PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RENATO Z. DIZON, accused-appellant.

F:
Renato Dizon y Zuela guilty of Robbery with Rape, attended by two aggravating circumstances,
imposing upon him the penalty of Death and ordering him to pay complainant Arlie Rosalin
P9,500.00 for actual damages, P200,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.

On July 7, 1997, around 9:30 p.m., private complainant Arlie Rosalin, then a 21-year old
engineering student from Dinalupihan, Bataan, alighted from a bus as it stopped by a small bridge
along EDSA just before Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City.[2] Seconds later, she heard someone call
out Miss! and when she turned her head around, she found appellant behind her. [3] Appellant
suddenly seized her, pointing a fan knife to the side of her neck, and announced a holdup. He
then told her to face the railing of the bridge and asked for her wallet and jewelry.

Appellant instructed private complainant to walk with him along EDSA and pretend that they
were a couple and headed to Project 7. There they reached a dark and empty basketball court.
Appellant ordered private complainant to remove her pants and underwear. Appellant kissed her
on the lips, neck and breasts which he also mashed. He also bit her nipples at least three times
as well as the right side of her back and vagina. He forced her bend forward over the hood of a
taxi and forcefully penetrated her vagine with his organ.

Appellant even ordered her to hold and massage his penis which he boastfully informed the
latter, carried BOLITAS. He then forced her to put it into her mouth.

Appellant pushed her to the ground and ravished her again. Sensing that the Appellant was about
to reach his knife and kill her, she struggled with all her might and broke free from the hands of
the accused.

Victim ran to the nearest store that was about to close but refused to help her and referred her
to the barangay. The brgy officer went back with her to the court where they were able to recover
her shoes underwear and the accused's black cap. She gave a description: he was dark, 53 ro 54
in height and with a body covered with tattoos from waist down.

DIZON's defense: denial and alibi. He averred that as a tricycle dispatcher, he used to work from
7:00 oclock to 11:00 oclock in the morning and from 2:00 oclock to 5:00 oclock in the afternoon;
that on the evening of July 7, 1997, he was just at home resting; that he was at work when he
was arrested and when he was brought to the police station, he was beaten up; that he told the
police that he had nothing to do with what happened to the complainant and that he saw her for
the first time only when he was arrested; that he did not know of any reason why she singled him
out and filed a case against him; and that when he was brought to the fiscal, he again denied the
charges against him.

TRIAL COURT: ROBBERY WITH RAPE

9,500 actual damages, 200,000 moral damages and costs
DIZON'S ISSUE:
First, appellant states that he has only two hands; hence, it was impossible for him to remove
his pants, restrain private complainant, and hold a fan knife all at the same time.

Second, appellant points out an alleged inconsistency between private complainants

account of rape and her alleged refusal to escape her rapist despite opportunity to do so.
Third, appellant argues that he was not positively identified by private complainant because
somebody had to tell her where he was when she and the police went out to look for him at the
market place in Munoz.
SC:
First issue:
Witness holding the right wrist of the Interpreter using the left hand. The witness demonstrating
that the accused was using his right hand holding the knife while unbuttoning his pants and every
time she would resist the accused would point the knife at her. COUNTLESS RAPES HAVE BEEN
COMMITTED IN A SIMILAR FASHION.
Second issue:
Overcome with fear, it is understandable why she was not able to escape at that moment.

Third issue:

While somebody did point out to private complainant and her companions that they had already
passed the person they were looking for, this was understandable because the place where they
were searching was crowded. The failure to see is not the same as failure to recognize which is
what is crucial in identification. Nobody prodded her to point to appellant. Nobody told her that
he was the malefactor. What is important is that it was private complainant herself who had
provided appellants description and who, without assistance, eventually picked him out from the
crowd as the person who robbed and raped her.

She was able to recognize appellant because of his mole on the cheek and his body smeared with
tattoos, and more importantly, because she repeatedly gazed at appellants face every time they
passed a well-lit place on their way to the basketball court.

The trial court correctly appreciated the generic aggravating circumstances of cruelty and
uninhabited place against appellant.

