april 30 crim digests

8/17/2019 April 30 Crim Digests

1/354

People v. Amaca

Facts: An Information was filed by the Bais City Prosecutor against Amaca and one "Ogang,"charging them with murder attended by evident premeditation and nighttime for attacking,assaulting and shooting with the use of a firearm one Wilson Vergara who, as a result thereof,

suffered fatal gunshot wound.

Bernardo Mangubat, member of the PP of Canlaon City, testified that he in!uired from theictim about the incident, and the latter answered he was shot by members of the CivilianVolunteer Organization #C$O% Amaca and Ogang. &'on !uery why he was shot, the ictimsaid he did not know the reason why he was shot. (e was able to reduce into writing thedeclaration of victim $ergara, and hae the latter affi) his thumbmark with the use of his own blood in the 'resence of *agner Cardenas, the brother of the City Mayor.

+he trial court rendered its ecision finding Amaca guilt of murder. It deemed the victim!sstatement to Police Officer "angubat, positivel identifing Amaca, a ding declaration

sufficient to overcome the latter-s defense of alibi.

+he a''ellant alleges, among others, that he ma be held liable O#$% FO& 'O"(C()* sincetreacher was not alleged in the (nformation, while evident premeditation and nighttime,although duly alleged, were not satisfactoril proven.

(ssue: *hether or not the Amaca is guilty of murder or homicide

'eld: Onl homicide. +he ante mortem statement of the ictim is sufficient to identify theassailant in the case at hand. (oweer, the accused cannot be convicted of murder attendedb treacher, because the (nformation charged him with murder +ualified onl b evident

premeditation. +he Constitution re+uires that the accused must be informed of the natureand cause of the accusation against him./ +his failure to allege treachery in the Informationshould benefit the a''ellant, because in a criminal case, the accused ma be held accountableonl for the crime charged and ever doubt must be resolved in his favor.

Moreoer, in this case, treacher and nighttime ma #O, be considered even as genericaggravating circumstances, because there is nothing in the testimon of the prosecutionwitnesses to convincingl show that the accused consciousl and purposel adopted #0% suchmeans of attac- to render the victim defenseless and #1% the dar-ness of night to facilitate the commission of the crime, to prevent its discover or een evade capture. +his conclusionis further bolstered by the sim'le fact that not one of the 'rosecution witnesses saw thecommencement of the assault or een the actual assault itself. (ence, they are not com'etent totestify on whether the aggraating circumstances of treachery and nighttime attended thecommission thereof. ,hese circumstances cannot be appreciated on the basis of merepresumptions or su''ositions2 they "/, 0* P&OV*# A/ C$*A&$% A/ ,'* C&("*(,/*$F.

People v. &emalante

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 0


2/354

Facts: At about 7 PM, while "ercedes ,obias accom'anied by 8usebio 6erilla and 9ucia Pelowas on her wa home in the barrio of 6uinarona, 9eyte, coming from her farm in Maanghon,she met a group of more than ten men all armed with rifles , some of them with beardreaching the breast. &emalante, one of the men, a''roached, too- hold of and dragged

"ercedes. 4he entreated him not to take her because she had done him no wrong. 5emalantecontinued to drag and struck her with the butt of his rifle on different 'arts of her body. +hecompanions of "ercedes were told to continue their wa . +hey saw Mercedes being draggedtoward the sitio of /awahon. (ardly had they walked one kilometer when they heard gunre'orts. +he following da "ercedes ,obias was found dead in /awahon with two gunshotwounds.

5emalante was charged with the comple1 crime of -idnapping with murder. (is com'anionshae not been a''rehended. +he C:I found him guilty.

(ssue: *hether or not 5emalante is guilty of the com'le) crime of kidna''ing with murder or

only murder 'eld: Onl murder. +here is no sufficient evidence of intention to -idnap because from themoment "ercedes +obias was held and dragged to the time when the gun reports wereheard nothing was done or said by the a''ellant or his confederates to show that the captorsintended to deprive her of her libert for some time and for some purpose and thereafter sether free or kill her. +he (#,*&VA$ WA/ /O /'O&, A/ ,O #*2A,* ,'* ()*A("P$(*) (# 3()#APP(#2.

'*& /'O&, )*,*#,(O# A#) ($$4,&*A,"*#, A&* (#C$)*) O& FO&" PA&,

OF ,'* P*&P*,&A,(O# OF ,'* C&("* OF "&)*& . It is murder because of theconcurrence of at least one +ualifing circumstance, either of treacher, or of abuse ofsuperior strength, or with the aid of armed men, the first shown by the entry of the shots at the back and the second and the third by the number of the armed ca'tors.

+he fact that the a''ellant grew beard reaching his breast as some of his com'anions did is a 'ositie and clear 'roof that he was a member of the grou' of marauders, dissidents, bandits whowere harassing the 'eaceful inhabitants of the town of agami and its enirons. It is true that noone witnessed the killing of Mercedes +obias, but the acts of the malefactors show and constitutecons'iracy which renders the a''ellant liable for the crime committed by his com'anions.

People v. /espene

Facts: In the afternoon, $eonardo *nerio left his home in barrio +agbaya, Ca'i;, and went tothe field to tend his carabao. $eft in the house were his wife 6loria, three minor children theoldest of whom being < years of age, and a housebo. Before de'arting, $eonardo 8nerio leftbehind his bolo and instructed the housebo to split some firewood.



3/354

Between = and =3>? o-clock that eening, Priscila 8nerio, a sister of 9eonardo, arried at thehouse to fetch the latter because their mother was seriously ill. ot finding her brother at home,Priscila waited, and while she was conersing with 6loria and one 8liang from Buracay, /a5eraand /a5ona arrived. /a5ona sat himself on a chair inside the sala, while /a5era hid behindthe shutters in the balcon.

4a@ona in!uired about 9eonardos whereabouts when the sound of chopping of banana stal-sin the bac-ard and the dropping of stones atop the roof , were heard. As they looked outside6loria and Priscila saw three individuals hiding behind 2loria!s store.

$eonardo arried, and 5ust as he was about to step on the first rung of the ladder, "angilog suddenly a''eared and rushing towards him, attac-ed the latter from the rear with a bolo. +akencom'letely by sur'rise, the victim was struc- on both shoulders. /espe6e, $eonardo and Calizo, each armed with a firearm, arried and fired four shots at $eonardo. 6loria andPriscila shouted for hel'.

pon seeing the victim stand up and ma-e an effort to escape, /a5ona fired his revolver athis victim. /a5era, who was behind, -nifed the deceased on the nape. 4till with life, 9eonardomade an attem't to flee from his assailants, but the latter surrounded him and so he was forced tolean against the fence fronting the house. +he fence bro-e due to weak condition and$eonardo fell with it, his head touching the canal while his feet rested at the base of the fence.*hile in this 'osition, /espe6e shouted 7-ill him7 and one of them fired a shot at 9eonardo.+he assailants fled from the scene.

A few minutes after 9eonardo was brought into the house, he died. An information for murderwas filed against all of them e)ce't Mangilog who remained at large. All the defendants werefound guilt of murder8 +ualified b ,&*AC'*&%.

+he /olicitor 2eneral maintains that the crime was attended b the aggraating circumstancesof superior strength, aid of armed men and dwelling, and in iew of the 'enalty attached bythe Code to the crimereclusion tem'oral in its ma)imum 'eriod to death he recommendsthat the decision of the lower Court should be modified by raising the penalt to death.

(ssue: *hether or not the aggraating circumstances of superior strength, aid of armed men and dwelling should be appreciated separatel from treacher

'eld: #o. +he aggravating circumstances of superior strength, aid of armed men, and nighttime which concurred in the commission of the offense, are (#C$)*) (# ,'*9A$(F%(#2 C(&C"/,A#C* OF ,&*AC'*&% and cannot be appreciatedseparatel from the latter circumstance.

As to the aggraating circumstance of dwelling, the Court entertains doubts as to itsapplicabilit to the case at bar because the deceased was onl about to step on the first rungof the ladder of the house when he was assaulted by a''ellants.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto >


4/354

#As to the motie of the crime, a week before the incident, 2loria went to collect fromdefendants their debts for the tuba and sardines which the bought on credit from the storeof the offended 'arty, but the replied that the had no mone then . +he day before the killing,defendants returned to the store of the offended 'arty and wanted to ma-e purchases oncredit, but the offended part refused to e1tend them credit until the had paid their old

accounts. /a5ona remarked3 "(f ou will not be ta-en during the da8 b evening ou will beta-en." It a''ears further that sometime in March 0, the offended part had a dispute with/espe6e and $eonardo regarding the boundaries of a certain piece of land, and that the samewas settled by the barrioDlieutenant and a councilor.

*hateer the cause of the killing, it is not absolutely necessary to find a motie therefor. +he+uestion of motive is important in cases where there is doubt as to whether the defendant is or is not the person who committed the act, but when there is no doubt, as in the case at bar, itis not indispensable to conviction to -now the e1act reason for the deed.%

People v. "anero

Facts: +his was a gruesome murder in a main thoroughfare an hour before sundown. A foreignreligious minister was riddled with bullets, his head shattered into bits and pieces amidst thereeling of his e)ecutioners as the danced and laughed around their !uarry, chanting the tune"Mutya Ea Baleleng", a 'o'ular regional folk song, -ic-ing and scoffing at his prostrate,miserable, s'iritless figure that was gas'ing its last. +heir leader pic-ed up pieces of the splattered brain and moc-ingl displaed them before horrified spectators. 4ome accountsswear that acts of cannibalism ensued, although they were not sufficiently demonstrated. :ortheir outrageous feat, the gang leader already earned the monicker "cannibal priest4-iller." But,what is indubitable is that Fr. ,ulio Favali was senselessly -illed for no apparent reason than that he was one of the (talian Catholic missionaries laboring in their vineard in thehinterlands of Mindanao.

Informations for "urder, Attempted "urder and Arson were filed against defendants. +hetrial court rendered @udgment finding them guilt of the "urder of Fr. Favali with theaggraating circumstances of superior strength and treacher, and the Attempted "urder of&ufino &obles. :urther, the Court finds accused #orberto "anero alias Commander Bucayguilty of Arson for the burning of the motorccle of Fr. Favali .

