109 SCRA 308, G.R. No.

L-35156, November 20, 1981

People v Rodil

Facts:

Accused Floro Rodil was found guilty for the death of Lt. Guillermo Masana of the Philippine Constabulary. The
accused, armed with a double-bladed dagger, with evident premeditation and treachery, and with intent to kill, did,
attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana while the latter was in the performance of his official duties, which directly
caused his death.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime of murder can be complexed with assault upon agent of authority.

Ruling:

Yes. The Solicitor General claims the crime committed was murder because "it was established by the
prosecution that during the stabbing incident, appellant suddenly and without giving the victim a chance to defend
himself, stabbed the latter several times with a dagger, inflicting. The suddenness of the attack does not by itself suffice
to support a finding of treachery , the record failed to show that the accused made any preparation to kill his victim so
as to insure the commission of the crime. Clearly, therefore, the impelling motive for the attack by appellant on his
victim was the latter's performance of official duty, which the former resented. This kind of evidence does not clearly
show the presence of treachery in the commission of the crime.

182 SCRA 601, G.R. No. 76338-39 February 26, 1990

People v Tac-an (1990) case digest

FACTS:
 Accused Renato Tac-an appeals from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City, convicting him of
qualified illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.The above-named accused, while acting under the influence of
drugs and without any license or permit from the proper authorities, did have ill his possession custody and control an
unlicensed firearm, a SMITH & WESSON Airweight caliber .38 revolver and without any justifiable cause and with intent
to kill, used the said firearm and ammunitions to shoot one Francis Ernest Escano III hitting and inflicting upon the latter
the following gunshot wounds.

Appellant contends that he had voluntarily surrendered and that the trial court should have considered that
mitigating circumstance in his favor.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Renato's voluntary surrender warrant him a mitigating circumstance.

HELD:

No. Renato surrendered his gun, not himself, by handing over the weapon through the balustrade of the faculty
room. Secondly, he surrendered the gun to his brother, who was not in any case a person in authority nor an agent of a
person in authority. Thirdly, Renato did not surrender himself he was arrested by Capt. Lazo. The fact that he did not
resist arrest, did not constitute voluntary surrender. Finally, if it be assumed that Renato had surrendered himself, such
surrender cannot be regarded as voluntary and spontaneous. Renato was holed up in the faculty room, in effect holding
some teachers and students as hostages. The faculty room was surrounded by Philippine Constabulary soldiers and
there was no escape open to him.
G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968

People vs Apduhan

Facts:

The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Apolonio Apduhan, Jr., alias Junior, Rodulfo Huiso and Felipe
Quimson of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, committed as follows: That on or about the 23rd day of May,
1961, at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening, in the Municipality of Mabini, Province of Bohol, Philippines, the
above-named accused and five (5) other persons, all of them armed with different unlicensed firearms, daggers,
and other deadly weapons, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, with intent of gain, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously 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; and, once inside the said dwelling house, the above-named accused with
their five (5) other companions, did attack, hack and shoot Geronimo Miano and another person by the name of
Norberto Aton, who happened to be also in the said dwelling house, thereby inflicting upon the said two (2)
persons physical injuries which caused their death; and thereafter the same accused and their five (5) other
companions, did take and carry way from said dwelling house cash money amounting to Three Hundred Twenty-
two Pesos (P322.00), Philippine Currency, belonging to Honorato Miano and Geronimo Miano, 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
defenceless.

Issue:

Whether or not dwelling was considered an aggravating circumstance.

Held:

YES. The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation of persons,
like the offense at bar. The rationale behind this pronouncement is that this class of robbery could be
committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home. Morada is inherent only in crimes
which could be committed in no other place than in the house of another, such as trespass and robbery in an
inhabited house. This Court in People vs. Pinca, citing People vs. Valdez, ruled that the "circumstances (of
dwelling and scaling) were certainly not inherent in the crime committed, because, the crime being robbery with
violence or intimidation against persons (specifically, robbery with homicide) the authors thereof could have
committed it without the necessity of violating or scaling the domicile of their victim." Cuello Calon opines that
the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows greater perversity in the accused and produces greater
alarm.
 14 Phil. 77

US vs. Manalinde

Facts:

The accused, Manalinde, who pleaded guilty confessed that his wife died about one hundred days
before; that he was directed by Datto Mupuck to go huramentado and to kill the two persons he would meet in
the town; that if he was successful in the matter, Mupuck would give him a pretty woman on his return; that in
order to carry out his intention to kill two persons in the town of Cotobato, he provided himself with a kris,
which he concealed in banana leaves; that he traveled for a day and a night from his home; that upon reaching
the town, he attacked from behind a Spaniard named Igual, and immediately after, he attacked a Chinaman
named Choa, who was close by; and that he had no quarrel with the assaulted persons. Both victims died as a
result.

