CASE 17

G.R. No. 135222 (March 04, 2005)

PETER ANDRADA, Petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS:
On September 24, 1986, at about 1:15 am, Sgt Sumabong, Sgt Gaces and Cpl Aresinio Ugerio
were eating at the Marlow’s Restaurant in Baguio City. When Cpl Ugerio talked to a woman who passed
by their table, petitioner Peter Andrada, approached him and scolded him. Sgt. Sumabong advised
Andrada to pay his bills and go home as he was apparently drunk. As Sumabong was paying the bills, he
heard Ugerio moan in pain. He then saw Andrada hacking Ugerio with a bolo. Sumabong approached
them but Andrada ran away. Andrada was then arrested in a waiting shed at the corner of Camdas Road
and Magsaysay Ave.

Andrada said that he ran away to his house in Camdas Subd. He checked to see if his mother
was around to accompany him to surrender, but nobody was home. On his way to surrender, he saw his
mother with a policeman. They proceeded to the police station in Magsaysay Ave where Andrada
surrender. The RTC however ruled against Andrada

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petitioner’s right to due process was violated;
2. Whether or not his plea of self-defense is in order;
3. Whether or not the crime committed is frustrated murder or frustrated homicide; and
4. Whether or not he is entitled to any mitigating circumstance for voluntary surrender,
assuming he is guilty.

HELD:
NO. The petitioner ascribes gross incompetence or gross negligence to his counsel. Petitioner
was represented by counsel of his choice.

NO. The petitioner cannot invoke self-defense since the trial court and the Court of Appeals
found that at the time he hacked the victim, the latter was still seated while he (petitioner) was behind
him.

The crime committed is frustrated murder, NOT frustrated homicide. There is alevosia when the
offender commits any of the crimes that tend directly and especially to ensure the execution of the
crime without risk to himself from any defense which the offended party might make. We agree with
the lower courts that the petitioner planned to kill the victim with treachery in mind.

NO. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the surrender must be spontaneous,

------
 
CASE 20
G.R. No. 182793 (July 5, 2010)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DIONISIO CALONGE y VERANA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:
Rosita A. Calonge was the appellant’s legitimate wife, with whom he had three children. On
December 1, 2001, the bloodied body of Rosita was found lying on the ground 15 meters away from
their house. Lying near her was Dionisio Calonge, herein petitioner, who was also wounded with a bolo
and a flashlight, both stained with blood. Inside the two bedrooms of the house separated only by a
curtain, they found the lifeless bodies of the two young girls, Kimberly and Dony Rose. The other child,
Melody, was also bloodied but alive and conscious.

Melody’s grandmother, Ana O. Amlag, said that Melody told her it was their father (appellant)
who attacked her, her mother and her sisters. Melody’s grandparents said they knew it was appellant
because they had heard Rosita shouting that the appellant will kill them. Melody, assisted by her first
cousin, Ana Fe Huang, gave her statement to the police. She identified her father, who had a quarrel
with her mother the previous night. The latter was the one who hacked her and also fatally stabbed her
mother and two sisters.

The accused Dionisio Calonge was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of
parricide and one count of frustrated parricide. On appeal, the CA affirmed to modify the death penalty
imposed on the appellant by reducing it to reclusion perpetua. The appellant seeks the reversal of his
conviction by the RTC and CA.

ISSUES:
1. The trial court gravely erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of prosecution
witness melody Calonge despite its evident contradictions and apparent unreality.
2. The trial court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crime
charged has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

HELD:
NO. The court held that the trial court did not err in finding Melody’s testimony clear and
unequivocal, despite her answers not being as complete as would be desired. Her account of the
incident was consistent with the physical evidence,