Indeed, the term cruelty often conjures bloody and gory images which are conspicuously
absent in this case. However, as correctly pointed out by the trial court, the appreciation of
cruelty, as an aggravating circumstance, is relative. It depends upon the crime committed. As
long as the wrong done in the commission of the offense is deliberately augmented and that
such wrong is not essential for the accomplishment of the ultimate purpose of the offender,
the same could be considered as aggravating. The nature of the wrong or the number thereof
is immaterial.

Tested against the foregoing yardstick, the element of cruelty undoubtedly attended the
commission of the crime in this case. As recounted by private complainant, appellant not only
raped her, but subjected her to various dehumanizing indignities, such as making her fondle
and put his foul-smelling penis in her mouth, forcing her to admire his bolitas, and demanding
that she assume embarrassing and indelicate positions.

As for the AC of uninhabited place, Appellant cites private complainants testimony that the
basketball court was near a highway and surrounded by houses.

We are not convinced. Whether or not a place may be considered uninhabited, is determined
not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether or not in the
place of commission, there was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help. Aside
from being cloaked by the darkness of the night, the basketball court was a relatively isolated
place, shielded from the public view by the high walls of the surrounding houses.[52] Private
complainant could have screamed at the top of her lungs and nobody still would have heard
her. Without a doubt, therefore, the trial court properly appreciated the aggravating
circumstance of uninhabited place against appellant.

*DAMAGES
9,500 actual damages
200,000 moral damages for the cruel acts
50,000 civil indemnity w/c is mandatory in the crime of rape
25,000 exemplary damages, Art 2230 of NCC, exemplary damages may be imposed when the
crime was committed with one or more AC.
*PENALTY: death

GARY FANTASTICO AND ROLANDO VILLANUEVA, Petitioners, v. ELPIDIO MALICSE, SR. AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Elpidio Malicse, Sr. (Elpidio) was

outside the house of his sister Isabelita Iguiron (Isabelita) in Pandacan,
Manila when all of a sudden, he heard Isabelita's son, Winston, throwing
invectives at him. Thus, Elpidio confronted Isabelita but she also cursed
him, which prompted the former to slap the latter. On that occasion, Elpidio
was under the influence of alcohol.

The Brgy Chairman heard what transpired so he went to the place and tried to pacify those who
were involved. Elpidio went back to Isabelita to offer reconciliation. On his way there, he passed
by the house of Kagawad Andy and asked the latter to accompany him to Isabelita but Andy
refused, leaving Elpidio to proceed alone.

Upon reaching Isabelita's house, Elpidio saw the former's son, Titus
Iguiron (Titus) and her son-in-law Gary Fantastico (Gary) and asked the two
where he can find their parents. Titus and Gary responded, putang ina mo,
and kulit mo, lumayas ka, punyeta ka.

Elpidio forced his was to the house where he saw Salvador eldest son of Isabelita who hit him
with an arnis on the right side of his head. And then a second blow on the right eyebrow.

Gary hit Elpidio on the side of his head with a tomahawk axe. Rolly without any warning, it Elpidio
on the back of his head with a lead pipe causing Elpidio to fall. The latter pleaded them to stop
but to no avail.

After the beating, Elpidio was rushed to PGH.

A case of ATTEMPTED MURDER was filed against the "maulers". Info alleged treachery and ASS.

VERSION OF THE MAULERS:

Elpidio had a reputation of hurting people when drunk.

During the trial, SALVADOR IGUIRON died. TC acquitted TITUS IGUIRON, SALIGAN IGUIRON, AND
TOMMY BALLESTEROS but found GARY FANTASTICO AND ROLANDO VILLANUEVA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.

SC:

On the issue of questions of law/facts:

The present petition is at
once dismissible for its failure to comply with the requirement of Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, that the petition should only raise questions of law.

On the issue of missing elements:

As shown by the dispositive portion of the information nilagay doon.

On the inclusion of the phrase "not necessarily mortal"

According to them, the inclusionn means that there is an absence of an intent to kill on their part.