Around 0? in the morning, defendants were inside the eatery of one 5eynaldo eocades at 3m.;


5/354

"messengers." +he cons'irators agreed to 8dilberto Maneros 'ro'osal that should the fail to-ill Fr. Peter 2eremias8 another (talian priest would be -illed in his stead .

8l'idio with two unidentified com'anions nailed a 'lacard on a streetD'ost beside the eatery ofeocades. +he 'lacard bore the same inscri'tions as those found on the cigarette wra''er e)ce't

for the additional 'hrase "ersus Bucay, 8dil and Palo." 8l'idio also 'osted a wooden 'lacard bearing the same message on a street crossDsign close to the eatery.

9ater, defendants proceeded to the house of 70antil," their first intended victim. "Bantil"confronted them wh his name was included in the placards. 8dilberto asked "Bantil" if hehad any !ualms about it, and without any 'roocation, *dilberto drew his reoler and fired atthe forehead of 70antil." "Bantil" was able to 'arry the gun, albeit his right finger and the lower 'ortion of his right ear were hit. +hen they grappled for its possession until "0antil7 wase1tricated b his wife from the fra. But, as he was running awa8 he was again fired upon by 8dilberto. Onl his trousers were hit. "Bantil" howeer managed to see- refuge in thehouse of a certain )omingo 2omez. #orberto ordered his men to surround the house and

not to allow anone to get out so that 70antil7 would die of hemorrhage. +hen 8dilbertowent back to the restaurant of eocades and 'istolDwhi''ed him on the face and accused him of being a communist coddler.

Moments later, while )eocades was feeding his swine, *dilberto strewed him with a burst ofgunfire from his MD07 Armalite. eocades cowered in fear as he knelt with both hands clenchedat the back of his head. +his again drew boisterous laughter and ridicule from the dreadeddes'erados.

At o-clock, Fr. ,ulio Favali arrived at 3m. ;< on board his motorccle. (e entered thehouse of 2omez. #orberto o'ened the motorcycles gasoline tank, s'illed some fuel, lit a fireand burned the motorccle. As the ehicle was abla;e, the felons raed and re@oiced.

&'on seeing his motorcycle on fire, Fr. Favali accosted #orberto. But the latter sim'ly ste''ed backwards and e)ecuted a thumbsDdown signal. 8dilberto asked the 'riest3 "Ano ang gusto mo8padreG 2usto mo bu-on -o ang ulo mo #o you want me to break your head%G" +hereafter,*dilberto fired at the head of the priest. #orberto taunted *dilberto if that was the onlwa he -new to -ill a priest. 4lighted oer the remark, *dilberto 5umped over the prostratebod three times8 -ic-ed it twice, and fired anew. +he burst of gunfire irtually/'A,,*&*) ,'* '*A) OF F&. FAVA$(8 CA/(#2 '(/ 0&A(# ,O /CA,,*& O#

,'* &OA). As orberto flaunted the brain to the terrified onlookers, his brothers danced andsang "Mutya Ea Baleleng" to the delight of their comradesDinDarms.

In seeking e)cul'ation from criminal liability, a''ellants contend that the trial court erred indisregarding their res'ectie defenses of alibi which, if 'ro'erly a''reciated, would tend toestablish that there was no prior agreement to -ill2 that the intended victim was Fr. Peter2eremias8 not Fr. ,ulio Favali2 that there was onl one gunman8 *dilberto2 and, that therewas absolutely no showing that appellants cooperated in the shooting of the victim des'itetheir 'ro)imity at the time to 8dilberto.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto


6/354

On their defense of alibi, /everino and &ud $ines claim that they were harvesting pala thewhole da some one -ilometer awa from the crime scene. &oger 0eda6o alleges that he wason an errand for the church to bu lumber and nipa in "!lang8 Cotabato that morning,taking along his wife and sick child for medical treatment and arrived in $a *speranza8,ulunan8 PA/, #OO#,("*. =maaga pa>

(ssue:

. *hether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the defenses of alibi H #o.;. *hether or not there is conspirac H %es.

'eld:

0. #o. It is a)iomatic that the accused interposing the defense of alibi must not onl be at someother place but that it must also be P'%/(CA$$% ("PO//(0$* FO& '(" ,O 0* A,,'* /C*#* OF ,'* C&("* at the time of its commission.

Considering the failure of appellants to prove the re!uired phsical impossibilit of beingpresent at the crime scene, as can be readily deduced from the pro1imit between the placeswhere the were allegedl situated at the time of the commission of the offenses and thelocus criminis =the place of the crime>, the defense of alibi is definitely feeble.

#o phsical impossibilit e1ists in instances where it would ta-e the accused onl


7/354

the Manero brothers and their militiamen. :or sure, appellants all assumed a fighting stance todiscourage if not 'reent an attempt to provide assistance to the fallen priest. +heysurrounded the house of )omingo 2omez to sto' 5obles and the other occu'ants from leaingso that the wounded &obles ma die of hemorrhage. &ndoubtedly, these were overt acts toensure success of the commission of the crimes and in furtherance of the aims of the

conspirac. W'($* APP*$$A#,/ "A% #O, 'AV* )*$(V*&*) ,'* FA,A$ /'O,/,'*"/*$V*/8 ,'*(& CO$$*C,(V* AC,(O# /'OW*) A CO""O# (#,*#, ,OCO""(, ,'* C&("(#A$ AC,/.

#*(858:O58, the @udgment a''ealed from being in accord with law and the eidence isA::I5M8 with the modification that the ciil indemnity which is increased from P01,???.??to P?,???.?? is awarded to the lawful heirs of the deceased 'lus e)em'lary damages ofP0??,???.??2 howeer, the award of moral damages is deleted.%

People v. ,eehan-ee

#ote: +he (ultmanHCha'man murder case was a murder case that gained wide 'ublicity in thePhili''ines during the early 0


8/354

Chapman saw the incident. (e asked accused3 "Wh are ou bothering us" Accused pushedChapman8 dug into his shirt8 pulled out a gun and fired at him. Cha'man felt his u''er body,staggered for a moment, and asked3 "*hy did you shoot meG" Cha'man crum'led on thesidewalk. $eino -nelt beside Chapman to assist him but accused ordered him to get up and

leave Chapman alone.

Accused then turned his ire on 9eino. (e 'ointed gun at him and asked3 "o you want atroubleG" 9eino said "no" and took a ste' backward. +he shooting initiall shoc-ed "aureen.*hen she came to her senses, she became hsterical and started screaming for help. 4here'eatedly shouted3 "Oh8 m 2od8 he!s got a gun. 'e!s gonna -ill us. Will somebod helpusG"

Accused was 'ointing his gun to and from 9eino to Maureen, warning the latter to shut u'.Accused ordered 9eino to sit down on the sidewalk. 9eino obeyed and made no attem't to moeaway. Maureen continued to be hysterical. 4he could not stay still. 4he strayed to the side of

accused-s car. Accused tried but failed to grab her. Maureen circled around accused-s car, tryingto 'ut some distance between them. +he short chase lasted for a minute or two. 8entually,accused caught Maureen and re'eatedly en@oined her to shut u' and sit down beside 9eino.

:or a moment, accused turned his back from the two. (e faced them again and shot $eino.9eino was hit on the u''er @aw, fell backwards on the sidewalk, but did not lose consciousness.$eino heard another shot and saw "aureen fall beside him . (e lifted his head to see whatwas ha''ening and saw accused return to his car and drive awa.

9eino struggled to his knees and shouted for hel'. (e noticed at least three 'eo'le looking onand standing outside their houses along Caballero 4treet. +he security guards of asmarias$illage came after a few minutes. +hey rushed 9eino and Maureen to the Makati Medical Centerfor treatment. After


9/354

(ssue: *hether or not treacher was present

'eld: %es8 in the wounding of $eino and the -illing of 'ultman. 0ut not in the -illing of

Chapman.

+he > Informations charged the accused with haing committed the crimes with treacher andevident premeditation. *vident premeditation was CO&&*C,$% &$*) O, b thetrial court for, admittedly, the shooting incident was merel a CA/A$ *#CO#,*& or aC'A#C* "**,(#2 on the street since the victims were un-nown to the accused and iceDersa. It, howeer, a''reciated the 'resence of the !ualifying circumstance of treachery.

On the other hand, the P&O/*C,(O# FA($*) ,O P&OV* ,&*AC'*&% (# ,'*3($$(#2 OF C'AP"A#. +here is no evidence on record to prove that the accusedconsciousl and deliberatel adopted his mode of attac- to insure the accomplishment of

his criminal design without ris- to himself . +he accused acted on the spur of the moment.

+heir meeting was b chance. +hey were strangers to each other. +he time between the initialencounter and the shooting was short and unbroken. +he /'OO,(#2 OF C'AP"A# WA/,'/ ,'* &*/$, OF A &A/' A#) ("P*,O/ ("P$/* on the part of the

accused &A,'*& ,'A# A )*$(0*&A,* AC, OF W($$. "ere suddenness of the attac- would not8 b itself8 constitute treacher. (ence, absent an +ualifing circumstance, theaccused should onl be held liable for 'O"(C()* for the shooting and -illing of

Chapman.

As to the wounding of $eino and the -illing of 'ultman, treacher clearl attended thecommission of the crimes. +he eidence shows that while seated8 unarmed and begging formerc8 the two were gunned down b the accused . Clearly, the accused purposel placed histwo victims in a CO"P$*,*$% )*F*#/*$*// PO/(,(O# before shooting them. +herewas an appreciable lapse of time between the killing of Cha'man and the shooting of 9eino and(ultman H a 'eriod which the accused used to 're'are for a mode of attack which ensured thee)ecution of the crime without risk to himself.

#I $I8* *(858O:, we hereby A::I5M *I+( MOI:ICA+IO4 the ecision of the trialcourt, dated ecember 11, 0


10/354

the heirs of the said deceased the following amounts3 :ifty +housand #P?,???.??% 'esos asindemnity for her death2 +wo Million +hree (undred :ifty +housand :our (undred 4i)tyDOnePesos and 8ightyD+hree Centaos #P1,>?,7=0.K>% as actual damages2 :ie (undred 4i)tyD:our+housand :ourtyD+wo Pesos and :iftyD4een Centaos #P=7,?71.J% for loss of earningca'acity of said deceased2 One Million Pesos #P0,???,???.??% as moral damages2 and +wo

Million #P1,???,???.??% 'esos as e)em'lary damages.

