Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Accused-appellant, who was a policeman shot Irenio Vargas NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG
that cause his death. The victim was poking a gun and was PEOPLE v CANETE 410 SCRA 544
ordered by the accused to refrain from doing so, however, FACTS:On May 24, 1997, Leonaldo Tumayao, Joel Quimod
he pulled the trigger hence was shot by the accused. and Lilio Tundag were on their way home after attending a
CRIME COMMITTED: wedding party. Tumayao was walking ahead of Tundag and
Murder Quimod. As they passed by the houses of the accused,
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: Quimod and Tundag heard successive gunshots. Quimod
He was just repelling an attack by the victim / self defense and Tundag immediately looked in the direction where the
bursts of gunfire were coming from and saw Ruben, Alfredo,
HELD:
Sergio, Sotero and Trinidad Canete shooting at Tumayao
Decision of the lower court is affirmed, with modification on who
the penalty to be imposed
U.S. vs. Malabanan
Facts:
Felino Malaran, a prisoner, reported to the foreman Pedro
Pimentel that Esteban
Malabanan had taken some bread out of a tin can that was
in the jail; Malabanan
being resentful at this and also because he had received a
severe blow with a cane
from Malaran, attacked the latter with a small knife, and
wounded him in the chest,
the right arm, and in the back. Raymundo Enriquez, another
assistant jailer, tried to
separate them and prevent the accused from further
attacking Malaran, but he was
also wounded in the abdomen, and in consequence of said
wound Enriquez died
eleven days thereafter. Quintin de Lemos, another assistant
jailer, who also tried to
stop Malabanan, was wounded in the chin. Foreman
Paulino Canlas, ordered the
opening of the door of the cell where the prisoners were
confined, and Malabanan
upon seeing him tried to attack him; thereupon Canlas took
hold of a stick to defend
himself and to take away from Malabanan the knife he held.
Malabanan was later
subdued, he was convicted of Homicide and was sentenced
to twelve more years of
imprisonment. Judgement was appealed.
Issue:
Whether the mitigating circumstance of Sufficient
Provocation or Threat is
attendant in the case at bar?
Ruling:
No. The court held that, notwithstanding the allegations he
made in his defense and
his denial that the knife held by him which caused the death
of Raymundo Enriquez
belonged to him, there is no question as to his responsibility
as the convicted author
of the violent death of Raymundo Enriquez, who, as has
been seen, did not give the
accused any reason for attacking him but merely
approached while the latter was
attacking Felino Malaran in order to separate them and
prevent the accused from
continuing his assault, for fear a homicide might ensue, to
which Malabanan
responded with a cut in the right side near the abdomen of
Enriquez.
In the commission of this homicide there is no mitigating nor
aggravating
circumstance to be considered, and as to whether or not the
accused was illtreated
or provoked prior to his assaulting jailer Malaran, a question
which will be
considered in the case for lesiones graves(grievous bodily
harm), such a
circumstance cannot be dealt with in the present
proceedings instituted by reason
of the violent death of Enriquez, who was seriously
slumped to the ground. Apparently not satisfied, all the appellant was playing
accused approached the fallen Tumayao and continued cards and without any warning, urinated on the latter and
shooting him. On order of his father Sotero, Alfredo shot clipped him under his
Tumayao in the head.Quimod, who was 10 meters behind the arms. Accused-appellant got angry. He however did not
victim, ran and hid behind the bushes. As soon as the engage Romeo in any
accused left, Quimod went home and narrated the incident to altercation but instead went home.
Tumayaos wife.On the other hand, Tundag, who was behind Later on in the evening, while the trio were still having a
Tumayao, saw Ruben fire his gun at the victim. Tundag drinking spree, they heard
attempted to come to the aid of Tumayao but the latter accused-appellant calling Bulicatin from outside, saying,
shouted at him to flee. Thus, he ran back to the wedding party Borgs, get out because I
while hearing more gunshots. At the wedding party, Tundag have something to say. The trio came down from the
informed the people about the ambush. Thereafter, he went house. Rogelio and Samson
back to the crime scene where he saw Tumayaos lifeless were ordered to lie on the ground, Bulicatin was still at the
body on the road. stairway and when he
turned his back towards accused-appellant, the latter shot
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: On May 23, 1997, him, hitting him at the
Rubens wife, Teresita, was in Lanipga, Consolacion, Cebu, back. Bulicatin ran away but he was chased by accused-
to help prepare food for the wedding of her husbands cousin. appellant who fired two (2)
She stayed there overnight. At the wedding reception the more shots at him.
following morning, Leonaldo Tumayao, alias Eduardo or Edit, On appeal he alleged that the court erred by overlooking and
approached Ruben who was then looking for a cold soft drink. misinterpreting some
Tumayao said Here is something cold, and suddenly significant facts in convicting him.
punched Ruben. Teresita summoned her husband and asked Issues:
him to go home with her. The latter acquiesced. Before they 1. Are appellants contentions tenable?
left, however, Teresita saw Tundag give Tumayao what 2. Is appellant entitled to any mitigating circumstance?
looked like a .45 caliber pistol.Seconds later, Tumayao, Ruling:
together with Quimod, Tundag and the latters son followed The court held that, contrary to the claim of accused-
Ruben to his house on a motorcycle or habal-habal. Tumayao appellant, the trial court did
alighted and thereafter shouted This is now a combat not overlook his contention that he could not have committed
while firing a gun.Hearing the gunshots, Teresita brought her the offenses charged
children to the safety of a neighbors house. As she went back because at the time of the incedent, he was unconscious due
for her other child, Teresita saw her husband Ruben standing to a stab wound. In
beside a coconut tree. Tumayao stood in front of the house fact, the trial court treated the same as a defense of denial
of Alfredo who was shouting at him not to throw stones as he and alibi. Indeed, these
might hit the children. At that point, Ruben shot Tumayao with defenses cannot prevail over the categorical and positive
a pugakhang, an improvised shotgun. Tumayao slumped to identification of accused-
the ground. appellant by prosecution witness Abuloc who was not shown
to have any ill motive
to testify falsely against him.
HELD: Trinidad Caete and Alfredo Caete are Moreover, it is doctrinally settled that the assessment of the
found guilty of murder and sentenced to credibility of witnesses
reclusion perpetua. and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender court because of its
should be appreciated in favor of Alfredo and the mitigating unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and to
circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense note their demeanor,
conceded in favor of all the appellants. Saving the authorities conduct and attitude under grilling examination. In the case
the trouble and expense for his search and capture, and at bar, the trial court
freely placing himself at their disposal, Alfredo should be did not err in giving credence to the version of the
given the favor of a mitigated penalty for his voluntary prosecution. The facts and
surrender. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary circumstances alleged to have been overlooked by the trial
surrender, being personal however, can only be appreciated court are not material to
in favor of appellant Alfredo.
the case and will not affect the disposition thereof.