In any case, it is now too late for petitioners to assail the sufficiency of
the Information on the ground that the elements of the crime of attempted
murder are lacking. Section 9, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court

Petitioners also claim that the prosecution was not able to prove the
presence of treachery or any other qualifying circumstance

For treachery to be considered, two elements must

concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the persons
attacked no opportunity to defend themselves or retaliate; and (2) the means
of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. 21 From the facts
proven by the prosecution, the incident was spontaneous, thus, the second
element of treachery is wanting. The incident, which happened at the spur of
the moment, negates the possibility that the petitioners consciously adopted
means to execute the crime committed. There is no treachery where the
attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just triggered
by the sudden infuriation on the part of the accused because of the
provocative act of the victim

he RTC, however, was correct in appreciating the qualifying

circumstance of abuse of superior strength

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious

inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a
situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the
aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the
crime."24 "The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does
not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior
strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and
the victim."25 The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely
sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this
advantage.26 "To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use
excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the
person attacked."27 The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance
depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties.

PEOPLE V. NAZARENO

This case is about the evidence required for proving conspiracy and
the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength in a murder case.

The Nazareno and Saliendra, a barangay tanod, were accused of MURDER. Saliendra remained
at large so only NAZARENO was tried.
David, Magallanes and Francisco attended the wake of a friend and while there, drank liquor with
accused Nazareno and Saliendra. A heated argument ensued between Magallanes and Nazareno
but their companions pacified them.

Next night of the wake. At around 9:30 in the evening, while David, Francisco, and their friend,
Aida Unos were walking on the street, Nazareno and Saliendra blocked their path.

Nazareno boxed Francisco who fled but Saliendra went after him with a balisong

Francisco, who succeeded in hiding saw Nazareno hit

David on the body with a stick while Saliendra struck Davids head with a
stone.7 David ran towards a gasoline station but Nazareno and Saliendra,
aided by some barangay tanods, caught up with him.8 As David fell, the
barangay tanods took over the assault.9 This took place as Magallanes stood
about five meters across the highway unable to help his friend.10 Afterwards,
Unos brought David to the hospital.11 Dr. Rebosa performed surgery on
Davids head but he died on November 14, 1993 of massive intra-cranial
hemorrhage secondary to depressed fracture on his right temporal bone12 in a
form of blunt trauma.13

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT NAZARENO TOOK PART IN CONSPIRACY TO KILL DAVID
WHETHER OR NOT ASS ATTENDED THE KILLING OF DAVID

SC:
1. Taken against these considerations, the Court cannot give credence to
Nazarenos defense of alibi. To be admissible, not only must he be at a
different place during the commission of the crime, his presence at the crime
scene must also be physically impossible.31 Here, Nazareno even admits
that he encountered Saliendra, the accused who went into hiding, on the
street and noticed the commotion.
2. There is abuse of superior strength when the aggressors
purposely use excessive force rendering the victim unable to defend
himself.33 The notorious inequality of forces creates an unfair advantage for
the aggressor

Here, Nazareno and Saliendra evidently armed themselves

beforehand, Nazareno with a stick and Saliendra with a heavy stone. David
was unarmed. The two chased him even as he fled from them. And when
they caught up with him, aided by some unnamed barangay tanods,
Nazareno and Saliendra exploited their superior advantage and knocked the
defenseless David unconscious. He evidently died from head fracture
caused by one of the blows on his head
 Guilty of MURDER qualified by ASS. 75k civil indemnity, 75k moral damages, and 30k
exemplary damages.

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
WILFREDO GUNDA alias FRED, Accused-Appellant.

the victim, Eladio Globio, Sr., and his son, Eladio Jr., were walking along a trail at Sitio Candulungon,
Barangay Cabay, Balangkayan, Eastern Samar. Suddenly when Eladio jr. Was about 10m ahead of
his father, the father was waylaid by appellant and his unidentified companions. Said companions held
the hands of the father and stabbed him several times. Eladio jr. Fled as he feared for his life. In the
morning of the following day, Eladio Jr. went to the house of his sister and informed her of the death
of their father. They then reported the incident to the police authorities who eventually arrested the
appellant. The body of the victim was recovered and post-mortem examinations revealed that he
suffered multiple stab wounds which caused his death.