#>% In Criminal Case o. ?,???.??% 'esos as indemnity for his in@uries2 One (undred 8ighteen+housand +hree (undred 4i)tyDine 'esos and 8ightyD:our Centaos #P00K,>=% offended 'arties thesum of One Million Pesos #P0,???,???.??2 or a total of +hree Million P>,???,???.??N 'esosN for attorney-s fees and e)'enses of litigation.%

People v. *nguito

Facts: At about >3?? o-clock dawn, :eli'e &e+uerme, while driving his motorela with his wife5osita on board, pic-ed up a passenger, *ngr. Wilfredo Achumbre, near the a;areno churchin Cagayan de Oro. Achumbre as-ed him to bring him across the "arcos bridge towards hishome. After traelling a distance of >?? meters, &e+uerme!s motorela was bumped b a whitemotor vehicle #Eia Ceres an%. +he vehicle -ept pushing the motorela causing it to run verfast. Because of the iolent 'ush the motorela turned around and fell on its right side, causingthe drier :eli'e and his wife to sustain serious bodily in@uries. Achumbre was able to runtowards the railings at "arcos 0ridge but accused with intent to -ill him rammed and hit

him with his vehicle8 cutting his right leg and thereafter ran over him which was the directand immediate cause of his instantaneous death.

6eorgita Achumbre, wife of the deceased, knows accused because he used to come to their houseand he and her husband were both em'loyed with 6 P Builders and they used to 'lay basketball together. *hen she confronted the accused at the 'olice station why he killed herhusband, 8nguito answered that he was mauled b her husband and it was an act of revenge .+he accused e)'lained that the victim became angr when he was made to pa the bills of*nguito!s friend.

+he trial court rendered @udgment finding accused guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crimeof 'omicide with $ess /erious Phsical (n5uries #suffered by :eli'e 5e!uerme% with theaggravating circumstance of the use of motor vehicle.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 0?


11/354

+he CA found that since the evidence showed that accused -illed the victim b means ofmotor vehicle, he should be guilty of the crime of "&)*& and not homicide.

A''ellant contends that he )() #O, (#,*#,(O#A$$% C'OO/* the motor vehicle as a

means of committing the offense, and that at most, the vehicle was the onl available meansto stop the deceased from escaping. (e argues that it was his intention to apprehend andsurrender the deceased to the police for his 'reious act of mauling him but in the 'rocess, hekilled the deceased.

A''ellant further contends that he should have been convicted of the crime of homicide with mitigating circumstances of passion and voluntar surrender.

(ssues:

. *hether or not 8nguito is guilty of murder with the use of a motor vehicle or onl homicide 4"urder with the use of a motor vehicle.

;. *hether or not the mitigating circumstances of passion and voluntar surrender can beappreciated D #o.

'eld:

0. +he /* OF A "O,O& V*'(C$* 9A$(F(*/ ,'* 3($$(#2 ,O "&)*& (F ,'*/A"* WA/ P*&P*,&A,*) 0% "*A#/ ,'*&*OF. A''ellant-s claim that he merelused the motor vehicle to stop the victim from escaping is belied b his actuations. By hisown admission, he testified that there was a police mobile patrol near the crossing. Accusedcould have easil sought the assistance of the police instead of ta-ing the law into his own

hands. Moreoer, he did not stop the vehicle after hitting the deceased. Accused further usedthe vehicle in his attempt to escape. (e was already more than 0 kilometer away from the 'laceof the incident when he sto''ed his ehicle u'on seeing the 'olice mobile 'atrol which wasfollowing him.

1. *e find that these mitigating circumstances cannot be a''reciated in his faor. AccusedDa''ellant was allegedly "still ery angry" while he was following, bum'ing and 'ushing themotorela which was in front of him. (e was 'reiously mauled by the deceased and allegedlyrendered unconscious by the blows inflicted on him. *hen he regained consciousness, he claimsthat he wanted to look for a 'oliceman to re'ort that he was mauled. Clearl8 appellantBs stateof mind after he was mauled and before he crushed Achumbre to death was such that he

was still able to act reasonabl. In fact, he admitted having seen a police mobile patrolnearb but instead, he chose to resort to the dastardly act which resulted in the death ofAchumbre and in the in5uries of the spouses &e+uerme.

For passion to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, facts must be proved to showcauses /FF(C(*#, ,O P&O)C* $O// OF /*$F4CO#,&O$ and to OV*&CO"*

&*A/O#. +he turmoil and unreason which naturally result from a !uarrel or fight should not beconfused with the sentiment or e)citement in the mind of a 'erson in@ured or offended to such adegree as to de'rie him of his sanity and selfDcontrol.



12/354

+he mitigating circumstance of voluntar surrender cannot be appreciated. 8idence showsthat ACC/*) WA/ P&/*) 0% ,'* PO$(C*. 4PO> Catiil testified that appellant didnot surrender but onl stopped his vehicle when its &(2', ,(&* WA/ A$&*A)% F$A,.

+he foregoing notwithstanding, the e1istence or non4e1istence of a mitigating circumstance inthe case at bar will not affect the penalt to be imposed 'ursuant to Article => of the 5PC#under Article =>, an indiisible 'enalty cannot be affected by the 'resence of any mitigating oraggraating circumstance%. +he crime committed is the comple1 crime of murder with lessserious phsical in5uries. &nder Article E, the penalt for a comple1 crime shall be thema1imum period of the penalt for the most serious crime. +he CA was correct in im'osingthe 'enalty of reclusion 'er'etua.

#*(858:O58, the decision conicting accusedDa''ellant +hadeos 8nguito of the com'le)crime of Murder with 9ess 4erious Physical In@uries and sentencing him to the 'enalty ofreclusion 'er'etua is hereby A::I5M8 with the MOI:ICA+IO that accusedDa''ellant is

ordered to 'ay the heirs of deceased *ilfredo Achumbre the amount of P?,???.?? as ciilindemnity2 P0,=K?,???.?? for loss of earning ca'acity2 P 0=,>??.?? as actual damages2P?,???.?? as moral damages2 and to further 'ay the s'ouses :eli'e and 5osita 5e!uerme theamount of P1?,???.?? as moral damages.%

People v. Whisenhunt

Facts: Accused was charged with the murder of 8lsa 4antosDCastillo, under an Informationwhich read3

+hat on or about 4e'tember 17, 0, emetrio 5aelo, an A'e) em'loyee assigned to drie for accused, re'ortedfor work at K3>? a.m. at the latters condominium unit at the Platinum Condominium in6reenhills. Accused ordered him to fetch 8lsa at her 'arents house. (e found 8lsa standing at a



13/354

corner near her 'arents house, carrying three bags. (e brought 8lsa to accuseds condominiumunit.

+he following day, emetrio again re'orted at accusedDa''ellants unit. At around noon, 9ucyasked if he had seen a kitchen knife which was missing. (e then oerheard 9ucy ask accused

who told her that the kitchen knife was in his bedroom. emetrio saw accused go inside theroom and, shortly thereafter, hand the knife to 9ucy.

On 4e'tember 1, emetrio re'orted at the Platinum Condominium. *hile he was there, Amy4errano, A'e) Personnel Manager, asked him if 8lsa was still in accuseds condominium unit.(e answered yes. Amy gae him black 'lastic garbage bags which he turned oer to accused.+he latter then ordered him to drie 9ucy the maid to Cubao and to go home to get some clothes,since they were leaing for Bagac, Bataan. +hereafter, emetrio returned to the condominium.

Accused asked him to check the fuel gauge of the car. (e was told to go to A'e) to get a gas sli'and then to gas u'. At around noon, he went back to the condominium and stayed in the serants

!uarters.*hile emetrio was in the serants !uarters watching teleision, accused came in. (e as-ed)emetrio how long he wanted to wor- for him. emetrio re'lied that he was willing to workfor him foreer, and e)'ressed his full trust in him. &'on hearing this, accused shed tears andembraced emetrio. +hen accused said, ""a problema a-o8 &io." emetrio asked what it was,and accused told him that *lsa was dead. emetrio asked, "0a-it mo sia pinata" AccusedDanswered that he did not -ill *lsa, rather she died of 7bangungot."

)emetrio suggested that *lsaBs bod be autopsied, but accused said that he had alreadbeheaded her. +he two of them went to 4ho''esille at the 6reenhills 4ho''ing Center andbought a big bag with a zipper and rollers.

*hen they returned to the condominium, accused as-ed )emetrio to help him wrap the bodin the blac- garbage bags. emetrio entered accusedBs bathroom and found the dismemberedhands8 feet8 trun- and head of a woman. +hey 'acked all the garbage bags in the bag with the;i''er and rollers. +hen, they brought the bag down and loaded it in the trunk of accuseds car.After that, emetrio took the wheel and accused sat beside him.

Accused told )emetrio to drive around 0atangas and ,agata Cit. *hen they were nearPuting Eahoy and 4ilangan, accused told emetrio to turn into a narrow road and sto' the car.Accused too- the plastic bags and dumped them b the roadside . (e called emetrio andsaid, "+ayo na 5io, tulo na tao sa 0ataan." #*hisenhunt family mansion in Bagac, Bataan%

Before reaching Bagac, accused ordered emetrio to stop the car on top of a bridge. Accusedtold )emetrio to throw a bag into the river . 9ater, they 'assed another bridge and accusedthrew *lsaBs clothes oer the bridge. *hen they 'assed Pilar, Bataan, accused threw *lsaBsviolet 2iordano bag. As they reached the road boundary of Bagac, accused wrung a short4sleeved dress with violet and green stripes, and threw it.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 0>


14/354

+he ne)t morning, accused ordered )emetrio to clean the trun- of the car, saying, "5io,linisan mo ang sasakyan 'ara ang com'artment hindi babaho." At 03?? '.m., they started off forManila. As they 'assed a 'lace called EabogDkabog, he saw accused take out an A+M card.Accused burned the middle of the card, twisted it and threw it out of the window. )emetrioas-ed accused if he can get off since he wanted to go home to Fairview. Before emetrio left,

accusedDa''ellant told him, "&io8 ou and our famil can go on a vacation. ( will give oumone." AccusedDa''ellant then gae emetrio P?.?? for his trans'ortation going to :airiew.

When )emetrio got home8 he immediatel told his famil what happened. 'is wife told himto report the incident to Fiscal Foey ia;. emetrio and his wife went to the house of :iscalia; to talk to him.