It must be recalled that, immediately prior to the The trial court however correctly appreciated the mitigating
incident, Tumayao punched Ruben in the presence of many circumstance of having
people at the wedding party. Although the incident did not acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense. As the
immediately precede the killing, its impact, by reason of its evidence on record show,
seriousness and the circumstances under which it was accused-appellant was urinated on by the victim in front of
inflicted, festered till the commission of the crime. The the guests. The act of
mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave the victim, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated
offense must, therefore, be appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant, came
appellants.
within the purview of a grave offense under Article 13,
All told, we are convinced that appellants Alfredo paragraph 5, of the
and Trinidad are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder Revised Penal Code. Thus, this mitigating circumstance
which carries the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. should be appreciated in favor of accused-appellant.
Since the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
Nevertheless the decision of the lower court was
and immediate vindication of a grave offense were present in
affirmed with modifications, his sentenced was reduced to
this case, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was
prision mayor.
properly imposed by the trial court.
People vs Cauyan, 128 SCRA 504
People vs. Espina
Nature of Action: Automatic Review of the lower courts
Facts:
decision
Romeo Bulicatin, Rogelio Espina, Samson Abuloc who were
having a drinking spree
FACTS:
and playing cards during an association meeting, when
accused-appellant Romeo Constancio Cauya , was convicted by the CFI of Quezon of 2
Espina arrived, Bulicatin asked three (3) bottles of kulafu criminal cases. First is murder of Claudia Amat, which
wine from him and he sentenced him to 20 years reclusion temporal and frustrated
acceded by buying three (3) bottles of kulafu wine from the murder of Andres Patron, which sentenced him to an
store of Eufronia indeterminate penalty of 2 years and 4 months of prision
Pagas. Later on that afternoon, Bulicatin again demanded correccional as minimum to 12 years of prision mayor.
another bottle of Appellant appealed to the CA of its resolution dated January
kulafu wine from accused- appellant but this time, the latter 18, 1971, eliminating passion and obfuscation as a
refused to give in to mitigating circumstance, the proper penalty should be
the demand. Bulicatin then proceeded to where accused- reclusion perpetua.
9:30 in the evening of April 7, 1961, Claudia Amat, 58 years Passion and obfuscation may not be
old, was heard by her husband, Maximo Patron, and her son, properly appreciated in favor of
Andres Patron shouting, Huag, pare! Tama na, pare! appellant. To be considered as a mitigating circumstan
Andres Patron, 21 years old, rushed to the stairs and saw the ce, passion or
appellant stabbing his mother. When the appellant saw him, obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not f
he stabbed Andres on the armpit and other parts of the body. rom a spirit of
lawlessness or revenge or from anger and resentment. In
Andres went to the yard and took a piece of wood to defend
the present case,
himself, but the appellant, still holding the knife, ran after him
clearly, Marcelo was infuriated upon seeing is
and fell on the ground. brother, Carlito, shot by Jose.
Prosecution contended that the appellant was actuated by However, a distinction must be made between the first time
hate and resentment against the Patron family because the that Marcelo hacked
father of Andres had bailed out a certain Fr. Palilio in Jose and the second time that the former hacked the
connections with a criminal case which the appellant filed latter. When Marcelo
against the priest. The witnesses testimonies negated the hacked Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlit
claim of the appellant that the stabbing is accidental. o, and if appellant
ISSUE: refrained from doing anything else after that, he could have
Whether or not the appellate court erred in rejecting passion validly invoked the
and obfuscation under Art. 13 (6) of the RPC in favor of the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. But
accused? when, upon seeing his
brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back to Jose, who
HELD:
by then was already prostrate on the ground and hardly
The appellate court is correct in rejecting passion and moving, hacking Jose again was a clear case
obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance in favor of appellant. of someone acting out of anger in the spirit of revenge.
In order that the said circumstance can be considered, it is
necessary to establish the existence of an unlawful act PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
sufficient to produce a situation of mind, and must be shown DANAFRATE v PEOPLE 412 SCRA 357
that the act which produced the passion and obfuscation is PROSECUTIONS VERSION: Reynaldo Francia saw Miguel
not far removed from the commission of the crime by a Danofrata engage in a slugging match with his wife, Leonor.
considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator She struck Miguel with a plastic chair, while he punched her.
might recover his normal equanimity (People vs Gervacio, 24 Miguel ran home but shortly afterwards, he rushed outside
SCRA 960). again, kicking the neighbors he encountered. In turn, without
It was not unlawful on the part of Maximo Patron, husband of further ado, 3 of the neighbours whom he had treated so
the deceased, when he acted as bondsman of the priest. And uncivilly ganged up on him and mauled him, causing
it was not shown that the act of having bailed the priest was petitioner to run home anew.Miguel armed himself with a
knife and went back to the place where he had received a
so proximate in point of time to the commission of the crime
mauling. He proceeded to the house of Mario Gonzales, the
as to preclude a sober realization of the wrongfulness of
father of Alfredo Loloy Gonzales. Miguel challenged Mario to
action taken by appellant. a fight. At this juncture, Miguel spotted Alfredo, who was on
ACCORDINGLY, appellant is guilty of the crime of murder his way home. Without warning, petitioner stabbed Alfredo in
and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the heirs the chest fatally. Horrified, Francia called the police. Miguel
of Claudia Amat the sum of P30,000 and to pay the cost. fled. Benjamin Bautista, who was then on his way to to buy
People v. Bates (G.R. No. 139907) medicine, saw the Miguel fleeing
Facts: CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: He narrated that on Oct
Around 2:00 in the afternoon 9, 1994; he was withVergel Gaspar and Jojo Tambio having
of November 28, 1995, Edgar Fuentes, a drinking spree at his house when Miguels wife arrived and
Simon Fuentes and Jose Boholst left Barangay Esperanza, started an argument which turned violent and his wife lunged
Ormoc City to deliver at him with a chair, but he was able to parry the blow. The
copra to a certain Fely Rodado at Barangay Green
scene was witnessed by his neighbors playing panya. They
Valley, Ormoc City. After
delivering copra around 5:00 in the afternoon, the three began laughing at him and petitioner felt humiliated. Because
men headed back to of his annoyance, petitioner said he kicked the panya table.