Aside from Eladio Jr., Teofilo Ambal, Jr. (Ambal) who is a brother-in-law of the appellant, also
witnessed the crime. In the afternoon of May 25, 1997, while Ambal was at his farm gathering feeds
for his pigs, he saw appellant who was armed with a wooden pole position himself at the back of the
victim and strike the latters head with the wood. The companions of appellant then held the victims
arms whereupon appellant drew a bolo locally known as depang from his waist and stabbed the victim
several times. Fearing for his life, Ambal likewise left the crime scene.

RTC: convicted the accused. W/ AC of treachery and conspiracy.

CA: affirmed with modification.

The CA affirmed the factual findings of the trial court that indeed, it was appellant, in conspiracy
with the other John Does, who killed the victim. The CA also agreed with the findings of the
trial court that the killing was done in a treacherous manner. However, the CA noted that
although the trial court properly appreciated treachery and conspiracy to have attended the
commission of the crime, the presence of both would not warrant the imposition of the death
penalty. It ratiocinated that -

Treachery in the present case is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating circumstance. Its
presence served to characterize the killing as murder; it cannot at the same time be considered
as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of the maximum penalty.
Since treachery qualified the commission of the crime to murder, this circumstance could no
longer be appreciated anew as a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition
of the death penalty. Furthermore, although there was conspiracy in this case, it is neither a
qualifying circumstance [nor] a generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the imposition of
the supreme penalty of death.

The penalty for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The two penalties being
both indivisible, and there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be applied pursuant
to the second paragraph of the Revised Penal Code. 9

SC: Undoubtedly, treachery qualified the killing to murder. As regards conspiracy, the CA correctly
ruled that it is not a circumstance which would aggravate or qualify the crime.
Penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and ordered to pay 75k civil indemnity, 50k
moral damages, 30k exemplary, and 25k as temperate damages.

PEOPLE V. OSCAR SEVILLANO Y RETANAL

Appellant was charged with MURDER with TREACHERY AND EVIDENT PREMEDITATION upon the
person of PABLO MADDAUIN. Retanal pleaded not guilty.

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION:

Prosecution witnesses Jose Palavorin and Carmelita Cardona, 67

and 46 years old, respectively, testified that at around 3:00 p.m. of 11
March 2007, they, together with Victim Pablo Maddauin, were seated on a
long bench having their usual chit-chat at the vacant lot situated at 4th
Street Guadal Canal, St., Sta. Mesa, Manila. Witness Jose was the
watchman of this property. While conversing, they saw appellant coming
towards their direction. Appellant could not walk straight and appeared to
be drunk. Without warning, appellant pulled out a knife from his waist and
stabbed the victim on the chest. Jose and Carmelita tried to restrain the
appellant from attacking the victim, but Jose experienced leg cramps and
lost his hold on appellant. Appellant turned again on the victim and
continued to stab him several times more. The victim was heard asking
appellant, Bakit?. Carmelita shouted for help. The victims wife came to
the scene and embraced appellant as she wrestled for the knife. Thereafter,
[the] victim was brought to the University of the East Ramon Magsaysay
Memorial Medical center; but unfortunately, he died that same day

APELLANT'S VERSION:
Retanal interposed self-defense to absolve him from criminal liabilty. He averred that he went to
the vacant lot where the victime and his friends were to feed his chicken. WHILE THEREAT, THE
VICTIM, WHOM HE DESCRIBED TO HAVE BLOODSHOT EYES, WALKED TOWARDS HIM AND
STEPPED ON HIS INJURED FOOT. On his knees due to pain, he saw the victim draw a knife and
said "IKAW PA, PUTANGINA MO" but missed his target. They struggled and the victim was
ACCIDENTALLY STABBED. When he saw blood oozing ou of the victim, he became apprehensive
of the victim's relative to such extend that he fled the scene and hid to as far as Bulacan where
he was eventually apprehended.

RTC: Guilty of murder of Maddauin. Gave credence to prosec witnesses. It likewise ruled that
treachery attended the commission of the crime, as demonstrated by the fact
that the victim was seated and engaged in a conversation when suddenly
attacked by the appellant. The trial court ruled that such situation foreclosed
any opportunity on the part of the victim to ward off the impending harm
CA: The CA found no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC and upheld its
ruling but with modification on the amount of damages awarded.