+he following morning, :iscal ia;, emetrio, his wife and his brothers went to the )O@. +heywere referred to the #0(, where )emetrio gave his statement.

A team of BI agents 'roceeded to Barangay Polong, 4ta. Cru;, 4ta. 5osa, 9aguna. +here, they

found a crowd of people gathered around the mutilated parts of a human bod along theroad. +he bod parts had been discovered b triccle drivers.

emetrio 5aelo accom'anied some BI agents to retrace the route he took with accused goingto Bataan, to retriee the items thrown away by accused. +hey were able to recoer a iolet bag,one brown sandal and a shirt with iolet and green floral 'rints.

+he trial court rendered @udgment, conicting accused of murder +ualified b abuse ofsuperior strength and outraging and scoffing at the corpse of the victim #Article 17K, 'ar. =%.

(ssue:

. *hether or not the circumstance of abuse of superior strength is present D #o.;. *hether or not the circumstance of outraging and scoffing at the corpse of the victim is

present D %es.

'eld:

0. *e do not agree with the trial court that the 'rosecution sufficiently 'roed the !ualifyingcircumstance of abuse of su'erior strength. Abuse of superiorit is present whenever there isine+ualit of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation ofsuperiorit of strength notoriousl advantageous for the aggressor and selected or ta-enadvantage of b him in the commission of the crime. +he FAC, ,'A, ,'* V(C,(" WA/A WO"A# )O*/ #O,8 0% (,/*$F8 */,A0$(/' ,'A, ACC/*) CO""(,,*),'* C&("* W(,' A0/* OF /P*&(O& /,&*#2,'. +here ought to be enough proofof the relative strength of the aggressor and the ictim.

A0/* OF /P*&(O& /,&*#2,' "/, 0* /'OW# A#) C$*A&$%

*/,A0$(/'*) A/ ,'* C&("* (,/*$F. In this case, nobod witnessed the actual -illing.#owhere in )emetrioBs testimon, and it is not indicated in an of the pieces of phsical



15/354

evidence, that accused deliberatel too- advantage of his superior strength in overpowering*lsa. On the contrary, this Court observed from the photograph of accused that he has arather /"A$$ F&A"*. (ence, the attendance of the +ualifing circumstance of abuse ofsuperior strength was not ade+uatel proved and cannot be appreciated against accused.

1. (oweer, the other circumstance of outraging and scoffing at the corpse of the victim wascorrectl appreciated b the trial court. +he "*&* )*CAP(,A,(O# OF ,'* V(C,("B/'*A) CO#/,(,,*/ O,&A2(#2 O& /COFF(#2 A, ,'* CO&P/* OF ,'*

V(C,("8 ,'/ 9A$(F%(#2 ,'* 3($$(#2 ,O "&)*& . In this case, accused notonl beheaded *lsa. (e further cut up her bod li-e pieces of meat. +hen, he strewed thedismembered parts in a deserted road in the countryside, leaving them to rot on the ground.

#*(858:O58, the decision of the 5egional +rial Court of Pasig City, Branch 01, in CriminalCase o. 0?1=KJ, finding accusedDa''ellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, andsentencing him to suffer the 'enalty of reclusion 'er'etua, is A::I5M8 with the followingMOI:ICA+IO43 AccusedDa''ellant is O5858 to 'ay the heirs of 8lsa 4antos Castillo

actual damages in the amount of P?,???.??2 ciil indemnity in the amount of P?,???.??2 moraldamages in the amount of P0,???,???.??2 e)em'lary damages in the amount of P0,???,???.??2and attorneys fees in the amount of P0?,???.??.%

People v. 2onzales

Facts: On a day intended to 'ay homage to the dead, a pregnant woman was shot to death inthe course of her husbandBs altercation with the accused and his son along the 6arden of5emembrance within the 9oyola Memorial Park in Marikina. +he trial court found accusedguilty of the comple1 crime of murder and two counts of frustrated murder and accordingly

sentenced him to death. +his case is before us on automatic reiew.

At about 13>? '.m. both families of 'riate com'lainant oel Andres and accused 6on;ale; wereon their way to the e)it of the 9oyola Memorial Park. At the intersection near the 6arden of5emembrance, while 6on;ale; was turning left towards the e)it and Andres was headed straightalong the road to the e)it. their two vehicles almost collided. Andres was able to timel stepon the bra-es. +he appellant continued driving while Andres drove behind appellantBsvehicle for some time and cut him off when he found the opportunit . Andres got out of hisvehicle and -noc-ed on accusedBs car window.

Andres calml told accused to be careful with his driving and informed the latter that he is

with his famil and to this 6on;ale; allegedly re'lied, Accidents are accidents8 whatBs ourproblem/ Andres saw a''ellant turning red in anger so he decided to go bac- to his vehiclewhen he was bloc-ed b appellantBs son who said, Anong problema mo sa erpat -o/Andres testified that he felt threatened and so he immediatel boarded his vehicle and partiallopened the car window 5ust wide enough to tal- bac- to appellantBs son , ino. /))*#$%8O#* OF '(/ PA//*#2*&/ /A() G0(#A&($ 3A"(./ (e turned to his wife FeliberAndres and saw her bloodied and unconscious. (is son 3enneth and nephew 3evin were



16/354

also wounded. Andres admitted that he and )ino were shouting at each other so he did nothear the shot.

+he defenses ersion of the incident is that Andres cut the a''ellants 'ath by 'ositioning his :obli!uely along the a''ellants lane from the latters left side. Andres got out of his ehicle, stood

beside the a''ellants car window, and re'eatedly cursed the a''ellant, Putang ina mo, angtandaDtanda mo na hindi ka 'a marunong magmaneho. Ang boboDbobo mo./ +he a''ellant stayedinside his car and allegedly re'lied, Pasensiya ka na hindi kita nakita, nasilaw ako. Aksidentelang./ ino, a''ellants son who rode in another ehicle, arried at the scene and confrontedAndres. When Andres suddenl reached for something inside his vehicle8 this promptedappellant to get his gun from the glove compartment and feeling that his son was threatenedhe got out of his car read to shoot. *hen he saw that Andres did not have a weapon he putdown his hand holding the gun. +his is when the appellantBs daughter ,risha arried at thescene, hugged her father and in the process held his hand holding the gun . W(,',&(/'AB/ /0/,A#,(A$ 0O)% W*(2', P/'(#2 A2A(#/, '("8 APP*$$A#,

$O/, '(/ 0A$A#C* A#) ,'* 2# ACC()*#,A$$% F(&*).

An Information for the comple1 crime of "urder8 )ouble Frustrated "urder and Attempted"urder was filed against accused.

+he case records show that :eliber Andres, lied to gie birth to a baby girl by caesarian sectionand died the following morning. Eenneth and Eein were treated for e)traction of metallicfragments on their faces. +hey were discharged from the hos'ital = days later.

+he trial court rendered @udgement finding that the shooting was attended b the !ualifyingcircumstance of treacher and held the a''ellant guilt of the comple1 crime of murder for thedeath of :eliber Andres and two counts of frustrated murder for the in@uries sustained byEenneth Andres and Eein $alde; and sentenced the a''ellant to the ma)imum of the im'osable 'enalty which is death.

+he trial court too- 5udicial notice on the feature of the automatic pistol used in this casewhich is capable of un+uestionable demonstration or ought to be known to @udges because oftheir @udicial functions. Practically, the stages before an automatic firearm would be capableof firing are as follows3

0% the loading of a bullet into the chamber of the gun21% the coc-ing of the hammer, if uncocked2>% the releasing of the safet pin27% the pressing of the trigger to unleash the hammer so that the firing 'in will hit thecartridge to 'ro'el the bullet out to hit the target.

&ealisticall, it demonstrates that a gun will not fire even if the bullet is loaded in itschamber if the hammer is uncoc-ed2 or even if coc-ed if the safet pin is engaged2 or even if the safet pin is disengaged if the trigger will not be pressed. (oweer, even if the gun isfired if it is not aimed and leveled to the target8 the purpose of firing it shall not be

achieved.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 0=


17/354

Contrarily, O#C* A 2# (/ )&AW# A2A(#/, A P*&/O#8 ,'* "*A#/8 "*,'O)/A#) FO&"/ *"P$O%*) FO& (,/ *H*C,(O# (/ A$&*A)% CO#C*(V*). Andonce it is tended directly and s'ecifically to insure its e)ecution, it conse!uently P&O)C*/,'* CO#/C(O/ A#) )*$(0*&A,* (#,*#,(O#.

+he defense asserts that the eidence for the 'rosecution failed to establish the attendance oftreachery and without the attendance of the said !ualifying circumstance the crime committed ishomicide, not murder.

A''ellant 'oints out that the shooting ha''ened in a matter of seconds and that it was 'receded by a heated argument between the 'arties. 4uch being the case, it is argued that the shootingcould not hae been attended by treachery. +here was no time for the a''ellant to consciouslyand deliberately em'loy the mode of attack to insure its e)ecution and at the same time toeliminate any form of retaliation from the alleged intended ictim.

A''ellant also aers that the trial court erred in e!uating the use of an automatic 'istol with

treachery. +he fact that the gun was drawn and fired does not mean that the mode of attack wasconsciously and deliberately em'loyed.

(ssue: *hether or not the crime was attended b treacher

'eld: #o. +he shooting was not attended by treachery and accordingly the crime committed forthe death of :eliber Andres is homicide and not murder.

+reachery under Article 07, 'aragra'h 0= of the 5PC is defined as the deliberate em'loyment ofmeans, methods or forms in the e)ecution of a crime against 'ersons which tend directly ands'ecially to insure its e)ecution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which theintended ictim might raise. :or treachery to be a''reciated two elements must concur3 0% theemploment of means of e1ecution that would insure the safet of the accused fromretaliator acts of the intended victim and leaving the latter without an opportunit todefend himself and 1% the means emploed were deliberatel or consciousl adopted b theoffender.

+he means emploed for the commission of the crime or the mode of attac- must be shownto have been consciousl or deliberatel adopted by the accused to insure the consummationof the crime and at the same time eliminate or reduce the ris- of retaliation from the intendedictim.