Barangay Esperanza. While they were along a This incensed his neighbors and a melee erupted with 3 of
trail leading to the house of his neighbors ganging up on him. Miguel said he received a
Carlito Bates, the latter suddenly emerged from the beating, but he was able to run home and got hold of a knife.
thick banana plantation He proceeded to the house of Mario Gonzales, where he saw
surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Jose Boholst who 2 of his neighbors who mauled him, Sonny and Dingdong
was then walking talking with Mario. Upon seeing 2 of his assailants, petitioner
ahead of his companions. Jose grabbed Carlitos right hand said he went berserk. He shouted Akala ninyo natatakot ako
and elbow and tried sa inyo. Mario whipped out a gun and pointed it at him,
to wrest possession of the firearm. While the two were prompting petitioner to seek cover. Suddenly, he was struck
grappling for possession,
from behind by Rey with a length of lead pipe, while Alfredo
the gun fired, hitting Carlito who immediately fell to the
Gonzales stabbed him from the back with a knife.According
ground. At that instant,
Marcelo Bates and his son Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and to petitioner, although he was himself badly injured and
nephew of Carlito, bleeding, he ran away from the scene of the fracas, but found
respectively, emerged from the banana plantation each himself being chased by his tormentors. He heard a gunshot
brandishing a bolo. They and Mang Mario yelling, Habulin nyo, habulin nyo, hold-upper
immediately attacked Jose hacking him yan . Miguel ran and sat on a rock to rest and examines his
several times. Jose fell to the ground injuries. He heard another gunshot from behind him. He saw
and rolled but Marcelo and his son kept on hacking Mario handing the gun he was holding to another person.
him. Marcelo, then, turned to Petitioner then crawled into a canal to hide. He was still there
Simon and Edgar and shouted huwes de kutsilyo. Upon when Redentor Tiburcio came up holding a gun. On seeing
hearing the same, him, Tiburcio said, Patay na si Loloy,then shot at him but
Simon and Edgar ran. missed. Petitioner then ran away to seek refuge. Petitioner
Upholding the prosecution evidence, the trial court rendered
stated that despite his injuries, he did not bother to report the
its Judgment,
finding Marcelo Bates guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the incident to the police. Nor did he file any charges against
crime of Murder. Mang Mario and other neighbors because, petitioner said, he
Issue: was only a lowly paid driver who had neither the time nor the
Whether or not Marcelo could validly invoke the mitigating money to pursue a legal case.
circumstance of
passion and obfuscation? ISSUE:But was the appellate court correct in sustaining the
Decision: trial courts finding that the petitioner was entitled to a
mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and
obfuscation?
HELD:Passion and obfuscation exist when (1) there is an act,
both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of the
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 equanimity. There is passion and
obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or
improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as
to overcome reason. In this case it was established that
petitioner and his wife had a violent altercation and that
petitioner was mauled by his neighbors after he kicked some
of them for laughing at him. These events and
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
Course Outline in Criminal 1
PEOPLE v MALLARI SCRA 404 SCRA 170
PROSECUTIONS CASE: Liza Galang testified that on July
7, 1996her common-law husband Joseph admonished
Rufino and his brothers Ino and Felix Mallari not to drive fast
while passing by Josephs house. Rufino and his brothers,
who were then hot-tempered, challenged Joseph to a fight.
The latter just ignored the challenge; and, instead he and his
own brothers Radi and Manny asked apology from
Rufino.Later that afternoon, while Joseph and Liza were
watching a basketball game at the barangay basketball court,
Rufino and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed
weapons, arrived and attempted to stab Joseph; but Joseph
was able to run away. When they were not able to catch up
with him, Rufino boarded and drove the truck parked near the
basketball court and continued chasing Joseph until the truck
ran over the latter, which caused his instantaneous
death.Edgar Bawar, while Joseph was watching a basketball
game, Rufino and his brothers Ino and Felix, who were
carrying bladed weapons, arrived and chased Joseph.
Joseph ran away, and Rufino pursued him with the truck.
Upon catching up with him, Rufino bumped Joseph, as a
result of which the latter died on the spot.
Dr. Erwin Escal testified that the cause of death of
Joseph, was crushing injury on the head secondary
to vehicular accident
The law provides that there are three (3) elements to be taken CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED Dela Torre never denied
into account before the aggravating circumstance of nighttime having sexual contact with Marita that night of. He claimed,
and uninhabited place may be considered, to wit: however, that she was his mistress and that the carnal incident
between them was consensual. He courted Marita, who then
(a) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or told him that she would be willing to be his mistress if he would
(b) When especially sought for by the offender; or give her permanent support. Since then, their sexual affair
(c) When offender took advantage thereof for the became frequent until September, 1989 when Marita was
purpose of impunity. recruited to work at La Fiesta Farm. Accused further narrated
that at about 1:00 in the afternoon of November 5, 1989, he
Appellants also strongly vociferate against the trial court's and Marita talked at the kitchen of La Fiesta Farm. They
considering "uninhabited place" as an aggravating agreed to meet about 8:00 in the evening in the nearby house
circumstance in the commission of the alleged crime. They under construction. He arrived first at the place and, shortly
contend that there is more than sufficient evidence and based thereafter, she followed. There, they had sexual intercourse on
on the testimony itself for the prosecution that the Tourist Spot the ground using "sawali" as mat.
or the place where the alleged rape was committed is not
ISSUE:The appreciation of dwelling as an aggravating HELD:The circumstance of killing was aggravated by treachery
circumstance. and dwelling. Dwelling is present in this case as aggravating
circumstance because robbery could not be committed without
HELD:The Information alleges the presence of the aggravating the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home.The
circumstance of dwelling in the commission of the offense. This aggravating circumstances of treachery and dwelling have
should have been appreciated by the court a quo. It appears been alleged in the Information and proved by the prosecution
from the records that the kitchen at the La Fiesta Farm where by strong and convincing evidenceThe aggravating
Marita was dragged from her "dwelling," albeit the same does circumstance of dwelling is present here. Appellants deliberate
not belong to her. In People v. Parazo,this Court stressed that intrusion in the privacy of the Julatons domicile shows
the "dwelling" contemplated in Article 14(3) of the RPC does perversity.In People vs. Feliciano, dwelling is considered
not necessarily mean that the victim owns the place where he aggravating in robbery with homicide because this kind of
lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bedspacer, the robbery cannot be committed without the necessity of
place is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to transgressing the sanctity of the house.
protect. The fact that the crime was consummated in the
nearby house is also immaterial. Marita was forcibly taken by
appellant from her dwelling house (kitchen) and then raped
her. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his
house although the offense was not completed therein.
Page 125
his body. Ronito could only groan like a dying FACTS: Joy L. Cayabyab, 10, testified that while she was
pig. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. defecating inside the comfort room of
their house she heard somebody knock and Alfredo Delos
Jose Santos entered. Alfredo locked the
door and removed his trousers then he embraced and kissed
slit the throat of Ronito and took the latters her and put her on his lap. Her legs
wristwatch and ring. Manuel then untied Julifer
were spread apart between the legs of the accused then the
removed her clothes and panties and then accused inserted his organ into her
raped her. She could do nothing but cry. vagina. She said she felt pain.The accused told her not to tell
her mother what happened, and
Manuel and
then he put on his shorts and left the victim inside the comfort
Jose stayed in the house until 4:00 a.m. Before room. Later, she went to her sister,
they left, Manuel and Jose told Maria Fe that Joan, 8, and told her what happened. Joan who told her
they parents what happened.
