PEOPLE v CALISO
(58 PHIL 283)
July 1, 1933
G.R. No. L-37271
In the commission of the crime, the aggravating circumstance
of grave abuse of confidence was present since the appellant
was the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the
deceased child's "amah". The circumstance that the crime had
been committed in the dwelling of the offended party which
was considered by the lower court as another aggravating
circumstance should be disregarded as both the victim and the
appellant were living in the same house.
We agree to the conclusions of fact reached by the trial court.
As to the application of the law to the facts of the case, we are
inclined to the proposition advanced by the Attorney-General
that in the commission of the crime the aggravating
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present since
the appellant was the domestic servant of the family and was
sometimes the deceased child's amah. The circumstance of the
crime having been committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, considered by the lower court as another aggravating
circumstance, should be disregarded as both the victim and
the appellant were living in the same house. (U.S. vs.
Rodriguez, 9 Phil., 136; U.S. vs. Destrito and De Ocampo, 23
Phil., 28.) Likewise, threachery cannot be considered to
aggravate the penalty as it is inherent in the offense of murder
by means of poisoning (3 Viada, p. 29). Similarly the finding of
the trial court that the appellant acted under an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion and
obfuscation should be discarded because the accused, in
poisoning the child, was actuated more by a spirit of
lawlessness and revenge than by any sudden impulse of
natural and uncontrollable fury (People vs. Hernandez, 43
Phil., 104, 111) and because such sudden burst of passion was
not provoked by prior unjust or improper acts of the victim or
of his parents (U.S. vs. Taylor, 6 Phil., 162), since Flora Gonzalez
had the perfect right to reprimand the defendant for
indecently converting the family's bedroom into a rendezvous
of herself and her lover.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence being
offset by the extenuating circumstance of defendant's lack of
instruction considered by the lower court, the medium degree
of the prescribed penalty should, therefore, be imposed,
which, in this case, is reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE v LORA
(113 SCRA 366)
March 30, 1982
G.R. No. L-49430
Facts: On May 26, 1975, accused Belinda Lora, using the name
"Lorena Sumilew", applied as a housemaid in the household of
the spouses Ricardo Yap and Myrna Yap at 373 Ramon
Magsaysay Avenue, Davao City. The spouses had a store on the
ground floor; a mezzanine floor was used as their residence;
while the third floor was used as a bodega for their stocks.
They had two children, Emily and Oliver Yap. Oliver was 3 years
and five months old.
Belinda Lora was accepted as a housemaid in the re-sidence of
the Yaps and reported for work the following day, May 27,
1975. Her duties were to wash clothes and to look after Oliver
Yap.
On May 28, 1975, Mrs. Myrna Yap returned home from the
market to find her mother-in-law and her husband panicky
because their son, Oliver, and the maid, accused Belinda Lora,
were missing. The mother-in-law had found a ransom note at
the stairway to the mezzanine floor. The note said that Oliver
was to be sold to a couple and that the writer (defendant
herein) needed money for her mother's hospitalization. Four
pieces of residence certificates were also found inside the
paper bag of the maid. One residence certificate bore the No.
1941785 with the name "Sumiliw, Lorena Pamintil."
One morning, May 30, 1975, upon waking up at around 6
o'clock in his house, Ricardo Yap noticed that blood was
dripping from the ceiling. He went upstairs, which was being
utilized as a bodega, to verify, and found his son placed inside
the carton of Marlboro cigarettes. The head of the child was
inside the carton while his feet protruded outside. His mouth
was tied with stockings. The child was already dead. He had
died of "asphyxia due to suffocation."
Held: The accused was charged for the crime of serious illegal
detention with murder for illegally detaining a 3-year old child,
and attacking the same, which resulted to the child's death.
There are three aggravating circumstances in this case,
namely: (1) lack of respect due to the tender age of the victim;
(2) cruelty, for gagging the victim's mouth with stockings
thereby causing slow suffocation; and (3) abuse of confidence
since the main duty of the accused in the household was to
take care of the minor child.