NO. Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 7659, the penalty for parricide is composed of two (2) indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to
death. Since the killings were committed in 2001, the trial court was correct in imposing upon the
appellant the supreme penalty of death. In view, however, of the passage and effectivity of R.A. No.
9346 on June 24, 2006, proscribing the imposition of capital punishment, the CA correctly modified the
imposable penalty on the appellant to reclusion perpetua.
CASE 13
G.R. No. 142682 (June 5, 2002)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISPULO DIJAN Y MACAJIYA, accused-appellant.
FACTS:
On Aril 11, 1998 around 10 o’clock in the evening, Roderick Silvestre and Alvaro Hilario went to
buy some cigarettes when they saw the group of Crispulo Dijan, Romualdo Paglinawan and Oliver
Lizardo, passing by the store. Paglinawan confronted Hilario for purportedly giving him a “bad stare”.
Silvestre apologized to the group and explained that was the natural way Hilario gazed at people. Dijan,
Paglinawan and Lizardo left the place. While Silvestre and Hilario were walking, the three accused, who
apparently were waiting for the duo, suddenly ganged up on, and took turns in stabbing, Hilario. At that
point, Hilario, who was walking slightly ahead of Silvestre, cried out and told the latter to flee. Silvestre
ran away until he was able to cling to a passing passenger jeepney.

The police found the lifeless body of Hilario and identified the whereabouts of the assailants.
Hilario was found to have sustained several stab wounds, punctured and incised wounds, and abrasion
in various parts of the body which caused his death.

The trial court saw the case for the prosecution insofar as accused-appellant Crispulo M. Dijan
was concerned whom the court found guilty of the crime of murder, acquitting thereby Dijan's two co-
accused, Romualdo Paglinawan and Oliver Lizardo, based on reasonable doubt and charged against him
and is ordered to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Aggrieved, the accused-appellant appealed
his conviction.

ISSUES:
1. The trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Crispulo Dijan guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder.
2. Assuming for the sake of argument that accused-appellant is guilty, the trial court erred in
appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

HELD:
NO. A party who invokes the justifying circumstance of "defense of a stranger" has the burden
of proving by clear and convincing evidence the exculpatory cause that can save him from conviction.
The number of wounds sustained by the victim would itself likewise negate accused-appellant's claim of
defense of a stranger. Certainly, the nature and number of wounds inflicted by an accused on the victim
should be significant indicia in determining the plausibility of the defense plea.

YES. The Court, however, finds the evidence of the prosecution to be wanting in respect to the
qualifying circumstance of treachery. Here, it was not satisfactorily established that the victim was
unarmed at the time of the stabbing incident. On the contrary, the stab wound on the person of
Romualdo Paglinawan, a companion and co-accused of herein appellant, could indicate that the victim
might have also been armed. Neither was it made clear that there was no provocation on the part of the
victim.
 Accused-appellant can thus only be convicted of the crime of homicide, the penalty for which,
under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, is reclusion temporal that, absent any mitigating nor
aggravating circumstance, shall be imposed in its medium period.
CASE 6
ESMERALDO RIVERA, ISMAEL RIVERA, EDGARDO RIVERA, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 166326
Facts:
Ruben Rodil and the Rivera brothers are neighbors. One fine day, a heated verbal altercation
ensued between Rodil and Edgardo Rivera. The following day, Rodil went to a store near his house in
Imus Cavite, tagging along with his three-year-old daughter. Suddenly, in an unexpected manner, the
Rivera brothers (Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo) emerged from their house and ganged up on Rodil.

Ismael and Esmeraldo mauled Rodil with fist blows which caused the latter to fall to the ground.
While in that helpless position, the victim was hit three times with a hollow block on the parietal area by
Edgardo. When policemen onboard a mobile car arrived, the Rivera brothers fled to their house. Rodil
was then brought to the hospital for treatment. According to the medical certificate, Rodil sustained
only a superficial wound in the parietal area.