De Los Santos deniedthe allegation.
were acting on orders of Rolando Pedrejas,
HELD:It cannot be ignored that the appellant committed rape
Joel Colejara, Grace Pabulacion and Juliet with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling as the crime was
Capuno committed within the house of the victim. Dwelling is
considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because
CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSSED:Manuel admitted having of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to the human
killed Ronito. He however claimed that he stabbed Ronito in abode.However,because of the failure to state such
self-defense and in defense of Jose. He also said that he, circumstance in the complaint, the same, though proven,
Potot, Ronito and Jojo, the younger brother of Maria Fe, had cannot be appreciated. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the
been engaged in robberies in. Sometime in September 1995, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took provides that
the four robbed a person of P50,000. However, Manuel failed aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances must be
to get his share of the loot while Ronito, Jojo and Potot got specifically alleged in the information, otherwise they cannot be
theirs. Manuel was bitter. He later learned in December 1995 considered against the accused even if they were proven
that Ronito and Maria Fe had left Davao City and settled in during the trial. Being favorable to the accused, this rule has to
Cebu City. On March 26, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in be applied retroactively to this case.
Cebu City to contact Ronito and to get his share of the loot.
Manuel met Ronito on March 29, 1996 at the jai-alai. Ronito DWELLING
told Manuel to visit him where they can talk. Manuel agreed. In PEOPLE v BAGSIT 409 SCRA 350
the evening on March 30, 1996, Manuel and Jose arrived in the
house of Ronito. Manuel wanted to get his share of the loot Richard Sisonsaw Angelito Bagsit pointing a gun at his father
from Ronito. Manuel, Jose and Ronito had a drinking spree. Pepito who was closing the front door of their house. Not for
However, at about two oclock at dawn, the next morning, long, Richard heard a gunshot and almost simultaneously saw
Manuel and Ronito had an altercation when Manuel demanded his father falling to the cement floor. Richard further testified
that Ronito give him his share of the loot. Ronito was peeved that Angelito, a second cousin of his mother, used to frequent
and told Manuel that he had long given him his share through a their house. He could not say what motivated Angelito to kill his
friend. Ronito whipped out a knife and stabbed Manuel. The father but as far as he knew, his father had no quarrel with the
latter tried to wrest the knife from Ronito but failed. However, appellant before the shooting incident.
Jose grappled with Ronito and managed to wrest possession
of the knife. Jose then gave the knife to Manuel who stabbed Bagsit averred thathe became drunk after a drinking bout with
Ronito with it. Dante Bagsit and Marcos Barte who hired him earlier that
morning to take care of his piggery. He spent the night leaning
Manuel denied raping Julifer, and divesting Ronito and Maria on a fence by the house of one Felix Agdon. When he finally
Fe of their valuables. Jose did not anymore testify arrived home at around five oclock the following morning his
wife told him about the shooting of Pepito.
HELD:Dwelling is not aggravating in this case as it was not
alleged in the amended information
HELD:Dwelling, also alleged in the amended Information, is to Dionisio's farm. When Allan was about a hundred meters
aggravating. The triggerman showed greater perversity when, away from Dionisio's hut, he noticed
although outside the house, he attacked his victim inside the Rafael at a distance of 10 meters coming from the direction of
latters own house when he could have very well committed the the hut of Dionisio.Allan noticed
crime without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the
victims home. He who goes to anothers house to hurt him or bloodstains on the clothes of Rafael. Allan was perplexed when
do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him Rafael tried to evade him as they
elsewhere. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, met.Allan peeped through the window and was horrified to see
it is not necessary that the accused should have actually his brother's feet as well as blood
entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense - it is
enough that the victim was attacked inside his own abode, under the bed. Allan immediately rushed home and reported
although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the incident to his parents.
the assault from the outside.
Rafael denied the charge. He testified that he and two co-
The Decision of the trial court finding appellant Bagsit guilty of workers were having a drinking spree. They asked Dionisio to
murder qualified by treachery, with the special aggravating give them a duck or chicken for their pulutan. Dionisio refused.
circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm and the generic The two companions of Rafael tarried and conversed in their
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and imposing on him the native dialect and thereafter returned to Dionisio's hut. Rafael
supreme penalty of DEATH, is AFFIRMED with the heard a commotion coming from inside the hut of Dionisio.
MODIFICATION. When he looked toward the direction of the hut, Rafael, who
was about 7 to 10 meters away therefrom, saw his two Visayan
NIGHTTIME companions kill Dionisio, Edna and Mark Joseph, and exit from
the hut. Dondon was carrying a crowbar (bareta de kabra).
PEOPLE v AVENDANO396 SCRA 309 Rafael was so petrified that he did not even try to help the
victims. Dondon then threw the crowbar (bareta de kabra) at
FACTS:JEFFRE CASTILLO, 8, son of the victim Remedios Rafael and threatened him with the words, "Putang ina mo
and brother of the victim Melvin papatayin ka rin namin." However, the crowbar landed near the
stated that he saw appellant in their house, looking for his feet of Rafael. Afraid for his life, Rafael immediately fled the
plow. After dinner, he, his mother and scene
brother went to sleep, they had an overnight lamp which was
turned on. He was suddenly HELD:The Court does not agree with the ruling of the trial court
awakened when he heard a commotion. He heard his mother that nighttime was attendant in the commission of the crime.
shout, "Dikong, tulungan mo kami." While it was established, as admitted by Rafael himself, that
the victims were killed between the hours of 2-3 a.m., the
When he heard the kalambugan he immediately eased his way prosecution failed to adduce evidence that Rafael took
to where they kept their pillows advantage of the darkness of the night to successfully
and tried to hide.He saw through his blanket that the person consummate his dastardly acts. By and of itself, nighttime is
had come up: "Naaninag ko po sa not an aggravating circumstance. It becomes aggravating only
kumot yung tao. That was when he distinctly heard his Kuya when: (1) it is especially sought by the offender; or (2) it is
Melvin say, "Kuya Willie, tama, na, taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission
tama na!" That was just before Melvin was killed.Jeffre recalled of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from capture.
that he recognized the cough of
his Kuya Willie. He recognized it because appellant frequented Rafael Caloza Jr. is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
their house. Jeffre fell asleep and homicide.
was awakened by persistent knocking on their door. He PEOPLE v MACTAL 401 SCRA 612
opened the door to find his Ate Annie, FACTS:Appellant and the deceased were married, beset by
Ate Norma and Ate Ann looking for his mother. He then told his frequent violent quarrels due to
Ate Annie that Willerie Avendao appellants drinking, gambling and womanizing. On the night of
killed both his mother Remedios and his Kuya Melvin. the incident, Romeo Rivera heard
the couple arguing but he did not mind them as he was used to
HELD:The trial court appreciated the aggravating their arguments.At around
circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and unlawful entry. Of the midnight, appellant went to Riveras house to check whether
three, only nighttime was properly alleged in the information. his wife Evelyn was there. Rivera,
As to nighttime, this circumstance is considered aggravating his wife and appellant conversed in the formers garage for
only when (1) it was especially sought by the offender; or (2) about 30 min, with the Rivera couple
the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the suggesting places where appellant should look for his wife. At
commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity around 1:00 a.m., Alfred Young,
from identification or capture. In this case, the prosecution did
not adduce evidence that the appellant deliberately sought the passing by appellants house, he saw Evelyn seated on a
cover of the night to commit the offense. The mere fact that the wooden chair in front of the window of
killing was committed at night would not suffice to sustain the house. She appeared lifeless because her head was
nocturnity for, by, and of itself.Aggravating circumstances must "hanging." Appellant was about an arms
be established with the same quantum of proof as fully as the length away from Evelyn. At about the same time, Romeo
crime itself, and any doubt as to their existence must be Adayo, who was walking home, saw
resolved in favor of appellant. appellant. The latter was about 20 steps away from him,
carrying the body of his wife Evelyn over
WILLERIE AVENDAO is found GUILTY of two counts of his right shoulder. Appellant was walking very fast towards a
homicide. dark street. The body of Evelyn was
discovered by a neighbor at around 5:00 a.m., 15 meters away
PEOPLE v CALOZA 396 SCRA 329 from her house.
