RPC Art 14 & 15 Digests

CASE 1: PEOPLE V.
URAL TOPIC: ABUSE OF OFFICIAL

POSITION
PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: PRAYER:
• PEOPLE • DOMINGO URAL •
• FELIX
NAPOLA
(Deceased)
• Brigido
ALBERTO
(witness)
FACTS:
Brigido Alberto, a twenty-six year old former detention prisoner in Buug, Zamboanga del Sur.
He had been accused of murder and then set at liberty on June 9, 1966 after posting bail. He
went to Barrio Camongo, Dumalinao where his father resided. On July 31, 1966, he intended to
go to his residence at Barrio Upper Lamari, Buug but night overtook him in the town. He decided
to sleep in the Buug municipal building where there would be more security.
Upon arrival in the municipal building at around eight o'clock, he witnessed an extraordinary
occurrence. He saw Policeman Ural (with whom he was already acquainted) inside the jail.
Ural was boxing the detention prisoner, Felix Napola. As a consequence of the fistic blows,
Napola collapsed on the floor. Ural, the tormentor, stepped on his prostrate body.
Ural went out of the cell. After a short interval, he returned with a bottle. He poured its
contents on Napola's recumbent body. Then, he ignited it with a match and left the cell.
Napola screamed in agony. He shouted for help. Nobody came to succor him.
Much perturbed by the barbarity which he had just seen, Alberto left the municipal building.
Before his departure, Ural cautioned him: You better keep quiet of what I have done. Alberto did
not sleep anymore that night. From the municipal building, he went to the crossing, where the
cargo trucks passed. He hitchhiked in a truck hauling iron ore and went home.
Doctor Luzonia R. Bakil, the municipal health officer, certified that the thirty year old victim,
whom she treated twice, sustained second-degree burns on the arms, neck, left side of the face
and one-half of the body including the back. She testified that his dermis and epidermis were
burned.
If the burns were not properly treated, death would ensue from toxemia and tetanus infection.
"Without any medical intervention", the burns would cause death", she said. She explained that,
because there was water in the burnt area, secondary infection would set in, or there would be
complications.
Napola died on August 25, 1966. The sanitary inspector issued a certificate of death indicating
"burn" as the cause of death.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

• CHARGE: Murder
• CFI of Zamboanga CONVICTION: Murder and
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua
ISSUE(S):
• W/N URAL CAN BE FOUND GUILTY FOR THE MURDER OF FELIX NAPOLA? (YES)
• W/N THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE CAN BE APPRECIATED BY THE
COURT? (NO, BECAUSE IT IS ONLY A GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
AND IT WILL BE OFFSET BY A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE)
RULING:
The decision of the trial Court finding Ural guilty of murder is affirmed.
The crime committed by appellant Ural was murder by means of fire (incendio)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
The trial court correctly held that the accused took advantage of his public position (Par. 1,
Art. 14, Revised Penal Code). He could not have maltreated Napola if he was not a policeman
on guard duty. Because of his position, he had access to the cell where Napola was confined.
The prisoner was under his custody. "The policeman, who taking advantage of his public
position maltreats a private citizen, merits no judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by
medieval practice are surely not appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization. While the
law protects the police officer in the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same time just
as effectively protect the individual from the abuse of the police."
But the trial court failed to appreciate the mitigating circumstance "that the offender had no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed" (Par. 3, Art. 13, Revised Penal Code).
It is manifest from the proven facts that appellant Ural had no intent to kill Napola. His design
was only to maltreat him may be because in his drunken condition he was making a nuisance of
himself inside the detention cell. When Ural realized the fearful consequences of his felonious
act, he allowed Napola to secure medical treatment at the municipal dispensary.
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance
of abuse of his official position. The trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua which is the medium period of the penalty for murder.
DOCTRINES:
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong offsets the generic aggravating, circumstance of
abuse of his official position. The trial court properly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua
which is the medium period of the penalty for murder.
DECISION:
• Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, the same is affirmed with costs against the
appellant.
• So ordered.
CASE 2: PEOPLE V. GAPASIN TOPIC: TAKING ADVANTAGE OF

PUBLIC OFFICE
• PEOPLE • CIC LORETO •
• JERRY GAPASIN
CALPITO • LORENZO SORIANO
(DECEASED) “Olit”
• AMOR SALUDARES
• FRANK SALUDARES
• BEL SALUDARES
• NICK SALUDARES
FACTS:
Alberto Carrido (prosecution witness) and Rodrigo Ballad left the house of Enteng Teppang at
2pm after attending the pamisa for Teppang’s deceased father. Jerry Calpito (victim, deceased)
followed them.
While they were walking, Calpito was shot by Loreto Gapasin with an armalite rifle.
Thereafter, co-accused Amor Saludares planted a .22 caliber revolver on the left hand of
Calpito. Upon hearing the shots, Faustina Calpito (wife) ran to Calpito.
Co-accused Nicanor Saludares pointed his gun at Faustina while accused Soriano fired his gun
upwards. Saludares warned that he would kill any relative of Jerry Calpito who would come near
him. Faustina and the other relatives of the victim scampered away as the Saludares’ group
chased them.
On the other hand, Gapasin invoked self-defense and testified that he was issued a mission
order to investigate a report regarding the presence of unidentified armed men in Barrio San
Jose, Roxas, Isabela. He was instructed to get in touch with Nicanor Saludares who informed
him that Jerry Calpito had an unlicensed firearm.
Gapasin’s View
On the night of the incident, Gapasin and Saludares positioned themselves inside the latter’s
yard. When Gapasin saw Calpito, he went out of the yard into the barangay road. When Calpito
was about 3m away from him, Gapasin asked him what was bulging in his waist. Instead of
answering, Calpito took a step backward, drew his firearm from the waist and fired twice at
appellant. He missed because appellant dropped to the ground simultaneously firing his
armalite.
15 minutes later, the police arrived and took Calpito’s body to the morgue. Gapasin was brought
to the P.C. Headquarters in Roxas where he was investigated.
• Appellant is found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of murder qualified by treachery.
• The crime committed was murder attended by
the aggravating circumstances of (1)
ignominy, the accused having stepped and
kicked the body of the deceased; (2) abuse of
superior strength, and (3) taking advantage
of public position, with respect to the
accused CIC Loreto Gapasin who is a PC
soldier.
• The trial court sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua
ISSUE(S):
• IS THE CRIME COMMITTED HOMICIDE? (NO, IT IS MUDER)
RULING:
LIABLE FOR MURDER. (Because treachery attended the crime)
Appellant contended that the crime committed is homicide. The trial court correctly ruled that the
crime of murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was indeed committed. Treachery
attended the commission of the crime. The two conditions to constitute treachery were present
in the case at bench, to wit: (a) the employment of means of execution that gives the person
who is attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the means of execution
were deliberately or consciously adopted.
• Appellant deliberately executed the act in such a way that his quarry was unaware and
helpless. This can be gleaned from his act of waiting for the victim behind the hollow-
block fence of Nicanor Saludares and shooting the victim from his right side.
• Evident premeditation was indubitably proven by the evidence showing that the
execution of the criminal case was preceded by cool thought and reflection. Appellant's
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
clear judgment was shown (People v. Castor, 216 SCRA 410 [1992]).
• In view of the presence of treachery which qualified the killing as murder, the evident
premeditation should be considered only as a generic aggravating circumstance
(People v. Fabros, 214 SCRA 694 [1992]).
AS TO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
The information alleged three other generic aggravating circumstances: ignominy, abuse of
superior strength and taking advantage of public position.
• The trial court correctly ruled out ignominy on the strength of the autopsy conducted by
the doctor who failed to find any other injuries such as bruises and contusions which
may indicate that the victim was kicked by his assailants. It also correctly held that
treachery absorbed abuse of superior strength (People v. Moral, 132 SCRA 474 [1984]).
• The trial court properly appreciated taking advantage of public position as an
aggravating circumstance. Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary,
committed the crime with an armalite which was issued to him when he received the
mission order (People v. Madrid, 88 Phil. 1 [1951]).
• Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant's favor but this is offset by the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position.
Therefore, only the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation may be

appreciated against appellant. As such, the correct penalty would have been death in
accordance with Articles 248 and 64(3) of the Revised Penal Code Were it not for the fact that
such penalty is constitutionally abhorrent. Hence, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
DOCTRINES:
Voluntary surrender may be considered in appellant’s favor, but this is offset by the aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of public position. Therefore, only the generic aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation may be appreciated against appellant
DECISION:
• The trial court correctly exercised its discretion in imposing moral, compensatory and
exemplary damages.
• WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.
• SO ORDERED.
CASE 3: PEOPLE V. TIONGSON TOPIC: IN CONTEMPT OF PUBLIC

AUTHORITIES
• PEOPLE • RUDY TIONGSON •
• POLICE FIRST
CLASS
ZOSIMO
GELERA
• PC1 AURELIO
CANELA
FACTS:
At about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of October 26, 1971, the accused Rudy Tiongson
escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with George de la
Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where they were detained under the charge of Attempted
Homicide.
While in the act of escaping, the said Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of
the police force of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who was guarding the said accused, and PC
Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro,
who went in pursuit of them. Upon arraignment, the said accused, assisted by counsel de oficio,
pleaded guilty to both informations.
The trial court, however, did not render judgment outright, but ordered the prosecution to
present its evidence, after which, it sentenced the said accused to suffer the death penalty in
each case, to indemnify the heirs of the victims in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the
costs.
***If an offender commits a crime in the presence of a public authority, but was not aware that
the he was a person in authority, the aggravating circumstance cannot be applied because it
lacks the intention to insult the public authority.
Both offenses were qualified by the circumstance of treachery, and aggravated by the
circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities
and with abuse of superior strength.
The second murder is also aggravated by the circumstance of its commission in an

uninhabited place. Upon arraignment, the said accused, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded
guilty to both informations.
• Rudy Tiongson was charged with Murder
• Upon arraignment, the said accused,
assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty
to both informations (for MURDER)
ISSUE(S):
• W/N THERE IS TREACHERY (NO)
• W/N THERE IS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF INSULT TO AUTHORITY
RULING:
HOMICIDE ONLY AND NOT MURDER (absence of treachery)

Treachery cannot be appreciated since PC Constable Canela had been sufficiently forewarned
of the presence of the appellant in the vicinity and that he was not completely deprived of an
opportunity to prepare and repel or avoid the aggression.
Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt of or with insult to public

authorities, uninhabited place, and abuse of superior strength were not present in the
commission of the crimes.
1. Evident premeditation must be ruled out in view of the absence of sufficient proof that
a plan to kill the victims existed, the execution of which was preceded by deliberate
thought and reflection. Besides, with respect to the killing of PC Constable Canela, only
ten minutes passed from the time the accused escaped from the Municipal Jail up to the
time he shot PC Constable Canela near the cemetery, so that there was no lapse of time
during which he could have deliberately planned the killing of the said PC Constable and
meditated on the consequences of his act.
2. The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with
insult to the public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC
Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crime were committed. Besides,
Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons in authority, but merely agents of
a person in authority.
3. The lower court also found that the killing of PC Constable Canela was committed in an
uninhabited place. It has not been shown, however, that the offense was committed in
an isolated place, far from human habitation. In order that the aggravating circumstance
of the commission of a crime in an uninhabited place may be considered, it is necessary
that the place of occurrence be where there are no houses at all, a considerable
distance from the village or town, or where the houses are a great distance apart.
4. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength must also be ruled
out since there is no direct evidence that the accused employed superior strength in the
killing of Pat. Gelera. The accused was then a detainee and was unarmed while Pat.
Gelera had his service pistol with him. With respect to PC Constable Canela, the
accused was alone against three armed pursuers, namely: PC Sgt. Saway, PC
Constable Canela, and Pat Nicandro Garcia, and a civilian by the name of Fred
Barcelona. The accused is guilty only of the crime of Homicide in the killing of PC
Constable Canela and Pat. Gelera.
DOCTRINES:
• If an offender commits a crime in the presence of a public authority, but was not aware
that the he was a person in authority, the aggravating circumstance cannot be applied
because it lacks the intention to insult the public authority.
• The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with
insult to the public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC
Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crime were committed. Besides,
Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons in authority, but merely agents of
a person in authority.
DECISION:
• The accused is guilty only of the crime of Homicide in the killing of PC Constable
Canela and Pat. Gelera.
• WHEREFORE, with the modification that the accused Rudy Tiongson should be
sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal,
as maximum, for each homicide committed by him, the judgment appealed from should
be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED. The indemnity to be paid to the heirs of the victims is
hereby increased to P30,000.00 in each case
CASE 4: PEOPLE V. MELENDREZ TOPIC: RECIDIVISM

• PEOPLE • RICARDO •
• TIN BUN BOC MELENDREZ
FACTS:
That on or about the 15th day of June, 1933, accused, RICARDO MELENDREZ conspiring
together forcibly broke open the door of the store located at No. 85 Cementina, Pasay, an
inhabited house belonging to and occupied by Tin Bun Boc, and once inside the said store,
with intent of gain and without the consent of the owner thereof, took, stole and carried away
therefrom, the personal properties, such as her money (30 pesos), gold Elgin watch, Chinese
ring and other personal properties, in the total sum of 76.68 pesos.
That the accused Ricardo Melendrez y Nieto is a habitual delinquent, he having been
previously convicted by final judgment of competent courts twice of the crime of theft
and once of the crime of estafa and having been last convicted of the crime of estafa
on September 3, 1932.
Whereupon, the court found him guilty of the crime charged in the information and
sentenced him to eight years and one day of prision mayor, and to serve an additional
penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor for being a habitual delinquent. From
this judgment Ricardo Melendrez y Nieto appealed.
In this instance, counsel for the appellant contends that lack of instruction on the part of the
appellant should be considered as a mitigating circumstance in the commission of the crime.
However, aside from the fact that this court has repeatedly held in its various decisions that lack
of instruction cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance in crimes of robbery, the
records of the case do not afford any basis on which to judge the degree of instruction of the
appellant inasmuch as no evidence was taken relative thereto, he having pleaded guilty.
However, the fact that the appellant pleaded guilty upon arraignment is a mitigating
circumstance which should be considered in his favor.
On the other hand, the fiscal contends that the aggravating circumstance of recidivism
should be taken into account against the appellant.