C'A#C* *#CO#,*&/8 ("P$/* 3($$(#2 O& C&("*/ CO""(,,*) A, ,'*

/P& OF ,'* "O"*#, O& ,'A, W*&* P&*C*)*) 0% '*A,*)

A$,*&CA,(O#/ A&* 2*#*&A$$% #O, A,,*#)*) 0% ,&*AC'*&% FO& $AC3

OF OPPO&,#(,% OF ,'* ACC/*) ,O )*$(0*&A,*$% *"P$O% A

,&*AC'*&O/ "O)* OF A,,AC3 . +he encounter between oel Andres and thea''ellant was a chance encounter. +hey were total strangers before their vehicles almostcollided. :or the rules on treachery to a''ly, the sudden attac- must have been preconceivedb the accused, une1pected b the victim and without provocation on the 'art of the latter.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 0J


18/354

#*hether or not the attack succeeds against its intended ictim or in@ures another or whether thecrime committed is graer than that intended is immaterial, as long as it is shown that the attackis attended by treachery, the said !ualifying circumstance may still be considered by the court.+hus, the determining factor on whether or not the commission of a crime is attended b

treacher is not the resulting crime committed but the mode of attac- emploed in itse1ecution.%

,&*AC'*&% (/ #*V*& P&*/"*). It is re+uired that the manner of attac- must beshown to have been attended b treacher A/ CO#C$/(V*$% A/ ,'* C&("*

(,/*$F.

+he FAC, ,'A, ,'* APP*$$A#, F(&*) '(/ 2# F&O" 0*'(#) ,'* V(C,(")O*/ #O, 0% (,/*$F A"O#, ,O ,&*AC'*&%. +here is no evidence on record thatthe appellant deliberatel positioned himself behind the victim to gain advantage over himwhen he fired the shot. On the contrary, the eidence before us reeals that the 'osition of the

a''ellants car was not of his own doing but it became so when oel Andres oertook his car andcut off his 'ath.

#As regards the in@uries sustained by the two children we find that the crime committed are twocounts of slight 'hysical in@uries. +he intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is 'hysical in@uries or homicide and such intent is made manifest by the acts of the accused whichare undoubtedly intended to kill the ictim. Considering the nature and location of their in@uriesand the number of days re!uired for their treatment, we find that the crime committed for thein@uries sustained by the children are two counts of slight 'hysical in@urie. For evident lac- ofcriminal intent to -ill complainant8 the information for attempted homicide must fail .

+he mitigating circumstances of oluntary surrender, 'assion and obfuscation, incom'letedefense of a relatie and lack of intent to commit so grae a wrong, 'leaded by the defense, werenot conincingly 'roed and none can be considered in the im'osition of 'enalties. +hetestimony of 'rosecution witness contradicts the a''ellants 'retense of oluntary surrender.*itness 5amos testified that the a''ellant droe away towards the gate of the memorial 'arkwhile he was !uestioning him after the shooting and had not oel Andres and onlookers blockedhis 'ath the a''ellant could hae fled the scene of the crime.

+he mitigating circumstance of 'assion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. :or this mitigatingcircumstance to be considered, it must be shown that #0% an unlawful act sufficient to 'roduce 'assion and obfuscation was committed by the intended ictim2 #1% that the crime was committedwithin a reasonable length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that 'roduced theobfuscation in the accuseds mind2 and that #>% the 'assion and obfuscation arose from lawfulsentiments and not from a s'irit of lawlessness or reenge. #oel AndresB act of shouting at theappellantBs son8 who was then a nurse and of legal age8 is not sufficient to produce passion

and obfuscation. Besides, ino was shouting back at oel Andres. It was not a case wherein thea''ellants son a''eared hel'less and o''ressed that the a''ellant lost his reason and shot at the: of oel Andres.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 0K


19/354

+he same holds true for the a''ellants claim of 'roocation on the 'art of oel Andres.Proocation must be sufficient to e)cite a 'erson to commit the wrong committed and that the 'roocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. +he sufficiency of 'roocationaries according to the circumstances of the case. +he aggressive behavior of #oel Andrestowards the appellant and his son ma be demeaning or humiliating but it is not sufficient

provocation to shoot at the complainantBs vehicle.

+he 'lea for the a''reciation of the mitigating circumstance of incom'lete defense of a relatieis also unmeritorious since the act of Andres in cursing and shouting at the appellant and hisson do not amount to an unlawful aggression against them. :inally, the 'lea for thea''reciation of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grae a wrong islikewise deoid of merit. +his mitigating circumstance is obtaining when there is a notabledis'arity between the means em'loyed by the accused to commit a wrong and the resulting crimecommitted. +he intention of the accused at the time of the commission of the crime is manifestedfrom the wea'on used, the mode of attack em'loyed and the in@ury sustained by the ictim. +heappellantBs use of a gun, although not deliberately sought nor em'loyed in the shooting, should

have reasonabl placed the appellant on guard of the possible conse+uences of his act. +heuse of a gun is sufficient to 'roduce the resulting crimes committed.%

#*(858:O58, the decision of the trial court is hereby MOI:I8. +he a''ellant is herebyfound guilty of homicide for the death of :eliber Andres and is sentenced to an indeterminatesentence of K years and 0 day of 'rision mayor in its medium 'eriod, as minimum, to 07 years Kmonths and 0 day of reclusion tem'oral in its medium 'eriod, as ma)imum. :or each count ofthe slight phsical in5uries committed against Eenneth Andres and Eein $alde;, the a''ellantis hereby sentenced to 1? days of arresto menor.%

People v. lep

Facts: In the aftermath of an incident where a certain 0uenaventura Wapili went berser- atMundog 4ubdiision, Poblacion Eida'awan, Cotabato, Police Officer 8rnesto lep was foundguilt of murder for -illing Wapili.

Around 1 AM, Buenaentura Wapili was having a high fever and was heard tal-ing insensiblto himself in his room. (is brother4in4law 9eydan heard a disturbance inside the room, as ifWapili was smashing the furniture. &nable to 'acify *a'ili, $edan called Pastor Bonid ofthe Alliance Church of Eida'awan to hel' him "pra over7 Wapili, but the could not enter the latter-s room as he became wild and violent. 4uddenly, Wapili bolted out of his roomna-ed and chased $edan. +hereafter, 9eydan with the aid of two of his neighbors attem'ted totie *a'ili with a ro'e but was unsuccessful as *a'ili was much bigger in built and stronger thananyone of them. Wapili8 who appeared to have completel gone craz8 -ept on runningwithout an particular direction.

+hus, $edan went to the house of a policewoman Plando, a neighbor, and as-ed forassistance. As Wapili 'assed by the house of Plando, he banged PlandoBs vehicle 'arkedoutside. &sing a handDheld radio, Plando then contacted 4PO0 8rnesto lep, 4PO0 8dilberto



20/354

8s'adera and 4PO1 Cris'in Pillo, all members of the P#P assigned to secure the premises ofthe nearby 5oman Catholic Church of Eida'awan.

4PO0 &le' together with 4PO0 8s'adera and 4PO1 Pillo arried at the scene. +he three 'oliceofficers, all armed with MD0= rifles, alighted from the @ee' when they saw the na-ed Wapili

approaching them. +he kind of wea'on Wapili was armed with is dis'uted. +he policeclaimed that he was armed with a bolo and a rattan stool, while *a'ili-s relaties and neighborssaid he had no bolo, but only a rattan stool.

lep fired a warning shot in the air and told Wapili to put down his wea'ons or they wouldshoot him. But Wapili retorted 7pusilaI7 =7fireQ"% and continued advancing towards the 'olice officers. When Wapili was onl about ;4 meters awa from them, $*P /'O, ,'*V(C,(" W(,' '(/ "4J &(F$*8 '(,,(#2 '(" (# VA&(O/ PA&,/ OF '(/ 0O)%.As the ictim slum'ed to the ground, lep came closer and pumped another bullet into hishead and literall blew his brains out.

+he 'ost mortem e)amination concluded that the shots were fired at close range, 'erha'swithin ;E inches, @udging from the 'owder burns found around some of the wounds in the body,and that the wound in the head, which caused the ictim-s instantaneous death, was inflictedwhile "the victim was in a ling position."

+he Office of the Ombudsman for the Military filed an Information for murder against 4PO0&le'. +he accused insisted during the trial that he acted in self4defense. (oweer, the trialcourt rendered @udgment conicting the accused of murder and sentencing him to death.

+he trial court held that the means emploed by the accused to 'reent or re'el the allegedaggression is not reasonable because the victim was alread on the ground, therefore, therewas no necessit for the accused to pump another shot on the back 'ortion of the victim!shead. Clearly the gravit of the wounds sustained by the ictim belies the pretension of theaccused that he acted in self4defense./

#A''ellant 'rays for his ac!uittal on the basis of his claim that the -illing of the ictim was inthe course of the performance of his official dut as a police officer, and in self4defense.%

(ssue: *hether or not there was treacher

'eld: #o. +his Court disagrees with the conclusion of the court a !uo that the killing of *a'iliwas attended by treachery, thus !ualifying the offense to murder. *e discern nothing from theevidence that the assault was so sudden and une1pected and that accused deliberateladopted a mode of attac- intended to insure the -illing of Wapili , without the victim havingthe opportunit to defend himself .

On the contrary, the victim could not have been ta-en b surprise as he was given more thansufficient warning b accused before he was shot, i.e., accused fired a warning shot in the air,and s'ecifically ordered him to lower his weapons or he would be shot. +he killing of *a'iliwas not sought on 'ur'ose. Accused went to the scene in 'ursuance of his official duty as a

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 1?


21/354

'olice officer after haing been summoned for assistance. +he decision to -ill was made in aninstant and the V(C,("!/ '*$P$*// PO/(,(O# WA/ "*&*$% (#C()*#,A$ ,O '(/'AV(#2 0**# P&*V(O/$% /'O, 0% ACC/*) (# ,'* P*&FO&"A#C* OF '(/

OFF(C(A$ ),%.

+here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against 'ersons, em'loyingmeans, methods, or forms in the e)ecution thereof which tend directly and s'ecially to insure itse)ecution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended 'arty might make.CO#/()*&(#2 ,'* &$* ,'A, ,&*AC'*&% CA##O, 0* (#F*&&*) 0,

"/, 0* P&OV*) A/ F$$% A#) CO#V(#C(#2$% A/ ,'* C&("* (,/*$F8 A#%

)O0, A/ ,O (,/ *H(/,*#C* "/, 0* &*/O$V*) (# FAVO& OF ACC/*).Accordingly, for failure of the prosecution to prove treacher to !ualify the killing to murder,accused may onl be conicted of homicide.