FACTS:Dionisio Bulaclac asked Allan Bulaclac to come to his HELD:Nighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating
farm the following day to help him circumstance where no evidence was presented showing that
till the land. Allan agreed. At about 5:00 a.m. on July 6, 1997, nocturnity was especially sought by the accused nor taken
Allan left their place and proceeded
advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime or companion say that they were taking Zandro to the hospital.
to insure his immunity from captive. Later that evening Jacobe learned
that Zandro was found dead in a kangkong field.
Here, there is no evidence showing that appellant purposely
sought the cover of darkness to insure the commission of the Accused-appellant denies participation in the killing of Zandro
crime Vargas. He claims that the whole day of July 9, 1988 he was
on duty as an enlisted personnel of the 1103rd Criminal
Besides the aggravating circumstance was not alleged in the Investigation Service (CIS) in Tagum, Davao. Sumaoyidentified
information and cannot therefore justify the death penalty. a document signed by Technical Sergeant Ricardo Go called
Section 8, Rule 11013 of the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal "Duty Detail" showing that accused-appellant was on duty from
Procedure now requires that any aggravating circumstance 8:00 a.m. of July 9, 1988 to 8:00 a.m. of July 10, 1988. Ricardo
must be alleged in the information for it to be appreciated in the Go, Technical Sergeant, Philippine Constabulary, corroborated
imposition of the penalty. Since the rule is favorable to the the accused-appellant's alibi.
accused, it can be given retroactive effect, consistent with the
basic principles of criminal jurisprudence. The decision of the HELD: Sumaoydefense of alibi is of no moment. Not only was
Trail Court is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION. accused-appellant positively identified as the person who had
shot and taken Vargas to an undisclosed placed. It is also
PEOPLE v BALDOGO GR 129126-07 settled that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough that accused
prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was
FACTS:Gonzalo Baldogo alias "Baguio" & Edgar Bermas alias committed. He must demonstrate that he could not have been
"Bunso" were serving sentence in physically present at the place of the crime or in its immediate
the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the vicinity at the time of its commission.
Camacho family who resides w/in the The trial court also erred in finding the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of official
Penal Colony
position in the commission of the offense. This circumstance
On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge (14 y.o.) & requires that the accused, as a
abducted Julie (12 y.o.). They brought Julie up to the
mountains. During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to public officer, used the influence or reputation of his position for
retrieve their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was the purpose of committing the
located under a Tamarind tree.Feb. 28, 1996 Baguio left Julie crime. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without
in the mountains to fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands occupying his position, then there
& there she asked for help from NicodemusBaguio/Baldogo is no abuse of public position. In the case before us, no
denied killing Jorge and kidnapping Julie. Baguio contends that evidence was adduced to show that the
while he was preparing for sleep he was approached by Bunso killing of Zandro Vargas was in any way facilitated by the
who was armed with a bloodied bolo. Bunso warned him not to accused-appellant's public position. It
shout, otherwise he will also be killed. was not even shown whether the accused-appellant wore his
uniform or used his service firearm
Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend to hurt when he committed the crime.
Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during the Pacifico Sumaoy is guilty of homicide.
entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before
Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. PEOPLE v BAJAR 414 SCRA 494
HELD:Quasi-recidivism is alleged in both Informations. FACTS:Ana Bajar Rabor visited her parents in their house, her
Appellant is alleged to have committed murder and kidnapping mother Lolita, suggested that
while serving sentence in the penal colony by final judgment for since her father was very drunk, she should sleep at the house
the crime of homicide. Quasi-recidivism is a special of her maternal grandfather, the
aggravating circumstance.The prosecution is burdened to victim Aquilio, 100 meters away. Alejandro, who was still
prove the said circumstance by the same quantum of evidence obviously very drunk, inquiring whether
as the crime itself. In the present case, to prove quasi- his wife was in the house.Aquilio answered that his wife
recidivism, the prosecution was burdened to adduce in was in their (Alejandros) house.
evidence a certified copy of the judgment convicting accused- Alejandro accused Aquilio of lying and of hiding his daughter.
appellant of homicide and to prove that the said judgment had Ana heard a sound and saw that
become final and executory. In this case, the prosecution Alejandro was carrying a bolo and approaching her
adduced in evidence merely the excerpt of the prison record of grandfather. She saw her father hack her
accused-appellant showing that he was convicted of homicide grandfather, who was lying on the bed. She got up, ran
by the RTC of Baguio. The excerpt of the prison record of towards the sala, and saw her father still
appellant is not the best evidence to prove the judgment of the hacking his grandfather. While he was being stabbed and
RTC and to prove that said judgment had become final and attacked, Aquilio stood up to embrace his son-in-law. Ana
executory. Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary shouted for help as she held down the hand which her father
evidence which is inadmissible absent proof that the original of used to wield the bolo. Alejandro testified that on the date and
the judgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same time in question, he left his two daughters, Ana and Alma, and
cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution. The his two grandchildren, Mary Joy and Ann-Ann, at his house. He
barefaced fact that accused-appellant was detained in the proceeded to his father-in-laws house to look for his wife.
penal colony does prove the fact that final judgment for Upon arrival, he greeted Aquilio with respect: Pa, good
homicide has been rendered against him. evening. The latter replied that Lolita was not there and invited
him (Alejandro) to go up and see for himself. Alejandro went
PEOPLE v SUMAOY G.R. No. 105961 up, and not finding his wife, said: She is not here Pa. Aquilio
FACTS:Patricio Jacobe, Jr. testified that he saw the deceased angrily retorted: Everytime you are drunk you come here to
Zandro Vargas talking toPacifico ask me. Aquilio then suddenly clubbed Alejandro on the head
Sumaoy. 3 other men were with them.He was startled by the with a 2 x 3 coco lumber he saw near the door.Alejandro then
sound of a gunshot. He saw Vargas touched his head, and saw blood on his hand. He felt dizzy.
run but he was overtaken and dragged towards a waiting Seeing that Aquilio was about to attack him again, he drew out
tricycle. Sumaoy and 3 other men then his hunting knife and defended himself by moving his hand
boarded the tricycle taking Vargas with them. Jacobe allegedly from the right to left. He felt he hit something before he lost
heard one of accused-appellant's consciousness.