Issue:

Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation is established by the facts.

Ruling:

YES. Those facts establish the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.

The three requisites of evident premeditation are illustrated by the facts:

First requisite: On a certain date, Manalinde accepted the proposition that he would turn hurmentado and kill the first
two persons he would meet in the market place. On said date, the offender is said to have determined the crime.

Second requisite: He undertook the journey to comply therewith and provided himself with a weapon. The journey and
the carrying of the weapon are acts manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination to commit the
crime.

Third requisite: After the journey for a day and a night, he killed the victims. One day and one night constitute a
sufficient lapse of time for the offender to realize the consequences of his contemplated act.
G.R. No. 124213

People vs AlFeche

Facts:
Dante Alfeche and Willy and a John doe are condemned to suffer the death penalty due to two counts of rape on the same
victim Analiza Duroja. On the first instance of rape Wily and two of his companions which the victim only recognized one of the two,
Dante, attacked her in the dwelling where the victim was working as a domestic helper. She was gagged and held at knifepoint after
which Dante boxed her on her side where she lost consciousness. Upon waking the victim realized that her short pants were
removed and that she was bleeding in her genitals. She mentions that she was not menstruating and did not engage in prior sexual
intercourse. Dante also threated to kill her mother if she mentioned the incident. On the second instance of rape, the three again
attacked her in the dwelling of her owner and Dante knelt her on her legs, undressed her and inserted his private parts until
completion. The victim noticed a semen in her organ which came from Dante who also drove a nail into her left hand. Analiza
reported the injury to the police and eventually had bouts of attempted suicide due to the rape and the subsequent pregnancy. She
gave birth to a boy. She eventually identified the accused and filed for rape charges.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused are liable of the crime.

Ruling:
On the first instance of rape the accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt but on the other instance of rape due to
the compelling evidence was liable for the crime of rape thus subject to the death penalty.

G.R. NO. 139857 September 15, 2006

Batulon vs People

FACTS:

Polomok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed Leonila Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager from May
1980 up to December 22, 1982. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the member of the
cooperative. During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities concerning the release of loans were
discovered. It was found that Batulanon falsified four commercial documents, all checks/cash vouchers representing
granted loans to different persons namely: Omadlao, Oracion, Arroyo and Dennis Batulanon, making it appear that said
names were granted a loan and received the amount of the checks/cash vouchers when in truth and in fact the said
persons never received a grant, never received the checks, and never signed the check vouchers issued in their names.
In furtherance, Batulanon released to herself the checks and received the loans and thereafter misappropriated and
converted it to her own use and benefit. Thereafter, four Informations for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial
Documents were filed against Batulanon. The prosecution presented Medallo, Gopio, Jr. and Jayoma as witnesses.
Medallo, the posting clerk whose job was to assist Batulanon in the preparation of cash vouchers testified that
Batulanon forged the signatures of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo. Gopio, Jr. stated that Oracion is Batulanon’ sister-in-
law and Dennis Batulanon is her son who was only 3 years old in 1982. He averred that membership in the cooperative is
not open to minors. On April 15, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting Batulanon of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, hence this petition.
HELD:

Yes. Although the offense charged in the Information is Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents,
Batulanon could be convicted of Falsification of Private Documents under the well-settled rule that it is the allegation in
the information that determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name given in the preamble of the
information.

G.R. Nos. L-25375 and 25376 , October 8, 1926

PEOPLE vs. DE LEON,

Facts:

Early in the morning of December 21, 1925, Vicente de Leon y Flora entered the yard of Vicente Magat's house
on Domingo Santiago Street, Manila, and without violence or intimidation against persons nor force upon things, took,
with intent to gain, two game roosters which were in the yard, one with colored plumage valued at P8 belonging to
Diego Magat, and the other with white plumage and black spots, valued at P10, belonging to Ignacio Nicolas.