#Before the @ustifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty under Art. 00, 'ar. , of the 5PC may be successfully inoked, the accused must 'roe the 'resence of two re!uisites, namely, that he

acted in the performance of a dut or in the lawful e1ercise of a right or an office, and thatthe in@ury caused or the offense committed be the necessar conse+uence of the due 'erformance of duty or the lawful e)ercise of such right or office. +he /*CO#) &*9(/(,*(/ $AC3(#2 (# ,'* (#/,A#, CA/*.

Accused and the other 'olice officers inoled originall set out to perform a legal dut3 torender police assistance, and restore peace and order at Mundog 4ubdiision where the ictimwas then running amuck. +here were two stages of the incident at Mundog 4ubdiision. uringthe first stage, the victim threatened the safet of the police officers b menacingladvancing towards them, notwithstanding accused-s 'reious warning shot and erbaladmonition to the ictim to lay down his wea'on or he would be shot. As a 'olice officer, it is to be e)'ected that accused stand his ground. p to that point8 his decision to respond with abarrage of gunfire to halt the victim!s further advance was 5ustified under the

circumstances.

(oweer, he cannot be e1onerated from OV*&)O(#2 his dut during the second stage ofthe incident D when he fatall shot the victim in the head, even after the latter slumped tothe ground due to multiple gunshot wounds. +he V(C,(" A, ,'A, PO(#, #O $O#2*& PO/*) A ,'&*A, and was already inca'able of mounting an aggression against the 'oliceofficers. It cannot therefore be said that the fatal wound in the head of the victim was anecessar conse+uence of accusedBs due performance of a dut or the lawful e1ercise of aright or office.

9ikewise, the eidence at hand does not faor his claim of selfDdefense. +he elements in orderfor selfDdefense to be a''reciated are3 #a% unlawful aggression on the 'art of the 'erson in@ured or killed by the accused2 #b% reasonable necessity of the means em'loyed to 'reent or re'el it2 and,#c% lack of sufficient 'roocation on the 'art of the 'erson defending himself.

+he presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine +ua non. +here can be no self4defense8 complete or incomplete8 unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression



22/354

against the 'erson defending himself. In the 'resent case, the records show that the victim wasling in a prone position on the ground D bleeding from the bullet wounds he sustained, and 'ossibly unconscious D when accused shot him in the head. +he A22&*//(O# ,'A, WA/(#(,(A$$% 0*2# 0% ,'* V(C,(" A$&*A)% C*A/*) W'*# ACC/*)

A,,AC3*) '(".%

#*(858:O58, the a''ealed Fudgment is MOI:I8. AccusedDa''ellant 4PO0 8584+O&98P is found guilty of 'O"(C()*, instead of "urder, and is sentenced to an indeterminate 'rison term of four #7% years, two #1% months and ten #0?% days of 'rision correccional mediumas minimum, to si) #=% years, four #7% months and twenty #1?% days of 'rision mayor minimumas ma)imum. (e is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of Buenaentura *a'ili in the amountof P?,???.??, and to 'ay the costs.%

People v. Antonio

Facts: *hat should hae been an amiable game of cards between two erstwhile friends turnedinto a deadly confrontation resulting in the fatal shooting of one by the hand of the other. +hevictim, Arnulfo "Arnie" ,uadles, a former professional bas-etball plaer, succumbedinstantaneously to a single gunshot wound right between the ees, inflicted with deadly 'recision by the bullet of a .


23/354

Antonio convinced the two securit guards to accompan him to his home in 6reenmeadows4ubdiision, Rue;on City, after which they 'roceeded to the 4an Fuan Police 4tation. *ith themwas 4PO7 ieto, a member of the 4an Fuan Police :orce. +hey remained at Antonios residencefor seeral hours, during which time Antonio made 'hone calls and summoned his lawyer. At

around > in the afternoon, Antonio, accom'anied by 4PO7 ieto, 'laced himself and his gun inthe custody of 4an Fuan Mayor Finggoy 8strada and the 'olice authorities.

An Information was filed against Antonio for the crime of murder. Also charged as accessorieswere /POE #ieto and /PO Cartalla.

#ieto for harboring or assisting the accused, by then and there failing to arrest and surrenderimmediatel said accused to the authorities and by giing false information which tended todeceie the inestigating authorities. Cartalla for concealing or destroying the effects orinstruments of the body of the crime, in order to 'reent its discoery, by removing the lasersight of the gun used in shooting +uadles, deliberatel omitting to ta-e steps to preserve the

evidence at the scene of the crime, and 'ur'osely failing to call on the crime laboratory sericeof the 'ro'er agencies for a''ro'riate action.

All three accused were found guilty as charged.

(ssue: *hether or not treacher was present

'eld: #o. +here was no treachery in this case. It is not onl the sudden attac- that +ualifies a-illing into murder. ,here must be a conscious and deliberate adoption of the mode ofattac- for a specific purpose. /uch deliberate or conscious choice is non4e1istent where theattac- was the product of an ("P$/* OF ,'* "O"*#,.

Conscious deliberation or conscious adoption of the mode of attac- has to be proved

beond reasonable doubt. +he same degree of 'roof to dis'el any reasonable doubt is re!uired before any conclusion may also be reached res'ecting the attendance of treachery. +here is nosuch proof in this case.

+here would be no treacher when the V(C,(" WA/ P$AC*) O# 2A&)8 such as whena '*A,*) A&2"*#, P&*C*)*) ,'* A,,AC3 , or when the victim was standingface to face with his assailants and the initial assault could not have been unforeseen.

=,'(/III>

It is also clear that a''ellant Antonio did not set out or 'lan to kill +uadles in the first 'lace. (iscriminal act was an offshoot of their argument which neither of them had foreseen. (ence, therewas no treachery because treacher re+uires that the mode of attac- must have been thoughtof b the offender.

It was A#,O#(O!/ /))*# A#2*& A#) '*A,*) PA//(O# W'(C' )&OV* '(",O P$$ '(/ 2# A#) /'OO, ,A)$*/. /A() PA//(O#8 'OW*V*&8 CA##O,CO4*H(/, W(,' ,&*AC'*&%. In 'assion, the offender loses his reason and control. In

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 1>


24/354

treachery, on the other hand, the means em'loyed is ado'ted consciously and deliberately. Onewho8 in the heat of passion8 loses his reason and self4control8 cannot consciousl emplo a

particular means8 method or form of attac- in the e)ecution of the crime. =,'(/I>

Moreoer, the 'ro)imate distance of three feet between +uadles and Antonio immediately before

the fatal shooting allowed and gae +uadles o''ortunity to defend himself.

Conse!uently, Antonio can only be conicted of the lesser crime of homicide.

#It is submitted that the nonD'roduction of the laser sight by Cartalla did not make him anaccessory to the crime committed by Antonio, although he may be administratiely liable for theloss of a 'art of the eidence for the 'rosecution in this case.=K

*(858:O58, in iew of all the foregoing, the a''ealed ecision in Criminal Case o.0001>1D( is hereby MOI:I8. AccusedDa''ellant Alberto "Ambet" Antonio is found 6&I9+S beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of (OMICI8 and is corres'ondingly sentenced to suffer

the indeterminate 'enalty of ten #0?% years and one #0% day of 'rision mayor, as minimum tofourteen #07% years and eight #K% months of reclusion tem'oral, as ma)imum. AccusedDa''ellantFuanito ieto y emer is likewise found 6&I9+S beyond reasonable doubt as accessory to thecrime of (OMICI8, and is corres'ondingly sentenced to suffer the indeterminate 'enalty of si)#=% months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four #7% years of 'rision correccional, as ma)imum.

AccusedDa''ellant Antonio is likewise ordered to 'ay to the heirs of Arnulfo B. +uadles thefollowing sums3

#0% P?,???.?? as indemnity for the death of Arnulfo B. +uadles2#1% P11=,1= as actual damages2#>% PK,??0,???.?? as com'ensatory damages for loss of earning ca'acity2#7% P??,???.?? as moral damages2 and#% Costs.

:or failure to 'roe accusedDa''ellant 4PO0 (onorio Cartalla, Fr.-s guilt beyond reasonabledoubt as accessory to the crime, he is ACR&I++8 and absoled of all liability, both criminal or ciil.

In case of insolency of a''ellant Alberto 4. Antonio T "Ambet", a''ellant Fuanito ieto y emer shall be liable to 'ay oneDhalf #0U1% of the aboeDad@udicated sums or the amount ofP7,>KK,=7


25/354

+hat on or about Fuly 0


26/354

+he 5+C rendered its ecision finding the accused guilty of murder. +he 5+C appreciatedtreacher in the swiftness and une1pectedness of the attac- upon the unarmed *strellawithout the slightest provocation. +he CA affirmed.

A''ellants contend, among others, the absence of treacher, since their simultaneous and

sudden a''earance could not amount to it, for ,omas still had to draw his gun before shooting*strella, and )octor still had to position himself behind )amiana and Angelita beforeordering them to drop or lie face down on the ground. 8idently, the V(C,(" 'A) A"P$*OPPO&,#(,% ,O )O)2* O& )*F*#) '*&/*$F.


'eld: %es. While the part of *strella was wal-ing, appellants suddenl appeared from theside of the road. Without uttering an word, ,omas drew his gun and shot *strella twice,while )octor simultaneousl po-ed a gun at Angelita and amiana. And when *strellaalread fell down, ,omas shot her thrice more perhaps to ensure her death. +hen

a''ellants fled. It is, thus, clear that the shooting of *strella was done with treacher . +henefarious act was )O#* (# A F*W "O"*#,/2 it was #*HP*C,*) as it was /))*#.+he AC, OF )OC,O& (# (""O0($(K(#2 A#2*$(,A A#) )A"(A#A (# ,'O/*0&(*F "O"*#,/ AFFO&)*) A#) *#/&*) APP*$$A#,/B ("P#(,%.

