People V Tiongson (Homicide)

Aggravating Circumstance
Treachery – No (Victim was sufficiently forewarned of appellant’s presence)

Evident Premeditation–No (only ten minutes passed from the time

the accused escaped from the Municipal Jail up to the time he shot PC Constable Canela near the
cemetery, so that there was no lapse of time during which he could have deliberately planned the
killing of the said PC Constable and meditated on the consequences of his act)
Contempt – No (They were the very ones against whom the crimes were committed; agents of
persons in authority only)
Uninhabited Place – No (Besides, the record does not show that the place was intentionally sought
by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime)
Abuse of Superior Strength – No (The Accused was then a detainee and was unarmed while Pat.
Gelera had his service pistol with him. With respect to PC Constable Canela, the accused was
alone against three armed pursuers, namely: PC Sgt. Saway, PC Constable
Canela, and Pat. Nicandro Garcia, and a civilian by the name of Fred Barcelona.)

People v. Magdueño (Murder)

Aggravating Circumstance

Treachery – Yes (The appellant fired two successive shots at the defenseless Fiscal Dilig while the
latter was still seated in his jeep, hitting him at the neck and lumber region.)
Insult to Public Authority – No (They were the very ones against whom the crimes were
commited)
Evident Premeditation - Yes
Price or Reward (Magdueño was hired by a 'mysterious mastermind' with whose representative he
agreed to kill Fiscal Dilig for a fee of P80,000.00)

People v. Tac-an (Murder)

Mitigating Circumstance:Voluntary Surrender – No (He surrendered his gun to his brother; and
he was already arrested)

Aggravating Circumstance
Treachery- Yes ( Victim had no means of escape as there is only door; the four consecutive shots;
the attack upon Francis had been carried out in a manner which disabled Francis from defending
himself or retaliating against Renato)
Evident Premeditation – No (barely fifteen (15) minutes had elapsed from the time Renato left his
English III class and the time he returned with a gun)
Insult to Public Authority – No (Article 152 will show that while a teacher or professor of a public
or recognized privateschool is deemed to be a "person in authority," such teacher or professor is so
deemedonly for purposes of application of Articles 148 (direct assault upon a person in authority),
and 151 (resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of suchperson) of the
Revised Penal Code.)
Special aggravating circumstances -No of acting while under the influence of dangerous drugs
and with the use of an unlicensed firearm (Fourteen (14) days had elapsed after December 14,1984
before Renato was medically
examined for possible traces of marijuana; the results of the examination were negative. Defense
witness Dr. Rogelio Ascona testified that in order to have a medically valid basis for determining
the presence of marijuana in the human system, the patient must be examined within twenty-four
(24) hours from the time he is supposed to have smoked marijuana.)

People v. Diaz (Murder)

Aggravating Circumstance
Treachery- Yes (The brothers made a deliberate surprise or unexpected assault on Tadia. They
literally ambushed him. They waited for him on the cliff, a high ground which rendered it
difficult for him to flee or maneuver in his defense. Tadia was shot sidewise while he was
ascending the hill or cliff burdened by his catopis or food basket.)
Abuse of Superior Strength-Yes (The attack was also attended with abuse of superiority. Two
armed young men unexpectedly assaulted an unarmed sexagenarian. However, abuse of
superior strength is merged with treachery)
Evident Premeditation-Yes (It may reasonably be assumed that Francisco Diaz became aware
that same afternoon that Tadia, who was his neighbor, was going the poblacion to lodge a
complaint against him. That would explain why early in the morning of the next day,
September 5th, at about seven o'clock,
he and his brother were already in the hill or cliff waiting for Tadia who was on his way to
town; He meditated for more than half a day.)
Disregard to Age- No (There was no evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend
or insult the age of the victim.)

People v. Arizobal (special complex crime of robbery with homicide)

Aggravating Circumstance
Treachery- No (treachery cannot be validly appreciated as an aggravating
Circumstancein crimes against property under Art. 14 of The Revised Penal Code)
Band – No (Nowhere in the records can we gather that more than three (3) of
the robbers were armed.)
Nighttime – No (Although it was 9 pm and it was adequately lighted by kerosene lamps; it must
be shown that nocturnidad was deliberately and intentionally sought by accused-appellants to
help them realize their evil intentions)
Dwelling- Yes (in robbery with homicide the authors thereof can commit the heinous crime
without transgressing the sanctity of the victim's domicile. In the case at bar, the robbers
demonstrated an impudent disregard
of the inviolability of the victims' abode when they forced their way in, looted their houses,
intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by tying
their hands before dragging them out of the house to be killed.)