•
ISSUE(S):
• W/N RECIDIVISM SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS AN AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE AGAINST MELENDREZ (YES)
RULING:
This claim of the fiscal is in accordance with the judgment rendered by this court in banc in the
case of People vs. Aguinaldo while the old Penal Code was in force. But the enforcement of the
Revised Penal Code has resulted in a difference of opinion regarding this point on the part of
the members of this court.
For this reason, after reviewing all the decisions affecting the matter, rendered by this court both
in banc and in division, it is now held that the aggravating circumstance of recidivism
should be taken into account in imposing the principal penalty in its corresponding degree,
notwithstanding the fact that the defendant is also sentenced to suffer an additional penalty
as a habitual delinquent.
The facts alleged in the information constitute the crime of robbery committed without the use of
arms in an inhabited house, the value of the articles taken being less than P250. In accordance
with article 299 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty prescribed for said crime is prision
correccional in its medium degree. Inasmuch as there is a concurrence therein of one mitigating
and one aggravating circumstance, this penalty should be imposed in its medium degree
DOCTRINES:
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be taken into account. (People v. Aguinaldo,
47 Phil., 728) This aggravating circumstance should be taken into consideration in imposing the
principal penalty in its corresponding degree, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant, by
reason of such recidivism, is also sentenced to an additional penalty as a habitual delinquent.
DECISION:
• Wherefore, it being understood that the principal penalty imposed upon the appellant is
two years, eleven months and eleven days, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed, in all other respects with costs. So ordered.
CASE 5: PEOPLE V. LEGASPI TOPIC: MUST BE ALLEGED IN THE
INFORMATION
• PEOPLE • EDGAR LEGASPI •
• HONORATA y LIBAO
ONG
• Daughter
FACTS:
At around 2:00 in the morning of February 11, 1997, complainant Honorata Ong, who was then
sleeping inside her house with her three daughters, was awakened by the sound of their door
opening. She initially thought that it was her husband coming home from work. When Honorata
opened her eyes, however, she saw a man armed with a knife standing by her feet. More
terrifying, the man already had his pants and briefs down on his knees and he was pointing to
her eldest daughter.
Alarmed, Honorata told the man not to touch her daughter. The man poked his knife at her and
told her to stand up and then was made to lie down on the adjacent sofa. Thereafter, the man
removed Honorata's panties and had sex with her. All this time, he had his knife at Honorata's
neck. Honorata noticed that the man reeked of alcohol. After slaking his lust, Honorata's
assailant stood up then asked for money. Since the man still had his knife pointed at her,
Honorata could do nothing but comply. She gave him the only money she had, several bills
amounting to P500.00.
After threatening Honorata and her daughters with death if she reports the incident, the man left.
Honorata, out of fear, could do nothing but close the door. Later that day, however, Honorata
mustered enough courage to narrate her defilement to her sister-in-law and upon
describing him, Honorata's sister-in-law exclaimed that she knew a person living in Manapat
Street fitting the description.
That afternoon, Honorata, together with her husband, reported the incident to the barangay
captain. Thereafter, the captain, along with two tanods patrolled the area and, on the next day,
they managed to nab a person who fits the description given by Honorata of her assailant.
When the suspect was brought to the barangay hall for confrontation, he was positively
identified by Honorata as the rapist. This person, later identified as accused-appellant Edgar
Legaspi y Libao, was thus detained by the police.
The next day, Honorata had herself medically examined at the NBI but no evident signs of
extra-genital physical injuries were found on her body.
On the other hand, all that accused-appellant could interpose as defenses were denial and alibi,
stating that at the time of the alleged incident, he was at his home in Manapat Street sleeping.
Accused-appellant also testified that he had been previously convicted of homicide and Roberto
Eugenio, the victim therein, was a resident of the exact same address where complainant
Honorata was living. Accused-appellant hinted at the possibility that relatives of Roberto
Eugenio had conspired with complainant Honorata to get rid of him.
Incidentally, Rivera Street where the alleged crime occurred is only two streets away from
Manapat. Moreover, aside from Honorata's address, accused-appellant did not present proof
that the relatives of Roberto Eugenio knew complainant Honorata.
Accused-appellant harps on the fact that as described in the blotter, the alleged rapist had an
"ala Babalu face" (having an attenuated chin similar to that of the late comedian Babalu) and a
mole on the upper left part of his lips, while accused-appellant is not "Babalu" and his mole is
located not on the left but on the right side of his face.
In accused-appellant's last assignment of error, he claims that the court a quo erred in not ruling
that he is entitled to the exempting circumstance of insanity

• Edgar Legaspi y Libao was charged with the
crimes of rape and robbery
• CRIMINAL CASE 1: Edgar Legaspi y Libao

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
RAPE, and considering the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling and
nighttime, hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of DEATH
• CRIMINAL CASE 2: Edgar Legaspi y Libao
ROBBERY and there being the presence of
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
ISSUE(S):
• W/N THERE IS INSANITY? (NONE)
• W/N THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMTANCES CAN BE APPRECIATED EVEN IF NOT
ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION (YES, ADHERENCE TO OLD RULE, BUT THIS IS
ALREADY CHANGED)
RULING:
AS TO INSANITY
To prove his insanity, accused-appellant's counsel points to his confinement at the National
Center for Mental Health prior to the incident in question. Likewise, his counsel claims that when
Honorata saw accused-appellant, the latter's pants and briefs were already down on his knees.
He takes this to be an indicium of insanity.
Mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-appellant was deprived of reason at the
time of the incident. Firstly, accused-appellant did not submit proof that he was adjudged insane
by the National Center for Mental Health, only that he had been confined therein. Note also that
accused-appellant had already been discharged from the Center prior to the incident.
Neither does having one's pants and briefs on one's knees indicate deprivation of reason. If
anything else, it shows the lechery and depravity of accused-appellant. Mental depravity which
results not from any disease of the mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system,
where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one from responsibility for crimes
committed under its influence (People vs. Medina, supra). The Court cannot, therefore,
appreciate the defense of insanity brought by accused-appellant.
AS TO THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

According to the trial court:
The rape charge was committed in the victim's dwelling at nighttime. Dwelling and
nighttime are aggravating circumstances in rape (People vs. Padilla 242 SCRA 629).
On the other hand, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated in

the robbery charge because of (sic) the notion to commit the crime was conceived only
shortly when the rape was committed at darkness.
However, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is a different story and should be

considered. Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or
intimidation of person because this class of robbery can be committed without the
necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. Entrance into the
dwelling house of the offended party is not an element of the offense (People vs. Cabato
160 SCRA 98). Finally, for sexually assaulting a married woman thereby grievously
wronged (sic) the institution of marriage, the imposition of exemplary damages by way of
example to deter others from committing the crime is just (sic) warranted.
However, a cursory examination of the Information filed against accused-appellant would show
that the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and dwelling are not specified therein.
Now, at the time the trial court rendered its decision, the non-allegation of generic
aggravating circumstances in the information was immaterial, since the rule then prevailing
was that generic aggravating circumstances duly proven in the course of the trial could be taken
into account by the trial court in determining the proper imposable penalty even if such
circumstances were not alleged in the information.
Nonetheless, it is to be noted that the appreciation by the trial court of the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and nighttime, despite the non-allegation thereof in the Information,
resulted in the imposition of the supreme penalty of death upon accused-appellant. In People v.
Gallego (G.R. No. 130603, August 15, 2000), We had occasion to rule.
For said crime, what remains applicable is the old rule that generic aggravating
circumstances if duly proven in the course of the trial could be taken into account by the
trial court in determining the proper imposable penalty, even if such circumstances were
not alleged in the Information. Thus, for the crime of robbery, the trial court correctly imposed
an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to nine (9) years of
prision mayor, as maximum.
RATIO
Thus, the Rules now require qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances to be

expressly and specifically alleged in the Complaint or Information, otherwise the same will
not be considered by the court even if proved during the trial. And this principle is applicable in
all criminal cases, not only in cases were the aggravating circumstance would increase the
penalty to death. With this, the Court gives fair warning to prosecutors that henceforth, they
must prepare well-crafted information that allege the circumstances qualifying and aggravating
the crimes charged, otherwise the same will not be considered by the court in determining the
proper imposable penalty
DOCTRINES:
• For the crime of robbery committed by accused-appellant, the same not involving the
imposition of the death penalty. For said crime, what remains applicable is the old rule
that generic aggravating circumstances if duly proven in the course of the trial could be
taken into account by the trial court in determining the proper imposable penalty, even if
such circumstances were not alleged in the Information.
• Thus, the Rules now require qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances to be
expressly and specifically alleged in the Complaint or Information, otherwise the
same will not be considered by the court even if proved during the trial. And this principle
is applicable in all criminal cases, not only in cases were the aggravating circumstance
would increase the penalty to death. With this, the Court gives fair warning to
prosecutors that henceforth, they must prepare well-crafted information that allege the
circumstances qualifying and aggravating the crimes charged, otherwise the same will
not be considered by the court in determining the proper imposable penalty.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision under review finding accused-
appellant EDGAR LEGASPI y LIBAO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape in Criminal Case No. 17640-MN is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he is
sentenced to suffer the reduced penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay Honorata Ong
the sum of Fifty Thousand pesos as civil indemnity, another Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages and Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as exemplary
damages.
• No special pronouncement is made as to costs
CASE 6: PEOPLE V. SIBBU TOPIC: DWELLING

• PEOPLE • TIRSO SIBBU •
Deceased:
• Trisha Julian
• Ofelia Julian
• Warlito Julian
FACTS:
Version of the Prosecution

Bryan Julian (Bryan) testified that between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. of December 6, 2004, he was
with his three-year old daughter, Trisha (Trisha), the victim, his mother Ofelia (Ofelia), the
victim, and his father, Warlito Julian (Warlito), the victim, in the azotea of his parents' house in
Barangay Elizabeth, Marcos, llocos Norte when he saw from a distance of about five meters a
person in camouflage uniform with a long firearm slung across his chest and a black bonnet
over his head. Bryan had a clear look at the armed man because there were Christmas lights
hanging from the roof of their porch. Bryan recognized the armed man as the appellant.
Brian also saw two men in crouching position at a distance of three meters away from the
appellant. Fearing the worst, Bryan shouted a warning to his family. SIBBU then fired upon
them killing Trisha, Ofelia and Warlito.
Bryan ran inside the house where he saw his brother, Warlito Julian, Jr. (Warlito Jr.) coming out
of the bathroom. Bryan then proceeded to the pigpen at the back of the house to hide.
Another prosecution witness, Eddie Bayudan (Eddie), testified he was by a well near his house
when he heard gunshots coming from the house of Warlito and Ofelia. When he turned towards
the direction of the gunshots, he saw a man about five meters away wearing a black bonnet and
a long-sleeved camouflage uniform and holding a long firearm. He also saw another man
crouching on the ground whom he recognized as the accused Benny. Eddie went inside his
house for his and his family's safety.
Afterwards, he heard Bryan shouting for help. When he went out to investigate, he saw the dead
bodies of Warlito, Ofelia, and Trisha.
Warlito Jr. also testified that he heard gunshots coming from outside their house. When he
went out of the bathroom, Bryan told him that appellant gunned down their parents and his
niece. In his cross-examination, Warlito, Jr. claimed to have seen the appellant shooting at
the porch of their house.
Police Superintendent Benjamin M. Lusad chief of the provincial intelligence and investigation
branch of Ilocos Norte, testified that he conducted an investigation and interview with Bryan, the
latter pointed to appellant as the gunman.
Version of the Defense

The appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi. Appellant denied the charges against
him. He testified that on December 6, 2004,he never left the house of his in-laws because he
was taking care of his sick son.
Tirso Sibbo, Benny Barid and John Does were charged with attempted murder(bryan) and 3
murder for trisha, ofelio and warlito)

• In Criminal Case No. 11722, appellant, Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR
together with Benny Barid (Benny) and John HC No. 04127 which affirmed with
Does was charged with attempted murder. modification the May 15, 2009
• In Criminal Case Nos. 11721, 11723 and Decision of Branch 11, Regional Trial
11724, and except for the names of the Court (RTC) of Laoag City
victims and the location of their gunshot
wounds, appellant together with Benny and
John Does, was charged with murder
• Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City

finding Tirso Sibbu (appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of attempted murder in
Criminal Case No. 11722 and of murder in
Criminal Case Nos. 11721, 11723, and
11724.
ISSUE(S):
• W/N SIBBU IS GUILTY OF MURDER (yes)
• W/N treachery, dwelling and disguise was established ( yes)
RULING:
AS TO MURDER
We uphold the findings of the RTC, which were affirmed by the CA, that Bryan positively
identified appellant as the person who shot at him and killed Warlito, Ofelia, and Trisha. We
have consistently ruled that factual findings of trial comts, especially when affirmed by the
appellate court, are entitled to respect and generally should not be disturbed on appeal unless
certain substantial facts were overlooked which, if considered, may affect the outcome of the
case. After due consideration of the records of the case and the evidence adduced, the Court
finds that the RTC and the CA did not err in their appreciation of the facts and evidence.
We find that Bryan was able to identify SIBBU as the assailant in the shooting incident;
there is no reason to doubt his positive testimony. As aptly observed by the RTC, Bryan's
narration of how he was able to recognize the appellant was credible and convincing
Based on Bryan’s positive identification, the Court is convinced that the RTC and the CA were
correct in holding that Bryan positively identified the appellant as the person who shot at him
and killed Warlito, Ofelia, and Trisha.
AS TO THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Treachery, Dwelling, Use of Disguise)
YES, There was treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against 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."
The record reveals that at the time of the shooting incident, Warlito, Ofelia, Trisha, and Bryan
were at the porch of their house totally unaware of the impending attack. In addition, they
were all unarmed thus unable to mount a defense in the event of an attack.
Appellant was armed and surreptitiously approached the house of the victims.
• Dwelling is established as the victims were at their azotea in their house when the
accused shot at them from the outside. SC held, “Although the triggerman fired the shot
from outside the house, his victim was inside. For this circumstance to be considered it
is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim
to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house,
although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from without.”
The use of disguise was likewise correctly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this
case. Bryan testified that the appellant covered his face with a bonnet during the shooting
incident. There could be no other possible purpose a bonnet over appellant's face but to
conceal his identity, especially since Bryan and appellant live in the same barangay and are
familiar with each other.
DOCTRINES:
FOR DWELLING TO BE CONSIDERED