Vicente de Leon y Flora was prosecuted in the municipal court for two crimes of theft, on the theft of Magat's rooster
and the other that of Nicolas'. Upon being arraigned, the accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced by the municipal
court in each to suffer the penalty of three years, six months and one day presidio correcional, to return the stolen
roosters to their respective owners and to pay the costs in both cases. The accused appealed from this judgment to the
Court of First Instance, and, upon being arraigned upon the same informations, pleaded not guilty in both cases, which
were tried jointly by agreement of the parties approved by the court.

Ruling:

Under sound principles, the act of taking the two roosters, in response to the unity of thought in the criminal
purpose on one occasion, is not susceptible of being modified by the accidental circumstance that the article unlawfully
belonged to two distinct persons. There is no series of acts here for the accomplishment of different purposes, but only
one of which was consummated, and which determines the existence of only one crime. The act of taking the roosters in
the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes having an independent existence of their own,
because there are not two distinct appropriations nor two intentions that characterize two separate crimes.

G.R. No. L-32243, April 15, 1988

PEOPLE VS CRISOSTOMO

FACTS:

Crisistomo killed Romeo Geronimo by shooting the victim with a revolver when he refused Crisostomo’s
invitation to a drink. He evaded authority for 10 days but voluntarily surrendered to the authorities due to the insistence
of his parents.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Held: The court agrees that the appellant is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender because the
offender was arrested at the time, he surrendered himself to a person of authority and he did it voluntarily thus meeting
all of the requisites.

311 Scra 576

People vs Javier

Facts:

Eduardo is husband of victim Florentina. Married in 1854. 47 years of marriage. 10 children. On June 15
Consolacion heard her mother saying “Your father is going to kill me”. Her sister, Alma is weeping and told her that their
parents are quarrelling. They went to the house of their brother Manuel and when they came back they saw their
mother dead. And their father has a wounded stomach. He admitted hacking his wife and stabbed himself afterwards.
he hasn’t slept for a month and his mind was completely blank when he killed his wife

Issue:

Whether or not the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated.

Ruling:

For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the
following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness should
not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.

He failed to show medical evidence and since he remembered the vital circumstances surrounding the ghastly
incident, from the time of the killing up to the time he was brought to the hospital, it shows that he was in full control of
his mental faculties

157 Scra 464

Mendoza Vs People

Facts:

Three hundred ten bags of American rice valued at P5,908.60 belonging to the Rice and Corn Administration The
cargo was intended for delivery to RCA warehouse No. 3 at Pureza Street, Manila under the accountability of Emilio
Rosella. However, instead of delivering it to its proper destination, Reponte and Escopin together with one named Frank,
diverted the cargo to the grocery store of Leonardo Mendoza a retailer of the RCA

Several bags of rice had already been unloaded thereat when police operatives arrived and arrested Reponte, Escopin
and Mendoza. Frank eluded arrest and has not been apprehended

Ruling:

Being a retailer of the RCA he is of full knowledge how RCA rice are distributed and sold to the public. The court cannot
believe in his defense that he received that rice only for storing purposes while there is no direct proof that Mendoza
knew that the rice had been stolen, the totality of circumstantial evidence point to the fact that he knew that the rice he
was receiving from Frank was stolen. Circumstantial evidence may be the basis for conviction if there is more than one
circumstance, the facts from which the inferences may be derived are proven, and the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt

Leonardo Mendoza is hereby convicted as accessory to the crime of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code

G.R. No. 85204 June 18, 1990

TAER, vs. CA

FACTS:

Cirilo Saludes slept in the house of his compadre accused Jorge Taer. At about 2:00 o'clock dawn, accused Emilio
Namocatcat and Mario Cago arrived at Taer's house with two (2) male carabaos owned by and which Namocatcat
wanted Taer to tend. The said carabaos were left at Taer's place. After searching in vain for the carabaos at the vicinity,
Dalde and Palaca reported the matter to the police. Reyes informed Dalde that he saw the latter's lost carabao at Datag,
Garcia-Hernandez. Forthwith Dalde and Palaca went on that day to Datag and there they found their missing carabaos
tied to a bamboo thicket near the house accused Taer. Upon query by Dalde and Palaca why their carabaos were found
at his place, accused Taer, replied that the carabaos reached his place tied together without any person in company.
According to accused Taer, what he told Dalde and Palaca was that the carabaos were brought to his place by the
accused Namocatcat who asked him to tell anybody looking for them that they just strayed thereat. Taer was convicted
for the crime of cattle rustling, it was also found that there was a conspiracy between the Taer and Namocatcat.