#*(858:O58, 'remises considered, this Court finds accused +ony +omas, 4r. and Benedictooctor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of "urder and hereby sentences each ofthem to suffer the 'enalty of 5eclusion Per'etua. +his Court also finds accused estor2atchalian guilty beyond reasonable doubt as an accomplice to the offense of Murder. All ofthe said accused are hereby ordered to 'ay @ointly the heirs of the ictim, the following3

0.% +he amount of PhP ?,???.?? as ciil indemnity21.% +he amount of PhP ?,???.?? as moral damages2>.% +he amount of PhP >?,???.?? as e)em'lary damages27.% +he amount of PhP >K,70=.>> and another amount of &4 1,0K1.JK or its e!uialent inPhili''ine 'esos at the time of its 'ayment as actual damages2 and,.% +he amount of &4 >=K,??? or its e!uialent in Phili''ine 'esos at the time of its 'aymentfor loss of income of the ictim.%

%apuco v. /andiganbaan

Facts: +hese are 'etitions for reiew on certiorari assailing the ecision of the 4andiganbayan inthree Criminal Cases. +he cases are 'redicated on a shooting incident in 4an :ernando,Pam'anga which caused the death of $eodevince $icup and in5ured #oel Villanueva. Accusedwere all charged with murder8 multiple attempted murder and frustrated murder. Accusedwere all members of the (ntegrated #ational Police stationed at the 4indalan 4ubstation in 4an:ernando, Pam'anga, baranga captains of Ruebiawan and el Carmen, members of the Civil'ome )efense Force or civilian volunteer officers in Barangays Ruebiawan, el Carmen and+elebastagan.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 1=


27/354

+hat on or about the th day of A'ril 0? '.m., shortly after the religious procession. *ith 9icu' in the 'assenger

seat and the rest of his com'anions at the back of his +amaraw @ee'ney, $illanuea allegedly 'roceeded at D0? k'h with headlights dimmed. /uddenl8 as the were approaching a curveon the road8 the met a burst of gunfire and instantly, $illanuea and 9icu' were bothwounded and bleeding 'rofusely.

Both :lores and $illanuea allegedly did not see any one on the road flag them down. After theshooting, :lores @um'ed out of the @ee'ney when he saw 'etitioner Pamintuan emerging.Pamintuan reproved them for not stopping when flagged. $illanuea cried out and told:lores to summon 4alangsang for hel' as he and 9icu' were wounded. :lores dashed back to4alangsangs house as instructed and, returning to the scene, he obsered that 'etitioner Su wasalso there, and Villanueva and $icup were being loaded into a /arao 5eepne b two armedmen together with Pamintuan8 to be ta-en to the hospital.

As soon as :lores and his com'anions had been dro''ed off at the hos'ital, the drier of the4arao @ee'ney immediately droe off together with his two armed com'anions. 9icu' latere)'ired at the hos'ital. :lores claimed that all the accused had not been known to him 'rior tothe incident, e)ce't for Pamintuan whom he identified to be his wifes uncle and with whom hedenied haing had any rift. +he bullet holes on the +amaraw @ee'ney were all on the 'assengerside and that there were no other bullet holes at the back or in any other 'ortion of the ehicle.

4alangsang testified that he caught a glance of Mario 5eyes on the wheel of an ownerDty'e @ee'ney idling in front of the illDfated +amaraw2 it was the same @ee'ney which he rememberedto be that fre!uently used by Sa'yuco in 'atrolling the barangay.

Only %apuco took the stand for the defense. (e identified himself as the commander of the/indalan Police /ubstation in 4an :ernando, Pam'anga. (e narrated that he and his menreceived a summon for police assistance concerning a reported presence of armed #PA

members in 9uebiawan. Sa'yuco decided to res'ond and instructed his men to 'ut on theiruniforms and bring their MD0= rifles with them.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 1J


28/354

Sa'yuco and his grou' met with Pamintuan who told him that he had earlier spotted fourmen carring long firearms. As if si;ing u' their collectie strength, Pamintuan intimatedthat he and baranga captain "ario &ees had also brought in a number of armed men and CAF2 members. Moments later, Pamintuan announced the approach of his suspects8hence %apuco8 Cunanan and Puno too- post in the middle of the road at the curve where

the ,amaraw 5eepne conveing the victims would ma-e an inevitable turn. A/ ,'*@**P#*% CA"* "C' C$O/*&8 PA"(#,A# A##O#C*) ,'A, (, WA/ ,'*,A&2*, V*'(C$*, so they allegedl flagged it down and signaled for it to stop. (eclaimed that instead of sto''ing, the 5eepne accelerated and swerved to its left. +his ins'iredthem to fire warning shots but the 5eepne continued 'acing forward, hence the wereimpelled to fire at the tires thereof and instantaneously, gunshots allegedl came burstingfrom the direction of a nearb house directl at the sub5ect 5eepne . =ma msteriousshooter daw>

Sa'yuco recalled that one of the occu'ants of the @ee'ney then alighted and e)claimed atPamintuan that they were 4an Miguel Cor'oration em'loyees. (olding their fire, Sa'yuco and

his men then immediately searched the ehicle but found no firearms but instead, two in@ured 'assengers whom they loaded into his @ee'ney and deliered to nearby 4t. :rancis (os'ital.:rom there he and his men returned to the scene supposedl to investigate and loo- for thepeople who fired directl at the 5eepne. +hey found no one2 the +amaraw @ee'ney waslikewise gone.

+he /andiganbaan found 'etitioners guilty onl of 'O"(C()* for the eentual death of$icup, and of attempted homicide for the in@ury sustained by Villanueva.

+he 4andiganbayan found that the !ualifying circumstance of treacher has not been proved because first, it was not shown how the aggression commenced and how the acts causingin5ur to $illanuea and 9icu' began and developed, and second, ,'(/ C(&C"/,A#C*"/, 0* /PPO&,*) 0% P&OOF OF A )*$(0*&A,* A#) CO#/C(O/

A)OP,(O# OF ,'* "O)* OF A,,AC3 A#) CA##O, 0* )&AW# F&O" "*&*

/PPO/(,(O#/ O& F&O" C(&C"/,A#C*/ (""*)(A,*$% P&*C*)(#2 ,'*

A22&*//(O#.

+he same finding holds true for evident premeditation because between the time %apucoreceived the summons for assistance and the time he and his men responded at the scene ,there was no sufficient time to allow for the materialization of all the elements of thatcircumstance.


'eld: #o. +he 4andiganbayan correctly found that 'etitioners are guilty as coD'rinci'als in thecrimes of homicide and attem'ted homicide only. +he allegation of *V()*#,P&*"*)(,A,(O# has not been proved beond reasonable doubt because the eidence isconsistent with the fact that the urge to -ill had materialized in the minds of petitioners asinstantaneousl as the perceived their suspects to be attempting flight and evading arrest .+he same is true with ,&*AC'*&%, inasmuch as there is #O C$*A& A#) (#)0(,A0$*

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto 1K


29/354

P&OOF ,'A, the "O)* OF A,,AC3 WA/ CO#/C(O/$% A#) )*$(0*&A,*$%A)OP,*) 0% P*,(,(O#*&/.

#*(858:O58, the instant 'etitions are 8I8. +he @oint decision of the 4andiganbayan inCriminal Case os. 0==01, 0==0> and 0==07, dated Fune 1J, 0


30/354

that Francis must have anticipated his return and thus had sufficient time to prepare forthe coming of appellant.

A''ellant likewise contends that there was no evident premeditation, 'ointing out that0A&*$% < "(#,*/ had elapsed from the time &enato left his *nglish ((( class and the

time he returned with a gun.

(ssue:

. *hether or not illegal possession of a firearm is a special aggravating circumstance inhomicide and murder D #o.

;. *hether or not there was treacher D %es.. *hether or not there was evident premeditation 4

'eld:

0. #o. +here is no law which renders the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggraatingcircumstance in homicide or murder. nder an information charging homicide or murder, thefact that the death weapon was an unlicensed firearm cannot be used to increase thepenalt for the second offense of homicide or murder to death or reclusion 'er'etua. +heunlicensed character or condition of the instrument used in destroing human life orcommitting some other crime8 is not included in the inventor of aggravating circumstancesset out in Article E of the 5PC.

(oweer, under an information for unlawful possession #or manufacture, dealing in,ac!uisition or dis'osition% of a firearm or ammunition, P.). #o. JJ authorizes the increaseof the imposable penalt for unlawful possession or manufacture, etc. of the unlicensed

firearm where such firearm was used to destro human life.1. %es. +he Court 'ointed out that &enato must have -nown that Francis while inside &oom <

had no means of escape there being onl one door and &oom < being on the second floor of the building. &enato in effect bloc-ed the onl e1it as he stood on the teacher-s 'latformclosest to the door and fired as :rancis and 5uel sought to dash through the door.

&enato!s +uestion 7where is Francis7 cannot reasonabl be regarded as an effort to warn

Francis for he shot at Francis the instant he sighted the latter, seated and talking to 5uel&ngab.

,hat &enato fired three shots before hitting Francis with the fourth shot, can onl beascribed to the indifferent mar-smanship of &enato and to the fact that Francis and theother students were scurring from one part of the room to the other in an effort to eadethe shots.

+he attac- u'on :rancis had been carried out in a manner which disabled Francis fromdefending himself or retaliating against &enato. :inally, the circumstance that 5enato,haing been informed that :rancis was still alie, reDentered 5oom 0 and fired again at :rancis

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto >?


31/354

who lay on the floor and bathed with his own blood, manifested &enato!s conscious choice ofmeans of e1ecution which directl and especiall ensured the death of his victim without

ris- to himself .

>. #o. In order that eident 'remeditation may be taken into account, there must be proof of #a% thetime when the offender formed his intent to commit the crime2 #b% an action manifestlindicating that the offender had clung to his determination to commit the crime2 and #c% ofthe passage of a sufficient interval of time between the determination of the offender tocommit the crime and the actual e1ecution thereof, to allow him to reflect upon theconse+uences of his act. +he defense.

*hile there was testimony to the fact that before that fatal da8 anger and resentment hadalread welled up between Francis and &enato, there was #O *V()*#C* /'OW(#2W'*# &*#A,O 'A) FO&"*) ,'* (#,*#,(O# A#) )*,*&"(#A,(O# ,O

,A3* ,'* $(F* OF F&A#C(/. Accordingly, we must discard eident 'remeditation as anaggraating circumstance.