An Infomation was filed in RTC Cavite, charging the Rivera brothers of attempted murder. RTC
rendered judgment finding all the accused guilty of FRUSTRATED murder. However, the CA modified the
RTC decision, finding all the accused guilty of ATTEMPTED murder. Hence, the accused filed to the SC the
instant petition for review under R45, insisting that the prosecution failed to prove intent to kill on their
part. More importantly, accused aver that based on the medical certificate, Rodil only suffered a
superficial wound in the parietal area; hence, accused should be criminally liable only for physical
injuries.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the accused should be held liable for attempted murder, and not merely
physical injuries

Held:

Yes. The accused are criminally liable for attempted murder. That the head wounds sustained by
Rodil were merely superficial and could not have produced his death does not negate the criminal
liability for attempted murder. The Court of Appeals was correct since based on Art. 6 of the RPC, there
is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts and
does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

There is also the essence of treachery where there is a sudden and unexpected attack, which
gives no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself. In the present case, the sudden attack
to the victim caused him to be overwhelmed and had no chance to defend himself and retaliate. Thus,
the treachery is absorbed by the crime of attempted murder
.

CASE 7
ADELMO PEREZ Y AGUSTIN, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 143838 

Facts:
That on or about April 14, 1988 in Morong, Bataan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of
force and intimidation, commence the commission of the crime of rape upon Julita Tria y Balagao
directly by overt acts, to wit:
That the said accused, without the permission of anyone, entered the room of Julita Tria and once
inside, embraced and kissed her on the neck, held and mashed her breast and compelled her to lie
down, and thereafter kissed her lips and neck and with the intent of having carnal knowledge with her,
touched her sex organ and tried to remove her panties thereby commencing the commission of the
crime of Rape directly by overt acts but said accused did not accomplish his purpose, that is, to have a
carnal knowledge with her, it was not because of his spontaneous and voluntary desistance but because
the said Julita Tria succeeding in resisting his criminal attempt and also due to the timely arrival of her
mother to the damage and prejudice of the said Julita Tria y Balagao.

After the prosecution and the defense presented their respective evidence, the trial court
rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty of attempted rape. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby
rendered convicting the accused, Adelmo Perez y Agustin, of the crime of ATTEMPTED RAPE, the
prosecution having proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA. The appellate court, finding the appeal to be
unmeritorious, affirmed petitioner's conviction.

Issue: Whether or not the crime committed was attempted rape?

HELD: NO. The accused committed MODIFIED acts of lasciviousness.

Under Article 6 of the RPC, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission
of a felony directly by overt act, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In the crime
of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony. Thus, for there to be
attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the
vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the
penetration, however slight, is not completed.
In the case at bar, there is no showing that petitioner’s sexual organ had even touched neither
complainant’s vagina nor any part of her body. All the elements of acts of lasciviousness were also
satisfied- (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by
using force and intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) that the offended party is
another person of either sex.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v.

ARMANDO CABALLERO, RICARDO CABALLERO, MARCIANO CABALLERO, JR., and ROBITO CABALLERO, Accused.
G. R. No. 149028-30 (case 8)

Facts:

In an afternoon of August 03, 1994, Caballero brothers having drinking sessions in the Mondragon
compound. By 7pm of that same day, Eugene Tayactac and Arnold Bacurna arrived in the sari-sari store which was
across the Mondragon compound.

As Eugene walked by the gate of the Mondragon Compound, Armando suddenly grabbed him towards the
compound and assaulted him. Armando took a wooden pole hit Eugene with it and was also stabbed three times.

Arnold saw the commotion and rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. However, Ricardo accosted
Arnold and stabbed the latter on the left side of his body. Forthwith, Robito, Marciano, Jr. and Armando ganged up
on Arnold. Two of them stabbed Arnold on his forearm. Arnold fled for his life and hid under the house of a
neighbor. The commotion stopped only upon the arrival of Teresito Mondragon who was able to pacify the
Caballero brothers and they all returned to the compound.

Arnold was brought to the Planters Hospital for medical treatment and was able to survived

The Caballero borthers, except for Robito, were convicted of frustrated murder for the injuries of Arnold.
The appellants insist that the decision is incorrect.

Issue:
W/N the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder for the injuries of Arnold?

Held:

Yes, Base on the judgment in consideration of the Article 248, Article 6 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, the
court found the appellants guilty of the crime frustrated murder beyond reasonable doubt.