Although the triggerman fired the shot from outside the house, his victim was inside. For this
circumstance to be considered it is not necessary that the accused should have actually
entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was
attacked inside his own house, although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate
the assault from without.
DECISION:
• All told, appellant was correctly convicted of three counts of murder considering the
qualifying circumstance of treachery and one count of attempted murder.
• Since two aggravating circumstances of dwelling and use of disguise attended the
commission of the crime of murder, appellant should be sentenced to death in
accordance with Article 6328 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Under Article 24829 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. Thus under Article 63, the higher penalty should be imposed.
• However, because of the passage of Republic Act No. 9346, or An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, the imposition of death penalty is now
prohibited.
CASE 7: PEOPLE V. DAYRIT TOPIC: USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

• PEOPLE • ANGELO DAYRIT •
• ARIEL
SERENILLA
• LOURDES
SERENILLA
FACTS:
On August 31, 2013, at around 10 o'clock in the evening, minors Lloyd Ontiveros, John Moises
Vista and Joseph Emmanuel Soliman were playing along Anak Dalita Street, Barrio Bitik,
Marulas, Valenzuela City. At that time, a man wearing a black jacket and a helmet arrived on
board a green and black motorcycle. This man alighted from his motorcycle and removed his
helmet to wipe off his perspiration, he is observing a group of persons and among them was
Ariel Serenilla (Ariel).
Thereafter, Ontiveros approached the man since he recognized him as Angelito Dayrit, who was
a school security guard at Serrano Elementary School. Ontiveros then asked Dayrit "Kuya,
bakitpo kayo palakadlakad. " Dayrit replied that he was just waiting for someone. After that,
Dayrit boarded the motorcycle and left. Ontiveros then went back to his friends to continue
playing. A few second later, Dayrit came back in the same motorcycle with a companion, who
also was wearing a black jacket and a helmet. Dayrit, together with his companion, drove back
and forth on the same street.
Afterwards, a certain Nino asked Ontiveros to buy some cigarettes. On his way to the store,
Ontiveros met Ariel and his wife Lourdes Serenilla (Lourdes). Ontiveros walked together with
them and was teased by Ariel. Ariel also had a bicycle in tow. While walking, Ontiveros noticed
that the two (2) persons on board the motorcycle he saw earlier were following Ariel and
Lourdes.
When they reached the store, Ontiveros stayed behind, while the spouses continued walking
towards the tricycle. As the spouses were boarding the tricycle, two persons on board a
motorcycle blocked their way and the back-rider thereof fired a gun four times fatally shooting
the spouses. The motorcycle then sped away and went to the direction of Serrano Street.
Meanwhile, Aliven Serenilla, the son of Ariel and Lourdes, was in the house of his cousin at
Tampoy, Marulas, Valenzuela City when he learned that his parents were shot. He rushed to
the scene where it happened and learned that his parents were brought to Fatima Medical
Center. Upon his arrival at the said hospital, he was told that the latter were already dead.

• Accused-appellant Angelito Dayrit y Himor Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-
(Dayrit) was indicted for two (2) counts of HC No. 06982, which affirmed with
Murder. modifications the July 28, 2014
• Accused ANGELITO DAYRIT y HIMOR is Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable (RTC),
doubt of two counts of Murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code for the death of The appellate court was convinced
Ariel Serenilla and Lourdes Serenilla that the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation
were duly appreciated. Likewise, the
CA finds it proper to consider the
generic aggravating circumstances of
use of a motor vehicle that attended
the commission of the crime which the
trial court failed to appreciate.
The records show that Dayrit was

riding a motorcycle when he trailed
and fatally shot the victims. It was also
used to facilitate his escape after the
commission of the crime.
ISSUE(S):
• whether or not the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery and
evident premeditation.
RULING:
Now, it has been established before the lower courts that Dayrit was the one who killed Ariel
and Lourdes.
AS TO TREACHERY
Paragraph 16, Article 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the employment of means, methods,
or forms in the execution of the crime against a person which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.
The essence of treachery is the sudden attack by the aggressor without the slightest
provocation on the part of the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance
to defend himself, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the
aggressor arising from the defense which the offended party might make.16
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two (2) elements must be present: (1) at the
time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate or escape;
and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods, or
forms of attack employed by him.
In the instant case, the records show that in the evening of August 31, 2013, Ariel and Lourdes
were merely boarding a tricycle, unaware of the danger. All of a sudden, Dayrit, while on board
a motorcycle, launched an attack, shooting at his victims successively. It was clear that the
manner of attack employed by Dayrit was deliberate and unexpected. Likewise, there was no
opportunity for the victims to defend themselves. With the given circumstances, it is impossible
for the victims to retaliate. Clearly, the prosecution has established that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery is present.
AS TO EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Meanwhile, the requisites for the appreciation of evident premeditation are: (1) the time when
the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the accused
had clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of
time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of
his act.
In the present case, Dayrit initially monitored the presence of Ariel and subsequently drove back
and forth on Anak-Dalita Street, ensuring that Ariel was still in the area. Dayrit was also seen
wearing a black jacket and helmet for him not to be recognized and he secretly followed Ariel
and Lourdes while they were on their way to a tricycle. Further, it was clearly shown that Dayrit
and his companion planned the means on how to carry out and facilitate the killing of the
victims.
The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act is
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. In this case, the time
that had elapsed while monitoring the victims and while waiting for the perfect
opportunity to execute the shooting is indicative of a cool thought and reflection on the
part of Dayrit to carry out his criminal intent.
AS TO THE USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

Moreover, the CA correctly considered the generic aggravating circumstance of use of a motor
vehicle that attended the commission of the crime.
The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used either to commit the crime or to
facilitate escape. Here, it was established that Dayrit was riding a motorcycle when he followed
and fatally shot Ariel and Lourdes. Afterwards, he fled the crime scene on board the motorcycle.
Clearly, a motor vehicle was used as a means to commit the crime and to facilitate his escape
after the consummation of his plan to kill Ariel and Lourdes.
VERDICT
In view of the attendant circumstance of treachery which qualified the killing to murder, as well
as the presence of evident premeditation, and the generic aggravating circumstance of use of
motor vehicle, the imposable penalty would have been death if not for the proscription for its
imposition under Republic Act No. 9346.
DOCTRINES:
The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used either to commit the crime or to
facilitate escape.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The March 21, 2018 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06982, convicting Angelito Dayrit y Himor of two
(2) counts of Murder, is hereby AFFIRMED
CASE 8: PEOPLE V. DELA PENA TOPIC: TREACHERY IN SLEEPING +

SPECIAL AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP
• PEOPLE • RICO DELA PEÑA •
• OLIPIO
AMAHIT
(VICTIM)
FACTS:
ERNIE’s VIEW
Ernie D. Amahit (Ernie), son of the victim Olipio G. Amahit (Olipio), testified that in the
afternoon of December 14, 2006, he went to their nipa hut after tending to their carabaos. When
he was a few meters away, he saw accused-appellant enter the nipa hut where his father was
sleeping. Olipio was lying face down when accused-appellant stabbed him at the back
with a bolo locally known as "pinuti."
He heard his father shout for help while he watched accused-appellant stab the former several
times. Accused-appellant then threatened to kill Ernie prompting him to run towards home to tell
his mother about the incident.
DELA PENA’s VIEW

For his part, accused-appellant alleged that at around 5:30 p.m. of December 14, 2006, while he
was walking on the road on his way home, Olipio called and motioned him to come near him.
Olipio then told accused-appellant about the banana plants that were uprooted. Accused
appellant inquired as to the reason for Olipio's action, but the latter simply told him not to get
angry otherwise he would kill him. When accused-appellant answered "no," Olipio pulled out his
bolo and thrust it towards him. They wrestled for the bolo and when accused-appellant got hold
of it, he stabbed Olipio. He narrated that Olipio was first hit in the stomach but when they
continued to grapple with each other, he continued to stab the latter. Thereafter, accused-
appellant went to the house of his cousin.
With this, Dela Pena raised self-defense.
On October 28, 2015, the RTC rendered a Judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of Murder.
The RTC gave credence to the testimony of Ernie who actually saw appellant stab his father
with a pinuti several times at his back while the latter was sleeping lying face down on the floor.
According to the RTC, it is an act of treachery to the highest form when one attacks a person
who was sleeping. It gives no chance to the victim to defend himself thereby ensuring the evil
motive of killing the victim.

• CHARGE: MURDER AFFIRMED THE RTC DECISION
• Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bais City, in
Criminal Case No. 11-94-MY, finding Rico
Dela Peña (accused-appellant) guilty of the
crime of Murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC).
ISSUE(S):
• W/N THERE IS SELF-DEFENSE (no)
• W/N THERE IS APPRECIABLE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE (TREACHERY +
RELATIONSHIP)
RULING:
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the
Court finds that the CA committed no error in concluding that accused-appellant is indeed guilty
of the crime of Murder.
AS TO SELF-DEFENSE
By invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense, accused-appellant thus admits
committing the acts constituting the crime for which he was charged and the burden of proof is
on him to establish, by clear and convincing proof, that (1) there was unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim; (2) the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and
(3) the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
The nature, character, location and extent of these wounds belie accused-appellant's claim that
Olipio attacked him with a bolo; and it was in self-defense that after wrestling the bolo from the
victim, accused-appellant used it against the latter. The appearances of the wounds on the
victim's heart, his internal organs and large intestine contradict accused-appellant's defense that
he had only hit Olipio twice in the stomach and that after the second blow, both of them fell and
rolled on the ground which caused the wounds at the back.
Assuming that Olipio was the aggressor, it is nevertheless apparent that at the time he was
killed, the danger to accused-appellant had already ceased. Notably, even after taking full
control of the bolo, he attacked the victim several times and stabbed him to death. Settled is the
rule that when the unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or
wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is committed
AS TO TREACHERY
In this case, Ernie categorically stated that his father was sleeping inside the nipa hut when
accused-appellant stabbed him using a "pinuti". Olipio was lying on his stomach, with his face
down, and it was in that position that he was killed by accused-appellant. Under such
circumstance, there is no doubt that he was not in a position to put up any form of defense
against his assailant
• Accordingly, the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an

aggressor of an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
himself and thereby insuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.
• The Court stressed that treachery attended the killing of the victim as the latter was
attacked while he was asleep. A sleeping victim is not in a position to defend himself,
take flight or avoid the assault, thus ensuri ng that the crime is successfully executed
without any risk to the latter.
VERDICT
Thus, when the crime proven is consummated and the penalty imposed is death but reduced to
reclusion perpetua, the civil indemnity and moral damages that should be awarded will each be
P100,000.00 and another P100,000.00 for exemplary damages in view of the heinousness of
the crime and to set an example.
In the present case, other than treachery which was used to qualify the killing, the special
aggravating circumstance of relationship was specifically alleged in the information and the
accused-appellant did not deny that he is the victim's brother-in-law, a relative by affinity within
the second civil degree.
SPECIAL OR SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES • Applies to a particular

felony. They do not change the character of the offense charged but guide the court in
imposing the proper penalty.
DOCTRINES:
Treachery attends the killing where the accused attacks the victim while the latter is asleep and
unable to defend himself. Absolutely, a sleeping victim is not in a position to defend himself,
take flight or otherwise avoid the assault, thus ensuring that the crime is successfully executed
without any risk to the attacker.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated October
30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02163 finding accused-
appellant Rico Dela Peña guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder is
hereby AFFIRMED.
• SO ORDERED
CASE 9: PEOPLE V. MORENO TOPIC: TREACHERY
• PEOPLE • GERALD MORENO •
• Cecil Mijares
FACTS:
On November 16, 2001, at around 2:15 in the morning, Adelriza Mijares ("Adelriza") was
awakened from her sleep when a hard object hit her head. When she turned on the lights, a
man, wearing khaki shorts and white t-shirt, leap on their bed and repeatedly stabbed her
husband, Cecil Mijares ("Mijares"), on the leg and chest. Mijares was able to kick the man
out of the room and even close the door. Immediately thereafter, Mijares collapsed and fell
on the floor.
Adelriza shouted for help and their neighbor, Virgie Perey ("Virgie"), came to their rescue. Virgie
sought assistance from their neighbors, Noli Corrales and Michael Buenaflor, in bringing Mijares
to the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). Unfortunately, Mijares died while undergoing
treatment.
Senior Police Officer 1 Raul Olavario ("SPO1 Olavario") and other police officers from the
Western Police District, Homicide Division, arrived at the PGH after receiving a report about a
stabbing incident in their area of jurisdiction. SPO1 Olavario interviewed Adelriza and conducted
a physical examination of the cadaver. He observed multiple stab wounds on different parts of
Mijares' body, particularly at the front and at the back. After the examination, SPO1 Olavario
asked Adelriza to accompany them to the crime scene.
Upon arrival, the police officers discovered that four pieces of glass jalousies at the front window
of Adelriza's house were removed and the window screen was broken. They likewise saw
bloodstains on the floor where Mijares collapsed.
At this point, Adelriza still did not know the name of her husband's killer but she vividly
remembered his face after having witnessed the stabbing. A police cartographer prepared a
sketch of the suspect based on Adelriza's description.
In the afternoon of the same day, the police received a call from Virgie informing them that
appellant, who fitted the description of the suspect, was in the vicinity of his house. According to
Virgie, she heard rumors that appellant was responsible for the killing of Mijares.
The police officers then summoned Adelriza to the police station. Upon her arrival, she
positively identified appellant as the person who stabbed her husband. It was only at this point
that she learned of Moreno's name. SPO1 Olavario thus arrested appellant and informed him of
his constitutional right to remain silent and to have a competent counsel of his choice.
The defense vehemently denied the version of the prosecution and interposed that at the time of
the incident, appellant was sleeping at his house on Diamante St., Sta. Ana, Manila where his
mother, father, siblings and son likewise lived.
Appellant insisted that he never knew Mijares and he saw the victim for the first time when he
assisted in carrying him to the taxicab. During the time of the incident, he was wearing a gray t-
shirt and black pants contrary to Adelriza's description of the clothes of her husband's killer.

