People vs Magdueño, GR L-68699, September 22, 1986

FACTS:
Accused conspired with one another and shot the victim. When the late Fiscal had sat at the
driver’s sear inside his jeep, all of a sudden, two successive gunshots burst into the air, as the
gunman coming from his left side aimed and poured shots into his body. The accused executed
extra judicial confession that he killed the Fiscal for a price or reward. He was found guilty of
murder and sentenced to death.
ISSUE: WON aggravating circumstance of crime with insult to public authority is present in this
case.
RULING: No. For this aggravating circumstance to be considered it must not only be shown that
the crime was not committed in the presence of the public authority but also that the crime was
not committed against the public authority himself. In the instant case Fiscal Dilig, the public
authority involved in the crime, was the victim. Hence, the lower court, erred in including
commission of the crime with insult to public authority as an aggravating circumstance.

People vs Garcia, GR L-30449, October 31, 1979

FACTS:
Corazon saw the group of accused 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. Trial Court ruled that the presence
of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime; superior strength; and treachery, the same cannot
be offset by said voluntary surrender to a person in authority of his agent. Accused argued that
there was no evidence that nighttime was indeed used to insure execution of crime.
ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was present in this case.
RULING:
Yes. 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. In this case, the
subjective test is not passed because there is no showing that the accused purposely sought the
cover of night time. But, it passed the objective test because the assault happened at 3 AM and
was invited by nocturnal cover which handicapped the eyewitnesses.

People vs Baldera, GR L-2390, April 24, 1950

FACTS:
Accused was found guilty og robbery in band with homicide and less serious physical injuries.
Shortly after the commission of this crime, appellant was arrested in the municipality of
Batangas in connection with the theft of a radio, and as his features tallied with the personal
description of one of the highway men given to the chief of police by some of the passengers of
the held-up bus, he was also investigated in connection with the hold-up, and he then made a
confession. Appellant denied participation in the crime charged.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is considered a recidivist
RULING:
No. Recidivism is present when an accused is on trial for an offense but has a previous
conviction for an offense embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. In this case, it
appeared that the crime was committed on or about December 30, 1947, while the offense now
charged took place seven days before that date.

People vs Ilaoa, GR 943018, June 16, 1994

FACTS:
The deceased Nestor de Loyola was found decapitated with 43 stab wounds on the chest, burns
all over the body, and the head 2 feet away. Brothers Ruben and Rogelio was charged by the
Regional Trial Court with murder with the attendant circumstances of evident premeditation,
abuse of superior strength and cruelty, and imposed upon them the penalty of “life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court affirmed that Ruben Ilaoa was guilty, but acquitted his brother Rogelio Ilaoa
for insufficiency of evidence. The SC also charged them not with murder but only homicide,
based on the evidence.
ISSUE: Whether or not they should be charged with murder with attendant circumstance of
evident premeditation
RULING:
No, evident premeditation should not be appreciated in this case. There is nothing in the records
to show that appellant, prior to the night in question, resolved to kill the victim, nor is there proof
to show that such killing was the result of meditation, calculation or resolution on his part. On
the contrary, the evidence tends to show that the series of circumstances which culminated in the
killing constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no interval of time separating them for
calculation and meditation.

People vs Bigcas, GR 94534, July 2, 1992

FACTS:
Accused suddenly attacked the victim without giving him the opportunity to defend himself and
without justifiable cause, and he stabbed victim with the use of a sharp-pointed bolo and a piece
of wood thereby inflicting upon the vital parts of the body of the victim mortal wounds or
injuries which resulted directly to the immediate death of the victim. Appellant was convicted of
murder.
ISSUE:
Whether or not circumstance of abuse of superior strength was present in this case.
RULING:
No, there was no circumstance of abuse of superior strength. For this qualifying circumstance to
be considered, it is not sufficient that there be superiority in number or strength; it is necessary
that the accused must have cooperated and intended to use or secure advantage from such
superior strength. It cannot be said that when the fight took place more than fifteen minutes later,
because the victim instead of going straight home obviously waited for appellants to catch up
with him, appellants could have anticipated such an unexpected contingency and had accordingly
conceived of taking advantage of their combined strength and weapons. The prosecution has
fallen short of proof that appellants bad specifically contrived or deliberately intended and
prepared to take advantage of superior strength in a projected assault against the victim.

People vs Castillo, GR 132895, March 10, 2009

FACTS:
The appellant, Elizabeth Castillo, and co-defendant, Evangeline Padayhag, have been
previously charged of kidnapping. The two allegedly conspired to kidnap a certain Luis Cerebro
and demanding ransom money for the return of the same, that is, coming to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and deciding to commit it. In this instant petition for
automatic review, the court would like to see if conspiracy did attend the commission of the crime,
which gave merit to the previous judgement.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was conspiracy to kidnap and extort ransom money.
RULING:
No. There was no conspiracy to kidnap and extort ransom money. In so far as the existence
of conspiracy is concerned, there must be the sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly
and definitely links the accused to the commission of the crime without space for baseless
suppositions or frenzied theories to filter through. Conspiracy is established by the presence of two
factors: (1) singularity of intent; and (2) unity in execution of the unlawful objective. In this case,
the only participation of Padayhag is to fetch Luis Cerebro from school, not knowing the intent of
co-defendant Castillo of kidnapping the same. In so far as extortion is concerned, Padayhag’s acts
of not being in the scene of the taking of the money, and not going with Castillo to dipolog, shows
otherwise the conspiracy between them. The supreme court thus affirmed the conviction of
Elizabeth Castillo, but acquitted Evangeline Padayhag.

People vs Villonez, GR 122976-77, November 16, 1998

FACTS:
Edgar Jimenez 9:00 p.m., while he was resting inside his store, a certain Tonton informed him that
his close friend Gerardo Longasa had a fistfight with one Rudy. Edgar proceeded to the area to
mediate, since Longasa and Rudy were both his friends. At the street, a group of seven armed
men, including Villonez, attacked Edgar. Ruel hit Edgar on his forehead and back with a bottle.
Edgar was able to escape from his attackers. While fleeing, he ran past Longasa, who seemed
drunk. When Edgar called Longasa, the attackers were already upon Longasa. Edgar saw Emerlito
hit Longasa with a 2 x 2 inches piece of wood. Simultaneously, Regando and Ruel struck Longasa
with bottles. Rudy Santos and Eddie Santos then stabbed Longasa seven and eight times,
respectively, even as two other persons named Rey and Budda held Longasa’s arms. Longasa fell
to the ground.
ISSUE: Whether or not treachery may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
RULING:
Yes. Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his
person. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to
defend himself or to retaliate. The overwhelming number of the accused, their use of weapons
against the unarmed victim, and the fact that the victim’s hands were held behind him preclude the
possibility of any defense by the victim.