Ruling:

Conspiracy must be established not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. The same degree of
proof necessary to establish the crime is required to support a finding of the presence of criminal conspiracy, which is,
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or approval of the act, without cooperation or
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy absent the intentional participation in
the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. At most the facts establish Taer's
knowledge of the crime. And yet without having participated either as principal or as an accomplice, for he did not
participate in the taking of the carabaos, he took part subsequent to the commission of the act of taking by profiting
himself by its effects. Taer is thus only an accessory after the fact

313 Scra 220

Tan vs People

Facts:

Manuelito Mendez was one of the employees of complainant Rosita Lim, proprietor of Bueno Metal Industries.
Mendez left the company and Lim thereafter noticed that materials valued about P48,000 were missing. Mendez was
arrested and he thereafter admitted to the crime. He asked for forgiveness and he pointed to Ramon C. Tan, petitioner,
as the one who bought the stolen items. Complainant Lim never filed charges against Mendez.
Ruling:

Before the enactment of PD 1612, the fence could only be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact of robbery
or theft. Presently, the accessory could be prosecuted under the RPC or as the principal under PD 1612.

The essential elements of fencing are: 1) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who is
not a principal or an accomplice in the crime, with intent to gain, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals,
sells or disposes of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value derived
from the proceeds of the crime; and 3) the accused knows, or should have known that the article or object was derived
from the proceeds of the crime.

Lim reported no loss to the police, therefore it cannot be held for certain that the crime of theft was committed.
Thus, the first element of the crime of fencing is absent; that is, the commission of the crime of robbery or theft. There
was no evidence of corpus delicti as theft or robbery was not proved. What is more, there was no showing that the
accused knew or should have known that the stolen articles were the ones sold to him. Without the petitioner knowing
that he acquired stolen articles, he cannot be guilty of fencing.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. PACITO STO. TOMAS

FACTS:

Appellant PacitoSto. Tomas was convicted of the crimes of parricide (death of his wife SalvacionGrulla), murder
(for the death of his mother-in-law ConsolacionGrulla), and frustrated murder (for the fatal shooting of his sister-in-law
NatividadGrulla) against the persons of the victims. Appellant went to the GRULLA’s residence to take his wife and
children with him to Legaspi City. Appellant’s mother-in-law intervened in saying that her daughter (appellant’s wife)
could not go with him. And appellant’s wife also refused. Thereafter, appellant shot the victims. In the conviction of said
appellant, the trial court took into account the aggravating circumstance of dwelling in the imposition of penalties.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in taking into consideration said aggravating circumstance.

HELD:

NO. Anent appellant’s submission that the trial court erred in considering dwelling as an aggravating
circumstance, we find the same bereft of any legal support. There is no dispute that the place where the crimes herein
involved were committed is the house of ConsolacionGrulla. It is there where she lives with her daughter,
NatividadGrulla (the other victim) and where SalvacionGrulla was temporarily staying in order to escape from the
brutalities of the appellant brought about by the latter’s jealousy. The fact that Salvacion’s stay in the said place may be
considered as a temporary sojourn adds no validity to appellant’s stance on this point.

As we earlier held in People v. Galapia, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present when the appellant killed his
wife in the house occupied by her other than the conjugal home. Similarly, in another case, dwelling is aggravating
where the offended party was raped in a boarding house rented by her.

G.R. No. L-30449, October 31, 1979

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO GARCIA Y CABARSE alias "TONY MANOK" and REYNALDO ARVISO V
REBELLEZA alias "RENE BISUGO

FACTS:

The legal verdict hinges on the testimony of the lone eyewitness for the prosecution, Mrs. Corazon
DioquinoPaterno, sister of the deceased, ApolonioDioquino, Jr.