• the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 53, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
Manila in Criminal Case No. 01-197519 which CR.-H.C. No. 03204, affirming the
found appellant Gerald Moreno y Tazon Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt (RTC)
of the crime of Murder.
ISSUE(S):
• W/N MORENO CAN BE CONVICTED OF THE CRIME CHARGED (YES)
• W/N THERE IS TREACHERY (YES)
RULING:
AS TO THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONIES

Appellant claims that the trial court erred in ruling that the positive testimony of the prosecution's
witness prevailed over his defense of alibi. He alleges that contrary to the conclusion of the trial
court, his defense was not at all an alibi to account his whereabouts, rather it was an attestation
of his plain denial of the crime charged. He asserts that there were inconsistencies and
inaccuracies in the uncorroborated testimony of the eyewitness that tarnished its veracity and
diminished its probative value to prove his guilt.
• This Court has consistently assigned less probative weight to a defense of alibi when it
is corroborated by relatives. For corroboration to be credible, the same must be offered
preferably by disinterested witnesses. Evidently, Victoria and Crispulo were not
disinterested witnesses both being appellant's relatives. Their testimonies are rendered
suspect because the former's relationship to them makes it likely that they would freely
perjure themselves for his sake.32 Hence, by all accounts, appellant failed to meet the
requirements for his defense of alibi to prosper.
• Concerning the supposed inconsistencies and contradictory statements in the
eyewitness' testimony in open court, this Court finds them immaterial and did not
diminish appellant's guilt.
AS TO TREACHERY
We agree that treachery attended the attack on Mijares. Appellant's sudden attack on Mijares
while asleep in his own home amply demonstrates treachery in the commission of the crime.
Mijares had no inkling of the impending attack that night; or any peril to his person as he felt
secured in his home.
Mijares was not able to put up an effective defense. Although he kicked and pushed the
appellant out of their room, this did not negate the presence of treachery. In People v.
Baltazar, We ruled that treachery must still be appreciated even if the victim was able to
retaliate as a result of his reflexes, so long as he did not have the opportunity to repel the initial
assault.
From the case of People v. Baltazar;
Although appellant contends that there were defensive wounds on his arms, these do
not show that the victim was able to put up an effective defense. This Court finds these
wounds to be merely the result of a reflex action on the victim's part, in a vain
attempt to avoid the thrusts of the knife.
Apropos to this is the case of People v. Go-od, where even the fact that a victim was
able to stab one of his assailants was held as not negating the presence of treachery:
The fact that the victim was able to grab one of the bolos after he had already been hit
and used the same to stab one of his assailants does not negate the presence of
treachery in the commission of the crime.
The characteristic and unmistakable manifestation of treachery is the deliberate and

unexpected attack on the victim without any warning and without giving him the
opportunity to defend or repel the initial assault, x x x Ygot stabbed Nestor Go-od after
he himself had already been wounded by the attack which as we have already
mentioned was so sudden and unexpected that it did not give Aladino Ygot an
opportunity to offer an effective defense nor to repel the initial attack.
Further, We find that the appellant consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods or form of attack in order to ensure the execution of the crime. He stabbed Mijares
several times so that he would not be a risk to himself. He lodged a bladed weapon on the
victim's chest and back. Indeed, the attack on Mijares was treacherous thereby qualifying the
killing to murder
DOCTRINES:
• Treachery must still be appreciated even if the victim was able to retaliate as a result of
his reflexes, so long as he did not have the opportunity to repel the initial assault.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The August 27, 2009 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03204 finding appellant Gerald Moreno y
Tazon guilty of Murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS.
CASE 10: PEOPLE V. VILBAR TOPIC: WHEN TREACHERY IS NOT

APPRECIATED
• PEOPLE • VICENTE VILBAR •
• Guilbert
PATRICIO
FACTS:
On May 5, 2000, 7:00 o’clock in the evening, at the public market, the accused, Vicente Vilbar,
without warning suddenly stabbed Guilbert Patricio with a knife after Guilbert tried to admonish
him for urinating in one of the table of their store. Because of the degree of injury, the victim
sustained, he died hours later.
Eyewitness Testimony
Maria Liza testified that in the evening of May 5, 2000, she was watching her child and at
the same time attending to their store located in the Ormoc City public market. It was a
small store with open space for tables for drinking being shared by other adjacent stores.
At around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, her husband, Guilbert Patricio (Guilbert) arrived
from work. He was met by their child whom he then carried in his arms.
Moments later, Guilbert noticed a man urinating at one of the tables in front of their
store. The man urinating was among those engaged in a drinking spree in a nearby
store. It appears that the accused was with the same group, seated about two meters
away. Guilbert immediately admonished the man urinating but the latter paid no attention
and continued relieving himself. Guilbert then put down his child when the accused rose
from his seat, approached Guilbert, drew out a knife and stabbed him below his breast.
The accused, as well as his companions, scampered away while Guilbert called for help
saying "I’m stabbed." At that time, she was getting her child from Guilbert and about two
feet away from the accused. She easily recognized the accused because he would
sometimes drink at their store. Guilbert was immediately brought to the hospital where
he later expired 11:35 of the same evening. She declared that for Guilbert’s medical and
hospitalization expenses, the family spent about ₱3,000.00. As for the wake and burial
expenses, she could no longer estimate the amount because of her sadness.
On July 31, 2000, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the criminal charge against him.
During the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Maria Liza, widow of the
deceased, and Pedro Luzon, an eye witness at the scene. Both were consistent with their
accounts that it coincided with the stabbing incident.
Whereas the accused witness, Cerilo Pelos, testimony showed to be incoherent and elusive in
giving particular details of the crime. Thus, the trial court gave credibility to Maria Liza and
Pedro Luzon’s testimonies in positively identifying Vilbar and convicted him.
• CRIME CHARGED: MURDER

• RTC: GUILTY of MURDER qualified by treachery.
• CA: HOMICIDE.

• CHARGE: MURDER • HOMICIDE ONLY
• the Court finds the accused Vicente Vilbar
alias Dikit GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder as charged,
ISSUE(S):
• ISSUE: Is the killing attended by treachery? (No)
RULING:
NO. Treachery cannot be appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected.
While it appears that the attack upon the victim was sudden, the surrounding circumstances
attending the stabbing incident, that is, the open area, the presence of the victims’ families and
the attending eyewitnesses, works against treachery.
If accused-appellant wanted to make certain that no risk would come to him, he could have
chosen another time and place to stab the victim. Yet, accused-appellant nonchalantly stabbed
the victim in a public market at 7:00 o’clock in the evening. In fact, the attack appeared to have
been impulsively done, a spur of the moment act in the heat of anger or extreme
annoyance.
There are no indications that accused-appellant deliberately planned to stab the victim at said
time and place. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that accused-appellant, who at that time was
languishing in his alcoholic state, acted brashly and impetuously in suddenly stabbing the victim.
Treachery just cannot be appreciated.
DECISION: HOMICIDE.
DOCTRINES:
Treachery cannot be appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected. It
must be proved that the accused consciously adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the
perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the instant appeal of accused-appellant is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit. The Decision dated February 14, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-
H.C. No. 00270 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Vicente
Vilbar is found GUILTY of the crime of HOMICIDE
CASE 11: PEOPLE V. CORPIN TOPIC: TREACHERY

• PEOPLE • Cesar Villamor •
• PAULO Corpin
MENDOZA
PINEDA
FACTS:
The RTC and CA convicted Cesar Villamor Corpin for the crime of Murder under Art. 248 of the
RPC.
Helen Raymundo (Raymundo for brevity) testified that:
At around 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon of September 1, 2010, while she was tending to her
vegetable stall in Las Piñas Public Market, she saw Kuya Bay, herein accused-appellant Corpin,
kill Kuya Paulo;
accused-appellant Corpin sold pork in the public market while Paulo was a chicken vendor; their
stalls were situated at the back of each other and had the same entrance and exit; prior to the
hacking incident, accused-appellant Corpin and Paulo were always joking at each other; Paulo
often said "Ang baho" which made accused-appellant Corpin frown as he thought he was the
one being alluded to;
there was no provocation on the part of Paulo at the time the hacking incident happened;
accused-appellant Corpin and the victim were not facing each other and the latter was in no
position to defend himself; she was one (1) meter away from them; after accused-appellant
Corpin hacked Paulo, the victim was able to get a knife but the former embraced him; at that
juncture, one of the meat vendors, Kuya Kris, arrived and pushed accused-appellant Corpin
away from Paulo; and, Paulo ran away for about three (3) meters and fell down in front of the
canteen, in front of Raymundo's stall.
Raymundo identified the Sinumpaang Salaysay she executed.

• Convicted Cesar Villamor Corpin for the AFFIRMED RTC’s RULING
crime of Murder
ISSUE(S):
• Whether or not the CA erred in affirming Corpin’s conviction for Murder (yes)
RULING:
Yes, the CA erred. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means and methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly
and specially ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
To qualify an offense, the following conditions must exist: (1) the assailant employed means,
methods or forms in the execution of the criminal act which give the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) said means, methods or forms of execution
were deliberately or consciously adopted by the assailant.
First, although the attack was sudden and unexpected as he was hacked from behind, the
prosecution did not prove that Corpin deliberately chose the particular mode of attack he
used to ensure the execution of the criminal purpose without any risk to himself.
As testified by the witnesses of the prosecution, the incident happened in a public market
where there were numerous other people, including the witnesses, who could have offered
their help.
In a similar case, the Court held that when aid is easily available to the victim, such as
when the attendant circumstances show that there were several eyewitnesses to the
incident, no treachery could be appreciated because if the accused indeed consciously
adopted the particular means he used to insure the facilitation of the crime, he could
have chosen another place or time.
Moreover, after he was attacked by Corpin, Paulo was able to run away and escape, which
shows that the victim had the opportunity to defend himself. Second, Corpin did not deliberately
seek the presence of the victim. As testified by the prosecution witnesses and Corpin himself,
he and Paulo have been working as meat vendors in the same public market for several years.
In addition, the weapon he used to kill the victim was a butcher's knife that he regularly used for
his work.
In this connection, the Court ruled in another case that the fact that the victim and the accused
were already within the same vicinity when the attack happened and that the accused did not
deliberately choose the particular weapon he used to kill the victim as he merely picked it up
from within his reach is proof that there is no treachery involved.
Wherefore, Corpin is guilty of Homicide.
DOCTRINES:
the Court held that when aid is easily available to the victim, such as when the attendant
circumstances show that there were several eyewitnesses to the incident, no treachery could be
appreciated because if the accused indeed consciously adopted the particular means he used
to insure the facilitation of the crime, he could have chosen another place or time.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED.
The Court DECLARES accused-appellant Cesar Villamor Corpin @ "Bay" GUILTY
of HOMICIDE, for which he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of eight (8)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
CASE 12: PEOPLE V. ENRIQUEZ TOPIC: PROOF REQUIRED TO

PROVE TREACHERY
• PEOPLE • ARNALDO •
• FLORENCIO ENRIQUEZ
DELA CRUZ
(deceased)
FACTS:
On December 30, 2006, at around 9:30 in the evening, Luisa and her daughter, Jessica, were in
their house watching the television when they heard someone moaning at a nearby house. As
they peeped out of the window, they saw a bloodied Dela Cruz coming out of his house and
upon reaching the door got stabbed in the back by Enriquez with a bread knife. Dela Cruz
managed to ask for help from his uncle's house before collapsing. He was then brought to the
hospital but was unfortunately pronounced dead on arrival caused by multiple stab wounds in
the neck and thorax.
On the same date, at around 10:30 in the evening, Barangay Security Development Officer
Obar received a call about a killing incident in Carreon Village. He went to the reported place
and upon arrival, he saw a person being mauled and learned from an unnamed woman [that
said person is] the one involved in the killing. He arrested this person whom he later identified
as Enriquez. After bringing him to the barangay, Obar returned to the place and recovered a
knife. Meanwhile, Enriquez was transferred to Camp Karingat.
The version of the Defense
On December 30, 2006, Enriquez and his two children went to the house of Dela Cruz. He left
the house between 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the evening. On the same day, he was brought to
Camp Karingal because he was being suspected of killing Dela Cruz. He was informed by his
wife of Dela Cruz' death. He told his wife that he could not have killed him because he was
on duty as security guard at that time.
The RTC ruled that the defenses of denial and alibi proffered by Enriquez deserve scant
consideration. It further ruled that there is no suggestion that the prosecution's witnesses, Luisa
Tolentino (Luisa) and Jessica Tolentino (Jessica), had some ill motive to testify falsely against
Enriquez.
Lastly, it ruled that treachery attended the commission of the crime as the victim was
suddenly stabbed from behind by Enriquez. Thus, the victim had no chance to defend himself or
repel the assault against him.