HELD:We affirm Alejandros conviction.
Page 143
Anent the generic aggravating circumstance of disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of age, it is
considered present when the offended person, by reason of his Tamano,Salvador and Boy Negro. Tamano stabbed him at the
age, could be the father of the offender. This is obvious in this back. Bading and Boy Negro took
case. Not only was Aquilio, by reason of his age, considered turns in stabbing Florencio. Residents in the neighborhood saw
old enough to be the father of Alejandro (who incidentally the incident and shouted at
declared in open court that he was 58 years old), he was also Tamano, Bading and Boy Negro.
the latters father-in-law. The presence of this aggravating CAUSE OF DEATH:Multiple stab wounds
circumstance by reason of their age difference is, therefore,
reinforced by their actual relationship by affinity. Further, it is For his defense, Salvador denied having stabbed the victim.
ingrained in Philippine culture that those advanced in age are He admitted that he was present when Florencio was stabbed.
respected especially in the provinces. He, however, insisted that Tamano and Boy Negro helped
each other in fighting with and stabbing Florencio. Salvador
Suffice it is to say that the alternative circumstance of claimed that when Tamano told him that he just had an
relationship was correctly appreciated, the victim being the altercation with Florencio, he (Salvador) suggested that
father-in-law of the appellant. Tamano and Florencio settle their differences. He even offered
to act as mediator since Florencio was the godson of
PEOPLE v JULIANDA 370 SCRA 448 Salvadors father.
FACTS: Gertrudes Casalo testified that she saw Teofilo
Coralde riding a carabao while his HELD:Crime Committed By Accused-Appellant
brother Ferdinand was walking behind him.She saw that their
way was suddenly blocked by the The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder on its
finding that treachery and evident premeditation attended the
brothers Jesus, Jr., Jimmy, and Nolito Julianda.Jimmy and killing of Florencio.
Nolito tried to hack Teofilo so the latter
The Court does not agree with the trial court. Case law has it
alighted from the carabao and ran away. Both Teofilo and that treachery must be proved with the same quantum of
Ferdinand entered the store of a evidence as the crime itself. Treachery cannot be presumed;
certain Arlene Cabrillas.Approximately 20 people surrounded nor can it be based on mere surmises or speculations. In case
the store, 4 of whom she of doubt, the same should be resolved in favor of the accused
recognized: the 3 Julianda brothers and Samson
Guerrero.From a distance of 10 meters she Evident premeditation was not attendant because the
saw Nolito pull the hand of Teofilo and drag him towards the prosecution failed to prove the elements thereof, namely: (1)
road. Nolito hacked the back of the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2)
Teofilo. Despite this, Teofilo was able to run and cross the road sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
before he fell down. Jimmy execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequence of
his act.
likewise hacked Teofilo while Jesus hit Teofilo with a
stone.Ferdinand Coralde went out of the Salvador de la Cruzis guilty only of homicide.
store. He was met by Samson Guerrero who smashed his
nose with a stone. Then the group PEOPLE v BALDOGO 396 SCRA 31
FACTS: Gonzalo Baldogo alias "Baguio" & Edgar Bermas alias
ganged up on him. He was already down, when the group left "Bunso" were serving sentence in
him.Ferdinand, upon regaining the Penal Colony of Palawan. They were also serving the
consciousness, got up and ran away, leaving his brother Camacho family who resides w/in the
Teofilo behind. Penal Colony. On Feb 22, 1996 Baguio & Bunso killed Jorge
(14 y.o.) & abducted Julie (12 y.o.).
Jesus Julianda, Jr. and Samson Guerrero denied any They brought Julie up to the mountains.
participation in the murder and attempted murder charges
against them. Jesus Julianda, Jr. claimed that he was in his During their trek Baguio & Bunso were able to retrieve
house the whole day while Samson Guerrero claimed that he their clothing & belongings from a trunk which was located
was just pacifying the quarrel between Ferdinand Coralde and under a Tamarind tree.
Jimmy Julianda.
Feb. 28, 1996 Baguio left Julie in the mountains to
HELD:The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior fend for herself. Julie went to the lowlands & there she asked
strength is absorbed in treachery. Since no evidence was for help from Nicodemus
adduced showing when the accused hatched the murderous
plan and the interval of time therefrom to its commission we Baguio/Baldogo denied killing Jorge and kidnapping
find that this case is not attended by the aggravating Julie. Baguio contends that while he was preparing for sleep he
circumstance of evident premeditation.Settled is the rule that was approached by Bunso who was armed with a bloodied
when it is not shown as to how and when the plan to kill was bolo. Bunso warned him not to shout, otherwise he will also be
hatched or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, killed.
evident premeditation cannot be considered.
Accused-appellant maintained that he did not intend
EVIDENT PREMIDATATION to hurt Julie or deprive her of her liberty. He averred that during
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 398 SCRA 415 the entire period that he and Julie were in the mountain before
FACTS: Salvador de la Cruz, Tamano and Boy Negro knocked Bermas left him, he tried to protect her from Bermas. Accused-
on the door of the house of appellant asserted that he wanted to bring Julie back to her
Florencio Antonio, , Ferdinand parents after Bermas had left them and to surrender but
Pearanda, saw Florencio fleeing accused-appellant was afraid that Julio Sr. might kill him.
for dear life, chased by
Issues:WON the qualifying aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation can be appreciated.
The prosecution is burdened to prove overt acts that Casitasinvokes denial and alibi as defenses. Gerondina
after deciding to commit the felony, the felon clung to his Casitas testified that Jose Casitas, Jr. was preparing and
determination to commit the crime. The law doesnt prescribe a packing his clothes because he was busy going to Manila. But
time frame that must elapse from the time the felon has before going to Manila, he will [pass] by Legaspi City where he
decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it. will get the money she borrowed from Angelo Orenze.
If one of them was a principal by inducement, there would be bag, proceeded to the victims room. Cando picked a piece of
no cuadrilla but the aggravating circumstance of having acted lead pipe and told Vargas to pull
with the aid armed men may be considered against the inducer open the door where the victims mosquito net was attached.
if the other two acted as his accomplice. When Vargas pulled open the door,
This aggravating circumstance is inherent in BRIGANDAGE. the mosquito net snapped and Cando struck the victim on the
This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance head with the lead pipe. The victim
os abuse of superior strength. awakened and Cando demanded money from him. When the
This aggravating circumstance is not applicable in crimes victim replied that he had no
against chastity. money, Cando struck him again with the lead pipe. Blood
oozed from the victims head. Cando
PEOPLE v BUAYABAN 400 SCRA 48 repeatedly hit him with the lead pipe until he became
unconscious. Cando placed the victims
FACTS:Paulino Buayaban, Larry Betache, Marciano Toacao, radio cassette in his bag. He went upstairs to get more items
Yoyong Buayaban and Pedro and the keys of the Cimarron van.