Before the incident which gave rise to this case, Corazon's husband informed her that he saw Apolonio engaged
in a drinking spree with his gang in front of an establishment known as Bill's Place at M. de la Cruz Street. Pasay City.
Corazon surmised that her husband must have been painting the town red ("nag good time") in that same place. Upon
learning this information from her husband, Corazon obtained permission to leave the house at 3:00 a.m. so she could
fetch her brother. At that time, she had not been aware that Apolonio was in Pasay City; she had been of the belief that
he was with his family in Pampanga. She went to fetch him because she wanted him to escape the untoward influence
of his gang. In explaining the rationale for her noctural mission, she employed in her sworn statement the following
language: "DahilitongsiJunior ay meronnakamingnabalitaannanaaakay ng barkadaniyasapaggawa ng hindimabuti."

On her way, as she rounded the corner of P.C. Santos Street, Corazon saw her brother fleeing a group of about
seven persons, including the two accused, Antonio Garcia and Reynaldo Arviso. She recognized the two accused because
they wereformergangmates of her brother; in fact, she knew them before the incident by their aliases of "Tony Manok"
and "Rene Bisugo, " respectively.

Corazon saw that the chase was led by the two accused, with Antonio carrying a long sharp instrument. When
she ventured to look from where she was hiding, about 20 meters away, she saw the group catch up with her brother
and maltreat him. Some beat him with pieces of wood, others boxed him. Immediately afterwards, the group scampered
away in different directions. Antonio was left behind. He was sitting astride the prostrate figure of Apolonio, stabbing
the latter in the back with his long knife. Corazon was not able to observe where Antonio later fled, for she could hardly
bear to witness the scene.

When Corazon mustered the courage to approach her brother, she saw that he was bathed in a pool of his own
blood.

ISSUE:

WON nocturnity (nighttime) is an aggravating circumstances?

HELD:

YES. The offense took place at 3:00 o'clock in the morning. It may therefore be said that it was committed at
night, which covers the period from sunset to sunrise, according to the New Civil Code, Article 13. Is this basis for finding
that nocturnity is aggravating? The Revised Penal Code, Article 14, provides that it is an aggravating circumstance when
the crime is committed in the nighttime, whenever nocturnity may facilitate the commission of the offense. There are
two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance: the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating
because it facilitates the commission of the offense; and the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating
because it was purposely sought by the offender. These two tests should be applied in the alternative.

G.R. No. 136892, April 11, 2002

People vs. Discalsota

FACTS:

Herbert, along with his friends Jenny, Pedro and Rowell visited del Rosario. While inside del Rosario's house, a
group of men started shouting at them from the outside asking them to get out and threatening to kill them. They called
the police for help. Four tanods came and escorted the four teenagers outside of the house. The group threatening
them were still outside the house when they came out. Upon reaching the main road, they boarded a pedicab. The
pedicab had not yet left when Rowell saw someone running towards them. The four jumped out of the pedicab. The
man managed to overtake Herbert and thrusted his knifke on Herbert's back. Discalsota was positively identified as the
assailant.

ISSUE:

WON the crime committed was attended with evident premeditation.

Ruling:

NO. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime
itself of the following elements thereof, viz: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act
manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination, and (c) sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of his act.”

In this case, the first two elements of evident premeditation are present. As found by the RTC, the time appellant
determined to commit the crime was when he started shouting at the victim and the latter’s companions: “You, there,
get out and we will kill you!” By staying outside the house and following the victim’s companions when they came out,
he manifestly indicated that he clung to his determination.