• RTC in Criminal Case No. Q-07-144720, finding Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the
herein accused-appellant Arnalda Enriquez, Jr. Decision dated October 25, 2015 of
(Enriquez) guilty of the crime of Murder. the Regional Trial Court.
ISSUE(S):
• Whether the CA erred in affirming Enriquez's conviction for Murder. (No, homicide only)
RULING:
After a careful review and scrutiny of the records, the Court affirms the conviction of Enriquez,
but only for the crime of Homicide, instead of Murder, as the qualifying circumstance of
treachery was not proven in the killing of Dela Cruz.
It is established that the qualifying circumstance of treachery must be proven by clear and
convincing evidence. Thus, for Enriquez to be convicted of Murder, the prosecution must not
only establish that he killed Dela Cruz; it must also be proven that the killing of Dela Cruz was
attended by treachery.
• In a catena of cases, the Court has consistently held that treachery cannot be
appreciated where the prosecution only proved the events AFTER the attack
happened, but not the manner of how the attack commenced or how the act which
resulted in the victim's death unfolded.
• In treachery, there must be clear and convincing evidence on how the aggression was
made, how it began, and how it developed. Where no particulars are known as to the
manner in which the aggression was made or how the act which resulted in the death of
the victim began and developed, it cannot be established from suppositions drawn only
from circumstances prior to the very moment of the aggression, that an accused
perpetrated the killing with treachery.
• Accordingly, treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness did not see
the commencement of the assault.
In the instant case, the evidence presented by the prosecution only proved the events after the
initial attack had already happened. The prosecution witnesses, Luisa and Jessica, did not see
the manner of how the attack commenced or how the acts which resulted in the victim's death
unfolded as the attack started inside the house of the victim. They merely saw Dela Cruz,
already bloodied, coming out of his house. It was only at this point that they saw Enriquez stab
the victim again with a bread knife. Thus, what happened inside the house is unknown to
the prosecution witnesses.
In order to appreciate treachery, all elements must be present. It is not enough that the attack
was "sudden," "unexpected," and "without any warning or provocation." There must also be a
showing that the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods
and forms in the execution of the crime which tended directly to insure such execution, without
risk to himself.
However, the abovementioned elements of treachery were not proven by clear and convincing
evidence in the case at bar. As Luisa and Jessica were only able to witness the events that
transpired AFTER the initial attack inside the house, it was not established whether
Enriquez deliberately or consciously employed the particular method he used so as to deprive
the victim any opportunity to defend himself. Even more telling is the fact that the victim was
able to escape from Enriquez and even ask for help from his uncle's house before collapsing.
In view of the foregoing, Enriquez should only be liable for the crime of Homicide.
DOCTRINES:
• Treachery cannot be appreciated where the prosecution only proved the events after the
attack happened, but not the manner of how the attack commenced or how the act
which resulted in the victim's death unfolded.
• Accordingly, treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness did not see the
commencement of the assault.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED.
The Court DECLARES accused-appellant ARNALDO ENRIQUEZ, JR. GUlLTY of
HOMICIDE,
CASE 13: PEOPLE V. MATIBAG TOPIC: TREACHERY WHEN THE

ATTACK IS FRONTAL
• PEOPLE • DANIEL MATIBAG •
• Enrico Clar de y DE VILLA
Jesus Duhan
(deceased)
FACTS:
In an Amended Information dated May 5, 2005, Matibag was charged with the crime of
Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The prosecution asserted that at around 8:40 in the evening of March 27, 2005, Enrico Clar de
Jesus Duhan (Duhan), who just came from a meeting with the other officers of the
homeowners’ association of Twin Villa Subdivision, was walking along Iron Street in Brgy.
Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City when Matibag confronted Duhan, and asked, "ano bang
pinagsasasabi mo?" Duhan replied "wala," and without warning, Matibag delivered a fist
blow hitting Duhan on the left cheek and causing him to teeter backwards.
Matibag then pulled out his gun and shot Duhan, who fell face-first on the pavement. While
Duhan remained in that position, Matibag shot him several more times. PO2 Tom Falejo, a
member of the Philippine National Police, positively identified Matibag and stated on record that
he arrested the latter on the night of March 27, 2005.
Dr. Antonio S. Vertido who conducted an autopsy on Duhan confirmed that the latter suffered
gunshot wounds in the head and chest which led to his death.
Matibag’s Defense
In his defense, Matibag alleged that on said date, he was at the despedida party of his neighbor
when Duhan arrived together with the other officers of the homeowners’ association. Wanting to
settle a previous misunderstanding, Matibag approached Duhan and extended his hand as a
gesture of reconciliation.
However, Duhan pushed it away and said, "putang ina mo, ang yabang mo," thereby provoking
Matibag to punch him in the face. Matibag saw Duhan pull something from his waist and fearing
that it was a gun and Duhan was about to retaliate, Matibag immediately drew his own gun, shot
Duhan, and hurriedly left the place.
Matibag went to see his police friend, Sgt. Narciso Amante, to turn himself in, but the latter was
unavailable at the time. As Matibag headed back home, he was stopped by police officers who
asked if he was involved in the shooting incident. He then readily admitted his involvement.
As to the claim of Self-Defense

The RTC refused to give credence to Matibag’s claim of self-defense as he failed to prove the
presence of unlawful aggression on Duhan’s part, finding that:
a) Duhan’s words and actions prior to Matibag’s attack could not be considered as a real
threat against him;
b) no firearm was recovered from the victim;
c) Matibag’s account that Duhan was about to pull something from his waist, which thus led
him to believe that he was about to be shot, remained uncorroborated; and
d) the number of gunshot wounds Duhan sustained contradicts the plea of self-defense.

• The Regional Trial Court of Pallocan West, • The CA agreed with the RTC’s
Batangas City, found Matibag guilty beyond findings that:
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
(a) treachery attended the killing of
• Separately, the RTC appreciated the Duhan as the attack on him was
existence of the qualifying circumstance of sudden; and
treachery since the attack was sudden,
unprovoked, and without any warning on the (b) an unlicensed firearm was used in
victim who was unarmed and in a committing the crime, which is
defenseless position. considered as a special aggravating
• Likewise, the special aggravating circumstance.
circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm
was appreciated since a firearm was used
in the commission of a crime and, hence,
considered unlicensed.
ISSUE(S):
• W/N THERE IS SELF DEFENSE (no)
• W/N THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE PROPER (yes; treachery and use
of unlicensed firearm)
RULING:
AS TO SELF-DEFENSE
Among the foregoing elements, the most important is unlawful aggression. It is well-settled that
there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed
unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. Jurisprudence states that
not every form or degree of aggression justifies a claim of self- defense. For unlawful
aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or
imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, as against the one
claiming self-defense.
Evidently, the treacherous manner by which Matibag assaulted Duhan negates unlawful
aggression in the sense above-discussed. As mentioned, the prosecution was able to prove
that the attack was so sudden and unexpected, and the victim was completely defenseless. On
the other hand, Matibag’s version that he saw Duhan pull something from his waist (which
thereby impelled his reaction), remained uncorroborated.
In fact, no firearm was recovered from the victim. Hence, by these accounts, Matibag’s
allegation of unlawful aggression and, consequently, his plea of self-defense cannot be
sustained. The foregoing considered, the Court upholds Matibag’s conviction for the crime
of Murder, qualified by treachery, as charged.
AS TO TREACHERY
Matibag is charged with the crime of Murder, which is defined and penalized under Article 248
of the RPC, as amended. In order to warrant a conviction, the prosecution must establish by
proof beyond reasonable doubt that: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him or her;
(c) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of
the RPC; and (d) the killing is not Parricide or Infanticide.
• In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that Matibag, who was armed with a gun,
confronted Duhan, and without any provocation, punched and shot him on the chest.
Although the attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it
was made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding too that he
was unarmed.
Matibag also failed to prove that a heated exchange of words preceded the incident so as to
forewarn Duhan against any impending attack from his assailant. The deliberateness of
Matibag’s act is further evinced from his disposition preceding the moment of execution.
As the RTC aptly pointed out, Matibag was ready and destined to effect such dastardly act,
considering that he had an axe to grind when he confronted Duhan, coupled with the fact that
he did so, armed with a loaded handgun. Based on these findings, the Court concludes that
treachery was correctly appreciated.
AS TO THE USE OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM

Moreover, as the RTC and CA held, the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
firearm, which was duly alleged in the Information, should be appreciated in the imposition of
penalty. Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866,35 as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8294,
treats the unauthorized use of a licensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of homicide or
murder as a special aggravating circumstance.
Therefore, when Matibag killed Duhan with his firearm, the use thereof was unauthorized under
the purview of RA 8294 and is equally appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance. As a
result, the imposition of the maximum penalty of death, which is reduced to reclusion perpetua
in light of RA 9346, stands proper. To this, the Court adds that Matibag is not eligible for parole.
DOCTRINES:
• Although the attack was frontal, the sudden and unexpected manner by which it was
made rendered it impossible for Duhan to defend himself, adding too that he was
unarmed.
• Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866,35 as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 8294,36
treats the unauthorized use of a licensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of
homicide or murder as a special aggravating circumstance.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 13, 2012 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03759 finding accused-appellant Daniel
Matibag y De Villa @ "Dani" or "Danilo" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Murder, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED
CASE 14: PEOPLE V. ESCOTE TOPIC: TREACHERY AS A GENERIC

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE in
the felony of ROBBERY WITH
HOMICIDE
• PEOPLE • JUAN GONZALES •
ESCOTE
• VICTOR ACUYAN
y OCHOVILLOS
FACTS:
At past midnight on 28 September 1996, Rodolfo Cacatian (regular driver of Five Star
passenger bus, hereinafter referred as the driver) drove the bus from Pasay City to Pangasinan.
Six additional passengers boarded the bus in Balintawak, including Acuyan and Escote, who
held up the bus (they had handguns) as they were passing Bulacan. Both fired their guns
upward and accosted the passengers, divesting them of their money and valuables.
Apparently, SPO1 Manio was aboard the bus. When the felons went to him and asked for his
wallet and ID. When they found out he was a police officer and saw his service gun, they said:
“Pasensya ka na Pare, papatayin ka namin, baril mo rin ang papatay sayo.” The police officer
pleaded for mercy: “Pare maawa ka sa akin. May pamilya ako.”
But the two ignored his plea and shot him on the mouth, right ear, chest and right side of the
body. Manio sustained six entrance wounds. The bus driver was ordered to maintain the speed
of the bus. He heard one of them say “Ganyan lang ang pumatay ng tao. Parang pumapatay ng
manok.” The other said, “Ayos na naman tayo, pare. Malaki-laki ito.” They alighted from the bus
and instructed the driver not to report the incident (all in all, robbery was over in 25 mintues).
Naturally, the driver and conductor reported the incident to police. Barely a month after at about
midnight, a team of policemen was at a checkpoint along the national highway in Tarlac. A white
taxicab without a plate was stopped and asked the driver, who was Escote, for his ID.
Escote said he was a policeman and handed over the ID of SPO1 Manio and the money they
had taken from the heist. The police became suspicious because the ID had already expired.
He asked Escote if the latter had a new payslip. When Escote could not produce any, he finally
confessed he was not policeman and was brought to the station. He was frisked and they found
five bullets of a 9mm in his pocket.
During investigation, Escote admitted that he and Acuyan staged the robbery on the bus and
killed Manio. The RTC found both of them guilty for the crime of robbery with homicide and was
sentenced to death.
They submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court, appealing among others the propriety of the
both the conviction and the penalty. The highest penalty is meted out if there is an aggravating
circumstance.

• Regional Trial Court of Bulacan in Criminal
Case No. 443-M-97 convicting accused-
appellants Juan Gonzales Escote, Jr. and
Victor Acuyan of the complex crime of
robbery with homicide, meting on each of
them the supreme penalty of death
ISSUE(S):
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of treachery is present (yes, as a generic
aggravating circumstance, however it was not appreciated since it was not alleged in the
information)
RULING:
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

To warrant the conviction of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under Art.
294, the prosecution was able to prove the following elements: 1) taking of personal property
with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; 2) property taken belonged to another;
3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi, and 4) on the occasion of the
robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide was committed.
The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. In robbery with homicide, so long as
the intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the
robbery. Even if the victim of robbery is other than the victim of the homicide, there is only one
single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. All the crimes committed on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged and integrated into a single and indivisible
felony. All those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of
robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears they
endeavored to prevent it.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH
Under Art. 63, par.1, the felons shall be meted out the supreme penalty of death when the crime
is committed with an aggravating circumstance absent any mitigating. The RTC did not specify
any aggravating circumstance in its decision. However, it is evident from the facts contained in
the body of the decision that it imposed the death penalty on its finding that they shot Manio
treacherously.
Its elements were present: 1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself, and 2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any
chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor.
• Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to
his life where he was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of
the coup de grace. In this case, the victim was shot when he was defenseless, pleading
for his life, and at short range. This killing is a grim example of the utter inhumanity of
man to his fellowmen.
TREACHERY WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IN

THE FELONY OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
The SC has ruled over the years that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in the
felony of robbery with homicide, a special complex crime and at the same time a single and
indivisible offense.
• However, in two cases, the SC has held that robbery with homicide is a crime against
property. Treachery is appreciated only in crimes against persons and hence, should not
be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
• It held in another case that it is not appreciated in robbery with rape precisely because it
is a crime against property.
These ruling finds support in case law that in robbery with homicide and rape, the latter are
merely incidents of the robbery with robbery being the main purpose and object of the criminal.
• But the SC ruled otherwise in the later case of People v. Cando when it ruled that
treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when
the victim of homicide is killed with treachery.
• The SC opted not to apply its earlier rulings that same year as ruled in People v.
Bariquit.
• Criminal law commentators are not in agreement as well. Aquino and Reyes said it only
applies to crimes against persons. But Regalado says that it can be appreciated insofar
as the killing is concerned.
Robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against property. Nevertheless, treachery is a

generic aggravating circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is killed
treacherously. The Supreme Court of Spain so ruled. So does the Court rule in this case, as it
had done for decades.
HOWEVER, THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY WILL NOT BE