Cando and Rapcing pushed the van outside. Once they were Course Outline in Criminal 1
out of hearing range, Vargas
gunned the motor and the two clambered into the van. Page 155
ROGER CANDO, ARNEL VARGAS, and WILBERTO The meeting between appellants group and the victim was
RAPCING are guilty of the crime of Robbery withHomicide. merely by chance and it could not be said that the mode of
PEOPLE v MAZO 367 SCRA 462 attack could have been planned. A killing done at the spur of
FACTS: Rommel Abrenica and Rafael Morada, Jr., were the moment is not treacherous.
having a drink in the "Rendezvous,
The trial court also held that there was treachery when
whenan altercation between them and the Dennis Mazo appellant continued to stab the victim when the latter fell and
occurred. Rommel was jealous of the was crawling on his back. This conclusion is erroneous. It is
accused whose alleged girlfriend Rommel also fancied. While true that appellant took advantage of the victims unfortunate
talking to the girl, the accused fall to finish him off but there is no showing that appellant had
approached them and said, "oh, what?" They responded consciously adopted, prepared or planned to use the victims
by asking him, "what?" Rommel sudden, hapless position to his advantage.
described the accuseds attitude as "brave as if he was
threatening them."Rommel and Rafael Dennis Mazo is GUILTY of Homicide.
rode Rommels motorcycle. They passed the group of Dennis PEOPLE v MANTES 368 SCRA 661
Mazo. Somebody called, "Pssst,"
and Rommel stopped the vehicle. Rafael alighted and FACTS:Efren Mantes and Danilo Flores tookElicazar Napili
approached Dennis and his companions to from his house, armed with guns and bolos, tolm him that he
ask who called them. Dennis and Rafael walked towards each was being summoned by the barangay captain. Cowed by their
other, Dennis holding his back arms, Elicazar went with the two. Thirty minutes after,Elizabeth
pocket. Suddenly, Dennis, who wielded a knife on his right went to the barangay captain to inquire as to the whereabouts
hand, stabbed Rafael about eight of her husband. She was told that her husband was not
inches below the left nipple.Rommel remained seated on his summoned. Violeta Latagan testified that while she and her
motorcycle allowing him to witness husband Abelardo and their child were resting inside their
the incident. Rafael was able to parry another of Dennis house, three persons sought shelter from the rain. Minutes
thrusts and then run. Rafael cushioned later, she heard them quarrelling. She saw Mantes and Flores
his fall with his hands and was able to roll on his back. He hacking at Elicazar Napili. Elicazar managed to force his way
raised his feet and his hands to shield inside Violetas house. Grabbing her child, Violeta and her
himself from Dennis stabbing thrusts. Thereafter, Dennis fled . husband fled the scene, but not before she was hacked in the
left buttock by Flores.
Dennis Mazo invoked self-defense.
Since Elicazar had not yet returned, the the barangay captain
and Elizabeth proceeded to the house of Efren Mantes father
to look for Efren. There, they found Mantes already awake,
wearing a bloodied T-shirt and with wounds on his hands and
back. When asked the reason therefor, Efren told the group
that he had been in a drinking spree that night and that a fight
had ensued thereat. Told to escort the group to the place of the as shown in his attempt to escape, albeit unsuccessfully, from
drinking spree and fight, Mantes led the group to the hut of his assailants.
Nicanor Malabanan. The group unearthed the lifeless body of
Elicazar Napili wrapped in a transparent plastic sheet. The PEOPLE v COSTALES 373 SCRA 269
testimony of Rogelio Manabat and Julio de Salit, who were
members of the group which went to the house of Efren Jessie Molina recalled that she and her sisters Donabel and
Mantes father and later discovered Elicazars cadaver, Erlinda together with their parents Miguel and Crispina had
corroborated the testimony of the barangay captain. prepare for the night. Jessie and Erlinda had just watched tv
when 2 persons suddenly barged into their house passing
Mantes narrated that he, Elicazar Napili& Bernardo were through the door kept ajar by sacks of palay and strangled her
invited by Abelardo to a drinking spree.Bernardo and Elicazar father Miguel. Jessie readily recognized Fernando "Ando"
got into an argument, which ultimately led to Bernardo dealing Costales, poked a gun at the head of her father and shot him
fist blows to Elicazar. Mantes was suddenly hacked with a bolo once in cold blood. Thereafter Fernando Ramirez sprayed on
by Abelardo, prompting him to run and hide in the bushes their faces what she described as "something hot and
nearby. From his vantage point, Mantes saw Elicazar wrest the pungent," and with his firearm pumped a bullet on her mother's
bolo from Abelardo and chase the latter into the house. It was chest.Both Jessie and Erlinda affirmed that they were familiar
inside the house where Violeta was hacked by Elicazar. with the 2 accused because, like the rest of the family, they
Abelardo managed to hit Elicazar on the arm with a piece of were members of the "Baro a Cristiano" also known as
wood, causing him to Lamplighter, of which Costales and F Ramirez were the high
priests in their respective areas. According to Jessie, her
parents decided to quit the brotherhood because Ramirez
warned them not to sever their ties with the sect if they did not
Course Outline in Criminal 1 want any harm to befall them. In fact, according to her, a month
earlier Ramirez even threatened her sister Erlinda with bodily
Page 156 harm.
HELD:The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden PEOPLE v ABUT 401 SCRA 498
attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and
unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness FACTS:Maricar and Edgar and Rosie and Al took a stroll at the
and severity of the attack.This criterion applies, whether the Park. The 2 couples sat on the
attack is frontal or from behind. Even a frontal attack could be concrete benches facing each other. After a few minutes,
treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie
would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. The fact arrived.Rosie had been the girlfriend of
that the location of the fatal stab wound is in front does not in Winchester before she became the
itself negate treachery. In the case at bar, it was established girlfriend of
that appellant came from behind, went towards the right of the Al.Winchester told Maricar that he wanted to get acquainted
victim, and suddenly stabbed the victims chest while holding with Edgar. Edgar introduced himself
the latters left shoulder. Evidence shows that, first, at the time to Winchester. Winchester shook hands
of attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself, as with Edgar. Winchester yanked his
he was unarmed and totally unsuspecting when appellant hand and
suddenly held and stabbed him; and second, appellant immediately boxed Edgar. Ritchie struck the 2 bottles on the
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means of table and hit Edgar with the broken
attack, as he was seen surreptitiously following the victim with bottles. The 3 continued their assault on the victim and stabbed
a balisong tucked under his waist. Clearly therefore, treachery him. Edgar pleaded to his
attended the crime. attackers to stop assaulting him telling them that he had
sustained so many stab wounds
Expedito Alfon is guilty of murder already. Edgar stood up and staggered only to fall down near
one of the cemented benches in
PEOPLE v CARAIG 400 SCRA 67 the park about 10 meters from the table.