As for the third element, the prosecution evidence shows that appellant started shouting outside Mrs. del Rosario’s
house at 3:30 p.m.When the victim’s group left the house, it was not yet dark; it was only past four o’clock in the
afternoon.The police received information on the stabbing incident at 4:30p.m. on the same day. It took less than an
hour from the time appellant evinced a desire to commit the crime, as manifested by his shouts outside the house, up to
the time he stabbed the victim. The span of less than one hour could not have afforded the former full opportunity for
meditation and reflection on the consequences of the crime he committed. Where no sufficient lapse of time is
appreciable from the determination to commit the crime until its execution, evident premeditation cannot be
appreciated

G.R. No. L-14476 , November 6, 1919

The United States vs. Jose I. Baluyot

Facts:

`At the general election ConradoLerma was elected governor of the Province of Bataan. One of his competitors upon this
occasion was the accused, Jose I. Baluyot, who came out third in the race. Sometime in August 1918, Baluyot went to
see Governor Lerma in his office at the provincial building. Baluyot entered the governor's office the latter was sitting
behind his desk. Baluyot approached the desk and upon reaching a position directly in front of the governor spoke
certain words which were heard, though not distinctly, by persons in the recorder's office.
 The first shot was fired within a few seconds after Baluyot entered the governor's office. The bullet entered in
the frontal region of the right shoulder blade of Governor Lerma and inflicted a wound of minor importance, passing
through the aforesaid part of the body and penetrating the back of the chair in which the governor was sitting. The
governor immediately arose and desiring to make good his escape, started to run and Baluyot again fired. The ball struck
Governor Lerma in the region of the right shoulder blade. The firing of the second shot was seen by AntoninoAranjuez.
The governor at this moment had his right hand raised to his already wounded shoulder and was running in a direction
away from his assailant. Immediately upon seeing this shot fired, Aranjuez, instead of intervening to save the governor,
as would have been becoming, turned and fled to obtain succor.

After the second shot was fired, Governor Lerma continued his flight along the corridor and took refuge in a
closet at the end of the corridor. Once within, he shut the door and placed himself in a position to obstruct the entrance
of his pursuer, who vainly attempted to open the door.

The governor then began to call aloud for help, and Baluyot, judging the position of the governor's head from
the direction of the sound thus emitted, fired his revolver in the direction indicated. The bullet passed through the panel
of the door and struck Governor Lerma in the forward part of the head. This wound was necessarily fatal. Baluyot
opened the door and the body of Governor Lerma shot forward out of the closet, as if in an attitude to embrace the
slayer, who drew backwards, and the body fell prone on the floor. Death ensued in about two or three hours. Upon the
arrival of the Constabulary, Baluyot surrendered without resistance.

Issue:

Whether or not Treachery can be appreciated.

Ruling:

YES. The offense committed in this case exhibits features markedly similar to those which characterized the
crime which was the subject of prosecution in United States vs. Gil; and the offense here committed was properly
qualified by the trial judge as murder, in which was present the qualifying circumstance of alevosia.

G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003

People vs. Escote

Facts:

The accused Juan Gonzales Escote Jr. together with Victor Acuyan boarded a bus. One of the passengers in the
said bus is SPO1 Jose Manio Jr. who was seated at the rear portion of the bus and on his way home to Angeles City.
When the bus was travelling along the highway the accused suddenly stood up and announced a hold up. They fired
their gun upward. The two then accosted the passengers and divested them of their money and valuables. Then, the
two went to Manio. They took his ID as well as his service gun. They shot him. Manio sustained six entrance wounds. The
robbery was over in 25 minutes. The accused were convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide.

Issue:
 Whether the aggravating circumstance of treachery is present.

Ruling:

Yes. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present (1) at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular
means and methods or form of attacks employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby insuring its
commission without risk to himself. In this case, the accused were armed with hand guns. They first disarmed the
deceased and then shot him. When the victim was shot he was defenseless. Treachery is applied in the constituent
crime of homicide.

G.R. No. 126281, June 10, 2003

PEOPLE vs. CARATAO

FACTS:

Witness Martin Sugala, a rice dispatching checker employed with NasipitAgusan Lumber Company (NALCO) at
Nasipit, Agusan del Norte, testified that at around 4:00 p.m., appellant and his wife entered the commissary canteen of
NALCO. Appellant’s wife approached Sugala and told him that her husband was angry. Sugala asked appellant about this.
Appellant replied, saying that he was not given additional rice vale by the victim Edgardo "Tado" Bulawin, NALCO’s rice
vale issuer. After checking that there was extra rice available, Sugala assured appellant that he would give him an
additional 25 kilos.