APPLIED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION
However, in the present case, treachery cannot be appreciated against Juan and Victor in the
case at bar because the same was not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8,
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of
the statute punishing it. Although at the time the crime was committed, generic aggravating
circumstance need not be alleged in the Information, however, the general rule had been
applied retroactively because it is more favorable to the accused.
Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in the information, treachery cannot aggravate
the penalty for the crime. Hence, it was ruled that the penalty be imposed shall be reclusion
perpetua only.
DOCTRINES:
• Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to his
life where he was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup
de grace.
• But the SC ruled otherwise in the later case of People v. Cando when it ruled that
treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the
victim of homicide is killed with treachery.
• Robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against property. Nevertheless, treachery
is a generic aggravating circumstance in said crime if the victim of homicide is killed
treacherously. The Supreme Court of Spain so ruled. So does the Court rule in this case,
as it had done for decades.
• Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in the information, treachery cannot
aggravate the penalty for the crime. Hence, it was ruled that the penalty be imposed
shall be reclusion perpetua only.
DECISION:
• IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Bulacan is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants Juan
Gonzales Escote, Jr. and Victor Acuyan are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the felony of robbery with homicide defined in Article 294, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code and, there being no modifying circumstances in the commission
of the felony, hereby metes on each of them the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA
CASE 15: PEOPLE V. BUMIDANG TOPIC: Dwelling, Nighttime and

Ignominy
• PEOPLE • BALIWANG •
• GLORIA IMBAT BUMIDANG
(VICTIM)
• MELENCIO
IMBAT (Victim’s
Dad)
FACTS:
On September 29, 1996, at around 2:00 a.m. while father and daughter, namely, Melencio and
Gloria Imbat, were already asleep in their house, the accused Baliwang Bumidang y Baohan
aged 19 years and half-naked, loudly called Melencio Imbat and asked the latter to open the
door. Melencio was aroused from his sleep and he opened the door downstairs because
Bumidang threatened to kill them if the door was not opened.
Accused Bumidang entered and asked the old man to bring him upstairs. While they were
upstairs, Bumidang asked him where he was sleeping. When Melencio indicated that he slept at
the place where they were, Bumidang got a spear at the side of his (Melencio's) bed. Pointing
the weapon at him in a threatening manner, the accused ordered him to lie in a prone position
which he obeyed because he was afraid.
Then Bumidang asked the room of his unmarried daughter, Gloria, aged 56. Melencio, 80
years old, pointed the room of his daughter which was in the same room but separated by an
aparador. Bumidang went to Gloria's room, still carrying the spear.
Suddenly, Gloria screamed for help, but the octogenarian remained in a prone position as
Bumidang threatened to kill him if he would help his daughter. Bumidang, a betel nut-chewing
man, approached Gloria and poked the spear at her. She recognized him because he was
lighting the room with a flashlight.
The accused ordered her to stand up and remove her pajama, with the panty going along with it.
While the accused was removing her clothes, she sat and struggled. Bumidang then removed
his shortpants and became completely naked. He used the flashlight to examine her
genital. He placed the spear beside her and whenever she attempted to move, he would point
the spear at her.
The accused then went on top of her, inserted his penis into her pudenda. At this instant,
Gloria shouted to her father but the accused pointed the spear at her, and told her, "can you see
this?" The accused then made a pumping motion. After he was sated, having satisfied his lust,
the accused held her breast and kissed her lips. After resting on top of her, he went to the
door and left.
Melencio helplessly saw the accused on top of her daughter but he could not move because he
was too afraid and weak. He did not see how the accused consummated his beastly desire
because he was too ashamed to look at what he was doing to her daughter.
Before the accused left, he made the following threat: "If you will report to the authorities, I will
come back and kill all of you." Gloria then put on her dress. She was trembling. So she went to
her father and slept with him as she was afraid to be alone. She did not immediately report the
incident in the morning because they were afraid of the threat.
She reported her ordeal to Kagawad Rodolfo Pontillan who handed a note to be given to the
authorities (security). The accused was immediately arrested. Gloria submitted herself to the
examination of Dr. Quines.
TRIAL COURT RULING
The trial court appreciated against BALIWANG the aggravating circumstances of (a) dwelling,
because the crime was committed inside the house of the victim; (b) nighttime, because the
sexual assault was perpetrated at about 2:00 a.m. to facilitate the commission of the offense;
and (c) ignominy, because he used his flashlight to examine Gloria's vagina and raped her in
the presence of her old father, thereby making its effects more humiliating.

• Baliwang Bumidang (hereafter BALIWANG) was N/A (automatic SC review)
charged before the Regional Trial Court of
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, with the crime of
rape.
• Ruling: WHEREFORE, finding the accused
GUILTY of rape with the use of a deadly
weapon under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, accused Baliwang Bumidang is hereby
sentenced to death by lethal injection
ISSUE(S):
• W/N the trial court's appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime
and ignominy is correct. (yes, but night time was not appreciated)
RULING:
The crime of rape is defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. In the case at bar, the prosecution established that BALIWANG committed the
crime charged with the use of a deadly weapon, i.e., with a spear. Accordingly, pursuant to
the 3rd paragraph of Article 335, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, a rape committed
with the use of a deadly weapon is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
DWELLING
The trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. There was a clear
violation of the sanctity of the victim's place of abode when Gloria, who apparently did not gave
any provocation, was raped in her own house. Dwelling is considered an aggravating
circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode.
NIGHTTIME
Nighttime is an aggravating circumstance when
1) it is especially sought by the offender;
2) it is taken advantage of by him; or
3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's immunity from
capture.
In this case, other than the fact that the crime was committed at about 2:00 o'clock in the
morning, nothing on the record suggests that BALIWANG deliberately availed himself or
took advantage of nighttime nor proved that BALIWANG used the darkness to facilitate his
evil design or to conceal his identity.
IGNOMINY
The aggravating circumstance of ignominy shall be taken into account if means are employed or
circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the offense; or if
the crime was committed in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating to
the victim, that is, add to her moral suffering.
It was established that BALIWANG used the flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before
he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the presence of Gloria's old father. These
facts clearly show that BALIWANG deliberately wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby
aggravating and compounding her moral sufferings.
Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in the presence of her
betrothed, or of her husband, or was made to exhibit to the rapists her complete
nakedness before they raped her.
AS TO THE PENALTY
The aggravating circumstances of dwelling and ignominy having been duly proven, the
greater penalty of death shall be imposed, applying Article 63, paragraph 2, no. 1, Revised
Penal Code, which provides that when an aggravating circumstance is present in the
commission of an offense, the penalty for which is composed of two indivisible penalties, the
greater penalty should be imposed.
DOCTRINES:
• The aggravating circumstance of ignominy shall be taken into account if means are
employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of
the offense; or if the crime was committed in a manner that tends to make its effects
more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her moral suffering.
• Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in the presence of
her betrothed, or of her husband, or was made to exhibit to the rapists her
complete nakedness before they raped her.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the 10 July 1997 decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, of
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, in Criminal Case No. 3170 finding accused-appellant
BALIWANG BUMIDANG guilty of rape with the use of a deadly weapon and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the
MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay the victim Gloria Imbat,
the sums of ₱75,000 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000 as moral damages and ₱25,000 as
exemplary damages.
• In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the
Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the certified true copies of the
records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible
exercise of the pardoning power.
• SO ORDERED.
CASE 16: PEOPLE V. JOSE TOPIC: IGNOMINY

• PEOPLE • JAIME JOSE •
• MAGGIE • “BOY” PINEDA
DELA RIVA • EDUARDO AQUINO
(VICTIM, • ROGELIO CANAL
ACTRESS)
FACTS:
SUMMARY: On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr.,
Eduardo Aquino and Rogelio Caal conspired together, confederated with and mutually
helped one another, then and there, to willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd
design to forcibly abduct Magdalena Maggie dela Riva, 25 years old and single, a movie
actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four principal accused, by
means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon, have carnal knowledge of the
complainant against her will, and brought her to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and
hence committed the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape.
RELEVANT FACTS
Magdalena de la Riva was abducted outside her own by Jaime Jose, Edgardo Aquino,
Basilio Pineda and Rogelio Canal. They brought Maggie to Swanky Hotel. Jose, Aquino,
Pineda and Canal took turns raping Maggie.
They decided to leave her on a spot in front of the Free Press Building not far from Epifanio de
los Santos Avenue near Channel 5 to make it appear, according to them, that the complainant
had just come from the studio.
They threatened that she would be doused with acid if she would inform anyone of the incident.
When she was inside the cab and alone with the driver, Miguel F. Campos, she broke down and
cried. She kept asking the driver if a car was following them; and each time the driver answered
her in the negative
When she reached home she informed her mother of the incident. Appellant Canal and Pineda
executed swore to separate statements on the day of their arrest Caal confirmed the information
previously given by Jose that the four of them waited for Miss De la Riva to come down from the
ABS Studio, and that they had planned to abduct and rape her.
Appellant Caal admitted that all four of them participated in the commission of the crime, but he
would make it appear that insofar as he was concerned the complainant yielded her body to him
on condition that he would release her Pineda executed a statement stating that he and his
other three companions wept to the ABS Studio, and that, on learning that Miss De la Riva was
there, they made plans to wait for her and to follow her.
The striptease-act-for-a-fee story on which the defense theory is anchored, defies one's
credulity and reason, and had utterly to counteract the evidence for the prosecution, particularly
the complainant's testimony and Dr. Brion's medical report and testimony.
He admitted that his group followed her car and snatched her and took her to the Swanky Hotel.
He would make it appear, however, that the complainant voluntarily acceded to having sexual
intercourse with him
That the aforestated offense has been attended by the following aggravating circumstances:
1. Use of a motor vehicle.
2. Night time sought purposely to facilitate the commission of the crime and to make its
discovery difficult;
3. Abuse of superior strength;
4. That means were employed or circumstances brought about which added ignominy to
the natural effects of the act; and
5. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for the commission. (Only alleged but this was not
appreciated by the courts)
Of the three principal-appellants (Jose, Aquino and Caal), none of them may claim aggravating
circumstances has been offset by the mitigating circumstance. Appellant Pineda should,
however, be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, a factor
which does not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be imposed, for the
reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining

• WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused
Jaime Jose, Rogelio Cañal, Eduardo Aquino
and Basilio Pineda, Jr. guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of forcible
abduction with rape as described under Art.
335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
and hereby sentences each of them to the
death .
ISSUE(S):
• W/N THERE IS CONSPIRACY AMONG THE ACCUSED (yes)
• W/N AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE APPRECIATED (yes, all four of
them)
RULING:
Existence of CONSPIRACY IS PROVED
We are convinced that the herein four appellants have conspired together to commit the crimes
imputed to them in the amended information quoted at the beginning of this decision. There is
no doubt at all that the forcible abduction of the complainant from in front of her house in
Quezon City, was a necessary if not indispensable means which enabled them to commit the
various and the successive acts of rape upon her person.
It bears noting, however, that even while the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of
forcible abduction had already been consummated, so that each of the three succeeding crimes
of the same nature cannot legally be considered as still connected with the abduction — in other
words, they should be detached from, and considered independently of, that of forcible
abduction and, therefore, the former can no longer be complexed with the latter.
As regards, therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first of the crimes
committed, the latter is definitely the more serious; hence, pursuant the provision of Art. 48 of
the Revised Penal Code, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Consequently, the appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. In this regard, there is
hardly any necessity to consider the attendance of aggravating circumstances, for the same
would not alter the nature of the penalty to be imposed.
PLEA OF GUILT RESULTS TO ADMISSION OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Appellant Pineda claims that insofar as he is concerned there was a mistrial resulting in gross
miscarriage of justice. He contends that because the charge against him and his co-appellants
is a capital offense and the amended complaint cited aggravating circumstances, which, if
proved, would raise the penalty to death, it was the duty of the court to insist on his presence
during all stages of the trial.
• The contention is untenable. While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it
constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information,
including the aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is
capital, for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime and its attendant
circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime.
Because of the aforesaid legal effect of Pineda's plea of guilty, it was not incumbent upon the
trial court to receive his evidence, much less to require his presence in court. It would be
different had appellant Pineda requested the court to allow him to prove mitigating
circumstances, for then it would be the better part of discretion on the part of the trial court to
grant his request.
AS TO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Nevertheless, to put matters in their proper perspective and for the purpose of determining the
proper penalty to be imposed in each of the other three crimes of simple rape, it behooves Us to
make a definite finding in this connection to the effect that the commission of said crimes was
attended with the following aggravating circumstances:
a. nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate

the commission of these crimes.
b. abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four
appellants in conspiracy with one another.
c. ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her
complete nakedness for about ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a
circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating;
and
d. use of a motor vehicle.
With respect to appellants Jose, Aquino and Canal, none of these aggravating circumstances
has been offset by any mitigating circumstance. Appellant Pineda should, however, be
credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, a factor which does
not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be imposed, for the reason that there
would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining. As a result, appellants should likewise
be made to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each of these three simple crimes of rape.
AS TO THE PENALTY
We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the existence of conspiracy among them and of
our finding as regards the nature and number of the crimes committed, as well as of the
presence of aggravating circumstances, four death penalties should be imposed in the
premises.
DOCTRINES:
• IGNOMINY - The fact that the appellants, in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them
her complete nakedness for about two minutes before raping her, brought about a
circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating.
• While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the
material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances, and it
matters not that the offense is capital, for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the
crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or aggravating the crime
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows: appellants
Jaime G. Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr., and Edgardo P. Aquino are pronounced guilty of
the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and each and every one of them
is likewise convicted of three (3) other crimes of rape.
CASE 17: PEOPLE V. BUTLER TOPIC: IGNOMINY “Scoffing at the

corpse of the victim”
• PEOPLE • Michael Butler •
• Enriquita
Alipo “Gina
Barrios”
FACTS:
Accused-appellant, Michael Butler and the victim, Enriquita Alipo alias Gina Barrios were
together at Colonial Restaurant in Olongapo City. They were seen together by Lilia Paz, an
entertainer and friend of the victim, and one Rosemarie Suarez.
The accused left the restaurant with the victim. Emelita Pasco, housemaid of the victim, testified
that Gina came home with Michael. They immediately went into the former’s bedroom.
The next morning, Pasco knocked at the door. She found that the victim was lying on her bed,
facing downwards, naked up to the waist, with legs spread apart and with a broken figurine
beside her head. She immediately called the landlord and the authorities.
An investigation was conducted by the authorities. After being located and identified as a crew
member of the USS Hancock, the accused was brought to the legal office of the ship. The
accused was searched, handcuffed, and was brought to the Naval Investigation Services
Resident Agency Office.
Accused confessed that he engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim her the rear
(anal sex). The next morning, he said that his five peso note in his sock was missing. A quarrel
ensued over the missing money. It went physical until the accused grabbed the victim by the
throat and picked up a statue of Jesus Christ and hit her in the head. He then left the
house.
Upon medical examination, Dr. Roxas testified that the anal intercourse happened after the
victim’s death. He also testified that the victim died of asphyxia due to suffocation when
extreme pressure was exerted on her head pushing it downward thereby pressing her nose and
mouth against the mattress.
After trial, accused was found guilty of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength with
the attendance of generic aggravating circumstances of treachery and ignominy/outraging at the
corpse of the victim without any mitigating circumstance.
Accused-appellant alleged that he was a minor at the time the offense was committed, and
having invoked his minority, he was entitled to the suspension of the sentence pursuant to P.D.
603, Art. 192 before its amendment by P.D. 1179