Course Outline in Criminal 1 HELD:The trial court correctly convicted the appellants of
murder with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
Page 159 strength. However, the trial court erred in appreciating
treachery against the appellants. There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against persons employing
FACTS: Edmundo Diaz, Roberto Raagas, Melencio Castro Jr., means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
and Placido Agustin were leaving the beerhouse when Caraig directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to
confronted them whether they were military men.A rumble himself arising from the defense which the offended party
suddenly ensued between his group and Caraig. It was a brief might make. Treachery must be proved by clear and
scuffle. Caraig then ran back to the Beerhouse. Edmundo and convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself. In this
his companions rode on a taxi. They were chased, however, by case, the prosecution failed to prove that the mode or manner
car which eventually blocked the taxi, Caraig, Laxamana, and of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the
Laomoc alighted from the car. They simultaneously fired upon appellants when they stabbed the victim. Appellant Winchester
Edmundo and his companions. While the hail of bullets went first boxed the victim. The appellants and Ritchie then mauled
on, Edmundo played dead. He then heard somebody utter: and kicked the victim. There is no evidence that at the outset,
"Pare, tama na yan. Patay na lahat ang mga iyan." When the they had decided to stab and kill the victim. It was only at the
car left, he asked the people who gathered around the scene to late stage of the assault that the appellants and Ritchie
stabbed the victim. The Court believes that after ganging up on that the victim said she was copying the name of the accused
and mauling the victim, the appellants, at the spur-of-the because she knew he would not be
moment, decided to stab the victim. Thus, the subjective going back to her. Then she rushed back to her bedroom after
element of treachery was not present instructing Pasco to wake her up
the following morning. 2 Before retiring, however, the victim's
friend, Rosemarie Juarez, came to
the former's house and after having a small conversation, also
left. The following day Pasco rose
to wake her mistress as instructed. She knocked at the door.
Course Outline in Criminal 1 She found that the victim was lying
on her bed, facing downward, naked up to the waist, with legs
Page 160 spread apart, with a broken
figurine beside her head
Winchester Abut and Gregmar Baliga are guilty of HELD: We find and sustain the finding of the lower court that
murderqualified by abuse of superior strength. the aggravating circumstance of outraging or scoffing at the
corpse of the deceased applies against the accused since it is
established that he mocked or outraged at the person or
PEOPLE v ESCARLOS 410 SCRA 463 corpse of his victim by having an anal intercourse with her after
FACTS:Antonio Balisacan went to attend a benefit dance, his she was already dead. The fact that the muscles of the anus
son Crisanto, also attended with did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal
his friends. Crisanto stood beside the emcee, Escarlos. While region as testified to by Dr. Angeles Roxas and clearly
Ceasario was calling the victim, established the coitus after death. This act of the accused in
Antonio Balisacan, to come to the the stage, Crisantosaw having anal intercourse with the woman after killing her is,
appellant stab his father, Antonio, undoubtedly, an outrage at her corpse.
several times. Crisanto was momentarily shocked that he was
not able to react. Antonio was still PEOPLE v ASTUDILLO 401 SCRA 723
alive so he brought him to Hospital where he expired a few FACTS: Clarence, Crisanto and Hilario Astudillo, went to house
minutes after arrival. of Alberto Damian. Clarence
greeted Alberto and asked the victim, Silvestre Aquino, to go
Accused TIMOTEO ESCARLOS was invited to buy lechon with him. Silvestre acceded and the
during the benefit dance.While Antonio who was then drunk, two walked towards Floras Store, where they were later joined
passed in front and told him, You are here again to create by Crisanto and Hilario. While at
trouble. Accused was offended so he answered back saying the store, Crisanto and Silvestre had an argument.Manuel
Why do you say that to me when I am not doing any trouble Bareng and Eduardo Bata, 12 and 11
here. Antonio Balisacan told him, OKINNAM KETDI and years of age, saw Clarence stab Silvestre with a bolo while
without warning boxed him. Timoteo was hit on the forehead. Crisanto and Hilario held him by the
He intended to box back but he noticed that the victim was wrists. Clarence delivered several stab blows at the back and
pulling out a kitchen knife, so for fear of his life, he grabbed the on the chest of the victim until the
weapon from Antonio Balisacan and used the knife in stabbing latter fell to the ground. Thereafter, the three appellants fled
the latter who was hit at the side below the left armpit. He on board a tricycle.Silvestre was
stabbed the victim thrice. rushed to the Municipal Health Office of Bangued, Abra, where
he was pronounced dead on
HELD:The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected arrival.
attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on the
part of the victim, thus depriving the latter of any real chance to Clarence said Silvestre struck him on the head and arm with an
put up a defense, and thereby ensuring the commission of the empty one-liter softdrink bottle.Hilario arrived and tried to pacify
attack without risk to the aggressor. There is no treachery Silvestre but the latter attacked him. As he retreated, he saw a
when the assault is preceded by a heated exchange of words knife which he then swung at the victim. Silvestre was hit but
between the accused and the victim; or when the victim is continued to attack him. Left with no choice, Hilario stabbed
aware of the hostility of the assailant towards the former.In the Silvestre 2 or 3 times. When the latter collapsed to the ground,
instant case, the verbal and physical squabble prior to the Hilario rushed to the succor of his elder brother, Clarence
attack proves that there was no treachery, and that the victim
was aware of the imminent danger to his life.Moreover, the HELD : As regards the generic aggravating circumstance of
prosecution failed to establish that appellant had deliberately use of motor vehicle, the trial court erred in appreciating the
adopted a treacherous mode of attack for the purpose of same inasmuch as the prosecution failed to show that the
depriving the victim of a chance to fight or retreat.Certainly, the tricycle was deliberately used by the appellants to facilitate the
victim knew that his scuffle with appellant could eventually turn commission of the crime or that the crime could not have been
into a violent physical clash. The existence of a struggle before committed without it. The use of motor vehicle is not
the fatal blows were inflicted on the victim clearly shows that he aggravating where the use thereof was merely incidental and
was forewarned of the impending attack, and that he was was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the
afforded the opportunity to put up a defense.Indeed, a killing offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his
done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous. Moreover, apprehension difficult.
any doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in
favor of the accused. Clarence Astudillo, Crisanto Astudillo @ Anteng or
Enteng, and Hilario Astudillo @ Boda, are guilty of the
ESCARLOS is guilty of homicide. crime of murder .
Page 168
The trial court held that the crime was committed with
deliberate cruelty considering that the victim suffered 21 hack
and stab-wounds, contusions and abrasions on the different
parts of his body. The number of wounds is not the criterion for
the appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance.
The mere fact that wounds in excess of what is necessary to
cause death were inflicted upon the body of the victim does not
necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty.It
is necessary to show that the accused intentionally and
deliberately increased the victim's suffering. In this case, there
is no evidence showing appellants intent to commit such
cruelty.