ISSUE:

ERRED IN REJECTING HIS CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE AND CONVICTING HIM OF MURDER INSTEAD
OF HOMICIDE.

SC:

MURDER
A PERSON WAS KILLED
THE ACCUSED KILLED THAT PERSON
KILLING WAS ATTENDED BY TREACHERY
THE KILLING IS NOT INFANTICIDE OR PARRICIDE

ALL OF THE ELEMENTS IN THIS CASE WERE PROVED AND CLEARLY MET.

Anent the presence of the element of treachery as a qualifying

circumstance, the prosecution was able to establish that the attack on the
unsuspecting victim, who was merely seated on a bench and talking with his
friends, was very sudden. In fact, the victim was able to utter only Bakit?. We
note that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on the
unsuspecting victim by the perpetrator of the crime, depriving the former of any
chance to defend himself or to repel the aggression, thus insuring its commission
without risk to the aggressor and without any provocation on the part of the victim

By invoking self-defense, appellant in effect, admits to having inflicted the

stab wounds which killed the victim. The burden was, therefore, shifted on him to
prove that the killing was done in self-defense

Assuming arguendo that there was indeed

unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the imminence of that danger had
already ceased the moment appellant was able to wrestle the knife from him.
Thus, there was no longer any unlawful aggression to speak of that would justify
the need for him to kill the victim or the former aggressor

PENALTY: MURDER QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY. 75K civil indemnity, 75k moral damages, 30
exemplary damages.

PEOPLE V. ALBERTO AND GARY TABARNERO

Late at night, Gary went to the house of deceased ERNESTO CANATOY where the former used to
reside as the live-in partner of MARY JANE ACIBAR, Ernesto's stepdaugther. Gary and Ernesto
had an altercation during which Ernesto was stabbed nine times causing his death.

Gary surrendered to Barangay Tanod Edilberto Alarma and pleaded not guilty while Alberto
(gary's father) remained at large.

Gary interposed SELF-DEFENSE.

Gary, a 22-year-old construction worker at the time of his testimony in June 2001, testified that
he stayed in Ernestos house from 1997 to 1999, as he and Mary Jane were living together. Mary
Jane is the daughter of Teresita Acibar, the wife[7] of Ernesto. However, Gary left the house
shortly before the October 23, 1999 incident because of a misunderstanding with Ernesto when
the latter allegedly stopped the planned marriage of Gary and Mary Jane, who was pregnant at
that time.

Gary was allegedly in his house in Longos, Malolos, Bulacan at around 11:40 p.m. with his
friend, Richard Ulilian; his father, co-appellant Alberto; his mother, Elvira; and his brother,
Jeffrey. Overcome with emotion over being separated from Mary Jane, Gary then went to
Ernestos house, but was not able to enter as no one went out of the house to let him in. He
instead shouted his pleas from the outside, asking Ernesto what he had done wrong that caused
Ernesto to break him and Mary Jane up, and voicing out several times that he loved Mary Jane
and was ready to marry her. When Gary was about to leave, the gate opened and Ernesto
purportedly struck him with a lead pipe. Ernesto was aiming at Garys head, but the latter blocked
the blow with his hands, causing his left index finger to be broken. Gary embraced Ernesto, but
the latter strangled him. At that point, Gary felt that there was a bladed weapon tucked at
Ernestos back. Losing control of himself, Gary took the bladed weapon and stabbed Ernesto,
although he cannot recall how many times he did so.[8]

According to Gary, Ernesto fell to the ground, and pleaded, saklolo, tulungan
niyo po ako three times. Gary was stunned, and did not notice his father, co-appellant
Alberto, coming. Alberto asked Gary, anak, ano ang nangyari? To which Gary
responded nasaksak ko po yata si Ka Erning, referring to Ernesto. Gary and Alberto
fled, allegedly out of fear.[9]
 Gary denied that he and Alberto conspired to kill Ernesto. Gary claims that it
was he and Ernesto who had a fight, and that he had no choice but to stab Ernesto,
who was going to kill him.

