Facts: After the ruling of the trial court and Court of Appeals, that Nilo Macayan, Jr.

is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, a Petition for Review on Certiorari praying that the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside and that a new one be rendered
acquitting petitioner Nilo Macayan, Jr was submitted. That on or about the 16th day of February
2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to gain and by means of force
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob / divest one
ANNIE UY JAO of the amount of P4,000.00 in cash in the manner as follows: on the date and in
the place afore-mentioned, said accused threatened complainant that he would destroy her and
her entire family and that he will have her and members of her family kidnapped unless she gives
to him the amount of P200,000.00, Philippine Currency in person and through a phone call and
thereafter negotiated with said Annie Uy Jao at McDonald’s located at Quezon Avenue, this
City, thus creating fear in the mind of said complainant who was compelled to give as in fact she
gave and delivered to the accused the amount of P4,000.00, Philippine Currency, to the damage
and prejudice of said Annie Uy Jao in the amount aforementioned.

Issue: Whether Macayan should be acquitted of robbery

Ruling: Yes, Macayan should be acquitted, because according to Article 293, any person who,
with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence
against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.
Accordingly, the following elements must be established to sustain a conviction for robbery:
1)there is a taking of personal property [i.e., unlawful taking]; 2) the personal property belongs to
another; 3) the taking is with animus lucrandi [i.e., intent to gain]; and 4) the taking is with
violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things. This being a criminal case,
the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt and it is
for the prosecution to establish the guilt of an accused on the strength of its own evidence. In this
case, there was a doubt if the last requisite of robbery was done because Jao’s claim that,
immediately after the postponement of the February 12, 2001 conference in the illegal dismissal
case and in the presence of Angel, Macayan threatened to harm and/or kidnap the members of
her family, despite the records in the same case showing that Jao never attended any of the 11
conferences that were set or conducted; second, the prosecution’s unjustified failure to present
Angel as a witness and its sole reliance on Jao’s testimony, considering that it was Angel who
can confirm if, indeed, Macayan threatened Jao’s family immediately after the postponement of
the February 12, 2001 conference; and third, Jao’s reliance on nothing more than how she was
addressed as "Madam" by the person speaking to her on the phone as basis for concluding that it
must have been Macayan who was supposedly calling and threatening her and her family. Hence,
Macayan should not be considered guilty of robbery beyond reasonable doubt.(Macayan Jr. Vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015, J. Leonen, Second Division)
Facts: This is a review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the conviction of
Marcelino Oloverio (Oloverio) of murder. Rudipico Pogay (Pogay) and Dominador Panday
(Panday) saw Rodulfo Gulane walking about five (5) meters away from them with Oloverio
trailing behind him. Oloverio allegedly tapped Gulane’s right shoulder and hacked him on the
chest and extremities with a bolo until Gulane collapsed on the ground. Oloverio then allegedly
took Gulane’s money from his pocket.5

Issue: Whether Oloverio is guilty of murder

Ruling: No, Oloverio is not guilty of murder but only homicide under Article 249 of the Revised
Penal Code because according to Article 248, murder must be committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,

derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an

earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Moreover, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. For treachery to be appreciated, the following elements must be
proven: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity
to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted. At the time of the incident, Gulane was already 83 years old. Accused-appellant was
standing behind him. He already had the advantage of surprise with Gulane’s back turned.
Gulane’s advanced age and position would have ensured his death as it would have prevented
him from being able to retaliate. Instead, accused-appellant tapped Gulane on the shoulder as if
to call his attention. He waited until Gulane was facing him before he started stabbing. The
medico-legal report indicates stab wounds on the chest and extremities, proving that Gulane was
stabbed from the front. In the present case, the presence of treachery, however, has not been
sufficiently established. Hence, Oloverio should only be guilty of homicide, not of murder.
(People of The Philippines, VS. Marcelino Oloverio, G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015, J.
Leonen, Second Division)