With the fact that appellant Armando used wooden pole and appellants Ricardo and Robito used knives,
and they also take advantage of their superior strength where it cannot be denied that there was an intent to kill
Arnold. Moreover, the doctor attended on Arnold testified that the stab wound inflicted upon Arnold was mortal
and may have caused the latter’s death, if not for the timely and effective medical intervention. WHEREFORE, the
acts committed by the appellants are indeed FRUSTRATED MURDER.
EVANGELINE LADONGA, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
G.R. No. 141066 (case 9)

Facts:

The Petitioner Evangeline Ladonga seeks a review of the Decision made by the Court of Appeals where she was
convicted because of her violation of B.P. Blg. 22, otherwise known as The Bouncing Checks Law.

In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became Alfredo Oculam’s regular customers in his
pawnshop business. The Ladonga spouses obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him and followed by an additional
second loan of P12,730.00 and third loan in the amount of P8,496.55 which were all guaranteed by United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB) and issued by Adronico. The three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason
“CLOSED ACCOUNT” and when the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he
filed a criminal complaint against them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because
there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were
issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when they
mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof. The
RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22.
Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of the petitioner.

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR VIOLATIONS OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22 AS
CONSPIRATOR.

Held:

No. Under the provision of Article 8 of the RPC where conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In the present case, the prosecution
failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Apparently, the
only semblance of an overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that she was present when the first check
was issued. However, this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with the criminal design. Even
agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one and there is an absence in any active participation in the
commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. Therefore, the
petitioner is not liable on the grounds of a conspirator.
CONRADO CASITAS, petitioner,
vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
G.R. No. 152358   (case 10)

Facts:
Early in the morning, Romeo C. Boringot was awakened by his wife Aida, the latter having heard
somebody shouting invectives at her husband. So Romeo stood up and peeped to see who was outside. When he
did not see anybody, he proceeded towards the road. Upon passing by a coconut tree, he was suddenly hacked at
the back with bolo. He looked back at his assailant and recognized him to be appellant Conrado whom he knew
and clearly seen. Appellant went on hacking him, hitting him in different parts of the body. While hitting him,
appellant was shouting invectives at him and also hit him with a guitar causing Romeo to sustain an injury on his
forehead.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner acted in self-defense.

Held:
The petitioner was burdened to prove, with clear and convincing evidence. By invoking self-defense, the
petitioner thereby submitted having deliberately caused the victim’s injuries. The burden of proof is shifted to him
to prove with clear and convincing all the requisites of his affirmative defense. He must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not the weakness of that of the disbelieved after the petitioner admitted inflicting the mortal
injuries on the victim. In this case, the petitioner’s action of preventing or repelling the attack of the victim negates
self-defense since it shows that the victim sustained many wounds. The petitioner’s claim has no merit which
failed him to prove his affirmative defense.
CASE 16
G.R. No. 82815-16 (October 31, 1990)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO CARPIO, EDWIN BABLIS, AND
ARNOLD CARPIO, accused, PEDRO CARPIO, appellant.

FACTS:
Appellant Pedro Carpio and victim, Luis Pacis, Jr., were neighbors and had a serious rift between them. Bablis,
the cousin of the appellant and his co-accused, visited and stayed with the appellant. they asked Cesar, an
acquaintance, about Pacis’ whereabouts stating that, “kursunada ko siya.” When they met with Pacis, Bablis
went near him and requested that he hitch a ride, which Pacis acceded. An eyewitness, Francisco, saw the
appelants and victim at about a distance ahead of him and stopped to observe what was going on. He saw the
appelants stabbing and punching the victim. When the latter was able to free himself, he ran towards
Palpallatoc and the three gave chase. Pacis passed by Palpallatoc and when the three reached the place where
he was, they stopped and warned him not to reveal what he saw to anybody otherwise they will kill him. After
that, Pacis’ cadaver was later found with wounds and abrasions