RTC: guilty of murder

CA: affirmed RTC with modification as to exemplary damages of 25k due to

presence of treachery.

SC:

1. SELF-DEFENSE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED

The defense invokes the said justifying circumstance, claiming that all of the above
three elements are present in the case at bar.There was allegedly unlawful aggression
on the part of Ernesto when the latter delivered the first blow with the lead pipe.
According to the defense, the means Gary used to defend himself was reasonable,
and the shouted professions of his feelings for Mary Jane could not be considered
provocation sufficient for Ernesto to make the unlawful aggression.

A plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only

uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also extremely doubtful
in itself.

The defense further argues that assuming that Gary is not qualified to avail of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense, he would nevertheless be entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense under Article 13(1) of the
Revised Penal Code, which provides:

Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following are mitigating

circumstances:
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites
necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant.
We disagree. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, without which there
can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete.[42] There is incomplete self-
defense when the element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, and any
of the other two essential requisites for self-defense.[43] Having failed to prove the
indispensable element of unlawful aggression, Gary is not entitled to the mitigating
circumstance, even assuming the presence of the other two elements of self-defense.

2. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED

The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed, and held that the delay of six
months before surrendering negates spontaneity,[45]a requisite for voluntary
surrender to be considered mitigating.

3. ALBERTO IS A PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

Having actually participated in the stabbing of Ernesto, it was adequately

proven that Alberto is a principal by direct participation. In the case at bar, Ernesto
had nine stab wounds which caused his death within the next 48 hours. At the time
he uttered his statement accusing Gary and Alberto of stabbing him, his body was
already very rapidly deteriorating, as shown by his inability to speak and write
towards the end of the questioning.

We have considered that a dying declaration is entitled to the highest

credence, for no person who knows of his impending death would make a careless
or false accusation. When a person is at the point of death, every motive of falsehood
is silenced and the mind is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak the
truth
4. QUALIFIED BY TREACHERY

The Solicitor General argues that treachery was amply demonstrated by the restraint
upon Ernesto, which effectively rendered him defenseless and unable to effectively
repel, much less evade, the assault
We, therefore, rule that the killing of Ernesto was attended by treachery. However,
even assuming for the sake of argument that treachery should not be appreciated, the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength would nevertheless qualify the
killing to murder. Despite being alleged in the Information, this circumstance was
not considered in the trial court as the same is already absorbed in treachery. The act
of the accused in stabbing Ernesto while two persons were holding him clearly
shows the deliberate use of excessive force out of proportion to the defense available
to the person attacked.

PENALTY: Murder qualified by treachery. 75k civil indemnity

7. PEOPLE V. RODIL

Deceased PC Lt. Guillermo Masana together with PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, Ligsa
and Mojica of INDANG, CAVITE was having lunch inside a restaurant in front of
the INDANG MARKET.

While they were eating, they saw, through the glass panel of the restaurant, appellant outside the
restaurant blowing his whistle. Their attention was caught by appellant's action and so they
approached him and asked whether the fun tucked in his waist had a license.

Instead of answering him, appellant moved a step back and attempted to draw his gun. Fidel
immediately grabbed appellant's gun and told the appellant to go inside the restaurant. At the
restaurant, Masagana wrote in a piece of paper receipt of the gun and asked the appellant to sign the
same but he refused and instead asked that his gun be returned to him. So they decided to bring the
matter to the municipal building but when Masana was about to stand up, appellant pulled out a
double-bladed dagger and stabbed Masana several times causing his death. (STOMACH AND
CHEST WOUNDS)

APPELLANT/ACCUSED CLAIMS SELF-DEFENSE and relies on these facts:

He and his wife were having lunch near the market place of Indang
They came from Mandaluyong where they reside
While they were waiting for food to be served, Masana approached him and asked him if he was
FLORO RODIL and whether he was a member of he Anti-Smuggling Unit. After he said yes, he was
invited by the former to their table. There, he was offered beer to which he refused as he still was
hungry. In the course of the convo, MASANA TOLD RODIL NOT TO REPORT ANY MATTER ABOUT
SMUGGLING TO THE PC.