Shortly thereafter, Sugala saw the victim walk out of the canteen. Sensing that appellant was about to rush to
the victim, the witness restrained him and said, "Do not do anything harsh because we are all brothers here, anyway I
am giving you [an] additional 25 kilos of rice." He placed his arm around appellant and accompanied him to the issuing
area for the additional rice. Upon reaching the issuing area, he first checked the rice being issued to two employees.
After this, he noticed that appellant was no longer near him. Through the canteen’s screened windows, he next saw
appellant standing one meter behind the victim, who was then already astride his motorbike. About 5 meters from
Sugala’s position, the victim’s motorbike was facing towards the exit gate, with its engine already running. At that
moment, he saw appellant attack the victim from behind.

When Sugala saw that Sergio Caratao was already about 1 meter away from the back of victim Edgardo Bulawin,
he shouted to him saying "Bay, your rice is ready." At that moment, Sugala saw that the left hand of Caratao was on the
shoulder of Bulawin and his right hand was on the side of Bulawin. Initially, Sugala thought that victim was only boxed,
but it turns out that appellant's hand was holding a knife and made a thrust towards the face of victim Bulawin. After
that, Bulawin got off from his motorcycle and ran towards the cemented road. Sergio Caratao remained standing on the
place of the incident still holding that knife, and after that, Caratao and his wife went home. The stab wounds inflicted
on the different parts of victim's body directly caused his death.

The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s version of the incident. It found that the victim’s indifference
to appellant’s repeated pleas for rice must have angered appellant to the point of attacking the victim upon seeing the
latter about to leave without heeding his request. It rejected the plea of self-defense for appellant’s failure to prove
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. It upheld the presence of treachery, but ruled out the aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation and cruelty, for lack of evidence.
ISSUE:

Whether the accused committed murder by treachery

HELD:

NO. Treachery is present when two conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods and forms of
execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such means,
methods and forms of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his
person. In the case at bar, the first element was established by the fact that appellant suddenly attacked from behind
the unsuspecting and unarmed victim who was then astride his motorcycle. However, we find the prosecution’s
evidence insufficient to sustain the finding of the presence of the second element, namely, that appellant deliberately
adopted the mode of attack.

G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002

PEOPLE VS EMELITO SITCHON

FACTS:

Sithcon killed Mark Anthony Fernandez, a 2 year old boy, and his son with a common law wife. He beat him up
with a piece of wood, belt and hammer, and also banged the head of the boy against the wooden wall. Mark Anthony
was rushed to the hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival. Sitchon surrendered and pleaded guilty. The trial court
convicted him of murder with treachery and evident premeditation.

ISSUE:

Whether the crime is attended with treachery.

Ruling:

YES. The killing in this case was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially
to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. It is
beyond dispute that the killing of minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a
defense, is treacherous. HE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER.
G.R. No. 143935, June 4, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. WILLIAM ANCHETA, EDGARDO AREOLA, ANTOS DACANAY, LITO DE LA CRUZ, FELIPE
ULEP @ BOY ULEP AND ELY CALCALA

FACTS:

Alfredo Roca was in his farm during lunch time about to take his lunch with his family when an owner-type
jeepney arrived with multiple men alighting and then suddenly out of nowhere pulled their guns and started to open fire
at him and his family. That even a hand grenade was toss in the volley of bullets. Defendant Felipe “BOY” Ulep, being the
only one caught while his other co-defendants are still at large, was convicted for robbery with homicide, through
separate trial for expeditious reasons, by the RTC of Cabanatauan City for stealing 30 cavans of palay worth php 4,500
belonging to Alfredo Roca and in the process killing Afredo’s Family in the process: Marjune Roca, Benita Roca, Febe
Roca.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Treachery may be appreciated in the case of Robbery with Homicide.

Ruling:

Yes. treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is
killed by treachery. There was treachery as the events narrated by the eyewitnesses pointed to the fact that the victims
could not have possibly been aware that they would be attacked by appellant and his companions. There was no
opportunity for the victims to defend themselves as the assailants, suddenly and without provocation, almost
simultaneously fired their guns at them. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without the
slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked.

