ofthelatterlawprovidesthatwhenapersoncommits
_______________
1AnypersonwhocommitsanyofthecrimesdefinedintheRevisedPenalCodeor
special laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or
incendiary devices, which results in the death of any person or persons shall be
punishedwiththepenaltyofdeath.
387
VOL.431,JUNE8,2004
387
Peoplevs.Comadre
21/23
9/15/2016
anyofthecrimesdefinedintheRevisedPenalCodewiththeuseof
explosives,detonationagentsorincendiarydeviceswhichresultsin
thedeathofanypersonorpersons,theuseofsuchexplosives,etc.
shallbeconsideredasanaggravatingcircumstance.
When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal
Code or special laws with the use of the aforementioned explosives,
detonation agents or incendiary devices, which results in the death of any
person or persons, the use of such explosives, detonation agents or
incendiarydevicesshallbeconsideredasanaggravatingcircumstance.
Paragraph3ofArticle248oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamended
byRep.ActNo.7659,was,thus,amendedbySection2ofRep.Act
No.8294.Underthelatterlaw,theuseofahandgrenadeinkilling
thevictimwasdowngradedfrombeingaqualifyingcircumstanceto
ameregenericaggravatingcircumstance.ConsideringthatSection2
ofRep.ActNo.8294isfavorabletotheappellants,thesameshould
2
beappliedretroactively. Consideringthefactualmilieuinthiscase,
the generic aggravating circumstance of the use of explosives is
absorbedbythequalifyingcircumstanceoftreachery.
JudgmentastoAntonioComadreaffirmed,GeorgeComadreand
DaniloLozanoacquittedandorderedreleased.
Notes.Theamendatorylaw(RepublicActNo.8294)doesnot
add to the existing elements of the crime of illegal possession of
firearms. What it does is merely to excuse the accused from
prosecution of the same in case another crime is committed.
(Margarejovs.Escoses,365SCRA190[2001])
Under RepublicActNo. 8294,the useof an unlicensed firearm
in the commission of homicide or murder is no longer treated as a
separate offense, but only as a special aggravating circumstance.
(Peoplevs.Arondain,366SCRA98[2001])
o0o
_______________
2 Art. 2. Retroactive effect of penal laws.Penal laws shall have a retroactive
effectinsofarastheyfavorthepersonguiltyofafelony,whoisnotahabitualcriminal,
asthistermisdefinedinRule5ofArticle62ofthisCode,althoughatthetimeofthe
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
servingthesame.
388
22/23
9/15/2016
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
23/23

People V Comadre PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

People V Comadre PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

9/15/2016

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANTONIO

able Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring, confederating and

up with a more exhaustive account of the incident after they have

Jimmy Wabe, Jaime Agbanlog, Rey Camat21and Gerry Bullanday

and consciously adopted by the accused. Its essence lies in the

stance. Not only does jurisprudence support this view

Amended, Entitled Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession,

When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised

the possession was illegal or unlawful, i.e., the accused is without

was adduced by the prosecution to show that the possession by

In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, two requisites must be

entitled Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing

Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition, Disposition or Possession of

What the law emphasizes is the acts lack of authority. Thus,

The trial court found appellant guilty of the complex crime of

damages. Pursuant to existing jurisprudence the award of civil

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act 7659 amending

S-ar putea să vă placă și