RODIL'S ID WAS INSPECTED BY MASANA AND THE LATTER SAID THAT IT WAS FAKE.
Rodil insisted that it was genuine and when he was about to put it back, Masana got mad and said
WILL YOU GIVE IT TO ME OR NOT. Masana hit RODIL twice with the gun he had. On the third
attempt to hit RODIL with the gun, the latter pulled his pangsaksak and stabbed the officer two or three
times and pushed him away and ran out of the restaurant.
The accused went to the municipal building where he intended to surrender but on his way there, he
met PRIMO PANALIGAN who asked him why his head and face were blody. He was given first aid
and was detained for two days before he was picked up by the PC.

TRIAL COURT: convited the accused as there was failure to prove self-defense.

I: SELF- DEFENSE

WE cannot perceive how this refusal of the accused could have provoked or enraged the deceased
to the extent of initiating the aggression by drawing his pistol and hitting the accused with its butt,
knowing that the accused was no longer armed after the latter's gun had earlier been taken away from
him. Besides, an agent of authority, like the deceased, ordinarily is not authorized to use force, except
in an extreme case when he is attacked, or subject to active resistance, and finds no other way to
comply with his duty or cause himself to be obeyed by the offender.

Furthermore, records reveal that victim was not armed at the time of incident as he was on leave. He
was even in civilian clothing.

It was only on July 8, 1971. after the lapse of more than two and one-half (2 1/2) months that he
claimed self-defense during the preliminary investigation of the case before the municipal judge of
Indang, Cavite (pp. 44, t.s.n., Dec. 10, 1971). If the accused had really acted in self-defense, he would
surely have so informed the Chief of Police at the first opportunity. He only allegedly told the Chief of
Police, who allegedly asked him why his head and face were bloody, that Lt. Masana hit him with a
gun. He did not tell the Police Chief that he was surrendering for stabbing the deceased in self-defense.

II: WAS THE CRIME COMMITTED MURDER OR HOMICIDE OR MURDER OR HOMICIDE

COMPLEXED WITH ASSAULT UPON AN AGENT OF AUTHORITY?

WE can only conclude that the assailant and the victim were indeed face to face when the stabbing
took place. As such the attack was not treacherous because the victim was able to ward off the same
with his hand. As a matter of fact, the force he used in warding off the attack was so strong that the
accused bumped his head on a table nearby, causing injuries to him which necessitated medical
treatment. In short, the attack on the victim was made on the spur of the moment. The suddenness of
the attack does not by itself suffice to support a finding of treachery.

Neither does it show that the accused employed means directly and specially tending to insure the
killing without risk to himself.

While the evidence definitely demonstrated that appellant knew because the victim, who was in civilian
clothing, told him that he was an agent of a person in authority; he cannot be convicted of the complex
crime of homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in authority, for the simple reason that the
information does not allege the fact that the accused then knew that, before or at the time of the
assault, the victim was an agent of a person in authority. The information simply alleges that appellant
did attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana while the latter was in the performance of his official
duties, ..." Such an allegation cannot be an adequate substitute for the essential averment to justify a
conviction of the complex crime, which necessarily requires the imposition of the maximum period of
the penalty prescribed for the graver offense. Like a qualifying circumstance, such knowledge must
be expressly and specifically averred in the information; otherwise, in the absence of such allegation,
the required knowledge, like a qualifying circumstance, although proven, would only be appreciated
as a generic aggravating circumstance. Applying this principle, the attack on the victim, who was
known to the appellant as a peace officer, could be considered only as aggravating, being "in contempt
or with insult to the public authorities
It is essential that the accused must have knowledge that the person attacked was a person in authority
or his agent in the exercise of his duties, because the accused must have the intention to offend,
injure, or assault the offended party as a person in authority or agent of a person in authority

The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be appreciated because it is obvious

that the victim, PC. Lt. Masana Identified himself as a PC officer to the accused who is merely
a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior both in rank and social status to
the victim.

The difference in official or social status between a P.C. lieutenant and a mere member of an anti-
smuggling unit, is patent.