• Court of First Instance of Zambales, finding the N/a (automatic review of SC)
accused Michael J. Butler guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
qualified by abuse of superior strength, with
the attendance of aggravating circumstances
of treachery and scoffing at the corpse of the
deceased (ignominy), without any mitigating
circumstance and sentencing the accused with
the penalty of death,
ISSUE(S):
• WON there is abuse of superior strength to qualify the killing to murder, treachery and
ignominy (yes, except treachery)
• WON there’s privilege mitigating circumstance of minority (yes)
RULING:
AS TO ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH (Crime is Qualified to Murder)
Yes. The SC held that there was an abuse of superior strength attending the commission of
the crime. Crime is qualified therefore to murder.
It is not only the notorious advantage of height that the accused had over his hapless victim, he
being 6 feet tall and weighing 155 lbs. while the girl was only 4 ft 11 inches tall, but also fits
strength which he wielded in striking her with the figurine on the head and in shoving her head
and pressing her mouth and nose against the bed mattress, which pressure must have been
very strong and powerful to suffocate her to death and without risk to himself in any manner or
mode whatsoever that she may have taken to defend herself or retaliate since she was already
struck and helpless on the bed, that convinced us to find and rule that the crime committed is
murder with the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
AS TO TREACHERY
No, there was no treachery. The evidence on record, however, is not sufficient to show clearly
and prove distinctly that treachery attended the commission of the crime since there was no
eyewitness account of the killing.
The extra-judicial confession of the accused merely stated, thus: "I thought she was going to do
something dangerous to me so I grabbed her, and we started wrestling on the bed. She
grabbed me by the throat and I picked up a statue of Jesus Christ that was sitting on the
bedside stand and I hit her in the head. She fell flat on her face." Although the figurine was
found broken beside her head, the medical report, however, do not show any injury or
fracture of the skull and no sign of intracranial hemorrhage.
AS TO IGNOMINY
Yes, there was ignominy or outraging/scoffing at the corpse of the deceased since it is
established that the accused mocked or outraged at the person or corpse of the victim by
having anal intercourse with her after she was already dead.
The fact that the muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the
anal region as testified to by Dr. Angeles Roxas, the medico-legal officer, and confirmed to be
positive in the Laboratory Report, Exhibit "B1 " clearly established the coitus after death.
This act of the accused in having anal intercourse with the woman after killing her is,
undoubtedly, an outrage at her corpse.
IGNOMINY CAN STILL BE APPRECIATED EVEN IF NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION

(As long as it is Proved)
• It is true as maintained by the defense that the aggravating circumstance of outraging at
the corpse of the victim is not alleged in the information and that the lower court found
it had been proved but its contention that the said aggravating circumstance should not
have been appreciated against the accused is without merit.
• And this is so because the rule is that a generic aggravating circumstance not
alleged in the information may be proven during the trial over the objection of the
defense and may be appreciated in imposing the penalty (People vs. Martinez
Godinez, 106 Phil. 597).
• Aggravating circumstances not alleged in the information but proven during the trial
serve only to aid the court in fixing the limits of the penalty but do not change the
character of the offense.
AS TO MINORITY (Case shall be dismissed cuz accused is entitled to suspension of

sentence as a minor)
Yes, the accused is a minor and is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
which reduces the penalty one degree lower. He should also have been entitled to suspension
of judgment of murder.
The lower court having erred in not suspending the sentence of conviction against the
accused-appellant who is entitled thereto under the original provisions of Article 192 of P.D.
603, We agree with the defense plea that the "accused-appellant's imprisonment in the BRIG
(be treated) as equivalent to what should have been his full period of commitment under the
care and custody of the Ministry of Social Services and Development. After all, and as said
Ministry has reported, it has been regularly visiting accused-appellant at his cell in the BRIG and
is, therefore, in a position to attest to the exceptional behavior of accused-appellant."
DOCTRINES:
• There was ignominy or outraging/scoffing at the corpse of the deceased since it is
established that the accused mocked or outraged at the person or corpse of the victim
by having anal intercourse with her after she was already dead
• It is true as maintained by the defense that the aggravating circumstance of outraging at
the corpse of the victim is not alleged in the information and that the lower court found it
had been proved but its contention that the said aggravating circumstance should not
have been appreciated against the accused is without merit. And this is so because the
rule is that a generic aggravating circumstance not alleged in the information may be
proven during the trial over the objection of the defense and may be appreciated in
imposing the penalty (People vs. Martinez Godinez, 106 Phil. 597).
DECISION:
• The dismissal of the case against the accused Michael Butler is, therefore, meritorious
and justifiable. We hereby order his final discharge therefrom. His final release, however,
shall not obliterate his civil liability for damages in the amount of P24.000.00 to the heirs
of the victim which We hereby affirm. Such release shall be without prejudice to the right
for a writ of execution for the recovery of civil damages. (Article 198, P.D. 603).
• WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the case against the accused-
appellant Michael J. Butler is hereby DISMISSED and We hereby order his final
discharge from commitment and custody. The civil liability imposed upon him by the
lower court shall remain
CASE 18: PEOPLE V. GATCHO TOPIC: CRUELTY

• PEOPLE • TEODULFO • Teodulfo Gatcho, prays that the
• Crisanto GATCHO (STOUT penalty of death be reduced to
Cristobal HALF – NAKED reclusion perpetua inasmuch as
(deceased) MAN) it was not sufficiently
• GORGONIO VIDAD established that the hacking of
(Companion) the children Rosemary, Rodolfo
and Crisanto Cristobal, Jr., was
entirely done by Gatcho,
FACTS:
Crisanto Sr.’s Testimony
Around ten to eleven o'clock in the evening of January 29, 1965, Crisanto Cristobal, Sr. and
his wife, Felisa Gazmen, were lying down on their bamboo bed in the bedroom of their house in
the Barrio of Catugay, Municipality of Baggao, together with their children Rodolfo, Mariano,
Antonio, Rosemarie, and Crisanto, Jr. hey had a lighted improvised lamp at the head of their
bamboo bed on the floor, for the spouses had a six-month old child then, Crisanto, Jr.
The husband, Crisanto, Sr. was already asleep for he was suddenly awakened by his wife,
Felisa Gazmen, telling him that there were persons inside their house. As Crisanto, Sr. was
awakened by his wife, he first sat on the edge of the 'papag' and discerned thru a cloth curtain
persons near the door. He asked who those persons were and in answer, one of them (Gatcho)
immediately turned aside the cloth curtain and began hacking him. lt was a stout half-naked
fellow who hacked him; that fellow was duly Identified during the hearing who gave his name as
Teodulfo Gatcho.
Then the companion (Vidad) of the stout and half-naked man attacked him also hitting Crisanto,
Sr. He was then hit on the head and he fell almost unconscious on the floor. He recognized the
companion who hit him on the right thumb and index finger to be Gorgonio Vidad.
Crisanto, Sr. stood up and saw his bolo on top of a small table inside the room; so he grabbed it
and began hacking also the stout half-naked man. Crisanto, Sr., while even lying down, was
continually being hacked by both the two accused. When Crisanto, Sr. felt so weak, he jumped
out of the window of their house and ran towards a nearby creek. He did himself in the
creek and stayed there until the early morning of the following day. He left his wife and children
inside the room.
Felisa’s Version
All the children and Crisanto, Sr. were hacked inside the house. The wife, Felisa Gazmen
recognized the half-naked man by his appearance although she did not know his name and
Gorgonio Vidad. She jumped out of the window of their house during the scuffle but had
enough time to see the accused by the light of the lamp.
When Felisa Gazmen rejoined her husband at the clinic of Dr. Pallagao, she informed him that
their money amounting to P750.00 were no longer found in the trunk which she found to
have been forcibly opened. The children were also brought to the clinic by the barrio captain
and some of the barrio folks. They then asked for help to the barrio captain which in response,
ordered the rural policemen to go to the victim’s house.
Dropping of Children
• While the barrio captain and his men were surrounding the house, Gatcho was seen
opening the shutter of the window on the eastern part of the house, and there showing
only his hands, dropped one of the children who was dropped was still alive and she
was Rosemarie, about five years old. The child when dropped was called by her
mother, and she ran towards the direction where the mother was.
• Then the same man inside dropped another child on the same spot and through the
same window. The child was already dead and was Crisanto Cristobal, Jr. (only six
months old). He bore one wound on one side of the head, which cut through the cranium
and reaching into the brain, and another wound on the buttock.
It was almost about this same time before the dropping of the children when the barrio captain,
Anastacio Centeno, who began calling for Crisanto Cristobal, Sr., that they heard the voice of
Crisanto Cristobal, Sr. from the creek nearby. They ran towards the place, and they saw
Crisanto Cristobal, Sr., crawling and covered with blood all over his body. He was weak.
AFTER THE INCIDENT

After the man had been captured, Pat. Serafico Caddauan, went inside the house together with
the barrio-folks and found the things inside the house all scattered throughout. One trunk was
forcibly opened and everything inside the trunk were scattered on the floor. Accused-appellant
Teodulfo Gatcho, after capture, was brought to the municipal building of Baggao. He was
thereafter detained.
The following were severely wounded:

1. Crisanto Cristobal Sr. – Father
2. Rodolfo Cristobal – 2 Years old
3. Rosemarie Cristobal – Five Years old
4. Crisanto Cristobal jr. – 6 months old (The only one who died)
Of the four wounded persons, Crisanto Cristobal, Jr. was already dead, while the wounds of
the other three ranged from 15 to 25 days' healing time with medical attendance.

• Court, finding the accused Teodulfo Gatcho • n/a
robbery with homicide and triple frustrated
homicide, penalized under Art. 294,
Paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.
• With the aggravating circumstances, namely,
with cruelty, abuse of superior strength,
nocturnity, and dwelling.
• without any mitigating circumstances to offset
any of them, hereby sentences said accused
Teodulfo Gatcho, to the extreme penalty of
death,
ISSUE(S):
• Whether it was sufficiently established that the hacking of the children Rosemary,
Rodolfo, and Crisanto, Jr., was entirely done by Teodulfo Gatcho (yes, gatcho is liable
for robbery with homicide + 3 frustrated homicide)
• Whether there are aggravating circumstances attendant in the case (yes, dwelling,
superior strength and nighttime but cruelty was not appreciated)
RULING:
ACCUSED IS LIABLE OF ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE + TRIPLE FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
• The crime commited is robbery with homicide with triple frustrated homicide. There was
robbery because the malefactors took and carried away the P750.00 of the
complainant spouses Crisanto Cristobal, Sr. and Felisa Gazmen.
• The killing of Crisanto Cristobal, Jr. was committed "by reason or on the occasion of
the robbery."
• There is Robbery with Homicide if the Homicide resulted by reason or on the occasion of
the robbery. It is sufficient that the Homicide was produced by reason or on the occasion
of the robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction
as to the circumstances, causes, modes, or persons intervening in the commission of
the crime, that has to be taken into consideration.
The robbery was also accompanied by the commission of three frustrated Homicides. The
several wounds inflicted on the persons of Crisanto Cristobal Sr., Rodolfo Cristobal and
Rosemarie Cristobal on the different parts of their bodies clearly show that the intent to kill
them was present. The wounds were so serious that had they not been given timely and
adequate medical attendance; they would have died.
There is absolutely no doubt as to the guilt of Teodulfo Gatcho of the crime charged. He was
positively Identified by the complainants Crisanto Cristobal, Sr. and Felisa Gazmen as the stout
short, half- naked man who entered their house on the night in question together with co-
accused Gorgonio Vidad, and once inside began hacking the inmates of the house with a bolo.
Gatcho’s defense was correctly rejected by Court a quo as completely ludicrous, incredible and
filled with a litany of lies.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES APPRECIATED BY THE COURT

• Considering that the victim who died was an innocent and tender baby, barely six
months old, and the wounded children were aged five (5) and twelve (12) years old, the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength should be appreciated in
determining the penalty because of the marked difference of physical strength between
the offended parties and the offender
• It is also obvious that the perpetrators waited for the night before committing the robbery
to better accomplish their purpose. Nighttime is aggravating when it is especially sought
for the purpose of impunity
• Likewise, it is apparent that the original design of the perpetrators of the offense
comprehend robbery in the dwelling of the victims. Thus, dwelling must be considered
as another aggravating circumstance for in robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons, as in the case at bar, entrance into the dwelling of the offended party is not
an element of the offense.
AS TO CRUELTY (not appreciated)