People v. Daniel (Rape)

Aggravating Circumstance
Dwelling –Yes (Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a boarding house, her room
constituted for all intents and purposes a "dwelling" as th term is used in Article 14(3), Revised
Penal Code.)
People v. Apduhan (Robbery with Homicide)
Mitigating :Intoxication – No (In the case at bar, the accused merely alleged that when he
committed the crime charged, he was intoxicated although he was not used to be drunk. This
self-serving statement stands uncorroborated. Obviously, it is devoid of merit.)
Plea of Guilty – No (It was ambiguous and not spontaneous)
Praeter intenionem- No (withdrawn from Information)
Aggravating Circumstance
Unlicensed Firearm- No (Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code reveals that said article is
exclusively linked and singularly applicable to the immediately antecedent provision of Article 295
on robbery in band)
Band- Yes (there were five armed men)
Abuse of Superior Strength – Yes but was withdrawn for thought it was absorbed by band
Dwelling – Yes (since this class of robbery, could be committed without the necessity of
transgressing the
sanctity of the home.)
Nighttime- Yes (it was purposely and deliberately sought by the accused to facilitate the
commission of the crime or to prevent their being recognized or to insure unmolested
escape.)

People v. Mandolado (Murder)

Mitigating: Intoxication- Yes
Aggravating Circumstance
Treachery- Yes (The prosecution evidence is quite clear and explicit that when appellants alighted
from the jeep, the accused Mandolado immediately fired his 30 caliber machine gun at the
occupants of the jeep, the victims Nolasco Mendoza and Herminigildo Tenorio, and both of them
died instantaneously on the spot)
Abuse of Superior Strength- No (did not deliberately sought to take advantage of their number)
Evident Premeditation- No (Chance Encounter)
Taking Advantage of Public Position – No (As draftees of AFP there is no evidence that when they
stopped the jeep the accused already intended to shoot the occupants of the vehicle.)
Abuse of Confidence-No (there is absolutely no showing of any personal or immediate
relationship upon which confidence might rest between the victims and the assailants who had just
met each other then)
Obvious Ungratefulness- No (the accused Army then in their uniforms and holding their high-
powered firearms cowed the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun point which
certainly is no source of gratefulness or appreciation.)

People v. Garcia (Murder)

Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary Surrender- Yes
Aggravating Circumstance
Treachery- No (Manner of attack was not proven)
Evident Premeditation- No
Nighttime- Yes (The criminal assault on the victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited by nocturnal cover,
which handicapped the view of eyewitnesses and encouraged impunity by persuading the
malefactors that it would be dicult to determine their identity because of the darkness and the
relative scarcity of people in the streets. These circumstances combine to pass the objective test,
and we nd that nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated the commission of the offense.
Nocturnity enticed those with the lust to kill to follow their impulses.)
Abuse of Superior Strength (Not alleged as qualifying)–Yes (Here we are confronted with a
helpless victim killed by four assailants superior to him in arms and in numbers.)

People V Rodas (Murder)

Aggravating Circumstance
Treachery – Yes (the victim was completely unaware that he was going to be attacked. He was not
forewarned of any danger to himself as there was no altercation or disagreement between the
accused and the victim. If)
Evident Premeditation-No

Nocturnity-No (In the instant case, the prosecution failed to show that
nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime, or was especially sought or taken advantage of
by the accused for the purpose of impunity. The crime scene was sufficiently lighted by a
Petromax which led to the identification of all the accused.)
Abuse of superior strength- Yes; but was absorbed in Treachery (There was glaring disparity of
strength between the victim and the four accused. The victim was unarmed while the accused were
armed with a hunting knife, chako and bolo. It is evident that the accused took advantage of their
combined strength to consummate the o f f e ns e )

People V Damaso
Aggravating Circumstance
Abuse of Superior Strength- Yes (Absorbed in Treachery)
Nighttime- No
Uninhabited Place- Yes (That the accused deliberately sought the solitude of the place is clearly
shown by the fact that they brought the victims to the sugarcane field although they could have
disposed of them right in the house of Donata Rebolledo where they were found.)
Band- Yes (It is clear from the above, that Damaso was armed during the night of
the commission of the crime, and it is immaterial what kind of firearm he carried, theonly
important thing being that he was armed.)
Treachery-Yes (The fact that the bodies of Catalina and Susana were found dead with their
arms tied behind their backs as well as the admission of Gregorio in his confession(Exhibit "Q")
that he killed the sisters while their arms were held by Eugenio and Damaso lead Us to conclude
that the killing of the two women was done under treacherous circumstances.)
Disregard of Sex-No
Dwelling- Yes

People V Baldera (crime of robbery with homicide and serious and less serious physical
injuries)
Aggravating Circumstance
Band- Yes (there were more than three armed men in the group that held up the bus appears in
appellant's own confession and is also established by the uncontradicted testimony of one of the
government witnesses)
Special AC: Attacking a Vehicle – Yes (Art. 296, RPC)
Recidivism-No (it appearing that that crime was committed on or about December 30, 1947
(Exhibit E) while the offense now charged took place seven days before that date.)

People V Melendrez
Mitigating Circumstance:; PLEA OFGUILTY-Yes
Aggravating Circumstance
Recidivism- Yes (notwithstanding the fact that the defendant, by reason of such
recidivism, is also sentenced to an additional penalty as a habitual delinquent.)