If the accused herein were charged with the complex crime of murder with assault against an agent of
a person in authority, and not merely murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank
or contempt of or insult to public authority cannot be appreciated as aggravating because either
circumstance is inherent in the charge of assault against a person in authority or an agent of a person
in authority. But in the case at bar, the appellant is accused of murder only. Consequently, either
aggravating circumstance should be considered in the imposition of the penalty.

WHEREFORE, HAVING BEEN FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF HOMICIDE

AGGRAVATED BY CONTEMPT FOR OR INSULT TO A PUBLIC AUTHORITY OR DISREGARD OF
THE RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RANK, APPELLANT FLORO
RODIL IS HEREBY SENTENCED TO SUFFER AN INDETERMINATE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT
RANGING FROM 12 YEARS OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM.

2 AC here.

PEOPLE V. APDUHAN

Accused APDUHAN AND QUIMSON were charged with ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE.
all of them were armed with unlicensed firearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons
enter, by means of violence, the dwelling house of the spouses Honorato Miano and Antonia
Miano, which was also the dwelling house of their children, the spouses Geronimo Miano and
Herminigilda de Miano;
Took money amounting to 322 pesos; killed both the occupants of the house

Act committed contrary to the provisions of Art. 294, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code with the special
aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed by a band with the use of unlicensed firearms
(Art. 296, Rev. Penal Code), and other aggravating circumstances, as follows:

1. That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended parties without any provocation from
the latter;

2. That nighttime was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime; and.

3. That advantage was taken of superior strength, accused and their companions, who were fully
armed, being numerically superior to the offended parties who were unarmed and defenseless

APDUHAN withdrew his plea ohf not guilty and entered PLEA OF GUILTY.

However, the plea was ambigous since there were two informations filed.
Accused Apduhan together with his co-accused pled guilty to a second amended information
charging them withrobbery and homicide, aggravated by dwelling, nighttime, and the use of
superior strength.

Second amended information: Apduhan, his two co-accused, and 5 other persons, armed with
different unlicensedfirearms, daggers, and other deadly weapons, entered the dwelling of the
Miano family, attacking, hacking, andshooting Geronimo Miano and a Norberto Aton, as a result
of which, the two died. The group also took cashamounting to P322

APDUHAN admit that he pleas guilty to second info. COMPLEX CRIME OF ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE.

From the above proceedings in the trial court, it would appear that what the prosecution actually
intended to admit was the non-habituality of the accused to drinking liquor, not as a matter of fact, but
due to the State's inability to disprove the same. The prosecution apparently did not concede the actual
intoxication of the accused. We are of the firm conviction that, under the environmental circumstances,
the defense was not relieved of its burden to prove the accused's actual state of intoxication.
Otherwise, to appreciate the attendance of a mitigating factor on the mere allegation of the accused,
coupled with the dubious acquiescence of the prosecution, would open wide the avenue for
unscrupulous and deceitful collusion between defense and prosecution in order to unduly and unjustly
minimize the penalty imposable upon the accused.

The last paragraph of art. 15 of the Code provides:.

"The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when
the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent
to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional it shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. (Emphasis supplied).

Under the foregoing provision, intoxication is mitigating when it is not habitual or intentional, that is,
not subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. However, to be mitigating the accused's state of
intoxication must be proved. 6 Once intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence, 7 then in the
absence of proof to the contrary" it is presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional. 8 .

In People vs. Noble 9 the defendant testified that before the murder he took a bottle of wine and drank
little by little until he got drunk. The policeman who arrested the accused testified that the latter smelled
wine and vomited. The Court held that the evidence presented was not satisfactory to warrant a
mitigation of the penalty. Intoxication was likewise not competently proved in a case 10 where the only
evidence was that the defendant had a gallon of tuba with him at the time he committed the crime.
In the case at bar the accused merely alleged that when he committed the offense charged he was
intoxicated although he was "not used to be drunk," 11This self-serving statement stands
uncorroborated. Obviously, it is devoid of any probative value.

To recapitulate, the accused has in his favor only one mitigating circumstance: plea of guilty. As
aforementioned, the defense withdrew its claim of "lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong" and
failed to substantiate its contention that intoxication should be considered mitigating.