#ACCO5I69S, the decision of the trial court dated >0 Fuly 00


32/354

nearb, they started ma-ing fun of him. +hey made the deceased dance b tic-ling him witha piece of wood.

ot content with what they were doing, P2A% ,OO3 A CA# OF 2A/O$(#* F&O"#)*& ,'* *#2(#* OF ,'* F*&&(/ W'**$ and PO&*) (,/ CO#,*#,/ O#

,'* 0O)% OF ,'* "(&A#)A. +hen, /A"/O# /*, "(&A#)A O# F(&*8 "A3(#2A '"A# ,O&C' O, OF '(".

+he ferris wheel o'erator later arried and doused with water the burning body of the deceased.4ome 'eo'le around also 'oured sand on the burning body and others wra''ed the same withrags to e)tinguish the flame. +he deceased was rushed to the 6race (os'ital for treatment.

+he trial court rendered a decision finding both accused guilt but crediting in faor of Puga the mitigating circumstance of lac- of intention to commit so grave a wrong.


'eld: #o. +here is absence of proof that /amson had some reason to -ill the deceased beforethe incident. On the contrar, his act was merel a part of their fun4ma-ing that evening .For the circumstance of treacher to e1ist, the attac- must be deliberate and the culpritemploed means8 methods8 or forms in the e1ecution thereof which tend directl and

speciall to insure its e1ecution8 without ris- to himself arising from an defense which the

offended part might ma-e.

As no sufficient eidence a''ears establishing any !ualifying circumstances, /amson is onlguilt of 'O"(C()*. *e are dis'osed to credit in his faor the ordinary mitigatingcircumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed . +he eyewitnesstestified that Puga and /amson were stunned when the noticed the deceased burning.

(aing taken the can from under the engine of the ferris wheel and holding it before 'ouring itscontents on the body of the deceased, Puga -new that the can contained gasoline. +hestinging smell of this flammable li!uid could not have escaped his notice een before 'ouringthe same. Clearly, he failed to e)ercise all the diligence necessary to aoid eery undesirableconse!uence arising from any act that may be committed by his com'anions who at the timewere making fun of the deceased. Accused is onl guilt of 'O"(C()* ,'&O2'&*C3$*// ("P&)*#C*.

#+here is nothing in the records showing that there was previous conspirac or unity of criminal 'ur'ose and intention between the two accused immediately before the commission of the crime.+here was no animosit between the deceased and the accused. +heir meeting at the scene ofthe incident was accidental. It is also clear that the accused Pugay and his grou' merely wantedto make fun of the deceased. (ence, the res'ectie criminal responsibilit of Puga and/amson arising from different acts directed against the deceased is individual and notcollective, and each of them is liable only for the act committed by him.%

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto >1


33/354

People v. 0uensuceso

Facts: +his is an a''eal from the ecision of the C:I of Bataan, conicting a''ellantsB&84&C84O, A6&I9A5, IVO and FO4O, all members of the police force of)inalupihan8 0ataan, of "urder.

Between D= in the afternoon, while 'rosecution witness A'olonio 4alador was in his smallstore beside the market near the munici'al building of inalu'ihan, Bataan, he saw PatrolmanAguilar and Pariseo ,aag conversing as they were walking side by side, each resting hishand on the shoulder of the other, going towards the municipal building.

Aguilar was tring to ta-e the fan -nife of ,aag , but could not take it because ,aagprevented him from taking it b gripping it with his right hand and swaing it left and right as if plaing. At the suggestion of Aguilar, ,aag readil agreed to go to the office of the chief of police.

*hen they arried in the said office, there were two 'ersons there3 Mallo and Mallari. Mallariwas the munici'al guard and in uniform. 4ubse!uently, A '*A,*) A&2"*#, ,OO3P$AC* 0*,W**# A2($A& A#) ,A%A2 A&(/(#2 F&O" ,'* $A,,*&!/

&*F/A$ ,O 2(V* '(/ FA# 3#(F* ,O ,'* FO&"*& . Patrolman de la Cru; a''earedat the doorway

*hen +ayag was about to leae the office, Chief of Police Canlas arried and in!uired what thetrouble was an about. Aguilar answered that the two of them had been cursed by +ayag. +ayagasserted that he did not curse either of them, but that Aguilar was forcing him to gie u' hisknife. ,aag hurriedl left the office. (e was followed b Aguilar8 "allari and de la Cruz who walked fast, with Aguilar and "allari holding guns. After having gone out of thebuilding, A2($A& F(&*) '(/ 2# PWA&).

(earing the shot, +ayag turned around, then retreated backwards until he reached the fence of the 'la;a. *hen +ayag was near the wooden fence, A2($A& A("*) '(/ 2# A, ,A%A2A#) F(&*)8 '(,,(#2 '(" A0OV* ,'* &(2', 3#**. ,aag continued to runtowards his house. "allari and Aguilar went to the waiting shed to intercept ,aag. +henthere were several successive gun shots, more or less nine in number. After the commotion,+ayag was seen lying 'rostrate on the ground.

A defense witness, a waitress, testified that the deceased together with some com'anions haddrunk beer inside :reddie-s 5estaurant before the shooting incident.

+he trial court found them guilty of Murder.


'eld: %es. +he crime is Murder, !ualified by treachery. +he victim was alread retreatingbac-wards until he reached the fence of the town plaza when A2($A& fired his revolver8

hitting the victim above the right -nee. #O,W(,'/,A#)(#2 ,'A, '* WA/

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto >>


34/354

A$&*A)% '(, A#) WO#)*), '* WA/ /,($$ /0@*C,*) ,O /CC*//(V*/'O,/. Certainly, the means emploed b the accused tended directl and speciall toinsure the e1ecution of the crime without ris- to themselves arising from an defense which the victim might have made.

+he killing of the ictim was aggravated b abuse of superior strength as shown b thenumber of assailants, which circumstance, howeer, is A0/O&0*) 0% ,&*AC'*&%.

People v. /alufrania

Facts: 4alufrania, by bo1ing and strangling Marciana AbuyoD4alufrania, his wife and who atthe time was months pregnant, caused upon her in5uries resulting in her instantaneousdeath and the death of the child who was still in its maternal womb. +hus :ilomeno wascharged with the comple1 crime of parricide with intentional abortion .

One of the witnesses for the 'rosecution was Pedro 4alufrania, son of a''ellant and deceased. (estated that his father and mother +uarrelled at about = in the eening2 that during said !uarrel,he saw his father 0OH '(/ P&*2#A#, "O,'*& O# ,'* /,O"AC' and, once fallenon the floor, his father /,&A#2$*) '*& ,O )*A,'2 that he saw blood ooze from theeyes and nose of his mother and that she died right on the spot where she fell .

Pedro further testified that after killing his mother, the accused went out of the house to get ahammoc- 2 that his brother Ale) and he were the only ones who witnessed how the accusedkilled their mother because his sister and other brothers were already aslee'2 that their fatherarrived earl the ne1t morning with the hammoc- and after placing their dead mother onthe hammoc- , the accused carried her on his shoulder and brought the cadaver to the houseof his sister Conching in +igbinan2 that from +igbinan the corpse was transferred to 6abon,+alisay, Camarines orte for burial.

Pedro stated that he is now living with his uncle, arciso Abuyo and refused to live with hisfather, because the latter has threatened to -ill him and his other siblings should he revealthe true cause of his mother!s death.

+he third witness for the 'rosecution was arciso Abuyo. +he children first informed their unclethat their mother died of stomach ailment and headache. *hen he asked why the children refusedto go home with their father, his ne'hew Ale) told him that the real cause of death of theirmother was not stomach ailment and headache, rather, she was bo)ed on the stomach andstrangled to death by their father. Immediately after learning the true cause of death of his sister, arciso brought the matter to the attention of the 'olice authorities.

+he trial court found the a''ellant guilt of the crime charged and sentenced him to the 'enaltyof death. Appellant alleges that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of the com'le) crimeof 'arricide with intentional abortion, as there is no evidence to show that he had the intentionto cause an abortion.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto >7


35/354

(ssue: *hether or not the accused is liable for parricide with intentional abortion

'eld: #o. (e should not be held guilty of the com'le) crime of Parricide with IntentionalAbortion but of the comple1 crime of Parricide with #(#,*#,(O#A$ A0O&,(O#.

+he elements of &nintentional Abortion are as follows3

0. +hat there is a 'regnant woman.1. +hat iolence is used u'on such 'regnant woman without intending an abortion.>. +hat the iolence is intentionally e)erted.7. +hat as a result of the iolence the fetus dies, either in the womb or after haing been e)'elledtherefrom.

It has been clearly established3

#a% that Marciana Abuyo was L4 months pregnant when she was -illed2

#b% that violence was voluntaril e1erted upon her by her husband2#c% that, as a result of said violence, Marciana Abuyo died together with the fetus in herwomb.

(oweer, the intent to cause an abortion has not been sufficientl established . "ere bo1ingon the stomach8 ta-en together with the immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is notsufficient proof to show an intent to cause an abortion. In fact, a''ellant must hae merelyintended to kill the ictim but not necessarily to cause an abortion.

#*(858:O58, as modified, the @udgment a''ealed from is A::I5M8. AccusedDa''ellant ishereby sentenced to suffer the 'enalty of reclusion 'er'etua. +he indemnity of P01,???. ??awarded to the heirs of the deceased Marciana Abuyo is increased to P>?,???.?? in line with therecent decisions of the Court.%

People v. Porras

Facts: On the night of the incident, accused Fohn Porras and 4ergio 8melo went to the 'olice4tation looking for 5oldan 8melo of the Caite City PP, a cousin of the latter and was directedto where he was. +hey had some food and drinks at the Banaue 5estaurant and 8melo asked forhis black ammo 'ouch and some .>K caliber ammunition. +hey proceeded to the Aroma 0eer'ouse where the victim8 &osendo "ortel8 was tabled and wherein some misunderstandinghappened and &onnie "ortel went out and was shot at close range b either Porras or*melo as seen by a waitress. After seeing 5osendo s'rawled on the ground and bloodied, Porasfled into an alle and thereafter returned and shot the prostrate victim twice, -illing thevictim instantaneousl.

An Information was filed charging a''ellants for murder and frustrated murder, res'ectiely.+he trial court rendered @udgment finding Porras and *melo guilty of murder and *melo guilty of frustrated homicide.

Pre'ared by3 4arah 5ose +. 6anto >

april 30 crim digests

Documents