However, as regards the aggravating circumstance of cruelty as found by the trial court, there is
no showing that the throwing of the body of the baby outside of the window was deliberately
done in order to prolong the physical suffering of the baby.
• Cruelty refers to physical suffering of the victim purposely intended by the offender.
Hence, the wrong done must be performed while the victim is still alive.
• For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making
the victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain
in the consummation of the act.
Moreover, cruelty cannot be inferred from the act of the throwing the body of the baby
outside of the window, since as testified to by Dr. Caculitan, Municipal Health Officer of
Baggao, the wounds inflicted on the baby caused his instantaneous death. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the baby was no longer alive when he was thrown outside of the window.
DOCTRINES:
• Cruelty refers to physical suffering of the victim purposely intended by the offender.
Hence, the wrong done must be performed while the victim is still alive.
• For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and delighted in making
the victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in
the consummation of the act.
• cruelty cannot be inferred from the act of the throwing the body of the baby outside of
the window, since the wounds inflicted on the baby caused his instantaneous death
DECISION:
• Nevertheless, the penalty imposed by the court a quo still stands for under Article 63,
second paragraph, Revised Penal Code, in all cases in which the law prescribes a
penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, if there is present only one aggravating
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. In the case at bar, there are three
aggravating circumstances, namely: (1) abuse of superior strength, (2) nighttime,
and (3) dwelling, with no mitigating circumstance to offset them.
CASE 19: PEOPLE V. LUCAS TOPIC: CRUELTY + RELATIONSHIP

(Alternative Circumstance)
• PEOPLE • JOVENCIO LUCAS • Reversal of the trial court ruling
• MAURICIA (father-rapist) (Denied)
LUCAS
(daughter-
victim)
FACTS:
Sometime in September 1985, thirteen-year old Mauricia Lucas, then working as a

housemaid, was fetched by Jovencio Lucas, her father, from her place of work at 1171
Batanes Street, Sampaloc, Manila.
Mauricia asked appellant where they were going, but the latter simply did not answer. They
boarded a jeepney and alighted in a dark place which Mauricia found unfamiliar. Mauricia was
then brought to a dark room where her father tied both her hands and feet to a bed,
undressed her, lighted a cigarette and burnt her face with it, kissed her, fondled her private
parts, and finally, pointing a knife approximately eight (8) inches long at her neck,
consummated the sexual act.
All throughout the forced sexual intercourse, Jovencio was laughing. He then threatened to kill
Mauricia if she revealed the incident to anyone. Despite such warning, Mauricia told her
paternal grandfather about her terrible experience. Her grandfather, angered, confronted the
appellant, but the latter only threatened to harm the old man. About six months after the alleged
rape took place, Mauricia decided to report the incident to the police. The victim testified that
this was in fact not the first time she was sexually abused by appellant. Mauricia Lucas testified
that she had already been raped by her father, once in Romblon, some three (3) months before
September 1985, and again in Manila before the third rape that was committed in September
1985. It was the THIRD act of rape committed in Manila in September 1985 that is the subject-
matter of the instant criminal prosecution.
On March 3, 1986, a physical and genital examination was conducted on Mauricia by

Marcial G. Cenido, Medico-Legal Officer of the Evidence-Laboratory Division of the
Western Police District. The Medico-legal officer testified that the findings are consonant
with a woman who has had "several experience with sexual intercourse." However,
because the physical and genital examination was conducted about six months after the
rape, evidence of violence, whether external or internal, can no longer be established.
Be that as it may, the absence of any evidence of force does not negate a finding that
forcible sexual intercourse actually took place [People v. Domen, G.R. Nos. L-47675-76,
January 31,1983,120 SCRA 486].

The defense anchors its case mainly on alibi. As stated in the trial court decision, the defense
relied only on the testimonies of Venancia Lucas (wife of appellant and natural mother of the
victim) and of Clarita Monsale and on a letter written by the Barangay Captain of Matutuma, San
Andres, Romblon, but did not present the accused himself who "pointedly and purposely did not
testify in his behalf."
Appellant's wife Venancia, mother of the victim, claimed that her husband was with her in
Romblon in September 1985, and that it was only in February 3,1986 that, together, they
decided to try to make a living in Manila. Another witness, Mrs. Clarita Monsale, a friend of the
appellant, testified that whenever appellant and his wife visited Manila, they would always stay
with her in an old sunken barge which served as her house. The couple, she further
alleged, left for Romblon in 1984 and returned to Manila only in February, 1986 when they came
to live with her.
A note handwritten by the barangay captain, one Pedro Taladtad, Jr., alleging that, as far as he
can remember, appellant left for Manila only in February, 1986, was likewise submitted in
evidence. These testimonies, however, are insufficient to establish alibi without the testimony
of the appellant. By themselves, these testimonies do not convincingly establish that it was
impossible for appellant to have been in Manila at the approximate date that the offense was
committed.
The court rendered declaring that accused JOVENCIO LUCAS y PARCUTELA is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE.

• The court rendered declaring that accused
JOVENCIO LUCAS y PARCUTELA is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
RAPE.
ISSUE(S):
• whether or not the appellant was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape. (yes)
• Whether the aggravating and alternative circumstance of Cruelty and Relationship is
attendant to the commission of the crime (yes)
RULING:
JOVENCIO IS GUILTY FOR THE CRIME OF RAPE

The trial court's decision is amply supported by evidence proving to a moral certainty the guilt of
the appellant. We find that the record sufficiently establishes that, indeed, as held by the trial
court, appellant had carnal knowledge of Mauricia, through force and intimidation, against the
latter's will.
In the case under review, we find no reason to doubt the victim's credibility. The trial court,
having had the opportunity of hearing firsthand the witnesses of both prosecution and defense
and of observing their demeanor and manner of testifying during the trial, noted that during
cross-examination the victim showed "sincerity and conviction" and appeared to be truly
"aggrieved." In its decision, the trial court further regarded the defense's theory of revenge as
"absurd . . . puerile and childish"
The defense finally alleges that the complaint for rape was filed by Mauricia because of
resentment against her father who scolded and boxed her when he caught her in the embrace
of her boyfriend. These allegations, however, were never substantiated. Even assuming that
there existed some resentment on the part of the victim against appellant, allegedly an
irresponsible parent and habitual drunkard, it is nevertheless hard to believe that a young and
naive lass could so be motivated by feelings of revenge as to fabricate a story of rape, to have
her private parts examined and to subject herself to the indignity of a public trial, against her
very own father, if there be no truth to the same.
AS TO THE ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP (Relationship is treated

as aggravating)
The alternative circumstance of relationship is taken into consideration when, as in this case,
the victim is the descendant of the offender [Art. 15, Revised Penal Code].
• In crimes against chastity, relationship is aggravating. The gravity of a crime

attended by abuse of relationship was emphasized in the case of People v. Porras,
which likewise involved the rape of a daughter by the father, wherein it was held that:
"[t]he crime in this case was so monstrous that no punishment which is in the power of
this or any other human tribunal to decree, could possibly be a sufficient expiation of the
offense."
In this case We find that, indeed, appellant abused the filial trust reposed in him by his daughter
in order to carry out the crime to his every advantage. He personally fetched the victim, his
daughter, at her place of work, took her to the scene of the crime, and forced himself sexually.
AS TO THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF CRUELTY

There is cruelty when the offender enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the offense (People v.
Gatcho). Cruelty is present in this case where appellant tied the victim to a bed, burnt her face
with a lighted cigarette while raping her and laughed as he did all these.
AS TO THE APPLICABLE PENALTY

Under the Revised Penal Code, whenever the crime of rape is committed with use of a deadly
weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death [Art. 335], and where the commission
of an offense punishable by two indivisible penalties is attended by at least one aggravating and
no mitigating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be imposed [Art. 63 (1)].
In this case, the commission of the rape was with the use of an eight-inch long knife,
undoubtedly a deadly weapon. Since the crime is a tended by two aggravating and no mitigating
circumstances, would ordinarily merit the imposition of the death penalty.
However, in the light of Sec. 19 (1), Art. III of the Constitution providing that the death penalty
shall not be imposed unless Congress for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes provides
for capital punishment, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed instead.
DOCTRINES:
• There is cruelty when the accused enjoyed and delighted in making his victim suffer
slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical or moral pain in the
consummation of the criminal act.
• In crimes against chastity, relationship is aggravating. The alternative circumstance of
relationship is taken into consideration when, as in this case, the victim is the
descendant of the offender.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
CASE 20: PLANOS V. PEOPLE TOPIC: INTOXICATION -

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
• HILARIO • People •
PLANOS
FACTS:
The accused-petitioner anchored his appeal on his intoxication on the night of the incident.
He argued that his intoxication negated any intent on his end to voluntarily commit the acts in
question. This argument was already raised in the CA, which was held to be untenable
as he was unable to prove that his alcohol intake that night affected his mental faculties.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the
Supreme Court finds no error committed in the Decision dated March 17, 2017 (Decision) and
Resolution dated June 21, 2017 (Resolution) of the Court of Appeals, Fifth Division (CA), in CA-
G.R. CR No. 37999. The facts, as borne out by the records, sufficiently support the conclusion
that the accused-petitioner is indeed guilty of violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No.
7610. (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
The issues and matters raised before the Court, the same ones as those raised in the CA, were
sufficiently addressed and correctly ruled upon by the CA.

• • Resolution dated June 21, 201 7
of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 37999.
• The Decision found Hilario
Planos y Lanoy guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Lascivious
Conduct
ISSUE(S):
• W/N THE ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE OF INTOXICATION BE APPRECIATED A
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTAMCE (nope)
RULING:
First of all, intoxication is neither a justifying nor exempting circumstance that completely
negates criminal liability. Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), it is an alternative
circumstance that may either aggravate or mitigate the offense depending on the
circumstances.
ARTICLE 15. Their Concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken
into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the
crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship,
intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the
offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted
brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating

circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the
same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the
intoxication is habitual or intentional it shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as;
• a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of

intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said
felony
• but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
ALTERMATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE OF INTOXICATION AS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE

NOT CONSIDERED (Unable to Prove)
At most, therefore, his intoxication could only mitigate, not extinguish, his criminal liability. In
turn, for the alternative circumstance of intoxication to be treated as a mitigating circumstance,
the defense has the burden of evidence to show "that the intoxication is not habitual, not
subsequent to a plan to commit a felony and the accused's drunkenness affected his mental
faculties.
• In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the accused-petitioner
was not a habitual drinker, or that he did not drink subsequent to his plan to commit
the crime.
• Neither was there anything in the records that shows his level of intoxication was such
that his mental faculties were impaired.
This was because the defense of intoxication was raised only in the appeal, as the defense only
proffered denial during the trial. While the victim did in fact testify that she observed the
accused-petitioner to be drunk, this is not enough for the intoxication to be considered as a
mitigating circumstance because of the absence of any independent proof that the
intoxication was at such a level that it impaired his mental faculties.
Also to reiterate, the defense was also unable to discharge its burden to prove that the
accused petitioner was not a habitual drinker, or that he had already been drinking prior to his
decision to commit the crime.
DOCTRINES:
• The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating
circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the
same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the
intoxication is habitual or intentional it shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
• It is not enough for the intoxication to be considered as a mitigating circumstance
because of the absence of any independent proof that the intoxication was at such a
level that it impaired his mental faculties.
DECISION:
• WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby ADOPTS the findings of fact and
conclusions of law in the Decision dated March 17, 201 7 and Resolution dated June 21,
201 7 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37999.
• The Decision finding accused-petitioner Hilario Planos y Lanoy guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610
is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

RPC Art 14 & 15 Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RPC Art 14 & 15 Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE 1: PEOPLE V.

URAL TOPIC: ABUSE OF OFFICIAL

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

CASE 2: PEOPLE V. GAPASIN TOPIC: TAKING ADVANTAGE OF

LIABLE FOR MURDER. (Because treachery attended the crime)

Therefore, only the generic aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation may be

CASE 3: PEOPLE V. TIONGSON TOPIC: IN CONTEMPT OF PUBLIC

The second murder is also aggravated by the circumstance of its commission in an

HOMICIDE ONLY AND NOT MURDER (absence of treachery)

Aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, in contempt of or with insult to public

CASE 4: PEOPLE V. MELENDREZ TOPIC: RECIDIVISM

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

• CRIMINAL CASE 1: Edgar Legaspi y Libao

AS TO THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

On the other hand, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated in

However, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is a different story and should be

Thus, the Rules now require qualifying as well as aggravating circumstances to be

CASE 6: PEOPLE V. SIBBU TOPIC: DWELLING

Version of the Prosecution

Version of the Defense

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

• Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City

AS TO THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (Treachery, Dwelling, Use of Disguise)

FOR DWELLING TO BE CONSIDERED

CASE 7: PEOPLE V. DAYRIT TOPIC: USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

The records show that Dayrit was

AS TO THE USE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

CASE 8: PEOPLE V. DELA PENA TOPIC: TREACHERY IN SLEEPING +

DELA PENA’s VIEW

With this, Dela Pena raised self-defense.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

• Accordingly, the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an

SPECIAL OR SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES • Applies to a particular

Version of the Prosecution

Version of the Defense

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

AS TO THE WEIGHT OF THE TESTIMONIES

The characteristic and unmistakable manifestation of treachery is the deliberate and

CASE 10: PEOPLE V. VILBAR TOPIC: WHEN TREACHERY IS NOT

• CRIME CHARGED: MURDER

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

CASE 11: PEOPLE V. CORPIN TOPIC: TREACHERY

Helen Raymundo (Raymundo for brevity) testified that:

Raymundo identified the Sinumpaang Salaysay she executed.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

Wherefore, Corpin is guilty of Homicide.

CASE 12: PEOPLE V. ENRIQUEZ TOPIC: PROOF REQUIRED TO

Version of the Prosecution

The version of the Defense

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

CASE 13: PEOPLE V. MATIBAG TOPIC: TREACHERY WHEN THE

As to the claim of Self-Defense

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

AS TO THE USE OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM

CASE 14: PEOPLE V. ESCOTE TOPIC: TREACHERY AS A GENERIC

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT RULING: CA RULING:

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

TREACHERY WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IN

Robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against property. Nevertheless, treachery is a

HOWEVER, THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY WILL NOT BE

CASE 15: PEOPLE V. BUMIDANG TOPIC: Dwelling, Nighttime and