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder attended by the aggravating circumstance
HELD:
YES. This Court has always adhered to the rule that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the
appellate court will not disturb the findings of the trial court unless certain facts have been overlooked and if
considered might affect the result of the case. The offenders were positively identified by Francisco
Palpallatoc, but the presence of evident premeditation, treachery or abuse of superiority was not convincingly
established. In the absence of any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed is only homicide.
CONRADO CANO y SAMPANG , petitioner
v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , respondent

FACTS:

Petitioner Conrado Cano y Sampang and his deceased brother Orlando Cano were rivals in the
Rush ID Photo business and had booths. The fateful altercation which culminated in the fatal stabbing of
Orlando Cano stemmed out of this rivalry, particularly the incident where Conrado took the business
permit from the booth of Orlando without his permission thus incurring the latter's ire.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner killed his brother in self-defense.

HELD:

For self-defense to prosper, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the elements
of the self-defense were present at the time the commission of the crime happened. There are facts
extant on record which clearly shows that it was an armed victim who initially attacked the petitioner with
a balisong. Petitioner’s claim that when he could no longer avoid the unlawful aggression of the victim, he
was compelled to grab an instrument inside the booth to defend himself against the aggression and fatally
killed the victim. In the first place, there was a lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the petitioner.
Therefore, the Petitioner is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him
Case 12

G.R. No. 135981             January 15, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
MARIVIC GENOSA, appellant.

FACTS:

On November 15, 1995, Marivic who was abused by Ben, her husband, on the course of their
marriage was able to kill the victim with the use of a hard deadly weapon, which the accused had
provided herself for the fear that she might die with her unborn child against the unlawful
aggression of the victim.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellant acted in self-defense and in defense of her fetus;

HELD:

Finding the proffered theory of self-defense untenable, the RTC gave credence to the prosecution
evidence that appellant had killed the deceased while he was in bed sleeping. Appellant admits killing
Ben Genosa but, to avoid criminal liability, invokes self-defense and/or defense of her unborn child but
there is an absence of such aggression because there is an interval of time between the commission of
the crime and aggression happened. Dr. Parajillo admitted Marivic of having a neurotic anxiety and
should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. Therefore, the conviction
of Appellant for parricide is affirmed with two (2) mitigating circumstances attending her commission of the
offense,
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v.
ARMANDO CABALLERO, RICARDO CABALLERO, MARCIANO CABALLERO, JR., and ROBITO CABALLERO, Accused.
G. R. No. 149028-30 (case 8)

Facts:

On August 03, 1994, Caballero brothers having drinking sessions in the Mondragon compound. Eugene
Tayactac and Arnold Bacurna arrived in the sari-sari store which was across the Mondragon compound. As Eugene
walked by the gate of the Mondragon Compound, Armando suddenly grabbed him towards the compound and
assaulted him. Armando took a wooden pole hit Eugene with it and was also stabbed three times. Arnold saw the
commotion and rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. However, Ricardo accosted Arnold and stabbed the
latter on the left side of his body. Forthwith, the brothers ganged up on Arnold and two of them stabbed him
Arnold fled for his life and hid under the house of a neighbor. The commotion stopped only upon the arrival of
Teresito Mondragon who was able to pacify the Caballero brothers and they all returned to the compound. Arnold
was brought to the Planters Hospital for medical treatment and was able to survived . The Caballero brothers,
except for Robito, were convicted of frustrated murder for the injuries of Arnold. The appellants insist that the
decision is incorrect.

Issue:
W/N the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder for the injuries of Arnold?

Held:

Yes, Base on the judgment in consideration of the Article 248, Article 6 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, the
court found the appellants guilty of the crime frustrated murder beyond reasonable doubt. With the fact that
appellant Armando used wooden pole and appellants Ricardo and Robito used knives, and they also take
advantage of their superior strength where it cannot be denied that there was an intent to kill Arnold. Moreover,
the doctor attended on Arnold testified that the stab wound inflicted upon Arnold was mortal and may have
caused the latter’s death, if not for the timely and effective medical intervention. WHEREFORE, the acts committed
by the appellants are indeed FRUSTRATED MURDER.