PEOPLE v LAGUARDIA
(148 SCRA 133)
February 27, 1987
G.R. No. L-63243
Facts: On September 6, 1979, at about 10:30 o'clock in the
evening, Dante Bartulay and Baltazar Beran, the herein
accused-appellant, signaled to a stop a truck owned by Fortune
Tobacco Corporation then being driven by Miguel Chua on the
zigzag road in Kilometer 36 inside the Iwahig Penal Colony at
Puerto Princesa in Palawan City. Beran approached one side
of the truck and pretended to borrow a screwdriver and while
Chua looked for the tool Bartulay shouted from the other side
of the truck, "This is a hold-up!" With guns drawn, the two men
ordered Chua and his three companions, Benigno Caca, Frank
Morante, and Eduardo Aniar, to alight. Bartulay forced Chua
to lie face down on the ground about 3 meters away from his
companions. Bartulay was pointing a gun at Chua's head. On
orders of Bartulay, Beran got the wallets and watches of the
four. Bartulay asked about the money they were carrying and
Chua pointed to its location. Beran got it and gave it to
Bartulay. The money amounted to about P100,000.00. Then,
again on orders of Bartulay, Beran herded the three
companions inside the panel where they were locked. It was
while they were still inside the panel that Beran and the others
heard two gunshots. When Beran got off the truck, he saw
Chua still lying on the ground but now bleeding in the head.
Thereafter, Beran drove the truck from the scene of the crime
while Bartulay followed in a motorcycle. Somehow, Caca and
Morante managed to escape by jumping from the truck
through a secret exit of the panel. They subsequently reported
the occurrence to the law-enforcement authorities who,
returning to the scene of the crime the following day, found
Chua already dead. Beran was arrested on September 8, 1979,
with the amount of P4,500.00 in his possession and upon
questioning pointed to the place where he had hidden the
pistol he had used during the hold-up. Further investigation
disclosed that the motorcycle and guns used by Bartulay and
Beran were owned by Rosalio Laguardia, who was identified by
Beran as the mastermind of the crime. The money stolen was
supposed to have been divided in the house of Raymundo
Bartulay, Dante's brother.
Issue: aggravating circumstance of nighttime? NO.
Held: The following aggravating circumstances were present in
this case of robbery with homicide: (1) despoblado or
uninhabited place since evidence shows that the accused lay
in wait for the truck being driven by the victim at an isolated
portion of the highway, choosing that particular spot where
they could commit the crime without disturbance or discovery
and with easy opportunity for escape; and (2) use of motor
vehicles because the conspirators took the vehicle of the
victim to facilitate their escape and to prevent the other
passengers from reporting the offense to the authorities. The
following aggravating circumstances were rejected: (1)
nighttime because it was not especially sought, as the victim's
trip schedule and not the discretion of the culprits determined
the time of its commission; (2) evident premeditation because
it is inherent in the crime of robbery and was not proved in the
commission of the killing; and (3) treachery, as there is no
evidence of its employment since none of the witnesses
actually saw the shooting.
PEOPLE v ZETA
(549 SCRA 541)
March 27, 2008
G.R. No. 178541
Facts: On or about the 28th day of October 1995 in Quezon
City, Angelo Zeta and his wife Petronilla Zeta was found
conspiring together, confederating with and helping one
another, with intent to kill, attacked, assaulted and employed
personal violence to Ramon Garcia by shooting the latter with
a .45 caliber pistol hitting him on the different parts of his body
which ultimately caused his death.
The Regional Trial Court ruled that Ramon’s killing was
attended by the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation and nocturnity.
On December 24, 2002, Petronilla filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Regional Trial Court stating that there are no testimonial
evidence presented before the lower court that could
sufficiently served as justifiable basis to warrant the reversal of
the appealed decision rendered insofar as Petronilla is
concerned but then upon being informed of the health
predicament of the undersigned counsel, Petronilla voluntarily
decided to withdraw the appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation in the commission of the crime.
Held: No, the court held that the aggravating circumstance of
evident premeditation cannot be appreciated. Evident
premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder if the
following evidence are present: (a) the time when the offender
determined to commit the crime; (b)an act manifestly
indicating that the culprit clung to his resolve; and (c) a
sufficient interval of the time between the determination or
conception and the execution of the crime to allow him to
reflect upon the consequence of his act and to allow his
conscience to overcome the resolution of his will if he desired
to hearken to its warning.
The span of thirty minutes or half an hour from the time the
accused showed their determination to kill the victim (2:00 in
the morning of 28 October 1995) up to the time the accused
shot to death the victim (2:15-2:30 in the morning of 28
October 1995) could not have afforded them full opportunity
for meditation and reflection on the consequences of the
crime they committed. The Court held that the lapse of thirty
minutes between the determination to commit a crime and
the execution thereof is insufficient for a full meditation on the
consequences of the act. Hence, the aggravating circumstance
of evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in this case.