G.R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO ALFANTA y ALO

FACTS:

On August 26, 1995 at around 12:00 o'clock midnight, while asleep in the residence of a friend, Rolando Alfanta,
whom Nita Fernandez, had not seen before, suddenly entered the house where she was sleeping, pulled her and boxed
her jaw and put his hand on her mouth, and told her that if she will not obey him, he will kill her. She was forced to
climb a fence. Because of fear, as he was holding a bolo, she followed. Alfanta instructed her to go to the vacant house
and she was told to undress, she did because of fear. Thereafter, he molested her. She was instructed to lie down and he
then inserted his genitals to her vagina. After that, she was told to lie face down, she complied. Thereafter, he inserted
his penis to her anus. After inserting his penis, he instructed her to turn around face up, he inserted his fingers to her
private part. Then after all these acts, he told her to lie beside him as he was going to take a rest. Noticing that Alfanta
was already sleeping, she suddenly took the bolo and hacked him several times. She went to the police station to report
the incident.

ISSUE:

Whether or not nighttime and ignominy be appreciated as aggravating circumstances

Ruling:
 Yes. The silence and darkness of the night has been taken advantage by the accused in facilitating the
commission of the crime by insuring the offender's immunity from capture and by ensuring his impunity from his illegal
acts. RTC decision was affirmed but modified penalty by lowering it from death to reclusion perpetua.

GR No. 134802, 26 October 2001

People vs. Dizon

FACTS:

On July 7, 1997, around 9:30 p.m., 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. Seconds later, she heard someone call out "Miss!" and when she turned her head around, she found
appellant, Renato Dizon behind her. 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. Terrified,
private complainant complied.

After appellant stripped her of her valuables, appellant instructed private complainant to walk with him along
EDSA and pretend that they were a couple. Private complainant could not ask for anyone's help because, all the while,
appellant had his arm around her and a knife pressed to her side. Scared as she was, however, private complainant
would furtively look at appellant's face whenever they passed a lighted place, vowing to herself that should she ever be
able to escape, she would remember him and have him arrested.

After walking for some time, they finally reached a dark and empty basketball court. There, appellant ordered
private complainant to remove her pants and underwear. Arlie could not do anything but follow appellant's orders since
he was holding her at knifepoint. Even if she screamed, nobody would hear her.

Appellant kissed private complainant on the lips, neck, and breasts, which he also mashed. He likewise bit her
nipple at least three times, as well as the right side of her back and vagina. Unable to control his lustful urges any longer,
he forced her to bend forward over the hood of a taxi and, in this position, forcefully penetrated her vagina with his
organ.

After satisfying himself in this fashion, appellant ordered private complainant to hold and massage his penis
which, he boastfully informed the latter, carried bolitas. He then forced her to put his foul-smelling penis into her
mouth, which sickened her to the pit of her stomach.

Still not done with her, appellant forced private complainant to lie on the ground. Private complainant could not
fight off any of appellant's demands, because whenever she tried to resist, and whenever she failed to answer any of his
questions, he would bang her head on the hood of the taxi, slam her head on the wall, or slap her hard in the face.

After appellant pushed private complainant to the ground, he went down on her and proceeded to ravish her all
over again. Though spent by now, appellant still refused to let go of private complainant. Instead, he made her sit
astride over him, and to make sure she would not be able to escape, held her tightly by the hair with both hands.When
private complainant balked at inserting his organ inside of hers, appellant removed one hand from her hair and groped
in the dark. Sensing that he was reaching for his knife and would finally kill her, private complainant struggled with all
her might and broke free from appellant's hold. She scampered to her feet, grabbed her pants, and ran as fast as she
could away from appellant.
 Soon, private complainant found a store that was about to close. She barged in, informing the people that she
had been raped, and pleaded for their help. However, the owner of the store did not want to get involved. Instead, he
reminded her to wear her pants, then referred her to the barangay.

When a barangay officer arrived, he accompanied her back to the basketball court, where they were able to
recover her shoes, underwear, and appellant's black cap. Since appellant was no longer around, private complainant just
gave a description of him: he was dark, 5'3" to 5'4" in height, and with a body covered with tattoos from the waist down.
Private complainant was then brought to the police station where her statement was taken.

Thereafter, an Information charging the accused of the crime robbery with rape was filed. Trial ensued. The trial
court rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The denial and alibi of the accused was not able to turn over the positive and direct identification of the victim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of cruelty be applied in this case.

Ruling:

Yes. 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."