People v.

Arpa

The accused and the 3 victims are aboard a banca name MAMI I. The banca was in the middle
of the ocean when it experienced engine trouble. One of the accused fired his .22 caliber
revolver to scare the passengers, and fired a shot directly at one of the passengers which
caused his death. Because of the shot, two passengers jump into the water, they were never
found after the incident. The accused took the and carried away the said banca.

RTC ruled Robbery with triple homicide aggravated by uninhabited place and on the occasion of
a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune.

Issue
WON the engine trouble can be considered as “other calamity or misfortune” NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the development of an engine trouble at sea is a misfortune,
but it does not come within the context of the phrase “other calamity or misfortune”. This
phrase pertains to other conditions of distress similar to those precedingly enumerated which
are conflagaration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic. Clearly in this case there was no such
condition of great calamity or misfortune existed when the motor banca developed engine
trouble .

People v. Candado

The three accused in this case were charged of Murder for the death of Mario San Juan. San
Juan sustained 18 stab wounds on different parts of his body which was caused by a “balisong”
and 12 hacking wounds which could have been caused by a bolo. A witness testified that Mario
San Juan along with a fellow tricycle driver was walking towards a bakery. The three accused
was already in the bakery drinking wine, when suddenly they hacked the back of the victim. The
victim tried to run but the three accused hacked and stab him which caused his death.

Issue
WON the aggravating circumstance of in aid of armed men should be appreciated against the
accused NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the aggravating circumstance of “aid of armed men” should not
be applied as the three accused worked together in the commission of the crime as co-
principals. They acted under the same plan and purpose.

People v. Piring

Leon Nacpil and Marcelina Mercado along with their son Jose Nacpil were attacked at their
house. Leon and Marcelina died while Jose survived the attack. After the attack, their house was
burned down by the perpetrators. According to Jose a man whose face was covered in a
handkerchief entered their house and attacked his father and mother with a bolo. He was also
struck in the face with a bolo which rendered him unconscious, upon waking up, a voice told
him to “come down right away” which prompted him to get up and leave the house.

According to the defense it was Felix Capili who set the house on fire and killed the spouses.

Issue
WON the crime is aggravated by “aid of armed men” NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men should not
be appreciated against the accused as the 4 of them acted under the same plan and for the
same purpose.

People v. Bernal

The accused without the owner’s consent took three gamecocks belonging to Piamonte valued
at P 50 each and three other roosters belonging to De Leon. Only two of the gamecocks were
recovered. At the time that the crime was committed the accused has already been thrice
convicted of the crime of theft. The accused has been convicted of the crime of theft three
times.
1. April 25, 1935
2. June 24, 1935
3. October 19, 1935

Issue
WON the aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be appreciated against the accused YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that even though the accused is deemed as a habitual delinquent
therefore imposing additional penalty, recidivism should still be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. Recidivism is not a factor or element which necessarily forms an integral part of
habitual delinquency. In recidivism it is sufficient that at the time of the trial the accused has
already been sentence to a previous final judgement of a crime within the same title of the
Code.

People v. Villapando

Ramon, Romulo, Alicia and Neila went to BLTB in Batangas bound to Manila. While inside the
bus Romulo had a fight with the accused. They went down and exchange fist blows. While they
were fighting, the accused pulled out his fan knife and stabbed Romulo. Alicia embraced
Romulo and she too was attacked by the accused. The accused presented the alibi that he was
not at the crime scene when the crime was committed. According to him he was at a cockpit
arena with his friend. He presented a guarantee book showing that he bought a Seiko watch
with his winning.

RTC ruled accused is guilty of murder and attempted homicide

The Supreme Court found that the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion should not be
considered.
1. Theft before 1979
2. Physical injury- amicably settled 1973
3. Theft 1973
4. Theft
5. Theft amicable settled
6. Theft 1982
There was no conclusive evidence to show that the accused has been previously punished by an
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty. No evidence to show that the accused served the sentences.

People v. Ventura

On May 1930, the accused pretended to be an agent of the firm I. Beck and sold to the victim a
gramophone for P 21.70. They went to the municipal president of Makati to secure a receipt.
After the victim had paid for the said amount, the gramophone was not delivered to him and
his money was not returned by the accused.

Issue
WON the aggravating circumstance of habitual delinquency should be appreciated against the
accused YES
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that the accused cannot be considered as an habitual delinquent as
his prior conviction was more than 10 years since his new conviction.

Convicted Released
September 15, 1918 January 19, 1919
September 20, 1918 January 19, 1919
September 12, 1927 June 11, 1928
September 17, 1927 June 11, 1928
July 15, 1929 September 22, 1929
July 15, 1929 September 22, 1929

February 1931
People v. Morales
The accused in this case was charged with the crime of estafa through falsification. The
accused, Morales posed himself as a physician, diagnosed ailment of one Remedios Suarez and
received and took from the latter the amount of P 3 for which he pretended to purchase
necessary medicine for the said Remedios Suarez. He was considered as a habitual delinquent
as he was already convicted of estafa for 5 times before the commission of the crime.

Issue
WON the accused is a habitual criminal NO
Ratio
The Supreme Court stated that even though the accused plead guilty for the crime and the
habitual delinquency, the information given by the prosecution to the court does not allege the
date of last conviction or release of the accused. It must be proven that the accused was
convicted of the enumerated crimes 3x for the last 10 years within the last conviction or
release. Absent the information, the court cannot appreciate the aggravating circumstance.

People v. Dela Cruz

The accused was charged for the crime of theft of an umbrella and a buri hat valued at P 2.65
committed on April 28, 1936. On January 4, 1933 he was also convicted of theft.

Issue
WON the aggravating circumstance of recidivism and habitual delinquency should be
appreciated against the accused YES
Ratio
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism can be appreciated together with the aggravating
circumstance of habitual delinquency. There is no express provision in the law that prohibit this.
Recidivism is considered in determining the principal penalty while habitual delinquency is
determined as an additional penalty. Habitual delinquency is not under par 1 and 2 of Art 62 as
it is not a crime.